NZ Herald Journo Sam Boyer, If Capt. Machismo isn’t a rednecked pro-police wanker then he really needs to give a little more thought to his public persona and the crap he writes for the New Zealand Herald!
Part Two (Tuesday 3rd June 2014): New Zealand Institutional Child Sexual Abuse, The Dixon Case & The School Trustees Association – Was the “Fix” In?
Yesterday the New Zealand Herald ran a story on historic institutional sexual abuse; the focus being on the events surrounding the trial, and conviction of Palmerston North man Kieth William Dixon, who was Tuesday last convicted on two charges of inducing a minor to perform sexual acts.
In LF’s opinion the New Zealand Herald and its “Police” reporter Sam Boyer were woefully inadequate in their reporting on the crimes and in particular the actions of the school and the chairman of the board of trustee’s involved. The NZ Herald article reads;
School letter made abuse victim feel ‘worthless’
Sam Boyer
7th May 2014
The chairman of an Auckland school’s board of trustees has accused victims of historic sex crimes of exploiting their abuse as an “excuse” for difficulties in later life.
Historic sex abuse victims were also often motivated by the hope of financial gain, he said.
His accusations – outlined in a letter to the lawyer of a former student who was sexually abused by a tutor at the school in 1973 have outraged the victim, as well as rape prevention advocates.
The former tutor, 63-year-old Palmerston North youth worker Keith William Dixon, was yesterday sentenced to two charges of inducing his victim, who was 9 at the time, to commit indecent acts on him.
Last January, the victim who is now 52 and living in Australia approached the school about a meeting to discuss the abuse he suffered there.
The board chairman, an old boy of the school, wrote back saying he would meet the victim “but I intend that to be nothing more than as a courtesy”.
He outlined his concerns about the validity of the victim’s complaints.
“You will appreciate that one has to be very careful about historical complaints,” he said. “Many cannot be authenticated because of the passage of time … . We are informed that a relatively high proportion tend to be made late as an excuse for difficulties which have arisen in the person’s life – this is not to say that the abuse did not occur.”
He also said: “We are informed that a number of late complaints are motivated by the intention to seek accident compensation.”
He finished the letter saying the board would be deeply sorry if abuse had happened – but the school “will not make any financial contribution” or “any payment of any kind” to the victim or his legal and travel costs, as it would be “quite inappropriate to do so“.
The victim told the Herald last night the letter made him “feel worthless”.
“I wasn’t after money, I wasn’t after any of that. I didn’t want anything. All I was after was that somebody would believe me. I was telling the truth.
“That letter made me feel worthless. They showed no empathy whatsoever, and that’s what made me wild.”
Making the complaint had been difficult, but was made easier by the police and his lawyer, he said.
“The only terrible people are the school. They’re just protecting their brand. I think they’ve handled this whole thing very badly.”
The school was granted permanent name suppression in the Auckland District Court yesterday, following a submission from its lawyer.
Louise Nicholas, national survivor advocate with Rape Prevention Education, said the school’s response was unacceptable.
“For the chairman of the board to assume the reason he [the victim] has come forward is for financial gain, to me that is absolutely abhorrent. That’s just absolutely heinous.
“In my view the school, and especially the board, needs educating in what it’s like for a survivor to come forward. For him [the victim] to come forward is commendable the school should be saying thank you for bringing it up.
“Instead of questioning the survivor, they should be questioning themselves on how to deal with a survivor next time.”
Rape Prevention Education executive director Kim McGregor was similarly “outraged” at the letter.
“It’s very disappointing, there’s a lot of victim-blaming in that letter.”
The chairman said he did not want “to get into a discussion about it” and refused further comment.
Jail term for former tutor
Keith William Dixon pleaded guilty in February to two charges of inducing a boy aged under 16 to do an indecent act on him at an Auckland school in 1973.
The former school tutor appeared in the Auckland District Court yesterday, where he was jailed for two years and two months.
The charges stem from offences which took place at the school between February and December 1973.
Dixon induced his 9-year-old victim into indecent acts, during which other boys were present.
In sentencing, Judge Edward Paul told Dixon his offending was selfish, against a vulnerable 9-year-old victim.
“This is not insignificant offending. It is serious. This type of offending is particularly harmful. There’s a gross breach of trust … It was premeditated.”
Dixon had previously been sentenced to prison in 1997 for similar offending.
In his victim impact statement parts of which were read out in court, but which was supplied in full to the Herald by the victim he said the pain caused by the offending, 41 years later, “never goes away”.
“You used your power as an adult in a position of authority for your own selfish desires, with no regard to anything but your own satisfaction,” he said.
“I wondered about my life, how it might have turned out if you had not molested me.
“Could I have become a teacher, as I wanted … Could I have become a parent? Could I have married?”
Judge Paul said the victim impact statement made very sad reading.
– NZ Herald
Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11250746
Journo Sam Boyer fails to clear the first hurdle with this article, Boyer does not name the chairman of the schools board of trustee’s, nor does he name the school involved. Somewhat strangely the New Zealand Herald have also failed to publish a photograph of the now convicted pedophile.
The problem with not identifying the school and chairman responsible is that all schools will be treated with equal suspicion. Whilst the New Zealand Herald failed to name the chairman or the school they did however note that he was an old boy.
Again that presents a distinct disadvantage to schools who will likely now be tarred with the same brush. For example; LF went in search of likely candidates. The only school that we could find, with a chairman of the board of trustees who had also been an old boy, and thus fitted the bill, was Auckland Grammar School. Its chairman and “old boy” being one Jeffrey Blackburn:
Auckland Grammar’s Jeff Blackburn, was he responsible for the letter in this case? Who really knows? Its not at all fair that innocent schools are impacted by the New Zealand Herald’s failure to name the school responsible.
Jeff Blackburn joined the Board in 2007 and was elected Chair in December 2009. In his role as Chair, he sits on all the Board Committees and attends meetings of the Foundation Trust and Headmaster’s Council. Previously he was President of the Old Boys’ Association 2006-2008.
Source: https://www.ags.school.nz/about/board-of-trustees/
A J (Jeff) Blackburn
Jeff Blackburn has had a close involvement with Customs and other trade related legislation since graduating with degrees in commerce and law. Following a period working as a commercial lawyer, he has spent twenty-five years providing advice to companies on Customs and trade-related issues. He has developed an expertise in anti-dumping, Customs valuation, transfer pricing, rules of origin, and other regulatory barriers to trade. This has included assisting New Zealand exporters with regulatory problems in Australia and the United States. Mr Blackburn’s practice in regulatory affairs has included representing clients before a variety of Parliamentary Select Committees.
LF is certainly not accusing Mr Blackburn. We are simply using the fact that he fits the “limited” profile supplied by the New Zealand Herald as an example. Its certainly a profile that many New Zealanders will have undoubtedly already researched using the available online material, a fact that should bring home the reality that in not naming those who were responsible, others can unjustly attract suspicion because they may tick all the boxes, like Jeff Blackburn has, based on the information supplied by the New Zealand Herald’s journo Sam Boyer.
Who knows perhaps that’s what the NZ Herald and Sam Boyer had in mind when they supplied very limited but “unique” detail?
One is given, of course, to question the motivation behind the New Zealand Herald’s omissions; had they perhaps been threatened with legal action?
One is also given good reason to question whether or not it is the same school and Chairman of the board of trustees as that which the New Zealand Herald, again, ran another article covering offending of a very similar nature last month:
Teacher charged with committing indecent act
23rd April 2014
A former teacher at one of the country’s top secondary schools has appeared in court charged with committing an indecent act at the school……Today, the current principal of the school where the alleged act occurred referred APNZ to the board of trustees chairman for comment, but the chairman could not be contacted.
Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11242984
LF know’s that New Zealand is a backward country in many respects, we’ve never pulled any punches on that score, but the county’s “official” attitude to this sort of offending, especially in the historic context, is well and truly warped and those responsible for the “warping” of reality need to be held to account.
The minister of social development, the fat-arsed, ex-beneficiary with a big gob, Paula Bennett, although we are not quite sure what it had to do with her, remained defiant two years ago when she publicly stated that New Zealand did not need an investigation such as the “child sexual abuse Inquiry”, that at the time, Julia Gillard was about to kick off in Australia.
National Party Govt’s Paula Bennett; No need for an inquiry. Paula didn’t seem to realise, in more ways than one, that you can put all the lipstick and foundation in the world on a pig, but that it will never change the fact that its still a fucking pig.
Bennett, like so many other Kiwi’s, seems to have the same fucked up attitude, a serious case of “three wise monkey syndrome”, when it comes to looking at any form of systemic intitutional corruption or abuse, be it physical, emotional, sexual or just the good old fashion abuse of a persons right to receive justice.
Bennett’s views at the time were reported in both the local Kiwi papers and international media outlets, although again, somewhat strangely, they now seem to have disappeared from New Zealands many online sources, the only Google reference to the article being found on Yahoo.au:
No need for sex abuse inquiry: Bennett
13th November 2012
The government says it doesn’t see a need to follow Australia’s lead and launch an inquiry into historical child sex abuse.
Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard agreed on Monday to calls from federal Labor, Green and independent MPs for a royal commission into child sexual abuse in all religious institutions, state-based organisations, schools and not-for-profit groups such as scouts and sporting clubs.
It follows allegations of abuse by members of the Catholic church.
However, the New Zealand government has no plans to follow suit, with Social Development Minister Paula Bennett saying enough is already being done.
“I think the fact that we have been addressing historical abuse cases in this country, we have been doing it faster than it’s ever been done, we’ve been fronting up to some of the liability around that and settling a number of cases,” Ms Bennett said.
That includes the Confidential Listening and Assistance Service, through which people can raise allegations of abuse or neglect, or who have concerns, relating to their time in state care before 1992.
“I think we’ve got other things in place that are addressing what, without a doubt, is cases of historical abuse.”
Source: https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/15368468/no-need-for-sex-abuse-inquiry-bennett/(Yahoo News Australia, retrieved 7/5/2014)
There is a lot of “between the lines” small print in the above article, including the fact that neither Bennett or the journalist responsible appear to have explained or even grasped the the role of the governments so-call “Confidential Listening and Assistance Service”; nor did they disclose any of the fine print, the “terms and conditions”, attached to the government operated, not particularly well publicised service.
The Confidential Listening and Assistance Service provides a forum for people who allege abuse or neglect, or have concerns about their time in State care in the health, child welfare or special education sector, before 1992.
REGISTRATIONS CLOSED
The Confidential Listening and Assistance Service has now closed registrations. People who have concerns about their treatment in the care of the State before 1992 in child welfare homes and foster placements, in psychiatric hospitals, school residences and in health camps are able to contact the agencies concerned directly.
For child welfare concerns:
Historic Claims
Ministry of Social Development
P.O.Box 1556
WELLINGTON 6140 or
PH: 0508 326 459For psychiatric hospital concerns:
The Chief Legal Advisor
Ministry of Health
P.O.Box 5013
WELLINGTON 6145 or
PH: 04 496 2000For residential education concerns:
Historic Claims
Ministry of Education
P.O.Box 1666
WELLINGTON 6140 or
PH: 0800 622 222For Health Camp concerns:
The Chief Executive Officer
STAND for Children
P.O.Box 12547
WELLINGTON 6144 or
PH: 04 472 0101The Service is committed to meeting all of the participants who are currently registered with us before our closure in 2015.
Source: http://www.listening.govt.nz/web/RCCMS_cla.nsf/weblivehome/$first?open
In truth the New Zealand government has greatly feared having an inquiry, the likes of the Australian model, for a number of very good, if not particularly equitable reasons. A clue to the New Zealand governments most significant concern, however, is probably to be found in the fact that both the government and the country’s media in 2012 repeatedly misrepresented and or misreported what the Australian Royal Commission’s real role was and the issues it would be investigating.
The Australian Royal Commission was never so much about the institutional sexual abuse of children itself, as it was the historic institutional response to the hundreds of cases where serious systemic sexual abuse had been alleged and then concealed in various ways, the fact that children had been sexually and physically abused was never ever in question.
A reality that Bennett and her government however seemed to have carefully avoided and gone to extraordinary lengths not to mention, let alone acknowledge the likelihood of systemic child abuse in New Zealand.
There was another issue that likely concerned the New Zealand Government at the time, that of the Christchurch City Council Creche, an institution that had cared for children until its forced closure in the early 1990’s, following an almost farcical police investigation, tragic trial and the wrongful conviction of Peter Ellis.
Had New Zealand followed the Australian Royal Commission model then the Peter Ellis can of worms would have undoubtedly been a matter that qualified.
The share stupidity of the New Zealand governments spokespeople, its ministers and the countries media is evidenced in their failure to grasp the nature of the Australian Royal Commissions mandate, especially when its to be found in the self explanatory name:
“The Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses To Child Sexual Abuse”
Somewhat suspiciously, given the New Zealand publics interest in such matters (Glenn Inquiry), there has been little if any reporting on the Australian Royal Commissions progress in the Kiwi press. This is despite the fact that both Fairfax and NZAP have unfettered access to material produced by the same corporations journalists in Australia; after all, they are otherwise exceptionally prone to republishing the most inane of Australian sourced journalism.
The terms of reference for the Australian Commission would have undoubtedly terrified New Zealand’s government, its Solicitor General and the country’s Treasury. To have had such an inquiry in New Zealand, such as that now underway in Australia, would have meant that the Chairman of the aforementioned school and others like it would have been dragged before the commission and forced to give testimony, forced to justify their outrageous opinions and public behaviour. Whats more the government would undoubtedly also come under scrutiny and likely be found liable for whatever historic abuse has occurred in New Zealand Church and state controlled institutions. That is certainly the way it is shaping up, in many instances, in the case of the Australian Royal Commission, with the latest case being commented on only this week:
Govt has abuse case to answer: lawyer
6th May 2014
THE Australian government used legal tactics to avoid meeting obligations to child sex abuse survivors in a Navy school similar to those adopted by the Catholic Church and other institutions, a lawyer says.
Adair Donaldson, who represents men abused when they were cadets at Western Australia’s HMAS Leeuwin naval base, has asked the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse to make the training base a case study.
In fact Paula Bennett, perhaps unwittingly, provided evidence of the aforementioned New Zealand governments concerns when she referred to the governments “Confidential Listening and Assistance Service”.
LF suspects that this so-called “service” may have been set up with another agenda in mind. Looking at the “services” website (reference above) it seems to LF that it had been set up with the cynical intention of determining any likely liability the government may have had and to quietly con victims into settling claims without scrutiny and away from the public’s gaze.
LF further suspects that any person who has used the “Confidential Listening and Assistance Service”, having provided personal details, may well have been duped. It seems to us that information received has likely been shared with other government or quasi governmental agencies, such as New Zealand’s Accident Compensation Commission and the Solicitor Generals office (encompassing Crown Law), for the purpose of an analysis of the states liability.
Whilst Paula Bennet heralds the “Service” as somehow being proof that New Zealand is doing its part, she has been duplicitous. It’s more than obvious that the “Service” is not interested in hearing from anyone who had been abused, outside of those who were at the time in the custodial care of a government welfare agency.
Moreover, this so-called government service appears to have a now expired used by date. The Services website, little more than two years after Bennett’s comments to the media, having ceased registering victims who may still be in need of “assistance”:
Click to enlarge
The fact that this government “service” seems to have had a very short life, a duration that in no way reflects the realities of historic child abuse disclosures is further evidence that it was likely a ploy, which by design, existed purely for purposes far removed from its stated objectives; that, as aforesaid, it was more than likely set up to aid the government in neutering potential, messy and very public litigation. That objective, if the reality, was never about assisting the victims of historic institutional sexual abuse.
Reading between the lines, in the New Zealand Heralds article (above), one could reasonably argue that something is amiss in that case. Again why haven’t they named the school involved? Surely, it was in the public interest to supply the name of the school, especially given the obviously legally exculpatory attitudes and beliefs held by the schools board, as apparently voiced by it’s chair in the letter sent the victims lawyers.
Why hasn’t the Herald named the chairman? Surely that too was in the public interest? Surely he or she had wanted his or her views, the position of the trustee’s and the school, to be made public, otherwise why comment at all, and why then commit those views to writing? Surely the letter was only sent after the school had sort “legal advice”? Then there’s the question – who were the lawyers responsible for the schools legal advice?:
“We are informed that a number of late complaints are motivated by the intention to seek accident compensation.”
As an aside, LF will be attempting to establish the identity of the school, their legal advisors, the trustees and chairperson. If successful, in the public interest, we will be naming the lot. If the schools governing body shares the same attitudes and values as that of its Chairman, in 2014, then it follows, as a matter of common sense, that any children currently attending the school are still very much at risk, if abused, of having that abuse concealed by the schools administrators so as to avoid liability.
Reading between the lines, in the New Zealand Herald’s article, there are a number of facts, beyond the obvious, that have undoubtedly been omitted by Sam Boyer, and thus concealed from the public. Small but very important facts such as the Chairpersons occupation, perhaps he’s a well known Auckland lawyer?
Cardinal George Pell -“I acknowledge and apologise to Mr Ellis for the gross violation and abuse committed by Aidan Duggan, a now deceased priest of the Sydney Archdiocese. I deeply regret the pain, trauma and emotional damage that this abuse caused to Mr Ellis.”
Given the views he’s unashamedly expressed it certainly seems likely. It would also explain his arrogant attitude. After all, the view he holds are almost identical to the exculpatory crap, the legal views and opinions, that were held by the law firm representing the Australian Catholic Church and Arch-Bishop, later Cardinal, George Pell, until finally exposed, castigated and humbled by Counsel assisting the Royal Commission, during a number of its more recent hearings; the John Ellis case being a specific example of the church’s use of legal obfuscation to avoid its moral obligation and any financial liability.
Clearly then, the “nameless” Chairman of this so-called board of trustees is more concerned with the potential financial liability the school may have, not the welfare of its pupils, past and arguably present. Again we ask the question; why has the New Zealand Herald’s Sam Boyer failed to name the man responsible?
Louise Nicholas (R) Kim McGregor (L) Government funding for rape crisis and prevention groups is always an issue but does that give these organisations the right hold themselves out as experts when they’re clearly not, just to grab the publicity, as in this case at the expense of publicity and funding for a more appropriate support group?
Another issue of concern is Boyer’s choice of commentators. Boyer quotes Louise Nicholas, the victim of police rapes in the 1990’s, turned Rape Prevention Educator. Boyer also asks Rape Prevention Education executive director Kim McGregor for comment……why?
Louise Nicholas, national survivor advocate with Rape Prevention Education, said the school’s response was unacceptable.
“For the chairman of the board to assume the reason he [the victim] has come forward is for financial gain, to me that is absolutely abhorrent. That’s just absolutely heinous.
“In my view the school, and especially the board, needs educating in what it’s like for a survivor to come forward. For him [the victim] to come forward is commendable the school should be saying thank you for bringing it up.
“Instead of questioning the survivor, they should be questioning themselves on how to deal with a survivor next time.”
Rape Prevention Education executive director Kim McGregor was similarly “outraged” at the letter.
“It’s very disappointing, there’s a lot of victim-blaming in that letter.”
Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11250746
Whilst LF respects the fact that both these women are exceptionally well qualified to comment on any issue involving the victims of adult “rape” and also perhaps the long term psychological impacts for the victims of rape, they are in no way qualified to comment or speak for adults who have been victims of institutional child sexual abuse and pedophilia.
So what the fuck was Sam Boyer even thinking when asking Nicolas and McGregor for comment?
