i'd like to work toward ensuring that the wts bans pedophiles from sharing in the door to door work out of consideration for the public.
i'd like to ensure that this ban applied not just to those who have been convicted of pedophile activities but also to those who have secretly confessed to elders.
would this subject be appropriate for an e-petition?
I'd like to work toward ensuring that the WTS bans pedophiles from sharing in the door to door work out of consideration for the public. I'd like to ensure that this ban applied not just to those who have been convicted of pedophile activities but also to those who have secretly confessed to elders.
Would this subject be appropriate for an e-petition?
http://www.latrobevalleyexpress.com.au/news/local/news/general/private-prosecution-gets-thrown-out-of-court/2468225.aspx?storypage=2private prosecution gets thrown out of court.
by louis nelson.
27 feb, 2012 01:00 am.
the WT response is tired and well rehearsed but it works for them. I do feel for Mr Unthank.
sd-7 texted me today.
his wife is in labor, has had some complications and is having an emergency c-section.
he asked me to spread the word to the folks on jwn.
congratulations SD-7
sd-7 texted me today.
his wife is in labor, has had some complications and is having an emergency c-section.
he asked me to spread the word to the folks on jwn.
i'm hoping that this thread can address the current situation in australia without being derailed by debate about steven unthank and any errors of judgement that he may have committed.
i'm not saying that debate isn't needed or appropriate.
it's just that there are already enough other threads handling that subject.. the crown has implied that they are unwilling to enforce the working with children act.
thank you the quiet one. I am thoroughly familiar with Mr unthanks views and his style of writing. It is very powerful and this kind of rhetoric is a significantly useful tool when all else has failed. I salute mr unthank in paying careful attention to the WTS' sytle of conveying info in order to use their persuasive techniques to prosecute them. I mean this sincerely.
But I would still like to know
1) what the congregations were actually told by the WTS
2)what the policeman was actualy told by the court sys and what the policeman actually told Mr unthank regarding compliance with wwc legislation.
It is not that I disbelieve Mr Unthank. But I would like to separate fact from interpretation of the facts.
i'm hoping that this thread can address the current situation in australia without being derailed by debate about steven unthank and any errors of judgement that he may have committed.
i'm not saying that debate isn't needed or appropriate.
it's just that there are already enough other threads handling that subject.. the crown has implied that they are unwilling to enforce the working with children act.
the wt attorney's comment to the judge "that has all been sorted out now" could mean a number of things. to my mind it is unlikely, though possible, that she was saying that elders have been told to comply.
"that has all been sorted now" could mean that they the wt lawyers was addressing Mr Unthanks's claim that Jehovahs witnesses themselves wanted the WTS to comply with the legislature contained within wwc laws. So the WT letter, the contents of which somebody paraphrased here on here a while back could be seen to be addressing this aspect of Steven Unthanks accusation. That witnesses were told that if individual witnesses wanted to have these checks done then to go ahead but that in general the checks did not apply to Jehovahs witnesses. So this is what I wish to clarify and is the reason I'd like to see the letter or even just a close paraphrase of it.
A police authority is reported to have told Mr Unthank that all the elders are going to be to told to comply with WWC legislation. It is possible there there has been miscommunication and misunderstanding between Mr Unthank the policeman and what the policeman was told by the court (this often hapens). Mr Unthank says the police authrority was going to tell him in writing. Has Mr unthank receive this letter and would he be prepared to share it with us?
we also have a situation going on in the UK and this is why I'd like to know the bare facts in themselves.
even if the above is the outcome Mr unthank is still a hero as it is very rare that the wts are forced to write letters to congregations about any external action that has been taken
i'm hoping that this thread can address the current situation in australia without being derailed by debate about steven unthank and any errors of judgement that he may have committed.
i'm not saying that debate isn't needed or appropriate.
it's just that there are already enough other threads handling that subject.. the crown has implied that they are unwilling to enforce the working with children act.
size
@soft+gentle . . . I think I have seen the letter. I will try and track it down. Maybe later today or tomorrow. |
that would be great size - thank you
i'm gonna play the skeptic today on a topic that is painful for a lot of people on this forum.
my intent is not to stir anything up but to make sure facts are confirmed.
bear in mind, i'm sickened by the wt's role (and the heirarchy down to elders) in child molestation cover-ups.
as for this thread - it is good to see that many xjws can be objective when there is a need for it.
i'm gonna play the skeptic today on a topic that is painful for a lot of people on this forum.
my intent is not to stir anything up but to make sure facts are confirmed.
bear in mind, i'm sickened by the wt's role (and the heirarchy down to elders) in child molestation cover-ups.
still thinking
So does familiarity excuse misrepresentation? Does it make it ok to be untruthful? And when people post links to websites that seem dodgy, does it mean we should accept it because you say so? I haven't corresponded with him personally on FB but so what? What does that have to do with his commentary offending me? And the picture being pure sensationalism? Sizemik. I really respect you as a poster on here, but this time I have to disagree with your opinion. It comes across like when you have a best friend and someone is being mean to them. You know some things presented here just haven't added up. You know why people are going WTF but you still defend him because you are personally involved now and have a connection...your comment 'taking a strong interest' is condescending, as though no one elses opinions matter. We do not Know as much as you therefore talk through our assess. Well, you may be right, but you also may be wrong. Cyberjesus...I can see where you are coming from...and I am a woman by the way. Actually tal...it is the issue. No one here is saying child rape is good NO ONE is defending the pedophiles. People are questioning the other things. The picture. the dishonesty, the website. the technicalities. Unfortunately, when someone is caught telling porkies or stretching the truth it puts everything else in question. NO ONE wants to believe the case did not exist. They want proof that it did. You are making it personal. I can see why. But I think it would be good idea to step back and look at what people are actually saying. Not what yo think they are saying. Sizemik, I would say the same to you. SBJ had a valid reason for starting this thread. Just because you can't see that does not make it less valid. And it is not a personal attack on the man. He has a public website. It is a public question. |
i'm gonna play the skeptic today on a topic that is painful for a lot of people on this forum.
my intent is not to stir anything up but to make sure facts are confirmed.
bear in mind, i'm sickened by the wt's role (and the heirarchy down to elders) in child molestation cover-ups.
you have trouble understanding english cedars. nice deflection btw.
