Ann O'Maly

Great post, Ann.
If the WTS was really God's organization, it would have set the moral standard for all the other organizations to follow long ago. Instead it has reacted in such a way that protects itself and the predator, at the expense of the victim, the endangerment of the congregation, and abandonment of the elders who can be found individually culpable for not reporting this crime to the police.

LOL! Hilarious response to AllenSmith (and JWTheologian).
I was thinking about the reasons for the use of duplicate accounts by Allen. Anyone here who has the IP address displayed already knows for a fact that AllenSmith and JWTheologian are the same person. Not that anyone actually needed specific evidence since Allen has also used these same two names (among a couple of others) in the JW-Archive forum. And he ties them together with a unique vocabulary including the same misspellings, and the unique use of words like "recreants" etc.
But what actually ties them together even more clearly is the fact that he regularly resorts to using the language of abuse and bullying. On the jw-archive forum, in fact, his new names were used specifically so he could continue his abusive behavior when prior user names had reached the limits of the abuse allowed by moderators.
I did a little experiment with Allen that might seem either funny, revealing or embarrassing. I'll explain below:
As many people know, Allen's prime use of the two names on this forum is not so much to allow him to hide his abusive behavior. After all, both names are still in use, both have been equally abusive, and I'm sure that AllenSmith is aware that the two names don't really fool anyone here who is involved in dialogue with him.
In fact (and this may be the primary use) both names: AllenSmith and JWTheologian have been used to bolster the reputation of each other. AllenSmith very often give "likes" or a "reputations" to his own posts of both names. And JWTheologian has also given "likes" or "reputations" to his own posts of both names. In fact, for most of his posts that have been given a like or reputation, he is the only one who likes them.
Knowing this, I wondered how important that self-made reputation was to Allen. I decided to give a "Down-vote" as a "reputation" which hurts AllenSmith's and JWTheologian's overall numerical "reputation." But I only gave that "down-vote" to a small number of his posts. (In fact there have been a couple of posts in the past where I have given a "like".) I only down-voted a few of the posts where AllenSmith and/or JWTheologian had already boosted his own reputation by giving himself an up-vote AND where he was being nasty, abusive, or was clearly using an ad hominem.
The experiment worked. Both AllenSmith and JWTheologian quickly came back at past posts of mine under several topic areas. He left some with a "minus one" reputation and some where he just knocked a point off the overall count where others had already up-voted my post.
It seemed a bit ironic in topics like this one where one of the sub-topics is a discussion of how and why a society or entity will cover up abuse for the sake of "reputation." My own view has always been that I should do my best, where possible, to expose this kind of problem, whether I would learn of evidence of it in a local high school, or a sleazy photographer surreptitiously taking pictures of children in our local park, or even our own Organization. Exposure is the best solution that most of us can help with.
And now, I've also done my small part to expose the abuses of an individual perpetrating abuse, ad hominem and bullying on this forum while simultaneously trying to boost his own reputation.

What has that to with the price of beans? Again, instead of having a rational discussion about how the Org. has historically dealt with and presently deals with child abuse allegations, you resort to ad hominem and deflection. I think our conversation must soon come to an end if you continue to be incapable of rational discussion.
My questions resulted from your own words where you said the WTS and other institutions are getting hammered and negative publicity, not because of their failings but, because of "ambulance chasing lawyers." 
Do you think the dozens upon dozens of lawsuits in recent times are down to "ambulance chasing lawyers" and are not 'legitimate' cases? Which 'legitimate' cases have you followed?
What are you babbling on about? Which disgruntled witnesses? The abusers? When did the WTS or congregation elders notify the authorities about allegations of child abuse in the '80s and '90s? In Australia, according to the evidence brought out at the Royal Commission, the elders did not notify the police about the crime once in all 1000+ cases in the past 50 years.
Who's 'we'? Your duplicate accounts don't count.
I asked you a question. Do you know the difference between a statement and a question? You stated that the WTS will make changes through the Branches to comply with new government legislation. This prompted my question to you about whether you believe governments have to legislate to make 'God's organization' do the right and moral thing?
So what do you think? Do governments have to legislate so that 'God's organization' is made to do the right and moral thing? Or should the Org's own sense of morality and justice make it proactive rather than reactive when formulating its child safeguarding procedures?
Again, you are wanting to bend the discussion away from the issues and make it about me or other institutions. To steer you back on track, a reminder: the article in the OP is about JWs. This thread is in the JW section. Ergo, we are discussing how JWs deal with child abuse within their organization. 
Court case after court case after public inquiry after court case has shown there is a pattern in how disclosure of abuse has been mishandled by the Org. The directives to the BOE as well as JW culture explain why this pattern exists. There are huge flaws in the Org's approach that desperately need addressing.
 In general. Now you have that clarified, 
What if the wrongdoer isn't disfellowshipped because the elders believe s/he is repentant? How can the congregation's children be protected while s/he continues as a member?
Your suggestions please.
Do you not think child abuse to be a crime? Do you not think that negligence and failure to provide a duty of care to vulnerable members of a faith community should be brought to civil court? 
And, most hilariously, are you really suggesting that a professional lawyer with 20 years experience is ignorant of the difference between 'criminality and civil culpability'? 
