As posted on CYFSWATCH
Dear CYFS Watch team,
Once again we applaud this site and remain one of its biggest supporters. The service that you are doing for our abused and brutalized is immeasurable, however we do have concerns.
We ask that you PLEASE ensure that you adhere to Google’s TOS. As tempting as it may be to post some of the more controversial “remarks”, these postings may in fact result in the total loss of the voice you've allowed us to have.
It would be a shame for the thousands of victims of this evil regime (CYFS) to be once again condemned to forced silence and frustration for the sake of a few unwise “remarks”.
For the benefit of the greater majority, it may unfortunately be necessary to check and alter the content of dangerous postings. We ask future posters to please take care with their content as we are all in this fight together and we have all faced the immeasurable pain that is CYFS.
Please remember, we need the public to continue to hear our stories and voice their support to achieve the JUSTICE we all so desperately need.
Regards,
Craig and Louise Martin
(09) 8133647
(NEVER anonymous!)
CYFSWATCH Replies:
Hi Craig and Louise,
Guys, it won't matter if they shut the site - we will simply find a new site, re-publish, and let everyone know what the new website address is.
If we give in, in any way - the Government wins.
If we succumb to ANY bullying - CYFS wins.
However, if the New Zealand Government shut down the site - what message will that send to the rest of NZ? That free speech is only as free as the Government allows it to be?
We would have truly transitioned into a totalitarian state if this is the case.We're not backing down from these New Zealand Public Service pricks - even if it ultimately costs us our freedom.
CYFSWATCH.
Monday, February 05, 2007
CYFSWATCH refuse to be bullied by NZ Government.
As posted on CYFSWATCH
CYFSWATCH are aware of the strenuous efforts that the Ministry of Social Development and the New Zealand Government are making in order to shut down the CYFSWATCH site.
Unfortunately, the powers that be have been able to put sufficient pressure on Google to start deleting posts to CYFSWATCH, without Google first informing CYFSWATCH of what issues they may or may not have with particular posts.
CYFSWATCH can not and will not accept such a gross abuse of free speech, sanctioned by the New Zealand Government, and will continue to post deleted posts until prevented from doing so.
In the event that the CYFSWATCH site is shut down, we will simply move to another site, and advise everyone who has emailed us of the new site address.
Last time we looked, this was still a free country.
CYFSWATCH are aware of the strenuous efforts that the Ministry of Social Development and the New Zealand Government are making in order to shut down the CYFSWATCH site.
Unfortunately, the powers that be have been able to put sufficient pressure on Google to start deleting posts to CYFSWATCH, without Google first informing CYFSWATCH of what issues they may or may not have with particular posts.
CYFSWATCH can not and will not accept such a gross abuse of free speech, sanctioned by the New Zealand Government, and will continue to post deleted posts until prevented from doing so.
In the event that the CYFSWATCH site is shut down, we will simply move to another site, and advise everyone who has emailed us of the new site address.
Last time we looked, this was still a free country.
So now CYFSWATCH is a threat to MSD staff?
As posted on CYFSWATCH
TV 3 Website 5/2/07:
Battle begins between CYFSWATCH and Google
Mon-05-Feb-2007
9:18pm
A website designed to humiliate Child Youth and Family workers has begun a battle of wills with Internet giant Google.
The Ministry of Social Development told Google last week the site could put its staff in danger.
Google today deleted threatening comments from the blog, but the site's creator reposted them.
The blogger says more than 60 people have made copies of the website, so it can be restored if Google shuts it down.
TV 3 Website 5/2/07:
Battle begins between CYFSWATCH and Google
Mon-05-Feb-2007
9:18pm
A website designed to humiliate Child Youth and Family workers has begun a battle of wills with Internet giant Google.
The Ministry of Social Development told Google last week the site could put its staff in danger.
Google today deleted threatening comments from the blog, but the site's creator reposted them.
The blogger says more than 60 people have made copies of the website, so it can be restored if Google shuts it down.
What they are saying about CYFSWATCH - In Wales.
As posted from connexions & CYFSWATCH
New Zealand government threatens watchblog
Thursday, January 25th, 2007
by Bene Diction
Politicians put their feet in their mouth every day.
So it takes a fair bit of rhetoric to get my attention.
New Zealand Chief Executive of Ministry of Social Development, Head of CYFS New Zealand, Peter Hughes got my attention with some serious foot in mouth.
And I think he deserves more attention.
Around the world would be nice.
Not just for what he said, but for why he is saying it and what he is doing about it.
It involves a blog that has been up for about a month. It’s raw, it’s anonymous and among other things it posts emails from families that have heartbreaking and enraging encounters with CYFS. It is what is called a name and shame blog.
It is not unlike rate your teacher or rate your doctor, only it’s a lot harder to read because it involves families and children colliding with a bureaucracy.
There is an online forum called panic.org.nz that deals with similar issues, but this blog has started to get New Zealanders talking.
Hughes is furious, and blew up in the media.
…”do whatever is necessary to get rid of this website”.
“We will be working 24/7 until that is done,” he said.
While lawyers scrambled to obey, within hours the Social Workers Registration Union put up a press release.
Newspapers have been threatened if they put up the link.And Hughes made good on his threat today, as this becomes the perfect information storm.
Hughes has dispatched lawyers to Google demanding the site be shut down.
Government lawyers have gone to the internet giant Google in their bid to shut down a website that “names and shames” Child, Youth and Family Services social workers.
Auckland lawyer Andrew Tetzlaff, who has acted in the past for a Google subsidiary, confirmed yesterday that Ministry of Social Development lawyers had contacted him because the site had been set up using Google’s Blogger technology.
He said he had no continuing involvement with the company and had simply passed on the ministry’s messages to a Google contact in the United States.
Ministry chief executive Peter Hughes vowed on Tuesday to get rid of the website.
By late yesterday, 44 postings had named 40 CYFS social workers, lawyers and others involved in taking children from their parents. Most postings were from parents, although some were from relatives, friends and children themselves.
There are 81 posts now, and they may not be up much longer.It is entirely possible and probable Google will comply, after all as a private company, they have no dog in this fight. The only people that can really speak up about this are New Zealanders. And in the perfect information storm, different interests, concerns and needs are diverging.
When a government official threatens the media about linking to a site, when they dispatch their legal people to Google with demands for immediate removal, it gets people talking.
Opinions about CYFS Watchblog are understandably mixed, frustration levels are rising, chatter is increasing…
One of the things that disturbs me is that New Zealand does not have an independent review board for the cases mentioned at panic forum and at the watchblog.
Of the 5314 children in care at the end of last June, about half of them are Maori. The Children’s Commissioner received 343 complaints about the service in the year to June and another 56 complaints went to the Ombudsmen.
Many vulnerable families are not getting redress - which is what the watch blog is saying. Contrary to early media reports this week the blog is not run by disgruntled parents, but it is run anonymously. Why it is, is said very starkly on the sidebar.
In the perfect information storm that has kicked up this week, the needs and stories of the children and families could once again be getting lost because a politician wants what he wants when he wants it; and Hughes has made no bones he will use all his power at his disposal to see he gets it.
New Zealand government threatens watchblog
Thursday, January 25th, 2007
by Bene Diction
Politicians put their feet in their mouth every day.
So it takes a fair bit of rhetoric to get my attention.
New Zealand Chief Executive of Ministry of Social Development, Head of CYFS New Zealand, Peter Hughes got my attention with some serious foot in mouth.
And I think he deserves more attention.
Around the world would be nice.
Not just for what he said, but for why he is saying it and what he is doing about it.
It involves a blog that has been up for about a month. It’s raw, it’s anonymous and among other things it posts emails from families that have heartbreaking and enraging encounters with CYFS. It is what is called a name and shame blog.
It is not unlike rate your teacher or rate your doctor, only it’s a lot harder to read because it involves families and children colliding with a bureaucracy.
There is an online forum called panic.org.nz that deals with similar issues, but this blog has started to get New Zealanders talking.
Hughes is furious, and blew up in the media.
…”do whatever is necessary to get rid of this website”.
“We will be working 24/7 until that is done,” he said.
While lawyers scrambled to obey, within hours the Social Workers Registration Union put up a press release.
Newspapers have been threatened if they put up the link.And Hughes made good on his threat today, as this becomes the perfect information storm.
Hughes has dispatched lawyers to Google demanding the site be shut down.
Government lawyers have gone to the internet giant Google in their bid to shut down a website that “names and shames” Child, Youth and Family Services social workers.
Auckland lawyer Andrew Tetzlaff, who has acted in the past for a Google subsidiary, confirmed yesterday that Ministry of Social Development lawyers had contacted him because the site had been set up using Google’s Blogger technology.
He said he had no continuing involvement with the company and had simply passed on the ministry’s messages to a Google contact in the United States.
Ministry chief executive Peter Hughes vowed on Tuesday to get rid of the website.
By late yesterday, 44 postings had named 40 CYFS social workers, lawyers and others involved in taking children from their parents. Most postings were from parents, although some were from relatives, friends and children themselves.
There are 81 posts now, and they may not be up much longer.It is entirely possible and probable Google will comply, after all as a private company, they have no dog in this fight. The only people that can really speak up about this are New Zealanders. And in the perfect information storm, different interests, concerns and needs are diverging.
When a government official threatens the media about linking to a site, when they dispatch their legal people to Google with demands for immediate removal, it gets people talking.
Opinions about CYFS Watchblog are understandably mixed, frustration levels are rising, chatter is increasing…
One of the things that disturbs me is that New Zealand does not have an independent review board for the cases mentioned at panic forum and at the watchblog.
Of the 5314 children in care at the end of last June, about half of them are Maori. The Children’s Commissioner received 343 complaints about the service in the year to June and another 56 complaints went to the Ombudsmen.
Many vulnerable families are not getting redress - which is what the watch blog is saying. Contrary to early media reports this week the blog is not run by disgruntled parents, but it is run anonymously. Why it is, is said very starkly on the sidebar.
In the perfect information storm that has kicked up this week, the needs and stories of the children and families could once again be getting lost because a politician wants what he wants when he wants it; and Hughes has made no bones he will use all his power at his disposal to see he gets it.
And at www.haeusler.co.nz......
As posted from http://haeusler.co.nz/?p=16...... and CYFSWATCH
CYFS and Censorship
Time to get a bit political now, I didn’t really want to have too much political stuff on this blog, but this should be fine.
There is a government department Children, Youth and Family Services, or CYFS, that have been caught out acting in a fairly incompetent fashion, time after time again. A blog has started up with the goal of reporting their activity by naming and shaming those responsible, which is something I think the web is perfect for.
It exposes some fundamental issues that the department needs to address, and the responsible thing to do would be to take some action to improve their services, and the way they do them. Well they have taken action all right, not to try and improve themselves, but by devoting all their (tax-payer funded) resources to shutting down the blog instead! This would be fairly normal for North Korea, China or the US or somewhere, but for a New Zealand government to try and do this is unbelievable and embarrasing.
I am a firm believer in protecting the right of free speech, regardless of whether I agree with it or not, so in this case I am 100% behind the free speech rights of the blog (but not necessarily 100% in agreement with whatever they say) and 100% opposed to the CYFS reaction in this matter.
I guess CYFS are one of those people who believe free speech should have limits. Those people are among those whom I despise the most. Free Speech as a right exists fundamentally to protect ideas that are somewhat removed from the mainstream. Any reason someone can think of for limiting free speech, I say thats the very reason why it needs to be protected so vigorously. This quote I found on another forum says it rather well:
“The right to offend ought be understood as the essence of free speech rather than an exception to it.It’s hard to imagine Free speech, as a principle, arising from a need to protect safe, bland, orthodox, or popular speech.We ought be mindful, too, that freedom of opinion and expression ought entail the right to be and express that you are offended.”
Anyway the blog is here. Aardvark has also been following the case recently.
CYFS and Censorship
Time to get a bit political now, I didn’t really want to have too much political stuff on this blog, but this should be fine.
There is a government department Children, Youth and Family Services, or CYFS, that have been caught out acting in a fairly incompetent fashion, time after time again. A blog has started up with the goal of reporting their activity by naming and shaming those responsible, which is something I think the web is perfect for.
It exposes some fundamental issues that the department needs to address, and the responsible thing to do would be to take some action to improve their services, and the way they do them. Well they have taken action all right, not to try and improve themselves, but by devoting all their (tax-payer funded) resources to shutting down the blog instead! This would be fairly normal for North Korea, China or the US or somewhere, but for a New Zealand government to try and do this is unbelievable and embarrasing.
I am a firm believer in protecting the right of free speech, regardless of whether I agree with it or not, so in this case I am 100% behind the free speech rights of the blog (but not necessarily 100% in agreement with whatever they say) and 100% opposed to the CYFS reaction in this matter.
I guess CYFS are one of those people who believe free speech should have limits. Those people are among those whom I despise the most. Free Speech as a right exists fundamentally to protect ideas that are somewhat removed from the mainstream. Any reason someone can think of for limiting free speech, I say thats the very reason why it needs to be protected so vigorously. This quote I found on another forum says it rather well:
“The right to offend ought be understood as the essence of free speech rather than an exception to it.It’s hard to imagine Free speech, as a principle, arising from a need to protect safe, bland, orthodox, or popular speech.We ought be mindful, too, that freedom of opinion and expression ought entail the right to be and express that you are offended.”
Anyway the blog is here. Aardvark has also been following the case recently.
Time to take advantage of technology?
As posted on CYFSWATCH
Can I make a suggestion based on all the blogs I have read on this site.
With all the microphones and micro-cameras one can buy today, why don't some of the victims on this site record the dealings they are going to have with these scum and post on You-Tube for all to see.
I am sure it would shut the CYFS defenders up once and for all. Maybe one of the main stream media groups will grow some balls (yes we know you will be reading this site) and support someone and help with the gear.
The NZ people need to see and hear the truth. All we need is someone brave enough to let their story be seen in the public eye. I would support anyone who chose to do this as would the NZ public.
Posted by cyfswatch
Can I make a suggestion based on all the blogs I have read on this site.
With all the microphones and micro-cameras one can buy today, why don't some of the victims on this site record the dealings they are going to have with these scum and post on You-Tube for all to see.
I am sure it would shut the CYFS defenders up once and for all. Maybe one of the main stream media groups will grow some balls (yes we know you will be reading this site) and support someone and help with the gear.
The NZ people need to see and hear the truth. All we need is someone brave enough to let their story be seen in the public eye. I would support anyone who chose to do this as would the NZ public.
Posted by cyfswatch
Why an internal Complaints Authority will not work for CYFS.
As posted on CYFSWATCH
The Police Complaints authority is a complete and utter waste of time.
The vast majority of complaints made to it are referred back to the Police 'professional conduct division'.
The police officers who fill this division will:
1. Try to convince you to agree that you complaint was groundless. the formal name for this is conciliation, and in the official report it gives the impression that some form of redress or apology or conciliation has been offered. This is far from the truth, what in fact happens is that police use sophisticated interrogation and manipulation techniques to destroy your confidence in your complaint and to get you to drop it.
2. If you refuse to be 'conciliated' you will be subjected to character assassination and ad hominem attack - your motives will be questioned - and the complaint will be denied. Any lie put forward by the offending officer will be accepted out of hand and your evidence counts for nothing.
3. You have the right to protest this Police investigation of themselves -- and the PCA response will be to refer your response back to the police, and they will get to concoct another series of denials of it all.
4. This carries on until you get sick of it.
5. Even if the PCA does come down on your side the Police can give it 2 fingers as it has no authority over them at all.
These are the stats for complaints from last year taken from the PCA yearly report:
A. Total complaints - 2829
B. Accepted for jurisdiction - 2481
C. Not pursued - 164
D. Sustained or partially sustained - 96
E. Conciliated or not sustained - 563.
The balance are still ongoing.
So in a year, Police accept they were out of line in a whopping 3.8% of cases.
There sure are a heck of a lot of people out there making false complaints aren't there?
How lucky we are to have a police force that can be trusted to investigate themselves eh?
Now, apply the same process to CYFS complaints....................
The Police Complaints authority is a complete and utter waste of time.
The vast majority of complaints made to it are referred back to the Police 'professional conduct division'.
The police officers who fill this division will:
1. Try to convince you to agree that you complaint was groundless. the formal name for this is conciliation, and in the official report it gives the impression that some form of redress or apology or conciliation has been offered. This is far from the truth, what in fact happens is that police use sophisticated interrogation and manipulation techniques to destroy your confidence in your complaint and to get you to drop it.
2. If you refuse to be 'conciliated' you will be subjected to character assassination and ad hominem attack - your motives will be questioned - and the complaint will be denied. Any lie put forward by the offending officer will be accepted out of hand and your evidence counts for nothing.
3. You have the right to protest this Police investigation of themselves -- and the PCA response will be to refer your response back to the police, and they will get to concoct another series of denials of it all.
4. This carries on until you get sick of it.
5. Even if the PCA does come down on your side the Police can give it 2 fingers as it has no authority over them at all.
These are the stats for complaints from last year taken from the PCA yearly report:
A. Total complaints - 2829
B. Accepted for jurisdiction - 2481
C. Not pursued - 164
D. Sustained or partially sustained - 96
E. Conciliated or not sustained - 563.
The balance are still ongoing.
So in a year, Police accept they were out of line in a whopping 3.8% of cases.
There sure are a heck of a lot of people out there making false complaints aren't there?
How lucky we are to have a police force that can be trusted to investigate themselves eh?
Now, apply the same process to CYFS complaints....................
CYFSWATCH currently negotiating with Google regards CYFSWATCH posts.
As posted on CYFSWATCH
Hi Blogger team,
Our team is more than willing to work within the guidelines - its just that it is very difficult for us to make any amends to our postings, if Blogger Support don't first inform us of what amendments need to be made, and to what postings. Simply whipping off postings from our blog keeps us ignorant of what changes may need to be made.
In future, could we ask that you advise us as to which posts you receive complaints about, the nature of the complaints, and the amendments you wish to be made to a particular posting? That way, we will at least have the opportunity to act on the complaint. Alternatively, please feel free to forward any complaints to us, and we can deal with them directly?
We would also add that we have received no information whatsoever that any of our postings are outside the gambit of NZ or US law. We accept that Blogger support may make subjective judgements about posts, however we would again request that, should any complaints be made, we at least have the opportunity to rectify the issue ourselves.
Thanks.
CYFSWATCH.
>From: "Blogger Help"
>To: "cyfswatch cyfswatch"
>Subject: Re: [#109137887] Blogger TOS Violation- content removed
>Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:52:06 -0800
>
>Hello,
>
Thanks for your reply. As described in Blogger's Terms of Service(available at http://www2.blogger.com/terms.g), we reserve the right to remove posts or blogs, or to terminate accounts, that violate Blogger's content or member conduct policies. When we receive complaints that a post appears to violate the privacy of others by, for example, publishing non-public personal information like residential addresses, we remove the post. Likewise, we may remove posts that appear to threaten actual harm to specific individuals.
To the extent that you're able to remedy these violations by modifying the posts or otherwise addressing these violations, the Blogger team will not take any further action to enforce its Terms of Service. But please be advised that repeated violation of our policies may result not only in the removal of specific posts but also in the termination of your account and deletion of the entire blog.
We trust that this addresses your concerns.
Sincerely,
The Blogger Team
Original Message Follows:
>------------------------
>From: "cyfswatch cyfswatch"
>Subject: RE: [#109137887] Blogger TOS Violation- content removed
>Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 14:01:16 +1300
>
>
>Dear Blogger Support,
On what grounds in New Zealand law does any post on www.cyfswatch.blogspot.com breach your TOS? Such alleged breaches would have to be proved in a NZ Court of Law, or a US Court of Law depending on relevant jurisdiction.
Please therefore re-list any posts you may have removed.
CYFSWATCH
>
>>From: "Blogger Help"
> >To: cyfswatch@hotmail.com
> >Subject: [#109137887] Blogger TOS Violation- content removed
> >Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:04:57 -0800
> >
Hello,
We'd like to inform you that we've received a complaint regarding your blog cyfswatch.blogspot.com. Upon review, we've noted that your blog is not in compliance with Blogger Terms of Service(http://beta.blogger.com/terms.g). As a result, we've been forced to remove the infringing posts from your blog.
Thank you for your understanding.
