UK IndependentUK Commission on Child Sexual Abuse possible new, separate inquiry into JWs
Now in the printed newspaper:
Above also includes the article - Case Study: 'I was groomed by an elder'
We had a guy in my old congo who couldn't keep his hands off his teenage daughter. He confessed voluntarily to my father who was the then PO. He appeared before a JC and seemed heartbroken. He then solved the problem of his attraction for her by cutting her hair off.
Bobby2446 - “'Watchtower' is not a psychiatrist, is not law enforcement, is not the court system."
Kinda proving our point for us there, dude.
Abuse cases should be referred to those agencies, 'cause they're the ones who are designated by the secular authorities to investigate them (and are more qualified, I might add).
JW elders had an ethical - but more recently (and more importantly, from what you say) legal - obligation to do so, but received instructions from the Watchtower not to, under threat of removal or worse.
Therefore, the WTS is - ulitimately - responsible.
(Not to mention that - due to the nature and particulars of child abuse - the structure of a WT-directed inquiry and judicial committee is woefully inadequate in dealing with the problem, but that's a whole 'nother thing.)
Bobby2446 - "Irwin Zalkin took a bizzare and really a self-contradictory approach to proving' a GB coverup... He found a lot of old 30 year old WT/ AWAKE articles about child abuse and how to prevent it. Then, he used those to advance the idea that the then GB was so on top of the issue that since they were unable to stop all abuse, they were deliberately ignoring it (covering it up)..."
He used it to demonstrate that they knew all about it but kept it quiet. *
Bobby2446 - "...If anything, he showed just how proactive JWs were and how ahead of the times they were, and he showed just how interested in preventing abuse JWs were, instead of merely waiting for a child to be abused and reacting to it."
"Proactive"? "Ahead of the times"?? "Interested in preventing abuse"???
Are you fucking kidding me???
None of what they did even remotely resembled those actions.
Virtually all they did was "merely wait for a child to be (re)abused and react to it".
And "reacting", of course, being: giving the offender a slap on the wrist, keeping it quiet (even from members of the congregation that the offender interacted with regularly and daily), and deliberately avoiding reporting it to the authorities.
* 'Cause, let's face it folks... after the 1975 blowback, they were terrified of anything that might a) call into question their claims of religious supremacy, b) scare otherwise-decent JW parents away from Kingdom Halls, or c) (and this is the big one, IMO) running out of willing "qualified brothers" - whose history of abuse would have otherwise disqualified them - able to keep the Org functioning at the grassroots level, which would have had serious long-term effects.
Zalkin cannot prove anyone kept anything quiet. He CANNOT. And even IF he could, not a single current sitting gb member was on the body in the 80s, so he cannot blame them.
The man is clueless, just like you are. He’s been pulling his hair out over the last nine months trying to figure out how Jehovah’s Witnesses are structured. Doesn’t know who to sue. He can’t sue the GB, because he has no evidence against them.
And the elders do not investigate crimes. They NEVER have. All they investigate is whether or not an accused person qualifies to remain a member.
Need more straw? Better yet, do you need a brain?
Bobby's scripture-containing case is bigger than anyone else's on the forum.
His grave will have more whitewash on it too.
Bobby2446 - is that you Geoffrey Jackson? Your arguments and deflection are identical to your ARC testimony. Geoff, with two ef's, have you not listened to your own advise and followed the slave's dogma, i.e. your own dogma, regarding visiting sites like this? Naughty, naughty, but I forgive you.
Proactive"? "Ahead of the times"?? "Interested in preventing abuse"??
Well...just look at snugglebunny's post. How do they respond to a fathers confession to abuse of his daughter?
Cut her hair!
Why of course! Why didn't the ARC think of that.
Soooooo 'ahead' of their time!