expatbrit

Joined

• started 226 topics
• posted 3,137 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by expatbrit

• 
  13

  Questions to ponder - Apostacy

  by JoeSomebody in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a couple questions came to mind as i read some posts.

  i know many of you are not jw's any longer.

  my definition is one that abandons the true worship of jehovah both in action and word, inside and outside the congregation.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  My question is, if an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God (as apposed to a theist who does), then is someone who is not an apostate a postate?

  Expatbrit
• 
  7

  Louisville, KY apostates?

  by Jesus Christ in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  seeing as i'm not very good at this whole "savior of the world" thing i'm giving it up and going into the computer networking field.

  obviously, there's not much work up here in heaven so i'm having to come down and join you silly mortals.

  i'll be moving to louisville, ky. anybody from there that would want to have a little apostafest or something like that?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Don't you need to be born of a virgin when taking a trip to Earth?

  Bit difficult in the United States.

  Expatbrit
• 
  14

  Feb1,2003 Question from readers

  by hannibal in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  "why does the bible say that a person should scream if theatened with rape".

  has anyone posted this yet?

  its rather unbeleivable.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  I'm waiting with baited breath for the wife to get her copy.....

  Expatbrit
• 
  23

  Filing a Lawsuit to see my granddaughter

  by Nancy K in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hi everyone, hoping you're having a good day...i am a "newbie", posted before (re: missing my granddaughter)..well, i have been thinking long and hard, and then long and harder still and i've decided to start a suit to see if i can get grandparent visitation to see my dearly-loved "chloe" who is 6 years old.

  my husband is an attorney(not chloe's grandfather) and he wants to take them on, after seeing what 2 years of being cut-off from her, has put me through.

  i have an illness, and the stress of missing chloe of course makes me feel worse.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Nancy:

  I wish you the best of luck! I hope your husband kicks WT ass, and we get to see that reunion photo!

  I would second JT's thoughts on the PR angle. If you can get some preliminary media coverage going, the WT may well force some kind of compromise with the child's parents just to avoid bad publicity. They have settled out of court in a number of cases (with gag orders) that they probably could have won legally, but didn't want to take the PR hits.

  Expatbrit
• 
  2

  The UK Protection From Harassment Act 1997

  by expatbrit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in view of the reported upcoming campaign to seek out inactives, i'm doing some research on harassment issues.

  before getting into it, here's a disclaimer: .

  i am not a lawyer.

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  expatbrit

  In view of the reported upcoming campaign to seek out inactives, I'm doing some research on harassment issues. Before getting into it, here's a disclaimer:

  I am not a lawyer. I have no legal training. Everything I post is based on my own reading and viewpoints only, and may be completely wrong. If, after reading this, you are thinking of pursuing matters further, get competent legal advice!

  One of the more interesting things I've read about is the Protection From Harassment Act., which is the main UK legislation dealing with harassment. While primarily created to address the issue of stalking, the High Court has commented that:

  'Whatever may have been the purpose behind the Act, its words are clear, and it can cover harassment of any sort'

  The Act has force from 16 th June 1997, and can provide a basis for a criminal prosecution, a claim for damages, or a civil injunction. Injunctions made under the Act are unique because breach of them is a criminal offence punishable with up to 5 years imprisonment. Courts may impose restraining orders on those convicted of criminal harassment, and breaching a restraining order is a further criminal offence punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment.

  Summary of the Act

  Sections 1 and 2 of the Act create the offence of harassment as follows:

  s1(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct
  (a) which amounts to harassment of another and
  (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other'

  s2(1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence'
  (Under s7(4) 'conduct' includes speech.)

  Elements of the Offence

  Blackstone's Guide to the Act comments as follows:

  To obtain a conviction for criminal harassment the prosecution will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt the three specific elements of harassment laid out in s1(1). The accused must pursue a course of conduct, the course of conduct must amount to harassment of another person and the accused must know or ought to know that the course of conduct amounted to harassment.

  Note that in a civil tort there is a lighter standard of proof, in that civil cases require only the balance of probabilities, while criminal cases require beyond reasonable doubt. Harassment cases may be directed to either criminal or civil courts. Section 3(2) of the Act allows courts to award damages for:

  (amongst other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment'.

