Anna

It is not a problem, it is exactly how it is. The jurisdictional system in a congregation deals with sin, the Jurisdictional system of the Government deals with crime and both can be applied to the same instance at the same time. In the case of child sexual molestation, it is both, a sin and a crime. So both jurisdictional systems are needed.
It might seem like that. But if you read the context, and other scriptures which talk about this subject, then it becomes clear that for Christians, God is to be obeyed above anyone: Acts 5:29: "In answer Peter and the other apostles said: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men". For example, secular law does not prohibit Adultery or fornication. However God does.
So, as you say, there are two parallel  jurisdictional systems. One is religious, based on sin (adultery and fornication are a sin), the other one is secular, based on crime (adultery and fornication are not a crime).  That is why Paul was able to say: "After all, it is none of my business to judge outsiders. God will judge them. But should you not judge the members of your own fellowship? As the scripture says, “Remove the evil person from your group.” (1 Corinthians 5:12-13).
These would have been personal disputes between two brothers (or sisters) that did not involve a sin or a crime.  It would be better if these brothers could handle this between themselves peacefully, rather than get "worldly" courts to judge who was right and who was wrong.
Possibly. But in any case, we can be sure that ultimately God will judge everyone (Romans 14:12)
If you were an elder, what decision would you make?

Not really. The police also monitor a sexual predator that has been released from prison. How do you think the police do it? Do you think they are with the person 24 hours a day 7 days a week? Of course not. There are various degrees of how a person can be monitored. Prison is the best way. The other ways depend on the reasonable ability of the ones doing the monitoring. For example the elders will be alert to anything going on in the congregation or congregation activities. But they will not sit inside his house, or go shopping with him. Neither will the police.

About an hour ago I messaged the local police by private messenger system to ask if they have a private email address for me to give them the details that I have. The messenger system is too difficult to send a large message on and an email I could save a copy for myself for my reference. 
This local police force covers the town in which i live and the town where the congregation is.  When / if I receive a reply i will give them all the details i have. By doing it via email I will be able to word it carefully so that I do not accuse the young man, but just give the facts as they were given to me... 
Then if this young man does something wrong, the police will at least have reference to him. It really is a great shame that i do not have the victims name of details, as I am more concerned for her welfare. Hopefully if the police investigate, they will get full details if indeed the accusation actually took place. 
I know it's wrong of me to judge anyone, especially in such a serious situation. So I will give the police details as to me leaving the JW Org and as to why they may not wish to believe me. That way I feel i would be giving them a balanced viewpoint. 
Hopefully they will contact me this evening. 7.30 pm now. 

Not really. The police also monitor a sexual predator that has been released from prison. How do you think the police do it? Do you think they are with the person 24 hours a day 7 days a week? Of course not. There are various degrees of how a person can be monitored. Prison is the best way. The other ways depend on the reasonable ability of the ones doing the monitoring. For example the elders will be alert to anything going on in the congregation or congregation activities. But they will not sit inside his house, or go shopping with him. Neither will the police.

See my comment to John about the same question. Is it enough? I don't know. What I do know is that the goal is to protect children. As you say, there may be laws on what you can and cannot do. But regardless, I am sure you will agree, no one wants children to be harmed. What I do know is that if a perpetrator moves to another congregation, their record card is sent to the new congregation, and all those details will be on that record card. 

Srecko, it is still irrelevant. It does not matter. The ultimate goal is that the perpetrator does not molest any more children. How this is done, whether by the police, the elders, or both does not matter.  Remember, the handling of the matter by the elders does NOT replace the handling of the matter by the authorities.

See my comment to John about the same question. Is it enough? I don't know. What I do know is that the goal is to protect children. As you say, there may be laws on what you can and cannot do. But regardless, I am sure you will agree, no one wants children to be harmed. What I do know is that if a perpetrator moves to another congregation, their record card is sent to the new congregation, and all those details will be on that record card. 

Srecko, it is still irrelevant. It does not matter. The ultimate goal is that the perpetrator does not molest any more children. How this is done, whether by the police, the elders, or both does not matter.  Remember, the handling of the matter by the elders does NOT replace the handling of the matter by the authorities.

