Evacuated

Wrong again Tommy.....

Let's give him some credit then:
http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/crux002.pdf

Well, let's report the lot then?

"Of course, the proverb isn't a lesson in piscine biology. The phrase appears to have been used in Turkey in a metaphorical rather than literal sense from the outset. That's just as well as, in reality, it is the guts of fish that rot and stink before the head."
Get real!!

There has been reference in this discussion about policy being good in theory but not practical in reality. This is an example of the same. It relates to a serious issue that seems to slip out of the frame in this highly emotive area of discussion.
Even Wikipedia refers to the fact that "Allegations of sexual abuse can be inherently traumatic to the child when false. People falsely charged with sexual abuse often face numerous problems of their own. The nature of the crime leveled at them often evokes an overwhelming sense of betrayal. In highly publicized cases, the general public has a strong tendency to summarily assume the accused is guilty, leading to very serious social stigma. The accused, even if acquitted, risks being fired from their job, losing their friends and other relationships, having their property vandalized, and being harassed by those believing them to be guilty."
I could cite examples of the trauma faced and experienced by those falsely accused, even to the point of suicide and murder, but there are organisations dedicated to defending and supporting such victims that provide a wealth of information to enable a more balanced consideration of this matter from a range of  perspectives. Linked below is one example.
https://factuk.org/
To say that, in the case of unproven allegations of child abuse, "reporting does not convict" displays a level of naivety, which, when compounded by an unqualified belief that "the police have capabilities to uncover wrongdoing" can only lead to gross injustice.
I am afraid that the finding of solutions to problems in this area of tragic evil requires the concentrated effort of far better minds than those exhibiting such emotive, unbalanced, and limited perspective.
Just sayin'.........   

@Srecko Sostar
Testimony of G. Jackson at the ARC Public hearing 14/08/2015
(This is the word doc. version of the transcript, but it's easy to find in any format when you search key words such as "mandatory" or "easier")
 
P.15966
G. Jackson: “The point being, here, another aspect that an elder needs  to consider is he does not have the authority to lord it over or take over control of a family arrangement, where a person - let's say it is a victim who is 24 or 25 years of age - has a right to decide whether or not they will report that incident. They also respect the family arrangement that the appointed guardian, who is not the perpetrator, has  a certain right, too.  So this is the spiritual dilemma that we have, because at the same time, we want to make sure that children are cared for. So if the government does happen to make mandatory reporting, that will make this dilemma so much easier for us, because we all want the same goal,that children will be cared for properly”.
P.15967
G. Jackson: “But the point I was trying to make, Mr Stewart, is there are other scriptural factors that maybe make that a little complicated, and it would certainly be a lot easier if we had mandatory laws on that”.
The written word cannot convey emotion, but when I watched that part of the transcript, G. Jackson said it in a pleading, urging tone of voice. I can cut and post that part of the video here if anyone wants.
P.S.
On page 48 of the report you posted,  BCG, the victim apparently made this statement: "BCG told the Royal Commission that in her view it was essential that uniform mandatory reporting laws be introduced across Australia to apply to organisations like the Jehovah’s Witnesses in order to protect children".
This is such a silly and misleading statement. It makes it look like a “special” mandatory law has to be applied to the Jehovah’s Witness orq. to make them comply with the law, because they are so uncooperative. Mandatory reporting means mandatory to anyone. This is why G. Jackson said if mandatory reporting was implemented across the country it would make the job a lot easier for everyone as evident from the transcript. But in this report, there is no mention of that.  Only this silly comment above. That smells of bias to me!
 

Very sad report and we can only imagine how difficult this must all be for the surviving families.
This statement is rather misleading in that  a "free" and "informed" decision on a matter does not sit well with the notion of that matter being something which is arbitrarily "forbidden under Jehovah's Witness doctrine". 
Also, whilst the coroner correctly highlights the difficullty faced by physicians in balancing the will of a patient against their subjective medical assessment of the result, it surely is not the case that the medical oath to protect and save human life is one that must be fulfilled "at all costs"? Otherwise, how could abortion (apparently prohibited by the Hippocratic oath) be permitted? Seemingly running at about 100,000 per year in Canada, this would surely generate significant coroner input if unlawful. And yet, the outrage seems disproportionate.
Once again, media and honesty publicly demonstrate their estrangement.

No. Just that the idea of punishing "many" for the "crime" of just a "few" is not limited to legal dictionaries. It is a common phenomenon in all walks of life. The application is left to your fertile imagination.

And your point regarding this???
Good to be reminded thank you very much. Yes, we are very well aware of these personal and "collective", (think I understand this term), areas of responsibility which is why we, for example  1. obey 1 Pet.3:21, and 2. obey Rev 18:4. 
Great examples, but in the case of unwitnessed alleged murder, the city of refuge arrangement has relevance.
The unwitnessed rape incident is also intriguing. Was Jehovah ever called as a witness additional to the victim?

Y'know.....I think thar may be a prophecy in thar ....................somewhar......????
John 11:51:"though, he did not say of his own originality; ....................................... he prophesied"!!!

I'll take that as a No in answer to the question "do you have an income and expenditure breakdown?".
The report link provided presents a confusing "dissertation" suggesting that the Watchtower organisation receives vastly greater returns of finance than it's expansion programs are estimated to require, that deception is used on the part of it's leaders to extort money from it's members, at the same time as they are supposed to be "not receiving as much money as they are spending".
If this is the basis for what is considered to be "serious discussion", then forgive me if I sit this one out for a while until something of substance is presented.

