UK Charity Commision reports on Moston, Manchester Congregation.
In the Paul Shield's case - what exactly did the JW's find him guilty of to DF him?
Also did they turn over their records to any secular investigation of any judicial cases they had with him? (Oink! Flap!)
sorry, darkspilver I wasn't trying to argue with you. I was trying to agree with you. You're absolutely right from an internal investigation it should have been handled differently. You brought up what if they are acquitted and highlighted another thread on here. You don't have to look at another thread. Look at this case the man was found not guilty when he first molested someone. He should have been DF then but by law, he wasn't a molester he was accused and found to not have happened.
He was DF over the child molestation. They did not hand over any investigation notes was because the matter was either being investigated by the authorities before the JC investigation was started or as in the case of the appeal committee the decision to uphold the DF was after the man finished his prison sentence.
Are you talking about Paul Shields or Jonathan Rose who was convicted and sent to prison? I was asking "darkspilver" about Paul Shields.
I am sorry I got confused by the names. You're Paul Shields is the other man.
The Watchtower Society said in statement "All allegations of abuse are thoroughly investigated and appropriate restrictions are imposed on any person who is guilty of child sexual abuse."
Yes, they of course say that knowing that it's misleading - any normal person would assume that the thorough investigation of a serious crime would be done by the police, not their own self appointed self protecting squad of amateur part timers.
“Listener”: “I wonder if the Commission is aware of the shunning policies that children (defined as children under 18) may be subjected to and whether victims have reported to the Commission or whether we need to promote this?”
Isn’t it stupidly ridiculous that a youngster, or legal minor, could actually end up being disfellowshipped and shunned by their own family just for attending a birthday party, throwing rice at a wedding, clinking glasses, saying “good luck,” etc., etc. . . . . And yet the so-called mature elder who raped the sh^t out of him/her whilst no other witnesses were present might actually not get either disfellowshipped, removed, or reproved and might very well be giving a Sunday talk at a congregation near you (or maybe even the annual Memorial talk, for Christ’s sake!).
"It is the inquiry’s view that the charity’s trustees did not cooperate openly and transparently with the Commission. "
Once again, for the newbies, lurkers, and trolls...
...if you have to cheat to defend your beliefs, your beliefs don't deserve to be defended.
In this case that they're commenting on, the perpetrator was known and had been dealt with by the authorities. The main issue that appears to have picked up is how the JWs dealt with it after (the face-to-face JC meetings). - Darkspilver
No the last paragraph in the article I quoted looks like the statement the bethel press office made to the Times when they were asked for a comment on the Charity Commision enquiry. All allegations of abuse are thoroughly investigated, yadda, yadda. As Simon says it's a misleading statement to give the impression they're always reported to the police when in fact most, if dealt with at all, are dealt with in their kangaroo courts.