I got hacked – yeah right!

August 31st, 2009 at 10:27 am by David Farrar

On Wed 26 August the user GarfieldNZ twittered:

@suebr is STILL a good candidate for NZ’s first political assassination. (watch sue run to the Police because of a death threat, stupid cow)

For those who do not know , the reference to @suebr means it will get seen by user “suebr” which is herself.

While I am not sure I would classify the tweet as a literal death threat, even implicit threats of violence should have no part in our discourse.

Dave at Big News names the user as , formerly of CYFSWatch, based on some good detective work.

The media door-stopped van Hermond and his response is reported by the Herald:

CYFSwatch is run by Henk van Helmond, who yesterday wrote that though the threats had come from his account “it seems my password was hacked”.

Yeah, Right.

IrishBill at The Standard dives into the gutter as usual and tries to link the actions of van Hermond to the anti-EFA campaign and me personally and sees something sinister in the fact I did not report the original Sunday News story, implying somehow I condone such threat of violence.

As usual he could not be more wrong. I’m not sure if I have revealed this publicly before, but in 2007 there were similar threats made by someone with the CYFSWatch site (and my response is here) – maybe even the same person. Back then, their identities were tightly kept.

Someone from CYFSWatch commented on my site. Due to the threats that had made against Bradford, I passed on their identifying information (IP address) to Sue Bradford’s office and explained the Police could use this to trace them.

Bradford’s office in time passed this into the Police, and they contacted me and I provided the Police with information which allowed them to obtain from the ISP, the identity of the person holding the account which had made the threats.

As I said I don’t think I’ve ever blogged this info before (I think I did mention it once in a comment) but as someone too cowardly to even post under their own name is trying to link me to condoning or encouraging this sort of activity, I need to set the record straight.

UPDATE: Idiot/Savant also jumps into the gutter. Again someone who hides behind anonymity tries to smear someone who does not. You never tend to get these sort of smears from people who blog under their own name. That is because blogging under your own name forces you to think about consequences (well except for Whale!) of what you say on your own reputation.

Tags: , , , , ,

72 Responses to “I got hacked – yeah right!”

  1. XChequer (298 comments) says:

    I wonder about those Standard boys sometimes. They seem to be driven by fear and guilt leading to some outrageous ad hominem attacks that have nothing to do with any sort of reasoned discourse and all about making themselves feel better about their own lives.

    BTW, anyone else wanting cheap psychology, please feel free to call on 0800 CHEAPHACK.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Repton (769 comments) says:

    Presumably one could talk to Twitter to find out the IP address (or cell phone number?) used to send the offending tweet. I’m sure they wouldn’t give that information to _me_, but they might be happy to supply it to the police. Then they could track down this scurrilous hacker…

    (I also find it interesting that he is “absolutely anti her bill”, yet he says “I’m a pacifist, I don’t believe in violence”. Huh.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. big bruv (13,904 comments) says:

    This whole “death threat” thing is beginning to backfire on Comrade Bradford, when you read the “threat” you are left with two obvious conclusions, the first is that the writer is a dickhead and the second is that it is in no way a death threat.

    Yes, it is unsavoury, yes, it is unnecessary but what I find more offensive is the way Comrade Bradford has milked this for political gain.

    Make no mistake, this maggot will do or say anything to impose her will on the rest of us.

    As for “Irish Bill”, and his comments, they are both irrelevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    Not much of a death threat. I wish death, mayhem and confusion on all sorts of people almost daily – from the guy who nearly hit me on the pedestrian crossing the other day to politicians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    DPF said: IrishBill at The Standard dives into the gutter as usual and tries to link the actions of van Hermond to the anti-EFA campaign and me personally and sees something sinister in the fact I did not report the original Sunday News story

    What he actually said that related or could have related to you, DPF, was:

    …what concerns me is they have had tacit endorsement from some members of the the established political right over issues such as section 59 and the EFA.

    …and senior National Party activist David Farrar push the same messages through his Free Speech Coalition and provide an unmoderated forum for angry right-wing nutters to work themselves up into a frenzy….

    Farrar has avoided this one. I’d like to see him post a piece making it clear to his huge right-wing readership that this behaviour is unacceptable. If political voices from across the spectrum don’t speak up against this kind of thuggery it will only grow.

    I don’t think that’s diving “into the gutter”. The fact is that there were some wingnuts running around during the EFA campaign throwing bricks through the offices of political parties that supported the Bill, just as we have this nutjob encouraging violence against Sue Bradford now.

    I agree with IB that there is a responsibility for those leading and promoting the debate to make the more extremist and violent supporters of their side of the argument aware that such actions are unacceptable.

    As you have now done, and good on you for it. But was the dig at IB for suggesting you do so really necessary?

    [DPF: IB's agenda is to demonise me and attack me. He does it all the time. He can't smear me enough with what I actually say or do, so he tries the guilt by association.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. big bruv (13,904 comments) says:

    Toad

    A lot of the anger this bill created could have been avoided had Bradford not insisted on telling so many lies.

