The evidence is overwhelming – a Paedophile
Protection Network is operating within the Ministry of Education and the NZ
Teachers Council. Below, we will name some of the individuals involved and
describe details of their activities. Due to the gravity of this issue, we have
included an amount of detail – hence this communication is 8 pages. We
encourage you to read it carefully and forward it along as you see fit.
Primary
child sex abusers and Secondary predators
We make the distinction between the primary
child sex abuser, who commits the initial child sex crime, and the secondary
predator, who becomes involved later to take advantage of the vulnerable sex
crime victim.
It is not uncommon for unscrupulous predators
to take advantage of young vulnerable victims of under age sex crimes.
Predators seek out young victims of sexual crimes - vulnerable girls they know
have had under age sex and group sex with adult men. These secondary predators
portray themselves as being there to help, however it quickly becomes very
clear to alert adults that the predator has sinister ulterior motives. Young
child sex crime victims are vulnerable, troubled, and easy pickings for the
charming, devious manipulator. Generally, the only obstacle in the way of
secondary predators is the victim’s family.
An example is the recent high-profile UK case
where school teacher Jeremy Forrest took his 15-year old girlfriend to France.
Jeremy Forrest was the primary child sex abuser. The family have now told how,
after Forrest was sent to prison, other men such as a 30-something IT
consultant started hanging around the victim in order to take advantage of her
vulnerable state. The IT consultant got close to the sex abuse victim under the
guise of being there to help, and is an example of a secondary predator:
The 4
tactics of Predators
Research identifies 4 tactics of predators:
1.
Isolation. Predators isolate
their victims from their family.
2.
Alienation. Predators alienate
their victims against their family. They do this focussing on small differences
the child has with her family, and making them big issues.
3.
Dependency. Once isolated from
family, the child becomes dependent upon the predator. This increases the
predator’s power over the child.
4.
Secrecy. The predator
pressurises the child to keep secret what is going on.
Isolation from family is a key
early objective of paedophiles and secondary predators. Good, capable, loving
families offer safety and protection for the child. The predator’s key
objective is to remove this safety and protection. Isolation gives the predator
opportunity, and continued isolation maintains secrecy. Once isolated from
family, the young vulnerable sex crime victim is easy prey for an unscrupulous
secondary predator. Most articles on predators stress the isolation element – here is a sample:
According to an FBI brochure (https://safetracker.net/crimestats.php/): “A sexual predator works to isolate his child victim from the
family. By creating distance between a child and their family, the predator
tricks the child into becoming more dependent
on him. As the predator makes minor issues the child is having with the family
into major issues, the child feels they are growing closer to the predator
because the predator understands them, while the family does not”.
Psychology Today also
stresses the importance of isolation
of the child from family, by the predator: “Every parent must ask themselves, "Is
there someone who seeks to use their position or status to access and isolate my child? For predators, every
effort is made to have lone access to the child”.
The University of
Missouri studied tactics used by predators to entrap children: “Predators…work to isolate
(their victims) both physically and emotionally from their support network…Isolation causes the victim to become
more and more dependent on the
perpetrator”.
In many cases, the effects of this secondary
abuse by secondary predators, is far worse than the initial abuse caused by the
child sex criminal. The degree of isolation
from family often determines the extent of long-term harm from the abuse.
Paedophile
Protection Networks
seek to cover up and run protection for both or either the initial sexual
criminals and/or secondary predators. It is this definition of a Paedophile
Protection Network that we use here. The secondary predator may not necessarily
be a proven paedophile, in many cases it is very difficult to prove sex crimes involving
a secondary predator. The more extensive the isolation, alienation, dependency and secrecy, the more the evidence is hidden. However the predator’s opportunity
arises purely because paedophilia crimes have previously occurred, creating a
vulnerable victim. By covering for the secondary predator, by accepting, ignoring
or encouraging the predator’s isolation,
alienation, dependency, and secrecy
activities, a Paedophile Protection Network ensures that more inappropriate sex,
and possibly sex crimes, are likely to take place involving the young,
vulnerable victim.
Our daughter was victim of under age sexual
crimes, and then more significantly, abuse from secondary predators keen to
take advantage of her vulnerable state. The initial child sex criminals were
members of the St John ambulance paedophile gang – Karl Berghan (aka Karl Berg)
and Sam Brens. The secondary predator who caused far more damage, was far more
sinister, far more skilled at isolation,
alienation, dependency and secrecy,
was Westlake Boys High School Head of Science, David Hayden. Specific details are
in our summary document linked below.
