Posts by OrphanCrow

49

ARC Case Study 54 - Witness List published for 10 March 2017

by jwleaks in

http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

.

OrphanCrow

Fisherman, you invalidate yourself. Every time you try to defend the indefensible, you do a fine job of invalidating yourself.

32

Baptism at 10 years of age! March 2017 broadcast

by stuckinarut2 in

(i wanted to put this in the child abuse section of the forum!).

we have seen that during the march 2017 broadcast, m stephen lett has openly praised children who get baptised as young as 10!.

so lets summarize why it is wrong to push child baptism (not far off "infant baptism" that jws condemn other churches for).

OrphanCrow

Listener: When they discussed those disassociating as being an adult or close to adulthood they were probably being correct. That is the absurdity of the situation.
How is an 11 year old going to dissassociate or even have the comprehension of what that is? Just imagine the reaction of the parents to say the least.

That's true. But O'Brien claimed that those who disassociated had made their baptism choice when they were adults or approaching adulthood. He wasn't talking about the age at the time of disassociation - he was talking about their age at the time of baptism.

49

ARC Case Study 54 - Witness List published for 10 March 2017

by jwleaks in

http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

.

OrphanCrow

dubstepped: Did anyone else notice the accidental cutaway to Angus laughing at them? I loved that.

I missed that...oh, please, when did that happen? What was being discussed?

I might have to watch the whole thing again just to see that

80

ARC Live Streaming site ?

by Gayle in

jw
friends

what is the exact live streaming site for the arc today in sydney?

i hope someone or more here will be watching and giving info/quips throughout the case.

also, will someone here or elsewhere be able to 'save' a video of this (all or part).

OrphanCrow

jwleaks: Don't be fooled by Watchtower's strategy. They knew it was a short hearing and they merely tried to run down the time. Their strategy failed. Did you notice that every single time the Watchtower was caught out on a dumb reference, or some unrelated out-of-date reference, they had a reply already prepared. Spinks and O'Brien already had the answer to the error and mumbled on for as long a possible. Neither Spinks nor O'Brien needed to use the Ringtail to review the reference under discussion. This is no coincidence. They knew the answer because they had rehearsed.
Watchtower merely presented in their statements, submissions and letters as a string of red herrings. They wanted the ARC to focus on these red herrings. The ARC was not fooled but gave them enough rope.

Point taken. You are right. Their supposed stupidity is just a reflection of their disdain for everybody not of their special circle.

The strategy seemed fairly clear. Walk in to the hearing with an incomplete procedure manual in hand and then get the commission all bogged down in the little details that they didn't finish properly. The WT duo did the predictable - they floundered around, flopping and squirming, and tried to drown everyone in minutiae and legalese. But you are right - a lot of their blubbering around was designed to stall and not say anything at all.

Not once did the WT reps offer a single word of apology. Instead, O'Brien insisted that the WT did not accept the commission's evaluation that the WT did, indeed, fall within the terms of reference of the Commission. He kept insisting that the WT was going to pay out redress if the claim was "institutional abuse". So we already know what their defense for resisting a redress scheme is - they are going to claim the WT was not responsible in cases of "familial abuse", in spite of the commission already addressing that in their final report.

The WT must be the only institution so far that hasn't offered a word of apology to the victims and have turned up, after two years, with basically nothing in hand other than a couple letters from headquarters to deal with the numerous deficiencies that were revealed after the first hearing.

Two witness rule - the WT is standing like a rock on that one. Totally disregarding the scriptures that allow for cases without that rule

Shunning - Blame the victim for that one. It's their fault. The victim is choosing to shun the congregation

Women - no. no. no. no. no. And did we say no? NO.

Victim facing the accuser - oh. okay. In special circumstances. Maybe.

Transparency - we're working on it. We have a handbook almost ready - can you tell us what to put in here? You know...take up valuable time ironing all the tiny details we haven't done yet

Redress: Sure. But only if the case is defined by us, the WT, as falling in the terms of reference. The WT will decide if they are to blame

Reporting: we will tell the victim they have the right to do so

Apology to victims: ....huh? what? an apology?

