Bradfield Resident

Information. Issues. Insight. Investigation.

Archive for the ‘Newspapers’ Category

Tue 08 Jun 10 | To: Child Wise | B.McMenamin quote in SMH article re mandatory internet filtering

Posted by bradfieldresident on 8 June 2010

From: Bradfield Resident
Date: Tuesday 08 June 2010 04:47 (+10)
Subject: B.McMenamin quote in SMH article re mandatory internet filtering
To: Child Wise – Office

Child Wise,

I refer to an article published on the Sydney Morning Herald website:

Filter goes ahead regardless
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/filter-goes-ahead-regardless-20100529-wmg7.html
SARAH WHYTE
May 30, 2010

The article contains the following paragraph:

But Bernadette McMenamin of the child protection group Child Wise said it was 100 per cent behind filtering illegal material. ”Sites are going to be blocked that should be blocked, and it’s absolutely essential every parent is taught about the dangers of the internet.”

Is this an accurate quote and representation of Child Wise’s position?

I note the specification of filtering ‘illegal material’; is that detail part of Child Wise’s particular position, or has it been supposed by SMH? I am inferring from the “Sites are going to be blocked” statement that Child Wise supports the filter being implemented, without restricting it to child abuse material.

I am also concerned by the quote from Ms McMenamin on three separate issues:

1. “Sites are going to be blocked” – from a technical standpoint this is known to be false and any blacklist can only ever be behind in listing any sites that could/’should’ be on the list

2. “should be blocked” – the current definition of “should be blocked”, that is, content that is or would be refused classification, is far broader than many people believe is appropriate; is not well defined (insofar as refused classification is not well defined); is certainly in excess of any child abuse prevention objectives of Child Wise or any other child protection agency; and is subject to arbitrary expansion by this or future governments and possibly even by non-representative groups and organisations.

3. I agree that “every parent is taught about the dangers of the internet”; it is my belief, and a belief held by many, that the implementation mandatory internet filter would likely lead to an actual reduction in the vigilance of parents in both monitoring and educating their children on using the internet, including by parents viewing the need to do so as less important therefore avoiding the necessary (parental) education.

I hope that Ms McMenamin (and Child Wise) are aware of these issues. If you could explain Child Wise’s position, making specific reference to these and any other publicly debated objectioned points to the mandatory filter that you choose to as additional detail, that would be of great interest to me and I imagine also beneficial to Child Wise’s public support for the filter.

Bradfield Resident
Sydney

Tuesday 08 June 2010


Bradfield Resident
bradfieldresident@gmail.com
https://bradfieldresident.wordpress.com

  • Posted in Cyber Safety Plan, Mail Sent, Sydney Morning Herald | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

    Fri 21 Aug 09 | To: The Border Mail | Fed up to back teeth with crisis article

    Posted by bradfieldresident on 21 August 2009

    From: Bradfield Resident <bradfieldresident@gmail.com>
    Date: Friday 21 August 2009 00:02 (+10)
    Subject: Fed up to back teeth with crisis article
    To: The Border Mail <bmm@bordermail.com.au>

    I am writing to express concern at the content of John Conroy’s 18 August article “Fed up to back teeth with ‘crisis'” (http://www.bordermail.com.au/news/local/news/general/fed-up-to-back-teeth-with-crisis/1598723.aspx). I understand that the article is about a forum for which Professor Anthony Blinkhorn was the keynote speaker, but I think it is inappropriate to present his words as scientific truth.

    A single example of increase in dental care after removal of fluoridation is proffered to suggest dental care costs always increase, which is absolutely not the case.

    “It strengthens dental enamel on a daily basis” has never, to my knowledge, been proven. In fact it has been shown that water fluoridation weakens teeth and bones.

    “He said 95 per cent of people in NSW drank water with fluoride added and did not protest,” is hardly an argument, besides which is it not true. I am a resident of NSW, and I protest. The reason most people haven’t protested is because flouridation has been in place virtually unquestioned for many years, and most people are under the non-proven belief that it is good for your teeth and the non-proven belief that it is harmless.