    88% of the people in NZ know she is a liar, 88% know that this law has NOTHING to do with keeping kids safe, and 88% know that it has not saved one single life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. dimmocrazy (286 comments) says:

    I wonder if someone can answer for me the following moral conundrum:

    It is well known that ms Bradford has a rather colorful past involving many transgressions of the law, including disrupting order and no doubt involving expressions of hatred against all manner of persons and institutions of her disliking.

    Now confronted with this ‘threat’ it is ms Bradford who runs of to the institutions and authorities that she once (and probably still does) resents, in order for ‘protection’, and to declare her almost saintlike feelings and sensitivities.

    Apart from the hypocrisy that might be attached to the situation, I wonder what ‘ordinary’ people think of the moral issue involved, namely whether a person (in general, not necessarily Ms Bradford), who first herself breaches certain rules of conduct, can then later claim the moral high ground under exactly the same rules. In other words, where lies the boundary between ‘tit for tat’ and genuine issues that breach real and objective law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. unaha-closp (1,165 comments) says:

    Everybody wants Sue Bradford to live.

    The Greens because she is a hard left socialist who does not care one iota about the enviroment, so is able to drive the substantial policy stance of their electoral wing.

    Labour because she is a hard left socialist outside of Labour who is able to provide worthy legislation balloons to float in a deniable fashion.

    National because she is a hard left socialist whose ideas are trite left wing kant universally unpopular with NZ and so is the bogeywoman National will be able to use to scare voters in 2011.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Its not a death threat.

    This is another left wing beat up by the odious Bradford and left wing sympathizers in the corrupt mainstream media.

    Beware of fascism. Today it is a threat that comes from those who profess to hate it.

    As their grip on power grows weaker, they will resort to ever more extreme devices and plots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. homepaddock (408 comments) says:

    “sees something sinister in the fact I did not report the original Sunday News story, ”

    It’s often better to ignore these sorts of stories rather than give the idiots behind them the oxygen of publicity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    Repton – by definition, correctional smacking is hardly ‘Violence’

    (violence – Rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment. An unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. unaha-closp (1,165 comments) says:

    Basically Sue Bradford is the Roger Douglas of the NZ Left. Both are ideological purists who can be admired for the courage of their convictions, but whose convictions are scary to a great many NZers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Herman Poole (297 comments) says:

    …and senior National Party activist David Farrar PUSH THE SAME MESSAGES through his Free Speech Coalition and provide an unmoderated forum for angry right-wing nutters to work themselves up into a frenzy….

    But was the dig at IB for suggesting you do so really necessary?

    FFS Toad, can you not see the sheer moronic hypocrisy of your statement. You can’t get any lower class than what Irish Bill wrote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    Using a threat for political sympathy/gain is pretty sad, but you wouldnt put it past the (double) Standard and the Greens

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Toad and his pro-Bradford legislation buddies is a classic example of what’s known in philosophy as tautology logic. It is described as a proposition where it is always true under any possible valuation (also called a truth assignment or an interpretation) of its propositional variables.

    If one says the term smacking in relation to Bradford’s bill, Toad, Bradford & Co will say beating, which means that they equate the 2 as:

    smack == beating

    Whichever term that one chooses to describe this anti-smacking bill, will always be true according to tautological logic which is adopted by Toad, Bradford & Co. Yep, I saw a post from Toad yesterday (Sunday) on a different thread using the term beating.

    Toad, may I call you Toadology? I am sure that the term beating will keep coming from you including Bradford & Co, for as long as this anti-smacking bill is being debated in the public.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. scanner (340 comments) says:

    Sue B has succeeded in turning a large potion of the population against her and her weird ideas, her advance to the top of the Greens list is proof that MMP is a failure, it was only going to be a matter of time before some idiot made this sort of threat(veiled or otherwise) against her.
    I strongly disagree with everything SB has done throughout her “career” and her elevation into politics was inevitable when we were conned into MMP.
    Free speech is one of the only things we have left, but it is a right that needs to be exercised carefully, we are all responsible for our actions and having read some of this clowns posts this comment smacks of something he would do, someone hacking his account (Yeah Right) is a pretty weak excuse, especially when you get sprung.
    As much as you like/dislike her he doesn’t have the right to threaten, and then run and hide, like some small boy caught stealing.
    The other thing we can all be sure of is that SB will now put as much spin on this as she can possibly can, that’s just how she works, in the meantime I see another child bashed to death, this law really woks,NOT

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. big bruv (13,904 comments) says:

    I see we have another contributor who is not a fan of democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Falafulu Fisi said: which means that they equate the 2 as:

    smack == beating

    No, I don’t equate the two. They are on a continuum. Tell me, what is the precise amount of force where it ceases to be “smacking” and becomes “beating”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    The remark in question merely raises the point that if any politician in NZ was going to be assassinated, Sue Bradford would probably be one of the most likely.

    Surely making this sort of comment cannot be a against the law.

    It is clearly not a death threat, and those who claim it is are either dupes or co-conspirators.

    The left are losing and they are doubling their efforts to shut criticism down.

