CYFSWatch Blog publishes MP death threat

February 21st, 2007 at 10:43 pm by David Farrar

They are literally their own worst enemies. I find it sad that such poor judgement lets down what is actually a worthwhile cause.

The NZ Herald has the story of the threat, and the reaction.

Not only does CYFSWatch solicit Bradford’s residential address, they then try to blackmail her by saying they will not publish the address if she withdraws her bill. That is outraegous and I suspect illegal.

The actual threat is here. I am now linking to it, because I want people to be able to see how repugnant the posts are. Their exact words:

I would like the opportunity to drive my fist straight into her face as hard as I can, hopefully breaking her nose or jaw in the process. As she is lying on the ground, blood and mucous pouring profusely from her nose and mouth, I would then give her a light smack on her substantial arse, and ask her “Now Sue, is the difference a little more clearer to you?”.

This is just repulsive stuff, and goes so far across the line that Google should close the blog down. Criticism is one thing. Publishing explicit accounts of desired violence against an MP, soliciting their home address and then trying to blackmail them to drop a bill or they publish it, is quite another.

Tags:

72 Responses to “CYFSWatch Blog publishes MP death threat”

  1. Graeme Edgeler () says:

    “That is outraegous and I suspect illegal.”

    I suspect so too, but it’s certainly a contempt of Parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. side show bob () says:

    I agree with you David but when someone like Bradford who is not an elected repersentative of any voter in New Zealand trys to tell us how it will be can you not understand that some would get upset.

    I don’t like what Bradford is trying to do, I suspect many others in this country feel the same. MMP has been a con, all the polls are against this bill but still people like Bradford will inflick their morals on 90% of the country. IT’S NOT RIGHT.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Adolf Fiinkensein () says:

    David, you missed the actual death threat. It was in the next sentence. Perhaps you might update and include.
    The bit you printed could be seen as not threatening but rather hyperbolic advocacy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. tim barclay () says:

    I suspect too that it is contempt of parliament to threaten an MP in this way from carrying out their role as a memeber of parliament. I happen to think Sue Bradford is a very genuine person and she should be allowed to do her job without this sort of interference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. the Swift man () says:

    side show bob does have a point.

    Don’t forget that the Greens illegally overspent on their election expenses, and could have faced serious corruption charges.

    This entire government is illegal. What do do do about an illegal government?

    ‘Every one’s had to fight to be free’ Tom Petty

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. DavidW () says:

    Bob,

    Bradford this morning proclaimed herself a “democratically elected Member of Parliament” on ZB.

    I think I must have missed something at the last election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Carl Anderson () says:

    If Bradford is an unelected member of Parliament, then so are half our MPs. including a large number of the National Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. David Farrar () says:

    I don’t like Sue’s bill but I fight against it by supporting the Family First open letter, blogging etc, not death threast and blackmail.

    And while I disagree with the extent of the bill, I have no doubt Bradford is genuinely motivated to helping stop child abuse, and that is the motiviation for her bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. cyfswatch () says:

    Please attempt to differentiate between posts made by anonymous bloggers to CYFSWATCH, and CYFSWATCH itself. CYFSWATCH will simply name and shame an MP, just as they have with CYFS Social Workers. Please also attempt to differentiate between someone venting on a blog about wishing somone to be dead, and an actual death treat that denotes intent to kill another person. The difference is significant.

    For us, we just wish that those who so quickly scream “tolerance” would show some tolerance of alternative opinion.

    Not much to ask, is it?

    CYFSWATCH

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. llew () says:

    “For us, we just wish that those who so quickly scream “tolerance” would show some tolerance of alternative opinion.”

    I presume that applies to your anonymous posters too?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. cyfswatch () says:

    That shoud read “death threat” not “death treat” (just so we are not accused of “glamorising violence” or some other shite).

    Notice that Bradford raised CYFSWATCH in front of an entire Parliamentary debating chamber? Not one MP can now say that they are not aware of the cases on CYFSWATCH that in our opinion require further investigation, yet none have moved to intervene.

    But post 1 angry rant about a Green MP and…….

    Ahhh, priorities.

