The Three Stooges - Watchtower "judicial committee

You will need a LOT of tea or coffee for this one. 
But treat yourself to a bottle of Bubbly at the end, for overall, it is a victory.
This is the D-Day landings - a devastating assault on the Watchtower! But I make a mistake, allowing the fascists to regroup. They launch a vicious counter-attack.
============================================================

"When I warned them that I would fight on alone whatever they did, the elders told the Watchtower Society, "In three weeks, Ant will have his neck wrung like a chicken" Some chicken! Some neck!" 
(with apologies to the memory and speeches of Sir Winston Churchill)

Comments and layout updated 23 July, 2015

When decent men are duped by a corrupt and apostate Organisation and "just follow orders" in return for an illusion of power and glory, this is what happens..........

Introduction 
If a member of Jehovah's Witnesses commits a wrong as interpreted by the Witness leadership [and some of these "wrongs" are not defined in the Bible e.g. smoking tobacco, taking blood transfusions] they are investigated and brought before a “judicial” committee of elders. The charges might be anything from a serious crime such as fraud, a moral misdemeanour such as adultery or more commonly now, apostasy -- daring to disagree with the teachings of the Watchtower Society.

Since many elders are men of low education, the standard of justice leaves something to be desired. The elders are trained by their masters, the Watchtower Society, in regular schools. They have a secret Manual, available only to elders -- always men --  which they follow. 

Such is their confidence in "Jehovah's organisation" that they actually believe that adherence to the Manual will produce good results. As will be seen, the Bible -- the "principal text-book" -- is put aside in preference to the Manual. If the wrongdoer does not repent, then whatever the crime or misdemeanour, they will be disfellowshipped by the committee and all 

Jehovah's Witnesses will shun the person thereafter. There is a Right of Appeal to another Jehovah's Witness' court made up from another group of elders from another congregation.
However, the Witnesses do not suppose that their power ends in the congregation. They are not shy about taking proceedings against members of the public who are former Witnesses if they are perceived as a threat and, in their paranoid world, former members may be a threat for many reasons. Former members who vote in elections or join the Forces or attend another religious denomination, are declared by the congregation to have “disassociated themselves" automatically [i.e. they have disfellowshipped themselves].

Others who leave must remain silent forever-after, for if they speak to active Witnesses and expose the Organisation, they are harassed and witch-hunted even years after leaving. In my own case, as you will see, I was pursued more than three years after leaving. The objective was to declare me a member long enough to disfellowship me, discredit me and defame me, so that all Jehovah's Witnesses and former Witnesses would be forbidden to speak to me or be afraid to associate with me because they would fear the same attentions that were given me. I decided to fight back..............

Background 
You should read the transcript of Tom 'n' Jerry first to understand how this "judicial" committee came about as a result of elders coming to my home as agents provocateurs on February 28th., under false pretences, and their repeated attempts to entrap me. Evidence obtained by entrapment is invalid in any respected court throughout the world although it is common practice among Jehovah's Witness elders.

Then......... 
A few weeks later, on March 24th, late in the evening, another elder, Chris Taylor telephoned me. After chatting for ten minutes, he invited me to “a meeting”. I asked who would be present. As soon as he informed me that three elders would be present, I realised it would be a judicial committee  -- a secret church court -- of Jehovah's Witnesses and since I had no need or intention of repenting of anything, I would be disfellowshipped and all Jehovah's Witnesses including my parent and sister, would be forbidden thereafter to speak to me or even so much as greet me in the street. He admitted this would be a “judicial “ committee only after I asked him outright.

On April 1st, I telephoned Chris Taylor, then the Secretary in Edinburgh Waverley congregation, and asked him how long the farce would continue. He did not know. I asked again who the witnesses would be and how many they intended calling. He said “John and Roddie ....... if we need to get more, then we will” to which I replied “so you'll just keep bringing witnesses until you hang me?". He also named Amerigo Lanny, a former friend, as a possible witness against me. During several telephone conversations with Chris, he assured me that I would be given "a fair trial". Indeed, he was very offended that I suggested otherwise since he would be Chairman of the Committee.

The original intention was for me to appear before a "judicial" committee without a defined charge and answer unspecified questions on the day. This is the preferred method where there is no definite misdemeanour or witnesses since the accused Witness helps incriminate himself by answering unrelated questions such as “Do you believe that the Watchtower Society is Jehovah's organisation?” or "Do you believe that Jehovah is using the "faithful and discreet slave" to-day?", not unlike the witch-hunts of McCarthyism 60 years ago. I rejected that proposal and insisted that Chris should tell the Committee to find a charge against me. Even so, the amended accusation -- apostasy -- is wide open to interpretation by Jehovah's Witnesses and is a favourite “catch-all” for which little preparation can be made. In other words, it was their intention that no defence would be available to me.

Judicial committees are intended to humiliate Witnesses. They intimidate the Witnesses because they fear the elders’ authority which, they have been taught, comes from God. But the elders had over-looked one thing - I do not fear them now. Instead, I despise them, as the deputies of a corrupt and apostate organisation.

I spent several weeks wondering whether to attend or not. I knew that disfellowshipping was inevitable, but I did not wish to be disgraced -- I was thinking of my old JW mother and my sister -- or to give them the satisfaction of disfellowshipping me. As I recommend elsewhere, it is better to resign and be in some control than to feel that such a thing has been done to you.

I considered writing a firm letter to resign and listened to the advice of many people. Two friends influenced me: one would say, “Don’t go. You’ll just play into their hands, be humiliated and give them sport at your expense" while the other would say, “You have nothing to lose. Go along, record it and expose them”.

Finally, on the day before the judicial committee, I borrowed my friend’s recorder and finished taking notes. As before in the Tom 'n' Jerry interview, I decided that, if these men were interviewing me without malice, then recording the Committee meeting could only leave them in a good light, but if they intended harm to me, it would return to them as a result of the recording.

I decided not to concern myself with trying to prove them wrong [they are!] on their own doctrinal ground. It is impossible to reason on Scripture with Witnesses. Instead, I would attack them on technicalities which show clearly that they had no intention of giving me a fair trial -- apparently they do not understand what a fair trial is -- although the Watchtower Society expects - and is given - fair treatment when it goes to court.

Additionally, I would show that despite the claims of the Watchtower Society, Jehovah's Witnesses are never free to leave their religion except with dishonour.

The three "judges" are manual workers: a window-cleaner, a chiropractic masseur and an office-cleaner. The two witnesses are a jack-of-all-trades and a cleaner. Of all five men, only the latter man has had a good education -- and has come a long way from Eton!

I have included the prayer to show how Witnesses pray and for what they pray before such a "judicial" committee which will commonly lead to the expulsion of a fellow Witness from their congregation or at very best, the humiliation of that individual, without any psychological or professional support. Those who are disfellowshipped are cast out into the world, leaving all Witness relatives and friends behind. Not surprisingly, this leads some former members to psychiatric problems, severe depression, marriage difficulties, alcoholism and even suicide.


Although I have never succumbed to such extremes, I have suffered many heart-aches and traumas during the 10 years since elders in Corstorphine congregation (renamed Clermiston, Edinburgh after its demise and eventual dissolution by London Bethel HQ) contributed to the destruction of my 18 years marriage. Later, I returned to Jehovah's Witnesses after several years outside, unable to cope with life in the real world after  being indocrtinated from an early age. This is a common problem for leaving Witnesses if they have been members for many years. However, finally after 2 or 3 more years, I realised something was wrong and really had to drag myself away reluctantly. Only after leaving did I finally obtain the proof that the religion is false and corrupt and I became a Christian.
I won’t pretend that my “court” technique is brilliant -- I talk too much and do not insist on questions being answered -- but unlike a proper court, where counsel might have a right to demand an answer, I could expect no such right, so when I asked questions of the “judges”, I was content to have their silence or refusal to answer on tape. I was happy just to make points -- even lengthy ones -- if at the end I could elicit some confirmation or even a lack of response. I also hoped that some of the comments might sink in later and bother the consciences of the Committee members at some future time. 

My explanatory comments are in square brackets [...italics....]. Pauses in speech are denoted by [...................]. Extracts from the secret Elders’ Manual are in parentheses and noted EM (“secret” because it is available only to male Witnesses while serving as elders). N.B. there may have been an update to that Manual - the following conversations tool place in 1998.

[These men persisted in calling me by my familiar name "Tony" although I have made it plain that this is not my preferred choice]

The "Judicial" Committee 
The "judicial" committee was held at the Kingdom Hall at 95 Broughton Street, Edinburgh, Scotland at 2000 hours on Friday, 30th April, 1999. The Hall is a converted flat (apartment) in a tenement (common stairway) and had been used by Waverley congregation for about 60 years (this property has since been sold. It is no longer a Kingdom Hall)

The "Judges" - "Loving Overseers, shepherding the flock of God":
Chris Taylor [Chairman], Robin Maxwell, Dennis Graham.
Witnesses:  John Maxwell, Roddie Darroch.  All elders of Jehovah's Witnesses 
The Accused: Anthony Roberts (47) a former life-member of Jehovah's Witnesses
The Crime:  Apostasy -- according to the definition of Jehovah's Witnesses. Or more precisely: leaving the religion -- holding an opinion that I am happy that I did -- telling people so when they ask me.

My aim: To expose the corrupt and unchristian practice of secret "judicial" committees and to show the public how incompetent and unqualified men are used by the Watchtower Society to judge their fellow Jehovah's Witnesses -- and former Witnesses who obviously want no further part in the religion -- in secret church courts which violate Human Rights. Although I attempt to argue a case, I do so only to demonstrate that it is a waste of time, since the Watchtower leadership and their yes-men have no intention of honouring the Bible's standards of justice which they claim to follow.

As usual, the Witness elders all wore suits and ties -- almost like a uniform. 
I showered and dressed specially for the occasion -- [clean] jeans, T-shirt, trainers [sneakers], casual jerkin/jacket  -- and I didn't shave for about 3/4 days (JWs don't approve of beards!)

DECLARATION by Anthony Roberts: 
This transcript is a true and accurate record of the proceedings. This trranscript took me about a week to type, as I wanted accuracy. The tape-recording will be made available to anyone who has authority to examine it. The Watchtower Society is invited to purchase a copy for an administration fee to cover my time and expenses.

The Committee meets: 
Chris: Thank you for coming We’re just going to ask Jehovah’s blessing...... and Robin’s going to ask that 
Robin: Jehovah our great God in the heavens we are very thankful that we can ask for your holy spirit at this time as we discuss important matters with Tony and we realise you are the God of truth and we are very privileged to have your word of truth which we use to help us make important decisions and also to guide our lives by the principles found within its pages. We ask that your spirit can be upon us to firmly establish these matters at the mouth of two or three witnesses and we also realise the importance of honesty and truthfulness between us. We ask that your spirit help us in these matters and we ask this in Jesus’ name. Amen  ["Jehovah's "holy spirit" is a force", say the Witnesses, and not a person] 
Chris: Right then. Thanks for coming. Now, the reason for the meeting O.K.? It has been alleged, O.K., by one or two in the congregation, over the last few months, a year or so, that you have been making comments that, if were true, could be viewed as apostate, O.K.? These are just allegations at this point so the body of elders felt that, in view of that, although you have left the congregation some years ago, but because you are still having contact with some Witnesses, if these allegations were true, it could endanger the spiritual welfare of the congregation - if these allegations are true - so we felt that at least a visit should be made - that’s why John and Roddie came round to see you -- to investigate what these allegations were and so on O.K. and on the basis of their visit, we have now arranged this meeting, O.K.? So do you have any comments?
{EM: After opening with prayer, the chairman states the reason for the meeting.......... The chairman invites the accused to make a personal statement.]
Ant: Yes. I’ve got quite a lot of comments to make. How long have you got? 
Chris: As long as...... it takes  
Ant: Right Well first of all you promised me a fair trial if you remember? 
Chris: Right. 
Ant: .....and this is a trial isn’t it? 
Chris: O.K. Yes if you want to put it that way 
Ant: It's a trial isn’t it? You are judges aren’t you? 
Chris: Yes 
Ant:  And I am accused of a certain thing and at the end of it you will make a pronouncement so, I’ve got to ask you what you’re going to do to make sure that I get a fair trial and I don’t really think that the way things are just now that that is very likely, as I’ve said to you before when I spoke to you on the phone. Ummm..... for example, do I have the right to remain silent? 
Chris: You have the right to do whatever you wish Tony. If we ask you a question, it’s up to you whether you answer it or not.
Ant: Well if I remain silent, who is going to defend me? 
Chris: Who’s going to defend you? 
Ant: Yes. 
Chris: Well, first why would you want to stay silent? 
Ant: Well doesn’t..... well any decent court in the civilised world allows people to remain silent and the burden of proof is on the prosecutors -- which is what you are -- to  prove the case. So are we going to work under these rules or some new and different made-up rules? 
Chris: OK. As we explained to you on the phone, let's get one thing clear Tony. The procedure that we follow, right, is the procedure outlined in the scriptures OK?
Ant: I would have to disagree with that 
Chris:  At the mouth of two or three witnesses........ 
Ant: I would have to disagree with that because if that was the case, we would be sitting at the “public gate” and this room would be filled with people. So that’s another point I was going to raise actually, the fact that this is a secret meeting. Its being held in private with no witnesses present. There are no observers present, as you’ve told me. You told me that I would not be allowed witnesses or observers present There is no-one taking a written transcript of the proceedings There is no-one here to witness what has been said is there?
{EM: However, observers are not permitted. No tape-recording devices are allowed.}
Chris: Well...... 
Ant: So if this was according to the [Hebrew/ OT] scriptures then we would be sitting outside on the street and anybody would be able to hear what we were saying, so this is a secret meeting which is not scriptural........ 
Chris: OK 
Ant: ......and is in fact in harmony with the elders manual. [Advantage Ant .......] 
Chris: Right Tony. We are going to hold this meeting right, under our understanding of scripture. We could debate all night scriptural definitions of this and that, but we are members of Jehovah's organisation, O.K.? Now our understanding of the scriptures is what we will base this meeting on, O.K.? 
Ant: Well its not my understanding of the scriptures as I’ve pointed out to you already, as the scriptures clearly say that such a trial would take place at the city gate with the older men - and Jehovah's Witnesses commonly equate the elders of the congregation with the older men of Israel. 
Chris: We hear what you say, but we will still continue to hold this meeting......... [!!!!] 
Ant: Oh yes! Well I have to raise an objection and let you know that that is an objection 
Chris: Fine, O.K. 
Ant: I would also....... 
Chris: [interrupts] Tony -- you also mentioned about that we are not taking copious notes There’s three of us here witnessing to what you say. 
Ant: Oh yes!
Chris: We are not...... we are advised not to take copious notes and put a load of things down in writing. [I wonder why........?]  We are here to witness what you say, we’ve all heard what you’ve said. 
Ant: I don't have any witnesses to witness what you are saying or what I am saying do I ? 
Chris: Well we said that you could bring along witnesses for the occasion [Chris consistently confuses “observers” with “witnesses”] 
Ant: Well observers then if you want to put a different point on it 
Chris: That..... we don't......... 
Ant: Oh yes -- that’s right! That’s right! I know! I know! [Next I  use “Watchtower-speak”] That’s right, but the whole point I’m making here is that in a “worldly” court where you would expect “worldly” people who don’t have Christian [JW] principles, you have very, very high standards of justice and here in “Jehovah’s Theocratic Organisation” you have very, very low standards of justice and in fact, my human rights are being violated right now by the very fact that this meeting is being held at all because you are constituting a court which violates human rights. 
Chris: No, it doesn’t. You don’t have to be here Tony. 
Ant: Oh yes -- I agree. I agree. I don’t have to be here, but as you said to me last Friday night on the telephone, the meeting had -- on Sunday night rather -- the meeting had been planned to go ahead for to-night in my absence, isn’t that correct? 
Chris: Well we would have had the meeting, but we don't know what the decision would be made because we may have invited you to come..... we don’t know the reason you would not have come for....... 
Ant: Yes, yes 
Chris: We didn't say that a decision would be made, come what may. No-one has said that 
Ant: But eventually if I.... if I refused to come, then you would go ahead with the trial in my absence and you would try me in my absence without any defence? 
Chris:  If you continued to refuse to come, yeah.
{EM: If the accused repeatedly fails to come to the hearing, the committee will proceed with the hearing but will not make a decision until evidence and any testimony by witnesses are considered............. Failure to appear before the committee is not in itself proof of guilt}
Ant: So do you know of any “worldly” court which would allow such a thing to happen? 
Chris: Tony -- Tony -- you..... you..... stop trying to compare this procedure with a “worldly" court. 
Ant: Oh yes. Oh yes! I can see that! I would rather be in a “worldly” [non-JW] court!....... 
Chris: [interrupts] Well, that’s..... 
Ant:   .......because then I know that I would get justice and then I’d know that there would be people there to make sure that justice was seen to be done and that I had qualified men to judge me, that all the proceedings were done in a proper way which had been established over many centuries and that is not being done here. 
Chris: We're...... we’re following the procedure directed by the [Watchtower] Society.
[so we're not following the scriptures?] 
Ant: Oh, I know that! I realise that! 
Chris:  And that is the procedure we will follow, Tony. 
Ant: Yes 
Robin: And that’s the only thing we can do isn’t it, Tony? All we can do is follow the procedure that’s laid down by Jehovah's organisation [Watchtower Society]........ 
Ant:  Yes - "just following orders" 
Robin: ........within this framework...... 
Ant:  Yes. You’re “just following orders” 
Robin: ......there’s no alternative. 
Ant: Yes. That’s what you do. You’re just following orders, but I would have to ask you why you’re wanting to do that?........  Ummm....... so you agree that you are representing the Watchtower Society? 
Chris: Yes 
Ant: And are you representing God? 
Chris: As the elders of God’s congregation, yes. 
Ant: I’ve got a list of objections and I won’t  read them all -- but one or two of them I’ve mentioned already. The first objection I’ve got is the witnesses are presumably sitting outside the room? 
Chris: Yes 
Ant: And overhearing whatever goes through the door? 
Chris: No 
Ant: How do you know? 
Chris: Because we trust them 
Ant: Well I don’t. And I would really appreciate if you would move them to an outer room so that they can..... cannot hear what is going on in this room because the whole point of justice is that you are able to examine witnesses and talk to them.......... [witnesses should not be able to overhear the cross-examination of others who go before them] 
Chris: Do you feel that they are here..... standing at the door eavesdropping? 
Ant: I don't know They could well be, but in a.... in a....... 
Chris: Would you be happier if you knew that they weren’t there? 
Ant: Yes 
Chris: Where? 
Ant: I think they should sit outside or they should be sitting somewhere else, but certainly not outside the door of the court where they can overhear anything that happens to go through the door. Or if they wish they could even stand at the door and listen 
Chris: Stand at the door and listen? 
Ant: Yes - you’ve heard of “eavesdropping” haven’t you? It could be done. I just think it’s not a good procedure to have them sitting outside in the room where they could overhear things that are being said here 
Chris:  O.K. So you’d you be happier if they sat in the foyer? 
Ant: Or the Gents or the Ladies [rooms]. I don't mind 
Chris: Well they’re not going to sit in the toilets Tony. 
Ant: Well whatever, but I would really be happier if they were not within hearing distance 
Chris: [to Dennis & Robin] What do you think? [Will they agree to my request to show how reasonable they are?] 
Dennis: That would be alright 
Robin: Yes, I don’t see any problem 
Chris: Could you ask them... 
Robin: Certainly, yes. 

[Ant - 1  Elders - 0 -- Beautiful! I cannot believe it has worked!! Somehow I manage to avoid grinning from ear to ear. Now I know that I am winning and I relax a little. The two glorious elders outside spend the next hour sitting in the vestibule -- a 3 metre square cloakroom outside the toilets by the front door ]

[Robin Maxwell returns] 

Chris: O.K. Tony ? 
Ant: Yes I’ve got another objection regarding two of the judges who are sitting here because  two of you have already acted in multiple roles. You Chris and you Robin have both acted as investigators and you are also acting as judges and witnesses and that is prejudicial to a fair hearing. The fact that you have investigated me and you made telephone calls to me to try to make me incriminate me on the telephone and that tells me I cannot have a fair trial under those circumstances and I would have to ask for an adjournment on that basis alone 
Chris: Well you can ask for it, but you won't get it - and your objection’s noted 
Ant: O.K. Umm.......... I’m concerned about the qualifications of the judges. You have no formal training in ethics or jurisprudence or any understanding -- or any real understanding -- so far as I can see, of the principles of justice and you are supposed to be “elders ruling for justice itself” and I don’t see how you...... for justice or righteousness itself.... .and I don't see how you can do that, given the fact that you have had no formal training or any education in jurisprudence. 
Chris: O.K. that’s noted 
Ant: Well what are you going to do about it? 
Chris: We’re not going to do anything Tony because we feel that we’re adequately qualified on the scriptures and the Society's provisions.
{EM: He [Jehovah] has raised up elders to serve as counsellors and judges}
Ant: O.K. right. Um.....one of the most important things that a judge has to be is impartial and I don't think you can be impartial when you’ve already heard the evidence. Because you have all heard the evidence already haven’t you?
{EM: They must treat every person with impartiality at all times.....}
Chris: Not all of it 
Ant: But you have heard a substantial amount of evidence? 
Dennis: Not from you though Tony. 
Ant: Sorry? [Dennis speaks quietly] 
Dennis: We haven’t heard it from you Tony. 
Ant: Yes but you have heard evidence regarding this and that s why I’m here. Or that’s why you have asked me to come here. 
Chris: That's why the committee's meeting 
Ant: When John and Roddie left my house, they came here at some point later on and gave you a full report of what had been said by me? 
Chris: No, they didn’t. They did not give a full report. 
Ant: Well, did they give you a report at all? 
Chris: Sufficient enough for us to have this meeting yes 
Ant: Right so you’ve heard the evidence before. 
Robin:  You see, its necessary to have a degree of information in any matter before this committee can even be formed Tony, you know? In the first place, in any case of alleged wrongdoing before a judicial committee can even be formed, you know we have to have accurate information -- either a confession from the person or testimony from two witnesses otherwise, that committee cannot be formed so that’s why we are here now. So we had a measure of information sufficient to form this committee but that is all 
Ant: A judge doesn’t have that. 
Robin:  No, but you see you keep....... This is nothing to do with “worldly” courts........ 
Ant: So I’ve noticed...... 
Robin: .....its nothing to do with worldly courts it's the way that Jehovah conducts things [Really? Fascinating!] through his organisation, you see. You can't call worldly judges or lawyers or barristers in to deal with serious matters in the Christian congregation -- you can’t do that. 
Ant: Are they above that, are they? Or below that? 
Robin:  But you can’t do that because they’re not..... they don’t have the scriptural qualifications - so this is what Jehovah’s justice is based on - in his word the Bible 
Dennis: There again when you have a court case certain evidence has to be presented before you can have a court case 
Ant: That is presented to the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland [Crown Prosecutor in England and District Attorney in USA] and he decides whether charges are brought and he takes no part in the actual trial and then a judge is appointed and that judge will hear the case for the first time on the day. And in cases, as you know, where theres a lot of publicity, then it often makes the trial null and void, doesn’t it? So the fact that the judges have heard the case before is another objection 
Dennis: But we haven’t heard the case. 
Ant: Well you just said a wee minute ago that you had heard the case 
Robin: We said that we had a measure of information sufficient to set up this committee. That was the point 
Ant: Yes but you are once again acting in a dual role. The Procurator Fiscal does not act in a dual role. 
Chris: But we’re not...... 
Robin: We accept what you’re saying Tony, I...... but there's no point discussing this at length you know, the difference between how things are done in “worldly” courts and here because the two bear no relation at all......... 
Ant: Oh I can see that! 
Robin So there’s no point sitting for three hours saying this is how things are done here and :there ....... it makes no difference. We know....... we know the standards that are laid down in the procedures and we’ll follow them and that’s it. That’s how things are done. 
Ant: The procedures where? 
Robin:  The Society’s procedure for handling judicial matters [i.e. not in the Bible -- and notice that the Accused is not given access to the procedures manual] 
Ant: Right. O.K. I’ve mentioned already that no observers are present to see that justice is done because I don’t really count you three as witnesses for me because obviously you must be slightly prejudicial to your own case. I’ve said that no written record's being made. I’m not permitted anyone to defend me if I choose to remain silent. And I really don't see why I...... why anyone should cooperate in incriminating themselves. So I think if you bring charges against a person you should be prepared to supply the proof and the evidence and prove the case to..... to a conclusion. Regarding the evidence: I’ve not been allowed to review the evidence. I haven’t got a clue what this is going to be about. Had I not spoken to you on the telephone Chris, we would have come here with an open-ended discussion because, if you remember on, I think it was Wednesday 24th March, or Thursday 25th March, you went away to the body of elders to bring back a case to me that night, to bring back an accusation to me that night. Do you remember that? 
Chris: To bring back an accusation? 
Ant: Yes because I said you couldn’t charge me with....... well, whatever it was. I don’t think it was actually a charge. It was just a “come along and have a chat” 
Chris: That's not true, Tony. On the two conversations that we had on the phone, O.K. it was very clearly stated by the end of those two conversations -- there's no point getting involved in dates or anything -- at the end of those two conversations it was clearly stated to you that a meeting was to be arranged based on alleged apostasy 
Ant: Yes, but that was only at the end of the second conversation on the Thursday evening. [and at my insistence] 
Chris: That is sufficient, Tony. 
Ant: Oh yes, I agree.......... 
Chris: And you know the reason that you've come here for. There’s no ambiguity in the reason why you're here. It’s not an open-ended discussion. It was clearly stated to you the purpose of this meeting. 
Ant: The point I made is that it would have been an open-ended discussion if I had not asked you to go away and ........ 
Chris: No it wouldn't 
Ant: Well it was at the time on the Wednesday night.... on the Thursday morning. 
Chris: We're not going along ....... over that point. The fact is, Tony at the end of those conversations you were in no doubt as to the purpose of this meeting 
Ant: Yes but that was by my doing  in the sense that I asked you to go away and come back with a proper charge because there was no proper charge at that time. 
Chris: Whether...... we’re not going to argue the case because its your word against mine and that’s ....... the point is at the end of that conversation, that’s why we’re here now. Now as Robin mentioned just a moment ago, we could spend comparisons the whole night, OK about the courts, of the law of the land, and the courts and the way we hold it in the Society, the congregation, OK. We’re not here to discuss that Tony. You can mention your objections fine, and we’ll note them and discuss them, but please, don’t spend all our time raising objections about the court of the land and the way we’re doing it now. 
Ant: The point is I’ve got to do that because you said that I would have a fair trial and ...... 
Chris: Yes, but don’t ask us...... you can bring up your objections fine, but we’re not going to argue the case backwards and forwards, as to the courts of the law of the land and the court within the congregation. 
Ant: Yes, but what I’m saying is by a “fair trial” I would not expect a procedure like this and that brings me to my next point which is I have not been informed of your procedures so I could not make adequate preparation, so all of this, or most of this, is a surprise to me, what you have said to me just now. I knew in advance that I wouldn’t be able to bring anybody along, I knew in advance that I wouldn't be able to have someone to defend me, but.......ummmm..... this is why I really wanted to go through this first -- to find out where the goalposts are, because basically your idea of a fair trial -- and most people’s idea of a fair trial -- would be slightly different, I think. 
Chris: Well, the goalposts are Tony just so that, you know, there’s no problem here, is that we’re having this meeting because there’s been alleged apostasy. Apostasy....... we’re going to discuss this evening - apostasy based on our - as Jehovah's Witnesses - our understanding of apostasy based on the scriptures  O.K. because......because apostasy O.K., we’ve got the definition, the Greek and Hebrew -- [do these men understand Greek or Hebrew?] could be defined scripturally from loads of different organisations as something slightly different, but we’re not here to discuss Catholics, Protestants, Born-again Christians’ definition of apostasy, were here to discuss, Jehovah's Witnesses’ definition based on the scriptures O.K. -- based on the scriptures 
Ant: Well based on your interpretation of the scriptures. 
Chris: Well O.K. -- we’re part of Jehovah’s organisation O.K? We’re not here to discuss the Catholics' definition of it, alright so that’s the goalposts and they won’t be moved at any stage.
Ant: That’s a very open-ended..... once again I come to another point which coincides with that. I was not informed of the complete charges against me as was mentioned and the word “apostate” is open to wide interpretation. And even the...... your own version of “apostasy” or definition of apostasy is very wide and open to interpretation. 
Chris: When you say “your interpretation” who do you mean? 
Ant: The interpretation..... the definition given to “apostasy” by Jehovah's Witnesses  is..... is very wide and is open....... 
Chris: Do you not agree with that interpretation then? 
Ant: [pause] I’ll remain silent on that one [I take the 5th - for what it's worth!]
Chris: Sorry? 
Ant: I’ll remain silent on that one, but the point I’m making is that “apostasy” is whatever each church decides. Apostasy in the other churches might be different, as you’ve said........ 
Chris: We’ve said that 
Ant: ......and “apostasy” as you would view it, but I believe that the definition that you hold is very open to interpretation. 
Chris: So what about your definition of “apostasy”? Is that open to........? 
Ant: I would just go by the dictionary -- which I don’t have with me. But I would probably just go by the dictionary. 
Chris: Tony [meaning Robin] at that point there, could you just read what the dictionary definition of “apostasy” is? 
Robin:  Yes I’ve got that here then. A couple........ a couple of wee points, the first one is........ 
Ant: Which dictionary is this? 
Robin:  .........now I’ve not got a note of which dictionary it is to be honest, well........ but can I read you the definition? [He reads from paper notes] The first one is : “the renunciation of ones religion, principles or political party etc. or the abandonment of a previous loyalty” 
Ant: Right. That's it? 
Robin:  Yes. That’s it, aye. 
Ant: So could you just read that again please? 
Chris: Read that again. 
Robin: Yes. The first wee point was : “the renunciation of ones religion, principles or political party etc.” and the second was “the abandonment of a previous loyalty”
{EM: Apostasy is a standing away from, a falling away, defection, rebellion, abandonment; it involves teaching false doctrines, supporting or promoting false religion and its holidays or interfaith activities. ......... Apostasy includes action taken against true worship of Jehovah or his established order among his dedicated people...... Persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates..... disrupting the unity of the congregation or undermining the confidence of the brothers in Jehovah's arrangement}
[as I said, "catch-all". Compare with above dictionary definition] 
Ant: Well........ I’ll leave it you anyway just now. Ummm..... the next objection I have is that the judges have all heard the evidence which is what I’ve mentioned already and therefore cannot be impartial which is a key point for all judges. As I objected before, a full list of witnesses has not been provided. You did not tell me who would appear to accuse me....... well....... well..... apart from John. And Roddie That’s it. [the people who were so "concerned" have been replaced by the two investigators]
{EM: Present the witnesses one at a time unless the wrongdoer confesses. If the accused does not admit guilt, he should be informed as to the source of the charge(s) made against him. Accusers should be willing to assume their responsibility, as was required in Israel}
Chris: That’s all. That’s all at this point, Tony. If we feel that the evidence presented this evening is insufficient then we will call more witnesses, but scripturally at the mouth of two or three witnesses so we have brought along two witnesses 
Ant: I would have to ask you why you would feel the need to call more witnesses? 
Chris: Well, we shall see 
Ant: No. I’m asking you why you would need to call more witnesses later? 
Chris: If we feel that the evidence of two witnesses right, or what they say -- what they witnessed to, may be inconclusive, 
Ant: Well in that case I [will] have won my case. 
Chris: Why? 
Ant: Because I [will] have not been proved to be guilty. 
Chris: We haven’t said you are [he doesn’t understand the point -- or plain English] 
Ant: No, but the point of this meeting surely is to establish whether I am guilty? 
Chris:  Well that’s for us to decide, not you [he still doesn't understand!] 
Ant: That's right, but what I’m saying is, the point of this meeting is to establish whether I’m guilty. That is the normal point of a trial isn’t it? If the......or if you cannot prove that I am guilty to-night, then the case should be closed. 
Chris: Well that's for us to decide, Tony. We shall come to that bridge if and when we have to. 
Ant: But if this a fair trial I would expect the case to be closed. 
Chris:  Well, it won’t....... 
Ant:  ........because  as I said to you on the phone last time I spoke to you, “how many witnesses are you going to bring?” and I think you said “we’ll bring as many as we like “ and I said to you “Until you hang me?” 
Chris: That’s as many as necessary 
Ant: So what’s that then? I said to you, do you mean that you would bring as many as it needs to hang me?, to just keep bringing them and digging them out of the woodwork until you hang me? 
Chris: No 
Robin:  Its just a matter of having sufficient information so that all matters can be firmly established properly, you see. That s the idea of having witnesses 
Ant: Oh I’m fully aware of that. What I’m saying is “how many witnesses do you intend to bring?” and how many more witnesses....... 
Chris: How long is a piece of string Tony? We don't know until we’ve heard the evidence............. 
Ant: Well there must be a finite number of witnesses surely? 
Chris: We will leave it at these two for this evening Tony 
Ant: And if it doesn’t work this time then..... 
Chris: We shall leave it at two witnesses this evening Tony O.K.? 
Ant: Well, this is not a fair trial then! 
Chris: Tony -- you've already made it very clear that you don't agree.... 
Ant: Well I object - I object - because it’s an infringement of my human rights........ 
Robin:  All of these objections are being noted Tony........ 
Ant: This is a violation of my human rights 
Chris: It's not, Tony 
Ant: No! It is! It’s a violation of my human rights because in every country of the world, in every civilised country, even in third world countries, you have at least some show of....... of a fair trial where all the elements that I’ve discussed and mentioned with you tonight are present and at least people go through the procedure of having witnesses and records and so on....... So...... and once a person is [declared] innocent, they are innocent and there is no bringing of further charges..... 
Chris: But Tony -- you’re crossing bridges....... you’re accusing us of making....... doing one thing and bringing further charges when we.....you know? 
Ant: Well I’m not suggesting that you are going to bring further charges, what I’m saying is that you are not limiting the number of witnesses 
Chris: Tony -- the scriptures say at the mouth of two or three witnesses 
Ant: That’s right. 
Chris: And that is what we’ll leave it at 
Ant: Alright 
Chris: We wont say any more about that. That is what we will leave it at that Tony 
Ant: Well I object to that 
Chris: O.K. 
Ant: O.K. but I object to that  I don't object to the scriptures but I object to your interpretation that you can bring as many witnesses as you wish [without naming them first which was the original point or bringing them forward to face me] 
Chris: O.K., well OK. 
Ant: Since the Watchtower Society is sponsoring this judicial trial tonight , it is imposing standards of justice on me which it could not accept itself and that is also contrary to human rights 
Chris: What...... what do you mean by that? 
Ant: Well when the Watchtower Society goes to court, they expect to have a fair trial and they are given a fair trial because they are in a “worldly” court with qualified and educated people who are running the show and I am not being given that benefit and the Watchtower Society is using you to try me on the basis of its outlines and guidelines and these are conditions which are not acceptable to the Watchtower Society itself . It does not sit in a court like this and expect...... or receive the treatment I am receiving tonight 
Chris: So are you saying the Society have double standards? 
Ant: Well you could say that because ...... 
Chris: I’m asking you if that’s what you say........ 
Robin: Is that what you feel......  is that what you feel regarding this little illustration that you said? 
Ant: Well I’m asking you what do you think? 
Chris: No, tell us.........[and incriminate yourself] 
Ant: What I’m saying to you......... I’m asking.....no.... I’m not answering any questions [laughs]. What I’m saying to you is the Watchtower Society goes to the European Court of Human Rights in Bulgaria...... regarding the Bulgarian case in 1998, in March. They took out a full-page advert in the Washington Post regarding the French tax case, and an open letter to President Chirac in the Washington Post a few months ago, stating that the French government was violating their human rights and ehhhh....that...... and so on.... The Watchtower Society is presenting itself as a champion of human rights and minority groups but it is not giving me the same standards of justice that it expects for itself. And when it goes to court, they have lawyers, they have defence, they have preparation, they have evidence, they go to court and if it doesn’t work the first time around they can go to an Appeal court then they can go to a higher court and then they can even go to the European Court of Human Rights. So...... not being given the right to counsel or any of the other things that I have mentioned. The Watchtower Society is asking me to do what it would not have done to itself. And you too are obviously also participating in that 
Chris: Anything else? 
Ant: Well how do you feel about that? Does it not bother you? It would bother me. 
Chris: We're asking you how you feel because we haven't even the started the...... ehhhh........  [this must be about 40 minutes in and they haven't assked me a single question!!]
Ant: But the point is I've got all these objections 
Chris: O.K. 
Ant: And this trial is violating my rights and is just a farce from the beginning 
Robin:  Have you got many more objection Tony can I just ask? 
Ant: Well I think I'll go on a wee while longer but I've only got two or three more 
Chris:  Lets have two more then [they are impatient and frustrated, sitting with arms tightly crossed. The body language says it all] 
Ant: There have also been breaches of confidentiality because I have the impression that half of Edinburgh knows about this case, including at least three Jehovah's Witness wives.
{EM: Do not discuss private or judicial matters with members of your family, including your wife, or with others who are not involved. Think before you speak. Be extremely careful that you do not inadvertently disclose private information when speaking on the telephone while others are listening in or when people are nearby where they could possibly hear the conversation..........  Be careful to maintain confidentiality}
Chris: [unclear] 
Ant: No I wont mention names but I can assure you that there have been breaches of confidentiality People know about this and the rumour is that I have been “dealt with” to quote John. 
Chris: To quote John? How does he.....? 
Ant:.....although that's hearsay 
Chris: So we're not here to listen to hearsay [he pounces on this technicality!] 
Ant: No, but......... 
Chris: As you would say..... as you would say you want justice, we're not here to discuss hearsay 
