|
Post by johnfields on Jun 18, 2017 4:12:17 GMT -5
Would this Mr. Snow be the same Mr. Snow who when a certain Australian worker started imploring people to cooperate with the authorities in exposing child abuse in the 2x2s, flew halfway across the world from Europe to Australia to try to [removed unsubstantiated allegation]? I don't know the truth of all you have written in the rest of your post about what elders are or aren't doing where you are. But I do know what happened in regard to what you are suggesting in this sentence. I know your statement/suggestion is incorrect on a number of counts and should never have been written here due to its inaccuracy. Sadly, when you make incorrect comments like this (on the one thing I do know about) , it leads me to distrust the rest of what you write. I have no personal knowledge of what happened with Thompson and Snow, and am just going off what I have read (perhaps on Brad Lewis's site, I'm not sure). Others have said there was more to it, and Thompson was complaining about a lot of things. But it does seem as though, from what I can gather, even though Thompson gave a sermon that the "Truth" has an extreme need of, there were those that wanted him out of the work and Graham Snow was one of them, making a special trip to talk to Graham Thompson. In the end I believe he left of his own accord. I'd be interested in any information you have about it, and on what points my slightlly flippant statement is incorrect --- as I say, all I know of it is what I've read or people have told me, and I've read the transcript of Graham Thompson's sermon/testimony, which I think it extremely good. If I've maligned Graham Snow there, I'd be happy with your correction.
|
|
|
Post by toparrow on Jun 18, 2017 5:01:13 GMT -5
Ben Crompton his name keeps appearing. He never ever faces an issue head on . I am still waiting for a reply to legitimate questions. Come on Ben you know me even when I post on here . I await your call.
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on Jun 18, 2017 7:05:22 GMT -5
Probably is the same Mr Snow you are both referring to. He, from memory if I'm correct is a tall broad man of 70+ now) I am told made an undercutting reference to something TG said about Christmas in Ireland some years ago. I'm sure, like most workers, he can wear the hat to fit the occasion, but I did think he would have been anxious to rid the 2x2's of sex offenders, fraudsters and anyone whose actions could bring the 2x2's in to disrepute. But Money Talks. So he may have been afraid that the float would go down. A few grand might get you some info, or stop someone else from having their name blackened If I knew how a few grand could get me some info (something other than hearsay), I'd definitely fork out a few grand. I've already spent a few grand trying to figure out other weird things that I know of through personal connection. I don't want to judge Mr. Snow though, and if it's felt that I should delete my somewhat flippant comment about him, based purely on what I've read elsewhere, I'd be happy to do that. Although this particular matter is not really my business and not something I feel I could get to the bottom of, I would be curious about exactly why Mr. Snow flew over to Australia to talk with Graham Thompson, if that really did occur. For all I know he fullly supported Graham Thompson's sermon ( wingsfortruth.info/responding-to-csa/sermon-by-graham-thompson/ ) and had other issues with him.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Jun 18, 2017 11:50:16 GMT -5
Graham Thompson is in New Zealand so I'm wondering why you said Mr Snow flew to Australia to see him unless he was visiting there. Your link says New Zealand. I think Mr Snow was also originally from NZ. Correct me if I am wrong.
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on Jun 21, 2017 15:39:58 GMT -5
You're right -- I'm suffering from the problem of mentally remembering only that someone is from "down under". Someone else also mentioned that Graham Snow is also originally from "down under". Apologies for my ignorance there! I understand that Graham Snow was at the time an overseer or senior worker in Europe though, and allegedly flew to New Zealand (I nearly said Australia again!) to talk to Graham Thompson. I've got into repeating half-remembered hearsay with this though, so any clarification welcome. There is an entire thread on the matter, which I haven't yet read through.
I've removed my original remark, which I should have thought about properly before posting. Apologies to anyone who found that offensive. I have no real reason to think Snow is anything other than a decent man. I appreciate being pulled up when I imply unsubstantiated facts or repeat potentially damaging rumours. I also know even far less about the 2x2s outside of the UK and Ireland than I know about them here.
I think it's fair to say that I have speculated very heavily about the financial arrangements made by the 2x2s. No-one should take these speculations too seriously. What I have established definitely so far, are a small collection of weird facts relating to finance and property that I'm struggling to explain, coupled with a whole bunch of things told to me by other people, many of which I cannot repeat, which seem to bolster the idea that corruption of various types is rife in the 2x2s, among various people who occupy leadership positions. Whether this is something that starts at the top and makes its way down, or rather stems more from a lack of oversight coupled with too much trust and too much arrogance, I don't know.
It seems clear to me that in the UK and Ireland, the 2x2s have substantial amounts of money at their disposal, and this money is hidden from ordinary folk. Quite why, I don't know. I am working hard to try to substantiate or refute further rumours.
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on Jun 21, 2017 16:22:24 GMT -5
Ben Crompton his name keeps appearing. He never ever faces an issue head on . I am still waiting for a reply to legitimate questions. Come on Ben you know me even when I post on here . I await your call. You'll wait an extremely long time for that! If you're lucky, someone else might tell you that he doesn't want to talk to you.