    CYFSWATCH

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. magda () says:

    Adolf is right. No-one with half a brain would misread that post as anything other than hyperbole.
    The intent was plain and that was to exaggerate the difference between a vicious assault and the sort of punishment most normal parents mete out which is a slap on the bottom. The aside about assissination was obviously equally tongue-in-cheek.
    Ms Bradford’s bill won’t make a jot of difference to parents like those of Lillybing etc., but will make criminals of normal parents.
    Considering what is happening with CYFS and the Family Court, such reactions to yet more unreasonable attacks on the family are only to be expected.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Murray () says:

    CYFS Watch you ARE responsible for what gets published on your site.

    Claiming someone else wrote when you actively moderate the content will not provide you with a convenient loop hole to play the monkeys.

    You are facilitating an attempt to coerce our parliament with threats of violence.

    This is NOT Fiji.

    Yet.

    Say hi to Tim and ask him to leave his books when he gets out because you’ll be there a lot longer than him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Neil Morrison () says:

    A minor but important point is that CYFSWatch chose to republish the anonymous comment in question as a blog entry in its own right. They can’t very well turn around and try and distance themselves from the views expressed when they have given this such legitimacy.

    It’s loathsome that this threat should be made against any one but also it just helps Bradford mischaracterise anyone who opposes her bill as supporting assaults on children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Paul Marsden () says:

    The intent was plain and that was to exaggerate the difference between a vicious assault and the sort of punishment most normal parents mete out which is a slap on the bottom. The aside about assissination was obviously equally tongue-in-cheek.
    Ms Bradford’s bill won’t make a jot of difference to parents like those of Lillybing etc., but will make criminals of normal parents.
    Considering what is happening with CYFS and the Family Court, such reactions to yet more unreasonable attacks on the family are only to be expected.

    Posted by magda | February 22, 2007 8:26 AM

    An accurate assesment magda. I dare say the ‘authorities’ will also see it that way.

    And just another quick and important point (and also related to the above)..Has anyone at all noticed how emotional Bradford is when she is discussing or, being interviewed about this bill? Always using words such ‘bash’ ‘hit’ ‘thump’ ‘belt’ ‘beat’ ‘violence’ etc etc… This type of rhetoric is what bothers me most about this individual and I wonder what is really going on in that head of hers???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. sonic () says:

    It was pretty obvious from the start that the author of CYFS watch was a little unhinged.

    There does seem to be a disturbing trend here in blogland to think that threats of violence against those who you disagree with are somehow acceptable.

    Lets all make it clear, no matter how heated the debate gets trying to intimidate people has no place in NZ politics, on any side.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Hamish () says:

    CYFSWatch – not surprising that those who hate the people who provide protection to our youth also hate any measures that might be put in place to prevent parents beating their children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. JohnDalley () says:

    More than yours Paul. Agree or disagree with her, Sue Bradford has taken more interest in what she sees as the downtroden and has probably seen more abuse of children from the circle she has moved in. Agree or not with her politics but she has introduced her bill for the correct reasons violence against children.
    As for Magda’s comment about Lillybing and others. No amount of rules, regulations, wishs, requests will ever stop this sorts of people nothing stops these sorts of people.
    It’s the same as the 15year old learner driver receintly, a number of people go straight to the “Increase the driving age” argument. What’s that going to do, he wasn’t allowed to drive alone in the first place. Do you think that would change if the are was raised to say 18. Not a chance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Paul Marsden () says:

    No one in their right mind would argue with what Bradford is trying to achieve, but anyone in their right mind will argue that is not the solution to the problem. It is nothing more than an-ambulance-at-the-bottom-of-the-cliff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Deane Jessep () says:

    “cyfswatch replied:

    Hi Deane,

    We at CYFSWATCH don’t condemn strong words – frankly, the debate on our site has been some of the most honest talk that Kiwis have had for a while. Regards your call to compromise: CYFSWATCH don’t negotiate with terrorists, and any state sanctioned agency that does what CYFS does is practicing terrorism against the New Zealand family. To stop us, the Government is either going to have to shut us down and put us in jail, or kill us. We are not open to any other options. The assault by CYFS on the New Zealand family has gone on long enough – now, its either them, or us. That extreme enough for you?

    CYFSWATCH.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. magda () says:

    It’s the same as the 15year old learner driver receintly, a number of people go straight to the “Increase the driving age” argument. What’s that going to do, he wasn’t allowed to drive alone in the first place. Do you think that would change if the are was raised to say 18. Not a chance.

