The following are some notes from my recent Level III Child Safeguarding Training. I have tabulated the notes and then expressed my thoughts about the training and the paradigm of the WTBTS / Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.....
Course notes......
STEPS TO TAKE when one learns of / receives a complaint of
child abuse.
UK Level III Child Safeguarding Training (excerpt).
Adults looking after children
or young people should be aware of the risks of abuse (by adults or other young
people), and take steps to reduce those risks.
Staff or volunteers in charge
of children or young people should know what to do if they suspect that someone
is being physically or sexually abused, or if someone tells them that this is
happening.
The following key points give
a guide on what to do and what not to do…..
· Never think abuse is impossible in your organisation or group, or that an accusation
against someone you know well and trust is bound to be wrong.
·
Children and young people often te3ll other young people, rather than staff or adults, about abuse – make sure that
your senior young people know the poits on this sheet as well as the
responsible adults.
Stop, Listen &
Believe
Always stop and listen straight away to someone who wants
to tell you about incidents or suspicions of abuse.
Write Brief Notes
If you can, write brief notes of what they are telling you
while they are speaking (these may help later if you have to remember exactly
what was said) and keep your original notes, howver rough and even if you wrote
on the back of something else (it’s what you wrote at the time that may be
important later – not a tidier and improved version you wrote up afterwards!). If you don’t have the means to write at the
time, make notes of what was said or observed as soon as possible afterwards.
Never Make Promises
Never make a promise that you will keep what is said
confidential or secret – if you are told about abuse you have a responsibility
to tell the right people to get something done about it. If asked, explain that if you are going to be
told something very important that needs to be sorted out, you will need to
tell the people who can sort it out, but that you will only tell the people who
absolutely have to know.
No Leading Questions
Do not ask leading questions that might give your own ideas
of what might have happened (e.g. “did he do X to you?”) – just ask “what do
you want to tell me?” or “is there anything else you want to say?”
Report Immediately
·
Immediately report the
abuse to a line manager
·
Follow the correct
workplace procedures for reporting abuse
Protection
Discuss with the person in charge whether any steps need to
be taken to protect the person who has told you about the abuse (this may need
to be discussed with the person who told you).
Do not carry out
investigations
Never attempt to carry out an investigation of suspected or
alleged abuse by interviewing people etc, - social services and police staff
are the people trained to do this – you could cause more damage and spoil
possible criminal proceedings. It is
your duty to refer concerns on, not investigate.
Refer
·
As soon as possible
(and certainly the same day) the person in charge should refer the matter to
the local social services department (helped by your notes).
·
Follow their requests
about what to do next.
·
They will set up any
necessary investigations and can advise you – that is their statutory job.
Notes /thoughts:
The training emphasises
sharing with appropriate expertise to enable protection of the victim. The WT practice is to retain in house where
expertise is minimal and the victim is thus not protected. Children deserve expertise. Parents are reassured at the availability of
expertise. WT BoE have a paucity of
expertise as the WT society’s philosophy is one which is inimical to higher
education.
The guidance tabulated above
is not rocket science. It is simple and
straightforward. Yet there is a chasm
between this guidance and the practice within the paradigm of the WT. That the WT society isolates itself from the
“superior authorities” is quite telling, especially where vulnerable children
and adolescents are concerned.
Part of the concept of love is
that of protection. The above tabulated
advice is protective of a victim. The WT
paradigm is protective of itself and is demonstrably loveless towards
victims. Indeed, the mal-experience of
the victim is likely to be compounded by the practices of the WT society. The WT society uses the illustration of a shepherd
rather generously. Yet by its actions,
it demonstrates that it is a pseudo-shepherd in that a victim of child abuse is
seen as adversarial, and thus an object to be scape-goated and marginalised.
If you are a JW and a
ministerial servant or elder, and also a nurse, a doctor, a social worker, or
other health / care professional, you could well be putting your professional
status at risk by following the guidance of the WT society exclusively as you
are required by them to do as its guidance is protective of the institution and
not the victim. As a health / social
care professional, you are required to protect the victim.
If you are a health
professional JW but not a ministerial servant or elder, surely as a parent, you
would prefer the above guidance founded on empirical expertise to be followed,
rather than the WT society’s pseudo-guidance to be followed, which is focussed
on containment within the organisation.
If you are a British JW,
remember that quite recently, the WT Society of Britain sent its officers to
Eire regarding several elders whose conscience directed them to disclose a case
of abuse to the Garda (Irish Police).
The outcome was that several of those elders were deleted as they were
found by the WT society of Britain not to be of sound mind! But as a parent, wouldn’t you have found the
elders’ approaching the Garda to be reassuring? This example of mal-conduct on
the part of the WTBTS of Britain (aka Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses
/ aka IBSA – International Bible Students’ Association) evidences an especially
bad record of protecting individuals who are victims of child abuse. This is a society which superficially extolls
“lowliness of mind” and “reasonableness” and yet in practice puts itself (the
institution) first, and is unreasonable in its aggressively litigious paradigm
of having tried to obstruct the Charity Commission and deleting the small
number of elders who decided to follow their consciences.
If you are a JW ministerial
servant or elder, I hope you realise one day soon, that your Britain Branch
isn’t providing you with the child safeguarding training you need. Their omission of training is wanton. That you acquiesce with their paradigm of
protecting the org above the child can get you into trouble. The best thing you can do is to resign as an
elder or ministerial servant. If you
can’t do that then at least quit as a charitable trustee if you are an elder. If you can’t resign as an elder nor quit as a
charitable trustee, then at least search around for third party liability
insurance to cover yourself for following the woeful advice of the WTBTS of
Britain.
Just look at what’s happened
to the charity in the UK which sought to conceal that some of its employees
abused children in Haiti and elsewhere.
Their receipt of donations is significantly down such that they are
having to shed employees, sell property, and curtail their charitable
activity. The difference which sticks
out in my mind is that they have acknowledged the problem, apologised, and are
putting procedures in place which will mitigate the risk of the situation being
repeated. There is no such reflection on
the part of the WTBTS of Britain. It
remains, cold, conceited, controlling
and cagey.
You might think I’m exaggerating
by labelling the WTBTS of Britain as “cagey”.
However, I remember a time in the UK when direction went out to all the
congregation BoE to have “a capable brother” nominated to deal with the press
and media. The Britain Branch of the
WTBTS also had a press and media individual to portray the organisation. I think it was Paul Gillies – an individual
rich in his knowledge, experience, and application of WT protocols. He appeared on British TV only once or
twice. The countenance of the TV
interviewer conveyed incredulity at his coldness. That neither he nor others are available for
interview / scrutiny in more recent times is demonstrative of their failure to
meet their own objective of positively portraying the org; is demonstrative of
their incompetence as communicators, and reflects their modern day decision to
opt for a paradigm of being comprehensively taciturn (cagey).
I am so pleased that their
contributions are diminishing; so
pleased that their numbers are shrinking.
From the influences of the WT society in the UK and elsewhere, may
“angels and ministers of grace defend us” as Hamlet said!
