Couple on torture charges lose bail - National - NZ Herald News

A picture paints a thousand words. Thankfully, reassuringly, this picture claims only a small amount of real villains are out there but moreover, that each and every one of us has a bigger part to play than the equally calved up measure of "heroes" in this world. 

Inside that "everyone else" are people like the Waitakere District teacher who resigned out of disgust and absolute frustration because all her/his attempts to save an abused child fell on deaf ears. 

I'm calling this teacher a hero. A real one. One that obviously went out of their way to take their concerns to those we ourselves would have - Child Youth and Family - and failing that, a complaint letter to the very man at the top - Prime Minister, John Key. The fact that this teacher resigned only 4 days before Christmas when everyone else was frantic about shopping and/or how the hell they're going to pay for Christmas this year just speaks volumes. Self sacrificing. That's a real hero. 

Just how frustrating would it have been to see this young girl constantly bruised and battered in your classroom and you knowing that every night, when you suppose to be marking tests and formulating classwork so that it's fun and enjoyable for young pupils, that the same young girl is probably being beaten within an inch of her life? 

What more could this teacher have done? Kidnapped the poor child and barricaded her inside the classroom? Well at least she would have had a night's grace but reality dictates that the teacher would have been up on probably more serious charges than the parents responsible for the abuse. It does make you wonder, when you read the letter this teacher sent to John Key - what do they expect people to do about child abuse when all genuine efforts are completely ignored?

"Constantly having my concerns about this child dealt with as if they were of no consequence was a deciding factor in my resigning from my permanent teaching position." Couple on torture charges lose bail - National - NZ Herald News: 

I feel for this teacher as much as the child herself - it's torture to be tortured and it's torturous to have to be made to witness it with a gag over your mouth and your hands tied. This teacher's claims should have been fast-tracked to the very services that protect children simply because, she/he IS a teacher - they are there, every day, on the front-line, superb witnesses for those who stagger though the door. 

It's all very well to have National campaigns wagging fingers at those who don't report abuse but how about a little support for those that actually do? 

24 babies born in 24 hours

When my mother gave birth to my sister, there was no mistaking where she'd deliver - a maternity hospital.

She stayed a week and during that time, she was feed and watered and "trained" how to feed and care for her newborn. She was given time to recuperate, catch up on some sleep, and gather her thoughts about what an amazing thing just happened. Visitors came to the hospital, bringing flowers and gifts, and my sister's home-coming was something the entire family had time to plan. Mum was constantly monitored for any signs of post-natal depression. As they say, that was the good old days. 

Twenty-odd years later when I gave birth to my premature little girl, I was in and out of the hospital in less than 24 hours. I had no clue how to breastfeed. I slept on average three hours a night, my breast pump broke, and I wore a dressing gown for weeks cause I couldn't figure out how on earth you're suppose to shower or do any self-care when the little one needed it more than me. As they say, that's nowadays. 

"'There was a very quick turnaround in the delivery room. Some parts of the day were very touch-and-go. Women were in labour and we thought we were going to have to deliver in an antenatal assessment area rather than a delivery room."

This article is suppose to be about the amazing coping mechanisms of the Waitakere hospital - 24 births in as many hours - but I have to ask myself, when did the birthing process change to represent staff speed and efficiency? 

Another new mother, Titirangi woman Jo Lees, didn't hold up staff for long. She arrived at the hospital about 4.20am and gave birth to her third child, 3.31kg Tamsin, at 4.37am. 24 babies born in 24 hours - but staff cope - Hospitals - NZ Herald News: 

I think it's sad that things have changed so dramatically for women. Their wonderful glorious point of difference (the fact that we can actually give birth) has been superseded by the need to be quick and hassle-free, an "in an out" mentality. That is what "we" applaud nowadays. Bet your bottom dollar if men gave birth, there would be a mandatory three week recuperation period, paid (of course), and some Nationally prescribed army of caregivers at their service for when they returned home. 

Maybe churning out record-breaking births and sending new mothers home with no support network, information, or even a feeling of having accomplished something magical has something to do with our equally shameful high child abuse statistics. Why should some mothers value their own children when, we as a society have a framework set up to serve that "harden the fuck up" or "grin and bear it" attitude? No wonder post-natal depression figures are rising. 

I feel sorry for the new mothers of today and I have heart-felt compassion for those maternity nurses who don't like the "system" any more than I do, who took up the profession thinking they could be, should be, a new mother's first port of call when it comes to caring, support and understanding. 

I can almost hear it...Ding!...sorry, got to go, we've got a new one coming in. 

New? How bloody new at this mothering thing do you have to be to get some help around here?

WikiLeaks: US image in NZ 'has been damaged by leaks'

What an odd headline for the Herald newspaper: US image in NZ has been damaged by leaks.

I'm sorry, I must have missed something -  like their image having improved for one. I mean does the Herald really think their readers are a bunch of idiots? Of course we know the US are bullies. We didn't need some leaked bits of gossip to find that out. And we're not naive enough to think we possess no egotistical Politicians who just may have let their tongues wag in one of them all time favourite tax-paying dinners. 

What I think is bloody funny about this, is how it's all been thrown back in the face of the US. It's not what we as a Country have said, it's what they have. The US International image, since this is what the Herald seems focused on, is to look like they're a caring sharing nation when in fact, these leaks, if nothing else, show their a bunch of schoolboy bullies and, I for one, have never felt so proud of good old Helen. 

"This matters to the United States, because the Prime Minister uses military and intelligence co-operation with the US - and high-level visits in particular - to give the illusion in some circles in Washington that New Zealand is still an ally, while maintaining as much as possible New Zealand's non-aligned policies and the PM's anti-American image at home."

In other words, she did what she was paid to do - kept an alliance with the Country who voted her into power and the problem with that is? Can't say I liked Clarke much beforehand but I'd certainly have her on my side in a game of poker. 

WikiLeaks: US image in NZ 'has been damaged by leaks' - National - NZ Herald News:

Reading between the lines...

New Zealand's Domestic Violence Act has come a long way over the years. Now it includes a mandate for psychological abuse. In short, it covers violence that cannot be seen on a person's body and stalking is one of them.

Unfortunately, the Law is useless. It may have a section for policing things like stalking under domestic violence but unwanted contact from someone is hard to get anyone, let alone the Police or a Judge, to take seriously. A few years ago I applied for a protection order and was refused on the grounds that "we no longer reside together." Thanks for nothing. Meanwhile back in the jungle, this useless prick did everything but threaten me and my child and there was nothing I could do. Three months later, we were back in Court and I was granted a "no contact order" which was as good as a broken condom - you used it all right but deep down you know it's bloody useless. 

I read this article in the newspaper and I see a woman fleeing from domestic violence, her perp hard on her heels, or her bumper so it would seem. Now she's dead, driven off the road. 

Gayle Jean Anderson's car slammed into a power pole on Bush Road, about 15km from Dunedin, at 9.30pm on Friday.A Mosgiel man, who owned a dark blue 2001 Subaru Impreza, which police believe was racing or following the car driven by Ms Anderson, came forward to police yesterday, Senior Sergeant Brian Benn said. The man was known to Ms Anderson."http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4496366/Road-toll-rises-to-three

WTF?

I read this and thought the papers have made a really stupid mistake - reprinting an old story. I say old, when in fact, it was only a few weeks ago that New Zealand woke up to hear that two teenagers attacked a police officer with a machete, but now, it's bloody well happened again. 

Two common denominators: Alcohol and weapons. Throw in some dysfunctional family stuff and you have a ready-made concoction of heavy duty trouble. Why can't people connect the dots? Moreover, why should we put our fine police officers in the front line without adequate protection from these morons? Arm our police. I never thought I'd hear myself say that but... would you walk into a "public nuisance" call armed with just a frigging baton? When people are strung out on alcohol and/or drugs they're not people you can reason with. Yet it never ceases to amaze me how these same people can form a logical conclusion when a gun is drawn. We don't pay our Police enough for this crap. 

And don't even get me started on how these teenagers may or may not have come from violent homes, as if that in itself is reason enough to go at an innocent person with a life-threatening weapon. I know plenty of people who have come from violent homes and none of them would go to this extreme. But then again, I'm not the sort of person who'd want to even drink with them in the first place. 

"'We ask that people think about where their alcohol consumption is taking them and over the holiday period, if they find things getting on top of them, take time out or seek help before the situation deteriorates,' Blow said." Two teens arrested after machete attack | Stuff.co.nz: 

Maybe that's the message here folks - choose who you want to drink with. Your life may depend on it. 