    Posted by JohnDalley | February 22, 2007

    Precisely, John. So what does Sue (however well meaning) hope to achieve? Normal parents who only resort to a slap when all else fails will be demonised by this otherworldly idealism.

    And just another quick and important point (and also related to the above)..Has anyone at all noticed how emotional Bradford is when she is discussing or, being interviewed about this bill? Always using words such ‘bash’ ‘hit’ ‘thump’ ‘belt’ ‘beat’ ‘violence’ etc etc… This type of rhetoric is what bothers me most about this individual and I wonder what is really going on in that head of hers???

    Posted by Paul Marsden

    Yes, Paul, I had noticed her language and conduct with concern also. Her demanour is a little off-the-wall. But then you just have to watch question time to see that there is no shortage of bizarre behaviour and dislocation from reality happening at “the top”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Deane Jessep () says:

    “Please attempt to differentiate between posts made by anonymous bloggers to CYFSWATCH, and CYFSWATCH itself.”

    How are we going to do that CYFSWATCH you are clearly as extreme, your reference to them having to kill you to stop you and then the its
    them, or us thing says to me that the post could quite easily have come from you.

    In fact how are we to know any better… you maintain this shrowd of anonymity as do your posters, the only way you could even slightly prove you did not post the death threat would be if you posted in open and were totally transparent and even then… this is the internet. Really you dont even know this is really me.

    You have totally gone too far. This is a further step past your “Stone a CYFS worker” campaign, you and your site are getting incredibly close to soliciting an MP’s Death. This is strangely ironic seeing as the MP concerned like you claim to be all about the children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Murray () says:

    Threatening to kill an MP isn’t terrorism?

    What are going to a one gun one vote system now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. err.. () says:

    Anonymous blogger on government department: “It’s them or us”

    Foregone conclusion: Them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. culma () says:

    I suggest the police go hard on this, when they catch up with the persons involved throw the book at them, do a background check on them to find out what their affilliations are to the green party! (cause this stinks of an internal set up and a poor one at that!)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. cyfswatch () says:

    They said: “we will work 24-7 to shut you down” – it didn’t happen.

    They said: “no one is going to send you Sue Bradfords personal details” – it did happen.

    They said: “You have committed a crime” – but the authorities publically say that we haven’t.

    They said – “your actions threaten the safety of individuals” – yet the only ones who are dead are the children placed into state care – social worker and MP body count? 0.

    It’s becoming a little weary having to constantly prove the naysayers wrong – oh well, back to work.

    CYFSWATCH

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. culma () says:

    I suggest the police go hard on this, when they catch up with the persons involved throw the book at them, do a background check on them to find out what their affiliations are to the green party! (cause this stinks of an internal set up and a poor one at that!)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Murray () says:

    Yeah bad news CYFS Watch, that was when you had our support.

    You’ve screwed that well and truly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. ross () says:

    > This is just repulsive stuff, and goes so far across the line that Google should close the blog down.

    Oh, dear, more crocodile tears from DPF. If one repulsive post was enough to close a blog down, I suspect yours would’ve been closed down years ago. Surely it’s not too difficult to simply remove the ONE offending post?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. sonic () says:

    Mr CYFS watch, whatever sympathy anyone might have had for you is gone.

    You’ve blown it, you just do not see it yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Redbaiter () says:

    Hahahha.. The prophet Sonic of course is all seeing…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Andrew Davies () says:

    Culma has a point. These threats may not be what they seem.

    Someone involved in the homosexual law reform campaign once told me a favourite and most effective tactic was to put out press releases in the name of those opposed to the reform. The idea was to make them look rabid and unhinged.
    Remember the over the top statements made in the name of groups like “Catholic Action” which was never heard of before or since.

    This tactic seems to have continued ever since whenever a similarly contentious bill is being debated right up to the homophobic bumper stickers supposedly put out by Presbytarians opposed to ordaining gay priests.

    I suggest we treat these threats (as hideous as they are)cautiouslly until the police can get to the bottom of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Deane Jessep () says:

    This whole thing is wrong on so many levels.

    CYFSWATCH I want your honest answer on a question:

    As CYFS are an organisation handling high emotion conflict between partys do you agree that in almost every situation someone will come away disgruntled with how their case has been handled?

    If not so be it, but if so do you not believe that providing we still intervene when children are threatend you will always be around?

