Well, it's your site, but that just seems a little silly. People discuss happenings in the justice system here regularly, and certainly you can't think that courts and juries always get it right. When they don't, diaglogue about it is part of a rich tradition in every system of ordered liberty. I suspect it's only a matter of time before anyone who thinks this is a good site policy finds a decision they themselves want to criticize.
Chaserious
JoinedPosts by Chaserious
-
95
Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II
by Simon ini had originally thought that making the rules clear about what was and wasn't going to be allowed when discussing the michael brown verdict that we'd be able to avoid some of the unpleasantness that surrounded the subsequent trayvon martin trial discussions.. michael brown verdict discussion policy.
i had hoped that once the evidence came out there would not be as many people promoting opinions that contradicted it.
unfortunately, that appears to have been naive of me.
-
-
-
95
Michael Brown verdict discussion policy - take II
by Simon ini had originally thought that making the rules clear about what was and wasn't going to be allowed when discussing the michael brown verdict that we'd be able to avoid some of the unpleasantness that surrounded the subsequent trayvon martin trial discussions.. michael brown verdict discussion policy.
i had hoped that once the evidence came out there would not be as many people promoting opinions that contradicted it.
unfortunately, that appears to have been naive of me.
-
-
Chaserious
So if the OJ Simpson trial hadn't yet occurred, and the verdict came out tomorrow, nobody could come on here and opine that the jury got it wrong and he really did it?
-
4
CONTI CASE - Further update appears - Interpretation please!
by AFRIKANMAN infiled letter from:.
rick simons, to notify the court of significant new authority not available at the time of the conclusion of briefing, and also to withdraw a previously submitted subsequent authority.. 11/20/2014.
calendar notice sent.
-
-
Chaserious
Hopefully we can one day say to the Watchtower: Ha! Ha!
Nelson approves.
-
55
No longer to use "house to house record" slips and "please follow up slips"!
by stuckinarut2 ina letter has just been read out indicating that effective immediately, witnesses are no longer to use the s-8 slip known as the "house to house" record slip, as well as the s-43 "please follow up" slip (usually used for foreign language people).. the letter stated that this is because of the changes in privacy laws etc that are becoming common in the world today.. i will try and get a copy of the full letter and post it asap.. .
-
-
Chaserious
DoT - As I mentioned, I'm not familiar with either UK law, so I could be wrong. But I didn't see anything in the 13 year old thread indicating that using the house to house forms would be illegal (other than speculation). In the more recent thread, it warned about passing the information along to others.
I hadn't contemplated that as my recollection from my time in was that the notes would generally be for personal use only. But now that I think about it, I do remember some JWs passing off supposedly interested persons to others. That probably does explain their discontinuation. But I don't think it would be illegal to use the forms for one's own personal field service use. Obviously many JWs don't listen, so they may have discontinued them out of caution for that reason.
-
55
No longer to use "house to house record" slips and "please follow up slips"!
by stuckinarut2 ina letter has just been read out indicating that effective immediately, witnesses are no longer to use the s-8 slip known as the "house to house" record slip, as well as the s-43 "please follow up" slip (usually used for foreign language people).. the letter stated that this is because of the changes in privacy laws etc that are becoming common in the world today.. i will try and get a copy of the full letter and post it asap.. .
-
-
Chaserious
From what I recall about collecting such information , it had nothing to do with the householder volunteering information collected , it was the jw`s responsability to observe and take down and record what he/she noticed about the householder and their circumstances .
Nothing about this would give rise to a lawsuit in the United States either. It wasn't clear to me from the OP - did they discontinue these worldwide?
Often when an organization makes a chance to some inconsequential policy such as this, it's not because the old was one clearly illegal. Even if there is a 99% change it's legal, it's not worth the 1% risk. Even reading about UK and EU laws that were linked to, I am doubtful they would be liable in connection with the house to house forms. The "please follow up" forms might be stickier as they are turned in centrally.
-
4
CONTI CASE - Further update appears - Interpretation please!
by AFRIKANMAN infiled letter from:.
rick simons, to notify the court of significant new authority not available at the time of the conclusion of briefing, and also to withdraw a previously submitted subsequent authority.. 11/20/2014.
calendar notice sent.