Wow! You have a pretty low standard of what constitutes high luxury!
I'll have a serious discussion with anyone who is able and willing. But I haven't seen anything resembling such so far under this thread. Only the same old hoary chestnuts thrashed out ad nauseum elsewhere.
 I am sure something will surface eventually though, even if this question is addressed:
 

Well the statement at De.19:15 is pretty explicit.
If we read De. 22:25-27, it says the sexual crime is the same as a murder (presumably also unwitnessed by an independent party). Now I know a corpse is a silent witness of a sort, but the testimony is a little obscure, and without clarity, it would be difficult to convict, so there were a number of arrangements in place to deal with that situation.
However,  leaving that to one side, in the case of a sexual crime, the victim is one witness who might be able to testify; the circumstance seems to provide some circumstantial evdence. Is there any suggestion of how Jehovah could serve as a witness (which he surely could)? In Jesus case he did actually testify verbally from the heavens. In the case of David and Bathsheeba, he served as a witness sending Nathan. Just wondering, as Deuteronomy is rather sparse? There is some danger of a false accusation which presumably is a reason for the 2-witness rule in the first place. Any records or ideas shedding light here?
But please forgive me. This is veering off topic again. i will withdraw until the subject is discussed separately.
I have posted it here in case some constructive information can be contributed:
 

No. Just that the idea of punishing "many" for the "crime" of just a "few" is not limited to legal dictionaries. It is a common phenomenon in all walks of life. The application is left to your fertile imagination.

Yeah thanks for the reference. I think I understood it correctly. I covered it with Rev.18:4.
Bit like the suspected reasons for the targeting of Andrey Gosht's family?

Well the statement at De.19:15 is pretty explicit.
If we read De. 22:25-27, it says the sexual crime is the same as a murder (presumably also unwitnessed by an independent party). Now I know a corpse is a silent witness of a sort, but the testimony is a little obscure, and without clarity, it would be difficult to convict, so there were a number of arrangements in place to deal with that situation.
However,  leaving that to one side, in the case of a sexual crime, the victim is one witness who might be able to testify; the circumstance seems to provide some circumstantial evdence. Is there any suggestion of how Jehovah could serve as a witness (which he surely could)? In Jesus case he did actually testify verbally from the heavens. In the case of David and Bathsheeba, he served as a witness sending Nathan. Just wondering, as Deuteronomy is rather sparse? There is some danger of a false accusation which presumably is a reason for the 2-witness rule in the first place. Any records or ideas shedding light here?
But please forgive me. This is veering off topic again. i will withdraw until the subject is discussed separately.
I have posted it here in case some constructive information can be contributed:
 

ENTERTAINMENT ( we must daily pay attention...)
Do you find yourself always struggling between entertainment and personal study of God’s word the bible? If yes, prayerfully meditate on these scriptures. TheyÂ’ve helped me a lot,  hope they can help you too.
**Proverbs 27:11
Satan is always taunting Jehovah. So we should work hard to make his heart rejoice.
***1 John 2:15-17
Thé world is passing away. Social media and all other types of entertainment are temporary. But the doing of Jehovah’s will , which among other things, includes personal study, prayer, ministry, meetings, will lead us to everlasting life.
***Isaiah 48:17,18
Whatever Jehovah teaches is for our own benefit. Bring our creator, He knows whatÂ’s best for us. Having a balanced view of entertainment while putting Him always first in our lives, will not only bring future blessings, but benefit us now. We will have and enjoy true peace of mind that only comes from Jehovah God.
***Psalms 1:1-5
Genuine Happiness only comes from reading, meditating and applying what we read in the Bible.
Ag??pe

No I don't actually. I remember this:
(1) Have you recognized yourself as a sinner and needing salvation from Jehovah God? And have you acknowledged that this salvation proceeds from him and through his ransomer, Christ Jesus?
(2) On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for redemption have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to Jehovah God, to do his will henceforth as that will is revealed to you through Christ Jesus and through God’s Word as his holy spirit makes it plain?
But I might add that this did not relate directly to my dedication vow which I made sometime earlier and actually not in those words.
I don't think anyone who has really accepted Christ's ransom and on the basis of this has dedicated themselves to Jehovah God would actually recite some clause like statutory marriage vows or something. Or is that something that you had to do?

This movie has been around a couple of years.
Some countries will obviously have local licensing issues where music is involved, but I'd love to know the story behind it.

This movie has been around a couple of years.
Some countries will obviously have local licensing issues where music is involved, but I'd love to know the story behind it.

Not as easy to move around as the carts?

New Idea ? Preaching in Public With Music ???

And your point regarding this???
Good to be reminded thank you very much. Yes, we are very well aware of these personal and "collective", (think I understand this term), areas of responsibility which is why we, for example  1. obey 1 Pet.3:21, and 2. obey Rev 18:4. 
Great examples, but in the case of unwitnessed alleged murder, the city of refuge arrangement has relevance.
The unwitnessed rape incident is also intriguing. Was Jehovah ever called as a witness additional to the victim?

@Gone Fishing Comments are well reasoned and communicated. Thanks. 

Well that's an easy one What they changed must have not been proved or supported by the Bible then, even when they thought so at the time. The great thing about changing your mind is it can happen even when you say you will NEVER change it
By the way, the two witness rule does not necessarily mean you have to have two literal eye witnesses to the same instance. The two witness rule can be translated to mean reliable evidence. You will agree that most secular judicial authorities require reliable evidence. Innocent until proved guilty.
Also, there is confusion when it comes to child sexual abuse. In that case there are two judgements, one a spiritual/congregational one and the other a criminal/secular one. It is logical that if a supposed perpetrator is convicted by secular authorities, then that will immediately affect his standing in the congregation even if the congregation felt there wasn't enough evidence prior to that.