It's not about the issue around who is on what side or the other.
It's primarily about the safety of children and the failure of adults, whoever they are, to discharge their responsibility to ensure that safety. And it's also about the moral responsibility of those both inside and outside of organisations who cover up detailed allegations out of cowardice and misplaced loyalties.
These responsibilities are not removed by the opinions of others.

Actually, I condemn the action (or inaction) of every single last one of you who hide the facts of child abuse from the relevant authorities. I don't differentiate on the basis of any perceived status in or out of any organisation. You are all in the same bag to me.

The problem with that reasoning is that what has to happen for time to tell? Another child is molested? Do we "sacrifice" another child so when that happens we then know for 'sure' this person is a danger and needs to be constrained in a more effective way? (i.e. prison and counseling etc.).
In cases of child sexual molestation, unlike other judicial cases (adultery, fornication etc.)  the congregation will be informed according to the new guidelines:
par. 11. If it is determined that one guilty of child sexual abuse is repentant and will remain in the congregation, restrictions are imposed on the individual’s congregation activities. The individual will be specifically admonished by the elders not to be alone in the company of children, not to cultivate friendships with children, or display any affection for children. In addition, elders will inform parents of minors within the congregation of the need to monitor their children’s interaction with the individual.
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal-resources/information/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection/
 

This is a quote from the original poster who subsequently asks for the opinion of others.. The opinion of others can only be Yes, No, or Maybe. As this is a UK issue, there is a moral, not legal, duty, for an informed third party to report such matters to a suitable authority. In view of the intimate knowledge this alleger claims to have,  the option was suggested that they discuss the matter anonymously with Childline on a Freephone number 0800 1111.
What is particularly odious about the whole exchange is that the party in question is vociferously complaining and making allegations about others who, in their opinion, "cover up" such cases.
Consider:
An allegation has been made.The accuser has given their opinion as above. Others have expressed their varied opinions.  An option that would report the matter to a suitable authority, anonymously, has been given. Yet the alleger continues to dither, continues to accuse others of the same moral hypocrisy.  The alleged potential for further harm remains. This person, regardless of status, is appearing to behave like an active part of the problem they are continually complaining about. Why is there even a discussion on the matter?

One more thing on that Srecko; the lawyer Zalkin has hundreds of files (in his words) from WT in his office, that he is not allowed to show to anyone by law*. So WT have given him many more documents, more than he needed.
* why doesn't he make them public if it would help victims? Because he would immediately lose his license as a lawyer for breaching the confidentiality law. (or as you say secret). So he doesn't want to risk that of course.

It's not a laughing matter and it's not that simple. It would be great if it was! By your comment I can see that you have never had any experience with something as complex as this. In fact it shows me you have absolutely no idea. Why don't you at least do some reading up on the subject, to educate yourself, before you make thoughtless sweeping statements like this.
Here are a few things to start you off:
https://www.socialworker.com/feature-articles/ethics-articles/To_Report_or_Not_To_Report%3A_That_Is_the_Ethical_Dilemma/
http://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1999-04243-002
https://www.mnpsych.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&category=industry news&id=172:the-importance-of-being-earnest-ethics-and-child-abuse-reporting
https://www.psychiatryadvisor.com/childadolescent-psychiatry/mandatory-reporting-of-child-abuse/article/802017/
Before you say that these articles apply to social workers, therapists only,  you need to realize that disclosures made to elders are no different, and that elders experience the same dilemmas because the information given to them may be the same as that given to social workers, therapists etc.
 
 

If you really know your chemistry and how things work you can calculate the rate of radiation buildup... especially if you know what you are looking for...   Most scientists do not believe the bible so they do not even try. 
My brother has a special talent for discovering what a new molecule looks like - hence his profession of researching new poisons (on the plants in Africa which often kill animals).  This of course sent him to jail because he refused to help the government kill dissidents by providing them with unknown/new  poisons which he isolated and described the structures of.  
I must add my brother has  no ego - he is talented but does not look for any kind of recognition at all - so he is not in search of some holy grail - he just loves knowledge  and the bible.  
I
We still have this curse on the ground and this produces weeds and unwanted elements which makes it hard to produce food.  But - weeds and overgrowth and warmth do not affect animals - only the livelihood of humans
So with a water band the animals will have been OK, big and fat and the pollution was not yet what it is today.  What is significant in all of this is that they had never seen a rainbow before - so after the flood there was definitely a difference in the composition of the atmosphere to view a rainbow for the first time. 
Also - the grapes will have produced more sugar than before the flood with the stronger,  unfiltered sun.  Hence the event that Noah may have underestimated the amount of alcohol in his wine (not the same as before). Wine people know that stronger sunlight gives more sugar in grapes .... and hence more alcohol when fermented.
So there are quite a few indications in the bible that things changed after the flood.  For me the sedimentary layers which came during the flood are full of animals that could have lived until the flood....  but for this information I guess we have to wait until after  Armageddon to find out. 

@Anna you have been well trained (brain washed) by the JW org.  I do hope nothing of these sorts ever happens to you or your family. 
Yes I'm sure you would tell my local elders if i gave you their phone numbers, tell them to destroy evidence that is. 
i didn't find that piece of paper with the details on, maybe I destroyed it.  I honestly cannot remember the man's name, so now i have no info at all. Oh well if the Elders can destroy evidence and still think they have peace with God ...... 

This is irrelevant. You are making the mistake of mixing two separate things together. You do not need two witnesses to make a report to the police. This is only for congregational action.
9. Elders never require victims of child abuse to present their accusation in the presence of the
alleged abuser. However, victims who are now adults may do so, if they wish. In addition, victims can
be accompanied by a confidant of either gender for moral support when presenting their accusation to
the elders. If a victim prefers, the accusation can be submitted in the form of a written statement
No, and they never will because it is not scriptural.
Yes, WT always hands over any necessary confidential documentation pertaining to a case. WT will not hand over confidential documentation that has nothing to do with a specific case. The supreme court agreed with WT on that. (Any $4,000 fines per day were reversed and removed).

bah, I do not believe you. 
I believe you would talk to elders and then keep quiet so that you don't make Jehovah sad. 
That's policy, right? 

Yes. No argument against that.

In one hand your word is right Anna, but Shiwiii have better argument because Natural Law, or if you like Bible verses, have stronger argument, and that is; ..... do what is good in your eyes, by your conscious, what is good before people and before God, obey God more than men. Or if you want Ultimate and Final bible text about ALL things in LIFE ----- Love your neighbor as yourself.  
 
...so what ever GB or WT Manual Book or lawyer or Court or police say .....do love  .... and do find the way. 

Based on your statement and the word "obligate" 
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/obligate
Synonyms for obligate
require
constrain
oblige
bind
force
restrain
restrict
astrict
indebt
 
common sense says no, but now were dealing with people who cannot think for themselves because the gb has told them otherwise. 
I understand, your org is precious and when outsiders (government commissions included) point out things that are just plain WRONG, it hurts your view of right and wrong. Its called cognitive dissonance.  

Yes. This goes for both, the survivor/victim and those who are asked to handle the situation.

If conversation about this issue can make frustration of sort inside this circle of us who talking from distance to each other, imagine what heavy and hard and painful it is for those who experienced this things and must be in face to face situation ! 

@BillyTheKid46 made some statements in another thread that claimed the necessity of demonstrating the difference between early Zion's Watch Tower views and current Watchtower views. He says it was a totally different understanding with the same goal of 1914:
To get a fair context of the discussion, I'll show the entire relevant portions of each response from the original topic here:
The above response from BillyTheKid was because @JOHN BUTLER brought up some speculation that Armageddon is likely far off, and I mentioned the following:
After BillyTheKid's response to that, already shown at the top of this post, I said:
To that @BillyTheKid46 responded:
I have not yet responded to BillyTheKid's other points, which I may attempt to do here. But I did respond to his statement, "This is why there is a difference between Jesus presences in 1874 to that of enthronement, taking his rightful seat in 1914."
To which BillyTheKid responded:
And BilyTheKid also responded in another post:
Hopefully, I'll get a chance respond to BillyTheKid here, and to understand how he thinks we should understand the idea that there was more than one 1260, among many other points made.

10. Child abuse is a serious sin. If an alleged abuser is a member of the congregation, the elders
conduct a Scriptural investigation. This is a purely religious proceeding handled by elders according
to Scriptural instructions and is limited to the issue of membership as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. A
member of the congregation who is an unrepentant child abuser is expelled from the congregation and
is no longer considered one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (1 Corinthians 5:13) The elders’ handling of an
accusation of child abuse is not a replacement for the authorities’ handling of the matter.—Romans