Sincerely,
The Blogger Team
Hi Blogger team,
Our team is more than willing to work within the guidelines - its just that it is very difficult for us to make any amends to our postings, if Blogger Support don't first inform us of what amendments need to be made, and to what postings. Simply whipping off postings from our blog keeps us ignorant of what changes may need to be made.
In future, could we ask that you advise us as to which posts you receive complaints about, the nature of the complaints, and the amendments you wish to be made to a particular posting? That way, we will at least have the opportunity to act on the complaint. Alternatively, please feel free to forward any complaints to us, and we can deal with them directly?
We would also add that we have received no information whatsoever that any of our postings are outside the gambit of NZ or US law. We accept that Blogger support may make subjective judgements about posts, however we would again request that, should any complaints be made, we at least have the opportunity to rectify the issue ourselves.
Thanks.
CYFSWATCH.
>From: "Blogger Help"
>To: "cyfswatch cyfswatch"
>Subject: Re: [#109137887] Blogger TOS Violation- content removed
>Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:52:06 -0800
>
>Hello,
>
Thanks for your reply. As described in Blogger's Terms of Service(available at http://www2.blogger.com/terms.g), we reserve the right to remove posts or blogs, or to terminate accounts, that violate Blogger's content or member conduct policies. When we receive complaints that a post appears to violate the privacy of others by, for example, publishing non-public personal information like residential addresses, we remove the post. Likewise, we may remove posts that appear to threaten actual harm to specific individuals.
To the extent that you're able to remedy these violations by modifying the posts or otherwise addressing these violations, the Blogger team will not take any further action to enforce its Terms of Service. But please be advised that repeated violation of our policies may result not only in the removal of specific posts but also in the termination of your account and deletion of the entire blog.
We trust that this addresses your concerns.
Sincerely,
The Blogger Team
Original Message Follows:
>------------------------
>From: "cyfswatch cyfswatch"
>Subject: RE: [#109137887] Blogger TOS Violation- content removed
>Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 14:01:16 +1300
>
>
>Dear Blogger Support,
On what grounds in New Zealand law does any post on www.cyfswatch.blogspot.com breach your TOS? Such alleged breaches would have to be proved in a NZ Court of Law, or a US Court of Law depending on relevant jurisdiction.
Please therefore re-list any posts you may have removed.
CYFSWATCH
>
>>From: "Blogger Help"
> >To: cyfswatch@hotmail.com
> >Subject: [#109137887] Blogger TOS Violation- content removed
> >Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:04:57 -0800
> >
Hello,
We'd like to inform you that we've received a complaint regarding your blog cyfswatch.blogspot.com. Upon review, we've noted that your blog is not in compliance with Blogger Terms of Service(http://beta.blogger.com/terms.g). As a result, we've been forced to remove the infringing posts from your blog.
Thank you for your understanding.
Sincerely,
The Blogger Team
Latest CYFSWATCH media report (Newstalk ZB, TV3).
As posted on CYFSWATCH
Threatening Internet post deleted - then re-posted5/02/2007 15:12:03
A battle of wills is underway in Cyberspace.
Internet giant Google has deleted a threatening post on the controversial name and shame CYFSwatch website.
However the website has flouted internet protocol and re-posted the item.
The deleted item contained threats to social workers - with the writer saying they would be "watching and waiting and never far behind"
Internet specialist, David Farrar, says Google was right to delete it, and flouting Google's terms and conditions may result in the website being shut down.
Mr Farrar says, although many are sympathetic to the grievances aired on the blog sit, there is a limit to what Google can accept.
Threatening Internet post deleted - then re-posted5/02/2007 15:12:03
A battle of wills is underway in Cyberspace.
Internet giant Google has deleted a threatening post on the controversial name and shame CYFSwatch website.
However the website has flouted internet protocol and re-posted the item.
The deleted item contained threats to social workers - with the writer saying they would be "watching and waiting and never far behind"
Internet specialist, David Farrar, says Google was right to delete it, and flouting Google's terms and conditions may result in the website being shut down.
Mr Farrar says, although many are sympathetic to the grievances aired on the blog sit, there is a limit to what Google can accept.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
How Parliament deals with complaints about CYFS.
As posted on CYFSWATCH
CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been made.
CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been upheld.
CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been made by falsely accused parents or caregivers.
CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been made as a result of malicious or vexatious notifications.
CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been made by parents who are involved in custody or divorce proceedings.
CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been made about registered social workers.
CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been made about unqualified social workers.
CYF doesn't know how many social workers have been disciplined as a result of complaints made about them.
CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been made about managers.
CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been misplaced/lost.
CYF doesn't know how many complaints are waiting to be investigated.
CYF doesn't know why they don't have national statistics on complaints.
Don't they use Key Performance Indicators for their managers?
Shouldn't the KPI's include accurate information about client satisfaction?
Aren't complaints procedures an important method of discovering gaps in service shortfalls?
Aren't complaints about staff linked to Human Resource records?
All of the above queries could be easily answered after a week's work by a competent SQL analyst/programmer.
Could the minister be prevaricating?
5 months ago in Parliament . . .
Questions And Answers -Thursday, 24 August 2006
Thursday, 24 August 2006, 6:03 pm
Press Release: Office of the Clerk
Child, Youth and Family—Complaints
3. JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): Does Child, Youth and Family record the number of complaints received from those who feel unfairly treated by the actions, procedures, or decisions of the department; if so, how many complaints have been received in the last 5 years?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): I am advised that all complaints that the department receives are thoroughly investigated, but currently there is no central database that captures all complaints made to Child, Youth and Family staff.
Judy Turner: Does she agree that Child, Youth and Family should be accountable to an organisation outside itself, given its statutory powers; if so, will she support the call of United Future to establish an independent complaints authority for Child, Youth and Family?
Hon RUTH DYSON: I certainly agree that the actions of Child, Youth and Family staff, like all other public servants, should be accountable. In terms of the latter part of the member's question, I am certainly prepared to review existing pathways for complaints to be made—for example, the Social Workers Registration Board, the Office of the Ombudsmen, the Privacy Commissioner, the Human Rights Commission, and any others—and will discuss the outcomes of those considerations with the member.
Georgina Beyer: What is Child, Youth and Family doing to strengthen its complaints procedures?
Hon RUTH DYSON: I am pleased to advise that work is under way to develop a new national database that will ensure that complaints can be collated centrally. The database is just one of the benefits we are seeing as a result of the merger between Child, Youth and Family Services and the Ministry of Social Development.
Judy Turner: Is the Minister aware that the Police Complaints Authority—for which the Child, Youth and Family's equivalent could be considered comparable—costs approximately $2.1 million per year, yet its effect on public confidence and accountability is considered priceless; and, if so, is not a Child, Youth and Family complaints authority a very small cost for a very significant and necessary benefit for parents and families?
Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I am familiar with those figures and I will certainly take that information into consideration when undertaking the existing complaints pathways review.
END OF QUESTIONS ABOUT CYFS COMPLAINTS
CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been made.
CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been upheld.
CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been made by falsely accused parents or caregivers.
CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been made as a result of malicious or vexatious notifications.
CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been made by parents who are involved in custody or divorce proceedings.
CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been made about registered social workers.
CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been made about unqualified social workers.
CYF doesn't know how many social workers have been disciplined as a result of complaints made about them.
CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been made about managers.
CYF doesn't know how many complaints have been misplaced/lost.
CYF doesn't know how many complaints are waiting to be investigated.
CYF doesn't know why they don't have national statistics on complaints.
Don't they use Key Performance Indicators for their managers?
Shouldn't the KPI's include accurate information about client satisfaction?
Aren't complaints procedures an important method of discovering gaps in service shortfalls?
Aren't complaints about staff linked to Human Resource records?
All of the above queries could be easily answered after a week's work by a competent SQL analyst/programmer.
Could the minister be prevaricating?
5 months ago in Parliament . . .
Questions And Answers -Thursday, 24 August 2006
Thursday, 24 August 2006, 6:03 pm
Press Release: Office of the Clerk
Child, Youth and Family—Complaints
3. JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): Does Child, Youth and Family record the number of complaints received from those who feel unfairly treated by the actions, procedures, or decisions of the department; if so, how many complaints have been received in the last 5 years?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): I am advised that all complaints that the department receives are thoroughly investigated, but currently there is no central database that captures all complaints made to Child, Youth and Family staff.
Judy Turner: Does she agree that Child, Youth and Family should be accountable to an organisation outside itself, given its statutory powers; if so, will she support the call of United Future to establish an independent complaints authority for Child, Youth and Family?
Hon RUTH DYSON: I certainly agree that the actions of Child, Youth and Family staff, like all other public servants, should be accountable. In terms of the latter part of the member's question, I am certainly prepared to review existing pathways for complaints to be made—for example, the Social Workers Registration Board, the Office of the Ombudsmen, the Privacy Commissioner, the Human Rights Commission, and any others—and will discuss the outcomes of those considerations with the member.
Georgina Beyer: What is Child, Youth and Family doing to strengthen its complaints procedures?
Hon RUTH DYSON: I am pleased to advise that work is under way to develop a new national database that will ensure that complaints can be collated centrally. The database is just one of the benefits we are seeing as a result of the merger between Child, Youth and Family Services and the Ministry of Social Development.
Judy Turner: Is the Minister aware that the Police Complaints Authority—for which the Child, Youth and Family's equivalent could be considered comparable—costs approximately $2.1 million per year, yet its effect on public confidence and accountability is considered priceless; and, if so, is not a Child, Youth and Family complaints authority a very small cost for a very significant and necessary benefit for parents and families?
Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I am familiar with those figures and I will certainly take that information into consideration when undertaking the existing complaints pathways review.
END OF QUESTIONS ABOUT CYFS COMPLAINTS
Friday, February 02, 2007
Message from CYFSWATCH
As posted on CYFSWATCH
* 203 posts in 1.5 weeks;
* 96 CYFS Social Workers / CYFS Caregivers named and shamed;
* 83% public support for CYFSWATCH remining live;
* Over 60 copies of the CYFSWATCH site downloaded in New Zealand and around the world;
* Website and blog links to CYFSWATCH both nationally and internationally;
* Registered SWRB Social Workers revealed as appalling interventionists;* Other "name and shame" blogsites started in the past week;
* Attempts by well resourced Government agency to shut CYFSWATCH down failed;* Open, uncensored, non-PC debates between CYFS Social Workers and clients;
* Massive multi-level media commentary on CYFSWATCH;
* Not a peep from any Government MP, either in power or on the Opposition benches.
PEOPLE, WE THINK YOU HAVE JUST GOT YOUR POWER BACK.
CYFSWATCH
* 203 posts in 1.5 weeks;
* 96 CYFS Social Workers / CYFS Caregivers named and shamed;
* 83% public support for CYFSWATCH remining live;
* Over 60 copies of the CYFSWATCH site downloaded in New Zealand and around the world;
* Website and blog links to CYFSWATCH both nationally and internationally;
* Registered SWRB Social Workers revealed as appalling interventionists;* Other "name and shame" blogsites started in the past week;
* Attempts by well resourced Government agency to shut CYFSWATCH down failed;* Open, uncensored, non-PC debates between CYFS Social Workers and clients;
* Massive multi-level media commentary on CYFSWATCH;
* Not a peep from any Government MP, either in power or on the Opposition benches.
PEOPLE, WE THINK YOU HAVE JUST GOT YOUR POWER BACK.
CYFSWATCH
Friday, January 26, 2007
Message to others who share our cause - copy the CYFSWATCH Site NOW in case we are shut down.
As posted from CYFSWATCH
In the event of CYFSWATCH being shut down by the Ministry of Social Development or CYFS, CYFSWATCH encourages anyone who shares our cause to copy the CYFS website material in total, and then email CYFSWATCH at cyfswatch@hotmail.com to advise that you have the copy. CYFSWATCH will then set up another blogsite, collect the material, and relaunch the site. CYFSWATCH is also copying all material as it is posted, however if our systems are seized by the police, we will need to have people out there who have the hard copy material for re-launch purposes.
CYFSWATCH.
In the event of CYFSWATCH being shut down by the Ministry of Social Development or CYFS, CYFSWATCH encourages anyone who shares our cause to copy the CYFS website material in total, and then email CYFSWATCH at cyfswatch@hotmail.com to advise that you have the copy. CYFSWATCH will then set up another blogsite, collect the material, and relaunch the site. CYFSWATCH is also copying all material as it is posted, however if our systems are seized by the police, we will need to have people out there who have the hard copy material for re-launch purposes.
CYFSWATCH.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
CYFS, you can't beat the Net - another tragic story.
Posted from www.aardvark.co.nz & CYFSWATCH
CYF, you can't beat the Net
24 January 2007
The website currently highlighting concerns over the culture of arrogance that seems pervasive within the government's CYF agency is now the focus of intense legal pressure.
According to NZ Herald reports, the Ministry of Social Development CEO Peter Hughes has told taxpayer-funded lawyers to "do whatever is necessary to get rid of this website" and claims "we will be working 24/7 until that is done.
Well I've got bad news for Peter, this kind of stormtrooper tactic simply is not going to work when it comes to suppressing material on the Net.
Clearly Mr Hughes lacks even the most basic understanding of how the technology, and more importantly -- the culture of the Net actually work.s
The concept of a government (or agency thereof) suppressing fact, opinion or open discussion through the rule of law has long since disappeared in the 21st century -- it just can't be done.
And today, I'm telling my story of the way CYF wastes taxpayer's money while indulging in bullying, blocking and decidedly unprofessional tactics.
As I mentioned yesterday, my teenage daughter found herself unexpectedly pregnant last year and decided that it would be in the best interests of the child, herself and some childless couple that an adoption be organised.
Now I have to say that this was a very brave and selfless decision on her part, in an era when adoptions have fallen to an all-time low and there's almost a stigma surrounding anyone who'd give up their child in this way.
However, there's just no way that a 19-year-old, in the middle of her education and without any job or other independent means of support could really give a child the opportunities and quality parenting that such kids need to grow up as positive members of society -- and she knew this.
My partner and I were in no position to contribute to the upbringing of such a child but towards the end of the pregnancy, we became aware (through friends) of a couple who would make ideal adoptive parents.
Now this would seem to be a win-win-win situation for the baby, my daughter and the otherwise childless couple involved.
This couple came highly recommended by friends and after examining their own situation and establishing that they were good people who'd simply been dealt a tough hand by mother nature, everyone appeared happy.
What's more, this couple had already applied to adopt children and had thus been carefully vetted by the relevant authorities -- what could go wrong?
Well the answer to that was (of course) CYF.
We figured that the best way to handle the whole matter was for the adoptive parents to roll up to the hospital during the delivery and take the child home with them as soon as it was declared fit and healthy.
This would avoid the situation where the mother's hormones kick in and subsequently create a strong bonding emotion with the child.
But CYF said no.
Their "policy", we were told, was that the birth mother should look after the child for a period of almost two weeks before it could be handed over to the adoptive parents.
Now this seemed utterly stupid to all concerned. Why force a birth mother into the situation where she will inevitably form a strong bond with the child before they are separated? Why make the adoptive parents wait such an interminable length of time with the threat that the birth-mother will be overwhelmed by hormones and bonding to the point where she changes her mind.
It should be mentioned right now that there is no law that forbids the adoptive parents from collecting the child from the delivery room, none at all. It's quite legal for them to do so -- but it's CYF "policy" that this must never happen.
When I asked CYF what would happen if we allowed the adoptive parents to do this the threats started rolling out.
If my daughter handed over the child in this way, CYF would oppose the adoption and a placement order would be denied. The child would be taken from the adoptive parents and placed into a home of CYF's selection.
This was made extremely clear -- if you don't adhere to our "policy" (which is *not* the law) then the child, your daughter and the adoptive parents will pay the price.
At this stage I asked why this was CYF policy.
We were told that it was because the mother needed a reasonable period of time in which to change her mind after the birth.
I pointed out that right now (before the birth) my daughter was thinking rationally, reasonably and logically. Whether that frame of mind would persist after many hours of labour and a flood of hormones was unpredictable - and that being made to care for that child over a two-week period would almost certainly confuse and complicate issues to the point where her decision-making abilities may well be compromised.
Was this in the best interests of the child?
Indeed, I asked just that question -- and got this rather stunning response:
"The United Nations has declared that the best place for a child is with its parents and if that's not possible, with family. If that's not possible then it's with someone of their own race in their own country and if that's not possible, it's adoption to a foreign country".
What the hell?
I asked why the CYF person was telling me what the UN was deciding was best for my daughter and her soon to be born child.
She repeated this little bit of canned prose "The United Nations has declared...
" Yes, it was brick-wall time!
So I asked to speak to her supervisor.
Exactly the same "I'm sorry but this is our policy and you have no choice" attitude was encountered.
I then moved further up the chain...
You guessed it -- those I'd spoken to earlier were 100% correct, this is CYF policy. Even though you may be legally entitled to hand over the child at the delivery room, it's against our policy and we will take the child if you do.
I also asked whether it would be possible for someone else to look after the child for those first couple of weeks prior to hand-over.
That would be fine I was told, it's only the (already approved) adoptive parents who couldn't do this without breaching CYF policy.
"So *anyone* else can look after the child? Even someone we just picked at random off the street?"
"Yes, that's right -- although I wouldn't recommend that" was the reply.
Hang on a minute. According to CYF policy, I could haul some potential paedophile or murderer off the street, hand over my daughter's child for two weeks and leave them to care for it -- and that's okay with CYF.
It's no wonder so many of our most defenseless kids have been abused or slaughtered while in CYF's "care" if this is their attitude.
I should mention that all during this time, we had another CYF worker trying to convince my daughter to keep her child and go on the DPB, like so many other young solo mothers.
"Why not keep the child, the government will pay you a good benefit and you can bring it up yourself?" was the message being regularly delivered here.
I thought CYF was supposed to be non-judgmental and unbiased in respect to a parent's choices?
Maybe I'm old-school or just stupid, but isn't it better that a child be brought up in a loving, caring two-parent home where there it gets a good chance at life?
Doesn't it make sense that my daughter continue her education and become a positive contributor to society rather than a drain on the public purse for the next 16 years as a solo mother, struggling to provide a balanced upbringing to her child?
At this point my partner and I decided that we had no option but to care for this child during those first couple of weeks. Now you might think that this should have been our first option anyway -- but we are/were on the bones of our arse so having my missus take two weeks off work immediately before Christmas was a major problem.
I asked CYF "If this child were placed in a CYF home for those two weeks, would that home get some kind of financial support?"
"Yes" I was told.
"So if my partner and I have no option but to care for this child for two weeks, will we get any compensation for the costs and lost income involved?"
"No" I was informed, "you are family".
Me: "What if I dragged someone off the street?"
CYF: "They could apply for assistance during that period"
I then asked "if the child were taken into CYF care for those two weeks, could you guarantee me that it wouldn't end up becoming just another victim of that care in the way that too many others have?"
CYF: "What do you mean?"
Me: "I mean abused, or killed while in CYF care"
"Yes, I can guarantee that" I was assured.
Me: "How can you guarantee that, will you be looking after it yourself?"
CYF: "No, but our carers are all approved by the department"
Me: "Were the 'carers' of those other kids that were abused or killed approved?"
CYF: "Yes"
Me: "So what's changed? How can you possibly guarantee the safety of my grandkid then?"
At which point I was told that the conversation was going nowhere and that if I wasn't happy with the department's stance, attitude or policy I should take it up with the Commissioner for Children or the minister.
That's my rather unpleasant dealing with CYF.
They *do* bully people.
They *do* threaten people.
They are interested only in following policy and seemingly unconcerned with the best interests of anyone but themselves.
They *did* say my daughter could give her child to *anyone* (even a potential paedophile or murderer) to care for -- but refused to allow the already approved adoptive parents to do so during that first couple of weeks.
Escalating complaints and concerns within CYF gets you absolutely no where, the higher you go, the greater the obstruction.
I now know why there are so very few adoptions these days and why so many young women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant are forced into becoming solo mothers or having abortions. The amount of pressure applied to such women to become a burden on the taxpayer is intense -- they are made to feel as if they are bad people if they don't keep their kid and go on the DPB.
It's no wonder we have such a problem with youth crime when so many young women are forced into the role of parent by this pressure, at a time when they are totally unprepared and often unwilling.
Is this what we pay our taxes for?
Is this what CYF is really about? It would appear so.
Fortunately, all has ended well -- in spite of CYF, certainly not because of them.
My partner and I looked after the kid for a couple of weeks although, because my daughter was living with us, it became an intensely difficult and emotional job to give up the child. I curse CYF and their "policy" enforced under threat of "confiscation" for causing such heartache and grief so unnecessarily.
Our family is still trying to recover from the financial burden that the loss of income and other factors have created in the wake of what should have been a very simple, straight-forward and happy event.
The adoption is an open one, my daughter is able to visit her son and will always be known to him as his birth mother. The adoptive parents are over-the-moon with their lives and the child is thriving with their care and attention. I wonder what the outcome would have been if he'd gone into CYF's "care" or my daughter had been brainwashed into dropping out of her education and living in a one-bedroomed flat while trying to bring him up herself?
So I am pleased that someone else has also had the guts to raise these issues but I remain pessimistic that anything will change as a result.
Rather than admit their wrongdoings and culture of arrogance, CYF seems more interested in using an army of lawyers to suppress the truth and the revelations provided by those who have been CYF victims.
Thank God we live in an age when technology is stronger than a bunch of bureaucrats who have utterly failed in their duty of responsibility.
CYF, wake up! Put outcome *ahead* of policy and everyone will be better off.
Even if you were tempted to believe that the people on the CYFWatch blog site are simply whining unreasonably, I trust that regular Aardvark readers will consider my story to be an objective and honest representation of my own family's experiences with this "out of control" government agency.
I'm not publishing names, registration numbers, addresses or anything but that's only because I don't think it would make a single scrap of difference. Although each individual should be held accountable for their actions, the most important thing is (as with the IRD) to get rid of this culture of arrogance and abuse of public money and rights. CYF should remember -- it is not *you* who are important, it's the people you are supposed to serve!
And tomorrow we will return to our normal programme :-)
CYF, you can't beat the Net
24 January 2007
The website currently highlighting concerns over the culture of arrogance that seems pervasive within the government's CYF agency is now the focus of intense legal pressure.
According to NZ Herald reports, the Ministry of Social Development CEO Peter Hughes has told taxpayer-funded lawyers to "do whatever is necessary to get rid of this website" and claims "we will be working 24/7 until that is done.
Well I've got bad news for Peter, this kind of stormtrooper tactic simply is not going to work when it comes to suppressing material on the Net.
Clearly Mr Hughes lacks even the most basic understanding of how the technology, and more importantly -- the culture of the Net actually work.s
The concept of a government (or agency thereof) suppressing fact, opinion or open discussion through the rule of law has long since disappeared in the 21st century -- it just can't be done.
And today, I'm telling my story of the way CYF wastes taxpayer's money while indulging in bullying, blocking and decidedly unprofessional tactics.
As I mentioned yesterday, my teenage daughter found herself unexpectedly pregnant last year and decided that it would be in the best interests of the child, herself and some childless couple that an adoption be organised.
Now I have to say that this was a very brave and selfless decision on her part, in an era when adoptions have fallen to an all-time low and there's almost a stigma surrounding anyone who'd give up their child in this way.
However, there's just no way that a 19-year-old, in the middle of her education and without any job or other independent means of support could really give a child the opportunities and quality parenting that such kids need to grow up as positive members of society -- and she knew this.
My partner and I were in no position to contribute to the upbringing of such a child but towards the end of the pregnancy, we became aware (through friends) of a couple who would make ideal adoptive parents.
Now this would seem to be a win-win-win situation for the baby, my daughter and the otherwise childless couple involved.
This couple came highly recommended by friends and after examining their own situation and establishing that they were good people who'd simply been dealt a tough hand by mother nature, everyone appeared happy.
What's more, this couple had already applied to adopt children and had thus been carefully vetted by the relevant authorities -- what could go wrong?
Well the answer to that was (of course) CYF.
We figured that the best way to handle the whole matter was for the adoptive parents to roll up to the hospital during the delivery and take the child home with them as soon as it was declared fit and healthy.
This would avoid the situation where the mother's hormones kick in and subsequently create a strong bonding emotion with the child.
But CYF said no.
Their "policy", we were told, was that the birth mother should look after the child for a period of almost two weeks before it could be handed over to the adoptive parents.
Now this seemed utterly stupid to all concerned. Why force a birth mother into the situation where she will inevitably form a strong bond with the child before they are separated? Why make the adoptive parents wait such an interminable length of time with the threat that the birth-mother will be overwhelmed by hormones and bonding to the point where she changes her mind.
It should be mentioned right now that there is no law that forbids the adoptive parents from collecting the child from the delivery room, none at all. It's quite legal for them to do so -- but it's CYF "policy" that this must never happen.
When I asked CYF what would happen if we allowed the adoptive parents to do this the threats started rolling out.
If my daughter handed over the child in this way, CYF would oppose the adoption and a placement order would be denied. The child would be taken from the adoptive parents and placed into a home of CYF's selection.
This was made extremely clear -- if you don't adhere to our "policy" (which is *not* the law) then the child, your daughter and the adoptive parents will pay the price.
At this stage I asked why this was CYF policy.
We were told that it was because the mother needed a reasonable period of time in which to change her mind after the birth.
I pointed out that right now (before the birth) my daughter was thinking rationally, reasonably and logically. Whether that frame of mind would persist after many hours of labour and a flood of hormones was unpredictable - and that being made to care for that child over a two-week period would almost certainly confuse and complicate issues to the point where her decision-making abilities may well be compromised.
Was this in the best interests of the child?
Indeed, I asked just that question -- and got this rather stunning response:
"The United Nations has declared that the best place for a child is with its parents and if that's not possible, with family. If that's not possible then it's with someone of their own race in their own country and if that's not possible, it's adoption to a foreign country".
What the hell?
I asked why the CYF person was telling me what the UN was deciding was best for my daughter and her soon to be born child.
She repeated this little bit of canned prose "The United Nations has declared...
" Yes, it was brick-wall time!
So I asked to speak to her supervisor.
Exactly the same "I'm sorry but this is our policy and you have no choice" attitude was encountered.
I then moved further up the chain...
You guessed it -- those I'd spoken to earlier were 100% correct, this is CYF policy. Even though you may be legally entitled to hand over the child at the delivery room, it's against our policy and we will take the child if you do.
I also asked whether it would be possible for someone else to look after the child for those first couple of weeks prior to hand-over.
That would be fine I was told, it's only the (already approved) adoptive parents who couldn't do this without breaching CYF policy.
"So *anyone* else can look after the child? Even someone we just picked at random off the street?"
"Yes, that's right -- although I wouldn't recommend that" was the reply.
Hang on a minute. According to CYF policy, I could haul some potential paedophile or murderer off the street, hand over my daughter's child for two weeks and leave them to care for it -- and that's okay with CYF.
It's no wonder so many of our most defenseless kids have been abused or slaughtered while in CYF's "care" if this is their attitude.
I should mention that all during this time, we had another CYF worker trying to convince my daughter to keep her child and go on the DPB, like so many other young solo mothers.
"Why not keep the child, the government will pay you a good benefit and you can bring it up yourself?" was the message being regularly delivered here.
I thought CYF was supposed to be non-judgmental and unbiased in respect to a parent's choices?
Maybe I'm old-school or just stupid, but isn't it better that a child be brought up in a loving, caring two-parent home where there it gets a good chance at life?
Doesn't it make sense that my daughter continue her education and become a positive contributor to society rather than a drain on the public purse for the next 16 years as a solo mother, struggling to provide a balanced upbringing to her child?
At this point my partner and I decided that we had no option but to care for this child during those first couple of weeks. Now you might think that this should have been our first option anyway -- but we are/were on the bones of our arse so having my missus take two weeks off work immediately before Christmas was a major problem.
I asked CYF "If this child were placed in a CYF home for those two weeks, would that home get some kind of financial support?"
"Yes" I was told.
"So if my partner and I have no option but to care for this child for two weeks, will we get any compensation for the costs and lost income involved?"
"No" I was informed, "you are family".
Me: "What if I dragged someone off the street?"
CYF: "They could apply for assistance during that period"
I then asked "if the child were taken into CYF care for those two weeks, could you guarantee me that it wouldn't end up becoming just another victim of that care in the way that too many others have?"
CYF: "What do you mean?"
Me: "I mean abused, or killed while in CYF care"
"Yes, I can guarantee that" I was assured.
Me: "How can you guarantee that, will you be looking after it yourself?"
CYF: "No, but our carers are all approved by the department"
Me: "Were the 'carers' of those other kids that were abused or killed approved?"
CYF: "Yes"
Me: "So what's changed? How can you possibly guarantee the safety of my grandkid then?"
At which point I was told that the conversation was going nowhere and that if I wasn't happy with the department's stance, attitude or policy I should take it up with the Commissioner for Children or the minister.
That's my rather unpleasant dealing with CYF.
They *do* bully people.
They *do* threaten people.
They are interested only in following policy and seemingly unconcerned with the best interests of anyone but themselves.
They *did* say my daughter could give her child to *anyone* (even a potential paedophile or murderer) to care for -- but refused to allow the already approved adoptive parents to do so during that first couple of weeks.
Escalating complaints and concerns within CYF gets you absolutely no where, the higher you go, the greater the obstruction.
I now know why there are so very few adoptions these days and why so many young women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant are forced into becoming solo mothers or having abortions. The amount of pressure applied to such women to become a burden on the taxpayer is intense -- they are made to feel as if they are bad people if they don't keep their kid and go on the DPB.
It's no wonder we have such a problem with youth crime when so many young women are forced into the role of parent by this pressure, at a time when they are totally unprepared and often unwilling.
Is this what we pay our taxes for?
Is this what CYF is really about? It would appear so.
Fortunately, all has ended well -- in spite of CYF, certainly not because of them.
My partner and I looked after the kid for a couple of weeks although, because my daughter was living with us, it became an intensely difficult and emotional job to give up the child. I curse CYF and their "policy" enforced under threat of "confiscation" for causing such heartache and grief so unnecessarily.
Our family is still trying to recover from the financial burden that the loss of income and other factors have created in the wake of what should have been a very simple, straight-forward and happy event.
The adoption is an open one, my daughter is able to visit her son and will always be known to him as his birth mother. The adoptive parents are over-the-moon with their lives and the child is thriving with their care and attention. I wonder what the outcome would have been if he'd gone into CYF's "care" or my daughter had been brainwashed into dropping out of her education and living in a one-bedroomed flat while trying to bring him up herself?
So I am pleased that someone else has also had the guts to raise these issues but I remain pessimistic that anything will change as a result.
Rather than admit their wrongdoings and culture of arrogance, CYF seems more interested in using an army of lawyers to suppress the truth and the revelations provided by those who have been CYF victims.
Thank God we live in an age when technology is stronger than a bunch of bureaucrats who have utterly failed in their duty of responsibility.
CYF, wake up! Put outcome *ahead* of policy and everyone will be better off.
Even if you were tempted to believe that the people on the CYFWatch blog site are simply whining unreasonably, I trust that regular Aardvark readers will consider my story to be an objective and honest representation of my own family's experiences with this "out of control" government agency.
I'm not publishing names, registration numbers, addresses or anything but that's only because I don't think it would make a single scrap of difference. Although each individual should be held accountable for their actions, the most important thing is (as with the IRD) to get rid of this culture of arrogance and abuse of public money and rights. CYF should remember -- it is not *you* who are important, it's the people you are supposed to serve!
And tomorrow we will return to our normal programme :-)
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Family defends CYF criticism
Family defends CYF criticism
A west Auckland family is defending its decision to criticise Child Youth and Family on a website.
The website has posted personal information and criticisms of Child Youth and Family staff and is being condemned by Social Development Ministry bosses.
Craig Martin, whose son Patrick died while in CYF care four years ago, says writing on the website is a final attempt to get some kind of closure. He says no one has been held responsible for the death and the website has enabled his family to lay the blame at the feet of those he believes are responsible.
Mr Martin says his family never got a chance to fight for Patrick while he was alive and will continue to fight for justice.
A west Auckland family is defending its decision to criticise Child Youth and Family on a website.
The website has posted personal information and criticisms of Child Youth and Family staff and is being condemned by Social Development Ministry bosses.
Craig Martin, whose son Patrick died while in CYF care four years ago, says writing on the website is a final attempt to get some kind of closure. He says no one has been held responsible for the death and the website has enabled his family to lay the blame at the feet of those he believes are responsible.
Mr Martin says his family never got a chance to fight for Patrick while he was alive and will continue to fight for justice.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
CYF to Gag Name-and-Shame Site
As Posted on FreeSpeech.org.nz
Lindsay Mitchell is reporting (UPDATE: So is NZPA) that Ministry of Social Development CEO Peter Hughes has “instructed lawyers to work 24/7 doing whatever they have to, to shut down the CYFS Watch blogsite.”
CYFSWatch is a controversial new blog that is attempting to hold Child, Youth and Family staff accountable for their allegedly destructive actions by publishing ‘name-and-shame’ articles about the individuals involved in various cases.
CYF is likely to be under pressure from the PSA, its staff’s union, to do something about the site, which is threatening to publish the personal details of CYF staff including photographs and home addresses.
If the allegations made on the site are true then the authors have every right to publish them, however “robust” you might find their methods. If not, the answer is not for an arm of the government to shut down the site but to sue the authors for libel although, given their anonymity, that could prove difficult.
It will be interesting to see what CYF does here and, if it comes down to it, whether Google (Blogger’s owner) will do the government’s dirty work and censor the site. Given the nature of the Internet, any information that is censored will no doubt just pop up somewhere else.
Lindsay Mitchell is reporting (UPDATE: So is NZPA) that Ministry of Social Development CEO Peter Hughes has “instructed lawyers to work 24/7 doing whatever they have to, to shut down the CYFS Watch blogsite.”
CYFSWatch is a controversial new blog that is attempting to hold Child, Youth and Family staff accountable for their allegedly destructive actions by publishing ‘name-and-shame’ articles about the individuals involved in various cases.
CYF is likely to be under pressure from the PSA, its staff’s union, to do something about the site, which is threatening to publish the personal details of CYF staff including photographs and home addresses.
If the allegations made on the site are true then the authors have every right to publish them, however “robust” you might find their methods. If not, the answer is not for an arm of the government to shut down the site but to sue the authors for libel although, given their anonymity, that could prove difficult.
It will be interesting to see what CYF does here and, if it comes down to it, whether Google (Blogger’s owner) will do the government’s dirty work and censor the site. Given the nature of the Internet, any information that is censored will no doubt just pop up somewhere else.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Gold Diggers Are Alive and Well in 2006
Gold Diggers Are Alive and Well in 2006
By Marty Nemko
I so often see this syndrome in my female clients: She comes in ostensibly wanting a career but finds an objection to every option, except going back to school, which defers having to work. Or she's done as much school as she can possibly justify, agrees that a particular career goal is appropriate, but refuses to do the work necessary to land a job.
When I ask, “Do you really want to work?,” most say no. So often, they’ll admit that what they’d really love is a man to support them so they can stay home—even if no children are involved.
One of my clients, a 20-something project coordinator for Sun Microsystems said, “If I could, I’d stay home in a minute. And that’s true for all of my (female) friends.”I was amazed by one of my clients, a recent graduate of a prestigious college who fit that profile perfectly, saying she’d love to meet a husband who made enough money that she could be a full-time housewife. What amazed me was that she said her most deeply held value is that women are constantly oppressed.
I had thought the era of gold diggers ended in the ‘60s with the women’s movement. But I’m here to say that from where I sit, it’s still alive and well. Perhaps today’s women, seeing their mothers not so happy in the workplace makes them decide they’d rather stay home and have a man support them, if they can find one.
My anecdotal experience is supported by others. For example, Time, 60 Minutes, and the New York Times Sunday Magazine all did major features on today’s women not wanting to work. Often cited, for example, was a study of Stanford MBAs. 95 % of the men were working full time while only 38% of the women were. In their book What Women Really Want, pollsters Celinda Lake, a Democrat, and Kellyanne Conway, a Republican, found that seven in 10 women say they would stay home with their kids if they could afford it.
I’m surprised that so many guys don’t mind being the sole breadwinner. Many of them, however, change their minds when I say this to them:
Today, it typically requires two incomes for a family to own a home and support a solid middle class lifestyle. If the wife refuses to work and especially if she pushes hard to own a home, have children, and spend heavily on clothes, jewelry, spas, going back to college, vacations, etc., it means that the man must try to find a very high-income job. Those jobs are very difficult to land and, once obtained, typically demand long, stress-filled, often unrewarding hours, for example as corporate lawyers, bond traders, insurance salesmen, or executives in which pressure to generate profit is high and the power to implement change is low.
Meanwhile, the wife gets a far more pleasurable existence, even when she has children to raise. Evidence it’s more pleasurable: In studies in which men who work outside the home offer to switch roles with their stay-at-home wives, most women refuse.
Finally, remember that men die much younger than women, with stress being a major killer. Do you really want to be a beast of burden so your wife can live a cushy life, and then after you die, inherit the money you’ve earned so she can continue her lifestyle?
Even after my lecturette, some men say they’re happy to be the sole breadwinner, but more say the lecturette opened their eyes—they agree that they would have more rewarding, less stressful career options and, overall, better lives if their wives contributed significantly to the family income. Most of the men say they will talk with their wives about it, but when they return for their next session, they usually report that their wife pulled out all the stops to avoid having to work: they cried, yelled, guilt-tripped, or avoided talking about it—anything but look for work.
These women use various excuses to avoid working, most commonly:
It’s better for the children. In fact, the data is equivocal about that. And anecdotally, I’ve seen many examples in which a stay-at-home mom overprotects a child, resulting in a less self-confident child than if the child were in a high-quality child-care program.
I don’t have earning potential. The definitive book on the subject, Why Men Earn More by Dr. Warren Farrell (Amacom, 2005) finds that for the same work, in many fields, women earn more than $1 for each dollar men earn. Even low-skill-required jobs such as waitressing can yield $50,000-$100,000 a year.
Men, I urge you to be more conscious about whether you are allowing yourself to be turned into being a beast of burden to pay for the expensive house, kids, and all the material “stuff” that you might well be willing to trade away for a more pleasant life.
And if you’re single, consider whether your life will be better if you hold out for a woman who will share responsibility for the family income. Besides, by requiring that, you’ll know that the woman wants to be with you because she loves you, not because—as a surprising number of my female clients have admitted in the privacy of my office--that she considers you a cash cow.
By Marty Nemko
I so often see this syndrome in my female clients: She comes in ostensibly wanting a career but finds an objection to every option, except going back to school, which defers having to work. Or she's done as much school as she can possibly justify, agrees that a particular career goal is appropriate, but refuses to do the work necessary to land a job.
When I ask, “Do you really want to work?,” most say no. So often, they’ll admit that what they’d really love is a man to support them so they can stay home—even if no children are involved.
One of my clients, a 20-something project coordinator for Sun Microsystems said, “If I could, I’d stay home in a minute. And that’s true for all of my (female) friends.”I was amazed by one of my clients, a recent graduate of a prestigious college who fit that profile perfectly, saying she’d love to meet a husband who made enough money that she could be a full-time housewife. What amazed me was that she said her most deeply held value is that women are constantly oppressed.
I had thought the era of gold diggers ended in the ‘60s with the women’s movement. But I’m here to say that from where I sit, it’s still alive and well. Perhaps today’s women, seeing their mothers not so happy in the workplace makes them decide they’d rather stay home and have a man support them, if they can find one.
My anecdotal experience is supported by others. For example, Time, 60 Minutes, and the New York Times Sunday Magazine all did major features on today’s women not wanting to work. Often cited, for example, was a study of Stanford MBAs. 95 % of the men were working full time while only 38% of the women were. In their book What Women Really Want, pollsters Celinda Lake, a Democrat, and Kellyanne Conway, a Republican, found that seven in 10 women say they would stay home with their kids if they could afford it.
I’m surprised that so many guys don’t mind being the sole breadwinner. Many of them, however, change their minds when I say this to them:
Today, it typically requires two incomes for a family to own a home and support a solid middle class lifestyle. If the wife refuses to work and especially if she pushes hard to own a home, have children, and spend heavily on clothes, jewelry, spas, going back to college, vacations, etc., it means that the man must try to find a very high-income job. Those jobs are very difficult to land and, once obtained, typically demand long, stress-filled, often unrewarding hours, for example as corporate lawyers, bond traders, insurance salesmen, or executives in which pressure to generate profit is high and the power to implement change is low.
Meanwhile, the wife gets a far more pleasurable existence, even when she has children to raise. Evidence it’s more pleasurable: In studies in which men who work outside the home offer to switch roles with their stay-at-home wives, most women refuse.
Finally, remember that men die much younger than women, with stress being a major killer. Do you really want to be a beast of burden so your wife can live a cushy life, and then after you die, inherit the money you’ve earned so she can continue her lifestyle?
Even after my lecturette, some men say they’re happy to be the sole breadwinner, but more say the lecturette opened their eyes—they agree that they would have more rewarding, less stressful career options and, overall, better lives if their wives contributed significantly to the family income. Most of the men say they will talk with their wives about it, but when they return for their next session, they usually report that their wife pulled out all the stops to avoid having to work: they cried, yelled, guilt-tripped, or avoided talking about it—anything but look for work.
These women use various excuses to avoid working, most commonly:
It’s better for the children. In fact, the data is equivocal about that. And anecdotally, I’ve seen many examples in which a stay-at-home mom overprotects a child, resulting in a less self-confident child than if the child were in a high-quality child-care program.
I don’t have earning potential. The definitive book on the subject, Why Men Earn More by Dr. Warren Farrell (Amacom, 2005) finds that for the same work, in many fields, women earn more than $1 for each dollar men earn. Even low-skill-required jobs such as waitressing can yield $50,000-$100,000 a year.
Men, I urge you to be more conscious about whether you are allowing yourself to be turned into being a beast of burden to pay for the expensive house, kids, and all the material “stuff” that you might well be willing to trade away for a more pleasant life.
And if you’re single, consider whether your life will be better if you hold out for a woman who will share responsibility for the family income. Besides, by requiring that, you’ll know that the woman wants to be with you because she loves you, not because—as a surprising number of my female clients have admitted in the privacy of my office--that she considers you a cash cow.
© Copyright, Marty Nemko, 2006 (martynemko.com.) All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
A Woman Can Do Anything a Man Can Do (Well, Almost)
A Woman Can Do Anything a Man Can Do (Well, Almost)
August 21, 2006Vox Populi
By Carey Roberts
Fact and feminism keep tripping over each other.For decades, radical feminists have prostrated themselves upon the altar of androgeny, flatly declaring that all differences between the sexes are socially constructed. So when men earn more money than women, they say that’s proof of sex discrimination.
But men have the Y chromosome, while women don’t. And it turns out that one chromosome contains 78 very important genes. Those genes contain programming instructions that control a man’s brain structure, sex hormones, and a host of other functions.
These critical genetic differences play out in thousands of ways that influence risk-taking, sex relationships, and social roles. Steven Rhoads’ book, Taking Sex Differences Seriously, is an information-packed, must-read on this topic.
Women conceive babies, men can’t. Women are better at decoding facial expressions, hearing a baby’s whimper in the night, and simultaneously talking and listening. Fine.
But what happens when we insist that men and women are social equivalents, twisting like neutered cogs in a giant gender nirvana?
Last year I was talking with a woman who insisted female athletes are just as skilled as the men. A few months later, the US female Olympic hockey team played a boys’ high school team from Warroad, Minnesota. The small town boys prevailed 2-1 over the elite Olympians – and that was a non-checking game.
Then there are the women-in-combat zealots. They parade girls like PFC Jessica Lynch as living proof that women can handle the fierce demands of front line combat. You may recall that war heroine Lynch later admitted about her Iraqi mishap, “I did not shoot, not a round, nothing. I went down praying to my knees. And that’s the last I remember.”
What about women in the media? Remember, they were going to bring us a more balanced and empathic perspective on the world.
Well, that was before Oprah Winfrey predicted one in five heterosexual Americans would die from AIDS by 1990 and Meryl Streep duped the EPA to ban alar.
Let’s not forget Connie Chung’s scientific discovery that breast implants make women sick. Even though researchers could never prove the link between implants and connective tissue disease, the ensuing hysteria-driven lawsuits eventually forced Dow Corning into bankruptcy.
Of course there’s the ever-apoplectic Maureen Dowd, left to wonder why the New York Times circulation numbers tumble ever-downward. And rumor has it that once Katie Couric debuts at CBS News, she’s planning to sign up Cindy Sheehan as a political analyst for the upcoming November elections.
And women, it is said, will make the political arena more ethical and fair: “Research shows the presence of women raises the standards of ethical behavior and lowers corruption.” That quote comes to us by way of senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, which practically makes the claim self-refuting.
We were promised that women in academia would bring important new insights. But soon the ladies came to the sobering realization that Beethoven composed Ode to Joy to induce men into a sexual frenzy, and Newton’s Principia Mathematica is actually a rape manual.
We should all feel especially sorry for MIT professor Nancy Hopkins.
As a biologist, she no doubt learned how primates engage in sex-specific courtship rituals and hunting patterns. But then ex-Harvard president Larry Summers suggested that innate differences in the human species also might exist, causing the ever-delicate Dr. Hopkins to lapse into a swoon.
Smelling salts, anyone?
Those examples are mostly amusing. But there’s one variation on the woman-can-do-anything-a-man-can-do theme that’s downright dangerous. It’s the “mothers and fathers are interchangeable” mantra.
The reason is simple: little boys don’t identify with their moms the same way they bond with their dads. And girls learn different lessons from dads than from moms.
Want proof?
Look at inner city ghettos ravaged by Great Society programs that required dad to vacate the home before mom was entitled to collect her welfare check. Bereft of their loving fathers, boys looked to the media and gangs for their male role models.
Is anyone surprised when all manner of social pathologies take root and flourish?
It’s one of the conundrums of our time that while demanding fealty to the dogma of androgeny, feminists condemn the expression of masculine qualities by men and then turn around and demand that “liberated” women exemplify exactly those same attributes.
As my mother used to say, Who said women had to be logical?
August 21, 2006Vox Populi
By Carey Roberts
Fact and feminism keep tripping over each other.For decades, radical feminists have prostrated themselves upon the altar of androgeny, flatly declaring that all differences between the sexes are socially constructed. So when men earn more money than women, they say that’s proof of sex discrimination.
But men have the Y chromosome, while women don’t. And it turns out that one chromosome contains 78 very important genes. Those genes contain programming instructions that control a man’s brain structure, sex hormones, and a host of other functions.
These critical genetic differences play out in thousands of ways that influence risk-taking, sex relationships, and social roles. Steven Rhoads’ book, Taking Sex Differences Seriously, is an information-packed, must-read on this topic.
Women conceive babies, men can’t. Women are better at decoding facial expressions, hearing a baby’s whimper in the night, and simultaneously talking and listening. Fine.
But what happens when we insist that men and women are social equivalents, twisting like neutered cogs in a giant gender nirvana?
Last year I was talking with a woman who insisted female athletes are just as skilled as the men. A few months later, the US female Olympic hockey team played a boys’ high school team from Warroad, Minnesota. The small town boys prevailed 2-1 over the elite Olympians – and that was a non-checking game.
Then there are the women-in-combat zealots. They parade girls like PFC Jessica Lynch as living proof that women can handle the fierce demands of front line combat. You may recall that war heroine Lynch later admitted about her Iraqi mishap, “I did not shoot, not a round, nothing. I went down praying to my knees. And that’s the last I remember.”
What about women in the media? Remember, they were going to bring us a more balanced and empathic perspective on the world.
Well, that was before Oprah Winfrey predicted one in five heterosexual Americans would die from AIDS by 1990 and Meryl Streep duped the EPA to ban alar.
Let’s not forget Connie Chung’s scientific discovery that breast implants make women sick. Even though researchers could never prove the link between implants and connective tissue disease, the ensuing hysteria-driven lawsuits eventually forced Dow Corning into bankruptcy.
Of course there’s the ever-apoplectic Maureen Dowd, left to wonder why the New York Times circulation numbers tumble ever-downward. And rumor has it that once Katie Couric debuts at CBS News, she’s planning to sign up Cindy Sheehan as a political analyst for the upcoming November elections.
And women, it is said, will make the political arena more ethical and fair: “Research shows the presence of women raises the standards of ethical behavior and lowers corruption.” That quote comes to us by way of senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, which practically makes the claim self-refuting.
We were promised that women in academia would bring important new insights. But soon the ladies came to the sobering realization that Beethoven composed Ode to Joy to induce men into a sexual frenzy, and Newton’s Principia Mathematica is actually a rape manual.
We should all feel especially sorry for MIT professor Nancy Hopkins.
As a biologist, she no doubt learned how primates engage in sex-specific courtship rituals and hunting patterns. But then ex-Harvard president Larry Summers suggested that innate differences in the human species also might exist, causing the ever-delicate Dr. Hopkins to lapse into a swoon.
Smelling salts, anyone?
Those examples are mostly amusing. But there’s one variation on the woman-can-do-anything-a-man-can-do theme that’s downright dangerous. It’s the “mothers and fathers are interchangeable” mantra.
The reason is simple: little boys don’t identify with their moms the same way they bond with their dads. And girls learn different lessons from dads than from moms.
Want proof?
Look at inner city ghettos ravaged by Great Society programs that required dad to vacate the home before mom was entitled to collect her welfare check. Bereft of their loving fathers, boys looked to the media and gangs for their male role models.
Is anyone surprised when all manner of social pathologies take root and flourish?
It’s one of the conundrums of our time that while demanding fealty to the dogma of androgeny, feminists condemn the expression of masculine qualities by men and then turn around and demand that “liberated” women exemplify exactly those same attributes.
As my mother used to say, Who said women had to be logical?
Saturday, December 30, 2006
A Woman Against Feminism And For Men's Rights
A Woman Against Feminism And For Men's Rights
Twenty One Indicators of Systemic Discrimination Against Men
This list really stands on its own, and doesn't need an introduction. Plus, there are three bonus indicators!
Twenty One Indicators of Systemic Discrimination Against Men
The American woman by the 1960s lived in the nation with the world's highest standard of living and owned 65% of the wealth in that nation.
Feminists "felt victimized", however, and convinced American women that they are "discriminated against".
Never have they been required to nor been able to produce a shred of statistical evidence to back up that claim.
Twenty one key statistical indicators each illustrate how men have been and are being systematically discriminated against by government fiat.
1. WEALTH: Women hold 65% of the country's wealth [Fortune Magazine]
2. CHILD CUSTODY: Women receive custody of 92% of the children of divorce and illegitimacy, and men only 4%. [Department of Health & Human Services]
3. INCOME: Men constitute 60% of workplace hours, work longer hours, work harder, and are more qualified, rarely file sexual discrimination or harassment lawsuits or take pregnancy leave, yet earn only 42% more than women [Dept. Labor]
4. SUICIDE: Men's suicide rate is 4.6 times higher than women's [Dept. Health & Human Services -- 26,710 males vs 5,700 females]
5. LIFE EXPECTANCY: Men's life expectancy is seven (7) years shorter than women's [National Center for Health Statistics -- males 72.3 yrs vs females 79 yrs] yet receive only 35% of government expenditures for health care and medical costs.
6. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Men are discriminated against BY DESIGN through affirmative action.
7. FEDERAL TAXES: Even though men pay 115% of federal income taxes women constitute 11% more of the voters.8. VOTE: Because there are 11% more female than male voters, males have little to no influence on how the male tax dollar is spent.
9. WAR: Men, not women, fight and die in battle [Dept. Defense -- Vietnam Casualties 47,369 men vs 74 women] while women sue the taxpayer when they have their butt pinched.
10. WORKPLACE FATALITIES: Men account for more than 95% of workplace fatalities.
11. MURDER: Men are murdered at a rate almost 5 times that of women [Dept. Health & Human Services -- 26,710 men vs 5,700 women]
12. JURY BIAS: Women are acquitted of spousal murder at a rate 9 times that of men [Bureau Justice Statistics -- 1.4% of men vs 12.9% of women]
13. COURT BIAS: Men are sentenced 2.8 times longer than women for spousal murder [Bureau Justice Statistics -- men at 17 years vs women at 6 years]
14. JUSTICE SYSTEM BIAS: Even though the amount of the average "child support payment" due from women is half the amount due from men, and even though women are twice as likely as men to default on those payments, fathers are 97% of "child support" collections prosecutions [Census Bureau]
15. WELFARE: Even though men are the recipients of less than 10% of all welfare disbursements, men are required to refund welfare payments made to women.
16. SECONDARY EDUCATION: Even though zero percent of American 12th grade girls were able to correctly answer basic math and physics questions, less than one quarter of America's secondary and elementary school teachers are men.
17. HIGHER EDUCATION: There are more than 200 all-female colleges for women and now not one single all-male college for men. 5.8% fewer men than women are enrolled in 4 year colleges, even though two thirds of those who score higher than 550 in SAT Math are males. In 1993 only 44.5% of college enrollment were men, and that figure has declined since then. Only 45.8% of of bachelor's degrees were conferred to men in 1992, even though 98.2% of the top fiftieth percentile of the GRE are men, and ZERO PERCENT of American high school girls correctly answered 28 out of 67 TIMSS advanced math questions. Only 38.4% of private 4 year college students were men as of 1990, and this figure has declined since then.
18. LEGAL SYSTEM BIAS: 96% of physical altercations resulting in injury to a spouse occurs AFTER the date of separation. [Read: spousal abuse laws that pretend that husbands are dangerous discriminate against husbands when we know that only a very small percent of domestic violence is associated with them]. [Chadwick and Heaton, "Statistical Handbook of the American Family"]
19. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Even though study after study shows that women are the majority of the initiators of domestic violence, and 58% of the above mentioned physical altercations are initiated by the female, Congress passed the obviously anti-male VAWA and VAWA II.which are known would make the problem far worse. [Read: despite the fact we discriminate against husbands in protective orders, women still cause more than half of domestic altercations because they know they can get away with it].
20. CHILD VIOLENCE: Even though mothers commit 55% of child murders and biological fathers commit 6%, even though NIS-3 shows that Mother-only households are 3 times more fatal to children than Father-only households, children are systematically removed from the natural fathers who are their most effective protectors and men are imprisoned at rate 20 times that of women.
21. FAMILY BREAKDOWN: The US Surgeon General notes that divorce is more harmful to a man's health than smoking tobacco, yet as much as $1.3 Trillion of federal expenditures accomplish little else than undermine family stability.
22. WOMEN PILOTS: Even though women pilots have an accident rate four timesthat of men pilots, federal laws require that airlines risk the safety of passengers and hire women pilots anyway.
23. WOMEN DRIVERS: Even though the crash rate of women drivers is twice that of men drivers, and even though drinking alcohol increases the crash rate of men by only 5%, the majority of those imprisoned under DUI laws are men, and women are almost never imprisoned for their much higher number of non-alcohol-related crashes.
24. INCARCERATION: Even though feminists brag that 1.4 million American brides commit adultery, and even though women file more than 90,000 false allegations of rape, every year, only 99,000 of the 1.8 million Americans behind bars are women.
Twenty One Indicators of Systemic Discrimination Against Men
This list really stands on its own, and doesn't need an introduction. Plus, there are three bonus indicators!
Twenty One Indicators of Systemic Discrimination Against Men
The American woman by the 1960s lived in the nation with the world's highest standard of living and owned 65% of the wealth in that nation.
Feminists "felt victimized", however, and convinced American women that they are "discriminated against".
Never have they been required to nor been able to produce a shred of statistical evidence to back up that claim.
Twenty one key statistical indicators each illustrate how men have been and are being systematically discriminated against by government fiat.
1. WEALTH: Women hold 65% of the country's wealth [Fortune Magazine]
2. CHILD CUSTODY: Women receive custody of 92% of the children of divorce and illegitimacy, and men only 4%. [Department of Health & Human Services]
3. INCOME: Men constitute 60% of workplace hours, work longer hours, work harder, and are more qualified, rarely file sexual discrimination or harassment lawsuits or take pregnancy leave, yet earn only 42% more than women [Dept. Labor]
4. SUICIDE: Men's suicide rate is 4.6 times higher than women's [Dept. Health & Human Services -- 26,710 males vs 5,700 females]
5. LIFE EXPECTANCY: Men's life expectancy is seven (7) years shorter than women's [National Center for Health Statistics -- males 72.3 yrs vs females 79 yrs] yet receive only 35% of government expenditures for health care and medical costs.
6. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Men are discriminated against BY DESIGN through affirmative action.
7. FEDERAL TAXES: Even though men pay 115% of federal income taxes women constitute 11% more of the voters.8. VOTE: Because there are 11% more female than male voters, males have little to no influence on how the male tax dollar is spent.
9. WAR: Men, not women, fight and die in battle [Dept. Defense -- Vietnam Casualties 47,369 men vs 74 women] while women sue the taxpayer when they have their butt pinched.
10. WORKPLACE FATALITIES: Men account for more than 95% of workplace fatalities.
11. MURDER: Men are murdered at a rate almost 5 times that of women [Dept. Health & Human Services -- 26,710 men vs 5,700 women]
12. JURY BIAS: Women are acquitted of spousal murder at a rate 9 times that of men [Bureau Justice Statistics -- 1.4% of men vs 12.9% of women]
13. COURT BIAS: Men are sentenced 2.8 times longer than women for spousal murder [Bureau Justice Statistics -- men at 17 years vs women at 6 years]
14. JUSTICE SYSTEM BIAS: Even though the amount of the average "child support payment" due from women is half the amount due from men, and even though women are twice as likely as men to default on those payments, fathers are 97% of "child support" collections prosecutions [Census Bureau]
15. WELFARE: Even though men are the recipients of less than 10% of all welfare disbursements, men are required to refund welfare payments made to women.
16. SECONDARY EDUCATION: Even though zero percent of American 12th grade girls were able to correctly answer basic math and physics questions, less than one quarter of America's secondary and elementary school teachers are men.
17. HIGHER EDUCATION: There are more than 200 all-female colleges for women and now not one single all-male college for men. 5.8% fewer men than women are enrolled in 4 year colleges, even though two thirds of those who score higher than 550 in SAT Math are males. In 1993 only 44.5% of college enrollment were men, and that figure has declined since then. Only 45.8% of of bachelor's degrees were conferred to men in 1992, even though 98.2% of the top fiftieth percentile of the GRE are men, and ZERO PERCENT of American high school girls correctly answered 28 out of 67 TIMSS advanced math questions. Only 38.4% of private 4 year college students were men as of 1990, and this figure has declined since then.
18. LEGAL SYSTEM BIAS: 96% of physical altercations resulting in injury to a spouse occurs AFTER the date of separation. [Read: spousal abuse laws that pretend that husbands are dangerous discriminate against husbands when we know that only a very small percent of domestic violence is associated with them]. [Chadwick and Heaton, "Statistical Handbook of the American Family"]
19. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Even though study after study shows that women are the majority of the initiators of domestic violence, and 58% of the above mentioned physical altercations are initiated by the female, Congress passed the obviously anti-male VAWA and VAWA II.which are known would make the problem far worse. [Read: despite the fact we discriminate against husbands in protective orders, women still cause more than half of domestic altercations because they know they can get away with it].
20. CHILD VIOLENCE: Even though mothers commit 55% of child murders and biological fathers commit 6%, even though NIS-3 shows that Mother-only households are 3 times more fatal to children than Father-only households, children are systematically removed from the natural fathers who are their most effective protectors and men are imprisoned at rate 20 times that of women.
21. FAMILY BREAKDOWN: The US Surgeon General notes that divorce is more harmful to a man's health than smoking tobacco, yet as much as $1.3 Trillion of federal expenditures accomplish little else than undermine family stability.
22. WOMEN PILOTS: Even though women pilots have an accident rate four timesthat of men pilots, federal laws require that airlines risk the safety of passengers and hire women pilots anyway.
23. WOMEN DRIVERS: Even though the crash rate of women drivers is twice that of men drivers, and even though drinking alcohol increases the crash rate of men by only 5%, the majority of those imprisoned under DUI laws are men, and women are almost never imprisoned for their much higher number of non-alcohol-related crashes.
24. INCARCERATION: Even though feminists brag that 1.4 million American brides commit adultery, and even though women file more than 90,000 false allegations of rape, every year, only 99,000 of the 1.8 million Americans behind bars are women.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)