Posts by jamesmahon

343

Anonymous Message to Watchtower

by jwleaks in

http://www.bit.ly/jwleaks-anonymous.

hello citizens of the world.

we are anonymous.. dear brothers and sisters,.

jamesmahon

Cedars.

It seems you are dismissing the findings of the NSPCC report that this activity is likely to harm children in the hope that it will cause terminal damage to the WTBTS. I'm afraid you are dismissing the report and don't understand why. Releasing the names of child molestors has been done before and does not stop molestation. The evidence is clear. Just because this is a list of religious people we happen not to like does not make that any different. And as said ad nauseum the evidence is on convicted molestors. People who are monitored regularly (hopefully) by police. Somehow because these people are only accused and not convicted they are going to behave more responsibly? You have lost me there.

You have latched onto DTs one suggestion how this may stop child molestation and ignored all the reasons I have given that it will increase the risk of molestation. Reasons that are supported by evidence.

You have already talked of 'casualties of war'. Some of these casualties will be children who either are abused by molesters going awol or simply the children of wrongly accused men. I think maybe you should have a good think through whether these casualties are acceptable for your aim. Even if it is acheived. I just think they could cause more damage and have fewer casualties if they went to the source of the policies, which anonymous may well be doing.

I really do not mean to be patronising. This is clearly a very serious and emotive issue. My own personal view is that child molestors should be executed on the grounds that they are never going to be safe to have in the community and so the only alternative is permanent incarcaration. I care as deeply about these issues as anyone and not sure why anyone would suppose because I have said - "look, this is not going to work and may make things worse" I am being pounced on. I would just ask that people do read the NSPCC report. If you disagree with it and the conclusions they draw and I take from it than fine. Lets talk about that. Or if you disagree with my logic of what will happen then please do so as well. Like I said from the outset I am happy, as always, to be wrong on this. Simply saying my assertions are based on nothing when, to be fair, that is clearly not the case is not helpful. Why do you think the NSPCCs' findings are not translatable? Why do you think that the types of people I listed as being named will stop offending because the list has been published?

343

Anonymous Message to Watchtower

by jwleaks in

http://www.bit.ly/jwleaks-anonymous.

hello citizens of the world.

we are anonymous.. dear brothers and sisters,.

jamesmahon

Cedars

You know I was not being patronising. This from the preface of the NSPCC report on Megan's Law (making the names of convicted child molestors known to the public)

There is no evidence that Megan’s Law reduces reoffending. However, there is some evidence that it may have unintended negative consequences for children.

About as unambigous a statement you can get. Which is why I was wondering if you had read it. The whole report is full of evidence that would seem to contradict what is common sense. The authors acknowledge this and that the message about what really stops child molestors needs to be better set out to the public.

I appreciate having spoken to the NSPCC that they will say the whole WTBTS policy around child abuse protects offenders and does not protect children. I have not argued against this at all. I have merely continued to reiterate that releasing this list - the existence of which is public knowledge anyway - will not protect children and will result in some innocent people having their lives ruined. Perhaps you should ask the NSPCC if they think that such a list should be made public over the internet. I am guessing they would say no. But each to their own opinion.

I do resent the suggestion that I am somehow either an idiot or an apologist for molestors for suggesting that the evidence says this is counterproductive.

343

Anonymous Message to Watchtower

by jwleaks in

http://www.bit.ly/jwleaks-anonymous.

hello citizens of the world.

we are anonymous.. dear brothers and sisters,.

jamesmahon

Flipper. Are the NSPCC child abuse apologists? You know you really have a witch hunt when someone can't say this is a witch hunt without being called a witch. Why don't you go full hog and accuse me of being a child molestor? Tell you what, I will just be a sheep like everyone else and say this is great. Sure the evidence says at best this will make sod all difference to protecting children and at worst make children more at risk plus leading to a load of people being tarred as molestors when they are not but hey, who cares? The watchtower may get a bashing and that is all that matters right?

DT. Your argument might hold water but if it does then what about the ones that have been removed as elders because there activities are known by the rest of the congregation. Because of that knowledge the community may have been safer (which is what I believe you are all arguing here - knowledge results in the offendor not being able to offend). Now this list does one of two things. Either everyone shrugs their shoulders and goes 'huh, so what. We knew anyway' or some new people in the cong find out and go ballistic wanting the man out of their midst. Fair enough. Except now he goes to another congregation where they don't know who he is and finds he is able to abuse again. And please, the idea it takes years for a child molestor to groom a child is ridiculous. Especially in a religion where adults are encouraged to go door to door with children.

To be honest all this speculation is moot. Argue with the NSPCC about their findings. I was pointing out that the evidence is that releaing this list is counterproductive. The logic is that this is counterproductive. There is a good chance that innocent people and their families will be harmed for the rest of their lives because of its release. And that anonymous should be far more intelligent about their target if they want to bring it down. If that makes me an apologist of any sort than so be it. I can live with that if it means standing up to people I respect if I think they are wrong.

343

Anonymous Message to Watchtower

by jwleaks in

http://www.bit.ly/jwleaks-anonymous.

hello citizens of the world.

we are anonymous.. dear brothers and sisters,.

jamesmahon

Cedars. Have you read the NSPCC report? One of the reasons they looked in this area was because they needed to counter why they were not being more supportive of a Megan's Law. What they found was shocking. Instead of keeping people safe naming convicted pedophiles actually sends a number of them underground and back into offending behaviour. They found no evidence that naming child molestors in your community had stopped a single child molestor offending. Changing targets, possibly, but stopping offending? No.

This list is even worse. 23,000 men, most of whom have not been convicted but only accused, will likely have their name all over the web. Of course when it becomes public knowledge some in congregations will look at the list even if they are told not to. These people will then spread the names throughout the congregation. Now ignore any reports or anything else and just think through what will happen. Most of these people will have no convictions remember so unless the victim is willing to come forwards there will be no police action against individuals unless the victims decide they are ready to go through that. So lets look at the possible outcomes depending on the situation for named individuals:

The person is a child molestor and is no longer a JW. Will not make any difference.
The person is a child molestor but has changed his name since the allegation and moved to a different area. Will make no difference.
The person is a child molestor and is still an active JW but has not changed his name. If he still wishes to molest children he will, like convicted child molestors do, go 'underground' - probably change his name and move to a different area. Again, not a single child protected.
The person is not a child molestor. The accusation was false. Perhaps we can just imagine what happens to him.

So it is not my 'assertion' that naming accused child molestors stops molestation. It is the view of the NSPCC and other children's protection bodies. And this is for convicted child molestors. People that are actual child molestors but have only been accused will have far more opportunity to slip quietly away and molest again than those that have been convicted. You might not like it, it might run against what seems to be common sense but unless you can find a flaw in the NSPCCs' position and/or the logic above then I'm afraid I'm right. And I mean afraid. I wish it was as easy as just to name the bastard and everyone could avoid them. I might even accept a few of your 'friendly fire' casualties. But it just does not work and as stated a few times now - the evidence from child protection bodies says it does not work, not me.

As said previously I don't see the list being published reducing the size of the organisation. 'Growth' as such as the organisation sees in the developed world is largely through born ins. If someone at the door was going to become a witness and has access to the internet they can already find out a huge amount of information on jehovahs witness protection of child molestors. They will easily find this list exists with the number of names. How exactly will the names on this list make any difference to their decision. And witnesses already in either now all about the child abuse issue and can overlook it or just walk around in a cloud.

What could make a real difference as I said before is real internal documents with governing body members making some juicy comments on child abuse (like the one by Jaracz was it along the lines of "it is no worse than other sexual immorality"). Now that stuff would place the Governing Body under significant questioning from new and existing members.

