This was posted by Konceptual99 months ago when everyone jumped on this story:
"UK has a data protection law. JW's complied with it.
Since 2000/2001 all congregation judicial records (envelopes) EXCEPT child molestation cases are to be destroyed by the service committee and replaced with a file which lists:
Name of 3 elders on case/date/name of individual/ and reproved or DFD/DA'd in file. No details kept.
Child molestation cases are sent to the branch in its entirety and a separate child protection file is kept by the secretary with basic details of the case. Accessible to ALL elders.
Every year the elders get a reminder to do an audit with the checklist shown. It is the service committee's responsibility to do it. Ongoing child molestation cases are not destroyed but sent to the branch and basic details are kept in the congregation child protection file. Each elder must destroy anything he "inadvertently" kept such as his personal notes from any judicial matter he dealt with. UK elders are not specifically required to destroy or keep anything by law.
Any data they keep has to comply to the Data Protection Act about how it is obtained, for what purpose and how long it is kept for. An individual can make an information request at any time to see the data held about them the recent(and yearly) audit letter and the letter posted below demonstrate that the WTS is very prescriptive in ensuring the minimum data is kept, for two key reasons:
1 - to prevent elders keeping data that either does not comply with the DPA or data that could be used in a civil case by someone wishing to bring a case against a congregation on the basis of information held about them.
2 - to keep to a minimum data that could be used by the authorities against the organisation.
Point 1 is because elders are often idiots and careless about what they write down and keep hold of.
Point 2 is because the WTS has a persecution complex and imagines they are going to be oppressed at some point.
It's a matter of opinion but asking elders to audit their records against the published benchmarks is...not quite the same as getting them to destroy evidence or cover things up. If they have no legal obligation to hold the data then they cannot be accused of destroying evidence. When it comes to child abuse, the processes are clear about what should be held. This is so some measure of "due diligence" and "duty of care" can be demonstrated rather than adherence to any legal obligation is concerned.
They can, however, be asked to explain how such instructions really tally with an open, transparent and progressive organisation, especially when it comes to child abuse. The instructions can be compared with other organisations to illustrate the predictably huge gap between the WTS' claims of being leaders in child abuse management and the reality of what is best practice in the vast majority of similar organisations."
Barbara Anderson added elsewhere:
"If you look on page 4, par. 5 in the Dec. 9, 2008 BOE letter, it states, "Each year we will provide a checklist-style worksheet to help service committees accomplish an audit of files. ..." So it is obvious that WT of Britain has been sending this form to UK congregations annually since 2008. It's not a new directive! And please note, this worksheet is a form, not a BOE letter, and it's not to be sent back to the WT, but shared with the CO. All statements/instructions, etc., on the Audit Checklist-style Form can be verified in the elders "Flock" manual which I did do. There's nothing especially important about this 2015 Form which certainly didn't deserve the excitement it generated a few months ago. In my opinion, if the WT anywhere in the world wanted elders to destroy very confidential congregational files, which in certain instances could be viewed by authorities as breaking the law, they sure wouldn't send all cong. service committees instructions explaining how to do it on an auditing checklist form."
This is the letter:
And memo:
