The following is probably well-known to many followers of the Watson case, but while admitting that I haven't followed the case closely I don't recall having read it before, somebody sent it onto me so I've deleted names and published. Of course if it's verifiable, it would in normal circumstances show that at least a retrial was necessary in the Watson case. Overall, with the 'golden bullet' a hair allegedly from Olivia Hope evidence missed on a blanket when first scrutinised by a scientist but found later (and also with some debate about it's dna profie accuracy,) additional to the logistics of Scott's boat being able to travel at jet boat speed, the undesirable witness identifications, lack of motive and so forth - it would really mean case against Watson over and out.
I have a friend who along with his family (one with a sailing background) believe that the conviction against Watson relies on a contrived number of impossible circumstances. My friend says that a boat the size of Scott's would be stepped down into from a water taxi, although witnesses described those disembarking as having 'stepped up,' I imagine into something the size of that described below. Very disturbing.
THE MISSING KETCH
xxx ..... states 24 dec 1997
The next mooring, about 8-9.00 am, we set off. We sailed up Queen
Charlotte Sound. We went around the north side of Allports Island at
which time
we passed the Lynx and an interislander heading the other way.
We sailed through the Patten Passage then through the passage south of
Pickersgill Island.
We stopped on Blumine Island for lunch.
We sailed on to Anatohia Bay. We did not stop here but turned and
headed directly to Punga Cove.
We moored somewhere in Camp Bay, on one of the moorings.
We arrived there at about 6.00 pm. We were met by my sister xxx
xxx and her daughter xxx.
They arrived by water taxi.
While we were waiting for them to arrive another boat moored on the
mooring 30 metres north of us.
This was a white hulled ketch with round port holes in the cabin area,
above the deck.
It had a life buoy on it with the name “xxxx Wellington” on it.
My sister xxxx took a photograph of the boat a short time after her arrival.
I believe my wife has furnished a copy of this photograph to Wellington Police.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Monday, June 27, 2011
Arthur William Taylor - fairly bizzare television show
about him last night. Justice Minister Collins refused to be interviewed and so did the department, until a letter was dispatched to them by Ms Collins, though the department official said the reversal of the decision had nothing to do with anyone getting kicked in the butt by the Minister. Following from which, the department spokesperson, departed from the usual refusal to comment on the grounds of privacy, went onto reveal that the desperate Mr Taylor had been placed in solitary. When asked to explain how it was that Taylor could have taken photos of his gaol house law office, the spokesman said that 'incalcitrants' (something of that sort) were known to shove mobile phones up their bottoms, this was despite a deputy commissioner of police having described the security screens surrounding Taylor at all times. The deputy commissioner later went onto to describe how cunning Taylor was and other general descriptions that one would have thought would not be forthcoming from the commissioner knowing that Taylor had already appealed his conviction(s) for some gaol house organised drug importation of some description.
We also got to hear from the commissioner that Taylor, an armed robber among other things - so dispelling any misguided thoughts viewers might have harboured about armed robbers, pointed firearms at people and had spent around 30 years in prison. We got to see the grimace on Taylor's face when the Judge, sentencing him to 7 years, called him a minor celebrity who revelled in the role.
Not to be outdone the reporter questions Arthur's wife on the reasons why Arthur was permitted access to a law library and so forth, as though she, the wife, was instrumental in that decision. Overall, one might have got the impression that Arthur Taylor pissed the police and justice department right off for not only his dozen or so escapes but also because of his success in the courts over the years. Probably safe to assume that Arthur Taylor will have something to say in the Courts about the disclosures about him to the public. I know he's spent many years in solitary but it will be interesting to see how the Courts receive the news, that Taylor has not been able to prepare his defence (I gathered he has a number of cases going - some on behalf of other prisoners) and the QC appointed to advise him at his recent trial spoke of his acknowledgement of the legal skills of Taylor who, I seem to recall, was taken from Paremoremo a couple of years ago, to visit a dying Judge of the North Shore Court, at the Judge's request.