Historically, the Org's elders have already been 'taking the law into their own hands' by investigating and passing judgment on child abuse allegations internally within the congregation. This is why so many cases have been grossly mishandled, pedophiles had opportunity to abuse more JW children, and victims were further harmed and traumatized.
Regarding your nonsensical objection about 'forcing' - reporting to the police or child protection services is forcing a criminal act to be exposed and stopped, and the perpetrator of that crime to be called to account and punished. 
What should the elder do if he suspects child abuse and/or neglect?
"If you suspect a child is being harmed, or has been harmed, you should report your concerns to the appropriate authorities, such as child protective services (CPS), in the State where the child resides. Each State has trained professionals who can evaluate the situation and determine whether help and services are needed. Most States have a toll-free number to call to report suspected child abuse and neglect. Child Welfare Information Gateway, a service of the Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), provides a list of State child abuse and neglect reporting numbers and information on how to make a report in each State.
"Another resource for information about how and where to file a report of suspected child abuse or neglect is the Childhelp® National Child Abuse Hotline. Childhelp® can be reached 7 days a week, 24-hours a day, at its toll-free number, 1.800.4-A-CHILD® (1.800.422.4453)." - http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/faq/can6
"Anyone can report suspected child abuse or neglect. Reporting abuse or neglect can protect a child and get help for a family it may even save a child's life." - https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/responding/reporting/how/
"Anyone." Rather than dump all the responsibility of reporting the crime to a frightened and perhaps dysfunctional family, the elders can take the initiative to report themselves. 
What if the crime wasn't child abuse but murder? Should an elder keep an allegation to himself about a murder having taken place thinking, 'It's the victim's family that has the responsibility to notify the authorities - not me"?
The article in the OP is not discussing this type of scenario but that of adults abusing minors. Besides, the latest August 2016 BOE letter clarifies what the Org. means by 'child abuse' on p.3:
10. Congregation Considerations: When discussing child sexual abuse from a congregation standpoint, we are not discussing a situation in which a minor who is a willing participant and who is approaching adulthood is involved in sexual activity with an adult who is a few years older than the minor. Nor, generally speaking, are we discussing situations in which only minors are involved. (See paragraphs 24-25.) Rather, we are referring to an adult guilty of sexually abusing a minor who is a young child, or an adult guilty of sexual involvement with a minor who is approaching adulthood but was not a willing participant.
Baloney. You have to be convicted as a sex offender to be put on the sex offenders list.
Elders are required to follow the Org's instructions. No mind-reading was involved. 
Exactly. The governmental authorities have those processes and powers. This is why they have to be called on to act when crimes have been committed. As the apostle Paul said,
"Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.  So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished.  For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you.  The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong.  So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience." - Rom. 13:1-5 (NLT)
And what 'rules of evidence' does the congregation employ in its handling of child abuse allegations?
Shouldn't 'evidence' rather be collected by professional police bodies rather than by untrained, volunteer leaders?
Actually 2 cases - 2 victims who, out of more than 1000 recorded cases by the Australian Branch, were brave enough to relate their experiences before a public inquiry. 
It means that the UK WTS have been unsuccessful in blocking the Charity Commission from investigating how the UK congregations deal with child abuse allegations. The Commission can now go ahead with their inquiries. Read the article.
Backing up to your initial statement, namely ... 
"as I recall, in the Australia case, that 1 witness “begged” the Elders NOT to turn her father into authorities. Are you suggesting by any means and force?"
... You were implying that, if a minor victim begged the elders not to turn in her father to the authorities for sexually abusing her, that the elders should comply; that the elders should not 'force' that action upon her. Hence my question about your mental state. Your suggestion is extremely irresponsible and dangerous, for such compliance would further enable the abuser to continue abusing. It's astonishing that I should have to spell this out to you as if you were a child yourself.
You are projecting once again. What was complete and utter bunkum was your argument that 'forcing the child to the police department' - whether by the elders or the child's mother - would amount to 'child abduction.' This fancy of yours is totally ludicrous. 
Well duh. And your point is ...? 
Aaaand another senseless ad hominem rant. Your trademark. To repeat:
The article in the OP is about JWs. This thread is in the JW section. Ergo, we are discussing how JWs deal with child abuse within their organization. 
Do you get how topical sections in a discussion forum work?
So you believe historical child sexual abuse cases are not 'legitimate'? 
Are the government-led inquiries into institutional historical child abuse, because the cases may include instances that occurred 40, 50 years ago, likewise not 'legitimate' and are decided with 'the aid of corrupt lawyers'?
Are you aware that many countries have a statute of limitations that bar victims from making civil claims for sexual crimes after a set amount of time? So, a victim would be unable to civilly prosecute somebody 40, 50 years later. Are you familiar with the controversy surrounding Bill Cosby and why it has been so difficult to prosecute him due to the time that has elapsed since his alleged crimes?
This is the most sensible thing you have said in the whole discussion. However, evidence gathering is done by the police and forensic teams, and the legal system decides whether there is enough to potentially secure a conviction in criminal court and/or a favorable judgment in civil court.
Huh? What does that even mean?
Yeah whatever. This scripture has no bearing on how best to safeguard children now.

