A disgusting headline
November 19th, 2010 at 4:12 pm by David FarrarIn contrast to his useful policy focused post, a more recent blog post goes down to the depths from Trevor:
Anne Tolley doesn’t care about sex criminals looking after children
From the Shadow Education Minister, this is disgusting and a reminder as to why Labour should not be in Government – if this is their idea of debate.
The Education Amendment Bill currently before the house removes the obligation to get a Police check for people who look after babies and young children unsupervised at gyms and mall childcare services.
Labour may have over-regulated but this goes too far.
Labour massively over-regulated. They forced creches at gyms to register as early childhood education centres, have qualified teaching staff etc – including the Police check.
The reality is a creche at a gym is not a school, or part of the educational infrastructure. They are a babysitting service. They allow a mum to use the gym and have someone look after their kids for 60 minutes.
One can have a sensible debate about whether or not gym creches should be required by law to do police checks on their creche staff. But to effectively accuse the Minister of being indifferent to paedophilia is again disgusting.
Personally I’m not at all sure there is a need. Labour sounds like they want to go down the route of the UK where you can’t even be an occassional parent helper for sports or scouts without a Police check.
Have any kids ever been molested by a staff member while their mother is exercising at the gym? I mean, what is the problem to be solved here?
Do we only require police checks for babysitters at gyms? How about for all babysitters and nannys? Maybe we need a Department of Babysitters to register and monitor them?
The Scouts have a policy of getting police checks on all new leaders. This is very sensible, as sadly youth groups do attract paedophiles. But Scouts are not required to do this by law. Are gym creche staff a bigger risk than scout leaders?
If there is evidence that not having mandatory police checks on gym creche staff has led to children being molested, then I can be persuaded that it may be a sensible idea. But can’t we hold that debate without Labour MPs asserting that the Minister of Education (herself a parent) doesn’t care if sex criminals look after children.
Related posts:
- Helping kids in need
- Dom Post on sex offenders register
- Labour now wants to unionise paper boys!
- Background checks on public servants
November 19th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Its worse than his “Key gutless under pressure – babies to die – abortions to increase” heading he did.
It just shows what a low life bitter / twisted person he is. Even thick as crap Spud should be able to work out how pathetic that is. (he probably wont tho) (smiley fucken face)
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Mallard is one sick puppy, he actually enjoys being as offensive as possible, he epitomises everything that is wrong with the Labour party.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Agree headline is wrong, but so is the law. Needs to be safety when it comes to young children. Police checks should be mandatory for this, sex offenders will look for this kind of opening. Even one child being molested for your ‘evidence’ DPF is even more disgusting. We should be preventing crime
[DPF: Why not mandatory police checks for all babysitters then?]
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Jack, go back to making daisy chains in the sun with Catherine Delahunty.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
I agree a real low life labour dog and if he has any leadership ability at all GOFF should dis-associate his party from the comment.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Jack
What could you possibly know about raising kids?
You know nothing Jack, why not spend some time growing up before coming here and parroting Green party bullshit.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Daffy has to be outrageous to be relevant and he knows it .. it’s Goff’s acceptance of Daffy’s behaviour that is truly telling
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Easy solution. Open register of sex offenders so that anybody can check. Perhaps with an option to deregister if no more offending within 5 years after conviction.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Useful insight into how left-wing politicians think. Regulation / spending is typically good and necessary, any attempt to reign it in is typically bad. If you DON’T spend more money or impose more regulation, you must want the exact opposite of the status quo.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
I’m with trout – a publicly accessible sex-offenders register would be good in this situation and many others, as well as an additional deterrent.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
If you complain on their website they delete you. (moderation my hairy……)
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Some kids are picked and abducted in cars – maybe all drivers should be police checked as well. And parents, and especially step-parents.
Mallard’s post is nasty politics and stupid politics.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
David
1. I agree with you that Trevor’s headline is thoughtless and irresponsible;
2. I also agree with your earlier posts arguing that the person who compared Anne Tolley with Adolf Hitler was thoughtless and irresponsible as well;
3. I think it is a bit rich for you in particular to be raising these complaints against others, when you very publicly compared New Zealand politicians to Kim Jong Il, Meo Tse Tung, and other such dictators in 2008. You were also thoughtless and irresponsible. As a consequence, you live in an enormous glass house on these issues. Until you apologise for your own ridiculous hyperbole, your criticisms are hollow and hypocritical.
- Rob
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Labour “may have over-regulated ” in the same way that Mr Creosote “may have overeaten”.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
You are on the mark with this post. Mallard’s idiotic post about Tolley is a great example of why I have so much difficulty with the Labour party at the moment, a party I have supported at every election since I have been able to vote. The bottom line is attack Tolley and I see this as nothing more than an extention of the national standards bollicks ( that all of my friends support who have kids, they would like to know how their kids are doing ) but to make such an appauling accusation is so far over the top that Mallard really needs to apologise.
I could be wrong but Peter Ellis is the only case I can remember and I have huge reservations over that conviction. All Mallard has achieved from my perspective is to question whether Phil Goff will get my electorate vote, or should I give it to Jackie Black ( Blue can’t remember ). If Goff can’t impose disipline on his caucus and this would suggest he can’t then he can’t be PM of New Zealand.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
What Rob Salmond said.
This is just another case of the pot calling the kettle black I’m afraid.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
I have always enjoyed telling Trev that he is a piece of low life shit whenever he appears on Kiwiblog.
Great to see that the rest of you are coming round to my way of thinking.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Trevor is quite happy to post shit like this, but gives me a one month ban for the following caption on RedAlert thread…
http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2010/11/19/caption-contest-15/
“Fran: Ruth, Ruth… it’s OK. Trevor didn’t really mean it when he said his Dyson at home sucks better”
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
A disgusting headline from a disgusting person. I detest any politician in any shape or form. Parasitic scum of the earth. I wish the Beehive would cave in.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Nick R (and Rob Salmond) – I’ll judge this pot on it’s own colour regardless of any past scorchings. Whenever I hear people saying “but in the past” I think they are trying to divert from the issue.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Rob,
It’s Mao isn’t it? Or is Meo a cooler translation to pinyin?
And to compare Farrars Dear Leader piss takes of Clark in her bunker years is hardly in the same league as accusing Tolley of being a kiddy fiddler is it now spinmeister?
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
It’s just the bully boy Mad Duck being two faced again. You read this blog Trev so come along and defend your comment.
What a Chickenshit Loudmouth you are
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Mallard is skating on thin ice. Under Labour, (and he might have been the Minister of Education when it happened) a sex offender with convictions going back 40 years was paid $2,000 to provide home-stay accommodation to a foreign student, after specifically asking for a young female student.
http://www.verify.co.nz/news-employernz.php#Paedophile
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Gotta say I am with Trevor on this one (although in a lot of other respects I think he is a dork).
Anyone employed in the childcare sector who has actual contact with the children should be subject to rigorous Police checks. We owe it to our children that people with a proven history of child abuse cannot have contact with children in a professional capacity.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
” this one (although in a lot of other respects I think he is a dork).”
Hell it must be really strange to be an amphibian with a nose like Pinocchio.
Time you stopped telling porkies Toady.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Agreed Steve, Mr Mallard, (who has been known to be first-poster on this site), is strangely absent in his response.
A ‘Chicken’ Duck perhaps . . .
Come on Trev – justify your actions – if you dare
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Toad I agree 100% with you however why should it be limited to just the child care sector? In every work place I have worked we have had parents bringing children in at various times rangin from a few hours before and after school to wait fo parents or weeks at a time during the school holidays. If the goal is to protect chidern from these sort of criminals all employers should be required to conduct these sort of checks and be able to decline employment to them.
