Soon after I first moved to Victoria on Vancouver Island, I went out for my Sunday morning breakfast and newspaper. I stopped at a local news stand and asked for a local paper. The sales person said, "Here it is. The Times Communist." I laughed as she handed me the Times Colonist. However she was right. The number of times since then I have heaved that paper in the garbage and shouted, The Times Communist, are frequent. (I must point out to anyone out east that the Liberals Provincially are the center right party in BC unlike the Federal Liberals.)
This last weekend was no exception. This relates to the Ted Hughes Report and his support for socialist ideals under the guise of protecting children. The Ex Judge points to Premier Campbell and blames budget cuts and lack of leadership in the Ministry of Children for hundreds of unfinished child death reviews not being done. This relates to investigating deaths of children in or out of the Ministry.
Then the Honourable Ex Judge undermines his credibility by acknowledging he knows where all the files are and what happened but refuses to identify the individuals involved. I repeat the verb "undermines" to emphasize I mean the withdrawal or the destruction of his credibility. Nor does he explain why somebody within the Ministry or the Coroners Office neglects to bring up the question of why those files are not being reviewed. Why are they in a warehouse collecting dust? So nobody, as negligent as they must have been, gets fired. Basically he blames the system, budget cuts or the politicians. Of course, as with any Ministry, if one criticizes it, the bureaucratic answer is always an enlargement of the bureaucracy. The real negligent mistake is ignored
The same scenario happens with Sherry Charlie the 19 month old aboriginal child who died from a beating when placed with a "kin and kith" relative. The standard practice when placing any child in care is to place the child with an "approved child care resource". That means the resource has been checked to be safe and sound i.e. no criminal record etc. This is done to ensure the "safety and well being" of the child. The child is then not at risk. Simple! One would think that the ex-judge would ask the following two questions. Who was the social worker that approved or negligently failed to approve that "kin and kith" approved child care resource? Has that social worker been discipled as in fired? What really happened? But no such luck.
That is too bad because the NDP are using the death of this child to undermine the Liberal approach to apprehensions which is to keep families together. The story is easy to follow. The Provincial Liberals wanted to decrease the number of children in care by leaving them with a family member as the approved child care resource.
It was the NDP and Carol James who played reprehensible political games, which is fine with the Times Colonist, with this issue and that is too bad as it subtracts from the integrity of the family unit. Socialists are not family friendly.
That Ministry has a culture of immunity. If one complains about a Social Worker to the Supervisor, the Supervisor backs up her Social Worker. If you complain about the Supervisor to the Team Leader, the Team Leader backs up his Supervisor. The Area Manager backs up his Team Leader. The Distict Manager backs up his Area Manager. That entire Ministry considers itself immune to examination and not subject to public exposure. Now Hughes wants the Ministry to be able to brainwash ("educate") MLA's in a small committee which is really a means of control. And, if some MLA has the gall to disagree, dont be surprised if he hears negative gossip about himself around the legislature and gets replaced on that Committee. If that Ministry doesn't like the message they assassinate the messenger, as that Ministry does not like outside control by anyone. Of course the NDP will assist in the assassination.
Ted Hughes glosses over such prime factual evidence such as since the Liberals took over in 2001 the death rate amongst children has been declining steadily year after year.
Hughes ignors the fact that since the Liberals took over in 2001 the number of children in care has declined from 10,000 a year to 9,000 a year.
Hughes ignores the fact that the number of apprehensions per year have decreased from 20,000 a year to 10,000 but only since the Liberals took office.
He ignores the fact that children who wind up in foster care as a result of an apprehension are more likely to wind up in Criminal Court on some criminal charge or another.
He ignores the fact that since the Liberals took over there have been no cases on BCTV or in the Province or some other paper about some parent being falsely accused or abused by some unnecessary apprehension or no cases about foster parents being threatened by social workers to not go public with their concerns or no cases of children having to go public with their lack of care.
Unlike under the NDP when there were more and more cases of parents coming forward and going public with their mistreatment by the Ministry of Children. You only have to review the papers in the period from 1995 to 2001.
