Britain | Jehovah's Witnesses hushed up child sex scandal | July 16, 2013

by jwleaks 172 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Prime

  @Prime: You never answered my question - why did the elders REFUSE to cooperate with the police. Why did it take 3 years and a court order to make them cooperate? Why, if your duty is to report, does the WTBTS require you to call their legal team first for advice when the WTBTS is not the organization that's involved and does not protect individual elders (they are not barristers or lawyers to the elders)?

  How is it that the elders for three years refused to cooperate with the police? All the police can do in respects to this matter is ask the elders to make a statement. Whether they choose to make a statement or not, this conversation would take place over the course of a few minutes, not a few years. It's questionable whether the information sought by the investigating officer(s) was needed to bring a charge because of what is stated here;

  "But Newcastle Crown Court heard he had secretly confessed to the abuse to the elders."

  Up to this point, the elders didn't make a statement, so the police obviously had the same information.

  If the courts needed the elders to testify for a conviction, this is an option. The position taken by the elders was to testify if they have a legal obligation to do so. The elder's position is black and white. This article makes it sound like the law is not definitive on this matter, therefore, the law is gray.

  If an arrangement exists where a person will speak to you in confidence provided it stays that way, it's best that the law dictate what's in the public's best interest if what was stated in confidence should be disclosed.

  When it comes to some matters, if a person can't speak to you in confidence, they're not going to speak to you at all.
• 

  Prime

  Just because there are no mandatory reporting laws in England, Wales and Scotland (Northern Ireland does) does not mean that the UK government is silent on the subject.

  On the contrary there are recommended best practice guidelines - "What to do if you're worried a child is being abused"

  One of the first directions is:

  10.2 Remember that an allegation of child abuse or neglect may lead to a criminal investigation, so don’t do anything that may jeopardise a police investigation, such as asking a child leading questions or attempting to investigate the allegations of abuse.

  Perhaps Prime (or anyone else) can explain how the Watchtower Society child protection policy complies with this basic initial instruction?

  The victim in this case was not a child. This is par for the course when a victim tells something to an elder. Victims come forward as adults about abuse that occurred years ago.

  To be applicable, the instruction would read;

  "What to do if an adult comes to you about abuse that occurred years ago"

  No where in the guidelines does it bring such circumstances into question.

  "There is no mandatory reporting law in the UK as there is in some other countries: the relevant statutory guidance allows heads to exercise a degree of discretion about what to report."

  There is reason to exercise a degree of discretion when it's adults telling you things. It's unlikely that a child would bring anything to an elder, but even if it is not a child, but a minor who is sixteen for example, the elders are instructed not to pursue the matter in anyway before contacting a branch office.
• 

  cofty

  Prime - If a person confesses to you that they molested a child and subsequently refuses to confess to the police, then they are a significant danger to children.

  Your moral obligation to report them and stand as witness against them in a court is not even open to negotiation.

  The only reason you can't see this is because you are an apologist for a religious cult that has an appalling reputation for child abuse.

  If you can't see that your policies that were intended to protect your reputation is backfiring spectacularly then you are blind.
• 

  LisaRose

  The only reason you can't see this is because you are an apologist for a religious cult that has an appalling reputation for child abuse.

  Either that or an apologist for child molesters in general. He would not be the first dub apologist who seems to be mainly interested in disproving accusations of this type. It really makes you wonder what his motivation is.
• 

  wannaexit

  Well said LisaRose
• 

  Refriedtruth
• 

  Prime

  Prime - If a person confesses to you that they molested a child and subsequently refuses to confess to the police, then they are a significant danger to children.

  Your moral obligation to report them and stand as witness against them in a court is not even open to negotiation.

  The only reason you can't see this is because you are an apologist for a religious cult that has an appalling reputation for child abuse.

  If you can't see that your policies that were intended to protect your reputation is backfiring spectacularly then you are blind.

  I already stated that personally, I would have turned the confession over to the police. There are elders that have turned over a confession to investigating officers. It's a matter of public record. You and others are drawing a distinction between what's legal and what is moral. Society has a whole decides what is legal based on moral principles. If something isn't incorporated into law, it's for one of two reasons. One, society views it as a moral right or it isn't a danger to society. Two, it's a trivial matter and doesn't need to be addressed by the legal system.

  Once a person that's a danger to society has been turned over to the police, from that point on, society is protected unless a suspect cannot be charged. A confession to a religious leader is not needed to charge a person. It can be useful to the legal system to convict a person, that's why the elders were called in to testify. The elders testified and fulfilled their moral and legal obligations. The confession related to this matter was acquired strictly because of religious reasons. In a circumstance like this, it's best to allow the authorities to bridge the separation of church and state.

  As for the reputation of Jehovah's Witnesses, a person or organization's reputation isn't based on what people like yourself say, even if you say it to the media and they repeat it.
• 

  Prime

  Phizzy: I never said that you accused him of a crime, and you are deliberately avoiding the fact that asking someone such a question with no evidence, is both provocative and pointless. What do you expect him to say? Exactly, so please don't pretend it was a 'fair question'. Anyway, when people ask trolls to back up their claims, they tend to dissappear. No need to provoke..

  I was occupied with something else on Thursday and Friday, like work. You would think anyone with a job would understand. I'll rephrase my statement. Most people in the United States do not agree with the Prime Minister's position and there are persons in the U.K. that have proven his approach to be ineffective.
• 

  Prime

  It is shocking that the Society is happy to hide behind a suggestion that victims are never prevented from reporting an accusation themselves is sufficient. There is no direction to ensure the victim does this. There is no direction to support them in doing so. There is no direction to even make the suggestion. There is no direction to ensure the victim is assured of the Elders' support in doing this. There is every chance that this option will not be freely offered. There is every chance that this option will be presented with very strong overtones of disapproval. There is every chance that any elder who acts in a decisive and morally sound way shall lose the support of the majority, if not all, of his fellows and even the branch.

  Most persons are completely aware of how to report a crime to the authorities. If a person needs direction and support for any reason, they will receive this from the elders and congregation. Many churches publish information that instructs others how to reach out to victims of abuse. There's quite a bit of information in the Watchtower and Awake! magazine on the subject. If you're referring to an institutionalized resource, like a department on a college campus to help victims of date-rape, that's generally not something you'll find in a church.
• 

  cofty

  The elders testified and fulfilled their moral and legal obligations

  They resisted for two years.

  Are you ignorant of the facts or are you a liar?