    “We have emotions on one side and science on the other,” neglects the private sector profits on the pro-fluoridation side, the fact that there exists zero high-quality scientific research demonstrating the claimed benefits of water fluoridation (even after some 70 years since it was introduce in the United States), government and health agencies misinterpreting and misrepresenting data from studies such as the York Report (the authors of which have publicly criticised UK health and dental organisations for the conclusions they have drawn), and the fact that there is scientific evidence against the use of fluoride (from all sources including water fluoridation).

    It is the case that most of Europe has rejected water fluoridation, and you will find that they do not have a dental health crisis as a result. In fact it has been shown in numerous cases that flouridated areas can have worse dental health than non-fluoridated areas.

    My understanding is that the science, overall, is uncertain with regards to the efficacy and safety of water fluoridation, though it has been said before in reports that more research needs to be done. Problems will not be found unless someone is looking for them, and it just so happens that the world mostly didn’t consider so much the problems and wasn’t looking for them. Regardless, it has never been proven to be safe, and yet people allow it. Why is it pushed so hard? Because there is a fortune to be made in turning a difficult and expensive to dispose of toxic waste product into a water additive.

    Bradfield Resident, NSW
    Friday 21 August 2009

    Posted in Fluoride, Mail Sent, Newspapers | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

    Thu 13 Aug 09 | To: SMH ReaderLink | Re: Herald Publications: Thank you for contacting ReaderLink

    Posted by bradfieldresident on 13 August 2009

    From: Bradfield NSW<bradfieldnsw@gmail.com>
    Date: Thursday 13 August 2009 22:04 (+10)
    Subject: Re: Herald Publications: Thank you for contacting ReaderLink.
    To: Reader Link <readerlink@smh.com.au>

    Reference: [redacted]

    SMH / Reader Link,

    are you incapable of answering the questions, or willfully ignoring them? The tendency of the corporate media to bury news by ignoring it is appalling.

    You can read my guess as to why the story was removed online. Feel free to comment there.

    Swine flu vaccine trial on kids story disappears from SMH website

    http://bradfieldnsw.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/swine-flu-vaccine-trial-on-kids-story-disappears-from-smh-website/

    Bradfield Resident, NSW
    Thursday 13 August 2009

    Quoted text:
    Tue 11 Aug 09 | To: SMH ReaderLink | Re: Herald Publications: Thank you for contacting ReaderLink

    Note: links to bradfieldnsw.wordpress.com were provided prior to migration to bradfieldresident.wordpress.com

    Posted in Mail Sent, Pandemic A(H1N1)v 2009, Sydney Morning Herald, Vaccines | Leave a Comment »

    Swine flu vaccine trial on kids story disappears from SMH website

    Posted by bradfieldresident on 11 August 2009

    A search with terms “swine flu vaccine trial Sydney” resulted in a hit on an article published Monday 10 August on the Sydney Morning Herald News website, news.smh.com.au, about a Sydney vaccine trial on children:

    Swine flu vaccine trial on kids begins

    10 Aug 2009 … An Australian-first trial of a swine flu vaccine on children has begun in Sydney. About 400 healthy children will be recruited across five …

    news.smh.com.au/…/swine-flu-vaccine-trial-on-kids-begins-20090810-eevb.html

    The URL it links to (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/swine-flu-vaccine-trial-on-kids-begins-20090810-eevb.html), however, results in a different page with a story about two swine flu fatalities and no mention of vaccine trials (Two swine flu sufferers die in NSW, http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/two-swine-flu-sufferers-die-in-nsw-20090810-eevb.html).

    I used an online contact form to ask what had happened to the story:

    Where has 10 August the article titled “Swine flu vaccine trial on kids begins” gone?

    Why was it removed? What are you trying to hide?

    The response I received did not appear to answer my question, only suggesting the story was found at another link (for a different story):

    A simple google search using the headline yielded the following result :
    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/two-swine-flu-sufferers-die-in-nsw-20090810-eevb.html

    So I asked again:

    my question is about the disappearance of the article titled “Swine flu vaccine trial on kids begins”, published on Monday 10 August, which talks about a vaccine trial on around 400 children.

    Why does the URL

    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/swine-flu-vaccine-trial-on-kids-begins-20090810-eevb.html

    result in a redirection to

    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/two-swine-flu-sufferers-die-in-nsw-20090810-eevb.html

    which is quite obviously a different story? The search facility for “vaccine trial” on smh.com.au webpages does not appear to reveal a new location, so I can only suppose it has been removed. Why has this story been removed? Will the story reappear on the website?

