maandag, juni 30, 2014

Joe en het persoonlijk voornaam woord ¨Maar dan moet er wel geluisterd worden¨

Hebban olla vogala nestas hagunnan
hinase hic enda thu
wat unbidan we nu

´t Is maar uit watvoor nest je komt..........

¨dát zijn de procedures en anders beeindig ik dit gesprek¨
¨Ik neem aan dat U dat al eerder is uitgelegd¨
B., géén call-centre dame met een draaikont, 
maar eentje met kennelijke dienstopdracht tot bezuinigen bij de draaideur.  


Bedankt  X uit Zwolle: het meldings-nummer dat ik schijn te moeten hebben heb ik - in ieder geval vanaf 2010 - inmiddels. 
En ondanks al het geblaf mijn (telefonische) klacht óók.

Net als mijn weigering om mij op die manier te laten behandelen. 
Het kostte weliswaar nog even buitengewoon veel moeite  het verschil duidelijk te maken dat ik niet vanaf maar tussen terug gebeld wens te worden en ik geen formuliertje online MOET  invullen zodat zij mij een 
JA 
kunnen toewijzen en ik daar in ieder geval binnen 10 dagen niet aan wens te denken ook  maar zij  een afdeling hulpverlening hebben  en dat dát de procedures zijn waaraan niet ik maar zij zich nu maar eens moeten gaan houden.......
edoch een niesoor die daar op let.


leer je hond gehoorzamen

bedankt Martinus!  

toegevoegd

NRC






Een volk dat voor tyrannen zwicht laat haar kinderen verkrachten

If you’re ready to talk, we’re ready to listen Interim Report now available on Royal Commission website


------- Origineel bericht --------
Onderwerp: Interim Report now available on Royal Commission website
Datum: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 07:22:02 +0000
Van: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
Antwoord-naar: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
Aan: ..........nl>


Interim Report now available on Royal Commission website

 
Is this email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser.

Interim Report now available on Royal Commission website


The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse interim report, which was released by the Government today, is now available on the Royal Commission website
http://childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/about-us/reports

The Royal Commission’s second case study report, Report of Case Study No.2: YMCA NSW’s response to the conduct of Jonathan Lord, is also now available on the Royal Commission website http://bit.ly/1mM1rhR

For more information about the Royal Commission visit http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/

For specific stakeholder enquiries: stakeholders@childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au
Copyright © 2014 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you subscribed at the Royal Commission website or have previously agreed to receive updates. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please unsubscribe below.
Our mailing address is:
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
GPO Box 5283
Sydney, NSW 2001
Australia

Add us to your address book
Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp

   

Snoek met ezelsoren






bron

zondag, juni 29, 2014

toverfluitje van een cent

The Salvos and Moving On (Or: Nothing to See Here, Folks)














I don’t know about you, but when someone who’s hurt me or a loved one tells me to “move on,” or “move forward,” and hasn’t made amends, I get a little tetchy. But I get a little curious too, the way one does when one is told not to look at something.

Recently, a friend sent me a link to a beautifully scripted and filmed video featuring Australian Salvation Army Eastern Territorial Head, James Condon, called “Dealing with Regret.” Jimmy’s video was a warm, intimate ramble in the style of FD Roosevelt’s fireside chats. Jimmy says he has no regrets in life. I’m sure we’re all happy for him (with the possible exception of anyone who may have been harmed by Colin Haggar, perhaps).

At the end of the video, though, Jimmy explains that he’s often had to tell people: “You need to let go of that and move on.” He admits moving on isn’t easy (he’s only human), but reassures us that God is there to help us. This riled me, because if you’re a victim of the Salvation Army, or love someone who is, you can be pretty damn sure the Salvation Army isn’t there to help you. Not properly.

Anyway, I was a little angry by the end of this video, but curious too. What’s this “moving on” business and why did Jimmy place such heavy emphasis on it?

So I had a look at a couple more videos, and found another, related, one, this time from Lt. Col. David Godkin, dated 18 June, 2014. Dave is the Salvation Army’s new Secretary for Personnel, a post held earlier by Major Peter Farthing of ‘someone’s not a paedophile if they do it once’ infamy, the genius behind the now discredited ‘matrix’ model of financial restitution to Salvation Army children’s homes victims, and counsellor for 18 months to Colin Haggar. Farthing is now effectively Australia’s Salvation Army child protection spokesperson, in his official capacity as Royal Commission [into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse] Response Coordinator.
Dave’s video was called “Don’t Look Back.”

Dave’s own touchingly honest personal revelation was that he sometimes struggles with letting go of the past. Fortunately, Dave also finds solace in his religion, for which we are all just delighted. Like Jimmy, though, he was emphatic in his advice to others. Dave says Christ wants us to “move forward” and “let go of the past.”

I don’t know who these videos are aimed at, but can take a wild guess.

The Salvation Army in Australia would like it if everyone it’s harmed “moved on” (read: “shut up”).
It’s not too comfortable with people who don’t just shuffle off and who stand their ground in the face of the organisation’s cruelty and negligence towards them. The courageous Ralph Doughty, who’s an inspiration to me, is a case in point. There’s been quite a bit of people standing up and refusing to shut up lately, what with
  • The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse;
  • A pesky media presence asking hard questions of an organisation accustomed to the blind faith of everyone but those who know the truth behind the brand;
  • And now (horror of horrors), the attention of the NSW police squarely focussed on people at the very highest levels of the Salvation Army in Australia.
The Salvation Army is feeling a little besieged, it’s clear. I’m sure the Salvation Army is really fed up with all the wrong kind of attention. I recall poor Jimmy whining earlier this year that he’s feeling a bit “aggrieved”. But I have absolutely no sympathy for him, the Salvation Army, or for his and the organisation’s attempts to deflect detractors by asking them to “move on.”
What the Salvation Army needs to understand is that people it’s hurt are fed up with it.