    My point is that in all likelyhood you will always perceive a need to be around to help mitigate mistakes made by CYFS/relavent organisation. So isnt it better to be moderate and hence stay around longer. Litigation to identify anonymous bloggers can be difficult but is not un heard of:

    http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticleIHC.jsp?id=1144067964387

    And the government has very deep pockets. (please no ranting political off shoots about the size of the surplus… we all know what it is :p )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. sonic () says:

    Andrew I see the conspiracy theory of history lives on.

    The source is not the point, the blog owner reproduced them and is defending them.

    Case closed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Murray () says:

    Andrew is pretty much doesn’t matter where they came from – although tracking them to the pro-reform group would be a blow they wouldn’t survive – cyfs watch chose to publish them.

    They are responsible for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. james cairney () says:

    It was a threat, of which the site caused to be received, thus liable for up to 7 years imprisonment under s306(1)(b) Crimes Act 1961.

    This does not even touch on the issue of contempt, and is only a cursory glance at the facts.

    Prosecute them.

    The cowardly anonymous authors of the site can be easily identified and located.

    If these people are examples of people that CYF remove children from, then one can assume CYF is actually doing a good job. That website is in fact strengthening support for the job CYF do, by reminding people of the types of filth that CYF have to deal with on a daily basis. They are clearly revolting people, the threats damage their credibility further.

    It is no suprise that monsters like this are among those that want to maintain the section 59 defence to the assault of children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Regan () says:

    Looks like cyfswatch is no more.. from what I can tell, Google has deleted it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Deane Jessep () says:

    Yup, its gone… I just checked their mirror though… and was very suprised to find that I am their lead post on it at the moment… lol.

    Its a wordpress blog too so potentially could be privately hosted… although its on the wordpress domain at the moment.

    Looks like prediction number one has happened CYFSWATCH, timers ticking on the rest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. cyfswatch () says:

    Yes Regan, they did indeed “get us” at Google – now, which mirror site should we refer people to? Or maybe we simply set up elsewhere?

    One bullet does not a battle win.

    Watch this space.

    CYFSWATCH

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Deane Jessep () says:

    Actually CYFSWATCH I suspect you got yourself, with your flagrant ignorance of bloggers terms of use particularaly point 12 chapters 2 and 4:

    “Member agrees: (1) to comply with US law regarding the transmission of technical data exported from the United States through the Service; (2) not to use the Service for illegal purposes; (3) not to interfere or disrupt networks connected to the Service; and (4) to comply with all regulations, policies and procedures of networks connected to the Service.”

    I suspect death threats are illegal almost everywhere.

    “Member agrees not to transmit through the Service any unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or harmful material of any kind or nature. Member further agrees not to transmit any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation. Attempts to gain unauthorized access to other computer systems are prohibited.”

    Well this ones a no brainer.

    Also I would still like my questions answered, or are you just a little too busy at the moment?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Murray () says:

    You played stupid and you lost.

    Some of us are into year 6 of pissing them off.

    Watch and learn newbies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Anony-mouse () says:

    I am so sick of the wishy-washy do-goody purple sons of goats. On one hand they point in disgust and outrage, on the other spewing out political spin designed to mitigate the actions of their fat arses. I tell you this for free; it is 100% motivated by self-interest, they know that when they get into power they’ll be facing the same shit thrown at them. So it is best they feign outrage now to cushion their arses later. It’s all a game, eventually Helengrad will get tossed out on it’s collective ear, but the rules will remain exactly the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. culma () says:

    Andrew – seems almost to perfect, in her own words “the democratically elected representative threatened with the rabid mentality she is trying to extinguish”

    Hell I don’t know who wrote the script on this but to give a realistic delivery, timing is everything and in this case delivery was a little to rushed for me, smells very dodgy!

    Call 911 and report the crime, when the operator asks when it happened, Bradford replies “in 10 Minutes”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. magda () says:

    That’s the sad truth, Anony-mouse. Nothing changes, no matter what we do – or how we vote.
    That’s why ignoring the groundswell against CYFS tactics is dangerous. Irrespective of how compliant and willing to roll over we seem, there are those ready to lose it. When they stop talking and start doing is the real worry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. GPT () says:

    Not sure if it is a death threat. Vile, contemptuous and counter-productive yes but not a death threat. In fact the statement is, albiet in a unhelpful way, simply showing the difference between abuse (illegal) and discipline (about to become illegal). The way in which Bradford lept on it to promote her crusade just about makes me wonder if she posted it herself!