It would raise the question though is why should only children be protected from criminals in this way. Let’s enable busineses to protect themselves and the staff who work there from criminals involved in crimes of a violent or property nature too.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
I hope that any Police check would stop violent criminals coming in to contact with children. You can’t predict when someone with a conviction for assault might snap and lash out at a small child. They certainly shouldn’t be allowed to work in a school or a creche. The only question is should they be banned from entering schools to perform their responsibilities as the Labour Party’s Education Spokesperson, or from campaigning in Porirua shopping centers where children are present?
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Toad>Anyone employed in the childcare sector who has actual contact with the children should be subject to rigorous Police checks.
Evidence suggests that the ratio of child sex offenders in a Green Party caucus is likely to be significantly higher than in the childcare sector. In that case, should we legislate to ensure that Green MPs have rigorous Police checks before they’re allowed to come in to contact with children?
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Nothing is stopping childcare operators from performing police checks when this goes anyway.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
What else can you expect from a thug and bitter and twisted individual?
Trevor Mallard, you’re despicable and a disgrace to NZ politics.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Mr Mallard continues to spin his pernicious little stories, and illuminates quite clearly why he he is held in such contempt by so very many.
In a Karma moment, he is surely going to get some payback. It is well overdue. It is going to be deserved, and hopefully it won’t be trivial.
I have just organised a proper ‘Gypsy Blessing’ for him. It seemed like the right thing to do.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Pete G – I also judge this pot by its own colour, which is why I started by agreeing with David’s view of Trevor’s post.
expat – Slow clap for you, you spotted a typo in a blog comment. On that note, there is only one Farrar, not two “Farrars,” who compared Clark with Mao, Mugabe, etc. There, we’re even. And while I disagree with Trevor’s post as I said, I do not think anyone was “accusing Tolley of being a kiddy fiddler” as you falsely claim in your comment. Grow up.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
@davidp 7:51 pm
Nice try, but no cigar.
I think you might find that the allegation you are referring to relates to a person who was a member of the National Party, rather than the Green Party, at the time the alleged offence occurred.
Punters, be careful. As I understand, a Court order re name suppression still applies to the case davidp obliquely refers to.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
“Anyone employed in the childcare sector who has actual contact with the children should be subject to rigorous Police checks.”
Toad and the rest of the Greens think that the likes of the Kahui family should be able to freely breed and kill their Kids, the Greens are against the state removing at risk kids from Maori families because it is culturally insensitive.
Yet….he thinks it is vital that childcare workers (here he really means men, nobody least of all the Greens and Labour would dare suggest that woman should have to undergo a police check) should be vetted.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Lay out a few more clues for the uninformed Toad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
@big bruv 9:49 pm
Total lying crap, bruv! I, and the Greens advocate the removal of any and every child from an abusive family situation that threatens the child’s life or safety – regardless of the ethnicity of the child and his or her family.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
hey toad, at what age exactly does a child turn into a baddie?
like is a 14 yr old boy allowed near kids? 15? 16?
when do boys go from being “protected” by the left to being potential criminals/rapists etc
trev – im starting to think youre borderline retarded. also, can you try and buy a suit that actually fits you properly. thanks.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
hey toad – if you were seated next to a child travelling alone, would you expected to be moved? or can lefties be trusted?
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Rob, you’re such a bitch.
Vote:November 19th, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Dime>like is a 14 yr old boy allowed near kids? 15? 16?
Good point Dime. Children frequently come in to contact with other children at school and outside school. Some of them are thugs and perverts… the Mallards and Green Party MPs of the future. All children should be checked by the Police before they’re allowed to go to school or hang out socially with other children.
On a more serious note, the people most likely to harm a child are step-parents and other family members. Worrying about teachers is only going to yield marginal results when most of the harm is done in the home. Like… How many cases have there ever been of a teacher killing a student… Zero? Yet there are multiple cases of familial murder every year.
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 12:08 am
Signs of polling desperation, perhaps.
You have to feel sorry for them.
