Anna

Spoken like a true American

I agree..... and in order to further your altruistic viewpoint, and upbeat perspective on life,  and to help in any way to assist you in remaining humble, I would like to invite you and your wife to come to my home and do free yard work for a year.
I do not live in a dilapidated mansion, but there is also plenty of carpentry work and painting to do.
When you return home in 2020, you can bask in the glow of a job well done.
I know it's a lot to expect, but I will do my best to work you hard every day.

Anna we do have 'Public Foot Paths' here in England and also 'Bridle paths' all of which have sign posts. In fact we noticed a few weeks ago, a lady with a clipboard, looking rather 'official', walking past 'our big house'. When we left and locked up the gates we noticed new 'arrow' stickers on gate posts.  Unfortunately there is a public right of way right by  the side of the house. Nice for genuine people but makes it easier for urban explorers to get a good look at the property before breaking in. We can't stop anyone being on the outside just looking of course, but some folks are more welcome than others. We do show some folks around and let them take a few photos too. 
Here is Devon we have those gates (in your photo) and also styles to climb over. And people are expected to keep to the edges on farmers fields. The good farmer would clear a footpath around the edge, some do, some don't.  But yes it is almost 'free to roam' which has it's good and bad points, depending if you are the land owner. 
As far as the House is concerned, the new owner wants to go far beyond restoration, and the locals are totally opposed to it all. The owner wants to turn it into a massive wedding venue, for rich folks. (He's a Londoner, big business man, property and such) He wants to extend what is now the cellar, outward under the side of the house to form some sort of paved garden or similar. And he wants to add other buildings in the large grounds for other uses. Will cost millions of pounds and take at least three years i would think...
But for my wife and i it was a great challenge, getting it cleaned out and tidied up a bit. So it now looks like a house not a scrap yard..... I also had to arrange for the car parts to go into one auction and lots of furniture to go into a different auction.  The car parts / Automobilia Auction i was also involved deeply in because I help that auctioneer lay it all out and put the Lot numbers on everything.  So being part of both the auctions this month has been a challenge too.   The furniture auction was today (Monday) so I haven't heard any results from it yet. But in November i may just spend more time on here, sitting, relaxing, eating mince pies and drinking tea. 
 

At least most of those cars finally got cleared off the lot. "Urban Explorers" must still be a problem, though. I read somewhere that they keep breaking locks and cutting fences just to take a selfie at a place like this. Right?
The cars were cleared by the previous owner who had used the house and grounds as a vehicle salvage / scrap yard. He had vehicle parts all over the house and grounds. My wife and I filled a large scrap metal bin with huge amount of scrap which when weighed in earnt the present owner a bit of cash. 
The present owner also hired a 'mini digger' and small dumper truck for my wife and i to clear some earth and rubbish with. It gave us 'new skills' and we didn't wreck the place. 
Urban explorers have been a big problem but in the last two months things have gone quiet so hopefully it will stay quiet for a long time now. 
But the sun shone brightly today whilst we were there and parts of it looked quite nice, in a derelict sort of way  . 
 

Now you've hurt my feelings ...
I WOULD hesitate.

Yes, I understood what you said. They had a fear.  But it was unfounded because like I said; "going to the police was never a disfellowshipping matter". However, and I added a clause, if going to the police was part and parcel of gossiping and slandering, then they could be disfellowshipped for that. And as you say, you have experienced that yourself, even when unfounded!
Yes, a bad elder could find another reason to disfellowship because if going to the police is not a disfellowshipping matter, and if there is no slander involved, then this elder has no grounds to act that way, and he has to make something up. Anyone who does that is dishonest. He would be acting on his own, and NOT because of any instructions from the GB. So remember John, if unfounded, then these are the actions of a bad elder, and not because of any instructions from the Bethel or the GB. My experience with elders has been very good for the most part, most elders have been loving and caring people. BUT I also have known a couple of bad elders. They do exist for sure. There were bad elders in the 1st century;
"I wrote something to the congregation, but Di·otʹre·phes, who likes to have the first place among them, does not accept anything from us with respect. That is why if I come, I will call attention to the works he is doing in spreading malicious talk about us. Not being content with this, he refuses to welcome the brothers with respect; and those who want to welcome them, he tries to hinder and to throw out of the congregation". John 3:9
And yes, some congregation members could shun said person. But they would be acting on their own as well, and not from anything that was instructed by anyone. You cannot control how certain people will act, even if it's unfair or wrong. You cannot stop someone from "marking" someone else, even if unfounded. That is a personal thing unfortunately. But Jehovah sees the heart and will judge all.

One thing that upset me when I moved to the USA was the realisation that one cannot just walk anywhere. In Europe, for the most part, everyone has "the right to roam" which means you can pretty much go anywhere, even on privately owned land. In America, most land is owned by someone, and that someone does not tolerate anyone walking through their property. I'm sure @James Thomas Rook Jr. wouldn't hesitate to put a bullet through your head. There are "parks" but those parks are rarely within walking distance. You might have perfect hiking acreage right behind your house, but if it doesn't belong to you,  you can't go there. In England, most privately owned fields and meadows can be accessed by pedestrians and hikers (including their free running dogs, in America you can only let your dog run in a dog park) through a style or "kissing gate". Trails are made naturally by people frequently walking there, not by someone preparing them specially for that purpose. Farmers who drive tractors through a field leave a path, and people walk on those too. As long as you do not infringe on someones garden (yard) around the house (which is usually fenced anyway) you are not trespassing. Of course there is the odd grumpy farmer who puts up "do not trespass" signs in a field, but there are not many....
So in view of that, hiking trails are not really a planned thing in England in the same sense as in America. Of course there are nature reserves, where there are sign posted trails, but generally, in the rural countryside, (where John Buttler's house is) there is no need for them. The same goes for Scotland. In fact I think now you can also put a tent up anywhere, and you can fish and canoe on all the rivers, even if it cuts through someones land.
In Switzerland, you can hike anywhere as well, and you don't have to stick to trails. The whole alpine region is completely and freely accessible to everyone. As for other European states, it's pretty much the same. Oh, and all the nature reserves are "free". They are paid for by the state.
So apparently America is the land of the free. Not in my mind   The book "trespassing across America" sounds interesting.....

 

This almost looks identical to the field behind my mum's house. One year it was growing rapeseed and it was amazing walking through a field of pure yellow...
 
 
 

Wow, it's fantastic! Looks like a lot of work on the pillars, will they be able to be restored to their original beauty?

One thing that upset me when I moved to the USA was the realisation that one cannot just walk anywhere. In Europe, for the most part, everyone has "the right to roam" which means you can pretty much go anywhere, even on privately owned land. In America, most land is owned by someone, and that someone does not tolerate anyone walking through their property. I'm sure @James Thomas Rook Jr. wouldn't hesitate to put a bullet through your head. There are "parks" but those parks are rarely within walking distance. You might have perfect hiking acreage right behind your house, but if it doesn't belong to you,  you can't go there. In England, most privately owned fields and meadows can be accessed by pedestrians and hikers (including their free running dogs, in America you can only let your dog run in a dog park) through a style or "kissing gate". Trails are made naturally by people frequently walking there, not by someone preparing them specially for that purpose. Farmers who drive tractors through a field leave a path, and people walk on those too. As long as you do not infringe on someones garden (yard) around the house (which is usually fenced anyway) you are not trespassing. Of course there is the odd grumpy farmer who puts up "do not trespass" signs in a field, but there are not many....
So in view of that, hiking trails are not really a planned thing in England in the same sense as in America. Of course there are nature reserves, where there are sign posted trails, but generally, in the rural countryside, (where John Buttler's house is) there is no need for them. The same goes for Scotland. In fact I think now you can also put a tent up anywhere, and you can fish and canoe on all the rivers, even if it cuts through someones land.
In Switzerland, you can hike anywhere as well, and you don't have to stick to trails. The whole alpine region is completely and freely accessible to everyone. As for other European states, it's pretty much the same. Oh, and all the nature reserves are "free". They are paid for by the state.
So apparently America is the land of the free. Not in my mind   The book "trespassing across America" sounds interesting.....

 

This almost looks identical to the field behind my mum's house. One year it was growing rapeseed and it was amazing walking through a field of pure yellow...
 
 
 

One thing that upset me when I moved to the USA was the realisation that one cannot just walk anywhere. In Europe, for the most part, everyone has "the right to roam" which means you can pretty much go anywhere, even on privately owned land. In America, most land is owned by someone, and that someone does not tolerate anyone walking through their property. I'm sure @James Thomas Rook Jr. wouldn't hesitate to put a bullet through your head. There are "parks" but those parks are rarely within walking distance. You might have perfect hiking acreage right behind your house, but if it doesn't belong to you,  you can't go there. In England, most privately owned fields and meadows can be accessed by pedestrians and hikers (including their free running dogs, in America you can only let your dog run in a dog park) through a style or "kissing gate". Trails are made naturally by people frequently walking there, not by someone preparing them specially for that purpose. Farmers who drive tractors through a field leave a path, and people walk on those too. As long as you do not infringe on someones garden (yard) around the house (which is usually fenced anyway) you are not trespassing. Of course there is the odd grumpy farmer who puts up "do not trespass" signs in a field, but there are not many....
So in view of that, hiking trails are not really a planned thing in England in the same sense as in America. Of course there are nature reserves, where there are sign posted trails, but generally, in the rural countryside, (where John Buttler's house is) there is no need for them. The same goes for Scotland. In fact I think now you can also put a tent up anywhere, and you can fish and canoe on all the rivers, even if it cuts through someones land.
In Switzerland, you can hike anywhere as well, and you don't have to stick to trails. The whole alpine region is completely and freely accessible to everyone. As for other European states, it's pretty much the same. Oh, and all the nature reserves are "free". They are paid for by the state.
So apparently America is the land of the free. Not in my mind   The book "trespassing across America" sounds interesting.....

 

This almost looks identical to the field behind my mum's house. One year it was growing rapeseed and it was amazing walking through a field of pure yellow...
 
 
 

One thing that upset me when I moved to the USA was the realisation that one cannot just walk anywhere. In Europe, for the most part, everyone has "the right to roam" which means you can pretty much go anywhere, even on privately owned land. In America, most land is owned by someone, and that someone does not tolerate anyone walking through their property. I'm sure @James Thomas Rook Jr. wouldn't hesitate to put a bullet through your head. There are "parks" but those parks are rarely within walking distance. You might have perfect hiking acreage right behind your house, but if it doesn't belong to you,  you can't go there. In England, most privately owned fields and meadows can be accessed by pedestrians and hikers (including their free running dogs, in America you can only let your dog run in a dog park) through a style or "kissing gate". Trails are made naturally by people frequently walking there, not by someone preparing them specially for that purpose. Farmers who drive tractors through a field leave a path, and people walk on those too. As long as you do not infringe on someones garden (yard) around the house (which is usually fenced anyway) you are not trespassing. Of course there is the odd grumpy farmer who puts up "do not trespass" signs in a field, but there are not many....
So in view of that, hiking trails are not really a planned thing in England in the same sense as in America. Of course there are nature reserves, where there are sign posted trails, but generally, in the rural countryside, (where John Buttler's house is) there is no need for them. The same goes for Scotland. In fact I think now you can also put a tent up anywhere, and you can fish and canoe on all the rivers, even if it cuts through someones land.
In Switzerland, you can hike anywhere as well, and you don't have to stick to trails. The whole alpine region is completely and freely accessible to everyone. As for other European states, it's pretty much the same. Oh, and all the nature reserves are "free". They are paid for by the state.
So apparently America is the land of the free. Not in my mind   The book "trespassing across America" sounds interesting.....

 

This almost looks identical to the field behind my mum's house. One year it was growing rapeseed and it was amazing walking through a field of pure yellow...
 
 
 

Yes, I believe so too. I believe the PARENT should go to the police first thing, and then to the elders second. However, if the parent goes to the elders first, the elders are not always mandated reporters. Regardless, some parents do not wish to involve the police at all! (that goes for non JW parents too). It very much depends on who the perpetrator is and what the circumstances are. Not every parent wants to rush to the police or if their 9 year old daughter tells them senile grandpa was a little too touchy feely the other day. Some parents opt for keeping granddaughter out of reach of grandpa. I feel a parent who is well connected to their child, knows their child, communicates with their child and watches their child will instinctively know when to report someone. Unfortunately, not all parents are like that.
 

Yes, I believe so too. I believe the PARENT should go to the police first thing, and then to the elders second. However, if the parent goes to the elders first, the elders are not always mandated reporters. Regardless, some parents do not wish to involve the police at all! (that goes for non JW parents too). It very much depends on who the perpetrator is and what the circumstances are. Not every parent wants to rush to the police or if their 9 year old daughter tells them senile grandpa was a little too touchy feely the other day. Some parents opt for keeping granddaughter out of reach of grandpa. I feel a parent who is well connected to their child, knows their child, communicates with their child and watches their child will instinctively know when to report someone. Unfortunately, not all parents are like that.
 

