(I never was a JW).
As a retired child abuse professional, I followed (and continue to do so - it's an ongoing process) the ARC proceedngs closely. My understanding is that the purpose of the ARC is to establish what current practices exist in various organisations and institutions, how those practices compare with accepted best practice, and what organisations and institutions need to do to bring their procedures and policies into line with best practice. (And to find a way to compensate victims for what's been done wrong).
WT is case study #29 in the ARC process. I confess that I have no idea how the other groups have measured up, except from comments by HHJ McClellan - other groups seem to have acknowledged deficiencies and are prepared to improve.
In contrast, WT (as evidenced by its response to Mr Stewart's proposed findings) seems to have gone into completely defensive mode and has missed the point.
The ARC has given WT a golden opportunity - as emphasised by HHJ several times - to accept its shortcomings, to propose changes, to become more mainstream, to do the right thing. So far, it seems, WT wants no part of it and wants to stick with the sad specimens that appeared on behalf of WT to give evidence.
Their choice, of course.
I am minded to compare their stance with that of the Volkswagen Audi Group which has a major PR problem world-wide because of its admitted deceptive practices. It's not dealing with its problems perfectly, of course, but all the commentary I've read suggests that it's on the right lines.
Admit your faults, face up to them, change management if necessary, suggest a way to fix them, compensate victims.
Whether VAG have got it right or not, time will tell. But Toyota had something similar and got over it.
The world has now seen - or has the capability to see - the best that WT has to offer. It's a pretty poor and shoddy best, I submit.