Ant: Yes that's right, that's right Well I'll give you justice even though you don't give me justice. The point I'm making is that there definitely is rumours which I've heard which definitely suggest that people..... well which show that people definitely know about this case and that women and Jehovah's Witness wives know about this case which is in direct contravention of your own elders manual which says that elders should not discuss such things with their wives 
Chris: Which they shouldn’t. I agree with you 
Ant: That's right 
Chris: But that's just rumours Tony? 
Ant: No it's not rumours I have a witness who could verify that.....that several people know about this case 
Chris: Based on what? 
Ant:.....two or three wives know about it 
Chris: Elders’ wives? 
Ant: Yes at least one elder’s wife that I know of and that know that this meeting's taking place 
Dennis: That know that this meeting's taking place to-night? 
Ant: No, not so much ....... 
Robin:  That know of the case in general you mean? 
Ant: Yes -- and that I am “being done” so to speak 
Chris: But you’re not prepared to tell us who? 
Ant: Not yet [it would incriminate others to reveal my source] 
Chris: Not yet? 
Ant: But I give you my word that I heard it on good authority 
Chris: Have you any other objection ? 
Ant: That, if in the case I'm disfellowshipped, no proper explanation will be given to the public and this will cause slander and gossip against me and defame me which perfectly suits the Watchtower Society description of apostates and those who leave the organisation 
Chris: Say that again Tony 
Ant: That no proper explanation will be given to the public -- the members of the congregation --  if I am disfellowshipped and that this will cause slander and gossip against me and defame me and this perfectly suits the Watchtower Society's description of apostates and those who leave the organisation. In other words, what it means is that when people leave the organisation and are several years later are disfellowshipped, nobody actually know what they have done -- they dont know if they've been abusing children or murdering somebody or adultery or winning "Spot the Ball" as somebody did a few years ago - and was not disfellowshipped - or whatever, or simply just disagreeing with something. It could be anything from mass-murder to a disagreement, but the whole nature of the disfellowshipping act is such that the accused is defamed and has no opportunity to let the public know what was done and again that's.... 
Chris: What you do is up to you Tony. Say a disfellowshipping is announced, that's all we do We don't tell the public why and all that....  [he misses the point - again] 
Ant: I know that 
Robin: .: .....but the congregations would know Tony you see. What I mean by that is when any person is disfellowshipped  - you'll know this - when any person is disfellowshipped then the reason is they had an unrepentant attitude toward whatever it was that was the matter at hand ["whatever it was" could be murder, masturbation, smoking tobacco, immorality - or disagreement with the Watchtower] 
Ant: It doesn't really matter what it is, does it? 
Robin:  That's why they’re disfellowshipped, you see. The organisation has the right to do that to put people........ to remove individuals from it if they will no longer submit to certain standards that that organisation sets I mean...... a golf club for example [back to familiar ground] 
Ant: Yes........ 
Robin:  .......has certain rules doesn’t it? If its individual members or an individual member flagrantly or disagrees or will no longer submit to certain standards of that golf club, the golf club would have the right to ask that person to no longer renew their membership. Its a similar sort of thing 
Ant: Let me give you another example: I was a member of Edinburgh University Chess Club for about......... ehhh.....I can't remember....say seven or eight years. A regular, active member.......... played for the team, attended every week at the Monday night club and playing for the team in the local league. Then I left. And I haven't been a member of the club for..... oh....... another ......... probably five or six years. And now because I've lost interest in chess, when people say - when chess friends see me in the street -- I say “Oh chess! I can't be bothered with it now. I don't play it and it's too much like hard work". But they don't persecute me or shun me or spread rumours about me or avoid me or fear me because I don't any longer wish to play chess. 
Robin: But you left the chess club on a completely voluntary basis and not because you flagrantly disregarded any rules they........you weren't put out. You left. [precisely -- as I left JWs] 
Ant: So does a person have the right to leave a religion? And does a person have the right to leave a religion and not be harassed afterwards? 
Robin:  But they won't be harassed Tony because no-one will be able to even speak to them [incredible!!] How are they going to harass them? 
Ant: How do you mean? [I did not realise he had missed the point] 
Robin:  So how are they going to harass them? Do you know what I mean? Harassment?...... 
If the person leaves the religion....... 
Ant: No, no....I'm talking about ........how do you mean “nobody will even speak to them”? 
Robin:  .......because as you know... 
Ant: Are you referring to Jehovah's Witnesses ? 
Robin:  Yes -- if a person is disfellowshipped from the Christian congregation [JWs] right, then other persons on knowing that will not say a greeting to that person.. 
Ant: That's the point I'm making....... 
Robin:.:.....based on the scriptures.. ....based on scriptural guidelines [based on the Watchtower actually] 
Ant: That's the point I'm making that you can leave..... 
Robin:  But that's a lot different from harassing though Tony 
Ant: I'm not referring to harassing...... no .... what I'm saying is, you can leave the Chess Club and -- fine. You meet chess-players in the street, they say “Hello, do you want to go for a drink? Do you want to come round to my house? And you can even say "Well I'll come round to your house but I don't want to play chess.....but I've given it up. I'm just not interested anymore -- fine. What I'm saying here is, I leave a religion - or this religion - or if a person wants to leave the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses they cannot quietly do so. They cannot leave the religion with honour. Sooner or later they will be dishonoured and then as you say the congregation will be instructed to.......
{EM: Disfellowshipped and disassociated ones are shunned by those who wish to have a good relationship with Jehovah. [or more accurately, the Watchtower Society]............  John counsels against speaking to or associating with a disfellowshipped or disassociated person so as not to be "a sharer in his wicked works." (2 John 11 ) 
[twisting scripture to fit Watchtower -- and some more blasphemy to finish]..... 
The principle set forth in Jesus' words at Matthew 10:34-38 has a bearing on situations involving disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives}
Chris: Tony -- Tony -- on that point as you mentioned at the outset..... 
Ant: But do you see the point I'm making here? 
Chris: We see the point you're making O.K.? 
Ant: Its down to human rights again..... 
Chris: We're not violating any of your human rights O.K.? 
Ant: Well I disagree. I must disagree  I cannot accept otherwise 
Chris: That's fine - that's another point I've noted down here and we've also heard you say that several times. The point is Tony as we said at the outset, there have been allegations made and everyone's innocent until proven guilty  O.K.? Allegations have been made which we feel as a body of elders which if true, based on our understanding of the scriptures right, could be a danger to the spiritual welfare of the congregation. If someone chooses to leave the congregation, just drift away quietly into oblivion  [!!!!] that's up to them, but if some leave the congregation and choose to continue to associate to whatever the degree is, with Witnesses in the congregation and if...... if they have apostate leanings, and teachings which they then convey to these brothers and sisters within the congregation, then action has to be taken That's the difference between someone who just drifts away and someone who still has contact and who we feel is a danger and that's what we're concerned with or not. 
Ant:  Why are you worried about what people say? Why are you afraid of what people say? 
Chris: Why are we afraid? We are following the guidelines from the scriptures. If people leave "the truth" and say things, right, twisting the truth, twisting our understanding of scriptures which. as you say is what they say and that can endanger the lives of our brothers in the congregation....... that s why we're concerned about what people say 
Ant: I believe many truths about many things but if someone comes along and challenges them I do not fear them or run away from them or am afraid to speak to them. So I have to ask, Why do you fear hearing something when you have the truth? 
Chris: O.K. if...... 
Ant: You should not be afraid to hear anything 
Chris: ......are you.......So your interpretation of the truth is different from ours then is that what you're saying? [attempting to take the offensive and reach familiar ground] 
Ant: No, what I'm saying is ehhh...... for example I believe -- I hope I get this right -- I believe that the planets all go round the sun. To me that is a truth, but if someone came along and tried to argue otherwise, I would not fear them or worry about what they were saying to me. I would listen to them and I would come to a conclusion. [compare Galileo and the Roman Church] 
Chris: The apostle Peter likened these people that you should fear as wolves in sheep's clothing on one occasion O.K. so that's a definite fear [No he didn't  - see Acts 20:28,29] 
Ant: Those were people in the congregation [not a member of the public!] Elders who were in the congregation. 
Chris: But the principle applies. You don’t have to be an elder to cause a problem to the congregation 
Ant: No, but they were particularly elders in that case 
Chris: Yeah, but the principle applies to all 
Ant: Yes, right O.K. [I realise I'm wasting my time] 
Chris: Or are you saying that....... that....... what Peter was saying only applies to elders? Is that what you're saying? 
Ant: I would have to look at it. I am only remembering, but what I’m saying also, is that it was applying to people in the congregation 
Chris: O.K. so what you’re saying, “in the congregation” -- “just elders”? Which of those two are you saying? 
Ant: Well I know it would apply to people in the congregation..... 
Chris: OK, so......... 
Ant:  ......and I think it was also particularly applying to elders -- but I can’t  remember right now.
[I am right in fact as I discovered later on checking: "After his “going away” (apparently in death), “oppressive wolves” would “not treat the flock with tenderness.” Such men would arise from among the elders themselves, and less discerning disciples would accept their twisted teachings".— w90 6/15 22 -- Why do I know Watchtower teaching better than these elders??]

