At the risk of being accused of being an apologist's apologist on this most sensitive subject, I think I can see where Prime is coming from in as much as the suggestion seems to be that since we don't have a mandatory law on reporting accusations or suspicions here in the UK then it could be claimed that the WT society and the elders are able to follow whatever process they like without it being illegal. There is no doubt that being wrongly publicly accused of being a pedophile can have significant and lasting effects on a person's personal and professional life.
My view is that this of course means that everything becomes a befuddled mess. I see evidence that some elders do let their own moral compass compel them to do the right thing but this is the exception and therefore allows this situation of a "pedo paradise" to exist. It is certainly not clear that the approach of the Society is anything other than a way of trying to protect the reputation of the organisation. What the Society refuses to realise is that it's authoritarian culture breeds an army of weak minded and subserivant elders who simply lose sight of the bigger picture in their compulsion to follow direction. The only people that suffer are the victims.
It is shocking that the Society is happy to hide behind a suggestion that victims are never prevented from reporting an accusation themselves is sufficient. There is no direction to ensure the victim does this. There is no direction to support them in doing so. There is no direction to even make the suggestion. There is no direction to ensure the victim is assured of the Elders' support in doing this. There is every chance that this option will not be freely offered. There is every chance that this option will be presented with very strong overtones of disapproval. There is every chance that any elder who acts in a decisive and morally sound way shall lose the support of the majority, if not all, of his fellows and even the branch.
I can see an argument that in the absence of a law complelling disclousre of any accusation, every organisation has the right to implement processes as it sees fit and there should be some acknowledgement of the dangers of false or even malicious finger pointing. What I cannot see is that anyone can realistically defend the WTS approach and not be prepared to admit that it is fundamentally flawed to the point where it is entirely feasible that a pedophile could be left to continue to offend right under the noses of Elders who have every knowledge of the rishk that person poses.