If You Accept a Bible Study with Jehovah's Witnesses...........

I published the following article on my website and as a leaflet in 1998 .It is still relevant today although I appreciate there are minor changes to procedures e.g. street witnessing using literature stands, rather than door-to-door in some countries.

If You  Study the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses.....

"When you meet the friendliest people you have ever known, who introduce you to the most loving group of people you've ever encountered............... and then you learn that the cause of the group is something you never dared hope could be accomplished, and all of this sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true! Don't give up your education, your hopes and ambitions to follow a rainbow"

In their 1999 Service Year Report, Jehovah's Witnesses claimed an average of 
4,433,884 Bible Studies. Some of these do not last long - a Study is reported by a Publisher [preacher] after only three Return Visits on average and may be stopped soon afterwards. World-wide, hundreds of thousands of Witnesses are leaving the religion annually, but Witnesses still baptised 323,439 converts. Many of these are the children of Witness parents, but the public are still canvassed regularly. What can you expect if you show an interest in Jehovah's Witnesses?

NOTE:  Some JWs have accused me of lying in the following article because such things are not a part of their JW experience (not all of them happened to me either). Obviously (!) I am not suggesting that all things happen to all people at all times in all places.

The following is a composite of what happens in the experience of most people as they become Witnesses. If the teacher follows the Watchtower Society's guidelines, most of these things will happen to the student.
=======================================

One day, when you are feeling a little depressed or lonely, two friendly JWs will call at your home and tell you about a New World of righteousness and peace coming “soon”, where families will live happily in security - free from unemployment and uncertainty or divorce, disease and death. They will offer you some of their literature to read. Later, with your permission, they will continue to call at your home to answer your questions, about once each week. Each time they visit, the original caller may bring a different companion.

They will invite you to have a Bible study to examine their beliefs using a book - a “study aid” - published by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. For an hour each week, you will examine different subjects which JWs have prepared to explain God’s purpose for us and for our planet, based on their interpretation of the Bible.

You will be encouraged to use their (Revised) New World Translation of the Bible which, the Witnesses say, is the best available because it uses "the Divine Name" throughout. They will tell you that God’s name was removed, so Witness translators inserted the name “Jehovah” in the New Testament where the Greek word for “Lord” appears, as they deemed appropriate.

The "Bible study" is done by reading the book, paragraph by paragraph and answering simple questions on each one. You will be encouraged to find the answers in the paragraph. Then you will be shown Bible texts which, JWs say, prove the point. You will be praised for your answers and your appreciation for what you are learning.

If you insist on using only the Bible, JWs may do so, but it is unlikely to be a contextual study. You will be impressed to see an unlettered and ordinary person find scriptures throughout the Bible which answer all your questions - no matter the subject - and which appear to be in harmony. Later you will realise that all the topics covered were prepared by your discipler using Watchtower publications.

If you pose questions about JWs' 100 year history or doctrine, they will give you answers from Watchtower literature references - or the Proclaimers book - their official history. Kingdom Halls have libraries of Watchtower publications, but few non-Witness reference works.

You will be discouraged from examining independent sources, especially those written by "apostates" - former-Witnesses who are "haters of the truth” - whose only motives, they say, are personal revenge or monetary gain. In contrast, you will learn to trust your Witness disciplers who are decent, friendly people, without ulterior motives.

Each time they call, your JW disciplers will offer you more Watchtower reading material which, they say, is essential to your understanding the Bible.You will not have to pay for this, but donations will be accepted. Usually, the Witnesses themselves will have already given "a donation" for this literature which they offer you.

You will be invited to the Kingdom Hall, where you will be warmly greeted by all and especially by the people who have already met you. You will be very impressed by the friendliness of the congregation members, their interest in you and their invitation to return. As you continue your weekly study, you will be encouraged to attend all five meetings regularly (on three days) and warmly commended for your attendance.

During this period, you will be surprised by the amount of knowledge you are accumulating through the meetings and publications of the Watchtower Society which, you will eventually learn, is an international corporation with Branch Offices and extensive property throughout the world

You will learn that there are two classes of Witnesses: a “little flock” (closed since 1935) will go directly to heaven to be with God, if they remain faithful to death.

You will be one of a Great Crowd who may live forever in Paradise on earth. If you die truly faithful before Armageddon, you will be resurrected. During 1,000 years in the New World, you will prove your faith by good works, then you will have another test. If you pass that test, you will live forever on earth.

You will be taught that JWs are the only true religion in all the earth and that every other person on this planet -- Christians included -- is controlled by the Devil. But "soon" at Armageddon, Jehovah will destroy all opposers -- people who do not accept "Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses". After this great battle, there will be billions of bodies on earth including the innocent children of opposers and the few people who survive Armageddon under Jehovah's protection will have to clear them and bury them to make a paradise out of this planet.

Over the weeks and months, as you become serious about becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses, your habits and your personality will change.

You won't be seen in your usual pubs, clubs and discos. You will stop smoking. Your friends will wonder why you don’t send them Xmas cards or accept birthday presents now. They won’t understand why you won’t come to the cinema to see “18” or perhaps even “15-rated” films any more.

Your choice of music will change: you may throw out some of your CD collection because you consider them “unsuitable” now or believe them to be “influenced by Satan”. You may stop attending rock concerts too.

You will stop voting or taking a serious interest in politics, the environment or current affairs because “soon”, all earth’s problems will be solved by God at Armageddon.

You may reduce your business commitments or seek new employment and you will definitely leave the Armed Forces or Volunteer Reserves.

You may stop using the internet or reduce your use of it because you were warned that "apostates" - former JWs - have websites which tell lies about "Jehovah and his Organsation".

Friends and family will notice these things. You will tell them that these are your choices which you have made to please God. You will see their apparent interference as persecution from the Devil -- just as JWs told you would happen. Witnesses will confirm that Satan may be using your loved ones to prevent you studying with them.

This knowledge may make you withdraw still further from friends and family and will, in turn, make them still more anxious for your welfare. A vicious circle may be in operation and your friends, family and workmates will notice that you do not speak to them so freely any more or socialise with them so often.

Your appearance will change. If you wore clothes which emphasised your femininity in any way, these will be replaced by loose-fitting, below-the-knee dresses. You will wear less make-up. You will stop wearing trousers all of the time. Neck-lines will be raised. You may change your hairstyle. As you make these changes, Witnesses will emphasise their approval of you. You will believe sincerely that these were all free choices made by you to "please Jehovah".

If you are a male with hair longer than collar-length, you will have it cut.You will probably shave off your beard and you will remove your ear-ring or body piercing jewellery. You will feel out of place dressed as before. You will realise that even expensive and stylish casual clothes are not accepted as "proper" dress. You will start wearing ties and suits and you will carry a brief-case. Your JW friends will approve of these changes.

After a few months, you may be attending the Kingdom Hall regularly. If you work irregular hours, you will be encouraged to change, or adjust your employment to avoid missing these precious meetings which are important to attend, if you wish to make progress and please God.

You will be allowed to accompany JWs in their preaching after you "qualify". The elders will make discreet enquiries about your personal life, ambitions and habits. You may not realise they are doing this, but it is always done before you can represent "Jehovah's clean people".
An announcement will be made to inform the congregation when you are acepted as an Unbaptised Publisher (preacher). JWs will congratulate you and commend you for the progress you are making. Now, although not fully recognised as a Witness, you will be subject to congregation discipline. You can preach and report the time spent doing so each month.

You will have your own literature order for “placing” with the public. You will not have to pay for this, but you will realise that contributing shows “appreciation for Jehovah's organisation". You will be encouraged to accept donations for this literature when you give it to members of the public "without charge". You will be told to put the money into a special box at the Kingdom Hall.

After about 6-9 months, you will be encouraged to consider baptism if you have been “making progress” - conforming to JW teachings. You will be told that this is an important step if you wish to please Jehovah God. It is essential to your future life because Armageddon is coming "soon" and only those who are dedicated, baptised and approved JWs will survive into the New World.

Your friends and preferred associates will all be Jehovah's Witnesses now. If you are engaged, you may be advised to break off the engagement if your fiance/e has no interest in “the truth” and will not have a Bible study with the intention of becoming a Witness.

If you are living with someone in common-law marriage, you will have to finish it or formalise it. If your partner does not marry you, for whatever reason - even if s/he has been faithful to you for many years and has had children with you and has no intention of ever leaving you - you will have to terminate the relationship and leave the children behind before you can be baptised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Of course, you are free to stop your Bible study at any time if you wish, but you will know by now that this would  be a rejection of Jehovah God and you would risk eternal destruction at Armageddon which is “imminent”.

Before your baptism, you will meet the elders of your congregation. They will review your understanding of JW teachings. Your answers will be based on JW interpretation of the Bible -- not your own opinions. It is not an examination, but is intended to help you realise the seriousness of the commitment you are making “to Jehovah”. After this, you will be eligible for baptism at the next circuit assembly. At the baptism, you will be asked:
(1) On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?

(2) Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?

After your baptism, you will be warmly congratulated by your JW colleagues and encouraged to keep progressing “in the truth” (the JW religion)

You are now one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and subject to all their laws and discipline. From now on, your life will revolve around the activities of your local congregation.

Your desire to “please Jehovah” will  influence all your decisions as you follow the instructions of the Governing Body - an all-male committee - in Brooklyn. Their rulings may change at any time as "the Faithful and Discreet Slave" receives “new light”. This “faithful steward” is God’s appointed spokesman and you will soon accept their applications of scripture without question.

In the past thirty years, [before 1998, when this was originally written] they have made rulings on: sexual intimacy in marriage; practice of martial arts; suitable movies; using leeches in medicine; declaring bankruptcy; playing chess; celebrating birthdays; dating after divorce; use of blood as fertiliser;  “test-tube” babies; joining a club for nudists; lotteries; use of wind-chimes as home decoration; growing a beard; organ transplants; breaking engagements; drinking a toast;  consuming tea/ coffee; suitable TV viewing; use of cosmetics/ jewellery; masturbation; inter-racial marriages; hunting/ fishing; contraception methods; university education; appropriateness of various employments - to name just a few. [The Governing Body - the leadership - are still telling JWS what is appropriate behaviour today, in 2015]. Some of these things are acceptable for Witnesses. Others are not. But the decision will not be yours, if you wish to remain a Jehovah's Witness in good standing.

After your baptism, you must obey the “faithful slave” for as long as you wish to remain a part of "Jehovah's organisation". If you disregard the advice of the local "appointed elders" and make decisions for yourself about certain things, you will be called before a "judicial committee", a closed and secret court of at least three men. (This happens often among Jehovah's Witnesses). You will be asked to explain your actions.

If, for example, you are suspected of sexual misdemeanours of any kind, even if you are a young, single woman, you will be expected to tell these men full details of what you did, and with whom, and how often, and who touched who, and where, and many other intimate things. If you show an "unrepentant attitude" about this by failing to cooperate, you will be disfellowshipped and a brief announcement will made to tell the whole congregation. Then, unless you realise the error of your ways and eventually seek to be reinstated, all of Jehovah's Witnesses and any who are close family, will shun you and have nothing more to do with you ever again. In your "unrepentant condition", you will be destroyed forever, "soon at Armageddon".

To be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, from first contact to baptism, takes about 9-18 months.

On the other hand, you might choose Christianity - a moral, happy and fulfilled life with friends who truly love you for who you are, spiritually and secularly - within the guidelines of Christian freedom and with the prospect of eternity with the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Copyright (c) Witness Aid UK 1998 & 2015

Comfort for the Bereaved? A Tale of Two Funerals

In the early hours of Tuesday, 6th. November, 2001 my mother, Meriol G. Roberts, died. We buried her on Monday, 12 November. This is an account of the funeral conducted and attended by Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs). I am not a Witness. I left that religion several years ago after following it for 40 years since childhood.

I had already said a private farewell to Mum at the funeral home on Saturday. I had no need personally to attend the funeral to grieve with others, but I did so to show respect for this most human tradition. This funeral would be an opportunity for others to pay their last respects too and to offer comfort to the bereaved family.

Initially, I had planned to be absent from my mother’s funeral because I was fully aware of the consequences of leaving the Watchtower religion -- Jehovah's Witnesses cut off and shun family and friends who dare to leave. I wished to avoid confrontation at such a sensitive time as I was afraid of acting improperly if I was emotionally upset. Also, I had no desire ever again to enter a Kingdom Hall. However, after talking to loving friends and listening to their counsel, I decided to attend although I had been cut out of the funeral arrangements already.

On Friday 9 November, I had called at my mother’s apartment on my way home, offering to discuss arrangements with Gillian, my older half-sister. (I had not seen her since before she had phoned me, very angry and distraught, to tell me that Mum had died. On the Thursday, I had sent her money which covered all immediate expenses. She had insisted on arranging everything). Two Jehovah's Witnesses arrived. It was apparent that Gillian intended to travel to the cemetery in the car of one of these women. When I suggested calmly that it might be more appropriate for her to travel with her brother to our mother’s funeral, she became very angry and abusive in front of the embarrassed women observers, so the matter was dropped.

I arrived at Seafield Cemetery, Edinburgh at 1.30 p.m. on Monday, as instructed. My foster-brother and my cousin were with me. My cousin had travelled by train from London. After stopping at the reception area and rest room, we walked together to the graveside. Several JWs were standing there. When I saw elder John Avinou alone, I said “Hello John” and he quietly responded, “Hello Tony”.

The hearse arrived. There was a wreath which Gillian had chosen for us and a wreath of white lilies from my American girlfriend. There was another wreath also, but (sorry) I do not recall the name

A man approached. He shook my hand and introduced himself as Fred Graham. I had heard my mother and sister speak well of him. He was one of very few elders that she liked. [She would not have been pleased to see some of the hypocrites who attended her funeral. Mum had little fear of “elders who do not follow the Bible. I tell them they’re wrong! They’re not Christians”. So Mum had requested that Mr Graham conduct the service. We exchanged pleasantries. Mr Graham told me that this service might be difficult for him as he had recently buried his own close relative. I wished him well and reassured him.

My sister arrived crying, in the company of JW friends. When I approached her, she said hello and shook my hand. We walked to the foot of the grave and stood beside Fred Graham. Facing us, at the head of the grave and standing on the path, were the Drydens, whom I have known some 45 years To our right there stood about 30 people, mostly from Slateford Kingdom Hall, all of them Jehovah's Witnesses, so far as I know. I was acquainted with most of them.

At 2 p.m., the service began. The undertakers lowered my mother’s coffin into the grave. Fred Graham began speaking.. He told us that Meriol was born in 1921 and that, as the Scriptures say, she had had “special mightiness” in achieving 80 years of life. She had lived through historic times and had been particularly proud of her war service in the RAF (WAAFs). He read out her Service Number and said that many service personnel remember that number for the rest of their lives.

[My sister had requested this. I was a surprised by its inclusion since I knew that JWs disapprove of even “the just war”. They disfellowship any of their members who participate in National Service (including civilian services, until recently). So I was interested to see how this “memorable war service” would be discounted by the Witness preacher]

Fred Graham continued that mother had made a much more important decision in July 1956 when she had been baptised after learning “Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses”. Thereafter, she served the Prince of Peace and hoped for the wonderful Kingdom and worldwide peace "soon" under His rule.  [This will occur after “Jehovah” annihilates everyone “soon" at Armageddon if they do not accept the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses]
He told the mourners that, in 1965, shortly after her baptism, the family made a great sacrifice to go to Stranraer in southwest Scotland to “serve where the need was great”.
[That is true. Mum sold our Edinburgh family home for a song (its present value is over £100,000) and took us to live in a 26 feet long mobile home in southwest Scotland. At the time of her death, she was living on a basic State Pension of less than $100 US per week, in a multi-storey, rented council flat, in a deprived neighbourhood of Edinburgh]

Mr Graham repeated what Gillian had written in the “Edinburgh Evening News” notice -- that Mum had fought “a twenty years battle with chemcal allergies”. (She suffered a stroke, in fact). During this time, Gillian had cared for her and Gillian had listened to her complaints and “our dear sister, Gillian” had been there supporting her in her illness. He told us that the last time he saw Meriol, she had expressed the wish to be "out doing her route calls" [Watchtower literature distribution], if she hadn’t been so unwell.

Fred Graham quoted Job 14:14 and told us that, like Job, Meriol had suffered illness and that like Job, she too believed in a resurrection, “according to the truth taught by Jehovah's Witnesses”. He also mentioned Revelation 22:2 about the healing power of trees and linked this with Mum’s preference for [very costly] homeopathy. Finally, he spoke of “the sting of death mentioned in Corinthians” and that “death is painful just like a sting, but the pain will be removed by the resurrection".

[This is a false teaching of the Watchtower, repeated by the elder -- 1 Cor:15:57 says that sin is the sting producing death and the context shows that the raising to incorruption in heaven comes about by “the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ”]

Mr Graham told us that the resurrection will be wonderful. Meriol will come back to us “soon” and will not be an old woman, but will be young again and we all will be unable to keep up with her as she runs along happily ahead of us.

[This was the entire substance of the “comfort from the Bible” that Jehovah's Witnesses offer the bereaved. Jesus Christ, “the Resurrection and the Life”, was simply the “postage stamp” on the end of the “prayer to Jehovah” later. It is interesting to note that there were no readings from the Gospels, but then, Jesus’ words are rather powerful -- notice e.g. John 3:15-18; 5:24-30; 10:25-30; 11:23-26; 14:1-14; 20:24-31]

This was the end of the funeral talk. Mr Graham now invited JW elder Dennis Kerrigan to pray. During this prayer, I looked around at the other mourners, their eyes tightly closed. I saw frightened and pathetic people, without real hope, mourning the passing of their colleague and friend who, like most of us, had been fully expecting “Armageddon soon” nearly 30 years ago in 1975. Only my friend returned my quiet look as we listened to the “Watchtower infomercial” prayer.

Mr Kerrigan’s prayer was fairly typical of the JW religion. It was an opportunity to tell a captive audience what the speaker has failed to mention and what they should know and remember. After reminding us that Meriol had realised her mistake in thinking that her war service was of any value at all and that her decision to accept “Bible truth as preached worldwide by Jehovah's Witnesses” was far more important, he reminded the congregation to care for “our dear sister Gillian” and support Gillian and help Gillian and encourage Gillian. Finally, he had a word of "comfort" -- a veiled threat -- for Meriol’s son. “We hope that “Tony” will take this opportunity to review his standing before Jehovah” [because if I don’t, I’ll be annihilated by their nasty tribal war god, with six billion other people, “soon", at Armageddon.]

After this, the undertakers came to lower a protective cover over Mum’s coffin. I stepped forward quietly and dropped a small straw cross with a poppy attached, into the grave.
[Witnesses teach that ”the cross is pagan” -- “Jesus died on a “torture stake”, an upright pole" -- but Christians know what the Bible says. The cross reminds us of the resurrection and the power of God over death -- 1 Cor. 1:18-25]

The service was over. I was pleasantly surprised that it had taken less than fifteen minutes. Fred Graham turned to me, shook my hand firmly and said, “Thanks for coming Tony” to which I replied, “On the contrary, it is to be expected that I should attend my mother’s funeral. Thank you for coming".

I told Gillian that our cousin had arrived by train the day before from London [over 400 miles way]. I introduced my foster-brother whom she had last seen some 30 years ago. This "worldly man" gave her a big hug and expressed his sorrow.

Then with Gillian, Fred Graham and I briefly discussed what should be done with the cards and flowers. I asked if there should be a receiving line to allow the mourners to meet and comfort the family, but no attempt was made to do this and I realised that, so long as I was standing there, no-one would approach. Therefore, I decided to talk to a few of the mourners myself.

First, I walked five yards to Bill and Gladys Dryden, long-time friends of my mother. I extended my hand and thanked Bill for coming. He shook it and said hello. Gladys too, shook my hand and said a few kind words about her friendship with Meriol, my mother.
Then, as the son of the deceased, I walked along the larger group, thanking various strangers and acquaintances, including elder Neil Graham, for attending. None replied. I stopped before elder Gus Campbell, looked him in the eye, extended my hand and thanked him for coming. He said nothing, but glared at me. If looks could kill, I would be dead, many times over. Next to him was elder John Avinou who had said hello earlier. I offered him my hand and said, “Thank you for coming John”. He put his hands into his pockets and looked away, saying nothing.

I walked up to elder Dennis Kerrigan who had been praying publicly less than five minutes earlier. The bereaved son extended his hand and thanked him for coming. He looked at me, then turned around quickly, colliding with others in his haste, and walked away without a word.

I walked over to Derek Ritchie whom I had not seen for about twenty years and offered my hand and said, “Thank you for coming, Derek”. He shook my hand firmly and offered his condolences and asked about my health and welfare. I thanked him and told him I was fine and very happy with my life in general


Finally, as the group was breaking up a little, I returned toward my sister. I walked around behind Ewan MacPherson who had apparently come straight from his window-cleaning work. [Ewan had dropped out from a Maths degree at Edinburgh University 30 years ago to follow the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses and had received a “Bible study” from me. He had been Best Man at my wedding]. He was standing quietly, head bowed. As I passed, I said, “Thanks for coming Ewan”. He did not turn around, but reached behind him and squeezed my arm quickly and with emotion said, “I’m really sorry about your mother, Tony”.

Before leaving, I asked Gillian where we would be going for refreshments. She said she did not know. She repeated this several times and said it had “all been arranged for her” and "she didn’t know the details". At no time did anyone approach to invite me or our visiting cousin or my friend to continue with the funeral party for refreshments.

Everyone left and I took my companions for coffee before taking my cousin to Edinburgh Waverley railway station for his 5 hours' journey home. After that, I visited my foster-mother whom I have known since infancy. She opened the door and, as usual, said, "Come on in, Son. It's nice to see you. I'll put the kettle on". And she made me very welcome. 
Anthony Roberts 
Edinburgh, Scotland

Postscript: My Aunt's Funeral
My mother's sister died aged 88, nine months later. After further deterioration of her health, she had been given a choice by her doctor: accept medical treatment to extend her life by 6 months perhaps, or she would live only 48 hours. She said she had had a good life and chose the latter. Sure enough, after saying her farewells to her children, she died on August 28th. 2002.

Over the years, I had had little contact with my “worldly” relatives. This was mostly because of the Watchtower teaching that “worldly” relatives and friends are ruled by Satan and his world -- “Bad associations [non-JWs] spoil useful habits..... What fellowship does light have with darkness?” etc, an intentional misuse of Paul’s words in Corinthians.

In keeping with the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses that I had been taught since infancy, I had never sent birthday cards or Christmas card to any relatives, although occasionally, I had sent calendars, and letters too, thanking them for the birthday gifts or money they had kindly sent me.

I determined therefore, that I would attend and support this funeral on 4th. September, even if it was a little late in the day for my aunt. I had last seen her in 1968 when I had attended the National Sea Training School in my very short career in the British Merchant Navy [I gave it up within one year as “it was interfering with my religion” and JW meetings attendance].

I travelled the 450 miles to the south coast of England where I was received very kindly by my male and female cousins. My male cousin visited us regularly over the years. With his wife, he had flown at great expense to my wedding 30 years earlier, to spend just a couple of hours before returning south. I had not seen my female cousin since 1961 when we were children. She had changed slightly! I was made very welcome by both.

On the day of the funeral, a few family friends came to the house and we set off for the crematorium in the cars. The service, attended by nearly 30 people, was very different from the funeral for my mother.

The very first words of the minister were, “I am the Resurrection and the Life. Whosoever believes in me, even though he dies, shall live, and whosoever lives and believes in me, shall never die at all” (John 11). Clearly, this was a Christian funeral! Then there were readings of Psalm 23 and John 14 and comments on these.

Music was Elgar's "Enigma Variations", "Pie Jesu" and "Oh God, Our Help in Ages Past". As is customary in a Christian funeral, a short eulogy was read by my cousin. He told us about his mother’s life and extensive achievements without discrediting them in any way. It was a "normal", ordinary life.

At 18, when their mother died suddenly, my aunt accepted the responsibility of being a mother to her younger sister, Meriol, aged 11. But she still made time for life-long friendships, education [London School of Economics with left wing radicals such as Laski, Beveridge and Power], social work with the poor, violinist and pianist with the Civil Service orchestra, further study, then Home Economics lecturer, writer, marriage, family and enjoying retirement fully and in financial security with her husband until his death ten years ago etc

After prayer and a few moments’ silence, we returned to the family home where everyone received hospitality. The funeral was attended not only by relatives and friends, but also by my aunt’s carers and neighbours and her gardener and his wife. There was no unpleasantness or coldness or inappropriate behaviour at all. After an hour or so, the friends left and later, I returned with my cousin and his family to stay overnight in London, where I was made welcome, before I returned to Scotland the following day. 

Copyright (c) 2002 and 2015 Witness Aid UK

The Long Goodbye -- Watchtower Appeal Committee

"You only have power over people as long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything, he's no longer in your power -- he's free again"  Alexander Solzhenitsyn
===================

Some people have been asking me what happened at my Appeal Committee meeting on August 6th., 1999. The following is a report of that meeting from notes that I took as it happened. I wrote this account as soon as I arrived home. It is not a transcript, but I have made an effort to produce a true and accurate account.

On 6th. August, at 7.30 p.m., I attended the Waverley Kingdom Hall for the Appeal. In keeping with my time-wasting strategy, I had requested an Appeal after the debacle of the previous "judicial" committees. On 25th. June, the day after I returned from holiday, I was phoned by Chris Taylor. He asked me to attend a meeting on June 27th. I said this was unreasonable and far too soon after my holiday since I had postponed business to do. I finally agreed tentatively to July 9th. Then, a few days before that, I cancelled that meeting, explaining that I was still too busy to see the elders. This postponed the Appeal meeting until after the JW annual district convention at Perth. Toward the end of July, I was told by an answering machine message from Chris Taylor that the Appeal Committee would meet on 6th. August. There was no room for negotiation in the date of this meeting which was supposed to be for my benefit. I was informed that the meeting would take place and if I wanted to participate, I would have to be there on that evening.

My intention had been to attend long enough to read a very blunt statement and then to leave immediately afterwards. However, as things turned out, I decided to stay as I was interested to hear the Appeal Committee’s comments since they appeared to be taking a reasonable and different approach and appeared also to be interested in correcting preceding injustices.

I took a small tape-recorder, but decided I would probably not use it since the meeting would be brief.

When I arrived at the Broughton Street Kingdom Hall, six elders were in the room - the original committee and the three members of the Appeal Committee i.e. the three Waverley elders; Taylor, R.Maxwell and Graham and David Ritchie (Edinburgh Morningside), Peter McKinney (Edinburgh Clermiston) and Chairman Ron MacKenzie (Haddington).

I was aquainted with the elders and had been given a profile of each by my source. In fact, the profiles proved remarkably accurate and each man matched the forecast very closely.
The tone of the meeting was fairly amicable, even with some humour - mostly from me. The fact is, I was speaking to these elders as an equal. At no time have I believed myself inferior to them either spiritually, physically or intellectually. When fear of man and respect by intimidation are taken away, one realises that JW elders are of no more significance than a tramp (bum) in the street. I give them respect because they are people - fellow humans - and only for that reason. This is something that you, the reader might remember if you are ever called before a JW committee. You attend under your terms because you have something to tell them and you are doing them a favour by attending. They have no power or authority over you unless you submit to them. Any authority that they think they have is imagined, since the Watchtower Society has no authority from God.

Many of the things discussed were repetitions of the discussions I had had with the “Judicial” Committee. I was quite surprised that the Appeal Committee appeared to be unfamiliar with the details of the earlier events. I thought they would have been briefed thoroughly even to the extent of having foregone conclusions.

As soon I had sat down and brief introductions had been made, but before even a prayer was said, Ron asked me if I had a tape-recorder. I told him that I always carry a tape-recorder when I meet JW elders. He asked me if I would take it from my pocket and I obliged. I knew I had the option of leaving at any time and if things were tough, it would only reflect badly on the Appeal Committee. Again I asked them why they were afraid of recordings and they gave the stock answer i.e. “rules are rules” - “No tape-recording devices are permitted”.

In this case, it is unfortunate that the Appeal Committee was bound again by the Watchtower Society's rigid rules so that the meeting was not recorded because they came across as much more reasonable and flexible - and in some cases, intelligent - than the ”Judicial” Committee. Was this the "good cop" strategy, after coaching by London headquarters?
I sat opposite the Appeal Committee and Chris Taylor was in front of me and slightly to my right, facing across the room. The other two were over to my left facing Chris.

Robin Maxwell was invited to ask a prayer (another!) and I sat quietly during it.

During the first part of the meeting. I had the impression that the “Judicial” Committee were rather like naughty boys under inspection. While the Appeal elders were sitting quite relaxed, the others appeared less comfortable and were sitting with arms folded and heads down a little, listening. I was quite relaxed and comfortable and dressed casually as before.
Before anything else could be said, I asked Ron about his relationship with John Maxwell. Had they ever been business partners or co-workers? After saying no to several variations of the question, he eventually admitted that, “Yes” they had done some trade or business together. I asked him how his friendship or business contact with a chief witness could qualify him to be impartial. Peter interrupted and said it was unfair to assume that they would be anything less than just or impartial and that, as I knew, Jehovah's Witnesses work together all of the time in assembly preparations etc. I said that working by choice for cash and being flung together in assembly preparations were not quite the same thing and that if they had known my experiences, they would fully understand why I should be concerned.
David, the youngest man, assured me that they were not out to hang me, but were truly interested in seeing justice done and finding the truth of what had happened during the other Committee meetings.

I also asked Ron why the (now infamous) two witnesses were not present, but he said the Appeal Committee were doing things their way. Ron assured me that things were being done in the Correct and Most Appropriate Way. It was quite obvious that Ron was In Charge.

First, Chairman Ron read a couple of biblical texts which I reproduce below:

Psalm 11:4-5: Jehovah is in his holy temple. Jehovah— in the heavens is his throne. His own eyes behold, his own beaming eyes examine the sons of men. Jehovah himself examines the righteous one as well as the wicked one, And anyone loving violence His soul certainly hates.

Proverbs 15:3: The eyes of Jehovah are in every place, keeping watch upon the bad ones and the good ones.

(A more cyncial person might view the reading of these texts as mild threats..........)
Next, Ron referred to my letter of Appeal which follows:

                                                                                                     2 June 1999
Dear Sirs, [not "brothers". That is Watchtower-speak!]
On Friday 28th. May, Chris Taylor and Dennis Graham came to my home to inform me of your decision to disfellowship me. 
I am writng to appeal against that decision on the basis that the whole process was a complete farce and a miscarriage of justice e.g. the witnesses you produced used entrapment and deceit to gain “evidence”; the original “very concerned” witnesses were never called; my right to a fair trial was continually violated, making Chris Taylor appear a liar; I was forbidden to examine witnesses properly to show that one was telling half-truths throughout his evidence; there were breaches of confidentiality - an elder’s wife outside Waverley knew I was “being dealt with” before the first meeting and that the committee had had to correspond with London Bethel after that. These are just some of the matters I wish to discuss. 
I shall be on holiday during June for at least two weeks so I suggest a meeting toward the end of the month or after July 1st. 
Yours sincerely, 
Anthony Roberts

(By the above letter, I had kept the “judicial” process going for over five months when the Waverley elders had been very keen to end the mattter and announce my disfellowshipping!! Is this a record?)

Ron said that they would consider each of the points raised in the letter. I pointed out that those were only some of the issues I wished to raise and he said we could discuss those later, but that we should look at these first.

When asked, I explained why I believed the trials had been a farce, how the two elders had come to my home as agents provocateurs, how the real witnesses had never been produced , how I had been railroaded when we met the second time and I explained how I knew that my sources were accurate regarding the elder’s wife who has a mouth almost as big as her husband’s. I expressed concern that there is an elder with a big mouth in Waverley too and David asked me how I knew this without actually asking me to give my source. I explained that I had discovered that the original Committee had been in touch with London Bethel after the first meeting with me and that this had been confirmed when I asked Chris Taylor about it and saw his reaction the day after he and Dennis Graham had come to my home to tell me the “scriptural reasons” (!) why I had been disfellowshipped.

We spent some time discussing the wiitnesses. Ron said that they only needed two witnesses , but I explained the circumstances that had led to those two elders being used as witnesses and I asked them why the original “very concerned people” had never been produced contrary to their own Elders’ Manual’s instructions? Their apparent confusion and questions to the other elders about how this had happened made me think that the Appeal elders had not been briefed before-hand about this matter.

I told them that their verdict would have no effect on me and that I would continue to exercise my freedom of speech as a British citizen to whomsoever I wished and about whatsoever I wanted.

I told the Committee that we were meeting for their benefit - I was allowing them an opportunity to prevent a great injustice being done to five million people who would be forbidden to enjoy my fellowship on the basis of what three men had agreed - and why? Because I had chosen to exercise my freedom of speech and opinion and to leave the JW religion.

This turns the whole disfellowshipping process upside down. Jehovah's Witnesses think that they are shunning the individual to shame him into returning, but I was saying that I was giving them an opportunity to correct a wrong. Ron did not agree and said, “it was you who asked for the Appeal” waving my letter. I told him I had my own reasons for doing so. David and Peter smiled..........

The Committee expressed interest that there had been more than one “judicial” event and I explained why. Chris Taylor confirmed this when asked. Ron asked me how Chris had been made to appear a liar and I told them that he had consistently promised me a fair trial and that he either would not, or could not deliver his promise because of the circumstances which may have been put upon him. I told them how the rules had been changed and that I was not allowed to question the witnesses. When asked about this, Chris told them that I had been informed “at the outset” that I must relay questions through the Chairman (him), but I interrupted and said that that was untrue because I was told that only at the beginning of the second meeting. Robin Maxwell agreed with me when he commented “that is how I recall it too”.

After about 45 minutes, they asked me if I would leave the room so that they could talk to the “Judicial” Committee. I was reluctant to do so as I realised time was passing and my intention to read my statement was being forgotten. I was also afraid that they would bring me back into the room to have the satisfaction of pronouncing sentence on me and also, I was playing their game under their rules. I suggested that this might be an appropriate time for me to read my statement, “but you won’t like it”. David asked me to please not read it, but to trust them and go along with the proceedings. We haggled a little over how long I would have to sit out, but finally I decided to take a chance to see how things would be done as I was not overly concerned about the outcome which I believed was inevitable anyway.
After about 15 minutes, the three stooges came out and I was asked in again and some interesting exchanges took place for the next 90 minutes during which I gave them some information which would help them if they were really interested in finding the truth about the Watchtower Society.

Quite early on, David Ritchie asked me “did I want to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses?” I immediately replied, “Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?” David and Peter laughed because they saw the point immediately (unlike Chris Taylor when I had said the same during a telephone conversation before the trial). I explained why I had consistently refused to answer the question and reminded them of the Elders’ Manual, Unit 5, which makes it plain that to answer “No” is equivalent to a letter of disassociation and when they disagreed, I quoted it virtually word-for-word i.e. that anyone expressing a desire to leave Jehovah's Witnesses should be encouraged to put that in writing and if they would not do so, the witnesses to the statement should put it in writing and sign it. I further illustrated this as the revolver on the table in the study saying, “Why don’t you go into the study and think about your future?”. To say “No” is equivalent to a convenient suicide which avoids a trial and disgrace.

They also asked me if I viewed myself as a Jehovah's Witness and again I explained why I would not answer that question. I told them that it was not so much a question of how I viewed myself, but how I was viewed by the elders who, during over three years, had consistently shown that they did not view me as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, since I had not received documentation or benefits of membership. Then, I confirmed that I am a Christian and that I accept the biblical teachings of Christianity.

I explained that it is wrong that one cannot leave the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses without dishonour. If a person leaves after a private statement to the elders, an announcement is always made which has the sole purpose of disgracing the person in the eyes of their former colleagues and is equivalent to the shame of disfellowshipping for wicked acts. No distinction is made between the person who comes to new conclusions and the person who may have committed the most heinous acts. That is wrong, I said.

I said that the disfellowshipping process is wrong and that Jesus Christ did not give such instructions to shun people, but rather, the person who did not listen to reason should be treated kindly and as one of the nations ( I was referring to Matt. 18:15-17). They said that this did not prevent someone being treated kindly in an accident etc (a typical repetition of a set-piece Watchtower illustration given by the other elders. This reminds me of the simplistic, formula thinking in Animal Farm - “Two legs bad. Four legs good”). I asked if it seemed appropriate to help people survive an accident physically while one is destroying them spiritually, emotionally and socially by shunning them. I also said that Jesus Christ did not tell us to shun people at funerals or forbid a disfellowshipped mother to attend her daughter’s wedding, these being examples of experiences all too common among Jehovah's Witnesses to-day.

David  said that the apostle John instructed Christians not to say a greeting to a disfellowshipped person. I disagreed and corrected him saying, “No. John told us not to say a greeting to someone who denied Christ and that Christ had come in the flesh. He was not talking about people leaving a denomination or disagreeing with an opinion” I told them that John Maxwell too had misquoted scripture in the same way because they had been taught that meaning, but a simple reading of the context shows that their interpretation is never the intention of the Bible writer.

Then David asked, “But would you agree that we should avoid someone if they did deny Christ?” I agreed and said that we all choose our company and avoid the companionship of certain people whom we may personally view as bad associates, but that is for the individual to decide, not a Committee who decides on behalf of five million people. I also mentioned the inappropriateness of holding secret meetings to determine that and mentioned Deuteronomy and trials at the city gates in Israel.

We also discussed the right of a Witness to leave without sanctions being taken against them. I mentioned violations of Human Rights and civil liberties and said again that the Watchtower Society leaders are giving standards of justice which they themselves would not have to tolerate in a “worldly” court.

I asked why such a fuss had to be made when a person leaves? Why shouldn’t a person leave and be free to live his life without interference? If I choose to go to church or vote, how can it be their business to interfere or make statements which disgrace me and prevent others enjoying my company - without sanctions against them - if they wish? Why is it necessary to write a formal letter which is then used as a basis for disgracing the person? The answer given indicates the elitist view of the Witnesses, who are taught that they are special and a select group with high (unattainable) standards.

Ron said that Jehovah's Witnesses have to take an interest in those who leave because, “for example, the person might begin a practice of homosexuality and bring disgrace on Jehovah’s name”. I asked how it could be anyone’s business to investigate a leaver years later and in one English case, disfellowship someone eighteen (18) years after the man had left the religion? And in my own case, people in the community do not know me as a Witness and I am not living badly anway..

I raised the issue of the right to hold an opinion and I explained John Stuart Mill’s view (On Liberty) that having a false opinion corrected could only be beneficial and to have a correct view challenged by a wrong opinion could also benefit us since the correct opinion would be reinforced by the comparison with the false. In that case, why should Jehovah's Witnesses fear my opinions and those of others? And for that matter, what is an apostate, but someone who doesn’t happen to have the same opnion as us? They concurred with this but whether it was agreement with the views expressed or simple affirmation of understanding, I am not sure. Is it too much to hope that I sparked a thinking process?

There was another repetition in their use of the “golf club illustration” regarding the right to leave or expel a member, so I mentioned my own chess club experience. Peter said, “but you don’t speak badly about them, do you?” and I said, “On the contrary, I run down the game something awful and tell everyone I can’t be bothered with it and it’s a waste of time and gives me a headache! But no-one shuns me for saying so!” (actually I’ve started playing chess again recently and have been welcomed and invited to join several clubs as a team player).

They asked me if I had actually tried to turn anyone away from the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses. I thought for a moment and reminded them that I had always upheld the principles of biblical Christianity and promoted the Bible to any Jehovah's Witnesses I had met, but if I had ever said anything to subvert faith in the Watchtower Society, I was only doing what they themselves do when they go from door-to-door, subverting the faith of Christians in their respective organisations.

Ron disagreed and said, “No. We build faith”. I disagreed and said that it is essential that Jehovah's Witnesses destroy the faith of people in the religious organisations to which they belong before they can possibly build faith, not in Christ or the worldwide Christian church, but in the Watchtower organisation and its so-called "faithful and discreet slave". So, if I was ever guilty of destroying faith in the Watchtower Society and the "faithful and discreet slave" (a false Christ), how could they criticise me without being hypocrites?

I also pointed out that my real crime is not in telling people to leave the Witness religion, but to admit to them that I am happy that I have done so. I do not fit the profile of the typical leaving Witness, who expresses shame or remorse because of having (apparently) given up on his dedication vows and says how he will really try to return and how much he misses the meetings. On the contrary, I tell enquiring Witnesses who meet me in the street that I have a happy Christian life, that I am “delightedly happy” to have left and wild horses couldn’t drag me back to the Witness meetings now that I have been informed of the truth about the Watchtower Society and its false teachings. I encourage them to read the Bible and follow Jesus Christ. In fact, because I mention the name “Jesus” or “Christ” several times in a conversation, people say to me, “You sound like a “born-again” Christian”. Then I ask them why it should be so unusual for a Christian to mention Christ?

David said that he viewed me as an inactive Witness who had made a dedication to God. “Yes indeed. I made a dedication to God, not men”, I said. 
“But you also agreed to serve the organisation in your baptism vows”, he said. 
“Oh, no I didn’t! When were you baptised?” I asked him. 
“1969” 

“Right. Well you - and probably you two also - answered the same questions that I did and they are found, I think, in the1956 Watchtower and the second question is clearly based on Christian precepts which do not mention the Governing Body or "faithful and discreet slave". The second baptism question was changed in 1985. Check it in the Watchtower yourself. It was at that time that the idea of following a "faithful and discreet slave" and duty to an organisation was added to the baptism questions”. 

“Ah”, Ron said, “but we repeat those questions every time we hear a baptism talk” 
“I don’t” said I. “I stick by the original deal between me and God. I made no contract with the Watchtower organisation”.

Ron asked what was wrong with putting our faith in The Watchtower? “The Watchtower gives us this, The Watchtower tells us that, The Watchtower helps us, The Watchtower is wonderful”. I interrupted saying, “Wait a minute! Wait a minute! You sound like.........” (and I laughed - see below for explanation) Then, “What happened to the Bible here, eh?” Peter and David both laughed too and Ron said, “But you know what I mean“ and I said, still laughing, “Oh yeah! I know what you mean! The Watchtower is more important to you guys than the Bible! The Watchtower is a latter-day revelation that replaces - or adds to - the Bible! Even the Elders’ Manual comes before the Bible!”

“Oh, no. That’s not really true” they said. But I think I had made the point.
Further on this point of baptism, I suggested that the Watchtower religion had baptised me under false pretences because I doubted if even I would have been fooled at 17 had I been properly informed of past Watchtower teachings and been able to check the evidence. The fact is, when people study with Jehovah's Witnesses, the uncomfortable facts of the past are conveniently forgotten, that is IF the teacher actually knows those things herself! It is only because of freedom of information through the uncensored internet that people are being more easily informed about such past embarrassments.

(I had laughed because I was going to say to Ron that he “sounded like a Mormon” when he was going on about “The Watchtower this, The Watchtower that” like a Mormon might enthuse over latter-day revelations given in their Golden Plates and the Book of Mormon. I explained that others had used the same thinking as I was doing then in saying to Ron, “you sound like....". (In fact, on a visit to my home, it was Chris Taylor’s wife who had said that I “sounded like a Born-Again Christian” because I used Jesus’ name several times in a conversation with her and her Witness companion). I realised I was guilty of the same prejudice and saw the humour in it.

So, I was saying that my real crime was to leave the religion and be happy. David asked me, “Are you happy now?” to which I replied “Yes. If I die to-night, I’d be quite at peace with God. I’m not afraid of Armageddon. I don’t fear Him or have anything but a healthy respect and confidence that He will give me a fair deal”. Perhaps surprisingly for a Jehovah's Witness, David then said, “I’m really happy for you and I’m not just saying that. I’m really glad that you can feel that way”.

I mentioned my own behaviour since leaving and told them I was leading a quiet and moral Christian life. Why should I be pursued when others could leave, commit moral misdemeanours and be welcomed back without any sanctions against them? I asked Peter if he remembered a Witness who had taken illegal drugs while also living immorally after leaving the congregation for several years? Peter said he could not remember. I told him the man’s first name and he guessed the surname immediately, but insisted he could not remember such an incident although he was an elder in that man’s congregation. I checked my source later and he was quite certain that Peter would have been familiar with the case which appears to be well-known, but conveniently forgotten.

Later, David also asked the Big Question for Jehovah's Witnesses: “but where is there to go? Every other religion is bloodguilty” I said that I thought (or some people might think) that the Watchtower organisation was also bloodguilty because of the number of lives that had been lost or wasted because of interference in medical procedures and treatment by the Watchtower Society and I mentioned the specific cases of transplants and recently, vasectomies (June 1999 Watchtower) asking how anyone could have the right to make rulings for others on such private and intimate matters?

I said that Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship with Christ and each individual must answer to His judgement as they follow Him. It is not a difficult thing which must prey on our minds every hour of the day, but is a fairly simple faith in Christ and a natural desire to want to please and follow Him thereafter. Christian works of charity and goodness naturally follow according to our abilities. Out of love and respect for Christ, we are led along toward righteousness even though we will sin because we are not an elite with extraordinary standards, but we are sinners who recognise our need for redemption.

We also discussed some of the early teachings of the Watchtower Society because they asked about what I had said to the two elders who came to my home. I asked them if they had read “The Finished Mystery” and some of the crazy things in it (leviathan = steam locomotive; 1260 furlongs of Revelation = the distance to Watchtower Headquarters at Columbia Heights, NY from Pennsylvannia etc). David said “yes, he had read it”. Peter said, he thought he had read it and Ron said, "I have a copy in my library at home".

I also mentioned the official hstory book and asked how reliable can any official history ever be? Ron said how his mother (or aunt?) had been a Witness for many years and had met Rutherford and that she loved the “Proclaimers” book until her dying day and thought it was wonderful. David said he knew that Russell had believed in pyramidology and other crazy things, but I asked him why the “Proclaimers” book did not tell the whole story?
The fact is, although “Proclaimers” appears to candidly admit that “for some 35 years, Pastor Russell thought that the Great Pyramid of Gizeh was God’s stone witness corroborating biblical time periods” (p.201) at no time does the book mention that Rutherford continued to teach that fallacy for a further 14 years after Russell’s death in 1916. In other words, as I told them, the Watchtower Society is telling its members only part of the truth in this and many other matters.

Then I asked them a question: "What was Russell expecting in 1914?" They claimed not to understand the question (I was reminded of Matt.21:27). Although I rephrased it and asked additional questions, they still said that they didn't see what I was trying to say and Peter asked me what point was I making? So, I explained that the Watchtower Society tells us to-day that Russell and his colleagues were looking forward to Christ's Return in 1914, but the facts of Watchtower history, recorded in Watchtower literature of that period, plainly show otherwise because in 1879, Russell had begun publishing a magazine called The Watchtower and Herald of Christ's Presence. In fact, Russell believed and taught that Christ had returned already in 1874 and was looking forward to the Battle of Armageddon in 1914. (N.B. this is not an example of "new light", but of plainly changing the facts of Watchtower history to suit the current teaching).

It should be clear to you, the reader, that I had been giving damning evidence against myself to the Appeal Committee. If they wanted to uphold the disfellowshipping, they had all the confirmation they needed that I did not agree with Jehovah's Witnesses or the Watchtower organisation!! However, what actually had I been saying? I had upheld the teachings of Christianity resolutely and all I had done was quote Watchtower literature and reason on its sense and propriety with them.

I repeated what I had said earlier about their verdict having no effect on me and that I would continue to exercise my freedom of speech to whomsoever I wished and about whatsoever I wanted. I reminded them that we were meeting for their benefit. Time was passing and Chairman Ron, who was watching the clock, said, “Well if it doesn’t make any difference to you, we’ll just disfellowship you and we can all go home”. True, it was said with a smile, but I'm glad there were no stones available........

After this lengthy discussion, they again asked me to leave the room and again we haggled and I offered to read my statement, “but you still won’t like it”.

“No, no! Don’t read it!” said David. “Just give us a little more time. You can read it later if you wish”.

I went outside into the main hall where the three stooges had been sitting for over an hour chatting. I decided that, in view of the apparent reasonableness of the Appeal Committee, that I must amend my statement to be less brutal (but still pretty firm!) so I made a few rapid alterations and scorings-out!

After a further ten minutes, all four of us were asked to come in again and I heard something very interesting - the Appeal Committee could not make up their minds and asked me if I would allow them to ponder their decision over the weekend and meet me again on Monday or Tuesday, but definitely before the following Friday when Peter McKinney would be going on holiday. This was too good an opportunity to let pass, so I said I would have to charge them for my time for another appearance. Ron immediately said they would charge me too! We all laughed.

They asked me to leave and told me they would contact me. I made a bit of a fuss (just to wind them up a little) and said, “Oh, so you keep me waiting five months for a decision and now you let the sword of Damocles hang over my head all weekend! I thought you guys had the authority to make a decision? Or are you going to have to report back to the Bosses to hear their decision?” Peter said, “Ah, but you said you had kept this going five months (!) and we can assure you that this will be our decision. No-one is influencing us and we will let you know as soon as possible. So I’m sure you can suffer a sword of Damocles overhead for just another few days”. We both laughed..

Once more, I reminded them that there would be no "deals” -.whatever their verdict. It would make no difference to me and I would continue to speak to other people freely about any topic I wished. I also repeated that if I returned it would be for their benefit to allow them to correct a potential injustice against my family and Witness friends and their own worldwide membership who would be forbidden to speak to me on the basis of their decision.
After two-and-a-half hours, as I left the room, I paused and said, “I only came for ten minutes to read my statement you know. (then -- big smile) But you were all so charming I just had to stay and talk to you. (and to the other Committee) You could learn from that”
I let myself out of the Hall - which is interesting because on previous occasions, I was escorted (but not actually handcuffed!!) to and from the main door.

Later, another point struck me: the six elders remained seated and seemed set to have another lengthy discussion as they were making no preparations to gather their things together before leaving with me or very shortly after me.

The above meeting took place a four months ago (I wrote this account in 1999). If I had been disfellowshipped, I would have heard by now. So what is happening? I don’t know! And I don’t care too much because it’s time to start rebuilding a life. 

A friend and former elder of considerable experience has given this comment:
"You probably already realize this, but in case not, I will tell you exactly why you haven't heard from the appeal committee. They did not make a decision, nor were they instructed to make a decision. 
They have submitted their 'findings' to the Society and are awaiting a reply which will (indirectly at least) tell them what their decision 'was'. Then, after hearing from the Society (possibly more than once if they are unclear on the first trade of correspondence), they will advise you of 'their' decision. That's how it works in high profile or damage-control situations. 
You could be in for a long wait. One committee I served on waited nearly a year for the Legal Department to finally tell us what 'our' decision was".

Anyway, I have made my point and I have frustrated the Watchtower organisation with all its supposed power and “portions of Jehovah’s holy spirit”. I hope I have shown other people that they need not fear this organisation or its representatives who are often themselves ignorant and misinformed and weak and cowardly men.

A happy life after Jehovah's Witnesses is possible although sometimes difficult initially - recovery takes time - whether that be a Christian life or otherwise. (I do not think only Christians have the monopoly on morality).

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands worldwide are leaving the Watchtower religion and like the tobacco companies, it is only in Third World countries that the Watchtower Society is still making gains among poorly informed and uneducated populations. However, as more and more people have access to free information on the internet and elsewhere, they are able to find out the truth about the Lie.

May the blessing of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you! (Heb.1:1-4; John 14:6-7) 
Anthony Roberts 
Edinburgh,Scotland

Copyright (c) Witness Aid UK 1999 & 2015

The Rude, the Bad and the Ugly - a Watchtower "judicial" committee

If my last meeting with the elders was a victory which survived a sneaky counter-attack, this is a Bridge Too Far - a futile, foolhardy, heroic jump behind enemy lines, against an enemy that was ready to ambush me. 
I am badly beaten up, as I expected. 
Today, in 2015, it is still very upsetting to read this.

This is long and later, repetitive, but there is a useful statement toward the end.
You will need a LOT of tea/coffee, a box of hankies and probably a bottle of whisky and some valium to finish. (just kidding).
But seriously, it is brutal, vicious, upsetting.
=============================================================

“Please accept my resignation. I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member”   Groucho Marx


This is a continuation of the secret church trial -- a “Judicial” Committee of Jehovah's Witnesses -- started on April 30th.,1999. [See Tom ‘n’ Jerry and The Three Stooges in my blog.]

Bear in mind that the purpose of all this is not entertainment. Nor was I expecting to obtain justice and prevent my being disfellowshipped -- the decision to disfellowship me had already been made (in fact, the purpose of a "judicial" committee is really to see whether the accused (guilty) person is repentant).

My sole aim was to gather evidence about these secret church courts sponsored by the Watchtower Society and to make the transcripts public to show you, the reader, how "overseers ruling for justice itself" [JW elders] treat the "sheep" -- and former members -- on behalf of their God and the Watchtower organisation.

As for the propriety of recording, once again, I decided that no harm would come to anyone if the motives of the elders were pure. If these "judicial" committees are for the common good, why should anyone want to keep them secret? Are they private? Well, in this case, I waive my right to privacy and invite you to listen to my trial since I am ashamed of nothing that you will discover.

Are you one of Jehovah's Witnesses? Then you are supporting the actions of these elders who are following the Governing Body's instructions which are clearly written in the Elders' Manual provided by the Watchtower Society.

There is another important matter raised in these transcripts: Are Jehovah's Witnesses really free to leave their religion if they wish? That is what the leadership tells the public.

Background to this meeting 
The first "Judicial" Committee meeting broke up in some disarray when I refused to confirm whether or not I had a tape-recorder. I had, of course, but I decided not to confirm it for reasons which will become obvious shortly.

Six days later, on Thursday, 6th. May, Chris Taylor and Dennis Graham called at my home uninvited and asked me to come to another meeting next day -- 28 hours later -- but “would I please not bring my tape-recorder?” Incredible!

I declined to appear at such short notice, but I said I would consider another date and that I would inform them within seven days. I was very suspicious because Chris was too buoyant -- in fact, he was cheeky. Obviously, they had had time to put their heads together to plan some foul play. Little did I know just how low these "loving shepherds" would stoop to railroad me and destroy me after I had frustrated them on the first occasion.

This time, I had less opportunity to prepare. However, I had a strategy which I planned to follow, although as you will see, they had ideas of their own to prevent me taking charge of their meeting again.

Therefore, on Sunday 9 May, I delivered a letter personally to Robin Maxwell requesting that they answer, or rule on, all of the objections raised at the first meeting regarding their methods of conducting their secret trials.

I expressed doubts in their competence as judges, teachers and shepherds in view of their lamentable understanding of Scripture and even of their own Watchtower teachings. I reminded them that I am in full agreement with the biblical teachings of Christianity.

I asked them to explain why they had not recognised me as a Witness for over three years, but now suddenly, they say I am a Witness. I suggested that they "wanted to make me a member long enough to disfellowship me, disgrace me and silence me and that their intention is simply to deny me association with my family and prevent all Jehovah's Witnesses and former Witnesses (who would be harassed by elders if seen with me) from speaking to me".

I asked them why they were putting so much emphasis on “following the Society’s directives” in their secret Elders' Manual when they claimed to be following the Bible. I asked them to explain why they insist that I follow their Elders’ Manual regarding tape-recordings when they are not following it themselves with regard to bringing forward their "very concerned" witnesses.

{EM: "Present the witnesses one at a time unless the wrongdoer confesses. Accusers should be willing to assume their responsibility, as was required in Israel"}

My letter ran to two A4 pages and raised many questions. I was not really expecting a reply. A few days later, I received a letter by Recorded Delivery. It was written on a scrap of A4 paper from which the letterhead had been cut. It simply informed me that the continuation of the "judicial" committee would take place on Tues.25th. May at 9 p.m. None of the questions I had raised were answered - as  I had expected.

When we met again on Tuesday, May 25th. at 9 p.m. the same Committee appeared with the same witnesses, John Maxwell and Roddie Darroch. The original “very concerned witnesses”, on whose behalf the two elders had supposedly called, were never produced. Instead, the two investigators -- agents provocateurs -- who had entrapped me were used as witnesses against me.

And as I discovered later on May 28th --  three days after the trial -- the Committee had consulted Watchtower Headquarters at London Bethel. So the following travesty is a direct result of the local elders’ collective wisdom and it occurred with the blessing and support of their Mother Organisation -- the Watchtower Society.

The “Judicial" Committee: Chris Taylor; Robin Maxwell; Dennis Graham. 
The Witnesses: John Maxwell; Roddie Darroch 
The Accused: Anthony Roberts [Ant] a member of the public living in Edinburgh, Scotland, who left the Witness religion over THREE years earlier. 
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 when they ask me. 

Ant's aim: To expose the corrupt and unchristian practice of secret "judicial" committees and to show the public how incompetent, uneducated and unqualified men are used by the Watchtower Society to judge their fellow Jehovah's Witnesses -- and former Witnesses -- in secret church courts which violate basic principles of 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 -- or even their sacred Elders' Manual -- which they claim to follow.

Declaration by Anthony Roberts: This is a true and accurate transcript of an unoffical tape-recording taken at the Kingdom Hall, 95 Broughton Street, Edinburgh, Scotland at the Judicial Committee attended by the above-named people. Anyone who has proper authority may examine the recording by arrangement. 

The Committee meets for Part Two............. 
[Although this is a continuation of the first meeting, the Committee insists on saying another prayer over the proceedings. I respectfully remain silent, but do not participate. The Committee and their two witnesses are present in the room]

Dennis: Our loving Father, Jehovah in the heavens, we approach you in prayer and we ask for your holy spirit and your direction upon this gathering here. We appreciate Father that your counsel is important and we follow your instructions through the Holy Scriptures and we ask Father for your direction and your help in taking care of this particular matter. So we offer you this prayer and for your guidance and help we thank you, Father in the name of your Son, Jesus Christ. Amen 
[the two witnesses leave the room] 

Chris: OK? Are you ready? OK. First of all -- just to.......  you haven’t got any tape-recorders have you Tony? 

Ant: Yes  [This time, I am nervous.. I take a tape-recorder from my bag] 

Chris: You have got a tape-reco.......?  
[the jaws drop and the eyebrows go up........  Ant - 1 Elders - 0] 

Ant:   [the bluff begins] Yes. I’m going to record this. Because I was looking at your Elders' Manual and...... eemm ..... I see that it says in there......... eehmm........ What’s the exact words now?.......... eemm? "No tape-recording permitted. So out of respect for your...... eemm.....  you know, out of respect for your eehhh...... The Elders' Manual's written for you -- isn’t it? For elders? So I respect your right not to record -- if you will respect my right to record. [If you think I am nervous, you are right. It all depends on the bluff!] 

Chris: We’re not going to have the meeting Tony if you’re going to record. End of story. 
Ant:  Yes, but the point is, the Elders' Manual clearly says “no tape-recording permitted” and that is a manual for the.... for the elders, isn’t it? 

Chris:  Tony -- we are not going to get into a discussion as to whether tape-recordings should be here or not. OK? End......  you don’t.......... 
Ant: Why not? 
Chris: We are not even going to answer the question, Tony 
Ant: Well, you haven’t answered the questions in my letter either. 
Chris: OK. So you..... that’s it then. End of meeting. [Chris is standing now, fists clenched by his side] 
Ant: So we’re not going to have a meeting if I can’t [sic] record it? 
Robin: No 
Chris: You know that. 
Ant: Why are you afraid of recording? 
Chris: Tony -- we are not having........ 
Ant: I’m just asking you. 
Chris: Well, we’re not going to give you an answer. 
Ant: So am I going to be allowed to defend myself then? 
Chris: Not wth a tape-recording on. We are not going to have the meeting Tony with the tape-recording on. 
Ant:  Will I be allowed defend myself if I don’t...... if I don’t use the tape-recorder? 
Chris:We are not going to answer any of your questions while we are being taped -- end of story.[would this be a good example of "Repetition for emphasis"?] 
[A long pause -- I sigh and look down dejectedly and...........] 
Ant:  I really don’t understand why you’re doing this you know. Eeehhh.....eeehh....... I really don’t understand why you are wanting to hold a secret meeting like this. 
Chris:As I’ve just said so, Tony, we are not going to answer any of your questions while you  insist on recording. [Chris thinks he is in command -- they have been well-briefed] 
[Another pause and another sigh and more looking down.......] 
Ant: So what’s my choice then? 
Chris:  If you want to be here while the meeting continues, you don’t record. 
Ant:  And then I don’t get a chance to defend myself if I....  if I go away? 
Chris: We are not going to answer any of your questions while that...... that tape-recording’s on. 
Ant: But why not? 
Chris:We are not going to answer any questions. 
Ant: You are not going to answer any questions? That’s just a waste of my time then? 
Chris: No. That's it! Meeting’s over, Tony. [Chris steps over to my chair and stands right over me] 

[More sighs and I open the machine -- which has never been switched on -- they hadn't even noticed -- and take out the tape. I place the open recorder and tape on the chair next to me] 

Ant: Right. Well, I want this put on record, you know....... that you're ...... that you're doing this....... 
Chris: Yes, yes. It will definitely be put on record. 
Ant:  .........because I think this is absolutely abominable, you know. I mean it’s absolutely shocking, what you’re doing. 
Chris: Well you’re wasting our time, Tony  [no, I'm not -- the meeting was to be held whether I attended or not] 
Ant: No, you’re wasting my time because..... because as I say, I checked the Elders' Manual and I think it was fairly clear, you know? 
Chris:Tony -- Tony. We..... we came round to you and says to you....... we'll invite you to the meeting [as if they are doing me a favour to invite me to my own trial?] and told you and the first thing you do is, you tape it. 
Ant: Yes, but the reason I did that is that you didn’t have the courtesy to answer my letter because in the letter I said that......... eehhhh....... that I would...... I would reply to your invitation when I had had my questions answered. 
[Chris -- a tall man -- is still standing over me as I sit and his voice is still raised] 
Chris:The meeting is finished, Tony. Are you going to..... are you going to stop recording it, Tony? 
[I gesture toward the open tape-recorder and look very disappointed] 
Ant: Yeah, well....... 
Chris: Do you wish..... do you wish to stay here while you don’t record it? 

[I am still looking at the recorder and referring to it, as he stands over me. He is very tense. His arms are at his sides, but his fists are clenched] 

Ant: [another gesture to the recorder] Yes, [I wish to stay here] -- but under protest. I want you to make it very clear that I am not happy about this at all  [I gesture toward the recorder again] and I’m really........... 
Chris: OK. All three of us have made...... have heard you Tony and you've made your protest. 
Ant:  Yes, but I mean.... I mean..... you really.... I don’t know......you really should be..... you should be shot, you know......... you really....... you’re just terrible, you know. [I am making a fuss for a good reason. It's all bluff.] 
Chris: So you will........ 
Robin: We’ve heard your objection -- your objection has been noted. We understand....... 
Ant: Yes, but what’s the point of taking objections if you don’t do anything about them? 

[Chris is sitting down again after seeing the tape and opened recorder] 

Chris:Tony --.We’ve heard your objection. Now we’re going to continue. 
Ant: And what are you going to do about it? That’s the point? 
Chris: We’re going to continue with the meeting 
Ant: Yes, but.... I mean....... when are these objections going to be answered? 
Chris: Tony -- you knew from the outset right, that we would not continue the meeting with a tape-recorder:...... and you tried to start the meeting with a tape-recorder. 
Ant:  Well, that's........ Yes, but I let you know though! 
Chris: But knowing that we would not have the meeting if you continued with it. 
Ant:  Well, that’s because I was trying to reason with you 
Chris: Why did you bring it along? 
Ant: Because I was hoping that you’d seen some sense between now and then and that you can understand the absolute nonsense that this is. 
Chris: We are not going to have....... 
Ant:  You know -- this is absolutely shocking....... 
Chris: We are not going to have the meeting Tony with a tape-recorder on. END of story.  [Oh yes you are!!] 
Ant: I’m going to tell everybody about this, you know. 
Robin:  Well, that’s your right Tony 
Ant: Oh I will -- I will! Your wife will know and your wife will know and your mother will know [I smile - I see the humour of "I'm telling your Mum on you!"] I’ll be telling everybody what you do in your spare time! 
Robin:  But I mean it's not going to make a ha'porth [a cent] of difference if you choose to tell the whole universe, you know [I hope you remember that when you see this online, Robin] -- but you knew that you could only come along here tonight and listen to what the witnesses say........... 
Ant: Oh yes. Oh  yes. Yes! 
Robin:..........on the basis of not taking a tape-recorder 
Ant: .......yes......and I’m having to ask you “Why? 
Robin:  And if Chris hadn’t asked you, you would have just sat there and taped it 
[no -- It was NOT switched on] 
Ant: No! I wouldn’t! I would not! [I had NO intention of using that recorder] 
Robin: Yeah, you would! 
Ant: I would not! 
Chris: Anyway...... We’re not going to get into an argument, as to whether....... The fact is, you’re here now. You haven’t got the tape-recorder on -- we will proceed. [The bullies think they have won] Now, we’ve heard your objections for the last hour -- last time we were here -- we’ll now call the first witness, OK.? 
Ant: Well, we’ve heard his evidence already. 
Chris: We’ll now call the first witness. 
Ant:  So you’re going to hear Roddie’s evidence again? 
Chris:Just so that you’re clear as to what he said....... so there's no misunderstanding 
Ant: Well, let's see how many changes he makes then. 

[Roddie enters -- meanwhile, the second machine (a digital recorder with longer battery time) is in my bag, recording everything.  Again, I am very lucky - the volume has been lowered accidentally, but it's enough to make this transcript] 

Chris: Come on in Roddie. Have a seat. Now before we start....... 
Ant: Where’s John, by the way? 
Robin:: He’s just out in the......, you know........ in the foyer. 
Chris:  Now Tony. Can I just make it clear that any..... any...... we’re here to listen to Roddie's statement. Any questions that you may have Tony to clarify what Roddie's saying, please do it through myself and not directly to Roddie just so that there’s a...... and also, the objective is to listen to what Roddie has to say. We’re not going to get into a discussion...... a debate about doctrine OK? 
Ant: Good 
Chris:  If your beliefs vary....... OK, on doctrine, you are entitled to your opinionas is everyone else.  
[Really?? If you don’t mind being disfellowshipped when you express it! So why are we here?]  
We’re here just to clarify what was said on that evening OK? So.......please, Roddie:. 

Roddie: Well, I made a statement last time which included various matters that Tony had mentioned during our conversation..... or his conversation mainly with John which I was spectating at, but eehhh..... [coughs] some of the things that were mentioned ......eehhhh....... I may have forgotten some in the meantime,  but.. eehhh.....  one that I think I mentioned was that......... eeehhh....... that Tony seemed happier now that he was no longer....... .that he was free to.........did not accept the authority of the "faithful and discreet slave" body and the local body of elders. He said also that..... eehh...... the "faithful and discreet slave" -- he doubted that they could have been -- as we understand it -- that they could have been appointed by Jehovah and Christ Jesus or that they could have been in that capacity in the 1920s -- particularly he mentioned the 1920s -- when the organisation was still doing things that were unscriptural such as.. eehh...... still celebrating birthdays and Xmas etc. apart from those .......but also emm..... that they had changed their minds over ... eemm.... certain matters -- one particular matter -- which I don’t think Tony mentioned what it was, but he said that, over a period of years, they changed their mind as many as 5 times.. eehhh.....  over this matter and ..eehh..... I can’t remember at the moment any further points just........ eeehhhhh........ right now, but eehhhhh...... probably there are some questions that you would wish to have raised on the subject? 
[Swiftly passsing the baton]

Chris:OK Thank you Roddie. Tony do you have any questions to clarify what Roddie said? 
Ant:  Nothing to clarify what he said no, but I have some questions. Quite a few questions 
Chris: In relation to what Roddie’s just said? 
Ant:  Not directly in relation to what Roddie’s just said, no. 
Chris:So, we’re here at this point in time to discuss what Roddie said. What......what are these questions about? 
Ant:  Roddie’s visit to my home. 
Chris: Roddie's visit? 
Ant: Yes 
Chris: So you’ve got no.......did you agree with what Roddie said? As an accurate.......? 
Ant: No comment 
Chris:You’ve got no comment? No comment about........... what he says? 
Ant: Not at present, no. 
Chris: OK [to others] Any comment on what Roddie:said? 
Both: No 
Chris: Right! Thank you Roddie [dismissing him!!] 
Ant: But I’ve got some questions I want to ask him. [that was close!!] 
Chris:  What? Relating to what he witnessed? 
Ant: Yeee--ees 
Chris: If they're directly related to what Roddie:witnessed at that evening, ask -- yeah. What was the question? 
Ant: Quite a few questions. And you said I would be free to question the witnesses 
Chris: Yes. If it’s......if it’s relevant [moving the goalposts -- see last transcript] 
Ant: Well I think it’s relevant and I’ve prepared these. 
Chris: But we......... well we will decide as a committee whether it’s relevant, Tony. 
Ant: So if I say anything that you don’t like you can just declare it irrelevant? 
Chris: Ask the first question Tony. If we feel it’s in your interest, we will. 
Ant: Well, I’ve got a certain line of questioning that I want to follow. 
Chris: OK 
Ant: .......and I would like to follow it and if you’re going to interrupt me because you don’t like some of the questions, which are all polite questions by the way -- there’s nothing offensive about any of them. The point is,  I have these questions which I’ve gone to the trouble of preparing that I would like to ask him and I would like Roddie:to answer them as well, if you don’t mind. So is that agreed? 
Chris: What’s your first question? 
Ant: Well the first thing I'd like to think about Roddie, is have you heard of a film or a book called The Ox Bow Incident 
[a very poor start by me - only ask questions to which you already know the response. 
This question is far too abstract] 

Roddie: [prompts the three by looking at them] Is this to be answered? 
Chris: Eehhh......Look -- Tony. What has that to do with what.......... [the first of many interruptions] 
Ant: You’ll find out as I go 
Chris: No, we need to.... 
Ant: You said to me that I had as long as I like to clear this matter up 
Chris: Tony -- Tony. You have to explain..... you have to justify the relevance of the question. There’s no point in us....... 
Ant:  It is relevant to this trial 
Chris: Well we need to know why it is 
Ant: You will find out in a moment 
Chris: [to others] Do you know the relevance to that question? 
Robin: Well no. I can’t. No, not on its own, yeah. 
Ant: Of course 
Chris: Tony -- unless the question is relevant, we..... 
Ant: It is relevant I assure you. I have prepared these questions........ 
Chris: Well, explain to us OK.? We’re not here.. right? ...... just for the sake of coming here............. 
Ant: Well you seem to be here to obstruct me 
Chris:  No, Tony we want to get to the truth, but you have got to explain to us the relevance of that question. 
Ant: Right. Well The Ox Bow Incident was a film of a classic American novel and it was about a lynching party -- and it reminds me of this. This is like a lynching party What do you think? 
[Pause. Roddie remains silent and looks at Chris] 

Chris: [interrupts] What? Tony -- you.......at the outset I asked you [sic], you could ask questions if they’re relevant 
Ant: That’s relevant 
Chris: We're not...... You don’t have to ask him about opinions of a film about lynching....... 
Ant: I’m not asking about the opinion of the film. I’m asking if this is reminiscent of a lynching party 
Chris: Well, he’s not here to answer that question 
Ant: Well I would like him to answer it 
Chris: Well he’s not here to answer that question 
Ant: So put it on record that you’re forbidding him to answer the question 
Chris: We are not....... 
Ant: Will you put it on record that you’re forbidding him to answer the question? 
Chris: We are not going to allow him to answer questions that are not relevant to the .... incident that Roddie witnessed. He’s here to a [sic] witness to an occasion.......to certain things that you have said. We don’t want to discuss certain films..... 
Ant: We’re not discussing films We’re discussing the..... the.....eehhh.... the theme of a film.as a....... the  illustrative use of a film 
Chris: You are...... you are implying that this is a lynching mob 
Ant:  Yes 
Chris: The witness doesn’t have to get into discussions with you as to whether it is or it isn’t 
Ant: All right, all right. I’ll go on to the next question.[I drop it as I see now how things stand] I’ll go on to my next question  What is the state of a disfellowshipped person in your experience? 
Chris: [interrupts] Tony! 
Ant: You’re not going to allow me to answer that question..... to ask that question? 
Chris: Tony at the outset I asked [sic] you, you can ask questions relevant to what he witnessed on that evening, so if you....... 
Ant: I want to know a lot more than that. 
Chris: You’re asking his opinion about certain things that.... 
Ant: OK. Are you saying that I can ask questions about anything that was mentioned or discussed on that evening? 
Chris: If you’re not sure as to what was said or discussed...... 
Ant: I know what was said!  [I have a recording and a complete transcript!] 
Chris: OK Are you...... so do you understand what Roddie said..... do you agree with what Roddie said? 
Ant: I don’t agree with what Roddie said and I make no comment about what he said, but I have questions to ask him about that evening and about the days before that evening and the days after that evening 
Chris:OK.We are here to discuss that evening..... what you said and what they witnessed 
Ant: Well I would like to ask him some questions about what was said on that evening 
Chris: Fine. If you want to ask questions about doctrine, about what we believe about certain things, we're not here...... 
Ant: No. I don’t want to discuss doctrine -- particularly. 
Chris: .....and if you have any questions, other than what Roddie asked, you ask the committee, not Roddie:: -- he’s not here as part of the committee [oh no??] he’s here as a witness -- and a witness only 
Ant: Right -- so the Defence should be able to question the witness 
Chris: Relevant to what he witnessed....... 
Ant: Right, so I'll do that. [looking at my notes] So we’ll scrap half of that then..... and......... and I don’t have much left actually...... which I’m sure will please you....... Alright -- we’ll try something else then....... Eemm...... would you like to tell me whose idea it was to come along to see me on February 28th Roddie? 
[Pause] 
Ant: If you’re allowed to answer...... 
Chris:  He doesn’t need to answer that because we can tell you [Mr. Helpful smirks] 
Ant:  I’m not asking you. I‘m asking him and I'd appreciate if you’d stop interrupting me. I’m speaking, he’s answering...... 
Chris: [interrupts] Tony....... 
Ant: ........and you’re listening, OK? 
Chris: Tony -- you will direct any question to Roddie:through me 
Ant:: Right! And are you going to direct the questions to him? Or is this going to be a complete, absolute farce? 
Chris: Tony -- look.... 
Ant: Well let's make it sensible then. There’s no point me preparing questions and preparing a defence and you say to me “Oh you’ve got as long as you like” and then you say to me......... 
Chris: We didn’t say you’ve got as long as you like [??] 
Ant: You did! 
Chris: We........ 
Ant: No -- NO! You said to me that I have “as long as it takes” 
Chris: [interrupts] Tony......... 
Ant:  .......to do this. “As long as it takes” is what you said to me in the first ten minutes or so of the last meeting..... 
Chris: [interrupts] Tony -- no.. 
Ant:  .........and you said that this is a continuation of that meeting and I will hold you to that 
Chris: Tony -- - we started the meeting last time and we gave [!!] you an hour .....
[no! I took an hour from right under their noses] 
Ant: I’m not interested in that. This is a continuation of the meeting....... 
Chris: Exactly 
Ant: ......and you said to me......you said to me...... at that meeting that I had as long as I would need to get this through 
Chris: Tony, Tony -- you are going to........ you are allowed to ask him questions relevant to what he witnessed 
Ant:  I wondered. So, anyway -- would you ask the witness..... what was his reason for being there that night? 
Roddie:There was.....eehh......it was arranged by the body of elders that John Maxwell and I would go to see you 
Ant: For what purpose? 
Roddie: To endeavour to help you to return to the congregation  
[Help?? Since when? After several hours of discussion and telephone calls, the word "help" is suddenly introduced for the first time -- and will be repeated] 

Ant: Did you say that to me at any time? 
Roddie: I don’t remember saying anything except for “Good evening” and “Good night”, I expect. 
Ant: Well, that’s true...... but eehmm.....let me just ask you what was your role in this? 
Roddie:  I was....eemm..... a witness to what you said and eehhhh...... since John Maxwell was.....eehhh..... directing the conversation, I might say, I listened and did my best to remember what was said and in particular the question that was often asked of you was, “Did you want to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses?” which I took to mean that we were wanting you to make an affirmative. 
Ant:  And do you really think that that was the line of John's questioning -- that he wanted me to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses? 
Chris: [interrupts] Tony -- you’re asking Roddie....you’re asking Roddie a question that you should be asking John 
Ant:: Well, I’m asking Roddie as well 
Chris:You ask John that question 
Ant: Alright. Did you discuss before you arrived what John's role was to be and what your role was to be? 
[another pause as Roddie looks at Chris] 

Chris: [interrupts] What is the.....? You’ve just asked him, Tony why they came to you and it was explained 
Ant:  Uh-huh 
Chris::That’s it. 
Ant:: I asked him a simple question which only requires a Yes or No answer 
Chris: What was the question again? 
Ant: Did you decide before you came to my home what your roles were to be? 
[another long pause] 

Ant: Yes or no? 
Chris: Do you understand the question Roddie:? 
Roddie: Yes I understand the question and the answer's No. 
Ant: So there was no agreement that you would remain silent? And there was no agreement that he would do all the talking - he just “took over” so to speak? 
Roddie: Yes 
Ant:  The elders told me at the last visit..... at the last meeting or ..... the last .....beginning of this -- the first half .......that.... eemm.... it was to be an investigation when you came to my home. Is that true? 
Roddie: You could use that....eemm.... you could use that remark, yes 
Ant: I mean did the elders assign you and John to come to investigate me? 
Roddie:I can't say.  I can't remember the wording. 
Chris:  So.... well, we can clarify that. The reason for that visit was -- as Roddie mentioned -- was to try and help you come back to the congregation [really??] and to investigate these allegations of apostasy. Now you’ve clearly asked Roddie why he was there. He’s explained it in detail.....[!] Do you feel that that is sufficient, Dennis and Robin? 
Dennis: Yes, I think it’s sufficient because basically we’re only interested in what took place on that night and he’s answered that particular point. 
Robin: I would say so...... I would go with that.......... 
Ant: So -- at what point did I discover it was an investigation? 
Chris: Right. OK, at this point Tony you’ve asked sufficient questions to.. .... that....  eemmm.... 
Ant: I don’t think so 
Chris:Well we......we feel that you have. 
Ant:  Well I don’t. I’m not satisfied 
Chris: Tony. 
Ant: I have a ..lot of questions to ask...... 
Chris: [interrupts] Tony. 
Ant: .....and you are infringing my human rights and my civil liberties right now by forbidding me to ask these questions 
Chris:  Do you.... do you feel that we've......? What........what further information do you want with him? I mean because we’ve discussed earlier....... because you’re going beyond.....you’re starting to delve into the befores and after that meeting....... we said we wanted it relevant to that evening. You asked him the purpose of the meeting. He’s explained it to you...... 
Ant: I just asked him a question which was entirely relevant to the conversation 
Chris:   Well we......do you feel that there’s any need for any further questions ? Dennis? 
Dennis: I don’t feel that there’s any need because what happened before and after is irrelevant to what we’re actually discussing. Were discussing what took place on that particular night 
Ant:  Right. Well I’m going to ask him a question -- to repeat a question which was on that particular night 
Chris: Roddie? eehmm.....Robin? [Chris continues to ignore me] 
Robin: Ehhhh...... I would......well I would go along with that. I think......... yeah............ ehhhmm ........Roddie's given his account of what took place that evening eeehhh........ and he’s also answered Tony’s question about why ........he can’t say much more 
Ant: He could say a lot more 
Robin: Only if the question you have for him is directly related to that evening......what happened, but if its before, after or whatever its not for you to say, it’s eeehhhh........ 
Ant: So..... I‘ll repeat my question ........ 
Chris: Excuse me a moment Tony. Roddie:
[further prevarication and interruption to disrupt my questioning]
Roddie: The last time I came I made a statement and....eehhmm... I hadn't thought that I was going to make a statement again, but there was something else that I felt relevant to what we are talking about right now and if you’d like me to, I'll  repeat part of that statement ....... 
Chris:  Is it relevant to.......? 
Roddie: I think so. During......during the conversation, as I mentioned, John repeatedly asked Tony if he wanted to be a Jehovah's Witnesses to which Tony gave no.......  gave a clearly non-committal answer, but also he did say that he regarded the "faithful and discreet slave" as responsible for brothers dying through lack of blood transfusion...... aahhhh......and also the fact that.....eehhh.... he felt that the "faithful and discreet slave"  had no right to determine matters of dress or of sexual practices within marriage and he also said that he would like to help John and I to “get Christ in our hearts” as he put it I think -- maybe that’s not word for word, but he certainly implied to me that he felt he had something better for us than what we’d got in “the truth” 
Chris: OK Tony, do you have a question ? 
Ant: Right, my question was at what point of the conversation did you inform me that you were there to investigate me? 
Roddie: I didn’t..... 
Ant: Or John.....I’m .... I’m speaking of you collectively because you’re obviously a party to what John said 
Roddie:  I...... eeemm 
Ant:  I take it you agree with all that John said? 
Roddie: Yes 
Ant: So.... so when I’m referring to “you” I’m referring to you and John 
Roddie: I would say that I don’t remember ever, the word used -- investigate -- I don’t remember it...... 
Robin: Uh-huh 
Chris: [interrupts again] OK.He's answered that question 
Ant: OK 
Chris: Do you have any other question relevant to what was said on that evening? 
Ant:  I should tell you that I have a full transcript of that conversation. So would you like to change any of your evidence? And I have witnesses who have heard the...... the conversation. 
Roddie: I’m quite prepared to say that your transcript might be more accurate than me! 
Ant: Yes -- it is.
[which shows it is truthful too. That's why the WTS lawyers later tried to ban it from Freeserve]

Roddie: I wasn’t.....ehhhh.... I wasn’t...... ehhh.....  recording or taking it down...... 
Chris: Do you have any further questions on that? 
Ant: Not...... on that...... particular point. 
Chris: Now........ 
Ant: [talks over] John asked me a question...... 
Chris: We don’t want to discuss what John said at the moment. 
Ant: [I ignore him]......which you heard -- and that question was, “Do you wish to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses or not?” And he said it ..... many times, would you say? 
Roddie:I would say maybe 3 or 4 times 
Ant: At least that? 
Roddie:Could be 
Ant: Right. I would actually think it would be more than that, but it was certainly asked very pointedly several times......  and as you say I refused to give a committal answer of, yes or no. And why did I say that I would not give a committal answer to that question ? 
Roddie: If my memory serves me at all right, I think that you mentioned your family. 
Ant: Yes. And what.......  did we discuss the consequences of answering that question ? 
Roddie: [pause]......I can’t remember. I can’t remember....eemmm........  I remember you said that “if I said I wanted to be a Jehovah's Witness then that would mean I would have to come to meetings” or words to that effect. 
Ant: Alright. And what would be the opposite consequence if I was to say No to the question  “Do you want to be a Jehovah's Witnesses?”? 
Roddie: I think you may have.... well have mentioned that you would be cut off from your family. Or something along those lines 
Ant: Yes. And in fact I had to lead John along that line to get him to admit that that would be the result.... 
Chris: [interrupts] Tony -- Tony -- we're not here to............ 
Ant: No....no, listen. Listen.......I’m not interested in arguing about what John said. What I’m saying is, if John comes into this room and says something, you are going to need a witness to verify that what John says is true. So all I’m doing is helping you right now and confirming that what I’m going to ask John will in fact be correct. And that you will be able to compare what Roddie remembers with what John says and if you had any knowledge of courts or procedure you would understand what I’m doing this for. Because John could come in and say...... 
Chris: [interrupts] We're not........just..... leave John....... 
Ant:  [talks over]  .....something exactly opposite, so I’m asking Roddie if this conversation actually took place and if the things that I am going to ask John were actually discussed 
Chris: And to the best of his knowledge, he is trying to answer the question 
Ant: That’s fine. He’s doing quite well when you don’t interrupt. So -- the question was, “Do you remember that I had to ask John several questions before he agreed that..... that there would be unpleasant consequences if I said No to the question,  “Do you want to be a Jehovah's Witness?”? 
Roddie:To be honest I can’t remember how the conversation went with regard to you...... your question and what he said. I’ve said to you that..... [coughs] ........I recall, as far as I’m concerned approximately what I’ve just said, but as regards your questioning him or him questioning you..... the finer points.... I’m sorry I can’t remember. [coughs] 
Ant: Do you remember John saying that I was free to leave if I wished? 
Roddie: You mean “the truth”? [the JW religion] 
Ant: Eehhhh....... yes 
Roddie: I think that that would be quite credible. I can't remember. 
Ant: He did. He did in fact. 
Chris: Right Tony .... have you said Roddie, everything that you can remember of that evening? 
Roddie:  As far as ....eemmm..... without.....without a question being posed to me. I mean I can’t........  I can’t say......... 
Chris: To the best of your knowledge, you’ve given everything you can remember? 
Roddie: As far as my statement is concerned, yes. 
Chris:OK Right shall we ask John in then? OK 
Ant:  So I’m not allowed to ask any more questions then? 
Chris: Would you like to.......eehhmm...... go and ask John in then? 
Ant:  Are you not going to answer my question ? 
Chris:  Sorry? 
Ant:  I said, “Are you not going to allow me to ask Roddie any more questions ? 
Chris: We’ve........we’ve heard sufficient Tony. 
Ant:  You’ve heard sufficient? So never mind the defence then, eh?...... This really is a farce, you know that? 
[ I am hoping desperately that the recorder is working, to make this unpleasantness worthwhile. In fact, the Recording Control had been knocked from maximum Level 10 to Level 5, but the volume is sufficient -- fortunately] 
[pause -- John enters] 

