In who we trust.

A friend sent me the following link as an idea for a blog subject.
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html  ----- essentially a discussion by Richard Wilkinson citing facts as to what most of us understand as the difference between the rich and poor in our societies. Briefly put he says that we have known since before the French Revolution the destructiveness of economic gaps within societies and points out that the difference now is a broad information base that shows without doubt that per capita income relevant to different countries has no bearing on the social gap but rather the income gap within any given society.
Japan, Finland, Norway and Sweden have the least disparity and the least social problems, NZ is at the higher end along with the USA. The figures are poor for NZ across all quarters and are completely consistent with one exception that I could see. NZ has a high imprisonment rate, poor welfare of children score, high life expectancy declines at the lower income levels, violence, violence against children and so depressingly it goes along.
The one inconsistency that I observed is that nzers (Kiwis) have a high score of trusting in one another, right out of kilter with all the other findings which should have indicated that within our society trust of one another  would be a rare commodity.
I need to develop some other facts about 'the gap' as it is called before coming back to the trust issue where we kiwis have scored ambiguously high. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker has written a book 'The Better Angels of Our Nature' which demonstrates that despite a general anxiety of omniscient violence and hostility the human race is growing gentler and that the past was far nastier. He argues rightly that there are fewer wars and offers 'presentism' (recent or current events) that cause us to reflect that times are more violent, when in fact the past was far more violent and that a great deal of violence was from the hands of the state against its own citizens. Interestingly he comments about the worse periods being times of torture of  Governments against its own citizens which in my opinion is relevant to the USA at this time where in bleak  financial times, and slipping world wide influence they have found torture to be acceptable in some 'circumstances.' Pinker talks about the horror of the Mongol conquests as making pale anything of more recent times, but the real consequences of the Mongol conquests and no doubt other more recent events of colonisation, slavery, etc as dull by not being 'present.'
Another factor that might help understand the gap, Richard Wilkinson demonstrated, is the interview with Chinese poet Liao Yiwu currently in NZ for a writers festival. Liao was imprisoned (one of many times it prevailed) for the 1st time was for writing the poem Massacre following the Chinese Governments crackdown on students in Tiananmen Square. That was a four year stretch followed by others as he continued to write about those at the wrong end of the social gap. Others will have read the article but for the context of this piece I quote him 'The Chinese Government hopes that every Chinese will be like a pig or animal - just eating and making money without thinking.' Liao, I understand is identifying the gap as being almost a disease of sorts where money is king. Showing perhaps, as did the facts Wilkinson revealed, that the 'gap' becomes an attitude where as Liao puts it people become pigs to a dominant master.
I introduce another voice here from the financial section of today's paper, a piece by Brian Gaynor that identifies what he believes is causing nz to sink. The borrowing to fund entitlement, he was writing about a number of specific issues but in particular how nz 'rewards' from a borrowed purse all superannuates despite that one might be totally impoverished and another rolling in money. He speaks about the lobby groups that grow from Government hands out and the sense of  entitlement with the retirees because of the 'work they've done tax they've paid' (my quote.) Gaynor points out the fiscal strangulation of borrowing now to fund pensions to be available to all, including those who demonstrably need a pension and what this burden is costing new entrants into the workforce. Who, in my opinion, may presumably one day feel entitled that the then government borrow even more money because they're also entitled to a pension when they retire.
Wilkinson was able to show that countries like nz with a wide earnings and wealth gap featured poorly on high imprisonment statistics and argues not necessarily because of more crime but often because of being 'tough' on crime. A call not so strident in this election as perhaps the maturity of some politicians  allows them to admit that a high imprisonment rate is a fiscal and social disaster. Not unexpectedly Japan, Finland, Norway and Sweden the consistent winners of a narrow social gap have low imprisonment rates, less severe sentencing regimes and don't, unlike China and the US, execute their own citizens. Pinker points out the remarkable reaction of the Norwegian people in response to the recent massacre there, highlighting their remarkable restraint and 'love bombing' instead of 'real bombing.'
Without digressing too far I note reading of a Mexican Judge who recently dismissed an accused claims of being tortured to confess on the grounds that the confession was 'too detailed.' The unfortunate woman was clearly unable to understand that confessions from under torture can be minutely detailed, they will in fact be exactly what the torturer requires and in the torturers own words.
So we see this co-relation in the countries, where the income gap is wide, of false confessions, a willingness to torture, execute and so forth quoted by Pinker from the 17th Century philosopher John Locke saying of the escape from nature to so-called civilisation why run from pole cats only to be devoured by lions.
So despite all this, and kiwis placed consistently near the bottom of all social evils to befall its citizens why do we trust one another disproportionally to the economic gap. I can't say I know the answer and it may not have been studied yet. But it appears to me to have at least part of its answer in that according to many reports nzers are generally most concerned about children and are horrified by the statistics that rate us so poorly in the world for looking after, protecting and educating our children. That seems to be across the board and within all the cultures that make nz home. Significantly however, odd and flightless bird that we be, we generally respect authority but not through fear, through a type of respect that is probably a nz strength and goes to a core event of the acts of violence Wilkinson was able to demonstrate came from people feeling socially separated, unacceptable or not respected - laughed at or mocked if you like.
We have cultural traditions pacific traditions that many of us may not realise are relevant to a large part of our pacific population, respect for the land, for chiefly leaders and the wise - those of whom we can turn to in our own separate societies (within a large society) for help. In other words people we trust. And perhaps our high ranking of trusting one another has its roots there, that we instinctively (or the majority of us) trust first, give somebody a 'go' until they prove they were not worth giving a go, offer help and seldom expect it by return. But when offered assistance or 'a hand' feel vindicated and uplifted for our beliefs in respect and helping one another whether as an act of kindness or because of being part of a particular pacific, pakeha, european, asian or other culture, or indeed just open to the argument that we each have a duty to one another, not to turn away or take more than our share to the detriment of others. As Liao puts it not 'be like a pig or animal - just eating and making money without thinking.'
What  can I do? Change the world, I wish. No, all I can do is to continue to help the few people I do help and perhaps help them a little more. Also be reminded of coming closer not further away from others, think of the land, the sky and the water realising that trust is a greater component in this society than distrust.

