In support of CYFSWATCH NZ and the right of Free Speech. First visit to Watching CYFSWATCH NZ? Visit our home page. Please visit our e/group at

CYFSWATCH may have done Sue Bradford a big favour !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by watchingcyfswatchnewzealand on February 22, 2007

I speak on my own behalf and not CYFSWATCH 

In one sense CYFSWATCH has done Sue Bradford a big favour alerting her to the fact that there could be a plot agaisnt her.

Why do we shoot the messenger?

The sentiments posted probably are NOT the views of CYFSWATCH, but a third party.

There may be many people who privately feel the same and have the same sentiments.

Are the Ploice going to hunt them all down???????? only time will tell.


As police have told NZPA that the comments made on the site did not break any laws.

The posting raised the prospect of assassinating the MP, who has a member’s bill before Parliament to remove the right of parents to smack children to correct them.

The author says they would like to punch Ms Bradford and break her nose and gave a graphic account about other injuries that would be inflicted.

“We’ve had legal advice to say basically no criminal offence has been committed as yet,” Mr Lek said.

“But we’re obviously concerned as far as the implications in the blog goes.”

Mr Lek said it was not legal to make threats.

“But the way it was worded it was not a direct threat as such. It’s couched in a way it – possibly cleverly or by pure luck – that the person doesn’t commit an offence.”

Mr Lek said police would try find out who was behind the posting.

When asked if security for Ms Bradford had been increased Mr Lek said the DPS do not comment on individual security matters.

Ms Bradford yesterday told reporters she was alarmed at the posting which “details a graphic physical assault on me and asks people to send in my home address”.

“I’ve referred it to the police here at Parliament and I’m quite concerned about my physical safety at this time.”

The website also said it would publish Ms Bradford’s residential address if it was supplied.

The anonymous posting suggests Ms Bradford should be killed.

“Bradford is a worthy candidate for NZ’s first political assassination – I only wish I had the resources to do it.”

The website was set up to criticise Child, Youth and Family Services (CYF) and caused controversy with a “name-and-shame” blog which provided personal information about individual social workers.

Google ordered it to remove some posts that were not compliant with its terms of service.

Ms Bradford said she hoped her address was not in the public domain and she would consider getting protection.

“I’ve asked my secretary to go straight to the Parliamentary police to let them know that I am worried now. I wasn’t before,” she said.

“There have been occasional threats in the past but the fact they are trying to track down my address at the same time as describing a graphic and quite horrible assault on me is distressing at this time in the Parliamentary debate.”

She said the incident reflected the campaign some of her opponents had whipped up around the debate.

“Some of the parents who want to defend the parents right to hit their kids seem quite fanatical and I think this threat against me is the latest manifestation.”

Ms Bradford said she hoped the site had been closed permanently. She had been contacted by other people abused on the site.

“They’re saying to me ‘now you understand how bad it is’,” she told NZPA.

“If that website could be closed down, that would be fantastic. It isn’t just about me.”

Ms Bradford said she was not getting special security at this stage.

“I’m hoping that the emotions that have been aroused will calm down as they realise that the democratic processes of this country need to take place and threatening to kill people is really anathema to democracy.”

Internet commentator David Farrar said he expected that Google, that own the blog host had decided to delete the site.

He said there was no question the latest posts would have breached its terms of service agreement.

It was possible the site’s authors may try get another host.



In my humble opinion,its disappointing that in a country like New Zealand that we resort to this level of disgrace in terms of a “name and shame” of CYFS employees who are just doing their job.

But since when is it right and just to make such life-affecting decisions that have caused so much damage to families and children based on whishy washy theories which have no bases in fact whatsoever. It is no excuss to just say “I was only doing my job” when it turns to custard. As i recall many of the German officers in various war crime trials used the same defence, ” I was only following orders”. It does not wash.

Every person in CYFS are each accountable for every choice they make, and must take full responsability for their actions. They can learn a lesson from the Brittish workers that had the moral fortatude to get out when they saw how unethical it was within CYFS.

