Jump to content

JW Insider

Have JWs solved 90% of the child abuse problems plaguing the rest of the world?

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

JW Insider -
James Thomas Rook Jr. -
82
3694

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

Under another topic which was unrelated to child abuse issues, the claim was put forward (again) that JWs may have only a tenth of the problem that others have with child abuse. As TTH put it recently:

On 3/28/2018 at 8:54 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

"Will the greater world really condemn the ones who prevented child sexual abuse ten times better than anyone else,

TTH has stated this multiple times and in various ways now, also stating that JWs have found "a solution that cuts occurrences by 90%." TTH didn't start this idea, it was in another persons post, which may have based it on some very questionable numbers that came out of the Australian Royal Commission.

I don't know if anyone can give an accurate accounting statistically, but if we are going to make such statements it's a good idea to start somewhere to see why they are being used. I will first present some numbers which appear to contradict the claim, and anyone who has anything different should, of course, join in if they think it's important to figure it out more accurately.

In past months, I reported on the outrageous numbers that have been reported against the Catholic Church institutions, including their schools, where 7% of all Catholic priests have been accused of child abuse. Of course this represents an average in various diocese and institutions, where it might run as low as 0% in some, and as high as 25% in others. Even a high percentage of Catholic nuns in one institution had been accused of child sexual abuse. The nuns had a relatively small percentage when compared to another institution where the rate of accused priests and "Brothers" reached nearly 40%. It was a Catholic institution that was set up to care for children with mental disabilities. [The term "Brothers" in this context is a title which doesn't have the generic meaning it has among JWs.]  The BBC interviewed several people who seriously stated that the Catholic Church should be charged with running a "criminal" organization.

I think it is probably obvious to all of us that such levels of child abuse among the highest levels of church institutional leaders cannot be compared with the Witnesses, where the problem is not nearly so bad. There are also issues of comparing Catholic leaders such as bishops, priests and deacons and the counting of all problems among the entire congregations of JWs, not just elders and ministerial servants ("deacons"). But this doesn't mean the problem is not bad.

I'll start throwing out some quotes I've read about what the ARC reported about JWs, the Uniting Church, and the Catholic Church. [The Uniting Church is a kind of conglomerate of Presbyterian/Methodist/Congregationalist churches in Australia.]

You may need a subscription to this Australian paper "The Australian" or an account with a university or newspapers.com to see the entire content of the article that shows up in Google as follows for MEDIA WATCH DOG Friday March 17, 2017 :

 

Quote

 

    Hello guest!

    Hello guest!
Mar 17, 2017 - The ABC and Fairfax Media – along with The Guardian and The Saturday Paper – have given extensive coverage to allegations against the Catholic Church made at the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The ABC's Samantha Donovan and Philippa McDonald and ...

 

 

----quotation-------

Here’s some news which the ABC and Fairfax Media do not regard as fit-to-print. Over the past four decades, a child in Australia was much more likely to suffer sexual abuse at a school or institution run by the Uniting Church than at a school or institution run by the Catholic Church.

The ABC and Fairfax Media – along with The Guardian and The Saturday Paper – have given extensive coverage to allegations against the Catholic Church made at the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The ABC’s Samantha Donovan and Philippa McDonald and Louise Milligan along with Fairfax Media’s Rachel Browne and Joanne McCarthy have been perhaps the most outspoken of the journalists regularly reporting the Royal Commission in so far as the crimes of pedophile Catholic priests and brothers have been concerned.

The ABC and Fairfax Media gave considerable coverage to the statement by Counsel Assisting Gail Furness SC on 6 February 2017 that 4445 people alleged instances of child sexual abuse within Catholic schools or institutions up until 2015. Most media focused on the statement by Ms Furness that “7 per cent of priests were alleged perpetrators”.

However, virtually no media attention was given to Ms Furness’s subsequent clarification on 16 February 2017, with reference to the Catholic Church:

Between January 1980 and February 2015, 4,445 people alleged incidents of child sexual abuse in 4,765 claims. The vast majority of claims alleged abuse that started in the period 1950 to 1989 inclusive. The largest proportion of first alleged incidents of child sexual abuse, 29 per cent, occurred in the 1970s.

In other words, within the Catholic Church the vast majority of allegations of pedophilia were made with respect to alleged crimes in the period 1950 to 1989 with close to a third of all allegations relating to the decade of the 1970s. That is, most of the allegations relate to instances of close to four decades ago and are historical crimes.

In what was called the “Catholic Wrap”, Royal Commission chairman Justice Peter McClellan devoted 15 entire days to examining the Catholic Church. Hearings were held between 6 February 2017 and 26 February 2017.

On Friday 10 March 2017, the Royal Commission devoted only half a day each to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Uniting Church of Australia. Yet the evidence suggests that, on a per capita basis, there were more pedophiles in each church combined than in the Catholic Church – especially in the 1990s and subsequent decades. . . .

The statistics available to the Royal Commission with respect to the Uniting Church cover the period from 1977 to the present. That is, unlike the Catholic Church and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the allegations do not relate to a period going back to 1950.

There were 2504 instances or allegations of child sexual abuse made in the Uniting Church in the period 1977 to 2017 compared with 4445 instances in the Catholic Church covering the period 1950 to 2015. Yet the Uniting Church is about a fifth of the size of the Catholic Church. And its data covers four decades whereas the Catholic Church’s data covers over six decades. Moreover, evidence available to the Royal Commission indicates that virtually all offending by Catholic priests took place before 1990. Not so, apparently, with the Uniting Church.

On this evidence, child sexual assaults in the Uniting Church have been more prevalent than in the Catholic Church – especially in the years since 1990. This despite the fact that the Uniting Church has married male priests and female priests. There is no celibacy requirement within the Uniting Church and no sacrament of confession (in which the Royal Commission has taken a special interest concerning the Catholic Church).

Yet you would not be aware of any of this if you followed only the reporting of the Royal Commission by the ABC, Fairfax Media, The Guardian and The Saturday Paper. It seems the likes of Samantha Donovan, Philippa McDonald, Louise Milligan, Joanne McCarthy and Rachel Browne did not come back from lunch on Friday 10 February and simply missed the coverage of sexual child abuse in the Uniting Church in the four decades since 1977.

---end of quotation-----

I downloaded that Excel spreadsheet from the ARC (once posted here) that gave limited information about each of the JW cases, and should note that even cases that went back to the 1970's were evidently not there because there was any regular record-keeping by JWs going back that far. They could have been included when a case recorded decades later was found to be applicable to an instance or accusation from a much earlier date.

Share this post


Link to post

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Under another topic which was unrelated to child abuse issues, the claim was put forward (again) that JWs may have only a tenth of the problem that others have with child abuse. 

On 3/28/2018 at 8:54 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

Since I began frequenting this forum I have noticed that the claim that JWs are a veritible den of child abuse has been put forward (again) and (again) and (again) and (again) and (again).

Essentially identical threads dedicated to this perception have even been hosted (again) and (again) and (again)

So I have repeated a counterpoint to add a bit of perspective and balance.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

That's the point isn't it JWinsider. It was people like you, JTR, Anna and others that through incorrect information out there without first understanding secular law?

Allen, Your point should be the same as mine, and it would be a shame (literally) if it is isn't. I understand as well as anyone why you think that a knee-jerk reaction to protect the reputation of the organization is so important. I've been there myself. And sometimes that reaction is correct and on-track. But there are times when justice is more important than protecting a reputation. When we put ourselves on the side of justice we are defending Jehovah's reputation, and this is better for the organization, too, in the long run. There are times when unrighteousness should be exposed. It is short-sighted to think that we are defending Jehovah's name by covering up what is bad. 

So, my point is that the problem is bad, because every instance of child abuse is bad -- even if our statistics are better than someone else's. If you don't think the problem is bad, then I don't trust that you are are doing everything you can to reduce the problem. We should advocate for children. We should advocate for justice. And we need to do more about this reputation we have earned, as an organization, for trying to hide the extent of the problem. It makes us look like we would prefer ignoring or hiding the problem rather than admit that the problem is bad.

I don't think your insult has any basis. You say that people like me threw incorrect information out there without first understanding secular law. I can't speak for what others know or don't know about secular law, but I saw no instances where your insult applied to anything I said on the subject. I don't recall anything JTR said on this subject, but I do recall several of the things Anna said, and I don't think either of us stated anything incorrect or conflicting with respect to secular law. Both of us, as I recall, discussed the value of Brother Jackson requesting a legal change with respect to a consistent requirement for reporting, in all cases, which would resolve a large portion of the inconsistencies. As I recall, we both discussed this long before you yourself mentioned that you also agree with Brother Jackson's recommendation as a resolution for many issues.

If you really think I said something incorrect, I welcome the correction. But with you it's usually just bluster, obfuscation, vagueness, and braggadocio. I hope this isn't more of the same.

4 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

and then by condemning the Watchtower for inaction when you know full well as an ex-bethelite as you claim, the Watchtower has touched on this matter in various ways.

I don't condemn the Watchtower for inaction. I have long stated that the Watchtower Society has made many excellent changes with respect to these crimes in the past decade especially, and even some good changes to policy and procedure in the last two years. Perhaps you think you are trying to impress an audience who doesn't know any better when you make up false things about people you don't seem to want to get along with. If you have facts, that's great, but please leave aside all the acting and histrionics.

4 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Now, you want to excuse what you blatantly started by you people that you want to speculate even further by condemning the use of other religious statistics.

There are not many way to make sense of that statement of yours. The trouble seems to lie in your attempt to fit too many untruths in a single sentence without thinking clearly about the issue. To be clear I am not excusing anything. I am "blatantly" trying to get to truth of the "90% claim." If you have any facts to add, great! As you can see, you probably weren't thinking clearly at all when you said I was "condemning the use of other religious statistics." I was the one who just recommended the use of other religious statistics for comparison.

If you don't like this topic, Allen, you are free to avoid it, but please don't fill it with untruths for your own purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Since I began frequenting this forum I have noticed that the claim that JWs are a veritible den of child abuse has been put forward (again) and (again) and (again) and (again) and (again).

Essentially identical threads dedicated to this perception have even been hosted (again) and (again) and (again)

I see the same thing, and it's usually overkill. It's often not limited to just wanting to have a serious discussion about process and practice and doctrinal issues. Some is out of anger at the organization, obviously, and therefore includes typical spite from ex-JWs. Some is out of the iconoclastic desire to tear down something that is essentially good but they perceive it as claiming itself to be "perfect." But there is little chance of this being discussed thoroughly among JWs in a congregational setting, or in a monthly broadcast. There is little chance that JW.ORG will ever include a comments section. So this is still about as good a place as any I know to discuss it with others who might wish to put some depth and thought into fixing it.

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

So I have repeated a counterpoint to add a bit of perspective and balance.

Perhaps it does. And perhaps your point is true.  But a scale can balance rotten fish with rotten vegetables. It would still be good to know if the counterpoint is valid.

Share this post


Link to post

I have wondered why this topic has such blow back. We victims or those who commit the acts , on this forum are neither served either way. In reality, the elders, are not policemen, when they are confronted with abuse, they must have a confession from the one who,has committed the deed, the one affected should take the matter to the secular authorities. A child should have the power to be listened to by these authorities and have the one who has done this to them brought to justice. The opportunity that a child could in fact lie, is there, but there should be the ear for the child other than parents or the elders. Ones who,would have the authority to move on what the child has stated has occurred. I did in fact take it to the secular authorities after telling my parents, and he was both arrested and removed from his office. Yes, they wanted it done another way, but my father wanted him dead also. This way saved that person life and my father's. And my own sanity! I didn't go into a hole to hide. I also,did not wait on those I realized could help me.

Share this post


Link to post

Child molestation occurs in many large organizations--religious, governmental, and academic--that in itself is not a red flag. When it continues unabated, that's when there's a problem.

It is clear that the JW organization has an ongoing problem with child abuse. When confronted on this issue, the org had the opportunity to make positive reforms and reevaluate its policies. Instead, the org staunchly defended the policies that have created the problems in the first place. They've used the two-witness Bible principle as a crutch for their inaction through the years--a fact they're very proud of in the JW Broadcast. There is this smugness among the JW leadership, as if Jehovah God approves of elder inaction that gives predators a free pass to continue preying on children. The ego and lack of accountability by those taking the lead is alarming. I'm not sure how they reconcile all this exposure with their own conscience. In situations like this, where proactive action is vital, there is actually a laissez-faire attitude by the org. Why? It is the moral obligation of the elders to protect the flock: not only the victim but other potential victims. This is not like other sins--this is predatory and hurts others. To drag your feet isn't an option.

The secular authorities can be an important resource to elders in investigating and uncovering abuse (a capability that the elders lack), but the org emphasizes an avoidance of police involvement as much as possible. Why is this? Why the mistrust of authorities? This is something JWs must ponder. Where are the org's priorities? Saving face or protecting their own?

The org has made itself a martyr to worldly entities that dare question their abuse policies. Their policies have created actual victims to abuse, but the org has twisted it to make itself the victim! And that's the way "in" JWs perceive these inquiries--as attacks by Satan. Has the Watchtower "addressed" this issue to its adherents as another board member suggested? No. It continues to proport itself as a spiritual paradise and ethically superior to any other organization on earth. These inquiries like the ARC are nothing of substance--nothing more than Satan's attacks on the true religion. So information is being heavily distorted by the org to its adherents--another alarming reality. Because child molestation is a huge problem in the org, and its policies play a part in it. But JWs are ignorant to this and are consequently put in a dangerous position. It is our responsibility to seek the TRUTH...if it wasn't for independent research I wouldn't have know about the ARC or Candace Conti or any of the lawsuits. We can't accept the distorted reality the org is selling.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Meanwhile, research all my deleted POST to find the argument about incorrect information.

Can you advise me just HOW?

Without you telling me HOW ... I do not know how to research a deleted post.

... and just what "incorrect information" from deleted posts ( !!! ) am I being ordered to research?

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

When something goes wrong, be grateful things are exposed in order to do what is HUMANLY possible to better a situation.

Since you mentioned me three times in your immediately preceding post, here is my third reply.

I agree with you on THAT comment AllenSmith ... if it had not been for OUTSIDE sources ... all the secular authorities ... we would know NOTHING about all that is going on concerning this issue.

Bro. Stephen Lett in a JW.ORG Video declared quite vehemently, looking straight into the camera,  that all the accusations about JW Pedophile issues and cover-ups were  " .. APOSTATE LIES !!"

.. and this was about two months before we learned from the ARC ... an arm of the Australian Government, of 1006 perpetrators in over 5,000 instances that were hidden from the Brotherhood, in secret files in various Congregations, and in secret sealed blue envelopes sent to the Australian JW Branch Offices.

In my PERSONAL experience ...  have never seen or heard, even through gossip,  about any JW pedophiles in over 50 years ... so I am inclined to believe ( somewhat ) TTH's claim that we do better than 90% of the "world" in that regard .

As much as what IS really going on burns my butt ... I am even more concerned about the institutional cover-up via THREATS of disfellowshipping ... and ACTUAL disfellowshippings, of the Brotherhood ... Brothers and Sisters in the Congregations  .... victims .... and those who wanted to go to the police, but under threat of expulsion, and actual expulsion and abandonment, did not, and were SILENCED.

In over 50 years, I have repeatedly personally seen in many, many Congregations,  and experienced myself, many similar unjust things.

This I have PERSONALLY seen, as institutionalized policy ... in actual practice.

