expatbrit

Joined

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

Posts by expatbrit

• 
  124

  Jehovah's Witnesses asking woman to pay legal costs in sexual abuse lawsuit

  by ignored_one in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  http://canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?aid=/20030723/cpn/20587021&cachetime=15 .

  jehovah's witnesses asking woman to pay legal costs in sexual abuse lawsuit.

  toronto (cp) - a woman who received $5,000 in damages after accusing the canadian wing of the jehovah's witnesses of negligence over their handling of allegations of sexual abuse is being asked to pay for part of the religious group's legal costs in the case.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  A quick note to apologise for my foul language in my above post. I'm really steamed over the Watchtower's sneaky actions here. After the hearings last week I called Vicki and told her wrongly that the Watchtower wouldn't be claiming costs, thinking it was good news. Now that it's turned out to be wrong, I feel bad about that, because Vicki's under enough pressure without needing artificial roller coasters.

  Anyway, hopefully the media coverage will show a lot of people exactly what kind of organisation the Watchtower is.

  Expatbrit
• 
  124

  Jehovah's Witnesses asking woman to pay legal costs in sexual abuse lawsuit

  by ignored_one in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  http://canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?aid=/20030723/cpn/20587021&cachetime=15 .

  jehovah's witnesses asking woman to pay legal costs in sexual abuse lawsuit.

  toronto (cp) - a woman who received $5,000 in damages after accusing the canadian wing of the jehovah's witnesses of negligence over their handling of allegations of sexual abuse is being asked to pay for part of the religious group's legal costs in the case.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  B******s, they really sneaked this in on the sly. I was at the hearing last week and Stevenson made no mention of claiming costs during the proceedings in the courtroom. Now they come up with this bulls**t in the submissions.

  Not vindictive my ass! What they're trying to do is make a point to any other victims that suing is going to ruin them financially. Keep victims of abuse silent still, that's the WT's objective.

  Play your games Watchtower. This wont go away. Your precious pure religion is going to be s**t before this is finished.

  Expatbrit
• 
  94

  Saddam's Sons Confirmed Dead

  by DevonMcBride in

  1. social
  2. current

  .

  cnn is reporting that saddam's sons, oudai and qusay are confirmed to be dead.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Yeru:

  "Taking the piss" is Brit-speak for "making fun of", "taking the mickey out of".

  Expatbrit, your friendly right-wing baby-roasting war-mongering transatlanticator
• 
  94

  Saddam's Sons Confirmed Dead

  by DevonMcBride in

  1. social
  2. current

  .

  cnn is reporting that saddam's sons, oudai and qusay are confirmed to be dead.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Perhaps you could give us a military analysis of when the former becomes the latter.

  Expatbrit
• 
  6

  Propagandists caught in major deception??

  by Gamaliel in

  1. social
  2. current

  this subject has come up in another thread, but the other thread has of course turned into a left/right controversy which is not the point of my post.

  i wanted to share a curious find with respect to a letter which is making the rounds all over the internet.

  one version, which is not making the rounds, is one that a church evidently is claiming is the original they received from a member who is an army major on duty in iraq.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Snopes.com is now classifying this as true, with a copy of the email like the second one above:
• 
  207

  The Watchtower & the cigarette company

  by expatbrit in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i: some relevant quotes from watchtower publications

  1: the position of the watchtower as regards smoking

  *** jv 181 13 recognized by our conduct ***.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Hello Danny:

  That is a very likely "out" response from a JW or the WT themselves.

  Question is, does using that response tip the WT further into the pit of hypocrisy? How would it square with the Watchtower's counsel to its own followers to "keep without spot from the world"? Does it enable the WT to measure up to the same standards with which it measures others? Personally, I don't think so.

  For instance, suppose Ms. Riley had left her money in trust to her grandchildren, and the Trust had then made this investment on their behalf. If the WT had knowledge of the Trust's activities, how likely is it that some "spiritual counsel" would be coming down the pipeline on making investments in accordance with Christian principles? Very likely, imo.

  Expatbrit
• 
  90

  Spells, Wiccans, and Witchcraft

  by SpunkyChick in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i just returned home from a nightmarish trip to chicago.

  i came in peace, and was shit on by my aunts and a cousin.

  what they did was unforgivable.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  I don't see anything wrong with Wicca. You get jolly useful stuff like baskets and chairs out of it.

  Expatbrit
• 
  25

  Was Dr Kelly - Vince Fostered?

  by searchfothetruth in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  was dr kelly - vince fostered?

  this time all those conspiracy nuts started their swim from the other side of the pond.

  we all know that the english are surely above intrigue and sinister deeds, just ask roberto calvi, you know "god's banker", as he hung from blackfriars bridge.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  If anyone bumped off Dr. Kelly, it would be far likely to have been the BBC than government. This is because what Dr. Kelly told the Commons Committee showed the BBC to have been the ones doing the sexing up, and supported what the Government was saying.