Chris: OK So we’ve heard from.... from Roddie...... [is Chris reporting to John??] 
John: Yeah! 
Chris ......and he’s related to us the best of his recollection what was said on that evening and we’ve explained to Tony several times that we’re here to discuss what we’ve discussed on that evening...... relevant to that evening.....eehhmm..... and Tony has one or two questions he wants to put to you after you’ve explained.....after you’ve told us what.........he’s already ......he’s already found out that the reason for that evening was to try and help Tony to come back to the congregation,
[preparing the witness -- with Lie No. 6??] if he so desired, and also to investigate these...... ehhh..........these ehhhhh...... allegations........ 
Ant: [interrupts] I dispute that....... 
Chris: OK 
Ant:  .....because that is not true 
Chris: Well let’s just.....ehh...listen to what John has to say. 
Ant:  Don’t lead the witness because that’s not true -- what you just said. 
Chris: What’s not true? 
Ant: Eehh....the fact that the purpose of the meeting was to help me to come back and to investigate me and that I knew about that. 
Chris: Was that the purpose of the meeting? 
Dennis:Yes [since when?] 
Chris: OK 
Ant:  From whose point of view? 
Chris: Tony - we’ve already gone over this...... 
Ant: I’m asking you a question 
Chris:The body of elders arranged for that meeting You know that because you’ve already asked Roddie: 
Ant: OK fair enough -- fine 
Chris:You don’t need to go over..... backtrack over things we’ve already answered.... 
Ant:  OK fine. Fine. [I cannot reason with this man] 
Chris: John would you like to please....... eemm 
John:  Yes. The....aahhhh...... meeting.......essentially..... asked one important question which was really for Tony to make a freewill decision on [untrue], which was “Do you want to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses?"  That freewill decision allowed for either.. eehhh....... having lost faith and having a different view or .... taking a different direction or a.... a restoration based on Yes, he would like to be a member of the congregation. That was essentially the question that was raised from the outset and reiterated throughout the evening’s conversation. Tony didn’t want to answer that question and he indicated the reason he didn’t want to answer it was that .....eehhh.... if he said No to the question then he would be effectively cutting himself off  [No -- they would cut me off by announcing I had disassociated myself]and that he would not be able...... to be able to.....aahhhhh..... to be in touch with his relatives [untrue -- they would be forbidden to speak to me] he would be presumed [unclear on tape] as a disassociated person.  He didn’t use these words, but that was the implication of what he said. Eehhhh..... in the course of the conversation, he raised a number of doubts about teaching......ahhhh......the........ ehhhh.....one or two of them were...... eeehhmm..... with regard to the matter of sexual practices within marriage........ the society’s involvement in these, he didn’t feel it was appropriate in the way the socirty had done it...... aaahhhhh..... he felt really that he had difficulty with some of the adjustments and understandings...... and that when it came down to recognising the "faithful and discreet slave" as a channel, that he didn’t really see that they were the channel. At the conclusion of our interview together......he did encourage Roddie:and I to review our position..... eeehhhhhh.... in view of some of the things that he put forward to us, which in my personal view was...... was..... aaaahhhh..... saying, effectively that ....eeehhhhh......  that..... eehhhhh..... his teaching was, essentially in opposition to what we believed [I had made it plain that I accepted the Bible unreservedly and that I had “both the Father and the Son”!] and we would be wiser if we.... eeehhhh..... followed the teaching that he had espoused.That’s it...... 
Chris:Any questions? 
Ant: Yes. Quite a few questions. And am I going to be allowed to answer them..... ask them this time? 
Chris: If they're relevant, as we said at the outset, to what was discussed on that evening. 
Ant: They are the same questions essentially as I was going to ask Roddie and I’ve had to scrap a few.......... under protest.......... [pause] I’ve got some questions for you three at the end which I’d like to ask since I’m not being allowed to ask Roddie. What is a Jehovah's Witness, John? 
John: [Pause] What do you mean by the question ? 
Ant: Just what it says -- what is a Jehovah's Witness? 
John: And was that discussed on the night? 
Ant:  I’m asking the questions....... 
Chris: [interrupts] Tony, Tony 
Ant: : ........you’re answering them....... 
Chris:[interrupts] Tony 
Ant:  Please answer. 
Chris: [interrupts again] Tony, Tony  -- we’ve already said at the outset that you would address any question to the chairman.
Ant: Well in that case, would you ask the witness to answer the question please? 
Chris: Is that relevant to ........ 
Ant: Yes. It’s very relevant...... 
Chris: Would you explain to us as the committee, what the relevance of that question is? 
Ant: Well there’s no point explaining it to you if you don’t understand the question and there’s no point explaining to you if he’s not going to be able to answer it by himself 
Chris:Tony -- you started off a line of questioning with Roddie:with a question OK? We would want to know the relevance of any question you ask. Was that......is that......... 
Ant: You’ll find out the relevance if you sit and listen and let me ask the questions and let him answer instead of interrupting all the time 
Chris: Tony, Tony -- we said at the outset you address the question to the chairman. We are not interrupting you [!!].We want to know the relevance of that question to what was discussed on the evening.
Ant: It's got a lot of relevance to what was discussed on the evening....... 
Chris: Well explain......... explain. 
Ant:  .........regarding activity and what I’m doing and what Roddie:and John are doing 
Chris: Would you explain the relevance to us? 
Ant: I can’t explain it unless I ask it. 
Chris: You’ve asked the question..... Do you understand the relevance? 
Robin: Not exactly 
Ant: The question’s very simple -- what is a Jehovah's Witness? I’ve got a definition here -- and that’s quite simple. Its not a trick question 
Chris:Tony -- OK fine.You explain the relevance of that question to us. 
Ant:  The relevance of the question is that John was asking me “Do I want to be a Jehovah's Witnesses or not?”, so I’m saying “What is a Jehovah's Witness?” That is relevant. 
Chris: OK 
Ant: And I would have hoped........ 
John: [interrupts] In the context that the question was asked, you understand clearly and I understand clearly what was meant -- that you would be serving Jehovah God as one of Jehovah's Witnesses under the direction of the "faithful and discreet slave" and..... eehhhh..... operating in the way in which the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses have operated down through the years and continue to operate.. 
Ant: That s a very long-winded explanation if you don’t mind me saying so John because I’ve got a very simple definition. [to Chairman] May I read it? 
Chris: Uh-huh 
Ant:  This is from the “Reasoning” book under "Jehovah's Witnesses": Definition: "The worldwide Christian society of people who actively bear witness regarding Jehovah God and his purposes affecting mankind. They base their beliefs solely on the Bible". So,  it's  "The worldwide Christian society of people who actively bear witness regarding Jehovah God and his purposes affecting mankind". And on the basis of that question [definition] I would have to ask you why you were in my home that night? 
[pause] 
John: You’re.... you’re asking why I was in your home that night? 
Ant: Yes 
John: I‘ve explained that already 
Ant: Tell me again! 
John: To put before you the freewill choice -- because the indications were that you were making a different choice -- of being aahhhh......one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with the congregation and under the direction of the "faithful and discreet slave" and that was really the centre of our conversation , "Do you want to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses?” 
Ant:  Yes I would agree with that. And at the time when you came to my home was I “actively bearing witness regarding Jehovah God and his purposes affecting mankind”? 
John: What we found was, that you on that night, were putting forward views that demonstrated that you were aaahh...... no longer ahhh....... thinking and teaching completely in harmony with what you had learned from the "faithful and discreet slave" 
Ant: So would you like to answer the question, Yes or No? 
Chris: [interrupts] Tony - he's answered the question 
Ant: He has not answered the question. He has given me a big long spiel which is not relevant to the question that I asked. The question could be answered very simply Yes or No ..... was I “actively bearing witness regarding Jehovah God and his purposes affecting mankind?" round about the time that he called to see me. 
Chris: Tony -- you have asked John a question...... 
Ant: And he has not answered it. 
Chris:Tony, Tony -- he has...... whether he has answered the question to your satisfaction 
Ant: No. I want a Yes or a No answer. It’s very simple 
Chris:[to committee] Do you feel that John has answered that question? 
Dennis: Yes. Because Tony hasn’t said he has to say Yes or No. He just asked the question 
Chris: You don’t.... you don’t ask people questions Tony and... 
Ant: [interjects]  I'll rephrase it then 
Chris:.......and then tell him the words he has to use. John has...... 
Ant: I’m not telling him the words he has to use -- I gave him a choice.......I gave him a choice of -- Yes -- or No 
Chris: He has answered that question 
Ant: He did not. It’s not clear 
Chris: He has answered that question to our satisfaction 
Ant: Not to my satisfaction 
Chris: To ours 
Ant: Not to my satisfaction 
[John is loving this. He is lounging back in his chair, left foot and leg crossed over his right knee and hands loosely in his lap, but Robin and Chris are sitting upright with both hands under tightly folded arms, knees together and ankles crossed and under their chairs. Dennis is sitting similarly, but in a slightly softer form] 
Chris: Do you have any further questions? 
Ant: Yes. I object to that and I want it put on record. 
Chris: We.... we are listening to what you are saying. 
Ant: Put it on record. I want it written down 
Chris: We are listening to what....... 
Ant: I would like it written down 
Chris: Tony 
Ant: I would like it written down.......... 
Chris: [interrupts] Tony 
Ant: ........just in case you forget. 
Chris: We are not going to write it down 
Ant: OK. I’ll take a note of it myself........... [pause] ........Who decided the roles that you would play before you came to my home, John? 
John: Nobody 
Ant: So you just dominated the conversation as usual then, did you? 
Chris: John doesn’t have to answer that question Tony 
Ant: Why not? 
Chris: Because........... 
Ant: Just yes or no...... 
Chris: ......because....... you’re implying things there 
Ant: Such as what? 
Chris: You’ve asked a question....... 
Ant:  So was it Roddie’s idea just to sit there and say nothing and John’s idea was to just speak? 
Chris: Tony -- you asked the same question to Roddie and you got the same answer.... 
Ant: And I told you why I was doing that.... 
Chris: And you got the same answer from both witnesses 
Ant: I didn’t. He’s not answered the question 
Chris: He said there was no roles prior to their being there. That is sufficient 
Ant: OK I’m just trying to look through my questions to find any that I’m allowed to answer.... or any that I’m allowed to ask. This really is a farce isn’t it? [And I should have left a while ago -- but I hope the recorder is running] ................ You mentioned John, that you asked the question, “Do you want to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses or not?”? 
John: Uh-huuuh 
Ant: How many times did you ask that question roughly? 
John: I never counted. It was quite a few 
Ant:  Well, was it 3 or 4? [as Roddie said -- the point of cross-examination] Or was it maybe a dozen? 
John: I'm not going to hazard a guess, but I know it was quite a number of times 
Ant: Well, would you say it was more than 3 or 4? 
Chris: [interrupts] Tony -- he’s just said he’s not going to hazard an answer as to how many! How many times do you have to ask?  
[He is sniggering while he interrupts me repeatedly] 

Ant: Would you do me a favour and stop helping the witness? 
Chris: No 
Ant: .......because this is really a complete farce you know. It really is. 
Chris: Tony....... 
Ant: ......it's a shocking disgrace 
Chris: [interrupts] Tony, Tony..... 
Ant: ......and you call yourselves elders who are promoting justice ? 
Chris: Tony -- you’ve asked John a question and he gave you an answer 
Ant: OK We’ll go with that. So you asked the question, “Do you want to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses?” a lot? [actually about 14 times with variations - see Tom 'n' Jerry] 
John: I would agree with that. 
Ant: Why did you ask that question ? 
John: Because that was the theme of the conversation. 
Ant: Again and again? 
John: Yes 
Ant: At what point in the conversation did you introduce the question? 
John: Right at the very beginning as far as I remember......or pretty close to it. 
Ant: Are you sure about that? 
John: Yes 
Ant: When you telephoned me on Feb. 27th to set up the meeting, do you remember what you said? 
John: I don’t recall.........  [unclear on tape, but negative] 
Ant: I do. Did you tell me that you were going to come to my home to investigate me? 
John: No 
Ant: What did you say? Do you remember the gist of it? 
John: I don’t recall [a prepared phrase, repeated twice, word for word?] 
Ant: Did you say “We’d like to have a chat with you about how you feel about Jehovah's Witnesses now”? 
[this is a word-for-word quote repeated by John at the time] 

John: Sounds reasonable.That’s the type of thing we were looking for and asking the question..... aahhhh..... would be in line with that sentiment 
Ant: And do you think that would be quite....... honest to ask that question? 
John: "Do you want to one of Jehovah's Witnesses?"? 
Ant: Sorry? 
John:"Do you want to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses?" ? 
Ant:  No, to say that you’d like to come to my home “to have a chat about how I feel about Jehovah's Witnesses”? 
John:  I think so 
Ant: Do you think that was an honest representation of the reason why you wanted to come to my home? 
John: I don’t see why it would be dishonest. 
Ant: But the elders have already told us -- or told me -- that they had sent you and Roddie to investigate me. Is that not true? 
John: You make use of the word investigate, but I don’t ever remember the word "investigate" ever being used 
["I would have to ask you (John) is this an investigation?" -- on the night - See Tom and Jerry transcript] 

Ant: By whom? 
John: By any of the elders at the time we set it up. 
Ant: Because that’s not what they told me. 
John: The......essentially, eeehhh....... what we're........ you know....... what did happen, was that we came along and had a discussion with you which gave us insight into how you were feeling about Jehovah's Witnesses. It was in accord with what....... aahhh...... doubts that had been expressed by others..... aahhh.....and so we came along to talk to you and to raise that basic question, “Do you want to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses?” because essentially that’s what it boils down to. We can help you if you want to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but if you wish to choose to follow another course then.....that’s your right to do so [in theory - yes] and we weren’t trying to stop you doing that, but we were asking "Do you wish to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses" in an identified way. 
Ant: Are you familiar with Unit 5 of the Elders' Manual? 
Chris: [interrupts] Tony, Tony....... 
Ant: What? I’m asking a question which is relevant. 
Chris: Well you...... 
Ant: I’m asking him if he’s familiar with his rule book....... 
Chris: [interrupts] Tony 
Ant:  .......and I’m going to ask him questions to expand on that. 
Chris: Tony -- we also said that any question which you asked right,....... if we don’t understand the relevance of that, so we’ve asked you to explain the relevance of that question before we even ask John. 
Ant: OK. Well you should send him out of the room. 
Chris:What is the relevance of that question? 
Ant: Well -- send him out of the room and I’ll tell you 
Chris:No. Tony...... 
Ant: So you’re asking me to tell you the relevance of the question in front of the witness so that he can prepare an answer while I’m telling you? 
Chris: If you don’t explain the relevance of the question then you’re not going to ask it. 
Ant: The relevance of the question -- and I’ll tell you -- is that the Elders' Manual clearly states that when there is a case like this in which you have doubts about somebody who has left the congregation that you will send two elders to investigate and that’s the words that are used -- and that was the purpose of that meeting, wasn’t it? 
John: If you’re going to define it in the words that you......aaahhhh.....you claim are in the Elders' book.............. 
Ant: NO! They are in the Elders' Manual. I’m not “claiming” that. They ARE in the Elders' Manual -- that’s a FACT! 
John: OK that may be the case, but essentially........aahhh..... since we do........  ahhh....... want to help people, we do have love for people and we do have love for our brothers -- including you -- ahhhhh....... the approach to the situation that we took was to .....aaahhhh......... come along and see what your choice..........  of the matter would be........ because it's your choice before Jehovah. Its not up to us to make that decision for you, but to.... eehhh....... allow you to make your own free will choice. [incredible!!] That was the approach that we took....... .aahhh........... and on the evening...... aahhh........ you gave us reasons why......  you had....... were having difficulty with the choice of being one of Jehovah's Witnesses in the sense of......... being part of the organisation and following the direction of the "faithful and discreet slave". 
[This last phrase said quickly -- another sound-byte of Watchtower-speak] 

Ant:  Alright. Eehhm..... try and keep your questions..... your answers a bit briefer please John. It would be appreciated..... ehhmm.......You said that you were coming on the basis of love.......to shepherd me.Would that be true? 
John: We came along to see what your choice was.......  in as loving a way as possible -- to find out what that choice was and to allow you to express your choice. 
Ant: Why would you want to do that after 4 years? When you have never been in my house? 
Chris: [interrupts] OK Tony 
Ant: .........or come to see me for 4 years.......? 
Chris: [interrupts] Just -- just -- hold it there....... Do you feel that....... what's your view of...... do you feel we’ve had...... heard enough from John as to what took place on that evening? 
Robin:  I would say so....I mean he’s answered........he’s told us what.... eehhh..... I mean....... the purpose was of the conversation - the various ingredients of the conversation - according to his memory. He’s answered a few of Tony’s questions as to why he was there.......... 
Ant: [interrupts] I’m not finished 
Chris: Excuse me Tony 
Robin: ...... I just ......ehhhh...... so I don’t see that.......that....eehhh.... John can actually do much more than that.....you know.....regarding that particular evening 
Dennis: He’s told us the purpose of his visit and why he was there and I think that’s answered the question........... 
Ant: I don’t think so. I suggest that he came under false pretences to my home. 
Chris:Tony -- do you have any questions as to........relevant to what......... 
Ant: Yes 
Chris: No....... wait a minute -- let me finish. I haven’t finished the question -- to what was actually said. We don’t want to hear any more as to why he was there, what happened afterwards. Are you clear as to what John said you said on the evening? 
Ant: No. Not at all 
Chris :Is there any other point....... is there any questions that you want to ask him about, relevant to what was said on that evening. 
Ant: Yes 
Chris: I don’t mean to say any more about the purpose. We don’t want any discussions about definitions, prior or after the meeting. If you want to clarification on that, you can ask us later. 
Ant: I will 
Chris: John is here as a witness. He’s explained to the best of his memory what was said. He’s also answered your question as to why he was there..................... 
Ant:  No -- he has not..... he has not answered the question as to why he was there. He has not told me his motive for being there ..... 
Chris:Do you have any..........He said out of love for you [!!] 
Ant: I don’t believe him and...... 
Chris: [interrupts] Tony 
Ant: .......and I can show that 
Chris:Tony -- if you ask a brother right...... you asked John a question. You can’t........ you’ve already tried to tell him what answers he should say and what words to use....... 
Ant: That is not true! I said he had a choice of asking........ answering the question Yes or No and he didn’t have to go into a big lengthy spiel to answer the question 
Chris: Tony 
Ant: Yes or No was quite sufficient 
Chris: Tony -- you asked the question. John gave you in all honesty, the answer OK. [if only he knew!] Just because he used a few more words than you would have liked...... 
Ant:  I disagree 
Chris:What? 
Ant:  I disagree that it was an honest answer -- because Yes or No would have been an honest answer. 
Chris: Do you have any further questions? 
Ant: Yes I have quite a few questions and if you stop interrupting me, I will manage to get them asked or John might be able to answer them. 
Chris: We will decide whether they are relevant. 
Ant:  So we agreed that you asked the question "Do you want to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses repeatedly?
[Yes a repetition -- but I am trying to re-start a line of questioning which was interrupted before with a simple affirmation of common agreement] 

Chris: [interrupts] You've asked that question Tony. 
Ant:  And you’re aware that........... Shut UP would you? 
[My patience is ended. Reading this 17 years later is extremely upsetting. You can imagine how stressed I was then] 

Chris:Tony...... 
Ant:: You really are pissing me off you know. Just shut UP and let me ask some questions OK? 
Chris: Tony -- no..... 
Ant: Don’t be so RUDE! 
Chris:Don’t use that kind of....... 
Ant: DON'T...... BE..... RUDE! 
Chris: Tony 
Ant: You are being rude, Chris! Don’t be rude! 
Chris:Tony [the broken record plays on and on........] 
Ant: I didn’t come here to be railroaded by you guys OK? So don’t start -- it's not going to work! 
[Well, it is working actually! They are beating me up -- good style -- but I have to fight back and it is hard.] 

Chris: Tony, we are not here to...... 
Ant: Now, I would like to ask him some questions 
Chris: Will you listen to me? 
Ant: I’m going to get some answers. 
Chris: Tony, we are not here to railroad you we are here to help you 
[Incredible! -- so why didn’t they leave me alone after nearly 4 years of True Happiness?] 
If you don’t wish to have the help, that’s up to you. It s your choice
[now where have I heard that before?] 