    Those who value freedom of expression must guard against this kind of manipulation and deceit.

    This is a nothing story. It is a fraud. It is a contrivance of the left and primarily designed to attack the right.

    Bradford and her media buddies are enemies of liberty, and this kind of weak trickery and deceit proves it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. MajorBloodnok (361 comments) says:

    mjanderson: John Key has got it right, working as intended, no change needed

    Another child dead = the law is working as intended! Oh dear. And from the PM.

    SueB has blood on her hands by drafting a bill aimed at stemming the tide of child abuse (ostensibly), and it has had no such effect. Toddlers are still being murdered. And at least 88% can see that.

    John Key, by saying that the law is working, is complicit in the same crime.

    As arch-compromiser on the original bill, and again as prime-squasher of the Boscowen private members bill, he is the one who is stopping Bradford’s Bill of False Pretences from being fixed, and the real issue — child abuse — from being addressed properly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    “Tell me, what is the precise amount of force where it ceases to be “smacking” and becomes “beating”?”

    – quite a wide margin there Toad, (but none you would distinguish to further your distortions)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Cerium (23,567 comments) says:

    “smack == beating”

    smack
    –verb (used with object)
    1. to strike sharply, esp. with the open hand or a flat object.
    6. to collide, come together, or strike something forcibly.
    –noun
    8. a sharp, resounding blow, esp. with something flat.

    The term has also been commonly used for other violent acts, eg a smack on the mouth, smack in the head.
    That is the problem I have with the term “smack”.

    There are two things that are now commonly being called smacking:
    – a mildish slap on the bum/leg/hand (I think most people agree this is usually ok)
    – spanking (there is more debate over this option)

    To me “smack” doesn’t always = ok. It could mean a beating.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    DPF:

    With all due disrespect to both you and The Standard, you’d both have a little more credibility to be laying charges of sewer-sperlunking if the comments didn’t so often resemble a free-rage troll farm. (BTW, rather ironic that Irish Bill finds Helen Clark being compared to Mugabe so offensive — which I actually agree with — but is quite happy to let a comment equating Rodney Hyde to Italian fascist leader Mussolini stand. Irony, anyone?)

    Your houses, your rules — but perhaps you and The Standaristas don’t have much credibility to be playing Miss Manners of teh interwebz.

    [DPF: Craig I do not accept responsibility for what commenters choose to say. That is their responsibility. If a commenter breaches my posting policy such as threatening violence, than I take action. In recent days many commenters have raved against John Key calling him a traitor. Does that then mean this site is a John Key hate site?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    “smacked up”, “smacked over” too Cerium.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. dimmocrazy (286 comments) says:

    Here’s the threat:

    @suebr is STILL a good candidate for NZ’s first political assassination. (watch sue run to the Police because of a death threat, stupid cow)

    Here’s the law:

    Threatening to kill or do grievous bodily harm
    (1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who—
    (a) threatens to kill or do grievous bodily harm to any person; or o
    (b) sends or causes to be received, knowing the contents thereof, any letter or writing containing any threat to kill or do grievous bodily harm to any person.

    Make up your own mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    Tell me, what is the precise amount of force where it ceases to be “smacking” and becomes “beating”?

    The precise amount of force is this: It’s a ‘beating’, no matter how light or trivial, if it suits the idological propaganda needs of Bradford and her ilk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    Beating -to strike violently or forcefully and repeatedly
    Smack – to strike sharply, esp. with the open hand or a flat object
    Spank- to strike (a person, usually a child) with the open hand, a slipper, etc., esp. on the buttocks, as in punishment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. big bruv (13,904 comments) says:

    # mjanderson (12) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 3 Says:
    August 31st, 2009 at 11:41 am

    No change is needed, the law is in accordance with the outcome of the referendum, democracy is served.

    Well that is clear, mjanderson is a fascist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    It would have been more appropriate to call it the Slapper Bill

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Cerium (23,567 comments) says:

    You could just as easily say “The precise amount of force is this: It’s a ‘smack’ if it suits the idological propaganda needs of the other ilk”.

    “Smack – to strike sharply, esp. with the open hand or a flat object” – how sharply, where, with what?

    Is it possible to give a light sharp smack?

    I think what a lot of people refer to as a smack is only (or little more than) a pat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Repton (769 comments) says:

    [Bradford's] advance to the top of the Greens list is proof that MMP is a failure,

    5% of the electorate voted Green, in the knowledge that Bradford was near the top of the list. She’s not exactly low-profile so I don’t think you can accuse the 5% of ignorance. So where is the failure of MMP? You can’t condemn our electoral system simply because it allows people you disagree with to have a voice in parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Repton (769 comments) says:

    SueB has blood on her hands by drafting a bill aimed at stemming the tide of child abuse (ostensibly), and it has had no such effect.

    So Bradford is to blame for child abuse because her bill failed to instantly change attitudes of the entire country? Can I say “WTF”?

