It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened 11530 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Toblerone5

  what he is doing is legal

  Good point Debra. I never thought of that. Google say

  Generally, it is illegal to secretly record oral communications between two or more people unless you have the consent of at least one of the individuals involved. For pure video recording with no sound, however, you may have greater freedom to secretly tape people.

  I doubt that elder, and that pioneer lady would give him there permission to have there ORAL conversation on a Youtube channel of an EX-JW Apostate too! . The elder was from London ,but that women was in croatia . Maybe contact the London cong, ,and report that to them ? Then again ,you know how JW are...They would probably be all suspicious and ask stupid question like who are you? From what cong you are again ?How come you know that? idiots...So an anonymous Ietter woul be better ? made this anyway ,it's from the Youtube video in London Dec 14 2022.. Yes the face are blurry ,but he didn't alter the voice though...And he did not blurry the croatia JW lady...But I'm just guessing here, I'm not an expert nor a lawyer...But someone on this forum is...

  
  
  
  
• 

  JeffT

  I don't know about the UK, in the US you can record (or film) anything you want in a public place. There is NO expectation of privacy when you're in public. If some loon with a microphone jumps you and asks questions, your only options are talking to them or not talking to them. If you talk, you've given them consent to record you.
  
• 

  Simon

  I think the whole grooming/CSA allegations are a pointless rabbit hole to go down right now. Even if you could prove the emails are real (as in an actual email) it doesn't mean anything

  Unless you can prove that the email existed, that he was definitely the person in control of the email address and that the messages were definitely posted, then it's impossible to prove they are legit.

  All you might be able to prove from the screenshots themselves is whether they were definitely faked, such as if the font used wasn't released until a later date. And just because they might use a valid font for the dates, doesn't mean that is evidence that they are real. i.e. you can likely only prove the negative from the images themselves.

  Even though the messages appear to fit with other known facts such as his wife finding out about him "texting girls", and would explain the still bizarre "I'm not going to record the judicial meeting because I have nothing to hide" claim, that would still just be circumstantial at best.

  But we do know he uses prostitutes in countries with CSA / trafficking problems, which is why the accusations are useful to him as a way to label all claims as false and vindictive lies.

  It doesn't need to be true for the rest of his behavior to be despicable.
  
• 

  Simon

  I don't know about the UK, in the US you can record (or film) anything you want in a public place. There is NO expectation of privacy when you're in public.

  I think the UK was the same, most places are - you can't have any expectation of privacy when you're in public. If you did, the paparazzi / tabloid newspaper industry of photographing celebs would be sued to oblivion.

  But that doesn't mean filming someone with the sole purpose of embarrassing them or presenting them in a bad light, especially if it's done by selective editing and inclusion of clips to present a false impression, is morally justified.

  i.e. if you interview 10 JWs and 7 can't explain their beliefs, that's a story. If you interview 10 and only 1 can't but you play only that clip (and don't bother to find out if they are maybe a new convert) then you're a dishonest lying piece of shit.

  Lies by omission is common for those pushing a specific agenda vs actually fairly reporting on reality.
• 

  ForeverAlone

  I just found a case that says that the "expectation of privacy" can apply in certain circumstances for pictures being released to the public. I would assume this would apply to videos as well.

  This case though is of a celebrity (Naomi Campbell) having her picture taken of her coming out of a NA meeting in England. She sued the "Mirror" newspaper for publishing the story and picture.

  10. In the proceedings Miss Campbell claimed damages for breach of confidence and compensation under the Data Protection Act 1998. The article of 7 February formed the main basis of a claim for aggravated damages. Morland J [2002] EWHC 499 (QB) upheld Miss Campbell's claim. He made her a modest award of £2,500 plus £1,000 aggravated damages in respect of both claims. The newspaper appealed. The Court of Appeal, comprising Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Chadwick and Keene LJJ, allowed the appeal and discharged the judge's order: [2002] EWCA Civ 1373, [2003] QB 633. Miss Campbell has now appealed to your Lordships' House.
  

  I have not read the whole opinion yet (it is massively long) but it gives the complete opinions of 5 Lords of Parliament. I will not copy and paste because it would take days to scroll through my message because it is so long, so I am just going to provide the Parliament House of Lords link to this case.

  House of Lords - Campbell (Apellant) v. MGN Limited (Respondents) (parliament.uk)
  
• 

  Simon

  Newsflash: if you make money by making yourself a public figure, you don't get to complain about being a public figure!
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  Keep in mind this is a guy who for years pushed an anonymous online survey which he has since abandoned. He actually had "Governing Body" as a clickable option when explaining your rank within the organisation.

  If someone online comes up to you anonymously and says they are a member of the Governing Body, don't believe a thing they have to tell you.

  The whole survey thing was bizarre and unreliable. JWs don't take surveys which ask leading questions as to the validity of their teachings. At best you are getting the opinions of PIMOs. So, he was essentially following the same method as someone taking surveys outside gun shows and concluding that Trump is winning the 2024 election in a 48-state landslide.

  There's no journalistic integrity in bumping into JWs on the street and trying to catch them saying something incorrect or foolish. You can do that to people who identify as supporters of any political party, and you'll easily find someone relaying information that is false or ill-informed. JWs are an easy target because most of what they believe is pure fiction, so where's the sport in that? He can just as easily interview a former elder, pioneer or Bethelite and get a straight up scoop as to what are the current policies and doctrines.

  But this is Lloyd, who's been outted as a habitual liar and fraudster, so it's to the street to interview people who have no idea who he is.

  Yep, this is the guy who needs those Patreon donations for such groundbreaking content.
• 

  ForeverAlone

  Newsflash: if you make money by making yourself a public figure, you don't get to complain about being a public figure!

  I thought that as well Simon. I was thoroughly shocked that she won this case. It does lend some credence to some of the JW's he is recording suing over it doesn't it? Or is this a case of a celebrity getting a different law outcome because of celebrity status?
  
  
• 

  TonusOH

  The case was overturned on appeal. As was pointed out, in many places you do not have an expectation of privacy when you are out in public. "Hidden camera" pranks, interviews and investigative reports are not uncommon in the USA and are rarely challenged in court because the law is on the side of the person filming in most of these cases. It's a fine line, a lot of these cases help to unmask some terrible people and behavior, but the flip side is the unnecessary and cruel humiliation of unsuspecting innocent people when a single moment defines their public persona.

  If Evans does the interviews to demonstrate the approach that JWs are taught in regards to trying to reach people, or if it shows how sheltered their views and knowledge are, that can be very useful. If he's selecting clips to dishonestly promote a narrative, that can be destructive and dangerous, and is almost always unethical and wrong. I can't tell which it is, since I don't watch any of his videos anymore.
• 

  Simon

  I was thoroughly shocked that she won this case.

  She didn't - the initial win was only a paltry amount and then it was overturned.

  She can't really claim it harmed her, as her case brings far more publicity to the matter, like Streisand.

  But back to the witnesses - let's not forget the effect it has on them. Does it really help them or reinforce the notion that apostates are "prowling around", deceptively trying to fool them?

  He's the perfect caricature of an apostate, living down to the expectations the WTS setup.

  It doesn't help the JWs, it's not showing any care or compassion towards them. The only person it helps is him, for clicks and views, via the people who want a constant diet of "WTS bad" and can't see the difference between the organization and individual members.

  Sad followers of a sick fool.