'Must Reads' for all you PBCC people visiting wikipeebia

Forum rules
Please note: This forum allows the use of anonymous usernames and is a public forum. This means that there probably are members of the PBCC active in the forums. They may try to befriend you with the intention of gathering information that should not get out into the public domain. Be very careful what you say to persons that you do not know. Bear in mind too, that use of a username on another site or forum may not necessarily be the same person on WP with the same username. There have also been actions of copying what is said here to use elsewhere. This is not allowed. Please read the forum rules properly. Full forum rules can be found at http://wikipeebia.com/forum
twotimothytwo
Posts: 1682
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:16 pm

Re: 'Must Reads' for all you PBCC people visiting wikipeebia

Post by twotimothytwo » Tue May 14, 2019 5:43 pm

Possibly Simon, but also in the interests of accuracy it's Kirkpatrick, not Kilpatrick! :-)

twotimothytwo
Posts: 1682
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:16 pm

Re: 'Must Reads' for all you PBCC people visiting wikipeebia

Post by twotimothytwo » Thu May 16, 2019 10:36 pm

Along with the 'must reads' are 'must watches'. Here we have witness to Exclusive Brethren priests having sex with animals, whilst sitting in judgement on others for using radios, wearing shorts etc.

The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church
'as fine a combination of sanctimony and vindictiveness as you're ever likely to see'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1tjOED ... nxbvxXeQ2c

Scroll through to 31.50

Truly shocking.

twotimothytwo
Posts: 1682
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:16 pm

Re: 'Must Reads' for all you PBCC people visiting wikipeebia

Post by twotimothytwo » Sun May 19, 2019 9:56 am

MALCOLM AND OTHERS AND TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LTD - 1994-068

https://bsa.govt.nz/decisions/all-decis ... -1994-068/

EXCLUSIVE BRETHREN CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP AND TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LTD - 1994-059

https://bsa.govt.nz/decisions/all-decis ... -1994-059/

POWELL AND CANWEST TVWORKS LTD - 2005-125

https://bsa.govt.nz/decisions/all-decis ... -2005-125/

Garth Christie, 'we welcome scrutiny'.

twotimothytwo
Posts: 1682
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:16 pm

Re: 'Must Reads' for all you PBCC people visiting wikipeebia

Post by twotimothytwo » Sun May 19, 2019 4:20 pm

A tribunal has found that a County Antrim firm discriminated against an employee because he was not a member of the Brethren religious community.

Gavin Connolly, 30, from Newtownabbey, took a case against printing and merchandising company Oakdene Services.

The Fair Employment Tribunal found the firm unlawfully discriminated against him on grounds of religious belief and that he had been unfairly dismissed.

Mr Connolly was awarded £15,618 compensation.

He joined Oakdene Services in August 2010 and worked in sales and marketing.

Throughout his employment he believed that employees who were members of the Brethren community were treated more favourably.

Mr Connolly was told in June 2012 that he had been selected for possible redundancy and, following an unsuccessful grievance procedure and a period of sick leave, he resigned his post in August of that year.

The tribunal held that Mr Connolly's selection for redundancy in June 2012 was an act of religious discrimination and also that the decision, together with the way his grievance procedure was handled, amounted to constructive and unfair dismissal.

Company cars and pay rises
The tribunal also held that during his employment Mr Connolly had been subjected to religious discrimination through Brethren employees being given better treatment in the provision of "tangible" benefits such as company cars, pay rises and mobile phones.

It also found they were differences in "intangible issues" such as Brethren employees going on separate lunch breaks, having out-of hours meetings on company premises and receiving motivational emails not sent to other staff.

In reaching their decision the tribunal said: "It is clear to us that there was very much a culture of 'sheep and goats'.

"We were left with the clear impression from the respondent's witnesses that they saw it as desirable and preferable to be Brethren and, by implication, undesirable not to be Brethren."

Mr Connolly, whose case was backed by the Equality Commission, said: "I'm just glad the process is over and I can get on with my life.

"It has been a very stressful time but ultimately what matters to me is the recognition that I was treated unfairly at work."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-23504602

charles
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:11 pm

Re: 'Must Reads' for all you PBCC people visiting wikipeebia

Post by charles » Mon May 20, 2019 7:02 pm

I often wonder whether the child at the centre of this case stayed with his father, or whether he returned to the EBs when he was older. This was reported in the national press when it occurred nearly 27 years ago. I remember the aunt referred to; she was a good person who would help anyone. This is the summary of the case taking up two pages; the whole legal report runs to 17 pages.

RE R (A MINOR) (RESIDENCE: RELIGION) Court of Appeal Purchas and Balcombe LJJ 4 Sept 1992

The boy, now aged nearly 10, was born to a father who was a member of the Exclusive Brethren. There was no flexibility or leniency shown to an adult who offended against the concepts and doctrines of the fellowship. Two penalties were imposed: the first was that of being 'shut up', which was a temporary exclusion from the fellowship which could be swiftly removed on admission of fault and repentance. The second and more serious penalty was to be 'withdrawn from', which meant absolute ostracism from the fellowship including the member's own immediate family.

The father was withdrawn from after offending certain tenets of the fellowship. He then married a woman outside the fellowship and about 5 years after the birth of the boy concerned, the mother died of cancer. Before her demise, the family was received into the fellowship from which the father obtained employment. Following reprehensible conduct involving the harassment of a woman who had rejected his proposal of marriage, the father was withdrawn from for a second time.

Attempts were made by members of the fellowship to obtain the father's voluntary consent to their care of the child. The father signed a document agreeing to that effect, but adding that if the child should wish to return to him at any time, he should be allowed to do so. On the following day, he was told officially that he had been withdrawn from. On being withdrawn from the community, the father had little or no contact with the child. The sect members applied for a residence order, leave having been obtained. The father lodged his answer and applied for the return of and contact with his child. An order was made providing for the father to have both visiting and staying contact.

Attempts by the father for contact failed and he had to return to court on more than one occasion. The sect members, whilst making no effort to assist, indulged in actions calculated to have an effect on the child 's conscience and split his emotions by deliberately assembling at the school and at the court for the handovers. The matter was resolved by an order providing for the boy to stay with his father for a fortnight, during which period the court welfare officer was able to make an impartial observation of the boy with his father. The report gave a favourable impression of the warm and positive relationship between father and son. Following harassment by members of the fellowship in various forms, the father moved to another address with his son.

The judge found, inter alia, that during the struggle for possession, the boy had suffered considerable harm, that his emotional needs were clearly a matter of great concern and that although he held a deep and sincere conviction that he wished to stay within the disciplines and tenets of the fellowship, he also expressed the wish to be with his father. There were two courses open to the judge: either to commit the boy to a life within the fellowship, in which case he would be cut off from his father, or to rehabilitate the child with his father outside the fellowship. There was no middle course.

After a full hearing, the judge made a residence order in favour of the father providing: (1) that the child should live with him; and (2) that upon the aunt's undertaking not to speak or communicate with the child in any way in relation to religious or spiritual matters or make any reference to the Exclusive Brethren as a religious group, that he should visit the aunt initially under the supervision of the court welfare service, later without supervision and finally for staying access. A second order provided for a local authority officer to be made available to advise, assist and, where appropriate, befriend both the father and the child and for the child to be examined by a professional and to receive treatment, where appropriate, concerning his emotional needs. No order was made on the applications of the sect members for contact and residence. They and the aunt now appealed.

Held - dismissing the appeal -

(1) It was no part of the judicial function to judge or to comment upon the beliefs, tenets, doctrines or rules of any particular section of society, provided that those were legally and socially acceptable and sincerely held. The only relevance of the beliefs and doctrines of a particular group of Christians was the effect those beliefs and doctrines had had and would have on the child concerned. It followed that the impact of the beliefs, tenets, doctrines and rules of that society upon a child's future welfare must be one of the relevant circumstances to be taken into account when applying provisions of S 1 of the Children Act 1989. The provisions of that section did not alter in their impact from one case to another and they were to be applied in accordance with the generally accepted standards of society, bearing in mind that the paramount objective of the exercise was promoting the child's welfare, not only in the immediate but also in the medium and long-term future during his or her minority.

(2) The task of the judge was not to assess the depth of the child's convictions on religious and social matters or his desire to continue life within the fellowship. The fact that the convictions existed was one of the features which he had to take into account when considering the expressed views and feelings of the child which were not paramount considerations per se.

(3) A judge's decision whether or not personally to interview a child was above all a question for the exercise of a judicial discretion. The judge's decision not to interview the child could not be criticised, especially as he was fully aware of the strong views held by the child as revealed in the welfare officer's report.

(4) On the facts, the judgement was one of discretion and assessment after hearing all the evidence. It was a decision which was plainly right, the judge having completely satisfied himself that it was in the child's best interests to be with his father and provided the father and son received assistance and treatment in the form of a family assistance order from the social services to help them cope with the change in their lives. The appellate court would not therefore interfere.

I found this part of the report interesting referring to the brethren couple who had been looking after the child:

There is one other matter to take into account in considering Mr and Mrs XX's capabilities, and that is, that they both appear to lack any degree of charity towards YY or his father. They have made no effort to make the whole series of incidents [and I interpose those are the incidents over the long history of the failed attempts at access in accordance with the court order] which have occurred since this case began less traumatic for this small boy, who must have suffered considerable harm during the struggle for possession. I understand that the Brethren can have no compromise in their doctrine in so far as adults are concerned, but not when it comes to children as young as YY. They could have ensured that the handovers ordered by the court took place smoothly without any distress to YY, but instead they deliberately assembled at the school and at the court. knowing that this would have an effect on the poor child's conscience and split his emotions in two. This showed a lack of love towards this child that I found incomprehensible. [The father] may have been withdrawn from by the brethren, but he showed much more love and concern for YY's feelings than anyone else in this case. In considering their actions and Mr and Mrs XX's evidence that 'It is of great concern if a child leaves the Brethren,' and in the evidence of concern in these sort of cases abroad, one can easily get the impression that they are more concerned with the membership than the individual child himself'.

