Posts by Joe Grundy

28

JW Child Abuse Makes 'Private Eye'

by Joe Grundy in

following on from the recent thread about wt losing an appeal concerning the uk charity commission (sorry, i can't do the link) i'm pleased to report that this matter is covered in the latest 'private eye' (20 march - 2 april issue).. it's a one-third page article (p.34) under the heading 'child abuse' and the headline 'silent witnesses'.

it reports the case accurately, mentions several criminal cases and the ongoing high court compensation case.

it includes some of judge mckenna's comments..

Joe Grundy

This was the previous thread here: WT loses appeal in UK!!!!!!!

28

JW Child Abuse Makes 'Private Eye'

by Joe Grundy in

following on from the recent thread about wt losing an appeal concerning the uk charity commission (sorry, i can't do the link) i'm pleased to report that this matter is covered in the latest 'private eye' (20 march - 2 april issue).. it's a one-third page article (p.34) under the heading 'child abuse' and the headline 'silent witnesses'.

it reports the case accurately, mentions several criminal cases and the ongoing high court compensation case.

it includes some of judge mckenna's comments..

Joe Grundy

Following on from the recent thread about WT losing an appeal concerning the UK Charity Commission (sorry, I can't do the link) I'm pleased to report that this matter is covered in the latest 'Private Eye' (20 March - 2 April issue).

It's a one-third page article (p.34) under the heading 'Child Abuse' and the headline 'Silent Witnesses'. It reports the case accurately, mentions several criminal cases and the ongoing High Court compensation case. It includes some of Judge McKenna's comments.

5

Trolley Dollies (Again) - With Sadness

by Joe Grundy in

at 9.00 am, saturday 14 march i was in the town centre of cheltenham, gloucestershire, uk.

a beautiful town with fine architecture.. feeling replete after a full 'english breakfast' and generally happy with life, i waited outside a bank, smoking a contemplative cigarette, whilst mu friend carried out his bank business.

there were some fine women out and about.. across the square, i noticed (no-one else seemed to) two jw literature carts.

Joe Grundy

At 9.00 am, Saturday 14 March I was in the town centre of Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK. A beautiful town with fine architecture.

Feeling replete after a full 'English Breakfast' and generally happy with life, I waited outside a bank, smoking a contemplative cigarette, whilst mu friend carried out his bank business. There were some fine women out and about.

Across the square, I noticed (no-one else seemed to) two JW literature carts. Nearby were some people (the dubs) sitting on a bench, drinking take-away coffee.

The man looked to be about 30 or so, and the woman somewhat younger. There was a baby in a push-chair. The woman (not unattractive by any means) sat on a bench in the square rocking the stroller to and fro. The guy stood with them and (I assume) their son. It was the boy I felt most sorry for. Aged about 7 or 8 I would guess, wearing 'meeting clothes', hair cut short with a parting, specs, - you could really guess that this kid would be bullied in school even if no-one knew he was a dub.

It was a cold morning, no fun at all. I smoked another cigarette (we all have our weaknesses!) and watched. No-one approached them or the carts, although there was a fair bit of foot traffic. The young woman was shivering.

I finished my cigarette and approached the trollies. I looked (I think) a medium sort of working guy. I looked at the stuff on the carts for quite some time. No approach from the guy at all. I selected a cellophane-bound very thin 'Watchtower' and 'Awake' packed back-to-back (March 2015, I think) and said to the guy 'Can I take this one? I'm really interested.) 'Yes, take it' he said, and that was the end of the conversation.

And that was it. No interest, no follow-up.

I was sad for the kid. He looked like he was the sort of kid who'd get picked on in school anyway, even without the dub stuff.

As for the wife - I will refrain from purely sexist and misogynistic comments - but I can think of things she might enjoy more than sitting on a cold bench.

So there we have 'trolley witnessing' - sitting on a bench in a cold square, no interest in or conversation with passers-by, even though they show a bit of interest and rake a magaxine.

My over-riding thoughts as I came away? First, does the geeky young kid have to pull a cart? Second (and I apologise in advance for this) has the yound wife ever had an orgasm without Jehovah watching?

76

WT loses appeal in UK!!!!!!!

by Viva la Vida in

the wt lost its appeals regarding the charity commission inquiry.

here is the ruling:.

http://www.charity.tribunals.gov.uk/documents/decisions/watch-tower-ruling-03mar15.pdf.