I once negotiated on his behalf when he was on a hunger strike and at other times teased him unmercifully about certain aspects of his slightly blemished character, during which discourses he would refer to himself in the 3rd person as AW Taylor when I reckoned he needed a good tickle. Blinking bank robbers.
Whatever is the motivation of Taylor, he's crossed swords with the police and justice department for 30 years and appears to be showing no signs of giving up. The unfortunate thing might be that nobody has been able to harness the formidable Arthur Taylor into a life of less conflict with the authorities, and that despite not being known as a violent man, has been treated as one because of his unbending spirit and willingness to fight the authorities every step of the way. I was reminded that as a page turns in attitudes toward the 'illegality' of certain drugs, and the futility of the 'war against drugs' without which Taylor may have moved from being an armed robber, to a more legit life, instead of apparently entering the drug trade. One thing is for sure, even locked in solitary, he won't be giving up - not even an inch.
We also got to hear from the commissioner that Taylor, an armed robber among other things - so dispelling any misguided thoughts viewers might have harboured about armed robbers, pointed firearms at people and had spent around 30 years in prison. We got to see the grimace on Taylor's face when the Judge, sentencing him to 7 years, called him a minor celebrity who revelled in the role.
Not to be outdone the reporter questions Arthur's wife on the reasons why Arthur was permitted access to a law library and so forth, as though she, the wife, was instrumental in that decision. Overall, one might have got the impression that Arthur Taylor pissed the police and justice department right off for not only his dozen or so escapes but also because of his success in the courts over the years. Probably safe to assume that Arthur Taylor will have something to say in the Courts about the disclosures about him to the public. I know he's spent many years in solitary but it will be interesting to see how the Courts receive the news, that Taylor has not been able to prepare his defence (I gathered he has a number of cases going - some on behalf of other prisoners) and the QC appointed to advise him at his recent trial spoke of his acknowledgement of the legal skills of Taylor who, I seem to recall, was taken from Paremoremo a couple of years ago, to visit a dying Judge of the North Shore Court, at the Judge's request.
I once negotiated on his behalf when he was on a hunger strike and at other times teased him unmercifully about certain aspects of his slightly blemished character, during which discourses he would refer to himself in the 3rd person as AW Taylor when I reckoned he needed a good tickle. Blinking bank robbers.
Whatever is the motivation of Taylor, he's crossed swords with the police and justice department for 30 years and appears to be showing no signs of giving up. The unfortunate thing might be that nobody has been able to harness the formidable Arthur Taylor into a life of less conflict with the authorities, and that despite not being known as a violent man, has been treated as one because of his unbending spirit and willingness to fight the authorities every step of the way. I was reminded that as a page turns in attitudes toward the 'illegality' of certain drugs, and the futility of the 'war against drugs' without which Taylor may have moved from being an armed robber, to a more legit life, instead of apparently entering the drug trade. One thing is for sure, even locked in solitary, he won't be giving up - not even an inch.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Patrick O'Brien - what's to investigate?
Inquiry into cop who lied in court
By Jared Savage
Patrick O'Brien was honoured for his undercover work. A criminal investigation is under way into an undercover police officer's confession that he lied in court and wrongfully sent at least 150 people to prison.
Patrick O'Brien wrote to Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias and former Police Commissioner Howard Broad admitting to perjury, saying he was racked with guilt after carrying a "dreadful secret" for more than 30 years.
He was an undercover agent in drugs operations in the 1970s, immersed in the criminal underworld and the star Crown witness in the resulting court trials.
But Mr O'Brien says he lied on oath every time he testified, and sent a confession letter in November 2007.
The police hired Wellington lawyer Bruce Squire, QC, to investigate.
He interviewed Mr O'Brien in July 2009, and reviewed court files dating back to 1974. Mr Squire finished his inquiry and sent his report to the police, but would not comment on his conclusions.
He said the report was sent to police more than a year ago.
His terms of reference were to confirm the truth of Mr O'Brien's allegations and determine whether police should investigate.
Now, the file has been handed to Detective Inspector Bruce Scott, head of the Waitemata district CIB, to look further into the perjury claims.
Mr Scott emailed Mr O'Brien last week requesting a meeting.
