Verify the Audit Checklist/Destruction of Files!

by Atlantis 20 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Atlantis

    Are you an attorney cappytan? Come back and talk to me when you are!


  • cappytan
    "millions of people would agree with you flipper..."

    Appeal to Popular Belief - Claiming something is true because many people believe it.

    "Are you an attorney cappytan? Come back and talk to me when you are!"

    Ad hominem - bypassing the argument by launching an irrelevant attack on the person and not their claim.

    Those attorney's certainly don't think the BOE is "over-sensationalizing things"! They consider that BOE as an admission of guilt!

    Appeal to Authority - claiming that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

    "The above is your opinion! Others feel quite different than you do!"

    Relativist Fallacy - rejecting a claim because of a belief that truth is relative to a person or group.

    "The important fact is that the Watchtower is giving elders instructions to destroy evidence. No matter where it is taking place, the Watchtower is still trying to cover-up child abuse and save their butts in court, Period!"

    Affirming the Consequent - assuming there's only one explanation for the observation you're making.


    I think leaks are important for the apostate cause. Keep up the good work.

    However, the significance of this checklist is being seriously overblown by some apostates. There are many many more documents that are far more incriminating than this checklist. Let's concentrate on those!

    For me, the only reason the leak of this checklist has any significance is because someone is inside leaking information that the society wants to remain confidential. That in itself is a victory.

  • maksutov
    I love a good list of logical fallacies. :D
  • Atlantis

    I am not going to waste any more time with him. We went from BOEs and child abuse to (Michelle Obama and eating breakfast).

    Let him ramble on if he likes. I have better things to do!


  • Beth Sarim
    Beth Sarim

    If Elders are destroying pertinent information, you wonder how their conscience feels. They do go to weekend courses which instructs them to be ''less soft-hearted'', per se.

    I'm thinking that is where they are instructed to ''obey instructions'' from the Borg over those of the ''laws of the Land'', so to speak. That is what disturbs, bothers me!! Where the vast rank and file likely have no clue that the Elders are ''instructed to obey'' any laws over and above anything, anyone else.

  • Atlantis

    Beth Sarim:

    You are correct! "Obey instructions" is exactly what they are instructed to do, and they even want any notes that were taken destroyed also. Good point also about their conscience! You wonder how they sleep at night.


  • wifibandit
  • Atlantis


    Excellent, you can always rely on wifi to grab em and save em!



  • konceptual99

    UK elders are not specifically required to destroy or keep anything by law.

    Any data they keep has to comply to the Data Protection Act about how it is obtained, for what purpose and how long it is kept for. An individual can make an information request at any time to see the data held about them The recent audit letter and the letter posed by WiFiBandit above demonstrate that the WTS is very prescriptive in ensuring the minimum data is kept, for (I repeat) two key reasons:

    1 - to prevent elders keeping data that either does not comply with the DPA or data that could be used in a civil case by someone wishing to bring a case against a congregation on the basis of information held about them.

    2 - to keep to a minimum data that could be used by the authorities against the organisation.

    Point 1 is because elders are often idiots and careless about what they write down and keep hold of.

    Point 2 is because the WTS has a persecution complex and imagines they are going to be oppressed at some point.

    It's a matter of opinion but asking elders to audit their records against the published benchmarks is, in my view, not quite the same as getting them to destroy evidence or cover things up. If they have no legal obligation to hold the data then they cannot be accused of destroying evidence. When it comes to child abuse the processes are clear about what should be held. This is so some measure of "due diligence" and "duty of care" can be demonstrated rather than adherence to any legal obligation is concerned.

    They can, however, be asked to explain how such instructions really tally with an open, transparent and progressive organisation, especially when it comes to child abuse. The instructions can be compared with other organisations to illustrate the predictably huge gap between the WTS' claims of being leaders in child abuse management and the reality of what is best practice in the vast majority of similar organisations.

  • wifibandit

Share this