Ant: I’ve told you the answer to that question already. 
Chris: Now then. We’re not going to spend the whole night, you repeating the same questions to John. You’ve asked him that question at least three times. 
Ant: I’m going to keep asking it until I get an answer [to my complete line] and until you stop interrupting me while I’m asking it. 
Chris: Tony, he has answered that question already.You asked him how many times. He said he can’t give a number...... 
Ant: Fine, fine..... 
Chris:  Don’t keep.... 
Ant: OK -- the point's taken....the point’s taken 
Chris: OK 
Ant:  Right. So you asked the question. [Which is all I wanted to say last time] Did you tell me the consequences of the answers to the question? 
John: I didn’t need to. 
Ant: Did you or did you not..... 
John:You explained to me the consequences 
Ant: Uh-huh and did you agree......... 
John:.......so I did not have to explain the consequences. You explained the consequences. They were explained.
[John is clever. He is in charge of this committee. He has had more practice at this kind of thing than I have, but if I was allowed to ask questions properly before decent people, I would expose him -- I am certain] 

Ant:  Right. So as you’ll be familiar with the Elders' Manual again, you’re aware that in the Elders' Manual that it tells you that anyone who makes a declaration or says in front of two witnesses that they do not wish to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses will be considered to have disassociated themselves. Is that true? 
John: Yes 
Ant: So you were asking me a leading question inviting me to disassociate myself -- is that not true? 
John: Allowing you to choose and you clearly knew the situation and can make your choice. Aaahh......eehh......it was not a matter of leading an innocent along to a choice he wouldn’t understand. You clearly understood. 
Ant: In this case, I understood. I wonder how many other people do not understand when they are asked that question and do not understand the significance of being asked that question and I put it to you....... 
John: [interrupts] Well they..... 
Ant: [talks over]  I put it to you -- that you were trying to entrap me into answering a question and saying No I don’t want to be a Witness. 
John:  ......we were allowing you to make a decision..........a decision which...... you can either.... continue to serve Jehovah in association with Jehovah's Witnesses or otherwise and.....  you know that...... the consequences of.... aahhh..making that expression. Maybe that you would have answered Yes, but...... eeehhh..... we do..eehh....... give you that choice and........ accord you the right to make that choice.......... 
Ant: That’s not true... 
John: ......and its your choice to decide whether or not you wish to serve Jehovah as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. 
Ant: That’s not entirely true, John as you well know because you know that the consequences of answering the question mean that 5 million people will be forbidden to speak to me or even to say a greeting to me and you admitted that on the evening, did you not? 
John: Not like that 
Ant: Did you admit that or not after I had asked you? 
John: Well .....actually........ I can’t remember actually discussing that element of it. It was obvious that you knew the score with it, so it wasn’t.......aaahhh.......obviously a part of the discussion as far as I remember
[he has a poor memory sometimes - see Tom 'n' Jerry transcript] 
Ant: Well I can assure you that it was..... and I have evidence to the effect. So, I would suggest that you’re guilty of entrapment John. That you were trying to entrap me to try to make an easy way out and just simply get me out of the way and get me to say “I don’t want to be a Witness” and that would save you all this hassle, having elders’ meetings and committees and so on because then I would just be hanging myself as I actually suggested to you on the evening, is that not true? 
Chris: [interrupts] OK Tony...... 
Ant: So will you let him answer the question ? 
Chris:Tony 
Ant:   Answer the question. 
Chris:[interrupts] You’re asking about opinions and so on. That is not relevant to this...... discussion 
Ant: It's entirely relevant....... 
Chris:Well we will decide that 
Ant: And if you were judges, you would know know what I’m talking about. [There were two cases of entrapment in the British press that very week - Delaglio, the rugby player and an actor from “London’s Burning” soap drama were both entrapped by the News of the World in separate incidents. Had this been done by the Police, the evidence would have been inadmissible] 
John:Could I ......... could I just ask you one question ? 
Ant: NO!. Because you are not...... 
[John interrupts again and I talk over him] 
Ant:  ....you are NOT entitled to ask me questions......... 
[John keeps interrupting so I keep asserting] 
Ant: .........you are NOT entitled to ask me questions! 
[John keeps interrupting] 
Ant:......you are NOT entitled to ask me questions!! 
Chris: Why not? 
[Dear God!! From the Chairman of the “Court”??  Incredible!!] 
Ant: I’m asking you.......... 
Chris: Why not? 
Ant: Because HE'S A WITNESS!! You DON'T let the WITNESS ask the Defence QUESTIONS!!  Or the accused a question!! What kind of world do YOU live in? 
Chris: Tony 
Ant: Get -- get a GRIP!! You’re just no’ REAL!! 
Chris: Tony   [I am actually quite shocked. I did not think he was so stupid] 
Ant: Honestly!! You are just NOT real!! 
Chris: Tony.... 
Ant: You’re off..... you’re from another planet Chris, honestly! [smiling now] 
Chris: And so you want to sit here, ask loads of questions......... 
Ant: Yes, I definitely do! 
Robin: And not have any question asked of you? 
Ant: Oh, you can ask the questions but I’m not going to answer them because I have the right to remain silent.Which Chris told me. 
[Although its difficult when you are not allowed someone to speak for you!] 
Chris said to me....... oh, famous last words........ "you have the right to remain silent” 

Chris: Of course you do [Eh? What?] You don’t have to answer it. 
Ant:  Of course I do? Of course I do?
Chris: And John has the right to ask you a question. John, would you like to ask a question? 
John: Only if he wants to answer it......... [John is loving this] 
Chris:  Will you answer the question ? 
Ant:  I’ll listen to the question since you’re ..... eeehhhh.......imposing it upon me 
John: Yes or No? 
Chris: Will you answer it? 
John:Yes or no? 
Ant: Well, let me hear it 
John: Do you want to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses? 
Ant: You’re still trying the same thing John 
[I laugh at him, but with shock at his shamelessness] 
John: Is that.......because that’s....... 
Ant: [I talk right over him] You’re still trying the same thing [laughs] It’s cheap tactics 
John: That was -- that was -- that was the nub of our conversation then......... 
Ant: No it’s not! No, it’s not!........ 
John:  ........and it remains it now 
Ant:  ........No, it’s not! Because that question was not discussed until three-quarters of the way through the conversation [see Tom ‘n’ Jerry] and you introduced it gradually and carefully to entrap me. Now I’ve got some more questions and I’m not finished........... 
Chris: [interrupts] Tony 
Ant: .......relevant to what was said on the night 
Chris: [interrupts] Tony 
Ant:  :.....and I want them answered, please. 
Chris: Tony [to others] Do you think we’ve had sufficient? 
Ant: Not for me you’re not -- because I have got questions I want to ask 
Chris: Thanks John. Thank you very much [there is a chorus of thanks and farewells to John now as he leaves] 
John:OK then! 
Ant: Well, I protest! 
Chris:Thank you very much 
John:  Goodnight then, Tony 
Robin: Thank you, John! 
Chris: Can you tell Roddie:....he's .....eehhmm......he’s gone has he? 
John::I’m not sure. I'll make sure. Yeah, OK then! 
Chris:Thanks John! 
Dennis: Thank you John! 
Robin: Goodnight John! 
John:  OK then OK, right. Goodbye! 
[exits, smiling broadly]
[Disgusting!]

[The rest of this "Judicial" Committee is a shambles. It is worth skimming over as some interesting points are made in my statement at the end and evidence of policies and methods are gathered on tape, but I am now determined to be as awkward as possible to waste their time, until eventually they practically beg me to leave................. ]

Chris: [to Robin] Have you got the key on you? 
Ant: Speak! 
[I am wetting my contact lens. My eyes are tired and sore. My eyes always hurt when under stress.] 

Chris: Sorry ? 
Ant:: I’m listening 
Chris:You said you had some further questions? 
Ant: No. I had questions to ask John! And you have forbidden me to ask them. I want to ask John some questions regarding what was said on that evening 
Chris: We have heard sufficient 
Ant:  I’m not interested in what you’ve heard! You promised me..... you gave me your word that I would be allowed to ask the witnesses questions. You gave me your word that this would be a fair trial. You gave me your word -- and you’re a liar, Chris. That's what you are! You are being used and manipulated. And you are a liar! 
Chris: No.....you......you..... [To others] Do you hear that? Are you listening to what he said.........? 
Dennis:Uh-huh 
Ant:: Yes! Yes -- because you told me one thing -- and it's all on record -- and you're saying the exact opposite now. I may not ask the questions of the witnesses. I may not ask them to answer the questions. And you’re turning yourself into a liar, Chris. And God is watching this, you know....and you've got........ I mean......you actually prayed over this!! God forgive you, you know! Its embarrassing! 
Chris: Right. OK OK I think we’d better...... we’ve heard sufficient 
Robin: Yeah........ 
Ant:  I’ve got questions I want to ask 
Chris:Tony -- we.....we as a committee have heard sufficient 
Ant: Oh!..... 
Chris:If you’re going to start cursing, swearing..... 
Ant: I’m not cursing! I haven’t cursed once! 
Chris: You’ve just told me....... 
Ant: ......the truth.........you’re a liar.You’re making yourself a liar! 
Chris:What did you just say I was doing a...... a few minutes ago? 
Ant: You’re lying. That you’re lying. 
Chris: No, before then. [I’m taken aback slightly -- I’m wondering if I “let one slip” and swore! But I decide to bluff - they’ll soon tell me!] 
Ant: I wasn’t cursing. I was using a vulgar term, but it is not cursing 
Chris: But... you are.....so........... 
Ant: I used a vulgar term once, but I was not cursing. 
Chris: Tony,  you’ve .......you’ve.... 
Ant: ........and in view of the treatment you have given me, I should be saying a lot more and doing a lot more! 
Chris: OK so you were....... 
Ant: ......so I’m being very controlled actually in view of the way you guys are trying to treat me 
Chris: OK OK....... 
Ant: .......and I knew this would happen..... 
Chris: You’ve used vulgar language..........  [What? When? I was "pissed off" ten minutes ago!]
Ant: Once. No, no! No, no! I have used vulgar language once. I have used a colloquial term ONCE. [I won't give them an inch (or even a centimetre!) on this] 
Chris: And you’ve accused me of a lie...... 
Ant: No! I’m telling you that you ARE a liar! 
Chris: What’s that then? 
Ant: You are making yourself a liar! 
Chris: Is that not an accusation? 
Ant: No! It's a fact because I’ve got it on record Chris, that you said one thing and you’re denying me the right to ask questions......... 
Chris: To ask questions relevant to the evening [the goalposts have moved] 
Ant: You didn’t say that at the time.You said I had as long as I wished to do this and you said that I could ask as many questions as I wished and that I had the right to remain silent. 
Chris: Do you have any further questions you’d like to ask Tony ? 
Dennis:Yes. I’ve one. You’ve mentioned on a number of occasions about witnesses to that evening when Roddie:and John were at your house. 
Ant: Yes 
Dennis:  Were they individuals who were present at your home at that time? 
Ant:  No comment. 
Chris: Have you got your Bible there, Tony ? 
Ant: I’ve got a Bible, yes. 
Chris: Right. OK 
Ant: I hope you’re not going to blaspheme God's name by bringing the Bible into this, are you? 
Chris: Let’s just look at one or two scriptures and we want your opinion on them 
Ant: Let me hear the scriptures. You really have got a cheek using God’s Word! Shame on you! 
Chris: Right. Now, we just want your......first of all, are you going to give us your opinion on these scriptures? 
[Another attempt at entrapment -- right in the ”court”!!] 
Ant: How can I tell? 
Chris:Well, I mean ......you know...... are you going to comment on them at all? 
Ant: Well I tried to talk to..... I wanted to ask John questions regarding comments on the Bible and comments that I made regarding the Bible and you forbade me the right to ask him the questions. 
Chris: We are.....asking you your opinion on certain scriptures. 
Ant: Ask! 
Chris:  Let’s just have a look at the one in...... about the "faithful and discreet slave class”. OK  [I do not look for the verse because I know the passage well, having read the NT several times recently] Have you got your Bible handy Tony ? 
Ant: I think I probably know it, but read it. 
Chris:  Well no .....we’d like you to follow along so that you can...... in Matthew 24..... 
[the hypocrites think that the Power of God’s Word can be used to touch the accused person] 
Ant: [verse] 45 perchance? 
Chris: Uh-huh 
Ant: [pause] Read it. I’m ready 
Chris:  OK now it says there,: 45 “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. 47 Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings. (NWT - the Not Well Translated version of the Bible from JWs) Now you’re familiar with that scripture.... you just quoted the verse number yourself 
Ant: Wrongly, actually 
Chris: Well it is 45 
Ant: Sorry? 
Chris: It is verse 45 
Ant:  25:45? Oh, 24:45........ my apologies 
[I am tired -- I was looking at the wrong page] 

Chris: OK. Now you’re clear that we as Jehovah's Witnesses....... appreciate who the "faithful and discreet slave" class is, OK? Do you agree with our understanding of the "faithful and discreet slave" class -- as to who they are?
[A question straight from the Inquisition. I smell a smouldering bonfire.........] 

Ant: No comment. That’s a doctrinal question. 
Chris: OK so you’re not going to........ 
Ant: .....and you said to me.... that I was not to......  discuss doctrinal questions 
Chris: OK so you’re not going to comment on that? Just....... 
Ant: I accept what the Bible says. 
Chris: Now....eemm..... let’s have a look at a scripture in Matthew....... OK. Matthew 7. Now I won’t spend all evening looking at scriptures because if after two or three you’re still not going to discuss them or give us any comments or your views then......... [he is floundering] Matthew 7 verses 13-16. Now these are Jesus words, just so that there’s no misunderstanding or..... 
13 “Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it. 15 “Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to YOU in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. 16 By their fruits YOU will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? 17 Likewise every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit; 18 a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. 19 Every tree not producing fine fruit gets cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Really, then, by their fruits YOU will recognize those [men]. (NWT)

[Dear Christ! Out of their own mouths they are condemned! What is their fruitage on this night?

OK do you have any comments on those verses? Would you agree that those.... that there is a small number leading off into life, but a vast number leading off into destruction? 
Ant: Yes [there is much I could have said on these verses, but after 90 minutes of harassment and without preparation, I was tired] 
Chris: OK and what’s your understanding of verse 15 then where Jesus warns about false prophets that would come in sheep’s clothing? 
Ant: [Pause -- I am looking at the context] Well...... you shouldn’t listen to false prophets [i.e. the Watchtower Society] We should be wary of false prophets. 
Chris:  OK right. Well we, as a body of elders...... one of our responsibilities is to care for the sheep in our fold and to protect the congregation from any.......  false prophets...... anyone that as.... eehmm.....  Paul mentioned in Timothy..... may speak twisted things, deviate from the truth and so on..... we looked at that scripture ..... 
[jumping around to single “proof-texts”] 

Ant: But I haven’t done that....... 
Chris: Sorry? Well....... 
Ant: I haven’t done that at any time 
Chris: Wait a minute Tony ...... we’re just outlining our reason for our...... well one of our responsibilities is to care for the congregation and to protect them from possible false shepherds and anyone that deviates from “the truth”. OK? 
["the truth" is the JWs popular name for their own religion!]

[and yet, when I was in hospital a year ago, Chris passed on my invitation to a JW couple in his congregation to visit me, although I had not been associating for over two years at that time] 

Ant:  But I haven’t deviated from the truth. [I am a Christian] 
Chris: OK, but would you agree that is the responsibility of the elders? 
Ant:  [Pause] Not entirely, no. Because as we discussed last time, there is the question of the right of a sheep to go away. 
Chris:  Yeah, but to protect those who want to stay within the flock? 
Ant: Yee-ees 
Chris:  OK, but would you agree that that is the responsibility of the elders to care for the flock and to help those that are in the flock stay there if they wish so.....  wish to? If someone wanders off of their own free will, and makes it quite obvious they don’t want to wander back, as it were, that’s up to them. 
Ant: Yes, but I would have to ask then you, why have you not done that in my case? 
Chris:  eeh - Right. OK 
Ant: ......and you haven’t answered the question. 
Chris:  Well, we’ll answer that now for you. 
Ant: Please 
Chris:  The reason why........ and you’ve...... you’ve asked several questions like.......  have you got a blood card, do you have a Record Card, why haven’t you been to shepherd  me and..... and so on and so forth OK...... because you’re wanting to clarify why is it that, because you haven’t been to the meetings for some years now, that we are now having this “meeting” [the euphemism again] and the reason...... that if someone leaves the “truth”, leaves the congregation, but the body of elders feel that they may endanger...... as you know, because you have a copy of the Elders Manual......  it says there, if they pose a danger to the congregation..... I’m not quoting.......  you’re not going to try to quote me word for word -- but that’s the gist of it, OK -- then at least investigate or look into.....  the situation and see if there’s a problem. It may be that there isn’t a problem. They’ve just drifted away..... end of story. OK?...... and that is why we’ve had these meetings, why John and Roddie came around........ you can use “investigation”.... [he still hasn’t answered the question] 
Ant: That’s not true, if you don’t mind me interrupting you -- I’m sorry. That’s not true ....... and I’ll tell you why, if you’ll eehhh..... but the reason that’s not true is that, first of all you didn’t allow me to ask John, that John came to my home under false pretences, claiming that other people were “veee-rrry concerned” about things that I had said to them and these people have never been named, or brought forward and the Elders' Manual says that witnesses should be brought forward to face the accused person. They should not be afraid of the responsibility to do it and these people -- these fictitious people, I suggest -- have never been brought forward because they don’t exist. And I put it to you, that John -- or somebody -- did this out of vindictiveness and came along to frame me -- to set me up -- by asking me....  eehhh.......  leading questions, getting me to talk,  “let’s have a chat”, where.....  when in fact they were actually there in my home to investigate me and...... eeehh. to ask me leading questions and that on the basis of that information that they would then use that to .... eehhh......  to incriminate me. 
Chris: That’s not true. 
Ant: Well -- where are the witnesses ? Where - are - the witnesses? They have never been produced! 
Chris:We had two witnesses Tony 
Ant: No, no, no! Chris -- Chris! Be fair now. Think about this. They came to my home saying “Oh! We’re veeee--rrry concerned about our deee-aar brothers and some of them are aaww-ful concerned about things you’ve been saying”. I says, "Well, who are they? “Oooo-hhhh, we’ll bring them forward at another time”,John said. Where are they? This is the time and they haven’t been brought forward. So I’m asking you, why that’s not been done? Because they came to my home under false pretences, to “have a chat”, “see how you feel”, “come baaa--ck!” -- even though it was obvious that I was quite happy to........ not to come back and.... eemm..... then they say, “Oh well, we’ll not bother about the witnesses that we had -- all those “concerned people” who are sooo--ooo worried. We’ll just use the evidence that we’ve gained to-night from entrapping our deee--aar brother” And that’s what they’ve done........ 
Chris:  Well, we......... 
Ant:  ......and that’s what you've ......you’re all party to Chris. 
Chris:Tony 
Ant: I don’t mean any of this personally by the way, you know. I still think you’re not telling the truth, but I don’t mean it personally, but..... but the thing is, that........ that you are party to..... to..... something that is very wrong....... what you’re doing......... and..... and....... and to bring  a person here..... ehhh..... eehhhh..... with contrived and... and manufactured evidence -- it’s not honest for one thing. It's not Christian. 
Chris: Tony, Tony.  Even if.........  OK -- the whole purpose of this meeting right, was to help us to understand how you really do feel about “the truth”, being one of the Witnesses -- it's your choice [they keep saying this -- incredible!] You've said....... 
Ant: I have the truth! I’m a Christian! 
Chris:  You have.... you have the choice.....  ah, yeah...... you have the choice to be a part of the congregation or not. You have the chance....... opportunity to be a Witness or not. We’re not here to entrap you [no?] or to........ 
[probably not -- he doesn’t have the intelligence or ability] 

Ant: No -- you personally -- excuse me. No -- you personally were not, but John was and if you had allowed me to question him I would have shown you that very clearly. I’ve got it all on tape. Every word that John uttered in my house is on tape......... 
Chris:  Tony -- you asked..... 
Ant: ......and people have seen it. 
Chris:You asked him the purpose of the meeting and all three of us listened and he explained the purpose of the meeting. He gave you a gist of what you said......... 
Ant:  ......and it wasn’t entirely true.... what he said. What he said was not the whole truth. He’s got a clever way of saying part of the truth...... 
Chris:  So, that’s your word against his. 
Ant: NO! It's my word PLUS what’s on tape, that he said. 
Chris: No -- Tony........ 
Ant:  ......and what Roddie would have verified for you if you had allowed me to ask Roddie questions. Then you could have compared what Roddie heard with what John told you he had said..... and you would have discovered something entirely different. 
Chris: You asked Roddie:and he.... he sat here as well and he explained to the best of his knowledge what was said on the evening. OK? You asked him questions and he said, "To the best of my knowledge that is what I heard". You could sit here till the cows come home... 
Ant: But you told me I could sit here till the cows came home! You told me the first....... the first time we were here  -- “as loo-oong as it takes” -- that’s how long I’ve got -- “as long as it takes”. 
Chris: And Tony, Tony -- I also said -- and these brothers are witnesses to it -- at the start of the questioning, Tony that you would ask questions relevant to the evening, didn't we? [to-night he said that yes, but not at the beginning when the rules were being established -- see previous transcript] 
Ant: Yes and I had prepared three pages of question that I was going to ask and if  you had let me proceed along the logical line that I was going, you would have seen some purpose in that. 
Chris: Tony -- we as a committee didn’t feel that those question you were asking were relevant 
Ant: That’s because you didn’t listen! 
Chris:No! 
Ant: Because you hadn’t - you hadn’t listened. You hadn’t actually listened to what was said -- or what was going to be said 
Chris:You were asking questions which we did not feel were relevant to the proceedings, OK.? 
Ant: How were you qualified to decide when you had not heard the rest of the questions, you see? 
Chris: Tony -- We......... have a responsibility OK -- we’re not perfect........ OK?. Now, if we make a decision or if we do certain things we have to stand by what we say or we do OK.? We have made that decision that some of those questions weren’t relevant. Now you could say that they were, but we, as three brothers here, have decided that they weren’t and that we have decided at this point in time that you had asked sufficient questions for us to get........ a picture of what was said on that evening OK? But we’re not here to trap you or to....... anything else that you’ve said...... 
Ant: You’re not! But you’re here because I was trapped! That’s the point. You’re not here to trap me -- I’m not suggesting that you are. You’ve been set up, you see! You have been set up -- to do this...... 
[by John Maxwell actually, as transpired later. He was removed from being an elder over this embarrassment to the WTS]

Chris:We don’t 
Ant. : ........by somebody and......  and the people who came to my home set you up and ....... and  framed me by asking leading questions. That was the purpose of the evening. [Is the truth slowly dawning?] I told you already -- John told me ...... he came to my home under false pretences. The elders..... you told me that John and Roddie:were sent to investigate me which is in harmony with the Elders' Manual. John didn’t tell me at any time during the conversation that he was going to investigate me, but after about 20 minutes -- and I would have asked him this -- he finally agreed when I asked him, “Yes. I suppose it is a sort of an investigation -- essentially” -- to quote him. So.... so that’s...... that’s how it went and when he was asking the question “Do you want to be a Jehovah's Witness or not?” he was asking the question in the full knowledge of the implications of the question, but he didn’t know that I knew the full implications of the question. That’s the point. 
Chris:No [shaking his head] 
Ant: No! He didn’t know! He...... and he said...... 
Chris: I’m not going to..... 
Ant: Well put it this way..... put it this way....... let's suppose he wasn’t sure? He certainly didn’t make it plain to me. He didn’t say “Do you want to be a Jehovah's Witness -- oh, and by the way,  if you answer No, 5 million people won’t be allowed to speak to you”. He didn’t say that. He did not show that answering the question "No" was the same as writing a letter of disassociation. At no time whatsoever did he say that, or even indicate it until I made him do it. So he was there to frame me up and I want to know, as I said -- I keep saying to you -- why the witnesses never came forward? Who are these witnesses? 
Chris: OK.  Tony 
Ant:  Where are they? Why are you not following your own Elders' Manual and bringing the elders......the witnesses forward? 
Chris:Tony...... 
Ant: Well, why? 
Chris: We listened to two witnesses 
Ant: No, you've..........You haven't listened to two witnesses! [I am laughing -- he is so stupid] 
Chris: We have. We’ve listened to two witnesses. If we had decided, the three of us, that that is not sufficient........... 
Ant: Oh yeah! Just bring more! And we’ll have another little trial -- great fun! Lovely! 
Chris: So what are you wondering about for....... 
Ant: Sorry? 
Chris:  .......if you know what the procedure is? [He takes it literally that we’ll have as many trials as he wishes until the witnesses run out!] 
Ant: Well......? What? 
Chris:  We’re not going to mention names to you. 
Ant: I know. I’m not going to...... fire-bomb them or something! I’m not going to go and beat them up! 
Chris: You’ve already threatened [??].. eehhh....... to let all and sundry know through their wives and all sorts of things 
[can he actually be serious? Is telling people worse than doing them physical harm?] 

