The Fall Guy linked to the complete report of the Commission's findings in regards to the Manchester Congregation. Here's the link again.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/manchester-new-moston-congregation-of-jehovahs-witnesses-inquiry-report/manchester-new-moston-congregation-of-jehovahs-witnesses
This is the conclusion from that report
Conclusions
The Commission has concluded that the charity’s trustees did not deal adequately with allegations of child sexual abuse in 2012 and 2013 against one of the trustees. This is because they did not:- Identify one allegation as potential child sexual abuse, believing it to be merely ‘a matter between 2 teenagers’.
- Properly take account of an earlier allegation of child sexual abuse when considering new allegations made in 2012.
- Fully enforce the restrictions the trustees decided to place on Mr Rose’s activities in February and July 2012.
- Consider and deal with potential conflicts of loyalty within the trustee body.
- Keep an adequate written record of the decision making process used to manage the potential risks posed by Mr Rose to the beneficiaries of the charity.
The Commission has also concluded that the charity’s trustees did not deal adequately with a misconduct appeal hearing against Mr Rose in 2014 following his release from prison. This is because victims were effectively required to attend the misconduct appeal hearing and repeat their allegations in the presence of the abuser, and the abuser was permitted to question the alleged victims. Although the trustees did not themselves conduct the hearing, they remain responsible for ensuring that the charity’s procedures do not expose its beneficiaries or others to significant risks of harm, and they failed to do this.
It is the inquiry’s view that the charity’s trustees did not cooperate openly and transparently with the Commission. In particular, they did not provide accurate and complete answers to the Commission regarding the earlier allegation of child sexual abuse and the conduct of the misconduct hearing against the former trustee. The inquiry was concerned that the charity trustees did not report a serious incident to the Commission.
The above matters constitute misconduct or mismanagement in the administration of the charity.
The charity has a written policy on child safeguarding. It also has internal procedures for the handling of misconduct allegations within its congregation, which are used to deal with allegations of child sexual abuse.
The Commission welcomes the changes implemented to the procedures since the launch of the inquiry for the handling of misconduct allegations and to the child safeguarding policy applicable to the charity. These revisions improve the charity’s written policy and procedures for handling child safeguarding allegations, including by making clear that victims of child sexual abuse are not required to make their allegations in the presence of the alleged abuser, and providing for protective restrictions to be put in place in all cases where an individual is found to have engaged in child sexual abuse by the criminal courts.
The policy and procedures are common to all Jehovah’s Witness congregations in England and Wales and are being examined further as part of the Commission’s ongoing inquiry into WTBTSB. The Commission is also examining as part of the ongoing WTBTSB inquiry the practical measures which will be taken to minimise the risk of the issues identified by this inquiry from recurring in other congregations. Issues of particular relevance to this inquiry that will be examined further in the WTBTSB inquiry include:- the application of the ‘two-witness rule’
- how and to what extent in practice victims will be involved in future Judicial Committees and related procedures the practice of requiring victims to confront their abuser during the judicial committee procedure
- record keeping and disclosure of information to public bodies and individual
The Commission has accused the Elders of that Congregation of misconduct or mismanagement. Reading the report discloses a number of injustices carried out by these Elders in the carrying out of the very duties they have been appointed to do by the organisation. Their incompetence means they are far from being 'beyond reproach' and under the organisations own requirements, do not qualify to maintain their positions.
The organisation may say that they are just imperfect men but to actively try and prevent the Commission from holding the investigations in the first place is wicked.
They may not pay any taxes but because of that they have set themselves up as a charity and are subject to the laws under which the Commission subjects them to. How they must hate it when they now realise how far that Commission is willing to investigate and expose them.
