Posts by Joe Grundy

6

Watchtower ~ IBSA

by Joe Grundy in

i never was a jw.. i wonder if those who know more about this than i do can clear something up for me.. as i understand it, when rutherford took over and changed the name to jws, there was a major split and some (the rump?

) went off and retained the old name of 'bible students'.

i thought that the old, original 'bible students' were quite separate from current jws.. and yet ... the wt hq in uk is at 'ibsa house'.

Joe Grundy

Thanks.

6

Watchtower ~ IBSA

by Joe Grundy in

i never was a jw.. i wonder if those who know more about this than i do can clear something up for me.. as i understand it, when rutherford took over and changed the name to jws, there was a major split and some (the rump?

) went off and retained the old name of 'bible students'.

i thought that the old, original 'bible students' were quite separate from current jws.. and yet ... the wt hq in uk is at 'ibsa house'.

Joe Grundy

Thanks for that.

I'm familiar with the 'associated corporation' transactions thing. I was just a little surprised to see the acknowledged connection between the official WT and IBSA. Knowing how concerned WT is about external appearances, it seemed strange to see any possible link with (what I'm sure WT considers apostate) 'Bible Students'.

The more you peel the onion ...

13

Question time

by Sabin in

with all the evidence stacked against them on child abuse issues, why do you think they are still refusing to play ball with the authorities?

why not put their hands up & say "we got a problem, we need help to change our medieval policies, we need advise on how to conduct our affairs in away that is in the victims best interests".. do you think that it is blatant, selfish pride.

the risk of losing money & struggling as a consequence, or they truly believe that jehovah is protecting them & by admitting they have acted in this inconceivable way would bring reproach on his name?.

Joe Grundy

"However I wont hold my breath that justice will be done here .Religion still has a big influence to many people ,politicians and the judiciary dont want to get offside with the voters .Even though they may be well aware J.W.`s do not vote or take part in politics other religions certainly do.

And they do not want to offend them .

smiddy"

Well, I'm a little more optimistic (here in UK). JWs - in my estimation - are generally an unknown irrelevance and I'd be surprised whether any politicians give them a thought (even if they've vaguely heard of them). And although I'm a wizened old cynic, our (non-elected) judiciary have consistently been independent. I don't think anyone is bothered about offending such a minor inconsequential group.

We don't have a RC ongoing, of course, but we DO have a Charity Commission investigation ongoing, and the present parliamentary enquiry into the Kids Company charity fiasco indicates that (however belatedly) things can come to light.

I spent a lot of my professional career in courts dealing with judges and senior lawyers. Its a different world, full of understatement and courtesy. Only once did I ever see a barrister have to apologise to a court in the terms that the WT lawyer did to the ARC. Translated, it means 'my shitbag of a client has lied to me (beyond the normal boundaries that many of them do) and I want nothing to do with it'. The clients concerned were the head JW in Australia and Jackson of the GB. That did not go down well at all.

Add to that that WT Oz was offered (several times) polite opportunities to agree that they might consider amending their policies (other organisations were eager and happy to do so), that they might consider joining a redress scheme (other organisations were happy and eager to do so), and what was their response? Fiddling and farting, quoting old bible bits that HHJ was able to blow out of the water easily

WT was left looking like a joke - but a dangerous one because child and other abuse is involved. I can only guess that in Oz this subject is now taken as seriously as it here is (now) in the UK. I can accept that in the US, the religious aspect may have a bearing but I don;t think it does in Oz or UK. (Would Jackson even have been subpoenaed in the US, I ask myself, or would the whacky religion rules have prevailed?)

I would love to have been a fly on the wall when HHJ and Angus were having a cup of tea together after the WT evidence!