Chris: It applies to those in the congregation..... those that associate with those in the congregation [adding to scriptures !] If you are a danger ...... you don’t have to .....you....... a wolf doesn’t have to be right in the heart of the flock 
Ant: Yes, I know, I know. [They have missed the point again] 
Chris: .........it can pick off those that are drifting away back into the hills and so on. 
Ant: But why shouldn't they drift away if they wish? 
Robin:  There’s nothing to stop them drifting away if they wish Tony [Oh! No??] 
Ant: So why are you interfering with them then? 
Chris: But not....... but not if they come back as sheep in wolves clothing......wolves in sheeps clothing 
Ant: Well, what I’m saying is..... ummm.... if there is a wolf and the sheep wish to leave the flock and go off and be eaten by the wolf, then how is it your concern........... 
Chris:  Of course it is! Of course it is! [whatever happened to free will?] 
Ant: ........to worry about it? 
Chris: If you’re a loving shepherd you’re not just going to let the sh........if..... you will take whatever necessary protection you can to protect that sheep. 
Robin: Yes - because sometimes shepherds would endanger their lives wouldn’t they? Sheep just drift off aimlessly 
Ant: Yes, but supposing........ 
Chris: [unclear]
Ant: Yes, OK OK. Fine then. [they have missed the point and I decide to let this go]   I see your point, what you were trying to say. 
Chris: O.K. Now Tony, any more? 
Ant: Another question: do you view me as a Jehovah's Witness, Robin? 
[ouch! - a bombshell] 
Robin:   ......ehhhm........good question.............. ehmm....... I would say........ 
Ant: Yes or No? 
Robin:  I would say, Yes. [This is a little surprising, but I am prepared] 
Ant: Dennis? 
Dennis: I would say Yes too because you were baptised and....... you've just drifted away 
Ant: And Chris? 
Chris: Yes [they cannot disagree] 
Ant: So I’ve got to ask myself in that case, why have you not been looking after me for three and a half years if I am a Jehovah's Witness? [Loving Shepherds??] Because for the last three and a half years, I have not had a Kingdom Ministry, [monthly bulletin] I have not had a Blood card, signed and dated and witnessed and I’ve not had any shepherding calls and I have not been treated as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I have not been invited to any social events or special events of any kind. So I would have to ask you, how you can view me as a Jehovah's Witness? 
Chris: O.K. The point is Tony, you have had shepherding calls and I’ve ........ 
Ant: Well the last time I had a shepherding call was three years ago. Three years ago! [from my local group elder] 
Chris: You’ve had calls. I’ve been to you up until, what? - 18 months ago? 
Ant: I don't think it was as recent as that. 
Chris: It was, Tony. 
Ant: Well let’s agree that....... 
Chris: Because you were working on my house 18 months ago. 
Ant: Well I wouldn’t call that a shepherding call. [It was hard labouring work!!] 
Chris: No. I’m saying at that particular time I was still coming to visit you with the magazines [precisely - this was a magazine drop. He never once discussed the Bible, even when I attempted to raise points I had read in it] 
Ant: Alright, I will concede that it was 18 months ago in your own case -- in your own case -- but I would have to ask then “What about the rest of them?” 
Chris: What? The point is, Tony, we’ve........we.ve........... 
Ant: Because you were not -- sorry -- you were not my local group elder were you? 
Chris: No 
Ant: At no time were you ever my local group elder? 
Chris: No [in fact, it was Roddie Darroch, one of the "loving shepherd" witnesses waiting outside to do me harm!]
Robin:  I don't think I was either, I don’t think I was. 
Ant: No, but as it happened Chris was indeed the only person who visited me within say, the last........ yes, say 18 months, right? But no-one else has. And yes -- you did visit me in hospital a year ago [I give him this -- I had invited him to do so because I had believed he was a friend. When other non-JW visitors came they brought fruit and flowers and gifts. He and his wife called after a Sunday meeting with -- you guessed -- two magazines, despite the fact that I had one eye padded and heavily bandaged after major eye surgery] But no-one else has had any formal contact with me....... 
Chris: OK -- Tony..... 
Ant: .......and I would have to suggest that a person who cannot -- or does not -- hold a blood card is not a Jehovah's Witness. So you [Jehovah's Witnesses] have not treated me as a Jehovah's Witness. And if you [Chris] have treated me as a Jehovah's Witness, then you are the exception to all the people in this congregation....... 
Chris: O.K. 
Ant:  .......80, 90 people? 
Chris: But, O.K., I know the point you’re coming to - that if you have not been treated as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, then what right do we have........ 
Ant: Precisely -- because I am a member of the public. 
Chris:  We have noted what you’ve said O.K. Have you got any more points there?