What the EBs don't appear to realise is that taking a child away from parents is damaging to the child.

twotimothytwo
Posts: 1682
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:16 pm

Re: 'Must Reads' for all you PBCC people visiting wikipeebia

Post by twotimothytwo » Mon May 20, 2019 9:50 pm

Some children were taken away from their own parents, only to be abused by their 'foster EB' parents.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... pened.html
Sect man jailed for sex abuse of girl
David Marr and Geesche Jacobsen
February 17, 2007

THE sentencing of Lindsay Ronald Jensen yesterday for abusing a young girl in Albury brings almost to an end a saga of squalor and betrayal that has embroiled the religious sect the Exclusive Brethren and its leadership for four years.

Jensen, 49, an imposing man nearly two metres tall, was sentenced to five years’ jail on four counts of indecent assault and one of sexual intercourse without consent. Judge Gay Murrell found the offences occurred when Jensen was in a position of trust and responsible for the girl’s welfare. She set a non-parole period of three years.

The girl was nine when the assaults took place in 2002. Her parents were estranged, and according to the iron rules of the Brethren she had little contact with her father. But she was often in close contact that year with Jensen, a leading member of the Brethren in the city.

Judge Murrell found the relationship between the child and her abuser “was brought about because of membership of the church”. But the sect did nothing effective when the child complained about Jensen in early 2003. Some months later the child was quizzed by two senior women in the Albury congregation, but still no action was taken.

The Brethren’s new spokesman, Tony McCorkell, told the Herald that although the women were not “overly convinced” by the accusations, local sect leaders tried to dissuade Jensen from attending board meetings at the Brethren school because they thought him “loose-moralled” and feared “maybe this could be true”.

Decisive action was finally taken by non-Brethren teachers at the sect’s school when Jensen’s presence there one day in mid-August 2003 provoked another young girl to storm out calling: “You touched me up. I’m not going to be here at the school while you’re here.” Mr McCorkell said teachers reported the incident to the NSW Department of Community Services.

Mr McCorkell said it was only at this point that the world leader of the church, Bruce Hales – a Sydney businessman known to the faithful as the Elect Vessel and the Man of God – learnt what was happening in Albury. “I can confirm – and I believe without a shadow of a doubt – Bruce Hales didn’t even know about the situation, according to him, until it had already been reported to DOCS.”

Jensen was excluded from the day-to-day life of the church, but his exile lasted only four months. “There is a whole heap of bitching and moaning and fighting and carrying on in Albury church,” Mr McCorkell said. “Jensen’s wife is running around saying to people ‘he’s been excommunicated and he hasn’t even been arrested yet. This is outrageous. This is slanderous’ … So there’s a lot of pressure on the church to restore him back into the church. So that’s what happens.”

The young girl went to Albury police the next day. Jensen was expelled from the cult after his arrest.

The Brethren are in the process of expelling his wife, Jenny, and all his children. Mrs Jensen told the District Court yesterday that she had been shunned by the sect.

In a statement issued yesterday, the Brethren extended their sympathy to the victim and her family. “The church shares the community’s revulsion of sexual abuse and seeks to do whatever it can to prevent it from occurring and to ensure if further instances occur they are reported to the authorities without delay.”
https://aussiesexoffenders.wordpress.co ... 11/page/2/

twotimothytwo
Posts: 1682
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:16 pm

Re: 'Must Reads' for all you PBCC people visiting wikipeebia

Post by twotimothytwo » Tue May 21, 2019 10:23 pm

So David Bill of Whangerei who 'died in his bath', actually committed suicide?

How many more cover ups?

Jay Fowler of Tenambit? 3 days search to find someone who said they needed a comfort break?

Another indictment of a system that's more criminal then Christian?

twotimothytwo
Posts: 1682
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:16 pm

Re: 'Must Reads' for all you PBCC people visiting wikipeebia

Post by twotimothytwo » Wed May 22, 2019 7:27 am

Exclusive Brethren Settle Out of Court
The
thinking and actions of some religious groups and their leaders can often
be difficult to fathom. The Exclusive Brethren and the dictates and
actions of its leadership can be particularly peculiar and hard to follow.

In October 1990 our Director met with two
Western Australian leaders who wanted to discuss what they regarded as
unfair comments about their movement in an article we had published in
TACL of June 1990. They were nice men and polite in their dealings with
the director (though later correspondence became more abrupt).

They had itemised our article in writing
and provided their corrective comments next to each item they were
concerned about. However, as these were discussed one by one, it turned
out that almost every time something was declared to be untrue, it was
more a matter of splitting hairs over word meanings. It was more a ’word
game’ than factual corrections of incorrect statements on our part. For
example, we had reported that one person had been disciplined for having a
dinghy. That was claimed to be untrue. He had been disciplined for
disobeying counsel from others who had advised against having a
recreational fishing boat — because this was not wise, it would lead to
unwise use of God’s time (not to be used for pleasure or recreational
activities) and would lead to unacceptably playing sport with God’s
creatures.

https://christianfaith.com/lookout/excl ... t-of-court

Post Reply