13

Question time

by Sabin in

with all the evidence stacked against them on child abuse issues, why do you think they are still refusing to play ball with the authorities?

why not put their hands up & say "we got a problem, we need help to change our medieval policies, we need advise on how to conduct our affairs in away that is in the victims best interests".. do you think that it is blatant, selfish pride.

the risk of losing money & struggling as a consequence, or they truly believe that jehovah is protecting them & by admitting they have acted in this inconceivable way would bring reproach on his name?.

Joe Grundy

PS: Having watched Jackson's performance at ARC, I was struck by his singular lack of qualification to be part of a management board of a major international corporation.

IIRC, baptised into a cult as a child, little or no formal education, worked his way up through an organisation where 'faith' (i.e. blind belief without being bothered by facts) was the main criteria.

I would not, TBH, reasonably expect Jackson -or any of his cadre with the same qualifications - to be able to make rational decisions.

Jackson comes across as a cocky deluded nutjob. It was illuminating to compare his performance (guided by his god as he no doubt was) with that of 'poor worldly' Angus Stewart and HHJ McClelland.

13

Question time

by Sabin in

with all the evidence stacked against them on child abuse issues, why do you think they are still refusing to play ball with the authorities?

why not put their hands up & say "we got a problem, we need help to change our medieval policies, we need advise on how to conduct our affairs in away that is in the victims best interests".. do you think that it is blatant, selfish pride.

the risk of losing money & struggling as a consequence, or they truly believe that jehovah is protecting them & by admitting they have acted in this inconceivable way would bring reproach on his name?.

Joe Grundy

I think that the episode of Jackson's appearance before the ARC is telling.

First, there were the dishonest shenanigans before the ARC trying to ensure that he didn;t appear - which led to the very rare occurrence of the JW lawyer having to apologise to the Judge for attempts to mislead the ARC (a big no-no which did not go unnoticed).

Second, Jackson's testimony, which was cringe-worthy.

Third, after his testimony, Jackson's (WT's) written submission which appeared to retract the very limited concessions he made.

Blatant, certainly, but these idiots may be too blind to see just how culpable their actions have revealed them to be. Right now, Pope Francis for all his problems has better PR than the GB.

6

Watchtower ~ IBSA

by Joe Grundy in

i never was a jw.. i wonder if those who know more about this than i do can clear something up for me.. as i understand it, when rutherford took over and changed the name to jws, there was a major split and some (the rump?

) went off and retained the old name of 'bible students'.

i thought that the old, original 'bible students' were quite separate from current jws.. and yet ... the wt hq in uk is at 'ibsa house'.

Joe Grundy

I never was a jw.

I wonder if those who know more about this than I do can clear something up for me.

As I understand it, when Rutherford took over and changed the name to JWs, there was a major split and some (the rump?) went off and retained the old name of 'Bible Students'. I thought that the old, original 'Bible Students' were quite separate from current JWs.

And yet ... the WT HQ in UK is at 'IBSA House'. More, WTBS and IBSA are separate charities in the UK, and looking at their accounts, WTBTS UK print/produce literature which they sell to IBSA at cost (£millions).

Am I just confused, or have I missed something? Does IBSA exist in the US, and does WTBTS have a similar relationship with it?

61

Over-protective parent?

by GrownMidget in

i was something like 20-21 and there was this young sister, maybe 16 who i happened to like back in the day ... uh oh ...we met in the summer convention because i made the first move while she was playing board games with her friend.

we kept in touch via skype and text messages because lived kinda far from each other.

eventually her mother heard of the stuff and said to her daughter that the chatting must stop.... well, when two people have a little crush on one another, it sure doesn't.

Joe Grundy

"Quite a few of my friends daughters went on the pill at 14 or 15, with parental consent sensibly BEFORE first contact."

A sensible approach. Here in the UK, doctors can prescribe the pill to under 16s without parental knowledge/consent. A good thing, I think.