[they are all sitting with arms tightly folded -- the body language is shouting volumes] 

Ant:  Ummmm.......... 
Chris:  Provided.......they’re not a repetition of what you’ve already said...... 
Ant: No I wouldn’t even think of that. But that is the primary...... 
Chris:  OK 
Ant: That is most of the....... 
Chris: You’ll have........you’ll have another opportunity to bring up the other points there
{EM: Does he still profess to be a Witness? [No!!] Is he generally recognized as such in the congregation and/or the community? [No] Does the person have a measure of contact or association with the congregation so that a leavening, or corrupting, influence exists? [No] How did the matter become known to the elders? [Good question- - how indeed??] Is the person willing to meet with a committee, thus admitting accountability to the Christian congregation? [only to expose and embarrass them -- everything is on tape]...... If the individual still professes to be a Witness and is willing to meet with the judicial committee, the matter should be handled in the normal way. However, when factors such as possible legal action exist, it is best to consult the Society before proceeding}
Ant: Emmm....... just one other thing was......emmmm...... that I don’t recognise this court. 
[just for good measure and in case there's any misunderstanding] 
Chris:  Eh....eh..... Now the gist of what you’ve said there at this stage O.K. Have you got any questions? [To the others] If not we’ll ask the first............. 
Robin:  I dont think there’s any questions at the moment no, no.....  [tempus fugit] 
Chris: Right O.K. We’ll call Roddie in. Will you ask him in? 
Robin:  Right yes 
Ant: I take it I’m allowed to question him? 
Chris: Of course 
Ant: And he has to answer? Is that fair enough? 
Chris: Sorry I’m just getting........ [my breath back?] 
Ant: And he has to answer me? 
Chris: Yeah. We’re not.....we’re not..... we’re here as three brothers here to ensure it doesn’t become an argument. 
Ant: A rammy? [old Scottish word] 
[Roddie enters] 
Chris: I mean the two of you......its not......eemmmm....... an opportunity to air personal differences, do you know what I mean Tony ? 
Ant: Yes 
Chris: I mean we're here to establish the truth, but not to have a dig at any individual 
Ant: Yes 
Chris: O.K. Now as we mentioned at the outset, Roddie has been invited along on the basis of what was alleged to have said to him on that....... on that particular occasion so perhaps Roddie you’d like to just briefly explain to us what..... what occurred [so the "concerned Witnesses" are never called, but are replaced with the two agents provocateurs] 
Roddie: Well there was a conversation which lasted, I expect, three-quarters to an hour and during that conversation Tony’s first remarks were that he was very happy. He was doing whatever he wanted to do. Virtually a free agent I would say, from the way he spoke. I don’t think he used that particular term, but he was happy and that ehh......  it came out during the conversation that he had ehh....... he no longer....... he didn't accept the authority of the "faithful and discreet slave" nor of course the local body of elders and with regard to the "faithful and discreet slave" he said that he doubted or questioned ..... shall I say, questioned - that they would have been appointed, or accepted - as what we consider they are -- as the "faithful and discreet slave" during the 1920s, particularly after the "cleansing process" in 1918, 1919. During the 20s the "faithful and discreet slave" was still doing so many things wrong, particularly I think he mentioned birthdays and Xmas and also mentioned when applying understandings of scripture that they had reversed their......  changed their mind as many as five times he mentioned, on one particular issue......  I can’t remember what it was, either whether he had mentioned what it was, but that seemingly to me to be an effort to show that the "faithful and discreet slave" were not to be trusted or weren't to be followed and ehh....... he also mentioned some situation to do with distance that’s mentioned in the Bible and that this -- I don’t know whether it was Brother Rutherford or Brother Russell or whoever, ...had come up with the idea that this was a particular distance in New York or Brooklyn and that this was, you know, a distance in the Bible. [see The Finished Mystery] That also with regard to the ehh........  the ehh...... "faithful and discreet slave" it seemed that Tony was blaming them for the fact that some people had died due to lack of blood transfusion and also that they were ... .they were ....  maybe........ he was blaming them again for such things as some getting divorced. Also he didn’t accept that they had the right to make decisions regarding our dress or for that matter, dealing with the subject of ...... emm....... sexual practices within marriage. They shouldn't have the right to make decisions or tell us what was appropriate and emmm......or not. Other than that, it seemed to me particularly toward the end of the conversation Tony was doubting whether we really had “Christ in our hearts” and was willing to help us scripturally to get an accurate knowledge or to have that better understanding, that he would be happy to help us with that which happened to be......really trying to get us to change our situation within "the truth" or out of "the truth"...... and that’s...... 
Chris: What .......what was that bit again Tony .....eehhh Roddie? 
Roddie: That he would be happy to help us to....eehhh......  scripturally to help us to get what he felt we lacked which was “Christ in our hearts”. These were.........eehhh.......  probably the main points...... 
Chris: O.K. so you’ve heard the allegations from Roddie, Tony . Any comments? 
Ant: No comments just now. Do you have a library I can use? 
[this is a serious mistake on my part, from which I was lucky to escape. Remember, you cannot successfully argue Watchtower doctrine with JW elders]
Chris: A library? [yes -- a room with lots of books] 
Ant: Yes 
Chris: For......? 
Ant: Yes - a Watchtower library 
Chris: What? Is it......? Do you want to look up something right at this moment? 
Ant: Yes, uh-huh 
Chris: Emmm........for what particular point did you want to look up? 
Ant:  Eehhh........evidence. 
Chris: What? I mean what sort of point? Emmmmm.......well what sort of evidence? 
Ant:  Aaahh.... well, I’ll show you when I find it. If you have the [Watchtower] volume. 
Chris: The volumes are there. 
Ant: Can I have a look at them? 
Chris: Which one is it you want to look at? 
Ant: Probably 1968, and...... maybe.......well....... whatever else you’ve got?......I don.'t know. 
Chris: Probably 1968 
Ant: It will take me 5 minutes 
Chris: Five minutes? [to Robin] Can you get the 1968 volume? 
Robin:  1968 
Ant: I’ll nip along to the Gents while you’re doing that if you don’t mind. 