Christmas Morning

Yes folks, it's Christmas morning. Early. Some of you, I am sure, are already up, sitting on the lounge floor covered in reams of shredded Christmas paper with hypo-kids going ultra sonic and yelling for more batteries for this and for that. It's the way Christmas should be - noisy, chaotic, and real messy - a day when your kids will love you the most and only a week away from when you, in turn, will become the kid and kick up your heels on New Year's eve. Hopefully, by then, the kids would have had enough of all the festivities and have legged it to bed. Hopefully. As the saying goes "Well that's the plan, Stan."

For me, the lounge is already a graveyard of toiled gift paper, shredded from the explosive and somewhat manic exploits of Christmas morning that happened a mere few hours ago. Now it is as quiet as a mouse - I think we may have peaked too soon. 

This year, I am happy to report not one single plastic ugly flea infested dinosaur looking 'thing' made its way into my present pile. Nor did any vampire paraphernalia or kid-sized Edward Cullen tee-shirts. 

Something has happened to my child this year. Her gifts to me are no longer a mere extension of her own desires. It's the first year that I can truly look at what she has given me and know she had me in mind when she parted with her hard earned pocket money. In fact, I seriously doubt she likes anything she bought me and that just makes it even more special. Bless. Kid's eh?

Talking of special kids, I came across this story only a few minutes ago and I must admit, it really touched me. Sad to think there is a need for such fundraising but...well, there is.

"Rosie set up a stall near her home selling used books and products from their garden to support the 'nine-year-old west Auckland victim' who has recently been in the media." Girl, 9, raises $109 for abuse victim - national | Stuff.co.nz: 

Good one you Rosie and on behalf of me and my family, may I wish all the children, especially those within violent homes ...

(ten minutes later)... 

How do you wish children who suffer violence a merry Christmas especially when you know this time of the year is even worse for those kids? For them, this time of the year is when they start to think they're really weird. Excluded. Isolated. Alone...alienated. An alien. A monster no one wants to be around. Rotten fruit. Tainted. Second hand. 

Logic, in a child's mind, says that they're responsible for the violence. They caused it. Whatever they're doing makes people react violently and so they internalise everything - put the actions of those sick adults back on themselves. 

I can't stop the violence. I wish I could. I wish my fantasy would become real and I could fly above rooftops with a super-sonic internal crying detector and scoop down and beat the crap out of offenders...but I can't. 

All I have is hope. 

I hope that everyone of those children find something inside themselves, like an internal brick wall, that they can at least hide behind for a while. So that the words, the finger pointing, the name calling, the shit that eats into one's soul cannot, will not, get in and like a true butterfly, one day they will emerge: in full flight, radiant and proud - a true survivor. 

That is what I hope for.

Merry Christmas little butterflies, merry Christmas.

President sues over 'rape' cartoon

Don't get me wrong. I like political cartoons - they save me the trouble of having to plough through scrolls of bureaucratic nonsense to get to the absolute point of a story. But this cartoon, "depicting him (Zuma) with his pants undone, preparing to rape a blindfolded, female figure symbolising justice," just won't sit well with me.

First of all, there was an actual rape accusation and a court case, oh and the typical acquittal so I ask myself, first and foremost, what's so bloody funny or satirical about characterising such a violent crime? If Zuma thought it was humiliating, I cannot imagine what the victims felt. 

The cartoon's flipside is the the depiction of Zuma practically shafting the judicial system, not the woman/women themselves so I kind of guess, that lets the cartoonist off a little - or does it? As a woman I find any image and I mean any image of rape appalling. To me, it's like trying to read what's behind the image itself - the injustice perhaps of someone like Zuma using his political influence to escape rape charges - but I can't cause the image of rape is too loud and overbearing. So it fails to make it's point in my eyes.

I get tired of female symbolism being used negatively. Boats or ships are predominately depicted as female yet women aren't allowed on them if, god forbid, they are having one of their female moments. The statue of Liberty is female. She's entrusted with the ideals of justice yet brutally raped just to make a point. You can't have it both ways - the worldwide expectation that such a symbol representing justice, an ideology if you will, be respected and then, when it suits, stand back and accept the complete opposite. This goes beyond just bad taste. It's an insult to women.