    

What has that to with the price of beans? Again, instead of having a rational discussion about how the Org. has historically dealt with and presently deals with child abuse allegations, you resort to ad hominem and deflection. I think our conversation must soon come to an end if you continue to be incapable of rational discussion.
My questions resulted from your own words where you said the WTS and other institutions are getting hammered and negative publicity, not because of their failings but, because of "ambulance chasing lawyers." 
Do you think the dozens upon dozens of lawsuits in recent times are down to "ambulance chasing lawyers" and are not 'legitimate' cases? Which 'legitimate' cases have you followed?
What are you babbling on about? Which disgruntled witnesses? The abusers? When did the WTS or congregation elders notify the authorities about allegations of child abuse in the '80s and '90s? In Australia, according to the evidence brought out at the Royal Commission, the elders did not notify the police about the crime once in all 1000+ cases in the past 50 years.
Who's 'we'? Your duplicate accounts don't count.
I asked you a question. Do you know the difference between a statement and a question? You stated that the WTS will make changes through the Branches to comply with new government legislation. This prompted my question to you about whether you believe governments have to legislate to make 'God's organization' do the right and moral thing?
So what do you think? Do governments have to legislate so that 'God's organization' is made to do the right and moral thing? Or should the Org's own sense of morality and justice make it proactive rather than reactive when formulating its child safeguarding procedures?
Again, you are wanting to bend the discussion away from the issues and make it about me or other institutions. To steer you back on track, a reminder: the article in the OP is about JWs. This thread is in the JW section. Ergo, we are discussing how JWs deal with child abuse within their organization. 
Court case after court case after public inquiry after court case has shown there is a pattern in how disclosure of abuse has been mishandled by the Org. The directives to the BOE as well as JW culture explain why this pattern exists. There are huge flaws in the Org's approach that desperately need addressing.
 In general. Now you have that clarified, 
What if the wrongdoer isn't disfellowshipped because the elders believe s/he is repentant? How can the congregation's children be protected while s/he continues as a member?
Your suggestions please.
Do you not think child abuse to be a crime? Do you not think that negligence and failure to provide a duty of care to vulnerable members of a faith community should be brought to civil court? 
And, most hilariously, are you really suggesting that a professional lawyer with 20 years experience is ignorant of the difference between 'criminality and civil culpability'? 
Historically, the Org's elders have already been 'taking the law into their own hands' by investigating and passing judgment on child abuse allegations internally within the congregation. This is why so many cases have been grossly mishandled, pedophiles had opportunity to abuse more JW children, and victims were further harmed and traumatized.
Regarding your nonsensical objection about 'forcing' - reporting to the police or child protection services is forcing a criminal act to be exposed and stopped, and the perpetrator of that crime to be called to account and punished. 
What should the elder do if he suspects child abuse and/or neglect?
"If you suspect a child is being harmed, or has been harmed, you should report your concerns to the appropriate authorities, such as child protective services (CPS), in the State where the child resides. Each State has trained professionals who can evaluate the situation and determine whether help and services are needed. Most States have a toll-free number to call to report suspected child abuse and neglect. Child Welfare Information Gateway, a service of the Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), provides a list of State child abuse and neglect reporting numbers and information on how to make a report in each State.
"Another resource for information about how and where to file a report of suspected child abuse or neglect is the Childhelp® National Child Abuse Hotline. Childhelp® can be reached 7 days a week, 24-hours a day, at its toll-free number, 1.800.4-A-CHILD® (1.800.422.4453)." - http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/faq/can6
"Anyone can report suspected child abuse or neglect. Reporting abuse or neglect can protect a child and get help for a family it may even save a child's life." - https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/responding/reporting/how/
"Anyone." Rather than dump all the responsibility of reporting the crime to a frightened and perhaps dysfunctional family, the elders can take the initiative to report themselves. 
What if the crime wasn't child abuse but murder? Should an elder keep an allegation to himself about a murder having taken place thinking, 'It's the victim's family that has the responsibility to notify the authorities - not me"?
The article in the OP is not discussing this type of scenario but that of adults abusing minors. Besides, the latest August 2016 BOE letter clarifies what the Org. means by 'child abuse' on p.3:
10. Congregation Considerations: When discussing child sexual abuse from a congregation standpoint, we are not discussing a situation in which a minor who is a willing participant and who is approaching adulthood is involved in sexual activity with an adult who is a few years older than the minor. Nor, generally speaking, are we discussing situations in which only minors are involved. (See paragraphs 24-25.) Rather, we are referring to an adult guilty of sexually abusing a minor who is a young child, or an adult guilty of sexual involvement with a minor who is approaching adulthood but was not a willing participant.
Baloney. You have to be convicted as a sex offender to be put on the sex offenders list.
Elders are required to follow the Org's instructions. No mind-reading was involved. 
Exactly. The governmental authorities have those processes and powers. This is why they have to be called on to act when crimes have been committed. As the apostle Paul said,
"Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.  So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished.  For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you.  The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong.  So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience." - Rom. 13:1-5 (NLT)
And what 'rules of evidence' does the congregation employ in its handling of child abuse allegations?
Shouldn't 'evidence' rather be collected by professional police bodies rather than by untrained, volunteer leaders?
Actually 2 cases - 2 victims who, out of more than 1000 recorded cases by the Australian Branch, were brave enough to relate their experiences before a public inquiry. 
It means that the UK WTS have been unsuccessful in blocking the Charity Commission from investigating how the UK congregations deal with child abuse allegations. The Commission can now go ahead with their inquiries. Read the article.
Backing up to your initial statement, namely ... 
"as I recall, in the Australia case, that 1 witness “begged” the Elders NOT to turn her father into authorities. Are you suggesting by any means and force?"
... You were implying that, if a minor victim begged the elders not to turn in her father to the authorities for sexually abusing her, that the elders should comply; that the elders should not 'force' that action upon her. Hence my question about your mental state. Your suggestion is extremely irresponsible and dangerous, for such compliance would further enable the abuser to continue abusing. It's astonishing that I should have to spell this out to you as if you were a child yourself.
You are projecting once again. What was complete and utter bunkum was your argument that 'forcing the child to the police department' - whether by the elders or the child's mother - would amount to 'child abduction.' This fancy of yours is totally ludicrous. 
Well duh. And your point is ...? 
Aaaand another senseless ad hominem rant. Your trademark. To repeat:
The article in the OP is about JWs. This thread is in the JW section. Ergo, we are discussing how JWs deal with child abuse within their organization. 
Do you get how topical sections in a discussion forum work?
So you believe historical child sexual abuse cases are not 'legitimate'? 
Are the government-led inquiries into institutional historical child abuse, because the cases may include instances that occurred 40, 50 years ago, likewise not 'legitimate' and are decided with 'the aid of corrupt lawyers'?
Are you aware that many countries have a statute of limitations that bar victims from making civil claims for sexual crimes after a set amount of time? So, a victim would be unable to civilly prosecute somebody 40, 50 years later. Are you familiar with the controversy surrounding Bill Cosby and why it has been so difficult to prosecute him due to the time that has elapsed since his alleged crimes?
This is the most sensible thing you have said in the whole discussion. However, evidence gathering is done by the police and forensic teams, and the legal system decides whether there is enough to potentially secure a conviction in criminal court and/or a favorable judgment in civil court.
Huh? What does that even mean?
Yeah whatever. This scripture has no bearing on how best to safeguard children now.

    

Oops. I didn't see you'd already linked to the article before I did. 
Another noteworthy comment from it:
Rom. 13:3-5 (NLT) - "For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. 4 The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. 5 So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience." 

It was once said by a well-meaning circuit overseer at an assembly; “You can’t be an introvert in the truth”. More accurately the statement should have been; “It’s more difficult for the introvert in the truth”. Why is that the case? Well let’s first find out a little about the Introvert.
Do you know publishers who need to spend time alone every day? Publishers who love quiet conversations about feelings or ideas. Publishers that can give good talks at congregation meetings, but seem awkward when it comes to socialising and reluctant to participate during the meetings? They may appear to growl, grunt or wince when accosted with pleasantries by publishers who are just trying to be nice? If so, then you know publishers who are Introverted.
New Look
It’s time for a new look at introversion. It may come as a surprise to you that introverts are a legitimate personality type. Introverts comprise between 10-30% of the population. The problem is that their self image is defined almost exclusively by that other 70% (or more) of extroverts who don’t understand them and think they are wrong because they are different.
This is like saying a person is wrong because they are black. Racism in the truth, unlike the world hardly exists, but the area of introversion could be called one of the last frontiers of prejudice.
And don’t think it’s a choice to be this way, it’s all in the brain, literally. Researchers have established a positive correlation between alpha waves generated in the frontal lobes of the human brain and personality traits that characterise introverts or extroverts. Introverts have more acetylcholine, a chemical that enhances “long-term memory, the ability to stay calm and alert, and perceptual learning.” They also have increased activity in the frontal lobe, which has been linked to high-level problem solving skills, long-term planning, and a facility with language.
Misconceptions
The Introvert is not simply a shy person. They are not necessarily depressed and they are not social outcasts, although it may appear this way to the extroverts who need ongoing social contact to be healthy and happy. Introversion is not a pathological condition; it is not an abnormal response to the world. It is simply a personality trait found in a smaller percentage of the total population. Introversion is not shyness or a lack of social skills. It’s temperament, hard wired in ones genetic code, and cannot be altered.
Differences
Introverts are different from extroverts and this difference is very difficult for the extrovert to understand because they do not operate in the same way. As they do not understand it, many continually try to ‘help’ the introvert become more social, more gregarious, more outgoing, and have more fun, all, of course, from the extroverts point-of-view. As an example I know of one introvert who used to love going to parties, they used to plant themselves in an unobtrusive place where they could get a good view of the room, and with drink in hand they spent the evening 'people watching’ and were more than happy in doing so. That is until the continue barrage from extroverts to get up, have a dance, enjoy yourself, became too much to cope with.
In essence the terms Introvert and it’s antonym extrovert can be summarised by the source of our energy. Extroverts get their energy from the outer world and feel drained when they are by themselves too long. Introverts get their energy from within and lose energy quickly when having to deal with a lot of people. To illustrate; extroverts are like solar cell batteries they need to be in the sun to get charged up, introverts are more like rechargeable batteries, they need to be by themselves to restore their energy, to enable them to go back out into the world of people.
Two statements sum up one of the main differences between the extrovert and the Introvert.“If you don’t know what an extrovert is thinking, you haven’t listened”. “If you don’t know what an introvert is thinking, you haven’t asked.” Introverts tend to mentally rehearse what they are thinking. When they have it all worked out in their mind, then they might tell you. It is not that they want to conceal their thoughts. It just doesn’t occur to them to say them out loud. That is why it is wise to ask. Silence does not necessarily mean consent. Never presume you know what an introvert is thinking, or you know what they want.
Participation
Participation or commenting at meetings has for decades been seen as a good sign of spiritual progress. A means of sharing an expression of our faith. A means to encourage others. That of course has not changed. What needs to change however is our perception of those who do not readily avail themselves of this avenue.
Ask the teacher of any Introvert attending school and they will say the same; “Does not participate much in class”. Does that mean that they are not a good student? Far from it, in fact in most cases they are usually better as they excel in listening and reading.
As one student put it: “Receiving a grade for class participation has always been a great source of anxiety for me, since I am rarely the person in the class who speaks the most, and sometimes I am the person who speaks the least. I watch other students who speak often and I am frustrated by the knowledge that they are being rewarded for the quantity of their participation while I am being punished.” Introverted learners tend to participate less in class, since they prefer to process ideas by thinking to themselves rather than by speaking to others. The difficulty with this style of learning is that it does not fit well with the traditional concept of participation by commenting at meetings. The fact that lack of participation is looked down upon adds to the frustration of an Introvert. When others try to encourage an introvert to comment their discomfort usually increases due to the extra pressure. One of the best compliments a publisher was given was that although they didn’t comment often at the meetings, when they did, they always said something meaningful. Unfortunately, this advantage often seem undervalued in the congregation.
In the same way that the introverted makes the effort to participate during a meeting, extroverted publishers must make the effort to refrain at times from participating just to fill the silence. Introverted publishers need space in which to comment, and if the conductor provides this space, rather than taking the first hand they see, it will encourage them to continue to make the effort to participate. Bear in mind the conductor should not use that space with any phrase along the lines of, “Who hasn’t answered yet?”, as that will add further pressure and anxiety.
As has been proved in the school classroom, participation should be encouraged rather than required. The use of participation at the meetings is a valid and important instructional technique. However, what is valuable and beneficial to some, is not necessarily so to others. Forcing highly apprehensive, ethnically and socially divergent, or skill deficient people to participate is harmful. It will increase apprehension and reduce self-esteem. Thus, at the meetings participation should be encouraged but never required from those that are quiet. Try to remember that introverts often cannot relax unless they are alone with a teacher or in a very small class, which is why introverts were more inclined to comment on a book study level (when small groups met in private homes).
The reluctance to participate has nothing to do with preparation or lack of it, in fact the opposite is most likely true. Knowing the material is likely to keep the introvert from participating as they dislike redundancy. As one introvert said, “The only thing worse than talking about something twice is thinking something I’ve already thought”. They often do not feel compelled to demonstrate all that they know, hence they may sometimes surprise those around them when they do choose to speak up.
In view of the percentages mentioned earlier you need to keep constantly in mind that most publishers are moderately to highly verbal people, and hence different than the quiet publishers within the congregation. What makes good common sense to such ones may be the worst thing they could do for someone who is quiet. So please don’t ever say, “What if everyone was like you?” (that will never be the case). One final pointer in this area, when an introvert does answer, and they will if they have something to say and feel up to it, don’t ever make a big issue of it for that will draw further attention and hence stress to that one. Therefore never say after the meeting; “I enjoyed your answer”, or “It was good to hear you answer”. If you feel you need to say something then mention something about their comment rather than about the fact that they commented.
Where to Sit
Kingdom Halls have high, moderate, and low interaction areas. The highest are near the front and centre. The lowest are along the sides and in the rear. One of the potentially most harmful things an elder (or attendant) can do is to force a quiet publisher to sit in a high-interaction area of the hall. While the publisher is not likely to talk any more in such an area than if he or she were seated elsewhere, the threat of communication will be felt much more consistently. Under such pressure it is more difficult for the publisher to concentrate on the talks being delivered, and learning will decrease. Allowing publishers to select their own seats avoids harming the quiet ones.
Ministry
Introverts are unlikely to initiate a conversation either with acquaintances or strangers. Introverts will prefer to wait until someone approaches them. This of course doesn’t happen very often in the ministry. Therein lies the problem for Introverts, they have a constant fight to bring themselves to speak to people in the ministry. A fight that subsequently leaves one drained emotionally and physically.
An introverted publisher is most likely happier when working in field service alone as they tend to not like being watched. Although happy to be out with a group in service, they would prefer to be alone on the door-step. This of course would also apply to telephone witnessing or street witnessing. They find it hard to concentrate on what they are doing as well as concentrating on someone else.
Ministry that is much easier on introverts would include aspects such as letter writing.
Socialising
Introverts can feel quite uncomfortable going to a social event where they may not know anyone. If you are hosting a party, you will be doing the Introverts a favour by introducing them to several people, being sure to indicate what they might have in common. Another good idea is to pair them up with an extrovert who will carry the conversation until the Introvert feels more comfortable. Introverts are known for being good listeners.
If you want an introvert to share their thoughts, ideas, concerns and feelings with you then you need to make it easy for them. One would need to stay with them, sit quietly and patiently hear them out. They do not like to be hurried or interrupted as they very easily forget their thoughts.
They may seem reluctant to join in as they will tend to avoid doing anything they have not mastered. They will not risk looking the fool. Their opinions are not easily swayed by others and they will rarely do anything they don’t really want to do just to impress, please, or be accepted by others. This sometimes causes others to erroneously classify them as stubborn and inflexible, as extroverts, in general, feel they can easily manipulate the introvert as they may appear quite and timid.
If the way they see the world is ignored the risk of creating a constantly contentious and hostile environment is greatly increased. Tolerance is communicated when they are accepted for who they are. While they may not appear to be especially happy, that is most often a false appearance. They are different from most people and their style often diverges from the way society in general operates.
The Last Vestige
The Written Review: The one area where the introvert could truly feel comfortable has been replaced by the extrovert friendly Oral Review.
Some Characteristics of Introverts:
- Territorial - desire private space and time
- Happy to be alone - they can be lonely in a crowd
- Become drained around large groups of people; dislike approaching others
- Need time alone to recharge
- Prefer to work on own rather than do group work
- Act cautiously in meeting people
- Are reserved, quiet and deliberate
- Concentrate well and deeply
- Become absorbed in thoughts and ideas
- Limit their interests but explore deeply
- Communicate best one-on-one
- Get agitated and irritated when without enough time to think or act.
- Do not enjoy being the centre of attention
- Do not share private thoughts with just anyone
- Form a few deep attachments
- Think carefully before speaking (practice in head before speaking)
- See reflection as very important
- Select activities carefully and thoughtfully
- Contributed
 

I'll take that as a 'no.' 
... asks somebody with two or more accounts and whose handle picture is of Wyatt Earp. 
Anyway, moving back more in line to the topic at hand, you criticize those who criticize the Org's mishandling of child abuse. I ask again - as we do not want to lose sight of the important central issue that children need to be protected and victims of abuse need redress and to see their abusers stopped and punished - with regard to the specific inadequacies of the JW Org, what in your opinion will help address their child safeguarding failures? Can you offer any possible improvements to the Org's child protection policies and its procedures after disclosure?

Yes, this is true of JWs and true of so many other organizations too. One might argue that the reputation of the organization is even more critical among JWs because we are dependent on reputation for disciple-making for growth, and growth is still tied to proof of Jehovah's blessing. The unjust procedures were kept for too long, and this might have been based on the fact that they served to protect the reputation of the organization. If so, that's a travesty.
I don't know if anyone has posted the latest procedural updates anywhere but they have improved the procedures about as far as I had ever expected the organization to go. (I'm referring to the August 2016 update to the previous 2012 procedures. They are still just incrementally better than the previous version, but better nonetheless.) It's true that they do not ask the elders to automatically report sexual abuse of minors to the authorities, but it is assumed that the legal department will always make sure that local jurisdictional laws are always followed correctly by the elders. It's also true that neither elders nor the legal department will always providing counsel for victims to report the crime. .
This gives the impression that they will only do the minimum required under the law in any particular jurisdiction, but I believe the organization now has almost as much incentive to handle things correctly with the secular authorities. The reason is that the organization has been "burnt" so many times by not doing the right thing that the previous bad habits (process-wise) have also brought reproach on the organization. And, as stated, this organization is dependent on reputation.
I think the best thing that any of us can do as Witnesses is to just expose the problem so that the organization faces it more honestly. Hopefully, I have done that above. The idea that it's better to hide such things, including any and all accusations, continues to produce an environment that is passively hostile to exposure. Exposure is the best medicine. The criminals should know that no one will side with them to help them hide their crimes. Also, exposure of all accusations (within reason) will also help a congregation learn that not all accusations are immediately credible and this is a good reason to ask for all the help we can get investigating such accusations as early and openly as possible. We should be glad that the secular authorities, who are generally trained, will thus take some of the burden off the elders and the organization where almost no professional training in such matters exists.

Maybe the level of authority is something to consider in this since it's the policies of the WTS that are causing them trouble with how they deal with child abuse, and those policies are made by those with the highest authority in the WT hierarchy.  No doubt those with higher authority want to protect the organization at all costs and they are the ones responsible for the poor procedures they insist on for child abuse cases.
For instance, elders are told to report these crimes, not to the police but to the WTS legal department. Nor are the elders told to tell the victim and/or the victim's parents to report it to the police.  
In addition to the ghastly two witness rule the WTS has invented for this, the WT procedure flat out takes the word of the accused over that of the victim.  To stop this they need to report each and every accusation to the civil authorities.  Child abuse, child molestation, child rape are all crimes. 

Again, you cannot know what criticisms I make elsewhere ... unless you believe yourself to be cyber-omniscient. Do you believe yourself to be cyber-omniscient, Allen?
Your initial allegation was that I was an "instigator, not a problem solver," to which I replied that the power to change policies and legislation was in the hands of the Org's leadership and secular authorities. Yes, there have been appalling failings in numerous institutions globally, and now those institutions are being investigated and called to account - rightly so. 
So with regard to the specific inadequacies of the JW Org, what in your opinion will help address their child safeguarding failures?
I don't know why you referred to Mark 13:9. It's talking about being brought before the authorities for bearing witness to Jesus - not for doing wrong. A more applicable passage is the first few verses of Rom. 13.

Any religion that has the same problem, that has mishandled the problem, that has negligently allowed victims to be harmed, needs their failings exposed - whether it's the Catholics, the Church of England, the Jewish or Muslim faith communities, the LDS, Moonies, Scientologists or Jehovah's Witnesses.
Damn right that the JW Org is feeling the pressure too. The Org has a history of naivety and stubbornness in this area and has to be dragged by 'worldly' authorities into improving their safeguarding protocols. The Org is still lagging too far behind current best practice - even now after the latest BOE letter guidelines.

You do not know all the websites I post on and the handles I use. This section of the forum is for 'JW news' - not 'Catholic news' or 'Scientology news' or even 'Nuwaubianism news.' The article I posted falls into the category of 'JW news.' Can you at least try to make comments pertinent to the article and not make the thread about personalities (yet again)? Thanks. 
As you well know, the problem of inadequate safeguarding procedures can only be addressed by the Org's leadership or those secular bodies involved with legislation.
 

