"We have maintained a silence closely resembling stupidity" - Neil Roberts

Until we have legislation adopted into law to ensure fiduciary accountability and transparency in public affairs we will continue to have human rights breached because the existing crown immunity and lack of any independent oversight invites corruption to flourish.


"Question authority, and think for yourself" - Timothy Leary


"We have maintained a silence closely resembling stupidity" - Neil Roberts


"Information is the currency of democracy" - Thomas Jefferson


‎"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does." - Margaret Mead

"The truth is like a lion, you don't have to defend it. Let it loose, it will defend itself."

"I = m c 2 [squared] where "I" am information" - Timothy Leary

"Ring the bells that still can ring, forget your perfect offering, there's a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in." Leonard Cohen

"The internet is a TV that watches you"

Friday, November 30, 2012

The Secret Life of Information - Outrageous conduct of British media:


"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers, which are cited to justify it."

President John F. Kennedy

Address to newspaper publishers, April 27, 1961

 The Privacy Act has special provisions dealing with the 'news medium' and 'news activity'.  Journalists are subject only to the jurisdiction of the Press Council and Broadcasting Standards Authority, both are a bit of a joke, and good examples of the failure of self regulation and lack of ethical or moral standards in what passes for 'journalism' today.

This has been demonstrated by the recent scandal involving Rupert Murdoch,Rebecca Brooks, David Cameron and several other British politicians (who enjoyed 'riding' and other activities with Ms Brooks) - hacking the phones of teenage murder victims among other things - perverting the course of justice.

Here in NZ we've got John Key acting against legal advice (again)  and 'giving' the media a big handout right around the time of the last election which - surprise, surprise, he won after his controversial 'radio show' which was the subject of formal complaints shortly before the last election.

On the morning of 7 December the body of Jacintha Saldahna was found, news reports indicate she committed suicide, after two Australian radio station hosts made a "prank call" to King Edward VII hospital where Jacintha Saldahna worked.  She left two little children, and grieving family and friends.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

WCC - Irony, hypocrisy, or both?

Today it was announced that Wellington City Council has paid over a million dollars towards the hype leading up to the premier of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit - well J R R Tolkein's Hobbit actually, but you'd be forgiven for thinking Peter Jackson was the creator.  It's no problem to close streets for the erection of the Weta sculptures in the city, a twelve metre high sculpture of Gollum has been installed at the airport and silhouettes of Hobbits dominate the skyline in Wellington these days, but isn't it funny how times change . . .

It wasn't long ago that the Wellington City Council waged war on another Peter Jackson, for erecting a sculpture of Albert Einstein in Courtenay Place (- at his own expense):
From the Dominion Post, August 2005:
"BEAUTY, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder -- a lesson being learned the hard way by Wellington bar owner Peter Jackson.
He has been embroiled in a David and Goliath-type battle with Wellington City Council over a polystyrene Albert Einstein sculpture he commissioned to hang outside The Lab in Dixon St.
The council claims the artwork is an eyesore and has refused to grant resource consent. But the defiant publican is refusing to remove it.
He said he was prepared to cop a fine for his stand and was even considering an Environment Court appeal.
The 2.5-metre sculpture cost $2000. It was attached to the outside of the Hope Gibbons Building last year.
But the council demanded Mr Jackson apply for consent, claiming it was a sign because it featured the bar's name and breached planning regulations.
He duly applied, but council officers declined consent in June, ruling that Einstein was a visual affront, damaging the architectural and heritage values of a protected heritage building.
Down but not out, Mr Jackson objected and the matter went to a hearing last month.
Facing off against a team of council officials, he said there were countless signs down Courtenay Place. But the council last week dismissed Mr Jackson's objection and upheld the decision to deny him consent. It said the sign was inappropriate and detracted from the building's visual amenity.
"It just seems ridiculous," Mr Jackson said yesterday.
He had no intention of removing the sign as it could affect his business.
Council planning group manager Jane Davis said Mr Jackson had 15 working days to lodge an appeal before the sign had to be removed.
If he refused, the council could issue an abatement notice before seeking a court order.

Friday, November 16, 2012

Silence in the Court: Vince Seimer appeals contempt ruling in the Supreme Court:

On 19 July 2012 Vincent Ross Seimer was granted leave to appeal the finding of contempt of Court regarding publication of the decision of Judge Helen Winkelmann that the Urewera accused were to be denied the right to trial by jury, on Mr Seimer's website, Kiwisfirst.com.  


In the Supreme Court yesterday (15 November 2012), Siemer v Solicitor General SC 37 2012 (CA  417/2011  [2012] NZCA139) discussed the question of whether judges in New Zealand have inherent powers to suppress criminal court judgements - powers not provided in statute or the common law, and whether it was just to imprison a person who did not breach a lawful order.

The hearing challenged a Court of Appeal ruling (CA607/2011 [2012] NZCA 188) which declared NZ judges have this inherent power.  As it is, Judges in New Zealand enjoy immunity from public scrutiny or fiduciary accountability, and the rule of the validity of legitimate public interest has long been enshrined in law and upheld for centuries as the foundation of justice - justice must be seen to be done.  The Supreme Court appeal was heard before Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ, who have reserved their decision (this post will be updated after the decision is received).

Publisher Vince Siemer was convicted and sentenced to six weeks in Mt Eden prison for publishing the December 2010 judgement of Judge Winkelmann in R v Bailey (Emily Bailey, Urewera trials) which denied 18 New Zealand citizens their statutory right to trial by jury, despite the fact that the evidence against the accused was illegally obtained, like a lot of Crown evidence put forward in New Zealand Courts recently - it's a disturbing trend, and one not to be encouraged.  Judge Winkelmann then suppressed her decision so nobody would know that she had denied the defendants their right to a jury trial.

The judgment was ordered suppressed from the public, and no reasons were given for the suppression by issuing Judge Helen Winkelmann.  The reasons given for denying the jury trial were (1) a jury would find it difficult to sit through the trial which was expected to be long, and (2) a jury would likely use "improper reasoning processes".  And nobody is allowed to know about this, apparently.  It has already been established that the evidence was illegally obtained, as it was in a number of other cases, including the much publicised Hollywood style raids on Kim Dotcom and the Switched On Gardener franchise, among others.

This bears remarkable - and chilling - similarity to the recent contempt heaped on the Court by ex "Dr" Brenda Sally Rimkeit, who successfully perverted the course of justice, and acted as Judge AND jury, by corruptly claiming that Katherine Raue was unfit to stand trial or represent herself (or even plead) on charges of Perverting the Course of Justice on the basis that: "Ms Raue is unfit to stand trial. She currently has a mental impairment which is Delusional Disorder. Ms Raue has stated on a number of occasions during this assessment period that she feels capable of representing and defending herself against the current charges. She has suggested that her main line of defence is that the charges are the result of corrupt acts by certain parties and that she will name these parties in Court. My concern is that if she proceeds to represent herself at Court she may, through her delusional belief system, falsely accuse certain parties of wrongdoing."  I most certainly did intend accusing the NZ police of wrongdoing - as I am ENTITLED to do under the law!  And I would most certainly have proved that was the case too, the evidence is elsewhere on this site.

Section 138 if the Criminal Justice Act 1985 was repealed on 5 March 2012.  At the time of Mr Seimer's alleged offence, this section stated:
"138:  Power to clear court and forbid report of proceedings:
(1)Subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) and of any other enactment, every sitting of any court dealing with any proceedings in respect of an offence shall be open to the public.
(2)Where a court is of the opinion that the interests of justice, or of public morality, or of the reputation of any victim of any alleged sexual offence or offence of extortion, or of the security or defence of New Zealand so require, it may make any 1 or more of the following orders:
(a)an order forbidding publication of any report or account of the whole or any part of—
(i)the evidence adduced; or
(ii)the submissions made:
(b)an order forbidding the publication of the name of any witness or witnesses, or any name or particulars likely to lead to the identification of the witness or witnesses:
(c)subject to subsection (3), an order excluding all or any persons other than the informant, any Police employee, the defendant, any counsel engaged in the proceedings, and any officer of the court from the whole or any part of the proceedings.
(3)The power conferred by paragraph (c) of subsection (2) shall not, except where the interests of security or defence so require, be exercised so as to exclude any accredited news media reporter.
(4)An order made under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (2)—
(a)may be made for a limited period or permanently; and
(b)if it is made for a limited period, may be renewed for a further period or periods by the court; and
(c)if it is made permanently, may be reviewed by the court at any time.
(5)The powers conferred by this section to make orders of any kind described in subsection (2) are in substitution for any such powers that a court may have had under any inherent jurisdiction or any rule of law; and no court shall have power to make any order of any such kind except in accordance with this section or any other enactment.
(6)Notwithstanding that an order is made under subsection (2)(c), the announcement of the verdict or decision of the court (including a decision to commit the defendant for trial or sentence) and the passing of sentence shall in every case take place in public; but, if the court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances so require, it may decline to state in public all or any of the facts, reasons, or other considerations that it has taken into account in reaching its decision or verdict or in determining the sentence passed by it on any defendant.
(7)Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who commits a breach of any order made under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (2) or evades or attempts to evade any such order.
(8)The breach of any order made under subsection (2)(c), or any evasion or attempted evasion of it, may be dealt with as contempt of court.
(9)Nothing in this section shall limit the powers of the court under sections 139 and 140 to prohibit the publication of any name.

It was questioned whether in fact section 138 even applied to judgements, and Ms Laracy, appearing for the Crown, accepted that the Court of Appeal would have probably overturned Judge Winkelmann's decision.  The difference between actual risk and hypothetical risk was discussed, as well as the questionable necessity of suppression given the existence of strict liability contempt.  The Criminal Procedure Act 2011 contains new provisions, the Criminal Justice Act and the Bail Act also contain relevant sections.

The question of whether the Court imposed the Order under inherent jurisdiction or under its powers under section 138 was discussed, and whether if Judge Winkelmann had no jurisdiction to make the Order there was no contempt.  The Solicitor General apparently decided that Judge Winkelmann didn't have the power to make the order, and struggled with seeing how fair trial rights were implicated by Judge Winkelmann's decision being in the public arena.

Powers must be exercised for a legitimate purpose.  It was put to the Court that the law requires the Judge to give a valid reason for suppression and not to exercise arbitrary excessive power.  The reason given was that Judge Winkelmann felt that the jury would not be able to come to grips with the complexities of the case apparently - and she obviously felt that the public of New Zealand were not sophisticated enough to hear about it either.  It stretches the bounds of credibility to suggest that the Judge was not influenced by political pressure that sought to keep the details of how the evidence against the accused was illegally obtained from public scrutiny - therefore jeopardising a fair trial.

Tony Ellis appeared for Mr Seimer, his summing up was brief.  He put it to the Court that there was no claim that the publication of the decision was a threat to justice and that the Order could not be justified as being in the interests of justice, that the Judge failed to give an adequate reason, that she exercised excessive arbitrary power, that it was against the fundamental rule of law that the Court be unaccountable, unappealable and the Judge above criticism while Vince Seimer goes to jail for reporting a trial that is in the public interest and in the interests of justice to be open and transparent.  He put it to the Court that there was no criminal or civil jurisdiction in fact, and that a person should be able to challenge an Order if it is unlawful.  He asserted that the Judge had no jurisdiction, either inherent or under section 138 (which applied at the time of the alleged offending), and that the law is "obscure, uncertain and unclear."


It's vitally important to democracy and fundamental to justice that Court hearings are open to public scrutiny and that Judges are transparent and accountable for their decisions.  We await the decision, and will update this post when it becomes available.  Another Siemer decision was referred to in a recent Judges "minute" I received from the Court - and more about the current practice of the Court in issuing these "minutes" instead of proper judgements at that link.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Child abuse: "It's a Maori problem" - Christine Rankin:



I made a formal complaint to TVNZ and the Broadcasting Standards Authority after Chrisine Rankin claimed on national television that "child abuse is a Maori problem and it's time Maori faced up to it.  The complaint was not upheld on the grounds that "not many people would have been offended by the comments".  This one's for you Christine, and all the other know it all's who claim to "represent abused kids" - while exploiting the system for their own profit, it's time people faced up to THIS:

From the Native School Teachers Log Books, this one from Karioi Native School, for the WAI262 report, 2000. All Log Books held at the National Archives:

After a large amount of forbearance I have to resort to the ‘stick’ in earnest. Fred Rameka and Richard Mau on being ‘stood out’ for talking, played and laughed and generally made a ‘good joke’ of it. I gave them each 2 sharp strokes…
B Hawkins, 18 February 1898

Te Pohi a new boy came to school. He was inclined to be impudent & one day I told him to go into the cupboard for doing what he had been told not to do. He was sulky & refused so obstinately that it was necessary to cane him. Since then on Nov 4th (1899) Paora was caned for disobedience.
Agnes Grant, c November 1899

On 5th April (1900) I was obliged to cane Taupiri again for deliberate disobedience
& sulkiness.

On Wednesday 4th July (1900) I caned Taupiri for sulking & she has since been very amiable. Agnes Grant.

On April 16th (1900) Riwaru a very small boy who had only been a short time at school refused to go into the cupboard when I told him to go. He had no idea of obedience in school & I thought the stick would be less lightly to frighten him than the cupboard & so gave it instead. Agnes Grant, c April 1900

On Feb 13th (1901) I caned Iwi for impudent & deliberate
disobedience…On Feb 22nd (1901) I was obliged to cane Iwi again for insubordination. She has been better since.
Agnes Grant, c February 1901

In the case of the little girl who is partly a negress I have to my regret been obliged to make an entire exception to my usual methods of management. I have tried with the this child special kindness, special rewards, speaking to her alone, laughing at her, putting her in the corner, giving her impositions, keeping her in till nearly dark, shutting her up alone, expelling her for a week & caning her, & the last seems to be the only thing which really appeals to her & makes her try to do better.
Agnes Grant, c December 1902

Both Matenga and Te Aonui preferred the cane to the strap & we decided that in future I should try if one hit was sufficient & only give more when it proved quite necessary. I explained to them that my reason for caning on the calf of the leg was that I had heard of the bones of the hand being injured by caning. Grant 1902

I had much trouble with carelessness in pen & ink writing & Arthur & Waru were punished for this offence: the result was a marked improvement in their written work.
Agnes Grant, c April 1904

I also had to give Ema the strap. Ema is the child with negro blood who has always been such a difficult child to manage. Agnes Grant, c July 1903

Punished Sam French (4 cuts in back) for scratching a desk with a piece of glass also 2 cuts his sister for doing same.
D Hamilton, 9 July 1895

Gave Hone 5 on each hand with strap, for his absence yesterday.
W Leach, 31 August 1903

Okoha 1900–1904 (BAAA 1003/2k) William Hemi received corporal punishment for using bad language, followed by disobedience & defiance leading to a ‘scene’.
Bertha Baigent, 24 October 1900

Punished Willie Walker & Edwin Hemi for want of application. Both these boys are bright & intelligent but have become somewhat lazy over their work & do not use their brains sufficiently.
Bertha Baigent, 14 March 1901

Gave Rowney, W Waha & M A Murray a hand each for running away from school in the afternoon to eat peaches.
Teacher, 19 March 1890

Gave Tutere a good cut across the back for rank disobedience.
Teacher, 11 November 1890

Marella Rider asserts she was caned but that is not correct. The cane came in contact with her because of her various movements.
Alexander Mackenzie, 23 November 1897

The Committee wish only English to be spoken in school and playground.
Alexander Mackenzie, 1 July 1899

Papawai 1898–1903 (BAAA 1003/4a)
Percy Tilson recd 4 strokes of the cane for idleness.
P H Clemance, 10 February 1898

Basil Burch for coming to school with extremely dirty hands received 2 strokes with the cane. P H Clemance, 5 June 1899

Have expelled Edward Noble for impertinence. I left the room for a minute & when I returned I found him calling out to the teacher Miss Porter and would not be quiet. I boxed his head & he was then impudent to me & when told to be quiet refused & I then said that I would punish him more. He said he would like to see me try. I expected if I hit him again he would hit me so I told him to leave the school. The expulsion is of course subject to Committee consent.
Alfred Walsh, 6 June 1901 (pencil note by Harry Kirk in log book with comment dangerous practise above reference to boxing pupil’s head)

Hine, Mango, Ane and Miriana for persistent telling, copying, and trifling, each received one stripe on shoulders.
A Wilson, 21 June 1900

Ane and Powhiri caned on shoulders for persistent trifling.
A Wilson, 7 August 1900

Powhiri, for persistent talking, caned on shoulders.
A Wilson, 13 August 1900

Te Oke I light stroke with the cane for persistent disobedience. She is only about 8 years old.
A Wilson, 27 August 1900

Had to cane Tiini Wetere for persistent telling.

Ane Wiremu kept in for persistent telling, refused to answer for the space of half an hour – one stripe on each hand. After an interval still refused to answer or to hold out hand – caned on shoulders. Then made answer.
A Wilson, 20 September 1900

Caned Ngaha, Hautana, Tumate and Whati also Honai during morning
school for persistent whispering. A Wilson, 25 October 1900

In afternoon Hine Tarawhiti, being offended because her little sister was not allowed to sit next to her, declined to work. After a considerable interval I spoke to her and she declined to answer, finally answered insolently. Caned her across shoulders and sent a note to her mother asking her to come over. Father is unfortunately away. After sobbing a lot she left her seat declaring she would take her sister away. I had to give her two more cuts before she
would return to her seat.
A Wilson, 21 May 1901

On Thursday Sept 15th (1900) I caned Paora Matenga for sulks. I had been
having a great deal of trouble with sulks, so I caned him in front of the school in hopes the others would take a warning. It made a great impression
& all the girls wept aloud in sympathy for him. I find sulks very difficult to
deal with.
Agnes Grant, c September 1900

I have read several this morning, hundreds of incidents of child abuse by Pakeha teachers at Native Maori Schools from 1880 - 1930.

Today Maori are blaimed everywhere for abusing their children, they have had wonderful role models in the Pakeha have they not?!! I am incensed at the cruelty these stories record, and in the handwriting of the teachers who have done this!!

Monday, November 12, 2012

Kelvyn Alp's call for Ombudsmen to reopen inquiry into South End School bullying, dishonesty and incompetence:

Kelvyn Alp was one of the many politicians seeking my vote at the last election, and like all the others I asked him to come to Carterton and investigate the incompetence, refusal to investigate complaints, and corruption involving local police and so called community leaders, as well as IPCA, Ombudsmen, Privacy and Health and Disability Commissioners, etc.  Unlike the others, he took up our invitation, and he did come and look into it.

He looked at the evidence, looked at the South End School Gardens, saw our plants and equipment, and the evidence regarding the unjust termination of the employment of both myself and another staff member, serious breaches of our privacy, serious false allegations - deliberately and knowingly false, including malicious and vexatious litigation, and spoke with people concerned and viewed complaints to the school from other parents regarding the actions of the Board.

