Tuesday, April 3, 2018

LABOUR PARTY TOSH

The Labour Party said it took 'professional' advice in making their decision not to inform the parents of the teenagers sexually assaulted by a 20 year old predator at their summer camp in February.

It now appears they consulted those whose advice fitted their (cover-up) narrative.

Over at Kiwiblog DPF has published a letter from a highly respected counsellor and former senior councilling lecturer with over 17,000 hours of practice experience in which he said that the advice by so-called experts not to tell the parents (or the police) about what happened to the children at the camp flew in the face of common sense, ethical decency and the Crimes Act.

Further, that the decision was at odds with the evidence of what constitutes best practice.

He went on to say that confidentially in any profession is not absolute and for councillors to claim this is to incur an inconsistency with their own ethical Codes of Practice.


He pointed out there were four tests to be applied in determining whether or not to maintain confidentially ...  risk to self, risk to others, risk from others and disclosure of illegal intent or action.     

It appears to me that all four tests were met in this instance.

 
To read the whole letter go to Kiwiblog here.  

The Labour Party stands bereft of all its moral clothes and it's not a pretty sight.  



 

30 comments:

Noel said...

Is there any information that answers the question "were the 16 year old victims asked if the wanted their parents informed"?

The Veteran said...

Noel ... the writer of the article argues that the counsellor has a greater responsibility that extends past the victims.

The Bunbury Baker said...

Noel, what was to stop were the 16 year old victims informing their parents?

Psycho Milt said...

Over at Kiwiblog DPF has published a letter from a highly respected counsellor and former senior councilling lecturer with over 17,000 hours of practice experience...

Well, he's published some anonymous claims that purport to be from a respected etc, which isn't the same thing. The author's claims of professional eminence are drastically undermined by their reference to "so-called experts" (an odd phrase for a self-claimed expert to use of colleagues in their supposed field of expertise).

If Anonymous Claimant really is a counsellor, their views on this suggest their counselling work has been for religious conservative authoritarian groups, eg church counselling services, Family First etc. Real counsellors aren't so sanguine about the rights of the people they're counselling.

Noel said...

" the writer of the article argues that the counselor has a greater responsibility that extends past the victims."

He may have that opinion but that question is one that every School Councillor has to deal with at some point.

Nothing to stop the 16 year old informing the parents.
.

Anonymous said...

What's the bet that this wasn't the first time for this 20yr-old groper and it won't be the last.
The CoL had a duty to future targets. But ignored it for the sake of their greater glory.

Mick

Andrei said...

Considering that in this country a school "councillor" can take your daughter for an abortion without informing you this would seem to be par for the course!

Gerald said...

"councillor" nah local bodies aren't running schools here.

David said...

Andrei, if your school age daughter goes for an abortion without your knowledge then your parenting is rat shit as she has also had sex without your knowledge.

Of course, I'd expect a man who claims to put women on a pedestal would also think he gets to control her healthcare.

Psycho Milt said...

The CoL had a duty to future targets. But ignored it for the sake of their greater glory.

Assuming from context that you mean the current coalition of losers and not the previous, National-led one, the government doesn't get to decide who gets prosecuted for crimes, which is a Very Good Thing. No doubt once we've got a Nat-led coalition of losers again, you'll suddenly be able to figure that out.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Milt

In this case it was the Coalition of Losers' major partner which hosted the fuckor and then threw the fuckees under a whole fleet of buses in order to protect it's own smelly arse.

If the police had been invited to investigate on the morning after, you can bet your boots there would have been a prosecution or two.

Anonymous said...

"Of course, I'd expect a man who claims to put women on a pedestal would also think he gets to control her healthcare."

Fuck off David - Parents not Government busybodies should make the decisions regarding their children's health care and welfare.

Psycho Milt said...

In this case it was the Coalition of Losers' major partner which hosted the fuckor and then threw the fuckees under a whole fleet of buses in order to protect it's own smelly arse.

It did? I look forward to reading the evidence for this bold claim.

Anonymous said...

20 year old sexual predator?? just another life sacrificed on the alter of dirty politics. The counselling industry must love you for turning drunken fumbling, which is almost a right of passage at that age into a drama that will effect lives long after
If you convince a kid that she has been through an awful experience by giving her counselling. then she will believe it and hang life's failures on that hook.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-village-effect/201001/when-counseling-is-dangerous-0

On the basis of your description you commanded a platoon of 20 year old sexual predators.

Fitting photo on your post.........

Lord Egbut

Gerald said...

Anon 6:18
You really should catch up with the law.
It's the child's preference at 16 if they want their parents informed.
Presumably that's behind Noel's question.

David said...

Anon @ 6:18, love your bravery. Just another white male child abusing christian peadophile, is my guess as to your identity.

Come back when you're prepared to come out from behind mummy's apron.

Andrei said...

I was anon@ 16:18 by accident not design David - a blogger bug

And it is a fundamental human right for people to raise their children according to their Faith and their mores

Only Godless Marxists would claim otherwise.

Anonymous said...

"On the basis of your description you commanded a platoon of 20 year old sexual predators"

And not one of them would have been bewildered if some groped carney's father had fitted their gob out with a fist.