    Will you next blame whoever sponsored the bill making drunk-driving illegal for everyone subsequently killed by a drunk driver?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. village idiot (748 comments) says:

    Mr Henk and his daft lip-chewing crew will transfer their nasty focus to Key now. Stupid though they are, they will work out that Bradford can’t do anything about the law now, but Key can. But didn’t. What are we going to say when that happens?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    DPF
    I back you in not being held responsible for what people say.
    I find it hard to understand why Sue Bradford would be first in the queue for people to kill her.
    She only put the Act up in parliament, it was John Key and (Mr Sensible) who foisted it on us, not Sue Bradford.
    Let’s not forget 112 MP’s voted over the wishes of 80% of the people, So surely all of those people should be on the same list, not just Sue Bradford.

    Now we have had an election and John Key and National clearly have the numbers so surely it should be John Key and the National caucus who should be in the frame and not Sue Bradford.
    Are these people stupid or what?

    She didn’t ignore a 2nd polling in the form of a referendum as the govt of the day?
    It isn’t she who is Prime Minister and controls the whipping of the National party caucus is it?
    It isn’t she who has lied about the meaning of the word criminalise to hide the grief and trauma He is deliberately putting Kiwi parents through?
    It wasn’t she who influenced the referendum by stating she was not going to listen no matter it’s result?
    It wasn’t she who further attacked the rights of voters by refusing to vote himself?
    It wasn’t she who didn’t come to the defense of voters when the cost was being slagged about?
    It wasn’t she who wrote a law he thought was acceptable for people to break?
    More important it wasn’t her amendment that made parents at the whim of NZPolice for prosecution?
    Nor was it her who says the Law is doing it’s job of attacking Kiwi parents who smack for correction purposes?

    So why is the media getting all het up over all of this?
    I’m not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    I guess that in part addresses big bruvs confusion too, people are NOT being criminalised for giving a smack as part of good parental correction in New Zealand with the current law. I would like to understand your viewpoint here big bruv.

    You confuse being crimininalised with being convicted. You become a criminal when you break the law. You are punished if/when you are convicted.

    If you think that good parents are not criminialised by the current law, then I invite you to pop down to the local supermarket and start shoplifting. Based on your current understanding you won’t be committing theft until you’re caught.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. village idiot (748 comments) says:

    I/P says:

    “If DPF doesn’t like his blog becoming a byword for a particularly odious strand of political extremism, then he has a simple option available: clean up his community.”

    Fair enough. Trouble is, DPF throws out the wrong posters, leaving the odious to fester. I mean, Greenfly, ffs!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    What brand of political extremism are you talking about?
    is it the people or views contrary to your own?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. MajorBloodnok (361 comments) says:

    The ‘working as intended’ comment was more aimed at the fact the bill was not infringing on peoples right to raise the children how they see fit,

    Explain, then, why the bill specifically excludes smacking for purposes of correction. Why that particular motive? That is the job of parents — to train children to make the right choices for themselves by establishing reasonable boundaries, and correcting them when they deliberately flout the boundaries.

    Otherwise, primary teachers have greater problems with unruly children. Which leads to police having greater problems with youth offenders. Which leads to… [I'm sure you get the picture].

    The bill is infringing severely on parents. And unnecessarily so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. JC (956 comments) says:

    And you wonder why Key is dodging further anti-smacking angst with all these words and feelings out there?

    We won’t get sense on this whole issue until people finally accept that smacking and child abuse are separate and quite different entities.

    The police, the pollies and the media have quite categorically stated that after two years of the Bradford Act there have been only 33 investigations and no prosecutions over smacking.. ergo, we have not and never did have a “smacking” problem..

    However CYFS have provided a memo that there were about 117,000 notifications of child abuse and neglect in just the last 12 months.. ergo we have a child abuse problem.

    The moment a parent takes to a child with a 4×2 he/she is guilty of child abuse.. not smacking.. and a parent who never smacks but constantly belittles a child is likewise guilty of child abuse. Smacking has nothing to do with either case.

    Whilst I’m at it, the Burrows Amendment is wrong because it seeks to define the indefinable. The moment you try to introduce degrees of smacking you have lost the plot. Child discipline is about doing the right thing at the right time, and only a normal parent can know that. The brilliant safeguard we had was s59 where effectively a court of public opinion determined cases at the margins.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. village idiot (748 comments) says:

    Those who threaten violence or death to others as a result of their political views. There have been many instances here on Kiwiblog, you’ll have read them, or have you not been here long. The discussion on other blogs as to the phenomenon of ‘right wingers’ calling for violent actions against ‘left wing’ commenters here and on other rightwing blogs is interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. kaya (1,360 comments) says:

    Repton –

    “5% of the electorate voted Green, in the knowledge that Bradford was near the top of the list. She’s not exactly low-profile so I don’t think you can accuse the 5% of ignorance.”

    That is utter nonsense. I am no political genius but I would say I am more aware and take more interest than the average person.
    A person’s place on the list never entered into it when I considered who to vote for and that would apply to most people. They vote on the policies (lies) of the Party when giving the Party vote. They vote for their own personal preference when it comes to their electorate MP. Some might vote strategically too. The staunch politicos might do the level of measured analysis you talk about, the majority do not.

