We've upset someone!!

by fullofdoubtnow 25 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • fullofdoubtnow
    fullofdoubtnow

    Trev had an email today from the Beehive Network, who administer his site. Apparently, someone had made an informal complaint about some of the content, in particular the article on child abuse within the jws. Trev is away, but I contacted him, and he agreed to remove the "offending" items, which he did from work.

    The Beehive admin emailed back to tell us the site is now fine as far as they are concerned, and if the jws complain, they will be offerred the opportunity to set up their own site on the Beehive Network, though I can't see that happening. We get the distinct impression that whoever complained would like to see the site gone altogether, but that hasn't happened, so they only got a partial victory, or maybe no victory at all.

    Trev just called me, and he is going to set up a "recommended reading" page later, with advice on where to go and what is on the sites. He has already put up links to one or two sites, but he's going to expand on what to expect on those links, like silentlambs, freeminds etc. If we can't publish articles on certain issues on our site, we can direct people to where those issues are discussed.

    If any of the objectors have been on the site since the changes were made, they may think they've won, but take it from us, it is going to be a hollow victory in the long run.

  • candidlynuts
    candidlynuts

    well that was rude! how dare they complain about your own page on that site. is that really in their terms of service? do you think legally you had to remove it? whats your link?

  • fullofdoubtnow
    fullofdoubtnow

    Hi candidly,

    Trev didn't mind removing some stuff from the site, rather than risking an official complaint and potentially losing it altogether. As he said when he rang me earlier, there are other ways of getting people to read what you want them to read, so he's posted links to silentlambs and a few other sites where the stuff he agreed to remove is there for all to see.

    The jws might think they've won, because we now know it was them who objected, but they haven't won at all. They wanted the site to go, but the Beehive have told them, and we have had an email stating this, that as far as they are conserned, the site is fine and will stay. The link to it is here:

    http://beehive.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/formerjws

    Linda

  • Lo-ru-hamah
    Lo-ru-hamah

    Trev sent me a link to his sight but I thought that it was secret and he didn't want anybody given the address becuase the JWs had complained about one of his sites once before. It has a lot wonderful information about the Watchtower and their sins. Wouldn't it constitute a violation of our freedom of speech, removing these sites or even information contained on them just becuase someone doesn't like what it says?

    Of course, I am not any sort of expert on the constitution but it sure seems to infringe on those rights.

    Ya'll keep up the good work. I wish I was as savy as the rest of ya'll getting information out like you do.

    Loruhamah

  • greendawn
    greendawn

    That is a point, they complained about something but on what basis? They can't ask for something to be removed just because they don't like it. And the two witness rule of the JWs regarding child abuse is tantamount to giving abusers a license to carry on since they are not stupid enough to do things before the eyes of other people.

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    What was the complaint? Can you post the article that was removed so we can see what the Dubs found objectionable?

    AlanF

  • fullofdoubtnow
    fullofdoubtnow

    This is the article the jws complained about:

    Jehovahs Witnesses and child abuse
    Child abuse is a blight on society, and most religions, including the Jehovahs Witnesses, have their own problems in that area. However, it is the way those problems are usually handled that makes the Witnesses differrent from most other faiths. There is no doubt that child abuse is a crime, and should be reported to the relevant authorities when discovered. The Witnesses don't quite see it this way, however. They prefer to allow the congregation elders handle these matters. Now, the Witnesses take the Bible literally, include several verses that say there must be at least two witnesses to every act of wrongdoing, or the matter cannot be established, even in serious cases like child abuse. Very few abusers wait around for witnesses when they are about to rape a 4 or 5 year old child, so if they are Witnesses, and the elders get to hear about their alleged conduct, a simple denial will suffice to have the matter taken no further. The police are not informed, and the abuser is free to continue molesting children. One former Witness described the organisation as a "paedophile paradise", and there is plenty of well - documented evidence to back up his allegation. A few years ago, it was revealed that, at the world HQ of Jehovahs Witnesses in Brooklyn, New York, there existed a database containing the names of 23,720 Witnesses who were alleged child abusers, very few of whom had been reported to the police, and only a tiny minority who had been reported by the elders. All too often, it is the abuse victims who do the reporting, and they are then usually disfellowshipped, or expelled, from the congregation rather than being offerred any kind of support. Wives who complained about their husbands have been told to "pray more, and be a better wife" to stop the abuse. Clearly, whatever their scriptural reasoning is, the Jehovahs Witnesses policy on child abuse is WRONG. It is seemingly designed to shield the abuser and persecute the victim, when any decent person would expect it to be the other way around. Maybe, as pressure grows on the church, particularly in the USA, this policy will be reviewed, but if the Witnesses track record on admitting their mistakes is anything to go by, that is unlikely. In the meantime, let us all be aware of the kind of people that may be visiting our homes. Some of them could have a less - than pure motive for being there.

    And this is the link to the site. He's put an article on today that they won't like, I suspect, but it's nothing they can have removed. It's on the JW policy on those who leave page.

    http://beehive.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/formerjws

    Linda

  • oldflame
    oldflame
    They can't ask for something to be removed just because they don't like it. And

    Just who the hell do the society think they are the rulers of the internet ? You would think that they would be more interested in cleaning up the trash on the internet like porn and child porn and predators than be worried about who posted something about their religion. It seems they really get worried when someone goes public about all there bullshit coming to the front. I think every single one of us should make a web page as Trevors and then lets see how they would react. Do you honestly think that they could shut them all down ? I know if I had a web page about the WTBS and their lies and deciet I would not budge not one bit, I would tell them where they could go.!

  • fullofdoubtnow
    fullofdoubtnow

    Hi Oldflame,

    Trev didn't want to take that article out, but the site administrators got a call from the local jws threatening further action because, they said, of the "accusatory nature of the article", and caved in under pressure. He asked Trev to remove it or possibly lose the site if the jws went to court. We could have told him that's the sort of threat the wts make on regular occasions, and everything in that article could be proved, but Trev decided to remove it rather than risk losing the site. There's still plenty on there they don't like, believe me, he's had emails from jws suggesting he remove it all. They wanted the whole site gone, but we had an email from the administrators that they are happy with the content now, and if the jws complain again they will let us know, but won't take any other action, apart from offerring the jws their own site on the network.

    I am waiting to see a pro - jw site appear on there, but I think I will be waiting a very long time...

    Linda

  • Gadget
    Gadget
    They can't ask for something to be removed just because they don't like it.

    I don't think they could ask for it to be removed becasue they didn't like it, but they could if they felt the information on it to be false. Obviously the witnesses are going to think that this is more apostate lies. Perhaps a way around this would be to repost the article but rewritten to provide thorough references/ sources, using the Watchtowers own words to hang them. There could be no question about any legal recourse if everything on the page is instantly verifiable instead of appearing to be just one persons opinion.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit