Posts by Joe Grundy

74

Breaking News :Charity Commission takes Wathtower to Tribunal in Britain

by raymond frantz in

breaking news :charity commission takes watchtower to charity tribunal in britain.

two weeks ago we run an article about the abuse case in moston manchester congregation .it would seem that the coverage from the main local newspaper manchester evening news and two national newspapers has alarmed the charity commission the official regulator for charities in england and wales and now for the first time !

they opened an official investigation on both charities ,the local one ,moston congragation and the central one jehovah's witnesses of britain indicating that in their eyes these two are connected and liable for any misconduct .this is the time for a concentrated campaign from all of us to inform the charity commission why the watchtower should not be a called a charity .the article above has a link for the charity commission complaint page .follow it!.

Joe Grundy

This is the text of my submission to the Charities Commission. I have made it clear that I never was a dub and have no connection with them.

"I am a retired Detective Inspector, and a Fraud Squad commander with wide experience in child safeguarding issues. My research into WTBTS gives me grave concern re.

1. Institutional policies regarding how allegations of abuse are dealt with as mandated by the organisation

2. The control exercised by the organisation (WTBTS - 1077961) over local congregations (e.g. 1065201) in relation to this matter

3. The obfuscation caused by the parent organisation as to the status of the leaders of the local organisations. It appears that 'deniable' instructions are issued by the parent organisation and that there is a substantial serious lack of transparent accountability in this area - which, in practice and effect, appears to me to go against recommended best practice.

4. (This is not directly connected to PR 48/14 but may be associated). Very recent financial developments vis-a-vis the parent organisation and local organisations suggest a substantial movement of capital (or at least a transfer on balance sheets) which may substantially affect potential damages/compensation claims against the organisation.

I would be happy to discuss this with you further if it would assist."

I will report back if I am contacted for further information. These concerns are at least now officially recorded.

I am happy to make a further submission - factually based, of course (emotions don't help here) - if I have overlooked something.

44

New Financial Arrangements

by Joe Grundy in

dear friends.

i never was a dub.

i am not a qualified lawyer or accountant.

Joe Grundy

I bow to superior Knowledge here and recognise that there are differences between jurisdictions.

If WTBTS (and/or its tentacles) had formal loan agreements against KHs, they would have been assets on the WTBTS balance sheet, liabilities on the KH balance sheet. If that loan is ;forgiven' legally it reduces the WTBTS assets, reduces the KH liabilty. Replaced by a future (unenforcable?) donation payment by the KH, so WTBTS 'donation' income goes up.

I am trying to think this through. No doubt WTBTS have already done so.

Most times I am happy that I have retired. But just now I feel frustrated that I don't have the facility to get behind all this because there are shenanigans going on for sure.

173

Atlanta Int Convention 2014:The Big Party. Does this look like WT believes Armageddon is coming "soon"?

by AndDontCallMeShirley in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=potrr2qxhue.

.. if armageddon is "imminent", why is wt focused on sight-seeing, entertainment, travel, etc.

instead of preaching and saving people??.

Joe Grundy

i wonder if the mansion in Wales (Anglesey) is simply summer accomodation fir the GB member visiting......

I'll be up that way next month. I'll call in and check it out and report back.

44

New Financial Arrangements

by Joe Grundy in

dear friends.

i never was a dub.

i am not a qualified lawyer or accountant.

Joe Grundy

James: Thank you. Appreciated. I feel sometimes that I am not so qualifird to comment here (as a never-was dub) but sometimes needs must.

JeffT: Point taken. One of the differences between 'standard' audits and those undertaken under 'money laundering', RICO. and criminal investigation audits (I have some experience of this in both UK and US federal procedures) is that it is possible to get 'underneath' a lot of standard accounting stuff. I can only speculate but I assume that under current US Homeland Security legislation it is now possible to dig a lot deeper than ever before into accounts, etc.

If, as I understand it, millions of dollars in loans to KHs have been 'forgiven' to be replaced by non-enforceable pledges then that will substantially alter the WTBTS balance sheet.

I bow to your professional view on this. I am perturbed.

Regards

44

New Financial Arrangements

by Joe Grundy in

dear friends.

i never was a dub.

i am not a qualified lawyer or accountant.

Joe Grundy

Dear Friends

I never was a dub. I am not a qualified lawyer or accountant. I was a commander of a police fraud squad for ten years and arrested and took to trial many qualified lawyers and accountants, which often required knowing their 'professional' stuff better than they did. Just setting the background here.

I have followed the new-light financial arrangements as disclosed here on JWN as best I can and (as a disinterested party) I have grave concerns. The 'new light' arrangements are NOT beneficient - there are substantial accounting implications and sure as eggs is eggs this has been fully thought through by WTBTS lawyers and accountants.

The vast majority of dubs won't question things, of course, because they're conditioned not to. Regulatory authorities in various countries may, I suggest, look at WTBTS as just another inconsequential wacky religious sect and thus not worthy of a closer look.

'Something is afoot' as they say. I would encourage any and all who come across financial information to continue to post it. Hopefully things may become clearer.

My personal interest is that I have met and know ex-dubs who have suffered at the hands of the organisation. It is, in my opinion, wicked.

23

Troll Accusations

by Frazzled UBM in

i have noticed that some of us are a bit too eager to label new posters as trolls.

while it is clear that there are some posters who just like to stir up trouble or are out and out apologists there are others who are witnesses starting to have genuine doubts and so ask questions but then when they see the responses the cognitive dissonance kicks in and they push back and argue with what they are being told.

this can lead to very negative reactions from jwn members and accusations that the person is a troll.