Joe Grundy

Hi.

Sorry, been away for a few days.

'Private Eye' (I am a subscriber) does a great deal of investigative journalism, and often gets into stories before more mainstream publications.

When I spoke to the lady journalist I gave several links (including this site) but you should understand that any investigator worth their salt will want to follow their own way. I think she will.

One can only suggest and point the way towards sources (which has been done). Now we have to wait and see, I think.

76

WT loses appeal in UK!!!!!!!

by Viva la Vida in

the wt lost its appeals regarding the charity commission inquiry.

here is the ruling:.

http://www.charity.tribunals.gov.uk/documents/decisions/watch-tower-ruling-03mar15.pdf.

Joe Grundy

Well, just spoken to a Private Eye journalist (she called me back from my e-mail). Did my best, gave some links, and she seemed to be interested. Two issues, the 'safeguarding' and the financial stuff re recent financial arrangements re shift of KH titles to HQ etc.

If anyone else wants to add to this (and I think you should if you can) and has good information that could be used regarding the 'two witnesses' rule, financial stuff, etc., send an e-mail to strobes@private-eye.co.uk

76

WT loses appeal in UK!!!!!!!

by Viva la Vida in

the wt lost its appeals regarding the charity commission inquiry.

here is the ruling:.

http://www.charity.tribunals.gov.uk/documents/decisions/watch-tower-ruling-03mar15.pdf.

Joe Grundy

OK, I've spoken to, and sent an e-mail to, Private Eye. If they come back to me I may have to cross-refer them to posts here, etc.

OK?

76

WT loses appeal in UK!!!!!!!

by Viva la Vida in

the wt lost its appeals regarding the charity commission inquiry.

here is the ruling:.

http://www.charity.tribunals.gov.uk/documents/decisions/watch-tower-ruling-03mar15.pdf.

Joe Grundy

Thank you.

If the CC doesn't do their job on this, and as child abuse cases mount, I can see (hope for) big shit coming against WTUK.

Yesterday, for example, in the glare of publicity the House of Commons PAC had a good go at the bosses of HSBC. When it came to the senior non-exec director (chair of the audit committee) who is now chair of the BBC Trustees - and they don't come more 'establishment' than this - Hodge suggested that she should resign and if she chose not to, she should be fired. Strong people, with PR and legal advice budgets beyond which we can imagine, are getting mauled. In public.

I believe that WT head honchos, naieve as they are, would not have a hope when subjected to even mild questions.

I repeat my point about 'Private Eye'. Anyone prepared to have a go?

76

WT loses appeal in UK!!!!!!!

by Viva la Vida in

the wt lost its appeals regarding the charity commission inquiry.

here is the ruling:.

http://www.charity.tribunals.gov.uk/documents/decisions/watch-tower-ruling-03mar15.pdf.

Joe Grundy

"I see your point Joe but the WT did a very good job of overturning the French tax ruling."

Sorry, I don't know about that case. The French legal system (the Napoleonic Code) is very different to the system in England & Wales.

This is just a thought. One of the most influential publications in UK is 'Private Eye'. Is there anyone here who might be able to contact them with a succinct submission about JW scandals about child abuse and financial shenanigans? Someone could do it much better than me, that's for sure.

76

WT loses appeal in UK!!!!!!!

by Viva la Vida in

the wt lost its appeals regarding the charity commission inquiry.

here is the ruling:.

http://www.charity.tribunals.gov.uk/documents/decisions/watch-tower-ruling-03mar15.pdf.

Joe Grundy

Sorry to prattle on again. I am not a lawyer, but did spend a significant part of my professional life dealing with these sort of procedures from a law enforcement position, including many hearings with judges on just this sort of thing. And, although I never was a JW, I follow this stuff.

Just some random thoughts from reading the ruling - and 'reading between the lines' a bit.

1. It must piss WT off a bit that in the courtroom the judge sits beneath the royal coat of arms (reproduced on the court documents). The wording translates as 'God and my right'.

2. CC has stated outright that its investigation (notified to WT on 5/6/14) is based on safeguarding issues in the public interest partly because of 'recent criminal trials'. WT won't like this. I like to think (but won't ever know) that this may have been helped along by those of us who contacted CC expressing concern, pointing out their policies etc.

