28 Dec 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf who had asked? For what information? About whom or what? Either the JWs did report cases of child sex abuse in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s, or they concealed them.
If they had asked they would have been given all the information they needed as is evidenced by the Royal commission.
Originally posted by FMFDoes giving all information to the Royal commission constitute a deliberate act of concealment.
If who had asked? For what information? About whom or what? Either the JWs did report cases of child sex abuse in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s, or they concealed them.
Does counselling parents to go to local authorities constitute a deliberate act of concealment?
I want to hear you say it.
28 Dec 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf cases of child sex abuse were reported to the authorities by the parents of the victims that's good. How many cases did the JW organization report to the authorities? It reportedly disfellowshipped around 400 members for child sex abuse; how many of those cases did the organization report to the authorities? The answer is zero. Fifty years. Not a single case.
How is counselling parents to go to authorities and report matters a deliberate act of concealment as you have alleged was the policy of Jehovahs Witnesses in Australia.
28 Dec 16
Originally posted by FMFyou were not asked if it was good, you were asked if it was a deliberate act of concealment.
If cases of child sex abuse were reported to the authorities by the parents of the victims that's good. How many cases did the JW organization report to the authorities? It reportedly disfellowshipped around 400 members for child sex abuse; how many of those cases did the organization report to the authorities? The answer is zero. Fifty years. Not a single case.
28 Dec 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf serious crimes of this kind were not then reported by parents as a result of this counselling and the JW organization did not follow up by reporting the cases to the authorities themselves then that would constitute deliberate concealment, yes.
Does counselling parents to go to local authorities constitute a deliberate act of concealment?
28 Dec 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe Royal Commission was investigating 50 years of deliberate concealment. Surrendering information that had been concealed for 50 years because a Royal Commission requires you to do so does not undo those 50 years of deliberate concealment.
Does giving all information to the Royal commission constitute a deliberate act of concealment.
28 Dec 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf there were any cases where the JW organization reported child sex abuse to the authorities then they obviously would not have been cases of concealment. But, over a period of 50 years, there were no such cases.
you were not asked if it was good, you were asked if it was a deliberate act of concealment.
28 Dec 16
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFand in cases where the matter is reported to authorities by parents after instruction and action is taken by authorities is this also a deliberate act of concealment?
If serious crimes of this kind were not then reported by parents as a result of this counselling and the JW organization did not follow up by reporting the cases to the authorities themselves then that would constitute deliberate concealment, yes.
28 Dec 16
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYou have not even read the Royal commissions report how can you tell us what its purpose was. What a preposterous little man.
The Royal Commission was investigating 50 years of deliberate concealment. Surrendering information that had been concealed for 50 years because a Royal Commission requires you to do so does not undo those 50 years of deliberate concealment.
28 Dec 16
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFSo you seem to be in a quandary. In one scenario you say there was deliberate acts of concealment and in others you say there is not. Where those parents who reported the matter to authorities acting in direct opposition to this deliberate policy of concealment that you claim exists?
If there were any cases where the JW organization reported child sex abuse to the authorities then they obviously would not have been cases of concealment. But, over a period of 50 years, there were no such cases.
28 Dec 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn cases where people reported sex crimes to the authorities no one is claiming the cases were concealed. But the JW organization reported no cases, turned none of its elders or congregation members in, and even in those 400 or so cases where they thought the sexual abuse warranted disfellowshipping, they did not report the crimes to the authorities. In what way do you argue this was not deliberate?
In one scenario you say there was deliberate acts of concealment and in others you say there is not.