Christian Tolerance

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
They counselled families to report the matter to authorities and they did. Is this your evidence of a deliberate act of concealment from authorities? Go and tell the authorities and keep it secret? Where is your evidence of a deliberate policy of concealment. If authorities had asked for any information they could have been given it as did the Royal ...[text shortened]... ealment?

Ouch looks like the empirical evidence has bust your lame Punch and Judy show again.

The JW organisation has been fined twice in the US for refusing to provide documents pertaining to two child sex abuse cases. Surely that is a deliberate policy of concealment. They would rather pay a $13.5m fine.

https://www.revealnews.org/article/how-jehovahs-witnesses-leaders-hide-child-abuse-secrets-at-all-costs/

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If authorities had asked for any information they could have been given it as did the Royal commission. Is this your evidence of a deliberate act of concealment that when an authority asks for information they receive it?

Zero cases of child sex abuse reported by the JW organization in fifty years is the evidence of deliberate concealment.

Originally posted by FMF
The hundreds and hundreds of cases of child sex abuse not reported to the authorities over a period of 50 years is the evidence of deliberate concealment. Those whose details were finally handed over to the Royal Commission had remained concealed and withheld from authorities for 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years.

No your claim stands refuted.

Royal commission comes calling. Here have all the information you need. A deliberate act of concealment according to FMF.

Here is a case of child abuse, please go and report it to the authorities as a parent its your responsibility to do so. According to FMF a deliberate policy of concealment.

Where is your evidence of a deliberate policy of concealment in view of these empirically established facts? Do they appear to be a deliberate acts of concealment?

Originally posted by FMF
Zero cases of child sex abuse reported by the JW organization in fifty years is the evidence of deliberate concealment.

this is proof of nothing, parents were counselled to report matters to authorities and many did, How will you explain this as an act of deliberate concealment. I want to hear you explain it..

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Royal commission comes calling. Here have all the information you need. A deliberate act of concealment according to FMF.

The Royal Commission comes calling after 50 years of deliberate concealment. The Royal Commission is set up in order to investigate 50 years of deliberate concealment.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The JW organisation has been fined twice in the US for refusing to provide documents pertaining to two child sex abuse cases. Surely that is a deliberate policy of concealment. They would rather pay a $13.5m fine.

https://www.revealnews.org/article/how-jehovahs-witnesses-leaders-hide-child-abuse-secrets-at-all-costs/

Really and what did the brothers deliberately conceal your article does not say and it makes the rather FMF style claim that

For more than 25 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses officials have instructed local leaders – known as elders – in all of the religion’s 14,000 U.S. congregations to hide sexual abuse from law enforcement.

I would like evidence for this claim. Either produce it or retract your link as being untrustworthy and issue a full public retraction.

Originally posted by FMF
The Royal Commission comes calling after 50 years of deliberate concealment. The Royal Commission is set up in order to investigate 50 years of deliberate concealment.

No they were called upon to look at the reporting of child abuse among institutions. So how does the brothers offering up all information to the Royal commission constitute an act of deliberate concealment.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this is proof of nothing, parents were counselled to report matters to authorities and many did, How will you explain this as an act of deliberate concealment. I want to hear you explain it..

What did the JW organization do in cases where family members were the abusers and therefore did not want to report the abuse? Did they report these cases to the authorities or did they conceal them?

Originally posted by FMF
What did the JW organization do in cases where family members were the abusers and therefore did not want to report the abuse? Did they report these cases to the authorities or did they conceal them?

First of all you will answer how instructing parents to go to authorities and report matters constitutes a deliberate act of concealment as you have claimed was the policy of Jehovah Witnesses in Australia.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No they were called upon to look at the reporting of child abuse among institutions. So how does the brothers offering up all information to the Royal commission constitute an act of deliberate concealment.

It was the fact that "the brothers" had sat on that information and reported none of the cases for up to 50 years prior to the Royal Commission that constitutes deliberate concealment.

Originally posted by FMF
It was the fact that "the brothers" had sat on that information and reported none of the cases for up to 50 years prior to the Royal Commission that constitutes deliberate concealment.

No it doesn't constitute anything of the sort, you simply made it up. If they had asked they would have been given all the information they needed as is evidenced by the Royal commission. Was this a deliberate act of concealment as you have alleged?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
First of all you will answer how instructing parents to go to authorities and report matters constitutes a deliberate act of concealment as you have claimed was the policy of Jehovah Witnesses in Australia.

I am not talking about any cases that were reported to authorities. I am talking about the hundreds and hundreds of cases that were deliberately not reported to authorities by the JW organization.

Originally posted by FMF
It was the fact that "the brothers" had sat on that information and reported none of the cases for up to 50 years prior to the Royal Commission that constitutes deliberate concealment.

You have not answered the question, I will repeat it again.

How is counselling parents to go to authorities and report matters a deliberate act of concealment as you have alleged was the policy of Jehovahs Witnesses in Australia.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Really and what did the brothers deliberately conceal your article does not say and it makes the rather FMF style claim that

For more than 25 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses officials have instructed local leaders – known as elders – in all of the religion’s 14,000 U.S. congregations to hide sexual abuse from law enforcement.

I would like evidence ...[text shortened]... ither produce it or retract your link as being untrustworthy and issue a full public retraction.

Read the Watchtower memo i posted earlier in the thread, and i suggest you read the article again. It says quite clearly what the courts wanted from them.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Read the Watchtower memo i posted earlier in the thread, and i suggest you read the article again. It says quite clearly what the courts wanted from them.

I did it contains nothing so I will ask you again. Here was the claim of your article.

For more than 25 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses officials have instructed local leaders – known as elders – in all of the religion’s 14,000 U.S. congregations to hide sexual abuse from law enforcement.

Where is the evidence for this claim. It is not in the memo of Jehovahs Witnesses.