How big a deal is the royal commission..? It seems to be not much...

by _Morpheus 25 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • John Aquila
    John Aquila

    I'm with you on this Morpheus. With the exception that the RC has only "ONE" tooth, and it has a cavity. It's like the U.N. that is pictured as a wild ferocious beast, but in actuality it's just a big fat kitten crying for some more milk.

    When I see one of these organizations sending several of these elders that covered up abuse to jail and forced the GB to testify and make them change their policy, then we can agree that it has teeth.

    Until then, "Here kitty, kitty, kitty!

  • Iown Mylife
    Iown Mylife

    WT feels so far above questioning that the outrage is plain to see in the attitude those elders display.

    Well too bad, ya hoity toity control freaks.


  • breakfast of champions
    breakfast of champions

    Not an expert on the RC either but. . . .

    I get the impression that they (the RC) may be in uncharted waters here.

    Perhaps their appearance of "toothlessness" is due to the fact that they make recommendations and then whatever organization makes an effort to comply.

    I get the feeling that they haven't dealt with a group like the witnesses ever before -- a group that will not comply with recommendations, but must be dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

    So to write them off as "toothless" is probably not fair. . . .perhaps they appear that way because they've never had to show their "teeth" before!

  • Joe Grundy
    Joe Grundy

    How big a deal? About the biggest.

    It's important to notice the difference between this and a criminal or civil trial. The fundamental point is that it is investigative and is trying to recommend improvements - thus the witnesses are there to inform the enquiry.

    Normal rules of evidence don't apply, thus witnesses can provide hearsay, opinion, etc, without representing counsel being able to object to questions. Documents can be 'called for' by the RC. Notice how HHJ McClelland responded to the WT lawyer's request not to introduce the whole of a particular 'confidential' manual into public evidence - and how he asked questions about selective implementation of bible texts.

    There is no jury to impress, nor any need to. It has been established that the Aus head branch committee guy gave false and misleading instructions to the WT lawyer. Established beyond doubt (but without drama) to the extent that the lawyer apologised to HHJ and said that he had not personally sought to deceive or mislead. In court-type language this is the equivalent of admitting that his client (branch head honcho) told him lies.

    Similarly, when HHJ commented that a consultant's certificate concerning the health of Jackson's father may not necessarily assist, this may be taken to mean that HHJ has lost patience and a summons will be issued. (Practically, the lawyers for WT may be asked to accept service and will do so).

    In a jury trial, CA Mr Stewart would probably have pursued the 'misleading instructions' part further and asked who had been consulted by the Aus branch guy. (Does anyone doubt that he was on the phone to the GB?). But here, no need.

    It's cut through the crap obfuscation between the Aus branch committee and the legal Aus WT corporation (in a couple of questions). And where the real power in JW land lies (GB) and that there is no deviation from it. And in at least one Aus state, failure on the part of anybody to report crime (s.316) is a crime. Oh, and the 'list'.

    Outcomes? Well, we already know that the WT must shortly produce a submission as to where its policies are wrong and harmful and how it will change them. And that by the end of the RC in a couple of years, how those changes have been implemented. (Including, possibly, how women will be involved in decision-making roles). We know that the RC is contemplating a 'redress organisation' for victims, funded by all organisations/institutions involved. And that the RC is not going away.

    In colloquial terms for the JW leader witnesses before the RC, you may have had a shit day in court but it's only going to get worse.

    I can see that for some viewers (esp. our US friends) this might all seem a bit tame. But it's being done politely, determinedly, and with superb research. No need for drama. This works better.

  • freddo
    Top explanation Joe Grundy.
  • done4good

    Joe Grundy - Your synopsis confirms my thoughts. Nice write up.


  • barry
    Even now survivors of sexual molestation that have had claims payed in the past are being assessed if they require further payments because of this royal commission.
  • Phizzy
    I bet Jackson has shot out of Oz quicker than you can say Subpoena, he is back in the Compound by now, I bet.
  • Vidiot

    This has been/is being covered by major media sources all over the f**king planet.

    Other than that, though, it's not much of a big deal.

  • millie210

    Thanks Joe Grundy appreciate the clear explanation!

    barry2 hours agoEven now survivors of sexual molestation that have had claims payed in the past are being assessed if they require further payments because of this royal commission.

    Also excellent point. In some ways hitting them financially probably impacts them more than hitting them with legal rulings because of their persecution complex.

Share this