[Ant exits - time to change the recording tape!] 

Roddie: [speaks quietly] Is there anything more you want me for? [unclear] do you think? 
Chris: Yeah. You’ll have to stay here until he has not refused to question you on it which he...... by the looks of it, he’s going to get a Watchtower to look at....... 
Roddie: Uh-huh. 
Chris: Are you ready for a long evening of it Dennis? 
Dennis: Yeah 
Chris: Are you O.K.? 
Dennis: Yes I’m fine 
Robin: [returns] Jolly hockey-sticks guys, ehh? Right, there we are now.......... 
[there is a very loud "Thud". Does he drop the Watchtower volumes? Or my zipped bag, containing the recorder?] 
Roddie: I don’t see that this is very good to......... 
Chris: Just one little point, look. Don’t mention anything now ......let’s just...... 
Robin: [quietly]  Sound........ schtttuummmm........ 
[whispering and a rustle of keys] 
Chris:  I’ll ask him. I’ll ask him. He shouldn’t have one. 
[All remain quiet for two minutes. Someone touches my bag] 
Chris: [quietly] Did you give him the Watchtowers? They’re the three he wanted? 

[Ant returns -- the rest of this meeting is a shambles, but I still gain another 10 minutes of material]

Ant: Can I speak now? 
Chris: There eehh......... there is just one thing. You haven’t..... you haven't got a tape-recorder?  [now he asks??] 
Ant:  Sorry? [I am surprised at this stage -- I had expected this question earlier and I am a little confused and tired -- I have been concentrating for fully two hours] 
Chris: Are you recording this? 
Ant  I’m not answering any questions.  I’ve told you that before I came in that I would not answer any questions 
Chris: Are you recording this Tony ? 
Ant:  I’m not answering any questions. About anything [see line 32 above] 
Chris: So are you refusing to say whether this is recorded? 
Ant: Yes, I would refuse to say that and I would refuse to answer any questions regarding any......... 
Chris: On the grounds of what? 
Ant: Because I have the right to remain silent [of course I am contradicting myself -- it is difficult to “remain silent” while making a defence, but I am selectively refusing to answer questions] 
Chris: You certainly do, but are you refusing to tell us whether you have a tape-recorder? 
Ant: Yes I would 
Chris: Why? 
Ant: Well, because........ because if I did I would  [“might” would be better] incriminate myself and if I answered any questions that you put to me, I might also incriminate myself. So I have decided that I will not answer any questions to-night at all. 
Chris: Not prepared to answer any questions........?
{EM: Is the person co-operative? When questioned, are his answers forthright?}
Ant: Yes because I expect you to prove your own case [otherwise the committee asks  “did you do it?” and the case is over - summary justice!] 
Chris: So you’re not prepared to tell us whether you’re recording this or not? 
Ant: No, I wouldn’t. 
Chris: Why?  [Why am I arguing about this? All will b revealed in the next transcript] 
Ant: Well I’ll let you guess. [I don't want todeny it and  lie or the trascript would be invalidated - "See - apostates are liars"! You might say I am using the Watchtower's own theocratic warfare strategy - "give information only to those who are entitled"]
Chris: Because you are recording it? 
Ant: No, I’m not going to say whether I am or not. I have nothing to say at all. I’m not going to say anything else. 
Chris: [sighs] Well, we're not going to carry on then. 
Ant: O.K. [So, I've just wasted TEN hours of your time!] 
Chris: That's.... 
Ant: That's O.K., but this is the whole point of what I’ve been saying to you earlier on. The very fact that this meeting is being held in these circumstances means that I cannot possibly have any means of proving what has been said and even the fact that you have accused me of doing that....... I cannot prove that you have accused me of doing that. 
Chris: Sorry ...... you cannot prove......? 
Ant: I can’t even prove that you have accused me of doing something that you told me I could not do. 
Chris: Say that again......... sorry. 
Ant: Well you told me before I came along that I would not be able to have a recorder and I would not be able to bring witnesses, bring observers and anyone to defend me. 
Chris: Yes so those.......so those...... 
Ant: And you also told me I had the right to remain silent. 
Chris: If you want to ... 
Ant: So...... that’s right.......so the point I’m making is that......that I’m not going to answer any questions. I’ve made that point already. I went to the toilet. I mean .......you should have come to the toilet with me if you thought I would do something like that. 
Chris: What? Do what? 
Ant: Well if you were concerned that I was recording this conversation, then.......... 
Chris: No, no I’m just asking you.....because we said at the outset that we’re not having tape-recordings. [and I am expected to obey them?] All I’m asking is a simple question, Yes or No. 
Ant No, I’m not prepared to answer any questions at all. I’m not prepared to answer any [incriminating] questions that are directed at me at all because I think that you have to prove your case and if .... if.... if you were concerned about such a thing I would have to ask you why you would be concerned about it? 
Chris: Are.... have you got........ are you recording this, yes or no? 
Ant: I’m not going to answer any questions  [this is beginning to sound like a recording!!] 
Chris: Well the meeting’s finished then 
Ant: That’s fine, that’s fine, but let it be noted that I came along and let it be noted that I was willing to...... 
Chris: Well let's put it this way: the meeting is finished at this point in time O.K. Thanks for your time Roddie. [the rules have changed and suddenly they don't want to play any more.......] 
Robin:  Thanks Roddie 
Ant: I don’t ask you...... I don’t ask you what you may or may not have in your pockets or on your person...... 
Chris: I have..... I can tell you there's no recording of this 
Ant: Well that's fine but I wouldn’t even dream of asking you. I wouldn’t even think of asking you and I would have to ask you why you would even suggest that....... 
Chris: Suggest it? I’m not..... I’m just asking you because the guideline is “No tape-recordings". I’m just asking you have you got........ 
Ant: Whose guideline is that? 
Chris: The Society’s [thank you, Chris. Just what I wanted!] 
Ant: Right. So where does it say in the Bible that a person would not be able to make a recording....... or a record of what has been done?
{EM: Always give them direction from God's Word; avoid giving your own opinions.......God's Word is the basis for needed correction}
Chris: Look, Tony -- we’re not getting into an argument over ......We’ve asked you You’ve refused to answer. O.K. 
Ant: O.K. Yes, but let it be known that I refused to answer all [incriminating] questions and I have not answered any questions up till now. 
Chris: That will be noted 
Ant: Yes and I would have to ask you also why you are even interested in the fact that I might have or could have had a recorder. What has prompted you to ask? 
Chris: No. Because we just want to confirm that. 
Ant: Why didn’t you ask me at the beginning? 
Chris: Because I forgot. That’s just a simple explanation Tony.
Ant: Well I think that's one of the problems that you’ve got when you’re following someone else’s guidelines. 
Chris: What? We forgot. 
Ant: Yes, I think....... 
Robin: Surely you could forget something like that if you were following anyone's guidelines or your own even. People can forget certain little points....... 
Ant: Well I’ve got to ask you again - Who are you working for? Who are you doing this for? 
Chris: Tony -- Tony.... 
Ant: Are you doing this for my benefit or your own benefit or are you doing it for someone else? 
Chris: Tony -- this meeting has now concluded [but I am still obtaining useful material] O.K. because you are refusing to answer any questions, but more importantly, you’re not telling us whether you’re recording this....... we're not going to search you. 
Ant: I would lie..... I could lie to you if you want, you know..... I would always have the option of lying wouldn't I ? But I wouldn’t do that. I’m simply saying I won’t answer questions because I don’t think your question is a pertinent one...... [I do not lie because it would perfectly match the profile of an "apostate" and would invalidate the transcript] 
Chris: That’s fine Tony. You’ve made....... 
Ant: I don’t think you’ve got the right to ask that question 
Chris: You’ve made your point.......emmmmm.......and that's it 
Robin:  Yep 
Chris: .......because ....... end of story OK.......at this point in time O.K.? The meeting is concluded alright? Thank you for coming. [he is completely lost] 
Ant: So what happens next? 
Chris: What happens next? We’ll let you know. 
Ant: So am I just supposed to........ hang about and wait for you to call me or something? 
Chris: No. We’ll.........emm.... 
Ant: You see I went to a lot of trouble to-night and I’m not very happy about this. I’ve gone to a lot of trouble. I’ve had sleepless nights and a lot of problems and concerns and you promised me a fair trial. You promised me that I would have the right to remain silent. You promised me that I would not have to answer any questions if I didn’t wish to......... 
Chris: But Tony .....yeah....we are respecting your views then we expect respect on your part..... 
Ant: But you don’t respect my person........ 
Chris: Tony..... 
Ant: .......because you’re actually saying to me, “What have you got in your pockets?” 
Chris: Tony -- we ...... 
Ant: Supposing I said, “Well I haven’t got a tape-recorder, but here’s a gun -- "Bang - Bang - Bang"?  [Instead, at this point, I take an orange from my pocket and begin peeling it] 
Chris: Tony - we told you on the phone....... I told you on the phone that there would be no witnesses unless they were witnesses to the allegations we were bringing, no observers, no tape-recordings. All we’re asking you is to confirm that you have no tape-recorder. That’s all. All we’re asking you. 
Ant: Well I don’t think you’ve got the right to ask that question [not to me anyway!] 
Chris: Well we feel that we have. 
Ant: I respect your right to ask ......... 
Chris: You’ve come to a lot of problems to get here so have we, but Tony, if you refuse to answer that question, its the end of the meeting. 
Ant: Then can you tell me then, why is it that if I’m not allowed to use a recorder, why is it that Robin is allowed to listen in to our telephone conversation? Can you explain that? Because you did? 
Chris: No he didn’t 
Ant: On the night when you phoned me? 
Chris: I asked you....... 
Ant: On the night when you phoned me? 
Robin:  I didn’t listen in to the conversation. That was just...... 
Ant: You were not present in the room? 
Robin:  Nope 
Ant: That’s fair enough 
Chris: It was a one-to-one, Tony. I invited........can we have Tony [Robin] and you said, No.[he wanted to ask me “Do you wish to be a Jehovah's Witness or not? With a witness present. “No” means that I would be considered to have disassociated myself -- even on the phone. This has the same consequences as disfellowshipping] 
Robin: We respected your........ 
Ant: I’ve got to take your word for that as well..... 
Robin: Yes, of course. 
Ant: You see I could just as easily say, Oh well, we’ll not .......... 
Chris: O.K. Tony. We appreciate you coming here, but we’ve had a lot of effort to come here  We will now........ 
Ant:  .........but the same thing will happen again...... because if I come along again I will refuse to answer that question and I will refuse to answer any other questions because I have the right to remain silent. 
Chris: Excuse me.....Roddie hasn’t gone has he? 
Robin:  Do you want me to check? 
Chris: Don’t let him go. 
Ant: I mean are you just going to go ahead with this trial anyway now? 
Chris: Well we’re going to listen to what they have to say. 
Ant: What about...... Do I not get a chance to hear them? 
Chris: Tony 
Ant: I’ve come here to hear them 
Chris: You will hear them if you can tell us whether you have a recorder or not. I don’t see what is the big deal is if you can’t tell us honestly Yes or No, whether you have a recorder or not. 
Ant: But why ....... supposing I did. Why shouldn’t I have one? 
Chris: Because we have requested you not to bring one along. 
Ant: Why have you asked a person to do that? That’s what I’m concerned about. 
Chris: That is the Society's directive  [thank you again Chris -- but why is the Watchtower Society afraid of a recording?] 
Ant: Is it the Bible’s directive? Is it God’s directive? That’s what I’m asking you. 
Chris: It is the Society’s directive that we do not have recordings during these meetings..... 
Ant: Why? Why is it secret, is what I want to know? Why are you asking me to come along to a secret meeting where I have no means of verifying what was said? This is all that I mentioned at the beginning. 
Chris: For the very fact Tony and we won’t discuss this any further, under the Data Protection Act O.K., we don’t keep lengthy copious notes of these meetings going on and we don’t keep recordings of the meeting and for that reason we don’t expect witnesses to come in and keep recordings of it just as we don’t. [under the Act, recordings and notes would be open to scrutiny by interested parties!] So now you’ve spent a lot of time  preparing things, having sleepless nights and I can assure you we have as well O.K. so we all appreciate the effort that it’s come to and we would like the matter to come to a conclusion. The ultimate goal is that we all stay “in the truth” [JW religion] and that we resolve our problems, but were not going to proceed with this if you cannot tell us. Its as simple as that Tony 
Ant: I can't answer...... I told you I’m not going to answer any questions. 
Chris: Including whether you have a tape-recorder? 
Ant: Yes.
Chris:  Well we .... then despite how many sleepless nights you’ve had Tony, the meeting is concluded 
Ant: That's fine, but I have to lodge a protest......that I’m not able to be present to hear the evidence when I came along to do that 
Chris: O.K., but you know the reason why. 
Ant: Aye. I know the reason why - because you think that there is the possibility that I have a tape-recorder. 
Chris: Well, because you won’t tell us one way or the other. 
Ant: I won’t tell you one way or the other because I will not answer any questions. I mean I could do a strip-search if you want. How ridiculous do you want to be? 
Chris: We’re not asking you to do that. The meeting is finished Tony 
Ant: I have to ask you why you want to conduct this meeting in secret? And I think you need to ask yourselves that. [did you ever have a piece of grit in your eye that just wouldn't go away?!]
Chris: O.K. Tony we hear what you say.
Ant: Why are you doing that? 
Chris: You’ve had a good hour to explain all your objections....... [as long as it takes? see above] 
Robin: Yep 
Ant: I haven't heard the evidence.... 
Chris: I haven’t finished yet Tony  ......and all we’ve asked you is a simple clarification as to whether you have a tape-recorder or not and you refuse to answer. That will be noted I can assure you 
Ant: Fine 
Chris: And we will take it from there and we will be in contact with you in due course. O.K.? 
[but I’m not finished yet........] 
Ant: I have a statement to make before I go. 
Chris: Yes? [Now they are interested -- elders like statements -- especially when they incriminate the person] 
Ant: I would like to say that John has used deception and lies to obtain evidence and if you had allowed me to stay I would have been able to show you that..... so I would ask you to very carefully consider the evidence that he has because he has not been truthful with me 
Chris: Is that your statement? Are you quite clear what you’ve just heard? 
Robin & Dennis: Oh yeah, yeah, Uh-huh. Yeah. 
Chris: Do you want to repeat that statement? 
Ant: I’m saying that John has used deception to enter my home and he has not told the whole truth when he came to see me..... he came under false pretences that he was coming to “have a chat about how I feel about Jehovah's Witnesses now” which was his exact words because he repeated it, twice when I asked him, and when he came to my house, it was not until at least........ maybe 20..... 25 minutes into the conversation that he finally admitted that he was there to investigate me and that was only after I had asked him, “Are you here to investigate me?”, so I would ask you to consider that when you hear his evidence because I think he is a liar and a dishonest and deceitful man. 
Chris: OK. Right. Well we’ve heard what you’ve said Tony. 
Ant: I'll just finish that. [I eat the last piece of orange] I’m sorry you’ve wasted my time. [I start to gather my things together] 
Chris: Well, we’re disappointed Tony as well. 
Ant: I’m not very happy at all. I’ll be hearing from you? 
Chris: OK. Yep. You’ll hear from us. 
[Chris takes me to the door. The two elders/witnesses are still sitting out in the cloakroom] 
Ant: [a cheery] Bye! 
Roddie: Bye. Cheerio. 
[Ant exits, smiling broadly -- and the door slams behind him, echoing loudly in the stair-well]

Postscript 
I had just humiliated the "glorious ones" -- well and truly -- and they cannot let me walk away after that.

Six days later, on Thurs. 6 May, Chris Taylor and Dennis Graham called at my home, asking me if I would have another meeting with the same Committee -- continuing from where we left off  -- next day [i.e. with 28 hours' notice!!] but would I "give my word that I would not bring my tape-recorder?"I said I would think about it and call them within seven days.

Chris was far too friendly and cheeky. I was suspicious -- and rightly so. I had expected the elders to huddle together to collectively destroy me, but unknown to me then, they had also contacted London Bethel [British HQ of the Watchtower Society] for further instructions. That explains why Chris was so buoyant -- he had the backing of "Big Brother" -- his masters in the beloved Organisation.

Although I suspected foul play, I discovered just how low the elders would stoop to gain their revenge and uphold the "righteous standards" of "Jehovah's Theocratic Organisation" when I attended their next meeting on 25th. May. 

For the complete transcript, see The Rude, the Bad and the Ugly.
Copyright (c) Witness Aid UK 2015