MuddyWaters: And it was bizarre to hear O'Brien talking about "redress" or money going to be given to WT's victims of child sexual abuse to help them with their care or counselling.
At the end, it looked like McClellan seemed almost eager to unleash some punitive measures, you could see him flexing his hands and getting ready to give WT a good what-for. Did anyone else get that impression...?
I think McClelland was responding to O'Brien taking the position that the WTS rejects the Commission's scope of their terms of reference applying to them. In the report the ARC released, they rejected the WTS' claim that most of the cases were familial and they shouldn't be included under "institutional abuse". The Commission had made it clear that they did not accept the WTS' position yet here they were - asserting that the ARC was still wrong and they are right. O'brien went down with the ship.
I think that the WTS is going to try to use that argument for not paying out redress to claims - that they weren't responsible. That is wasn't part of the "terms of reference" that the WTS seems to think they have the right to determine.
finallysomepride: Just watched the Uniting Church reply, what a huge contrast, they make jws look like idiots
They are idiots.
They don't even have a clue as to how to properly reference and source material. They just did like they always do - they threw some sort of obscure, barely related source material down at the bottom of the page and hoped nobody would follow it up. And, when they were called out on their dumb reference, they offered some dumb excuse. But they can't admit that they are just stupid and don't know correct referencing styles and formats.
They exist in WT land and WT speak world and can't for the life of them figure out why nobody is buying their shit