Belfast

14 October 1994

Dear Mr Gamble

I am writing to you as I am concerned about the possibility of any unintentional misunderstanding of the telephone conversation of last night. It is for this reason and the possibility of misinterpretation and miss-quotation that I wish to restrict our discussions to written communications. I have therefore attempted to outline my understanding of the main points raised in our conversation, and I should be pleased if you would let me know if the following is an accurate account. In addition, I wish to clarify some of the points which I attempted to express verbally.

1. TG said that he did not intend to give a written reply to the letter of 5 September, and asked to meet RJK alone or in the presence of the 4 workers who dealt with his parents. RJK refused to meet TG and said that he believed that a meeting would result in a debate, and satisfactory answers would not be given to the specific questions asked in his letter.

2. TG described the 'testimony' as not having any organization or structure, but accepted that someone must have responsibility for the actions of the group.

3. TG does not accept that my parents were excommunicated, and appeared to not understand the meaning of the word. TG appeared to believe that my parents left of their own accord.

Points of clarification:

Excommunication = Cut off from sacraments or communication with the church - Oxford dictionary

The sentence passed on both my parents was :

They were allowed to attend meetings, but were denied the emblems, were not allow to take part and were not allowed to make contributions.

4. TG does not appear to understand the gravity of denying the emblems to my parents. RJK pointed out that denying the emblems was the ultimate sanction which he could exercise (the biggest gun in his arsenal). RJK pointed out that his parents' principles were too high to allow themselves to be humiliated every Sunday for a non-offence, or to cause pain to the bishop of the church when passing them by.

5. TG appeared to see the removal of the meeting and excommunication as one issue. RJK accepted that, as overseer, TG had the right to remove the meeting, for whatever reason, but the excommunication was a separate and much more serious matter. RJK also pointed out the devotion of his parents to having the meeting in their home for 40+ years and indicated that his mother was probably no longer able to cope with this commitment any longer, in any case.

6. TG accepted that the Noel Tanner affair was badly handled and appeared to blame W Wilkin. TG eventually apologised to RJK for the manner in which he had been mistreated. RJK accepted the apology, but pointed out that it was overdue by 20 years and that apologies to his parents and others were long overdue. TG replied that the others were not known. TG was informed that the abuse of his cousin was reported. RJK stated that the lack of any attempt to determine the names of the victims and the extent of the emotional damage inflicted was a serious indictment of the 'testimony'. The additional questions relating to the cover-up, divine inspiration, etc. were not answered.

7. In view of the mishandling of the Noel Tanner affair, TG was prepared to concede that workers in general were not infallible. RJK responded that W McBrine, for example, was in no position to 'throw stones' at anyone, let alone sit in judgement on his parents. Also, RJK presumed that TG believed that eternal life was exclusively available to converts of workers (the question regarding this point was not answered). In view of this presumption, RJK said that excommunication by workers would require something very close to infallibility.

8. TG agreed that in view of the gravity of the offences committed against RJK, and the inept handling of the affair, JHK as a loving parent could be justified in having some misgivings about the judgement of workers on other issues. To emphasise this point, RJK stated that if his daughters were subjects to assaults similar to those of Noel Tanner on himself, he hoped he could stop short of murder.

9. RJK informed TG that ownership of a television 'mattered not a jot' to JHK - it was rarely viewed. The matter at issue was trivial in the eyes of JHK, and the fact that it was seen as a matter for excommunication must surely further undermine JHK's confidence in the workers (in view of the fact that, for a serious matter, Noel Tanner continued as a worker).

10. TG informed RJK that Willie Mc Brine had visited his parents after the excommunication. RJK responded that he briefly visited after more than two months and no mention was made of the sentence passed on JHK and EMK. TG replied that JHK and EMK had not raised the issue.

11. TG claimed that the 'testimony' was not started by W Irvine and E Cooney and that a 'remnant' had existed continuously 'from the beginning' (since the days of the apostles). RJK responded that there was not a shred of evidence to support this (unnecessary) contention and challenged TG to produce evidence, e.g. a letter. TG responded that the evidence was 'manifested in the spirit' (of workers, converts? - this point was not clear to RJK).

12. TG agreed that the position of ** and **, daughters of RJK, was a serious matter of concern to RJK. RJK expressed concern that if his children were exposed to the teachings of the 'testimony', they may become members and could face a similar fate to that of his parents in say 20 years time if a new rule is enforced.

13. RJK pointed out that, in his view, the treatment of his father was deplorable, but the treatment of his mother was infinitely worse - her only offences being to live in a house where her husband owned a television, and an unwillingness to express a view condemning her husband for owning a television. RJK also indicated that countless others were in a similar position and had not been dealt with in a similar manner, e.g. his wife. TG said that he was aware of others, in the sense that he had evidence against them, but did not indicate that he intended to address this anomalous situation.

14. RJK pointed out that many converts were shocked and angered by the judgement and ruthless sentence imposed on his parents, to the extent that many were on the verge of leaving. TG asked for names, RJK refused to divulge any.

15. RJK stressed that he was extremely serious in his efforts to obtain answers to the questions in his letter of 5 September, and expressed the hope that the questions would encourage TG to 'think some very serious thoughts'. RJK stated that the discussions between himself and TG were private, for the moment.

Point of clarification:

The decision to ask questions and demand a response was not taken lightly. For 20 years, I have been extremely angry about some issues, and would have liked to pursue answers to some others. However, my respect for my parents feelings and their firmly held beliefs was such that I believed it was preferable to tolerate this situation. Their excommunication has removed this obstacle.

16. TG asked RJK to reconsider his decision not to meet and said that he would telephone in 1 week.

Regarding point No. 11, I have enclosed relevant passages from the books referred to in question 20 of my letter of 5 September. I should like to know if these accounts are untrue, and would be interested to hear what existed prior to WI and EC, e.g. who did they profess through?

My interest in the origin may appear irrelevant to you, but I believe that I should be reassured about the contention by yourself and others of a 1st century origin and the continuous existence of a 'remnant'. Otherwise, I am forced to believe that your converts are being deceived.

I look forward to your response to my questions.

Yours sincerely

Dr Robert Kee