Mephis

Joined

• started 3 topics
• posted 956 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Mephis

• 
  11

  What happened with Dr. Applewhite's supplementary report? Mistery solved

  by Viva la Vida in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  542 on 16 august 2015, dr applewhite wrote to the legal representative of watchtower.

  australia and advised that she was unable to prepare a supplementary statement due.

  to other commitments.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mephis

  It's from p.117 of counsel's submission to ARC ttdtt.
• 
  60

  Watchtower's response to Royal Commission shows they have learned nothing and will do nothing

  by wannaexit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've quickly read through watchtower's submission to the royal commission.

  seems like they aren't planning to change policy anytime soon.

  they are critical of how the royal commission handled the situation.. the tone is of the submission is shear arrogance.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mephis

  steve2 - they've been specifically directed to go away and consider the problems raised during the hearings and to find solutions to propose, courses of action to take to prevent the issues identified during the hearing from arising again. Their answer has been "we don't have problems" and "we need you to write us a law to tell us to do what we already know responsible adults should do". Agree there's face-saving going on, but until they accept there are problems then the response and culture internally will continue to put children at risk. And that's the bottom line which needs addressing, and won't be based upon their response here. They have the opportunity to work with experts to create policies and procedures which will help, but there's not a hint of them even considering that direct recommendation already made by a commissioner. They're willfully negligent because they want to dictate to people whilst refusing to accept responsibility for what they say.

  edit: Just something to keep in mind, even the one thing which they say they've stopped has actually given cause to a Charity Commission investigation in Britain dating from events last year. It's actions and practice as well as the blizzard of letters sent out which matter.
• 
  60

  Watchtower's response to Royal Commission shows they have learned nothing and will do nothing

  by wannaexit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've quickly read through watchtower's submission to the royal commission.

  seems like they aren't planning to change policy anytime soon.

  they are critical of how the royal commission handled the situation.. the tone is of the submission is shear arrogance.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mephis

  The difference between Jackson attempting to appear accommodating and willing to think through the issues and seek resolutions and the submission they've put in is very striking.

  Thought it may be of use to put what they wish the findings to say in one consolidated block. I'm taking the findings from 1 to 3 and then 39 onwards as being 'general'. It's horrifying how far away they are from accepting what a commissioner has already advised them should be happening.

  F.3 The Jehovah’s Witness organisation may receive approximately three or four calls a month about child sexual abuse. No evidence was presented to determine if these reports involved non-Witness perpetrators, occurred before the wrongdoer’s association with Jehovah’s Witnesses, if the report was historical in nature, or if it was in fact pertaining to actual child sexual abuse.

  F.39 The Australia Branch has authority to produce documents, seminars, letters to elders and letters to publishers in matters relating to its local jurisdiction as long as such do not express any view or perspective contrary to the Bible.

  F.40 The Australia Branch has authority to produce documents, seminars, letters to elders and letters to publishers in matters relating to its local jurisdiction as long as such do not express any view or perspective contrary to the Bible.

  F.41`Jehovah’s Witnesses have not and do not presently, require the survivor of a sexual assault to make his/her allegation in the presence of the person whom he or she accuses of having assaulted him or her, unless the survivor wishes to do so; and Jehovah’s Witnesses have acknowledged the need for this position to be clearly documented

  F.42 In the case of any alleged serious sin, including child abuse, judicial committees are formed on the basis of the Scriptural standard of evidence of either a confession or substantiation by two or more witnesses. – Proverbs 28:13; Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19

  Based on the testimony of the two survivor witnesses: (i) Although BCB did not feel supported overall, her testimony was that [an elder involved in Scriptually caring for her accusation] was “very kind and supportive. He told me that what has happened was not my fault and that I shouldn’t blame myself”; and (ii) Although BCG felt unsupported when her allegations of child sexual abuse against her father, BCH, were not Scripturally established at the time of the first congregation judicial hearing, it should be noted that BCH was found guilty of the sexual abuse of his daughter by the congregation appeal committee within the following two weeks

  F.45 Jehovah’s Witnesses should continue to make clear their long-standing policy that, where desired, a victim may provide evidence remotely or by way of a written statement to elders investigating and to those subsequently handling an allegation of child abuse.

  F.58 Jehovah’s Witnesses respect the right of a survivor or victim of abuse (or their parent or guardian) to decide for him or herself whether or not to report the abuse to the authorities.

  F.60 The Scripturally-based beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses require that they obey the laws pertaining to child abuse. In jurisdictions that require it, they obey laws requiring the reporting of such allegations to the authorities. Elders of Jehovah’s Witnesses will obey any newly enacted laws requiring ministers of religion to report allegations of child abuse.
  
  F.64 There may be a risk of contamination of a survivor’s evidence as a result of the number of times and circumstances in which a survivor is required to divulge the detail of her complaint before her abuse is, if ever, reported to the authorities.

  F.69 A Jehovah’s Witness who no longer wants to be subject to the organisation’s rules and discipline may simply stop associating with the congregation without formally disassociating from the faith.

  F.71 The opinions expressed by Dr Applewhite in paragraphs 36, 45 and 46 of her report are accepted.

  F.72 Dr Applewhite’s report contains a small number of inconsequential factual errors with regard to her documenting of the relevant practices and procedures of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

  F.73 Dr Applewhite’s report is therefore accepted.

  McClellan's words to their counsel on day 152 are worth contrasting with what the JWs think the commission should report.

  "But the starting point is to identify where you or your client accepts the problems are - and some of those are blatantly obvious from the words, not according to the practice, and then, moving on from there, what steps your client might take to bring its processes and its documentation up to an appropriate position."

  According to the dubs, there aren't any problems to accept beyond making sure they state more clearly survivors don't *have* to confront their abusers.

  Where does one even start with such grotesque idiocy from them?
• 
  72

  My RC hearing brought forward. Will be in two weeks

  by umbertoecho in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  through this forum of wonderful freaks, i have met someone who is coming with me to my hearing.

  initially i was slated for next year, but will be attending in two weeks time.

  all is in place from travel vouchers, support, where to go ............very efficient and well done.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mephis

  1.) If the view of the GB is that elders' consciences should move them to report, then they should explicitly give guidance to elders saying that. Write it down, no weasel wording, but a direct message to elders: "Your personal conscience is very important. Use it regardless of whether or not the law specifically obliges you to try and protect children. You are responsible before Jehovah for your own actions and inaction. Take advice from those qualified to give it on child protection issues, which the service desk is not, and act accordingly."

  2.) A formal and fully documented procedure for elders to follow when child abuse is reported to them should be written for each different jurisdiction which takes into account both local law but, more importantly, that this is about protecting children as the priority. The 'sin' aspect of things comes after that. A long way after that.

  3.) Involve recognised outside child protection experts in creating a curriculum and training course for elders. Allow them to provide it at elders' schools. This will help to raise awareness as well as give elders outside perspective of the issues involved and the need to pass things to people who can help appropriately. Regularly seek updated perspectives from child protection professionals on amendments to policies - review of what is effective and what isn't is important.

  4.) Acknowledgement of there being an issue publicly. Openly admit the problems being faced and what is being done to solve them. No weasel wording. No passing the buck. An acceptance that they are a hierarchical religion and a willingness to accept they have a duty of care, sometimes legally but most definitely morally. An apology to those they've failed and public statement of what steps they are now going to be taking to try and ensure it doesn't happen again.

  Sorry I can't be more practical with suggestions, and it's sad that even those will have little chance of being approved by Brooklyn. If someone keeps closing the curtains on the inside, it's hard to get sunlight from the outside.
• 
  60

  Watchtower's response to Royal Commission shows they have learned nothing and will do nothing

  by wannaexit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've quickly read through watchtower's submission to the royal commission.

  seems like they aren't planning to change policy anytime soon.

  they are critical of how the royal commission handled the situation.. the tone is of the submission is shear arrogance.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mephis

  In case of emergency, claim persecution...

  "Jehovah’s Witnesses consider, however, that some of the criticisms made by Counsel Assisting go beyond what is necessary to assist the Commission in fulfilling its task or what is required by the Terms of Reference. They appear to be unjustified attacks on Jehovah’s Witnesses as a faith and the individual members thereof. These attacks seem to be the result of misinterpretations of the beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses and of the Bible and the law."

  Wryly amused that that they even try to disagree with points where the commissioner has already told them they have issues.

  But morally bankrupt leadership yet again. They claim they assume elders will be moved by their conscience to report, whilst being absolutely adamant that they need mandated reporting because it's just too difficult for them to say it explicitly and actively put elders through a process to figure out whether or not they're legally obliged to report.

  More of the same on other issues. Whitewashed graves as one chap was meant to have phrased it.
• 
  75

  Australian Royal Commission Findings released

  by Mephis in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  will just post the general findings by counsel for the commission (angus stewart) - case specific ones are prior to them.

  in short, absolutely damning.. not been through every submission myself yet.

  available for download here: http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.aspx.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mephis

  I'm reading through the JW rebuttal, because that's what they've done, of the suggested findings. Incredible attitude from them. They're now claiming:

  "Irrespective of whether a parent or guardian of an abused child takes responsible action, if a congregation elder believes that children are at risk, then the elder can inform the authorities so that children are protected." (which cites Jackson's evidence to support it)

  "The safety of the victim and other children is paramount. In cases where the parent or guardian of a minor fails to take necessary measures to protect the child, a congregation elder can inform the authorities for the protection of the child or other children."

  But they need mandated reporting, which allows no loopholes for them to avoid reporting, because they firmly believe in the right of the family to be free from interference in such matters? Which is it? The whole point of mandated reporting is to place child safety first. That's why we report. Because Brothers Dimwit and Footinmouth really aren't best qualified to be making those calls.

  Deeply bizarre response from them. Not unexpected. But, even so, how can they be so willfully blind?
• 
  75

  Australian Royal Commission Findings released

  by Mephis in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  will just post the general findings by counsel for the commission (angus stewart) - case specific ones are prior to them.

  in short, absolutely damning.. not been through every submission myself yet.

  available for download here: http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.aspx.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mephis

  Used an old account to upload to googledrive. Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6Yoi3LAtDtBeHdrN2pVcVhoZ0U/view
• 
  75

  Australian Royal Commission Findings released

  by Mephis in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  will just post the general findings by counsel for the commission (angus stewart) - case specific ones are prior to them.

  in short, absolutely damning.. not been through every submission myself yet.

  available for download here: http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.aspx.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mephis

  You'd probably need to upload to an FB group, unless you wanted to mess about taking screenshots of a pdf and posting those. Other option is to upload to somewhere like google drive and link to there.
• 
  75

  Australian Royal Commission Findings released

  by Mephis in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  will just post the general findings by counsel for the commission (angus stewart) - case specific ones are prior to them.

  in short, absolutely damning.. not been through every submission myself yet.

  available for download here: http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.aspx.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mephis

  Reason link is to the main link page for downloads from ARC is I know I don't particularly like hitting a link and finding large pdf files downloading. Other people's mileage may vary. There are also multiple submissions, including that of the JWs, available for download too.
• 
  75

  Australian Royal Commission Findings released

  by Mephis in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  will just post the general findings by counsel for the commission (angus stewart) - case specific ones are prior to them.

  in short, absolutely damning.. not been through every submission myself yet.

  available for download here: http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.aspx.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mephis

  And this is just proves how clueless, and tacitly culpable, the governing body have been with this issue down the years - and to have the brazen cheek to go on their tv show and call it 'apostate lies'. They have no shame.

  "F67 The practices and procedures of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation for the prevention of
  child sexual abuse, and in particular for the management of the risk of an abuser reoffending,
  do not take account of the actual risk of an offender reoffending and accordingly place
  children in the organisation at significant risk of sexual abuse."