It is not a disgrace to expose the evil that goes on behind closed doors, it is a disgrace that such evil exisits and certian people wish to keep it hidden behind closed doors.

It is the duty of anyone that sees things going so wrong to say someting about it, or should i say shout it from the rooftops. To stay silent on such a matter infers that you approve, or, at least, that you do not care for it. It is an old maxim that silence is consent.

It is a maxim of law that if a man knows of a murder about to be committed and does not use means to prevent it, he shall be held accessory before the fact. If he knows of murder which has been done, and does not endeavor to bring the criminal to justice, he is accessory after the fact.

If some CYFS workers feel some shame a guilt so be it.

The only time most people will feel true shame and guilt is when they have done something wrong and their conciences are pricking them.

Now for s59 I think Sue Bradford has said herself that her bill will not stop or eliminate the culture of violence against our children.

No amount of legislation that is past is ever going to stop it no matter what you do it will always be there.

In fact smacking is a legitimate from of discipline when used the right way. As Sue Bradford can’t discern what is the difference bettween what is legitimate smacking and violence her solution is to call it all abuse etc and that should be outlawed.

Well here is some news for her in some situations the only right and legitimate course of action would be to smack the child. Failing to do that would be child abuse.

Just as it would be wrong not to expose and to keep silent about the evil abuse that is being perpatrated on our famlies and children by CYFS etc. It would be evil abuse if you didn’t exersice proper discpline (including smacking) to our children.

CYFS reaction is interesting indeed, it is one of cover up and shut down any voices that wish to expose them. There is not an ounce for backbone to come clean and face the cold light of day. When the spotlight of truth shines it shows what is there in the darkness.

People when confronted with the light (truth) react by either attacking it,running from it, or embracing it. We have seen the first two but not the third from CYFS.

So i think in this instance Sue Bradford should be thankfull to CYFSWATCH as to warn her of might have been a real threat. I don’t think any level headed person including CYFSWATCH would agree that either threatening or murdering anyone is the right thing to do.

I believe CYFSWATCH can not take responsability for any one elses actions but there own.

So why shoot the messenger????????????


36 Responses to “CYFSWATCH may have done Sue Bradford a big favour !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

  1. Jules said

    and now you site Godwins Law. Pathetic

    That little tirade might have been more effective if cyfswatch didnt try to get and publish sue bradfords address immediately after the threat was made, so actually HELPING it. Then tried blackmail her into not revealing it. The intent was quite clear

    Made that whole post quite pointless really.

  2. I think this quote from kiwi1960 fits here
    “But some of the comments I read on this blog are from people entirely missing the point. Firstly, I see nothing wrong in the first blog entry which mentioned doing violence to M/s Bradford, its a symptom of the anger in our soicety against this bill, and its better to voice that anger than actualy going out and doing it (which I wouldnt condone)”
    “The second blog entry asking for M/s Bradfords pesonal details, well, I’m in two minds on that one. If politicans want to intrude into peoples private lives then they must pay a price, protest outside their homes is a fitting punishment.”
    “Why do people assume that the first blog entry and the second one are connected? They may not be. But again, people are missing the point.
    We live in a nanny state, Politicans like M/s Bradford are telling the people of New Zealand what to do, when to do it and so on. This law is one in a long line of laws that invade our private lives, we are the most regulated people on the planet.”

  3. Gareth said

    You actually think that it’s alright to threaten the life of another human being? Because it’s a symptom of anger? Wow. You’re even more retarded than I thought.

    Why don’t you post your address on here? Why don’t you post your name? I want an honest answer to this.

  4. Jules said

    Isnt this site all about common sense and logic. Put it together. IF someone calls for the violent death of a person, and then this website decided immediately after that it would be a good time to publish information that would HELP the violent death of a person…

    common sense.