Baby X, who speaks for her in a life without rights?

Baby X was born in 2009 after some 20 years frozen as a fertilised embryo. Her biological parents Peter and Christie Clark donating the embryo to a childless couple asking by return for openness and continued contact. Unfortunately, and perhaps somewhat naively, accepting the word of baby X's parents that they would be involved in the life of their biological child. Who might not be naive, Peter and Christie had endured many years of being childless, adopted a son Dylan, then later as IVF made it's place in NZ became parents of a natural son Troy. They chose to keep the fertilised embryo of baby X, perhaps for the reason that the embryo of baby X lived in their minds as a child that might yet be born with all the promise of new life from part of themselves. They were no doubt influenced by understanding the experiences of people childless like they themselves had been for 11 years before adopting one son and the later successful birthing of a natural son.

They formed a contract with baby X parents, a childless couple, that captured good faith and a commitment to love they might share from a subtle distance. It was a time of expectation and excitement for both couples, there may have been misunderstandings between them and it was apparent that Peter and Christie were wealthy if but also kind. They may have given the impression of financial benefactors supportive of the couple and the baby, they may have even have imagined some financial control over the relationship.

They speak now about baby X's parents seeking money and agreeing to that before finally shutting the door when becoming concerned that the relationship might have been distorting. Finally, they were served notices excluding them from the baby's life. They discovered soon after, although it being made apparent to them before, that they had consigned all their biological parental rights away when signing  a Donation Consent form. On the surface a complete situation contained in the law - total exclusion from the child's life?

Well yes, that is what they consented to - even though they had a verbal and operating agreement with baby's parents which was exercised for 12 months. A colour of right, an operating agreement - something that could be judged as in the best long term interests of the baby, but regardless a firm basis in law operating that gave baby X no right to know her true identity. It should not be that baby X lives in a information vacuum, not knowing the natural  right of identity because of a Law claiming to determine all that her life might mean before she were ever born, a law that excludes her from knowing her biological parents or anything about them - a situation that placed her without certain rights before she took her first breath.

So who speaks for her, the child? In any other situation, a divorce, separation, eventually even adoption someone, the law, the rights of the child speak, but not for baby X. No one speaks for her, she is unrepresented, a test tube baby whose course in life was determined by contract that she had no part of. Well, shouldn't the  Courts let her speak? Recognising rights in a contract that she is the essential part. Who could claim that a baby's rights were contracted away from her before she was even born. It is clear for humanitarian reasons that she should be represented and her rights should never have been assigned away without someone representing the dialogue of her life. Baby X is real, breathes her own air, someone, by every human right, should speak for her - look to bring all the elements of her family life together in a way representing herself, her best interests at least  until she reaches the age of consent.

Baby X is like the adopted children who once under the law where never allowed to know or contact their birth parents, like the war baby's, and refugee children brought to NZ during and after the 2nd World War and often told their parents were dead when in fact they still lived. In all these cases something is taken from the children, something is assumed about them - that they have lesser rights. Probably we all know adults who've suffered by not knowing they were adopted or that they had birth parents in the world and know the tragedy that can mean to some.

Step in Polynesia, the Pacific way - where children can, and sometimes are, raised by other members of the family, have 2 mums or dads but where the truth is never kept from them. Children that when they become adults can acknowledge all parts of their lives and are accepted no less that any other, children not constrained by a law that keeps the truth from them, children not caught in a dispute between parents that sees part of their lives shut out and takes away from them their basic rights. The lawmakers can be as callous and cold against a child they might never meet, nor understand that is abhorrent to hide the truth from them, hide the essence of who they are in such a way that devalues their existence and rights - a palangi way.

The case of Baby X is important for her and others like her. It surely must be within the law to recognise the contract that operated before it was arbitrarily shut down by one side having enjoyed the fruits of that contract in a financial way for a whole year before retiring behind a second 'contract' that they had ignored to that point. There is little fairness in that, and that they accepted the 'gift' on an embryo on an acknowledged and operative verbal agreement. A situation that reasonable adults, with the help of the Court and Government agencies if necessarily, should be able to resolve, but the gross unfairness is that nobody represents Baby X, or speaks for her until she can speak for herself.

Another nail in Kent and the sister's coffin.

Oh how the hate-siters rejoiced when they were 'vindicated' with the 'news' that  potentially prejudicial evidence had been with held regarding David Bain's 111 emergency call. The evidence of a police 'expert' who miraculously, after more than a decade, heard the words 'I shot the prick' in the tape of the call.

The fact that he was the only idiot to hear it first didn't stop a gaggle of hate-siters wetting themselves in the excitement of 'vindication.' Not one of the morons could connect that a carefully planned murder-suicide would not result in the alleged killer, presenting his 'alibi' for the first time, interspersing it with a mid line 'confession.' To their minds (if they had one) they probably thought it happened all the time. Interesting the linquist experts who conducted tests on the tape found absolutely no evidence that the alleged words were said, backing up the reasons why the 'evidence' was never allowed. Some of the sample group who were told what the words were (auto-suggest,) when informed that no such words were spoken - didn't believe it. But don't worry they were all aussies, either that or ex-pat kiwis on the run from Parker's threats to enjoin them in the proceedings he faces.

Anybody that followed the case, and in particular the physics and forensic evidence of the final death scene would have realised that Robin Bain killed himself and every bit of evidence found in the lounge where he died confirmed that and excluded any other person being present. So even on that basis, the phone call was irrelevant but that didn't stop the hate-siters frothing at the mouth and going off on stalking expeditions because, like part of those in the sample group, they'd heard what they were told to listen for. It rang out loud and clear, because it was what they wanted to hear, it justified the hate they'd poured out on David Bain and Joe Karam for years, a hatred that crossed over to contempt of Court many times throughout the trial and since. Some, like Christine Williams, even offered that she would undertake hanging David if the opportunity was given her. So there you have it, the witches of Salem affect crossed into 'modern' nz and the 'twisted sisters effect' - to hang somebody for a murder (that of Robin Bain) that never happened, based among others things, of words that were never spoken.

