An ANALYSIS of Watch Tower of Britain’s last (January 2013) Child Safeguarding Policy by Barbara Anderson

by AndersonsInfo 14 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  AndersonsInfo

  An ANALYSIS of Watch Tower of Britain’s last (January 2013) Child Safeguarding Policy by Barbara Anderson

  Last year, I was asked to review Watch Tower of Britain’s Child Safeguarding Policy and its implementation. What I discovered was depressing and disappointing especially because the Policy contained just a single statement (#18) directing elder/Trustees on how to protect children in their congregations from avoidable harm - they were to restrict a repentant abuser “…from being alone in the company of children.” The Policy did not explain what procedures to follow to assure that abusers would obey that rule.
  

  In addition, none of the guidelines discussed in the other twenty-three statements of policy specifically defined what elders should do to protect children in their congregations.
  

  FYI, after Watch Tower submitted their Child Protection Policy to the Charity Commission more cases were reported within UK Jehovah's Witnesses congregations – including one involving a Kingdom Hall Trustee.
  
  

  Read my complete report, although I admit it's lengthy, to see that this so-called Child Safeguarding Policy does not protect children but endeavors to protect Watch Tower of Britain from responsibility and liability.
  
  

  http://watchtowerdocuments.org/watchtowers-child-safeguarding-policy-great-britain-ireland-uk/
• 

  biblexaminer

  I'll have a read Barb. And I'll give you a call regarding the other issue.

  Also, I was watching Jackson's testimony over again. At one point, when being asked the two questions, he contradicted himself. The first question, in my own words, was 'Does the GB make the rules" and the second question was "Does the Branch Coordinators follow these rules "

  I wrote down the times, 00:00 but I don't have them with me. In any case he referred to the Branch Book as "not a constitution" and shortly thereafter openly called it such.

  I hope the Royal Coom. people had their thinking caps on.
• 

  redpilltwice

  Thanks for the effort Barbara. Unbelievable that they still won't see how their "theocratical" policies support the company, but not the victims. Stubborn and injust... it really is time to get the whip!
• 

  steve2

  Well composed analysis, highlighting priority of reputation over safety. You are absolutely correct in noting that expelling an unrepentant child sex offender may protect JW children but does not protect nonWitness children. This is just one shocking example of how little concern JW organizationn has for children's safety. And, as you say, the bigger threat within the organization to children's safety is the "repentant" child sex abuser.

  If JW organization was genuinely concerned about children's safety, its policies would

  clearly stipulate the need to direct parents or caregivers to the authorities .
• 

  darkspilver

  Hi Barbara
  

  WATCH TOWER removed Porter as an elder and Trustee because of molesting more than thirteen little boys, one an 18-month-old baby. He was criminally tried for molestation in 2007. Meanwhile, Porter continued his personal association with WATCH TOWER directors to the consternation of many JWs. The result of the scandal and the complaints to the Commission was the removal by the Commission of three prominent directors on the WATCH TOWER’S Board of Trustees, who lived and worked at headquarters.
  

  Please can you name and provide a link to the relevant page/report on the Charity Commision website regarding the Commission's removal of three WT directors from the Watch Tower Trustees?
  

  Below is the link to the CC's Report into Mill Hill/Porter case, but does not seem to match up with your comments, so there must be another one?
  

  http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090116094840/http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/investigations/inquiryreports/lonmill.asp
  

  In 2014, a British newspaper reported that in the previous four years (starting in 2010), twenty-five Jehovah’s Witness ministers were convicted of child molestation charges in the UK.

  Interesting, which newspaper, date?
• 

  darkspilver

  Hi Barbara!
  

  Interesting analysis - I think lots of people have lots of ideas (including me!) and I really would have preferred you to have done a comparative analysis.
  

  The NSPCC is the UK's National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children and are a well established and respected, main stream charity and organisation.
  

  They have two interesting examples of, presuemably what they consider to be excellent, Child Protection / Safeguarding Policies and Procedures
  

  From June 2016
  

  https://safeguardingtool.nspcc.org.uk/documents/40/Child_protection_policy.pdf

  and, also from June 2016

  https://safeguardingtool.nspcc.org.uk/documents/42/Dealing_with_allegations__made_against_an_employee_volunteer.pdf

  (see page 4: "Reporting an allegation or concern")

  It's interesting to read how they believe these policies should be implemented.

  Any comments?
  
• 

  DATA-DOG

  .."Policy contained just a single statement (#18) directing elder/Trustees on how to protect children in their congregations from avoidable harm - they were to restrict a repentant abuser “…from being alone in the company of children.”

  Wow, that's great and all, but.....

  Does the WTBTS understand the need to protect children from being abused in the first place?!?!? If background checks were mandatory, there may not be any "repentant abusers." There may not be ANY abusers.

  Their delusion disgusts me. I will be even more disgusted if it is proven that their behavior is deliberate, perhaps driven by the need to protect high-ranking pedophiles.

  Mandatory background checks, enforced by ridiculous fines, is the only way to force the WTBTS to comply. They absolutely WILL NOT take the moral and just route.

  
  

  DD
  
  
• 

  cofty

  Thank you Barbara. Marking thread to read carefully later.
• 

  jwleaks

  Great work Barbara.
• 

  nicolaou

  Thank you for such a well prepared report Barbara. I read half of it as I'm rushing off to work but there was so much to be concerned about in Watchtowers policy.

  #14 – If the victim is at risk of further abuse, the authorities are to be immediately contacted

  This is just one example. How do these untrained men determine risk? The lack of professionalism is shocking.

  Will finish reading tonight.