President sues over 'humiliating' cartoon - World - NZ Herald News:

Abusing sexual abuse...?

You all know me by now. Someone accused of sexual abuse and there I am, banner in hand, calling for someone's willy to be chopped.  However, my skepticism of US policy far exceeds that fear. 

How convenient is it to suddenly have these "sexual assault" charges made against a man whose exposed International bullshit that we never knew about? 

I mean, these people in power (that you and I pay for) are apparently doing shit behind our backs. Don't we have a right to know, to hold them accountable? Don't we want to know why "Joe Bloggs" is so fucked off he feels determined to blow something or someone up? How do we know it's not because of one of the many "leaked" documents exposing a "certain" Government? Okay, it's a little far fetched for good old anti-nuke New Zealand, but (last I heard, this is our planet too right?) and if some Government, somewhere, is screwing with people who have the passion and determination to make my life and that of my child a frigging misery, don't I have the  right to know why?

What is so wrong with transparency? 

I live by one simple rule: If you can't do it in front of me, you shouldn't be doing it at all. 

John Pilger, a much respected Australia journalist said: "They (the powers that be) have read our emails for such a long time. Isn't it time, we read theirs?" And he makes a bloody valid point. 

WikiLeaks founder still committed | Stuff.co.nz

Surgery for cop attacked with machete

Senior Constable Bruce Mellor underwent surgery last night for multiple skull fractures and horrendous defensive wounds  following a machete attack by two youths he stopped to question about their erratic driving.

"He spoke to the two occupants, one just 14 years old and the other aged 18, and headed back to his patrol car to do checks. He was then hit on the back and side of the head by one of the boys using the blunt side of a machete."

The car was later identified as stolen.

What on earth is going on with our youth? I don't like to throw the youth all into one group but these slim-balls are yet to be identified and I also don't like to attribute such violence to, perhaps, the latest movie release but it does make you wonder. 

What on earth is going on here? What makes two boys even think about attacking a person let alone an officer? Look I know if I was in a stolen car and got pulled over, a few random escape plans would enter my head too but...machete? At best I'd probably give a false name and try my damnedest to lie my way out of trouble but give up the goose once I realised cops just ain't that dumb. Gee, better still, I'd not steal a car in the first place?

At the risk of sounding like some crusty old fart, things were way different when I was their age. I knew what was right and I knew what was wrong. Moreover, I knew that if I decided to do something wrong, there was a bloody good chance I'd be punished. There was never any space in my brain to even contemplate any other alternative like - if caught, we'll fight like shit to get out of it, kill if we have to.

Interestingly, I have just brought this story up with my 12 year old daughter. Her first question was "Oh, were they boys?" I nodded. "Ah, well it will be that testosterone then Mum," and before I could jump on my bandwagon, she added, "yeah but testosterone has been around for years so that's not it."

She then went on to tell me about a discussion her class had about bullying at school. "Most us girls said we'd tell them to piss of... oh, don't worry Mum, that's not like swearing or anything... but the boys, all of them, they all said they'd beat them up."

Why do they do that I asked. 

She took a deep breath and shook her head. "It's just the way they've been raised."

• New Zealand Police Minister Judith Collin says she will be raising the issue of officers patrolling alone with Police Commissioner Howard Broad. She says it is not the first time a lone officer has been attacked in a rural environment. 
• Between 2004-05 year and 2008-09, total assaults on Police increased by 33 per cent, from 1,869 to 2,481, while serious assaults increased by 38 percent, from 298 to 412. (http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/bill-assaults-police-corrections-officers-introduced-parliament ) 
• A cornerstone of the Government's law and order policy was to ensure there were 300 more officers on the frontline in Counties-Manukau by December 2010 than there was in December 2008, and an additional 300 around the rest of the country by December 2011. http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/384-extra-police-nz-streets
• Due to low Police attrition during the recession, 11 of the 12 Police districts exceeded their staff levels in June 2009. The numbers are returning to the funded level and there will be 600 extra Police by December 2011.
• Surgery for cop attacked with machete | Stuff.co.nz: 

MPs urged to probe ACC

ACC's Dispute Resolution Services are under the spot light - again. This time, it's for claims rejected on the basis injuries were either pre-existing or degenerative. In other words, anyone over 40 years of age (who, incidentally, contribute the most in ACC payments) have a fat chance of getting a claim accepted. 

