Rodney Spinks' Performance

by maksutov 39 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • OrphanCrow
    ante: Saying that their only been two elders and four MS in the pass ten years charge with child abuse like that was something to brag about they are sick.

    But...but...what about the other 1000 case files they hang on to? Does that mean that the JWs don't think that the other 1000 are "guilty" by Biblical law??

    His number crunching didn't make much sense. He would say when questioned about the cases they had to respond to - "oh, we hardly have any of those..."

    But then he would pull all sorts of examples of child abuse allegations out of thin air to show that "we know what we are doing. We have experience..."

    He said about the 190 abuser figure: "They weren't JWs." Why is that? Sure, some may have offended prior to joining the JWs, but I bet a large number were disfellowshipped predators. The ones that the JW had already condemed. They knew they were criminals before the cases hit the courts.

    Throwing numbers out there is one thing but how they are presented is quite another.

  • antes8080

    @orphancrow he also said that 400 were familial so it's ok to abuse your own family I didn't get why he said that.

    one thing that I found interesting is that he mention how the branch comitee in the pass week have discuss changes. So they are admitting that there policies are flawed.

  • OrphanCrow
    ante: @orphancrow he also said that 400 were familial so it's ok to abuse your own family I didn't get why he said that.

    You are right - I picked up on that, too.

    When you think of it, considering that Applewhite was speaking about the "messages" contained in the WT literature and directives, the message that is given to children that they will grow up and marry a "brother" or marry a "sister" is rather perverse, isn't it?

  • Mad Sweeney
    Mad Sweeney
    He was incredibly insolent much of the time and his humility was palpably fake. "As I have already stated. . . " prefacing many answers. So what? Mr. Stewart can ask you the same question over and over if he so chooses and it's your job to answer consistently. I wanted to smack him.
  • sparrowdown

    Yes, his repeatedly reminding the Commision that "we've already gone over this" was pompous to the extreme.

    You could tell this whole being expected to answer questions thingy that these worldly birdfood people have set up

    was completely getting on his tits.

  • Iown Mylife
    Iown Mylife

    "As has already been answered, and very transparently, [even though who are YOU to be questioning ME]..."


  • Vidiot

    OrphanCrow - "What is with their obsession with investigating child abuse allegations?"

    Gambler's fallacy?

  • Mephis

    Brass tacks with his testimony was that they like power but really aren't keen on the whole responsibility thing. Wonder how quoting some of Spinks testimony back to a local judicial committee would work out. There's a moral cowardice in the WBTS - they are very keen to dictate within the community, but when questioned on that by those outside, well it's those daft enough to follow their 'advice' who are at fault. They're ever so 'umble mi'lud. There's a part of me which has some sympathy with all those stupid, silly men who think that they just need to pick up the phone to get top quality advice on child safeguarding when reality is they get a generic, flawed and inappropriate set of guidelines they already have read back to them. Jehovah's Organisation in a nutshell.

    His attitude towards women in particular was striking. He probably doesn't realise he's doing it. His desire to not answer the question asked, well, I think he's fully aware of that from how he responded to McClellan's pulling him up.

    And the passive aggressive nonsense about 'scriptures' and how happy they are to see others go to prison because of what they've been told by WBTS. One wouldn't expect him to acknowledge that their interpretation is purely an interpretation and they're picking out sentences to support how they do things, but at the same time they're happy enough to new light things whenever it suits them. Still, McClellan is clearly aware of the absurdity of being assured that JW HQ will always follow the law whilst being told, at the same time, they get to decide which laws they want to follow.

    There's a major issue if the GB is handwaving any responsibility for policies and procedures around child abuse, when it's their own interpretation of scriptures which then creates those policies and procedures and leaves them unchanging. One can appreciate their desire to pass things off to Oz branch rather than set precedents for other countries (especially the States), but it gets to the heart of how this group operates as this is meant to be a religion, not a multinational printing corporation with regional HQs.

  • StrongHaiku

    Considering that the majority of us got baptized without knowing the information in the elder's book and other confidential, but relevant information, as shown by this hearing, then our understanding of what we were getting ourselves into is suspect.

    I really wish this could be the basis to have our baptisms annulled. Not gonna happen, I know, but given the amount of information that is withheld from the R&F (as shown in these hearings), I do not see how we could be held to such a dedication with such a lack of full disclosure.

  • sparrowdown

    This jerk doesn't have the authority to yay or nay any changes.

Share this