Having been a member of the public relations profession some years back, THIS is what struck ME about Clive Thomas' remarks:
"The policy of the church . . . is that no one who has a history of that type of behaviour, which has been established, would be put in a position of trust or responsibility in the congregation," he said.
This is "establishing deniability." It would have been very nice if the reporter's follow-up would have been "and how does the Jehovah's Witness organization deem that such 'type of behaviour' has 'been established'?" Because while the public might assume that the matter would, naturally, be established by LAW ENFORCEMENT, we know it is far more likely that Mr. Thomas is talking about the congregation (i.e., the elders) as having established that the Witness in question had 'a history of that type of behaviour." Not at all the same thing.
Mr. Thomas concludes:
"They could remain a member, they could be re-admitted to the church if they are repentant, but that's not a danger to others."
Again, it would be the WATCHTOWER SOCIETY'S [untrained and biased] opinion that the member who 'had a history of that type of behaviour' would pose no danger to other children in the congregation or among the general public.
And was it NathanNatas who wondered about the possibility of Brother Pedo wandering off alone in the name of "efficiency" to cover more territory at the suggestion of unsuspection Brother GoAlong? Well, what about SISTER Pedo who is INSTRUCTED by Brother GoAlong to work the doors singly (as long as they work house about and are in sight of one another). We know she is required by Witness doctrine to comply with the field service instructions of any male in the car group. Or, alternatively, Brother PEDO instructs Sister GoAlong that they will handle the territory in the aforesaid 'house about' manner? Or how about rural territory? Brother or Sister Pedo is left behind in the car diddling the child[ren] while the other grownups take the door?
Those of us who are/were Witnesses understand exactly how these scenarios could play themselves out. The difficulty is in conveying the very REAL danger to JW children of such field service arrangements to the press, legislators and the general public. How do we get a friend/neighbor/relative/reporter/politician to sit still long enough to understand the various possible opportunities for abuse that arise EVERY DAY in the Witness world? How to get them to SEE with eyes of understanding what we KNOW by instinct, having been Jehovah's Witnesses ourselves?