61

Over-protective parent?

by GrownMidget in

i was something like 20-21 and there was this young sister, maybe 16 who i happened to like back in the day ... uh oh ...we met in the summer convention because i made the first move while she was playing board games with her friend.

we kept in touch via skype and text messages because lived kinda far from each other.

eventually her mother heard of the stuff and said to her daughter that the chatting must stop.... well, when two people have a little crush on one another, it sure doesn't.

Joe Grundy

"it's a sign that the laws didn't think everything through - as well as focusing on who you want a law to apply to you need to consider who you don't want it to apply to and draft it accordingly"

And therein lies the problem. The law is a clumsy thing. That;s why almost any statute law is amended and defined by years of case law (i.e. courts' definitions). Statute law is made by parliamentarians, sometimes in response to events and often with a view to populist reaction and possible re-election. Sadly, IME, laws are often ill-conceived and not thought through.

I don't know what the answer is - I just raise the problems.

I remember conversations I had with my son when he was 18ish and heading out for a night on the town. Clubs door control should, of course, have ensured that all patrons were 18 (haha!). I explained to him that in theory if he met a girl celebrating her 16th birthday the course of his life could be altered depending on what took place before, and what took place after, midnight.

Bringing this back to JWs - would a 21 yearold MS/elder be considered to be in a 'position of authority' over a naieve 17 yearold 'sister', I wonder? Arguments for and against, I suppose.

61

Over-protective parent?

by GrownMidget in

i was something like 20-21 and there was this young sister, maybe 16 who i happened to like back in the day ... uh oh ...we met in the summer convention because i made the first move while she was playing board games with her friend.

we kept in touch via skype and text messages because lived kinda far from each other.

eventually her mother heard of the stuff and said to her daughter that the chatting must stop.... well, when two people have a little crush on one another, it sure doesn't.

Joe Grundy

This is a fascinating, if at times uncomfortable, subject of discussion. I come at it from the position of being a retired cop who dealt with more than enough abuse cases and as the father of a daughter who was raped at 17.

Legislation is confused and contradictory. In some Middle East countries, child marriage is acceptable. But even in more 'civiliised' countries there are huge issues. My understanding is that the minimum age for marriage in NH, USA is 13 but the federal age for buying alcohol is 21.

Here in UK, the age of consent (and marriage with parental/court consent - except in Scotland where that consent is not required) is 16 - unless the 'other party' is a teacher or some other person in authority in which case the age of consent is 18. Yet in the recent Independence referendum, 16 year olds were given the vote, and there is a move to lower the voting age to 16.. You can't drive a car until you're 17.

The age of consent varies across Europe. This summer I was in Andorra, which straddles the Pyrenees between France and Spain. The border is largely unmarked. If I was camping, a few yards either side of the border may have made the difference between legality and paedophilia.

And it gets more crazy. Suppose there is a British soldier serving overseas. He is 19. His wife (17) sends him a nude photo of herself by email to cheer him up. Legally, she is guilty of making and distributing an indecent image of a child (legal definition 18) and he is guilty of possessing it. Or, a 17 year old boy and girl exchange images of themselves legally having sex. Both could be guilty of making/sharing/possessing indecent images of children - even if they are married.

Thinking further. What about a married couple, both 17, (and their baby) choose to holiday somewhere where the age of consent is 18?

No rational or reasonable person would seek to condone child abuse or exploitation. But just thinking this issue through could cause the brain to explode - especially given (as I understand it) that highest hormone/fertility levels tend to be at a lower age than most societies accept.

A minefield, I think.

33

Letter to be read at meeting this week about the downsize

by dropoffyourkeylee in

a family member who is a bethelite informed me today that there is a letter to be read soon ( this week or next) concerning the downsizing.

so probably someone who has their midweek meeting early in the week will be able to fill in the details.

Joe Grundy

Just an idle thought.

I've never used the j w dot org site - I assume that it has a search facility.

What if ... a dub searches for the latest letter/information and inadvertently finds the one before, or the one before that, or the one before that?

Could be a thought-provoking moment for those whose minds are open to provoked?