80

ARC Live Streaming site ?

by Gayle in

jw
friends

what is the exact live streaming site for the arc today in sydney?

i hope someone or more here will be watching and giving info/quips throughout the case.

also, will someone here or elsewhere be able to 'save' a video of this (all or part).

OrphanCrow

jwfacts: Seriously Terry, what were you thinking?

He probably got his "spiritual instructions" from Jackson.

"Make sure you pull those scriptures out and make sure you recite them. Out loud. That will give you magical protection from those big bad guys at the ARC. Guaranteed, with the Glorious Ones' seal of approval, to put Satan behind you"

80

ARC Live Streaming site ?

by Gayle in

jw
friends

what is the exact live streaming site for the arc today in sydney?

i hope someone or more here will be watching and giving info/quips throughout the case.

also, will someone here or elsewhere be able to 'save' a video of this (all or part).

OrphanCrow

The worst, though, the very very worst of the whole performance was when O'Brien pulled out his silver sword and gave a witness to the room. And to everyone watching.

He read a frikking bibble scripture!

Painful, utterly painful

80

ARC Live Streaming site ?

by Gayle in

jw
friends

what is the exact live streaming site for the arc today in sydney?

i hope someone or more here will be watching and giving info/quips throughout the case.

also, will someone here or elsewhere be able to 'save' a video of this (all or part).

OrphanCrow

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

11

Taped Broadcast of March 10, 2017 ARC hearing - youtube

by OrphanCrow in

thank you to john redwood for making this available so quickly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzqvj0z7_ya.

OrphanCrow

Thank you to John Redwood for making this available so quickly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZqVj0z7_yA

80

ARC Live Streaming site ?

by Gayle in

jw
friends

what is the exact live streaming site for the arc today in sydney?

i hope someone or more here will be watching and giving info/quips throughout the case.

also, will someone here or elsewhere be able to 'save' a video of this (all or part).

OrphanCrow

MuddyWaters: And LOVED the point about the age of consent, and that if the law had a specific limit for that, then why not simply follow the law...? (They were talking about a minor who could be found "guilty" of sexual misconduct because they would be close to the legal age... And Mr. Steward and McClellan tried to press them on what, exactly, would be an age considered to be "responsible" (or giving consent)....?

I think that O'Brien inadvertently answered that later in his testimony. When the issue of shunning following disassociation was being discussed, he made the remark that someone who was baptized had made that commitment when they were an adult or "approaching adulthood" (the exact same phrase used in the first discussion concerning age of consent). So, O'brien said that baptism was done by those "approaching adulthood" - not yet adults but close. How close? See this thread here for boasting in the March 2017 of children getting baptized at ten years of age.

If that is the litmus test of "approaching adulthood" - the age of baptism - it isn't difficult to see where the problem lies.

The WTS promotes a distorted understanding of "child" and "adult".

When will it resume??

I think that was it. There were only the two witnesses presenting. They did that - they answered all the questions - well, sort of and not at all sometimes, badly mostly - and now we wait to see if the Commission responds. I would think that will take a bit of time for them to put together, if that is the plan.

The WT duo said the WTS has a publication about to be released - that is supposed to be out shortly. A procedural handbook for congregation members on how to handle child abuse. For Australia only

32

Baptism at 10 years of age! March 2017 broadcast

by stuckinarut2 in

(i wanted to put this in the child abuse section of the forum!).

we have seen that during the march 2017 broadcast, m stephen lett has openly praised children who get baptised as young as 10!.

so lets summarize why it is wrong to push child baptism (not far off "infant baptism" that jws condemn other churches for).

OrphanCrow

stuckinarut: (I wanted to put this in the child abuse section of the forum!)

After watching the ARC hearing tonight, it certainly could belong in that section.

O'Brien claimed that anyone who got baptized was either an adult or "approaching adulthood" and so they came under shunning sanctions if they disassociated.

Obviously, baptism at 10 years of age indicates a refusal to accept the legal definition of "minor" if they think that a ten year old is "approaching adulthood".

The WTS fosters a distorted view of "child" and "adult". No wonder they have a hard time defining appropriate relationships within their congregations.