Update to UK “Child Safeguarding Policy”
I do believe that this policy is going to be presented to the UK Charity Commission, to either resolve any concerns that Commission has with their policy or face their continued investigation.
What makes you think it hasn't already?
Regarding dealing with cases of child abuse, the WT has history with the Charity Commission, and the Charity Commission has form with the WT.
It is with great thanks to Barbara Anderson, who has fully researched the matter, that we know the history behind this document:
In 2010 the UK Charity Commission required the WATCH TOWER SOCIETY OF BRITAIN to furnish a CHILD SAFEGUARDING POLICY statement... In February 2011 such a document was made available
Again, through Barbara Anderson's valuable research, we now know that, due to one of the cases leading up to the above, the Charity Commission themselves took direct action against specific WT Directors/Trustess:
The result of the scandal and the complaints to the Commission was the removal by the Commission of three prominent directors on the WATCH TOWER’S Board of Trustees, who lived and worked at headquarters.
I would think that the actual removal of Trustees by the Charity Commission would be a 'last resort' option? and not something they would do quickly, or without enough evidence.
Therefore I would expect that the Charity Commission, in it's official regulatory role would 'keep-an-eye' on the WT, and, even if they're not exactly happy with, then they'd at least be somewhat 'satisfied' with the WT's Child Safeguarding Policy document as currently presented, or they would get them to change - it's been nearly six years since it was first published, how long does the Charity Commission need to rise any concerns with it?
richard: Just admit that no matter what Watchtower does, even if every expert and government in the world agree that their policy protects children you wouldn't be satisfied.
I do not allow other people to decide for me what to say, do, or think.
Stop telling me what to "admit"
You are in no position to make that kind of judgement about me or to tell me what to do
OrphanCrow. Then in the same light who are to condemn people who want to JWs or even condemn Watchtower. What position are you in to do that.
Just admit that no matter what Watchtower does, even if every expert and government in the world agree that their policy protects children you wouldn't be satisfied....RO
If you want to know what someones opinion is,ask them,don`t tell them.....
You`re not in WatchTower World anymore..
Then in the same light who are to condemn people who want to JWs or even condemn Watchtower. What position are you in to do that.....RO
WTF does that mean?!.....It`s gibberish..
Richard Oliver - OrphanCrow. Then in the same light who are to condemn people who want to JWs or even condemn Watchtower. What position are you in to do that.
God damn it, stop with this idiotic apologetics.
If OrphanCrow were to harm children and/or adults either physically or mentally, we would be in the position to condemn him. If the Watchtower were to harm children and/or adults either physically or mentally, we would be in the position to condemn them. In my opinion, the Watchtower is indeed harming both children and adults; therefore, I am in the position to condemn this organisation.
Richard Oliver - If 2 separate governments and their experts, find that this policy is sufficient to protect children and comply with the laws of the land, will people accept it or will they keep using the policy to demand changes to Watchtower?
If both government organisations accept the changes, it does not necessitate that we do so as well. In the 1900s, the American government was decisively against the black population by discriminating them. The fact that it was legal to discriminate against black people did not mean that the public could not object to those laws. My point is that all of us are in the position to challenge the Watchtower policies, regardless of whether the government accepts them or not.
Richard Oliver - But Watchtower UK has made it clear that women can be involved in a JC, though they wouldn't have a vote in the matter of what actions to take, but women can be used to protect the interest of the child. In the police it states.
"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."
So even though a woman may not be in the discussions for if someone would be DF or not they would be there as a comfort to the victim and to protect them emotionally.
These paragraphs are even more idiotic. When did the Watchtower make it clear that women can be involved in the Judicial Committee? They have never made that clear. Your quote from 2017 policy says nothing about women being able to be involved in the Judicial Committee. Let me explain.
Firstly, women cannot be present with the child in the room with the elders. If we are to take the wording at face value, which is how usually legal documents are arranged, it is only one adult companion—either male or female—who can be present with the child. Secondly, if a female adult companion is chosen by the child to be in the room with the elders, she will not be able to converse with the elders in regards to what actions should be taken. She will be there only to interact with the child so as to make her or him comfortable with the elders. Ultimately, the elders are the only ones to think about what decisions to make and to eventually make those decisions. Women are not able to be involved in the process, and this is what the Australian Royal Commission has objected to specifically. Thirdly, a child will be able to choose an adult companion only if the child makes it clear to the elders that he or she is uncomfortable in the room with the parent(s). It is highly problematic because a child—and I emphasise the word "child" for specific purpose—will feel uncomfortable to even raise the issue that he or she is uncomfortable with the parent(s).
Conclusively, my opinion is that this policy is a lot of bullshit and a lot of nothing. It makes the very same errors the previous policies (2012 and 2016—albeit I am not sure whether the 2016 policy was applied in the UK) made. Children are still left unprotected, especially since the parents in each congregation will still be uninformed that a child predator is in the congregation. This 2017 policy says that parents will be informed that they should look over their children when a specific adult is nearby; however, the parents will not be informed that this specific adult is actually a child predator. Everyone has the right to know that for the sake of betterment of the society.
wizzstick - "Why couldn't the WT have phrased that like this: 'In addition, a congregation member who learns of child abuse should be instructed to report the matter to the secular authorities...'?"
Because they don't actually want that done.
Have you read any UK Child Safeguarding Policy documents, apart from the WTs? It would be interesting to know which ones, if you can please?
Take a look at my earlier post here: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5153307829993472/_post/5742087918059520
Let me clarify... by "they", I meant "the WTS".
And no, I have not.
But I am certain that the Org most definitely would prefer to leave this stuff unreported (or at the very least, reported in a technically correct but practically ineffectual way), for a veritable shit-ton of reasons.
And no, I have not.
Cool, thanks for having the courage to admit that.
I think the issue is that we want this 'Safeguarding Policy' to be something that was not designed to be.
Just contact the police when the allegation comes through. What;s so hard about putting this into the policy and practicing it? GRRRRRR! So the fight goes on until they do change it for the good of all children, not just JW children.