ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
(re diversionary tactics) "Which one?".....Fisherman
As an example, this one will do. Talking about diversionary tactics would just be another diversion......Listener
Then there`s this other one, posted on this thread..
What I may have done in the past is a red herring where to avoid specific topics by shifting it to a different argument......Richard Oliver
We Have 2 Winners For..
The diversion is refering to diversion by Listener in the first place when none exist.
And that response, of course, when inadequate,will cause damage to people. You understand that? -Chair
versus found inadequate and has caused damage
And from the evidence that we have had, that is likely to have happened. -Chair
versus the evidence shows that it has happened
That has already been determined. Beyond question. --Orphan Crow
your liability will be determined on a case-by-case basis--Chair
and you will be contributing on a case-by-case basis. Chair
IF found liable for any given case. -Fisherman
Had the organization been found liable, they would be held liable for all cases with no more need of further determination in the future for any case except for the the amount of liability for each case.
Jwleaks announced the exhibits have been released. That was it.
If 'Richard Oliver' is so knowledgeable about the wt and its ways why didn't he make the journey to the Australian Royal Commission to give of his knowledge; to take the stand and face the questions by the counsel.? Or he could have compiled sworn written brief.
konceptual99 how do you feel that the transparency and cohesion should be rectified?
It really is simple RO.
Right now you have at least five levels.
The R&F have to read a bunch of articles from numerous publications to get a message that "child abuse is bad, we hate it" but not a lot else.
The elders have to read their manual, a bunch of letters and their own hand written notes to get a message that they should call the legal desk and follow what they are told to do.
Branches have to read their own manual which contains yet more process designed to protect the WTS.
The courts and bodies like the ARC get to listen to obsfucation and weasel words from people like Spinks and o'Toole.
The public get to see and read very little other than self certifying summaries on the website.
There is no single document that clearly documents the WTS policy on how they protect children, manage risk and respond to allegations of abuse.
The fact they are a global organisation operating in many jurisdictions makes no difference. The policy can be the same and allow for the local branch to advise elders on local requirements. It just needs to be visible to all. It just needs to be clear.
Is that too much to ask?
I suspect Brother "Richard Oliver" will just keep this going and going and going and.....it's what he came here to do he's fulfilling his assignment - keeping apostates tied up in circular arguments.
Sparrow down. This RO is a classical 'what about' and seeks as you say to tie well meaning people in knots. You can not prove anything to 'WT what abouts' that they will accept as (a) they know everything already ..
I wonder if he is logging the many hours he spends in circular arguments on his field service report.
Did anybody try reading once? RO posted he is not a wt sympathizer. He also posted that he is not JW because he is gay. Reading helps people to understand things.
If you could read Fisherman, you'd see that RO absolutely is a sympathizer, just like you. He just can't be a JW because of his sexuality, otherwise he would be. He has said exactly that. Is there nothing you won't twist. A typical JW liar, reflective of your faith. If nothing else, saying that you're not and then going on to sympathize with them over and over again proves you to be a sympathizer.
You're as dull as they come there Fisherman. Why don't you and RO go to Topix and blend in. We all find you to be ridiculous JW plants, just here to waste our time. I've never seen two people get punked more and never getting it. It must be your assignment.
Konceptual99 you provided a clear reason where you feel the policies has problems. I agree having more of a single policy would be better in the long run.