"As a result of Mr Bruce Squire's report, the former Deputy Commissioner directed that I make enquiries into the matters raised by you and consider any criminal liability," Mr Scott wrote.
"I have read the report produced by Mr Squire and also read the interview conducted with you. I have further looked at the evidence that you gave in Court from the transcripts that were available to Mr Squire.
"I am wanting to know if there is any other information that you have that may assist me in determining any criminal liability, or are there other persons that you consider need to be spoken to that could assist an enquiry relating to these matters?"
Mr O'Brien said he would co-operate fully with the inquiry and plead guilty to any charges.
In his confession, he said he could not guess the number of people who were convicted and imprisoned "because of my lies" as he stopped counting arrests at 150, halfway through his three-year undercover stint.
"In every case I lied to the courts and I lied to the juries to obtain convictions against my targets.
"Telling lies was easy - 'policemen don't tell lies' - and my targets never stood a chance."
Mr O'Brien said he was often high on drugs, including cannabis, cocaine, heroin and LSD, during undercover operations. But he denied this when questioned at trials.
He now considers he was a drug addict at that time in his life.
In some cases, Mr O'Brien said he directly lied and said people sold him drugs - when they did not.
Tampering with evidence was also common, he said. Often the exhibit before the court was not the drugs he bought from the target.
The shame and stress of the work broke Mr O'Brien. He resigned from the police and fled New Zealand, "haunted, traumatised and scared".
"My life since has been a tragic waste; running, always running, but never able to lose the demons that rush around in my head."
Mr O'Brien was honoured for his undercover work by former Governor-General Sir David Beattie, who as a judge presided over a series of drug trials in the High Court at Hamilton in 1974.
Sir David wrote a glowing commendation of the young constable to Police Commissioner Ken Burnside, describing him as a credible witness.
But Mr O'Brien confessed to Dame Sian: "In every case and on every charge, I lied to Sir David and I lied to his juries."
What he did
Patrick John O'Brien was an undercover police officer between 1974 and 1977. He says he committed perjury by telling lies while giving evidence at trial, and that he:
* Was often high on drugs while undercover, but denied ever using drugs when giving evidence at trials.
* Asked a suspected burglar to help break into a pharmacy in Hamilton but told a jury the man invited him, and he denied "entrapment".
* Told a jury that an accused drug dealer sold "buddha sticks" to him. The drugs were actually sold to someone else.
* Tampered with evidence by skimming drugs from bags for his own use.
What a trail of crap the public are being fed here. Patrick O'Brien has confessed, to the Chief Justice, a Former Commissioner, no doubt to Bruce Squire QC and more evidently to the public.
The head of CIB in West Auckand "Mr Scott emailed Mr O'Brien last week requesting a meeting.
"As a result of Mr Bruce Squire's report, the former Deputy Commissioner directed that I make enquiries into the matters raised by you and consider any criminal liability," Mr Scott wrote. Has been asked to enquire into the matter. That will make at least 2 Police Officers (including an ex Commissioner,) the Current Chief Justice, a QC, and about 1 million New Zealanders. Patrick has admitted perjury and other crimes when working as a police officer, has said that he will plead guilty if charged. One can hardly wonder what more proof the police need, maybe a Royal Commission of Inquiry?
Every police officer in NZ knows what to do when somebody confesses to a crime, but in this case we see years of dithering. I accept the police have been made to feel uncomfortable by one of their ex-members, but discomfort or not they're obliged to act, particularly in a case which is so straight forward. It would seem that some senior police view this as a case to be ignored in the belief that it might go away. Those with that view add to the difficulties of a police force already under public scrutiny, they should show leadership to give both serving police and the public confidence. Patrick should be charged with every crime he has admitted. There was once a practice (and probably still is) where compliant convicts admitted a cluster of outstanding crimes (whether they might have done them or not) in order to help police clear unsolved crimes, in return they were rewarded in some way. Disposing of unsolved crimes in a convenient way hasn't been an aversion to police in the past, why one must wonder do police, QC's, Judges the lot ignore a compliant confessor of crimes against justice - the very core of that which those concerned are sworn, or warranted to uphold.