Meanwhile, former Associate ACC Minister Pansy Wong told Mr Schmidt in an October reply to his letter that the Government recognised that ACC's disputes process needed attention.

"Once decisions are made in relation to the Government's stocktake of ACC accounts, I will be leading a review of the dispute process," she said.

That is all well and good but last I heard, Pansy Wong resigned so now what? 

I am interested in this because ACC's Sensitive Claims Unit also underwent a major "review" of their current system and recommendations were put forward. We didn't expect major changes overnight but it would seem those same recommendations are just sitting in "Lala Land." Last I heard, ACC was going to get a "group" of people to implement those recommendations - one of which was to set up a more "palatable" if not humane screening process and to included a newly revised dispute resolution service. 

The above controversy is for those claiming compensation for torn ligaments and the like but it does nothing for my confidence - to think those seeking compensation/counselling for sexual abuse will experience the same numbing effect.

In the case of Dispute Resolution Services, if ACC are paying their wages, how impartial can they truly be?

Yes, but maybe that is the purpose - to get a group of people, paid by ACC, to reject cases while claiming to be "impartial." The SCU are yet to establish a revised resolution. Maybe they're waiting for these same staff members to cross the floor into SCU to implement the same farcical in-house policy. It just wouldn't surprise me.

http://msn.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10693279

Shush? No one is listening anyhow!

On December 1st - 1 week ago - I posted my controversial posting "time to get your head out of your ass" on both the SOSA Facebook page and Members only Facebook page. The post called into question the authenticity of the group and its members. 


Here is My soon to be deleted post?. 


The irony lays in their posted statement - their mission statement if you will:

"We want to put an end to the silence...."

My assumption/purpose of setting up a Facebook page is to spread your escapement of potential "sexual abuse survivors" and I do think Facebook is a great place for people to log into a site for support and the potential to get them more positively involved with their own healing. Well I don't know about you, but that's the reason why I joined. The fact that no one, and I mean no one, has even deleted my post (which has been published now for nearly a week) says a lot. 


It says a lot about the group itself. You want help? Well you've come to the wrong place. Someone to talk to, support you? Wrong again my friend. No, there is no one there to even monitor if someone was to need immediate help or support. There's no one there to even delete posts that might make you think the group is crap. Anyone can join. Anyone. And they post what they jolly well like and if you don't like what they post - gee, let me think - like a defensive child molester for one - no one is going to care cause no one monitors their site to ensure your safety.


Is this really what you pay your annual membership fees for?

What "defines" you?

Okay, I am a "survivor" of child sex abuse. I've had over a decade (all up) in counselling. Some good, some bad - goes with the territory I suppose - one of those insane prices you tend to have to pay. But I don't consider myself mad. I truly think I used to be and I apologise in advance to those who had to endure that, but lately,just lately, I'm starting to feel that noose around my neck again - the one that says "Oh, you're a sexual abuse survivor, so that's why you did so and so..."

I am starting to wonder .... when do "we" stop paying the price? When do we stop labelling ourselves? Sure, we call ourselves "survivors" but is that cause it's just more PC? If we have truly shifted from victim to survivor then why, pray do tell, are we constantly defined, pushed back into that "victim" status and reprimanded if we don't "behave" like victims? 

I ask this because actions I have done over the last few days have been referred to the actions of a sexually abused person. Those actions are therefore undermined, frowned upon, even pitied and I don't want that. Why can't my current actions stand on their own two feet, with merit, like normal person? Why must it be "Oh, she's just doing this or that because she was sexually abused?" Why can't I just be an irrational pissed off cow bag or worse, for those concerned, that I may actually have some merit, some credibility, a point?

I mean, if a drug user, whose been clean for over a decade for example, started "ranting" about the Government, would we all say, "Oh he's only saying all that cause he used to be an addict?" Could not that same person be just airing their opinions about something that pisses him off?

Why must the past define us all the time and by default, any action we do or say or feel or want, desire, or hope, be seen as motivated by that particular event? It intrigues me. 

Case in point:

Here is a posting about me on the SOSA website. 