It is our immoral capacity for institutionalized extreme CRUELTY TO EACH OTHER, in the name of righteousness ...  that boils my blood.

I am not discouraged by how I am treated by the "world". 

I can shrug that off.

I am weary to my very soul of how we,  to defend the indefensible,  we treat each other.

... and don't even get me started about the perversion of Justice in the Delaware cases of the Society's Lawyers doing everything they can to keep lawsuits from being adjudicated, ACTIVELY perverting Justice using contributed donations .... and their similar efforts in every court case I have read about, and every court transcript I have read.

Want to test this hypothesis about honesty and integrity?

Go to the JW.ORG website, where legal developments in the news concerning JWs are highlighted ... and see how much honest real legal news about THIS there is.

The last time I checked, it was ZERO

It is NOT Theocratic Loyalty to defend the indefensible.

If it had not been for OUTSIDE sources ... all the secular authorities, and others incensed by injustices ... we would know NOTHING about all that is going on concerning this issue.

...... and that's the fact, Jack.

Red Pill .... Blue Pill   250    .jpg

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, John Houston said:

In reality, the elders, are not policemen, when they are confronted with abuse, they must have a confession from the one who,has committed the deed, the one affected should take the matter to the secular authorities.

I understand that you yourself are a victim, and I am very sorry about this. I hope that you have been able to throw your burden upon Jehovah, and that time, prayer, positive activities, and the love of others around you has helped you heal.

It is true, that the elders are not policemen. They don't have to be, although they should continue to learn how to be better judges. 1 Corinthians 6:3 reminded especially elders in the first-century Corinthian congregation:

  • "Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! " (NIV)

But sometimes elders have been known to protect their own in the same way that policemen will often try to protect their own when one of them is caught doing something wrong. A policeman who has been on the force for 20 years has done much good over that time and fellow policemen might feel it's worth overlooking or hiding some terrible mistake or corruption. The police "organization" thinks about what it would take to replace such an experienced officer, think of all the training and money that was invested in this person. If they can get away with a cover-up, then often they will.

But the elders should be trained to focus on Jehovah's style of justice. All of us are replaceable. No one is indispensable. Elders could use more focus and training on child welfare issues. They should even be trained to recognize some of the psychological tell-tale signs of abuse. There are even patterns of denial by perpetrators that will often fool an untrained or person but which are evidences of an abuser. There are also children who falsely accuse, or who are mistaken in their perceptions. The elders should be trained in all types of situations, and be aware of patterns that are known to emerge. But they should also know that they are not the trained experts who deal with such things very often. There are secular experts who do have this training. Those experts might do a terrible job. Trained elders might do a better job. But that doesn't change the fact that crimes should be handled by the secular authorities, per Romans 13:1-5

    • Hello guest!
    Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 
      Hello guest!
    Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 
      Hello guest!
    For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 
      Hello guest!
    For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 
      Hello guest!
    Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Allen, Allen Allen ..... sigh ......

48 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

There you go again with your ignorance about Stephen Lett’s video. What the HELL was he referring to, you arrogant person? NOT the pedophilia but the Watchtower cover ups. Something you, ANNA, and JWinsider have insinuated in the PAST. Just as you keep insinuating about cover-ups NOW! Why donÂ’t YOU, JWINSIDER, and others start speaking the TRUTH, and REPENT on your ungodly devotion.

 

As you the rest, LOOK AT YOUR OWN POST, DOUBLE TALKER!

 

Whatever meds you are on .... check with your Doctor.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, John Houston said:

I have wondered why this topic has such blow back

This is actually a valid musing. I see the outrage regarding the child abuse issue as an evidence of one of the last sparks of morality in a dying and corrupt civilisation. 

This issue has extraodinary emotive power in many circles. Despite the prevalence of institutionalised wholesale abuse in the form of abortion; confused censorship; inadequate, inconsistent legislation; resistance to proper investigation; recruiting of child-soldiers; human trafficking; inequitable access to food, medicine, education, and whatever else one cares to list, there's nothing so attention grabbing as accusations of child abuse and/or the suggestion that such depraved and appalling behaviour should be tolerated and allowed anywhere.

In the light of the Scripture's presentation of Christians as prime targets of a spiritual enemy, with toxic influence far more dangerous than Novichock, why should we think their institutions would be immune to infiltration by that most insidiously deceptive of all criminals, the child abuser? Or why would individuals within their ranks be any less susceptible to the torrent of living-room piped,  immoral effluent found on the internet? Even a most conservative estimator of this content, Dr. Ogi Ogas, commented "Fourteen per cent of searches and 4% of websites devoted to sex really are very significant numbers, when you stop to ponder it." And then of course , in birth itself there is no religious discrimination in it's apportioning of genetic malfunction.

But that spiritual enemy is expert at fanning sparks of humanity into flames of bigotry and intolerance as he aims his fiery missiles into the unwary and unguarded hearts of hapless men. By means of this issue, he reduces rational, decent humans into prejudiced, unreasonable witch-hunters, clawing at each others throats, trading accusation and insult, deflecting attention to any one but the real enemy, whilst his worm-like minions advance unchecked, the cries of his victims continue, as if unheard.

    Hello guest!

    Hello guest!

    Hello guest!

    Hello guest!

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

A controversial POST has NO place in, TRUE Christian life, 2 Timothy 2:23-24 therefore, WE are ALL guilty and sinners, defying Christ Words, Matthew 5:22  with the exception of some of us, trying to set the record straight, from those calling themselves “witnesses”. James 4:17, 1 John 3:18

I seriously doubt that the Bible writers were considering 2,000 years into the future, in a world they knew NOTHING about ... and could not POSSIBLY even imagine 2% of it, when they crafted their Epistles.  

As the Apostle James once said in a moment of candor, as was his custom ...

" Verily I say unto thee, what we say here, and what we do here in the service of the LORD, is only what we know about, and does not necessarily include sophisticated discussions among highly intelligent adults, including Internet Blogs."  - James 27:3, Ebedieah 4:6, etc.

I am not a doctor, but I think you need to switch from blue pills to red pills ....

 

Red Pill .... Blue Pill   250    .jpg

Jesus said the Scripture OF HIS TIME was inspired of God, and beneficial for teaching, reproving, and setting things straight.   It was 30 plus  years after his death that what we know now as the New Testament was penned ... and the "Guardians Of The Doctrine", as Geoffrey Jackson referred to the Governing Body, admitted in the Watchtower that they are neither inspired, or infallible in interpreting Scripture.

DUH!

 

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

There is this smugness among the JW leadership,

This is childish. Just because someone does not do what you want them to do, that does not make them smug. You just don't like them.

 

22 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

They've used the two-witness Bible principle as a crutch for their inaction through the years

Is it a 'crutch?' Or is it fundamental to civilized law?

According to the following article, discarding that crutch in favor of the new model of success -  to make a charge stick without having to prove it - has pushed nations to the brink of nuclear war:

"Unproven allegations against Trump and Putin are risking nuclear war - Stephen Cohen"

    Hello guest!

@JW Insider weighed in on this on another thread. He said the West should prove the allegations they make before flaming the alleged perpetrator (Russia) and taking decisive action. But he forgets that, in their eyes, they have proven their charges -  with methods roughly analagous (hidden info that only trained experts can recognize) to the methods of those who would re-define child abuse proof. The intelligence people have their own methods, and they expect the unwashed to go along with their conclusions. To be consistent with his stand on proof in matters of child abuse, it seems that JWI should go along with them.

I am all for elders being educated. I think that is happening. But does he really propose (I may have misread this) that elders be trained in these new techniques of abuse detection and make judicial decisions based upon them?

Here is one @AllenSmith will like about the California judge that just ruled Starbucks must post warnings about cancer risks of coffee. Starbucks is dragging their feet on this, so "the judge can set another phase of trial to consider potential civil penalties up to $2,500 per person exposed each day over eight years. That could be an astronomical sum in a state with close to 40 million residents, though such a massive fine is unlikely." These guys really do sow their wild oats.

    Hello guest!

On 3/29/2018 at 8:46 PM, JW Insider said:

And perhaps your point is true

There is no reason to think it is not,  [prevention rate 10 times superior to the general Australian population]  except that it is but one "study." We can do what is common in the greater world - wait for study after study after study and then spotilght the one that most closely validates what we already think, but I'll run with the study that actually exists. It may not hold. Perhaps the data from  other commissions, if there are any, will reveal JWs have 5 times the prevention rate, or maybe it will be 20. But we have an indication of the general pattern.

We will have to wait if we want more. Data is not plentiful, for reasons already discussed - most faiths neglected to keep any. But what data we have roughly corresponds with the 2007 statement accompanying a org settlement to the effect that child abuse among JWs is relatively rare, which corroborates roughly with what Ray Franz said that child abuse was not especially a problem and was overblown by media. (Anna has the particulars.) If anyone could be expected to say there was a problem, it would be him. 

I will agree with you that it is still "bad." But it is no worse than the "bad" record of believers of any sort of sin, which record is nonetheless head-and-shoulders above that of the greater world that makes no attempt to live by Bible principles. I'd love if it were perfect, just as I would love if the record in any category was perfect. For now, It can be put in the general category of 'You who say do not xxxx - do you xxxx?' of Romans 2, and it is primarily opposers who would make it the headlining concern.

Moreover, the ones who are likely to be most successful in fixing the problem, in my opinion, are the ones proactive enough to have prevented it 90% (or so) in the first place, not the ones who preside over a far worse record. 

Plus, probably the reason the overall world has such a poor record of prevention and doesn't do much to address it, as JWs do, is because addressing it effectively would require judgements of morality, and some enforcing of that morality. The ones who scream the loudest about reporting deficiencies would then switch to screaming about efforts to "control people."

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Then the ARC came out. You keep throwing out the number 5000 cases when only 1006 cases were viable. ALL OF WHICH HAPPENED IN A SPAN OF 65 YEARS! And you’re making it seem, it happened in 65 DAYS! STOP your exaggeration and be truthful for once!

And for this, JWinsider defends you?

I already mentioned this to you Allen, that you should tell the truth when making an accusation. You indicate that I defended JTR for saying things like there were "1006 perpetrators in over 5,000 instances." This is another falsehood from you. I have never defended those numbers. In fact, I saw them before on this forum and more than once, I corrected them.

In fact there were 1,006 perpetrators who were Jehovah's Witnesses at the time of the the accusations of their crimes. There were more instances than just 1,006 of course. But the number of instances reported in the documentation was not 5,000. Here are some quotes from the ARC's website and documentation. Mostly from:

    Hello guest!

As at 16 September 2016, the Royal Commission has held 5,925 private sessions and more than 1,687 people were waiting to attend one. Many accounts from these sessions will be recounted in later Royal Commission reports in a de-identified form.

The 5,925 "instances" probably referred to many from Catholic, Unified, JWs, and many other institutions and organizations. Page 11 says:

The evidence before the Royal Commission is that it is not the practice of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation to report child sexual abuse to authorities unless it is required by law to do so. At the time of the public hearing, the Jehovah’s Witness organisation in Australia had recorded allegations, reports or complaints of child sexual abuse made against 1,006 members of the organisation. There is no evidence before the Royal Commission that the organisation reported any of those allegations to police or any other secular authority.

Other statistics that might be of relevance in answering the question about the "90% claim" were also included in the document. It said that the total number of JWs in Australia was 68,000 as of October 2016 (7,000 of them were elders and m.s.) and that it had been 53,000 in 1990, increasing only 29% while the population had increased 38% in the same period. (The worldwide JW membership was reported as 8.2 million at the time.) Also, of interest, is the fact that branch rules for handing child abuse cases began to specifically reference child abuse in 1988, and the rule to call the legal department of the branch for any such case started in 1992. (See also the 1991 "Flock" book.) This might help explain why so few cases were recorded prior to 1988, even though the earliest case references the 1950's.

Page 58 of the October 2016 pdf document states:

  • In response to the Royal Commission’s summons, Watchtower Australia produced some 5,000 documents comprising, among other things, case files relating to 1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse dating back to 1950. Royal Commission staff analysed those files and produced data which was for the most part uncontested by Watchtower Australia.

Perhaps someone got the idea that there were 5,000 instances from a statement like the above. But that isn't what is says, or means.

Other statistics in the findings show that 579 of the 1006 admitted their guilt, and that 199 of the 1006 had been involved in child abuse or an accusation of the same before becoming JWs, although it was admitted (by Mr. Spinks, a JW on the stand) that these probably were also involved in such accusations again after becoming Witnesses (which would be the explanation as to why they were included on the list).

Page 58 also clarified that the number being thrown around as 5,000 alleged victims, according to the data provided, is really about 1,800:

the allegations, reports or complaints that the organisation received relate to at least 1,800 alleged victims of child sexual abuse

I will quote the additional statistical points from page 58 which included the point above:

  • the allegations, reports or complaints that the organisation received relate to at least 1,800 alleged victims of child sexual abuse
  • 579 of those against whom allegations were made confessed to having committed child sexual abuse
  • of the 1,006 members against whom allegations of child sexual abuse were made, 108 were elders or ministerial servants at the time of the first instance of alleged abuse
  • 28 alleged perpetrators were appointed as elders or ministerial servants after an allegation of child sexual abuse was made against them
  • 401 alleged perpetrators were disfellowshipped as a result of an allegation of child sexual abuse and 230 of those alleged perpetrators were later reinstated
  • of those disfellowshipped, 78 were disfellowshipped on more than one occasion as a result of an allegation of child sexual abuse.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

He said the West should prove the allegations they make before flaming the alleged perpetrator (Russia) and taking decisive action. But he forgets that, in their eyes, they have proven their charges -  with methods roughly analagous (hidden info that only trained experts can recognize) to the methods of those who would re-define child abuse proof.

Yikes! I said nothing about "proof" in either a situation of nations slinging accusations, nor did I even say that sexual abuse can be proven by hidden info that only trained experts can recognize. Proof (and by that I suppose you mean incontrovertible or overwhelming evidence) is rarely a part of sexual abuse allegations, except in extreme circumstances (multiple eyewitnesses, rape kits, video, DNA). Usually, a predator leaves only victims who he (or she) believes will never come forward to complain. (Most young victims don't complain until many years later -- based on fear, threat, "guilt," lack of understanding, lack of trust in any confidants.) But he often leaves circumstantial evidence based on patterns of grooming the victim(s), patterns of characteristics among the types of victims chosen, patterns of controlling the victims, patterns in the methods to gain time alone with victims. These become things to watch out for when trying to protect our children from suspected predators, too. But predators evolve their methods and may try dozens of "patterns."

There is nothing that can re-define child abuse "proof."

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I am all for elders being educated. I think that is happening. But does he really propose (I may have misread this) that elders be trained in these new techniques of abuse detection and make judicial decisions based upon them?

No. They need to understand such situations better for nearly the opposite reason. So they can understand the complexities, and know why they are not relying upon themselves to make legal and criminal determinations. Also, they can have more empathy for all involved, and realize that the perpetrator is going to be an expert liar, and will appear completely innocent. They should also realize that the victim will, more often than not, appear to be a complete liar, appear "guilty" of something, with inconsistencies in the story, his or her memories, timelines, etc. They may appear hateful and spiteful and unchristian, while the perpetrator may appear godly and humble and caring and concerned. They should realize what I said above about the unlikelihood of "proof" of any kind.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Do you recall agreeing with O’Maly? A PERSON that literally lied when she said NONE of the 1006 cases were brought to secular authority.

