|
Post by johnfields on May 9, 2017 5:41:11 GMT -5
I recently discovered an elder (who shall remain un-named) apparently preparing to scam an elderly relative of mine who's in the Two by Twos. Nothing can be proven (so far), so the elder may be honest and simply very odd. But it doesn't look that way.
The elder in question is very close to the top brass in what we outsiders call the Two by Twos (I have proof of that).
This has caused me to really dig in to how the Two by Twos organise their finances.
Most organisations in their position would register a charity, but the Two by Twos don't do that. Instead, it seems collected donations, money left in wills, and money left by workers going into "the work" are ultimately given to selected elders for safekeeping. But this is of course an invitation to fraud for bad apples.
I'm particularly wondering whether the Two by Twos pay Capital Acquisition Tax (CAT) in the Republic of Ireland. I suspect not. But if they don't, they would then need to launder their money in order to prevent enquiry by tax offices, wouldn't they?
Interestingly, money donated in the Republic of Ireland (subject to CAT) only has to be driven across the border (illegally) to Northern Ireland, where (since the UK has no tax on gifts) it can be claimed to be not subject to tax.
If anyone has any stories to share, or insight into this, I'd be very grateful to hear about it.
What really "gets" me is that it's apparently not possible to get any sort of clear explanation from any senior members of the "Truth". This elder, when questioned in any way at all, simply becomes extremely angry, and has lied repeatedly to this elderly lady's relatives. I now understand that I will get short shrift from workers in general on the matter -- those who understand anything of the group's finances, especially.
This and various other factors (almost too numerous to mention, and I don't want to break confidentiality) make me think that, at least in the UK and Ireland, the group is has some disturbing secrets to hide regarding their finances.
I notice a common response to questions of this sort is to suggest that any faith has bad apples and things they cover up. However, nearly every other significant faith has official bodies registered that can be held accountable and will usually respond to polite questions in an open manner. Most faiths, in fact, have public accounts.
My intention is absolutely not to stop people worshipping God in their homes, but it does seem to me as though the Two by Two upper echelons have, either deliberately or inadvertently, created an situation in which fraud and financial abuse is able to flourish.
I am wondering if they have an "ends justify the means" mentality. Viewing themselves as the only true Christians, upper-echelon Two by Twos may regard payment of tax as unnecessary, ignoring Jesus's instructions to "Render unto Caeser ....".
But if so, how far do they go with it? Is taking money illegally from deceased or mentally incapacitated Two by Twos then justified, for example?
Update: I've received a lot of very helpful advice and made many contacts now. One man has been particularly helpful and insightful, but I won't say who just in case he wishes not to be referred to here or in case I risk making my opinion appear to be his when it might not be. Many others have offered advice and help, including some who themselves have suffered mistreatment (sometimes of a truly hideous nature) by 2x2 workers or elders.
It seems that in the UK (and I think Ireland), professing women were frequently discouraged from having much to do with men in the past. It was for this reason that my mother in fact "rebelled" and married my father, before going back to the meetings later on, convinced (until recently) that she had to attend meetings in order to be right with God.
There are more women than men in the 2x2s anyway, so in the UK there were and are a lot of elderly spinsters and widows. Elders have been encouraged to look after these women, which has often meant getting involved with them financially. So in the UK, it's "normal" for an elder to be financially involved with widows in some sort of a way.
But then elders sometimes end up living in a mental bubble in which their sense of morality derives from the approval of senior workers and workers in general, and senior workers noticeably approve more when you're funnelling money into "the work". Non-professing people of course tend to be seen as lost souls, and lying to them for the sake of the Kingdom doesn't count as lying at all in the minds of some professing people.