No, nothing was said publicly as far as I can remember. The branches responsible for their own language mastheads had to be informed, and I don't recall any discussion or reasons given in those communications either. These changes weren't even well publicized within the headquarters.
Suggestions for changes began when phototypesetting became available -- and a new masthead became easy. Artists pushed for more room on the front cover for artwork, now that art could become much more detailed, and there was talk of getting a complete press changeover to "offset" which would make it much easier to make the changes in record time. The new "Photoplate Department" was started over in the 8th floor of factory #1 (117 Adams) to fit into this new process. That department was located just below the Computer Department.
(The computer department was also set adjacent to the new MEPS typesetting equipment which had a feed built right down into the darkroom area of Photoplate..Note however that MEPS had nothing to do with the masthead changes; it was only a new part of a new defined process where changes were to be made more quickly. For a few years it just created an expectation of a faster process. It took a while to get fully implemented.)
Still, the ease of changing the masthead was in place, and it could be changed almost as easily as artists could order specialty fonts (headline fonts) for article titles. You'll notice that in the late 1970's we started using dozens of different fonts for the first time that weren't hand-drawn. (A few hand-drawn titles kept being made into the 80's.)  The process was not as easy as using a computer, since every font was actually a set of characters set onto a negative filmstrip on a long "stick". The "stick" was positioned in a machine over a light source and a couple lenses so that it shined the light directly through the character, and onto a piece of "stat camera" film. The light exposed the shape of the letter, and that portion of the film turned black, and then the next letter was found on the stick and positioned onto the film. The font size was made by repositioning the light. "Kerning" -- the space between letters -- was all done manually, so that we could overlap letters if we wished. We could play with the exposure and switch between negatives and positives on the stat cameras to create outline fonts, or manipluate the letters into the artwork. Artists from the home art department would go over to the factory and play with this equipment when it was new, but soon started letting Photoplate personnel do all the work when the novelty wore off.
But back to the masthead changes. A couple of the early customizations were driven by an artist. When it seemed easy (it wasn't) it drove a more official "branding change" to look more modern, we were told internally. But that turned out to be a big problem for other branches and languages. (In the 70's the Spanish magazine came out a few weeks after the English, but other languages were sometimes a few months behind. So their masthead changes were sometimes a version or two behind, or they just ignored the change.) So it was decided (one more time) to make a "final" masthead decision from the top down with more consensus. Naturally, not everyone liked it even after voting for it. So it changed again. I forget how many  changes there were from 1975 to 1980, but there were several obvious ones and a couple more subtle ones. 

I saw this photo today from Indonesia (at an assembly) and it made me think about our Watchtower symbol.
The old Watchtower Icon vs. the New (newer c. 1990) Watchtower icon shown above.

 
And the one I was most familiar with:

I notice that it is still used among us but not really promoted. JW.org has really taken center stage.
Yet I do notice that the icon has become less "warlike" over time and now the "Watchtower" at Patterson (c.1990) is more like a lookout than part of a fortified military castle.
Although it does remind me of the Watchtowers on the demilitarized zone in South Korea (DMZ) (at least the ones I have seen on TV)
Anyways... just something of interest I just thought I would pass down.
Oh.. and here is where we almost got rid of the logo completely... and just went with the outline:

Today's news from the guardian, UK:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/12/jehovahs-witnesses-under-pressure-over-handling-of-sexual-abuse-claims
Words to the Governing Body:
"I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers,  but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?  To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?  But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!"  1 Cor 6:5-8

I'm not sure if they are suppose to wear an ankle monitor.  I guess we now need to do background checks to make sure no one has committed felony of child abuse or sexual assault.  We could be in violation of the child offense laws if knowingly allowing such ones to go door to door which put them in close vicinity of minor children.  An unsuspecting parent might grow to trust someone and allow their child to be alone or take a trip with the offender and never suspect anything.
Only Jehovah knows if a person is truly repentant.  However, I don't trust them when they say I'm sorry and I'll never do it again.  It best to take precautions and protect the children.

You do not know all the websites I post on and the handles I use. This section of the forum is for 'JW news' - not 'Catholic news' or 'Scientology news' or even 'Nuwaubianism news.' The article I posted falls into the category of 'JW news.' Can you at least try to make comments pertinent to the article and not make the thread about personalities (yet again)? Thanks. 
As you well know, the problem of inadequate safeguarding procedures can only be addressed by the Org's leadership or those secular bodies involved with legislation.
 

I agree that JWs are no different than any other religion, but the thing is, JWs condemn all religions, including Christianity other than themselves, as being led by Satan, so when you say JWs are no different than any other religion, it places them in a group they try to maintain they are no part of. 
To excuse the WTS by pointing to the faults in other churches does not make the WTS right, and there is no basis for their two witness rule for child abuse nor for allowing the predator to question the victim in a private meeting nor for not reporting this crime to the proper authorities.  I mean, they aren't trying to be like the Catholics, are they?