    Anyway, if you take the East Coast electorate where Sue Bradford (less than 2000 votes) ran, the Bill and Ben Party got about 5% as many votes as the Green Party. Maybe they should ring them and see if they want to form a coalition?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    “Tell me, what is the precise amount of force where it ceases to be “smacking” and becomes “beating”?”

    So if we describe drugs as a continuum, with pot at one end and P somewhere further up, then we could use your logic deduce that pot should be illegal.

    If we have a continuum with printing political satire at one end and taking actions to violently over throw the legal government and place yourself as Emperor is somewhere further up, should all dissent be crushed?

    Or maybe, if we have a continuum with telling a mildly racist joke (it is making fun of white people, so you would consider it an ok form of racism) at one end and inciting hatred against a particular group in society to the point that you are calling for their extinxtion a little further up, should all jokes with any mention of race be banned and the telling of them punishable?

    Or how about a continuum with talking to a girl at a bar when she isnt interested in you at one end and stalking that girl for 6 months, terrorising her by constantly turning up wherever she is, leaving dirty messages on her phone, a little further up, should all interaction in bars between the sexes be tightly regulated and overseen?

    Or maybe this, what if there was a continuum with conception at one end and partial birth abortion just a little further up, should there be a morning after pill? Should taking it be considered conspriracy to commit murder?

    Dont bother responding to individual examples, they are just there to show that your line of reasoning is worthless and the point you were trying to make nonsensical.

    Just because you say you dont know the difference between a smack and a beating doesnt mean you are being honest. Nor does your lie mean that it is unreasonable to consider the differentiation obvious to reasoning adults.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    “Whilst I’m at it, the Burrows Amendment is wrong because it seeks to define the indefinable.”

    The value of the Burrows Ammendment is precisely that it doesnt try to strictly define the indefinable; it does provide a method of discerning child abuse that is open to interpretation by judges.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Inventory2 (10,342 comments) says:

    MikeNZ said “DPF
    I back you in not being held responsible for what people say.
    I find it hard to understand why Sue Bradford would be first in the queue for people to kill her.
    She only put the Act up in parliament, it was John Key and (Mr Sensible) who foisted it on us, not Sue Bradford.
    Let’s not forget 112 MP’s voted over the wishes of 80% of the people, So surely all of those people should be on the same list, not just Sue Bradford.”

    MikeNZ – slight error there. Bradford’s bill would have passed REGARDLESS of what Key did in 2007. Clark and Bradford had the numbers, with or without National.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Village Idiot
    yeah I’ve read them and take them for what they are.
    I’m ropable on Key and the other wankers in National right now but highly unlikely to want to kill them.
    Smack them yes ;-)

    Though I could understand why others might want to, especially if they think there is no hope.
    Hey even I thought they stood for honesty and democracy, after the last lot, but I was incorrect wasn’t I about the whole caucus.
    It’s incorrect to blame Sue Bradford, John Key is the architect and I am sure his security detail are more aware situationly as a result.
    If he did get topped I will find it hard not to say I saw that coming, but then I think a good half of Kiwis might say the same right now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. kaya (1,360 comments) says:

    Baldock has just said they are considering another petition.

    http://tinyurl.com/lymhdh

    Obviously the question needs clarified.

    Key and his people seem to be clinging to the argument that when we voted in the referendum we may not necessarily have wanted a law change. As we all know he is wrong and it is a pathetic attempt to obfuscate.

    A new petition for a CIR saying that “New Zealanders want the law changed so that parents who lightly smack are not criminals, technically or otherwise” or words to that effect should be started. (I am not sure about the one Baldock proposes). I have no doubt they will get the numbers much more quickly than last time.

    A new petition will put the blowtorch on National severely. Also if it is made it clear that if they do not respond to that referendum result (presuming similar numbers) there should be another one and another one and another one until they do respond in a democratic manner. I will be happy to collect signatures for any new petition that is started.

    This is one way to exert democratic pressure, I have yet to hear any other way to address the frustrations of so many people.

    Could be interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Grant Michael McKenna (1,160 comments) says:

    A comment, and a question: the fact that people tend to be more cautious when blogging under their own names is very true, well established in academia and part of the reason that I use my own name. I’m not ashamed of what I say.

    The question: Toad quotes IrishBill at The Standard as saying that DPF has an “unmoderated forum for angry right-wing nutters”. Which forum is that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Inventory2
    You are correct.
    But Key was the Architect of the amendment and the carry on since (he is driving the media campaign).

    He and national could have stood back and then changed it on getting elected (which they would have with more votes if that had been part of their platform) to a more sensible one.
    He didn’t which says to me he wanted to stop smacking all along but didn’t have the Honesty to say so.
    That’s why the law is working as it was intended!

    I used the yesvote website to write to the National caucus and you’ll be surprised at some of the replies I got.
    They clearly thought I was of the Yesgroup as the referrals was to child assault which is a different thing to me than a smack on the bum.
    and that was from within National, big people too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    It is inevitable as this issue will not die in the face of John Key and National’s dishonesty.
    80% both before and after the election is no small cheese.

