01 Mar 17
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou told a story about your "sister" and your "cult" yesterday. If you had told a story about how the "cult" had tried to protect itself from an investigation into how it had handled - or covered up - the abuse of your "sister", I would see the behaviour of the "cult" as being wrong regardless of the legality of the maneuvers it used to stave off the investigation.
I'm interested in why you think that something which is [b]legal is wrong?[/b]
Originally posted by FMFSo you don't think it was wrong for them to use legal action to block the investigation? In other words do you believe certain actions that are 'legal' are still wrong.
So your question was basically 'Is someone legally permitted to do what they are legally permitted to do?' What is the purpose of asking such a daft question?
The issue here is why was the organization trying to block an investigation into how it handled allegations of sexual abuse of children in the past ~ and my sentiment is 'thank goodness the investigatio ...[text shortened]... e organization's legal maneuvers were "illegal". If anyone has, you should take it up with them.
01 Mar 17
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI have answered your questions point blank. You know what my opinion is on the rights and wrongs of blocking an investigation into such crimes and you know what my opinion is on the rights and wrongs of using legal maneuvers to stave off such an investigation. I have been perfectly clear.
Because you dodged it. I didn't ask you whether legal actions are illegal. I asked you whether you considered them to be morally wrong even if they are 'legal'.
Originally posted by FMFActually you are displaying nothing more than abject ignorance of what was being challenged and why. Here is the ruling.
I have answered your questions point blank. You know what my opinion is on the rights and wrongs of blocking an investigation into such crimes and you know what my opinion is on the rights and wrongs of using legal maneuvers to stave off such an investigation. I have been perfectly clear.
The commission is pleased that the court unanimously dismissed Watch Tower’s challenge to the commission’s decision to open an inquiry. This is a significant decision allowing the commission’s inquiry to continue to progress. The challenge was dismissed because the court accepted the commission’s argument that the First-tier Tribunal (Charity) was the correct place to hear Watch Tower’s challenge to the inquiry opened by the commission. The commission believes that the specialist Tribunal is the right venue for such cases and is pleased that the Court of Appeal has confirmed this.
The commission is disappointed that the Court of Appeal found in favour of Watch Tower in one respect, deciding that the challenge to the commission’s Order seeking documents from the charity should be heard by the Administrative Court rather than the Tribunal. This decision was reached because of the specific wording of section 320 of the Charities Act 2011, which limits the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear challenges to such Orders.
So what the brothers were actually challenging was the actual type of the court where the legal arguments were to be made and whether or not a Tribunal had any jurisdiction to gain access to data. The challenge had its basis in a legal technicality not in an actual attempt to block an investigation into handling of child abuse as the source also seems blissfully unaware of. It seems that the ignorance of the OP is contagious.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/court-of-appeal-gives-judgment-in-court-case-by-jehovahs-witness-charity
01 Mar 17
2 edits
One wonders why FMF objects to the brothers seeking to establish whether a particular type of court is the right place to hear legal arguments or or whether it has actual jurisdiction to gain access to certain data. As FMF has not given any reason why it should be considered morally or legally reprehensible perhaps he will do so now.
01 Mar 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, now that the er... "legal technicality not an actual attempt to block an investigation into handling of child abuse", as you put it, has been sorted out (dismissed) after it blocked the investigation into the handling of child abuse for two years, let's both welcome the decisions and hope it leads to [1] justice for victims, [2] perpetrators being held to account, and [3] changes in your organization so that allegations of sexual abuse are handled better, and things like [1] and [2] don't get delayed in future. Can both you and I welcome and hope for those three things?
So what the brother were actually challenging was the actual type of the court where the legal arguments were to be made and whether or not a Tribunal had any jurisdiction to hear such cases or gain access to data. Its a legal technicality not an actual attempt to block an investigation into handling of child abuse as the source also seems blissfully unaware of. It seems that the ignorance of the OP is contagious.
01 Mar 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think the JW organization should have welcomed the commission’s assistance in getting to the bottom of how it has handled child sex abuse in its ranks over the years.
One wonders why FMF objects to the brothers seeking to establish whether a particular type of court is the right place to hear legal arguments or or whether it has actual jurisdiction to gain access to certain data. As FMF has not given any reason why it should be considered morally or legally reprehensible perhaps he will do so now.
01 Mar 17
Originally posted by FMFYou have stated that the challenge was to block an investigation when in fact it was to establish certain legalities as the wording of the ruling makes rather clear. Perhaps you might have read the ruling prior to engaging in wanton windbaggery, it may have saved you looking quite so silly now.
Well, now that the er... "legal technicality not an actual attempt to block an investigation into handling of child abuse", as you put it, has been sorted out (dismissed) after it blocked the investigation into the handling of child abuse for two years, let's both welcome the decisions and hope it leads to [1] justice for victims, [2] perpetrators being h ...[text shortened]... and [2] don't get delayed in future. Can both you and I welcome and hope for those three things?
01 Mar 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat did your organization have to fear from cooperating with the investigation as it stood and with the authority it had?
You have stated that the challenge was to block an investigation when in fact it was to establish certain legalities as the wording of the ruling makes rather clear.
01 Mar 17
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou missed this bit: Let's both welcome the decision and hope it leads to [1] justice for victims, [2] perpetrators being held to account, and [3] changes in your organization so that allegations of sexual abuse are handled better, and so that things like [1] and [2] don't get delayed in future.
Perhaps you might have read the ruling prior to engaging in wanton windbaggery, it may have saved you looking quite so silly now.
Can both you and I welcome and hope for those three things?