Srecko Sostar

I am of the opinion that it is completely legal for a person to have the right to inspect all documentation concerning him personally. In fact, the institution is obliged to provide the person with any documentation it has made concerning that person. For example, the institution makes decisions in which period employees will take annual leave. The document which is the decision on the beginning and end of the annual leave must be signed and certified and one copy/sample delivered to the employee. If an employee one day loses his document or cannot find it in his personal documentation, then he has the opportunity to look for that document in the institution. He would have the right to inspect that document, or request a copy, or take a photograph of the document with his cell phone and the like.
Since this is about WTJWorg and special rules, within this religious institution, that are not completely clear even to its own members, because many things are not even told them how the internal system works, then complications are possible and inevitable, that our friend @Patiently waiting for Truthtalking about.

I am of the opinion that it is completely legal for a person to have the right to inspect all documentation concerning him personally. In fact, the institution is obliged to provide the person with any documentation it has made concerning that person. For example, the institution makes decisions in which period employees will take annual leave. The document which is the decision on the beginning and end of the annual leave must be signed and certified and one copy/sample delivered to the employee. If an employee one day loses his document or cannot find it in his personal documentation, then he has the opportunity to look for that document in the institution. He would have the right to inspect that document, or request a copy, or take a photograph of the document with his cell phone and the like.
Since this is about WTJWorg and special rules, within this religious institution, that are not completely clear even to its own members, because many things are not even told them how the internal system works, then complications are possible and inevitable, that our friend @Patiently waiting for Truthtalking about.

I am of the opinion that it is completely legal for a person to have the right to inspect all documentation concerning him personally. In fact, the institution is obliged to provide the person with any documentation it has made concerning that person. For example, the institution makes decisions in which period employees will take annual leave. The document which is the decision on the beginning and end of the annual leave must be signed and certified and one copy/sample delivered to the employee. If an employee one day loses his document or cannot find it in his personal documentation, then he has the opportunity to look for that document in the institution. He would have the right to inspect that document, or request a copy, or take a photograph of the document with his cell phone and the like.
Since this is about WTJWorg and special rules, within this religious institution, that are not completely clear even to its own members, because many things are not even told them how the internal system works, then complications are possible and inevitable, that our friend @Patiently waiting for Truthtalking about.

Yes and because of such I can understand people wanting to have their own personal information.
As an example, I left the JW Org of my own choice, but since then an Elder has phoned my wife and told her that I was disfellowshipped.  Now I told those Elders the reasons I was leaving, so I had not been removed by them. However that Elder said I had been disfellowshipped. So, what do they hold on record about me ?   Do they have truth, that i left, or do they have a lie, that i was disfellowshipped ? 
Hence I can understand why Ex-JWs would want their personal records. I would now like to have my records from my ex-congregation. 

In secret you can, or with those whom you hope you can trust. (Micah 7:5,6) I see Jws on here in disagreement with the 1914 doctrine. Yet, they are still considered brothers.  It is a disfellowshipping factor, if one declares before the elder body that it is a lie.  As soon as one speaks up stating why it's a lie, they are cut off from the organization.  In this case, they are not considered a brother.  Hypocrisy is practiced not only among the leaders, but among JWs who say one thing in private and bury it before those in power.  If there is solid evidence that a lie is being taught, it is in the interests of all to bring that evidence to the table.  Otherwise, it shows the fear of men.  Unity should not compromise truth.  
When following in the footsteps of Jesus Christ, we put off falsehoods, and speak truth to our neighbor.  (Ps 15:2,3)  Otherwise one's heart has not made the distinction between  what is good and what is bad, - and believing as we stand before God in judgment, that we are among the righteous.   (John 7:18; Eph 4:25; Mal 3:18)
  1 Cor 10:21

Perhaps the outcome of all this "persecution thing" depended on “God’s will,” and little or nothing at all on the efforts of JW lawyers, prayer, and letters. Or yet, nothing depended on “God’s will,” because he “allows” things to happen.
So, the real answer does not exist to, why JWs in Russia suffer, if they are not extremists. That is, all the answers to the question of "why", are correct. It depends on the position of the observer who comment.
On the other hand, the answer to, why there are no transcripts on the JWorg official site is not elusive. It’s not “spiritual food at the right time,” so why would it be on the “spiritual table” prepared by GB.  

I am not hostile to what was done, or any side effects that were incidental, correctly labeled.
 
I WOULD however, like to read the original un-edited Russian Court transcripts in English.…… something tangible.  I think it is INCREDIBLY important not to base one’s understanding of those events on third-hand agenda driven very abbreviated summaries.
As far as a massive witness given the world over about this ….. the legal and political battle was fought with “the army they had” …. and they lost, miserably.

And just how would that be obvious that someone opened ANY of 48,000,000 "overseas" letters?
Paper is just thin sheets of wood .... the winters are bitter cold ... and they had 11 boxcars full of "fuel at the proper time", and $57,000,000 to buy Vodka.
but.... as a reasonable concession, I will give you that perhaps 1,000 letters were opened and read by low-level clerks and other functionaries, until the pattern and value .. as they value pattern and value, was established.
What we really DO KNOW, is that 48,000,000 letters, had absolutely no effect whatsoever in influencing the Russian Court system, or politics.
A complete waste of money and time .... for that purpose.
Years ago, there was a movie "Bridge on the River Kwai" where the Japanese had captured British soldiers and put them to work building a bridge and rail line through the jungle, and the ranking officer remarked to his lower officers that he was glad his soldiers had work to do. Otherwise they would get into trouble.
This is, in my opinion, a valuable thing to do, and besides, later, Commandos blew up the bridge.
 

Website link please.
Is this website "illegal"? Because WTJWorg in Russia is banned. Assume, website is crated in some other country.

Thanks anyway.

Sigh …….
Do you even understand that both those things are ONLY RELEVANT if it answers the Topic’s question?
Sigh ……. Let me rephrase …….,
New question.
Two parts.
 1.) Premise: the Brotherhood spent about $84,000,000 sending 11 railroad boxcars packed with letters to the Russian Government to try and influence them, which were never delivered, and never read, for which the Universal Postal Union paid the Russian Government about $57,000,000 to deliver (70% of face value of the postage). The 60% of the Brotherhood that sent 10 letters each spent about a day each doing this. That is 4.8 million days, engaged in political activity, attempting to influence the Russian Court system.
2.) The rephrased question:
Do you think the GB should respect the Brotherhood enough to provide translated Official Russian Court transcripts, so the Brotherhood can see the results of the fruits of their labors?
………………….
I mean, after all, the Russkies were paid about $57,000,000 for SOMETHING! ….. and the Society IS IN the translation “business”.

I respect your reasons for internet name and picture and for history of your family and friends.
Because you put my credibility in question i don't see how story about your "fake" name and picture  and provided explanation should be used in order to continue harassing about where any of the other participants log in and give comments. If you are as serious as you claim, then please stop talking about who is where on other platforms and comment on the topic on this Forum. Stick to the topic if you can. If you can not, then continue with same "song". 
The topics that can be found in this Open Club, are primarily related to JW and that is why I put them. If you consider yourself and act in life more and better than activism or an observer, great. If others can’t be as good as you, then don’t bother them because they can’t achieve your level of standards and performance. Respect others if you want others to respect you. We may disagree about the type of problem and the type of solution and the type of cause for both things. You’re obviously a capable “debater,” but, winning in words doesn’t mean you’re right and others are wrong.
All your successes that you enumerate, we, who read them, cannot confirm or deny. It remains to believe or not to believe. So, be modest in your praises, and glorify others who you think are not as good as you, that is quality. 

Just seen on YT. Here is a JW committee where a woman can also participate in decisions led by men.
But that triggered another story i have heard. Imagine married couple. Wife is talented for music and singing. And she is looking forward to being able to be part of a choir to sing “theocratic” songs. The husband is looking forward to the same and they apply as volunteers. But one needs to pass a rehearsal in order to be a part of the choir. Unfortunately, the husband has no hearing at all and he drops out of the election. That means, neither wife has the opportunity to join the choir. ....... But there is a solution. The husband is talented at laying gypsum boards and smoothing boards. And here’s a wonderful opportunity for both of them to volunteer. Now it is only up to the wife to be happy as she helps with the installation of the drywall and their treatment, .... and she can hum while working on the construction site. This is what unity, hierarchy and submission to the husband mean. What a wonderful spiritual paradise.
 
 

He is an interesting character. I presenting myself with real name (some would say that is a risk, because bad people can use photo and name for evil purpose) on this Forum and elsewhere if i leave comment or put "like". He have idea how visiting internet places, let say 1, 5 or 35 of millions that exists, means how person is "all over the place". Perhaps, guess internet only, and not all over geographic places, all over time places/points, or all over parallel universe, or in some third space-time reality.
On contrary he representing himself with false name and an icon/figure that is strange. From some SF movie or what. Who can guarantee that he don't  visiting 100 platforms under 100 false names?

Wrong choice of words. Yes, i am Member in this Club.  If I want to leave a comment in this club or on some other page, then it is logical that I have to log in. Does that make me a “member” who swears allegiance?  If you do not want to loosen your perseverance, feel free to continue in the same scenario. I don’t mind if people want to see where I left a comment or tagged a video with “like”.
Perhaps you have some sort of a OCD in this matter (as in Glasgow case too), as our other member of this club, Arauna, would say. Waiting for your (long) response. 
One of our case studies examined the responses of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation to allegations of child sexual abuse. We also held an institutional review hearing to provide an opportunity for the Jehovah’s Witness organisation to inform us of its current policies and procedures in relation to child protection and child safe standards, including responding to allegations of child sexual abuse.
As of 31 May 2017, of the 4,029 survivors who told us during private sessions about child sexual abuse in religious institutions, 70 survivors told us about abuse in the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Of the victims we heard about, 80.0 per cent were female. The average age of victims at the time of first abuse was 8.4 years. Of the 53 survivors who told us about the age of the person who sexually abused them, 44 survivors (83.0 per cent) told us about abuse by an adult and 12 survivors (22.6 per cent) told us about abuse by a child. A small number of survivors told us about sexual abuse by an adult and by a child. The vast majority of survivors who told us about abuse by an adult perpetrator said they were abused by a male adult.
Of the 65 survivors who told us during private sessions about the role of a perpetrator, 26.2 per cent told us about child sexual abuse by family members. This was considered to be within our Terms of Reference when the sexual abuse was reported to and handled by the religious institution. We also heard from survivors about other perpetrators including volunteers (13.8 per cent), lay leaders (9.2 per cent) and other adults who attended the religious institution (9.2 per cent).
As part of our case study, the Jehovah’s Witness organisation provided us with files containing allegations, reports or complaints of child sexual abuse. They provided us with documents relating to at least 1,800 children and over 1,000 alleged perpetrators.
Institutional responses to child sexual abuse in the Jehovah’s Witnesses
Our case study regarding the Jehovah’s Witnesses showed that the organisation dealt with allegations of child sexual abuse in accordance with internal, scripturally based disciplinary policies and procedures. We found that at least until 1998, individuals making complaints of child sexual abuse were required to state their allegations in the presence of the person against whom the allegations were made. The ‘two-witness’ rule applied – that is, wrongdoing could only be established on the basis of testimony from two or more ‘credible’ eyewitnesses to the same incident (or strong circumstantial evidence testified to by at least two witnesses or testimony of two witnesses to the same kind of wrongdoing). Allegations were investigated by elders, all of whom were men and had no relevant training.
We found that in deciding the sanctions to impose and/or the precautions to take in relation to a known or suspected perpetrator of child sexual abuse, the Jehovah’s Witness organisation had inadequate regard for the risk that the person might reoffend. Alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse who were removed from their congregations as a result of allegations of child sexual abuse were frequently reinstated. We found no evidence of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation reporting allegations of child sexual abuse to police or other civil authorities.
During our case study we heard from survivors of child sexual abuse that they were not provided with adequate information by the Jehovah’s Witness organisation about the investigation of their allegations, felt unsupported by the elders who handled the allegations, and felt that the investigation process was a test of their credibility rather than that of the alleged perpetrator. We also heard that victims of child sexual abuse were told by congregational elders not to discuss the abuse with others, and that if they tried to leave the organisation, they were ‘shunned’ or ostracised from their religious community.
Contributing factors in the Jehovah’s Witnesses
We considered a number of factors that may have contributed to the occurrence of child sexual abuse in the Jehovah’s Witnesses or to inadequate institutional responses to such abuse.
The Jehovah’s Witness organisation addresses child sexual abuse in accordance with scriptural direction, relying on a literal interpretation of the Bible and 1st century principles to set practice, policy and procedure. These include the ‘two-witness’ rule as discussed, as well as the principle of ‘male headship’ (that men hold positions of authority in congregations and headship in the family). Scripturally, only men can make decisions. Other scripture-based policies include the sanctions of reproval (a form of discipline that allows a perpetrator to remain in the congregation), disfellowshipping (exclusion or excommunication as a form of punishment for serious scriptural wrongdoing), and shunning (an instruction to the congregation not to associate with a disfellowshipped person). As long as the Jehovah’s Witness organisation continues to apply these practices in its response to allegations of child sexual abuse, it will remain an organisation that does not respond adequately to child sexual abuse and that fails to protect children.
We recommend that the Jehovah’s Witness organisation abandon its application of the two-witness rule in cases involving complaints of child sexual abuse (Recommendation 16.27), revise its policies so that women are involved in processes relating to investigating and determining allegations of child sexual abuse (Recommendation 16.28), and no longer require its members to shun those who disassociate from the organisation in cases where the reason for disassociation is related to a person being a victim of child sexual abuse (Recommendation 16.29).
We welcome the inclusion in the recently published Child safeguarding policy of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia of a requirement to report child sexual abuse to civil authorities in cases where elders consider that a child may still be at risk of harm. The Jehovah’s Witness organisation should also amend all of its policies and procedures relating to child sexual abuse to ensure that this requirement is included.
Which of these was posted on the WTJWorg official site for JW members to read? Did they post a link like you did at this club?