343

Anonymous Message to Watchtower

by jwleaks in

http://www.bit.ly/jwleaks-anonymous.

hello citizens of the world.

we are anonymous.. dear brothers and sisters,.

jamesmahon

Blindnomore

So what you are saying is that despite:

children's protection organisations saying that releasing names of convicted child molestors increases the risk of harm to children
the fact that this will lead to vigilantism against against innocent people and their families
the fact that we are talking about investigations here by completely unqualified people that has led to this list being generated
me telling you that as a victim of abuse I would find such a release of names upsetting. You might not of but I would. Every case is different.

you, in your wisdom, anonymous in their wisdom (because I guess they know all about how sexual predators behave when their names are published) and most of the people it appears on this board still think it is a good idea. Can you please tell me what logic you are using that says releasing this list of accused men (and women) will result in one child being safe from abuse? Because just like in Conti's case, the predatory child molestors will already have moved on. The ones that have not yet and are named will just move to another area, change their name and have complete anonymity. That is what convicted child molesters try to do even when they have law enforcement officers keeping tabs on them. How do you think someone that has not even been convicted going to behave. Sure, they may not abuse the children in the congregation they are in anymore, but they will just swap congregations and start again anew. So your child may have been protected if this list was released but someone else's would not of.

You need to look at the evidence. This activity reduces the protection of children, not increases it. When you couple that with this being a list generated by kangaroo investigations by a bunch of at best ill educated and at worst down right vindictive elders meaning there is a significant possibility that a sizeable minority are completely innocent on this list. And guess what, it is the innocent ones that will stay and try to clear their names rather than just evaporate away. And they will be the ones who have had the mud thrown that will stick and be left with the consequences. You say look at the 1000s that need justice. I do which is why I say this is a stupid idea as it means potentially 1000s more will need justice.

I find the thoughts of some on this board that somehow if a bunch of innocent people get tarred as child molestors than that is ok so long as some abused people get justice. Perhaps you would like to tell me the ratio you find acceptable? 100 innocent men for one child molestor correctly identified? Is it ten? Is it one? Is justice for one person worth the injust loss of liberty and family of another? What if the person wrongly accused was your brother, your dad or god forbid you? It is a horrible, slippery path that a few here seem to be suggesting we should go down.

Witch hunt is what it is. So a few die in the dunking? So what provided we catch the witch. But when the witch hunters come calling the real witches all turn into cats and run into the forest.

343

Anonymous Message to Watchtower

by jwleaks in

http://www.bit.ly/jwleaks-anonymous.

hello citizens of the world.

we are anonymous.. dear brothers and sisters,.

jamesmahon

Soldier77. You need to read the NSPCC report about what naming convicted pedophiles does in terms of protecting children. These people are not even convicted so the ones who are innocent will be wrongly demonised and the ones who are guilty will just drift into another identity if they have not done so already. Like I said if naming convicted pedophiles is not even supported by organisations set up to protect children. Perhaps we should seek their views on whether this is a good idea? I am guessing it would be a resounding no with genuine concern for children that will be abused because of this action.

And please - do you think that publishing the list of these names is going to stop people becoming witnesses? But the Conti case will not? And think very carefully before you say "well if it stops one person becoming a witness..." because are you sure the costs of doing this are worth that? It may seem counterintuitive but community naming schemes - which is effectively what this does - only have evidence that they produce the exact opposite of what you want to achieve. People need to stop and think why they are ignoring the published evidence by children's charities and getting behind anonymous doing this. I don't like the WTBTS anymore than anyone else here. I would love to see them brought to their knees. But even assuming this attack did that it would not be worth the cost of even one more child being put at harm or one innocent person hounded out of their family and community. Anonymous really could do something far better but I guess it would not be as headline grabbing.