    Yeah i wish we had less laws, lets all move to zimbabwe…

  5. fred said

    Anyone get the feeling it is a set up knowing that if they CYPF’S wanted this site shut down then it seems to me it was a good way off doing it as it was hurting them with the truth and with the bill before government and sue Bradford in the spot light well to me one plus one smells fishy

  6. Jules said

    thats the lamest conspiracy theory I have ever heard.

  7. James said

    Jules, try educating yourself. It’s got nothing to do with Godwins Law. There’s been no mention of Hitler or the Nazis. Try debating the issues. Do you think parents should be criminalised fror smacking their kids, not beating but smacking?

  8. James said

    The fact is that Sue Bradford is a liar. She has repeatedly said that the police won’t prosecute parents that smack. That makes her a compulsive liar. She’s received advice from police that smacking will be deemed an assault.

    It saddens me that I cannot trust this woman – for all I know she smacked her own kids (yeah, I know she says she didn’t). What if one of her kids recovered memories of sexual abuse by Sue – I wonder if the police would then decide to prosecute?

  9. Valtam said

    Bottom line readers, you shouldn’t hit people, full stop.
    I lived in fear of my fathers smacking for years, its not the kind of upbringing I’d wish on anyone.

    Children shouldn’t feel fear towards their own parents.
    There ARE other ways, if you hit a child, you’re copping out of a peaceful solution.

    You shouldn’t hit people.

  10. Jay said

    It is all about dis-empowering parents. Parent-bashing. It is strange cyfs has not mentioned cyfs-bashing, used to be their favorite word. court, shrinks and judges do not give a hoot about parents.
    I find no diffence between this court and Nazi courts. The acused have no say, if they do have say, it is ignored. Pre-judgement all the way.
    m/s Bradford used to stick up for the underdog, a bit of power and she sold out big time. Her comments on TV 1 news tonight say it all! She slammed
    cyfswatch, not just an entry that pissed her off, but everyone that named &. shamed. Therefore: all of us who wrote, storys,comments etc by supporting
    ourselves & others who finally can speak out, which by Act cyfs work under, we are denied doing so in media.
    Get rid of MMP and see how long some of the garbage in the Beehive stays there.

  11. Yolande Jeffares said

    As far as the smacking law goes my 17 year old daughter passed comment today that in her opinion if I hadnt smacked her ever, she would probably be lying in a gutter somewhere – perhaps alive perhaps not.

    I’ll take that as a “Thanks Mum, I know that what you did you did FOR me”.

    Of course, I wouldnt have behaved any differently had the law been changed – I would have acted in my daughters best interests first and foremost.

    I read the post that was claimed to be a “death threat” and found no threat or statement of intent whatsoever.

    I question whether a 3rd party actually requested her address (If it had been a 3rd party – then why not simply publish the request unedited as CYFSWATCH promised it would do) or whether CYFSWATCH wasnt just stirring the pot a little themselves but either way, I must confess that my first post upon reading the request was “Doesnt appear that stoning her would have any effect – she looks totally off her face already”.

    Peaceful protest outside of her home and putting her in the position of deciding whether to calls the cops in and have them dragged off for standing up for what they believe in (sound familiar) would be very fitting indeed.

    It is not in the least “logical” to assume that the request for her home address was motivated by any intent to cause her physical harm.

    Had it been preceded by an actual threat rather than the “threat that wasnt” then possibly one might extrapolate along those lines but it wasnt.

    I was far more concerned about the responses and attitude of CYFSWATCH themselves – who did indeed make a threat and in the same breath, claimed they were not in anyway responsible for the consequences of their actions.

    One was almost left wondering if it wasnt done with the intent of applying for a job as a CYFs social worker, to be included in their CV as documented evidence they are well suited to such a position.

    I most certainly support what they were originally trying to achieve and will continue to support that – but I absolutely cannot support their most recent actions.

