www.gov.uk/government/publications/manchester-new-moston-congregation-of-jehovahs-witnesses-inquiry-report/manchester-new-moston-congregation-of-jehovahs-witnessesNoted that the religious procedure to remove all duties went into effect immediately.
No written confirmation of the above although this could easily be established by witnesses in the congregation as a public announcement of the decison is systematically made.
Viewed him as innocent until proven guilty.
Commission wrote to the Congregation trustees on Aug 10 and received a reply on Aug 13.
The above was implemented on On 7 September 2012.
The Commission criticized certain liberties the individual was permitted to continue to have during the investigation, notably attend a public event and volunteer unbeknown to the elders (presumably because they did not place the individual under 24hour surveillance).
The elders ressigned an more mature adult male to be hosted at his house during a pioneer school course.
Failure to produce a written analysis of potential conflict of interests and how they were dealt with.
Failure to produce contemporaneous record of the initial decision to remove Mr Rose from teaching and pastoral responsibilities in February 2012 or of further restrictions made.
Failure to discharge him of his duties based on the allegations and only doing so two weeks after his arrest.
Failure to produce written
justification for the above.
Failure to have information in the Spring that was only made available to them on 23rd September. (Person B).
PERSON B
The commission repremands the elders in case B for not respecting WTS guidelines for treating potential victims with ‘thoughtfulness, tenderness, and kindness’.
Rose was convicted and imprisoned for A and C.
After his release he was permitted to attend a public meeting.
He was formerly disfellowshiped May 2014.
It also believed Rose should have been submitted to a judicial committee based on the allegations and subsequent aquittal in 2012.
PERSON C
After Rose' arrest in January 25, 2012 he was immediately relieved of duties (Feb) as an elder.
The Commission found that an appeal hearings in April 2014 did not conform to Society guidelines.
. These statements have been reinforced by changes to the relevant policy and procedures. These indicate that what happened in this case did not comply with the Jehovah’s Witnesses relevant procedures as explained below.
OVERALL FINDINGS
The trustees did not report the allegations to the Commission as a serious incident.
September 2012 that they were aware of an earlier allegation of child sexual abuse made by Person B against Mr Rose in the early 1990s. stating " ‘issues’ or allegations, the Commission was asking about outstanding allegations that had not been investigated, or which were still being investigated. We did not appreciate that the Trustees were being asked about allegations in relation to which the jury found Mr Rose not guilty’." end quote
[
Replying to post 52 by benchwarmer]
Thanks, by "random site" I was refering to JWSurvey.
I was aware of the above investigation and have followed your link to the relevant site - I will read the summary.
www.gov.uk/government/publications/manchester-new-moston-congregation-of-jehovahs-witnesses-inquiry-report/manchester-new-moston-congregation-of-jehovahs-witnessesThanks,
JW
Bult of the report dealing with individual case.
Noted that the religious procedure to remove all duties went into effect immediately.
No written confirmation of the above although this could easily be established by witnesses in the congregation as a public announcement of the decison is systematically made.
Viewed him as innocent until proven guilty.
Commission wrote to the Congregation trustees on Aug 10 and received a reply on Aug 13.
The above was implemented on On 7 September 2012.
The Commission criticized certain liberties the individual was permitted to continue to have during the investigation, notably attend a public event and volunteer unbeknown to the elders (presumably because they did not place the individual under 24hour surveillance).
The elders ressigned an more mature adult male to be hosted at his house during a pioneer school course.
Failure to produce a written analysis of potential conflict of interests and how they were dealt with.
Failure to produce contemporaneous record of the initial decision to remove Mr Rose from teaching and pastoral responsibilities in February 2012 or of further restrictions made.
Failure to discharge him of his duties based on the allegations and only doing so two weeks after his arrest.
Failure to produce written
justification for the above.
Failure to have information in the Spring that was only made available to them on 23rd September. (Person B).
PERSON B
The commission repremands the elders in case B for not respecting WTS guidelines for treating potential victims with ‘thoughtfulness, tenderness, and kindness’.
Rose was convicted and imprisoned for A and C.
After his release he was permitted to attend a public meeting.
He was formerly disfellowshiped May 2014.
It also believed Rose should have been submitted to a judicial committee based on the allegations and subsequent aquittal in 2012.
PERSON C
After Rose' arrest in January 25, 2012 he was immediately relieved of duties (Feb) as an elder.
The Commission found that an appeal hearings in April 2014 did not conform to Society guidelines.
. These statements have been reinforced by changes to the relevant policy and procedures. These indicate that what happened in this case did not comply with the Jehovah’s Witnesses relevant procedures as explained below.
OVERALL FINDINGS
The trustees did not report the allegations to the Commission as a serious incident.
September 2012 that they were aware of an earlier allegation of child sexual abuse made by Person B against Mr Rose in the early 1990s. stating " ‘issues’ or allegations, the Commission was asking about outstanding allegations that had not been investigated, or which were still being investigated. We did not appreciate that the Trustees were being asked about allegations in relation to which the jury found Mr Rose not guilty’." end quote
CONCLUSION The UK Charity Commission findings were that the WTS had adequate mechanisms in place and had, following the Australian commission, made further welcomed improvements. The UK Commission examined one specific case involving historic child abused perpetuated in the 1990s leading to a convicted in 2012, was not handled in full accordance the Society's own guidelines and cricized the local trustees for claiming they did not understand a request for information about prior allegations. None of its conclusions make any reference to "institutionalized cover-ups" either on the local level or of the Watchtower Society although it includes a resolution to further investigate certain internal mechanism that are particular to the JW faith to see if they have an impact on child protection.
Cooperation with law enforcement agencies is not to be confused with renouncing of all rights. From what I can see the Court ordered the Watchtower Society to produce documents which (a) it claimed not have in its possession (b) addresses issues which, according to the first ammendment are outside the courts jurisdiction (issues of religious polity and administration) and (c) could, if not appropriately unredacted violate constitutionally protected third party privacy rights . If a party believes theses points to be sound, presenting the arguements to the proper authorities doesn't constitute "obstruction of justice" but exercise of ones legal rights. If the Watchtower fought its corner using every legal means possible not to do what it believes to be an unlawful request while appealing, then that is their (and everyone's) right. Appealing a lower courts decison to a higher authority is part of the legal process and, as in this case, if an individual or body believes that they are being asked to do something unlawful, excessive or immoral then they have every right to defy the court and face the consequences. We wouldn't have black people voting or gay marriage if this were not the case.
Looking at the larger picture, this is one case and one specific request refused for specified reasons. This is hardly indicative of widescale and indescriminate non-compliance.