In summary of my previous post, as to your assertion that (1) not ONE SINGLE child will benefit from this action, or as you put it...
"Can you please tell me what logic you are using that says releasing this list of accused men (and women) will result in one child being safe from abuse?"
This is completely ridiculous and devalues your argument from the outset. You can argue about the consequences and ramifications of 'outing' paedophiles all you like, but you CANNOT claim that children will not be saved in the future by bringing these monsters to justice. That is an absurd claim to make, and the longer you make it the less credible you appear.
I'll now respond to a fe w of your other comments...
#465 " Perhaps you should ask the NSPCC if they think that such a list should be made public over the internet. I am guessing they would say no. But each to their own opinion."
Firstly, it is not for me to establish what the NSPCC would or wouldn't advise on this subject. You are the one waving their report in people's faces as evidence of their opinion on this specific matter, so the onus is on you to solicit their advice. Secondly, in my experience of dealing with the NSPCC and ANY charity in relation to JW policy, opinions can be EXTREMELY hard to solicit, as you will no doubt discover for yourself. The reason seems to be that charities don't like to be seen throwing mud at other charities, and even though JWs should NOT enjoy charitable status, they nevertheless do. Therefore, the likes of the NSPCC are very reticent when it comes to commenting on Jehovah's Witnesses, unless it is in a private consultative role.
As regards the proposed action by Anonymous, the very fact that its legality is questionable would merit a negative or condemnatory response from the NSPCC if they were pushed on the issue. They are hardly going to condone vigilante action (even if they favored it) because, by doing so, they could threaten their own charitable status. However, you are NOT in this case debating the ethics of forcibly extracting information from the Society's database - you are debating the consequences of this action on pedophiles and whether this will force them underground and somehow worsen the scale of their offenses. This is another subject altogether, but I suspect you know this, and are just trying to be belligerent.
#466 " It seems you are dismissing the findings of the NSPCC report that this activity is likely to harm children in the hope that it will cause terminal damage to the WTBTS. I'm afraid you are dismissing the report and don't understand why. Releasing the names of child molestors has been done before and does not stop molestation."
This was another area in which your credibility dropped substantially. You accused me of "dismissing" the NSPCC's report when I had done no such thing. I had merely highlighted that it bore no direct relevance to the issue at hand, as explained above.
#466 " Somehow because these people are only accused and not convicted they are going to behave more responsibly? You have lost me there."
If anyone is trying to second-guess the behavior of those accused of child abuse, it is you - not I. My argument is that the authorities should have the opportunity to process these people according to whether they are guilty or not guilty, and their behavior and movements once convicted then fall under the supervision and responsibility of the local authorities. You bypass this fact entirely and claim that it is Anonymous (and/or any apostates who aid Anonymous in their actions) who should be responsible for the actions of paedophiles after they have been "outed" and prosecuted. This is ludicrous.
#466 " You have already talked of 'casualties of war'. Some of these casualties will be children who either are abused by molesters going awol or simply the children of wrongly accused men."
I don't recall describing any "casualties of war" on this thread. Please, if you're going to quote me, be good enough to provide my quote in full - otherwise I see no reason to dignify you with an answer. I will say this though - whether molesters, once convicted, go "AWOL" is the responsibility of local law enforcement, and nobody else. I also fail to understand your point about the children of "wrongly accused men" suffering as a result of the proposed action. Please explain?
#466 " Why do you think the NSPCCs' findings are not translatable? Why do you think that the types of people I listed as being named will stop offending because the list has been published?"
I've explained above why the NSPCC report cannot be "translated" as being directly relevant to the issue under discussion. Nowhere do I assert that people who are named will stop offending once outed, merely that (1) their being properly prosecuted by the relevant laws is preferable to them continuing undetected in a "position of trust", (2) children stand to benefit from the list being published for the reasons explained above, and (3) subsequent offences on the part of those outed and convicted are the responsibility of the offenders themselves, and their ability to commit any such offenses will be severely diminished by the close supervision and monitoring of the local authorities - which is how it should be.
#467 " But releasing this list is community notification."
No, it is not - for the reasons explained above.
#467 " And just to pull one of the sentences off the para you put up
Offenders who have
gone underground are a greater threat to children
as they cannot be monitored, nor made subject to
treatment and supervision."
Whether outed and criminally convicted offenders go underground or not is a matter for the authorities to manage. And in any case, they are essentially "underground" already, because their identities are being concealed by the Society, and they are being allowed free access to children, in many cases in positions of trust or authority, but without supervision or monitoring by the authorities! Please clarify how it is easier for the authorities to track these individuals now in comparison with once they are named and criminally convicted?
(to be continued...)