I have heard that too, but it seems it wasn't many, but a few. Some elders were acting on a wrong interpretation of "one should not take another brother to court". Of course that was never talking about crime such as murder or sexual abuse. And some elders took it upon themselves to say that it should not to be taken outside the congregation so as not to sully Jehovah's name. Which was wrong, and was never an instruction from Bethel. Also, taking the matter to the police was NEVER a reason for disfellowshipping. If someone was disfellowshipped it was because of unrepentant gossip and slander.

Yes, I believe so too. I believe the PARENT should go to the police first thing, and then to the elders second. However, if the parent goes to the elders first, the elders are not always mandated reporters. Regardless, some parents do not wish to involve the police at all! (that goes for non JW parents too). It very much depends on who the perpetrator is and what the circumstances are. Not every parent wants to rush to the police or if their 9 year old daughter tells them senile grandpa was a little too touchy feely the other day. Some parents opt for keeping granddaughter out of reach of grandpa. I feel a parent who is well connected to their child, knows their child, communicates with their child and watches their child will instinctively know when to report someone. Unfortunately, not all parents are like that.
 

Which means, when translated, something like: Hello, the Bible should be read in context and one should not try to understand it by taking a verse out of context.

Bonjour la bible doit être lue dans son contexte et il ne faut pas sortir un verset pour essayer de la comprendre.

I programmed mine to fool TrueTomHarley into thinking it was his wife.

Um, strange topic, strange people on here  
If a man looks at a woman so as to have a desire for her he has committed adultery / fornicaton in his heart.  And if a man looks at pornography it is also wrong. But robots, does that include full size 'dolls' ? Oh dear the plot thickens. 

Kind of sucks doesn't it, if the accused is actually innocent. Until there is proof, I don't think the police can do anything either. The person can only be put on a sexual predator registry only if they are convicted, otherwise no. I think in a congregationally un-established case it would be good to hand the matter over to the police, since they have better means for investigation at their disposal. But I always say there is no smoke without a fire. And most children do not make things like this up. The problem is the victims tend to speak up when they are adults, and who knows what kind of ulterior motive can there be behind an accusation.....
There is no doubt  that false allegations do happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse
 

In what world?
I have yet to see a chess game where the contestants (players) were anything but completely civil with each other, true gentlemen, and friendly ... and I have played perhaps 400 games myself with people all over the world, with great congeniality and friendliness.
Now, if you are playing "Battle Chess", where one of the contestants has severe acne, and an eye patch covering up a sword slash scar,  and the other has a tattoo that says "Born to Kill", and before the game begins both players put their guns and knives  on the table, and the timer is a nearsighted accountant chained to a chair, and they are wagering over several bars of gold,  and the virginity of a woman tied to railroad tracks,  and there is a gallows in the parking lot ... I might want to avoid that competition.
... or play to win!
 

I remember this article well. I really welcomed it at the time. As a teenager, a close friend of mine was an avid and highly proficient chess player. He actually taught me the game, and continued to trounce me daily for a period of years. I actually did checkmate him once when his concentration was impaired, but that was never repeated. He put his success down to his superior intellect, and constantly reminded me of this, attributing my "deficiency" to genetic inheritence.
We both became witnesses, and he continued his passion. Indeed, other witnesses (including some at Bethel) who shared this passion would travel miles to play him and of course their sole purpose in that was to attempt to beat him at the game. I don't recall any succeeding in this. Then, this article came out in the Awake. I was triumphant! My suspicions of the games "evil" origins were confirmed. My feelings of inferiority faded and my damaged self image was healed. My friend was unimpressed. "It's a matter of conscience" he said. "Doesn't change the fact you're just a born loser at this". By that time I had acquired some musical skills that my friend was desiring to emulate. He, unfortunately suffering from a condition where he couldn't hear note difference, was unable play in tune although he was able to technically read music much better than me. Somehow, the balance was adjusted by this as we came to agree that chess proficiency was not the only measure of intellect or worth as a person. We are still friends, and he still plays chess.
The article in the Awake summed up (more completely than the quote above), "Surely chess is a fascinating game. But there are questions regarding it that are good for each one who plays chess to consider." 

