|
|
The
Christchurch Civic Creche Case |
|
|
|
|
The Justice Select
Committee has reported back on the Peter Ellis petition. Regrettably it has
not recommended an inquiry, but it has made some useful suggested law changes
which should help prevent a repeat. The full 56 page report
is here. The report includes a
summary of Lynley's Hood book by the Parliamentary Library. Well worth a
read. The issue is not dead
though. If there is a National-led Government, Don Brash has confirmed there
would be a full independent inquiry with sufficient powers to get to the
bottom of the issue.
It would have been a
great help had the National MPs on the committee been supportive of Brash's
petition. Look at Richard Worth's minority report. It is hard to conclude
from that, that a full inquiry was sought. A good place to start
for support would have been the caucus room I would have thought.
Brash seems to have
flip flopped on this too. Man of principle? "But Brash said he
could not guarantee Ellis would get a royal commission even if National won
next month's election. "I was convinced
in 2003 that a royal commission of inquiry was judged the best inquiry at the
time." Brash said he would
"take advice" on the "most appropriate" form of inquiry
if he came to power". http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/thepress/0,2106,3371373a6009,00.html
This case has always
had a somewhat nasty smell to it A look of radical feminazis and others
conning a police force and a judicary who when they wised up wouldnt fess up
and so covered up And the cover up continues with MPs from all sides looking
to protect arses if you will excuse the untended pun.
If we have a Jury
system for serious cases then we should accept their verdicts,not hold a
series of inquiries judicial or otherwise to pontificate on the evidence,or
allow foreign authors to use their word skills to portray the evidence in a
different light. I have often disagreed with the verdict of a Jury but never
disputed their right to make it.
gd, While you're
complaining about "some radical feminists conning the police
force", let's add in "some homophobic bigots in the police force
conning the radical feminists". Not to mention the fundy christians with
their allegations of satanic ritual abuse. There wasn't just one
type of nut involved in this prosecution, there was a complete pick-n-mix
selection. baxter, The Salem witch trials
had trial by jury. You may be happy with their outcome, but I have a few
complaints. What a jury decides
will depend on what type of investigation is carried out and on what kind of
evidence is ruled admissable. That's where this case got seriously wierd, due
to some pretty dodgy legislation. Anyway, she's not a
foreign author. She's a Kiwi.
Isn't the real issue
the fact that the officials in the Ministries of Justice and Social
Development simply won't permit any questioning of the evidence given by
their experts on child sex abuse? Will the Nats really
stand up to the bureaucracy if they win office, all for the sake of an
obvious non-National voter like Peter Ellis? It's all very strange.
Goff and Co. know
PERFECTLY well that Peter Ellis is innocent and their moral cowardice sickens
me.I have more balls than the lot of them,and I'm a sweet,little old lady.I
also read Hood's book,spend far too much time on the web staying informed and
am comprehensively pissed off by politicians who crave to retain power above
all else.
The so called experts
in the Peter Ellis case made numerous errors. In the case of the alleged
child expert interviewers evidence a lot of errors were determined. One of these so called
experts claimed in a 1997 interview that she was no longer working with
victims of sexual abuse. Unfortunately this
expert was not telling the truth, and she continues to twist and manipulate
innocent victims to this very day. This interviewer has
been the source of numerous false allegations and hurts, and has used totally
biased and untrue methods to exact problems that are without merit and fact. An inquiry is not only
needed, but long overdue. For those who's lives she has destroyed complaints
to the board that regulates her dodgy practices are also necessary.
Tony: Change the record would
you? I really despair when all you can do is whip out the sneer quotes
because (gasp!) Brash is willing to seek advice on a fairly delicate and
complex matter. I know this is really difficult for Clarkistas to grasp but
the Prime Minister is not all-knowing and all-powerful.
Oh heck, I feel ill. I just clicked on a
link to find out who that "Tony" impersonator was. Not only did I
get some weirdo site purporting to be that of the Labour candidate for Rakaia
(read the sycophantic crap on it and vomit!), but I couldn't escape from it
by clicking my "back" button (even multiple clicks). Is this what
modern politics has reduced (apparent) humanity to? Their hired goons are
some hideous version of Frank from MASH crossed with Smithers from The Simpsons. I can see years of
therapy ahead to reduce the trauma suffered by my visit. (But for
"Tony", it's too late. He's way beyond treatment.) Maybe there's a
damages claim that would cover this. Perhaps it could be based on my
"recovered memory"? |