    Touchwood the Burrows amendment get’s through to mitigate this awful piece of social engineering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. gd () says:

    For some of us the subplot to this matter is the relentless interference by the State in our lives when its not necessary.The law already provides for those who abuse children or worse. This Bill seeks to demonise and criminalise good parents.Ironically we have seen case after case where the State agencies failed to act when they knew or ought to have known there was a problem and with terrible consequences.

    If this Bill is passed into law it will be another milestone on the raod to complete domination of the indiviual by the State. Another in a series of conquest by stealth. The frogs in the pot of slowing heating water are in for a surprise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Adolf Fiinkensein () says:

    The coppers are sure it is NOT a death threat, but only by a whisker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. james cairney () says:

    GPT, the threat was not from the anonymous poster, but by cyfwatch combining the anonymous comment with their own “do X or else Y”. It was most certainly a threat, a lot less has been accepted by the courts to constitute a threat.

    The ordinary language meaning is all that is required, and it is crystal clear to any person who reads it what was meant, as well as what the intention of cyfwatch was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. paul () says:

    Sue is right we should not use violence under any circumstances.

    Hang on…the police have found the blogger. He is resisting arrest and the police have tried to manhandle him. No good they have used pepper spray. No, still resisting arrest they have gone for the tazer. Still struggling so they have shot him. Sue is relieved.

    No violence there eh!!!

    Now he will be FORCED to face the consequences of his actions and FORCED to go to prison.

    I would have thought Sue might have managed to deal with the situation by giving the guy a hug and a bit of time out. Oh well must be do as I say not do as I do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. culma () says:

    Would the Kahui twins be alive now if Sue Bradfords bill was passed 10 years ago NO.

    Would Lilly Bing be alive NO.

    Would Teresa Cormack, Cursa Jenson etc, etc, etc be alive NO.

    These children were Murdered by miss fits, not smacked to death by parents.
    Why can’t this woman grasp the concept of a smack on the bumb as a last resort and turns it into violent closed fist abuse?
    This woman needs a good helping of reality and needs to concentrate on working for a living. I think the public speaking and over use of large words she doesn’t understand are taking their toll!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Hamish () says:

    Hey DPF – now that CYSWATCH has commented on this blog you should have their IP address and other browser stats at your disposal. Care to share?

    Likewise to anyone else who has received comments from them. There IP address can be used to find them – and much like their actions I think it only fair to publish their details.

    Thanks

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. llew () says:

    “Would the Kahui twins be alive now if Sue Bradfords bill was passed 10 years ago NO.

    Would Lilly Bing be alive NO.

    Would Teresa Cormack, Cursa Jenson etc, etc, etc be alive NO. ”

    You forgot ALan McDiarmid & Princess Di.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. sonic () says:

    “These children were Murdered by miss fits”

    Someone should prosecute her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Adolf Fiinkensein () says:

    The site has been closed by Google. Who will be the first to ask the PM what presuure she brought to bear on Google for this favour? How ironic that only a couple of hours ago the police declared there was nothingm illegal in the comment. So, what were the grounds for closing the site? Will Google now close all Islamic sites which actually do threaten to kill people?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. llew () says:

    Culma, facile joking aside.

    I’m not sure at all about this legislation, and as you say (with a couple of fairly irrelevant examples) none of the recent high profile child abuse deaths would have been prevented if this had been passed years ago.

    However, just the fact that everyone would know that smacking was illegal might well prevent some cases of abuse (I’m not going to claim it would save lives, because as we all know, the illegality of murder doesn’t stop murderers…

    So my waffly point is, those cases you mentioned were, and still would have been tried as murder, not smacking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. gd () says:

    Yes Adolf This has Ms Clarks finger prints all over it. And No Goggle will never close down any site that threatens non believers. Ms Clark will tell you to get over it and move on. You are expected to be subject to hate and death threats.This is your punishment for being a pale male and stale.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. sonic () says:

    Google has terms of service on blogger, if I may quote

    “Member agrees not to transmit through the Service any unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or harmful material of any kind or nature. Member further agrees not to transmit any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation”

    Funny seeing conservatives going nuts over a private company implementing it’s own policy!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Adolf Fiinkensein () says:

    Sonic you a dribbling again. Let’s hear you loudly encouraging the ‘private company’ to apply the same criteria to all its hosted sites. Can you show me the list of sites Google has closed during the past six months? If you can and if it includes Islamist hate sites, I’ll be very surprised.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Redbaiter () says:

    There’s no “Conservtives going nuts” Sonic. There are tho silly little leftist robots quoting paragraphs of legalize from a company that was happy to grovel to the totalitarian criminals that hold power in China. Fairly selective morality wouldn’t you say? But then again, it srecognised that Google is run by liberal wankers, what more could you expect??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. sonic () says:

    You seem to be under the strange impression that I work for google adolf..

    I’m pretty certain they close down lots of blogs every day, that is why they have a “notify us of objectionble content” button on every blog they host.

    Indeed I have had mails from their support team as someone complained that content I was using was their copyright, I removed the photo concerned.

    You have no answer to my point that CYFSwatch is in clear breach of the terms and conditions they agreed to when they signed up to blogger, so google have every right to withdraw service from them.

    So you make up nonsense about Helen Clark, and drag in Islamic hate sites for some bizzare reason.

    If these guys want they can pay for a site and put up what they want, I don’t see why a commercial company should continue to host content, for free, that is in clear breech of the agreement they made to use the service.

    So you can tell us why they should be allowed to ignore those terms and conditions, or just witter on about muslims or whatever.

    The choice, as always, is yours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. ross () says:

    > I suspect death threats are illegal almost everywhere.

    Hmmm. The police have confirmed that the “death threat” is not illegal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. sonic () says:

    Oh look what the cat dragged in.

    I assume that being a man of such high principle you boycott google then Mr Baiter?

    Thought not….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Adolf Fiinkensein () says:

    Sonic, I’m under no illusions that you work for anyone. Clearly you are a person of independant means as you have so much time to waste on blog comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. culma () says:

    llew – seriously you get caught up in Bradford’s bullshit, this is a nothing piece of legislation, my examples maybe loose but they all had one thing in common, you work it out.
    I smack my children! This is the ultimate last resort, followed up with time to ponder what has just happened.
    CYFF’s struggle to identify real abuse cases, how do you reckon they will go here? You may find they take the easy road like the NZ Police, concentrate on speeding motorists and forget about Murder cases, in CYFF’s case concentrate on prosecuting people like myself, not worrying about those that made short work of the Kahui twins, how’d that be? PC enough for you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. sonic () says:

    “Clearly you are a person of independant means as you have so much time to waste on blog comments”

    Unlike your good self Mr F who rarely has the time?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. baxter () says:

    I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if the blogger wasn’t Sue Bradford herself or one of her cohorts. It has drummed up a great deal of sympathy for her from even those who oppose the bill…She better than anyone else in the country knows the most effective strategies to advance a cause and I suggest she has employed one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Hamish () says:

    …and the blogging world’s handle on reality slips a little further away…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. hisself1 () says:

    Let’s use occams razor here. Who are the people who specialise in vile abuse and denigration of their opponents, in almost every blog you read? The right. Who threaten opponents with physical violence for trivial insults? As we have seen recently, the right. Who is therefore most likely to have posted the offensive comments on cyfswatch? Hardly the greens!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. ross () says:

    > Who is therefore most likely to have posted the offensive comments on cyfswatch?

    OK, let’s play your game. Who can’t handle the truth? The Left. Too easy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Flashman () says:

    hisself: Level One Logic – Not achieved.

    1. Faulty chain of logic there boyo. Think it though and gain wisdom.

    2. Whatever it was, that wasn’t an example of Occam’s Razor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Chuck Bird () says:

    I note that DPF and others believe that the blogger on CYFSWatch Blog is probably breaking the law. It certainly sounds like extortion to me.

    If it is extortion can anyone with any legal knowledge explain why Helen Clark and Trevor Mallard’s threat to reveal personal information about National MPs if National did not stop calling Labour corrupt regarding the theft of 800k of taxpayers’ money was not extortion?

    Labour actual did carry out the threat. I doubt if the anonymous blogger really thought their threat would actually result in Bradford withdrawing her bill. On the other hand I believe that Clark and Mallard thought their threat had some chance of success.

    If what Clark and Mallard did amounts to extortion then they could still be charged.

    Any lawyers on this blog?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.