Nothing personal about Patrick O'Brien here, he seems to be very troubled by what has happened in his life, hardly a survivor of having taken the risk to work undercover. What might be odd is that he has the moral compass to feel defeated and in debt to what he did earlier in his life. In fact he probably simply expedited the imprisonment of crooks, cut corners, saw the prevailing wind was that the ends justified the means, went along with things, taking advantage of what he could for himself along the way, acted no differently than other colleagues of his. I wouldn't wish an hours imprisonment on him. The guy is a hero for the truth and he's calling out loudly that the king has no clothes, but the king dithers uncomfortably at the wretch who calls out. The king is uncomfortable with the truth.
By Jared Savage
Patrick O'Brien was honoured for his undercover work. A criminal investigation is under way into an undercover police officer's confession that he lied in court and wrongfully sent at least 150 people to prison.
Patrick O'Brien wrote to Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias and former Police Commissioner Howard Broad admitting to perjury, saying he was racked with guilt after carrying a "dreadful secret" for more than 30 years.
He was an undercover agent in drugs operations in the 1970s, immersed in the criminal underworld and the star Crown witness in the resulting court trials.
But Mr O'Brien says he lied on oath every time he testified, and sent a confession letter in November 2007.
The police hired Wellington lawyer Bruce Squire, QC, to investigate.
He interviewed Mr O'Brien in July 2009, and reviewed court files dating back to 1974. Mr Squire finished his inquiry and sent his report to the police, but would not comment on his conclusions.
He said the report was sent to police more than a year ago.
His terms of reference were to confirm the truth of Mr O'Brien's allegations and determine whether police should investigate.
Now, the file has been handed to Detective Inspector Bruce Scott, head of the Waitemata district CIB, to look further into the perjury claims.
Mr Scott emailed Mr O'Brien last week requesting a meeting.
"As a result of Mr Bruce Squire's report, the former Deputy Commissioner directed that I make enquiries into the matters raised by you and consider any criminal liability," Mr Scott wrote.
"I have read the report produced by Mr Squire and also read the interview conducted with you. I have further looked at the evidence that you gave in Court from the transcripts that were available to Mr Squire.
"I am wanting to know if there is any other information that you have that may assist me in determining any criminal liability, or are there other persons that you consider need to be spoken to that could assist an enquiry relating to these matters?"
Mr O'Brien said he would co-operate fully with the inquiry and plead guilty to any charges.
In his confession, he said he could not guess the number of people who were convicted and imprisoned "because of my lies" as he stopped counting arrests at 150, halfway through his three-year undercover stint.
"In every case I lied to the courts and I lied to the juries to obtain convictions against my targets.
"Telling lies was easy - 'policemen don't tell lies' - and my targets never stood a chance."
Mr O'Brien said he was often high on drugs, including cannabis, cocaine, heroin and LSD, during undercover operations. But he denied this when questioned at trials.
He now considers he was a drug addict at that time in his life.
In some cases, Mr O'Brien said he directly lied and said people sold him drugs - when they did not.
Tampering with evidence was also common, he said. Often the exhibit before the court was not the drugs he bought from the target.
The shame and stress of the work broke Mr O'Brien. He resigned from the police and fled New Zealand, "haunted, traumatised and scared".
"My life since has been a tragic waste; running, always running, but never able to lose the demons that rush around in my head."
Mr O'Brien was honoured for his undercover work by former Governor-General Sir David Beattie, who as a judge presided over a series of drug trials in the High Court at Hamilton in 1974.
Sir David wrote a glowing commendation of the young constable to Police Commissioner Ken Burnside, describing him as a credible witness.
But Mr O'Brien confessed to Dame Sian: "In every case and on every charge, I lied to Sir David and I lied to his juries."
What he did
Patrick John O'Brien was an undercover police officer between 1974 and 1977. He says he committed perjury by telling lies while giving evidence at trial, and that he:
* Was often high on drugs while undercover, but denied ever using drugs when giving evidence at trials.
* Asked a suspected burglar to help break into a pharmacy in Hamilton but told a jury the man invited him, and he denied "entrapment".