Mr Alp then reviewed the responses to our complaints, and relevant correspondence etc, and then wrote a formal complaint to the Ombudsmen himself regarding the obvious corruption, dishonesty and bullying regarding the governance of the school and the manner in which my complaints were covered up and the facts deliberately and dishonestly manipulated by the Board of Trustees, the (ex) Principal and Deputy Principal and others:
from: Kelvyn Alp kelvynalp@ournz.net.nz
to: complaint@ombudsmen.parliament.nz
cc: kateraue@gmail.com
date: 24 May 2012 12:59
subject: Formal Complaint
mailed-by: ournz.net.nz
Dear Sir/Ma’am

This is a formal complaint regarding the actions of the Board of Trustees of the South End School, Carterton.
1. The school sent Katherine Raue the attached letter, falsely alleging that she had recently been charged by police with an offence involving a child. 
2. The letter also says that "As a board we hope that either the charges are withdrawn or you are found not guilty as this would remove our problem.  We appreciate the work and enthusiasm that you bring to the school garden and hope that we can be in a position to resume this work in the near future." 
3. Evidence shows that Mrs Raue immediately informed the school that the allegation was untrue (and had in fact advised the Deputy Principal when the DP raised the matter with her verbally weeks before the letter was even written) and requested a meeting with the Board of Trustees.   
4.  The request was refused and the Board began to act in a hostile (and unlawful) manner toward Mrs Raue. 
5. Evidence shows that a Statutory Manager was appointed shortly after this to address other matters of governance, and that there was a subsequent incident involving a member of the public being wrongly given a confidential letter intended for another worker at the school regarding his complaint about the similar termination of his own employment, and there seems to have been a pattern of poor performance of the Board of Trustees and some staff. 
6. The letter should never have been sent, Mrs Raue informed the Deputy Principal (Dallas Powell) that the allegation regarding the charge was untrue prior to the letter even being written, after Ms Powell advised her that she had seen the notes and minutes of the meeting at which the police told the board they had charged her. 
7. The suggestion which was later made, that Mrs Raue told anyone such a thing is preposterous and defies logic, she did NOT say any such thing and the evidence strongly supports the fact that the police and the members of the board made up the story!  Letters from a number of lawyers indicate that this is part of a wider problem involving local police 'sharing information' inappropriately with various "community organisations", and dealing inappropriately and with prejudice regarding many serious complaints.   
8. I note that Mrs Raue was recently acquitted of all eight of the charges which she was clearly falsely accused of, and that this too is part of a pattern of malicious and vexatious litigation instigated against her by the local police, who are currently under inquiry for serious misfeasance which appears to be related to these matters.  I also note that Mrs Raue was acquitted of the charge regarding the unsupported allegations that Mrs Raue called staff "thieving crooks" after no evidence was given in support of the charge - again. 
9. I also note that evidence described by the Deputy Principal appears to have been destroyed by the Board of Trustees, including the notes of the meeting made by the staff representative, and that neither of those staff members have been required to make statements regarding who said what.  It is not credible that the Board would write a letter such as this, terminating employment of a valued contributor to the school, and the physical and mental health of the students, purporting to be caused by such a serious allegation, without recording the reason for the decision anywhere in the minutes etc. 
10. The remedy sought is that stated in the final paragraph of the letter sent to Mrs Raue, prompt reinstatement and access to the garden she established.   
11. This matter has gone on long enough, justice must be done without delay and I request that you uphold this complaint, and that the board honours its promise to reinstate Mrs Raue if the charges were withdrawn - there never were any charges and the letter is based wholly on a false allegation.
Yours faithfully,

Kelvyn Alp
Party Co-Leader

Mobile: +6427 286 8789
Skype: kelvynalp
Email: kelvynalp@ournz.net.nz
Website: www.ournz.org.nz

"Truth is more important than public belief, and any man who feels the need to adjust his knowledge so as to receive public approval is a man unworthy of trust."--Toltec motto

"They must find it difficult...those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority."---Gerald Massey
This has resulted in the Ombudsmen reopening the investigation into these complaints.  Let's hope they put truth before authority - there can be no justice, no authority, and no peace, without justice and truth.

The longer the problem is not dealt with, the worse it gets.  We have young people committing suicide at over twice the national average rate - in a country with some of the highest rates in the world an the issue of who is teaching them and what they're teaching and how is vitally important to the question of why we have such outrageously high suicide rates.  The original complaint regarding the actions of the South End School has now become much worse with the latest very serious false accusations from members of the Board of Trustees involving how I came to receive personal, private and confidential correspondence regarding the unjust termination of the employment of ANOTHER member of the staff of the South End School.  No wonder a Statutory Manager was appointed!  Unfortunately, it appears that the other staff member was sacked by the Board - or the Principal - and not the Statutory Manager, who was appointed to deal with matters of finance and governance.

This problem of having complaints deliberately and dishonestly fobbed off is tax payer funded criminal corruption - it is routine and widespread perversion of the course of natural justice and it is resulting in extremely dysfunctional communities.  Local police make up complaints about law abiding people and ignore, condone and cover up serious crimes committed by their mates and the mates of their colleagues and associates, as was the case for so many years regarding the complaints of Louise Nicholas, Arthur Allan Thomas, etc.

Victims of abuse in the Wairarapa are treated appallingly, they need all the help they can get and the school gardens are not only teaching kids to grow their OWN kai, cook it, preserve it and trade it, we're teaching them virtues like honesty, commitment, patience, discipline, organisation, kindness, courage, confidence, and many other virtues that will stand them in good stead throughout their lives.

The message being given to victims of bullying and abuse is "Talk to someone" - well we're that "someone" - Friends of Caring Kiwi Communities (The FOCKCers), building strong and healthy communities, encouraging families to get to know one another, support one another, and help build strong healthy communities together - putting the Unity back into our commUnities.  The gardens are sanctuaries in our schools and communities, run by caring, trained, professional facilitators who take appropriate action to assist victims to access the support they need.  We're immensely grateful for the support of Kelvyn Alp and the OURNZ party, who believe in REALLY caring for our kids, what they're being taught, and the environment they're learning in.  Walking the walk, and helping Kids Get Growing.

I spoke with the Statutory Manager, Ken Wilson, today and advised him that in accordance with the letter from the Board of Trustees and the fact that our plants and equipment are still on site, we will be resuming our work in the school garden immediately, and continuing that work over the holidays, and we expressly requested that Mr Wilson advise Mr Ray Craig and others on the Board of Trustees to refrain from physically bullying and threatening us when we do so as he did last time.  I also asked that an immediate apology be provided from Elaine Scully and Emily Brown regarding the latest false accusations regarding how I came to receive the highly confidential correspondence between the school and Mr R the groundsman, who was sacked in a similarly unjust manner and had his privacy breached in the same manner as I did.  I can verify the source of the information and I certainly did NOT steal it from Emily Brown's letterbox and nor would I ever do such a thing -  am deeply offended by these continued attacks on my character and reputation and request apologies from those concerned without further delay, they should have been provided months ago when I first provided the INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE of the indisputable truth of these claims,and the indisputable truth that the police and the Board of Trustees etc are lying deliberately.

