Evacuated

Could you comment please on when and where this ocurred and who made the video? Ugent info please!

This indicates the sad plight of humans in today's loveless world in that comfort from a stranger is basically seen as something alien.

Thank you. So, do we know who made this film?

probably 
Probably a number of similar British centres of urban activity are currently at risk.  There's also the issue of the ongoing police investigation of the area along with structural repairs to the adjoining Victoria Station. Hence, the main area outside the venue remains closed.

You may not realise it, but you project a very jaundiced spirit here @HollyW. Are you/were you a JW? because you seem to speak from a position of knowing what they feel or think about things? But then you are not like JWs I know, although I won't say I know so many as to be an expert in how they view their relationship with other Witnesses. But you certainly seem to be hurting about something.
However, I do know how I feel about things myself and am expert in that. And I will limit my comments to how I personally feel about things in this matter of making decisions about various practices or issues. What other Witnesses go by when deciding their course in life is up to them. That seems to me to be an honest approach. 

You may not realise it, but you project a very jaundiced spirit here @HollyW. Are you/were you a JW? because you seem to speak from a position of knowing what they feel or think about things? But then you are not like JWs I know, although I won't say I know so many as to be an expert in how they view their relationship with other Witnesses. But you certainly seem to be hurting about something.
However, I do know how I feel about things myself and am expert in that. And I will limit my comments to how I personally feel about things in this matter of making decisions about various practices or issues. What other Witnesses go by when deciding their course in life is up to them. That seems to me to be an honest approach. 

Quite true. It's almost that those who continually argue for the misidentification and inappropriate worship of Jesus  partly acheive their aim by forcing a diminishing of appreciation in those eager to counter their false claims. We discussed this issue in Kingdom Ministry and Pioneer School.

Yet, we do not know if Jesus would have corrected John, and Hebrews 1:6 indicates that he would not have.
(Hebrews 1:5-2:4) 5 For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”? 6 But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.” . . .  8 But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.” 10 And: “At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. . . .  13 But about which of the angels has he ever said: “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet”? . . . [2:3] For it began to be spoken through our Lord and was verified for us by those who heard him, 4 while God joined in bearing witness with signs and wonders and various powerful works and with the holy spirit distributed according to his will.
These have even been used as proof-texts for Trinitarians, since the method of worshiping was "doing obeisance." Same as John was doing when he fell down in front of the angel. But again these are NOT prooftexts, but are here to highlight the unfathomable greatness of Jesus in his position at God's right hand. 
(Revelation 5:8-10) . . .the four living creatures and the 24 elders fell down before the Lamb, and each one had a harp and golden bowls that were full of incense. (The incense means the prayers of the holy ones.) 9 And they sing a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, for you were slaughtered and with your blood you bought people for God out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, 10 and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, . . .
(Revelation 5:13, 14) 13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all the things in them, saying: “To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.” 14 The four living creatures were saying: “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshipped.
That was my point. They were written to give an overall picture that fully equips us to understand the position of Christ whether we are from an environment where it was taught that he was no more than a human, or from an environment where it was taught that he was no less than Almighty God. There is no scripture that claims that the Mighty God, Jesus, the Son of God, is equal with the Almighty God, the Father. But John 1 and Hebrews 1, for examples, were written so that we do not think to diminish Christ's position, or consider him unworthy of "obeisance."

Unless this is a euphemism for yourself.....pause... ...(ghastly thought)....... you'd just be breaking the rules again!

