by mrmagic 20 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
Thank you for answering my question mrmagic.
Regarding the question you raised in your OP, I have never heard of an elder being deleted specifically for abiding by JW organization's own policies and procedures on responding to allegations of child sexual abuse.
I wonder how the elders in the New Moston, Manchester, England case are faring? The ones that sparked the UK Charity Commission investigation - because they made the sex abuse survivors testify against their abuser face to face - which in turn has made the national news and mainstream media this week?
If it suits the branch they will have parts on the assembly program. Also if it suits the branch they will be demoted. I guess the branch will do neither for the time being.
I don't think the branch is at the stage (i.e. under enough fire) where it is expedient to demote them ... yet.
Perhaps it's time for him to move overseas or report what is happening to the police as it sounds like hate crime
I wonder how the elders in the New Moston, Manchester, England case are faring? The ones that sparked the UK Charity Commission investigation - because they made the sex abuse survivors testify against their abuser face to face - which in turn has made the national news and mainstream media this week?
The case is rather complicated and covers a number of years, but...
I didn't think that it was actually the New Moston local elders/trustees that did that? - I thought the ONLY face-to-face meeting was presided over and organised by the 4 member appeal committee, NONE of whom where local elders/trustees, but where (experienced) elders from other congregations?
I thought that was the point - when the local New Moston elders/trustees had organised the previous JCs, they hadn't arranged for face-to-face meetings.
Have I understood the CC Report right?
Depending on what happened, it is entirely possible that individual elders were summoned to a court and lost over an abuse case. In that case, their names are public record and may be reported with pictures in local papers.
Good luck finding a job Joel Mulchansingh, owner of Aldrich Enterprises and William Perkins.
You may want to be careful of what you accuse people publically like on reviews and posting things on social media. Recently a court awarded a photographer over 1 million dollars because the person who hired him denigrated them on social media sites because they weren't happy with the service provided.
Taking retribution out on someone even if they are in the wrong and your in the right may come back and bite you in the butt if they want to make a big deal that you had destroyed their reputation without proof or without them being convicted of doing anything.
The court case listed above is public record. And the fact that it is the newspaper, makes it even more public. In this instance I wouldn't worry.
Geez JD or RO or whoever you are, why do you always want to scare people into not exposing the Watchtower for what it is.
The photgrapher in your example was not charged by anyone, it wasn't a court case, and it was a lie, that is why the $1m was awarded. It's not slander if it's true.
It seems elders are required to follow the WT rules even against their conscience or good sense.
Yet if following the rules results in embarrassment for the organisation then they are liable to be removed.
Public embarrassment is explicitly identified in the elder guidelines as a major consideration for judicial decisions and appointments and deletions. The organisation seems to be worried about being embarrassed almost above all else.
Which is ironic because, like with the Catholic Church, it's often the attempts to avoid embarrassment that bring about the greatest injustices and the greatest embarrassment in the long run.
Depending on what happened, it is entirely possible that individual elders were summoned to a court and lost over an abuse case. In that case, their names are public record and may be reported with pictures in local papers.
But what about when the jury finds the case 'not guilty' - who gets named then? and who doesn't get named?
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5656118292381696/_post/5766182936248320
@darkspilver: The problem in that case was proof. "Putting kids on your lap" and "touching them in sexual areas, but only over their clothes", even though he was not 'guilty' to actual sexual assault, which would have to have required penetration at the time of the offense in that jurisdiction, it is a serious indicator that you're a pedophile.
In case the jury finds the case not guilty, then that will also be in the public records.