It is not surprising that Hughes went so completely left wing on this report.The Panelist who ended up acting as his advisors were basically three in number. They included Judge Thomas Gove who is basically a social worker on the bench. His administrative Judge should assign him to two years doing exclusively Criminal Court. That would give him a new set of glasses. He was the Judge appointed by the NDP which led to the new Child Family and Community Services Act; which in turn led to the biggest spike in apprehensions this province has seen. Another advisor was the former NDP Minister of Child and Family Development Ed John and BC's former Child and Youth Advocate Joyce Preston appointed by the NDP.
The government's ability to take children away from their parents is draconian. It is a heavy handed power of the state that must only be exercised in the clearest of cases. There must be justifiable reasons, not political, or politically correct reasons. Under the NDP these reasons grew to include what one could describe as politically correct justifications. There are many but the easiest way to display this idea is over the question of "spare the rod and spoil the child". If you spank your child, do not be surprised if you lose him. The NDP would support the Social Workers use of Ritalin or other drugs to control teenagers being teenagers. On the other hand the center-right party's like the BC Liberals do not support unnecessary apprehensions and certainly not apprehensions based on what is politically correct such as parenting approaches espoused by the latest bleeding heart liberal expert or the use of drugs to settle kids down or control them etc. Getting the left and right on the same page on the States ability to take children away from their parents is impossible.
Socialists, of course, think all children are better off with the state then with their parents. God forbid they might let their kids watch TV or spend their money on beer and pop corn. You know, keep the parents working in the fields and factories. Tax em to death and have all children raised by committees of experts who know how to use Ritalin. Put them in group homes where they can be exposed to drugs and pimps trolling for hoars. Socialists are really committed to parenting by committee and that is an insane guaranteed way to fail. Blood is always thicker then water.
It is interesting to compare the California system to BC's as down there the social workers are also called probation officers and the apprehension system is closely connected to the criminal system. California has a population as large as Canada; some 33 million people. This is interesting because eventually many of the children apprehended by the state will wind up in the criminal judicial system. Put this fact to a social worker and they will say the kids were screwed up before they got them. You know the old "which-comes-first-the-egg-or-the-chicken" argument.
Hell! These socialists even know that if a teenager knows she can get a monthly clothing allowance while in foster care and an entertainment budget, why would she want to stay at home with a mother on welfare. What better way to undermine the family unit eh. Offer teenagers an incentive to leave Mom.
The Times Communist would have us believe that when Hughes talks they listen. Or that Hughes is a straight talker. Or that the Child Protection System is stretched beyond limits.
Hughes is looking for an all party committee and control over an independent representative for children and youth who reports to that committee. As if a so called independent representative for Children can control the independent Ministry for Children and an all party committee can get on the same page. So we will spend another 100 million of our tax dollars to confirm that we are protecting children instead of firing the employee that was negligent. As a result of this, I can easily predict that over the next five years the number of children in care will again increase from 9000 to 10,000. The death rate amongst children will again start to increase. The number of parents going public with their abuse by social workers will increase again. Thank you, Ms Social Worker. Thank you Ex-Judge Hughes. Thank you Times Communist.I am surprised that Hughes is willing to go that route especially as he is a former judge. One only has to sit in criminal provincial court and listen to defense counsel speak to sentence on behalf of some convict and, 9 out of 10 times, one will hear the words that "the convict is a by-product of the foster care system." Socialists are bound and determined to destroy as many families as they can and Hughes just gave them a boost.
The real laugh is Hughes asks the media to be shit disturbers to make sure the government follows through with his recommendations. The Times Colonist immediately put on display their bullshit conveyor image by an overly exuberant over the edge validation of the Hughes report and promotion of socialists ideals with these kinds of headlines in their first 3 pages for both Saturday and Sunday or two days in a row.
"When Hughes Talks They Listen"
"Who Let The Dogs Out? Ted Hughes That"s Who"
"A Scathing Review The Hughes Report"
and with a picture of PM Campbell, "Ex-Judge blames Budget Cuts"
"Child Protection System Stretched Beyond Limits"
" Hughes A Straight Talker"
"Premier Rebuked"
"Report Childs Province For Mismanagement"
"Reasons to Be Thankful To Ted Hughes"
Those are just the headlines. There was not a single article to the contrary. It made me so sick I wanted to barf all over that paper. It was with satisfaction that later on, I watched my cat piss and shit all over the Times Communist newspaper. Buggins, my cat knows what to do with crap like that. Thank God for the Vancouver Sun and the National.
I notice in Victoria a new and free paper called the Victoria News Daily. Hopefully with a new newspaper like that hotels like the Empress will not be losing any more major group bookings because of the aggressive street socialists druggies in Victoria, you know the former foster home drop outs lovingly protected by the Times Communist.
This last weekend was no exception. This relates to the Ted Hughes Report and his support for socialist ideals under the guise of protecting children. The Ex Judge points to Premier Campbell and blames budget cuts and lack of leadership in the Ministry of Children for hundreds of unfinished child death reviews not being done. This relates to investigating deaths of children in or out of the Ministry.
Then the Honourable Ex Judge undermines his credibility by acknowledging he knows where all the files are and what happened but refuses to identify the individuals involved. I repeat the verb "undermines" to emphasize I mean the withdrawal or the destruction of his credibility. Nor does he explain why somebody within the Ministry or the Coroners Office neglects to bring up the question of why those files are not being reviewed. Why are they in a warehouse collecting dust? So nobody, as negligent as they must have been, gets fired. Basically he blames the system, budget cuts or the politicians. Of course, as with any Ministry, if one criticizes it, the bureaucratic answer is always an enlargement of the bureaucracy. The real negligent mistake is ignored
The same scenario happens with Sherry Charlie the 19 month old aboriginal child who died from a beating when placed with a "kin and kith" relative. The standard practice when placing any child in care is to place the child with an "approved child care resource". That means the resource has been checked to be safe and sound i.e. no criminal record etc. This is done to ensure the "safety and well being" of the child. The child is then not at risk. Simple! One would think that the ex-judge would ask the following two questions. Who was the social worker that approved or negligently failed to approve that "kin and kith" approved child care resource? Has that social worker been discipled as in fired? What really happened? But no such luck.
That is too bad because the NDP are using the death of this child to undermine the Liberal approach to apprehensions which is to keep families together. The story is easy to follow. The Provincial Liberals wanted to decrease the number of children in care by leaving them with a family member as the approved child care resource.
It was the NDP and Carol James who played reprehensible political games, which is fine with the Times Colonist, with this issue and that is too bad as it subtracts from the integrity of the family unit. Socialists are not family friendly.
That Ministry has a culture of immunity. If one complains about a Social Worker to the Supervisor, the Supervisor backs up her Social Worker. If you complain about the Supervisor to the Team Leader, the Team Leader backs up his Supervisor. The Area Manager backs up his Team Leader. The Distict Manager backs up his Area Manager. That entire Ministry considers itself immune to examination and not subject to public exposure. Now Hughes wants the Ministry to be able to brainwash ("educate") MLA's in a small committee which is really a means of control. And, if some MLA has the gall to disagree, dont be surprised if he hears negative gossip about himself around the legislature and gets replaced on that Committee. If that Ministry doesn't like the message they assassinate the messenger, as that Ministry does not like outside control by anyone. Of course the NDP will assist in the assassination.
Ted Hughes glosses over such prime factual evidence such as since the Liberals took over in 2001 the death rate amongst children has been declining steadily year after year.
Hughes ignors the fact that since the Liberals took over in 2001 the number of children in care has declined from 10,000 a year to 9,000 a year.
Hughes ignores the fact that the number of apprehensions per year have decreased from 20,000 a year to 10,000 but only since the Liberals took office.
He ignores the fact that children who wind up in foster care as a result of an apprehension are more likely to wind up in Criminal Court on some criminal charge or another.
He ignores the fact that since the Liberals took over there have been no cases on BCTV or in the Province or some other paper about some parent being falsely accused or abused by some unnecessary apprehension or no cases about foster parents being threatened by social workers to not go public with their concerns or no cases of children having to go public with their lack of care.
Unlike under the NDP when there were more and more cases of parents coming forward and going public with their mistreatment by the Ministry of Children. You only have to review the papers in the period from 1995 to 2001.
It is not surprising that Hughes went so completely left wing on this report.The Panelist who ended up acting as his advisors were basically three in number. They included Judge Thomas Gove who is basically a social worker on the bench. His administrative Judge should assign him to two years doing exclusively Criminal Court. That would give him a new set of glasses. He was the Judge appointed by the NDP which led to the new Child Family and Community Services Act; which in turn led to the biggest spike in apprehensions this province has seen. Another advisor was the former NDP Minister of Child and Family Development Ed John and BC's former Child and Youth Advocate Joyce Preston appointed by the NDP.