Wow! That wasn't handled very well in 1959 was it?.
Although, to be fair, the dictionary does state on the term "pray":     adverb formalarchaic     1. used as a preface to polite requests or instructions. "ladies and gentlemen, pray be seated"
Anyway, there's a clearer explanation now, published in the Watchtower a bit later than the '94 reference:
*** w05 1/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
Does Stephen’s exclamation at Acts 7:59 indicate that prayers should be directed to Jesus?
Acts 7:59 says: “They went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal and said: ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’” Those words have raised questions in the mind of some, since the Bible says that Jehovah is the “Hearer of Prayer.” (Psalm 65:2) Did Stephen really pray to Jesus? Would this indicate that Jesus is the same as Jehovah?
The King James Version says that Stephen was “calling upon God.” Understandably, then, many draw the conclusion reached by Bible commentator Matthew Henry, who said: “Stephen here prays to Christ, and so must we.” However, that viewpoint is erroneous. Why?
Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament makes this honest admission: “The word God is not in the original, and should not have been in the translation. It is in none of the ancient [manuscripts] or versions.” How did the word “God” come to be inserted into that verse? Scholar Abiel Abbot Livermore called this “an instance of the sectarian biases of the translators.” Most modern translations, therefore, eliminate this spurious reference to God.
Nevertheless, many versions do say that Stephen “prayed” to Jesus. And the footnote in the New World Translation shows that the term “made appeal” can also mean “invocation; prayer.” Would that not indicate that Jesus is Almighty God? No. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words explains that in this setting, the original Greek word, e·pi·ka·leʹo, means: “To call upon, invoke; . . . to appeal to an authority.” Paul used this same word when he declared: “I appeal to Caesar!” (Acts 25:11) Appropriately, then, The New English Bible says that Stephen “called out” to Jesus.
What prompted Stephen to make such an appeal? According to Acts 7:55, 56, Stephen, “being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” Normally, Stephen would have addressed his requests to Jehovah in the name of Jesus. But seeing the resurrected Jesus in vision, Stephen apparently felt free to appeal to him directly, saying: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Stephen knew that Jesus had been given authority to raise the dead. (John 5:27-29) He therefore asked Jesus to safeguard his spirit, or life force, until the day when Jesus would raise him to immortal life in the heavens.
Does Stephen’s brief utterance set a precedent for praying to Jesus? Not at all. For one thing, Stephen clearly distinguished Jesus from Jehovah, for the account says that he saw Jesus “standing at God’s right hand.” Also, these circumstances were exceptional. The only other case of such an utterance being directed to Jesus is that of the apostle John, who similarly addressed Jesus directly when he saw Him in vision.—Revelation 22:16, 20.
Although Christians today properly direct all their prayers to Jehovah God, they too have unshakable faith that Jesus is “the resurrection and the life.” (John 11:25) As it did Stephen, so faith in Jesus’ ability to raise his followers from the dead can help and sustain us in times of trial.
 

Hmmm....probably need a little more detail on the composition???
 

I thought it might be interesting to see how these words were understood and differentiated by reference works over the past hundred years or so. Unfortunately, the coverage of the three terms in synonym dictionaries is somewhat spotty (though still interesting) across the years. Here is what some authorities have said. From James Fernald, English Synonyms and Antonyms (1896):
In the highest sense, as in a court of justice, "an oath is reverent appeal to God in corroboration of what one says," ABBOTT LAW DICT[IONARY]. ...An oath is made to man in the name of God; a vow, to God without the intervention, often without the knowledge, of man. In the lower sense, an oath may be mere blasphemy or profane swearing.
This book doesn't include pledge in the same group of words with oath and vow, but instead lists it with (among other terms) compact, covenant, obligation, pact, promise, and stipulation, under the general heading contract, remarking
All of these words involve at least two parties, tho an engagement or promise may be the act of but one.
Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms (1942) doesn't cover oath or vow, but offers these comments in distinguishing the verb pledge from the verb promise:
The noun forms of pledge associated with the verb forms described here would involve the promise or guarantee or security that the specified action will be performed.
S.I. Hayakawa, Choose the Right Word: A Modern Guide to Synonyms (1968) again passes over oath and vow, but addresses pledge as a noun in some detail:
And finally, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms (1984) examines pledge as a noun in the company of four related nouns:
These discussions suggest that though oath, vow, and pledge are all promises, they have different focuses. An oath is a swearing in the presence of God with regard to a commitment one is making to one or more other people (as to tell the truth as a witness in court, or to uphold the dignity of one's office). A vow is a promise to God (or to something philosophically analogous) to accept and discharge faithfully some specified spiritual or material obligation. A pledge is a promise on one's honor or sense of duty to take some action in fulfillment of a contract with other human beings.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/11565/oath-vs-pledge-vs-vow

Probably an underground connection................

Yes.

It is an interesting opinion (Burnett 1943). Totally different from the 1940 decision when Felix Frankfurter was Associate Justice. Writing for the majority he felt that failure to compel students to recite the pledge would reduce loyalty to the nation. In the 1943 Burnett case, which effectively reversed the 1940 Gobitis  decision, Jackson mentioned in the opinion that merely reciting the pledge did not make a person loyal. Further, Jackson stated that compelling people to recite the pledge against their will could actually drive them further against the government. 
It is interesting to me that over the 200 plus years that this country has been a nation most if not all people who have been convicted of treason were people who not only recited the pledge of allegiance that grade school kids are familiar with, but also usually were members of government in some capacity who also took an oath of their office that further codified their allegiance, duties, and responsibilities to this country. Just  reiterating the point that merely reciting a pledge of loyalty to a particular country does not make one a loyal citizen. 

I have not found that to be true. Have you found it to be that way?
 
I have not found that to be true, either. It is only the conclusions the Christian organization has reached that you object to, not the means of reaching it. 
An almost universal element of mind control is that the target is separated from all that is familiar. In the year or so it takes to qualify for baptism, the prospective Witness is 95% in the same surroundings he has always been in, at home, at work, among those with whom he is familiar. He goes to two JW meetings a week and has a personal home Bible study.
How does that stack up against, say - college, which is never presented as mind-control but which serves to plant many a foreign notion into the mind of emerging graduates? College, where students are completely separated 24/7 from all that is familiar - made to live in dormitories. 
Don't misunderstand. The point here is not to down college. The point is to show that your allegations of Watchtower mind-control are juvenile nonsense.
Fortunately, I have never been asked to.

By George!! I think you've got it!!!
Howdy Doody; Double Doody; Photo Doody...........they were all one and the same!!
Let's all take a break.....
 

The idea that any participation of the God we know as Jehovah could be related to magical gobbledegook on the part of any of these groups, ancient or modern, reduces the true God to the level of the genie in the magic lamp, subject to the whims of men. In that way you are basically insulting Him. Not the action of a wise man!
Yes, that's true. But even so, I would imagine that, regarding this silly idea, Charles Russell would share the sentiment  his colleague and successor, Joseph Rutherford experienced over his 1925 theory when he said:  "I made an ass of myself" WT Oct 1, 1984 p21.

Some Jehovah's Witnesses are pacifists ... what my Mother saw as a Navy Nurse in WWII made her into a pacifist .. and then, later, she became one of Jehovah's Witnesses.   There are probably as many gradations of "pacifist" as there are different personalities.
The thing to remember is that Jehovah God is NOT a Pacifist ... remember Armageddon?
Also, his Field Commander, Jesus Christ is not a pacifist .... he will be LEADING the slaughter.
And although I spent 17 years as a pacifist, having been taught by my Mother, I learned the REAL ISSUE is Neutrality.... NOT pacifism ... although if you are so inclined, there is absolutely NO scriptural sanction AGAINST becoming a professional victim.
There is where "freedom of conscience" comes into play.
WAR is, among the affairs of men, and also with God and his Christ, is ALWAYS a political conflict ... where parties war, and the winner makes the loser obey.
Personal self defense, divorced from politics, is NOT war.
Personal self defense is ALSO one of those subjects where "freedom of conscience" comes into play.
Unfortunately, people bend the Scriptures to make it follow their distorted view of being peaceable with all men ... when the Scripture says (paraphrased?) 'As far as possible, as much as it DEPENDS ON YOU, be peaceable with all men ..", and it is then that the sheep get sheared and eaten.
.
 

Most of us think we are pacifists, even if we remember that we have been told otherwise. So it's a good question and we should figure out why.
*** w03 1/15 p. 26 “Zealous Kingdom Proclaimers” Joyfully Assemble ***
Early Christians were not pacifists, but they recognized that their prime allegiance was to God. Likewise today, Jehovah’s Witnesses hold firmly to the principle: “You are no part of the world.” (John 15:19) Since tests of our neutrality can arise quickly, families ought to make time to review the Bible’s guidelines on this subject.
*** w79 11/1 p. 4 Neutrality in a Mixed-up World ***
These neutrals of World War II were no pacifists. They were fighters in a spiritual sense, well trained in the use of “the sword of the spirit, that is, God’s word.” (Eph. 6:17) They were integrity-keepers. And often they sealed their integrity with their lifeblood. They were not afraid to die for a righteous cause.
*** w64 8/15 p. 484 Those Who Pursue Peace ***
Actually, Jehovah’s witnesses are not in “rebellion” against the activities of any government, but they do maintain uncompromising neutrality as to the world’s political and military affairs, as they follow the Scriptural injunction to ‘seek peace and pursue it.’ They are not pacifists. They do not oppose any government’s program of military conscription or demonstrate against it, but they submit themselves to God’s arrangement of things. Of them the Bible says: “Though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly.”—2 Cor. 10:3-5.
*** w55 8/1 p. 478 Questions From Readers ***
Jesus said: “Whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other also to him.” How does this harmonize with the right of self-defense that Jehovah’s witnesses believe in?—K. K., United States.
Jesus did not say if someone hit you with a club or with a clenched fist you should allow him to strike you again. If an attacker wants to hurt you physically he uses a weapon or at least doubles up his fist when he hits you. On the other hand, if he wants to insult or humiliate you or provoke you into a fight he may slap you with his open hand. A slap is not an attack with intent to injure or kill, but is to insult the one struck. Such personal insults or attempts to provoke one into a fight should not stir the Christian to retaliate. If the blow is struck and the striker then waits to see the result, the Christian will not retaliate and thus be drawn into a brawl.
However, this refusal to pay back insult for insult does not mean Christians are to be pacifists or that they must never resort to self-defense. Christ Jesus himself will go forth to fight Jehovah’s battle of Armageddon, at the head of heavenly armies. Christians resurrected as spirit creatures will serve with him in that war. In ancient times Jehovah’s people fought at his direction and with his help. Today Christians rightfully defend the Kingdom interests, their meeting places, their right to assemble, their property, their brothers and sisters and their own persons. They do not arm in advance, in anticipation of trouble. But when attacked they may ward off blows and strike in defense, though not in offense. If attacked on public property they will call on officers of the law or withdraw, if possible, but in their homes or at their meeting places they need not retreat. They have Scriptural and legal rights to take defensive action. They are not thereby violating Jesus’ words at Matthew 5:39, for those words pertain to personal insults, not to attacks designed to do serious physical damage to one’s person.
*** w51 2/1 pp. 67-68 Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Not Pacifists ***
Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Not Pacifists
“Jehovah is a man of war: Jehovah is his name.”—Ex. 15:3, AS; Yg.
. . . . We are not pacifists. . . . To charge that we are extreme pacifists is a lie.”
3 As defined by Webster’s New International Dictionary (2d edition, unabridged, of 1943) pacifism means: “Opposition to war or to the use of military force for any purpose; especially, an attitude of mind opposing all war, emphasizing the defects of military training and cost of war, and advocating settlement of international disputes entirely by arbitration.” Such pacifism not even the Bible itself can be charged with teaching, and neither can Jehovah’s witnesses, who stick most scrupulously to the Bible.
4 When expressing a judgment upon Jehovah’s witnesses people are inclined to think of them as a religious body less than a century old. True, this unique name came into the limelight in 1931, when, by public acclamation, these faithful Christians all over the earth adopted resolutions rejecting the contemptuous names the enemies had tagged onto them and accepting the Scriptural name “Jehovah’s witnesses”. But their history is much longer than a century. Already in the eighth century before Christ the prophecy declared to God’s chosen people: “Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; . . . I have declared, and I have saved, and I have showed; and there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and I am God.” (Isa. 43:10-12, AS) In fact, the history of Jehovah’s witnesses runs all the way back to Adam’s son Abel, whom his brother Cain killed because Abel had received favorable witness from Jehovah God. The apostle Paul, in chapters 11 and 12 of his letter to the Hebrews, shows that fact. In all that history of almost six thousand years the record fails to show Jehovah’s witnesses accusable of “opposition to war or to the use of military force for any purpose”, which is the definition of pacifism.
5 We could go through the list of Jehovah’s witnesses from Abraham onward to show they were not pacifists. The apostle Paul tells us about Abraham “returning from the slaughter of the kings” and receiving the blessing of King Melchizedek. (Heb. 7:1-4; Gen. 14:14-21) He tells of Moses who led the Israelites to the borders of the Promised Land. Then he mentions one high light in Joshua’s war to purge the Promised Land of the immoral pagan inhabitants, and adds: “And what more shall I say? For the time will fail me if I go on to relate about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David as well as Samuel and the other prophets, who through faith defeated kingdoms in conflict, effected righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, stayed the force of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from a weak state were made powerful, became valiant in war, routed the armies of foreigners.” (Heb. 11:30-34, NW) Every one that Paul there names was a fighter.
*** w51 2/1 p. 70 par. 13 Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Not Pacifists ***
13 Were Jehovah’s witnesses today to claim to be pacifists, it would mean for them to denounce all the pre-Christian witnesses of Jehovah who took up arms to uphold Jehovah’s universal sovereignty and his theocratic nation of Israel. But this denunciation we cannot make. Jesus Christ never did so, and he is Jehovah’s greatest witness, who has earned the title “The faithful and true witness”. (Rev. 3:14) Jehovah himself is no pacifist. Neither are his witnesses such, although they are conscientious objectors.
*** g97 5/8 p. 22 Should Christians Be Pacifists? ***
Is it Scripturally correct, however, to describe Jehovah’s Witnesses as pacifists? To clarify the matter, it may depend on what is meant by the word “pacifist.” Butler used the term to commend the Witnesses for their bravery in refusing, at great personal cost, to take up arms in warfare. Sadly, though, many people who are caught up in the fever of war see a pacifist only as “a coward or a traitor, who [is] anxious to shirk his responsibility to his nation.”
 