Ant: Oh I will. I will. I will do that! That’s not a threat -- I’m just telling you a fact! I will tell people! [But not injure them!!] You don’t expect me not to tell people this, do you? That this kind of thing goes on, do you? [Laughing] 
Chris: That’s your choice, Tony. 
Ant: I know its my choice, but it's got to be told! And you’ve got to ask yourself why you’re doing it? How did you get roped into this, you three? 
Chris: We’re not here to..... 
Ant: Why are you not at home with your wives? [Carol, Margaret, Olive] 
Chris: We’re not here to discuss that, Tony 
Ant: Oh I know, but what I’m saying is why...... how did you get put into this? You told me you’re having sleepless nights and all the rest -- and here you are, framing....... or being party to a lynch -- and that is basically what this is. You know -- be honest. 
Chris:  Right. [to others] Do you have any other questions? 
Ant: I’ve got some other questions, yes. [Now that their supporters have gone they are struggling and I am giving them a very hard time again, but their minds are made up] 
Robin:  I don’t think I’ve got any. 
Ant: I’ve got some questions 
Chris: Relevant to what we’ve discussed? 
Ant: Relevant to everything that we’ve discussed and some of them are questions that I was forbidden to ask the witnesses. I’ll start at the beginning and I’ll miss out the ones that I can't actually ask you. The big question which I’ve.......  I’ve reiterated is....... or the fact actually..... is that you do not treat me as a Jehovah's Witness and for 4 years I’ve not been treated as a Jehovah's Witness........ 
Chris: Tony 
Ant:  ....therefore, if you disfellowship me, its going to be meaningless because you can’t disfellowship someone who is not a fellow. 
Chris: You're making a statement now? 
Ant: Aye, but I’ll ask you some questions -- then I’ll make a statement. But I’ve got to ask why the elders have not shepherded me for 4 years? And you didn’t really answer that satisfactorily. [to Robin]. I’ve not had a Theocratic School assignment for 4 years .... three and a half years...... have I ? 
Chris: Tony 
Ant: Have I? 
Chris: Tony -- you’re going through the same line of reasoning that we’ve explained....... [yes -- now I am wasting their time] 
Ant: But that is the point! 
Chris: The point is..... 
Ant: I am not a Jehovah's Witness by - your - treatment of me 
Chris: Tony -- now.... 
Ant:  And do you know something else? Its very interesting -- I’ve been doing a wee straw poll and I’ve got better results than the cat-food adverts -- because 10 out of 10 people say that they don’t view me as one of Jehovah's Witnesses and that is people in your congregation and elsewhere. They don’t view me as one of Jehovah's Witnesses 
Chris:Tony -- we’ve explained... 
Ant: That’s what...  that’s what Jehovah's Witnesses are saying about me. 
Chris:Tony -- we have explained to you..... 
Ant: .......and you’re wanting to make me a member so that you can make me an "Un-member" 
Chris: Tony -- we’ve already explained to you that although you left "the truth” OK, you drifted away -- you haven’t been to meetings for a while, you’ve not had shepherding calls for a while, you’ve not had Speech Counsel slips or Publishers Record Cards....... [what an admission!] 
Ant:  ......or Reports 
Chris: .....or Reports or anything like that, OK the elders -- and I’ll only say this once more Tony OK -- came to investigate -- we could use another word -- to clear up the matter, to look into the matter, to discuss the matter about these allegations OK? [every word except "help" now?] 
Ant:  They didn’t tell me what the allegations were...... 
Chris:.....well we’re not going to go through that again. We’ve discussed that. Now -- we’re here and we’ve listened very closely to what you’ve had to say, your view, we’ve tried to ask you questions and you’ve virtually answered none because you’ve chosen not to........ 
Ant: And why have I done that? 
Chris: Because it’s your free will [again!!] 
Ant:  No, its not! It's not a question of free will. It's because you know full well that if I answer your questions and they do not concur exactly with your thinking, that my opinion will not be respected and that I will be accused of heresy. That’s a fact, isn’t it? 
Chris: That’s your opinion. 
Ant: Alright! Let me say that..... that .... that......  eemmm...... "Jesus is Satan". Now supposing I was to say that. I think you would probably think that was heresy wouldn’t you? I’m not saying that by the way -- I’m just giving an example. 
Chris: We know what you’re saying. [he does? Wow!] 
Ant:  So if I said something contrary to what you said -- and in view of what the witnesses said about the "faithful and discreet slave" -- if I was to say something contrary to the "faithful and discreet slave" then that would be the same as hanging myself because I’m not allowed to express my opinion really, to you. I’m not allowed to. 
Chris: Of course you are! 
Ant: No, I’m not. Because you know and as John........ 
Chris:  And you know..... 
Ant: ......that the consequences would be that 5 million people would be forbidden to speak to me because you would vindictively disfellowship me and tell them that I’m a Bad Egg. And that I use Bad Words. But honestly -- you know -- this is about freedom of speech, the right to free....... I’m a British citizen. I have the right to say what I wish. To go and stand up at the Mound [Edinburgh’s Speakers’ Corner], and say anything I like, but you are forbidding me to have my freedom of speech. You are infringing my Human Rights. You are infringing my Civil Liberties. 
Chris:  Ooo-ooh! [he really groans -- not that again!!] 
Robin: But Tony could I just say, I mean whatever rights.... .whatever beliefs or thoughts you have, which you’ve not expressed with us, I mean we’re not........  we're not saying that you......... we're not saying that you that you can't have these [incredible!!]  but I mean you’re free to have them ....... 
Ant: Oh, if I don’t mind having the consequences -- yes! 
Robin:  But no,  the fact........... the consequences only come when you have a measure of contact with ..... with brothers and maybe say things which are against what we believe from the scriptures and that’s when its a danger to other individuals, so....... but what you choose to believe is up to yourself [only IF I remain forever silent!] if you try to ...... if you give.... speak out that opinion to others in an attempt to influence them or to try and make them have the same opinion or to weaken their faith or whatever -- lets say, then that’s a different matter. 
Ant:  Uh-huh. But do they...... 
Robin: .........but if you don’t believe that the "faithful and discreet slave" are God's channel, if you don’t believe that.....  that....... eeehhh....... you know, that Jehovah God has an organisation, that it's important to preach the good news, that we’re living in the last days -- if you don’t wish to believe these things any more -- as an example, then you’re entirely free to that choice. We can’t prevent you from having that choice and if you want to go up to the Mound and say that, there’s nothing to prevent you from saying that. The elders have the responsibility as Chris explained to you, to be aware of the necessary....... the necessity to protect the ....... those who do want to believe these things..... That’s what I’m saying. 
Ant:  Right. Two points: if you’re......  uummmmm....... you’re worried about what........ things might be heard by Jehovah's Witnesses? You’re worried that you might hear something which will influence them and lead them way, is that right? 
Robin: The danger...... the dangerous aspect you know, of that? 
Ant:  Uh-huh. So why do you allow the sheep to go out in the ministry? [pause] Why do you allow people to go around the doors? 
Robin:  Well because they've....  its Jehovah's command that we preach the good news 
Ant: Yes, but they will be exposed to many more........ 
Robin:  Of course, but not from people who they feel should know better 
Ant:  Uh-huh alright, but I actually have heard of several cases of people who have left Jehovah's Witnesses 
[e.g. Carl Olaf Jonsson who exposed the false 607 BC date used by the Watchtower] 

as a direct result of speaking to people while they’re out in the ministry. No-body’s left Jehovah's Witnesses as a result of me speaking to them and I don’t even know what I’m supposed to have said to them. And then you’ve got to ask yourself the question about freedom of speech and freedom of listening -- do they not have the freedom to listen? John Maxwell said  “Oh, of course they do”, but....... apparently not -- because you are going to go after them and say “Well you’re not allowed to listen to that. You’re not allowed to listen to any point of view expressed by Anthony Roberts" 
Chris:The elders never say that [taking things literally again] 
Ant:  Sorry? 
Chris:The elders never say that. 
Ant:  No -- not in so many words..... 
Chris:  The big word which is “Not allowing” and “it would not be wise to listen to it” -- there’s a big difference, Tony. 
Robin: They’re allowed to do it but it might not be wise.
[Are JWs allowed to speak to a disfellowshipped person? No. Try it  -- and see what the elders say!! How else can it be enforced but by fear of sanctions?] 

Ant:  Yes, but I think most Jehovah's Witnesses know what it means...... 
Robin:There’s a big difference between saying it’s not allowed and it might not be wise 
Ant: Alright, alright let's put it this way....... let's put it this way. Let's put it this way. Do you know the difference between..... eehhh...  something not being “wise” and being forbidden”? For a Jehovah's Witness its the same thing. If a Jehovah's Witness is told by the "faithful and discreet slave", "it wouldn’t be wise to....... take this medical procedure" they know that’s a Law -- that’s a command. Its not ..... .its not a matter of choice [transplants; artificail insemination, vasectomies] If they are told “this would not be wise”, that’s a Law. 
Chris:  No, its not. 
Ant:  It is..... it is construed as a law........ 
Chris: That is not a law. 
Ant: ........in many cases and I’ve heard many, many cases of it being done. 
Chris: How brothers interpretate [sic] -- and it goes back to the point they’re entitled to interpretate [sic]....... 
Ant:  Uh-huh 
Chris: .......any guidance that the society gives, as they wish. It's not a law 
Ant:  No that’s not true. Chris, Chris, Chris! Come on! You know that if somebody interprets something and it’s not the right thing, then they’ll be disfellowshipped. [laughs] Come on! You know that! 
Chris:That’s not true? [laughs] 
Ant: You know that! [laughs] 
Chris: Come on, Tony! 
Ant:  Look! Some of the borderline cases -- some of the things that were discussed with John and I at my house -- matters of what you do in privacy. These were laws and rules made by the Watchtower Society -- what you’re allowed to do in bed with your wife -- that kind of thing -- that was Law and Jehovah's Witnesses..... their marriages were influenced and affected by what was said in The Watchtower on those matters and The Watchtower didn’t say you may not take a.......... a transplant, but they certainly showed that it would not be “wise” to take a transplant if you “wanted to please Jehovah” [see Crisis of Conscience -- Franz] and it's the same thing. Its a law. Its just another way of saying “you can't do it” 
Chris: If the Society give us advice...... and counsel, that’s not..... that’s not the law. 
[Maybe I should have lit a cigarette to see their reaction? -- except I don’t smoke -- but smoking is a disfellowshipping offence based on interpretation or “advice”] 

They don’t tell us -- we don't have to apply it, Tony. Everyone has the free will. All four of us here are here..... we’re not..... we’re not made........ 
Ant: I don’t have free will 
Chris: .....they don’t have a gun to our throat 
Ant: But I have got a gun to my throat! 
Chris: No, you’ve not! 
Ant: But I have! You know as well as I do that disfellowshipped people are treated as if they were dead. Is that not true? 
Chris: They are treated outside the congregation, yeah. 
Ant:  No. They are treated as if they are dead! 
Chris: No, it's not! That’s not true! [but there are many cases worldwide of xJWs being shunned -- completely ignored if they are invited at all -- at weddings and family funerals, as happened later at my mother's funeral - See Comfort for the Bereaved, later] 
Ant: Oh! So you’ll be phoning me up after I’m disfellowshipped -- if I’m disfellowshipped then? 
Chris: No,  no -- Tony 
Ant: .....and you’ll say “Hi! Do you want to come for a meal or a drink?” 
Chris: No -- no. That’s choosing association, but if for instance, if we saw you in the street and you got run over by a bus......... [and how likely is that?] 
Ant::  Aahhh! Ha-ha-ha-ha! 
Chris:  ........we wouldn’t say, "Oh there’s Tony -- he’s disfellowshipped. We would give you assistance. But....... but if someone was dead...... there’s a difference, Tony You can't use that as an extreme ..... if someone’s disfellowshipped -- to say they’re dead, that’s not true.

 [This is insane -  they would help you live physically, while they destroy you emotionally, spiritually and psychologically? Nice!] 

Ant: Oh they are! They’re treated as dead by 5 million people. They are cut off. They have no more friends or association or company...... 
Chris: Cut off association, right? Unnecessary..... if for instance, a husband...... 
Ant: Ah, were not talking about close family relationships where there’s obviously a legal requirement 
Chris: Of course there's variations......... 
Ant:  ...........we're not talking about that. I’m talking about uncles, aunts, grandchildren who are forbidden to see their grandparents. Uncles who are forbidden to see their nieces and nephews. I know of several marriages which are deteriorating right now because one member wants to leave Jehovah's Witnesses and the other one does not and the person who’s causing the trouble [persecution] is not the one who wants to leave [JWs]. It's the person who is the Jehovah's Witness inflicting their views upon the person who wants free will to leave. And can you understand the kind of pressure that’s put on a person when, say....... you know -- well, lets not be personal...... but can you imagine the pressure that would be put on a marriage when one party is disfellowshipped ? Can you imagine what that does to a person in a marriage when..... 
Chris: Tony, Tony.  I know exactly how it feels because I’ve been in that situation 
Ant: Right, right, right. So you should know the kind of damage that’s done 
Chris: I know what you’re talking about because I can speak from first-hand. OK, but that’s not the point we're here to discuss. 
[And he didn't learn compassion from that?]
Ant: No, but the point I’m making is that a disfellowshipped person is treated as if they’re dead. They don’t exist. They never get phoned, ..... they never......  you know........ they don’t get invited to funerals, parties, weddings, all sorts. 
Chris: OK now, we’ve got..... I think we’ve had...... eemmm........  sufficient.... 
Ant: I’m not finished because I’ve got some questions I wanted to ask you [I play my broken record again!]
Chris: Let's....... let's..... let's do what we......... 
Ant: And you said I had as long as I liked 
Chris: What..... well if...... if they’re going to be to be reasonable and relevant to what we're discussing here, right? 
Ant: Right. 
Chris: We're not going to be here until the cows come home discussing points 
Ant:  Fine -- it's past my bedtime. Eeemmm..... well, as I said.... ehhhh......... oh yes..... another question which I was gong to ask John and Roddie which you forbade me to ask -- I can ask Robin this one..... because Robin knows GC and MD? [two former JWs] 
Robin: Yes 
Ant: Are they Jehovah's Witnesses ? 
Robin: Eeehhhhh........... well...... eemmm....... they're..... they're...... they were still  baptised Witnesses you know....... but they’re in a situation where they no longer..... eemmm....... actively associate with the Christian [JW] congregation....... 
Ant:  So are they Jehovah's Witnesses ? 
Robin:  Eemmm, but ....... they’re......they're........ up to a point -- yes....  I mean, a person’s always a Witnesses in the sense if they’ve made baptism vows and dedication vows and so on, but they’ve chosen....... they’ve chosen no longer to......  no longer to associate 
Ant: So what are you doing about them? 
Robin: Well, they’re just completely off the scene. We don't know where they are or anything.... 
Chris: [interrupts] Tony, Tony.... What's that got to do with this case? Nothing. 
Ant: Yes -- because I was going to ask Roddie the question, concerning a conversation he had about MD who was supposedly “apostate” and John Maxwell went after him on the strength of something that was said to Roddie Darroch. 
Chris: Tony -- We’re not here to discuss other people 
Ant: I want to know why you’re not interested in those people 
Chris: That is nothing to do with you Tony. 
Ant: Alright  --  is LM still  a Jehovah's Witnesses ? 
[this former Ministerial Servant is living with his girl-friend "without the benefit of marriage”]

Chris: Tony -- we are not going to discuss anybody else and it's got nothing to do with you 
Ant: It's got everything to do with me..... 
Chris: No, it isn’t 
Ant: .......because if they’re Jehovah's Witnesses, then I am too 
Chris: Tony -- [to others] Do you feel...........? 
Dennis:  It's not relevant because these are other individuals 
Chris: Tony -- were not here to discuss... 
Ant: No, but I’m asking you, "Am I a Jehovah's Witness or not?" I say, that you say I'm not, by your treatment of me....... 
Chris: You are..... 
Ant:  It is obvious. Anybody outside can see that I'm not a Jehovah's Witness except you 
Chris: We are not here.......... 
Ant:  ....and Jehovah's Witnesses say the same. No, no! I’m not mentioning other people .... 
Chris: You did! We're not....... you have mentioned four [??] people! 
Ant: No, no. I’m talking about people in general, don’t view me as a Jehovah's Witness 
Chris: You mentioned four [??] people there specifically 
Ant: Yes.... 
Chris: So you are discussing other people
[again he takes things literally, staying on familiar ground.] 

