Convicted Child Rapist Proselytizing. Is the Community Aware? Is the Community Safe?
I like how youtube has a "CC" option for videos so they are automatically closed captioned. It isn't perfect but good enough for the deaf to understand what's being said.
Nakanozzi that video is very well put together.
Outlaw - I'm not me
Two separate youtube sites of the same video approaching 30,000 views.
I have been showing this to everyone that I know and they are appalled. I have it on my smart phone, it's a great way to get .the word out and I tell them that it is happening right where we live, I have myself been demanded that I take pedophiles door to door myself. I refused but I was told I had to and that I had no chose because my husband was an elder by the CO.
I swear, sometimes I think the Org actively wants to provoke outrage amongst regular people.
A word to any remaining wise within the WT...
...going around poking people in the eye with a stick whilst telling them they're gonna "persecute" you doesn't make you a prophet.
It just makes you an asshole.
It's probably more about protecting the pedo's who are in positions, like Elders and MS'. If they have a rule that prohibits abusers from going out in field service it would look very strange if these men are serving in positions. We know there are a number because of the report on the Australian Royal Commission website. There are a number that have been identified by them, due to their own two witness rule, or confession and have not been legally convicted.
Considering the reports about WT child abuse in England being hidden by the WT Society- this is an important you tube to bump up. Peace out, Mr. Flipper
Never a JW but my opinion is they do not belong in field service. Children answer doors. I also do not agree with the policy of not informing ALL members of the congregation that you have a registered pedophile amongst you. I can go online and find out if any of my neighbors are on the list.
Totally disgusting behavior on the part of the WT.
rebelfighter: my opinion is they do not belong in field service
There are lots of people who share your opinion, rebelfighter.
Lousiana has recently passed new laws concerning the door to door activities of sex offenders:
Convicted sex offenders in Louisiana won’t be able to solicit door to door for any kind of business, adding to a long list of restrictions that prohibit registered sex offenders from driving a bus or taxi or working in an industry that requires going into someone’s home.
Violators of the door-to-door sales ban will face prison sentences from five to 10 years.
In addition, the public will now have limited access to email addresses and online screen names of registered sex offenders, a law aimed at helping parents keep their children away from possible predators when they play video games or participate in other online activities.
And, according to Texas:
Q: May cities prohibit sex offenders from receiving a peddler, solicitor, or
A: Probably so. A general law city possesses those powers and privileges that the
State expressly confers upon it. Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. City of Sunset Valley, 146
S.W.3d 637, 645 (Tex. 2004); Op. Tex. Atty. Gen. No. GA-0526 (2007). General law
cities have been granted specific authority to “license, tax, suppress, prevent, or otherwise regulate” peddlers, which should include preventing a sex offender from receiving a peddler license. TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 215.031. Additionally, both general law and home rule cities have been granted broad authority by the State’s police power for the protection of the public, which should authorize the prohibition of sex offenders receiving peddler, solicitor, or canvasser licenses. TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE §§ 54.001, 54.004; City of Dallas v. Smith, 107 S.W.2d 872, 874-75 (1937). The Legislature has not, with “unmistakable clarity,” preempted the licensing of sex offenders as peddlers, solicitors, or canvassers from a home rule city’s broad powers. See Op. Tex. Atty. Gen. No. GA-0526 (2007); Dallas Merchant’s & Concessionaire’s Ass’n v. City of Dallas, 852 S.W.2d 489, 491 (Tex. 1993).
Similar reasoning suggests that Texas cities may protect residents by
prohibiting sex offenders from receiving licenses that permit close contact with the
public, especially on private property.
The Supreme Court also noted that the ordinance was founded on fact. North Carolina’s Legislature had formally found that “sex offenders often pose a high risk of engaging in sex offenses even after being released from incarceration or commitment and that protection of the public from sex offenders is of paramount governmental interest.” Id., citing N.C. GEN. STAT.. § 14-208.5 (2007). The North Carolina Supreme Court also cited a report that stated “released sex offenders are four times more likely to be rearrested for subsequent sex crimes than other released offenders.” Id., citing Patrick A. Langan, et al., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994, at 1 (2003). The danger of sex offenders has also been discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Conn. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1, 4 (2003); McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 32-
33 (2002) (plurality).