I wonder how many of the investors were JWs too.
Thanks OC, shared elsewhere.
http://m.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/14276665.victims__brainwashed__in___8m_investment_scam/he told investors that his status as a jehovah’s witness meant he was unable to break the law, in an effort to win their trust.. teesside crown court heard how many of the 350 victims were elderly and had been deliberately targeted.some had since died with the stress of the county durham-based fraud having contributed to their ill health, and others had lost homes and life savings.a third man the crown said was involved, anthony kemp, is currently serving a prison sentence in new zealand for a separate but similar fraud, but is expected to be extradited back to the uk to stand trial when he is released.. .
full aricle at link.
I wonder how many of the investors were JWs too.
Thanks OC, shared elsewhere.
another attack on free speech.
love him of hate him i don't believe he is a raciest as so many claim.. tommy had been working for quilliam with other muslims to reform islam.
.
the sunday programme investigates allegations that the jehovah's witness ordered the destruction of documents that could be used during the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse.
was this in contravention of section 21 of the inquiries act 2005 which is punishable by imprisonment?.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0709v34.
I know that evidence about WBTS is being heard.
It's immaterial whether they were directly notified or not, as Godard said in her opening statement, but I doubt there would have been much of relevance destroyed between June and December in any case. Who knows though? Have they ever produced notes as evidence for a criminal or civil trial about child safeguarding in Britain? I was amazed that notes were found for ARC, as I know full well that in Britain such notes would long since have been destroyed. As one of the elders at ARC also confirmed happened to his notes.
----
@konceptual - ah thank you, thought you'd posted some. Apologies if not :)
i did not realize that they were symptoms that something was wrong with my cat -but i did notice that my cat was breathing a little differently for a period of about a few days.
i also noticed prior and after to that, that on occasion, my cat would cry at the litter box, but that was a very seldom event.. anyway, about a week ago i noticed the symptom that my very loved cat was breathing heavy.
so i called a taxi and i was going to rush him to emergency room for cats.
the sunday programme investigates allegations that the jehovah's witness ordered the destruction of documents that could be used during the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse.
was this in contravention of section 21 of the inquiries act 2005 which is punishable by imprisonment?.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0709v34.
I think that this is going to be a can of worms, but I'm retired, most days its raining so it could be a useful pursuit.I was looking at seeing how far I could push it a year or so ago, but my discussions with ICO seemed to highlight a limit in what I personally could do. A subject access request for myself would return little of use, nor anything to trigger further investigation once WBTS had returned the very little they hold on me (personally). Be interesting to see how ICO respond to a more general concern.
the sunday programme investigates allegations that the jehovah's witness ordered the destruction of documents that could be used during the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse.
was this in contravention of section 21 of the inquiries act 2005 which is punishable by imprisonment?.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0709v34.
Section 62 through 64 of the branch handbook is their internal data handling policy. It's nothing amazing, but it's on the ARC website as part of the evidence gathered there. Nothing incredibly unusual other than their assertion that they will never destroy data about a person's status as a JW because that's part of their religion to know.
The British specific policy information is contained in letters from 1999/2000. I know I posted a few, and I'm sure konceptual99 (?) posted more too. It gives what the elders actually do retain after notes have been destroyed. It's not a lot. Sure someone can link. My internet keeps dying (BT sucks) or I would repost.
the sunday programme investigates allegations that the jehovah's witness ordered the destruction of documents that could be used during the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse.
was this in contravention of section 21 of the inquiries act 2005 which is punishable by imprisonment?.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0709v34.
I was disappointed with Rosenberg's comments. He seemed to have missed the point, and got it wrong re paper records.
first if one looks into the place bethel this is where the king of israel sets up golden calves and tells his people here is your god's go here and to dan to worship.
he didn't want his people going all the way down to jerusalem.
he also made his own priests again to take worship away from jerusalem and it's priests the levites.
the sunday programme investigates allegations that the jehovah's witness ordered the destruction of documents that could be used during the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse.
was this in contravention of section 21 of the inquiries act 2005 which is punishable by imprisonment?.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0709v34.
As Joshua Rosenburg ( a big hitter in the U.K legal world) pointed out, these guys have not even studied the Data Protection Act that they are trying to hide behind, and seem not to be aware of a later Act that trumps the DPA and makes it a Criminal Offence if Elders have destroyed evidence.
Rosenburg misunderstood the intent. It's the right of the individual to obtain information under the Data Protection Act which is the reason behind the destruction of files/notes etc, not a misguided belief they are obligated to destroy data.
the sunday programme investigates allegations that the jehovah's witness ordered the destruction of documents that could be used during the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse.
was this in contravention of section 21 of the inquiries act 2005 which is punishable by imprisonment?.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0709v34.
Letters are here. But no names given for who received.
https://www.iicsa.org.uk/news/chair-of-the-inquiry-issues-guidance-on-destruction-of-documents