3. The judge has declared that WTUK is a 'corporate entity'. This has implications.

4. CC issued the Production Order on 20/6/14. There is a 42 day appeal period. WT entered its appeal on 22/12/14. An elementary mistake (born out of arrogance?) IMHO. Most thinkers know to get the appeal in on time even if you hope to delay its hearing.

5. WT was represented by a 'silk', a QC. Not, presumably from in-house, and I would be surprised if he is a dub. If he is, that would be a biographical story worth reading. Silks don't come cheap. CC was represented by a 'standard' barrister.

6. The judge repeated that there were ongoing concerns re minors and pointed out that what is required to be produced under the PO is from 2011. We are not talking about historic stuff here.

7. She quotes the WT QC as replying 'frankly'. To those who speak 'judge speak', 'nuff said.

8. CC had repeatedly advised WT that some of the delaying tactics would fail, said the judge without further comment. None was needed.

9. The judge considered that the CC enquiry would be prejudiced if delayed. No further comment needed.

10. The requirements of the PO were not onerous. I don't know what they were, but they only related to material since 2011. WT is apparently very adept at record and document keeping so should have no problem in complying.

11. The judge said that there was a 'significant and serious period of delay' with 'no good explanation for it' in a case of ongoing risks to children.

Overall, the judge was not happy. I think that the WT QC will have reported this back to his client and probably given them a warning that things did not go well.

The WT does, of course, live in its own world. We have seen multiple reports of senior people not turning up in court, prevaricating, and so on. They need to have a care, I think.

This is a 'war story' but true. When, back in the late 1970s/early 1980s Production Orders were brought in in the UK for drug trafficking/money laundering/proceeds of crime cases it didn't cause too much of a stir amongst bankers, etc. These are orders applied for from a Circuit Judge requiring a respondent to produce material within a given time. New legislation, and from the perspective of those of us law enforcement officers working in the sticks the head honchos of banks etc. did not take it seriously. Until ... Production Orders were obtained against the corporate entity and duly served. We gave a copy to the local manager (for example) out of courtesy. He'd waffle on a bit and talk about referring it to his area manager, who would refer it to the regional manager. We would explain that if the material was not produced in due time (usually 7 days) then it would be the company secretary/chief executive of the bank who would be required to stand in front of the judge to explain the failure - and he might want to bring an overnight bag in case the judge jailed him for contempt. AFAIK no-one needed to be jailed, but I do know of a case where bank staff were put on 24 hour shifts to produce the material in time. Very quickly, banks and other institutions learned about this stuff.

Everything I read about WT in court cases suggests that its leaders (almost by definition) are somewhat uneducated and consider themselves 'above this world'. Sorry, guys, you're not and you'd better get a grip on reality. Soon.

76

WT loses appeal in UK!!!!!!!

by Viva la Vida in

the wt lost its appeals regarding the charity commission inquiry.

here is the ruling:.

http://www.charity.tribunals.gov.uk/documents/decisions/watch-tower-ruling-03mar15.pdf.

Joe Grundy

"I would not expect the loss of charitable tax status any time soon. There would be appeals, a legal process etc. etc. The WTS is a master at spinning those things out."

You may well be right - but the WT is not, I think, as good as it thinks it is. And, unfortunately for the WT, this is coming at a time when two of the major public concerns in the UK are 'safeguarding' and tax avoidance and financial transparency. Not a day goes by without news headlines on one or both of those issues and no public authority would dare or risk to be falling down on them, especially 'safeguarding'. Bear in mind also that WT (presumably) doesn't contribute or cosy up to political parties, its members don't even vote, it is regarded as a pest at best or irrelevant at worst. It doesn't have many friends nor an extremist terrorist wing, so it may be an easy (not to say popular) target. And, of course, the bulk of the money is shipped to the US (where, I would guess, it doesn't have many political friends either) so all in all, not a lot going for it.

There is so much concern re 'safeguarding' in the UK at the moment - current and historic - that every public authority and agency (including the Charity Commission) is looking over its shoulder anxiously. The CC has declared that its enquiry is motivated at least in the public interest due to recent criminal trials and ongoing safeguarding concerns. It will not back down now, in my view.