Much like the evening the Jury returned the 5 not guilty verdicts, I just feel left cold that the winds of the 17th Century, the burning of 'witches,' 'marks' of the devil, sexual longings and other such travesties has its dark place in modern nz. And so the story of David Bain and Joe Karam changes yet again, another plank from a (very few) nzers of the defamatory hate that besieged them, rots and falls away. Shame on you sisters, shame on all of you.

In another way this 'finding' that police 'experts' will hopefully force the Courts to decide to unconditionally exclude such evidence in future trials where evidence of phone calls, taped conversations, overheard conversations and the like is sought to be introduced in cases where there is no other supporting evidence of what the amateur 'expert' hears, and is only also 'heard' by others once they are 'told' what they will hear. This use of 'experts' has evolved into another way of allowing the police to 'verbal' a suspect or defendant, that is after legislation required conversations to be video and audio recorded to avoid events of the past such as John Hughes 'verballing' another innocent man Arthur Thomas.

Scott Watson - unfortunate bad news?

The Herald on Sunday has reported that it is understood that Scott's plea for clemency 'must' fail because Kirsty McDonald investigation has uncovered no 'new' evidence. Rodney Hide spoke to both the Herald on Sunday and on Radio Live about his disappointment that Simon Power hadn't acted on what is recognised as a travesty of Justice. Plaudits to Rodney for that.

The idea that failed or disproved evidence doesn't constitute new evidence seems to be an aberration that a conviction can still 'hold' when there was so much that Jury couldn't consider because it wasn't before them, such as the fact that witnesses recanted on evidence that was persuasive and offered under inducement, and so many leads were dismissed without investigation.  False or recanted evidence that on 1st consideration fully imposed a troubling picture of Scott Watson, a false picture that remains and ought to have been erased either by a pardon or by a re-trial where the truth would be told and untruthful evidence excluded.

Then for students of the elements of a miscarriage of Justice is the more publicly recognised knowledge now that there was a deliberate campaign to blacken the name of Scott Watson by investigators long before the trial and a exclusion of evidence or investigation into leads that might have steered the investigation away from Rob Pope's target - Scott Watson. And that campaign is borne out now that more of the case is public and understood by the fact that highly prejudicial evidence offered by prison inmates in exchange for deals with the police has failed the test of time and credibility.

I hope these portents are wrong, just as I know the Royal Prerogative for Mercy is most often ineffectual and wrong and misplaces the course of Justice from the Courts into hands of transient politicians who might seen as concerned with the winds of what public reactions or favour might bear upon any decision they make. Fairness and Justice cannot rely on 'gut instinct' policing that utilises propaganda, excludes evidence, recanted evidence, laid out to be picked over at length by a lawyer who can see nothing new in failed evidence.

If the worst prospect is realised I hope Greg King will seek a review of the Minister's decision, all guns blazing.  If the recanted evidence was of no value then why was it ever called and who but the Jury could have determined the weight originally given to it in their deliberations. It was the icing on the cake, the ultimate prejudicial arrow to allow a jury to be disgusted and convict despite other evidence harbouring doubt falling short.

kulkkubelle goes wild, chokes on hypocrisy.

sweetie9 wrote:

Crawl back under your rock.
 Oh my God, the guy has been exonerated...I just hope if one of your family members is falsely accused and convicted of something that whiners on the other side of the world don't call them a " killer"

Quotekulkkulbelle (426 ) 4:19 pm, Thu 27 Oct #22

Deb Coates is morally outraged that someone should object to one of the 'Memphsis 3' being allowed into New Zealand. Fair enough on the surface. But isn't Kulkkulbelle, the previously banned ' Balisal' who renamed herself after a Kulkul bell as found in Balinese Temples. Why yes she is, and perhaps suffering from ringing in her ears that prevents her from recalling that she is a hate-site supporter that went a step further than any other hate-site supporter in New Zealand when she revealed having a copy of the autopsy report of one of the Bain victims which, according to kooky, proved that the victim had never been pregnant and their for gave lie to claims by the defence and its witnesses. Astoundingly enough, she was the only person who had such a report - even the pathologist himself didn't have it. But she is going to produce it, yes indeed, it's been coming on a slow boat from China for over 3 years now - trust her it is!

She, the wholesome soul, was also going to bankroll the defamation charges defences of Parker and Purkiss. The cheque is in the mail. Yes it is, kooky said it, so it must be - even ringing in one ears couldn't prevent that from being another truth from the veritable, holier than thou matriarch of TM, the self-appointed annoiter of all things good and fair.

But hold on, is claiming to have something which you never produce but use at length in your efforts to persecute somebody who has been 'exonerated' from a crime, found blameless - persecution? Why yes it is. And in order to appear 'enlightened' about another case of which a prominent nzer has taken an interest she defies anybody to object against the rights of somebody 'falsely accused and convicted.' But she did that herself, silly sausage - all that ringing in her ears must be upsetting her recall. Yes she did it herself and is unable to note that the Memphis 3 remain convicted in part for the authorities to avoid paying them out compensation. Compensation, yes that's right. Old Kooky is an expert on compensation as well, a signatory against compensation of somebody she knows is guilty despite them being found innocent by a jury in record time. Found innocent and therefore falsely imprisoned to that point, which is something else she knows is wrong because she of course has a pathologists report that will be arriving some time soon.

So what do you call somebody who lies in order to influence public opinion against an innocent man? I think you call them a persecutor. And why does somebody lie in order to have themselves believed, it is because they hate themselves, jealousy, an opportunity to play God over the life of a free man? You decide.

Which brings another question. Why does the spiritually cleansed bell person call out to those they imagine wicked in someway, for doing exactly what the cleansed person themselves have done and do in the few lucid moments when the bells subside and before their anger consumes them again. I believe they call out and point and mock, throw proverbial stones at that which they know is evil inside themselves.

Peter Jackson, like Joe Karam, Pat Booth, Jim Sprott and Chris Birt is motivated by defeating injustice he witnesses and which he is unable to turn away from. Though kookybell might applaud him she cannot hide that she is the instrument of injustice and the very example of what these good men find devastates them, deliberate, liberal, misuse of the truth and deceit.

One good thing that kooky unwittingly underlines is the mediocrity of desire for the truth of those such as kooky and her twisted sister buddies. Peter is not maligned in any meaningful way for a case of injustice he champions and which generally there is not a lot understood about by the average nzer, whereas another case many didn't understand, apart from sensationalised headlines and mistruths by kooky and her cohorts, both the falsely imprisoned and his champion for the truth have on dark days been maligned and persecuted to a far greater depth that the trivial comments queen kooky finds offensive.

The hate-sites: the end is nigh.

After over two years since cyber-attacks, stalking and harassment was commenced on line by Annette Curran (aka golfergold) of Kapiti Coast and Glenda OBrien (aka kalnovitch, laddiefatcat) of Dunedin and others such as Christine Williams (aka msspw, millie) dustproof and nina-s they are all but routed. While none of these people have been yet brought to Court, the files against their on-line activities and law-breaking are complete and formulated into a cognitive package that might yet be used against them or other parties for a variety of issues.

Kent Parker and Vic Purkiss who jumped on the bandwagon, with those mentioned above and others, are now crippled in a legal battle of which they have no prospect of winning. Parker has made a damning admission against himself in sworn papers that's likely to have done as much harm to him as anything else that could have been brought against him to prove his role as a publisher and defamer, and more succinctly as a hate-siter and sicko. All of this is contained in the recent  Judgement which he at first admitted was a defeat, and over time (how predictable) preached of how it was an 'opportunity' to try the Bain case again. Oh well, in kent's case once an idiot always an idiot. Each morning when he and Vic wake they will have the prospect of their own ruin churning in their stomachs, ruin that they sought to set upon others - free men and women alike with the right to live peacefully in this land without the attentions of a rabid mob. If you read this Kent, remember your snickering comments about my family and understand at least now the strength that grew in me when your cast your sick eyes and attention over my wife and children.