"...It came as a surprise when the same person started making comments about events that occurred at the hui in a public forum. We held back from responding on this blog so as not fuel the fire, understanding that many (if not all) survivors, when hurting and struggling with the legacies of the abuse, direct their rage against themselves or the people who are trying to help rather than confronting the abuser. Holding back, however becomes hard when the other party lacks the courage to sort out disagreements in person and instead starts a hate campaign on a public blog."

Firstly, I did not write about the SOSA hui and the outrageous events that took place because I was sexually abused. I write about it cause I considered certain members' actions as immoral. But this published website comment doesn't feel like that. I look at it and think the "sexual abuse" flag is being used once again as an excuse, like everything I have to say is negated because of my tragic past. It's the same "brick wall" that is used to hide the actual crime, the same wall that some thrash their heads upon when going through the judicial system, the same negating bullshit when survivors have to struggle against the likes of ACC or unbelieving family members. 

That's what makes Gudrun's post on SOSA website even worse - the fact that it comes from SOSA is bad enough. The fact that it comes from a psychotherapist claiming to want to help women is unforgivable. How can you help when you use the very ammunition, used in their childhood, against them as grown adults? 

Gee, makes you wonder doesn't it? Am I saying that as a woman in her own right or "just" a sexually abused victim? Food for thought. 

Time to get your head out of your ass!

Here is an email from SOSA - a Charitable Trust aimed at helping "survivors of Sexual Abuse" and to which, right up until last night, I was the Media Officer.

Yes, it's been a long time coming but I have finally resigned. The last straw was their attempt to place a GAG ORDER on what I write on this here blog - of mine.....

It has been brought to my attention that you have posted a blog outlining details of a SOSA meeting in a public forum. (Um no, I mentioned an anon group and a "subject" that I thought would be interesting to discuss on my blog) 

This has caused significant distress to some members of SOSA, and is in breach of the confidentiality agreement which I believe was put in place at the start of the meeting. (A confidentiality agreement - yikes, this sounds real official - where is my copy of that by the way?)

Although you state in your post that you believe in the aims of SOSA, there are several comments made that reveal the content of the Raetihi meeting in ways that appear very critical about certain members who were present at the meeting. (Well if quacks like a duck, walks like a duck then my guess is, it's a fucking duck!)


I feel very uncomfortable about the SOSA meeting and the personal traits and responses of individual members of the group being discussed in a public forum. (It's been months since that meeting and several emails I've sent outlining my concerns have never even been responded to - until now, that is. Interesting.)

My need as SOSA president is to have a board that works well together and maintains both personal and professional boundaries, (Your fucking kidding me right? Boundaries was EXACTLY what my email was about - a counsellor bringing her clients to a meeting? What the fuck is that about? Oh that's right, we don't talk about that do we?) and treats fellow members with respect and dignity at all times.  

I hope that as a board we can collectively resolve any differences that have occurred or may occur in the future, within the confines of SOSA, rather than broadcasting our personal opinions within a public forum.  (Guess what? I heard once that men hoped they could lick their balls like dogs do but reality just doesn't work out like we wish sometimes.) 

I appreciate that you were careful to not directly name anyone present at the meeting.  However, several members have obviously been easily able to identify themselves or others who were present at the meeting.(Are these the same so-called Board Members who are also clients of the questionable counsellor who brought them along to  board meeting? And pray, do tell, which one of their "counsellor defined" voices were objecting at this point?)

While I agree that the controversy surrounding the topic you raised is worthy of clarifying, and that it would be useful to demystify this diagnosis for those who do not understand, (thank you so much for FINALLY seeing the purpose of my posting) the confidentiality of SOSA and its members needs to be maintained at all times.(You might like to tell that to the new members who have joined YOUR site, who have unknowingly put their personal details for public viewing. I did email you about this as well - nothing doing?) 


Therefore, I request on behalf of SOSA that you remove your blog post dated 25/10/10 (Fuck you!) as the content breaches the SOSA rules of confidentiality, and has created an unsafe environment (Oh fuck off!) for some of our members.

If you would like to discuss this further, I am happy to do so after the blog and related comments have been removed.

