Bruce Moon: Before 1840

This illuminating article by Bruce Moon (no relation to Paul) appeared in the Northland Age last Thursday.

________________________

It is a curious fact that there are many part-Maoris today (though certainly not all) who have remarkably good memories about their alleged sufferings since 1840, but completely blank minds about what happened to them any earlier.

It is not hard to work out why this should be.

But it is more helpful, perhaps, to assist them in remembering a bit more about their earlier days.

When Europeans first arrived in New Zealand, Maoris were an aggressive warrior race, ready to attack for the slightest reason, as Tasman found out quickly to his cost. [1]

This happened again when, just over a couple of years after Captain Cook, Marion du Fresne arrived off our shores.

While fishing innocently in calm waters, as he thought, he broke a tapu unknown to him.

His fate was sealed.

He and 26 of his crew were massacred and eaten forthwith. [2]

As Lieutenant Roux, one of Marion’s officers, noted in his diary, the chiefs

“declare war upon the slightest pretext, which wars are very bloody; they generally kill any prisoners they may capture”.

Not content with dispatching Marion, about 1500 tribesmen assembled to attack the hospital the French had set up on Moturua Island.

Greatly outnumbered, the French defended themselves valiantly, using their firearms, of course.

And, with no further losses, they killed about 250 of the attackers, including many chiefs who were very conspicuous amongst them.

From this episode, the tribes quickly learnt two lessons.

The first was an enduring mortal fear of the “tribe of Marion”, confirmed ninety years later by Rev. John Warren. [3]

It was one reason of many chiefs for signing the Treaty of Waitangi (though to terminate the carnage of the Musket Wars which followed, was another).

The second lesson was of the vast superiority of European firearms over their traditional weapons. So bargaining for firearms with visiting ships became a highly important activity.

The culmination was Hongi Hika’s return from a visit to England with several hundred muskets, many exchanged in Sydney for gifts he had received.

This was soon followed by the most intense slaughter of the so-called Musket Wars amongst the tribes.

Hongi’s party returning from England reached the Bay of Islands on 11 July 1821. Shortly afterwards, he began to prepare for his campaign.

On 5 September, two thousand Ngapuhi, armed with one thousand muskets, laid siege to Mauinaina pa at Tamaki.

It was taken with great slaughter – those killed including Te Hinaki and 2000 of his men, as well as many women and children.

The victorious force remained on the battlefield eating the vanquished until they were driven off by the smell of decaying bodies.

It has been noted that “deaths in this one action during the inter-tribal Musket Wars outnumber all deaths in 25 years of the sporadic New Zealand Wars.” [4] (Our emphasis)

In December 1821, Hongi attacked, but failed to take, the Ngati Maru pa Te Totara.

Upon an idea said to be from his blind and bloodthirsty wife, Turi, he decided upon treachery.

A large party of Ngapuhi chiefs went to the pa to offer peace, which was accepted. They received two meres from the Ngati Maru to seal the deal.

In the night, Ngapuhi returned to the unguarded pa and slew those within — except the sons of the senior chiefs, who were taken prisoners.

Hongi drank the blood of one chief’s son while he was still alive.

Proceeding thence to the Waikato pa of Matakitaki, Ngapuhi attacked it with withering musket fire.

Even though the Waikato were led by chief Te Whero Whero, with only four muskets they were virtually defenceless.

Trying to escape, many hundreds were trampled to death in the deep ditch surrounding the pa, or by Ngapuhi firing down upon them until tired of reloading.

Hongi’s opponent, Te Waharoa of Ngatihaua, was equally bloodthirsty.

He is reputed to have been the equal of Hongi, and to have terrified Te Rauparaha and even Te Whero Whero.

Te Waharoa concluded an uneasy peace with the Ngati Maru chief, Takurua.

Then he and his tribe arose at midnight and massacred in cold blood the too-confiding Takurua and nearly every man of his tribe.

Their bodies were devoured, and their wives and property were shared by the ruthless Ngatihauas.

Te Whero Whero, for his part, decided to make war in Taranaki, and attack the formidable pa of Pukerangiora.

When the starving defenders broke and ran, Waikato attacked.

It is said at least 200 escapees died immediately, with Te Whero Whero killing 150 single-handedly with blows to the head.

It was only when his arm grew tired and swollen he was forced to stop.

Those captives with finely tattooed faces were beheaded carefully on a wooden block, so their heads could be preserved.

Later, dozens of slaves were dragged away, carrying the heads of their relatives to be hung as war trophies in the Waikato villages in the north.