He is an interesting character. I presenting myself with real name (some would say that is a risk, because bad people can use photo and name for evil purpose) on this Forum and elsewhere if i leave comment or put "like". He have idea how visiting internet places, let say 1, 5 or 35 of millions that exists, means how person is "all over the place". Perhaps, guess internet only, and not all over geographic places, all over time places/points, or all over parallel universe, or in some third space-time reality.
On contrary he representing himself with false name and an icon/figure that is strange. From some SF movie or what. Who can guarantee that he don't  visiting 100 platforms under 100 false names?

It seems as if Truthers, or at least one Truther,  should be called a Snooper 
definition of snoopers by The Free Dictionary
https://www.thefreedictionary.com › snoopers   To pry into the private affairs of others, especially by prowling about.   I didn't know @Space Merchant was so bored that he spent his time snooping on people's internet activity.    Maybe I have to confess that i have around five Facebook pages. One is directed at Leaving the JW Org.  I may even have a Youtube account but i would think it is inactive.     I do see FB as a 'platform' of sorts and it is very useful to use to 'Preach the Good News of the Kingdom' whilst remaining outside of the JW domination. It's nice to be able to tell people that we ARE in the Last Days, without having to put silly dates or years on it. It's nice to be albe to show people that a Christian can be balanced.   