    My best guess is that the title sounds bad: “testing on kids” probably isn’t good PR for the pro-vaccine camp.

    The story seems to be from the Australian Associated Press (AAP), and appears on several other news sites. A few are listed below for reference. Note the different headlines.

    At any rate, since a couple of these existant articles refer to the two men who died with swine flu recently, it appears that the article redirected from the “missing” article’s URL is related to the same story.

    Meanwhile, I return to the issue of this “trial” not seeming to include a control group that does not receive the vaccine under trial. To me this seems like bad science, since there will not be strong evidence to indicate whether the vaccines had any effect or not, and what the associated side effects are. I’m not sure if the girl mentioned in these articles (”Ebony”) is the same as the one I heard about on the television last night; I was in the next room, not actually watching the television, when I heard the story, and wasn’t paying close attention to some of the details.

    I’m still waiting for the government’s answers to my questions about the contents of the vaccines, and about whether testing protocol and so on are affected by the “pandemic” status of the country (and/or the world).

    Other sites carrying the story about the flu vaccine trial on children :-

    Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Commentary, Pandemic A(H1N1)v 2009, Sydney Morning Herald, Vaccines | Leave a Comment »

    Tue 11 Aug 09 | To: SMH ReaderLink | Re: Herald Publications: Thank you for contacting ReaderLink

    Posted by bradfieldresident on 11 August 2009

    From: Bradfield NSW<bradfieldnsw@gmail.com>
    Date: Tuesday 11 August 2009 20:06 (+10)
    Subject: Re: Herald Publications: Thank you for contacting ReaderLink.
    To: Reader Link <readerlink@smh.com.au>

    Reference: [redacted]

    SMH / Reader Link,

    my question is about the disappearance of the article titled “Swine flu vaccine trial on kids begins”, published on Monday 10 August, which talks about a vaccine trial on around 400 children.

    Why does the URL

    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/swine-flu-vaccine-trial-on-kids-begins-20090810-eevb.html

    result in a redirection to

    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/two-swine-flu-sufferers-die-in-nsw-20090810-eevb.html

    which is quite obviously a different story? The search facility for “vaccine trial” on smh.com.au webpages does not appear to reveal a new location, so I can only suppose it has been removed. Why has this story been removed? Will the story reappear on the website?

    Bradfield Resident, NSW
    Tuesday 11 August 2009

    Original comment to ReaderLink, posted via web form at
    http://www.smh.com.au/contacts/readerlink/

    Where has 10 August the article titled “Swine flu vaccine trial on kids begins” gone?

    Why was it removed? What are you trying to hide?

    Referenced URL:

    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/swine-flu-vaccine-trial-on-kids-begins-20090810-eevb.html

    Quoted text:
    Tue 11 Aug 09 | From: SMH ReaderLink | Herald Publications: Thank you for contacting ReaderLink

    Posted in Mail Sent, Pandemic A(H1N1)v 2009, Sydney Morning Herald, Vaccines | Leave a Comment »

    Tue 11 Aug 09 | From: SMH ReaderLink | Herald Publications: Thank you for contacting ReaderLink

    Posted by bradfieldresident on 11 August 2009

    From: Reader Link
    Date: Tuesday 11 August 2009 16:35 (+10)
    Subject: Herald Publications: Thank you for contacting ReaderLink.
    To: “bradfieldnsw@gmail.com”

    Dear Bradfield,

    Recently you contacted ReaderLink. Your interest in Herald Publications is appreciated.

    The following is in response to your correspondence:
    A simple google search using the headline yielded the following result :
    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/two-swine-flu-sufferers-die-in-nsw-20090810-eevb.html

    Please quote [redacted] if you wish to contact ReaderLink again.

    Justine & Ben

    Contact us:
    readerlink@mail.fairfax.com.au
    02 9282 1569
    9.00 am – 3.00 pm Monday to Friday (except public holidays)

    Posted in Mail Received, Pandemic A(H1N1)v 2009, Sydney Morning Herald, Vaccines | Leave a Comment »