//SYN
"You're doging the issue."
Well my hope is that not all who read my posts will agree with you on that but see the other side of the coin.
On Panorama's web site there's a testimony from a woman who was abused and who's story is very different.
"these are the words that were told both to Bill Bowen and to the mother of the two daughters who were abused on Panorama, so this is very far from some "isolated occurance."
Who said that that advice was an isolated occurrance? I didn't. So why are you arguing against that? On the conversation between Bowen & the Legal Desk, from which you conclude all molestation cases, no matter what the proof, are considered as best dealt with by waiting for Jehovah, see my contemplative piece below.
"OK, so then why when Bill Bowen phoned Brooklyn about a molestation case was he told to "wait on Jehovah, he'll bring it out"?"
Well what was the legal desk told? For all we know, Bowen could have gone, "I've got a young girl in the congo who's come to me & accused a brother of sexual abuse. What should I do?"
In fact, here's my take on how the conversation went. Obviously, nobody can know until we get to hear the whole tape - and hopefully it hasn't been tampered with. Everybody seems to assume the worst, so I'll throw the ball the other way as usual. In fact, I FIND IT VERY SUSPICIOUS THAT BOWEN RECORDED THE CONVERSATION. HE MAY WELL HAVE PREPARED HIMSELF TO TRY TO GET A CERTAIN RESPONSE FROM THE BROTHER AT THE LEGAL DESK.
Bowen: "I've got a young girl in the congo who's come to me & accused a brother of molesting her. What should I do?"
Legal Desk: "First of all, be very nice to the girl and don't reproach her, see what you can do to make sure she gets support and comfort. Is there any evidence to the allegation? Have you reason to suspect it could be true? Have there been any other reports concerning this brother?"
Bowen: "Not really. He's a commendable brother. What should I do?"
Legal Desk: "Have you spoken to the brother?"
Bowen: "No...I'm not sure how to approach this. It's quite a shock."
Legal Desk: "Well, ask him, you know, 'Is there anything to this?' And if he says "No", walk away from it. No proof, no witnesses...don't get yourself in a jam."
Bowen: "I'm very worried about this..."
Legal Desk: "Don't worry, brother, it'll work out eventually. Wait for Jehovah. He'll bring it out."
[The last comment meaning: "If it's true that the brother did molest the child, evidence will hopefully" (but can you say 'hopefully' without sounding blasphemous? Like Jehovah would let it through the fingers) "emerge." He's trying to COMFORT Bowen. NOT: "Jehovah will come sailing down on a cloud and tell everybody what happened (but we both know he won't, and that's much better for us, the WTBTS, he he he)."]
I stand accused of dodging and side-stepping. I don't see you guys taking in my arguments and saying, "You've got a point there, Dacke, didn't think of that." So how about you guys commenting on these:
1. "Cry wolf" (the difficulty of handling single allegations, JW case or not).
2. "The database indicates that JW aren't hiding suspected pedophiles on purpose." (Don't bother bringing up the indications that they DO here - they aren't relevant to this specific argument. I'm not pretending the other indications aren't there, I have commented on them, I just think there is more to it.)
3. "The number of disfellowshipped brothers every year show that JW are very concerned with moral standards, indicating that it is unlikely that they would wish to hide & protect paedophiles."
4. "The number of disfellowshipped elders every year show that immoral conduct of elders is viewed as unacceptable, indicating that JW would have no wish to keep child molesting elders."