Shortly after speaking with Mr Wilson today I received a message on my phone from a woman at the Masterton police station who obviously thought she had phoned someone else, which is typical of the incompetence of the local police.  The message (which will be uploaded shortly) says "Yeah, it's Shirley here from the Masterton police, I forgot to ask which school you're from, so ring me back, and I'll let the boys know that something could go off."  Wairarapa police are violent, sadistic, corrupt and incompetent.

Kelvyn Alp has also called for an inquiry into matters regarding the receivership South Canterbury finance, and the Crafar farms.  A proactive politician with the brains to see what the issues REALLY are, and what needs to be done, and the ability and willingness to actually DO it.  Other politicians come up with a variety of excuses to ignore this outrageous corruption, Kelvyn Alp is the only one to actually do anything about any of it.  He's got my vote.

Click the label "South End school" for more information.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

The NZ Paedophile Network:


A Paedophile Protection Network operates at the NZ Teachers Council and Ministry of Education – compelling evidence:
 
Guest post - (names withheld for legal reasons)  
 

 
The evidence is overwhelming – a Paedophile Protection Network is operating within the Ministry of Education and the NZ Teachers Council. Below, we will name some of the individuals involved and describe details of their activities. Due to the gravity of this issue, we have included an amount of detail – hence this communication is 8 pages. We encourage you to read it carefully and forward it along as you see fit.
 
 
Primary child sex abusers and Secondary predators
 
We make the distinction between the primary child sex abuser, who commits the initial child sex crime, and the secondary predator, who becomes involved later to take advantage of the vulnerable sex crime victim.
 
It is not uncommon for unscrupulous predators to take advantage of young vulnerable victims of under age sex crimes. Predators seek out young victims of sexual crimes - vulnerable girls they know have had under age sex and group sex with adult men. These secondary predators portray themselves as being there to help, however it quickly becomes very clear to alert adults that the predator has sinister ulterior motives. Young child sex crime victims are vulnerable, troubled, and easy pickings for the charming, devious manipulator. Generally, the only obstacle in the way of secondary predators is the victim’s family.
 
An example is the recent high-profile UK case where school teacher Jeremy Forrest took his 15-year old girlfriend to France. Jeremy Forrest was the primary child sex abuser. The family have now told how, after Forrest was sent to prison, other men such as a 30-something IT consultant started hanging around the victim in order to take advantage of her vulnerable state. The IT consultant got close to the sex abuse victim under the guise of being there to help, and is an example of a secondary predator:
 
 
The 4 tactics of Predators
 
Research identifies 4 tactics of predators:
1.     Isolation. Predators isolate their victims from their family.
2.     Alienation. Predators alienate their victims against their family. They do this focussing on small differences the child has with her family, and making them big issues.
3.     Dependency. Once isolated from family, the child becomes dependent upon the predator. This increases the predator’s power over the child.
4.     Secrecy. The predator pressurises the child to keep secret what is going on.
 
Isolation from family is a key early objective of paedophiles and secondary predators. Good, capable, loving families offer safety and protection for the child. The predator’s key objective is to remove this safety and protection. Isolation gives the predator opportunity, and continued isolation maintains secrecy. Once isolated from family, the young vulnerable sex crime victim is easy prey for an unscrupulous secondary predator. Most articles on predators stress the isolation element – here is a sample:
 
According to an FBI brochure (https://safetracker.net/crimestats.php/): “A sexual predator works to isolate his child victim from the family. By creating distance between a child and their family, the predator tricks the child into becoming more dependent on him. As the predator makes minor issues the child is having with the family into major issues, the child feels they are growing closer to the predator because the predator understands them, while the family does not”.
 
Psychology Today also stresses the importance of isolation of the child from family, by the predator: Every parent must ask themselves, "Is there someone who seeks to use their position or status to access and isolate my child? For predators, every effort is made to have lone access to the child”.
 
The University of Missouri studied tactics used by predators to entrap children: “Predators…work to isolate (their victims) both physically and emotionally from their support network…Isolation causes the victim to become more and more dependent on the perpetrator”.
 
In many cases, the effects of this secondary abuse by secondary predators, is far worse than the initial abuse caused by the child sex criminal. The degree of isolation from family often determines the extent of long-term harm from the abuse.
 
Paedophile Protection Networks seek to cover up and run protection for both or either the initial sexual criminals and/or secondary predators. It is this definition of a Paedophile Protection Network that we use here. The secondary predator may not necessarily be a proven paedophile, in many cases it is very difficult to prove sex crimes involving a secondary predator. The more extensive the isolation, alienation, dependency and secrecy, the more the evidence is hidden. However the predator’s opportunity arises purely because paedophilia crimes have previously occurred, creating a vulnerable victim. By covering for the secondary predator, by accepting, ignoring or encouraging the predator’s isolation, alienation, dependency, and secrecy activities, a Paedophile Protection Network ensures that more inappropriate sex, and possibly sex crimes, are likely to take place involving the young, vulnerable victim.
 
Our daughter was victim of under age sexual crimes, and then more significantly, abuse from secondary predators keen to take advantage of her vulnerable state. The initial child sex criminals were members of the St John ambulance paedophile gang – Karl Berghan (aka Karl Berg) and Sam Brens. The secondary predator who caused far more damage, was far more sinister, far more skilled at isolation, alienation, dependency and secrecy, was Westlake Boys High School Head of Science, David Hayden. Specific details are in our summary document linked below.
 
 
School teacher David Hayden
 
David Hayden was only able to do what he did with our family because of extraordinary assistance from other education employees:
-       Ministry of Education psychologist Maryke Lind
-       Westlake Girls High School counsellor Alison Horspool
-       Kristin College Principal Peter Clague
 
Isolation. Together with David Hayden, these education staff took the most extreme measures to ensure that our child was completely isolated from good, capable, loving family, and in the full-time clutches of the secondary predator. They ensured that our family were gagged and unable to say a word about what was going on. If we said anything to anyone, we faced imprisonment. This provided David Hayden full and unfettered 24-7 access to our vulnerable daughter for a crucial period of the final two years of her schooling. It enabled for example, additional secondary sexual abuse by people such as TV presenter, night club and strip club owner Brooke Howard-Smith. This man was able to take advantage of a young, vulnerable sex abuse victim, who was totally isolated from the protection of her family. Had our schoolchild been living at our home, we doubt 33-year Brooke Howard-Smith would have knocked on our front door asking to take her out. In the clutches of secondary predator David Hayden however, isolated from her family, 33-year old Brooke Howard-Smith was able to take full advantage of a vulnerable schoolgirl.
 
Evidence from the UK shows that sexual predators specifically target teenage girls who are isolated from family. Predators in positions of authority (such as teachers) often target those that they can thereafter isolate from family. As soon as he had our child under his control, David Hayden stopped her attending professional sexual abuse counselling with Dr Christine MacKay, because he wanted to stop even indirect contact between our child and her family (through the psychologist). He told us this. Perhaps he had a more sinister motive as well in that he did not want our child to benefit from any sexual abuse counselling. Does David Hayden support under age sex? He had previously told us that he strongly disagreed with our pressing criminal charges against the St John ambulance men who had committed statutory rape and gang rape against our daughter. Our child had volunteered to give evidence in the criminal court against the St John men. She had made a detailed statement to police. However, the sex crime trial was scheduled several weeks after she moved into David Hayden’s house, and during that time our daughter was influenced to change her mind and she refused to testify. Two serial paedophiles walked free.
 
Whenever we phoned Hayden’s house asking to speak with our child, he always refused to hand the phone to her. Despite all our attempts, we had absolutely no contact at all with our child during the two years she lived with teacher David Hayden. Our child was cut out of our life to such an extent that we were even prevented from paying her school fees even though we were very willing and able to pay. Our child could not have been more completely cut off and isolated from her whole family.
 
When David Hayden decided to prey on our child, he knew she was a child sex crime victim, experienced at sex and group sex with adult men. David Hayden also knew our daughter only had immediate family in New Zealand (2 parents and 2 brothers), and no extended family within at least 5 time zones. All David Hayden had to do, was to neutralise the young girl’s parents and brothers, to isolate his victim totally from her family, and he achieved this in conjunction with our teenage daughter through gagging orders.
 
Alienation. The evidence of David Hayden’s activities alienating our child from her family are contained in our summary document linked below. In the gagging court cases against us, Family Court Judge Lawrence Ryan said that our child had been severely alienated against her family.
 
Our child was so severely alienated against her family that she tried (with the active assistance of David Hayden) to have her parents imprisoned for trying to make contact with her. See the summary document for details. Some psychologists believe the alienation of our child is so severe that it can be classed as Stockholm Syndrome.
 
Dr Joe Carver, a world-renown expert on Stockholm Syndrome wrote to us: “In your situation, you have almost all the high-risk components (of Stockholm Syndrome) with the exception of life-threatening (hostage, prisoner, death threats, etc.). The support of the pastor (David Hayden) is especially distressing as that family is using their position as supposedly moral, honest people to provide credibility and approval to your daughter's situation.
Here Dr Carver highlights the sinister involvement of teacher David Hayden under the guise of helping, and says he finds this particularly distressing.
 
An explanation of Stockholm Syndrome can be found here (it is well worth a read and very pertinent):
David Hayden told us he would do everything in his power to ensure our child never has a relationship with her family ever again (see document linked below). This is his secrecy enforcement. It has been many years now since we heard anything from our daughter.
 
Dependency. Once completely isolated, our child was totally dependent upon teacher David Hayden for the remaining two years of her schooling.
 
Secrecy. The secrecy activities could not have been more extreme. David Hayden and our daughter took out gagging orders against her parents and brothers. During the two-year court case, at one point we asked if we could have a cup of coffee with our child, having not had any contact with her for over a year. Such was the extent of the secrecy efforts that our daughter’s lawyers insisted that her parents sign a non-disclosure agreement covering the cup of coffee with their child. The non-disclosure agreement covering a cup of coffee with our teenage child obviously wasn’t her idea – it was the idea of those manipulating her. There clearly is a lot of sensitive information they want to keep secret. The activities against us were certainly extreme, ensuring isolation, alienation, dependency and secrecy. We refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so never had a coffee with our child.
 
At one point during the two-year court gagging proceedings, our daughter’s lawyer made us an offer: they would return our child to us for three months on condition that we accept permanent gagging. Clearly the desire for secrecy was driving these actions. The court was being asked to gag parents in order to enforce the secrecy of a dangerous predator. We urge you to ponder the implications and gravity of this offer. They tried to blackmail us – if you want your child back, you have to agree to keep quiet about what has gone on, agree to keep it secret. We never accepted the blackmail offer.
 
It has been 8 years now since our child moved in with David Hayden, and 6 years since she moved out of his house when she finished school. However our child still has absolutely no contact whatsoever with her family. She maintains that this is due to secrecy – the secrecy pressures are so great that our child is prepared to completely ignore her entire immediate and extended family long-term in order to maintain the secrets.
 
Auckland psychologist Sara Chatwin described our experiences during a 2012 interview broadcast on TVNZ’s Close Up programme: “all power and all control of their child has been taken away, particularly by people with an agenda, people who want to exploit children”. Sara Chatwin was referring to the power and control over our daughter in the hands of secondary predator David Hayden, assisted by those listed above. This psychologist highlights that David Hayden, along with others, wanted to exploit our child. The TVNZ interview can be viewed here:
 
A NZ school teacher friend of ours who has known us for over 30 years wrote a letter which was printed in Investigate magazine: “The disgust that I feel for the misguided Rosa counsellors and a justice system that gives minors more rights than parents, in this case, truly caring parents, is nothing compared to what I feel about the actions of a liberal Christian church and its ‘pastor’ (David Hayden), whose actions cruelly cut (their daughter) off from her parents – (mother and father) – who are the only people who truly care about her and love her. An institution that aids in the decimation of family relationships is an abomination…”
 
John Saks, Founder and Chairman of the For the Sake of our Children Foundation in NZ, wrote: “(In your case, you) have state sponsored alienation of a family……Your daughter is considerably more fortunate than most in her circumstance as evidenced by the tremendous effort you have put into ‘righting the wrong’. Your efforts should be applauded, and I am very thankful that at least one daughter in our nation has parents hugely committed to her….It is my hope that your suffering/agony has not been in vain – and that many other sons and daughters of our nation and other nations may be better off because you ‘stood tall’ for them also”.
 
For our family, the damage caused by this secondary abuse with predator David Hayden at the centre, was undoubtedly more severe than the primary harm caused by the initial sexual predators.
 
Further evidence of the extreme isolation, alienation, dependency and secrecy tactics of school teacher David Hayden are contained in our summary document linked below as well as in our complaint to the NZ Teachers Council.
 
David Hayden is no ordinary predator – he is a monster. The Teachers Council refused to investigate him, and refused to even read our complaint.
 