Down in the polls.
A lousy leader.
All wrong.
Oh dear.
Sad.
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 6:43 am
It’s now Saturday morning, and still no sign of the usually highly-loquacious Mr Mallard to respond to his questioner’s.
Truly a ‘Chicken’ it seems
We can but draw our own conclusions . . .
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 7:35 am
“Truly a ‘Chicken’ it seems”
No Komata, he is just your typical pathetic blowhard kiwi politician who thinks he is a pious saint while perched in that cess pit beehive. These deluded creeps are accountable to nobody and for the life of me I cannot understand why New Zealanders tolerate these useless scum of earth wasted space moronic imbeciles. Sack them all we don’t need such expensive waste. No wonder politicians are as popular as paedophiles. Who in their right mind could possibly respect these creeps.Kiwi politicians do not have backbones hence they’re gutless wonders.
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 8:00 am
“Sack them all we don’t need such expensive waste”
And replace then with what D4J?
Oh…and how can you be “perched in a cess pit”?
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 8:04 am
Use your imagination big brendan. Oh that’s right, I forgot you have a carraway seed sized brain. Go away you obsessed maniac.
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 8:11 am
You are the one who suggested sacking all of our politicians D4J, so, the obvious question now is what, or who, would you replace them with?
Or was that just another of your hate filled rants?
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 8:56 am
You would know about “hate filled rants” as I have lost count how many times you have called for people to be shot. Anyway answering your question I would remove almost all the political deadwood and let the people decide the majority of important decisions through binding referendums. Anyway my thoughts no doubt in your pathological hatred world you will disagree. I can’t quite get my head around that you are the singer brendan dugan. What happened to make you so bitter and twisted? Please don’t answer and try have a rewarding day. Goodbye creep.
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 9:33 am
Rock bottom’s just never quite low enough for the left is it?
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 9:44 am
Its an ironic policy by labour. On one hand they want to force police checks on babysitters, but their employment and corrections ideals would say that they have to give criminals a second chance and let them be babysitters.
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 9:58 am
Mallard may be an obnoxious prick and his framing of the issue is certainly objectionable the reality is that by removing the requirement for police checks on would be employees of these child care centres it’s now possible for someone convicted of a sexual offence against a child to be employed there. Tolley, you’re a fucking genius.
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 10:03 am
cha – Should we have to do police checks on babysitters to? What about tradesmen that at some point may be 5 minutes in the same room as a child? Let parents and the organisations decide you f’n genius. We don’t need the state to tell us what to do.
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 10:06 am
CharlieBrown – yes it’s good to see they’ve come around to support “one strike and you’re out.”
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Poor sad Trevor.
Vote:The police could nominally charge for security checks for those who deem them necessary.
November 20th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Find a police SAT (serious abuse team) member to talk to CB and then perhaps you might gain some insight into how convicted offenders gain access to children time after time.
Yes, me, to do a weeks work at a girls college.
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 11:12 am
Cha –
do you know how convicted offenders gain access to children time after time? It is because our justice system doesn’t punish and monitor them post release like they should.
I’m curious to hear how you think they gain access to children time after time? Do you have evidence? Most child abuse is by family from what I am aware of. I’m yet to hear of many cases of child abuse at child care centers.
And what about the tradesmen working in the family home? There are opportunities there, they may be brief but they still exist… so lets force every parent to police vet tradesmen.
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
That should give it away as to how I know.
And AFAIK church groups are a particular favourite but now that there is a proposed amendment to the law childcare centres and creches will become a new avenue. But then they’re your kids so if you’re relaxed about them being cared for by un-vetted staff then good luck to you.
And if you’re happy to let someone, a stranger, into your house and leave your children unsupervised with them, well, honestly, you’re a fuckwit.
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Cha – If you are so concerned about this then why aren’t you pushing for sentences that keep these people away from children, and life-long post release conditions that prevent these people from ever being able to get in a position to do this? Why put the honus on the general public to do this? If convicted offenders are a realistic risk then why the hell are they out in public in the first place?