Jehovah's Witnesses under pressure over handling of sexual abuse claims
Organisation faces fight to prevent Charity Commission examining its records of abuse claims after supreme court rejects its attempt to block inquiry
 A spokesman for the Jehovah’s Witnesses said: ‘We are in no position to, and neither would we wish to, force any victim of abuse to confront their attacker.’ Photograph: Fairfax Media via Getty Images The Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation is under increasing pressure to address its handling of sexual abuse allegations as it faces legal setbacks, bills of over £1m and a fight to prevent the Charity Commission examining its records of abuse claims.
Last month a judge upheld a ruling against the UK’s leading Jehovah’s Witnesses charity, the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Britain (WTBTS), that the Jehovah’s Witnesses had failed to protect a woman, known in proceedings as A, from sexual abuse starting when she was four years old.
Now the supreme court has rejected a highly unusual attempt by the WTBTS to block a Charity Commission inquiry into how the Jehovah’s Witnesses charity handles allegations of abuse.
The extent of the charity’s challenges and the length of time they have gone on for are unprecedented in recent times, a spokesman for the Charity Commission said.
In A’s case the high court awarded damages and the WTBTS have been left facing legal fees totalling about £1m after attempting to appeal against the judgement three times.
The decision in A’s case sets a precedent that could expose the organisation to further claims. It continues to fight Charity Commission orders to provide documents on sexual abuse allegations, as well as other aspects of the inquiry, in lower courts.
Fay Maxted, chief executive of the Survivors Trust, a national sexual assault charity, said: “These are cases where someone has been sexually violated and had their whole trust in the safety of their religious community blown away.
“It’s deeply disappointing that a faith-based organisation appears to be so determined to try and avoid answering questions about its own behaviour …
“This is something the Catholics and Church of England have also had to deal with – these big institutions will fight and fight every step of the way.”
The ways in which large institutions – from the BBC to the Church of England – respond to allegations of sexual abuse has been under intense scrutiny in recent years. But the governmental investigation into the issue, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (IICSA), was thrown into turmoil following the unexpected resignation of its chair, Lowell Goddard, last week. The home secretary on Thursday appointed Prof Alexis Jay as the new chair.
The Guardian understands that some survivors of sexual abuse by members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses are considering making submissions to the inquiry’s truth project, a strand gathering survivors’ testimony.
A, the woman at the centre of the civil case, was abused by a senior member of her congregation for five years from the age of four. It emerged during court proceedings that he had confessed to a different attack and was removed from a senior role, but had “repented” and was allowed to continue within the congregation.
The police were not told and her mother said in court that she had no recollection of being warned about him.
A said her mother told leading members, known as “elders”, about the abuse when she was about 14. Her attacker had been released from jail for other sex attacks and was asking to return to the congregation, she said.
“All the while I had it hanging over my head that if I wanted to raise any allegations … I would be forced into a judicial committee, I would have to confront him face to face,” she told the Guardian.
Although the church can “disfellowship” – expel – people for minor offences, A says her abuser was allowed to remain. “Had they discovered he was playing the lottery, he would have been disfellowshipped without question, but he admitted to them he had abused children, and he still wasn’t disfellowshipped,” A said.
She finally reported the abuse to the police after the elders did nothing. “I came to the view that I would either try and kill myself again, run away or just go to the police.”
He died before the police could question him about the allegation.
The judge ruled the congregation was “either not warned at all or not adequately warned” about the risk posed by A’s abuser.
A spokesman for the Jehovah’s Witnesses said: “Anyone who commits the sin of child abuse faces expulsion from the congregation … Any suggestion that Jehovah’s Witnesses cover up child abuse is absolutely false.”
He added: “Congregation elders do not discourage [reports to the authorities] or shield abusers from the authorities or from the consequences of their actions.”
Another woman, Jane*, who is also suing the organisation after she was raped by a member as an adult in 1990, said she was urged to face her rapist at a private hearing known as a judicial committee. It left her “completely traumatised” and led to the breakup of her marriage, she said.
Her attacker was eventually jailed in 2014, and she decided to sue after watching elders on the witness stand. “I thought, nobody’s taken responsibility for this. You could have held up your hands and said, ‘I’m sorry, we were in the wrong’,” Jane said. 
The Charity Commission launched statutory inquiries into Jehovah’s Witnesses charities in May 2014. This was shortly after claims emerged that elders in the Manchester New Moston congregation held a meeting at which three adult survivors of child sex abuse were brought face to face with their abuser, shortly after his release from prison for their abuse.
A spokesman for the Jehovah’s Witnesses said: “We are in no position to, and neither would we wish to, force any victim of abuse to confront their attacker.”
The commission, which has the power to investigate how charity trustees handle safeguarding, launched separate inquiries into the Manchester New Moston congregation and the WTBTS, which oversees the nation’s 1,500 congregations and is believed to play a significant role in handling allegations of abuse.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses challenged both inquiries in the courts, arguing that they would breach the trustees’ human right to religious freedom. They also challenged orders to produce documents on how they had handled allegations of sexual abuse in recent years.
Chris Willis Pickup, head of litigation at the Charity Commission, said: “Following two years of legal proceedings in five different courts and tribunals, the supreme court has finally brought Watch Tower’s challenge to our inquiry decision to an end.”
The commission had received only “limited information” from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, he said. The Charity Commission is encouraging anyone with similar complaints to come forward.
While a small number of charities launch legal appeals against the commission’s decisions, the extent of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ challenges and the length of time they have gone on for are unprecedented in recent times, a spokesman for the Charity Commission confirmed.
A’s solicitor, Thomas Beale, said: “Sadly, given our experience of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ approach to litigation in cases involving survivors of child abuse, it comes as no surprise that WTBTS has at every stage relentlessly challenged the legal basis and scope of the Charity Commission’s inquiry.
“In our case … they adopted similar tactics, dragging our client through years of painful and distressing litigation … We have always maintained that this is a time for apologies, not appeals.”
The Jehovah’s Witnesses said in a statement: “Jehovah’s Witnesses abhor child abuse, a crime that sadly occurs in all sectors of society … We are committed to doing all we can to prevent child abuse and to provide spiritual comfort to any who have suffered from this terrible sin and crime.
“We also see a need to protect the confidentiality of those who seek spiritual comfort. Nevertheless, we shall diligently abide by court judgments.”
Name has been changed at the individual’s request
- https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/12/jehovahs-witnesses-under-pressure-over-handling-of-sexual-abuse-claims

Hmmmm......."No different than any other religion " doesn't sound like a very good excuse for a religion that claims to be God's sole channel of communication to mankind.

Indeed. I guess He's the only one who does. 

