Thanks Elsewhere. Where is that official policy formally contained? It is good that at least the elders are under instruction to make an anonymous phone call to the police (but only in reporting states); but why do you say this is totally useless to the authorities though? If the police have been provided with the names of the complainant and alleged perpetrator, the police can easily follow it up from there. It's pleasing also that apparently in the UK they seem to have a fairly proactive approach towards advising the police.
It is also good that the elders appear to now be telling the parent/victim they are free to go to the authorities but clearly this still seems too discretionary, too hit and miss. Instructions need to be issued worldwide to all elders that they must encourage the parent/victim to inform the police, and the elders should follow up on whether or not this happens. This must be made mandatory for elders to do.
Good point too that the elders must themselves take the initiative in informing the authorities if it is the actual parent/caregiver is the alleged abuser. The child is in even greater danger in such a situation so the elders obviously have a greater moral duty to act themselves.
The procedures lack clarity and consistency and in practice different bodies of elders seem to be doing different things, according to anecdoctal reports. Sadly there is still an attitude to try and do the very minimum at best.
It is bizarre, frankly, that the Society do not seem to be making this top of the agenda in changes needed in the organisation. Perhaps it is (in light of the recent large pay-outs), we can only hope. This policy glaringly needs to be stronger & universally more consistent, even if they refuse to reconsider their 'two witnesses' gnat-squeezing interpretation. There is still more they can do to help the victim, bring the alleged to justice, and prevent the alleged from committing further abuses, even with the 'two witness' rule.
And as I mentioned earlier, it is repugnant that someone with privileges can continue with those privileges even when under accusation of child abuse, given the clear scriptural principle that they are no longer fit for such privileges by merely by being under suspicion. They should not have their privileges removed only once proven guilty; that is not what the relevant scriptures indicate. Because this crime is so horrible the mere suspicion of it, on reasonable grounds, should be enough for the brother to have all privileges stripped. If the brother moves congregation, the policy must surely also be that the new congregation must be informed of his record, even that he has been merely accused. This must be the policy given that paedophiles nearly always commit their crimes without witnesses. Children need extra protection but the organisation's policy is weighted the opposite way. Repugnant is an understatement.
It really is quite a mess isn't it. Infuriating & disturbing. Let's pray something concrete happens soon to improve the situation, although it appears that is unlikely under the current leadership. Let's hope that the Society's lawyers are having another look at this in light of the recent out of court settlements, shocking media attention and pressure being exerted by Barbara Anderson et al. They really are skating on thin ice over this.