So this may have led to a number of cases of fraud involving wills, joint bank accounts and power of attorney, with elders seeing themselves as honest and as doing their duty, even when from a normal moral point of view, and sometimes an actual legal point of view, they are quite crooked. In other cases, elders have doubtless conscientiously performed what they see as their duty, compassionately and legally.
|
|
|
Post by iamsaved on May 9, 2017 7:13:30 GMT -5
Don't trust any of them, the two by twos are out for their own agenda! I'm from ireland and the head workers here covered up child abuse and other issues. They preach a lot of auld sh-e from the platform about what to wear, and what the friends can do. Iv never heard them warn the friends that they may be letting peado workers into their homes! Scum the lot of them! That's my rant for the day!
|
|
|
Post by LITTLEPADDY on May 9, 2017 9:08:28 GMT -5
In my time as a member of the 2x2's the workers asked that money not be willed to them as it would not be a living offering. I know of people moving to smaller homes so they could give the money to the workers. Encouraged to do so ? I also know of a widow of a wealthy man who left his wife penniless except for a small roof over her head and non 2x2's had to support her for years Charity is Love Where is this Love if it leaves a widow without a dime Maybe things have changed
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on May 11, 2017 15:23:13 GMT -5
I don't think they've changed, Littlepaddy. In fact, this sounds rather familiar. I wish I could pin down something solid, because if people are able to be persuaded to move to a smaller home and give more money to workers, and they have full mental capacity, that's their own "free" decision in legal terms. But I'm moderately certain that things are going on that are downright illegal. If they are, they need stopping. If not, then fine, people are doing things of their own volition in the eyes of the law. They might just really like workers a lot, and that's up to them.
You'll likely notice that there was a somewhat wealthy elder (owned a lot of land or property) hovering around in the background in these cases, I'm guessing.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 11, 2017 15:58:12 GMT -5
These financial transactions involving buying/selling of real property are undoubtedly legal, because the state requires that all such transactions be registered for tax and inheritance purposes. As far as the law goes, it's not normally illegal for any individuals to buy and sell their property as they please. Those irregularities are all investigated by the state.
What is not investigated by the state are transactions made under duress or theft. They will never be investigated or prosecuted unless the INDIVIDUAL who has involuntarily taken hurt from such a transaction files a complaint with legal authorities, and then will be required to PROVE the criminality of the transaction. Otherwise, the law treats all adults as taking full responsibility for all these kinds of interactions they have with anyone else.
In any case, NO ONE gets to take anyone else's financial complaints to the law to stop it. Legally, it's no one else's business.
On the other hand, far too many people are more interested in minding other people's business than they are in avoiding abusing them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2017 17:09:43 GMT -5
Yes, and this thread is a very good example of minding other people's business by gossip.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 11, 2017 18:26:28 GMT -5
Yes, and this thread is a very good example of minding other people's business by gossip. The problem with your complaint is that, whether it's prosecutable or not, it doesn't mean it's not true or not moral.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2017 12:45:06 GMT -5
No transparency...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2017 14:33:50 GMT -5
Yes, and this thread is a very good example of minding other people's business by gossip. The problem with your complaint is that, whether it's prosecutable or not, it doesn't mean it's not true or not moral. I have made no complaint, nor have I speculated on whether anything was true or moral. I was merely pointing out an example of minding other people's business by gossip, rumour mongering and speculation.
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on May 13, 2017 14:57:13 GMT -5
From what I've read, the Two by Twos in Australia and the USA are quite different to the ones in the UK and the Republic of Ireland, and I think this gives rise to a lot of misunderstanding. It sounds like outside of the UK and Ireland, it's almost a different religion altogether. Far more women are able to get away with not wearing hair in buns, etc, people often have TVs, comparatively transparent financial structures have often been put in place.
The UK, on the other hand (and Ireland sounds to be somewhat similar) is a different kettle of fish. The financial transparency here appears to be zero, TVs are not tolerated, etc.
Australia and the USA have produced a number of criminal convictions of workers and elders, for activity that was allowed to take place within the structure of the church. In Ireland, only one worker has been convicted of child abuse, and in the UK, none. This could of course reflect a much greater moral probity in the UK, or could simply reflect the much smaller number of sect members in the UK. But I notice that the "friends" in the UK are generally very extreme in batting away any suggestion of anything wrong in the church, and the many of the people I've spoken to in the UK and Ireland in connection with the Two by Twos (formers members) have come out with their own personal horror stories.
If the Irish and UK Two by Twos have nothing to hide with regard to their finances, they act awfully like people who've got a lot to hide. If there is no dishonesty, the overseers are making a terrible mistake here, in my opinion. By putting their finances on a clear footing, they could avoid a tremendous amount of speculation (and save me an awful lot of time and worry!)
Until fairly recent events compelled me to try to understand the behaviour of a particular elder, I was very content to let the Two by Twos organise their finances however they wish. Unfortunately now this has become my business, since it has impacted on at least one of my relatives in a rather disturbing manner.
It really is in the interest of the "friends" to become more open and to question senior workers; by their honesty and openness, and willingness to show that nothing is wrong in the UK and Ireland in their sect, they may well stave off what appears to be a steady and accelerating fall in the number of friends in the UK and Ireland.
I actually have phone recordings of a senior worker saying that there may be more important things to spend money on than charity, such as "spreading the gospel". In other words, give money to workers, not starving people. Another recording I have nicely illustrates what I would consider to be a wealthy elder's rather unpleasant attitude to others. In the UK, it is legal to record your own conversations without notifying the person you're talking to. Were I to play them to a third party, they would be within their rights to sue me for civil damages. But somehow I don't think they'd do that, since it would publicise their own words, which few people in possession of a conscience would find pleasant to listen to.
I notice that when the UK overseer apparently sent out an email or letter, he gave his c/o address as a property worth half a million UK pounds. But at the same time, workers are constantly given money by people who have very little to spare; far more money, in total, than most workers spend on themselves or that you'd think would be needed to cover the cost of hall rentals, etc. This money clearly has to go somewhere.
If an overseer has all his needs catered to and stays in expensive properties and is driven around in nice cars and so on, and has access to large bank accounts that are not held in his name but are spent at his discretion, is that overseer a humble and poor follower of Jesus, following Jesus' instructions to "give to those who ask" and for people who have two coats to give one to someone who doesn't?
It seems as though wealthy elders can behave even in ways that might trouble the conscience of the average person, while the rank-and-file "friends" over here are expected to adhere to extremely strict standards and react passive-aggressively, or aggressively, to any suggestion of wrongdoing. That being so, what abuse of various kinds I now know about, would seem likely to be the tip of an iceberg.
This reflects very badly on the many kind and good people who attend "the meetings" (including many or most workers), but who never question senior workers in any serious manner, and generally look the other way when they see something that is not as it should be.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 13, 2017 17:25:57 GMT -5
The problem with your complaint is that, whether it's prosecutable or not, it doesn't mean it's not true or not moral. I have made no complaint, nor have I speculated on whether anything was true or moral. I was merely pointing out an example of minding other people's business by gossip, rumour mongering and speculation. Then whose business is it how people in Muslim communities in London protect each other while they're sleeping? My point is that 2x2's (and certainly most other religions) cry foul when their system is criticized, but care not a wit to know why other people have to do unsettling things for their very welfare.
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on May 18, 2017 13:18:59 GMT -5
What particularly interests me is the situation in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Because here, nothing seems to be registered, and the "friends" seem to be unaware of the large bank accounts, high council meetings in expensive tax havens (Luxembourg and most recently Geneva), etc.
I can well imagine that the 2x2s might be evading Irish capital gains tax. If so, they will have a system in place for hiding that (money laundering) and then once you've got that system, unscrupulous elders can send money obtained by illegal means through that system, currying favour with the overseers. Yes, this is speculation, but I've seen enough coincidences personally now to think it's time for them to come clean if they're not up to money laundering.
If they don't, it's only a matter of time before leaked information fully exposes them. We've already had the Fonseca leak.
In theory, purchases of property or land are all above-board and traceable. In practice, not. Purchasing land or property with cash is a common way of "placing" illegal money into the financial system. The purchase of course does not need to be official. The original owner of the land might then oddly decide to make a gift of his or her land to some trust or individual. Years may even pass between the black economy "purchase" and the donation.
In terms of the amount of laundered money passing through a country, the UK is actually among the most corrupt in the entire world.
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on May 20, 2017 17:19:05 GMT -5
Thanks Ross, this was very interesting, and sort of confirms the impression I've gained elsewhere, that the 2x2s in the UK and Ireland are a lot more controlling than elsewhere. They tend to like to hurry off after meetings, feeling that it's wrong to socialise when the purpose of meeting was to worship. Which is quite odd really.
I wonder who the workers were --- I might well have met them. But I don't think we can mention names on this board anyway? I don't think many young people are professing here these days. The same thought has occurred to me in a different way, regarding wealthy professing folk. The UK 2x2s will be more desperate for cash as their numbers decline. But also it makes sense that the influence of wealthy elders would increase at the same time. A sad business, because many 2x2s themselves are very nice people.
|
|
|
Post by toparrow on May 29, 2017 12:06:21 GMT -5
Hi Johnfields I have challenged these people time and again.In 1980 they relived a relative of mine of £7000 she had relatives who could have made good use of the cash. They never reply to my letters they know who I am when I post on here.They a bunch of cheap crooks . Initials of people who hold money for them Mr T Ma from Sussex and Mr W Po from Oxon and Mr M Po Chieveley Berks. Go on gentlemen deny it on here. You Mr Ben Crompton and Mr David Delaney think people are soft in the head people are getting wise to you they are a more worldly breed now Come on Ben and David I am waiting for you to contact me no need to be afraid I will listen to your many excuses.
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on May 29, 2017 16:30:58 GMT -5
Hi Johnfields I have challenged these people time and again.In 1980 they relived a relative of mine of £7000 she had relatives who could have made good use of the cash. They never reply to my letters they know who I am when I post on here.They a bunch of cheap crooks . Initials of people who hold money for them Mr T Ma from Sussex and Mr W Po from Oxon and Mr M Po Chieveley Berks. Go on gentlemen deny it on here. You Mr Ben Crompton and Mr David Delaney think people are soft in the head people are getting wise to you they are a more worldly breed now Come on Ben and David I am waiting for you to contact me no need to be afraid I will listen to your many excuses. Oh no, not hard to guess who some of these people are. I've recently discovered another elder who has apparently engaged in criminal fraud, and I will assist in taking that case to court. I can't say anything about it yet, but I will, once the man has either been charged or else it turns out that, contrary to what appear to be the simple facts of the matter, he turns out to be innocent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 10:16:47 GMT -5
Hi Johnfields I have challenged these people time and again.In 1980 they relived a relative of mine of £7000 she had relatives who could have made good use of the cash. They never reply to my letters they know who I am when I post on here.They a bunch of cheap crooks . Initials of people who hold money for them Mr T Ma from Sussex and Mr W Po from Oxon and Mr M Po Chieveley Berks. Go on gentlemen deny it on here. You Mr Ben Crompton and Mr David Delaney think people are soft in the head people are getting wise to you they are a more worldly breed now Come on Ben and David I am waiting for you to contact me no need to be afraid I will listen to your many excuses. Presumably the £7000 was left to the work in your relative's will? Re the 3 people you mention who hold the English money, how confident are you that you are correct? Are you 100% confident you have them all correct? Or do you have a different degree of certainty regarding each of them?
|
|
|
Post by toparrow on May 30, 2017 12:16:04 GMT -5
Yes left to a named male worker. I will have to contact a person who still has copy of will for exact wording will post again with that information.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 12:22:24 GMT -5
Interesting. I wasn't aware that money in wills was left to a named individual. I always imagined that it was in some way left to the church (with perhaps a named person used as a contact point). I would be interested, if you did get hold of the exact wording used - not that I have any immediate plans to change my will !!
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on May 30, 2017 14:09:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by continuer on May 30, 2017 15:26:19 GMT -5
God requires a "living offering" rather than our money after we are dead. I have never agreed with the concept of leaving money to the work - that is just giving what we had no use for ourselves. What we give in lifetime is a different matter entirely especially if it costs us something (like the widow's mites). This is just a personal view, of course ...