It is thought that as many as 1200 Te Ati Awa people lost their lives at Pukerangiora.

Those that stayed behind in the pa watched the awful fate of their whanau unfold before them.

The scene that followed was terrible, with huge numbers of the dead gutted and spit-roasted over fires.

Some Waikato warriors indulged in a feast of such gluttony that they died.

Te Rauparaha was sometimes called “the Maori Napoleon” (but more accurately perhaps “the Maori Genghis Khan”).

He perceived that the Waikato were probably too strong for his Ngatitoa tribe.

So he commenced a long migration south, inflicting heavy slaughter upon Rangitane on the way.

Establishing himself on Kapiti Island, Te Rauparaha commenced an invasion of the South Island. He almost exterminated the northern tribes.

Then he fell upon the Ngai Tahu, first at Kaikoura, then Kaiapohia, and in 1832 upon Onawe, with bloody massacres, cannibalism and slavery in each.

The Ngai Tahu had already been weakened by their own “Kai Huaka” or “eat relation” feud.

These are but a sample of incidents from almost continuous warfare amongst Maori tribes in the decades before 1840.

By John Robinson’s careful estimates, 35,400 were killed in a population numbering around 127,000 in 1800, with more dying from wounds. [5]

The social impact must have been profound.

Paul Moon refers to

• the “pervasive sense that communities faced the threat of destruction at the hands of their foes”
• the “heightened state of fear that dominated most if not all Maori communities”, and
• the “relentless and intense social stresses”.

He suggests that the consequences may still be felt today. [6]

It becomes clear that it is high time that this important part of our history should be recognized, and faced squarely.

It should be borne in mind when facing the substantial social problems which confront New Zealand society today.

Perhaps, for a start, a substantial part of the massive “treaty settlement” which Ngapuhi will undoubtedly be expecting, could be allocated instead to those other tribes which they harmed so.

________________________

[1]  Tu-mata-kokiri who confronted Tasman in turn got their comeuppance, being exterminated by Ngai Tahu and Ngatiapa, the last battle being in the Paparoas about 1800.

[2]  For a good account of this episode, read Ian Wishart’s “The Great Divide”, 2012, ISBN 978-0-9876573-6-7.

[3]  See T.L.Buick, “The Treaty of Waitangi”, 1914.

[4]  Many of the details in this account are taken from “The Encyclopedia of New Zealand” and other sources, easily obtained by “googling”. Much is summarised by Pember Reeves in “The Long White Cloud, 1898, republished as ISBN 0-85558-293-6.

[5]  “When Two Cultures Meet”, 2012, pp64-65, ISBN1-872970-31-1.

[6]  “This Horrid Practice”, 2008, pp151-3, ISBN 978-0-14-300671-8.

PREPARING THE PARROTS: A TRAINING COLLEGE GRADUATE ON THE CULTURAL CORRUPTION OF TEACHERS

The ethically-cleansed, ethnically compliant
New Zealand teacher.

The following story made my blood boil.

It needs to be put in front of everyone who cares about the education of our children.

It’s about the cultural brainwashing programme that has turned every New Zealand teacher into a propaganda parrot for primitivism.

It’s the account of a new teacher who, alone in his year group, had the guts to stand up to his training college indoctrinators.

As you may discern from his writing, he’s a highly literate and learned young man. He’s also been a nationally-ranked sportsman.

Yet despite sending his stellar CV to around a hundred New Zealand schools, he was granted the sum total of one interview — and no job.

Forced to conclude that his preference for truth, civilisation and racial equality has made him a pariah to the pinko, pagan-worshipping, West-hating educational elite in his homeland, last Saturday he boarded a plane to go teaching in a country that values his knowledge more highly.

The following are his words. The pictures and captions are mine.

________________________________________

CRITIQUE OF NEW ZEALAND’S
TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTES

By A Teacher In Exile

As a recent graduate in secondary teaching, I have been invited to share my experiences of the teacher training I received.

I shall describe the cultural indoctrination to which trainee teachers are subjected and the flow-on effect this has on school culture and classroom learning.

I am aware of the risks involved in taking this action (my lecturers and classmates should have little trouble identifying me), but I hope that my example will encourage other teachers (and trainee teachers) to come forth and share their own experiences.

It is important that readers of this blog understand the hoops that trainee teachers are forced to jump through, and the limits on freedom of thought that are imposed from above.

Education has always been the battlefield on which culture wars are fought, and if we are to avoid a future of cultural separatism in this country, it is imperative that we end the systematic indoctrination of teachers and students.

