So again vidiot, have you actually read the policies or just accept what other people have heard or is it that you don't care what the policies actually says?
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
The alleged abuse is based on the testimony of only one witness
Yes, you've already posted this letter. It dates from Aug 1, 2016.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the two witness rule policy applied up to July 31, 2016 (unless, of course, you can show otherwise by posting earlier WT documents).
Further, this issue also suggests itself: up to July 31, 2016, there must be cases of child abuse that went unreported due to an absence of a second witness.
As far as we can tell, it was WT policy up until July 31, 2016 to effectively sweep child abuse under the carpet if a second witness didn't come forward. This is terrible.
God's one true organisation? - my arse!
I posted that letter again because it maybe possible that they choose not to read the letter to determine the current policy is.
It does not necessarily mean that up until that point that it was that policy, up until July 31, 2016. Because again there were 15 reports that were made at least in Australia, where some of them at least some were reported prior to August 1, 2016. That is the testimony that between the first ARC hearing and the one in March of 2017 that those are the 15 cases. So unless all 15 took place between August 1 and January 3, 2017 when it was written in written testiomy about those 15 cases being made, some of those cases had to have taken place prior to August 1, 2017. There could very well be cases where you are correct, but that is an opinion without evidence. Evidence is needed to make a legal claim against someone or an organization
Edit:Sorry let me make this more clear.
On January 3, 2017 Watchtower Australia submitted a document of written testimony prior to the ARC open hearing. In there they state that there were a number of cases reported since the last ARC hearing to indicate that they are taking the commission's recommendations seriously. The following is from the written testiomy given by Watchtower to the ARC for their March 11, 2017 Hearing:
8. Question 8: Please detail all allegations of child sexual abuse, including historical allegations, received by the Jehovah’s Witness organisation since the conclusion of the public hearing of Case Study 29. Details of each allegation should include the following (see the enclosed Microsoft Excel spreadsheet):
(a) Nature of the abuse
8.1 Since the conclusion of the public hearing of Case Study No. 29, the Australia branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses has had no reports of child sexual abuse during any congregation-sponsored activity. However, the branch office has received reports of familial and/or acquaintance child sexual abuse. A summary, as well as the details of each of these allegations, is provided to the Commission in the form requested.
8.2 Summary: Congregation elders reported to the branch office nine allegations of historical child sexual abuse alleged to have occurred before the public hearing on Case Study No. 29. Seven of these allegations have been reported to the authorities. The adult survivors in the other two cases (in Western Australia and Queensland, respectively) decided not to report the matter to the authorities. Since there was no legal obligation for the elders to report, the elders respected their privacy.
8.3 Additionally, congregation elders have reported to the branch office eight allegations of familial and/or acquaintance child sexual abuse alleged to have occurred since the conclusion of the public hearing on Case Study No. 29. All of these allegations were also reported to the authorities.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia
8.4 The details requested in Questions 8(b) through 8(j) below for the above 17 allegations are provided in the attached Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.
That is where the report of 15 allegations were reported to authorities. There could have been 17 but two of the surviors who are adults when it was reported to the Elders asked that a report not be made. And as the ARC themselves said if an adult survior chooses not to report it, those wishes should be respected.
Because again there were 15 reports that were made at least in Australia, where some of them at least some were reported prior to August 1, 2016. That is the testimony that between the first ARC hearing and the one in March of 2017 that those are the 15 cases - yes, I heard this when I listened in on ARC case study 54.
But, and Justice McClellan also raised this point, there is nothing in writing prior to Aug 1, 2016 that states that one witness to child abuse is sufficient and therefore the incident should be reported - there's no WT official policy of this until Aug 1, 2016.
Justice McClellan sensibly speculated that these 15 reported cases since the first Commission hearing might just have occurred to keep the ARC of WT's back, then, later on, the WT will go back to preserving the two witness rule.
This letter of Aug 1 2016 represents something the WT should have done a long,long time ago. At least it's a step in the right direction.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out and if Watchtower will bring out future letters that go back to the two witness rule. Or, maybe keep the Aug 1 letter's decision, officially one witness is sufficient for reporting child abuse, but use theocratic warfare to say off-record that JWs shouldn't report when there's only one witness.
I agree with you, in part. The chair did say that what happens in 5 years time. He did not indicate that these were cases that were just to try and fool the Commission, there is nothing in the record for that. And again, the policy for reporting a case based on the testimony of one
And again, the policy for reporting a case based on the testimony of one witness is a legal decision and for secular parts of their reporting policy. The GB has the right to keep in tact their policy that two witnesses is needed for congregational actions. So a matter will be submitted to authorities based on the single witness rule. That person's standing in the congregation would still be dependent on a two witness rule. So again two different things, one is reporting it to the police and the second is that of how the congregation sees it. Now if a person is either convicted of child abuse or if it is generally accepted in the community that he is a child abuser, then regardless if there are two witnesses or not and regardless if the person confesses or denies it, Branch restrictions will be imposed on that person. The restrictions would include limiting their ability to go out in service and handle even very trivial matters for decades.
I highly doubt that Watchtower will ignore this since it is their policy for one major reason and that is liability. I am going to step from Australia to California for this. In the Conti case, the only thing that the Appeals Court found that Watchtower did wrong was violating their own policy when Conti and Kendrick went in service.
From the Conti Case:
Allen Shuster, a Watchtower official in New York, testified that Watchtower policy allowed a known child molester to continue to perform field service, but not alone or with a child. Defense expert Monica Applewhite, whose testimony is discussed further below, said that Watchtower policies were implemented by letters sent “to all bodies of elders in the United States.” However, Shuster was unable to identify any church-wide writing that documented the limitations on field service by known child molesters. He said this policy was implemented by letters to elders on a case-by-case basis.2
Even if Watchtower had a policy of preventing known child molesters from performing field service alone or with children, there is no evidence that Watchtower did anything to implement that policy in Kendrick's case. Elder Abrahamson testified that Watchtower, not the Congregation, determined how matters such as the one involving Kendrick were handled. (Fn.1, supra.) Shuster said that such matters were addressed by Watchtower through letters of instruction to the elders of individual congregations, but no such letter was produced in this case. Insofar as it appears from the evidence, Watchtower placed no limits whatsoever on Kendrick's field service.
And are you also in the habit of accusing someone or an organization before something even happens. I understand that you would be skeptical that they will change their policies and keep with those changes. But it could be said of any organization that is trying to do better or any person. Should the US Military be disbanded because they covered up sexual abuse of both men and women, or should they be given an opportunity to implement new policies and procedures to ensure that it doesn't continue to happen.
are you also in the habit of accusing someone or an organization before something even happens
I understand that you would be skeptical that they will change their policies and keep with those changes' - two statements that are not easily reconciled.
Watchtower has in the past employed 'theocratic warfare' strategy to deal with 'worldly' governments and authorities.
Although the org should obviously be given an opportunity to clean up its act, it would be extremely naïve to rule out Watchtower playing a similar trick now.
Those two statements are actually pretty easily reconcilable. One is a question to clarify how you feel. The other is a statement to show that I can see where you are coming from if you do say yes.
Why do you understand that I'd be sceptical that Watchtower will change their policies and keep with those changes?
I have accepted that most people on here have had a bad experience with Watchtower at one point or another, and some feel that they are either evil or corrupt or both. Some people don't hide their bias either very well or at all, and that is a fact, not saying that is you. So I know that some people on here will don't trust a single word that comes out of Watchtower, and that is their right to feel that way, and so this would be no different. I am sure most people here have read the documents but either don't believe that it will be implemented at all or will be enforced for long.