School
teacher David Hayden
David Hayden was only able to do what he did
with our family because of extraordinary assistance from other education
employees:
-
Ministry
of Education psychologist Maryke Lind
-
Westlake
Girls High School counsellor Alison Horspool
-
Kristin
College Principal Peter Clague
Isolation. Together with David
Hayden, these education staff took the most extreme measures to ensure that our
child was completely isolated from
good, capable, loving family, and in the full-time clutches of the secondary
predator. They ensured that our family were gagged and unable to say a word
about what was going on. If we said anything to anyone, we faced imprisonment.
This provided David Hayden full and unfettered 24-7 access to our vulnerable
daughter for a crucial period of the final two years of her schooling. It
enabled for example, additional secondary sexual abuse by people such as TV
presenter, night club and strip club owner Brooke Howard-Smith. This man was
able to take advantage of a young, vulnerable sex abuse victim, who was totally
isolated from the protection of her family. Had our schoolchild been living at
our home, we doubt 33-year Brooke Howard-Smith would have knocked on our front
door asking to take her out. In the clutches of secondary predator David Hayden
however, isolated from her family, 33-year old Brooke Howard-Smith was able to
take full advantage of a vulnerable schoolgirl.
Evidence from the UK shows that sexual predators
specifically target teenage girls who are isolated from family. Predators in
positions of authority (such as teachers) often target those that they can
thereafter isolate from family. As soon as he had our child under his control,
David Hayden stopped her attending professional sexual abuse counselling with
Dr Christine MacKay, because he wanted to stop even indirect contact between
our child and her family (through the psychologist). He told us this. Perhaps
he had a more sinister motive as well in that he did not want our child to
benefit from any sexual abuse counselling. Does David Hayden support under age
sex? He had previously told us that he strongly disagreed with our pressing
criminal charges against the St John ambulance men who had committed statutory
rape and gang rape against our daughter. Our child had volunteered to give
evidence in the criminal court against the St John men. She had made a detailed
statement to police. However, the sex crime trial was scheduled several weeks
after she moved into David Hayden’s house, and during that time our daughter
was influenced to change her mind and she refused to testify. Two serial
paedophiles walked free.
Whenever we phoned Hayden’s house asking to
speak with our child, he always refused to hand the phone to her. Despite all
our attempts, we had absolutely no contact at all with our child during the two
years she lived with teacher David Hayden. Our child was cut out of our life to
such an extent that we were even prevented from paying her school fees even
though we were very willing and able to pay. Our child could not have been more
completely cut off and isolated from
her whole family.
When David Hayden decided to prey on our
child, he knew she was a child sex crime victim, experienced at sex and group
sex with adult men. David Hayden also knew our daughter only had immediate
family in New Zealand (2 parents and 2 brothers), and no extended family within
at least 5 time zones. All David Hayden had to do, was to neutralise the young
girl’s parents and brothers, to isolate
his victim totally from her family, and he achieved this in conjunction with
our teenage daughter through gagging orders.
Alienation. The evidence of
David Hayden’s activities alienating our child from her family are contained in
our summary document linked below. In the gagging court cases against us,
Family Court Judge Lawrence Ryan said that our child had been severely
alienated against her family.
Our child was so severely alienated against her family that she
tried (with the active assistance of David Hayden) to have her parents
imprisoned for trying to make contact with her. See the summary document for
details. Some psychologists believe the alienation of our child is so severe
that it can be classed as Stockholm Syndrome.
Dr Joe
Carver,
a world-renown expert on Stockholm Syndrome wrote to us: “In your situation, you have almost all the high-risk components (of
Stockholm Syndrome) with the exception of life-threatening (hostage, prisoner,
death threats, etc.). The support of the pastor (David Hayden) is especially
distressing as that family is using their position as supposedly moral, honest
people to provide credibility and approval to your daughter's situation.
Here Dr Carver highlights the sinister
involvement of teacher David Hayden under the guise of helping, and says he
finds this particularly distressing.
An explanation of Stockholm Syndrome can be
found here (it is well worth a read and very pertinent):
David Hayden told us he would do everything
in his power to ensure our child never has a relationship with her family ever
again (see document linked below). This is his secrecy enforcement. It has been many years now since we heard
anything from our daughter.
