JW's drop attempts to block sex abuse inquiry

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Why don't you PM FMF and ask him to answer the question on your behalf?

What question am I being asked that FMF would answer on my behalf?

Originally posted by divegeester
What question am I being asked that FMF would answer on my behalf?

The question of whether investigations are only legally blocked in order to hide something.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
The question of whether investigations are only legally blocked in order to hide something.

Who is asking me that?

Originally posted by divegeester
Who is asking me that?

I am.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I am.

It's odd that you don't seem to be curious about robbie's answer to the straight forward question. It's almost as if you are trying to shield him, just to be contrary perhaps. But then again, you have told us about your "sister" supposedly being sexually abused, so why would you be using a topic like this to engage in a kind of comedy-trolling routine [much like the one robbie engages in all the time on this very topic, despite its seriousness]. It doesn't add up.

Originally posted by FMF
It's odd that you don't seem to be curious about robbie's answer to the straight forward question. It's almost as if you are trying to shield him, just to be contrary perhaps. But then again, you have told us about your "sister" supposedly being sexually abused, so why would you be using a topic like this to engage in a kind of comedy-trolling routine [much like the one robbie engages in all the time]. It doesn't add up.

It's odd that you think Robbie would know the answer to your question. Because he is JW you think he knows about supposed cover ups by the JW leadership? It seems you and geester are just trolling him.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
It's odd that you think Robbie would know the answer to your question. Because he is JW you think he knows about supposed cover ups? It seems you and geester are just trolling him.

The "answer to the question" is quite simply robbie's opinion about the behaviour of his organization, so it's no big deal to expect that robbie know what the answer is. He has been very critical of the Catholic Church for its handling of child sex abuse, for example, and yet has never been critical of the JW organization in the same way.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Because he is JW you think he knows about supposed cover ups by the JW leadership?

Well, the 'conversation' with robbie on the covering up of child sex abuse has been going on for some years. A lot of cases involving alleged cover ups have been discussed and robbie has displayed a certain kind of intellectual and moral behaviour in those conversations. This episode has all that as its context. Do you welcome the end of the delay that was caused by the JW organization's legal moves, as per the OP?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
It's odd that you think Robbie would know the answer to your question. Because he is JW you think he knows about supposed cover ups by the JW leadership? It seems you and geester are just trolling him.

Indeed, they have absolutely NO interest in the subject of child abuse. For them its simply a convenient vehicle to try to get some leverage to troll a forum. Pretty sick really. Neither of them even took the time to read the Royal Commissions report, not only on Jehovah's Witnesses but any of the other organisations which presented itself to the commission. Furthermore had they done even a little research they would have known that Jehovahs Witnesses were not attempting to block an inquiry but were making legal challenges to the courts jurisdiction to be party to certain information which was upheld and to the type of court that should hear such evidence this being ruled that a tribunal was fitting. All they had to do was look online for the UK government itself had published the findings.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Indeed, they have absolutely NO interest in the subject of child abuse. For them its simply a convenient vehicle to try to get some leverage to troll a forum. Pretty sick really.

Did you download the Australian Royal Commission's findings and transcripts I gave you a link for?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Neither of them even took the time to read the Royal Commissions report, not only on Jehovah's Witnesses but any of the other organisations which presented itself to the commission.

Actually, aside from the one on the JW organization in Australia, I have also read the findings on North Coast Children's Home, The Salvation Army in New South Wales and Queensland, and the ones on Toowoomba Catholic Education Office and the Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide, as well as the one on Australian Indigenous Ministries, the Australian and Northern Territory governments and the Northern Territory police force.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you don't think that settling legal requirements prior to hearing evidence is beneficial to all parties involved? Imagine that evidence was heard and later that evidence was overturned because of a legal technicality.

Who exactly would have sought to "overturn" ["because of a legal technicality"] the findings of the Charity Commission?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I am.

Why on earth are you asking me and why on earth would you expect me to get FMF to answer for me? I think you have just gotten your panties in a twist 😵

Originally posted by FMF
Did you download the Australian Royal Commission's findings and transcripts I gave you a link for?

Did you read them?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Did you read them?

Of course. If you want to read them, use the link I created.