  12. Superman said

    what about looking at the woman on the DPB with a boyfriend
    drinking nearly everyday supplies food for kids 3-4 days a wk if that otherwise its junk the rest of the wk
    with bass boomer stereos that hurt peoples ears 60m away must be doing damage to the kids ears
    giving them no life skills so are damanding and fussy
    and when they play up have no idea on how to guide them as their own guide (mum) has failed them
    and in some cases are selfish n bossy playing with other kids and can do no wrong in mums eyes so the kid that stands up against this ends up think that its wrong to “not to be dictatored to ” by other smart ass kids

    and what about the already teens smashing bottles in the streets and showing no respect for anything or anybody

    to be honest the ones that like bass boomers seem to be more slap happy and are the ones to watch re there respect for others including children and or with chilren re their out come due to the environment

  13. Tezza said

    I would just like to add my two cents worth. I was just starting to post on CYFS Watch last night when it was pulled. As I said in one post, while I don’t condone violence and threats, etc, I can understand it; I can understand how people are now getting totally frustrated. New Zealand, like other western nations, is a so-called democracy, but it really isn’t. When a bill like the smacking one is likely to be passed when 80% oppose it, we are not talking about democracy, are we?

    What we are seeing in NZ and elsewhere are countries run by minority groups and political correctness. In NZ’s case feminism and political correctness have been the driving force behind our demise. They are the driving force behind education, affirmative-action type policies, and they now control all government departments; they are the silent communists that have entered through the back door.

    They are now so much in control of ordinary citizens, it’s almost impossible to turn it around. It doesn’t really matter which major party you vote for; they are both centrist. While I thought we had a chance of turning it around with Brash with his political-correctness eradicator, I am not at all sure about Key (John-Boy Key). I emailed Key and cc’d my email to all National’s MPs about my concerns over the termination of the PC Eradicator port folio. To my surprise, he emailed me back assuring me that he was concerned about political correctness…..ra, ra, ra.

    If we have any notion of stopping the Bradfords of this world, we must first eradicate the PC culture that has infiltrated every part of New Zealand society. The very first place to start is at schools; we need purge feminism and political correctness from education and start again with more pragmatic men being in control. Children need a balance between male and female, and they are not getting it at present; between solo mums and female teachers, what male influence are our children being exposed to?…Very little indeed.

    Now returning to the point at hand, if CYFS Watch really want to make a change, they need to do a lot more than a website. While blogging is a good method to convey messages, it doesn’t really resonate with politicians. I know this from my own experience with my anti-political correctness blog; it’s not enough. It is time to start hitting the streets in mass protest, much the same way as Islamists get exposure. Or for that matter, the same way as Bradford, herself, got exposure. You have to milk the media, the television media.

    When I return to New Zealand in September this year, I intend doing this. Ranting and raving on blog sites is not enough.

    My blog for those who are interested is: www.

    PS. I am also the cartoonist for the Campaign Against Political Correctness in the UK.

  14. Superman said

    sorry to add and that the food is mostly cheap junk as well so mum can buy her drink
    always ask for help with all sorts like can you fix my kids playstation but when it comes to letting your child playing it when parnter is visiting = no way
    and this is such a pain when this is like my partners sister
    so what do you do?
    convince your partner to stop seeing her sis or atleast stop your kids being around her children

    i have come across many woman like this =sad

  15. codenexus said

    Caaheeerist! What a bloody hoopla!

    What dumb and completely stupid things to do. Firstly trying to incite people to kill, then publishing it and finally not backing down? I mean who ever posted the original message obviously has something very wrong with them. I mean really seriously wrong. Perhaps they had been dropped one too many times on their head when they were a child. What if I threatened to release their address and come around and assassinate them? Would that be funny? I don’t think so.

    I should state however that I disagree with a blanket anti-smacking law as rule but it has to be made clear that you can not beat the holy crud out of your kids and expect to get away with it. If I did that to an adult I should expect whoever was on the receiving end would file a complaint of some sort.

    At the end of the day if you need to teach your kids a lesson in such a way then it’s more than likely that you’ve done a crap parenting job and it is already too late for them to learn anyway or you haven’t got them on the right drugs!