Several of the cases were brought to secular authorities. The problem was that there was no evidence that the elders in any congregation or anyone from the branch organization ever brought even one of the allegations to the authorities. Also, it wasn't just "1,006 cases." There were 1,006 alleged child abusers, and about 1,800 alleged victims recorded. There were also abusers who abused the same victim several times, which is typical.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Several of the cases were brought to secular authorities. The problem was that there was no evidence that the elders in any congregation or anyone from the branch organization ever brought even one of the allegations to the authorities. Also, it wasn't just "1,006 cases." There were 1,006 alleged child abusers, and about 1,800 alleged victims recorded. There were also abusers who abused the same victim several times, which is typical.

Thank you JWI for your comprehensive analysis.

I stand corrected.

1006 alleged abusers, and 1800 alleged victims recorded ... from the WTB&TS Society's OWN subpoenaed records.

That would make TTH's estimate of  JWs having 10% of the problem of the rest of the 'world", examined by the ARC somewhat high ... and it should be perhaps 2% ?

Did I get that right?

Your scalpel analysis is consistently better than my admitted chainsaw analysis.

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

That would make TTH's estimate of  JWs having 10% of the problem of the rest of the 'world", examined by the ARC somewhat high ... and it should be perhaps 2% ?

I don't know. The point of this topic was to see if there was enough information to try to get a better idea.

I know it's tempting to consider this idea of 10% to be from a legitimate "study" just because it made use of numbers. But there is a huge range of conclusions one could make from those numbers if one were to treat them as sloppily as the initial so-called "study" (that concluded with the claim that we are 90% better). So moving from 10% to 2% by assuming the so-called study as a basis is not valid.

For example, a study could look at the fact that 1,006 different alleged child abusers were reported among JWs over a period of years that was similar to the time period covered when 4,445 instances were reported in the Catholic church.

Wikipedia says there are about 5.44 million Catholics in Australian 2016, and our Yearbook says there were about 68,000 JWs.

Quote

and since the 1960s, has remained stable at around one quarter of the Australian population. In 2016, there were 5,439,268 Australian Catholics, representing 23% of the overall population

So, using the same type of assumptions used in the "90% better" claim, we could just as easily say that the problem among JWs is nearly 18.5 times worse than among Catholics. The ratio of Catholic "instances" to their total number is 0.08 out of 100. The ratio of JW "instances" to the total number is 1.48 out of a 100. 

  • 4,445/5,439,268 = 0.08%
  • 1006/68,000 = 1.48%
  • 1.48/.08= 18.5

While the ARC numbers would imply that we are 18.5 times worse than the Catholic church, we would only be about 5.1 times worse than the Uniting Church, using their census numbers, but would be only about 1.4 times worse if we use the most recent number of members reported by the Uniting church. It has evidently lost members in record numbers over the last 5 to 7 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

There is no reason to think it is not,  [prevention rate 10 times superior to the general Australian population]  except that it is but one "study." We can do what is common in the greater world - wait for study after study after study and then spotilght the one that most closely validates what we already think, but I'll run with the study that actually exists. It may not hold.

There are plenty of reasons to think it is not 10 times superior, if based on ARC numbers.There are plenty of reasons to dismiss the so-called "study" as non-sense. The numbers actually do point to the possibility that the problem is 5 to 20 times worse with JWs, but don't get the idea that I think the numbers from the ARC produce any kind of definitive statistic. It's hard to compare record-keeping practices, reporting practices, recidivism rates, sensitivity to publicity, thresholds for dismissal or re-admission of membership, and a whole host of "unknown unknowns."

Personally, I don't think a statistic is important. But I do think that honesty is important. We might be 10 times worse, or 10 times better. And either statistic is meaningless if our process is just and righteous. If our message attracted all of the worse sinners of the world who wanted to see if they could overcome their wicked desires just by association with worldwide brotherhood known for morality, then we could shouldn't be ashamed if we have attracted a large number of pedophiles into our number. But if our judicial process is flawed and is inadvertently "lenient" toward child abusers, or helps to hide them from law enforcement, or perverts justice toward children somehow, then we should focus on that.

I''m concerned about the repetition of a statistic that came from flawed and perhaps less-than-honest reasoning. Quoting such a statistic known to be flawed might also be dishonest. But it also could be harmful if it makes someone think that we are 10 times better if we are perhaps 20 times worse. It might be repeated out of a false pride or presumptuousness. It might reduce the incentive to look for further improvements even if it is correct.

Statistics are flawed by nature, and they are usually employed for purposes that are even more flawed. I speak from experience here. After I left Bethel I went directly into college to get a degree in Computer Science. (My Bethel roommate from my home state and our next door neighbor there, one of my best friends also from my home state, both went straight into college after high school to get a computer science degree and were assigned to the computer department at Bethel.) My first job in my last two years of college was working for the Bureau of Labor Statistics on housing data which turned into a job after graduation for a consulting firm (A.D.Little, Cambridge) through which I worked for the Trump Organization account in NYC. You can imagine what kind of lies, dam* lies, and statistics were being employed. It got so bad I moved into IT for a financial corporation, which probably did bad things, too, but I didn't have to see it up close.

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/30/2018 at 12:46 AM, AllenSmith said:

Most of us have sons and daughters that we need to be personally responsible for. The Governing Body doesn’t hear every human condition that exist in every local congregation. That’s what the Elders are for. But what if the Elder body drops the ball? YOU, JTR, ANNA, and others want to blame the GB. What damn crystal ball do you think the GB has? The GB were dragged in, because the Branch office couldn’t handle the responsibility, but ultimately, the GB take responsibility for the actions of those that should be MATURE. The GB are there to dispense spiritual food. That’s their primary JOB that God has entrusted to them. Jesus was sucked into legal matters by who? But, do you honestly believe he played quarterback, in EVERY CASE, in EVERY Synagogue? Why then would he urge the people to SUBMIT to every authority? That’s what the legal team is there for.

Why are you separating law from spiritual matters? The GB claims to take the lead over the ENTIRE organization--not just the spiritual. The "buck stops" at the GB. They've claimed that responsibility, and they have to accept accountability. The child abuse legal troubles are due to policies that the GB gave a stamp of approval on. The GB may delegate responsibilities to helpers such as lawyers, but all entities within the organization must report to the GB and get their stamp of approval. Very little is getting past the eyes of the GB. Elders act based on the GB-stamped direction they receive from Bethel. It's set up to be that way, because the GB want maximum control over the group as the self professed "faithful slave."

To suggest that the GB was somehow disconnected and not responsible for ineffective abuse policies is ridiculous. The org is controlled from the GB down. Elders have been sending files of alleged pedophiles for years to the branch. This has been a long, ongoing issue.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I''m concerned about the repetition of a statistic that came from flawed and perhaps less-than-honest reasoning.

It is a simple proportion based upon straightforward facts, the simplest calculation of all, made possible because there were two groups proactive enough to keep records - the Witness organization and the Australian government itself.

All other data is extracted from specialized subsets that are not necessarily, or even likely, representative of the whole.

 

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

It might be repeated out of a false pride or presumptuousness.

It is more likely to be repeated out of a desire to make a defence for the faith, which I have never imagined was a bad thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But I do think that honesty is important. We might be 10 times worse, or 10 times better. And either statistic is meaningless if our process is just and righteous. If our message attracted all of the worse sinners of the world who wanted to see if they could overcome their wicked desires just by association with worldwide brotherhood known for morality, then we could shouldn't be ashamed if we have attracted a large number of pedophiles into our number. But if our judicial process is flawed and is inadvertently "lenient" toward child abusers, or helps to hide them from law enforcement, or perverts justice toward children somehow, then we should focus on that.

Excellent point

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Rook! You and JWinsider need to get your head out of the sand! And get your FACTS straight.

Allen, It has become obvious that you are only on this topic to cause contentions, divisions, obfuscate, and create diversions. This does not mean that all the information you provide is false. But it appears that your overall intent is always to mislead and I think your contentiousness is designed to be part of your approach.

As to statistics, you should also look at

    Hello guest!

Of course they are looking for donations and may have therefore cherry-picked from exaggerated sources, but most of the numbers align with reasonable sources. These are just a few from the page:

    • Hello guest!
     (African American children are reported at 54%)
  1. 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys will be sexually abused before they turn 18 years old.13 
  2. 34% of people who sexually abuse a child are family members. 
  3. 3% of girls were age 10 or younger at the time of their first rape/victimization, and 30% of girls were between the ages of 11 and 17. 
  4. 96% of people who sexually abuse children are male, and 76.8% of people who sexually abuse children are adults. 
  5. 325,000 children are at risk of becoming victims of commercial child sexual exploitation each year. 
  6. The average age at which girls first become victims of prostitution is 12 to 14 years old, and the average age for boys is 11 to 13 years old. 
  7. 80% of child fatalitiesinvolve at least one parent.
  8. Estimated that between 50-60% of maltreatment fatalities are not recorded on death certificates.
  • More than 90% of juvenile sexual abuse victims know their perpetrator.
  • Child abuse crosses all socioeconomic and educational levels, religions, ethnic and cultural groups.

Terrible but reasonable statistics also appear here at

    Hello guest!

---------beginning of quotations from site--------

  • The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Children’s Bureau report Child Maltreatment 2010 found that 
      Hello guest!
     of victimized children were sexually assaulted (page 24).

Studies by 

    Hello guest!
, Director of the 
    Hello guest!
, show that:

  • 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys is a victim of child sexual abuse;
  • Self-report studies show that 20% of adult females and 5-10% of adult males recall a childhood sexual assault or sexual abuse incident;
  • During a one-year period in the U.S., 16% of youth ages 14 to 17 had been sexually victimized;
  • Over the course of their lifetime, 28% of U.S. youth ages 14 to 17 had been sexually victimized;
  • Children are most vulnerable to CSA between the ages of 7 and 13.

According to a 

    Hello guest!
,

  • 3 out of 4 adolescents who have been sexually assaulted were victimized by someone they knew well (page 5).

    Hello guest!
 shows

  • 1.6 % (sixteen out of one thousand) of children between the ages of 12-17 were victims of rape/sexual assault (page 18).

A study conducted in 1986 found that

  • 63% of women who had suffered sexual abuse by a family member also reported a rape or attempted rape after the age of 14. Recent studies in 2000, 2002, and 2005 have all concluded similar results (
      Hello guest!
    ).
  • Children who had an experience of rape or attempted rape in their adolescent years were 13.7 times more likely to experience rape or attempted rape in their first year of college (
      Hello guest!
    ).
  • A child who is the victim of prolonged sexual abuse usually develops low self-esteem, a feeling of worthlessness and an abnormal or distorted view of sex. The child may become withdrawn and mistrustful of adults, and can become suicidal (
      Hello guest!
    )
  • Children who do not live with both parents as well as children living in homes marked by parental discord, divorce, or domestic violence, have a higher risk of being sexually abused (
      Hello guest!
    ).
  • In the vast majority of cases where there is credible evidence that a child has been penetrated, only between 5 and 15% of those children will have genital injuries consistent with sexual abuse (
      Hello guest!
    ).
  • Child sexual abuse is not solely restricted to physical contact; such abuse could include 
      Hello guest!
    , such as exposure, voyeurism, and child pornography (page 1).

According to the study published online and in the June print issue of the 

    Hello guest!
.

  • Compared to those with no history of sexual abuse, young males who were sexually abused were five times more likely to cause teen pregnancy, three times more likely to have multiple sexual partners and two times more likely to have unprotected sex,

------end of quotes from site-----

Note added by JWI: My apologies for blatant copying of the page. I began to reformat but left all the information as it was. Will remove if there is any complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:
20 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It might be repeated out of a false pride or presumptuousness.

It is more likely to be repeated out of a desire to make a defence for the faith, which I have never imagined was a bad thing.

Defending the faith is never a bad thing. But it doesn't mean that it would be right, for example, to keep saying that we are the fastest growing religion when the statistics no longer support that idea. Yet this was once recommended from the platform as a good point to make in our door-to-door ministry.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

I don’t know where you keep getting, subpoena from ROOK! But STOP! LYING!

Once again, this is why JWinsider DEFENDS you, just so he can look good in AD1914?

There is a BIG difference between subpoena and summons. I already explained it to you, on the other thread, where you “failed” miserably with your perceived incorrect facts, and you still REFUSE to acknowledge it. You should NOT drink and post. Your incoherence is showing!

subpoena

or subpena

noun
1.
the usual writ for the summoning of witnesses or the submission of evidence, as records or documents, before a court or other deliberative body.
verb (used with object), subpoenaed, subpoenaing.
2.
to serve with a subpoena.
 
Allen:
 Do you think that secret documents held in sealed envelopes at Kingdom Halls and at National Bethel Branch Offices under lock and key, that no Elder not involved was ever supposed to see ... was given to the ARC because they nicely asked for them, without a subpoena?
 
A "subpoena" is the document they give to the one summoned UNDER PENALTY OF PUNISHMENT, to appear.
 
That is what the word means ... sub (under), and pena or poena (punishment). If Bro. Jackson did not appear, as ordered ... ( He tried to beg off from appearing, saying he was only in Australia to visit his sick Father...) or the documents were not produced, as ordered by national sovereign entities of competent jurisdiction ... it would have resulted in contempt of court charges, and FINE and/or IMPRISONMENT.
 
Would not  THAT have made headline news?  "Jehovah's Witness Governing Body Member imprisoned for ignoring Subpoena ......  Film at 11."
 
When a Network News Crew Film Truck with the big telescoping antenna with satellite dish on top pulls up in the Bethel parking lot ... you know you are going to have a bad day!
 
Latin sounds soOOoooo profound, doesn't it.
 
Here's one for you, that only translates roughly from Latin to English, and no other language.
 
In Latin: "Sempre Ubi Sub Ubi
 
In English: "Always wear under wear".
 
Here is another one .... "Accipite pill autem rufus, Allen, Accipite pill autem rufus."
 
 
 
 

Red Pill .... Blue Pill   250    .jpg

July  2015 at Belton, Texas  .jpg

This billboard was put up close to an Assembly Hall in July, 2015, at Belton, Texas.

THE BROTHERHOOD IN GENERAL IS NEVER TOLD WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON ... yet under your "scenario" this information is freely given to Australian Courts?

What are we?

Chopped Liver?

 

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is a simple proportion based upon straightforward facts, the simplest calculation of all, made possible because there were two groups proactive enough to keep records - the Witness organization and the Australian government itself.

It is far from a simple proportion based upon straightforward facts. It is a terribly sloppy calculation. You should look at it again. I won't get into all the potential problems that could bring the final number one way or the other, but I will point out some things that must have been missed.

First of all, you can find the argument over at:

    Hello guest!

I point to that because it might be the original source of the "study," although I can't be too sure. I will try to highlight everything from the original in blue text, and then mark my own inserted comments in red text:

Thanks to the ARC (Australian Royal Commission) we now have an apples to apples comparison with a pool size large enough to be significant.

According to Australian Institute of Family Studies [1], there were 320,169 notifications of child abuse (2014 - 2015). Further the studies show that of these 13% is sexual abuse which provides us with a number of 41,622 notifications of child abuse. Further the total population of Australia for 2015 is 23,968,973 [2].

This give us a ratio of 41,622 / 23,968,973.

No it doesn't. In fact, if you read the source material here, [listed at the end of this post] you will see that the figures were taken from 2014-2015, back in March 2017, and that, as of June 2017, the figures were updated for 2015-2016. The number 320,169 (2015) becomes 355,935 (2016) which you might expect would be better for the overall original argument anyway. But notice that these are multiple notifications about 42,457 children (96% investigations complete). Here's the relevant quote from the source material.

