It seems that the CC dropping the Production Order for documents is a quid pro quo for the WT dropping the application for judicial revue. I hope that things are not getting too cosy between the CC and WT. The good thing about this though is that now the litigation stage is over. Whilst all this claim and counter claiming was going on the investigation was effectively stalled. Maybe now we can get somewhere.
Charity Commission, JWs drop Application for Judicial Revue.
by Slidin Fast 10 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
Ruby456
For me it just means that the charity commission has evidence that the most hostile accusations against the uk wts are not true/not supported by evidence therefore they no longer need to investigate the wts as a body. So the wts are dropping their case cos they are not being treated unjustly any more (unjustly in their eyes)
Just reading between the lines after visiting some of the more unbelievable blogs of xjws on the Internet re this issue. Isn't it more useful to at least try to live in reality rather than in unbelievable rhetoric? and to allow a variety of responses to the wts and in that way keep our feet firmly on the ground?
edit: I think that the xjw world have won some hard earned priviliges by the intervention of the charity commission if the recent update regarding safeguarding are anything to go by.
-
Lostandfound
WT cost in getting to Judicial Review application must be horrendous, donations widely used then !
,
-
cobweb
Guardian article on this today:
-
Vidiot
@ Ruby456...
Dude...
Seriously?
-
Vidiot
"The Commission announced last week that, more than two and a half years after the investigation was launched, the WTBTS had shared some of the documents it had been seeking and the commission had since cancelled the production order. The charity had also dropped the last of its legal cases against the inquiry, the supreme court having refused to hear that particular case in July."
All this tells me is that in the end, the WTS blinked.
-
Ruby456
The guardian article is misleading - normally their research is better.
-
Slidin Fast
Ruby4565 hours ago The guardian article is misleading - normally their research is better.
Not much wrong with it that I can see!
-
Ruby456
slidin fast I see what you mean in re-reading the article and re-reading the commission's statement, I see that both sides can claim victory.
but for me the Guardian is supposed to represent and argue for the voices of the marginalised - for me Jehovah's witnesses are among the poor and marginalised and I ask myself why the Guardian is taking the attitude it does instead of being in the middle (where I would expect it to position itself at least on this issue). It looks as though leftist middle class intellectuals are taking over the newspaper and from their high and mighty position pouring denunciation on poorer people's groups - but that's my impression and you may disagree though - I am fine with that.
-
Slidin Fast
What? The r&f may be marginalised but those in the ivory towers that are being investigated are of a different cloth. They are marginalising and controlling the flock. They are a fair target. I am all for the Guardian and any other newspaper exposing the oppressive and secretive rules that they impose on the powerless and vulnerable.
They are investigating child safeguarding for God,s sake, the sexual exploitation of children and others without a voice.