    I suggest a clear indication of what levels of discipline are acceptable.

    To sum it up if you don’t like what the government is doing and can’t get them out of power legally then move to some other country. It is a free world.

  16. Anonymous said

    CYFSWatch related website still threatening Bradford

    Yesterday the Watching CYFS website contained several postings vigorously defending its right to publish threats…

  17. Peter said

    “Howick mother-of-two Sheryl Savill and former United Future MP Larry Baldock seek signatures to hold the two citizen-initiated referendums asking “- message truncated. (NZ Herald).

    May I suggest to gather all our support to back this referendum as an objective towards our shared goal. The pressure alone will give this government and the Greens something to think about, and may reconsider…

    I don’t know where the referendum people are, except that one is in Howick…


  18. Frank said

    One of the problems with this country is the people can’t read, or comprehend what they read, and then forget what they read.

    The orginal post did not threaten Bradfords life.

    It was an exaggeration to prove a very good point: That she did not know the difference between a ‘smack on her ample buttocks’ and a punch in the face.

    Why do people think where she lives is such a big secret? She’s so well known here that you should be able to ask a few people on the street and get enough of a lead to find her within a day.

    CYFSWatch should either publish her address or shut up. ‘Blackmailing’ her looks pathetic and weak. She won’t pull that bill over her address.

    As an MP she should not be uncomfortable meeting real people, or having them know where she lives, unless she is living in a new ivory tower and is warming to experimenting on other people’s lives rather than doing what is right. Most people know where Helen lives. Has she been assasinated?

    Face up to your actions Sue.

  19. Jules said

    james – I wasn’t the one who mentioned german officers, the original poster was. Hence Godwins law

    this bill will not crimilanise parents for smacking their kids if they throw a rock through a window, or reach for the red hot poker. The fact that the herlad and media keep calling it the anti-smacking bill seems to confuse the …well the easily ill-informed people.

    When asked “do you think that the goverment should outlaw the ability for parents to smack their kids” of course lots of people will say no, but that is not what is hapepning, the issue is completely misrepresented

    It means that women like that christian “mother” who beat her children with ktichen implements will no longer be able to get away with it.

    The mere fact that groups like destiny marched when civil unions were going to be allowed and not now says alot. Supposedly the majority of the country were against civil unions as well, yet civilisation hasn’t crumbled in the two years or so since that came about.

    People are more interested in peoples sex life than the welfare of their children.

    Are we a nanny state? are warrants and regos not needed? seatbelts and helmets an annoyance? Not being able to smoke in a daycar centre such a trial?

    for those who say this law won’t stop violence, is like saying that having a law against drinking and driving won’t stop drunk drivers.

    Sure some people will do it, but how many more would do it if we didn’t have these laws?

  20. Pete said

    The Act is about discipline; Ms Bradford’s Bill is about abuse; and yet she has failed to define the difference between the two.

    The result will follow that either all parents will be guilty, or abuse will become the norm. It is impossible to police, and if so there’s no measure for the police to go by accept their own discretion – opinion. This makes the police the experts in bringing up children and what ought to be good for their parents.

    Ms Bradford’s autocratic approach remove parents’ freedom to choose to discipline their children, is unethical. It is a giant leap back to the dark ages.

  21. Jules said

    Or common sense will prevail. It’s like everyone atuomatically thinks that every judge, jury and legal person out there doesn’t have an ounce of sense in their head.

  22. Simon said

    This is what it’s about. Only 7 cases of 17 were successfully defended by the use of force to discipline. The worry is that not all parents have access to the luxury of those lawyers who successfully turned a discipline clause into an abuse case. It makes rich parents not guilty of the same crime poor parents are loosing their children with.

    Do you think the police’s discretion will make any difference when the poor parents already have records, while rich parents who are just as guilty don’t?

    I don’t think so

  23. Jules said

    so only 7 out of 17 people got away with beating their kids. Gosh, I guess that is ok, if it is less than half, right?

