ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
You've seemingly just explained why you think others on this forum will be sceptical (I won't pursue that - other posters can speak for themselves and put you right), but not why I'd be sceptical.
Why do you understand that I'd be sceptical that Watchtower will change their policies and keep with those changes?
Also, why do you understand that Justice McClellan brought this matter up at the Commission hearing? - it seems like His Honour is sceptical, too, that WT will change policy and stick with it.
this was opened by mistake.
I said many people on here and then qualified it by saying and it may not apply to you. I am giving a generalized statement because I don't know you, I have never met you and this is the impression I have gotten from many people on this site. Again I acknowledged that it was a generalized statement when I wrote it.
And again I agreed with you when the Chair did ask what happens in 5 years. The point that I contended your statement was that Watchtower forced this policy only because they wanted to trick the commission. I have also acknowledged it in previously, that there is a possibility if they become complacent that it could go backwards, but that is true with any organizations policies on any number of issues, it is not unique to Watchtower.
I was listening to a YouTube discussion about Case Study 54 and a very interesting point was made.
The Branch intends to issue a Child safeguarding policy which is for Australia only. Stewart said it went some way in advising what the individuals rights are. But it is highly unlikely that this Policy will even be considered by either the Elders or the Branch. Why? Because they have their own instructions specifically directed to them. Neither the Elders or the Branch office are going to turn to the Child Safeguarding Policy for directions because it is not directed to them. Their own instructions TRUMP any policies written for the R&F. The JW reps even made it clear that the instructions were audience specific.
It is no wonder that they have been more liberal in their wording in the Safeguarding Policy and even though Stewart wanted to see more consistency between the audience specific instructions, it is highly unlikely that this will happen.
This thread has been very frustrating. RO and Fisherman have employed a tactic that dominates on JW Topix. If you throw in enough red herrings and heaps of other diversionary tactics, such as becoming personal, the focus on the real issues becomes watered down.
@Listener - It's all Dick Fisherman has. They do it all over the forums.
Regarding wt new policies for Australia, whether or not the Australian government determines in the future that wt did not implement as they said they would do such new policies, that legal issue is to be decided upon by the government and not in advance by you as you always do without having all of the facts.
The ARC report issued in Nov or Oct 2016 about case study 29 is pretty damning for the Jehovah's Witnesses. The JW responses to allegations of child sex abuse are highly inadequate. And the ARC has gone great lengths to allow the JW to present their viewpoints and to provide an objective evaluation. The replies provided by the JW 10 days ago do not give much reasons to believe it will be improved a lot.
And neither have the 16 pages on this thread demonstrated anything further than an unwillingness of the JW to make the JW policies adequate. JW apologists RO and fisherman seem to be quite happy with that. And that is a real shame
Fisherman (re diversionary tactics) "Which one?"
As an example, this one will do. Talking about diversionary tactics would just be another diversion.
The Watchtower were given a very bad report by the Commission after the first hearing, I expect the one to come will be far worse.
"As an example, this one will do. Talking about diversionary tactics would just be another diversion."