* Told a jury that an accused drug dealer sold "buddha sticks" to him. The drugs were actually sold to someone else.
* Tampered with evidence by skimming drugs from bags for his own use.
What a trail of crap the public are being fed here. Patrick O'Brien has confessed, to the Chief Justice, a Former Commissioner, no doubt to Bruce Squire QC and more evidently to the public.
The head of CIB in West Auckand "Mr Scott emailed Mr O'Brien last week requesting a meeting.
"As a result of Mr Bruce Squire's report, the former Deputy Commissioner directed that I make enquiries into the matters raised by you and consider any criminal liability," Mr Scott wrote. Has been asked to enquire into the matter. That will make at least 2 Police Officers (including an ex Commissioner,) the Current Chief Justice, a QC, and about 1 million New Zealanders. Patrick has admitted perjury and other crimes when working as a police officer, has said that he will plead guilty if charged. One can hardly wonder what more proof the police need, maybe a Royal Commission of Inquiry?
Every police officer in NZ knows what to do when somebody confesses to a crime, but in this case we see years of dithering. I accept the police have been made to feel uncomfortable by one of their ex-members, but discomfort or not they're obliged to act, particularly in a case which is so straight forward. It would seem that some senior police view this as a case to be ignored in the belief that it might go away. Those with that view add to the difficulties of a police force already under public scrutiny, they should show leadership to give both serving police and the public confidence. Patrick should be charged with every crime he has admitted. There was once a practice (and probably still is) where compliant convicts admitted a cluster of outstanding crimes (whether they might have done them or not) in order to help police clear unsolved crimes, in return they were rewarded in some way. Disposing of unsolved crimes in a convenient way hasn't been an aversion to police in the past, why one must wonder do police, QC's, Judges the lot ignore a compliant confessor of crimes against justice - the very core of that which those concerned are sworn, or warranted to uphold.
Nothing personal about Patrick O'Brien here, he seems to be very troubled by what has happened in his life, hardly a survivor of having taken the risk to work undercover. What might be odd is that he has the moral compass to feel defeated and in debt to what he did earlier in his life. In fact he probably simply expedited the imprisonment of crooks, cut corners, saw the prevailing wind was that the ends justified the means, went along with things, taking advantage of what he could for himself along the way, acted no differently than other colleagues of his. I wouldn't wish an hours imprisonment on him. The guy is a hero for the truth and he's calling out loudly that the king has no clothes, but the king dithers uncomfortably at the wretch who calls out. The king is uncomfortable with the truth.
It's official, the sisters don't want to come to Court.
They don't want to front up. They don't even want to be questioned about their stalking, and low and behold stalking has become 'free speech' and 'heated debate.' It hasn't occurred to the sisters that to defend an allegation of harassment by saying the harassment was actually a debate and an issue of free speech denies the fact that it takes at least 2 parties to debate an issue. Of course when one of those parties is not part of the 'debate' it can no longer be called a debate. And when you look more closely at what the 'debate' was - threatening to go to people's homes, discussing the children and spouses of other Trade Me members, discussing having children 'removed' from their parents or a wife 'saved' from her husband by a bunch of nutters you see that it is not really a debate at all.
Looking at the record, they're all members of hate-sites, associates. Annette Curran began the family stalking and it was carried on by Christine Williams and others, including Glenda OBrein who 'approached' the Sensible Sentencing Trust to get me put in prison. Silly Glenda, Christine and Annette, they all left a trail as to the essence of the real 'debate' and freedom of speech. And the pedo pals, Stockdale, Kennard and Fox were busy apologists for paedophilia, whilst stalking the jury and crown witnesses, or indeed anybody who challenged their right of 'free speech' to lie about David Bain or anybody they felt supported him.
And of course now, they don't want to come to Court to explain themselves. Explain what my children or family have to do with the filthy pervo members of hate-sites, or indeed why my family is any of their business. Stockdale doesn't want to explain how it happens that somebody just sent him my address, or what proof he has that I phoned him and arranged to meet him. Kennard doesn't want to explain how he debated with me in my absence, or what information he was relying on when he published that I had tracked down one of his former wifes and found out from her that he had been accused of offence against his own family. He doesn't want to explain how I would even know his ex wife, or even her name and what the point of finding her overseas could possibly be.