Dependency. Once completely
isolated, our child was totally dependent upon teacher David Hayden for the
remaining two years of her schooling.
Secrecy. The secrecy
activities could not have been more extreme. David Hayden and our daughter took
out gagging orders against her parents and brothers. During the two-year court
case, at one point we asked if we could have a cup of coffee with our child,
having not had any contact with her for over a year. Such was the extent of the
secrecy efforts that our daughter’s
lawyers insisted that her parents sign a non-disclosure agreement covering the
cup of coffee with their child. The non-disclosure agreement covering a cup of
coffee with our teenage child obviously wasn’t her idea – it was the idea of
those manipulating her. There clearly is a lot of sensitive information they
want to keep secret. The activities
against us were certainly extreme, ensuring isolation, alienation, dependency
and secrecy. We refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so never had a
coffee with our child.
At one point during the two-year court
gagging proceedings, our daughter’s lawyer made us an offer: they would return
our child to us for three months on
condition that we accept permanent gagging. Clearly the desire for secrecy was driving these actions. The
court was being asked to gag parents in order to enforce the secrecy of a
dangerous predator. We urge you to ponder the implications and gravity of this
offer. They tried to blackmail us – if you want your child back, you have to
agree to keep quiet about what has gone on, agree to keep it secret. We never accepted the blackmail
offer.
It has been 8 years now since our child moved
in with David Hayden, and 6 years since she moved out of his house when she finished
school. However our child still has absolutely no contact whatsoever with her
family. She maintains that this is due to secrecy
– the secrecy pressures are so great
that our child is prepared to completely ignore her entire immediate and
extended family long-term in order to maintain the secrets.
Auckland psychologist Sara Chatwin described our experiences during a 2012 interview
broadcast on TVNZ’s Close Up programme: “all power and all control of their child has been
taken away, particularly by people with an agenda, people who want to exploit
children”. Sara Chatwin was referring to the power and
control over our daughter in the hands of secondary predator David Hayden,
assisted by those listed above. This psychologist highlights that David Hayden,
along with others, wanted to exploit our child. The TVNZ interview can be
viewed here:
A NZ school teacher friend of ours who has
known us for over 30 years wrote a letter which was printed in Investigate
magazine: “The disgust that I feel for
the misguided Rosa counsellors and a justice system that gives minors more
rights than parents, in this case, truly caring parents, is nothing compared to
what I feel about the actions of a liberal Christian church and its ‘pastor’
(David Hayden), whose actions cruelly cut (their daughter) off from her parents
– (mother and father) – who are the only people who truly care about her and
love her. An institution that aids in the decimation of family relationships is
an abomination…”
John Saks,
Founder and Chairman of the For the Sake of our Children Foundation in NZ,
wrote: “(In your case, you) have state
sponsored alienation of a family……Your daughter is considerably more fortunate
than most in her circumstance as evidenced by the tremendous effort you have
put into ‘righting the wrong’. Your efforts should be applauded, and I am very
thankful that at least one daughter in our nation has parents hugely committed
to her….It is my hope that your suffering/agony has not been in vain – and that
many other sons and daughters of our nation and other nations may be better off
because you ‘stood tall’ for them also”.
For our family, the damage caused by this
secondary abuse with predator David Hayden at the centre, was undoubtedly more
severe than the primary harm caused by the initial sexual predators.
Further evidence of the extreme isolation, alienation, dependency
and secrecy tactics of school
teacher David Hayden are contained in our summary document linked below as well
as in our complaint to the NZ Teachers Council.
David Hayden is no ordinary predator – he is
a monster. The Teachers Council refused to investigate him, and refused to even
read our complaint.
The
evidence of a Paedophile Protection Network at the NZ Teachers Council /
Ministry of Education
The evidence can be described in four points,
which are numbered 1- 4:
1. The NZ Teachers Council ensure it is illegal to report a paedophile teacher
Accept for a moment that a Paedophile
Protection Network exists, and the NZ Teachers Council wants to investigate
problem teachers while at the same time protect paedophiles and secondary
predators, how would they achieve this? What if they designed their complaint
reporting procedure to make it illegal for anyone to report a paedophile
teacher or secondary predator – this would protect paedophiles and secondary
predators wouldn’t it? This is precisely what the NZ Teachers Council have done
– they have imposed an internal rule on complainants which in effect makes it
illegal to report a paedophile teacher or secondary predator to the NZ Teachers
Council. So, the Teachers Council can act as if they are clamping down on
paedophiles and secondary predators, whereas in reality they have structured
matters to protect the paedophile and secondary predators and ensure
paedophilia and predatory behaviour is covered up.
