apologies if this has been posted already.... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-10/uniting-church-in-australia-apologises-to-victims/8344496.
Richard, you clearly don't know how to read transcripts and how to link information from previous hearings, etc, into what is being said at this point.
That's too bad - you seem to have a fairly decent memory for details and such...but your comprehension score is way low. You can't put the big picture together. You don't really understand what it is that you read or hear. You think you do...but you don't
apologies if this has been posted already.... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-10/uniting-church-in-australia-apologises-to-victims/8344496.
*hits head against wall*
ALL of the cases are institutional abuse.
It doesn't matter shit if the abuser was member or not - the case was handled by the WT policies!!!! The WT involved themselves.
apologies if this has been posted already.... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-10/uniting-church-in-australia-apologises-to-victims/8344496.
RO: Or did no one hear that because it wasn't a complete damning of watchtower.
I heard that. But I didn't hear it the same way you did. You seem to think that in some of the cases the WT won't be held responsible. That is clearly wrong.
Even if the abuse isn't "organizational abuse" per se, the WT is still responsible because they stuck their nose in business that should have been turned over to secular authorities to deal with. The WT did NOT handle the cases that wouldn't be considered institutional abuse" in an acceptable way. The WT themselves made those cases into institutional abuse through their deficient policies.
This is what was said:
MR O'BRIEN: Okay. So with regard to the finding of the
Royal Commission, with our bringing in all of the case
files that we had, because of their being investigated, the
finding was that that makes all of them institutional
abuse, even though the greater majority of them were not,
actually, according to the terms outlined in the redress
scheme as being institutional.
So there are two implications for that that I would
see. One of them, for us as an organisation, if the number
of case files is the basis for determining maybe our share
in a redress scheme, we would feel that would be not in the
interests of being fair and adequate, because --
THE CHAIR: You need not worry about that. Your
organisation came clearly within our terms of reference
because we are required to look at the response of your
organisation.
MR O'BRIEN: Certainly, which we don't contest.
THE CHAIR: And that response, of course, when inadequate,
will cause damage to people. You understand that?
MR O'BRIEN: We understand, yes. That's the response.
THE CHAIR: And from the evidence that we have had, that
is likely to have happened. You may not be an
organisational abuser as such, but the response of your
organisation may have compounded, indeed, very much
compounded, the damage to that individual.
As far as the redress scheme is concerned, if it takes
the form, or roughly the form, the Commission has
recommended, your liability will be determined on
a case-by-case basis and you will be contributing on
a case-by-case basis.
There is no where in that exchange that would lead a person to conclude that the "case-by-case" basis has anything to do with whether the WT is at fault. That has already been determined. Beyond question.
as i release a set of hlc letters and documents that i have received, i will add them to this thread.
also, in the future, any other hlc documents will be updated here.
when you see me update, it may be a new letter.
Ah...the HLC has been very busy in their recruitment duties.
The HLC - the recruiting squad for the bloodless industry.
The WT sure works hard at increasing the size of their bloodless cult.
available now in either a pdf or word format:.
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
doubtful: Yes I thought that was a nit of a lie.
I think it was more than just a lie. I think O'Brien's response is indicative of how he views the lowly congregants. They don't exist - they are incidental. He said "everybody" because those who do have access to all those libraries that jwleaks posted are, in O'Brien's mind, the only ones who count.
available now in either a pdf or word format:.
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
jwleaks: There are a number of different Watchtower Library versions. What version you are authorized to have access to depends on how high up the Watchtower corporate ladder or JW religious hierarchy you are.
Thanks, jwleaks. So that means that not "everybody", as O'Brien claims, has access to magazines going back to 1930.
These WT guys are such weasels
available now in either a pdf or word format:.
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
I don't read "The Watchtower Library" that O'Brien speaks about in this following exchange....but, is it true that The Watchtower Library, with copies of magazines going back to 1930, is accessible to everyone? Anytime I have wanted to access historical WT or Awake magazines, I have to search for them in places other than the org's website - older literature is not available on their site
MR O'BRIEN: No, I think the average member of
a congregation has exhaustive references to what we call
The Watchtower Library and subjects such as those you have
mentioned are considered in Watchtower articles that
everyone has access to.
MR STEWART: And many of those going back over a long
period of time?
MR O'BRIEN: And recent, yes. The most recent, back to,
I think, as far as 1930.
available now in either a pdf or word format:.
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.
Available now in either a pdf or word format:
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4522599/i-was-dead-to-them-how-lara-escaped-the-jehovahs-witnesses-cult/?cs=4173.
'i was dead to them': how lara escaped the jehovah's witnesses 'cult'.
rachel brownemarch 10, 2017. three decades ago jodi*'s family were searching for a better life for themselves and their four children, well away from the gritty inner-city high rise apartment they called home.. the family packed up their belongings and moved to rural victoria where they planned to start anew.. then one morning a pair of jehovah's witnesses knocked on the door to spread the word of the watchtower bible and tract society.
darkspliver: But the link to the SMH in the above post is dead now
What are you going on about?
Both links that Barbara posted work. Maybe try clicking directly on top of them. I know that tech is hard, but just hit the blue words. You will figure it out.
Do you have a personal problem with Barbara's posts? You seem to whine about a lot of them
with all the legalese being tossed around, and the expert manipulation on the part of the wtbts, who can explain why the "two witness" is being perverted by the wtbts?
i don't care if you're a bible believer and want to approach this from a biblical standpoint, or if you simply use logic and reason.
how would you explain this subject to a j-dub, or even a non-dub?.
Fisherman: In this hypothetical case, the testimony of 2 witnesses was necessary to establish the truthfulness of the accusations of idolatry.
Exactly. That is how serious 'God' viewed those who dissented from the ways of the culture being established at the time. Anyone who didn't follow the same ways were to be put to death. Loyalty was prized and disloyalty was punished with the most serious punishment of all - death.
And then the scripture goes on to speak of other judicial matters - the matters that are common to all societies. Ones that don't require death penalty (disfellowshipping).
Disfellowshipping/death was the punishment for not believing in the same god. Death isn't mentioned for the other sins/crimes.
And that reveals how cruel the WT actually is. They disfellowship for any and all perceived minor sins/crimes. They stone the sinner. They have perverted the original meaning of the law.
And, they are using that law to take secular law decisions into their own hands. That isn't cool. They have no authority to do so.
