by Dansk 101 Replies latest jw friends
Sad Emo
I doubt it..................CRB's cost £58 for each person and take about 6 - 8 weeks to process (that is for a full CRB check)......I have never heard of elders having to have this done......my brother is an elder........I just cannot imagine that all eleders have had them.
Fi
Thanks for the info fifi - more ammo to use against their charitable status!
I can't believe that even elders wouldn't already have them! Even most of 'Christendoms' leaders have had CRBs since they were first introduced.
I found this in the draft supplementary guidance produce by the charities commission for charities involved with the advancement of religion (http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Library/publicbenefit/pdfs/pbarsum.pdf). It is still at the consultation stage but one it comes into force the WTS and congregations will have to take note. As it states " When published it will form part of the Commission’s statutory guidance in this area, to which trustees must by law have regard". Unlawfully restricting a person’s freedom (Page 27) Some organisations advancing religion encourage their followers or adherents to live together in a religious community. Provided that members of the community are free to exercise personal choice as to whether they are at liberty to leave the community without intimidation or threat of repercussions, then public benefit will not be an issue on that ground. The freedom to exercise personal choice is not just an issue that applies to religious communities. To be for the public benefit, charities advancing religion must not unlawfully restrict the freedom of their followers or adherents to exercise this personal choice. Dangerous or damaging to mental or physical health (Page 26) One possible example of this type of detriment or harm is the refusal to allow medical treatment, or the taking of medicines, on religious grounds. The question of detriment or harm in this case hinges on a question of personal choice. Where the choice of whether to do so is made by a fully consenting adult, and the practice of not taking medicine or undergoing treatment can be justified through the teachings of the faith, this will not affect public benefit. The withholding, on religious grounds, of medical treatment without someone’s consent, or for children or other vulnerable people, is a contentious area. If consent is withheld because to administer such treatment would be contrary to a fundamental aspect of the faith, and if the withholding of consent is not against the law, or is managed by the law in another way, for instance by the state taking over the power to consent, then we would need to consider whether any possible damage to mental or physical health outweighs the general benefits of people having the freedom to follow their religion. Whilst exercising personal choice regarding medical treatment might not affect public benefit, public benefit is more likely to be an issue where an organisation advancing religion seeks to actively discourage members of the public in general from seeking medical treatment. Public benefit can also be called into question where there is evidence that the way in which a particular organisation advances a religion can be damaging to a person’s mental health, for example because of the techniques that it uses. I wonder how they will try and get around this........
I found this in the draft supplementary guidance produce by the charities commission for charities involved with the advancement of religion (http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Library/publicbenefit/pdfs/pbarsum.pdf). It is still at the consultation stage but one it comes into force the WTS and congregations will have to take note. As it states " When published it will form part of the Commission’s statutory guidance in this area, to which trustees must by law have regard". Unlawfully restricting a person’s freedom (Page 27) Some organisations advancing religion encourage their followers or adherents to live together in a religious community. Provided that members of the community are free to exercise personal choice as to whether they are at liberty to leave the community without intimidation or threat of repercussions, then public benefit will not be an issue on that ground. The freedom to exercise personal choice is not just an issue that applies to religious communities. To be for the public benefit, charities advancing religion must not unlawfully restrict the freedom of their followers or adherents to exercise this personal choice. Dangerous or damaging to mental or physical health (Page 26) One possible example of this type of detriment or harm is the refusal to allow medical treatment, or the taking of medicines, on religious grounds. The question of detriment or harm in this case hinges on a question of personal choice. Where the choice of whether to do so is made by a fully consenting adult, and the practice of not taking medicine or undergoing treatment can be justified through the teachings of the faith, this will not affect public benefit. The withholding, on religious grounds, of medical treatment without someone’s consent, or for children or other vulnerable people, is a contentious area. If consent is withheld because to administer such treatment would be contrary to a fundamental aspect of the faith, and if the withholding of consent is not against the law, or is managed by the law in another way, for instance by the state taking over the power to consent, then we would need to consider whether any possible damage to mental or physical health outweighs the general benefits of people having the freedom to follow their religion. Whilst exercising personal choice regarding medical treatment might not affect public benefit, public benefit is more likely to be an issue where an organisation advancing religion seeks to actively discourage members of the public in general from seeking medical treatment. Public benefit can also be called into question where there is evidence that the way in which a particular organisation advances a religion can be damaging to a person’s mental health, for example because of the techniques that it uses. I wonder how they will try and get around this........
Thank you Paddington Bear for bumping this topic. I had forgotten about this. Will take a look at the Charities Commission info.
This looks very significant.
Could this lead to the organisation reviewing the shunning and blood policies?
No doubt if they do change them it'll be along the lines of these issues becoming 'conscience' issues with the proviso that "of course true Christians will want to follow Christ and continue to shun and not take blood.....". All with the goal of keeping these dangerous beliefs in place whilst keeping their charitable status.
Time for another bump for this one too.
Can anyone still in confirm for definite whether people in 'positions of authority' in the congregations do have CRB's? I really do think this could be a strong point against their charitable status.
Paddington bear's post reformatted (hopefully) Need to check whether this has been introduced (but I need to go to work now lol!) --------------------------------- I found this in the draft supplementary guidance produce by the charities commission for charities involved with the advancement of religion (http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Library/publicbenefit/pdfs/pbarsum.pdf). It is still at the consultation stage but one it comes into force the WTS and congregations will have to take note. As it states " When published it will form part of the Commission’s statutory guidance in this area, to which trustees must by law have regard". Unlawfully restricting a person’s freedom (Page 27) - Some organisations advancing religion encourage their followers or adherents to live together in a religious community. Provided that members of the community are free to exercise personal choice as to whether they are at liberty to leave the community without intimidation or threat of repercussions, then public benefit will not be an issue on that ground. The freedom to exercise personal choice is not just an issue that applies to religious communities. To be for the public benefit, charities advancing religion must not unlawfully restrict the freedom of their followers or adherents to exercise this personal choice. Dangerous or damaging to mental or physical health (Page 26) One possible example of this type of detriment or harm is the refusal to allow medical treatment, or the taking of medicines, on religious grounds. The question of detriment or harm in this case hinges on a question of personal choice. Where the choice of whether to do so is made by a fully consenting adult, and the practice of not taking medicine or undergoing treatment can be justified through the teachings of the faith, this will not affect public benefit. The withholding, on religious grounds, of medical treatment without someone’s consent, or for children or other vulnerable people, is a contentious area. If consent is withheld because to administer such treatment would be contrary to a fundamental aspect of the faith, and if the withholding of consent is not against the law, or is managed by the law in another way, for instance by the state taking over the power to consent, then we would need to consider whether any possible damage to mental or physical health outweighs the general benefits of people having the freedom to follow their religion. Whilst exercising personal choice regarding medical treatment might not affect public benefit, public benefit is more likely to be an issue where an organisation advancing religion seeks to actively discourage members of the public in general from seeking medical treatment. Public benefit can also be called into question where there is evidence that the way in which a particular organisation advances a religion can be damaging to a person’s mental health, for example because of the techniques that it uses.
Bump