Here is how the scam operates: It is against
the law in NZ for anyone to identify a victim of under age sex crimes. Anyone
who does identify an under age sex crime victim can be imprisoned. We know this
because when we tried to raise awareness about what teacher David Hayden was
doing in isolating and alienating our daughter, he tried (and
nearly succeeded) to have us imprisoned for allegedly identifying our child as
an under age sex crime victim. The terrifying experience of facing possible
prison because we wanted to see our child, resulted in us fleeing the country. Our
son’s experience facing possible prison because his parents allegedly
identified their daughter, we believe, certainly contributed to his untimely
death. It is described in our summary document linked below – one needs to read
our experiences to understand how terrifying the experience was for us in the
NZ Family court.
The NZ Teachers Council require a complainant
to identify themselves, however by doing so they are identifying their child,
the sex crime victim. The child sex crime is an integral element in our
complaint, without it, the behaviour of our child cannot be properly
understood. So too, the behaviour of the secondary predator cannot be properly
understood unless in the context of the child sex crimes.
The NZ Teachers Council complaint process is
that they would then pass our identity (and by implication our child’s
identity) on to the education staff we filed the complaint about – Westlake
teacher David Hayden, Westlake counsellor Alison Horspool, and Kristin
Principal Peter Clague. These three were the very people so instrumental for
earlier attempting to imprison us for allegedly identifying our child!
Obviously, having gone through such a terrifying experience earlier, facing
imprisonment, there is no way we are going to identify ourselves (and our
daughter) to these same people, as they would obviously once again attempt to
imprison us for identifying our child.
It is a brilliant scam for those wanting to
protect paedophile teachers and secondary predators. The NZ Teachers Council can
confidently pretend that they have a process to deal with paedophiles and
secondary predators, whereas in reality, their process ensures that paedophile
and secondary predators are completed safeguarded and excluded from
investigation.
When we submitted our complaint, we tried to
explain this to the Manager of Teacher Practice, Andrew Greig, but he wanted
none of it and was not prepared to listen. So we asked him to please read our
complaint, as it explains why we earlier faced imprisonment. In his arrogance, Andrew
Greig even refused to read our complaint saying it is “too long”.
The NZ Teachers Council has already struck
teachers off the register for having schoolgirls move out of the family home
and into their home:
However, in the really serious cases such as
ours, teacher David Hayden, counsellor Alison Horspool, and Principal Peter
Clague are quite safe from investigation by the NZ Teachers Council – because a
Paedophile Protection Network operates to safeguard them.
Clearly, our identity would make no
difference to an investigation. David Hayden already knows our identity, after all,
our child lived with him for two years. School counsellor Alison Horspool
already knows our identity as she took our child to Youthlaw to gag her family
and hand-held our child throughout the two-year gagging process. School
Principal Peter Clague already knows our identity as he filed an affidavit with
the court asking for our imprisonment for allegedly identifying our child to
him.
If there are any doubts about who submitted
the complaint, we could have withheld our identity and the Teachers Council
could have simply shown David Hayden this photograph and told him that the
complaint has been filed by the parents of this bikini-clad teenager who has
her arm around him.
No wonder school
teacher David Hayden is smiling – he is in the arms of a sexually-promiscuous,
young, vulnerable, bikini-clad sex crime victim whom he has totally isolated from her family; he has
completely neutralised her family by gagging them; she is totally alienated from family to the extent
that together with David Hayden she applies to have her family imprisoned if
they attempt to contact anyone around her; she is completely dependent upon David Hayden and is
living in his house; he is able to pressure her into complete secrecy; and he knows he need not be
concerned about the NZ Teachers Council and Ministry of Education as their
Paedophile Protection Network will cover for him. Being in that position would
make any serious predator smile.
The evidence is there – if a Paedophile
Protection Network exists in the NZ Teachers Council, they would set it up to
protect paedophiles and secondary predators exactly as things are set up now.