    Personally I think the question should say something like-

    “Do you want the Government to change the crimes act so that a smack on the bum for correction isn’t breaking the law” or some such.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Seems there is a history of Henk van Helmond not knowing who is responsible, even though the events are closely connected to him:

    Finally Henk van Helmond, the man behind all the sites, says he did not know who threw the bricks at Clark’s office. He has said he doesnt know them, nor has he met them – just had “contact” with htem. He says he doesnt know the people who post on his sites either – that includes Bryn Rodda. But he certainly knows a lot about the brick chucking. And he knows Bryn Rodda more than he makes out. Both have had contact with the woman who used the riding crop on her son. They`re all connected.

    I know that.

    Thanks, Dave C, for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. omgwhat (1 comment) says:

    So surely if someone ‘hacked’ your account & used it to post something (That you yourself didn’t want to say) you’d delete the comment from your twitter stream?

    This in itself is almost proof that Mr. Helmond is responsible for the comment.

    If he doesn’t agree with the statement, why wouldn’t he delete it?

    Mr. Helmond: You can easily remove the tweet by clicking the “Trash” icon next to the tweet message.

    Bet you he won’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    As I blogged this morning, Sue was on the radio this morning seemed ok with violent threats so long as they weren’t against her. She specifically only called for the “other side” to tone down the rhetoric, and justified her own use of inflammatory language.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    I know most people here resist reading The Standard so for those who haven’t clicked DPF’s links I invite you to click this one and see what you think.

    For those who can’t bear even to do that, lest their feel their eyeballs would be infected by some socialism virus, here’s a precis:

    IrishBill: Best way to deal with nutters is “universal condemnation, followed by universal ridicule followed by ignoring them”.
    Me: I agree. Bradford should have quietly reported it to the Police if she felt threatened, but that last thing to do is portray yourself as hero / victim in the frigging Sunday News!!
    IrishBill: “Can’t say I agree with you there Rex. These people already have several outlets… They won’t be starved of oxygen until the establishment right stops providing it for them”.

    Ummm… so okay… let’s accept for the sake of argument the “establishment right” is providing an “outlet” for the likes of van Helmond. Does Bradford make it better, or worse, by providing them with another outlet in an MSM newspaper, claiming the such nutbarring is “chilling” and she needs bodyguards?

    By The Standard’s logic, worse. And I agree. So why do it? My conclusion at The Standard:

    Bradford’s reaction, especially in terms of allowing herself to be portrayed as both victim and hero in the media, also provides encouragement. And I’m sure that was weighed in the balance before going public.

    So call me a cycnic, but I see some not-so-subtle manipulation here.

    Unlike other commenters IrishBill cites in his ongoing criticism of DPF today I don’t think Bradford made it up, nor do I think there’s anything appropriate or justified in van Helmond’s attempted intimidation.

    If Bradford were genuinely “chilled” by the outburst of some crackpot she’d have quietly stepped up her protection and not given him the oxygen of publicity. Thus the only conclusion I can draw — having sat in a political office that received all sorts of weirdness through the mail on a weekly basis — is that Bradford knows it’s hot air and is using the whole incident to garner sympathy and publicity.

    Sorry Sue… it’s going to take more than a mean tweet to win back the sympathy of those people whose rights and opinions were over-ridden by your law*. In the meantime, here’s a form you might like to complete if you want to complain about such things in future.

    * Excellent point above, MikeNZ – Bradford only provided the fuel. Clark and Key stoked the fire, set it alight and, in Key’s case, are determined to keep it burning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    So Bradford is to blame for child abuse because her bill failed to instantly change attitudes of the entire country? Can I say “WTF”?

    From The Press

    “New Zealand taxpayers spent just short of $9 million on a referendum that could never be more than symbolic: a token action against equally helpless symbolism, since the 2007 Crimes Act amendment was never more than that, either.
    Gestures such as these are unreal next to the horrific roll that continues in the homes of our most vulnerable children. When a far more substantive response is already addressing the causes of child abuse, albeit to a limited extent due to lack of resources, such expensive gestures are nothing short of obscene. Proven early intervention programmes already exist and are working to turn around our most socially deprived families — just not enough of them.
    Some may find this unpalatable, but none of the mothers, fathers, whanau, step families or other caregivers of the children killed or injured over the past few weeks set our to neglect, maltreat or beat them. Rather, they lacked the skills for the vital job of caring for these vulnerable infants
    With the right kind of help all could have been shown how to become better parents, and save their children from the fates they have met
    Unfortunately, effective programmes, proven to work with the most intractable families, those most prone to abuse their infints, are seriously under resourced. That $9m, spent on working intensively to turn around severely dysfunctional families might have saved the lives that were damaged or lost during the referendum, and substantially assisted hundreds more to turn around similarly blighted lives.
    Families most. likely to kill their children are typically beset by poverty, crime, fragile mental health, unemployment, lack of education, poor housing, drug abuse, and histories of violence and victimisation.
    However, with diligent, systematic, professional care, provided by experts and focused on the needs of the child, deprivation that spawns child abuse spanning many generations can be addressed, creating a safe environment for children like those who died or were critically injured during the past few horrific weeks.
    A specialist service focused on prevention and targeted at the highest risk group, is able to act to help these families learn the parenting skills they lack, and therefore break the cycle of child maltreatment and abuse.
    With the referendum over, perhaps we can put polarisation and gestures behind us. Perhaps
    we can focus instead on adequately resourcing programmes that prevent ehild abuse. The outcome such programmes provide seems to be something we all want whether we ticked “yes”, “no”,
    or were so fed up that we did not vote in the referendum.