    Are you saying it is harder for for people who already have a history of child abuse to defend their ability to carry on beating their child, than it is for people with no criminal history? really? Who would have thought.

    Or that currently wealthy people can get away with beating their children because they have a carck law team that can take advantage of the current laws to make it ok to repeatedly hit a child with objects?

    yeah its shocking isnt it, I hope someone will introduce a law to change that…

  24. Got'em?Rub'emtogether said

    I was thinking I’d start a blog which would name and shame corrections staff, and publish their addresses. I’m sure many prison staff act badly in their jobs, and giving ex-cons their addresses would just make corrections staff face up to the consequences of their actions. After all, not all prisoners are fairly convicted, and not all of them are actually violent lunatics, either. Some ex-cons might just want prison staff addresses so they can protest peacefully outside corrections staff homes. If others *are* violent lunatics with grudges (and who would think that of people targeted by CYFS – I mean, Corrections?) – well, why shoot the messenger? Anyway, it sure would short-cut all that tedious legal system bullshit.

  25. Simon said

    Jules, it’s obvious of your emotional involvement with the issue, all of what you say are hearsay and narrow. You are innocent until proven guilty, does not suggest that if you are guilty once, therefore you are guilty forever.

    The second valid aspect drawn from that is guilty by association as you have demonstrated. A specific group of people usually who are poor are branded by stereotypcial comments as such.

    The statistics mentioned proves that the abuse point pursued by Ms Bradford is not worth the problem.

    The fact is, all this is targeting the symptoms and not the cause which is poverty, family break down, lack of education, which is also consistent with Feminist Socialist Agenda – US, UK, and NZ.

    The last mentioned is the whole heart of the intended Bill, the industrialisation of children and their families to support the super structure of the upper middle class.

    You can yell abuse everything you see, but the victims’ story will continue to emerge and haunt ya…

  26. Jules said

    So do you watch a lot of prison break above poster? Is that what makes you so SURE that MANY prison staff act badly?

    So you condone violence against prison staff and their family memeber and see no problem in people facilitating that violence?


    My view is differnte from yours, that doesnt mean it is narrow or heretical. Just because i make logical points that you have trouble defending does not make me emotionally involved.

    yes innocent until proven guilty, but repeat offenders are treated fiferently and rightly so from first time offenders do you not agree?

    What stereotypical comments ahve I made? All i did was point out that under current laws rich people may be able to get away with beating their kids because they have the finances to battle it longer through court. Is that ok by you?

    Ah the whole targeting the symptoms thing…why does it have to be one or the other, why not both?

    Feminist social agenda? Are we entering conspiracy territory here?

    ah by last couple of paragraphs, i guess we are.

  27. Simon said

    Jules, your emotional involvement is not only demonstrated the by typing erros which suggests typing under emotional pressure, but also the nature to personalise the issue. All your opinions conclude abuse, it doesn’t matter what anyone else logically put infront you, your mind is made.

    The Act is about using force to discipline, and the repeal is about abuse. It removes parents freedom to choose what must be right for them, therefore it violates the principle of moral choice.

    Instead, Sue Bradford thinks she can do this for parents and yet hasn’t a clue about the distinction between discipline and abuse. Instead she passes this onto the police to use their discretion over and above parents’ rights.

    You see how clear the argument is if we are not emotionally involved?

    The Feminist Socialist agenda is a proven analysis, the evidence is all over the Unicef Report. Labour and the Greens will be the first NZ government to practically quantify it in joining historical Communist dictators.

  28. Jules said

    so is a riding crop and regular bamboo canings “reasonable force”?

  29. Jules said

    I make typos, it doesnt matter if i am doing it in a personal email or whatever, i just picke dup too many bad typing habits . You are not the sleuth you think you are.

    Where has the issue been personalised, all you did there was not actaully respond to anything I just said, but trying to change the subject and make it about me rather than what i said. Because I made saliant points that you cannot counter.

    Yes it is very clear, just as it is clear that you are unable to respond to what I said.

