CYFSWATCH may have done Sue Bradford a big favour !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!February 22nd, 2007 by watchingcyfs
I speak on my own behalf and not CYFSWATCH
In one sense CYFSWATCH has done Sue Bradford a big favour alerting her to the fact that there could be a plot agaisnt her.
Why do we shoot the messenger?
The sentiments posted probably are NOT the views of CYFSWATCH, but a third party.
There may be many people who privately feel the same and have the same sentiments.
Are the Ploice going to hunt them all down???????? only time will tell.
——————————————————————————————
As police have told NZPA that the comments made on the site did not break any laws.
The posting raised the prospect of assassinating the MP, who has a member’s bill before Parliament to remove the right of parents to smack children to correct them.
The author says they would like to punch Ms Bradford and break her nose and gave a graphic account about other injuries that would be inflicted.
“We’ve had legal advice to say basically no criminal offence has been committed as yet,” Mr Lek said.
“But we’re obviously concerned as far as the implications in the blog goes.”
Mr Lek said it was not legal to make threats.
“But the way it was worded it was not a direct threat as such. It’s couched in a way it - possibly cleverly or by pure luck - that the person doesn’t commit an offence.”
Mr Lek said police would try find out who was behind the posting.
When asked if security for Ms Bradford had been increased Mr Lek said the DPS do not comment on individual security matters.
Ms Bradford yesterday told reporters she was alarmed at the posting which “details a graphic physical assault on me and asks people to send in my home address”.
“I’ve referred it to the police here at Parliament and I’m quite concerned about my physical safety at this time.”
The website also said it would publish Ms Bradford’s residential address if it was supplied.
The anonymous posting suggests Ms Bradford should be killed.
“Bradford is a worthy candidate for NZ’s first political assassination – I only wish I had the resources to do it.”
The website was set up to criticise Child, Youth and Family Services (CYF) and caused controversy with a “name-and-shame” blog which provided personal information about individual social workers.
Google ordered it to remove some posts that were not compliant with its terms of service.
Ms Bradford said she hoped her address was not in the public domain and she would consider getting protection.
“I’ve asked my secretary to go straight to the Parliamentary police to let them know that I am worried now. I wasn’t before,” she said.
“There have been occasional threats in the past but the fact they are trying to track down my address at the same time as describing a graphic and quite horrible assault on me is distressing at this time in the Parliamentary debate.”
She said the incident reflected the campaign some of her opponents had whipped up around the debate.
“Some of the parents who want to defend the parents right to hit their kids seem quite fanatical and I think this threat against me is the latest manifestation.”
Ms Bradford said she hoped the site had been closed permanently. She had been contacted by other people abused on the site.
“They’re saying to me ‘now you understand how bad it is’,” she told NZPA.
“If that website could be closed down, that would be fantastic. It isn’t just about me.”
Ms Bradford said she was not getting special security at this stage.
“I’m hoping that the emotions that have been aroused will calm down as they realise that the democratic processes of this country need to take place and threatening to kill people is really anathema to democracy.”
Internet commentator David Farrar said he expected that Google, that own the blog host blogspot.com had decided to delete the site.
He said there was no question the latest posts would have breached its terms of service agreement.
It was possible the site’s authors may try get another host.
——————————————————————————————
——————————————————————————————
In my humble opinion,its disappointing that in a country like New Zealand that we resort to this level of disgrace in terms of a “name and shame” of CYFS employees who are just doing their job.
But since when is it right and just to make such life-affecting decisions that have caused so much damage to families and children based on whishy washy theories which have no bases in fact whatsoever. It is no excuss to just say “I was only doing my job” when it turns to custard. As i recall many of the German officers in various war crime trials used the same defence, ” I was only following orders”. It does not wash.
Every person in CYFS are each accountable for every choice they make, and must take full responsability for their actions. They can learn a lesson from the Brittish workers that had the moral fortatude to get out when they saw how unethical it was within CYFS.
It is not a disgrace to expose the evil that goes on behind closed doors, it is a disgrace that such evil exisits and certian people wish to keep it hidden behind closed doors.
It is the duty of anyone that sees things going so wrong to say someting about it, or should i say shout it from the rooftops. To stay silent on such a matter infers that you approve, or, at least, that you do not care for it. It is an old maxim that silence is consent.
It is a maxim of law that if a man knows of a murder about to be committed and does not use means to prevent it, he shall be held accessory before the fact. If he knows of murder which has been done, and does not endeavor to bring the criminal to justice, he is accessory after the fact.
If some CYFS workers feel some shame a guilt so be it.
The only time most people will feel true shame and guilt is when they have done something wrong and their conciences are pricking them.
Now for s59 I think Sue Bradford has said herself that her bill will not stop or eliminate the culture of violence against our children.
No amount of legislation that is past is ever going to stop it no matter what you do it will always be there.
In fact smacking is a legitimate from of discipline when used the right way. As Sue Bradford can’t discern what is the difference bettween what is legitimate smacking and violence her solution is to call it all abuse etc and that should be outlawed.
Well here is some news for her in some situations the only right and legitimate course of action would be to smack the child. Failing to do that would be child abuse.
Just as it would be wrong not to expose and to keep silent about the evil abuse that is being perpatrated on our famlies and children by CYFS etc. It would be evil abuse if you didn’t exersice proper discpline (including smacking) to our children.
CYFS reaction is interesting indeed, it is one of cover up and shut down any voices that wish to expose them. There is not an ounce for backbone to come clean and face the cold light of day.
When the spotlight of truth shines it shows what is there in the darkness.
People when confronted with the light (truth) react by either attacking it,running from it, or embracing it. We have seen the first two but not the third from CYFS.
So i think in this instance Sue Bradford should be thankfull to CYFSWATCH as to warn her of might have been a real threat. I don’t think any level headed person including CYFSWATCH would agree that either threatening or murdering anyone is the right thing to do.
I believe CYFSWATCH can not take responsability for any one elses actions but there own.
So why shoot the messenger????????????