Well, anyway their names are now lodged in Court documents soon to attended by the names of Glenda OBrein, Annette Curran, Christine Williams and other associates of the stalkers, and will remain there until it is defined whether or not stalking children or jurors is indeed 'free speech' or if a 'debate' can be held with a person in their absence. Absence, yes, how brave they have been, now they plea for absence rather than face their victims. Front up cowards, show your mettle, come to the line I have drawn to protect my family and dare cross it cowards of the night, you snickering messengers of hate. Come out and explain to the Courts your stalking and hate.
Looking at the record, they're all members of hate-sites, associates. Annette Curran began the family stalking and it was carried on by Christine Williams and others, including Glenda OBrein who 'approached' the Sensible Sentencing Trust to get me put in prison. Silly Glenda, Christine and Annette, they all left a trail as to the essence of the real 'debate' and freedom of speech. And the pedo pals, Stockdale, Kennard and Fox were busy apologists for paedophilia, whilst stalking the jury and crown witnesses, or indeed anybody who challenged their right of 'free speech' to lie about David Bain or anybody they felt supported him.
And of course now, they don't want to come to Court to explain themselves. Explain what my children or family have to do with the filthy pervo members of hate-sites, or indeed why my family is any of their business. Stockdale doesn't want to explain how it happens that somebody just sent him my address, or what proof he has that I phoned him and arranged to meet him. Kennard doesn't want to explain how he debated with me in my absence, or what information he was relying on when he published that I had tracked down one of his former wifes and found out from her that he had been accused of offence against his own family. He doesn't want to explain how I would even know his ex wife, or even her name and what the point of finding her overseas could possibly be.
Well, anyway their names are now lodged in Court documents soon to attended by the names of Glenda OBrein, Annette Curran, Christine Williams and other associates of the stalkers, and will remain there until it is defined whether or not stalking children or jurors is indeed 'free speech' or if a 'debate' can be held with a person in their absence. Absence, yes, how brave they have been, now they plea for absence rather than face their victims. Front up cowards, show your mettle, come to the line I have drawn to protect my family and dare cross it cowards of the night, you snickering messengers of hate. Come out and explain to the Courts your stalking and hate.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Steve, confirming that his losers thread,
wasn't knocked off by his losers.
ash204 wrote:
OH BUBBINS....I THINK THE JFRB SUPPORTERS GOT THE THREAD BUMPED OFF ALL BY THEMSELVES....
No . Losers dont get threads knocked off . Thats your forray
Quote
steve1958 (396 ) 7:47 pm, Thu 23 Jun #63
He's probably got a point, admitting that losers don't get there own threads knocked off. Good work Steve, if you ever stop knocking yourself off you'll have less blisters.
ash204 wrote:
OH BUBBINS....I THINK THE JFRB SUPPORTERS GOT THE THREAD BUMPED OFF ALL BY THEMSELVES....
No . Losers dont get threads knocked off . Thats your forray
Quote
steve1958 (396 ) 7:47 pm, Thu 23 Jun #63
He's probably got a point, admitting that losers don't get there own threads knocked off. Good work Steve, if you ever stop knocking yourself off you'll have less blisters.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
TM - a little confused......?
complaining from anyone can ban you: My response from TM and I think some know who we're talking about LOL:
"I can assure you that we only disable accounts if they are making multiple breaches of our message board rules. Therefore no matter how much other members may complain or try to get your account banned, we only take action if there are genuine breaches of the rules. If there are not then we just dismiss their complaints. So as long as you post on Trade Me within the rules no amount of complaining from them will get you banned.
In terms of the MB2 threads, you may want to contact the moderators there to see if they can do anything about those posts.
I also suggest that if you think this matter could escalate that you lay a harassment complaint with the police, especially if there are defamatory comments being thrown around. We will assist them with their investigations wherever possible."
The way some of them speak about people on there, it may just come to that.
Have a nice day stalkers!