  • In 2015-16, of the total number of notifications (355,935), 164,987 cases (involving 115,024 children) of child abuse were investigated or were in the process of being investigated. Of these investigations, 133,329 (96%) were finalised by 31 August 2016
      Hello guest!
    and 60,989 cases were substantiated (AIHW, 2017). . . . The 60,989 substantiations recorded nationally involved 45,714 children, which was a 7.7% increase from the 42,457 children found to be harmed or at risk of harm from abuse and/or neglect in 2014-15 (AIHW, 2016).

Then we still need to look at how many of these 45,714 children were believed to have been abused sexually. The 13% figure in 2015 is closer to 12.2% in 2016, and the final number of children was determined to be 5,559 as you can see in the chart.  

Table 3: Primary substantiated harm types in Australian states and territories, 2015-16
Harm type NSW Vic. Qld  WA a SA Tas. ACT NT b Australia
 
Emotional abuse 5,961 9.133 2,123 1,558 414 376 225 549 20,339
Neglect 5,677 583 2,217 1,168 691 255 136 676 11,403
Physical abuse 2,776 2,975 1.014 750 383 104 64 295 8,361
Sexual abuse 2,868 1,463 267 696 152 35 24 54 5,559
Not stated 0 0 0 26 1 25 0 0 52
Total 17,282 14,154 5,621 4,198 1,641 795 449 1,574 45,714

This means that the ratio is not really 41,622 / 23,968,973 but should be much closer to 5559 / 23,968,973 = 0.02%

As was reported to the ARC [3][4], since August 2015 - Janurary 2017 the service desk received 17 reports of child abuse. Nine were historical cases and none involved an elder. They all occurred in a familial setting. Of the 17, 2 refused to report as they were adult survivors and was their right not to report. That is a period of 17 months. Therfore the rate is 1 per month.

The total number of witnesses (publishers) in Australia is 67,418 [5].

This give us a ratio of 12 / 67,418 per year.

Unfortunately, the reference for [3] is missing in topix, but reference [4] appears to be the place where the original "study" got the number "17" from. (See page 13, paragraph 34.) It's possible that these run from August 2015 to January 2017, but the context of the entire section suggests that it was part of a response from Watchtower Australia dated much closer to August 1, 2016, which included the August 1, 2016 Watchtower letter to all Bodies of Elders, new guidelines submitted in "Child Protection Guidelines for Branch Office Service Desks," also dated August 1, 2016, (page 8, paragraph 21). In fact, even the beginning date of August 2015 might not be correct. Of course, it is also dangerous to work from such a small sample even if it's over a 12 to 17 month period, especially if it is a time of unprecedented scrutiny.

But we will give the "study" the benefit of the doubt, here, and say that these 17 cases represent only one case per month during the period, and that these are "predictive" of what can be expected, even without a year-to-year comparison as was done in the Australian CPS source material. If this is so, it gives us a ratio, as stated above of 12/ 67,418 per year which is:

12/67,418= 0.02%

Notice that this is the same as the general population of Australia noted above, not 10 times better.

  • 5,559 / 23,968,973 = 0.0002
  • 12 / 67,418 = 0.0002

References...

[1]

    Hello guest!

[2]
    Hello guest!

[4]

    Hello guest!

 

Share this post


Link to post

I LOVE IT when somebody else does the heavy lifting ... like taking a Grand Piano up a three floor spiral staircase ... and gets it RIGHT!

I did that with a refrigerator when I was a young man ... but worrying statistics and data until they yield TRUTH ... is HARDER.

That's a LOT of work JW Insider, and I wish I could write you an appropriate check that would not bounce.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

You should NOT drink and post. Your incoherence is showing!

The thing about reading your posts, Allen .... is in the morning .... I will be sober ....  and you will still have your posts!

( Apologies to Winston Churchill ...)

Returning Allen's Posts    600.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Allen:

You know, they say that The English (and that would include Australians) and the Americans are separated by a common language.

such a ALU-minum in American English, and Alu-MIN-ium, in the King's English.  Or GRAY in American, and GREY, in Englandish.

From your link: "Just because you see the word “subpoena” over the word “summons” DOESN’T give it the SAME weight in POWER, in, legal context."

Of course not!

But ignore either one at your peril of wallet and/or freedom.

That is where the "rubber meets the road.

If hypothetically I pointed my gun at YOU and wiggled it and nodded to my left, chances are you would want to move to my left.

That would be to YOUR right.

In THAT case, it would be REAL important!

One of the amazing things about your posts Allen, is what you pick out and isolate that's important to you mind, leaving the herd of Elephants in the room ignored.

 

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

But overall! Where does the Watchtower fall in the scheme of things under ALL! those Statistics?

Finally, you are back on track with this question. For me, the answer is that I don't know.

I've said before that I think Witnesses fare better than the general population in all categories of child sexual abuse, but I don't know by how much. I think Witnesses fare much, much better in some categories of child sexual abuse. If I had to guess, I'd say Witnesses are generally two or three times as safe as the rest of the population, whether or not I have found any statistics to bear this out very well.

My opinion is that the Watchtower's track record is much better now, especially in the last year or two, but that it still has a couple of necessary adjustments to align its procedures with the spirit of justice, rather than try to dig in its heels on a specific letter of the law. My opinion is that procedure has been poor in the past, and was once very slow to improve, but is still not as bad as several other churches and institutions.

Certain men in leadership positions have been protected, some inadvertently, through a policy that is partly Biblical, but not consistent with the way we handle some other sins. (Circumstantial evidence has been OK for adultery, for example.) It's probably because this is an easy crime/sin to dismiss as not provable in many cases. And it's something we really hope isn't true, and we really hope it doesn't have to cause a scandal in the congregation and community. And we hate to see something that might have been handled within the congregation to be handed over to Caesar, whom we have several reasons not to always trust.

In the last two weeks, I finally asked my uncle, a former and now-substitute circuit overseer, his opinion on the improvements in this area. He agreed that in a judicial setting, there is always a possibility that we would judge a case wrongly, in favor of the claim of either party, and none of us would want to make decisions with such far-reaching effects on people's lives. There is a subliminal wish to avoid it if possible. So, for years, brothers who obviously had a problem in this regard, even if they admitted some level of "wrongdoing," were typically given strong counsel, told to stay away from situations where such a problem could occur again, and every effort was made within reason to keep the police and community out of it. This was often the same wish of the parents of an abused child, and this wish to avoid scandal was encouraged, sometimes overtly. You probably remember a line in the earliest "Flock" books where elders could get a "free pass" on certain types of sin, and these sins were never specified. This came out of a time when certain "embarrassing" or "scandalous" sins would have a long-term effect on the ability of the elder to be respected, so the elder could take his "slap on the wrist" from the rest of the elder body and he would come out of it unscathed as to his reputation in the congregation. I knew of a situation where this principle was invoked for a wife-beating case. But, my uncle pointed out that it is obvious that it could apply to a wide range of sins or crimes that were thought to be in the same category. (I think he assumed I knew what he meant, but he didn't make this clear enough.) He said that he was humbled by the change in the procedure of contacting the civil authorities. His explanation was ironic. He said that "it finally puts the fear of God in these pedophiles."

 

Share this post


Link to post

I love irony !

14 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

He said that he was humbled by the change in the procedure of contacting the civil authorities. His explanation was ironic. He said that "it finally puts the fear of God in these pedophiles."

otherwise that would be an upvote.

Hey! that quote is an "Elephant" AllenSmith could chew on !

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

He said that "it ( contacting the civil authorities) finally puts the fear of God in these pedophiles."

Nothing against your uncle, but I have noticed quite frequently friends making illogical and contradictory remarks such as this. I wonder if upon reflection they realize that what they've just said makes no sense at all, but just leave it at that. I am guilty of this too by the way. Or are they genuinely so blinkered? Or is it just a saying. No need to answer. This is merely a rhetorical question :D

Share this post


Link to post

I have not been contributing much lately as I am away in Europe visiting family and...well....to busy having fun, lol, but I thought I would just post this true life story from the 80's I just found about. I was talking to a sister (who hasn't been going to meetings for years) the other day. Somehow the conversation turned to this one prominent elder (now deceased) we both knew when we were in the same congregation. I told her that years ago I had heard that there was some notoriety surrounding his name, this was while I was still in his congregation, but that I hadn't paid much attention to it at the time. She revealed to me that he had touched her on several occasions while having a Bible study with her. She was 14. She said she never said anything to anyone until this particular elder groped a sister's breast while she was feeding her baby, at a convention of all places. The sister's father created an almighty upheaval (basically he told everyone what this elder had done to his daughter and said he would kill him) and soon others came forward. When my friend found out about it,  she also felt safe to come forward too. She then told me that this elder was summoned to a judicial committee by the CO. The result was that he was taken off as elder BUT remained a regular pioneer. She said that the elder's best buddy was on the committee......She then told me that she slept with the lights on for weeks because she was scared he would "get her" for ratting on him....

Now this sister has no desire to cause any trouble and has no ill feelings towards the witnesses. But reading between the lines this experience contributed to her falling away.

My mom also knew this elder, as she was also in his congregation. I had remembered she had said something about him at the time, so I asked her about it now. She said that she knew about the "breast groping" and she also said that one time when he was visiting our house, he had tried to justify male sexual behavior by saying that if she (my mom) lay down on the couch naked, he would not be able to resist her. My mom told him he was a creep and sent him packing.

Now I was just imagining that had this happened in America, and had this sister become bitter and years later decided to file a lawsuit (assuming the elder wasn't dead) a case may have been opened and who knows what else might have come to light. What I mean by that is what if he had molested other kids later? And here we would have a classic case of negligence by an elder body.....

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Anna said:

Now I was just imagining that had this happened in America, and had this sister become bitter and years later decided to file a lawsuit (assuming the elder wasn't dead) a case may have been opened and who knows what else might have come to light. What I mean by that is what if he had molested other kids later? And here we would have a classic case of negligence by an elder body.....

Part of it is the "invisibility" of children. They were so much less important to the discussion in prior years, especially - not just among Witnesses. Elders were almost by definition patriarchal and patronizing to children. Children's claims of abuse were always considered serious, but due mostly to the extent that it was an older baptized person who was now in trouble for acting on their sinful thoughts. But it was rarely ever considered how dangerous this was to children through their later life. This is the main reason it is now considered a crime on par with rape. Not every child reacts in the same way, of course, but for a very high percentage as you know, it can completely ruin their life for the next 70+ years.

Not meaning to rehash, but we had a grope-y old 65 year old special pioneer in our congregation who managed to get a room in the large house of a sister who had two daughters. He constantly "accidentally" brushed against many young females. I pioneered with him and caught him doing the same "accidental" brushing getting in and out of the back car seat of a two-door car. And he never wanted to ride in front if there was chance to sit next to a sister in the back. The regular pioneer sisters (about 19, 19 and 22) wouldn't complain, but would just try their best to avoid his touches. When I noticed, they didn't want me to complain for them. No one wanted to get him in trouble. I learned that he had a couple of complaints that went to the elders from the sister he stayed with, but never lost his special pioneer status. She also kicked him out, I assume for the sake of her two daughters. But I remember it also took me a year of noticing before I complained to an elder (my father) and he told me they knew of his problem, and were "keeping an eye on him."

Of the three pioneer sisters who worked with him, one has drifted away, one was DF'd and never bothered to come back, and one got married and probably still laughs it off as she did then. I saw her at an assembly 3 years ago and she seemed happy. Perhaps these are typical odds and have nothing to do with his treatment of them.

This reminds me of a statistical point that almost came up in this topic. If the Branch in Australia reported that there were 1006 perpetrators going back in the records as far as 1950, and only 1,800 reported victims, then I hoped this might reflect something good about the judicial system, or the moral reminders, and daily spiritual food that all of us receive as Witnesses. The reason I say that is that the average abuser makes regular repeated attempts to find victims, and often finds many of additional victims, many of whom will never report the abuse. Some will report it only after learning that the abuser has additional victims -- because their own story is corroborated, because they are helping to corroborate another victim they can sympathize with, and because they realize that they could have helped others had they tried to report it earlier.

I know that the claim of a report of 5,000 victims or even 5,000 cases of abuse is not supported in the ARC statistics. But we have learned that abusers can victimize multiple (sometimes dozens) of persons in a lifetime, and can victimize one person multiple times (sometimes dozens of times per person). So I don't really doubt that the 1,006 alleged abusers probably could represent at least 5,000 victims, and I don't really doubt that the 1800 alleged victims could represent at least 5,000 instances of abuse. But here is also where I think this problem is more limited in the congregational setting, compared to how it would be in many other settings. I include the way Witnesses (should) learn to handle themselves at school as part of the "congregational" setting. I believe our own congregational setting already fares better, and will continue to improve, especially after appropriate training by elders, appropriate awareness of the issue by children, and appropriate protection and watchfulness by parents. I believe that the congregational setting, and the usual congregational activities, and social activities provide a safety measure rather than a "pedophile paradise" as I have heard an ex-JWs call it. We don't have the priest/altarboy situations in the congregation. We don't have only single elders and ms. We don't have children-only activities where older brothers spend hours at a time alone with children. We have a lot of watchful (some would say judgmental) brothers and sisters watching each other even a bit too close for comfort. We have constant moral and spiritual reminders. We are voluntarily putting ourselves in an environment that condemns such sins and crimes. The few problems remaining in our process are being counterbalanced by positive counsel and, recently at least, continually improving processes.

Share this post


Link to post

As I stated before on this thread ... but it has been confirmed by REAL numbers (.02% thesis of JW Insider ...)

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

12/67,418= 0.02%

Notice that this is the same as the general population of Australia noted above, not 10 times better.

  • 5,559 / 23,968,973 = 0.0002
  • 12 / 67,418 = 0.0002

MY MAIN concern is the institutionalized tyranny of silence where Brothers and Sisters are disfellowshipped, and THREATENED with disfellowshipping,  to keep the child abuse covered up.

The family is ALREADY traumatized ... then the victim is threatened  and/or disfellowshipped, and this travesty is compounded by the victims family being held hostage in "Coventry" ... and if this combined trauma overwhelms them ... they have been thrown away ... forever.

THIS is why we have a 77% loss rate of those who leave.

I have PERSONALLY seen much too much of THIS  modus operandi .... year after year after year after year ... and been threatened myself about 13 times in the past 55 years.

It USED to shock me, and hurt my feelings and discourage me like carrying heavy, heavy bags of rocks ... but I got used to it as a survival mechanism.

You may have noticed that I am not exactly "Brother Watchtower".

The JW "spiritual paradise" operates under the same style as the old Soviet Union's "Worker's Paradise", where the main newspaper PRAVDA ... which when translated means "TRUTH",  was nothing but a self-aggrandizing puff piece for the Communist Party.

Think I am hyperbolic?

Go to the JW.ORG Web Site, and under "Legal", see how much of all the legal things we have discussed here show up as honest reporting.

Last time I checked, it was ZERO.

The Brotherhood is DELIBERATELY being kept in the dark, as an institutionalized policy, pretending the "Elephant In The Room" is not really here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Is it t up to your, Anna’s, JTR or many others here, satisfaction? NO! Because you people expect, an above and beyond, approach that doesn’t have support in this system of things by anyone that doesn’t understand the realities and condition in which they live in.

You are wrong in your assumption. I don't think any of us had/has unrealistic expectations. JW insider described the problem that existed in the past quite accurately:

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Part of it is the "invisibility" of children. They were so much less important to the discussion in prior years, especially - not just among Witnesses. Elders were almost by definition patriarchal and patronizing to children. Children's claims of abuse were always considered serious, but due mostly to the extent that it was an older baptized person who was now in trouble for acting on their sinful thoughts. But it was rarely ever considered how dangerous this was to children through their later life. This is the main reason it is now considered a crime on par with rape. 

 

But still, that doesn't mean it was OK does it?

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Go to the JW.ORG Web Site, and under "Legal", see how much of all the legal things we have discussed here show up as honest reporting.

Just curious, how would you, as JTR, report this on jw.org? I mean give an example of what you would actually say (no puns or jokes, seriously)

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

A pastor has a duty to hold in confidence any information obtained during a counseling session. A pastor who violates this trust might be on the losing end of a suit for an invasion of privacy or defamation.

    Hello guest!
"

Legally, this is quite understandable, and is true .....but there is a "rest of the story", and it has in the case of the WTB&TS already been sporadically adjudicated to reflect the uniqueness of the way we do things, and the rational goes something like this:

A pastor has a duty to hold in confidence any information obtained during a counseling session. A pastor who violates this trust might be on the losing end of a suit for an invasion of privacy or defamation - but if he tells ONE OTHER PERSON, that confidentiality is not then protected by law ... as the clergyman HIMSELF violated it.

Like the old Italian saying ... "Two can keep a secret ... if one of them is dead !"

In the case of the Society, there are THREE judges that run a Judicial Committee, and then a synopsis is made including names, dates, and offenses (real or imagined) and the specific details and investigations, and results are discussed with the Society's legal department by telephone.

In letters back and forth to the Branch Offices, with explanations, clarifications, and policy directives in that particular case.  THEN forms are filled out with the pertinent details ... the accused and/or convicted "sinner", (which may include blatant criminal activity), and that is sent to the Branch office.

If appeals committees are formed that is ANOTHER three people on a different Judicial Committee, and of course the Circuit Overseer who sometimes has to bring in others from other congregations.

Including mail routers at Bethel, secretaries, and other legal staff, there might be 20 people that have intimate details of whatever was confessed ... or not confessed, but adjudicated with prejudice.

So you can see that as long as only ONE "clergyman", and only ONE person is the "penitent" ... yes that conversation and possible confession is protected by law, pretty much everywhere in the English speaking world, but for the reasons stated, those laws, however stated and formulated ... DO NOT APPLY TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.

Not one in a thousand lay people understand this (a WAG), and perhaps not one in a hundred lawyers, and perhaps not one in ten Judges.   It is arcane information that is not in the experience of most, about JW "Groupthink".

This does not include Elders wives who through "pillow talk" want to know EVERYTHING that goes on ... and do  find out, or a herd or gaggle of  Elders themselves gossiping around steaks on a grill, and lots of beer.

You might as well post a transcript in the Kingdom Hall Newsletter, if we had one.

...except no recordings, stenographers, or observers,  or representation is/are permitted, so that would be impossible, as in any Star Chamber proceedings.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

ROOK!

Only because you keep riding that pink elephant, too often.

Tonite,  I just finished off my half gallon of Peach Schnapps which I have been nursing for almost two years.

When I read your posts, it helps to be properly anesthetized.

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It is far from a simple proportion based upon straightforward facts. It is a terribly sloppy calculation. You should look at it again.

Okay. I did and I was wrong.

It was me who first put the quotes around "study" thus acknowleging it was not really a study, but simply an indicator, a fact, that could be built upon. Maybe it was wrong of me to do that, but we are a culture that loves to say it acts upon studies, and I saw no reason not to give it that status for purposes of discussion.

I also said when I introduced the "study" into this thread that it "seemingly shows" a child is ten times safer in the JW environment. I dropped that qualifier in later reiterations because I was dealing with someone who seemingly accepted the 10 times better as fact and yet it made no difference to him. I took this as an indication that he had lost his senses and I repeated the "10 times better" "fact" thinking that it would eventually penetrate, but it never did. I think a million times better would not have cut it. If there was even a speck of dirt, it justified to him a flamethrower.

 

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But notice that these are multiple notifications

This is the fact that was missed. Updating a year as you have done, the 355,925 notifications stem from just 225,487 children, and so it is the latter number that should be used in the calculation. (these figures are from just under the heading: "How many notifications are made to child protection services in Australia each year?" and they appear before the charts you selected from.

The pie chart further down shows that, for whatever reason, the percentage of abuse cases that is sexual is no longer 13%, but 12% 

Thus 12% of 225,487 eqauls 27,058 notifications of child sexual abuse - out of a total Australian population of 24, 000,000.

The figures to be used for comparative purposes are: 

Greater Australia:  27,058   /   24,000,000   -  which represents 11.27%

vs

Jehovah's Witnesses in Australia:  12   /   67,418   -   which represents 1.78%

Thus, the Witness organization does not prevent child sexual abuse at a rate 10 times greater than all Australia. It prevents it at a rate of 6.3 times greater than all Australia.

You have lost me in some of your calculations, but it appears that you have qualified those notifications from all-Australia, but not the ones from the Witnesses. Some of their notifications turn out to be unsubstantiated, but you seem to assume that every one of ours are. I see no reason for that assumption. You can only compare like to like, not their 'processed' notifications to our 'unprocessed' ones.

For that matter, there is no guarantee that each of our notifications stems from a different child. They don't in all-Australia. Maybe not with us as well.  If even two of them stemmed from the same child, that would skew the numbers hugely in our favor. 

Is it valid to relate that, per reported figures, children would appear to be 6.3 times safer in a Witness environment? Or should they be left to suppose that it is even-steven, or even worse, for fear they may otherwise get complacent about fixing what remains?

I will give you an experience and admittedly, I am going borderline hysterics myself, like many who have contributed to this topic. Just recently a childhood friend of my son died. He left the truth as a teenager. He subsequently developed heavy addiction problems. But for the last three months he had been clean and was once again attending meetings. His mother went to pick him up on the night of the Memorial - last night. He had apparantly relapsed and overdosed. He was dead.

Now, I know very well that not everyone who leaves the truth developes addiction problems. And I also know that not everyone who recovers does so by becoming a Jehovah's Witness. But I  know too that opioid addiction has a 90% recidism rate. So it would have been a very fine thing, even a lifeline, had he continued coming to meetings where he could have gathered strength. And had he done that, I would not be thrilled at someone meeting him at the door and saying: "You know, we have child sexual abuse here just as much as where you come from. it might even be worse."

No. I want them to say 'Because we make a real effort to resist child sexual abuse and have good governance to that effect, we kick it 6.3 times better than the world. And we kick opioid abuse 20 times better. And whatever wretched problem you have encountered, we kick that multiple times better as well. I guarantee that he would not have said: "Yeah, but you're not perfect, are you?"

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

You haven’t given the Watchtower any CREDIT for doing the best as humanly possible to address those human conditions.

Exactly. Once again, Allen earns his keep.

Does he interfere, obscurate, divert? Well, before concluding that, take into account the 'scholarly' contributions of JTR or Witness and you will see he yet ranks pretty high.

It infuriates me - the constant insinuation that the eight righteous men aren't really righteous and, to the extent they are not, it is the long arm of the law that will straighten them out and not their own fear of God.

Share this post


Link to post

TTH:

From outward appearances ... which is the only thing we at the "bottom" have to go on ... the GB does not control the Society anyway .... the Lawyers, Accountants and Investment counselors do.

Justice must be tempered with mercy for blind pawns ...

John 9:41.

In fact ... the whole 9th Chapter of John addresses this problem, in its entirety.

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Anna said:
8 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Go to the JW.ORG Web Site, and under "Legal", see how much of all the legal things we have discussed here show up as honest reporting.

Just curious, how would you, as JTR, report this on jw.org? I mean give an example of what you would actually say (no puns or jokes, seriously)

I would first develop a "Style Book" such as any major news reporting organization has to guide reporters how to write articles.

In the 7th Grade I learned that news should be reported as "Who, what, when, where, and how much ... and sometimes Why?"

And it has to be first of all TRUE, then objective, and updated as developments happen.

The News organizations today have almost universally devolved from that standard.

Our organization pretends that non self-aggrandizing JW legal news does not exist.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Okay. I did and I was wrong.

I hope you don't feel you are being blamed in any way. I know that you used the original "study" in good faith and for a good motive and purpose.

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

This is the fact that was missed.

It was a major one, but not the only one. My response to it was intentionally simplified, so that such a discussion as this could deal with some of these facts incrementally. Otherwise it could seem too overwhelming to someone who hadn't yet looked at it carefully. As I said just prior to getting into the details . . .

On 4/1/2018 at 6:38 AM, JW Insider said:

I won't get into all the potential problems that could bring the final number one way or the other, but I will point out some things that must have been missed.

Here are some other points that make it difficult to compare "apples to apples."

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Thus 12% of 225,487 eqauls 27,058 notifications of child sexual abuse

The 12% number, which will vary slightly from year to year does not refer to a percentage of notifications about child sexual abuse. It can only be tallied after all the investigations are completed into every type of child abuse complaint, and only refers to a percent of confirmed cases. It can't be used directly as a percent of not-yet-confirmed cases. In the cases reported by the Witness congregations these have already been identified as child abuse cases requiring reporting. They start out as already identified allegations of sexual abuse, but not confirmed.

But in the case of the reports from the congregations, we don't know how many children were involved. A single report could be about a person accused of abusing 10 different children, for all we know. Or it could be a false claim altogether.

Of course, it is also foolish to try to create a comparison with such a small sample provided by the congregations. A difference of only one case out of such as small number creates a huge difference in the comparison. CPS (Child Protective Services) take reports of accusations, bruises and emotional trauma (etd) from the perspective of teachers, social workers, law enforcement, neighbors, etc. Most of the congregation reports are not from children, but are more concerned with the adult. You can start to see this from a review of the Australian cases and many of the anecdotal cases about Witnesses coming in from around the world. The average time it takes for an abused child to report is several years. The Australian CPS numbers do include persons who have been abused in the past, but are expected to mostly focus on those who are (or might be) in current danger.

A real study could be done if Australia's CPS numbers had accurately kept track of religion both of perpetrators and victims. A better study could be done if there were numbers from the congregations broken down by year, at least since 2011.

But even here we are comparing apples and oranges again. Typically old cases come to the attention of the congregation. If they are new cases, then it is likely that they are already baked into the CPS numbers. CPS focuses on new cases. CPS looks at it mostly from the danger posed to a specific child. The congregations' cases focus on the guilt of an alleged perpetrator who may have victimized anywhere from 0 to 20 children, or perhaps 1 or 2 children 20 times each. (Most familial sexual abuse cases seem to go this way.)

And then again, we have the problem that the Australian ARC data is proof that the congregations never themselves would report cases to law enforcement or social services even when a perpetrator might be victimizing more people inside and outside the congregation. We also know from the interviews that elders involved in the cases did not encourage reporting by victims. ARC went ahead and reported hundreds of these cases to law enforcement for investigation. I read a few of these cases as reported in newspapers and they are horrendous.

So the biggest problem is that we are comparing against a system that evidently OVER-reports (CPS) based on the evidence from its own investigations. The congregations have a long history of UNDER-reporting and hiding. So even a study that goes back many years, based on congregational data, would be worthless for comparison purposes.

I'm sure we do better than most institutions with respect to the propensity for criminal perpetrators to associate with us -- just for the purpose of access to children, and the fact that they are often punished and socially ostracized if caught, and that the nature of the congregation allows for very few interactions with the outside world. (For example, non-JW perpetrators have less access to JW children, as they are less likely to join boy scouts, sleep-away camps, etc.) These things don't stop determined criminals, but they must surely give them some concern.

There are more issues than these, but it's enough for now.

Share this post


Link to post

For now I see no reason not to run with the 6.3 figure. If it is heralded as the be-all and end-all of truth, that is dishonest. But if it is held out as a rough figure that might alter pending added (and impossible, due to dearth of data) refinement of either side's stats, then it is an acceptable comparison of notifications to notifications.  That way our brothers have something to kick back with when their enemies press for the perception that JWs are the very last place you should go if you want to keep your kids safe. 

The ultimate details will never be known, compared and quantified. But we can run with a simple indicator so long as we do not pretend it is more than a rough indicator. Such kind of imperfect stats are built into models all the time, and policies or forecasts are drawn from them.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

A real study could be done if Australia's CPS numbers had accurately kept track of religion both of perpetrators and victims.

Well, that is the real crime, isn't it?

In many settings, negligence is a punishable offense. Either the Australian CPS should have tracked religion for each perpetrator and victim or religions themselves should have kept stats on their own parishioners to hand them over upon demand. As it was, only Jehovah's Witnesses did and it was done for the reason of presenting to God a clean people and to not let perpetrators slide from one congregation into another, as they can anywhere else. 

It is a deed with good motive being spun as a bad without resistance from those who should resist it. All such issues before various courts constitute a classic example of "No good deed goes unpunished." That is the overall picture which supercedes any investigations into child abuse, greivious though the latter might be. The 6.3 becomes in this context a workable indicator so that our brothers do not have to look to JTR as their messiah.

It is quite clear that the GB can do no more. G Jackson pleaded for mandatory reporting laws across the board in all territories. Why has that not been done? That way elders can run roughshod over any family head who, for whatever reason, does not want to report abuse they are aware of to outside authorities. As was stated about the two from case 54, "they were adult survivors and it was their right not to report." Strip them of that right. Make it mandatory that everyone report everything. 

If the greater authorities are as serious about preventing child sexual abuse as they purport to be, seemingly no policy change could be simpler. Then there would be no swiping at people for not "going beyond the law." Make it the law if it is so crucial. If they refuse or neglect to enact that most basic proactive measure, yet they would still issue blistering criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, what does that tell you? Something more than Capernaum is here.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

JW Inciter, your smoove and kindly manner is maybe sort of reminiscent  of detectives in "Crime and Punishment", but it's been so long since I read that- not positive I remember right.

 

Whatever @JW Insider's motives may be, by throwing certain things back in my face he has more than once caused me to reevaluate and even retract some errors I otherwise would have made - errors that I would not have wanted to see go into print.

He was also kind enough to acknowledge that I had succeeded in giving him correct counsel on an occassion or two in the past.

If anyone is playing me like a fiddle, to use @tromboneck's phrase, it is he, but I tend to accept him at face value, and he is among the relative few here who consistently back up their statements with facts, even if I am not sure that the facts are good to broadcast to all and sundry in the first place. He pursues a model that I do not like, but I cannot say that I have not benefited by it.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

For now I see no reason not to run with the 6.3 figure.

I do see a reason not to run with it. Even if it turns out to be correct, there is no 6.3 figure from any study or anything like a study, just as there was no 10-times-better or 18-times-worse figure. Imagine just a couple of tweaks to account for what are currently unknowns. And, most importantly, you can't draw any conclusions that are based on the 12-13% CPS figure without some idea of how many of the JW cases would have also been "confirmed" using the same criteria that the Australian CPS uses for confirmation. (Which as was said before, should never come into the calculation for any reason, because all of the JW reports were already filtered for sexual abuse, and the Australian CPS only reports the 12-13% after all types have been confirmed or non-confirmed.)

Remember that we can only compare the number of children confirmed to be sexually abused in the CPS data with the number of children that would have been confirmed to be abused based on the JW cases.

For example, lets look at 1 possibility out of thousands of possibilities based on what a confirmation might look like from the "17 cases." (I'll use all 17 cases here based on the likelihood that these cases actually run from a report on the period from about September 1, 2015 to July 31, 2016, or 11 months, although I am rounding to 12 months.)

  • 8 out 17 cases: dismissed as false or unsubstantiated claims against these 8 perpetrators. That's about half.
  • 1 out of 17 cases: the JW only molested non-JWs, which has been true of known cases elsewhere. (effectively making JW children safer, at least around this predator)
  • 1 out of 17 cases: 2 JW children were molested in a public school setting, through no fault of any Watchtower process or negligence.
  • 2 out of 17 cases: confirmed to involve only one child each
  • 2 out of 17 cases: confirmed to involve two children each
  • 2 out of 17 cases: confirmed to involve three children each
  • 1 of 17 cases: confirmed to involve 7 children.

Remember, that this does NOT include an unknown additional number of cases that slipped through the cracks, where molestors are no longer JWs, having left or been disfellowshipped in the past but who molested JW children, unreported, while they were in the congregation but whose activities continue to add to the CPS numbers. I say this because of JW "turnover." While currently one out every 352 Australians is a JW, it is probably true that one out of every 140 Australians either is now, or has been a Witness.

But, for simplicity, we are ignoring any kind of old or new numbers from JWs already included in the CPS data.

So, even after dismissing 10 of the 17 cases as having no effect on the safety of JW children, we still could potentially have 19 children confirmed to have been sexually abused. Of course, more JW cases would be dismissed for non-confirmation because they are probably based on reports, accusations, or confessions that are probably 10 years after the crime, on average. On average, we are therefore measuring how many 10 year old cases might come to light against a time when public awareness and new civil laws for teachers, hospital workers, etc, require every potential or suspected case to be reported. We will not even attempt to account for that, but it would clearly skew the JW numbers to appear much better than they would be in actuality. Also, we should keep in mind that CPS must count children who did not wish to report, and whose parents may have wished not to report. But the process works much quicker with CPS, and helps to confirm more cases because they were usually much more recent.

Remember that since we should only be comparing the number of "confirmed" children abused, we can now compare our 19 confirmed children (out of 68,000) to the 5,559 confirmed children (out of 24,000,000). That alone would create a comparison of .0279% for JWs and .02313%. which would mean you would be 20% less safe as a JW than you would be in the general Australian population.

Of course, another person might think that 0 of the 17 cases would be confirmed. And using CPS methods on such old cases this might even be true. Or you might think that only 5 of the cases would be dismissed, and the remaining 12 would confirm sexual abuse on a mix of one, two and three children each (averaging 2), for a total of 24 confirmed cases. That small difference from 19 to 24 would result in a calculation that says you are 54% less safe as a JW.

Because we still have those intent only on creating contentions among brothers, I will add again that I do not believe these numbers mean anything. I'm just showing what could likely happen if there were a real study based on apples to apples numbers. There is no study, and I still believe children are safer among JWs than the average population, and much safer as JWs than among many other religious groups and institutions. And, as I've said before the changes the Watchtower has been making to the process is 100% better now than it was. (But I don't believe that the 100% is a real statistic.)

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Tonite,  I just finished off my half gallon of Peach Schnapps which I have been nursing for almost two years.

When I read your posts, it helps to be properly anesthetized.

Allen:

You may be laughing, but you have absolutely no reading COMPREHENSION skills that I can observe..

To assist you ... think of my post of the above two lines as separate subjects ... and  THEN think of how inebriated a person can get by stretching out a half gallon of Peach Schnapps over a period of two years.

It is obvious that you have NO sense of humor, so you may want to talk to a Shrink about that laughter

 

33 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Then we have something in common ROOK! You need to stay drunk, while I need a box of tissues from having to laugh so hard with your falsification of facts and failures and a vomit bag for your cartoons! Where's that Pirate Bird when you need it?

... and if you need a vomit bag when viewing cartoons ... we are talking about some REAL shrinkage here !

..... not to be confused with swimming in ice-cold water .....

.

Share this post


Link to post


 

Firefox_Screenshot_2018-04-02T17-05-27.803Z.png

DefenderOTT:

In response to your "confused" emoticon above, on AllenSmith's  and my post.

Having one's "head shrunk", is an American euphemism for psychiatric sessions. A Shrink is a euphemism for a Doctor of Psychiatry.

For a male, swimming in cold water causes the scrotum to shrink in size dramatically, and testicles to rise up unto the body to keep the sperm warm, and is optically referred to as "shrinkage", colloquially.

...don't get 'em mixed up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

In response to you "confused" emoticon above, on AllenSmith's post.

I'm guessing that there is a 98.4572% chance that DefenderOTT actually is AllenSmith. (Do you ever go to that part of the forum that shows who is logged in at a given time and therefore, indirectly, who just logged out, and what post they are currently looking at at any given time?)

6 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

...don't get 'em mixed up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Even if it turns out to be correct, there is no 6.3 figure from any study or anything like a study, just as there was no 10-times-better or 18-times-worse figure. Imagine just a couple of tweaks to account for what are currently unknowns.

Oh, for crying out loud, just say there has never been an abuse case without a JW connection and be done with it!

Just take down the blue JW.org signs, replace them with the 'Pedophiles R Us' signs that JRT is working on, and be done with it!

Just tell all the brothers to holler "Molester! Molester!" as they approach, as their counterparts once did "Leper! Leper!" and be done with it!

It is not perfect. It cannot be perfect because everyone that could have put their talants to use instead buried them in the ground. It is processed notifications to unprocessed notifications. It will have to do as the best available. If some of theirs turned out to be duds, it cannot be assumed that all of ours will be grand slams.

If you don't behave, I am going to get Allen to assert that all 17 Witness notifications stem from just a single unfortunate child, which will elevate our cause 10,000 to 1! Kneecap that lone scoundrel perpetrator out and we are perfect!

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

 

TTH:

You are certainly entitled to your particular world view.

The physical world, and the entire physical Universe "knows" what facts really are, and getting it wrong is in bad times a Universal capital crime, and it is administered without pity, or deference to a faulty world view.

We have the luxury of living in the best time, and the best place, that has ever existed since the Garden of Eden ... and that alone cuts us all some slack.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Now your off track. Let's NOT make a hero of someone that doesn't contribute to HONESTY! However, Fiddler on the roof, was a GOOD play and movie, whereas, deception is NOT! Write about that in your next book!

The entire thread, and even forum, does not contribute to HONESTY in that all of it ignores Jesus' counsel to '"let them be" with regard to opposers and blind guides. None of the blind guides will say they are blind. It is for the unblind to follow Jesus' counsel.

Evereyone here, self included, 'ought' to be looking at matters as does Jesus, and no one here, self-included, can quite make themselves do that. 

It is what it is, but no one should be making a hero of themselves for participation here. Even if a person succeeds in knocking his enemy  out of the ring, he has done so by demonstrating an unChristian trait.

Oh. And here's one for JTR:

20180330_130553.jpg

 

How;s THAT for Christlike?

 

AF1QipMwCMd6ZM4SC_CrQIlOfIWia6zZyz3Mq6EYakng.html

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

I can say that ANNA and JWinsider can be the same person according to the logins. What does that prove if only “ignorance” from a person attempting to identify another?

Saludos hermano Allen. Creo que soy Allen también. Ha! Ha!

Share this post


Link to post

What I want to do is use the 10 times better figure. But @JW Insider has shown me I cannot even use the 6 times better figure without severe qualification, and he would have me drop it altogether. I will not do that, but I will put a real muzzle on it. For all I know, he did it specifically as a favor to me, so that I would not go public with stats that quickly fall apart. No matter his motive. I am grateful to him.

I can call the other side ignorant. I can assert that they do not know law and until they do they ought to keep their mouths shut. But I will not win them over that way, even if what I say is true. If I write them off as hopeless and drop down a notch to giving my brothers a tool they can use to ward off the villains, I do not do them any favors if I give them one that can be ripped to shreds.

I wonder how the following will fly as part of the Pedophile chapter, towards the end:

There is only so far you can go with the ‘6 times better’ figure. It should not be relied upon as dogma. It is processed notifications into varying levels of severity on one side vs unprocessed notifications on the other. It is  most likely that notifications from the Witness camp will break down similarly to stats overall, but this cannot be guaranteed. Small variations alter the results dramatically and large variations make it meaningless.  It is good only for a ballpark figure - the best that can be hoped for given that the ones who should have put their talents to work in ascertaining truth chose instead to bury theirs in the ground. It will have to do for now. Skewed results from data clarification doesn’t have to work against Witnesses. It could work in their favor. If notifications in the greater Australian figures outnumbered victims, that could be true in the Witness figures as well. Maybe even all 17 reports stem from a single rotter like that fellow in San Diego. Kneecap that scoundrel and we are perfect. We live in a world of buzzwords and catchphrases, few of which will endure rigorous shaking. It is enough to employ our ‘six times better’ figure as a starting bid and concede that further bids might alter the picture.

Now I must brace myself for a lecture from Captain Truth, who, when he is not quoting the founding fathers who agree with Trump, is drawing up imbecile cartoons to embarrass the brothers. 

3 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Later, I campaigned to have this imposter, exposed. I got kicked out of many sites, but the TRUTH finally made its way, and he became an embarrassment to them ALL!

 

I respect this. I truly do. The only caveat I will add is that it is a little like killing a fly. 50 will come to the funeral. I tried something similar to this with AlanF. But he remained nasty throughout, impervious to all my submissions, and in the end the Librarian suggested that I should knock it off as it was getting old.

3 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

I can say that ANNA and JWinsider can be the same person according to the logins.

Pursue your conspiracy theories if you must. Just stay away from A Nice Guy, Dr. Adhominem, 'Hammer' Urabi, Top Cat O'Malihan, Vic Vomidog, and Dr. Mike 'Ace' Inhibitor.  Such an above-board group of shining stars I have never seen. 

Rats!! As I am typing there appears a notice  that JWI has just chimed in. I hope he does not say something to make me want to gut everything I just said. 

Share this post


Link to post

TTH, thanks for the nice representation ... I will use this picture to shave by ....

JTR, on his way to work     700    .jpg

Interestingly enough, last night I ordered the complete series of "The Adventures of Superman" TV shows from the 1950s, from Netflix. It is SOOOO campy now, but Susan and I grew up watching him battle for "Justice, Truth, and the American Way !".

..... it's an acquired habit.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually Allen ... what was going on in the movie clip you posted, IN CONTEXT ... was magnificent, and is much to be admired by honest men of integrity and courage...... not spiritually immature children at all.

The courage of men facing death.jpg

You have never to my knowledge indicated what you do for a living ... where you work, or what you do .... may I assume from all your posts that you are somehow on the staff of the WTB&TS?

My guess is that you are a Lawyer, working for them.

That would explain a LOT!

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I don't know. The hair is similar, but the cape is different.

The reason Superman's cape is so different from Jesus' cape is that when Jesus ascends, its fairly slowly, but when Superman takes off at hyper-sonic speeds, if he did not have the cape he has, the wind blast would rip his red "tighties" off.

red tighties      250   .jpg

( But he does have a nice shave !  In the old Superman comics he had to cut his beard growth in a mirror with his X-RAY vision.

When he looked his best, about a 150 people in the neighborhood behind Clark Kent's Apartment, at 344 Clinton Street, in Metropolis,  would get acute cancer.)

Superman cleaning up  400    .jpg

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I will give you an experience and admittedly, I am going borderline hysterics myself, like many who have contributed to this topic. Just recently a childhood friend of my son died. He left the truth as a teenager. He subsequently developed heavy addiction problems. But for the last three months he had been clean and was once again attending meetings. His mother went to pick him up on the night of the Memorial - last night. He had apparantly relapsed and overdosed. He was dead.

This is really awful. I didn't want to just ignore this. It's all the more tragic for you, it evidently being so close to home, and so recent. I don't want to trivialize it by mixing the topic of drug addiction into a conversation about child abuse statistics, but you already know that this is a huge problem in parts of the world, and we can be thankful for the protections among Jehovah's people that leave us relatively immune from so many of such problems.  

17 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

But I  know too that opioid addiction has a 90% recidism rate. So it would have been a very fine thing, even a lifeline, had he continued coming to meetings where he could have gathered strength. And had he done that, I would not be thrilled at someone meeting him at the door and saying: "You know, we have child sexual abuse here just as much as where you come from. it might even be worse."

I see your point, and in spite of the interpretation people have imputed onto this conversation, I don't agree that our problem with child abuse is nearly as bad as is generally found on the outside. I have only disagreed with using a flawed set of numbers and apple-and-orange ratio comparisons to make the claim. And I am concerned that after being associated (in several major legal systems) with a flawed process, we might appear to be defending the flawed process. Our numbers may actually be 10 times better, or 6 times better, but we attract unnecessary negative attention by appearing to defend a process that has been used in the way it has, especially in our own organization's recent history.

My wife started a Bible study with a woman, now a sister, who had a drug abuse problem, not an addiction problem. I was asked to study with this woman's brother, who did have an on-and-off drug addiction problem. He was getting treatment, but it was a long process for him and he never managed to get to a point where he thought he was ready for baptism. If he had been baptized, he might have still struggled. But I would agree with calling the organization a "lifeline" for this type of person. Learning to rely on Jehovah to help overcome major issues with wrong desires becomes a positive habit in itself. I think he had a desire to get to a point where he could feel proud of his life, feel a purpose in life, and to some extent feel that he had a social structure and network to fall back upon in time of need. Part of what held him back, he said, is that he didn't feel worthy of association with a group of people who appeared to be ready to love him as he is and take him in as a friend. It's something I've seen in the prison work, too. Even after a baptism, some prisoners don't feel worthy of associating with the class of person that Witnesses represent to them. (For cases like this, I like the experiences such as the brother on the monthly broadcast a few months back who had been a true-to-life criminal, but speaks with joy and obvious acceptance of his past, present and future.)

18 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

No. I want them to say 'Because we make a real effort to resist child sexual abuse and have good governance to that effect, we kick it 6.3 times better than the world. And we kick opioid abuse 20 times better.

Even in the context of writing a book that could use a "study" or two for more credibility, I still don't see why you are looking for a specific number. The point is that we have made progress beyond most religions on most issues, but we always look to use the Bible as our guiding set of principles. Sometimes this makes us look a bit backward, but we stand on our record in dealing with all the issues that plague the world today. We don't dig our heels in to hang onto traditional ways of doing things, but we look to the Bible for the wisdom and counsel to meet all challenges, old and new.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Remember who you're speaking with TTH! It's NOT important to get kicked out of a shameful website. Especially one that sets the standard for putting God to shame. So, whenever, YOU, EX-BETHELITE, JTR, ANNA, AND THE LIBRARIAN want to pull the plug, that's your legal right. Mine will be to show just cause to GO-DADDY and affiliations to demonstrate with PROOF of hate speech. So, threaten all you people want, the laws of the land have changed!

Allen, I don't understand this comment at all. 

However, I owe you a debt as well. I never would have thought of inventing all my 'friends' had it not been for accusations directed towards you about aliases. JWI seems convinced that you are or have been multiple persons, but I have never spent time trying to figure it out. 

I just thought it was a cool idea, and decided I would try my own hand at it.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Even in the context of writing a book that could use a "study" or two for more credibility, I still don't see why you are looking for a specific number.

"We live in a world of buzzwords and catchphrases, few of which will endure rigorous shaking. It is enough to employ our ‘six times better’ figure as a starting bid and concede that further bids might alter the picture."

The handful of people on this forum have come to live and breathe pedophile facts and counter-facts, but most of our people know almost nothing about it. They will say "Look, I am not a pervert. I don't know any perverts. I don't like perverts. I don't want to know about perverts. I think perverts are disgusting. And yet now I am called upon to be a pervert expert." It is all a huge diversion from the heart of the truth. Give them a quick retort so that they are not caught as a deer between the headlights. They can bring themselves up to speed if they see fit, as can their detractors. JohnB was dumbfounded that this issue was not on the top of everyone's aware list. I explained that it was because they have thousands of atrocities to choose from. A quick answer is enough to move everyone along.

It is not untrue as far as it goes. It simply does not address all the complications. it is like the quick answer we give our student to address a question that he has yet to build a foundation for understanding it. It is not wrong for him to ask it, and if he is persistent, we devote however much time it takes. But usually a simple answer suffices. It is even like the quick answer we give our 8 year old about the facts of life.

The analogy is not perfect. You needn't point that out. Furthermore, I may rethink it but for now I am okay with it. It is not the centerpiece of the chapter by any means. It does not represent a call-to-arms cry. I also understand that in playing devil's advocate as you do, you risk being seen as the devil. I think I know where you are coming from and I thank you for your condolances about the local tragedy.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

The point is that we have made progress beyond most religions on most issues, but we always look to use the Bible as our guiding set of principles. Sometimes this makes us look a bit backward, but we stand on our record in dealing with all the issues that plague the world today. We don't dig our heels in to hang onto traditional ways of doing things, but we look to the Bible for the wisdom and counsel to meet all challenges, old and new.

Not only do I agree with everything here, but it could almost be the Foreword for Part II of the book. I think, should you read it, you will be satisfied I do not over-rely on a number or encourage anyone else to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The reason Superman's cape is so different from Jesus' cape is that when Jesus ascends, its fairly slowly, but when Superman takes off at hyper-sonic speeds, if he did not have the cape he has, the wind blast would rip his red "tighties" off.

red tighties      250   .jpg

( But he does have a nice shave !  In the old Superman comics he had to cut his beard growth in a mirror with his X-RAY vision.

When he looked his best, about a 150 people in the neighborhood behind Clark Kent's Apartment, at 344 Clinton Street, in Metropolis,  would get acute cancer.)

Superman cleaning up  400    .jpg

Well the shaving part for Kal-El has been joked about before it was in live action and the animated series

 

Other then that it takes a green rock to keep him at bay, for Mr. Wayne is known to have done so many times and has beaten the boy scout, and others also others do causing Kal to have a bit of help.

superman-kryptonite-in-the-bathroom-batm

 

Also I prefer Nightwing, the original boy wonder (Robin) over Superman and Batman combined for he is the better crime fighter.. :)

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The handful of people on this forum have come to live and breathe pedophile facts and counter-facts, but most of our people know almost nothing about it. They will say "Look, I am not a pervert. I don't know any perverts. I don't like perverts. I don't want to know about perverts. I think perverts are disgusting. And yet now I am called upon to be a pervert expert." It is all a huge diversion from the heart of the truth. Give them a quick retort so that they are not caught as a deer between the headlights. They can bring themselves up to speed if they see fit, as can their detractors. JohnB was dumbfounded that this issue was not on the top of everyone's aware list. I explained that it was because they have thousands of atrocities to choose from. A quick answer is enough to move everyone along.

Agreed. The thing is some people who just suddenly come across child abuse assumes that the whole world does not know what it is, especially to those who do not educate children and adults on how to see the signs of abuse and how to prevent something from taking place, and instead, they take their action out on a whole group instead of the individual. 3-4 months ago, a man molested over 50 children since he was the age of 10 into his adulthood years of 18, he confessed to the police himself (the institution he worked as was not to blame for they didn't contact the police outsiders, children's parents, did), while another abuser, age 23 abused a child, only for the child, the victim to contact the police himself because the man who abused him prevented him from contacting his parents, but the victim manage to get a whole of the police, mind you, the justice system is broken and this abuse didn't go to jail, he was left off easy because the judge felt sorry for a man who sexual abused a child. Ironically when it is someone of another race and or specific religious background, they will literally throw the book at the person and criticize the group of the same faith.

That being said, even with facts and truth, sadly it will not push someone to accept it and instead they want to see the world around a group turn into ashes for those who want this to happen are the people setting the fire. But it is what it is, and seeing I, and others do handle children who suffer from these kind of things to some expect, we tend not to be oblivious to the truth as most who are uneducated about child abuse are.

It is hat it is, but in the end,we hold and know to what is true and the facts and the information that stems from the truth and nothing but the truth an the reality that is abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Anna said:

@AllenSmith what were you trying to say with the Spartacus clip? Have you seen the movie?

My guess is he is a Lawyer, working for the WTB&TS ... who would view valor and courage, and integrity as spiritually immature, as it does save money by denying Justice, and not preserve your life at any cost.

I have asked him about that, on the last page, before, but he so far has declined to answer.

It would be interesting to see if he will answer BOTH of your questions, and my suppositions.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Anna said:

@TrueTomHarley  you were Vic Vomidog too?? You got me fooled there,  I thought he was an evil apostate 

Just for the record, if I ever catch me that foul-smelling, self-asggrandizing, wanna-be double-tongued yellow-journaist of a yellow lying double dealing back-stabbing sonuva you know what, I and me mates will make him walk the plank.

Do I make myself clear, lassie?

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Well the shaving part for Kal-El has been joked about before

Back to the purposely misinterpreted question of "How Christ-like is Superman?"

Many stories with a hero will have Christ-like elements. There was the book "The Hero With a Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell for some evidence of this historically. Kal-El in Hebrew would appear to mean the "Word of God" (Voice of God) or the "demigod" or the "fast god."

Also, as Moses was put into a basket and sent down the river to be discovered by adoptive Egyptian parents, Kal-El, this "greater Moses" is put in a space "basket" to be discovered by adoptive earth parents.

There was another picture of Jesus in our publications around 1978 where he had the front hair curl on his forehead that was even closer to Superman style than the December 15 1979 Watchtower cover, but I don't remember which month it ran in. If I run across it, I'll post it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

And if you have a problem with that?

I am not even sure what you think I have a problem with. But it doesn't matter. Often I do not know where you are coming from. I don't have to. On the list of seven things that God hates, that as by  miracle, expands to eight, is "any one stirring up contentions among brothers." I will not do it. And I don't think you are doing it with me, unless you think that I am not a brother. 

Maybe some of our miscommunication lies in the fact you have battled the villians in many nasty places, and I have not - and for over a longer period of time.  You have a terminology of internet lore unfamiliar to me. (Space Merchant is even more so that way)  I have been online for most of 12 years, but until recently I did not stray from my own platform, where I would take comments from opposers if they wished to make any, but I did not let them hijack the site.

About a year ago, as an experiment, I briefly forayed into an apostate site, being a very bad boy, but once they discovered I had no plans to defect, they were so unfailingly nasty that I soon withdrew. They were effusive in their warm welcome until they discovered I planned to stay where I was. 

Because I am playful maybe you think I am sometimes attacking you. I am not. Ever. If I say you are "abrasive," as I have, it is not said to put you down. It is just playful. Come now, would you have anyone believe here that you are not? You would probably be well-served to attend to that to the extent you can, just as I would be well-served to speak with less hyperbole, because it does get misunderstood. Not that I will do it. Not that you will do it. But I will nudge in the proper direction. You should too.

Otherwise, to the extent that you believe it about me, we are brothers. We must not fight. But if you do not believe I am a brother - well, I guess that's okay. It is not exactly the Kingdom Hall here, is it?

Share this post


Link to post

AllenSmith:

Ever heard of the concept of an "emotional bank account"?

It goes something like this:

You cannot just walk up to someone in a casual setting and say "Who are you?

You might go up and say " Hi!, My name is Allen Smith, and I am from such-and-such congregation, and I am in town visiting relatives ...

That is the deposit in the "emotional bank account".

You now have something you can withdraw from that "emotional Bank account".

Now, you  can ask someone's name, because they have information on you that is meaningful.

"May I ask you name?" (That is the "withdrawal".)

Try it sometime.

They are not going to use that information to target North Korean missiles to your house, or send the Mafia by to kneecap you.

I go by my real full name, and tell many tales on myself, many disparaging and personal ... No. 1, because it doesn't really matter ... I will be quite dead too soon, the Universe will not even notice, and No. 2,  sans actual missile attack, anywhere around me is a "safe space".

This is not hand to hand combat with bayonets ... this is conversation via photons on a monitor ... NO MORE.

We can battle to the death in the Arena of Ideas ... sigh if we win or lose ... get up from our chairs, and go have dinner.

Lighten up.

You will live a lot longer, and be a LOT happier.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

  • Similar Content

    • By 4Jah2me
      It seems it will never ever go away.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  
      Ex-Jehovah's Witness elder describes how he was abused by fellow worshipper as a boy
      John Viney was a church elder when his own daughter revealed she had been assaulted by her uncle. Now the 67-year-old has described how he himself was systematically abused for five years.
       
    • By Isabella
      Institutions such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Presbyterian Church and the Disability Trust have not signed up to the national redress scheme, delaying compensation for child abuse survivors.
      While some institutions, such as the Brisbane Boys' College and the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul, have flagged their intention to join the scheme, others have not.
      The government has publicly named and shamed the groups singled out in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse that have not signed up to the redress scheme.
      There are expected to be more unnamed institutions where abuse occurred.
      Ten per cent of applications lodged by survivors - about 700 - have been put on hold because the organisations responsible for their abuse have not joined.
      "It is a lot but some of those are in the process of signing up," Social Services Minister Anne Ruston told ABC radio on Tuesday.
      Institutions have until June 30 to join the redress scheme, which was launched two years ago.
      While some organisations responsible for abuse no longer exist, others claim they do not have the financial capacity to compensate their victims.
      Read more: 
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
      Some institutions are still signing up to the redress scheme, Minister Anne Ruston says.
    • By Witness
      The world is watching the Watchtower's antics, in the grotesque sense of the word.  
       
    • By Witness
      For those who were unable to see the documentary last evening on "Oxygen".
       
    • By Isabella
      The organization allegedly directed elders in all of its United States congregations to send detailed reports on members facing an allegation of sexually abusing a child to its headquarters.
      Since the late 1990s blue envelopes from Jehovah’s Witness congregations across the country have been sent to the organization’s headquarters. But, it’s the information inside those envelopes that contain damaging secrets. 
      The blue envelopes contained detailed reports of members within the religion accused of child molestation. Officials scanned those documents into a database of files for each congregation, according to a sworn deposition by an official with The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society obtained by Reveal, the website for the Center for Investigative Reporting. 
      But the specific details within that database have largely remained a secret—despite court orders and calls from the public to release its contents, leading some to accuse the organization of concealing suspected child abusers. 
      The child abuse files were collected after the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society—the organization that oversees the Jehovah’s Witnesses—sent a request in March 1997 to all of its United States congregations requesting that each congregation write a detailed report about anyone within the religion who had been accused of child molestation and send it to the headquarters in the special blue envelope, according to The Atlantic
      Full article: 
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By Witness
      Article in People Magazine:

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  
    • By Jack Ryan
      Google "New York Court"

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Scroll down, under "e-COURTS"
      click
      "e-Filing"

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Left hand column, under "Login" click
      "Search as Guest"
      Then enter characters and click "Submit"

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Click "Name" then type in "Watchtower" and click Search
      Then click on the "Sort By" box
      Select "Received Date : newest to oldest"
      Then click "Sort"
      . . .
      JW CSA Survivors in ALL 50 States can seek justice under the New York Child Victims Act
      This law firm confirmed it. You can ask them :
      Jehovah's Witness Sex Abuse Lawyers

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Also, amongst other proof, Irwin Zalkin confirmed this on a video...links to that and other proof is in this video :
      The New York Child Victims Act is for JW CSA Survivors in ALL 50 States

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  
      "Although McDaniel's alleged abuse occurred in Oklahoma, her attorneys said they would argue that Watchtower, which is based in New York, enabled the conduct by way of negligent policies."

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  
       
    • Guest Indiana
      By Guest Indiana
      Juror Dan Stinnett, in his first interview about the case, explained how he and eight other Sanders County jurors found the Jehovah’s Witnesses governing organizations negligent and “guilty of malice” in the child sexual abuse of Alexis Nunez, awarding her $35 million. “I believe they were trying to cover up, yes. I have no doubt about that,” Stinnett said. When asked if he was trying to send a message with his jury vote, Stinnett responded, “Why, absolutely. We as jurors and as society really don’t condone … any of this.”
      The Nunez case is one of dozens tallied by the Hearst Television National Investigative Unit as part of a yearlong investigation that uncovered new allegations of child sexual abuse and decadeslong cover-ups inside the Jehovah’s Witnesses religious organization in the United States. The allegations span congregations, states and generations.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By Witness
      From John Redwood...
      A preview of upcoming news:
      Jehovah's Witnesses are appealing to the Supreme Court of the United States, but this time it has nothing to do with preaching or saluting the flag.
      It's all about child abuse.
      Specifically, the protection (or cover-up) of information, documents, and testimony of persons involved in cases of child abuse.
      I will be covering this story in the coming weeks and months, but I thought I would share some of this news and try to distill it down as simply as I can.
      I'd like to point out first that Watchtower has appealed to the Supreme Court in connection with their loss of yet another California child abuse case. The chance that Watchtower's appeal being will be heard by the Supreme Court is slim, but anything is possible.
      What brought this about?
      There are many ongoing civil child abuse cases in California. One such case is J.W. versus Watchtower. J.W. happens to be the initials for the victim of former JW elder Gilbert Simental, who went on a spree of molestation which touched the lives of numerous victims.
      As with other cases, the plaintiff demanded that Watchtower turn over to the court a database of child abuse cases known to be maintained by Watchtower of New York.
      In this particular case, because Watchtower failed to turn over the documents in a timely manner, attorneys asked for a default judgment of just over 4 million dollars.
      The court agreed with the plaintiff and entered a default judgment in that amount. Watchtower was required to post a bond of more than 6 million dollars while their appeal was pending.
      Watchtower lost their appeal, and the decision of the court was upheld. This decision is final- with one exception.
      Watchtower has decided to appeal to the United States Supreme court on the basis that their judicial hearings related to child abuse matters are "confidential intra-faith communications" and that they do not, and should not, reveal those communications or documents to anyone, including civil courts.
      I'd like to make it very clear what Watchtower is doing here. They are fighting for their right NOT to allow civil authorities to dictate what is confidential, and what is not confidential.
      All of this is in relation to their claim that elders do not have the right or duty to report child abuse to the authorities.
      Watchtower overtly lies to their members by claiming that they obey secular laws, except when they conflict with God's laws.
      Yet they break the law every single time by advising elders NOT to report child abuse to the authorities.
      It does NOT matter whether child abuse occurs in a mandatory reporting state- elders STILL do not report to the police because Watchtower has told them that ALL of their communications are protected by clergy-penitent privilege.
      This is false- and it is exactly why they are losing tens of millions of dollars in child abuse civil cases. Watchtower advises elders to break the law.
      And now they want the Supreme Court of the United States to agree with them.
      The claim that the state of California has unfairly targeted Jehovah's Witnesses and "intruded upon matters of church governance."
      Why???
      How does compliance with mandatory child abuse reporting laws conflict with God's laws? It doesn't. This is a fabrication of Watchtower attorneys working for the Governing Body, and it's become quite clear that they feel that compliance with these civil laws will spell disaster for their religion.
      And they might be right.
      If Jehovah's Witnesses did the right thing and complied with the law, they would lose the tight grip of control over their elder bodies in ways which frighten the hell out of them.
      There is a whole lot more to this story as well as the underlying cases involved, but I wanted to let you know what's going on.
      Attorneys for J.W. (the abuse victim) will be filing an opposition to Watchtower's appeal in August, and we should have a decision from the Supreme Court by October on whether they will accept Jehovah's Witnesses appeal for review.
      Stay tuned!!