There are plenty of specialist psychologists that would have been available for comment. There are even support groups that assist, on a daily basis, the victims of child sexual abuse, especially of the Institutional variety, that would have more than welcomed the opportunity to comment and receive a little publicity, and they would have been able to do so with a far better understanding of the complex issues.
Whilst we often do not agree with his use of doubtful statistics, New Zealand campaigner Ken Clearwater, has often enough made the point that all to often women and girls alone are associated with sexual assault and violence, to the disadvantage of male survivors of child sexual abuse:
Support for male sex abuse victims sought
5th October 2012
A national campaigner says it is time the suffering of male sexual abuse victims was recognised.
Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse Trust national manager Ken Clearwater is hoping to set up a support group in Timaru. He said there were already four men participating in fortnightly sessions through a Christchurch-based facilitator.
Now he wants to see a Timaru-based facilitator and local trust established.
He said woman and girls were too often associated with victims of sexual violence, but the reality was one in four men would experience it during their childhood.
“The most difficult part is getting men to come forward, [overcoming] the shame and the guilt that goes with it, and being seen as weak. That’s probably the biggest issue we face – the fact that men really struggle to come forward and talk about it.”
The trust, that started in Christchurch, now has support groups right across the country.
“What we are doing is standing up by saying it’s a strength to talk, to get counselling, to get support, and be able to talk about your issues.
“Most men hold it in most of their lives.”
Statistics showed 60 per cent of men in prison were sexually abused, he said. In most cases of sexual violence, a family member was the abuser.
Suicide was a “huge factor” amongst male survivors, he said.
Mr Clearwater believes New Zealand has been slow to acknowledge male victims of sexual violence. There was not enough funding made available to tackle the issue. “When it comes to sexual violence we automatically think of women and girls. Boys just don’t come into it.
“For us the big thing is to make a safe place for men to come forward, where they can deal with their stuff.”
More information is available at the website www.survivor.org.nz.
Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/7772272/Support-for-male-sex-abuse-victims-sought
Nevertheless Sam Boyer in his highly questionable wisdom decides to ask two inexperienced woman, who’s only real experience and or expertise, whilst in itself invaluable and important where appropriate, has been with adult victims of Rape, an area far removed from the experience of an adult who, as a young child, has been sexually abused and exploited, more often than not, over a sustained period of time.
LF’s of the opinion that the New Zealand Herald and their journo Sam Boyer need themselves to heed Ms Nicholas’s advice and “get educated”.
As for Ms Nicholas and Ms McGregor, they need to understand that if asked to comment on issues that they have absolutely no experience of, then their rape prevention agenda needs to take a back seat. Both women should have, in this case, politely deferred to a person or organisation that was actually qualified to comment, either through personal or professional experience; to offer a valid, insightful and educated opinion, not the one size fits all broad spectrum approach that meant sweet fuck all to the average New Zealand reader.
There was so much more that could have been put forward by the New Zealand Herald on the devastating long term impacts to victims of child sexual abuse. For example the psychological injuries that are only ever made worse with the sort of crap the chairman of the board of trustees of this particular school seems to hold as the reality.
As an aside; LF suspects that the need to grab publicity, justification for the annual rounds in government funding, may have been the underlying issue at stake in Sam Boyers choice of Ms Nicholas and Ms McGregor.
In this case, its never been about educating the school or this particular Chairman, they’re obviously already very aware of whats likely involved, their fucking lawyers will have already given them the “education” Louise Nicholas speaks of.
And yet, despite the school being completely knowledgeble of the long term impact this historic sexual abuse has very likely had on the victim, this particular Chairman, the board of trustees and school have obviously been focused soley on attempting to avoid their moral obligation, the schools responsibility to its ex pupil and the financial liability now likely to flow from that negligence; that much is obvious, without needing to read between the lines.
Lets face it, its highly likely that the only reason this case even got to court in New Zealand in the first place is down to the fact that the victim has been living in Australia, and has likely drawn a great deal of hope and courage from the fact that the truth is at last unfolding in his adopted country; Australia.