Quote
tara34 (334 ) 7:44 am, Wed 22 Jun #1
Oh well, at least now it has become evident that TM are beginning to understand what board harassment is. They're a little confused about defamation, as can be shown by its context of use above, also that there is a definition under the Harassment Act 1987 between 'civil' and criminal harassment and it may only be the later under which the Police could possibly act. But the message is getting through if not all the content. The poster above is clearly having trouble with stalkers, and as in the past I always invite anyone to write here regarding message board stalking anywhere, I will keep any information confidential if asked, and may be able to offer some help as to how the Law might help.
Credit due to TM, after many years they're slowly getting the picture as to what their responsibilities as publishers are (despite still trying to water those responsibilities down with qualified denial.) Bad news of course for those that have ended up in the Courts because TM don't monitor their boards properly to curtail stalking as soon as it begins, as inevitably that inaction encouraged the behaviour of the stalkers, that and sheer idiocy - but no one is really concerned for them (the stalkers,) except themselves.
"I can assure you that we only disable accounts if they are making multiple breaches of our message board rules. Therefore no matter how much other members may complain or try to get your account banned, we only take action if there are genuine breaches of the rules. If there are not then we just dismiss their complaints. So as long as you post on Trade Me within the rules no amount of complaining from them will get you banned.
In terms of the MB2 threads, you may want to contact the moderators there to see if they can do anything about those posts.
I also suggest that if you think this matter could escalate that you lay a harassment complaint with the police, especially if there are defamatory comments being thrown around. We will assist them with their investigations wherever possible."
The way some of them speak about people on there, it may just come to that.
Have a nice day stalkers!
Quote
tara34 (334 ) 7:44 am, Wed 22 Jun #1
Oh well, at least now it has become evident that TM are beginning to understand what board harassment is. They're a little confused about defamation, as can be shown by its context of use above, also that there is a definition under the Harassment Act 1987 between 'civil' and criminal harassment and it may only be the later under which the Police could possibly act. But the message is getting through if not all the content. The poster above is clearly having trouble with stalkers, and as in the past I always invite anyone to write here regarding message board stalking anywhere, I will keep any information confidential if asked, and may be able to offer some help as to how the Law might help.
Credit due to TM, after many years they're slowly getting the picture as to what their responsibilities as publishers are (despite still trying to water those responsibilities down with qualified denial.) Bad news of course for those that have ended up in the Courts because TM don't monitor their boards properly to curtail stalking as soon as it begins, as inevitably that inaction encouraged the behaviour of the stalkers, that and sheer idiocy - but no one is really concerned for them (the stalkers,) except themselves.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Reported today that the headmaster of King's College,
Bradley Fenner, is considering phasing out the school ball following the death of David Raynor. He is reported to be considering speaking to other college headmasters about the same issues of student safety. I can't help but being reminded how poorly we are all equipped to deal with suicide, the way it works silently among us, among youth in particularly often without visible outward signs and the shock it brings to bear in it's aftermath.
However, the answer for Kings most likely lies within the school and the current pupil crop. That is an answer good enough that can be arrived at for a very complex situation. The school could conduct a confidential audit of sorts, among the peer groups of those who have used alcohol to excess, and friends of the deceased. Simply banning the ball is shifting the whereabouts or catalyst for potential problems like this into the future. I think the pupils and their parents deserve to know as much as possible about what, if anything has linked the recent deaths and look for common denominators that will allow strategies to put in place to overcome the deeper problems of alcohol and drug abuse. Parents and staff might not necessarily like the answers but they will be armed with an understanding and strategies to help the pupils cope through what is proven to be a difficult time for all teenagers.
Those conducting the audit would be probably ex pupils or those of an age the pupils would be able to identify with and share what isn't being seen now. There is a picture adrift from those presenting neatly in uniform, high achieving but with elements of disarray that appear to be contributing, or potentially contributing to binge drinking or drug taking without control for at least a number of pupils. Wouldn't the interest of other pupils, parents and the school be better served of a composite profile of all those who past through the school gates, something able to map changes as the pupils become older. An informal study of what they perceive as socialising, what underlying pressures might be brought to bear by sub-cultures within the school culture. Could knowing more about the pupils, behind the facade, be in anyway detrimental?