Wrong choice of words. Yes, i am Member in this Club.  If I want to leave a comment in this club or on some other page, then it is logical that I have to log in. Does that make me a “member” who swears allegiance?  If you do not want to loosen your perseverance, feel free to continue in the same scenario. I don’t mind if people want to see where I left a comment or tagged a video with “like”.
Perhaps you have some sort of a OCD in this matter (as in Glasgow case too), as our other member of this club, Arauna, would say. Waiting for your (long) response. 
One of our case studies examined the responses of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation to allegations of child sexual abuse. We also held an institutional review hearing to provide an opportunity for the Jehovah’s Witness organisation to inform us of its current policies and procedures in relation to child protection and child safe standards, including responding to allegations of child sexual abuse.
As of 31 May 2017, of the 4,029 survivors who told us during private sessions about child sexual abuse in religious institutions, 70 survivors told us about abuse in the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Of the victims we heard about, 80.0 per cent were female. The average age of victims at the time of first abuse was 8.4 years. Of the 53 survivors who told us about the age of the person who sexually abused them, 44 survivors (83.0 per cent) told us about abuse by an adult and 12 survivors (22.6 per cent) told us about abuse by a child. A small number of survivors told us about sexual abuse by an adult and by a child. The vast majority of survivors who told us about abuse by an adult perpetrator said they were abused by a male adult.
Of the 65 survivors who told us during private sessions about the role of a perpetrator, 26.2 per cent told us about child sexual abuse by family members. This was considered to be within our Terms of Reference when the sexual abuse was reported to and handled by the religious institution. We also heard from survivors about other perpetrators including volunteers (13.8 per cent), lay leaders (9.2 per cent) and other adults who attended the religious institution (9.2 per cent).
As part of our case study, the Jehovah’s Witness organisation provided us with files containing allegations, reports or complaints of child sexual abuse. They provided us with documents relating to at least 1,800 children and over 1,000 alleged perpetrators.
Institutional responses to child sexual abuse in the Jehovah’s Witnesses
Our case study regarding the Jehovah’s Witnesses showed that the organisation dealt with allegations of child sexual abuse in accordance with internal, scripturally based disciplinary policies and procedures. We found that at least until 1998, individuals making complaints of child sexual abuse were required to state their allegations in the presence of the person against whom the allegations were made. The ‘two-witness’ rule applied – that is, wrongdoing could only be established on the basis of testimony from two or more ‘credible’ eyewitnesses to the same incident (or strong circumstantial evidence testified to by at least two witnesses or testimony of two witnesses to the same kind of wrongdoing). Allegations were investigated by elders, all of whom were men and had no relevant training.
We found that in deciding the sanctions to impose and/or the precautions to take in relation to a known or suspected perpetrator of child sexual abuse, the Jehovah’s Witness organisation had inadequate regard for the risk that the person might reoffend. Alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse who were removed from their congregations as a result of allegations of child sexual abuse were frequently reinstated. We found no evidence of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation reporting allegations of child sexual abuse to police or other civil authorities.
During our case study we heard from survivors of child sexual abuse that they were not provided with adequate information by the Jehovah’s Witness organisation about the investigation of their allegations, felt unsupported by the elders who handled the allegations, and felt that the investigation process was a test of their credibility rather than that of the alleged perpetrator. We also heard that victims of child sexual abuse were told by congregational elders not to discuss the abuse with others, and that if they tried to leave the organisation, they were ‘shunned’ or ostracised from their religious community.
Contributing factors in the Jehovah’s Witnesses
We considered a number of factors that may have contributed to the occurrence of child sexual abuse in the Jehovah’s Witnesses or to inadequate institutional responses to such abuse.
The Jehovah’s Witness organisation addresses child sexual abuse in accordance with scriptural direction, relying on a literal interpretation of the Bible and 1st century principles to set practice, policy and procedure. These include the ‘two-witness’ rule as discussed, as well as the principle of ‘male headship’ (that men hold positions of authority in congregations and headship in the family). Scripturally, only men can make decisions. Other scripture-based policies include the sanctions of reproval (a form of discipline that allows a perpetrator to remain in the congregation), disfellowshipping (exclusion or excommunication as a form of punishment for serious scriptural wrongdoing), and shunning (an instruction to the congregation not to associate with a disfellowshipped person). As long as the Jehovah’s Witness organisation continues to apply these practices in its response to allegations of child sexual abuse, it will remain an organisation that does not respond adequately to child sexual abuse and that fails to protect children.
We recommend that the Jehovah’s Witness organisation abandon its application of the two-witness rule in cases involving complaints of child sexual abuse (Recommendation 16.27), revise its policies so that women are involved in processes relating to investigating and determining allegations of child sexual abuse (Recommendation 16.28), and no longer require its members to shun those who disassociate from the organisation in cases where the reason for disassociation is related to a person being a victim of child sexual abuse (Recommendation 16.29).
We welcome the inclusion in the recently published Child safeguarding policy of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia of a requirement to report child sexual abuse to civil authorities in cases where elders consider that a child may still be at risk of harm. The Jehovah’s Witness organisation should also amend all of its policies and procedures relating to child sexual abuse to ensure that this requirement is included.
Which of these was posted on the WTJWorg official site for JW members to read? Did they post a link like you did at this club?