    Dr Annabel Taylor teaches social policy and social work practice at the University of Canterbury School of Social Work and Human Services. She also chairs the Family Help Trust, a Christchurch-based charity working to prevent child abuse in families suffering the greatest
    social dysfunction and deprivation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    quote:

    Dr Annabel Taylor teaches social policy and social work practice at the University of Canterbury School of Social Work and Human Services.

    I thought that she is a sociologist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. tom hunter (4,852 comments) says:

    Rex

    I think you might be missing one other possible explanation for Bradford’s actions.

    It’s long been standard practice for her and other activists to not just portray themselves as victims and elicit sympathy, but to portray their opposition as violent, or at least oppressive, thugs. I can’t remember seeing her arrested once without hearing her agonised screams – YOU’RE HURTING ME, YOU’RE HURTING ME – as the Police bundled her off to the paddy wagon.

    It wins sympathy for her side of any given debate, but more importantly it places her opposition on the defensive where, at a minimum they have to go around denying it every time they get involved in the arguments, rather than making their side of the argument. It enables stereotypes to be pushed more effectively, it isolates and fragments the opposition by peeling off “decent people”, and it can even just shut down opposition speech altogether.

    All in all it’s a win-win tactic for a specific issue. In this case it’s even more appropriate since the argument is about the use of force in the first place.

    Her side of the smacking debate have been gagging to present the other side as child abusers. Virtually every thread on here over the last couple of years has had numerous supporters of the new law making that claim or implying it with deliberately chosen obfuscation of terms.

    But the tactic of hysterical abuse has not only failed to work, it has actually backfired. So what’s needed now is proof positive that those who oppose the law change are violent scumbags. This is a golden opportunity and every effort will be made to conflate the words into a threat, and then a believable threat. As usual it won’t matter whether that’s true or not – it will serve a larger political purpose.

    Of course it is only a tactic, and only for one issue at a time. Strategically it’s resulted in the cluster-fuck (from the Left’s viewpoint) of having lost power and having to watch things like budget cuts and mining go forward. Perhaps we should be saying – “Go Sue”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    As my elderly mother reminded me today, “I wouldn’t mind so much if she had raised her own children well”. It’s been mentioned before on blogs and is now almost an unspoken rule that you don’t talk about Sue’s kids and her success in raising them because that would somehow be inappropriate. The truth is, she is the last one who should be dispensing advice on child-rearing.

    If she can’t tell the difference between a smack and beating then there is something seriously wrong with her and she needs help.

    Toad says –

    Tell me, what is the precise amount of force where it ceases to be “smacking” and becomes “beating”

    A good question, but I think a lot of it comes down to intent.
    Few of us would hesitate to strike a child on the back to dislodge some food if it would save a child from choking.
    Doctors used to smack newborn babies on the bottom to get them to cry and take their first breath, but no one would call that abuse.

    Smacking a child on the bottom to cause some transitory pain may save them from a world of embarrassment or a life of crime later on: keeping with that thought, to NOT smack a child when a smack could correct him/her is child abuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    If the police put a team on the Bradford threat case, I hope it will also energise them in the Brash inquiry.

    They need to be evenhanded investigating political complaints.

    If the police put DPF and Kiwiblog under the magnifying glass in any way in relation to the Bradford query, they better be damned sure they do the same to the retards at the Standard over posts about the Brash case and the leftist prick who led that nasty campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Repton (769 comments) says:

    [...]That $9m, spent on working intensively to turn around severely dysfunctional families might have saved the lives that were damaged or lost during the referendum,[...]

    So, Bradford has blood on her hands because she forced the pro-smacking lobby to organise a referendum and waste $9m. Sure, fine, whatever.

    Doubtless you would use the same argument to explain how John Key will have blood on his hands if he cuts the top tax rate. And the rugby world cup — aren’t taxpayers contributing to Eden Park? Rugby fans == guilty of neglect by association. You’ve convinced me: the government must keep spending money until it stamps out child abuse altogether.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    @suebr is STILL a good candidate for NZ’s first political assassination. (watch sue run to the Police because of a death threat, stupid cow)

    How is that an actual threat. Surely that statement could never stand up in a court of law. Isn’t it like saying that Parakura Horomia is STILL a good candidate for NZ’s first Mr Creosote incident at Bellamy’s? It is not advocating violence against her, just stating that (and it must be the writer of that comment’s opinion) if there is ever a political assasination in NZ then she would be front runner? He even notes that she will read it as a threat and run to the police. Possibly silly thing for him to write but a credible threat?

