I was just reading the BoE letter dated June 7, 2006 regarding Pornography. Here's an excerpt that made me go "hmmmmm".
Next, the body of elders should determine whether the brother still qualifies to serve. He may continue to serve if his involvement consisted of (1) a few brief viewings, (2) he displays a heartfelt desire to desist from looking at pornography in any form, (3) the elders are convinced that he will refrain from viewing pornography, (4) he continues to retain the respect of others who are aware of what he did, and (5) his conscience allows him to do so. Nonetheless, if the body of elders is unsure whether a brother continues to qualify, they should discuss the matter with the circuit overseer at his next visit, if the visit is only a few weeks away. Otherwise, they should write the branch office for direction, providing answers to the above questions, along with their recommendation.
On the other hand, if (1) he has developed a pattern of seeking pornography, or (2) on several occasions has viewed abhorrent forms of pornography that are sexually degrading, which might include child pornography, sadistic torture, bondage, gang rape, or the brutalizing of women, this would disqualify him from serving. (Titus 2:11-14; w89 6/1 pp. 15-16 pars. 2-5) Under these circumstances, the elders should recommend his removal at their earliest convenience.
What if it just is not "convenient"? What if this so-called "brother" is one who takes care of a lot of things that allow the other elders to spend more time with their own families instead of being called away on the Society's "business"? What if this "brother" has skills and abilities that make him well suited to take the lead in certain committees that other JW men don't have? What if this "brother" has himself in the enviable position of being indispensible to the congregation, and to fulfilling the Society's agenda? What if his removal meant that the rest of the elders had to double up on their assignments, and felt that it would be just too "inconvenient" to lose this hard-working "brother" over viewing a few "abhorrent" pictures? Would they let things slide? Would they look the other way because to lose such a trooper of a "brother" would put a harsh burden on the remaining elders in the congregation?
I'm just asking because I know of a case that involved a now deceased elder who was the head of the Regional Building Committee for many years. He was known for his violent temper. He was known to have physically abused his kids and one of his grandchildren. He was never, ever reproved for it, even after the WTS started paying attention to behaviour like this (at least in the publications). He just "did so much for the Organization" that he was considered "indispensible", and he was an elder and the head of the Regional Building Committee until the day he died. His Memorial Service was attended by over 500 people and held at the Assembly Hall, because "he did so much for the Organization".
It's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to figure out that a man who can be physically violent toward children is much more dangerous and more of a threat than someone who "habitually looks at Internet porn" who has never been violent toward anyone. Yet if someone can ingratiate themselves to the Organization and prove themselves "indispensible", it can be very "inconvenient" to remove them from their responsibilities. It just makes me wonder how many elders are going to slip under the radar due to the "inconvenience" factor.