Anonymous Message to Watchtower (page 21)

Witness My Fury

No you are OVER investing in this subject and taking it too personally. Go have a beer and chill...

i have spent about 30 posts detailing my feelings on this. But we just are not going to agree on some key points in all this. I don't really have any more to add. it is not because I think my logic on this is flawed and your are right. But I have spent hours going backwards and forwards on this. Ok, one last go.

The NSPCC actually has the option to say many things. From 'we do not condone illegal activities but can see how this could help protect children' to 'we would strongly recommend someone does not do this because of the unintended consequences'. I guess what will be interesting is if they try to influence Anonymous. No harm done in asking them anyway.

No, I think it is regrettable but necessary for one person to go through the stress of being falsely accused BY THE WATCH TOWER SOCIETY if it means potentially THOUSANDS of children not being raped, molested and otherwise abused by sick paedos.

It is regrettable but not neccessary. If these files were given to the police then if the accusations were substantial there would be prosecutions. Provided the victims wanted to of course. What you are wanting it is now clear is a trial by public opinion. Please enlighten me on how this will happen. And you really think that the ratio of false accusations to correct as reported after investigation by the elders is one to thousands? Please. What if 20% are innocent? Is that fair? What if all but one is innocent? Where do you draw that line Cedars? You can't skirt around this by saying 'most are guilty'.

And what exactly is the congregation going to do about it? Remember they're the ones who were complicit in hiding the information in the first place! Or do you still believe the congregation has a role to play in meting out divine justice? I am more concerned with the persons being named to the authorities, and there is far greater chance of this happening if the list is leaked than if it remains idle on a bethel computer.

You have lost me here as before you were arguing that it will protect people in the congregation to know these names. That these people should be 'outed'. Now you are saying that what matters is the names get to the authorities. Which is what I said all along. Perhaps the best way to do that is give the list straight to the authorities? But again without names of victims there will be no convictions. And as Solomon says once the list is in the public domain it will seriously prejudice any trial. So what is it? Do you want trial through public opinion or do you want these cases properly investigated by the police? And what if anything does anyone know about how Anonymous is going to ensure victims' and/or accusers' names are not released. Are they going to go through all 23000 documents and ensure this does not happen? Just like the names of people were not anonymised on that dump of judicial committee procedings the other day? Tell me Cedars will it be acceptable to name 23,000 victims of abuse to out 23,000 perpetrators?

cedars

Witness My Fury

I'm perfectly chilled. I've made my point, jamesmahon has parachuted out of the discussion even though his cavalry has appeared late in the form of you and King Solomon.

I've stated my case for all to read. There's absolutely nothing to get worked up about. There's also no need to tell me to "shut up" - unless I missed some important developments on JWN, and you're now the site owner?

Cedars

jamesmahon

Not parachuted just yet. They are not my cavalry - just seems there are people that can also see what a collosal mess this could turn into. I'm not as alone as other posters seemed to have believed. Of course, we could all be on the list...

purplesofa

just seems there are people that can also see what a collosal mess this could turn into.

you mean bigger than the mess that there already is?

cedars

jamesmahon

Ah, I do hate long goodbyes! They can be so awkward!

Here goes...

The NSPCC actually has the option to say many things. From 'we do not condone illegal activities but can see how this could help protect children' to 'we would strongly recommend someone does not do this because of the unintended consequences'. I guess what will be interesting is if they try to influence Anonymous. No harm done in asking them anyway.

I never said there was any harm in asking. I was merely pointing out that their hands are tied in what they can say, so don't expect an entirely free opinion.

It is regrettable but not neccessary. If these files were given to the police then if the accusations were substantial there would be prosecutions. Provided the victims wanted to of course. What you are wanting it is now clear is a trial by public opinion.

I've said my preference would be for the information to find its way directly to the authorities. In the absense of this, having the files made public instead of kept secret would still be "regrettable but necessary". I am not the one pulling the strings in all of this.

And you really think that the ratio of false accusations to correct as reported after investigation by the elders is one to thousands? Please. What if 20% are innocent? Is that fair? What if all but one is innocent? Where do you draw that line Cedars? You can't skirt around this by saying 'most are guilty'.

I won't be drawn on the maths. I simply favor transparency and the rule of law over secrecy and the absence of law.

And as Solomon says once the list is in the public domain it will seriously prejudice any trial.

That's his and your opinion, not mine.

So what is it? Do you want trial through public opinion or do you want these cases properly investigated by the police?

The decision does not rest in my hands. I have told you my order of preference - namely that the names be leaked directly to the authorities and, if this weren't to happen, at least leaked into the public domain. This would still be preferable to pedophiles continuing to operate unchallenged and with free access to potentially hundreds of children, both now and in the future.

And what if anything does anyone know about how Anonymous is going to ensure victims' and/or accusers' names are not released. Are they going to go through all 23000 documents and ensure this does not happen?

Ask them - but I imagine it wouldn't be much of a leak without names being mentioned.

Tell me Cedars will it be acceptable to name 23,000 victims of abuse to out 23,000 perpetrators?

Who said anything about naming all the victims? Again, take it up with Anonymous.

Cedars

King Solomon

Yes. Even worse.

You guys need to read the last 5 years of articles written on Anon over on arstechnica, including all the comments for attached articles. Read up on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, as it's closely related to this topic of legalities of undisclosed leaks.

Anon had some cache back in the day to force change, but has lost the power of even 3 years ago by over-extending and more importantly, displaying a contempt for law, preferring anarchy.

Its a can of worms...

jamesmahon

Cedars. I think you are a bit deluded that a man accused of being a child molestor can just clear his name by 'making his case'. Can you tell me how that works exactly?

"Before starting the ministry school tonight, Brother Green has something to announce from the platform"

"I know my name is on the list. I promise I did not touch up Jenny Johnson. She made it all up."

Jesus - think about this will you? It will just open this all up for the victim again. With chances of successful prosecution diminished because the list is in the public domain. Even if the guy is guilty he lied his way out of it before and will just do it again, inflicting more damage on the victim.

cedars

King Solomon

Anon had some cache back in the day, but has lost the power of even 3 years ago.
Its a can of worms...

You mean like a religion where thousands of pedophiles can run around abusing children, and get off the hook by simply denying it? THAT kind of can of worms? Or worse?

Cedars

jamesmahon

This from the NSPCC. Seems they want to contact the police. Little good it will do mind. You appear to have been right Cedars about their going straight to police but will see.

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 17 July 2012 17:25
To: James Mahon
Subject: Re: RE: NSPCC Information Service enquiry

NSPCC Ref: 10053890

Dear Mr Mahon,

Thank you for your email. We would like to report this matter to the police, so that they can deal with any potential offences. Could you give me the details of the discussion board where you found out about this plan? Also, do you have any idea of the timescale for this?

You are welcome to reply to this email or if it would be easier to talk on the phone I will be in work from 9:00 am tomorrow and can be contacted via the NSPCC free phone number 0808 800 5000.

Regards,

Felicity Aspinall

My response

I can give you no more information than the website link I gave you. I am afraid that is all was posted on the board (other than a discussion of the rights or wrongs of doing this). I think that the police will really struggle to find any of these people – I know they have successfully targeted much bigger organisations than the JWs.

Looking past the obvious illegalities, am I right to be concerned about the implications for children of this?

Anonymous Message to Watchtower

Share this