Mick

David said...

Thanks for clearing that up, Andrei.

So I stand by my comment, if your school age daughter goes for an abortion without your knowledge then your parenting is rat shit as she has also had sex without your knowledge.

As for you telling me to "fuck off", that's a 180 from last week telling me NOT to tell others to "fuck off", although I expressed it a little more politely, because that's how us humanists act.

So, how many abortions have your daughters had? How many women of aborted one of your sprogs? And why IS IT that christian males think they get to make the rules around women's health care? Is that really what Jesus would do?

Psycho Milt said...

Only Godless Marxists would claim otherwise.

Hey, don't leave out us godless liberals! To the authoritarian, a natural corollary to the king ruling the country by the grace of God is the man ruling his family by the grace of God. Fortunately, western democracies turfed that idea out a long time ago.

Andrei said...

". Fortunately, western democracies turfed that idea out a long time ago."

And look what "western democracy" has wrought upon us - a scatty schoolgirl for our Prime Minister

Of course "democracy" is an illusion Milt - our real masters stay in the shadows and put forth a bunch of incompetants they can manipulate and who will take the fall for the crap they inflict upon us.

And authoritarian is in the eye of the beholder - when the Government stamps down on things or people you don't approve of well not a peep will be heard from you.

Judy Collins destroying "boy racers" cars got roars of approval from the so called "center right" even though they claim to hold an individuals private property sacrosanct

Andrei said...

You lefties are very good at self deception David

Since when was killing an innocent human being "health care"?

You rail against Christianity David because in your hubris you think all the answers to all the questions can be found within yourself and you know better what is good for other people than they do themselves

The religious know better

Andrei said...

Definitely a one term government - if they can survive that long

David said...

Since when was killing an innocent human being "health care"?

Where did I claim that? Stop making shit up.

But there you go, a man, one who will never have to bear a child, deciding what health care a woman may or may not have. You religious whackaloons make me spew. Keep your lies, your bullshit, and your myths out of other people's choices.

... you know better what is good for other people than they do themselves


Again, where have I ever made that claim? My humanism is about providing people with the tools to make their own decisions, it is your religion that claims to know what is good for other people than they do themselves. How's that working out for the catholic paedophile rings?

Anonymous said...

Don't take any notice of Andrei. Any credibility he has in criticising western Govts has gone when he can't explain away why 96 journalists have been murdered since 2000 in his beloved progressive Russia for writing anti Putin articles and investigating corruption......not mention the 11 prominent wealthy anti Putin Russians who committed "suicide"......Suicide?????....Make mine a Tui...not thread jacking just wanting an answer from a hypocrite who condones the means that justifies the end.

Lord Egbut

Psycho Milt said...

Definitely a one term government - if they can survive that long

It's always true that voters demand that the government Do Something about the problems facing the country, but at the same time demand that the "Do Something" must not cost or inconvenience them in any way. The resulting risk of losing power from doing the right thing is why only a Labour- or Green-led government will do anything for the environment.

Andrei said...

"The resulting risk of losing power from doing the right thing is why only a Labour- or Green-led government will do anything for the environment."

Phoory Milt - you ascribe virtue to your tribe and villany to the "others". Such is the way of rabble rousers throughout the ages - it is the tool of the witch burners and leaders of lynch mobs

Were I live fucking cycle lanes are popping up everywhere - fuck all people actually use them, they increase traffic congestion, and hence fuel use big time and loose car parking outside businesses thus decreasing the viability of those businesses

At the end of the day the fuckwit Greens, who belive in non fecund sodomite marriage haven't grasped the fact that conventional fecund marriages produce children and you cannot strap your four kids onto a bike seat and take them to kindy

They were blathering about rapid transit systems last night in their announcements - so these people are going to tax the fuck out of rural people for who rapid transit systems will never be a flier to pay for Aucklanders to have a maglev monorail or something pie in the sky fantasy

Psycho Milt said...

Phoory Milt - you ascribe virtue to your tribe and villany to the "others".

Just being realistic. National doesn't have much in the way of ideology, certainly not in the sense that ACT or the Greens do. It exists mostly for the purpose of winning and holding power (which is one reason all that left-wing bleating about "neoliberal ideology" when Key took power in 2008 was so comical - the guy wasn't about to do anything that might threaten National's vote share). That pretty much rules out doing very unpopular things that you believe are for the good of the country - the 1990 Nat government was the only one to try it, and even then Bolger would never have done it if Labour hadn't rendered itself completely uncompetitive.

Andrei said...

"Just being realistic"

No you are not - you are being blinded by your own ideology

Come on mate join me in the plague on all their houses camp.

That is being realistic

Of course what we really need is a Christian Tsar :)

David said...

No Andrei, what we need is a godless humanist who will ensure:

1. Full and comprehensive sex education in every school.

2. Free contraceptives.

3. Free abortion on demand.

4. The acceptance that any and every sexual practice is OK as long as there is informed consent. That will include teaching boys raised in religious households that the way a woman dresses is not consent.

5. Any man who says he "puts women on a pedestal" is to be publicly shamed, locked in the stocks, and have used condoms thrown at him.

What a wonderful world it would be.