2. Prevent Ministry staff from finding out the real information
If there is a Paedophile Protection Network
operating within the Ministry of Education, they would likely suppress all
information about paedophile teachers and secondary predators who operate with
impunity. A Paedophile Protection Network would not want Ministry staff to find
out about what David Hayden has done, as staff may ask questions why he is
still registered. This is precisely what the NZ Ministry of Education have done
– their Paedophile Protection Network arranged for the document containing
details of David Hayden’s activities to be specifically blocked from the
organisation.
A London-based IT security expert has
confirmed and gathered forensic evidence that our document containing evidence
about the activities of teacher David Hayden is specifically blocked on the
Ministry’s email server. The email server has been configured to automatically
reject every incoming email that contains a link to this specific document. The
Paedophile Protection Network clearly want to hide the activities of David
Hayden, and by implication the lack of censure from the NZ Teachers Council,
from Ministry staff members.
This certainly indicates the existence of a
Paedophile Protection Network. If the Ministry were confident that David Hayden
is not a secondary predator, they would have nothing to hide. However, they
know that every reasonable person reading our summary document quickly concludes
that teacher David Hayden is a very dangerous secondary predator who should not
be in a position of authority around children. We believe that informed parents
would also not want their children anywhere near school counsellor Alison
Horspool and Principal Peter Clague due to their involvement. Parents, NZ
schools, and professionals, informed of our experience have told us this. A
Paedophile Protection Network has suppressed the information.
3. Belittle the complainant
When we communicated with Ministry of
Education staff pleading with them to investigate David Hayden, they tried to
avoid dealing with the issue by instructing us to take the matter to NZ Police.
We did as they suggested and contacted the NZ Police Child Abuse unit at Police
HQ. Police personnel then arranged a meeting with Ministry of Education
personnel and others.
We have it on reliable authority that at the
meeting, Ministry of Education staff were simply dismissive of our complaint
and made disparaging remarks about us. Why would Ministry of Education staff
treat this matter so trivially? Why would they regard our family with such
disdain? Our complaint must surely be one of the more severe they have received.
David Hayden is surely one of the most dangerous monsters in the country – we
have not found an equal for his extreme isolation,
alienation, dependency, and secrecy
activities anywhere in the world (kidnap victims do not have the alienation
element). There is only one explanation – the Ministry have no desire to disturb
a dangerous secondary predator from doing his sinister deeds. This conduct is
consistent only with the operation of a Paedophile Protection Network – they
simply do not take the matter seriously and had no intention of ever
investigating David Hayden because they are running protective cover for him.
We suspect the NZ Teachers Council and
Ministry of Education will dismiss this document as well, with similar disdain
and simply ignore it – this is the modus operandi of a Paedophile Protection
Network. There will likely be a further flourish of disparaging remarks about
us behind the closed doors of these institutions. It is unlikely that Andrew
Greig will read this document as it is also probably “too long”.
We lost two children as the result of these
events. One dead, and one so severely alienated that it has been years since
she has made any contact or communication with her family or extended family.
For Ministry of Education staff to belittle these matters and make disparaging
remarks is highly reflective of what their objectives are – it is a Paedophile
Protection Network.
4. Regarding teenage sex as far more important than teenage education
The evidence for this is in our summary
document linked below. Rather than repeat it here, I will simply refer to the
appropriate pages in our summary. The evidence is overwhelming – clearly these
education staff regarded our daughter’s sex with adults as far more important
than her education. The results speak for themselves:
-
During
the two years our child lived with David Hayden, she was truant from school for
a massive amount – 67 half days in one year alone – having never previously
been truant when she lived in our family home.
-
During
the two years our child lived with David Hayden her school performance
deteriorated dramatically – from 88% average when she lived in our home, down
to 42% average when living with teacher David Hayden (these percentages are
converted from grades in order to calculate averages). Teacher comments on her
reports indicated dramatic deterioration for every subject, in line with the
percentage drop.
-
During
the time our schoolchild lived with David Hayden she had at least one highly
inappropriate sexual relationship with a much-older adult man. It was with a TV
presenter, night club and strip club owner who was almost twice her age. This
sexual relationship was so inappropriate and scandalous that it featured as
cover story in the Woman’s Day magazine.
-
Our
child testified in the gagging cases against her family, that while a
schoolchild living with David Hayden – she was treated as an adult, free to do
whatever she pleased. One can simply wonder why a secondary predator would find
this attractive.
Details as to why it is irrefutable that the
key education staff who had influence over our child regarded her sex
activities as far more important than her schoolwork, is in our summary
document (linked below) on the following pages:
David Hayden - pg 4 - 6
Maryke Lind - pg 18
Alison Horspool - pg 4 - 6
Peter Clague - pg 4 - 6
Other key education staff who had influence
over our family:
-
Alison
Gernhofer, past Principal Westlake Girls High
-
Roz
Mexted, current Principal Westlake Girls High
We have not yet written up the actions of
these two school Principals and will do so at some stage. Briefly, when
Minister of Education Hekia Parata told parents that if they have any concerns
about the activities of teachers or school staff, they should take their concerns
to the School Principal and Board of Trustees. We did exactly as the Minister
advised and wrote a courteous letter asking for help, however we were simply
threatened with lawyers and the police by Principal Roz Mexted. Previously we
were threatened by lawyers on instruction from Principal Alison Gernhofer for
the same action. They encourage complaints, but not serious ones involving
paedophiles and secondary predators. Was Alison Gernhofer concerned about our
child’s education – apparently not one bit, the results speak for themselves.
Our daughter has testified that she is more
interested in protecting those such as David Hayden and all the others
mentioned in our document, than in having a relationship with her family. This
is entirely consistent with the behaviour of under age sex abuse victims and
victims of secondary predators, and is indicative of the damage caused. The
extended period without communication from our daughter (many years now) with
any member of her family, is due to pressure brought upon her by the predators
in order to maintain secrecy.
Summary
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, the
likelihood is that it is a duck. The evidence is overwhelming – a Paedophile
Protection Network operates within the NZ Ministry of Education and the NZ
Teachers Council. They insist that we break the law with likely consequence of
imprisonment in order to follow their complaint procedure requirements. They
hide the truth about predators from their staff. Education employees treated
our child’s sex activities with older men as far more important than her
education. Ministry staff show disdain for our serious complaint and absolutely
no desire or intention to act.
Moreover, David Hayden is still a registered
teacher long after details of his actions have been exposed. The Ministry and
Teachers Council ignore this devious teacher’s isolation, alienation, dependency and secrecy activities with a child sex crime victim. This dangerous,
unscrupulous predator is still licensed to work with children and choose his
next vulnerable victim. Has anyone checked the safety of any school pupils who
may currently be living in his house?
We do not know the names of all the Ministry
and Teachers Council staff involved in this Paedophile Protection Network,
however the employees that we came in contact with, include:
-
Andrew
Greig
-
Katrina
Casey
-
Peter
Lind
-
Lesley
Longstone
For the Paedophile Protection Network to be
as successful as it is within the Ministry and Teachers Council, we have no doubt
that there are many more individuals involved, and suspect that these
protection activities are at the very least given tacit approval from all
executives within the organisations. They surely have known about teacher David
Hayden for a while now (there have been well over 100,000 emails circulating in
their environment with details), and yet they do nothing about him.
We do not make these allegations lightly. We
are capable, well-educated parents aware of the ramifications. The father has
three university degrees, is a recognised global leader in his field, and CEO
of a London-based global, high-tech firm. The mother has a degree in psychology
and holds a responsible position at a high-profile London venue. It is
high-time NZ government departments start taking this matter seriously, many thousands
of others in New Zealand and around the world already do. It is high-time the
NZ Cabinet start doing something proactive about this Paedophile Protection
Network. We believe prosecutions entailing prison sentences are in order.
Paedophilia and secondary predators are a big
problem in New Zealand, and will continue to be, while given free reign from
Paedophile Protection Networks. This problem is not peculiar to the Ministry of
Education and Teachers Council. We know details of other Paedophile Protection
Networks for example, one involving the Governor General Sir Jerry Mataparae,
another involving Principal Family Court Judge Lawrence Ryan and Judge Dale
Clarkson, others in the NZ Association of Counsellors, CYF and the NZ Police. It
is a scourge on New Zealand society, and long-term heartache, damage and
distress for victims and their families.
and check out these websites:
10,000
influential people in NZ and around
the world are being copied in on this email, and encouraged to share it
with
all their contact list. To make it easier, we have placed a copy of this
information online so that it can be downloaded in pdf format from
here: http://bit.ly/PPNatMinedu
The Privacy Act has special provisions dealing with the 'news medium' and 'news activity'. Journalists are subject only to the jurisdiction of the Press Council and Broadcasting Standards Authority, both are a bit of a joke, and good examples of the failure of self regulation and lack of ethical or moral standards in what passes for 'journalism' today.
