That's a good point AudeSapere. Think those of us who've been inside see how the WBTS uses words and how what things say isn't always quite what they mean. Classic case is the use of the word 'freedom'. To be told one is free to report sounds at least neutral-ish. But in the context of a religion which teaches 'freedom' is relative and uses examples such as 'one is free to jump off a cliff' then it takes on a very different meaning. Amusingly, Stewart, quite rightly, points out the GB's role in interpretation. The JW amendments change it back to 'the bible'. 'What Jesus evidently meant was...' vs 'What the GB currently think Jesus meant was...'.
Absolutely agree that there's no room for such silliness within child protection policies. They need to be clear, to the point, and if elders are not capable of following simple directions then education needs to be given so they know what they're meant to do when a child comes to them and reports abuse, or if they suspect abuse is happening.