And… where is the proof that child-care centers are targets by child abusers?
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Well if Tolley has her way and there is no mandate for all childcare employees to be vetted then they should have no trouble finding employment in child care.
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Christonabike, if you’re so naive that you haven’t a clue how people who offend sexually against children operate, well, there’s not much to be said is there.
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
“Christonabike, if you’re so naive that you haven’t a clue how people who offend sexually against children operate, well, there’s not much to be said is there.”
Still waiting for evidence?
If labour are wanting to make it compulsory to check criminal records… then why not just ban the offenders they are concerned about from working in child care – that way people won’t have to check with the police.
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Actually, to answer my last statement:
“If labour are wanting to make it compulsory to check criminal records… then why not just ban the offenders they are concerned about from working in child care”
The reason why labour won’t ban these offenders is they want to appear tough on businesses but don’t want to appear tough on crime.
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
They are, by the sentencing judge or as a condition of their parole but do you really think that these people, safe in the knowledge that there will be no compulsory police screening, will front up to a prospective employer and say “I’m banned from having any contact with a child under sixteen”.
Now you’re pulling shit out of your arse.
Um, I think childcare centres and creches will become a new avenue. is my opinion.
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
“Um, I think childcare centres and creches will become a new avenue. is my opinion.” – opinion… isn’t evidence.
Then if they really are banned then why aren’t we enforcing the bans. This won’t be an issue if you:
A) Have harsher sentencing – longer sentences unless a paedophile has voluntary casturation
B) Stringently enforce parole conditions… ankle bracelets anyone?
“Now you’re pulling shit out of your arse.” – I think your words smell alot more like crap than mine do.
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
My opinion is based on ‘That should give it away as to how I know’ so why would I need to convince you of anything.
Not much chance of enforcing a ban when Tolley seeks to make knowledge of the ban voluntary.
You’re the one attributing motives to Labour, not me.
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
“[DPF: Why not mandatory police checks for all babysitters then?]”
Because babysitters are chosen by parents. You pick who looks after your kids, it’s your responsibility to pick someone you trust. As it should be.
In a situation such as a gym though, you don’t get to choose – the gym does. The responsibility is on the gym to do the vetting to make sure they have suitable staff to look after your kids, and these days that includes a police check. Fair enough too.
Don’t entirely disagree with the rest of the post, but you’re drawing a glaring false equivalence on this one point.
Vote:November 20th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
It’s interesting to see the hysteria over this issue, as evidence by cha’s comments. I can fully understand why Air NZ refuses to seat a child next to an adult male, not because there’s any evidence that kids are molested on flights, but, you know, it could happen.
Vote:November 21st, 2010 at 10:06 am
“In a situation such as a gym though, you don’t get to choose – the gym does. The responsibility is on the gym to do the vetting to make sure they have suitable staff to look after your kids, and these days that includes a police check. Fair enough too.”
Well know it isn’t the responsibility of the gym, and the parents do have a choice. Their choice is to leave their children there or not, and they can make that decision if they like on whether the gym has done police checks… it only takes one question before leaving your children there … “Have you police vetted your babysitting staff?”
Personally, I wouldn’t bother, as life is full of risks and the likelihood of such risk occurring is so small. If I am to hang myself up on such small odds then I may as well never leave the home. It is something the left just cannot accept. And as I said before, if Tricky Trevor is so concerned about risks, the best way to do it is to stop child molestors from even applying for work with children by either locking them up or strictly enforcing life long monitoring, but labour will rather appear touch on business… not crime.
And Cha… what a load of bollocks… you are a person writing on a blog… so unless you have reliable statistics then you cannot prove what you say whatsoever.
And for goodness sake, how many children have been molested by babysitters at day care… by babysitters at gym day care? Statistically speaking, you are probably more likely to be molested at home or on the street.
Vote: