JW's drop attempts to block sex abuse inquiry

Originally posted by FMF
You 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.

Can both you and I welcome and hope for those three things?

No i did not miss it i simply wondered why you had not made yourself aware of the actual ruling, why the challenge was brought and on what basis and the outcome prior to engaging in debate on subject that seems to have evaded you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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.

Do you hope, after the Administrative Court has heard the JW's challenge, that the JWs will then hand over the documents sought?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No i did not miss it ....

So? Can both you and I welcome and hope for those three things I mentioned?

FMF: What did your organization have to fear from cooperating with the investigation as it stood and with the authority it had?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
A rather silly loaded question transparent and plastic like you.

So it's not a question that you can give an unequivocal answer of "no" to, is that right?

Originally posted by FMF
If you can identify who has benefitted - and how - from the two year delay, go ahead.

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. . .like . . .the court never actually had jurisdiction to hear this type of case or the court had no jurisdiction to gain access to this kind of data. You don't think setting legalities is a good idea? why ever not? are you in your senses?

Originally posted by FMF
So it's not a question that you can give an unequivocal answer of "no" to, is that right?

sorry I am under no duress to answer plastic and transparent loaded questions.

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 technicality.

If your JW organization's handling of child sex abuse cases was found indeed to be wanting, why would the JWs seek to overturn it "because of a technicality"?

Originally posted by FMF
So? Can both you and I welcome and hope for those three things I mentioned?

Now you are simply floundering. You have been caught making serious accusations against the Watchtower and Bible society that have no basis in any reality except a callous cynicism and an abject ignorance of the case. If I was you I would cut and run there is after all only so much of a hash of it as can be made.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Now you are simply floundering. .

Not at all. I am asking you whether you welcome the investigation going ahead after the long delay 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. I am able to say I welcome it, without hesitation. Are you able to say you welcome it too?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You have been caught making serious accusations against the Watchtower and Bible society that have no basis in any reality...

Can you list these "serious accusations"?

Originally posted by roigam
Nope. I have no interest in any problems at all.

Interesting.

If the Watchtower leadership have nothing to hide, then why did they try for two years to legally block an investigation into the their reporting of allegations of child sex abuse from within the church?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually you are displaying nothing more than abject ignorance of what was being challenged and why. Here is the ruling.

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. T ...[text shortened]... .gov.uk/government/news/court-of-appeal-gives-judgment-in-court-case-by-jehovahs-witness-charity

If the Watchtower leadership have nothing to hide, then why did they try for two years to legally block an investigation into the their reporting of allegations of child sex abuse from within the church?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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.

One wonders why you object to your "brothers" being investigated for the non-escalation of thousands of incidents of accusations of child sex abuse.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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. Perhaps you might have read the ruling prior to engaging in wanton windbaggery, it may have saved you looking quite so silly now.

If the Watchtower leadership have nothing to hide, then why did they try for two years to legally block an investigation into the their reporting of allegations of child sex abuse from within the church?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
A rather silly loaded question transparent and plastic like you.

If the Watchtower leadership have nothing to hide, then why did they try for two years to legally block an investigation into the their reporting of allegations of child sex abuse from within the church?