  A "Course of conduct" is taken to mean "conduct on at least two occasions". Note though that the incidents do not have to be of the same type, nor is there a set time limit in which the incidents must occur.

  What is harassment?

  Blackstone's comments:

  Under s7(2) references to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress. Harassment alarm and distress are not defined in the Act and so will need to be given their ordinary dictionary meanings but they are words used in ss4A and 5 Public Order Act 1986 and therefore cases involving those offences will be relevant in interpreting the Act.

  Interestingly, the Public Order Act required "harassment alarm or distress to be caused by the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour or by the display of any writing sign or other visible representation which is threatening abusive or insulting." BUT, under the Protection From Harassment Act there is no such requirement, because it was designed primarily with stalking in mind, which often does not involve overtly abusive or threatening behaviour.

  The Courts have not given a precise definition of what exactly constitutes harassment, and this means the Act is potentially extremely wide-ranging in its possible applications.

  Defences to the charge

  Under section 1(3) it is a defence to a charge of criminal harassment for the accused to show:

  • a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime
  • b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or
  • c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable

  What is NOT a defence is being engaged in a lawful occupation such as a journalist, a private detective or, incidentally, a lawyer cross-examining a witness (or maybe an elder pursuing an inactive?)

  What about the requirement that the accused knows or ought to know that the course of action amounts to harassment? Section 1(2) says "for the purposes of this section the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other".

  Stalking

  While the Act did not define stalking, a 1996 Private Members Bill did, as follows:

  engaging in a course of conduct whereby a person
  (a) follows, loiters near, watches or approaches another person
  (b) telephones (which for the avoidance of doubt shall include telephoning a person but remaining silent during the call), contacts by other electronic means or otherwise contacts another person
  (c) loiters near, watches, approaches or enters a place where another person lives works or repeatedly visits
  (d) interferes with property which does not belong to him and is in the possession of another person
  (e) leaves offensive, unwarranted or unsolicited material at a place where another person lives works or regularly visits
  (f) gives offensive unwarranted or unsolicited material to another person

  In addition to this, section 264 of the Canadian Criminal Code defines criminal harassment as:

  (a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them

  (b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them

  (c) besetting or watching the dwelling house or place where the other person or anyone known to them resides works carries on business or happens to be or

  (d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family

  Blackstone's comments:

  It is almost certain that any of the above types of behaviour would be regarded as criminal harassment under the Act and certainly it was that type of persistent stalking behaviour that Parliament had in mind when the Act was passed.

  Harassment of a person in their home

  An alternative to the Protection from Harassment Act is the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, section 42, excerpted as follows:

  42.-(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a constable who is at the scene may give a direction under this section to any person if-
  (a) that person is present outside or in the vicinity of any premises that are used by any individual ("the resident") as his dwelling;
  (b) that constable believes, on reasonable grounds, that that person is present there for the purpose (by his presence or otherwise) of representing to the resident or another individual (whether or not one who uses the premises as his dwelling), or of persuading the resident or such another individual-
  (i) that he should not do something that he is entitled or required to do; or
  (ii) that he should do something that he is not under any obligation to do;
  and
  (c) that constable also believes, on reasonable grounds, that the presence of that person (either alone or together with that of any other persons who are also present)-
  (i) amounts to, or is likely to result in, the harassment of the resident; or
  (ii) is likely to cause alarm or distress to the resident.

  So, does it apply?

  Firstly, it has to be said that any use of legal means to prevent harassment by elders will result in them instantly "disassociating" you. Therefore possible legal action should be regarded as a way to get some justice/satisfaction only if you dont mind being DA'd or know it to be an inevitable outcome.

  Beyond that are uncharted waters. Does an elder(s) repeatedly telephoning or calling on you to try and get you to a meeting with them constitute harassment or even stalking?

  Consider the three things that it is necessary to show:

  1) A course of conduct. Not difficult. Just keep a record of phone calls (preferably copies of itemised bills or printouts from the phone company), calls they make at your home (neighbours confirmations could be useful) or work (ditto workmates).

  2) The Course of Conduct must amount to harassment. The crux. Remember that harassment is regarded as "alarming or causing distress". Will forced meetings with elders cause you distress, especially if as a result of the questioning you are subjected to forced shunning by your family? If you are a woman, will having to go into an enclosed room with three men to be questioned intimately give you alarm? I think a good case could be made that the answers to those questions are "yes!" Also keep in mind the most interesting definitions of stalking, and see how many of those methods elders employ in telling you that you "should do something that you are not under any obligation to do."

