Question time

by Sabin 13 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Sabin

  With all the evidence stacked against them on child abuse issues, why do you think they are still refusing to play ball with the authorities? Why not put their hands up & say "We got a problem, we need help to change our medieval policies, we need advise on how to conduct our affairs in away that is in the victims best interests".

  Do you think that it is blatant, selfish pride. The risk of losing money & struggling as a consequence, or they truly believe that Jehovah is protecting them & by admitting they have acted in this inconceivable way would bring reproach on his name?
• 

  Joe Grundy

  I think that the episode of Jackson's appearance before the ARC is telling.

  First, there were the dishonest shenanigans before the ARC trying to ensure that he didn;t appear - which led to the very rare occurrence of the JW lawyer having to apologise to the Judge for attempts to mislead the ARC (a big no-no which did not go unnoticed).

  Second, Jackson's testimony, which was cringe-worthy.

  Third, after his testimony, Jackson's (WT's) written submission which appeared to retract the very limited concessions he made.

  Blatant, certainly, but these idiots may be too blind to see just how culpable their actions have revealed them to be. Right now, Pope Francis for all his problems has better PR than the GB.
  
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  They think god is backing them and they can't lose. Who would "play ball" under those circumstances? I think there really waiting for their god to bail them out and if they give up it would betray a lack of faith.
• 

  Joe Grundy

  PS: Having watched Jackson's performance at ARC, I was struck by his singular lack of qualification to be part of a management board of a major international corporation.

  IIRC, baptised into a cult as a child, little or no formal education, worked his way up through an organisation where 'faith' (i.e. blind belief without being bothered by facts) was the main criteria.

  I would not, TBH, reasonably expect Jackson -or any of his cadre with the same qualifications - to be able to make rational decisions.

  Jackson comes across as a cocky deluded nutjob. It was illuminating to compare his performance (guided by his god as he no doubt was) with that of 'poor worldly' Angus Stewart and HHJ McClelland.
  
• 

  stuckinarut2

  Spot on Joe!
• 

  truthseekeriam

  They are very proud individuals. They truly believe they know what they are doing because they have millions hanging on their every word, too bad for them the real world with their real lawyers and judges see them for who they truly are...nut jobs with power!
• 

  kairos

  I agree, they "really think" that god will step in and rescue them with "Harm-you-gettin' ", so they can act like we all saw. Unprepared, uninterested, lying and acting above the law.

  They do not cooperate until they are forced to. Sound familiar?
• 

  berrygerry

  WTS has developed the worst imaginable case of "god-complex."

  They are arrogant, and absolutely accountable to no man.

  One of Canada's most interesting personalities had similar bombastic arrogance, Conrad Black.

  When his hand was caught in the cookie jar, his former company simply wanted seven million.

  Instead, he gave them an FU, and lost exceedingly more in cash, prison time, and his life of privilege.

  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/business/14react.html
  

  WTS echelon act no less entitled.
  
• 

  smiddy

  They are arrogant S.O,B.`s who believe Jehovah God will deliver them a victory over the god of this system of things ( Satans ) judiciary .

  When justice McClellan asked G.J. about having a joint fund to compensate victims by the various institutions , churches and secular involved in the commission , G.J. was non committal .

  We will have to look at that proposal and decide then.

  Can you honestly imagine they would join with other churches in a fund to help the victims ?

  Did any of the probable , 3018 Elders investigating child sexual abuse over all those years ,go to the authorities and report the abuse ? NO.not one.

  However I wont hold my breath that justice will be done here .Religion still has a big influence to many people ,politicians and the judiciary dont want to get offside with the voters .Even though they may be well aware J.W.`s do not vote or take part in politics other religions certainly do.

  And they do not want to offend them .

  smiddy
• 

  Joe Grundy

  "However I wont hold my breath that justice will be done here .Religion still has a big influence to many people ,politicians and the judiciary dont want to get offside with the voters .Even though they may be well aware J.W.`s do not vote or take part in politics other religions certainly do.

  And they do not want to offend them .

  smiddy"

  Well, I'm a little more optimistic (here in UK). JWs - in my estimation - are generally an unknown irrelevance and I'd be surprised whether any politicians give them a thought (even if they've vaguely heard of them). And although I'm a wizened old cynic, our (non-elected) judiciary have consistently been independent. I don't think anyone is bothered about offending such a minor inconsequential group.

  We don't have a RC ongoing, of course, but we DO have a Charity Commission investigation ongoing, and the present parliamentary enquiry into the Kids Company charity fiasco indicates that (however belatedly) things can come to light.

  I spent a lot of my professional career in courts dealing with judges and senior lawyers. Its a different world, full of understatement and courtesy. Only once did I ever see a barrister have to apologise to a court in the terms that the WT lawyer did to the ARC. Translated, it means 'my shitbag of a client has lied to me (beyond the normal boundaries that many of them do) and I want nothing to do with it'. The clients concerned were the head JW in Australia and Jackson of the GB. That did not go down well at all.

  Add to that that WT Oz was offered (several times) polite opportunities to agree that they might consider amending their policies (other organisations were eager and happy to do so), that they might consider joining a redress scheme (other organisations were happy and eager to do so), and what was their response? Fiddling and farting, quoting old bible bits that HHJ was able to blow out of the water easily

  WT was left looking like a joke - but a dangerous one because child and other abuse is involved. I can only guess that in Oz this subject is now taken as seriously as it here is (now) in the UK. I can accept that in the US, the religious aspect may have a bearing but I don;t think it does in Oz or UK. (Would Jackson even have been subpoenaed in the US, I ask myself, or would the whacky religion rules have prevailed?)

  I would love to have been a fly on the wall when HHJ and Angus were having a cup of tea together after the WT evidence!