After reviewing Jehovah’s Witnesses’ 2017 Child Safeguarding Policy for the UK and Ireland, I have one question: Will these stubborn men (Watch Tower’s leaders and legal departments) ever learn to instruct elders to stop trying to investigate child abuse allegations and immediately call the authorities? Supposedly the 2017 CSP (Child Safeguarding Policy) improves on current JW policies, making them more palatable to the Charity Commission. I feel that it is incomplete and inadequate – and here’s why:
Personally, I think that the Charity Commission should reject the CSP of JWs in the UK. If this is what they offer as their “best effort policy document,” then guidelines should be given for an acceptable CSP of JWs in the UK by the Commission. Then, if the CSP of JWs in the UK is not in line with Commission regulations, there should be penalties. Most importantly, Commission regulations should be in line with child sexual abuse laws of the country. If needed to keep children safe, the Commission should press the government to change or adjust the laws in this regard.
Reviewing the released policy, the only statements that touch on the actual subject are sections 1-3, 6, and 19-22 – and those do not protect children.
I repeat: Will these stubborn men never learn to instruct elders to bow out of doing an investigation into child abuse allegations and immediately call the authorities?
However, segment #13 indicates that there is an exception to the rule: “A report to the police or other appropriate authorities will be made immediately by the congregation elders if it is determined that a child is still at risk.” This sentence was also in the 2013 Policy. However, what if the child is “not at risk”? What then? Apparently, in that case, elders do not report the abuse to the police.
That begs the question: What if the child is “not at risk” or in immediate danger? What then? Apparently, in that case (based on the policy), elders do not report the abuse to the police. The policy, as written leaves a very wide and deep “loophole.”
I can only guess that this CSP of JWs in the UK POLICY document, which is similar to the original one, represents the CSP of JWs in the UK – and not of the WTB&TS of Britain’s CSP – because of legal liability. Otherwise, why would they make this change?