I don't agree with most of what fisherman said but I do agree with his statement "it is the parents responsibility to protect their children." So don't trust your children with es or ms, and by all means no jw indoctrination.
To an extent, yes, there's a fair point. But abuse of children is often perpetrated by those who are in or close to the family circle. So it's something of a problem to say "parents should protect their children" if it's the, for example, father who is abusing his kids. Which is why child safeguarding in outside agencies, especially those where adults assume roles of responsibility, is so important.
The WBTS' argument is that they don't have any responsibility whatsoever. This is not so. Religious leaders assume positions of authority within society, just as secular teachers do, just as law enforcement agents do, and anyone in such a role should have the sense to agree that such responsibility carries obligations too. Especially when it involves children where we (I've been a teacher) may be the person in a position of trust they turn to for help. It is not acceptable for a teacher to turn around and say, "well it's your dad, nothing to do with me." It is not acceptable for a policeman to turn around and say, "well it's your dad, nothing to do with me." It is not acceptable for a social worker to turn around and say, "well it's your dad, nothing to do with me." It is not acceptable for the Pope to turn around and say it to a child. It's not acceptable for the Archbishop of Canterbury to say it to a child. It's not acceptable for the idiots in Brooklyn to say to the children within their religion "what happens within a family is nothing to do with us".