Changes have at last occurred in cyber-space here in New Zealand. The biggest site Trade Me now specifies that users must not harass or defame others on their boards. While it remains to be seen if live publishing online can ultimately be contained as lawful, I recognise the effort made to ensure that the risks are actively reduced - a substantial step in the right direction. All things have a starting point and one was obviously my letter to TM almost 2 years ago pointing out that their site was being populated by waves of hate-siters whose tools were lying, defamation and threats. If TM had been less like a slow maneuvering vessel they would have most likely avoided the litigation that was commenced against them about 6 months later and which continues on - probably inevitably to some sort of settlement between them and the plaintiff Joe Karam.

There has been an increased appreciation that online publishing isn't by any stretch of the imagination 'a chat in the pub.' Also, there is a sharp awareness between all online publishers that there protocols are recognised as being no different from the print media and with the same restraints. There is recognition by precedent before the Courts that nzers can be harassed on line and can take that to the Courts for relief without apparent need for massive law changes, but rather simply the Judicial appreciation that the written word, whether on a computer screen on a published newspaper, is not diminished one from the other - but that they, and their impact is one and the same, screen or printed page.

Perhaps also there grows an awareness of the social change that cyberspace first brought which seemed to have no limits or boundaries to the recognition that there were always limits and boundaries, and that people would invariably learn that a hot pool discovered on a trip into the bush in Rotorua didn't need to have a sign, erected by the Council, to warn of the dangers. Because the dangers were clear and present to anyone of experience and common sense. Also the fears that the anxious online users held that they might be restrained by not being able to 'speak their minds' or engage in snooping and prying into the lives of others,  by some measure of insanity or social deviance, they thought they 'owned' because of a superior position they felt to hold over others not 'as good as them,' or deficient in some compared to the 'elite' defamers and stalkers. And for the more socially well-adjusted, the opportunity to see some measure of decorum and restraint arrive on message boards that might be expected by a mature and civilised society looking to progress itself with new social mediums.

I chose the title above for the obvious reasons that Parker, Purkiss, Curran and others hate-site owners have fallen over into redundancy to become an odd fixture in the recent past. A past where individuals that might otherwise have been socially moderate became monsters to an all consuming hate, sated by a false power they felt was their 'destiny' or 'right' to interfere mercilessly into the lives of not only those they considered their enemies but also the families, children and friends of those as well. The first individual, in this now expiring saga, was Annette Curran, quickly to be joined by Glenda OBrien, nina_s and others. I additionally chose the title because these hateful people and their campaigns inadvertently gave something good to nzers. They gave the opportunity for nzers to learn and see that there is a way out from being stalked and harassed in cyberspace and that the Courts can help them. This could now be seen as a blue print in the future for those that might choose cyber-space to bully, threaten or commence hate-campaigns to be stopped quickly and efficiently. I say that being mindful of the nz teenagers being bullied on line that featured on Close Up this week.

More pages yet to write and investigate on this subject, particularly the links that fed and used the hate-sites that now lie expired, but an interim report on substantial progress for the benefit of the majority.

Aaron Fordon recaptured, no need to breathe a sigh of relief.

George Wilder escaped, went over the wall more than once and hid in the bush for Howard Morrison to sing about a wild colonial boy.  So too, Dean Wickliffe, the kid who ran the railway lines to find his life, twice broke free of the Paremoremo prison from where no one had escaped before to patch together an unsettled life.
So for the escapers all 3 a salute, for showing adventure into the night and risk - to find the dream of a life that might be less severe, for rebelling that impotent man, bereft of ideas, compassion or care should lock others in cages where death, hopelessnes and misery abounds. So escape ye yet for the enlightened time where cold stone no longer cushions you but love instead.