Here in England I used the Data Protection Act to get printed documents concerning ME, that of my Medical Records from my GP, and that of my personal information concerning my time (in the 1960's) in a Children's Home that was government run.
I wanted more information concerning the employees and management of the Children's Home, and I was told to use the Freedom Of Information Act, to gain more information. However I was told that this extra information would not be mailed to me, and that I would have to visit an office and read through a large amount of files to be able to gain the information. Even then I would not be allowed to take photos or take notes on the files I read.  

https://www.castanet.net/news/Vernon/346544/Judge-orders-stay-of-Jehovah-s-Witnesses-constitutional-claim-on-privacy-of-records
Who gets to decide the constitutionality of privately held church records is at the centre of a court and privacy commission battle being waged by the Jehovah's Witnesses and two former members.
A B.C. Supreme Court judge has ordered a stay of proceedings in a case in which the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada sought to challenge British Columbia's privacy laws, saying the matter is best decided by the privacy commission.
The church had refused to turn over personal records sought by former Jehovah's Witnesses Gregory Westgarde and Gabriel-Liberty Wall.
Justice Janet Winteringham gave her decision in Vancouver on Monday.
It involves former members of the Jehovah's Witnesses in Coldstream and Grand Forks who wanted their personal records turned over to them after they left the church.
The congregations refused the requests, claiming the records were confidential and that compelling production violated their constitutional rights.
Church elders John Vabuolas and Paul Sidhu have proceedings underway before B.C.’s privacy commissioner on the matter, and Winteringham wrote in her decision that the court challenge versus B.C.'s attorney general be stayed pending the outcome of the privacy inquiries.
Vabuolas is an elder in the Grand Forks congregation, where Gabriel-Liberty Wall requested disclosure of his personal information in March 2020. Wall was baptized in February 2012, moved to the Grand Forks congregation in 2014, and formally resigned from the church in 2017.
Sidhu is an elder in the Coldstream congregation, where Gregory Westgarde requested his records in October 2020. About August 2009, Westgarde "made known to the elders he no longer wished to be known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses."
Sidhu described Westgarde’s departure from the church as "unequivocal," despite a trio of elders offering spiritual guidance.
"Based on our internal canon law, a brief summary of this decision, our efforts, and (Mr. Westgarde’s) response was placed in a confidential file under lock and key," Sidhu wrote in a deposition.
According to the litigants, "As a part of their spiritual duties, elders may create records about their congregants, particularly as it relates to their religious standing as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The plaintiffs allege B.C.’s privacy legislation does not recognize or respect the confidentiality of these records created in relation to the elders’ spiritual duties and as such violates their constitutional rights."
The Watchtower sought to stay the privacy inquiries and let the court decide the matter, but the judge disagreed, staying the civil suit against the attorney general's ministry, pending the outcome of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner hearings.
The elders maintained that PIPA "violates their constitutional rights of religious freedom, freedom of expression and freedom of association because the legislation fails to protect confidential religious communications and records."
It seems to be all about power and control, but I would have thought a person should be entitled to have their records as why would the Elders still need them anyway ? 
Yes I know it's all about diferent laws in different places.  Perhaps I should ask for my personal information here in UK, and see what result i get  

Do all abusers "look" this awful? Or do you mistakenly promote the image of abusers looking messy and neglected? 

Yes, if we count few individuals at this Forum, called Jehovah's Witnesses Open Club, with informative topics.
This Open JW Club is in fact "illegal" in the eyes of WTJWorg and GB and Legal Department. In what sense  "illegal"?  The title of club contains the name Jehovah's Witnesses. I assume that the name Jehovah's Witnesses  is the intellectual property of WTJWorg and should not be used without their consent. Because the club does not have the approval of the GB to promote JW religious ideas beyond/out of the range of official JW religious teachings of the JW Church and outside the official JW channels. Because this club does not have the GB approval to conduct any debate that calls into question the JW religious system. Because there is no GB approval for the discussion to be led by current and former JW members (discussion of this type, ie interaction between current and former members is actually completely forbidden by GB). If the JW elders of the congregations, to which the members of this club belong, learned that these JW brothers and sisters are members of this club and that they are participants in the discussions, they would be invited to serious conversation and at least warned if not rebuked or even excluded / dfd from the JW assembly.
The claim that JW members are aware of the prevalence of CSA within the JW church is arbitrary and I am not sure that your picture is correct regarding their awareness of CSA. One young brother (approximately 30 years old) told me directly in 2015 that he did not believe in the CSA within the JW and that he did not believe in court rulings in this regard. He recently became an elder in my former congregation. It is to be expected that his position on this issue has not changed, that is, that he is still in a state of denial. CSA is at least 50 years inside WTJWorg. I found about real CSA JW victims with name and face and court rulings only in "secular" sources, not on pages of WTJWorg magazines or their videos.
Oh man. You are "worst" than them.   If 30 year old JW male member claimed how this are all lies, in 2015, and one GB member made similar claim on JWTV, then problem is not about "how to deal" with something (CSA in this moment), but about general denial that CSA exist inside WTJWorg. Other GB member made different view when made public statements.
 
 
I'm glad you mentioned that. When I realized that the topic could become a source of misinformation because I didn’t understand the English text in the video well, so I misinterpreted it, deleting the topic was a good choice, in my opinion. If the owner of this Forum thought I should have reacted differently, then he would certainly have warned me about it. But that is his right as the owner, not yours. If I have offended your feelings by deleting that topic, then I apologize to you. I hope that one day in the future you will be able to forget that topic and move on with your healed feelings. 
Regarding solutions. Your solutions and counsels or recommendations, that without doubt are good, would be, i guess, welcomed in WTJWorg if you deliver to them in writing. WTJWorg is a large system that has millions of members and millions of those associated with them. So, if they got the information you have about solving a CSA problem, you would do a good deed that would benefit millions. 
On contrary, i am only on this platform, JW Open Club. Please, tell us all here, what are those names of "all over the place" where i am and, allegedly, participate, and supposedly, I make an impact on millions ?   
And you thought I was an expert on this subject? 

Do all abusers "look" this awful? Or do you mistakenly promote the image of abusers looking messy and neglected? 

Yes, if we count few individuals at this Forum, called Jehovah's Witnesses Open Club, with informative topics.
This Open JW Club is in fact "illegal" in the eyes of WTJWorg and GB and Legal Department. In what sense  "illegal"?  The title of club contains the name Jehovah's Witnesses. I assume that the name Jehovah's Witnesses  is the intellectual property of WTJWorg and should not be used without their consent. Because the club does not have the approval of the GB to promote JW religious ideas beyond/out of the range of official JW religious teachings of the JW Church and outside the official JW channels. Because this club does not have the GB approval to conduct any debate that calls into question the JW religious system. Because there is no GB approval for the discussion to be led by current and former JW members (discussion of this type, ie interaction between current and former members is actually completely forbidden by GB). If the JW elders of the congregations, to which the members of this club belong, learned that these JW brothers and sisters are members of this club and that they are participants in the discussions, they would be invited to serious conversation and at least warned if not rebuked or even excluded / dfd from the JW assembly.
The claim that JW members are aware of the prevalence of CSA within the JW church is arbitrary and I am not sure that your picture is correct regarding their awareness of CSA. One young brother (approximately 30 years old) told me directly in 2015 that he did not believe in the CSA within the JW and that he did not believe in court rulings in this regard. He recently became an elder in my former congregation. It is to be expected that his position on this issue has not changed, that is, that he is still in a state of denial. CSA is at least 50 years inside WTJWorg. I found about real CSA JW victims with name and face and court rulings only in "secular" sources, not on pages of WTJWorg magazines or their videos.
Oh man. You are "worst" than them.   If 30 year old JW male member claimed how this are all lies, in 2015, and one GB member made similar claim on JWTV, then problem is not about "how to deal" with something (CSA in this moment), but about general denial that CSA exist inside WTJWorg. Other GB member made different view when made public statements.
 
 
I'm glad you mentioned that. When I realized that the topic could become a source of misinformation because I didn’t understand the English text in the video well, so I misinterpreted it, deleting the topic was a good choice, in my opinion. If the owner of this Forum thought I should have reacted differently, then he would certainly have warned me about it. But that is his right as the owner, not yours. If I have offended your feelings by deleting that topic, then I apologize to you. I hope that one day in the future you will be able to forget that topic and move on with your healed feelings. 
Regarding solutions. Your solutions and counsels or recommendations, that without doubt are good, would be, i guess, welcomed in WTJWorg if you deliver to them in writing. WTJWorg is a large system that has millions of members and millions of those associated with them. So, if they got the information you have about solving a CSA problem, you would do a good deed that would benefit millions. 
On contrary, i am only on this platform, JW Open Club. Please, tell us all here, what are those names of "all over the place" where i am and, allegedly, participate, and supposedly, I make an impact on millions ?   
And you thought I was an expert on this subject? 

WTJWorg and its representatives all these years have not written or said that the JW church has a problem with the CSA. They claim that these are false accusations and slanders by the "hostile world" and former members. Denying that a problem exists is also a type of education that JW members receive from their religious leaders. And you are calling me here that I am against education?