On The Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin
 
The game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement. Several very valuable qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be acquired or strengthened by it, so as to become habits, ready on all occasions.
1. Foresight, which looks a little into futurity, and considers the consequences that may attend an action; for it is continually occuring to the player, 'If I move this piece, what will be the advantages or disadvantages of my new situation? What use can my adversary make of it to annoy me? What other moves can I make to support it, and to defend myself from his attacks?
2. Circumspection, which surveys the whole chessboard, or scene of action; the relations of the several pieces and situations, the dangers they are respectively exposed to, the several possibilities of their aiding each other, the probabilities that the adversary may make this or that move, and attack this or the other piece, and what different means can be used to avoid his stroke, or turn its consequences against him.
3. Caution, not to make our moves too hastily. This habit is best acquired, by observing strictly the laws of the game; such as, If you touch a piece, you must move it somewhere; if you set it down, you must let it stand. And it is therefore best that these rules should be observed, as the game becomes thereby more the image of human life, and particularly of war . . .
And lastly, we learn by Chess the habit of not being discouraged by present appearances in the state of our affairs, the habit of hoping for a favourable change, and that of persevering in the search of resources. The game is so full of events, there is such a variety of turns in it, the fortune of it is so subject to sudden vicissitudes, and one so frequently, after long contemplation, discovers the means of extricating one's self from a supposed insurmountable difficulty, that one is encouraged to continue the contest to the last, in hopes of victory from our own skill, or at least of getting a stalemate from the negligence of our adversary . . .
If your adversary is long in playing, you ought not to hurry him, or express any uneasiness at his delay. You should not sing, nor whistle, nor look at your watch, not take up a book to read, nor make a tapping with your feet on the floor, or with your fingers on the table, nor do anything that may disturb his attention. For all these things displease; and they do not show your skill in playing, but your craftiness or your rudeness.
You ought not to endeavour to amuse and deceive your adversary, by pretending to have made bad moves, and saying that you have now lost the game, in order to make him secure and careless, and inattentive to your schemes: for this is fraud and deceit, not skill in the game.
You must not, when you have gained a victory, use any triumphing or insulting expression, nor show too much pleasure; but endeavour to console your adversary, and make him less dissatisfied with himself, by every kind of civil expression that may be used with truth, such as 'you understand the game better than I, but you are a little inattentive;' or, 'you play too fast;' or, 'you had the best of the game, but something happened to divert your thoughts, and that turned it in my favour.'
If you are a spectator while others play, observe the most perfect silence. For, if you give advice, you offend both parties, him against whom you give it, because it may cause the loss of his game, him in whose favour you give it, because, though it be good, and he follows it, he loses the pleasure he might have had, if you had permitted him to think until it had occurred to himself. Even after a move or moves, you must not, by replacing the pieces, show how they might have been placed better; for that displeases, and may occasion disputes and doubts about their true situation. All talking to the players lessens or diverts their attention, and is therefore unpleasing.
Lastly, if the game is not to be played rigorously, according to the rules above mentioned, then moderate your desire of victory over your adversary, and be pleased with one over yourself. Snatch not eagerly at every advantage offered by his unskilfulness or inattention; but point out to him kindly, that by such a move he places or leaves a piece in danger and unsupported; that by another he will put his king in a perilous situation, etc. By this generous civility (so opposite to the unfairness above forbidden) you may, indeed, happen to lose the game to your opponent; but you will win what is better, his esteem, his respect, and his affection, together with the silent approbation and goodwill of impartial spectators.

1Cor.14:40 would seem to cover any instructions on procedures in congregational matters.
This doesn't seem to address the specific issue as sharing the information is not prohibited in the instruction. More relevant would be "why is legal  advice and direction required prior to sharing with another congregation information regarding those accused of child sexual abuse (established or not)?

This subject is dark. Because the person talked about is accused. Even if true what they have done, before found out, they are guilty. What a spot to be in. Like being a black person. So they are to be followed from now on shadowed because they are accused of this. Can you sense the reaction of telling people of their presence openly, of just being accused? Being black and stopped and frisked for no apparent reason other than my skin color, this person outed why? For only an accusation, since the writing states established or not. Man, what a way to live. It would be hard enough if it was true, convicted and disfellowshipped, but just being accused, wow. Who would want to live in that limbo. I do daily, I know how that person feels. The new congregation needs not to know yet. Only if I have been tried and true. But on accusation alone, no, that ain't right, humanly right for anyone. We have gotten to sensitive and police everything, calling nine one one on people at the drop of a hat.