Public Statement of “BCG” and Response to Lloyd Evans’ Apology
Editor’s Note: As many people in the community of former Jehovah’s Witnesses know, Daniel Walker, who writes under the pseudonym “Covert Fade” on the website JWsurvey.com, announced that he is writing a book about the Australian Royal Commission Inquiry of 2015, of which Jehovah’s Witnesses were a part. One woman who testified at that Inquiry, under the pseudonym “BCG,” objected to his plans, as he had not even spoken to her about this issue, and she was very uncomfortable with having him handle her story of molestation and abuse.
What followed were several days of disgusting and downright horrific behavior on social media, aimed at BCG by Daniel Walker, Lloyd Evans aka John Cedars, and their followers. Lloyd Evans issued an “apology” for the matter; screen captures below. This is BCG’s response to that apology.
To learn more about this issue and see screen captures of those attacks yourself, please see the links at the bottom of this page.
1 September 2017
I commend Lloyd Evans’ (aka John Cedars) efforts to make an apology; unfortunately, it is similar to Daniel Walker’s apology. There has been a direct avoidance of the issues that led to this whole saga. As already noted in my response to Daniel Walker’s apology, Lloyd is taking the same approach in his public statement, and I am not going to repeat myself. I suggest that Lloyd read my response to Daniel Walker’s apology.
I am going to discuss what an apology is, and how to know the difference between a genuine apology and a fake apology.
The Macquarie Dictionary defines the meaning of an apology to include, ‘an expression of regret offered for some fault, failure insult or injury.’
I have also found several articles on this very issue, I will list them below:
Ben Stevens wrote an article for Relevant, which discusses ‘How to Spot a Fake Apology.’ He says that a fake apology can be spotted in the grammatical wording after the words “I’m sorry”. For example,
· I’m sorry if I
· I’m sorry that you
· I’m sorry, but
Apologies like these appear to say sorry, but in effect the apologiser is justifying their own behavior. The fact that a person got upset by another person’s behavior is put on the person instead the person who said it. In effect, this means that the apologiser is not owning their own behavior.
Please read this article for yourself:
Rosalind Wiseman, wrote The Power of Real Apologises in a Fake Apology World, she lists things that should be included in a true apology
1. Recognize that every person has the right to his or her feelings and perspective. That means no one has the right to tell anyone else that they’re “overreacting,” “took it the wrong way” or are “overly sensitive.”
2. Conveys sincerity.
3. Acknowledges the hurt done to the other person.
4. Offers to make amends having nothing to do with being “caught” and getting into trouble.”
Please see the link below for this article:
Scott Schofield wrote Top Ten Ways To Tell If an Apology Is Genuine suggests to identify whether someone has written a genuine apology or not should include consideration of these questions. I have listed Scott’s relevant questions below:
1. Did he accurately describe what he did?
Is he minimizing his involvement? Does he mischaracterize his intentions? Is he offering up some vague, less-than-specific description of his offense?
2. Did he accept blame?
This is different from accepting responsibility
3. Did he identify the harm he caused you?
Does he understand–and is he willing to admit to–the injury and difficulty you went through because of what he did?
My ideas on what a genuine apology is, begins with addressing the harm caused. This sets the terms for which an apology should address. A genuine apology addresses the terms of the person that is wronged. The person apologising cannot set their own terms. I believe that with Lloyd’s apology, he sets his own terms. This falls short of something that I would consider to be a genuine apology.
Lloyd’s statement begins with a justification, ‘information that is a matter of public record.’ This automatically negates the entire apology. Lloyd still does not acknowledge that I have a ‘right to consent’, which makes every word after this sentence this an unnecessary justification. Lloyd’s still appears to believe that they have the right to do what they want because my story is a matter of public record.
Then Lloyd states that ‘for various reasons, this issue has ended up causing BCG considerable hurt and distress’. Lloyd is minimising his involvement by providing a vague description of his involvement in the social media attack on Facebook and Reddit. A genuine apology would have identified and acknowledged those reasons. Although he later states that,‘[i]f my comments have made BCG feel in any way that she was being re-victimised or that I was personally attacking her’.
Neither of these statements accept responsibility; Lloyd puts the blame for feeling upset about his comments back on me, instead of listing the derogatory words he publicly stated about me. To me, the wording tends to suggest that Lloyd’s apology is an attempt to placate me. If I were an ‘irrational’ person I would accept his apology; however I am a rational and intelligent person who can determine facts and decipher what a person really means.
Lloyd also states that, ‘I want to make it abundantly clear that I have zero animosity or ill feeling toward BCG, and that has always been the case.’ Taken on face value, this statement means that Lloyd is in the habit of name calling and being derogatory to other people, and thinks nothing of it. Having zero animosity or ill feelings does not justify Lloyd’s actions. I am surprised that Lloyd is unable to understand that, when he is derogatory to someone, his feelings are completely irrelevant. This statement shows me that Lloyd believes that he can say whatever he wants, as long as he justifies himself by saying that he has ‘zero animosity or ill feelings’ afterwards.
I am not sure if Daniel Walker and Lloyd Evans underestimated me or if they assumed I am a female who can be manipulated by a bunch of words. Some people may not have the insight to work out what exactly you meant by your apology, but I see right through you both.
My response to a possible meeting with Lloyd Evans, is that I do not like, nor do I intend to meet, nor endorse people like him or Daniel Walker. I represent the people that do not, and have not had a voice. As stated previously, I work with people who share the same values, and it is very clear that both Lloyd Evans and Daniel Walker do not understand the concept of what those values are.
For more information and background regarding this matter, please see, “Activism Should Never Be At The Expense Of The Victims.”
Read BCG’s public statement regarding these social media attacks at, “Public Statement of “BCG” In Response to Recent Manufactured Social Media Attacks.”
Daniel Walker has since offered an “apology” to BCG, who has not accepted it. Please read her statement in response at, “Public Statement of “BCG” In Response to Daniel Walker’s Apology.” Read my personal statement in response at, “My Personal Response to Daniel Walker’s Apology to Victim “BCG””
Read my response to Lloyd Evans’ apology at, “My Personal Response to Lloyd Evans’ Apology to Victim “BCG”“