Joe Grundy

"What is awesome about JW.net is that anyone can join in the conversation."

This is true, of course - I never was a dub - and is a sobering thought.

In Real Life I rarely (and I always think first) challenge anyone's 'faith' just because that may be the only thing that keeps them 'hanging on'. My own family not excepted.

JWN is a robust forum but it doesn't need to be harsh. Fine if someone appears with harshly-stated views about, for example, creation - they deserve to be challenged. But it can be done politely and rationally and that will probably be more effective than saying 'you're a dickhead, go and research'.

I say this tentatively because I never was a dub and though I do my best to empathise it's not quite the same. But just speaking for myself I'm happy to waste some time pandering politely to potential trolls if the odd genuine poster looking for answers benefits.

30

Big Time Hypocrite

by Iamallcool in

jw
friends

my dad told me this story long time ago.

there was an long time elder that is never married.

he got caught going to brothel one day after a brother followed him there.

Joe Grundy

(I never was a dub.)

Interesting thread and it shows just how religion can complicate things. I recently watched a programme on BBC iplayer about marriage in the Middle Ages. No need for anyone else involved, just the couple exchanging promises and that was that.

It's a fact of life, I think, that people can change over the years and I no longer think that marriage must be for life. My first one was pretty good and lasted for 20+ years but we weren't the same people and divorced amicably and are still amicable. My second was short and bitter-sweet yo a knife-happy Filipina. (Incidentally, the Philippines and Vatican City are the last two countries in the world where there is no divorce).

Interestingly, my fundie protestant brother-in-law told me after my divorce from ex-wife #1 that because I divorced her for adultery (sounds worse than it is - she found a new boyfriend before I found a new girlfriend) I was OK in the eyes of god to remarry. I thanked him for his observations.

Marriage is important, of course, but mainly because it's a legal contract and affects all sorts of stuff. I can respect those with long marriages - but I know couples who live in misery because it would be 'wrong' to separate.

Personally (but then I would say this, wouldn't I?) I don't think that the end of a marriage is a sign of failure, any more than I would say that moving on from long-held religious beliefs is a failure. People change, and we only get one shot at this life. Some gird their loins and move on, some decide to stay with what they know because they are uncomfortable moving into the unknown.

(I have, unusually, restrained myself from mentioning BJs or working girls - 'whores' is pejorative.)

9

Watchtower states, "We must teach them good things"????

by I_love_Jeff in

so we must teach our jw children about destruction???

what is their definition of the word "good"???.

have you all seen the latest jw flashcards???

Joe Grundy

Interesting to note from the time-line that WT is still teaching that Adam was created in 4026 BC.

'Teaching them good things?'. Ha ha.

25

Standing on Street Corners, Counting Time - the Impotent Future of Preaching

by passwordprotected in

you see them all over the place now, 2 or 3 of them standing near a portable display of bible-based literature, chatting to each other.

counting time.. i've seen them in london, glasgow and cluj (romania).

the portable display is always the same.

Joe Grundy

BluePill2:

Actually, I have more respect for the workers you portray than for dubs-on-a-misssion.

There are no false promises.

What is offered is delivered (almost) there and then - no waiting for an indeterminate sometime/never.

What you see is what you get.

You only pay once - no lifetime commitment.

They don't want to control your thoughts.

You don't have to commit to a certain number of hours a month.

Your money may actually be helping someone.

You are less likely to feel bored during the 'meeting'.

111

CONGREGATION FLEECING RESULTS?

by The Searcher in

how much did your congregation and its bank account get taken for?

share your horror story!.

Joe Grundy

These are just some idle thoughts about the accounting implications of all this. Presumably the WT, a 'legalistically-minded' conglomeration of corporations with large legal/accountancy departments will have considered this.

1. Were the loans to KH congregations secured by a 'charge' on the Title Deeds or were they effectively legally unsecured?

2. The loans would have appeared in WT balance sheets as assets.

3. In the UK each congregation is (as I understand it) an individually registered charity. The WT loan would appear as a liability.

4. If the loans are forgiven (would any legal charge on the deeds be removed? Must be, I would think.) the capital value of the WT would reduce (less assets), the capital value of the congregation would increase (less liabilities).

5. I understand that WT loans were interest-free, so as far as WT accounts were concerned the repayments were 'repayments of capital' rather than 'interest income'.

6. The 'new light' arrangements seek to replace the 'repayments of capital' with 'donations'. The one-off 'donations' from standing congregation accounts would affect local KH balance sheets by reducing their capital by the amount of that donation.

I'm just thinking out loud here, and without knowing all the amounts involved it's difficult to asess the impact. But you can bet that WT have considered all this and the amounts involved are substantial.

A simple example - I don't know how realistic it is : A congregation had a £30,000 WT loan, bank balance of £7,000 and the KH is worth £60,000. Capital value is £60k + £7k =£67k - £30k = £37k. After the 'new light' it's worth £60k + (£7k - £5k) = £62k. The WT has lost £30k in capital, gained £5k in 'donation income'.

Is there some reason why WT would want to shed capital value? Of course, any funds it did give to congregations for rebuilding etc. would show in the accounts as charitable distributions of donation income received.

I can't believe that WT would not have done all this without thinking it through and without it being to WT's advantage. This is big usiness, after all.