Note: LF volunteers have attended many of the hearings the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses To Child Sexual Abuse have held in various Australian states over the past two years. We have heard, first hand, the experiences of, now adult, victims of child sexual abuse, who bravely gave testimony before the Commission and who were forced to endure ridicule, doubt and humiliation before finally obtaining justice, often after decades of struggle.
Part Two (Tuesday 3rd June 2014): New Zealand Institutional Child Sexual Abuse, The Dixon Case & The School Trustees Association – Was the “Fix” In?
Update 9th May 2014:
Royal commission: Child abuse victims share their stories in private hearings
In informal hearing rooms set up by the child sex abuse royal commission, victims are telling their stories of abuse in private.
Around 1,500 people nationwide have so far spoken about what happened to them. More than 1,000 others are on a ballooning waiting list, which grows by an extra 40 people each week.
Some are in their 80s and 90s, and many have carried their secrets for a lifetime. Their stories are not treated as legal evidence, their claims are not tested – as in a court of law. But they are believed and their trauma acknowledged.
So far out of the royal commission’s private hearings 156 cases have been referred to the police for investigation.
But lawyers say despite government and institutional apologies for the so-called sins of the past, the abuse of children in care is not confined to the past, it is still happening.
Related articles
Related articles
No Comments
Did you read the part in the story you quoted where it said the school received permanent name suppression? This includes any identifiable details.
What about you “nzcampbell”? Did you perhaps get the feeling, from the whole story, that we don’t really give a flying fuck about New Zealand name suppression orders, especially when by design they’re imposed to serve the school and one mans judicial reputation; not the victim or the public interest?
The New Zealand Herald has never been shy in mounting legal challanges to name suppression orders in the past when it’s suited them, austencibly in the public interest. So why not in this case….perhaps theres a very dodgy reason why this pro “establishment” rag didn’t want to rock the boat.
Theres more to come on this particular story and yes we will be naming those we believe are behind the name suppression order and the very likely equally egregious reasons behind it!!
G’Day “nzcampbell”, as promised here’s the latest, it paints a very nasty picture of the realities of the New Zealand judicial system, in particular this case and it’s dodgy rulings:
http://laudafinem.com/2014/06/03/new-zealand-institutional-child-sexual-abuse-the-dixon-case-the-school-trustees-association-was-the-fix-in/
AG is not the only Auckland School with an old boy as chair. Interested in why you thought it was AG?
Hi Sally F
You seem to have reached your own conclusion? In doing so you’ve also just reinforced our argument. We suspect that you should re-read the article, if you do you might find the answer you’re looking for, its definitely in there.
Given that you appear to be extremely knowledgeable on the subject of the other schools who likewise have a board of trustee chair that was an old boy then please feel free to name them and of course the chair in question, so that we can verify the claims. We suspect that by doing so you might actually add weight to the points we’ve made.
Its time to use that knowledge of yours Sally, in the public interest, if you don’t our readers may otherwise be drawn to conclude that you were on little more than a fishing expedition on behalf of a concerned Auckland Schools board of trustees – Your use of the acronym “AG” does tend to infer a familiarity with that particualr school?
Hello again “Sally F”, (aka Evana Belich of the New Zealand School Trustee’s Association (NZSTA)).
Seeing as you didn’t get a nibble you are no doubt very disapointed and we’re not at all sorry for that.
The fact that you, despite our quite reasonable request, have failed to name the other schools you alleged have an old boy as chairman (which of course you would have full knowledge of given that the schools in question are no doubt all members of your organisation) the team @ LF are likewise disapointed; as are our readers.
LF thought we might do something constructive whilst working off the teams disapointment. It struck us, why not publish another article later today exposing “Sally F” and her very unwise attempted fishing expedition.
We though a small piece with a quick run down on your real identity, the likely reason for your visit and the connection you have to the guilty school, leading into a brief but detailed run down on who we believe is most likely responsible for the outrageous exculpatory letter sent to the victim of a now convicted pedophile.
When fishing Sally, using a net is very hard work, we much prefer fish traps, the fish come to us 😉