Are these the "cop out" clause in the Mill Hill/Porter child molestation case?

by hamsterbait 11 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  hamsterbait

  The Mill Hill London, England, congregation was set up as a charitable trust in 1997.

  www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Library/investigations/pdfs/lonmill.pdf

  Having read through the above link, I found a couple of disturbing statements that seemed to be a loophole that "theocratic stategists" may well use to give themselves wiggle room to evade the spirit of the recommendations that incidents be reported.

  First:

  Clause 4: the total [income of the Trust] for 2007/8 was £6, 006, expenditure was £9, 205.

  Now see what is in clause 34:

  "If your charity has an income OVER £25, 000 you must, as part of the Annual Return, confirm there are no serious incidents ... over the previous financial year.

  Now look at clause 32:

  "The Trustees must also consider the potential damage to the reputation of the charity, which is one of its assets that they have a DUTY TO PROTECT, when making decisions."

  Whatever else the organisation allowed them to agree to, they will not abide by the spirit of the recommendations, but will use these words to justify continuing to keep secret serious incidents because

  1 "We took in less than £25, 000, and the reputation of not just of US but JEHOVAHS ORGANISATION is at stake."

  Do you think I am being unreasonably paranoid, or justified in view of the things I have seen, not only on this forum but also www.silentlambs.org and www.andersonsinfo.com ?

  HB
• 

  hamsterbait

  I posted this Friday AM am btt-ing it cause nobody is on line then.

  HB
• 

  jamiebowers

  Why would a law like that ever be passed?
• 

  passwordprotected

  Good spots, HB.
• 

  fokyc

  This was in another thread yesterday here:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/child-abuse/175516/1/UK-investigation-report-into-JW-procedures

  This will just be another cover up and a further opportunity to lie, by both the Branch Office and the local elders, they are incapable of being truthful about this subject.

  fokyc
• 

  AndersonsInfo

  hamsterbait: I don't think you're being unreasonably paranoid. Watch Tower's track record in these matters is far from honest and above board, so it's no wonder we're all very suspicious of their actions.

  This October 3, 2008 document you provided a link to is important and I'm happy you brought it to our attention. I think your questions are reasonable and it would be helpful if an XJW in London or anywhere in the UK would inquire at the Charity Commission about what you brought up.

  Also, I would like to know if the "Charity," in this case, London Mill Hill Cong. of JWs, has fulfilled the Commission's request as stated under the sub-heading , Conduct of inquiry"#'s 20 and 21 of the document.

  20. The Commission requested that the Charity produce a child protection policy, bringing together all the procedures they currently have in place to ensure they are formalized.

  21. The Charity is working with the national JW's umbrella charity, Watch Tower, to produce a child protection policy. Once the document is agreed, it will be adopted by and binding on all the JWs charities represented by Watch Tower.

  If completed by the Charity, this child protection policy should be available to the public through the Charity Commission. I do know that the Commission has been very cooperative in the past to reply to any inquiries that XJWs have made about the charity status of JWs. They also took into consideration XJW's information and warnings about how the group really handles child abuse, shunning and the blood ban, and not how Watch Tower says they handle these issues, and this was reflected in the new Charity Commission's regulations, etc.

  In regards to the Commission's request for Watch Tower's comprehensive child protection policy, it would be wonderful if some curious XJW obtains a copy when it is available and publish it here on JWD. I know I'd sure like to have a copy for my website, but just don't have the time to do this myself because there's just too many WT issues to deal with and I'm spread out too thin as it is.

  (Oh, by the way, my website is www.watchtowerdocuments.com not www.andersonsinfo.com)

  Barb.
• 

  AndersonsInfo

  I see while I was typing up my post, fokyc provided a link to dozy's information on this subject. I will certainly be following this with great interest. As I said in my post, the Charity Commission is legally obligated to provide the information they are requesting from the Charity because it is public policy information. If many people request the information, the Commission will again realize how concerned we all are about the safety of JWs children and they will respond as they have done in the past.

  Barb.
• 

  truthsetsonefree

  Expect WT to use ANY loophole they can find. It's their way.
• 

  freddo

  WTS will always go by the letter of the law and not the spirit of it when it suits them.

  Unless there is a bequest or major refurbish going on then British congregations rarely have income or expenditure exceeding £10K let alone £25K.
• 

  hamsterbait

  Have they made these Child protection Guidelines available, after THREE years?

  HB