Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe question is a reasonable one. Why not take the opportunity to make your stance clear? If victims of child sex abuse are vindicated and empowered by the revelations and confessions - even after all these years - and this means current and future sex abusers are more likely to be exposed for what they are and what theydo, is it something you are pleased to see?
@FMF I welcome you staying away from me. I have nothing to say to you and my experience has been that that nothing ever good comes from discussing anything with you and until I see evidence of you refraining from dishonestly misrepresenting the stance of others with the sole objective to attack them it will stay that way. Goodbye.
Originally posted by galveston75Ok, I accept that all this is your belief.
Thanks for your comments. Had to answer this before I leave.
You said "I must wonder why no one gets it"?
This is not correct at all. We completely know why a few get it and most don't. It is no mystery at all. In fact we clearly know why "most" do not get it. History has proved over and over that "most" will not get it when it comes to the truth o ...[text shortened]... re directed by satan even as the Bible admits is the ruler of this world.
Give it a try.......
Can you tell me just one thing?
From where does your church derive its doctrines? Certainly not from the Bible, as all other denominations do. Your Bible was created long after your church created their doctrines, and no other Bible in existence supports your doctrines other than the NWT. So from where does your church derive its doctrines?
09 Mar 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWere the Brothers 'acting under Gods direction' when they asked a 17 years old girl if she 'enjoyed it' when her own father tried to rape her?
Yes indeed because the brothers did all that they could under the circumstances. An extract from the Royal commission report which contains some rather inaccurate and inflammatory statements too numerous to go into detail here reads,
The Royal Commission will hear that since 1950:
a. 401 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse were disfell ...[text shortened]... ular authorities who have little or no concept of these principles or organizational procedures.
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou will make reference to the Royal commissions findings and published accounts because so far your tabloid style outbursts here have been exposed as innacurate and dishonest. For example that there was 1800 victims of sexual abuse. One wonders what other values you have fabricated, misrepresented, distorted and gleaned from disreputable sources.
Were the Brothers 'acting under Gods direction' when they asked a 17 years old girl if she 'enjoyed it' when her own father tried to rape her?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs a matter of interest, [1] do you believe you are being "totally devoid of artifice" in the way you are conducting yourself in this discussion? and [2] Do you think the fact that a UK journalist has described JW officials as "totally devoid of artifice" ~ while testifying before an inquiry into the cover up of sex abuse ~ will be of comfort to the victims of that sex abuse when it occurred back in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s etc.?
lets read that again this time with my glasses on, TOTALLY DEVOID OF ARTIFICE. did it really say that?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOne question. Do you think that the sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, as reported in various media, and also in the Academy Award-winning movie Spotlight, is also "fabricated, misrepresented, distorted and gleaned from disreputable sources" also?
You will make reference to the Royal commissions findings and published accounts because so far your tabloid style outbursts here have been exposed as innacurate and dishonest. For example that there was 1800 victims of sexual abuse. One wonders what other values you have fabricated, misrepresented, distorted and gleaned from disreputable sources.
09 Mar 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is from the Royal Commision transcript testimony of the victim. I can provide you with the exact quote and link if you like?
You will make reference to the Royal commissions findings and published accounts because so far your tabloid style outbursts here have been exposed as innacurate and dishonest. For example that there was 1800 victims of sexual abuse. One wonders what other values you have fabricated, misrepresented, distorted and gleaned from disreputable sources.
What have I highlighted that is dishonest or innaccurate?
09 Mar 16
4 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou have claimed that there was 1800 victims of sexual abuse. This is inaccurate and a dishonest portrayal of the Royal commissions published accounts. I have provided an extract above which details why its inaccurate.
This is from the Royal Commision transcript testimony of the victim. I can provide you with the exact quote and link if you like?
What have I highlighted that is dishonest or innaccurate?
You have also stated that this women was subject to an attempted rape you will provide a link to the testimony which explicit states that it was an attempted rape. You will also tell the forum the amount of time that has lapsed bewteen the event and its recollection. Thankyou.
09 Mar 16
Originally posted by SuzianneOh dear FMF style loaded question. Hear that? its the sound of your rubber question bouncing off the forum floor. Not very subtle nor very clever.