Jehovah's Witnesses under pressure over handling of sexual abuse claims
Organisation faces fight to prevent Charity Commission examining its records of abuse claims after supreme court rejects its attempt to block inquiry
 A spokesman for the Jehovah’s Witnesses said: ‘We are in no position to, and neither would we wish to, force any victim of abuse to confront their attacker.’ Photograph: Fairfax Media via Getty Images The Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation is under increasing pressure to address its handling of sexual abuse allegations as it faces legal setbacks, bills of over £1m and a fight to prevent the Charity Commission examining its records of abuse claims.
Last month a judge upheld a ruling against the UK’s leading Jehovah’s Witnesses charity, the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Britain (WTBTS), that the Jehovah’s Witnesses had failed to protect a woman, known in proceedings as A, from sexual abuse starting when she was four years old.
Now the supreme court has rejected a highly unusual attempt by the WTBTS to block a Charity Commission inquiry into how the Jehovah’s Witnesses charity handles allegations of abuse.
The extent of the charity’s challenges and the length of time they have gone on for are unprecedented in recent times, a spokesman for the Charity Commission said.
In A’s case the high court awarded damages and the WTBTS have been left facing legal fees totalling about £1m after attempting to appeal against the judgement three times.
The decision in A’s case sets a precedent that could expose the organisation to further claims. It continues to fight Charity Commission orders to provide documents on sexual abuse allegations, as well as other aspects of the inquiry, in lower courts.
Fay Maxted, chief executive of the Survivors Trust, a national sexual assault charity, said: “These are cases where someone has been sexually violated and had their whole trust in the safety of their religious community blown away.
“It’s deeply disappointing that a faith-based organisation appears to be so determined to try and avoid answering questions about its own behaviour …
“This is something the Catholics and Church of England have also had to deal with – these big institutions will fight and fight every step of the way.”
The ways in which large institutions – from the BBC to the Church of England – respond to allegations of sexual abuse has been under intense scrutiny in recent years. But the governmental investigation into the issue, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (IICSA), was thrown into turmoil following the unexpected resignation of its chair, Lowell Goddard, last week. The home secretary on Thursday appointed Prof Alexis Jay as the new chair.
The Guardian understands that some survivors of sexual abuse by members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses are considering making submissions to the inquiry’s truth project, a strand gathering survivors’ testimony.
A, the woman at the centre of the civil case, was abused by a senior member of her congregation for five years from the age of four. It emerged during court proceedings that he had confessed to a different attack and was removed from a senior role, but had “repented” and was allowed to continue within the congregation.
The police were not told and her mother said in court that she had no recollection of being warned about him.
A said her mother told leading members, known as “elders”, about the abuse when she was about 14. Her attacker had been released from jail for other sex attacks and was asking to return to the congregation, she said.
“All the while I had it hanging over my head that if I wanted to raise any allegations … I would be forced into a judicial committee, I would have to confront him face to face,” she told the Guardian.
Although the church can “disfellowship” – expel – people for minor offences, A says her abuser was allowed to remain. “Had they discovered he was playing the lottery, he would have been disfellowshipped without question, but he admitted to them he had abused children, and he still wasn’t disfellowshipped,” A said.
She finally reported the abuse to the police after the elders did nothing. “I came to the view that I would either try and kill myself again, run away or just go to the police.”
He died before the police could question him about the allegation.
The judge ruled the congregation was “either not warned at all or not adequately warned” about the risk posed by A’s abuser.
A spokesman for the Jehovah’s Witnesses said: “Anyone who commits the sin of child abuse faces expulsion from the congregation … Any suggestion that Jehovah’s Witnesses cover up child abuse is absolutely false.”
He added: “Congregation elders do not discourage [reports to the authorities] or shield abusers from the authorities or from the consequences of their actions.”
Another woman, Jane*, who is also suing the organisation after she was raped by a member as an adult in 1990, said she was urged to face her rapist at a private hearing known as a judicial committee. It left her “completely traumatised” and led to the breakup of her marriage, she said.
Her attacker was eventually jailed in 2014, and she decided to sue after watching elders on the witness stand. “I thought, nobody’s taken responsibility for this. You could have held up your hands and said, ‘I’m sorry, we were in the wrong’,” Jane said. 
The Charity Commission launched statutory inquiries into Jehovah’s Witnesses charities in May 2014. This was shortly after claims emerged that elders in the Manchester New Moston congregation held a meeting at which three adult survivors of child sex abuse were brought face to face with their abuser, shortly after his release from prison for their abuse.
A spokesman for the Jehovah’s Witnesses said: “We are in no position to, and neither would we wish to, force any victim of abuse to confront their attacker.”
The commission, which has the power to investigate how charity trustees handle safeguarding, launched separate inquiries into the Manchester New Moston congregation and the WTBTS, which oversees the nation’s 1,500 congregations and is believed to play a significant role in handling allegations of abuse.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses challenged both inquiries in the courts, arguing that they would breach the trustees’ human right to religious freedom. They also challenged orders to produce documents on how they had handled allegations of sexual abuse in recent years.
Chris Willis Pickup, head of litigation at the Charity Commission, said: “Following two years of legal proceedings in five different courts and tribunals, the supreme court has finally brought Watch Tower’s challenge to our inquiry decision to an end.”
The commission had received only “limited information” from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, he said. The Charity Commission is encouraging anyone with similar complaints to come forward.
While a small number of charities launch legal appeals against the commission’s decisions, the extent of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ challenges and the length of time they have gone on for are unprecedented in recent times, a spokesman for the Charity Commission confirmed.
A’s solicitor, Thomas Beale, said: “Sadly, given our experience of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ approach to litigation in cases involving survivors of child abuse, it comes as no surprise that WTBTS has at every stage relentlessly challenged the legal basis and scope of the Charity Commission’s inquiry.
“In our case … they adopted similar tactics, dragging our client through years of painful and distressing litigation … We have always maintained that this is a time for apologies, not appeals.”
The Jehovah’s Witnesses said in a statement: “Jehovah’s Witnesses abhor child abuse, a crime that sadly occurs in all sectors of society … We are committed to doing all we can to prevent child abuse and to provide spiritual comfort to any who have suffered from this terrible sin and crime.
“We also see a need to protect the confidentiality of those who seek spiritual comfort. Nevertheless, we shall diligently abide by court judgments.”
Name has been changed at the individual’s request
- https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/12/jehovahs-witnesses-under-pressure-over-handling-of-sexual-abuse-claims

When YouTuber/Redditor Roman Vargas found out that a man named Waymon Chandler Ivery was making the door-to-door rounds as a Jehovah’s Witness in his neighborhood, he got his cellphone camera out and confronted the man.
In 1992, Ivery was convicted of first-degree sexual assault on a child.
According to Hermant Mehta of The Friendly Atheist, Vargas was told by a Jehova’s Witness friend a few years ago that Ivery was living in his neighborhood. In addition, a Facebook post warning the community about Ivery was also clear in Vargas’ memory, so he had little trouble identifying him.
The prospect of a pedophile going door-to-door in his neighborhood was a bit much for Vargas, so he took action.
As Vargas approached Ivery, the ex-convict denied the allegations at first, but soon scrambled to get in the van with his fellow Witnesses. A Witness in the van sitting to the right of Ivery put his hands in his head as if to say, “Wow, we really f*cked up.”
Writing for JW Survey, a blog dedicated to giving a voice to former Jehovah’s Witnesses, Covert Fade points out that JWs allowing a convicted sex offender to freely knock on doors is a serious problem:
 
No one is denying that Ivery paid his debt to society.
 “It’s one thing to forgive Ivery for his crimes. It’s another to ignore them entirely.”
Watch the video below:
 
http://deadstate.org/man-whips-out-cellphone-camera-when-he-realizes-neighborhood-jehovahs-witness-is-a-convicted-sex-offender/

Methinks you are projecting, Allen. 
You stated, "Your salvation is incumbent to following God’s laws and commandments"
It was shown that the apostle Paul disagrees with you. If following God's laws and commandments would save people, there would have been no need for Jesus. Because nobody can follow God's laws and commandments properly, everyone is condemned. That's why, according to Christian doctrine, everyone needs Jesus to be saved. 
You also stated: "The WTS has never implied they hold salvation."
Again, three posters have provided numerous official Watchtower pronouncements demonstrating that you are mistaken. 
You may deflect and project all you like, but it doesn't change reality.
 

Methinks you are projecting, Allen. 
You stated, "Your salvation is incumbent to following God’s laws and commandments"
It was shown that the apostle Paul disagrees with you. If following God's laws and commandments would save people, there would have been no need for Jesus. Because nobody can follow God's laws and commandments properly, everyone is condemned. That's why, according to Christian doctrine, everyone needs Jesus to be saved. 
You also stated: "The WTS has never implied they hold salvation."
Again, three posters have provided numerous official Watchtower pronouncements demonstrating that you are mistaken. 
You may deflect and project all you like, but it doesn't change reality.