by AndersonsInfo 15 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
I'm actually at the point now where I don't give a shit if rank-and-file JWs believe the Org is in real, legitimate legal trouble or not...
...as long as the Org itself experiences the consequences of their misdeeds, the effects of said legal trouble will be real and legitimate enough.
Geoffrey Jackson didn't even have the guts (or in the words of the GB "faith in Jehovah") to appear in person. He hid in an office, surrounded by helpers, lawyers and gave his testimony via video link. COWARD!
The NZ Royal Commission's Terms of Reference are published: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2018/0223/latest/LMS118772.html
Frankly, I don't understand when "assumed responsibility for the care" (sec. 17.4) exists (apart from religious schools, hospitals, orphanages and similar institutions) and, therefore, whether and to what extent the org falls in scope of the inquiry. I would be grateful for any clarification.
Interestingly, review of charities law was also initiated in NZ, and public consultation for the review will take place over March and April 2019. NB: the definition of "charitable purpose" and tax exemption for charities fall outside of scope of the review.
“Assumed responsibility of care” conceivably covers elders advising parents in local congregations that a fellow believer with a criminal history of sexual crimes against children is in their congregation and/or that parents/guardians are advised in the first instance that they have the right, if not duty, to report allegations of child sexual abuse to secular authorities (in constrast to the practice up until recently of making it clear the elders will investigate the allegations and to “leave the matter in Jehovah’s hands.
AverageJoe1 - "Geoffrey Jackson didn't even have the guts (or in the words of the GB, 'faith in Jehovah') to appear in person. He hid in an office, surrounded by helpers, lawyers and gave his testimony via video link..."
...whilst, of course, letting underlings sweat it out, and look like stammering nitwits.
Here's some words of wisdom for any lurking critics out there...
...if a general gives an order that he doesn't even have the huevos to carry out himself, he has no business being a general.
Not to mention that he failed to answer a single fucking question with genuine, authentic honesty.
At least Fred Franz and Haydon Covington had the balls to own up to the more offensive aspects of WT ideology at the Walsh trial back in the 60s.