    You are arguing that parents will no longer have the right to choose whether or not to beat their child with a bamboo Cane.

    Sorry what IS the feminist social agenda, for those of us who don’t pay attention to conspiracy theories. Do they actaully USE those words in the Unicef report?

  30. Simon said

    It seems pointless to present a logical argument with you. There is no point of following up what you say if it’s irrelevant.

    Take your reasoning for example;
    “You are arguing that parents will no longer have the right to choose whether or not to beat their child with a bamboo Cane.”

    No, the point is first: ‘freedom to choose’. This is crucial to moral validation.
    Second, choose to discipline whether by corporate punishments, or other.

    Sue Bradford has removed the essential principle of choice, that is ‘freedom’. Second, she does not provide an alternative choice, but an outright brick wall, or so to speak…

    Since Sue Bradford hasn’t defined what abuse is from discipline, the argument is incomplete and circular. Incomplete and Circular arguments do not entail logical conclusions.

    Is that much better now, it has nothing to do with ‘sticks and stones’ oops so the old adage says.

    But since you are not familiar with basic logic, there is no point of discussing social phenomena. No it has nothing to do with canes, or beatings…

    I’ll let you have the last word and I to have a moral victory…

  31. Bert said

    Ha ha! This is just too funny. Simon writes “Jules, your emotional involvement is not only demonstrated the by typing erros…”

  32. D said

    Ever thought of proofreading what you type before hitting the submit comment button jules ? That way you can correct all the mistakes

  33. Got'em?Rub'emtogether said

    Yo Jules: irony.
    I guess this isn’t the place to try to make a point by appropriating/elaborating a ridiculously flawed chain of logic.

    To spell it out:
    Of course some prison staff/CYFS staff act badly. Of course some don’t.

    Of course some people will see prison staff/CYFS staff as acting badly whether they do or not.

    Of course a portion of the populations that prison staff and CYFS staff BOTH deal with will be violent and irrational. That’s the nature of those populations.

    Of course publishing staffers’ addresses exposes them to violence from those populations, whether they’ve done anything wrong or not.

    Publishing addresses is vigilante justice. It’s extremely dangerous, and this tactic has alienated ANY sympathy I might otherwise have had for this website and those who use it. I know there’s a problem with CYFS, but I sure as hell wouldn’t want my child cared for by anyone who thinks this sort of approach is a good way to deal with the problem.

  34. Got'em?Rub'emtogether said

    Yo Jules: irony.

    I guess this isn’t the place to try to make a point by reapplying ridiculously flawed logic to a different situation.

    To spell out my point:

    Of course some prison staff/CYFS staff act badly. Of course some don’t.

    Of course some of the people they deal with will see them as acting badly, whether they do or not.

    Of course some of the people they deal with are violent and irrational – that’s the nature of those populations.

    Of course publishing staffers’ addresses exposes those staffers to violence, whether or not those staffers have actually done anything wrong.

    Publishing addresses is vigilante justice. It’s extremely dangerous, and a hugely arrogant and cavalier step to take. It’s certainly eliminated ANY sympathy I might have had for the people who use and support this site. Sorry, but whatever the flaws of CYFS, the family courts, etc, the simple say-so of the parents involved does NOT make an adequate stand in for judge, jury and executioner.

    I know CYFS is a very problematic organisation. But I also know there’s no way in hell that I’d want my kid looked after by anyone who thought publishing addresses was a good way to deal with the problem. That says to me that these people are just willing to invite violence into a situation, and then act like it’s someone else’s fault if and when it happens. Social responsibility? Nup. Good parenting skills in the absence of social responsibility? Yeah right.

  35. Jay said

    “Mit der Dummheit Kaempten Goetter selbst vergebens!”

    ‘Against stupidity, the Gods themselves struggle in vain!’ : Schiller

    Plus what sounds like an angry person writing comments in this part of site.
    Anger is sometimes refered to as unresolved conflict!

  36. beam me up said

    jay jay like to play…. ha….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: