BBC Radio 4. 14th February 2016. ''Sunday'' program with article on Witnesses and child abuse.
It sounded as if JWs were included in the 18 religious organisations notified. If they weren't then the BBC coverage is pretty misleading imo.
Isn't that the letter that Louise Goode / Katie Kitten said was sent to the Watchtower ? I can't remember if she said specifically in her video who in the org it was sent to .
Louise's excellent campaign only got off the ground in early January I believe, which put individual Elders and BoE's on notice that they should not destroy any relevant material.
I think the Programme was excellent, and I think it would be good to notify Elders to listen to it, they have seven days on catch-up, BBC i-player or whatever its called. Tell 'em to start at 33 mins in, so they don't get bored with the rest of it.
I do hope some sort of Legal ramifications descend upon individual Elders, this alone will bring about a change in Practice, it will never come from H.Q.
I particularly liked the rubbishing of the Data Protection law argument. I have long thought that the level of paranoia associated with that is totally unjustified. They are terrified of their own shadow to the extent that they may be criminally liable.
Contrast that with the Methodists in the UK who have apologised for their previous culpability in being inept at dealing with child protection issues and have asked for victims to come forward. A refreshing way to handle things.
So in any forum where enquiry takes place in the UK, in the absence of any evidence being offered or available from the side of the JW's - I would like to suppose that the victim/s testimony is all and the only evidence and should stand as such ??
I have not come across such arrogance and this from the "only true" organization !
I thought the broadcast was fairly incisive - I have recorded and converted the clip to MP3 and will be mailing it along with all the supporting Docs to my "JW Contact List" - same lot that got the ARC mailings - I have set up a new e-mail, new IP too so if it was blocked previously it will get through at least the first mailing -
Same applies to FB -
Incredible to think that Watchtower gave the order to all congs to destroy a lot of their data AFTER a letter had been sent by the Goddard enquiry not to destroy data that may relevant to the enquiry. It once again shows their complete lack of compliance when it comes to such genuine enquiries and a complete disregard to victims of child abuse. Absolutely disgusting. I can only imagine what God must be thinking!
Wow, excellent stuff, would love to see this on the main tv news.
Does anyone else think this could be a calculated risk by the org?
I mean as I understand it they lost the Lopez case in the USA because they didn't want to give up their database, which wasn't great press, but wasn't it a lot, lot worse when the ARC revealed the 1006 hidden peodophiles in Australia? I think they're burning out their shredders in the uk, I mean it's much easier to explain to your members that you accidentally destroyed files thinking you were doing the right thing under data protection law, than to explain why you haven't reported thousands of abusers to the authorities. If they get prosecuted they'll plead persecution, keeping their members onside is their priority.
I hope the law brings its full weight against them and they lose their charitable status.
Incredible to think that Watchtower gave the order to all congs to destroy a lot of their data AFTER a letter had been sent by the Goddard enquiry not to destroy data that may relevant to the enquiry. It once again shows their complete lack of compliance when it comes to such genuine enquiries and a complete disregard to victims of child abuse.
I was one of the ones that defended the WT due to to believing that they were acting within the rules of the DPA. Now I'm not so sure they are bound by the DPA or that the data they hold is notifiable.
I stil think that asking the BOEs to destroy personal notes is a routine request - nothing to do with deliberately hushing up child abuse cases but, if they did receive a request from the enquiry then they should have sent out letters to the BOEs telling them to preserve any material relevant to any abuse allegations.
I hope Goddard does get involved and asks them some robust questions and where appropriate take legal action against the WTS and against the individual BOEs.
" I still think that asking the BOEs to destroy personal notes is a routine request ".
And I still think that such a request from the Borg stems from the desire to avoid litigation, avoiding the Org being sued is their only concern, the poor victims can go jump off a cliff as far as "God's Organization" is concerned.
Heartless money-grubbing BASTARDS.
This is the text of an e-mail I have sent to the Inquiry today:
"I never was a Jehovah's Witness, but for various reasons have researched them for several years. I am a retired senior police officer with experience of dealing with child and sexual abuse.
I have followed the progress of the UK Charity Commission investigation and the appeals by WTBTS with interest, as I'm sure you have.
I also followed the proceedings of the Australian Royal Commission, and I'm sure that you are aware of these and the findings so far. What I think is relevant to your inquiry is that all procedures and policies, down to a micro-management level, are directed by the 'Governing Body' in world HQ, New York. National, regional and local bodies have no discretion whatsoever to change those policies. This was made (excruciatingly) clear in sworn testimony before the ARC from JW personnel at all levels from local elders, Australian country leaders, Australian national HQ legal adviser, to a member of the world-wide 'Governing Body' based in New York.
The fact that all procedures and policies are dictated by the world HQ is very relevant to a UK inquiry. If you have the testimony and findings of ARC, it will not have escaped your notice that any suggestions/recommendations as to improvements in procedures would have to be referred to world-wide HQ and the 'Governing Body' before they could be agreed to. This does not bode well. JWs have a policy which they describe as 'Theocratic Warfare' - well documented in their own publications. In essence, this says that they can, and should, not tell the truth to those who they perceive as being in opposition to them. This policy was clearly being used in some sworn evidence given before the ARC.