I’ve also been on a personal quest to find out exactly what’s behind the Salvos’ apparently new approach to “restorative justice,” hastily announced on the 23rd of June following the Salvation Army’s latest appearance at the Royal Commission. I have some very detailed questions about this too, and Salvos’ lawyer Kate Eastman’s assurance that the Salvation Army is now going to “accept responsibility” for what it’s done is not enough. At the minimum, I want to know what these principles are. Some time ago, I asked for a copy of these principles via my family’s solicitor, John Ellis. There was no response. Five days later, I emailed Peter Farthing directly, demanding a copy of the principles by 5 pm tomorrow. I will be lucky to get an answer.

On Thursday this week, I meet with Peter Farthing, David Godkin, Salvos Legal lawyer Luke Geary, and possibly others from the Salvation Army to obtain justice for my father’s, Lewis Blayse’s, family. We’re having a “restorative justice” conference at John Ellis’s offices. But I don’t know what the “restorative justice” principles are. How then can I speak to the principles? How can anyone who’s going through this process? I should have been given these principles a long time ago, and I’m very angry that I haven’t. I told Peter Farthing that this is a matter of procedural fairness. But it’s a matter of broader importance too: there are others going through the Salvos’ “restorative justice” mechanism now too. Do they have copies of the principles? I’ve asked around, and can’t find anyone who does.
I’m not ready to “move on.” My father entered the notorious Salvation Army Alkira / Indooroopilly Boys’ Home in the late 1950s a sensitive, gentle, and already traumatised little boy. The horrors he witnessed and experienced at the hands of monsters like Lawrence Wilson and Victor Bennett left him totally and permanently disabled as an adult. He woke every day of his life in horror thinking he was still in Alkira. He never received adequate compensation, and the impacts on his family were never properly acknowledged by the Salvation Army. His clearly expressed wish for compensation for his family for his “psychological death,” expressed in the 2004 ABC Four Corners program “The Homies,” was never met.

Unlike Jimmy, I have a profound regret, and I struggle to sleep for the pain of it. I regret that I never went in swinging at the Salvation Army while my father was still alive. Dad said there was no point, and I regret believing him. Perhaps if I’d been stronger and braver, I could have helped him get the justice he and his family deserved? Perhaps we could have had a better life together if I had? Perhaps I wouldn’t have had to see him live out the last years of his life in poverty and desperation. I couldn’t do anything as a child, but there were 21 years of adulthood when I could have fought for him, but didn’t.
It’s too late for me to do what I should have done for my father, but not too late to do something to fulfill his wishes for his family. It’s not too late for me to try to do something that might help people who’ve been harmed the way my father was and are still alive, and their families. The Salvos’ compensation to victims in Australia, for abuses of the most horrendous type, averages around the $30,000 to $40,000 mark. The Salvos’ treatment of victims and their families has been callous. And it’s not changing its ways.

Enough’s enough. Victims of the Salvation Army and their family members need to be given specific details of the new “restorative justice” principles. How can there be public debate about whether they are appropriate if no-one knows what they are? How can we assess their validity if we don’t know who was consulted in their preparation? Were victims and families consulted? If so, how many? Which people? Exactly what harms are being addressed and how? Are the Salvos going to pay lost wages to kids used as slave labour? Will they be covering all medical costs required to people entering their senior years who suffer increasingly from injuries inflicted upon them in childhood by monsters shielded by the Salvation Army? How much will the Salvation Army pay for tuition to children denied educations in Salvo homes? There are dozens of related questions that I and others have, but the Salvation Army doesn’t seem to think the public has a right to know the answers.

The people who were horrified to learn that abuses by Salvation Army personnel of children are not “historical” but still occurring also deserve answers to the questions put by Sarah Dingle to the Salvation Army, and more. Victims whose perpetrators are still alive and continue to escape punishment deserve real answers. People who know that the Salvation Army is still intimately involved with children and young people through its youth programs and are worried about that deserve real answers too.

Enough’s enough:
  • I’ve had enough of stupid, meaningless emails and press releases from the Salvation Army.
  • I’ve had enough of watching insulting videos that imply that there’s something dysfunctional about demanding justice and accountability.
  • I’ve had enough of the Salvation Army failing to answer important questions put to it.
Victims and their families, and the Australian public, deserve better.

On Wednesday 2 July, I’ll be standing outside 140 Elizabeth Street, Sydney (Salvo HQ), from 9 am onwards. Waiting. Waiting for James Condon, Bruce Harmer, Peter Farthing, David Godkin, or anyone senior in the organisation to stop hiding behind press releases, brick walls, and lawyers, and start exhibiting the transparency they claim to embrace.
I will be demanding that one of these people, preferably James Condon, come down to the front of the building to answer, in full view of any media representatives who might be present, these questions:
  1. When will you issue full and detailed responses to the questions posed by Sarah Dingle and where will you publish them?
  2. When will you publish the new detailed principles of “restorative justice” you apply to victims and their families and when will you state which victims / family members or other people were consulted in their preparation?
  3. When you will admit, if you can’t answer these important questions, that the Salvation Army no longer deserves the trust of the Australian public?
If there are no good answers provided, I’ll be asking one more question:

“When will all Australian governments, federal and state, cease funding this massively taxpayer-funded organisation and do whatever it takes to keep the Salvation Army 1000 miles from any young person until it proves itself worthy of our trust?”

Read more here:
Aletha Blayse

www.whiteshieldappeal.org

vrijdag, juni 27, 2014

Sauve-toi, la vie t'appelle


The baby black market


Irish Times

Mike Milotte

Last Updated: Friday, June 27, 2014, 16:44

The National Archives of Ireland contain just a few snippets, but they are enough to make clear that State officials in 1950s Ireland knew the country was a centre for illegal international baby trafficking. The number of children involved can’t even be guessed at, but we can be sure they were all “illegitimate”.
Ireland was regarded as a “hunting ground”, in the words of a senior civil servant, where foreigners in search of babies could easily obtain illegitimate children from mother-and-baby homes and private nursing homes, then remove them from the State without any formalities.
There were both legal and illegal adoptions. During the 1950s up to 15 per cent of all illegitimate Irish children born in mother-and-baby homes each year were taken to the United States with the full knowledge of the State. In total more than 2,000 illegitimate children were removed from the country in this way. Most were adopted by wealthy American Catholics.
But it seems that hundreds, if not thousands, more children were taken from the country without sanction or public record-keeping. Many were handed to foreigners. On October 8th, 1951, The Irish Times reported that in the previous year “almost 500 babies were flown from Shannon for adoption”, a number that the paper said “is believed to have been exceeded” during the first nine months of 1951. In the first week of October alone, it reported, 18 “parties” of children departed from the airport.
These figures far exceed the number of official “adoption passports” issued to let adoptive parents take children out of Ireland. In the whole of 1951 only 122 such passports were issued, a fraction of the number of children actually taken from the State.
Some children were handed over to men travelling alone, as when a US businessman left, after a brief visit to Ireland in 1949, with two toddlers from the Braemar home in Cork. The New York Times called it “a surprise for the wife”. The same year a US airman was given two children to take home by the Sacred Heart nuns at Manor House mother-and-baby home, in Castlepollard. This was reported in three US newspapers.
On February 2nd, 1955, one American newspaper, the New Haven Register, carried a startling story under the headline “50 American couples buy Irish babies through international adoption ring”. Claiming a senior garda as its source, the article said the Americans paid between $600 and $2,000 per child. The children had reportedly come from private nursing homes around Ireland, including five in Dublin.
 

“Could not truthfully be refuted”

When the Department of External Affairs asked the special detective unit to comment on the article, the only claim it disputed was that the paper’s source was a garda.

Higher up the legal pecking order, the secretary of the Department of Justice, Peter Berry, advised that the story “could not truthfully be refuted” because there was “some basis for the allegation in question”.
Three years earlier a German newspaper, 8 Uhr Blatt, had carried a somewhat similar exposé headlined “1,000 children disappear from Ireland”. Many of the children, it was suspected, were destined to be sold on the United States’ thriving baby “black market”, where the going price was $3,000 a child, according to the newspaper. On this occasion the Irish chargé d’affaires in Bonn, Aedan O’Beirne, wanted to insist that the paper “publish a rebuttal of the story”, but his superiors in Dublin noted that “no action is required, especially as the article is largely correct”.
With the authorities determined to keep the scandal under wraps, the traffickers were pursued without vigour, and the children, whose welfare seemed of little concern to the State, were abandoned to their fate.
The scandal continued into the 1960s when a Garda investigation into another illegal adoption racket – one police believed was run by a prominent Irishman – led to the prosecution of a Dublin midwife, Mary Keating, who had also been involved in the 1950s venture. Keating was interviewed as part of a special-branch operation in the 1950s, along with birth mothers. At that time, special branch also communicated with adoptive parents in the US.
Keating owned St Rita’s nursing home in Ranelagh, and in 1965 she was put on probation for falsifying a birth record. But behind this seemingly technical charge lay an enterprise involving private nursing homes that ran a sideline business providing “illegitimate” babies, born in their homes, to people who, for whatever reason, couldn’t or didn’t want to adopt legally. Their modus operandi was simple. Instead of registering the baby in the name of its unmarried mother, as the law required, they registered it in the name of the couple to whom the baby was given, a serious criminal offence.
The falsification process is outlined in a letter from St Rita’s to a prospective adoptive parent in the US. It is also logged in detail in the Irish special-branch report. The New Haven Register article from 1955 describes the situation for US military personnel, who accounted for many of the adoptions. “To adopt a baby the American soldier and his wife would travel to Dublin, where the wife checked in to the nursing home as an expectant mother. An Irish woman would actually bear the child, but the birth would be registered in the name of the American.”
“The impact of this practice has been devastating for many people,” says Christine Hennessey of Barnardos, the children’s charity, because “it is almost impossible for them to find out anything about their background” – something many adopted people yearn for and the rest of us take for granted.
The Republic had about 40 private nursing homes at this time. Like St Rita’s, all are now closed. Clients of Barnardos know of other private nursing homes in Dublin that they say were involved in similar practices. “In total we have 96 people on our list who were registered as if born to their adoptive parents,” says Barnardos. “Ninety of these were born between 1940 and 1980. Legal adoption was introduced in 1952, and we have 43 on our list for the 1950s.” All of them were born in private nursing homes, mostly in the Dublin area, including St Rita’s.
And St Rita’s may have had friends in high places. At one point in the 1960s, when it seemed that Keating might lose her licence, a priest went to the Dáil to rustle up support. There he met Charles Haughey, then agriculture minister, who laughingly said “half the children born in St Rita’s” had been fathered by TDs.
This sounds like an exaggeration, but it could indicate that St Rita’s was a nursing home favoured by men of power for confining women they had got pregnant – but who weren’t their wives – and whose identities Keating permanently obliterated by falsely registering their babies’ births.
Priests, doctors, nurses, midwives and social workers are all suspected of involvement in arranging illegal adoptions. And where the adopters weren’t assessed to see if they were suitable “to have parental rights and duties”, as adoption legislation required, the consequences could be tragic.
In the 1960s a child died in the care of a couple who were too young to adopt legally but had been given a little girl by a Waterford priest, Fr Bobby Keane. The adoptive father was charged with murder.
But nobody apart from Keating was ever prosecuted for involvement in these illegal adoptions. Even today, official reluctance to acknowledge the existence of illegal adoptions, let alone the scale of the problem, is a cause of grief to people who believe they were victims of such practices.
 
The Adoption Rights Alliance has been calling for an inquiry into illegal adoptions for more than a decade. In 2010 it put 37 detailed questions on the subject to the Adoption Authority of Ireland. The authority didn’t answer them, but in public statements it claimed to know of only one illegal adoption in the previous 60 years, a figure it later increased to 50.
But at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children on Thursday, Kiernan Gildea, acting chief executive of the authority, said “there must be thousands” whose births were illegally registered.
Theresa Hiney Tinggal says the 50 figure was laughable. She found out 12 years ago that she had been illegally adopted, in 1954, in a process that involved falsified birth records. When nobody in authority answered her questions she set up a website; in five years it has had more than 10,000 hits.
Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald, in her previous role as minister for children, declared that the State had no involvement in illegal adoptions.
But, as the State maintains that only where a legal adoption order exists can an adoption be said to have taken place, by its definition all adoptions are held to be legal. State agencies prefer to call the practice based on falsified birth records “informal” adoptions, a term that infuriates victims of these practices because, they say, it plays down the crimes that were committed.
 

Blanket denials

Blanket denials of illegality equally ignore evidence that crimes have been committed within the State adoption system itself. The Adoption Board, as the Adoption Authority of Ireland used to be known, has signed off on more than 40,000 legal adoptions in Ireland since 1952.

The great bulk of these were arranged by religious-run adoption societies – in most cases joined at the hip with the mother-and-baby homes that are now being investigated. At least nine religious-run adoption societies organised the export of more than 2,000 “illegitimate” children to the United States for adoption during the 1950s and 1960s. There were other adoption societies that appear to have had no involvement in this practice.
Adoption societies were legally bound by the 1952 Adoption Act, which says among other things that, for an adoption to be legal, maternal consent is needed. And it must, by law, be informed consent and freely given. It is up to the adoption society to ensure consent is informed.
The society and “every person who takes part in its management or control” were potentially guilty of a criminal offence for noncompliance with this strict provision.
A mother whose baby was put up for adoption had to sign two documents, one consenting to the adoption of her child and another stating that she understood the nature and effect of the consent she was giving. Yet many women who went through this process say they had no idea what they were signing: pieces of paper were thrust before them with an instruction to sign where indicated. Some have no recollection of signing anything, and in some situations the signatures were forged.
For the Adoption Board of the time what mattered was that the requisite forms were signed. What lay behind the signatures was not looked into. The board seems to have relied on public notaries who “witnessed” the signatures, declaring in the process that they “knew” the person signing.
Few mothers questioned any of this at the time, because they could see no alternative to adoption. But one who did was Margaret O’Neill. She gave birth to a baby boy in Sean Ross Abbey, in Co Tipperary, in 1968. Adoption was never discussed, and she signed no papers, yet her son was taken and given up for adoption at six months of age.
When the Adoption Board finally acceded to her demands and investigated her claims – 21 years after the adoption – it found that signatures purporting to be hers were undisguised forgeries. In one her name was even misspelled. This blatant fabrication had been notarised by a solicitor and accepted by the Adoption Board. The adoption had been handled personally by the abbey’s head nun, Sr Hildegarde, and a Garda file went to the director of public prosecutions. He declined to prosecute, so Margaret sued and won. The nuns put up no defence.
Could Margaret O’Neill’s have been the only forged signature? In her case the crime came to light because of her astonishing persistence in the face of official indifference. How many more such cases would be brought to light by an official inquiry with the power to compel documents?
Then there’s the question of money changing hands. The Adoption Act of 1952 was clear that anyone who accepts payment for arranging an adoption, including for incidental expenses, could end up in jail for 12 months. Yet here again it’s evident that some adoption societies run by religious groups received considerable sums of money, especially in relation to the American adoptions that they facilitated.
A New York couple were asking about adopting a child from the Franciscan Sister of St Clare’s adoption society in Stamullen, Co Meath, when they received a bill equivalent to several thousand euro in today’s money for unitemised “expenses”. They paid without question and were sent a child they selected from a photograph. The couple filed away all their paperwork.
Sr Hildegard confided in a social worker shortly before her death that at one point income from American adoptions exceeded income from any other source, but the paperwork, she said, was destroyed when a Garda investigation into unrelated matters seemed imminent.
Signatures, too, were forged to facilitate American adoptions. Rather than go to court to obtain legal guardianship of the children they were sending across the Atlantic, the nuns relied on slips of paper, signed by the mothers, “relinquishing” their children to a senior nun, who then took control. No court was involved.
Thirty years after her son was sent to the United States from Manor House mother-and-baby home, in Castlepollard, Pat Thuillier (née Eyres) obtained the two “relinquishing” forms she had supposedly signed at the time. One had been used by the nuns to obtain a passport for her son from the Department of External Affairs and the other to convince an American court that she consented to her son’s adoption there.
But the signatures on the two forms were radically different. One, at least, was a forgery. Both were notarised, on the same day, by the same solicitor.
Campaigners such as the Adoption Rights Alliance suspect that illegalities in the adoption process that have come to light, often by accident, barely scratch the surface. They argue that to leave the matter of illegal and forced adoptions out of the forthcoming commission of inquiry would be a devastating blow to a vulnerable group of people whose calls for acknowledgment and support in the past have fallen on deaf ears.
In the 1950s the senior civil servant in charge of “adoption passports” and the man who called Ireland a “hunting ground”, Joe Horan, wrote, seemingly prophetically, that “we must be alive to the possibility that the name of this country might one day figure in one of those ‘exposures’ they have from time to time.” This could lead to “all sorts of undesirable prospects such as letters to the newspapers, parliamentary questions, and so on”.
But Horan didn’t need to worry. The Irish media, like the political establishment, showed little interest in what was being done to so many of its most vulnerable citizens.
 
A name but not an identity: One illegally adopted child’s search to find out who she is
Theresa Hiney Tinggal doesn’t know her birthplace or who her parents were. Born on June 11th, 1954, she believed for 48 years that she was the daughter of James and Kathleen Hiney, who brought her up. The register of births said they were her natural parents. So did the record kept by the midwife, Una Doody.
But 12 years ago her sense of identity was shattered when her uncle told her that Doody had given her to the Hineys when she was two days old.
Although the health board knew by 1956 that she had been illegally adopted, it seems never to have traced her mother or tried to correct the record.
Hiney Tinggal believes thousands of Irish people are in a similar situation. “Knowing where you came from is a basic human right. Without this, illegal adoptees live in a permanent limbo.” Tinggal says the State needs to put the issue on the agenda of the mother-and-baby homes inquiry.

Mike Milotte’s book Banished Babies: The Secret History of Ireland’s Baby Export Business is published by New Island

examenweek RKK onderwijs Call uw traiterie Het Pastorale Glasaaltje





















Met een diepe buiging naar twee Geuzen

De droeflijke scheiding van Dorussie, Tante Constance en tante mathilde





woensdag, juni 25, 2014

Meldpunt Kerkelijk seksueel misbruik RKK: en alweer een nieuwe procedure

Ergens in Zwolle zit er een mevrouw X

Op, of in, een call centre

En die stakker  blijkt dus helemaal nergens iets van te weten, maar wél de telefoontjes te krijgen

Waarop ze dus helemaal geen antwoord kan geven anders dan:
Heeft U het nummer van Uw klacht?

Nee mevrouw, want die klacht ligt er al zo ´n  jaar of 10

En nu wil ik dus graag even weten wat het betekent en bij wie ik moet zijn gezien jullie sluitingsdatum van 1 juli

Heeft u het nummer van Uw klacht?

Maar jullie zijn hem elke keer kwijt, en helemaal niemand heeft mij ooit zo iets voor de hand liggends gezegd  dat daar een nummer aan verbonden is.

Ook de Heer Brenninkmeijer niet, dat was de laatste die, zo ń maand of 3 terug nog zei dat er helemaal geen klacht (of melding van mij was)

maar inderdaad - geen idee in welke graftombe de man heeft moeten zoeken - inderdaad ontdekte dat mijn informatie klopte

ik ga zorgen dat U terug gebeld wordt....

Prachtig, wanneer en door wie dan wel

Dat weet ik niet.

Daś dan vervelend, sorry trouwens dat ik misschien wat pissig klink, maar ik ben dit wel zo onwaarschijnlijk zat  en aan antwoorden als U wordt terug gebeld maar ik weet niet door wie, daar heb ik dus werkelijk geen zin meer in. Dus: wanneer en door wie, aub

Eh...even kijken hoor
Kunt U misschien even een omschrijving van uw klacht geven?

Nee! Mevrouw. ja dat kan ik wel: ik wordt al 10 jaar bedonderd door die RKK-N over mijn klacht  en nu is het dus wel genoeg geweest
Dus door wie wordt ik terug gebeld? Wanneer?

U wordt terug gebeld door L.  S. maar die zit in Utrecht

Waar zit U dan? En wie bent U eigenlijk?

Hoop er omheen gedraai....om uiteindelijk dan toch met het antwoord te komen: Zwolle is de place to be.......

Goed, dat contact met het meldpunt, dan wel de afdeling hulpverlening is dus inmiddels al helemaal wel bezuinigd of zo?
Mevr.  X was 3 maanden geleden al ingekrompen dan wel niet meer bereikbaar waardoor ik de Hr. Brenninkmeijer en diens mededeliing kreeg.

Maar ik zorg dat U terug gebeld wordt

Door Mevr. L.S. in Utrecht...en wie is dat dan wel?

Zij zit in Utrecht. Die belt U terug.
Maar ik weet niet wanneer.

Mevrouw, nogmaals, wie bent U eigenlijk? Bent U een parochieel medewerker of zo? Bent U een vrijwilliger?

Nee ik ben geen vrijwilliger
Bent U een beroepskracht?

Weer een hoop eromheen gedraai

Ja ik ben een beroepskracht.

Maar U wordt terug gebeld, maar ik weet niet wanneer

Mevrouw bent U een beroepskracht op een call center?

Weer een hoop er om heen gedraai

Ja ik ben een call center medewerker

Mevrouw , waar is Brenninckmeijer geblleven?

Ja, die zit ook in Utrecht.

Daś mij bekend mevrouw

Maar die is telefonisch niet bereikbaar.

Mevrouw, sorry nogmaals voor mijn pissigheid, maar ik ben het toch wel zo veel meer dan zat. Deze waanzin heeft mij toch wel meer dan lang geduurd en ik ben niet van gewapend beton.

Ja ik kan mij indenken, 10 jaar is natuurlijk ook wel lang hu?

Wilt U zorgen dat dat bureau mij even terug belt.  En ik heb er geen flauw idee van wie die mevrouw L.S. in Utrecht is,


O, ja, dan zal ik zorgen dat de Heer Brenninkmeijer U even terug belt.

Mooi, en wanneer?

Dat weet ik niet,  nog meer omheen gedraai---- ik zat warempel te wachten op het  al eerder ś gekregen antwoord: die is op vakantie -----

Maar de Heer Brenninkmeijer is telefonisch niet bereikbaar
Maar ik zal zorgen dat U terug gebeld wordt.....

Dank U wel Mevrouw, en nogmaals, sorry, voor mijn eventuele pissig klinken, dat is heel vervelend voor U dat U dit soort telefoontjes voor die club krijgt.

Goedemiddag

Arme X in Zwolle.
ook al genaaid door de RKK-N en diens PR
en ze deed nog wel zo hard haar best

En dan vergat het doorschakel gepiep ook nog te zeggen dat dit gesprek kon worden opgenomen voor opleingsdoeleinden ook, zijn er alleen mijn maar aantekeningen als steunbewijs als die meid zoals zovelen voor haar de laan uitvliegt wegens gebrek aan kontengedraai leidend tot deze transparantie

Het goede nieuws is dat ze klonk als een hele jonge meid, niet zoals een eerdere dame ¨ nou we hebben een dossier van U gevonden hoor¨  (zou ook wel ´s  een call centre kunnen zijn geweest, tenslotte, met kinders én hondenopvang) :¨Nou, we hebben  een dossier van U gevonden hebben, hoor¨
wie weet leert ze nog iets van ethisch ondernemen en dat je daarvoor héél ver weg van de RKK-N moet blijven.

Dan zij dus maar de door Klokk inmiddels gehanteerde anonimisering van de X, niet onmogelijk voor haar ook zo 10 anderen, ´t    is tenslotte  Zwolle  met haar aartspriester(s) cs.

Wing chun vs Krav maga

maandag, juni 23, 2014

"Sir, I would like to report that a young man called me Granny!"

 

 

Schoolkids arrested on murder rap

By LULAMILE FENI on March 18, 2014 

based on  dispatchlive ZA

 MTHATHA village community is in shock over the arrest of six high school pupils and a university student who are accused of hijacking and murdering a senior government official.
The pupils were all  at  Senior Secondary School in Sithebe village near Mthatha when the crime was committed in November.
Mqanduli police spokesman Major Zamukulungisa Jozana, confirming the arrests, said the head of land reform in Mqanduli, Dumekhaya Julayi, had been murdered during a hijacking on November 3 2013. The suspects put his body into the boot of his new Ford Fiesta, which was only three weeks old, and fled.
Jozana said the six pupils were arrested in Mthatha and Ngcobo on Thursday and Friday. A third-year Walter Sisulu University medical student, 22, was arrested at the Nelson Mandela Academic Hospital while he was doing a practical.
Some of the pupils , 18,  his elder brother 20,  18  , 18 years old are in grades 10, 11 and 12  have since moved schools
A 19 yrs old Grade 12 , has been charged with possession of a firearm.
Yesterday  3 appeared in the Mqanduli Magistrate’s Court, which ordered they be held in custody and the case postponed to March 25 for a bail application.
1  appeared in the Bityi Periodical Court yesterday and was given R500 bail. The case was postponed to April 30.
The three other accused  appeared in the Mqanduli Magistrate’s Court on Friday. were granted bail of R2 500 each and one  was held in custody.
Their case was postponed to May 5 for further investigation.
Julayi was murdered while on his way to a work-related meeting in Ngcobo.
He was in his new car, which he had bought only on October 18, said his widow Nophelo Julayi.
Hours later, the car was seen speeding past the village. It was later found abandoned at Khwenxurha village, not far from his Kroza village home near Elliotdale.
On closer investigation villagers noticed a bullet hole in the windscreen. When they looked through the window, they saw a bullet hole in the driver’s seat that was covered in blood. His body was later found in the boot of the vehicle.
Nophelo attended court yesterday with relatives and fellow villagers.
“While I am happy that the accused have been arrested, I am disappointed that some of them have been granted bail,” she said.
“My husband was killed and we are left with no breadwinner.
“My children have no father and now the [suspects] roam the streets,” she said. —



zondag, juni 22, 2014

kunst mest

Bofana Tirana Chile




Operatie Gal van de secretaris van de Stichting van de Vereniging

-------- Origineel bericht --------
Onderwerp: RE: Ter vermijding van enig misverstand Re: Mailsystem?
Datum: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:16:09 +0200
Van:
Aan: 'Crispina' <......@.....>


Hallo *



In jouw antwoord zie ik geen argument waarom jij de tekst op jouw blog zou moeten handhaven?

Of de stelling "Personal Bill of Rights" hier iets mee van doen zou hebben is iets overtrokken.

Ook de stelling " mijn geweten gaat boven juridische constructies" is ook anders uit te leggen, vraag dat maar aan de vele slachtoffers van misbruik!



Nee, * ik had alles verwacht maar geen persoonlijke aanval op mijn persoon.

Mijn bijdrage aan misbruikte lotgenoten stemt mij tevreden en zover het "mijn" internaat aangaat is de meerderheid niet op enige wijze misbruikt.
Het percentage niet seksueel misbruikte kinderen is omvangrijker dan de jongens die misbruikt of mishandeld zijn.

Ik zeg dit zonder afbreuk te doen aan de ernst van de situatie, maar wel met een aanwijzing dat misbruik en mishandeling de geschiedenis van het internaat niet mag overstemmen.

De geschiedenis verteld naast deze onverkwikkelijke zaken ook een ander verhaal.



Dat ik na de moeilijke periode van de afgelopen jaren, waarbij de naam van internaten in het algemeen een besmettelijke toon hebben gekregen, weer terug wil keren naar de oorspronkelijke positieve benadering staat mij vrij.


Goed, je weigert het bericht weg te halen schrijf je en dit omdat je het bericht van MC hebt gehaald, het zij zo.

Liever roddel op het blog dan helemaal niets schijnt jouw devies te zijn.



Laat ik dan tot slot ook eens persoonlijk worden.

De afbeeldingen cq. tekeningen die je in het bericht gebruikt, heb je niet van MC maar van mijn site en dit ofschoon toch de volgende aanwijzing op mijn homepage staat te lezen.  


© VOLH 2006 -2014 Stichting Externaat KvK. 20131834 Alle rechten voorbehouden.Niets uit deze internet presentatie mag worden verveelvoudigd, opgeslagen in een geautomatiseerd gegevensbestand en/of openbaar gemaakt in enige vorm of op enige wijze, hetzij elektronisch, door fotokopieën, opnamen of op enige andere manier zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de eigenaar. EMail: Info@volh.nl


Het schijnt dat jij met twee maten meet en mocht dit iemand opvallen dan haal je Tutu met de Personal Bill of Rights" van stal en kom je met een tekst " mijn geweten gaat boven juridische constructies" aan.
Weet je  *  de bajes zit vol met klanten die deze onzin uitkramen.



Mag ik jouw tot slot eens de volgende vragen stellen;

Wat is, buiten het kopiëren en plakken van teksten op een "Wordpress blog",  jouw bijdrage aan slachtoffers?
Heb jij met een van hun een persoonlijk contact als hulpverlener?

Heb jij een van hun bijgestaan in Utrecht?

Heb jij slachtoffers van feiten, namen en afbeeldingen uit die tijd voorzien?

Heb jij met geestelijken (ook daders) over die tijd gesproken?

Heb jij contact gehad met de generaal overste van een aangeklaagde congregatie?

Hoeveel kilometers heb je gereden om slachtoffers bij te staan?

Hoeveel rapporten heb je voor slachtoffers geschreven die als bewijs diende in behandelingen voor het msmRK in Utrecht?



Geef eens antwoord op die vragen, geen holle woorden in een email *, maar kom met feiten en zonder persoonlijke beledigingen a.u.b.

Overigens ben ik in internet makkelijk te vinden et mijn naam en adres, zeker via de Stichting Externaat.

Jij doet je stinkende best om anoniem te blijven, dat sterkt je niet echt in je argumenten, wel bevestigd het de onzin die anonimiteit begeleidt.

 

Of ik jouw aanschrijf en of deze berichten persoonlijk zijn is mij om het even, jij hebt een product van mij achterover gedrukt en tracht nu met inmiddels achterhaalde info sier te maken.

Ik heb mij erg in jouw vergist schijnt het, jammer.


Met vriendelijke groet.


**
Secretaris Stichting Externaat

Homepage

EMail



© V.O.L.H. 2006 -2014 Stichting Externaat KvK. 20131834 Alle rechten voorbehouden.





Dit e-mailbericht en enige bijlage is vertrouwelijk en uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde(n). Indien u niet de geadresseerde bent, mag u deze e-mail of enige bijlage niet kopiëren of aan derden ter inzage geven of verspreiden. Indien u deze e-mail per vergissing heeft ontvangen verzoeken wij u de afzender ervan onmiddellijk op de hoogte te stellen per e-mail en de betreffende e-mail te vernietigen.



P Denk aan het milieu voor u deze e-mail print




* Mijn eigen naam hier door mij  (Crispina) verwijderd

** Naam van de betrokken hulpverlener  hier door mij (Crispina) verwijderd 
gezien zijn eerder op het weblog van MCU ( maar inmiddels door Bert Smeets verwijderde -   danwel ten prooi gevallen aan een van de vele aanvallen van  diens groen onderaards berichtenvretertje)  bijdragen/reacties ,  mij ontbreekt   -onder hulde aan mijn hersencellen en de actualiteit  - de behoefte/prioriteit dit  (nu)  na te zoeken  op de  hierop ook al herhaaldelijk veranderde  site van  Bleijerheide Jos  )   opvallend identieke vraagstelling en  problemen t.ov. een ander persoon .



opschrift auto: Dank aan de bevrijders


Van: Crispina [mailto:....@......]
Verzonden: Samstag, 21. Juni 2014 12:29
Aan: Info@volh.nl

Onderwerp: Ter vermijding van enig misverstand Re: Mailsystem?

**,

Ter vermijding van enig misverstand tgv. de 24 uurs realiteit:

Mijn email aan jou schreef ik vannacht  - hoewel zeer tegen mijn zin - gezien het nachtelijk uur desalniettemin op bij ¨concepten¨ om mijn keuzes ook overdag nog eenmaal te kunnen controleren alvorens de deur uit te sturen.
Kwestie van simpel boerenfatsoen dankzij de wijsheid van de Heer Desmond Tutu mbt. het geweld van het ontmenselijken.

DWZ: ik had jouw email niet gezien alvorens die van mij inderdaad alsnog ongewijzigd de deur uit te doen.

Echter aan mijn keuzes: tweemaal NEE !  of  aan mijn overwegingen daartoe is niets gewijzigd

Dat betekent dus: de herhaling van het 2e NEE: Nee **ik wil geen privé-email uitwisseling met je.
En deze 3 emails zie ik dan ook absoluut niet als privé - emails. 

Wat dat betekent?
Wat mij betreft vooralsnog geen idee: als gezegd ik heb momenteel in ieder geval andere prioriteit voor mijn hersen- en nog wat andere cellen. 

Maar op mijn Crispina blog staat het jou natuurlijk vrij om gebruik te maken van jouw Personal Bill of Rights,  dat -inderdaad verdomd handige - lijstje van regels mbt. gedragskeuzes heb ik tenslotte niet voor niets overgenomen en geplaatst.

Ik wens je alle goeds met met jouw  ¨nieuwe fase in waarbij ik terug kom op de eerder ingeslagen weg¨ en je denken daarover.

Het spijt mij bijzonder voor je dat  dit een door anderen afgewongen keuze is tgv. deze ¨Deetman en aanhangels¨ jaren.
Ook dat is , één van de vele vormen van, het geweld en misbruik van deze 4 jaren.

Ik wens je toe dat je de ruimte zult kunnen ontdekken om dit ondanks al die smeerlapperij/geweld  toch een verrijkende ervaring te kunnen laten zijn en je zelf niet af te laten scheppen met die dino-stront. Dat is tenslotte gewoon versteende rotzooi.
Net als wie dan ook zijn de keuzes over jouw leven aan jou.

Met hartelijke groet

*



wordt vervolgd




zaterdag, juni 21, 2014

Apollo

Met een rood potlood en een zoen van de juf: voor Eduard









Met dank aan Zuster Cleta en haar mandenwijsheid
Zij leerde kinderen naaien en  mij aaien en dansen
met eksterogen bellen cognac en Jozefs pauweveren

vrijdag, juni 13, 2014

Treiterbeleid


¨Wat is er toch met onze samenleving aan de hand, voorzitter¨ De kosten van Verwegistan en Lewis Blayse ´aangeleerde onmacht´

God op audiëntie




Thursday 12 June 2014

Thank you for inviting me to address your symposium today.
This is an important gathering which brings together many people with significant understandings of the issues under consideration by the Royal Commission. Unfortunately my commitments preclude me from remaining with you today.
...
...
  Thirty two percent of the institutions reported to us can be described as an industrial school, training school, reformatory, orphanage or children’s home. Some of the children in these facilities would have been part of the child migration program in the third quarter of the last century. Others would have been born out of wedlock, and because of the cultural norm of that time, surrendered to institutional care. It can be assumed that with the cessation of those programs and the widespread use of contraception and more accepting social attitudes the risk to children in those circumstances has been removed.

However, with the closure of orphanages and similar residential institutions for children, the problems which children previously faced when living in dysfunctional families or without effective care from a parent or guardian have not disappeared. Many of those children will today find their way into out-of-home care. Others of them who have encountered difficulties with the justice system will end up in some form of detention. They remain vulnerable to abuse, although in a different institutional setting.
Apart from this group there are three other types of institutions which are subject to high levels of complaint in the reports we have received in private sessions. Thirty percent of our private sessions have been conducted with people who were abused in a school or other educational setting. Sixteen percent have told us they were abused in a place of worship, in a church youth group or seminary. About eight percent report abuse in out-of-home care.

The balance of those coming to us in private sessions report abuse in a variety of circumstances including child care, sporting groups, health care and juvenile justice. We can assume that the number of children in child care - both day care and after school care - will have increased.

It is obvious that in any institution which has responsibility for children there is a risk of sexual abuse. As I have said it is only the child migrant children and children born out of wedlock who are no longer in institutions. All of the other institutions and accordingly opportunities for abuse remain.
Some types of institutions, in particular out-of-home care, and child day care and after school care have increased in number over recent years. Because it takes, on average, more than 20 years for people to report abuse, in some cases significantly longer, it is wrong to assume that abuse of children in an institutional context is a problem of the past. The task of the Royal Commission is to identify appropriate recommendations to respond to a problem which, although of necessity described by past events, must respond to future risks.

I have described on previous occasions the care with which the Royal Commission selects institutions to be considered in a public hearing. Although some must be hearings in relation to institutions which have ceased to exist many are not. We have conducted public hearings into the Scouts, YMCA, three schools, two diocesan churches and the Salvation Army. All of these institutions continue to exist. The risk of abuse accordingly remains. We will continue to select public hearings where we can develop issues of present relevance and develop contemporary responses.

Faith-based institutions, whether residential facilities, schools or diocesan constitute a significant proportion of the institutions reported to us by survivors. Many of these are Catholic institutions. Although we will look at a representative sample of all institutions in public hearings it is inevitable that there will be multiple Catholic institutions which must be considered.


You will be aware of the recent statements by Vatican spokesmen and the Pope in relation to the sexual abuse of children. To further our inquiries into the response of the Catholic Church to offending priests and religious in Australia I have written to Cardinal Tarusio Bertone the Secretary of State of the Vatican City ....
...
...