contradictory statements?

aboveusonlysky

I'm always interested to hear what a 'spokesman' for the organization has to say when newspapers report on child abuse issues.

For example the following statement was made in a recent Guardian article.

A spokesman for the Jehovah’s Witnesses said: “We are in no position to, and neither would we wish to, force any victim of abuse to confront their attacker.”

And this is straight from the shepherd the flock book -

(Note: If the accusation involves child sexual abuse and the victim is currently a minor, the elders should contact the branch office before arranging a meeting with the child and the alleged abuser.)

Here's a link to the article

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/12/jehovahs-witnesses-under-pressure-over-handling-of-sexual-abuse-claim

Comments anyone?

_Morpheus

Two thoughts

1) The spokes weasel said "force". Thats their built in escape. They will simply say such meetings wernt "forced".

2) The ks says to call legal before arranging a meeting of that nature. Legal will advise against it.

Im no fan of the goddamn cult but the spokes weasel left enough wiggle room that its not a real gotcha monent

scratchme1010

Comments anyone?

They are filthy liars and pedophile protectors.

smiddy

above..o...s,

Have you had a chance at all to see the video clips of the Australian Royal Commission into Insttutionalised Sexual Abuse ?

The 1006 cases that were never reported to police or child protection authorities over 50 years ? conducted by JC of JW`s x 3 Elders = as much as 3018 Elders who are complicit in being assesorys after the fact of a crime committed against these children .

Where it is brought out that victims were confronted with their abuser in Judicial Committee meetings.and were not believedin most cases.

Heaven

It's Theocratic Warfare. They feel it is ok to lie to anyone who is not a JW when they perceive that Jehovah is about to look bad and possibly have his name dragged through the mud.

Vidiot

"...a meeting with the child and the alleged abuser..."

That one still has me scratching my head.

What the f**k did they ever hope to accomplish by that, except maybe intimidating the child to... recant their... allegations...

Oh.

Saename

There was a letter a few months ago that updated these policies. Victims of sexual abuse no longer have to meet their abusers on Judicial Committees. It is possible that this is why this spokesman said that. He could mean that although victims in the past were forced to meet their abusers, they no longer have to today. They're basically like politicians, avoiding harmful (to them) information.

Heaven

Saename said: There was a letter a few months ago that updated these policies. Victims of sexual abuse no longer have to meet their abusers on Judicial Committees. It is possible that this is why this spokesman said that. He could mean that although victims in the past were forced to meet their abusers, they no longer have to today. They're basically like politicians, avoiding harmful (to them) information.

Which then begs the question why didn't Jehoopla get it right the first time?

contradictory statements?

Share this