WTBTS Submissions to Royal Commission on abuse: The response document in FULL
done4good - "If that happens, a key control mechanism is removed, and that will have repercussions they cannot live with."
Not to mention that the hard-facts exposure of how institutionalized and endemic the problem is would be far harder for the R&F to blindly deny, which would seriously undermine their confidence in the Org's authority and legitimacy.
Once again it becomes apparent that WT Society leaders will NEVER ever admit to fault or mistakes , or that they are wrong in their policies or directives in any way, shape, or form. They are just too arrogant. And Vidiot and Done4Good hit the nail on the head as well that if they admit to these errors and blunders - then it would be exposed that KNOWINGLY elders, possibly C.O.'s , D.O. 's , and even Governing Body members themselves were appointed into positions of oversight while WT leaders KNEW of their past child molestation offenses and kept it secret. If that came to light in courts and the public arena it would add a quicker pace to the demise of the WT Society. Quicker than the pace they are currently on. So instead, WT leaders just deny and lie about it. Like I've said before it's a " criminal organization ". Peace out, Mr. Flipper
OMG, they are so full of themselves.
Here is one excerpt from the WTs submission:
9.26 On a global basis the honesty, candour, and quality of the elders’ evidence should be acknowledged by the Commission along the lines of that reported by Janet Fife-Yeomans at page 32 of “The Daily Telegraph” on 1 August, 2015: While people from other churches dragged to the Royal Commission have obviously been coached by PR gurus and lawyers in how to present themselves and say the right thing, the Jehovah’s Witnesses were totally devoid of artifice."
The full context of that quote from the newspaper. I don't think it's actually a compliment...
Max Horley, a lifelong Jehovah’s Witness, was one of two people to whom she reported the abuse in 1991. He told the commission he had thought it a “serious breach of trust” by Neill but never considered that the police should be called in.
He said he had made notes of their discussions but protocol insisted that they be destroyed to protect the victim, the accused and the rest of the congregation in case they fell into the “wrong hands” — including their wives.
While people from other churches dragged to the royal commission have obviously been coached by PR gurus and lawyers in how to present themselves and say the right thing while giving evidence, the Jehovah’s Witnesses were totally devoid of artifice.
Asked if he would do the same thing today and destroy the notes of any allegations of sexual abuse, Mr Horley was unequivocal. “Yes, that’s our practice,” he said.
flipper - "...if they admit to these errors and blunders - then it would be exposed that KNOWINGLY elders, possibly C.O.'s , D.O. 's , and even Governing Body members themselves were appointed into positions of oversight while WT leaders KNEW of their past child molestation offenses and kept it secret..."
...and all the inevitable consequences that resulted from making those appointments and keeping those secrets.
flipper - "...If that came to light in courts and the public arena it would add a quicker pace to the demise of the WT Society..."
...link, "Like", and hashtag the shit out of it.
"...While people from other churches dragged to the Royal Commission have obviously been coached by PR gurus and lawyers in how to present themselves and say the right thing, the Jehovah’s Witnesses were totally devoid of artifice..."
Translation: "..the Jehovah's Witnesses looked and sounded like a bunch of f**king morons..."
Good help's hard to find, I guess. :smirk:
Thank you, Mephis! Wow. Shoulda known the WT was cherry picking again.....
And yes, Vidiot, I laughed too at the euphemism, "without artifice". More like bumbling, uneducated, ill prepared, presumptuous, fools.
After reading about 3/4 through the Submissions of Senior Council I found this one says it all:
Mr O’Brien told the Royal Commission that the elders would meet with a person against whom an allegation of child sexual abuse had been made but not proven and ‘give very clear direction on what restrictions would apply to their association with children, with others in the congregation, and [the elders] would monitor that’.838 479 Mr O’Brien said that others in the congregation would not be aware of the restrictions placed upon a person against whom an allegation of child sexual abuse had been made.839 He accepted that in those circumstancessupervision of that person istherefore confined to when the elders or an elder is present to observe the person.840 480 Mr O’Brien gave evidence that the extent to which elders are able to discharge their obligation to care for the congregation is restricted by application of two‐witness rule and that ‘unless there is a second witness to a similar type of event, or the same event, then ‘the elders’ hands are tied with warning the person’.841 Evaluation of risk and treatment of offenders 481 Mr Spinks accepted that the processes used by secular society to evaluate the risk of re‐ offending were not used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.842 482 Mr Spinks also gave evidence that the Jehovah’s Witnesses did not offer any kind of programmes for the professional treatment of offenders.843 483 Dr Monica Applewhite, who was engaged by the Jehovah’s Witness organisation to provide expert evidence about its practices and procedures, told the Royal Commission that ‘once somebody abuses, once their internal mechanisms of control have allowed them to cross that line once, I don’t have confidence in those internal mechanisms of control for the future’.844
Available findings on the system of prevention of child sexual abuse- risk of reoffending
The practices and procedures of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation for the prevention of child sexual abuse, and in particular for the management of the risk of an abuser reoffending, do not take account of the actual risk of an offender reoffending and accordingly place children in the organisation at significant risk of sexual abuse.
Available findings on shunning F69 Members of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation who no longer want to be subject to the organisation’s rules and discipline have no alternative than to leave the organisation which requires that they disassociate from it. F70 The Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s policy of requiring its adherents to actively shun those who leave the organisation: a) makes it extremely difficult for someone to leave the organisation b) is cruel on those who leave and on their friends and family who remain behind c) is particularly cruel on those who have suffered child sexual abuse in the organisation and who wish to leave because they feel that their complaints about it have not been adequately dealt with d) is not apparently justified by the Scriptures which are cited in support of it e) is adopted and enforced in order to prevent people from leaving the organisation and thereby to maintain its membership, and f) is in conflict with the organisation’s professed support for freedom of religious choice and the belief that Jehovah
Loyalist JWs: "They're making us look like horrible people!"
Everybody else: "You're making yourselves look like horrible people!"