Let's hope that no one here even inadvertently gives that impression.
How about completely abolishing unscriptural celibacy requirements for starters?
with
This is interesting. It is indeed a worldwide plague. So anyone, institution or individual, denying this fact is really deluded. Reminds me of Chechnya’s leader, Ramzan Kadyrov, who denies that persecution of gay men is taking place in Chechnya, saying there are no gay men living in the republic to be persecuted.
Noticeable too is the institutional pride that serves as an obstacle to combatting the plague even if recognised, exemplified in such responses as "other institutions have a worse record than ours" or "our awareness is higher, or policy is better, than theirs". Meanwhile the problem remains, still affecting all, regardless.
So is the crime the plague? Or is it the criminal?, or are these just symptoms of something deeper?
To be continued.....(I'm sure)

Good tip. All works for me.
But....don't think "who has the moral high ground?" is a particularly constructive element to this particular discussion? I mean, this is a global problem. No-one has successfully handled it as far as I can see. Apart from the obvious answer, "Jehovah God has the moral high ground in any issue" (Is.33:22; Lu.18:19), the question otherwise is simply................ rhetorical.
The pupose of the original post was to keep an awareness of fact relating to the current situation in UK regarding attempts to lobby the The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) to include Jehovah's Witnesses on their investigation program.
Cutting through opinion, useful perspective that has come out of the discussion for me so far includes:
Confirmation that a "shooting from the hip" reaction characterises many responses to this particlar subject. (A reason for raising the topic in the first place). Religious affiliation is generally not reported on in child abuse cases unless a religious official is involved. This contrasts with cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses, where, frequently, even the slimmest connection can draw full media attention. Bizarre, anecdotal accounts of sexual impropriety amongst JW "dignitaries" abound. However, there is a shortage of factual or verifiable information on these cases. Hence the welcome nature of public investigation (in general that is, not the specifically of the alleged incidents). Definition of what constitutes child abuse has a cultural dimension. Much information available generally on occurence and intervention attempts has an Ameri/Eurocentric bias which distorts awareness of the extent of the problem, and the nature and effectiveness of attempts to deal with it.