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on Jun 21, 2017 19:00:48 GMT -5
Why are you 'breaking your neck' to contact Ben or any worker? You are making allegations of fraud /financial impropriety. That is a matter for police and the law to deal with. Do you mean me, or toparrow? I've given up trying to contact workers. I had some problems with an elder's odd handling of a relative's finances, but that's under investigation by the Office of the Public Guardian in the UK now. Then, after hearing a bunch of stories about similar goings-on, I examined the will of another relative and discovered what seemed on the face of it to be the theft of a car by the other local elder in a will that he had executed. That resulted in him getting a police visit, and I'm now searching for the registration of this car so that we can either determine him innocent or guilty. If guilty, he'll be prosecuted. I tried to contact workers because my relative has Alzheimer's and spends too much time alone. Social services feel a TV could help alleviate her anxiety and provide some mental stimulation. I wanted a senior worker to say to her "it's OK in your situation to have a TV if you want to". But it seems none of them can manage that. There was also one point at which some member of the 2x2s apparently scared her into not visiting her own niece. But she's got over that now and visits again. I wanted a senior worker to take a clear line on her visiting relatives at her own discretion too, but only the Irish overseer would do that, and only over the phone to me ... not to her. Ben apparently knows that this elder is under investigation, and yet says (to the Irish overseer, not to me) that TV is a matter for social services and the local elder. Another worker I contacted promised to phone me back, then sent back only a short text saying it's my relative's decision. But the point is that she's afraid to consider having a TV for fear of judgement by other 2x2s. If the 2x2s are going to make elderly people with Alzheimer's feel they can't have TVs and shouldn't visit non-professing relatives, they should jolly well visit them a lot themselves, instead of non-professing relatives mainly being the only ones who take the time. Rest assured I'll be gathering further evidence and reporting anything I find to the appropriate authorities, and after the treatment 2x2 members have dished out to me and all the hideous stories I've heard from others, I won't be restricting myself only to the two local elders either. I was willing to overlook the unpleasant childhood I had thanks in large part to the 2x2s, and the lies I was told back then, but now they've gone too far. This is a very cut down version of the whole saga, which I've posted elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on Jun 22, 2017 13:23:14 GMT -5
John fields You are very presently very active on the behalf of your elderly relative. Have you maintained a close life long relationship with her? What is the basis of your recent activity on her behalf? Are you holding lasting power of attorney for your elderly relative? In health and welfare? In property and financial affairs ? I know many older friends, they have never had TV in their home; they've appreciated the absence of it through life. It would be traumatic and an unpleasant intrusion for them to have a TV with all it's noise placed in their home in their old age. A change of channel and the too often violent, immodest, immoral images would flash across the screen. I'd wonder how knowledgeable or understanding the social services employee is of your relative and her life style? Some nice music yes; but all the junk that comes on TV? There is every possibility you are troubling rather comforting your aged relative with your agitating for a TV to be placed in her home. I was away from my home town for more than twenty years, and the last eight years, until I moved back home, I lived mostly outside the country. I moved back last year really out of concern for my mother's health. During all this time I'd really taken the view that OK, my relatives are nice but are involved with this close-knit weird religion, so I'd best leave them to it. I just visited them occasionally. I thought people in the faith would all be taking care of each other. When I got back I gradually discovered that in fact another relative of mine was quite lonely and anxious, and receiving very few visitors, and that appears to have been the case for some time. An elder had taken power of attorney for her, which initially I thought was wonderful, but then it turned out he'd turned her sole bank account into a joint account with himself. He also began pressuring her over her very modest spending, which panicked her, while transferring most of her pension into an online-only French-based savings account she would never have been able to check, even with someone else's help. This contravenes the code of practice for power of attorney in the UK, which is why his dealings with her are now being investigated by the UK's Office of the Public Guardian after I alerted them. My relative of her own accord I believe would enjoy having a TV, tuned permanently to, say, a natural history channel. She and her late husband (a former worker) always enjoyed watching TV occasionally at the houses of others. She is generally fascinated by TV news. I'm not agitating for a TV to be placed in her home; I was agitating for someone to reassure her that it is entirely her choice and she would not be judged for having one if she chose to. I want pressure of all kinds to be removed from her. But I've given up looking for workers or elders who would do that, since i can't find any, and in any case I feel like I'm trying to explain physics to a badger. I also wanted someone to reassure her that which relatives she visits with me is entirely her decision, and again not something she will be judged for by other human beings in her faith. There would be far less junk on whichever channel I tuned a TV to (she can't really use anything more complex that an on/off switch, due to Alzheimer's) than in the publications that the 2x2s round here apparently approve of, which I myself would not buy due to the amount of "junk" in them. The basis of my activity on her behalf is love for my relative, sympathy for her position, and shock at discovering the position she'd been left in. She's a lovely person, in herself non-judgemental and easy-going. I left my home area largely just to get away from the 2x2s, but now I wish I'd stood my ground and taken more of an interest in my relative's affairs rather than leaving this elder to it. Frankly if this elder hadn't moved here and taken things over, I think even the religion itself might not have taken quite the form that is has round here. This relative's husband by default would have been the local elder (since he was a former worker) and he was a very nice man who didn't have a TV but did like to watch one on occasion. For some reason people in the 2x2s often seem to really struggle with the idea that God only is fit to judge people, and not workers or other human beings. Among some I've spoken to, it's as if the bit of their brain where compassion should reside has been replaced by a judgemental attitude. Craig Fulton did appear to grasp what I was getting at, but was not willing to intervene in UK affairs. People outside of the 2x2s in general would not struggle to understand the quite simple request that I have made. All you need in order to grasp it is a little human warmth that is not tainted by a judgemental attitude. Craig said to me that his faith absolutely does not stand for keeping people away from the relatives, and that they have moved on from just telling people not to have TVs, since (as he said, paraphrasing) far worse things can be accessed on a smartphone these days than on TV -- which is a very good point. Even this elder's wife has remarked that they themselves have a computer. I feel like I keep explaining this over and over again. Somehow something that an ordinary person could grasp easily is something that requires long repeated explanations to members of the 2x2 faith. If you belong to a faith that does actually try to cut people off from relatives and then makes people feel that there's a list of ordinary things that they cannot do even when they have Alzheimer's, that's a faith that is destructive and vicious. Even many in the 2x2s in various parts of the world now see this for themselves. This elder has stated (even in front of my relative) that he regards her as a heavy burden, virtually a 24/7 job, which however is a burden he is happy to bear. He has also falsely claimed to me that in the event of him being audited, he would have to account for every penny she spends. This, together with this elder getting angry when I tried to insist upon her legal rights, is what initially aroused my suspicions, causing me to go to the police -- who recommended helping her check her bank statements and said that really I should have done that earlier. I do not regard her as any sort of burden. I regard this elder as frankly a burden.