One question. Do you think that the sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, as reported in various media, and also in the Academy Award-winning movie Spotlight, is also "fabricated, misrepresented, distorted and gleaned from disreputable sources" also?
09 Mar 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePage 42 onwards.
You have claimed that there was 1800 victims of sexual abuse. This is inaccurate and a dishonest portrayal of the Royal commissions published accounts. I have provided an extract above which details why its inaccurate.
You have also stated that this women was subject to an attempted rape you will provide a link to the testimony. You will also te ...[text shortened]... l the forum the amount of time that has lapsed bewteen the event and its recollection. Thankyou.
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile.ashx?guid=f9d60b4b-6f27-4e50-b2ad-ebd16455a676&type=transcriptpdf&filename=Transcript-(Day-148)&fileextension=pdf
This girls father was convicted in a court of law for attempted rape and sentenced to prison.
09 Mar 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt isn't a loaded question. It is a perfectly reasonable and straight forward question, especially in light of what you are saying about the nature of evidence against your organization and many of its members. Declaring it a "loaded question" is pure dodging.
Oh dear FMF style loaded question. Hear that? its the sound of your rubber question bouncing off the forum floor. Not very subtle nor very clever.
Originally posted by Proper KnobThankyou. Are you also now willing on the basis of evidence that was supplied to and published by the Royal commission to retract your statement of 1800 victims of sexual abuse for reasons already cited?
Page 42 onwards.
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/downloadfile.ashx?guid=f9d60b4b-6f27-4e50-b2ad-ebd16455a676&type=transcriptpdf&filename=Transcript-(Day-148)&fileextension=pdf
This girls father was convicted in a court of law for attempted rape and sentenced to prison.
Are you also willing to retract your assertion of an alleged cover up on the basis of evidence that was supplied to and published by the Royal commission?
And would you also like to comment on the observations of the writer of a Daily Telegraph article commending the brothers from being completely free from artifice in contrast to other religions which had to be 'dragged' to the Royal commission and whose adherents were coached by PR gurus.
09 Mar 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy didn't the "brothers" - as you call them - report the sexual abuse of children that was going on ~ back in the 1950s when it happened, or in the 1960s, in the 1970s or the 1980-s and so on? How does being "free from artifice" in 2015 in any way make up for decades of secrecy and cover up?
And would you also like to comment on the observations of the writer of a Daily Telegraph article commending the brothers from being completely free from artifice in contrast to other religions which had to be 'dragged' to the Royal commission and whose adherents were coached by PR gurus.
09 Mar 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobie1. I shall now make reference to the 1006 separate files pertaining to the alleged sexual abuse of over 1800 children. Better?
Thankyou. Are you also now willing on the basis of evidence that was supplied to and published by the Royal commission to retract your statement of 1800 victims of sexual abuse for reasons already cited?
Are you also willing to retract your assertion of an alleged cover up on the basis of evidence that was supplied to and published by the Royal ...[text shortened]... which had to be 'dragged' to the Royal commission and whose adherents were coached by PR gurus.
2. No. It's quite clear from the testimony of the two victims that secrecy and a coverup were in play.
3. No.
09 Mar 16
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobNo that is not accurate and not acceptable.
1. I shall now make reference to the 1006 separate files pertaining to the alleged sexual abuse of over 1800 children. Better?
2. No. It's quite clear from the testimony of the two victims that secrecy and a coverup were in play.
3. No.
1. Can you tell the forum of the 1006 separate files how many relate to Jehovah's witnesses and do they all make reference to sexual abuse. Thank you.
2. I see you will not retract your assertion of a cover up. You leave me no choice. Of the 1,006 case files of abuse which occurred in jurisdictions where there was no legal obligation for ministers of religion to report, contrary to Counsel Assisting’s assertion, the files on hand confirm that close to 400 cases of abuse have been reported to secular authorities by victims or others. Let me repeat that, NO mandatory reporting and 400 cases managed to find their way to the secular authorities. Now either your allegations of a cover up are moot or the brothers are hopeless at concealing evidence.
3. You cannot explain how an eye witness of the proceedings viewed the brothers testimony, describing it as free from artifice in stark contrast to other religious bodies who were 'dragged', to the Royal commission and who hired PR gurus to coach them to say the right thing. You cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the brothers candid, honest, forthright and entirely helpful stance. Prejudice noted.