Panorama, I remember that BBC did a show on Panorama a few years back re child abuse in the WTS and how it was handled. What effect did that have in the UK?
The Lawsuit: What Is The Aftermath?
by metatron 20 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
OnTheWayOut
Panorama, Suffer the Little Children.
Three parts, still on youtube. Here's part one, you will find the others there:
-
slimboyfat
Was the position of the CO specifically involved in this case?
-
falseprophet
Remember the Panorama programme a few years ago? Many avoided watching it and those that did put down to apostates.
I remember it well yet I never saw it.
Clearly remember the brother reading the letter from Bethel telling us that we should not watch the program.
The first time I saw it was just a few weeks ago thanks to YouTube.
They will try to keep this case hidden from as many members as possible, at least to start with.
-
Band on the Run
I fear the verdict may be reversed on appeal. Not having read a range of cases where churches were defendants, I don't know have a true feeling for existing law. IMO, the priest-pentitent privilege is crucial. The WT has been settling cases. If they had no possible liability, why settle? They never cared about their name being in public disrepute before now. On the other hand, it is a leap to impose liability on the non-perpetrtator. A leap that society should embrace. The punitive award shows how much the public, as gauged by a jury verdicrt, is fed up.
A Roman Catholic official in Philadelphia is now on criminal trial for covering up pedophilia cases and assigning priests to new parishes without any notice to anyone of the priests' history.
It boggles my mind that the perp is in good standing in another congregation. I wonder if this fact was admitted in evidence. Will this be the first notice that the present congregation receives.
Everyone is so elated here. I hope we don't have a let down. So much of the WT's actions are beyond me. Why quote convicted Nuremberg Tribunal Nazis, esp. when there is no need to bolster your case. Why can't you discuss a marriage relationship without encouraging a woman to be beat for seventeen more years in the hope that the perp becomes a JW? It was interesting how the WT never stated the man stopped the beatings when he became a JW. There is nothing so important to all JW doctrine to have their pedophile policy. They love thumbing their nose at society. Society just thumbed their noses back in a resounding way.
I keep thinking of Jesus' words "Suffer the little children to come to me." He did not want cute children. Children had no status until the Victorian era. Jesus was saying that the outcasts were important to him. He never told the apostles to let the children approach him so they could be sexually abused. Jesus did not say very much if you consider that he was Jesus. I see Jesus raising a new standard for the treatment of children.
If the jury in the Pennsylvania Roman Catholic case now pending convicts the administrative priest who arranged pedophile assignments, it may have enormous impact across the country. If some high ranking Bethelite had to face prison and this Alameda verdict is upheld, new light will appear in the WT policy. The Holy Spirit will suddenly shed new light on the GB.
-
metatron
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_pocket
For those of you who may not discern that which I am asserting, I will flesh it out a bit. Witness congregations are not autonomous or independent. Elders are appointed from HQ thru the C.O. There is a clear chain of command that leads to the GB without any gap. Remember, even McDonalds (in a franchise situation) was successfully sued for $70K by an old lady who spilled hot coffee on herself.
When they split the Organization into 9 or so corporations, it was done with the hope of avoiding a court putting any half dead GB member on the witness stand. I say cases like this recent one make the Watchtower Society an accident waiting to happen, a bug in search of a windshield.
metatron
-
DesirousOfChange
I fear the verdict may be reversed on appeal.
I would not be surprised to see that happen either.
The jurors held the WTS resonsible for the actions of the alleged molestor as though he was in their "employment" or their official representative. From what I've read about the case, he was not a member of the "clergy" (Elder) at the time. The case against the Cong and the WTS is that they did not report the facts of the earlier abuse publicly nor to the legal authorities of the State in an offort to protect others from being abused in the future. However, reporting the abuse to the State was not a law at that time. (And it may not be the law in all US States even now. Take it up with your Congressman if you don't like the way it is!) Thus, at that time, the Cong or WTS may have been sued and held liable by the accused for breaking his expected right to privacy. It's a Catch-22. The WTS did not move him on to another parish or cong and re-appoint him to a position of responsibility, as has happened in suits against the Catholic Church.
Jurors react emotionally. A panel of appeal judges will more likely react strictly on the Law. If there was no law broken by WTS, why should they be held liable?
I'm just saying......don't be surprised if that happens. On a good note, it may still result in some changes organizationally that will protect future potential victims.
Doc
-
St George of England
Panorama, I remember that BBC did a show on Panorama a few years back re child abuse in the WTS and how it was handled. What effect did that have in the UK?
I mentioned that programme in my comments above because it so parallels this court action. It had no discernable effect in my opinion. Prior to the show whispers went around the congregation that it should not be watched. I'm sure many did watch it, including me, but it was not talked about afterward.
If this case does make the press in the U.K. anyone openly talking about within earshot of the elders will be jumped upon in the same way.
Oppressive regimes such as North Korea could learn a lot from the WTS.
George
-
wha happened?
The appeal process has to do with procedure. It's not a do-over. There isn't an aftermath yet as they still have the legal right for an appeal, but there are a few steps before that. I know one case I was involved with, after the judge ruled in my favor, they filed for a reconsideration of facts. They lost again. So it's still "on" for now.
-
Disillusioned Lost-Lamb
Aftermath denotes that it's over,
and it ain't over yet.
So stay tuned.