Ant: No. I was asking you about those people. 
Chris: But we're not going to discuss................ 
Ant: I’m not wanting to know intimate details about them........ 
Chris: We’re not going to give you any details.......... [again literally] 
Ant: That’s fine..... that’s fine, but the fact is, ask yourselves why you’re interested in me and you’re not interested in them. That’s what I’m saying. 
Chris: I’ve told you already that.... we're not going to go through it again 
Ant: I know, I know....... the other question I have for you is ......eemmm....... I’ve got lots of questions I wanted to ask John... 
Chris: Well, we’ve emmm......you keep asking the same questions only in a different way Tony 
Ant: That s because I never got the answer. Because he waffles........ 
Chris:  Tony, Tony..... 
Ant: The guy waffles.... he loves the sound of his own voice and he does not answer the question. I told you -- some of the questions were very simple..... yes or no 
Chris: Tony 
Ant: No, he wants to....... 
Chris: Tony -- have you got any questions that you want to put to us that you have not already asked us ............ 
Ant: Yes I’ve got some questions....... [now I’m just being awkward -- they have wasted my time, so I wll waste their time and make things unpleasant for them] 
Chris:  .......... that you've not already asked us in a different way? You can’t accuse John of waffling when you’re asking the same questions...... 
Ant:  That.s because I’m not getting the chance to answer [ask] the first time. Right ...... why don't you tell me about the "faithful and discreet slave" because that was one of the points that I raised with John? 
Chris: What do you mean?....... why don't we tell you? 
Ant: Well, on the evening when I had them in my home under false pretences, they were discussing the "faithful and discreet slave" with me and it was agreed that the "faithful and discreet slave" was appointed in 33 CE, but in modern tmes they were appointed -- or recognised if you like in ...... round about 1918....1919. Is that true? [Pause] It's not a trick question -- it was roughly 1918...1919 is that right? 
Chris: The "faithful and discreet slave" -- you know who they are, Tony 
Ant: No. I’m asking you.... I’m asking you a question. The "faithful and discreet slave" was appointed by Jesus in 33,  John said. Is that right? 
Chris: OK 
Ant:  Where was it between the end of the first century -- and 1874? 
Chris: Well... 
Ant: This was the kind of question I was asking John. I was saying to him, why should I have confidence in the "faithful and discreet slave" -- that’s all I was asking him. Why should I have confidence in “him”? 
Chris: Tony --  if you don't have confidence........ 
Ant: Aahh, but he came to “help” me -- and he didn’t help me. He didn’t explain it. 
Chris: Tony -- but I mean -- your opinion.......your views.... your understanding .............you don’t have to........ accept our view of the "faithful and discreet slave" ...
Ant:  Aaahhh! But he came to “help” me....... to brr-iiing me back to the flock” -- he said -- although I don’t think so. 
Chris: And did you..... did you want the help? 
Ant: That's not the point. The point I’m making is, he made no attempt to give it because he said to me, "How do you feel about the "faithful and discreet slave" ? 
Chris: Tony...... 
Ant:  .........and I said, well how should I feel? 
Chris: Tony -- we’ve had two brothers here who both said that they wanted to help you ........ you ........ you disagree.....that’s your opinion 
Ant: They did not try to help me on the night -- you’ll have to come and hear the tape some time -- it's really good! 
Chris: Tony, Tony....... 
Ant: You would really enjoy it 
Chris: Tony -- these brothers said they were there to help you and if you say they didn’t that’s.......  an interpretation........ they came there........ 
Ant: No! No! It's fact! It's fact! 
Chris: They came there... 
Ant: 400 people have seen the transcript..... [many more now!!] 
Chris: They came there with an honest heart...... [can he be so gullible?] 
Ant: I doubt it..... 
Chris: ......with a genuine motive [!!] 
Ant: I doubt it. No. That is not the indication that people had......... 
Chris: Who are the 400 that heard it? [he doesn’t believe me] 
Ant: Quite a lot of people have heard it [or read it at least] 
Chris: 400? 
Ant: At least 400 people. 
Chris: Alright now.......[he ignores me because he doesn’t believe this] I think we're going to........ 
Ant: You haven’t answered my question..... 
Chris: What? 
Ant: You were asking me questions a couple of minutes ago about the "faithful and discreet slave" - who do I think it is and so on. I’m asking you to show me in the Bible. Who is the "faithful and discreet slave" ? 
Chris: Tony 
Ant: Prove it to me who is the "faithful and discreet slave" and I’ll be at the meeting on Thursday [this is a fairly safe bet] 
Chris: We’re not here to prove to you.... 
Ant: Well show me! 
Chris: No. We are not here... 
Ant: Indicate! 
Chris: We are not here to prove to you doctrines, OK. We are here to help you to see if you .... 
Ant: So convince me. 
Chris: Tony. 
Robin: But Tony -- you were convinced for many years of that........ of that -- of the answer to that question and perhaps for whatever reason........and perhaps for whatever reason you are no longer...... 
Ant: But what is that reason? What is that reason? 
Robin: I don’t know 
Ant: Well, do you think its possible I’ve maybe got some new information that I didn’t have when I was convinced? Is that a possibility? Do you think that if you were given some new information about something...... my contact lens is bothering me...... [I take it out to wet it as I continue talking. Sorry, I'm used to doing this!] Do you think that if you were given some new information about something it might change your opinion? 
Chris: Are you asking all of us? 
Ant: I'm asking Robin -- first. 
Robin: If I was given any new information if it might change my opinion? 
Ant: Yes 
Robin: Well I mean...... generally...... its possible... I would say......its possible....... 
Ant: Good! There’s hope for you then. 
Robin: I’m not necessarily saying...... I’m not saying it would change my opinion about the "faithful and discreet slave", but if you’re given new information about anything, eemmm,....... I would consider it...... whatever. 
Ant: Fine. You could even change your opinion about something you believe right now 
Robin: I am convinced.... you know, I mean, I am convinced myself of the identity of the "faithful and discreet slave"....... 
Ant: So was I ..... so was I. Yes. 
Robin: And also I mean that the way ...... that Jehovah’s organisation works and its succeess it has.... it obviously has ......eehhhh.....  It obviously has eehhh.......  Jehovah God’s backing [stock answers] 
Ant: But ICI has success. McDonald’s has success 
Robin: But it doesn’t have Jehovah's backing though, does it? 
Ant:  .....Walt Disney has success..... they all have success..... 
Robin: Yes, but not in a spiritual way..... not in a spiritual level. None of these things have success in a spiritual way, do they? 
Ant: But it's the same kind of organisation -- its an international corporation -- you know, that’s all. 
Chris: Right...... ... 
Ant: I have another question..... you still haven’t told me about the "faithful and discreet slave" -- how we know from the Bible that it was appointed by Jesus? 
Chris: Tony -- No. I’ve told you. 
Ant: Well, I’m asking you 
Chris: You know...... 
Ant:  ......because I have doubts about that..... I’m asking you to answer my doubts [a golden opportunity to "help" the wayward Witness?] 
Chris: This is not the time... 
Ant: And I don’t want a Bible study! 
Chris: This is not the time to discuss doubts about Bible doctrine, OK? [That's not wat James said in his letter. So when would be?] 
Ant: Uh-huh 
Chris: If you want an explanation -- you know what the...... Jehovah's Witnesses' understanding of the "faithful and discreet slave" is, OK? .....that’s it 
Ant: But I don't think it’s satisfactory, so I’m asking you to explain the......to explain it to me...... from the Bible - now 
Chris: Tony --  you....... 
Robin: We can’t give out you any more information than..... than you already previously accepted and understood though ......do you know what I mean? That you under........  accepted for many years. 
Ant: Right O.K. Now another question I wanted to ask John ...... 
Chris:  One more question...... 
Ant: No -- I’ve got lots of questions 
Chris: Wait a minute........ 
Ant:  You said I could speak for as long as I liked [laughs] ... 
Chris: Until sufficient time has passed OK? But we also said at the conclusion of the last meeting OK, that you had plenty of time to give your objections then - up to an hour.... 
Ant: Yes which haven’t been answered by the way. 
Chris: ......now you’ve listened to the witnesses -- now, I’ll ask you, do you feel we’ve had .......  we’ve heard sufficient to come to some conclusion? 
Dennis/Robin: Yes! 
Chris: OK.OK. That’s it, Tony. 
Ant:  OK. Right, so I was going to ask John about "new light” and he went away on a big long spiel -- a big illustration about “when I was a child” to tell me about “new light”... right? Because I was asking him why there had been changes and .... I mean...... for example can you tell me of any examples of ..... eemm Jesus making a mistake in the Bible ? 
Chris:  Tony 
Ant: No! I’m asking you! Can you tell me are there any examples of Jesus making mistakes? 
Chris:  No -- he was a perfect man [and no more than a man, according to Watchtower teaching] 
Ant:  Thank you. And his teaching was perfect and its unchangeable and it's the same to-day and tomorrow and you know...... 
Chris:  I know exactly where you’re heading Ant OK 
Ant:  OK OK, fine.....so where am I heading? 
[I know it's well over now, so I offer some revelations] 

Chris:  I  know where you’re heading........so you tell me. [Double bluff] 
Ant:  Fine. So I was asking John, why should I have confidence in the "faithful and discreet slave" which changes its mind 5 times about the Sodomites getting a resurrection? As if that matters? You know? It’s all in the Watchtower literature -- 5 times they changed the..... eeeehhh...... the.... you know...... “Oh they’re getting a resurrection.......oh....oh.... .they’re not getting a resurrection! And then in 1967 I think, they were getting a resurrection...... .in 1980 they weren’t. And it’s in the literature 
Chris: OK Tony 
Ant: Just a minute! No! I’m not finished! 
[I am being a pain in their asses now -- they started this, so I am not going to go away just to suit them and maybe -- just maybe -- one of them is listening] 
nnThat's just one thing! And then they accused me of saying, "Oh! I have no faith in the "faithful and discreet slave" because they let people die". That’s maybe not entirely correct, but the point is, that the policies they gave between 1967 and 1980 forbidding blood...... forbidding...... eeemmm ..... transplants brought about the deaths of many people ....... that’s a fact. And then in 1980 they just.... quiii--eeetly .... said........"You can take blood ...blood ....... eeehhhh..... eeeehh.....  heart transplants if you wish". No explanations -- no apologies. Just a change of mind. So again -- on......off.......on. Now, who is leading the "faithful and discreet slave"? That’s what I’ve got to ask? And that’s what I was asking them -- at the time. And I’m asking you now. And I’m asking, if Jesus is the same to-day, to-morrow and forever, then why in 1920 was The Finished Mystery...... this woo-nnderful book ........ this new hot-off-the-press book .......which is [mentioned] in the Proclaimers book as you know...... And it’s Tan-Tan-Taraaaaah!! You know ..... it's The Great Book .......The Finished Mystery........ and some of the things in that are rather ......silly.......  you know? And yet this is the basis on which Jesus selected the "faithful and discreet slave" in 1919 and I was saying ........ well why? Why should I have confidence in the "faithful and discreet slave" when they were believing that leviathan was a steam locomotive? Or that the 1260 furlongs in Revelation are the distance between Pensylvannia and Columbia Heights? Why should I have confidence in the "faithful and discreet slave"? And they couldn’t answer. They didn’t even attempt to answer [the “helpers”] All they said -- John gave me a big long spiel ...... "new light" -- "new light" -- "new light".  Now where does this “new light” come from? 
Chris: We are not going to discuss....... 
Ant:  Well, where? 
Chris: OK. We’ve heard what you said, Tony
[and at no time have they said to me, "Let us answer"] 
Ant: Right -- so where does this "new light" come from? If you can persuade me......or.......  or....advise me, you know, that there’s some answer to that...... I would definitely be back at the meetings [another safe bet] 
Chris: This is not the time or the occasion to persuade you [or to help me?] 
Ant:  No, but I’m asking you now -- and then we can finish it.......... 
Chris:  OK 
Ant:  .....because you’ll not be allowed to speak to me soon, remember! 
Chris: We’ve heard.......we’ve heard what you’ve said ........that’s it, Tony. We’re going to conclude the meeting now 
Ant:  So, I’m asking you about "new light" ....... 
Chris: Yeah -- and I said to you this is not the time or place to discuss it 
Ant:  Where does the "new light" come from? 
Chris:  Do you not hear what I’m saying? 
Ant: Yes, I hear what you’re sayng. 
Chris: OK 
Ant: You promised me that I could speak as long as I wished and I could ask as many questions as  I wished 
Chris: Well it's time...... 
Ant: I’m the one that’s having problems with my contact lenses 
[I’m constantly having to wet them and would rather be at home taking them out for the night] 
Chris:  Well its time to conclude the meeting Tony OK because both brothers -- Dennis and Robin have both agreed with me that they’ve heard sufficient 
Ant: Oh yes! But you didn’t really need to hear anything did you? Be honest! 
Chris: Yes, we did 
Ant:  .....because the purpose of a committee is to establish, not whether the person’s guilty -- because they are guilty -- it’s to establish whether they are repentant or not, isn’t it? 
Chris:  OK, well while you’re fixing the....... 
Ant: Is that right? 
Chris:  Sorry? 
Ant: I say, the purpose of a "judicial" committee is to not to establish guilt......... 
Robin: It’s to establish whether a person’s repentant or not 
Ant:  Exactly -- so in other words, guilt is assumed, isn’t it? 
Chris: No 
Ant: Well it must be! Because how can you be repentant if you’re not guilty? 
Chris: You have to.....you have to discuss the situation first...... then 
Robin: You’ve got to........... you've got to establish......get information first ....obviously 
Chris:  It could be just a pure misunderstanding........ 
Robin:  A judicial committee’s only formed when there’s allegations of a serious..... 
Ant: Sufficient information ...... Elders' Manual 
Robin:  ....... and then based on that......... But the decisive factor, as you rightly say, is to ...... if guilt is established or whatever, then would repentance or whatever works... 
Ant:  But how can you be guilty for holding an opinion? 
Chris:  OK. Tony you’ve asked...... we’ve given you plenty of time ..... [but no answers?] Do you feel we’ve had sufficient.......? 
Ant:: Well I still don’t feel I’ve had enough time ...... but I respect your........ eeehhh 
Robin: We understand that...... 
Ant: Sorry? 
Robin: We understand that you feel that way... 
Ant:  That’s very nice of you...... 
Chris: Could you eeeeh... could you just excuse us for one moment? 
[One moment? What? Wonderful !!] 
Ant:  [laughs loudly] Is that all it’s going to take? “One moment”?
[after nearly 30 years as a baptised JW, it takes "one moment" for them to make their decision??] 

Chris: Well........no..... don't..... eehhh..... no. 
Ant: Well look, look......eehhh....  I’ve got a wee statement I want to read as well. Have you got another ten minutes? 
Chris: Well this is the .....final thing. ... 
Ant:  The final countdown? [more humour] 
Robin:  Is this it, Tony ....... is.......? [we are all tired] 
Ant: Well......eehh. I don’t know....... I might not read it all.... because it’s quite lengthy. [Even for me!]  It will depend on what you decide, but I think I know what you’re going to decide [smiles] and I must say...... I mean I must say... I mean the whole thing......... 
Chris: You have said several times Tony ......you have said several times...... I think you’ve.... it’s clear..... 
Ant:  Aye, its a shambles. The whole thing is just an absolute shambles. I’ll have to censor this as I read it because I’m not necessarily wanting to read every single thing........ eemm.......... eeeehhhh.......where are we?...... Yes........so......... 
[Statement] 
"For three years, you elders of Waverley congregation have not recognised me as a Jehovah's Witness until I allegedly spoke to a newspaper. Then you wanted to make me a member long enough to disfellowship me, disgrace me and silence me. And I suggest that your intention is simply to deny me association with my family and prevent all Jehovah's Witnesses and former Witnesses from speaking to me. 


You elders who chair these so-called “judicial” committees employed by the Watchtower Society to cast out undesirables are party to an activity considered by anyone who loves justice to be unfair and shocking. Due process and rules of natural justice, as well as scriptural procedures, are completely ignored. Unfortunately the process does not end there. Since the procedure is conducted in secret wth no clear accusation, no independent observers, no public records, no defence counsel, no right to remain silent while being defended and so-called “judges” acting in multiple capacities etc, what invariably results from these secret hearings is a spreading of false news unrelated to the original supposed charge, equivalent to character assassination and to which the accused is unable to make a defence. Surely you must see that your secret judicial committees are absurd and contrary to all the principles that elders ruling for justice itself should be promoting.... or should be promoting.......underlined. Your quasi-judicial courts violate basic Human Rights and are rarely in the best interests of the individual. 


As it is impossible for you to disfellowship someone who is clearly not one of your group, and I cannot disassociate myself when I do not belong to your association, any future pronouncements by you about my supposed status, will be meaningless and will only prove how spiteful and stupid the elders are..... the elders actually are. This fact of non-membership is evident by your own treatment of me for over three years when I have not received Kingdom Ministry bulletins, a signed and witnessed Blood Card, and other supposed benefits of membership from you. 


I have taken legal advice and I will use the law of this country to prosecute any individual who takes any further action to harass me or defame me, or...... as has been done in the last few weeks.  [This is rather an empty threat unless one has the money to pursue a civil case] The difference is however, that you would be given a fair and open trial in a “worldly” court which apparently, has higher standards of justice than “Jehovah’s Theocratic Organisation”. [See the recent Australia Royal Commission investigations into JWs - July 2015]


Jehovah's Witnesses view disfellowshipped people as dead and non-existent. That condition is brought about by the elders’ pronouncement upon them after the judicial committee, so in effect, you men are responsible for the symbolic deaths of all those who are disfellowshipped since, in different circumstances, like the judges of Israel whom you believe yourselves to follow, you would willingly carry out the death penalty literally. 


The Watchtower Society, which promotes itself as a champion of Human Rights at the European Court and elswhere, is the sponsor of these so-called judicial committees which violate Human Rights and precious principles of morality and justice. You men who support that organisation and who “just follow orders” share the guilt of their crimes against millions of Jehovah's Witnesses who have attempted to leave quietly and who have been separated from their families and friends by unchristian disfellowshipping. 


Despite all this, I repeat my offer to give help to the increasing numbers of disillusioned Jehovah's Witnesses, but since the hands of elders are stained with the blood of innocent people, this offer is not open to anyone currently serving as an elder”. 
[Ends my Written Statement]

And none of that is meant personally against you.......[well, to be honest, in 2015, it IS!] you three, [i.e. as individuals] but I feel very strongly that it has to be said and eeehhh..... you know..... I will publicise what’s happened here, eeemm....... if you go ahead and take sanctions against me and I would really ask you to examine your consciences, you know, and really, really ask yourselves how you got put into this situation you know, because I don’t think you're willing participants -- I hope you’re not anyway........ 
Chris: Right. Thank you Tony 
Ant:  .....so I’ll leave it at that..... And I suppose I’ll be “hearing you..... from you” in the “famous last words”? Is that correct? 
Chris:  If..... eeemm..... 
Ant:  Hearing from you? 
Chris:  Right could........ can we just ...... eemm, can we..... could you just leave the room ......eemmm......  just for a second? 
[He is still "going by the book" and desperately wanting to pronounce sentence on me. Hilarious!!] 

Ant: No! I’ve got another bit just to add on to my statement, in that case. Eeemmm..... "I don’t recognise this court" as I’ve said to you before -- all respect to you as individuals........ 
Chris:  You’ve said that already several times Tony 
Robin: You don't respect this entire arrangement? 
Ant:  No. I don’t respect the arrangement so [statement continues] "if you disfellowship me that’s meaningless to me because I don’t think you have the right or the authority to do that ......eehh..... and particularly to a member of the public and if you say that I have disassociated then that would be a lie because I’ve made it very clear to people that I've got no intention of disassociating......." 
Chris:  You are......  you are repeating yourself Tony 
Ant: "......and if you acquit me ...... and if I am acquitted, that is also meaningless because I don’t need your blessing.........." 
Chris: Fine. You are....... 
Ant: [the Small Steamroller keeps advancing over the Rude Elder's toes]  ".......so anything that you might say tonight -- all respect to you as individuals -- is meaningless to me, so I’m not going to stay to hear your verdict" -- all respect to you three......... 
Chris:  Well, we’ve heard what you say....... 
[I am packing up as he speaks] 
Ant:  ..........and I apologise if I used a Bad Word -- or a vulgar word -- and as I say, I don’t mean any........ although I was very displeased with some of the things that were being done, and I register my protest, I don’t hold anything..... I don’t hold anything against you three individually. [but you can stuff your verdict.......! ] 
Chris:  OK. Well let's.......... I was thinking that. [to Robin] Look..... well..... OK.. I’ll come back in  a second. 
[Chris shows me to the door]
The above ending is weak true, but I do not hate these three stooges. They are weaklings, moral-cowards -- the yes-men who follow the Governing Body whose ideology has ruined the lives of millions. True, many elders are willing participants in these vile secret courts, but we were all once there in the Watchtower, looking out, while supporting its policies.
Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.  Luke 23:34

Three days later, on the Friday, Chris Taylor and Dennis Graham came to my home uninvited, all smiles [!!] to tell me the “scriptural reasons” I had been disfellowshipped. I just laughed -- the twisting of Scripture was so pathetic. In fact, I was in the middle of typing out this transcript from the tape-recording -- little did they know -- so I took the oppportunity to show them excerpts from “Tom ‘n’ Jerry" to show how John Maxwell had “helped” me when he came to my home.

The above meeting was very tiring and extremely stressful too.I was arguing against five men for about two hours. I wasn't physically intimidated because I was very fit and strong, but I was angry and had some unmentionable thoughts during the next few days as I typed out the vicious railroading and saw the cold text. I feel the same way now, in 2015.

Again, my friend gave me a good suggestion: He reminded me that an Appeal is not for mercy, but to examine a miscarriage of justice. I decided to lodge an Appeal within seven days -- just to annoy them and waste their time, if nothing else -- and to gain time to decide what to do next.
So I sent the following letter to Chris Taylor:

Chris Taylor 
Robin Maxwell 
Dennis Graham                                                                                            2 June 1999

Dear Sirs, 
On Friday 28th. May, Chris Taylor and Dennis Graham came to my home to inform me of your decision to disfellowship me. 
    I am writing to appeal against that decision on the basis that the whole process was a complete farce and a miscarriage of justice e.g. the witnesses you produced used entrapment and deceit to gain “evidence”; the original “very concerned” witnesses were never called; my right to a fair trial was continually violated, making Chris Taylor appear a liar; I was forbidden to examine witnesses properly to show that one was telling half-truths throughout his evidence; there were breaches of confidentiality -- an elder’s wife outside Waverley knew I was “being dealt with” before the first meeting and that the committee had had to correspond with London Bethel after that. These are just some of the matters I wish to discuss. 
    I shall be on holiday during June for at least two weeks so I suggest a meeting toward the end of the month or after July 1st. 
Yours sincerely, 
[signed] 
Anthony Roberts

This letter forced them to postpone their disfellowshipping announcement for another month -- adding to their frustration.
After returning from my holiday on 24th. June, Chris Taylor phoned me on Friday 25th. June to arrange a meeting for two days later, on Sunday, 27th. June. (As I said, they were keen!) He wanted me to accommodate them to rush it through, but finally we made a tentative arrangement for Friday 9th. July.
On Sunday 4th July, I left a telephone message cancelling the tentative agreement for Friday 9th. July and on Tuesday 6th., Chris Taylor confirmed that he had received the message and said that the Appeal would probably take place after next week's District Assembly.
On 14 July, I received an answering machine message from Chris Taylor, telling me that the Appeal meeting would take place -- with no alternatives offered -- at 1930 on Friday 6th. August. This Appeal meeting is supposed to be for my benefit, but it has been arranged to suit the "loving shepherds" who are so keen to "help" me.

This process to disfellowship me started on February 27th. -- over 9 months ago.

Copyright (c) Witness Aid UK 1999 & 2015