Friday, 1 December 2017

The Farce

The address books in question-namely the Australian & Uk ones hold contact details which are all in the Public domain-why the secrecy-why spend over a million quid chasing an insignificant bloke through the Courts when all this information is on the electoral roll anyway?

Clearly the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church aka UBT have something to hide?

Perhaps they don’t like former shunned members contacting their own families who they’ve not seen for years?

The crazy thing is that disaffected current members hand out these books like sweets-there are lots of sets in circulation-there’s moles at UBT and the Depot BGT who post me latest copies regularly!

I’ve not seen my youngest son Freddie for nearly 10 years-purely because the PBCC leader Hales decrees that I’m the Devils agent and the man of sin😊


  1. It is made very clear in these directories if your father died 'out of fellowship'. Quite how this tallies with the PBCC's Deed of Variation agreement with the Charity Commission I'm not at all sure. The PBCC agreed not to treat ex-members any differently than members, but here they are in 2017, continuing to slur deceased ex-members in a secret coded way.

    That's probably why they're so paranoid about who sees them.

    When I want anything to do with latest ministry etc, I just ask my 'in' sister and she gives me hard copies. She's paid good money for them, so why not? As each assembly is autonomous, there can't be a hard and fast rule about this sort of issue anyway! Some assemblies may believe that what is said in a Place of Public Worship need not be concealed.

  2. “why spend over a million quid chasing an insignificant bloke through the Courts when all this information is on the electoral roll anyway”

    Not only electoral rolls; most of the same information is also available from telephone directories, Post Office directories,,, the register of births, deaths and marriages, and probably many other similar sources.

    There is another reason why the current lawsuit has an air of irrationality: it has no chance of achieving its putative purpose. What is that saying about bolting the stable door after the genie is out of the bottle?

    There are dozens of Brethren address books in circulation, and there always have been. I don’t mean dozens of copies: I mean dozens of editions, each with hundreds or thousands of copies. The task of hunting them all down and destroying them is humanly impossible, and could be counter-productive. The very act of trying might just ensure that they start breeding faster than they can be culled, or they get deposited in places where they are immune from attack.

    Another reason: Brethren address books have been around for a long time without causing any harm. I don’t know anyone who has misused them. So the task the Brethren have given their lawyers is not only impossible; it is hardly necessary.

    So what is the real explanation? Why are the Brethren doing it? Have their lawyers given them unrealistic expectations of success? Or do they just want to make life difficult for Laurie Moffitt in retaliation for the trouble he has caused them in retaliation for the trouble they have cause him? If so, that is only a recipe for breeding further resentment and enmity.

    There are Christian ways of resolving disputes, and they don’t entail a vicious feedback cycle that breeds ill-feeling all round.

  3. Agreed Ian, nor do they involve bribery. There is a difference between compensation and bribery.

  4. There is a reasonable option - and one which must be observed if electronic records are maintained, at least in the UK - that individual members could opt out of having their details, especially of children, private. I cannot imaging the PBCC allowing that.