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  
    • By JOHN BUTLER
      OK, I know some people will not like this and they will call it gossip but my wife and I are worried about it so it needs to aired out.
      We have one daughter that is still a JW. i will call her H.  She is married to a non JW. She has 4 children.
      This daughter does not seem to recognise any dangers at all about her children. She invites anyone to her house without really knowing who they are or anything about their past.
      3 of the children are girls and they attend ballet and tap dance lessons. They are only young, the oldest being around 8 years old. 
      Today they were in a performance /show in Exeter, a biggish show that their teacher was putting on for all parents, grandparents, etc. 
      I wasn't allowed to go of course as I'm a 'naughty boy' that left the Org.
      My wife went to the show and was surprised to find two 'brothers' there.
      One of the 'brothers' is a young single Elder and the other 'brother' is an old man that has recently been reinstated and moved into Honiton congregation.  
      This older man frequently visits H and her daughters at their home and the girls call him Uncle Phil. He seems very 'friendly' toward the girls.
      H does not know where this 'brother' is from but he is now part of the Honiton Congregation which H and her children attend, here in Devon. 
      It seems strange to me that this man has just arrived at Honiton Congregation and just been reinstated. My wife says he has a London accent. 
      If I were still a JW I would ask him bluntly why he was disfellowshipped and where he is from, but of course I cannot do that now.
      I have his full name, so is there any way i can run a check on him ? 
      Should i contact an Elder at Honiton Congregation and tell them of the concern my wife and I have ? 
      If this 'brother' had been involved in a child abuse accusation would they have told H about it so that she could be on her guard ? 
      Some on here may think I'm just trying to cause trouble, but my wife came home this evening and is looking very worried. 
      It seems that H had invited both 'brothers' to the meal afterward and my wife felt unhappy about the whole situation. 
      TTH will probably bring out the rule book again and say 'it never happens', but child abuse does happen and needs to be looked for all the time. 
      Our daughter H seems to have no idea about the situations that have taken place, and in honesty she doesn't want to know. So how can my wife warn her ?  
       
       
       
       
    • By JOHN BUTLER
      I've often thought of this point of reproof from the platform. It does nothing positive at all, it just leaves people wondering why the person was reproved.
      And it certainly does not protect the congregation.  
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
      by  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. In January of 2019, elders in the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses were issued a new version of their confidential handbook, "Shepherd the Flock of God." This handbook covers, among other topics, when a person should be "reproved."
      For those unfamiliar with the their practices, Jehovah's Witness elders might determine that someone guilty of a serious sin is repentant and will be "reproved" rather than disfellowshipped [excommunicated]. This reproof might be administered privately, or it might include a very brief announcement to the congregation.
      Public Reproofs Are Not a Protection
      The "Shepherd" book makes the claim that a public reproof serves as a "protection" to the congregation against certain dangerous behaviors, such as child sexual abuse; note this statement from chapter 14, "Child Abuse::

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. However, this announcement of reproof includes no information about the person's "sinful" behavior, as instructed in chapter 16, "Procedure for Judicial Hearings":

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. The "Shepherd" book even outright instructs that a person's sinful acts should not be connected to their reproof, such as when a "warning" talk is given regarding their behavior; also from chapter 16:

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. This statement alone demonstrates that the entire "public reproof" arrangement protects no one from congregation members who might pose a danger to others, including children. Simply stating that someone has "been reproved" doesn't warn a congregant of that person's specific behavior, and especially when there is a long list of reasons why someone might be publicly reproved, including:
      Smoking Fornication, adultery Theft Lying, slander Various forms of "apostasy" Severe fits of temper, fighting Drunkenness Using narcotics Taking up boxing After hearing a rather generic announcement that someone has been "reproved," without knowing the actual reason for that reproof, how would congregants know to keep their children away from them? Another congregant might assume that a person being reproved was caught smoking or fornicating with an adult; child sexual abuse might be the last thing they would consider when they hear of someone having been reproved!
      Your Conscience Shouldn't Be Clean
      This begs the question of why Jehovah's Witnesses think that their consciences can be clean in these cases. Elders honestly think that making an announcement of so-and-so having been "reproved" protects the congregation and so they've done their job of keeping people and children safe?
      Nothing can be further from the truth, especially when it comes to child sexual abuse. This "public reproof" arrangement purposely conceals the action that warranted the reproof, so it warns no one about a congregant who might be a danger to their children.
      This announcement does not take away from an elder's complicity in hiding allegations of abuse. Any elder who hears of such a credible allegation and doesn't notify authorities, cooperate with their investigations fully, and then do everything possible to keep a potentially dangerous person away from children shares guilt and blame if that person goes on to molest another child.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. The bottom line is that Jehovah's Witnesses and elders especially have no problem lying to themselves and to the general public about their supposed "protections" for congregants. They shield alleged molesters by purposely ensuring that no information about a particular act is associated with "reproved" persons, and then tell themselves that this passive-aggressive "hinting around" is going to somehow alert congregants to the need to keep their child away from him or her.
      While the authors of these practices and the elders charged with enforcing them might go to bed with a clean conscience, remember it's not them who suffer the consequences of their actions; the elders are not being raped and abused, the men who wrote this "Shepherd" book are not the ones who will be the next victims of these "reproved" persons.
      Their complicity in this horrific act is bad enough, but their smug self-righteousness in thinking that they've somehow done enough to protect children with a generic "reproof" is just another slap across the face of those same children.
    • By Witness
      "On Sunday, March 31, Anthony Morris, a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, was filmed at Bottle King, a discount booze store in Ramsey, NJ, buying 12 bottles of very expensive single malt. My “Bottlegate” video sharing the footage has since accumulated tens of thousands of views, with many saying the incident represents an act of hypocrisy from a man famous for his somewhat judgmental approach to morality and Christian living. The team discusses the permutations of the remarkable footage, and the widely known culture of drinking at bethel."
      This video expresses the opinions of a past member of Bethel in Australia, and those of his wife, also Mark O'Donnell whose story under the article " A Secret Database of Child Abuse" was posted in The Atlantic, and "Covert Fade", author at JWsurvey.  
      From the comments I have seen here, JWs are measuring Anthony Morris' actions by worldly standards; yet, for someone who claims to be "faithful and discreet", worldly standards do not apply.  
      "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."  Matt 5:20
       
       
    • By Witness
      A FORMER JEHOVAH'S WITNESS IS USING STOLEN DOCUMENTS TO EXPOSE ALLEGATIONS THAT THE RELIGION HAS KEPT HIDDEN FOR DECADES.  
       
      In an organization, what sort of prevailing spirit would enable and encourage its people to hide its dirty business?  The spirit of God, who always exposed the sins of His people?
      What spiritual atmosphere promotes child abuse by ignoring a child’s call for help and justice, from their own parents? 
      What sort of spirit promotes parents to threaten their children using disgusting ‘weaponry’ against them, and at the same time, teaching them of “Jehovah’s paradise” as a promise if they were good? 
      What spirit resides in the heart of an elder who would ask a child suffering from parental abuse, “If her mother did end up killing her, could that prevent Jehovah from resurrecting her at Armageddon? “Of course, I said no,” Kimmy said, rolling her eyes. “They told me, ‘Go home and obey your mother.’”
      How can the Watchtower call itself “Jehovah’s theocratic organization”, or “Jehovah’s spiritual temple” when at the inner core of its “whitewashed tomb”, “the bones of the dead and everything unclean” exists?  Matt 23:27
      Child abuse is everywhere, but it is a rampant evil sickness in an organization that proudly claims to belong to “Jehovah”, to be a protection in times of distress, and an ark of salvation.  What hypocrisy.    Has it ever occurred to a JW that God sees the sins of His people?  And when God sees His people sinning, He refuses to aid them in times of crisis?
      Remind yourself again of what is happening in Russia.  Since the organization obviously hides its sins; yet, blatantly practices idolatry by ignoring the true temple of God in the anointed ones, (1 Pet 2:5,9; 1Cor 3:16,17; Eph 2:20-22; 2 Thess 2:3,4) God has no interest in coming to  Watchtower’s aid in times of distress. 
      Tell me why He would.    Judges 2:6-23; Rom 1:18-25
       We have a deliverer, and it isn’t the GB or the organization who has refused to offer any aid to thousands who have suffered from abusive individuals residing in the “spiritual paradise”.  Our deliverer is the Father and Jesus Christ.  Judges 3:7-9; Rev 2:2-6,19-22; 3:17-21
      From The Atlantic:  
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  
       
       
       
    • By JOHN BUTLER
      I was having a discussion on here somewhere with someone, concerning the IICSA investigation into JW Org in the UK. 
      I've just received this email from them so thought I'd put it up on here for people to look at. 
      It doesn't copy and paste exactly as it looks on my email, but here it is anyway :- 
      Our reference: IICSA-0013979

       
      Dear Mr Butler
      Thank you for contacting the Inquiry on 3 February.
      As you may be aware, the Inquiry is investigating institutional failure to protect children from sexual abuse in the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches. In June 2015 it issued a retention order covering documents of interest to the Inquiry to the leaders of 18 prominent religious organisations, including the Jehovah's Witnesses.  
      The Inquiry has received correspondence from a considerable number of individuals raising concerns about child sexual abuse within Jehovah's Witnesses organisations. At present the Inquiry is committed to delivering its existing programme and is not currently launching any new investigations. However, as our work progresses, we will consider calls for a Jehovah's Witnesses specific investigation carefully.
      Any updates on our investigations, including scope and hearings can be found on our website at 
      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. The Inquiry has launched 13 investigations into a broad range of institutions identified on the basis of the Panel’s criteria for selection of investigations. The investigations will give a voice to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, enable the Inquiry to understand how institutions have failed to protect children from sexual abuse and make practical recommendations to ensure better institutional protection for children in the future. www.iicsa.org.uk  
      I am sorry for the delay in responding to you and I hope that you have found this information useful. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this email, please do not hesitate to contact the Inquiry again.
      Yours sincerely

      Jodie Yarborough
      Head of Correspondence & Engagement Team
      Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse
       
    • Guest Indiana
      By Guest Indiana
      Were you or a loved one sexually abused by Gonzalo Campos, an elder with various Jehovah’s Witnesses congregations in the San Diego area?
      Legal Support For Alleged Victims Of Gonzalo Campos
      After admitting to molesting at least 8 children during the 1980s and 1990s, Campos fled to Mexico, evading criminal justice here in California, but some sexual abuse survivors may still be eligible to file suit against the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York.
       
      The Watchtower, the national organization for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, has already settled at least two lawsuits involving Campos’ misconduct. In March 2018, the organization came to terms with two of Campos’ victims, men who claimed the elder abused them decades ago. Neither the Watchtower nor the plaintiffs are allowed to disclose details of the settlement.
      Experienced Attorneys Launch Full Investigation
      Our compassionate sexual abuse attorneys believe that other victims of Campos may still be able to pursue justice, accountability and compensation by filing a civil lawsuit. We have opened a full investigation into the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to understand how Campos was allowed to remain around children, even after serious sexual abuse allegations had been filed against him.
      We understand the powerful storm of emotions that sexual abuse can cause. You may still be struggling to deal with painful feelings of embarrassment and shame, rage or depression. You do not have to go through this alone. Our committed legal team is here to help.
      You may have powerful legal options. The prospect of stepping forward to report the abuse may seem terrifying, but it can be a powerful step on the road to recovery. You deserve justice. You may also be entitled to financial compensation. Filing a civil lawsuit can help you take control of this terrible situation. The Watchtower should be held accountable.
      Watchtower Hit By Court Penalty For Withholding Evidence
      The Watchtower has already been accused of hindering investigations into allegations of child sexual abuse. In the cases involving Gonzalo Campos, the Watchtower was ordered to pay a penalty of $4,000 every day because it refused to turn over internal documents containing information about church leaders who had been accused of child sexual abuse.
      This was not the first time the Watchtower failed to stand up for sexual abuse survivors.
      Critics say Gonzalo Campos was allowed to abuse at least 8 children in San Diego between 1982 and 1995, even though the Jehovah’s Witnesses congregations he belonged to were aware of his misconduct. After abusing a 7-year-old in 1994, Campos was removed from the Church, but he was reinstated by church elders who claimed he was a changed man.
      In their lawsuits, two men who said they had been abused by Campos accused church elders of knowing about Campos’ misconduct as early as 1982, but covering it up and allowing him to continue working with young children. We believe the victims.
       

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By Jack Ryan
      Two different women came forward in 2018 with stories of repeated sexual abuse during their childhood by adult members of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
      One woman, Romy Maple, said she was repeatedly drugged and sexually abused by the same man starting when she was 4 years old. She said other members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses ignored her efforts to alert them to the abuse.
      Years later, Maple appeared prominently in the A&E documentary series, “Cults and Extreme Belief,” which brought her story to national attention. Maple has since launched a nonprofit, 707SAFE — which stands for Sexual Assault Fighters Elite — offering “coaching, transitional and transformational support” to fellow survivors of child sexual abuse, according to Maple’s
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. . Another woman, who gave her name as Sister Star, said she was drugged, filmed and sexually abused at a Eureka hotel by a family friend and fellow member of Jehovah’s Witnesses. She said her grandfather and other men did the same to her months before, and further said her stepfather sexually abused her throughout her childhood years.
      Sister Star came forward with her story of sexual abuse in August. (Jose Quezada — The Times-Standard file)   As in Maple’s case, Sister Star said elders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses took no action to help her.
      Jehovah’s Witnesses World Headquarters offered the Times-Standard the following comment earlier this year:
      “Jehovah’s Witnesses abhor child abuse and view it as a crime. (Romans 12:9)” the document states. “We recognize that the authorities are responsible for addressing such crimes. (Romans 13:1-4) The elders do not shield any perpetrator of child abuse from the authorities.”
      No criminal action has been taken in either Maple or Sister Star’s cases due to existing statute-of-limitations laws. In 2016, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a bill dismissing the statute of limitations for crimes of rape, sexual assault and other sexual offenses committed in 2017 and onward.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By JOHN BUTLER
      OK, I've sort of shot myself in the foot by saying I'm now going to take this forum as a joke and have a laugh. In most ways i will continue to do so BUT.
      This evening I was given some information that 1.maybe I shouldn't have been given. 2. Maybe i wish i hadn't been given. 
      Some of you may say I'm telling lies. Some of you may say I'm just after attention. Some may say I'm just trying to put down the JW Org.
      However i have to think on something i say a lot. DUTY OF CARE. Care of everyone, in or out of that JW Org. 
      I have been given this information :-
      Somewhere between 18 months to 2 years ago, a young man that is a member of Honiton Congregation (my ex congregation) committed a sexual offence against a young girl that would have been around 7 or 8 years old at that time.. 
      The young man was visiting the home of this child and he went up to the girl's bedroom and asked the girl to have sex with him. I do not think that sexual intercourse took place but from the information that I've been given, he laid her on the bed and got o