Originally posted by FMFNo 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.
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?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you hope, after the Administrative Court has heard the JW's challenge, that the JWs will then hand over the documents sought?
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.
FMF: What did your organization have to fear from cooperating with the investigation as it stood and with the authority it had?So it's not a question that you can give an unequivocal answer of "no" to, is that right?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
A rather silly loaded question transparent and plastic like you.
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFyou 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?
If you can identify who has benefitted - and how - from the two year delay, go ahead.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf 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"?
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.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFNow 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.
So? Can both you and I welcome and hope for those three things I mentioned?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot 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?
Now you are simply floundering. .