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2017 14:16:22 GMT -5
John fields You are very presently very active on the behalf of your elderly relative. Have you maintained a close life long relationship with her? What is the basis of your recent activity on her behalf? Are you holding lasting power of attorney for your elderly relative? In health and welfare? In property and financial affairs ? I know many older friends, they have never had TV in their home; they've appreciated the absence of it through life. It would be traumatic and an unpleasant intrusion for them to have a TV with all it's noise placed in their home in their old age. A change of channel and the too often violent, immodest, immoral images would flash across the screen. I'd wonder how knowledgeable or understanding the social services employee is of your relative and her life style? Some nice music yes; but all the junk that often flashes across a TV screen? There is every possibility you are troubling rather comforting your aged relative with your agitating for a TV to be placed in her home. If you've seen a television you will have noted two important switches. One is the OFF switch which removes not only violent, immodest and immoral images from the screen but all images from the screen. It is particularly useful when there are no programmes on that you wish to watch, or when going to bed. The other useful switch is the CHANGE CHANNEL switch, or button to be more precise. This is even more useful than the OFF switch. I mean if you ignore the OFF switch for long enough, modern televisions will eventually switch off themselves whereas no television will change channel by itself unless you have programmed it to. The CHANGE CHANNEL button is useful for ensuring that only those images you want appearing on your screen actually appear on the screen so if you don't want immodesty, violence or immorality then careful use of the CHANGE CHANNEL BUTTON can ensure that this is the case. And if you're not sure which programmes are likely to be suitable buying a copy of the Radio Times can help. And, of course in the unlikely event that you have chosen your programme carelessly and images of violence, immodesty or immorality do flash up on your screen, then a quick press of the CHANGE CHANNEL button (or indeed the OFF BUTTON) will remove them immediately. You won't even have to leave your seat. Of course instead of buying a television you could instead invest in an iPad. The advantage of the iPad is that you don't have to leave it in the living room when you retire for the evening. You can easily take it up to the bedroom. You can even take it up to other people's bedrooms if you are staying in other people's homes. You can even put a set of headphones on and no one will know what you're up to. The iPad will provide you with all that a television provides you with and more. Think of it as television plus. In addition to the violence, immodesty abd immorality that a television provides you with, you also get a whole lot more. There's online gambling for a start. Bet on anything you want. Horses, dogs, football. And all the music that you want on demand. Punk rock, heavy metal, heavy rock. It's all there. You can watch a full megadeath concert if you want. And films. You'll no longer need to sneak into the cinema after that as you can watch any film any time you want. PG, 12, 15 or 18. They're all there. And the radio of course. Any station you desire. And then there's the chat. You can pretty much chat to anyone anywhere about anything. You can even chat to ex 2x2s. And to 2x2 workers chatting anonymously. You can even come here and chat to me and talk about how the Christian God is phoney. There's even gay chat if that floats your boat. And then, of course, there's the porn. All freely available on demand. Straight porn, gay porn, lesbian. A mix of all three at the one time. And that's just the legal stuff. And of course the good thing about the iPad is that you don't have to have a worker's permission to own one. Nor do you need to put a worker in an awkward position by asking. The workers themselves have ipads although I'm told they never ever watch television on them. Or access or engage in any of those other things I've just mentioned. I'm sure this is true. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on Jun 22, 2017 15:42:41 GMT -5
John Fields That is very good that the UK's Office of the Public Guardian is investigating. Also very good that the law enforcement authorities/police are investigating your allegations of fraud/defalcation. The results of those investigations will determine how much is fact in the serious allegations you have made. You have done well in reporting it to the authorities who will take appropriate action once facts and reality have been determined. What I've told you is all fact. The investigation will check that he has not (yet) stolen from her. Of course it cannot check if he was planning to steal from her, which would be one reason for having a joint account with someone you've got power of attorney for. That's why Government guidelines in the UK say you should generally not do it, with possible exceptions in the case where you're married and have always had a joint account together -- but even then it's not recommended. Another reason would just be not caring or bothering to learn about the guidelines, and feeling that a joint account might somehow or other make things easier. The online-only bank account might have been a case of seeking a high interest rate. But this is to have overlooked fairly obvious ramifications. For one thing, if this elder had died before my relative and someone had submitted a death certificate to the bank, the bank account would have been frozen while the bank determined how much money in the account was my relative's (actually all of it). We would also have been left with an unholy mess in trying to retrieve her cash from an online-only account that is not fully UK regulated and the name on which cannot be easily determined. If my relative had died before this elder, unless her death certificate had been submitted to the bank, the bank would have regarded all the money in the account as his, and he could have spent it as he wished, with only him knowing how much money was even in the connected French account. If this is a case of simply doing a slapdash job under difficult circumstances, I could well understand and sympathise, and this man need only have explained that to my relative's other relatives, and we could have figured out together how to sort things out. Instead of that, he misled both other relatives and even a social worker into believing that he acquired power of attorney many years before he actually did, when she would have had full mental capacity to make decisions of this type. In reality he took power of attorney for her only after her mental decline had long since begun to manifest itself, by his own admission, after I uncovered the truth of the matter by procuring the relevant document. His reaction to questions by relatives is evasiveness followed by anger on continued questioning. What will happen now, I would think, is that as long as this elder can prove he has not taken money from my relative (which I do not think he would have), he will either be removed as her power of attorney, or else left in place but made to straighten things out. In the latter case, I'll apply to the court of protection so that I can take over this "burden" if possible, and there will then be strict checks on me since I'll be taking over after a diagnosis of Alzheimer's and will be classed as a "deputy" under UK law (a deputy in effect to the Government, not to this elder). Quite why this route has had to be taken, I don't know. If this elder had not reacted with evasiveness and anger to relatives, we could have taken a different path. His attitude is that because I'm younger than him, I should not even question him. I think he regards everyone who is not a member of his faith with great suspicion. I did everything I could think of to avoid this, including consulting a lawyer at my own expense and seeking advice from official bodies and other relatives on the matter. For a while I felt very stressed about the prospect of causing stress to this man, who may have had only good intentions. Subsequent events and his continued high-handed attitude have caused my sympathy for him to evaporate. My relative is clearly scared to ask him for clarification (he lacks the patience and humility to explain anything to someone with impaired mental capacity anyway), as is just about everyone else apparently, including those who believe in his honesty. All this man has to do to stop me enquiring further into his activities is to phone me, get off his high horse, and calmly explain to me what led to this situation, in terms that actually make sense. I have no personal grudge against him, but I will not be contacting him again unless absolutely necessary, since my interactions with him so far have given me zero confidence in the possibility of getting any answers, and other relatives feel the same. While searching for an explanation of this elder's actions, I discovered that many other people feel their elderly relatives have been parted from money under dubious circumstances by the 2x2s. I further discovered that another local elder appears to have stolen a car left in a will he executed; I hope to determine the facts of that matter in due course. The first elder is clearly close to the UK overseer and flew to Zurich at the point when he first could have guessed that he might have faced some type of financial inquiry. He has previously expressed a fear of being audited. This and various other facts, along with many things told to me that I cannot currently substantiate, have led to me being broadly suspicious of the activities of the 2x2s in the British Isles. I have also become aware of what appears to be a severe problem with child abuse at the hands of a minority of workers. The police cannot act on that unless further victims come forwards, and even in the case of Noel Tanner, most of those victims that were actually known to the police did not want to testify. I'm sure they all knew that few would believe them and many would disapprove of them damaging the reputation of the 2x2s. I think ultimately people who adhere to a faith have to decide whether they are concerned more with protecting the reputation of the faith, or with protecting the integrity of the faith. If the former, it makes sense to shun me and others like me and turn people against us where possible. If the latter, then they should welcome me with open arms, because I want to help the 2x2s in the British Isles identify problems, for the sake of their own protection. Bad apples must be removed, not left to corrupt the entire barrel. I dislike being in a situation where the only way to get answers is to post things on forums and wait for other people who've had problems to contact me, and to procure and work through legal documents wherever I can, with the assistance of professionals. It's time-consuming, expensive and at times stressful. Do you know what the reputation of the 2x2s is currently? Anyone who googles them sees the word "cult" over and over again. Their numbers are steadily declining. This is entirely their own doing. It's not due to people not wanting to follow a "straight and narrow path". It's due to people perceiving the 2x2s to be evasive, close-minded, secretive, riddled with problems which they refuse to acknowledge -- much less tackle, and generally having a bad effect upon people. It's due to 2x2s viewing every question as an attack, and every debate as an argument.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 22, 2017 16:28:08 GMT -5
John fields You are very presently very active on the behalf of your elderly relative. Have you maintained a close life long relationship with her? What is the basis of your recent activity on her behalf? Are you holding lasting power of attorney for your elderly relative? In health and welfare? In property and financial affairs ? I know many older friends, they have never had TV in their home; they've appreciated the absence of it through life. It would be traumatic and an unpleasant intrusion for them to have a TV with all it's noise placed in their home in their old age. A change of channel and the too often violent, immodest, immoral images would flash across the screen. I'd wonder how knowledgeable or understanding the social services employee is of your relative and her life style? Some nice music yes; but all the junk that often flashes across a TV screen? There is every possibility you are troubling rather comforting your aged relative with your agitating for a TV to be placed in her home. Okay, wow, I never thought I would ever agree with you review005 but in this case I do believe you are right about the TV. At least partially right. I know that when my elderly mom visited us and we had the TV on and were watching the news, she would have to leave the room from time to time because she wasn't used to seeing the violence that is just a common sight on our news channels. She was in her late 90's when she passed away and never owned a TV. She wasn't used to seeing violence and it genuinely distressed her. So I can see that it might be an issue for this lady too. However, having said that, my mom did enjoy the history channel etc. Nature shows were also of interest to her and she liked them when she visited. We tried to accommodate her sensitivity to distressing news when she visited by not having it on when she was in the room. But to outright say that a TV would be bad for his relative is likely not true. Some shows might greatly be enjoyed by her (as they were by my mom) and one thing we do know is that Alzheimer patients do need intellectual stimulation or they deteriorate more quickly.
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on Jun 22, 2017 17:00:05 GMT -5
John Fields: Your strong feelings and prejudices against what you refers to as '2x2s' comes through again in this last post of yours ;as they do in most of your posts. That is entirely acceptable and your personal matter. However what will have meaning and worth is any findings of the Office of the Public Guardian and if police pursue a prosecution over the defalcation and fraud that you allege has occurred. As you are probably aware there is a clique who rant against the '2x2s' on this forum; but findings against any member of it from the Office of the Public Guardian not so common. Reporting of guilty verdicts in fraud/defalcation cases against members of the group are not so common despite you being 'broadly suspicious of the activities of the 2x2s in the British Isles'.Let justice be done. I still don't think you understand .... why would someone take power of attorney for someone, then turn their account into a joint account with themselves, and turn their savings account into an Internet-only account that only that person could access? Only if fraud was intended (in the future), or else due to some form of incompetence or madness, it seems to me. If you have another explanation, I'd really like to hear it, because I've been racking my brains over it for several months now. These actions would not make sense if fraud has already occurred. A joint bank account would not be useful for that, as far as I can see. Power of attorney by itself would be enough, but would be highly risky. The Office of the Public Guardian does not determine guilt or innocence. It corrects abuse or inappropriate use of power of attorney where necessary, and refers cases to the police if fraud is found. I do hope to determine guilt or innocence in the case of my second elder, however.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 22, 2017 18:17:06 GMT -5
John fields You are very presently very active on the behalf of your elderly relative. Have you maintained a close life long relationship with her? What is the basis of your recent activity on her behalf? Are you holding lasting power of attorney for your elderly relative? In health and welfare? In property and financial affairs ? I know many older friends, they have never had TV in their home; they've appreciated the absence of it through life. It would be traumatic and an unpleasant intrusion for them to have a TV with all it's noise placed in their home in their old age. A change of channel and the too often violent, immodest, immoral images would flash across the screen. There is every possibility you are troubling rather comforting your aged relative with your agitating for a TV to be placed in her home. For goodness sake, don't let her anywhere near a computer...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2017 19:00:13 GMT -5
John Fields: Your strong feelings and prejudices against what you refers to as '2x2s' comes through again in this last post of yours ;as they do in most of your posts. That is entirely acceptable and your personal matter. However what will have meaning and worth is any findings of the Office of the Public Guardian and if police pursue a prosecution over the defalcation and fraud that you allege has occurred. As you are probably aware there is a clique who rant against the '2x2s' on this forum; but findings against any member of it from the Office of the Public Guardian not so common. Reporting of guilty verdicts in fraud/defalcation cases against members of the group are not so common despite you being 'broadly suspicious of the activities of the 2x2s in the British Isles'.Let justice be done. They may not be common but what is much more interesting are the reasons why they are not common. Is it because there is no basis for taking cases? Is it because the cases that have been taken lacked the necessary evidence? Or is it because the 2x2 church strives to cover up any wrongdoing so that suspected fraud cases are never brought to investigation stage and therefore never make it to the courts? I don't know the answer to this. Perhaps you gave a better insight. Of course what we do know is that there was a guilty verdict in the UK last year in relation to CSA. Justice was done but no thanks to the 2x2 church. What we also know is that the 2x2 church went to great lengths to cover this case up and prevent it from going to court. Even when it was under investigation by the police, the 2x2 church was less than than helpful. The bottom line is that you cannot rely on the 2x2 church to do the right thing when it comes to criminal activity. That's why there is the need for non 2x2s to take action as JohnFields appears to be doing. It is ironic that the name of the best known 2x2 website us called telling the truth because we know that the 2x2 church is better known for not telling the truth. It doesn't tell the truth about CSA, it doesn't tell the truth about its beginnings, it doesn't tell the truth about the reasons people leave the sect and it doesn't tell the truth about its financial arrangements. So why do we think it would tell the truth about fraudulent activity? Matt10
|
|
|
Post by openingact34 on Jun 22, 2017 22:05:17 GMT -5
johnfields , I've appreciated your posts and certainly admire your advocacy for your aunt. But I would encourage you to be very strategic and think through the next moves extremely carefully. The elders under investigation will probably retaliate. They will look for your weak point, and I'm afraid that you've publicly revealed that -- your aunt and specifically the fact that she might be getting a TV. Regardless of what some professing spin doctors might claim online, TV ownership is ABSOLUTELY grounds for excommunication. So is wearing pants, visiting with ex'ed people, cutting long hair, or attending some other church's activities. To pull the strings, an elder only needs to put enough money in the right worker's pocket or be considered indispensable by the ministry. Consider how devastating it would be for your elderly aunt if she was "put out of fellowship", told that she was going to hell, and forbidden from having any professing visitors. For any weakness, you should look to establish at least 3 layers of defense. 1) If any media device ends up in her home, make sure you can argue that it is not a TV. Maybe an XBOX with a "monitor", Media Center PC with online connection, desktop tablet, something along those lines. Having a keyboard would be great. Make sure there are no rabbit ears or other visible antennas. 2) Obtaining some kind of pre-approval from a worker would be useful. But you should realize that it means NOTHING unless it is recorded or in writing. They can simply switch stories and say that you are lying. Note that Craig was very calculating in giving you an ambiguous answer. He will be able to adapt his story to whatever the politics of a future confrontation requires. An envelope with a couple thousand in cash "for convention" would be a good starting point and make your next conversation go more smoothly and get some more solid assurances. 3) I really appreciate you publicly sharing your outstanding investigative findings. But the biggest, darkest scandal that you uncover needs to be kept safely in your back pocket as a bargaining chip. You will need it the day when Ben Crompton or his enforcer shows up to excommunicate your aunt. Best of luck and stay strong.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Jun 23, 2017 2:02:50 GMT -5
John fields You are very presently very active on the behalf of your elderly relative. Have you maintained a close life long relationship with her? What is the basis of your recent activity on her behalf? Are you holding lasting power of attorney for your elderly relative? In health and welfare? In property and financial affairs ? I know many older friends, they have never had TV in their home; they've appreciated the absence of it through life. It would be traumatic and an unpleasant intrusion for them to have a TV with all it's noise placed in their home in their old age. A change of channel and the too often violent, immodest, immoral images would flash across the screen. I'd wonder how knowledgeable or understanding the social services employee is of your relative and her life style? Some nice music yes; but all the junk that often flashes across a TV screen? There is every possibility you are troubling rather comforting your aged relative with your agitating for a TV to be placed in her home. I absolutely agree with you Review. TV is obnoxious. I do have one, can barely stomach the news and maybe a comedy like Highway Patrol and that's it. I would much rather listen to some good music as you do.
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on Jun 23, 2017 3:31:52 GMT -5
johnfields , I've appreciated your posts and certainly admire your advocacy for your aunt. But I would encourage you to be very strategic and think through the next moves extremely carefully. The elders under investigation will probably retaliate. They will look for your weak point, and I'm afraid that you've publicly revealed that -- your aunt and specifically the fact that she might be getting a TV. Regardless of what some professing spin doctors might claim online, TV ownership is ABSOLUTELY grounds for excommunication. So is wearing pants, visiting with ex'ed people, cutting long hair, or attending some other church's activities. To pull the strings, an elder only needs to put enough money in the right worker's pocket or be considered indispensable by the ministry. Consider how devastating it would be for your elderly aunt if she was "put out of fellowship", told that she was going to hell, and forbidden from having any professing visitors. For any weakness, you should look to establish at least 3 layers of defense. 1) If any media device ends up in her home, make sure you can argue that it is not a TV. Maybe an XBOX with a "monitor", Media Center PC with online connection, desktop tablet, something along those lines. Having a keyboard would be great. Make sure there are no rabbit ears or other visible antennas. 2) Obtaining some kind of pre-approval from a worker would be useful. But you should realize that it means NOTHING unless it is recorded or in writing. They can simply switch stories and say that you are lying. Note that Craig was very calculating in giving you an ambiguous answer. He will be able to adapt his story to whatever the politics of a future confrontation requires. An envelope with a couple thousand in cash "for convention" would be a good starting point and make your next conversation go more smoothly and get some more solid assurances. 3) I really appreciate you publicly sharing your outstanding investigative findings. But the biggest, darkest scandal that you uncover needs to be kept safely in your back pocket as a bargaining chip. You will need it the day when Ben Crompton or his enforcer shows up to excommunicate your aunt. Best of luck and stay strong. Thanks!! This is all good advice. I've really had to accept the fact that my aunt will never have a really free choice regarding TV (tuned permanently to some harmless channel), and her Alzheimer's has progressed too far for her to use any other sort of device. So she's not likely to be getting one, and will be stuck with having too much time on her hands, which is not unlikely to lead to faster deterioration. This is a bitter pill to swallow, and has been instrumental in me developing an intention to make investigating 2x2 finances my main focus in life for the foreseeable future. The truth about William Irvine is out there, and I think it will likely not be long before the 2x2s also have to face up to the existence of a surprisingly high level of child abuse, and the existence of very large 2x2 bank accounts. Although it's hard to know, were they to throw her out, I doubt whether it would be devastating for her at this point. Her main problem is anxiety due to confusion and lack of company. If they throw her out, I'd be glad to introduce her to lots of other local Christians who would treat her with compassion. I see her as much as I can but ultimately her association with the 2x2s limits what she can do with others, and what she can do in her own home. The 2x2s frankly appear to me to be a source of stress for her, and not all that much else. Theology is something she struggles to remember now. What she remembers is kindness or the opposite of kindness. It's kindness that she craves. My hope now is for her financial situation to be straightened out and managed by someone she can communicate with without fear, and that ought to be possible. This elder promised her late husband, my uncle, to look after her, but has struggled with his own health problems and I would think will be happy to not be held responsible for her finances. If I am able to prove that another local elder did engage in criminal fraud, that may alter the attitudes of some. What really bothers me a lot is the possibility that the simplest explanation may be the correct one; a fair few elders may not be honest when it comes to other people's money, and there may be many people like my aunt out there who do not have anyone to take their side. Certainly I believe my aunt would have gone downhill fast if I had not unexpectedly returned from abroad. I do not think her late husband (a former worker) would have approved of the fashion in which she has been "taken care of". Any criminal convictions that I'm able to obtain would help remove the scales from peoples eyes. So this is why I'm pursuing and raking over all information I can find. If there actually is no demonstrable fraud taking place in connection with wills or power of attorney in the 2x2s in the UK, they won't need to worry about my activities. At best I may then be able to establish some facts about their finances which I'd then publicly reveal, because people deserve to know. At the moment I'm sitting on various apparent facts regarding 2x2 finances because I cannot prove that they are something other than hearsay or speculation, and certain apparent facts and names have been revealed to me in confidence. One good thing about this elder is that he has stated that he would be quite happy to walk away from this [my aunt's finances]. But he can hardly walk away during an ongoing investigation, which I should like to see through to completion, just on the off-chance that he has done something outrightly criminal in connection with my aunt (which I would not think was the case up till this point) or suspicious enough to warrant an audit from the tax office. A solicitor I consulted was off the opinion that the Public Guardian will most likely remove him as her power of attorney, given that he has broken the terms of the Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice 2005. If they don't, I hope he will stick to what he said, and walk away when I apply to the Court of Protection. I wish things could have simply been different. I could have greatly reduced whatever burden he feels is on his shoulders, and initially formed a high opinion of his efforts on behalf of my aunt, before the full story became apparent, along with his tendency to fly off the handle. He seems to have this idea that making a few smooth remarks and patting me on the arm will somehow reassure me. But what I need is a candid explanation. Even if there is an honest explanation, I suspect he is too arrogant to supply it, and too mistrustful of non-2x2s. I haven't done numerous things that I could have done, were I less discreet. I have not revealed his name. I have not asked for help from the 1.2 million people who are subscribed to my programming courses, but only from a small selection of them. In spite of appearances, I have mostly simply quietly gathered facts, disclosing more detailed information to a discreet few.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jun 23, 2017 8:30:45 GMT -5
JF you are quite entitled to have this mind set. To feel as you do about finances, Willy I, child abuse and bank accounts. But don't be too discouraged or unhappy when you don't get much of a reception or cooperation from workers or friends. Don't take offence but to be frank I'd think many would think "What is this nutcase up to? he is quite out of touch with reality" I accept that you don't think you are a 'nutcase' and that you are in touch with reality. But don't be surprised if you get a few strange looks if you come out with this lineup in dealing with workers or friends. Review is right. Workers are not accustomed to being questioned by less senior workers than themselves or by professing people, let alone by outsiders. There is simply no transparency and no accountability. A professing person would not dare question a worker about history, financies or their handling of CSA. Of course, workers may disclose things to those they trust, but these things are not freely talked about. And if something immoral or criminal has happened, the traditional doctrine and practice is to hide it. I have heard both US and UK workers state this.
|
|
|
Post by continuer on Jun 23, 2017 10:53:17 GMT -5
As someone who has held a Power of Attorney for a professing friend, I am sure that I speak for the vast majority of attorneys when I say that I would have welcomed an audit from anyone who had a legitimate interest in the affairs of the person concerned (e.g. a non-professing relative). That is because (again, like the vast majority of attorneys) I could account for every penny spent. It is a simple matter to open an attorney bank account - e.g. Joe Bloggs as attorney for John Smith - so I am mystified as to why an attorney would open a joint account. From memory, the advice used to be not to use a joint account since to do so has the potential to mix up the attorney's personal affairs with the affairs of the person being looked after - a cardinal error.
I hope that matters are eventually resolved to your satisfaction.
|
|
|
Post by penguin on Jun 23, 2017 11:04:58 GMT -5
As someone who has held a Power of Attorney for a professing friend, I am sure that I speak for the vast majority of attorneys when I say that I would have welcomed an audit from anyone who had a legitimate interest in the affairs of the person concerned (e.g. a non-professing relative). That is because (again, like the vast majority of attorneys) I could account for every penny spent. It is a simple matter to open an attorney bank account - e.g. Joe Bloggs as attorney for John Smith - so I am mystified as to why an attorney would open a joint account. From memory, the advice used to be not to use a joint account since to do so has the potential to mix up the attorney's personal affairs with the affairs of the person being looked after - a cardinal error. I hope that matters are eventually resolved to your satisfaction. Usually the way it would be handled (my understanding of UK Enduring Power of Attorney) would be that the EPA once registered by the Court of Protection would be registered to the donor's (the incapable person's) existing bank accounts. This would enable the attorney to pay bills from the donor's account, and the donor isn't normally banned from using the account themselves either. There would be no need normally to open a new account, as a joint account even, and as for one offshore or within the EU I can't really understand the need or legal probity of that. There are many dozens of UK based banks all with Financial Services Compensation Scheme cover if they go bust. There happens also to be protection in the form that a (new) bank which takes over the donor's money from a power of attorney incorrectly could be held at fault and liable for bending the rules.
|
|
|
Post by continuer on Jun 23, 2017 11:26:35 GMT -5
As someone who has held a Power of Attorney for a professing friend, I am sure that I speak for the vast majority of attorneys when I say that I would have welcomed an audit from anyone who had a legitimate interest in the affairs of the person concerned (e.g. a non-professing relative). That is because (again, like the vast majority of attorneys) I could account for every penny spent. It is a simple matter to open an attorney bank account - e.g. Joe Bloggs as attorney for John Smith - so I am mystified as to why an attorney would open a joint account. From memory, the advice used to be not to use a joint account since to do so has the potential to mix up the attorney's personal affairs with the affairs of the person being looked after - a cardinal error. I hope that matters are eventually resolved to your satisfaction. Usually the way it would be handled (my understanding of UK Enduring Power of Attorney) would be that the EPA once registered by the Court of Protection would be registered to the donor's (the incapable person's) existing bank accounts. This would enable the attorney to pay bills from the donor's account, and the donor isn't normally banned from using the account themselves either. There would be no need normally to open a new account, as a joint account even, and as for one offshore or within the EU I can't really understand the need or legal probity of that. There are many dozens of UK based banks all with Financial Services Compensation Scheme cover if they go bust. There happens also to be protection in the form that a (new) bank which takes over the donor's money from a power of attorney incorrectly could be held at fault and liable for bending the rules. I don't think that there is such a thing as an "Enduring Power of Attorney" in the UK any more - under the new rules it is a "Lasting Power of Attorney". In my case, the donor's bank account was changed to a new bank account in my name "as Attorney for ..." and I was issued with a cheque book with that designation.
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on Jun 23, 2017 12:44:08 GMT -5
As someone who has held a Power of Attorney for a professing friend, I am sure that I speak for the vast majority of attorneys when I say that I would have welcomed an audit from anyone who had a legitimate interest in the affairs of the person concerned (e.g. a non-professing relative). That is because (again, like the vast majority of attorneys) I could account for every penny spent. It is a simple matter to open an attorney bank account - e.g. Joe Bloggs as attorney for John Smith - so I am mystified as to why an attorney would open a joint account. From memory, the advice used to be not to use a joint account since to do so has the potential to mix up the attorney's personal affairs with the affairs of the person being looked after - a cardinal error. I hope that matters are eventually resolved to your satisfaction. Thanks, it varies from country to country, but in the UK it's normal to simply register power of attorney after an appropriate process, and then you can pay bills from the "donor's" bank account for them. You absolutely (in the UK) do not then turn that account into a joint account with yourself, or open savings accounts that are not UK based. You do not have to account for money spent by the "donor" (aside from keeping an eye on it in case they start losing money significantly through diminished capacity), but you do have to account for money you've spent yourself on them, for which just a bank account showing debits usually does the trick. I don't think I'm ever going to know why this guy did these things, or tried to stop my aunt using a cash machine when she was able to. I think I'll always wonder, for the rest of my life -- unless I discover he actually is dishonest and gets up to this sort of thing left, right and centre. He might just have been confused. But then he has the energy to zip off to places like Zurich and claims to run a consultancy with a massive turnover in his retirement, and does appear to be one of the more senior elders in the UK. So it's very hard to fit all these facts together. It's a puzzle. A full audit is always a lot of hassle, but is a fact of life, and this guy seems unusually scared of audits. Like you, in that position I'd welcome any checks on me, because I wouldn't want to do anything that was either incorrect or else appeared suspicious to others. You're also supposed to make efforts to help the donor make decisions themselves as much as possible, rather than just keeping them in the dark over whether they've even got savings or not. My aunt doesn't even know if she's got a will or not.
|
|
|
Post by penguin on Jun 23, 2017 12:58:15 GMT -5
As someone who has held a Power of Attorney for a professing friend, I am sure that I speak for the vast majority of attorneys when I say that I would have welcomed an audit from anyone who had a legitimate interest in the affairs of the person concerned (e.g. a non-professing relative). That is because (again, like the vast majority of attorneys) I could account for every penny spent. It is a simple matter to open an attorney bank account - e.g. Joe Bloggs as attorney for John Smith - so I am mystified as to why an attorney would open a joint account. From memory, the advice used to be not to use a joint account since to do so has the potential to mix up the attorney's personal affairs with the affairs of the person being looked after - a cardinal error. I hope that matters are eventually resolved to your satisfaction. Usually the way it would be handled (my understanding of UK Enduring Power of Attorney) would be that the EPA once registered by the Court of Protection would be registered to the donor's (the incapable person's) existing bank accounts. This would enable the attorney to pay bills from the donor's account, and the donor isn't normally banned from using the account themselves either. There would be no need normally to open a new account, as a joint account even, and as for one offshore or within the EU I can't really understand the need or legal probity of that. There are many dozens of UK based banks all with Financial Services Compensation Scheme cover if they go bust. There happens also to be protection in the form that a (new) bank which takes over the donor's money from a power of attorney incorrectly could be held at fault and liable for bending the rules. Sorry it is now Lasting Power of Attorney which changed nigh on 10 years ago from EPAs
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on Jun 23, 2017 15:39:22 GMT -5
It is now Lasting Power of Attorney as penguin says; EPA was abolished partly because there was little oversight and no central register. With LPA, the donor has full rights over their own account and the attorney must not mix their finances with that of the donor, and must not have a joint account with the donor under most circumstances. Transfers to offshore accounts are considered a "red flag". The attorney may only restrict the donor's spending if the donor is spending money not merely foolishly, but due to a lack of mental capacity. For instance, the donor is entitled to by 500 Kg of fish for no good reason, as long as the donor understands the implications of that. In my aunt's case, her spending was and is incredibly modest and careful.
Anyone in the UK who wants to know if someone has an LPA (property and finance or health) registered for them can easily find about for a small fee; you need only the person's name, address and date of birth. This is what I did to determine that LPA was registered much later than the elder had led at least one relative and a social worker to believe.
|
|
|
Post by penguin on Jun 24, 2017 2:09:04 GMT -5
There may be genuine concerns worrying the attorney in this case with the old lady but it does appear going on what has been said that he has done things unadvisedly. Old folks like her, if living alone, are vulnerable to all sorts of rip-offs like gypsies (or should we call them travellers?) coming round persuading them to tarmac their drives and paths for exorbitant prices. Others selling equipment for the disabled which can be purchased cheaper elsewhere. Not even power of attorney can put a stop to all that nonsense, and it is a major worry nowadays because those sort of infirm folks are not protected by any laws that I know about. However coming back to the bank account.......... If the worry is that the lady could suddenly withdraw a lot of cash for silly purposes surely a daily cash limit on the old lady's account could be specified and then the bank would be liable if that got exceeded
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on Jun 24, 2017 4:59:53 GMT -5
There may be genuine concerns worrying the attorney in this case with the old lady but it does appear going on what has been said that he has done things unadvisedly. Old folks like her, if living alone, are vulnerable to all sorts of rip-offs like gypsies (or should we call them travellers?) coming round persuading them to tarmac their drives and paths for exorbitant prices. Others selling equipment for the disabled which can be purchased cheaper elsewhere. Not even power of attorney can put a stop to all that nonsense, and it is a major worry nowadays because those sort of infirm folks are not protected by any laws that I know about. However coming back to the bank account.......... If the worry is that the lady could suddenly withdraw a lot of cash for silly purposes surely a daily cash limit on the old lady's account could be specified and then the bank would be liable if that got exceeded I don't think that was a factor .... cash machines in the UK limit people to withdrawing typically £200-250, banks are usually happy to change the limit, and my aunt had never withdrawn anything like that. Her spending was extremely modest by any standard. She was able to use a cash machine only with the help of others, but entered her own PIN, etc. She just needed help being shown what buttons to press, and reassurance. So a member of the 2x2s did that for her from time to time, and then when I came along, sometimes I'd help her. I don't know whether the attorney thought I might steal cash from her, but he could see from her bank accounts that this would be very small amounts of cash if so, and a spot of Googling will show anyone that I earn an extremely good income. The only people who took money from my aunt were workers, and other members of the 2x2s who had spent more on her than they took. It may have been a factor that this elder believed she could not remember her own PIN, against the assertions of myself, a member of the 2x2s, and another relative. She would likely get so flustered around him that she would not remember her PIN, and he does not seem to trust other people. But then he himself wrote down her PIN (which he must have got from her) and she ended up with it written down all over the place, against my advice. What was really weird was, he started telling her (causing her a lot of distress) that she must not withdraw cash from cash machines. So I phoned him to ask about that and he was very friendly and non committal. A few weeks later I helped her withdraw a small amount of cash and then phoned him to let him know. Then he took a completely different attitude, started going on about audits, and got very angry. That was what trigged me to take police advice. I had also previously told him that if she's ever short of cash, I'd be glad to chip in, and he'd assured me that would never be necessary. He said he was even "squirrelling away" some money "in case she needed her roof repaired" or something. It turned out he was squirrelling nearly all of her pension, and in an account that only he would ever be able to access, and which she'd never heard of. This could all be explained by high-handed and misguided behaviour, with a disregard for government guidelines. Or, he could have had some fraudulent intent. He had repeatedly mentioned her "having to go into a care home", which she's terrified of, and which it may well be possible to avoid if her own money can be spent on escalating levels of care in her own home, possibly with my help financially.
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on Jun 24, 2017 12:49:04 GMT -5
As someone who has held a Power of Attorney for a professing friend, I am sure that I speak for the vast majority of attorneys when I say that I would have welcomed an audit from anyone who had a legitimate interest in the affairs of the person concerned (e.g. a non-professing relative). That is because (again, like the vast majority of attorneys) I could account for every penny spent. It is a simple matter to open an attorney bank account - e.g. Joe Bloggs as attorney for John Smith - so I am mystified as to why an attorney would open a joint account. From memory, the advice used to be not to use a joint account since to do so has the potential to mix up the attorney's personal affairs with the affairs of the person being looked after - a cardinal error. I hope that matters are eventually resolved to your satisfaction. I thought the same - unusual to open a joint account. It seems really unusual that an elder/bishop would act as a POA for an unrelated professing person but someone in the U.K. told me recently that it is quite common there. It certainly hasn't been common down under. It's quite common here, from what I can gather. Historically women were somewhat kept away from men, and that led to lots of spinsters. There are more women than men in the 2x2s anyway. So elders were encouraged to step in and take care of them, and seem to do the same with widows. But then the opaque nature of 2x2 finances and the apparent fact that wealthy elders who can funnel money to the 2x2s enjoy higher status as a result, leads to a bit of a conflict of interests. Convention grounds here in the past apparently used to even have separate sections for men and women, or so I'm told by one person about one convention. Added to that is the distrust 2x2s often have here for non-2x2s. People can get isolated from relatives and left dependent on the honesty, or lack of, of an elder.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Jun 24, 2017 14:04:30 GMT -5
Convention always had separate sleeping quarters for males and females. We didn't dare go to the other's quarters. The workers house was in the middle and separated the 2 quarters.
Seating at convention was also separate with males and females on separate sides. I understand a lot of this has changed over the years.
|
|