Kind regards

Tania BXXXXXX

President

SOSA NZ

MY RESPONSE:

Um.............no thanks, I have nothing to say other than I RESIGN AS THE MEDIA OFFICER on the following basis:

1. Your only "help" link on your website is an avenue into a Board Member's private counselling practice. 
2. Your treasurer officer, in charge of all the donations, with no previous experience, just so happens to be a woman with a $10k cheque from a deceased victim - How fucking immoral is that!!!
3. More than 60% Board members consist of yet another board member's patients, some of which are still very ill and vulnerable and don't need an organisation they went to FOR support ripping then off! 
4. Survivors don't need some half-ass goodie-two-shoe outfit promising shit they can't deliver. They've had that most their lives.
5. They're actually looking for something different and my view is, they are NOT going to get from you lot, not now.

SHAME ON YOU SOSA!

New neighbours

I have moved and with that, comes new neighbours. Now, these ones aren't your usual neighbours - they rarely are, right? No, these ones are pigeons. I knew a Frenchman once who referred to these little critters as "rats of the sky" and ever since then, I have not thought too fondly of them either - until now, that is. Maybe it's because I have no choice to see them differently, especially as they perch right outside my kitchen window most evenings and gather, right on sunrise, for a communal chat. Noisy little shits! I haven't named them yet. Doesn't seem right especially as I haven't quite made that universal jump into telling them who I am - but they know I am here. 

Last night, I walked around the back of my large apartment block which is where these birds also live. I could hear them before I saw them... it sounded like a mammoth gathering yet no one knew who the guest speaker was: "Who who?...Who who?" As soon as I ventured around the corner, in full sight, the cluster of birds all shut up shop, clumped together like statues - only their eyes moved, following my direction. They were sussing me out. Was I going to do what others have done - turn the hose on them, have a major tourettes moment, and tell them to all bugger off?  I know I have been advised to do this. No one seems to like these birds very much but I aren't like most people. I can't put these birds into a pest category simply cause there are a lot of them and they pooh randomly and always without remorse. I might change my mind after living here for a while, when I can no longer see outside my window due to their ablutionary habits and constant amnesia - who, who?...who, who?

For now (looks at calender),  they seem sweet and adorable - not in a "let's take one home" kind of way but as in a close encounter with a wild animal from a distance kind of thing. If you get my drift. I'll keep you posted...humm, that one definitely looks like he could be an "Arthur".

Old and New

Yesterday I sat with a young man - in comparison to me that is - at a bar for a quick drink. My shout. It was a "thank you" for shifting a rather large motley couch which, I bought off an on-line auction. It's not a pretty couch but it has history - lots of it, so it would seem; oozing out of every historical stitch like a cloud of relentless dust. But at $21 dollars, who can complain right? 

This young man, whom I shall call Dave, could very well be my son - in age, that is. He's tall, slightly tanned, and, when he gets talking, is surprisingly knowledgeable about all things old. He proved it when a short old geezer turned up. At first glance, this man looked to have frequented this establishment on a very regular basis - the lines on his face spoke of years filled with anguish yet he was finely dressed in a cream suit, matching shoes, and a swish forward hairstyle - that too one of his lasting habits, so it would seem. He spoke to the floor mainly as his false teeth struggled to release words and his left hand was missing two fingers - a slight infection was creeping in and it distracted me. 

"I tried to sell come Enid Blyton books on-line once," he explained. "Waste of time. No one respects the classics any more. They're hardback and all."

I looked at Dave and waited for him to give me the sign - the one that said, we should move tables, away from this drunken oldie who didn't look like he was going to shut up any time soon. But it never came. Instead, he engaged in conversation with him like he was some long lost uncle. They talked about old books, the word 'gollywog' and 'blacks' came up (again, I looked at Dave, a strikingly handsome Maori boy, for hints of offence and again, nothing.)   

"There were four pakeha kids in my school when I grew up," the old man said, "we never knew anything about racism in them days. We were just kids, together, growing up you know?"

Dave smiled. "Yep, know what you mean eh bro, it's all changed now, for sure man."

I sat and listened to these two men engage in a conversation that knew no age. To me, they looked like two mighty bookends supporting an entire history between them. Sure, they were at opposite ends from each other but that was only because of age. What bound their conversation together so nicely was the subject matters that stood between them and in that, there was no comparison to be seen, nothing but a genuine expression of mutual respect. 