343

Anonymous Message to Watchtower

by jwleaks in

http://www.bit.ly/jwleaks-anonymous.

hello citizens of the world.

we are anonymous.. dear brothers and sisters,.

jamesmahon

Oz

I suspect you are right. But it appears they were made aware of this by a poster on this board which suggests they can be influenced. I also think that they are human beings and do not think we should sit idly by while someone does something to supposedly protect children when in reality it is more likely to do the opposite.

My own opinion is that these people have their own reasons for doing this and protecting children isn't at the top.

343

Anonymous Message to Watchtower

by jwleaks in

http://www.bit.ly/jwleaks-anonymous.

hello citizens of the world.

we are anonymous.. dear brothers and sisters,.

jamesmahon

I think the legality of religious organisation holding such a list and not informing the police is not that clear. I could be wrong though. Does anyone know for certain what US (and possibly New York) law says in this regard

343

Anonymous Message to Watchtower

by jwleaks in

http://www.bit.ly/jwleaks-anonymous.

hello citizens of the world.

we are anonymous.. dear brothers and sisters,.

jamesmahon

It isn't worthless Cedar at all. The positives you see when you look at them objectively do not exist. If we are all focussed on protecting children we should be strongly encouraging anonymous not to do this as it is more likely to harm children than protect them. We should be encouraging them to find internal documents that show organisational cover up that is not in the public domain. It is this that was most damaging to the catholic church. I implore everyone on this board to be objective about this. Read the NSPCC report. Think about how we could guide anonymous to find information that would really help the cause rather than doing something that will change little but potentially will harm children and, yes, innocent people caught in the crossfire

343

Anonymous Message to Watchtower

by jwleaks in

http://www.bit.ly/jwleaks-anonymous.

hello citizens of the world.

we are anonymous.. dear brothers and sisters,.

jamesmahon

Hi Cedars. Sure.

Any "witch hunt" that ensues from Anonymous publishing the Watchtower's list is not their fault, but the fault of the Watch Tower Society for holding the list in the first place in flagrant disregard for the rule of law.
Think of it another way... is it right that the Watch Tower Society should be allowed to "take the law into their own hands", but not Anonymous? You will probably say that "two wrongs don't make a right", but the Watch Tower organization is for secrecy, whereas Anonymous (in this case, at least) is for transparency. A "check and balance" if you will!!

I am afraid any witch hunt is their fault as much as the watchtowers. It is not right for the watchtower to take the law into their own hands. But publishing this list as I said is not going to suddenly make them obey the law. They will not be hurt by this list being published. It's existence is already in the public domain. If there is questions about its illegality then it is beholden upon a citizen to inform the law enforcment agencies of its existence to investigate this. It is very much a case of two wrongs definately not making a right here but potentially causing a lot more wrongs.

There are casualties in any war, including "friendly fire". Surely a drastic measure such as the one proposed, although potentially very risky, would be worth it in the long-run if it crippled the organization (credibility-wise) and forced it to comply with the law, thereby severely weakening its ability to conceal paedophiles in the future?
Surely the protection of innocent children takes priority in all of this? In other words, do you honestly believe the negatives outweigh the positives if the paedophile database were to be leaked?

Sorry Cedars, going to have to really strongly disagree with what you are saying here but I do fully understand your sentiment for wanting something to be done. As said in my previous post I cannot see how these actions will force the WTBTS to change its policy. The Conti case and thousands that will follow will do that.

I honestly do believe the negatives far outweigh the positives. I see no real positives. I see this resulting in more children being put at risk of harm not less because of this. And this is my view based upon research by the NSPCC. This is an organisation hardly out to protect child molestors is it? You are better than your comment about 'friendly fire' as well. Some of these friendly fire victims will be children - children of fathers who have been falsely accused for example. It is never right to punish innocent people to try to catch people who are guilty. That surely is the definition of a witch hunt. We must not let our hatred of the organisation sully our good judgement. Maybe we could suggest to anonymous other things they could try to get hold of. Minutes of Governing Body meetings when these things have been discussed? Surely that would be far more damaging.