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 30, 2017 15:48:11 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what a will is for and isn't it their right to leave it to whom ever they want? I know a lot of money went to the workers from my parents and they definitely got a substantial amount left to them in their will. I never tried to challenge that because it was their money they worked hard for and it was their wishes it go to the workers. Sure I probably could have used it, who couldn't, but it was theirs to do with as they wished. I think that's the way of it. If the person was coerced to change their will when they were not deemed capable of making that decision then that's another matter of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 16:07:01 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what a will is for and isn't it their right to leave it to whom ever they want? I know a lot of money went to the workers from my parents and they definitely got a substantial amount left to them in their will. I never tried to challenge that because it was their money they worked hard for and it was their wishes it go to the workers. Sure I probably could have used it, who couldn't, but it was theirs to do with as they wished. I think that's the way of it. If the person was coerced to change their will when they were not deemed capable of making that decision then that's another matter of course. Thank you snow, very fair and honest comment.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 30, 2017 16:07:17 GMT -5
In all fairness, such transactions between and among individuals are not normally anyone else's business -- as are transactions involving corporations with shareholders, etc. Unless one dismantles the basic tenets of the 2x2 worker's beliefs, this kind of private transactions aren't going to changed. I would guess that the workers would be disturbed if anyone even questioned the "necessity" for this kind of dealing.
|
|
|
Post by continuer on May 30, 2017 16:09:33 GMT -5
It is absolutely correct that a person may leave money in their will to any person they choose so long as they were of sound mind when the will was made and there was no coercion. I remember years ago the (then) overseer in the UK exhorting people at convention not to leave money to the work in their wills. That is not the thinking here today though.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 30, 2017 16:22:47 GMT -5
Interesting. I wasn't aware that money in wills was left to a named individual. I always imagined that it was in some way left to the church (with perhaps a named person used as a contact point). I would be interested, if you did get hold of the exact wording used - not that I have any immediate plans to change my will !! Welcome @quaffle. We are aware of the practice in wills of elderly Friends of naming the head worker as beneficiary. Sometimes also naming his relatives. Obviously these people all hold personal bank accounts.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 30, 2017 16:32:39 GMT -5
It is absolutely correct that a person may leave money in their will to any person they choose so long as they were of sound mind when the will was made and there was no coercion. I remember years ago the (then) overseer in the UK exhorting people at convention not to leave money to the work in their wills. That is not the thinking here today though. No it is not. In some cases, vast wealth must be being accumulated, unless there is some charitable work going on behind the scenes. There are plenty of very needy Friends including elderly living desperately frugally of necessity. We have no evidence what the legacies are being used for, so the assumption can only be wealth accumulation by individuals and their relatives. Two questions come to mind regarding this current practice. 1. Why does a church like the F&W need so much accumulated wealth (apart from conventions, there are no properties to upkeep)? 2. Scripturally (e.g. Paul's collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem) should there not be open and transparent accountability?
|
|
|
Post by continuer on May 30, 2017 17:00:00 GMT -5
In the majority of other churches, there is, of course, open and transparent accountability. In the F&W fellowship, so much seems to be done under the cover of darkness which is at best unfortunate and at worst, a disgrace.
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on May 30, 2017 19:45:45 GMT -5
Since posting this, I've uncovered what appears to be straightforward criminal fraud by an elder with regard to a will. I expect that to result in police action quite soon, or a court case if not. I'm assisting the relatives in bringing the elder to justice. I think elders and workers are widely in the habit of extracting what money they can from people while people are still alive (having lied to them over when their faith actually began), but frequently stoop to various illegal tactics to scrape money or land or other assets from wills when "necessary". I can't yet report on the outcomes of ongoing investigations of either of the cases I'm currently examining, but I hope that within a few months I'll be able to state their conclusion, and I fully expect to uncover further such cases, now that I'm beginning to know what to look for and how to deal with it when I find it. If it turns out these are isolated incidents then great, but my current feeling is that they are not.
This is not to tar all elders with the same brush, but currently it appears to me that the percentage who have engaged in illegal acts is surprisingly high. They have relied on people simply not knowing how to obtain the official copies of wills, and not knowing what red flags to look out for.
Newspapers have also reported on various illegal and tragic occurrences within the 2x2s without ever realising that they were separately reporting on events that occurred within the same sect. So part of what I intend to do will be to assist newspapers in joining the dots on that. Only then can overseers be held responsible for actions that happened on account of situations that they were instrumental in overseeing and creating.
|
|