Update to UK “Child Safeguarding Policy”
ByIn the case of any discussion with a child abuse victim, an elder will not be alone with the child but will involve another elder and the child’s parent(s), not including a parent who is the alleged abuser. If the child expresses to the elders discomfort in discussing the matter in the presence of a parent, and the parent agrees, then the child may be gently told that he or she may choose an adult companion other than a parent, with whom he or she feels comfortable speaking about the matter, to be present during the discussion.
The victim is given no choice here, they are required to discuss all the worried details with the elders, not just one but two and more likely, three.
They also state this earlier in the policy
We believe that parents have the primary responsibility for the protection, safety, and instruction of their children. We do not separate children from their parents for the purpose of instruction.ii (Ephesians 6:4)
But when it comes to dragging out all the sordid details the child can be separated from their parents.
What happens if the child expresses discomfort or reluctance in speaking to the Elders and I imagine the majority of abused children would. Not one word is mentioned about this but rather the opposite, it is a given expectation. It is wrong and a form of abuse. It is sickening that a child is required to discuss sexually explicit details with inexperienced male Elders.
They are beginning to call child abuse a crime, yet they still shift the responsibility to the parents. They are virtually blaming child abuse on parents. They prattle on and on about the role of the parents, easing the conscience of any Elder reading this fabulous piece of work.
Yes, there are some terrible parents. One can be an abuser and one an enabler, but this is not always the case. The WTBTS wants to ignore their responsibility when they allow child predators into the congregations. I saw no mention of any instances where the WTBTS failed to warn parents about an abuser in their midst, or an mention of remorse for failing to warn parents.
What about child-predator Elders who have been reappointed by the Holy Spirit, after "some years" have passed and they show "evidence of God's blessing" in their lives?? It seems the letter, although thoroughly legal, is missing some vital information....
@ the Searcher could not have said it better myself.
So the WTS prints this article but doesn't see the correlation between the sheep and the sick man and which is more important the law or love. Which is more important God's love of love or secular law that does not go against God's?
- What Is Lawful on the Sabbath?
On another Sabbath, Jesus visits a synagogue, likely in Galilee. There he finds a man whose right hand is withered. (Luke 6:6) The scribes and the Pharisees are watching Jesus closely. Why? They reveal what their real intent is when they ask: “Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?”—Matthew 12:10.
The Jewish religious leaders believe that healing is lawful on the Sabbath only if life is in danger. Thus, for example, on the Sabbath it is unlawful to set a bone or bandage a sprain, conditions that are not life threatening. Clearly the scribes and the Pharisees are not questioning Jesus because they feel genuine concern for this poor man’s suffering. They are trying to find a pretext for condemning Jesus.
Jesus, however, knows their twisted reasoning. He realizes that they have adopted an extreme, unscriptural view of what constitutes a violation of the prohibition against doing work on the Sabbath. (Exodus 20:8-10) He has already faced such misplaced criticism of his good works. Now Jesus sets the stage for a dramatic confrontation by telling the man with the withered hand: “Get up and come to the center.”—Mark 3:3.
Turning to the scribes and the Pharisees, Jesus says: “If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out?” (Matthew 12:11) A sheep represents a financial investment, so they would not leave it in the pit until the next day; it might die in the meantime and thus cause them loss. Besides, the Scriptures say: “The righteous one takes care of his domestic animals.”—Proverbs 12:10.
Drawing a reasonable parallel, Jesus continues: “How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do a fine thing on the Sabbath.” (Matthew 12:12) Accordingly, Jesus would not be violating the Sabbath by healing the man. The religious leaders are unable to refute such logical, compassionate reasoning. They just remain silent.
The law in the UK does not require reporting therefore NOTHING HAS CHANGED!
I'm not defending the WTS, but perhaps the real core of the problem is that the law needs to be changed. If this is true, the the WTS is no more guilty than the lawmakers IMO. . . . Doc
I have a question.
This document will be presented to the experts at the UK Charity Commission, for them to either accept it and possibly end at least a portion of their investigation or will be rejected and further negotiation between the Commission and UK Watchtower. This document will probably be adapted to Australia as well, for the ARC to either accept it as a sufficient change to policy or again go back into negotiations for further changes. So here is my question, if the experts feel that these changes are sufficient to protect children, what do you think about that?
This document will either be accepted by the UK Charity Commission as assuring them that the matter will be handled better or they will enter into more negotiations with UK Watchtower to make more changes. Either the Charity Commission will either be satisfied with this and end at least a portion of their investigation or will reject it and continue on with their investigation in full. This will probably also be used in Australia to show the ARC the changes they are planning on making to their policy. And again the ARC will either accept it or reject it and continue with negotiations.
So here is my question. If the experts who work and consult for these government organisations are satisfied with the changes, what continues to be the problem, from a organization point?
richard: This document will either be accepted by the UK Charity Commission as assuring them that the matter will be handled better or they will enter into more negotiations with UK Watchtower to make more changes. Either the Charity Commission will either be satisfied with this and end at least a portion of their investigation or will reject it and continue on with their investigation in full. This will probably also be used in Australia to show the ARC the changes they are planning on making to their policy. And again the ARC will either accept it or reject it and continue with negotiations.
That is profound
This smells like something that they can point to so they can claim they have a comprehensive policy to protect children, all the while making no real changes to any day-to-day policies and behaviours.