  Even the BBC reports have shown this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3082007.stm

  A few extracts from the above report:

  Did Dr Kelly believe he was the source of Andrew Gilligan's reports?

  Dr Kelly told the MPs he did not recognise Mr Gilligan's reports and evidence to the committee as being from his conversations with the BBC correspondent.

  He said: "It is not a factual record of my interaction with him, the character of it, which is actually difficult to discern from the account that is presented there."

  He added later: "From the conversation I had with him, I do not see how he could make the authoritative statement he was making from the comments that I made."

  Mr Gilligan had described his source to the committee as a contact of "long-standing".

  Dr Kelly said the first time he remembered meeting Mr Gilligan was in September 2002.

  He said: "What I had a conversation about was the probability of a requirement to use (chemical and biological) weapons. The question was then asked why, if weapons could be deployed at 45 minutes notice, were they not used, and I offered my reasons why they may not have been used."

  (Dr Kelly said he believed they were not used because of the weather conditions and then the breakdown of the Iraqi command and control structure)

  He was later asked if he at any point named Mr Campbell or said anything which might have led Mr Gilligan to report that Mr Campbell had wanted to change the dossier or "sex it up".

  Dr Kelly said: "I cannot recall that. I find it very difficult to think back to a conversation I had six weeks ago. I cannot recall but that does not mean to say, of course, that such a statement was not made but I really cannot recall it. It does not sound like the sort of thing I would say."

  Later Dr Kelly was asked if he had suggested to Mr Gilligan that the dossier had been embellished.

  Dr Kelly replied: "No, I had no doubt that the veracity of it was absolute."

  He went on: "All I can say is that the general tenet of that document is one that I am sympathetic to."

  "When I reflected on my interaction with him and realised the balance between the general conversation and the very specific aspect we are now discussing today, which was a very, very minor part of it, I did not see how on earth I could have been the primary source.

  "I did not see how the authority would emanate from me."

  Asked whether he was the source of a reported comment that the claim that Iraq could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so had "got out of all proportion" because of a "desperation" for information, Dr Kelly said: "I find it very difficult. It does not sound like my expression of words. It does not sound like a quote from me. "

  So, here we have Dr. Kelly blowing the claims of the BBC out of the water and agreeing with the Government, yet it's the Government who the whackjob conspiracy theorists will say killed him. No doubt we'll soon be hearing eye-witness accounts of Reptilian Shapeshifters leaping out of the bushes and slitting Dr. Kelly's wrists with the edge of a razor sharp tongue.

  Expatbrit
• 
  163

  Moral absolutes

  by Aztec in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i keep saying i am going to start a thread on this topic so here goes.... what, if anything, is always morally wrong?

  murder, rape, incest?

  how much do you think your belief, or lack thereof, in a higher power influences your opinion?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Something else that occured is that it is very easy to confuse an action with a label for an action.

  Take rape for example. Rape is not actually an action. Rather it is a label for a specific occurence of an action that fits certain criteria. The action is sexual intercourse.

  In order to make a moral judgement on a specific occurence of sexual intercourse, we ask questions that will shed light on the context and circumstance of that specific occurence. Questions such as: what were the ages of the participants? Was the act mutually consensual? What are the personal circumstances of the participants as respect to relationships with others etc?

  Once we have this individual information, we then assign a moral label to the specific occurence of the act. These can be negative, such as "rape" or "adultery", or they can be positive, such as "making love" etc. There are a range of labels to suit the various circumstances of the specific act.

  In order to be a moral absolute, you would have to say that all occurences of the act (i.e. sexual intercourse) are either wrong, or right. This is obviously unworkable, and show why moral absolutes do not exist.

  It is also why saying that "rape is an absolute wrong" doesn't really have any meaning, because,"rape" is a morally relativistic label, applied using the process of moral relativism.

  Same goes for "murder". That too is not an act, but a label for a specific occurence of an act. The act is killing a human, and again, there are a whole range of labels to be applied to specific occurences of that act e.g. murder, manslaughter, suicide, execution, euthanasia.

  When you analyse it, there are no acts which are not subject to moral relativism i.e. making a moral judgement by taking into account the context of the act.

  Expatbrit
• 
  94

  Saddam's Sons Confirmed Dead

  by DevonMcBride in

  1. social
  2. current

  .

  cnn is reporting that saddam's sons, oudai and qusay are confirmed to be dead.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Good riddance to bad trash.

  Daddy gets his turn soon, hopefully.

  Expatbrit