Isn't every parent, right across society, concerned about their child's teenage years and how they should be navigated without harm? Does Kings have anything to lose? I wouldn't say so, but everything to gain. Even the argument between parent and school responsibility is already crossed on this one. Who is the real Kings pupil and what are their characteristics, what changes does Kings bring about in them or they in one another.
On the question of what is to lose, I'd suggest nothing. Kings, through Fenner and others, has acknowledged problems within the school and that is a significant step. He has also rightly pointed out that the problems are not universal to all King's pupils and are probably shared with pupils from other schools - there is no denying that. But it appears that the shock that follows such things, or a number of such things can be immobilising, and not formerly something which might have been prepared for, or indeed even envisaged - a situation that doesn't necessarily bring blame but which however cries out for a remedy.
To many minds Kings are getting beaten up, but probably to a greater number an anticipation of what Kings might do. Shutting down the ball (whilst probably a good general idea) doesn't measure against the known phenomenon - that geographical change (or in this case another less public event) doesn't correct the drivers of problems that manifest themselves into disaster.
Two points are already defined, alcohol abuse, and suicide, the later perhaps being suicide from a particular bridge or in a particular way, and surely no adult could be as naive to expect that there is not a subtext of covert dialogue underway among King's pupils over these issues, nor that the dialogue is divorced from a probably largely hidden sub-culture among the same pupils.
However, the answer for Kings most likely lies within the school and the current pupil crop. That is an answer good enough that can be arrived at for a very complex situation. The school could conduct a confidential audit of sorts, among the peer groups of those who have used alcohol to excess, and friends of the deceased. Simply banning the ball is shifting the whereabouts or catalyst for potential problems like this into the future. I think the pupils and their parents deserve to know as much as possible about what, if anything has linked the recent deaths and look for common denominators that will allow strategies to put in place to overcome the deeper problems of alcohol and drug abuse. Parents and staff might not necessarily like the answers but they will be armed with an understanding and strategies to help the pupils cope through what is proven to be a difficult time for all teenagers.
Those conducting the audit would be probably ex pupils or those of an age the pupils would be able to identify with and share what isn't being seen now. There is a picture adrift from those presenting neatly in uniform, high achieving but with elements of disarray that appear to be contributing, or potentially contributing to binge drinking or drug taking without control for at least a number of pupils. Wouldn't the interest of other pupils, parents and the school be better served of a composite profile of all those who past through the school gates, something able to map changes as the pupils become older. An informal study of what they perceive as socialising, what underlying pressures might be brought to bear by sub-cultures within the school culture. Could knowing more about the pupils, behind the facade, be in anyway detrimental?
Isn't every parent, right across society, concerned about their child's teenage years and how they should be navigated without harm? Does Kings have anything to lose? I wouldn't say so, but everything to gain. Even the argument between parent and school responsibility is already crossed on this one. Who is the real Kings pupil and what are their characteristics, what changes does Kings bring about in them or they in one another.
On the question of what is to lose, I'd suggest nothing. Kings, through Fenner and others, has acknowledged problems within the school and that is a significant step. He has also rightly pointed out that the problems are not universal to all King's pupils and are probably shared with pupils from other schools - there is no denying that. But it appears that the shock that follows such things, or a number of such things can be immobilising, and not formerly something which might have been prepared for, or indeed even envisaged - a situation that doesn't necessarily bring blame but which however cries out for a remedy.
To many minds Kings are getting beaten up, but probably to a greater number an anticipation of what Kings might do. Shutting down the ball (whilst probably a good general idea) doesn't measure against the known phenomenon - that geographical change (or in this case another less public event) doesn't correct the drivers of problems that manifest themselves into disaster.
Two points are already defined, alcohol abuse, and suicide, the later perhaps being suicide from a particular bridge or in a particular way, and surely no adult could be as naive to expect that there is not a subtext of covert dialogue underway among King's pupils over these issues, nor that the dialogue is divorced from a probably largely hidden sub-culture among the same pupils.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)