It was nice seeing this because too often we see the 'young ones' parade around the country as if the world owes them a living, as if their life is the hardest. So often they show no respect for those that went before them like the old geezers in pubs on a Saturday afternoon. The young ones are too busy getting prepared for taking over that same pub later that evening, and I bet my bottom dollar, most of them will not be so finely dressed or talk about subjects outside themselves. 

It was nice to see...for a change.

Free at last....

Nobel Peace Prize winner, Aung San Suu Kyi (65), was freed after her latest period of house arrest expired and was not renewed by the military government. 

Ms Suu Kyi has been detained for 15 of the past 21 years. Her release comes six days after the political party supported by the military won the country's first election in 20 years - the ballad was widely condemned as a "sham."

Supporters gathered at her house which is also the headquarters of her now-disbanded National League for Democracy (NLD) party for news of her fate. The crowd swelled to three or four thousand before Ms Suu Kyi, in a traditional lilac dress, finally appeared, about 30 minutes later, on a platform behind the gate of her compound. 

She took a flower from someone on the crowd and placed it in her hair before addressing the crowd: 

"I have to give you the first political lesson since my release. We haven't seen each other for so long, so we have many things to talk about. If you have any words for me, please come to the [NLD] headquarters tomorrow and we can talk then and I'll use a loud speaker.

There is a time to be quiet and a time to talk," she added. "People must work in unison. Only then can we achieve our goal."

She then went back inside her home for the first meeting with NLD leaders in seven years.

Lynne Pillay tightens grip on Weasel

Lynne Pillay

Bless her heart... she's at it again folks. Just when you thought the ACC Review was all but done and dusted, if not shoved under the Weasel's bed (Minister for ACC), along comes this sweet little lady to yank his bits back into action. 

Standing in 'House,' she asked the following:

"Has a monitoring group been appointed to oversee the implementation of the Independent Review Panel’s Recommendation for the Sensitive Claims Unit and if so when and who are the members, what payments will be made to them and what are their terms of reference?"

Let me translate: Where's this group you bragged about? Who the fork are these people and how much you paying them?  Now, these don't seem like hard questions to the average Joe Blogs but, apparently, Nick Smith needs some time to think about this one. Um, not that he hasn't had any time. It's been quite a while since the whole ACC SCU was exposed as a crock of shit, a little less time for some officials to come in, take a look around, and agree - yep, it's a crock of shit, and a while since those same "officials" made some sound recommendations. It really is procrastination in the extreme. 

Nick Smith is "expected" to reply by 17 Nov 2010. My money is on more dodgy political wrangling - there's no way he'd actually come up with an answer on this. Gee, guess we'll just have to wait and see huh? (Pulls up lazy-boy chair, orders a month's supply of chips and dip)

Smith & Jansen - Lost in Space.

Good lord, look what I found - an old photo of Dr Peter Jansen and Nick Smith, back in the good old days when, lost in space, was just a harmless television show and not an actual ACC procedure. Amazing what Goggle pops up with these days but... seriously... this does explain a few quirky features of our infamous tax-funded-insurance company.

For example, whatever happened to that infamous Review? For those not in the know, in June 2010, submissions were asked from about everyone on the planet on just how we could get these two plonkers to come back down to earth and help clients unfortunate enough to be "processed" through SCU. 

Now, many fine-minded earthlings made over a dozen mighty fine suggestions and one, thus far, has been implemented - the reinstatement of 16 counselling sessions for those suffering from sexual abuse. (Holds hand up to ward off all those still yet to see that happen!)

Now, okay, Nick Smith (pic: right) did say, back in September and in front of cameras - albeit blushing like a shafted raccoon - that he was setting up some 'group' of peoples unknown to implement the other changes and that he would, kind of, let us know who they were in "due course." Well now we know. He's actually running the ACC reviews like that derelict spaceship many moons ago -all thrust and no throttle.

Oh come on Nick, show us the Daleks you've got working on this review... we know they exist. There's been a very unusual manufacturing surge in silver coloured latex jumpsuits, so something is up! 

And just out of curiosity, would one of those people, in charge of implementing those "improvements" be the same Dr John Collier who is  ACC's "preferred" contracted Independent Psychiatrist and one appointed initially to assist in "exiting clients from the system"? Hey, I'm just asking, that's all....

June 2010:

NCWNZ Submission to ACC Review Panel � NCWNZ

Sept 2010:

http://admin.beehive.govt.nz/webfm_send/13