The government's ability to take children away from their parents is draconian. It is a heavy handed power of the state that must only be exercised in the clearest of cases. There must be justifiable reasons, not political, or politically correct reasons. Under the NDP these reasons grew to include what one could describe as politically correct justifications. There are many but the easiest way to display this idea is over the question of "spare the rod and spoil the child". If you spank your child, do not be surprised if you lose him. The NDP would support the Social Workers use of Ritalin or other drugs to control teenagers being teenagers. On the other hand the center-right party's like the BC Liberals do not support unnecessary apprehensions and certainly not apprehensions based on what is politically correct such as parenting approaches espoused by the latest bleeding heart liberal expert or the use of drugs to settle kids down or control them etc. Getting the left and right on the same page on the States ability to take children away from their parents is impossible.
Socialists, of course, think all children are better off with the state then with their parents. God forbid they might let their kids watch TV or spend their money on beer and pop corn. You know, keep the parents working in the fields and factories. Tax em to death and have all children raised by committees of experts who know how to use Ritalin. Put them in group homes where they can be exposed to drugs and pimps trolling for hoars. Socialists are really committed to parenting by committee and that is an insane guaranteed way to fail. Blood is always thicker then water.
It is interesting to compare the California system to BC's as down there the social workers are also called probation officers and the apprehension system is closely connected to the criminal system. California has a population as large as Canada; some 33 million people. This is interesting because eventually many of the children apprehended by the state will wind up in the criminal judicial system. Put this fact to a social worker and they will say the kids were screwed up before they got them. You know the old "which-comes-first-the-egg-or-the-chicken" argument.
Hell! These socialists even know that if a teenager knows she can get a monthly clothing allowance while in foster care and an entertainment budget, why would she want to stay at home with a mother on welfare. What better way to undermine the family unit eh. Offer teenagers an incentive to leave Mom.
The Times Communist would have us believe that when Hughes talks they listen. Or that Hughes is a straight talker. Or that the Child Protection System is stretched beyond limits.
Hughes is looking for an all party committee and control over an independent representative for children and youth who reports to that committee. As if a so called independent representative for Children can control the independent Ministry for Children and an all party committee can get on the same page. So we will spend another 100 million of our tax dollars to confirm that we are protecting children instead of firing the employee that was negligent. As a result of this, I can easily predict that over the next five years the number of children in care will again increase from 9000 to 10,000. The death rate amongst children will again start to increase. The number of parents going public with their abuse by social workers will increase again. Thank you, Ms Social Worker. Thank you Ex-Judge Hughes. Thank you Times Communist.I am surprised that Hughes is willing to go that route especially as he is a former judge. One only has to sit in criminal provincial court and listen to defense counsel speak to sentence on behalf of some convict and, 9 out of 10 times, one will hear the words that "the convict is a by-product of the foster care system." Socialists are bound and determined to destroy as many families as they can and Hughes just gave them a boost.
The real laugh is Hughes asks the media to be shit disturbers to make sure the government follows through with his recommendations. The Times Colonist immediately put on display their bullshit conveyor image by an overly exuberant over the edge validation of the Hughes report and promotion of socialists ideals with these kinds of headlines in their first 3 pages for both Saturday and Sunday or two days in a row.
"When Hughes Talks They Listen"
"Who Let The Dogs Out? Ted Hughes That"s Who"
"A Scathing Review The Hughes Report"
and with a picture of PM Campbell, "Ex-Judge blames Budget Cuts"
"Child Protection System Stretched Beyond Limits"
" Hughes A Straight Talker"
"Premier Rebuked"
"Report Childs Province For Mismanagement"
"Reasons to Be Thankful To Ted Hughes"
Those are just the headlines. There was not a single article to the contrary. It made me so sick I wanted to barf all over that paper. It was with satisfaction that later on, I watched my cat piss and shit all over the Times Communist newspaper. Buggins, my cat knows what to do with crap like that. Thank God for the Vancouver Sun and the National.
I notice in Victoria a new and free paper called the Victoria News Daily. Hopefully with a new newspaper like that hotels like the Empress will not be losing any more major group bookings because of the aggressive street socialists druggies in Victoria, you know the former foster home drop outs lovingly protected by the Times Communist.