 
The evidence of a Paedophile Protection Network at the NZ Teachers Council / Ministry of Education
 
The evidence can be described in four points, which are numbered 1- 4:
 

1. The NZ Teachers Council ensure it is illegal to report a paedophile teacher
 
Accept for a moment that a Paedophile Protection Network exists, and the NZ Teachers Council wants to investigate problem teachers while at the same time protect paedophiles and secondary predators, how would they achieve this? What if they designed their complaint reporting procedure to make it illegal for anyone to report a paedophile teacher or secondary predator – this would protect paedophiles and secondary predators wouldn’t it? This is precisely what the NZ Teachers Council have done – they have imposed an internal rule on complainants which in effect makes it illegal to report a paedophile teacher or secondary predator to the NZ Teachers Council. So, the Teachers Council can act as if they are clamping down on paedophiles and secondary predators, whereas in reality they have structured matters to protect the paedophile and secondary predators and ensure paedophilia and predatory behaviour is covered up.
 
Here is how the scam operates: It is against the law in NZ for anyone to identify a victim of under age sex crimes. Anyone who does identify an under age sex crime victim can be imprisoned. We know this because when we tried to raise awareness about what teacher David Hayden was doing in isolating and alienating our daughter, he tried (and nearly succeeded) to have us imprisoned for allegedly identifying our child as an under age sex crime victim. The terrifying experience of facing possible prison because we wanted to see our child, resulted in us fleeing the country. Our son’s experience facing possible prison because his parents allegedly identified their daughter, we believe, certainly contributed to his untimely death. It is described in our summary document linked below – one needs to read our experiences to understand how terrifying the experience was for us in the NZ Family court.
 
The NZ Teachers Council require a complainant to identify themselves, however by doing so they are identifying their child, the sex crime victim. The child sex crime is an integral element in our complaint, without it, the behaviour of our child cannot be properly understood. So too, the behaviour of the secondary predator cannot be properly understood unless in the context of the child sex crimes.
 
The NZ Teachers Council complaint process is that they would then pass our identity (and by implication our child’s identity) on to the education staff we filed the complaint about – Westlake teacher David Hayden, Westlake counsellor Alison Horspool, and Kristin Principal Peter Clague. These three were the very people so instrumental for earlier attempting to imprison us for allegedly identifying our child! Obviously, having gone through such a terrifying experience earlier, facing imprisonment, there is no way we are going to identify ourselves (and our daughter) to these same people, as they would obviously once again attempt to imprison us for identifying our child.
 
It is a brilliant scam for those wanting to protect paedophile teachers and secondary predators. The NZ Teachers Council can confidently pretend that they have a process to deal with paedophiles and secondary predators, whereas in reality, their process ensures that paedophile and secondary predators are completed safeguarded and excluded from investigation.
 
When we submitted our complaint, we tried to explain this to the Manager of Teacher Practice, Andrew Greig, but he wanted none of it and was not prepared to listen. So we asked him to please read our complaint, as it explains why we earlier faced imprisonment. In his arrogance, Andrew Greig even refused to read our complaint saying it is “too long”.
 
The NZ Teachers Council has already struck teachers off the register for having schoolgirls move out of the family home and into their home:
However, in the really serious cases such as ours, teacher David Hayden, counsellor Alison Horspool, and Principal Peter Clague are quite safe from investigation by the NZ Teachers Council – because a Paedophile Protection Network operates to safeguard them.
 
Clearly, our identity would make no difference to an investigation. David Hayden already knows our identity, after all, our child lived with him for two years. School counsellor Alison Horspool already knows our identity as she took our child to Youthlaw to gag her family and hand-held our child throughout the two-year gagging process. School Principal Peter Clague already knows our identity as he filed an affidavit with the court asking for our imprisonment for allegedly identifying our child to him.
 
If there are any doubts about who submitted the complaint, we could have withheld our identity and the Teachers Council could have simply shown David Hayden this photograph and told him that the complaint has been filed by the parents of this bikini-clad teenager who has her arm around him.

David Hayden and the young girl.jpg

No wonder school teacher David Hayden is smiling – he is in the arms of a sexually-promiscuous, young, vulnerable, bikini-clad sex crime victim whom he has totally isolated from her family; he has completely neutralised her family by gagging them; she is totally alienated from family to the extent that together with David Hayden she applies to have her family imprisoned if they attempt to contact anyone around her; she is completely dependent upon David Hayden and is living in his house; he is able to pressure her into complete secrecy; and he knows he need not be concerned about the NZ Teachers Council and Ministry of Education as their Paedophile Protection Network will cover for him. Being in that position would make any serious predator smile.
 
The evidence is there – if a Paedophile Protection Network exists in the NZ Teachers Council, they would set it up to protect paedophiles and secondary predators exactly as things are set up now.
 
 
2. Prevent Ministry staff from finding out the real information 
 
If there is a Paedophile Protection Network operating within the Ministry of Education, they would likely suppress all information about paedophile teachers and secondary predators who operate with impunity. A Paedophile Protection Network would not want Ministry staff to find out about what David Hayden has done, as staff may ask questions why he is still registered. This is precisely what the NZ Ministry of Education have done – their Paedophile Protection Network arranged for the document containing details of David Hayden’s activities to be specifically blocked from the organisation.
 
A London-based IT security expert has confirmed and gathered forensic evidence that our document containing evidence about the activities of teacher David Hayden is specifically blocked on the Ministry’s email server. The email server has been configured to automatically reject every incoming email that contains a link to this specific document. The Paedophile Protection Network clearly want to hide the activities of David Hayden, and by implication the lack of censure from the NZ Teachers Council, from Ministry staff members.
 
This certainly indicates the existence of a Paedophile Protection Network. If the Ministry were confident that David Hayden is not a secondary predator, they would have nothing to hide. However, they know that every reasonable person reading our summary document quickly concludes that teacher David Hayden is a very dangerous secondary predator who should not be in a position of authority around children. We believe that informed parents would also not want their children anywhere near school counsellor Alison Horspool and Principal Peter Clague due to their involvement. Parents, NZ schools, and professionals, informed of our experience have told us this. A Paedophile Protection Network has suppressed the information.
 

3. Belittle the complainant
  
When we communicated with Ministry of Education staff pleading with them to investigate David Hayden, they tried to avoid dealing with the issue by instructing us to take the matter to NZ Police. We did as they suggested and contacted the NZ Police Child Abuse unit at Police HQ. Police personnel then arranged a meeting with Ministry of Education personnel and others.
 