    This is just more attention seeking by Ms Bradford to portray ANYONE who voted NO in the referendum as some sort of crazed stalker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. racer1 (352 comments) says:

    Kimble, you are stupid.

    All of those examples you posted are a series of discrete actions, toad described smacking and beating as a continuum because they are contiguous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Bradford is a mere pawn, she was the gift that kept on giving . Comrade Sue was the right woman at the right time with the right issue. The Dear One must of been overjoyed with Sue and her anti smacking legislation. Look at the history, the Dear One was on public record as saying that smacking was a natural thing and should remain the right of parents. Then when Sue came along with this bill we had a 180 degree change of policy, smacking had become the new evil. Liarbore was always very poll driven and they knew this law was deeply unpopular but all of a sudden it’s the best thing since sliced bread. All Liarbore politicians were instructed to vote this into law, NO DISSENTERS, except dutch Harry who manged to find a set. The question is why???????, Sue was merely an means to an end. Meanwhile Bradford is now the scapegoat and the clown that takes the heat, not that she doesn’t enjoy it, while those that are really responsible are living it up in NY.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    small article in The Press on this. It uses Sue Bradfords Green Party photo (20 years younger and has the meat cut out of it )ie, it doesn’t include:

    She accused her opponents of double-standards. Bradford said the same people who were saying it was okay to assault a child, would be horrified at the prospect of a law allowing anyone to use physical force against their wife. I don’t know if people really do think about that, that it (should be) okay to do that to children but not to adults,” she said. “There are a lot of people that are absolutely dedicated to getting my law overturned; they want the right to beat their kids, they want the right even to beat them with implements. The true agenda here is to able to beat their kids again legally.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-news/news/2815051/Death-threats-to-Sue-Bradford

    [The editor of the Press called the referendum "a fiasco"]

    this whole thing is turning out to be a small elite versus the people.

    In the same issue Guyon Espiner tells us the 1. “law is working” 2. Key would have had to put up with vociferous opposition and 3. it would have held parliament up for months (in debate etc about) changing the law [key apologist].

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    tom hunter:

    You could well be right that she’s using the incident as some sort of post hoc implication that, because one right winger* issued what could possibly be read as a threat then that is indicative of the fact all right wingers, or even a substantial minority, are thugs.

    I would hope not. Manipulating the sympathy vote is one thing. Casting that sort of aspersion on a group of people just because of their political beliefs is the type of tactics favoured by the very extremists whom The Standard claims to deplore.

    Perhaps some “journalist” could pause in their self-promotion for a moment (e.g. stop sniggering about donkey’s members and congratulating themselves on what a daring little boy they’ve been) and do their damned job and put the question to her.

    * could van Helmond be descibed as a right winger? I’ve no idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Swampy (191 comments) says:

    Someone quotes Dr Annabel Taylor of Family Help Trust. Dr Taylor conveniently forgot to mention that her organisation is affiliated with Jigsaw, which carried an advertisement for the Yes Vote campaign on its website. Who believes that Taylor is not writing to oppose the No Vote campaign purely on the grounds of ideological opposition? Her attack on people’s democratic rights is loathsome and disgusting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    3. it would have held parliament up for months (in debate etc about) changing the law [key apologist].

    Actually, someone in a letter to the Herald pointed out the other day that this would NOT take up Parliament’s time at all, as there is special time set aside for questions such as these (I can’t remember what it was called). Saying it would take up Parliament’s time is a bald faced lie.

    Did anyone see the full page ad in today’s Herald by Family First?
    It had details of many stories (giving dates and particulars) of where the new law hasn’t worked, with parents being hassled by Police and CYFS over minor smacking incidents.

    http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/we_are_listening.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Fletch (6,390 comments) says:

    ps, even if it DID take up Parliament’s time – that’s what we pay them for – it’s their JOB.
    GET OVER IT, and do your JOB.

    This issue is more important than wasting time on climate change or the ****** Super City!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    Swampy:

    Dr Taylor says “since the 2007 Crimes Act amendment was never more than that, either.[symbolism]”

    and that their are more substantive initiatives. In other words no need to change the culture of the many for the few?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Fletch
    you are correct.
    I am more of the mind that John Key supports No smacking at all but didn’t want to be seen in that camp to 80% of the population. (he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions)
    So he is playing fast and loose with the truth and misapplying criminalising to mean actually being convicted.

    He is telling the truth when he says “that the act is working as designed” as he wanted all along for parents to change their parenting style by fear and coercion at the threat of CYF into their homes.
    The next administartion will be able to change the guidelines to Police and cyfs to nail everyone as they will have had a period of re-education.

    What we need is a clear referendum to change the ACT so that samcking for correction doesn’t break the law.
    Better still the 80% needs to get a backbone and give their party vote to ACT next time and give John Key, Sue Bradford and National a smack for correction!

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