-
-
Chaserious
The court originally scheduled oral arguments for 12/10, and at the WTS' request it was rescheduled for 1/14. It's not really anything to read into; attorneys routinely have conflicting commentments. The decision is not going to be handed down at the time of oral argument in any event.
-
55
No longer to use "house to house record" slips and "please follow up slips"!
by stuckinarut2 ina letter has just been read out indicating that effective immediately, witnesses are no longer to use the s-8 slip known as the "house to house" record slip, as well as the s-43 "please follow up" slip (usually used for foreign language people).. the letter stated that this is because of the changes in privacy laws etc that are becoming common in the world today.. i will try and get a copy of the full letter and post it asap.. .
-
-
Chaserious
Someone asked me to weigh in on this thread from a legal perspective. If these forms have been discontinued in the U.S., I don't think it's due to fear of liability under any privacy or data collection laws. There is nothing illegal in the U.S. about collecting an address along with any information that a person voluntarily discloses, such as name, contact info, etc. This is especially so considering that they are not stored in a central database, but typically just retained in the file of whoever personally collected the information. There is an increasing amount of litigation over unwanted phone/email correspondence, but that wouldn't apply in the case of someone who turns over that information person-to-person and then is contacted. I can’t see any connection between this and “Obamacare” either.
I would guess that this is due to an overall strategy to reduce the appearance of central control over the "preaching" work. They certainly don't want to be on the hook for an agent/servant relationship arising for any liability incurred by individual JWs in field service. This could include anything from vehicle damage/personal injury to physical/sexual assault allegations to trespassing charges. The less individual JWs use WTBTS forms as they go about preaching, that's one less piece of evidence for courts to use to find that the WTBTS is vicariously liable for any acts of individual JWs. WTBTS surely wants the spin that all preaching is organized and directed at the congregation/individual level.
As for other countries, I can’t offer much insight on legal reasons for pulling these forms. As others have said, privacy laws tend to be stricter outside of the U.S.
-
7
Jehovah's Witnesses win partial victory over gated communities. Too little too late?
by Balaamsass2 inmonday, november 24, 2014last update: 1:00 pm pt.
jehovah's witnesses win community access case.
by jack bouboushian .
-
-
Chaserious
The decision from this week was not actually that they could have access to the gated communities - that was decided by the First Circuit Court of Appeals years ago. This was another appeal over how to implement the process of allowing access and how widely it should be applied.
Either way, allowing them access is easily the right decision. The municipal governments are involved in setting up the gated areas. Private persons on private property should be able to keep out whoever they want, but the government should never be allowed to pick and choose who can speak publicly in public places.
As for paying taxes, that never has been and should not be a prerequisite for access to the courts and protection of constitutional rights.
-
551
Officer Wilson not indicted in killing of Michael Brown
by Simon inafter a thorough investigation and weighing of the evidence the grand jury has decided not to indict the officer.. the reaction so far seems as predicted - people refuse to accept that the result represents justice despite claims that is what they wanted.. there is now violence and vandalism, including gunshots.
let's hope the police contain the troublemakers.. .
-
-
Chaserious
I think the civil rights lawsuit will fail because there is clearly no evidence of any racial motivation for the incident
Racial motivation is not an element of a civil rights suit. Excessive force or unreasonable seizure in violation of constitutional restraints on such conduct is sufficient for a civil rights suit. In fact, white plaintiffs file them all the time. There is almost certainly enough there to survive to trial, and the liability potential is so massive that a settlement is likely.
If you are referring to Trayvon Martin as the last trial of the century, there was no civil rights suit because the alleged perpetrator was not a state actor.
-
551
Officer Wilson not indicted in killing of Michael Brown
by Simon inafter a thorough investigation and weighing of the evidence the grand jury has decided not to indict the officer.. the reaction so far seems as predicted - people refuse to accept that the result represents justice despite claims that is what they wanted.. there is now violence and vandalism, including gunshots.
let's hope the police contain the troublemakers.. .
-
-
Chaserious
There was definitely not enough evidence to convict Officer Wilson. That said, it's very unusual for a grand jury not to indict, and even more unusual for a prosecutor to act like he doesn't mind that an indictment was not returned. The whole indictment process was probably a charade, and if not for the public scrutiny the prosecutor' office probably wouldn't have brought these charges.
The civil rights lawsuit is surely next, and I would be surprised if the family doesn't get a sizeable settlement.