We have it on reliable authority that at the meeting, Ministry of Education staff were simply dismissive of our complaint and made disparaging remarks about us. Why would Ministry of Education staff treat this matter so trivially? Why would they regard our family with such disdain? Our complaint must surely be one of the more severe they have received. David Hayden is surely one of the most dangerous monsters in the country – we have not found an equal for his extreme isolation, alienation, dependency, and secrecy activities anywhere in the world (kidnap victims do not have the alienation element). There is only one explanation – the Ministry have no desire to disturb a dangerous secondary predator from doing his sinister deeds. This conduct is consistent only with the operation of a Paedophile Protection Network – they simply do not take the matter seriously and had no intention of ever investigating David Hayden because they are running protective cover for him.
 
We suspect the NZ Teachers Council and Ministry of Education will dismiss this document as well, with similar disdain and simply ignore it – this is the modus operandi of a Paedophile Protection Network. There will likely be a further flourish of disparaging remarks about us behind the closed doors of these institutions. It is unlikely that Andrew Greig will read this document as it is also probably “too long”.
 
We lost two children as the result of these events. One dead, and one so severely alienated that it has been years since she has made any contact or communication with her family or extended family. For Ministry of Education staff to belittle these matters and make disparaging remarks is highly reflective of what their objectives are – it is a Paedophile Protection Network.
 

4. Regarding teenage sex as far more important than teenage education 
 
The evidence for this is in our summary document linked below. Rather than repeat it here, I will simply refer to the appropriate pages in our summary. The evidence is overwhelming – clearly these education staff regarded our daughter’s sex with adults as far more important than her education. The results speak for themselves:
-       During the two years our child lived with David Hayden, she was truant from school for a massive amount – 67 half days in one year alone – having never previously been truant when she lived in our family home.
-       During the two years our child lived with David Hayden her school performance deteriorated dramatically – from 88% average when she lived in our home, down to 42% average when living with teacher David Hayden (these percentages are converted from grades in order to calculate averages). Teacher comments on her reports indicated dramatic deterioration for every subject, in line with the percentage drop.
-       During the time our schoolchild lived with David Hayden she had at least one highly inappropriate sexual relationship with a much-older adult man. It was with a TV presenter, night club and strip club owner who was almost twice her age. This sexual relationship was so inappropriate and scandalous that it featured as cover story in the Woman’s Day magazine.
-       Our child testified in the gagging cases against her family, that while a schoolchild living with David Hayden – she was treated as an adult, free to do whatever she pleased. One can simply wonder why a secondary predator would find this attractive.
 
Details as to why it is irrefutable that the key education staff who had influence over our child regarded her sex activities as far more important than her schoolwork, is in our summary document (linked below) on the following pages:
 
David Hayden - pg 4 - 6
Maryke Lind - pg 18
Alison Horspool - pg 4 - 6
Peter Clague - pg 4 - 6
 
Other key education staff who had influence over our family:
-       Alison Gernhofer, past Principal Westlake Girls High
-       Roz Mexted, current Principal Westlake Girls High
 
We have not yet written up the actions of these two school Principals and will do so at some stage. Briefly, when Minister of Education Hekia Parata told parents that if they have any concerns about the activities of teachers or school staff, they should take their concerns to the School Principal and Board of Trustees. We did exactly as the Minister advised and wrote a courteous letter asking for help, however we were simply threatened with lawyers and the police by Principal Roz Mexted. Previously we were threatened by lawyers on instruction from Principal Alison Gernhofer for the same action. They encourage complaints, but not serious ones involving paedophiles and secondary predators. Was Alison Gernhofer concerned about our child’s education – apparently not one bit, the results speak for themselves.
 
Our daughter has testified that she is more interested in protecting those such as David Hayden and all the others mentioned in our document, than in having a relationship with her family. This is entirely consistent with the behaviour of under age sex abuse victims and victims of secondary predators, and is indicative of the damage caused. The extended period without communication from our daughter (many years now) with any member of her family, is due to pressure brought upon her by the predators in order to maintain secrecy.
 
 
Summary
 
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, the likelihood is that it is a duck. The evidence is overwhelming – a Paedophile Protection Network operates within the NZ Ministry of Education and the NZ Teachers Council. They insist that we break the law with likely consequence of imprisonment in order to follow their complaint procedure requirements. They hide the truth about predators from their staff. Education employees treated our child’s sex activities with older men as far more important than her education. Ministry staff show disdain for our serious complaint and absolutely no desire or intention to act.
 
Moreover, David Hayden is still a registered teacher long after details of his actions have been exposed. The Ministry and Teachers Council ignore this devious teacher’s isolation, alienation, dependency and secrecy activities with a child sex crime victim. This dangerous, unscrupulous predator is still licensed to work with children and choose his next vulnerable victim. Has anyone checked the safety of any school pupils who may currently be living in his house?
 
We do not know the names of all the Ministry and Teachers Council staff involved in this Paedophile Protection Network, however the employees that we came in contact with, include:
-       Andrew Greig
-       Katrina Casey
-       Peter Lind
-       Lesley Longstone
For the Paedophile Protection Network to be as successful as it is within the Ministry and Teachers Council, we have no doubt that there are many more individuals involved, and suspect that these protection activities are at the very least given tacit approval from all executives within the organisations. They surely have known about teacher David Hayden for a while now (there have been well over 100,000 emails circulating in their environment with details), and yet they do nothing about him.
 
We do not make these allegations lightly. We are capable, well-educated parents aware of the ramifications. The father has three university degrees, is a recognised global leader in his field, and CEO of a London-based global, high-tech firm. The mother has a degree in psychology and holds a responsible position at a high-profile London venue. It is high-time NZ government departments start taking this matter seriously, many thousands of others in New Zealand and around the world already do. It is high-time the NZ Cabinet start doing something proactive about this Paedophile Protection Network. We believe prosecutions entailing prison sentences are in order.
 
Paedophilia and secondary predators are a big problem in New Zealand, and will continue to be, while given free reign from Paedophile Protection Networks. This problem is not peculiar to the Ministry of Education and Teachers Council. We know details of other Paedophile Protection Networks for example, one involving the Governor General Sir Jerry Mataparae, another involving Principal Family Court Judge Lawrence Ryan and Judge Dale Clarkson, others in the NZ Association of Counsellors, CYF and the NZ Police. It is a scourge on New Zealand society, and long-term heartache, damage and distress for victims and their families.
 
More information on our experiences is here: http://bit.ly/ourNZexperience
and check out these websites:

10,000 influential people in NZ and around the world are being copied in on this email, and encouraged to share it with all their contact list. To make it easier, we have placed a copy of this information online so that it can be downloaded in pdf format from here: http://bit.ly/PPNatMinedu