It was a good watch....Gilles admitted no training to elders formally on child abuse which is a requirement for a charity...interesting times.
IICSA hearings resume next week
by Corney 32 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
slimboyfat
Well I listened to most of the testimony this morning,
First thing to say is that it sounds to me as if Gillies (and Watchtower) would very much welcome the introduction of mandatory reporting in the UK, and he says they would fully comply with such a law, as they do in Ireland. So in the interests of seeking a solution to the situation I think it could only benefit all concerned if there was mandatory reporting. We might wish that Watchtower would do the decent thing in any case, and report all allegations to the police, but they are simply not willing to do so for whatever reason. If a law change is what they need (Gillies comes close to requesting a law change to get them out of this situation) then why not just give it to them?
A number of his answers were very unsatisfactory. He gave no clear answer to the question of whether there was official instruction not to separate children from parents during field service. It seems there is no such instruction, but he would not give a straight answer. My recollection is that children were often assigned to work with other adults. This should be an easy change to implement, and new instruction to elders to keep parents with children on field ministry. I can’t see any reason why Watchtower don’t implement this policy change immediately. Instead Gillies stressed the responsibility of parents at all times. This did not address the specific question.
The other question Gillies avoided was, if victims are not required to confront abusers, then why are there many examples of victims being asked to confront abusers in judicial meetings? When presented with cases where exactly this occurred Gillies countered that victims were not “required” to participate in the judicial process. This is a completely unsatisfactory response. Of course no one can be forced to participate in any church process. That is not the point. The point is that during judicial process victims have been brought into the same room as abusers and sometimes questioned by abusers. This is totally inappropriate and should never happen. Gillies’ avoidance of this specific point is concerning.
-
notsurewheretogo
I noted too how Gillies "skirted" around many questions with his answers not answering the actual questions.
It sadly does not have the same impact as Angus did in the Australian questioning.
-
Phizzy
Right at the end Gillies is asked if he attended a seminar in 2017 about destroying JW Org Documents and Records, headed by one Shaun Bartlett.
Gillies all of a sudden cannot recall, yet throughout his Testimony his art of recall has been excellent, quoting document numbers etc with ease, but he cannot recall this Seminar in 2017 ?
Gillies is The Slippery Snake indeed !
-
slimboyfat
Wow, is the lecture by Shaun Bartlett about disposing of documents online? (I seem to recall watching this a couple of years ago, so it must be out there somewhere.) If Watchtower is unwilling to supply it, then are others in a position to do so?
Gillies is obviously uncomfortable admitting that Watchtower internally views legal challenges as originating with “Satan”. But it is entirely plausible that Watchtower leaders talk this way in private. The question is, have we got it on film?
-
Fadeaway1962
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jBPZL2SiNj4&feature=emb_title
Here's the video copied it from Reddit, hope it works.
-
slimboyfat
Thanks. It would have been good if they could have played the tape to Gillies and asked for comment.
I’m not convinced the example Bartlett offered wasn’t fabricated. It sounds like a made up story. “A brother said ‘I have a hand written note in a drawer’”. Mmm. 🤔
We can well imagine what kinds of context documents could be legally significant.
-
slimboyfat
I think it’s interesting to note that, despite the fact that Bartlett is speaking to sympathetic insiders in this context, presumably with reasonable expectation that the comments would remain private (wrongly, in the end, but reasonable) nevertheless he didn’t feel he could be entirely candid with his own fellow believers about the purpose of document destruction. He does mention Satan using legal means to attack the organisation, and he can probably rely on his audience to take the hint that he is referring to abuse claims. Nevertheless when it comes to citing a specific example, he offers a scenario suggesting the prudence of document destruction that is sufficiently distant from the crucial area of concern as not to explicitly tie his instructions to dispose of documents to the suppression of evidence in abuse cases. -
Anders Andersen
It would have been good if they could have played the tape to Gillies and asked for comment.
By the looks of it the prof had already seen the video on YouTube or at least read a transcript.
He wasn't asking these questions to gain information - he already had the information and knew tha answer to every question he asked. He just wanted Gillies to say it for himself. He wanted Gillies in a certain spot. Just showing him the video could have given him the option to deny it is an official unaltered video.
Now Gillies has to 'find' the recording of the seminar that the prof already knows exists.
Either Gillies had to come back lying and get caught, or he has to present evidence that JW consider legal proceedings as 'Satan out to get us'.
-