  3) The accused must know or ought to know that the course of conduct amounted to harassment. Note that the very old English law concept of a "reasonable person" is used here. That means that if your average reasonable John Bull on the street would know that the course of action was harassment, so should a JW elder. Would Mr. John Bull reach that conclusion? Depends on the individual case of course, but I'm smiling at the idea of an elders conduct being measured according to the standard of a reasonable worldly person, and being found wanting!

  Further information

  Most of the material for this post came from my reading of the following excellent website:

  http://www.harassment-law.co.uk/msindex.htm

  The site is by a Barrister specializing in this area of law.

  Expatbrit

  Edited by - expatbrit on 16 December 2002 18:44:50

  Edited by - expatbrit on 16 December 2002 18:53:30
• 
  23

  Circuit Visit / Christmas campaign

  by caspian in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  sorry that i haven't posted for a while, been moving house and congregation over the last few weeks.. just thought that i will mention, the comments made by our co at the elders meeting on the friday of his visit.. with the elders starting the visits on the inactive in jan and feb, it was suggested by the society to start a week or so earlier to see how many have inactive ones have christmas decorations and so-on.. it was also suggested that if such ones are celebrating a pagan festival, it could be classed as false worship.

  which is classified as a "self-disassociation offence" and hence an announcement could be made to the congregation.. my question is this, is it just our co taking things in to his own hands or is this now national or international policy.

  kind regards.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Um....why is Caspian's account deactivated?

  Expatbrit
• 
  24

  2000 Annual Info. Return for WTB&TS of Canada

  by expatbrit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  section b. directors/trustees

  section e. further information on amounts received

  section h. gifts to qualified donees

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  One way for an organization to spend more than it receives without depleting cash is simply to increase it's liabilities. The financial statements are prepared on the accrual basis, rather than the cash basis, therefore income and expenses are recorded when incurred, not when received or paid.

  However, in this case I think that they have depleted cash. We don't know the 1999 cash balance, just 1996, so cash may well have been higher in 1999.

  Just another quick note: if the society lends money to a congregation to purchase a Hall, the society will show interest income, but the asset will be reported in the congregation's financials, as will the loan liability. This of course brings us into the very interesting area of who owns the kingdom halls.

  Expatbrit
• 
  9

  Are there a LOT more pagans here lately?

  by Xander in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  just wondering...last time a similar thread was posted, there were maybe...mmm...5 or 6 professed pagans on the board?.

  it just seems, browsing through several threads, there is a disproportionate number of us here?

  thoughts?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Don't know about pagans, but we seem to have been overrun by a Crank of Calvinists lately. Maybe the pagans are here to combat them.

  Expatbrit
• 
  118

  Would some of us be better off as Witnesses?

  by Jerry Bergman in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i have often wondered if many people would be better off if they stayed witnesses.

  some people i have known have really gone off the deep end after they left the watchtower.

  most all of my family have left now (not due to me as i was cut off from them for years) and many others i know who have left are now bitter atheists or have become pagans and worship stones or new ageers playing with crystals.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  are now bitter atheists

  I'm more of the sour variety, myself.

  Expatbrit (no morals never-burnt-anyone-at-the-stake atheist class)
• 
  105

  Athiests and Christmas?

  by clash_city_rockers in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i was just thinking.

  since christmas is about the birth of christ, i know dec 25 was not his birthday, probly born around late sept or early oct. i guess he wanted to be born right before the baseball playoffs and world series, just kidding.

  it was the early christian church that appointed dec 25th.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  But I suspect you really get into Christmas spirit when your singing songs about Jesus this time of year, Like Charles Westley's "Hark the Harold Sings" Set to Mendelssohn's tune. Hmmmm your singing christian tunes.... not bad for an athiest.

  Clash, you may be flabbergasted by this, but I don't sing at Christmas. Even after several substantial tipples. If you could hear my singing voice you would consider this a blessing. Trust me.

  So, no "Hark The Harold Sings" (is this the same Harold as in the Lord's Prayer? Harold be his name?)

  So tell me, what do you consider to be "celebrating" Christmas?

  Expatbrit