THE INTERVIEW

Before one is accepted into a teacher training programme, it is necessary to attend an interview conducted by the teaching staff.

In every interview, applicants are asked about their relationship to the Treaty of Waitangi, and their loyalty to ‘treaty principles’.

“There is something vaguely inquisitional
about the framing of these questions.”

There is something vaguely inquisitional about the framing of these questions, and suspicion falls upon any applicant who diverts from the official line.

In my interview, I circumvented these questions by declaring myself an internationalist.

(The confused expression on the faces of my left-leaning interviewers betrayed their cognitive dissonance: internationalism used to be a left-wing principle.)

I affirmed that all human beings are members of the human race, and that pigeonholing individuals into sub-groups does more harm than good.

(Further underscoring the contradictions in their own thought, the interviewers agreed with me that pigeonholing Maori is indeed harmful.)

At the conclusion of the interview, I was thanked for my honesty; but as subsequent events would demonstrate, there are limits to how much honesty these people are willing to tolerate.

THE INDUCTION

The first day at a teacher training institute is not unlike one’s first day at school: strange, bewildering and slightly intimidating.

Maori culture is very much to the fore, as Maori songs are learnt and sung, and mihis are taught in special workshops. (We were encouraged to take our mihis into the schools and to deliver them before staff during our placements.)

“This veneer of bicultural identity masks
something much more sinister.”

A trip to a local marae is customary, and in some cases, trainee teachers will stay in the marae overnight. A Maori elder conducts the usual ceremonies and formalities, addressing the trainee teachers in English and Maori.

In my year, the appointed speaker was an affable fellow who officially pronounced us “tangata whenua”. I am not sure what authority he possessed to make this pronouncement, but I very much doubt that it would hold up in the Waitangi Tribunal.

All of this may seem fairly harmless, and even fun, in a naïve, let’s-all-pretend-to-be-Maori kind of way. Many of my classmates certainly viewed it that way.

However, as lectures commenced, it became apparent that this veneer of bicultural identity masks something much more sinister.

‘TREATY PRINCIPLES’ AND THE CURRICULUM

Within our education system, the New Zealand Curriculum enjoys the status of a revealed text, and ‘treaty principles’ constitute the moral code. (Commandments, if you will.)

Reminiscent of the worst totalitarian dictatorships,
only trainees prepared to parrot the state’s primitivist
dogma are permitted to teach New Zealand children.

In innumerable essays that are written throughout the year, trainee teachers must refer back to the New Zealand Curriculum and endorse the Vision, Principles, Values, Key Competencies and Pedagogy contained within.

References to ‘treaty principles’ abound in these sections of the curriculum.

Under Principles, it is stated that

“The curriculum acknowledges the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and the bicultural foundations of Aotearoa New Zealand.”

The Vision is defined as one in which

“young people work to create an Aotearoa New Zealand in which Maori and Pakeha recognise each other as full Treaty partners.”

And it is further claimed that the curriculum

“will help schools give effect to the partnership that is at the core of our nation’s founding document.”

Woe betide any trainee teacher who points out that the word ‘partnership’ does not appear in the Treaty of Waitangi.

[Or that the Principles of the Treaty were invented in 1989, and the name ‘Aotearoa New Zealand’ only relatively recently. (The Maori name for New Zealand in the 1840 Treaty was Nu Tirani, while Aotearoa meant the North Island until well into the 20th century.) – JA]

PROTECTION OF THE MAORI LANGUAGE

The New Zealand Curriculum asserts that

“all students will have the opportunity to acquire some knowledge of Maori language and culture.”

A supporting document produced by the NZ Teachers Council – the New Zealand Graduating Teacher Standards – sets out the following condition:

“graduating teachers are required to have knowledge of tikanga and te reo Maori to work effectively within the bicultural contexts of Aotearoa New Zealand.”

The Maorification of tag.

In written essays, trainee teachers must provide examples of how they will incorporate Maori language (and concepts) into their lessons.

In one of my set readings, it was argued that the tag game “stuck-in-the-mud” throws up

“an opportunity to be culturally inclusive (partnership) by providing the vehicle to openly discuss (participation) sensitivities such as tapu (sacredness) and in doing so acknowledges the nexus between Maori and Pakeha.”

Scholarly writing of such low-level, cringe-making quality is typical of many of the texts that trainee teachers are forced to read and to quote from.

I also remember having to respond to an article advocating the compulsory teaching of te reo Maori.

BISHOP OF WAIKATO

Woolly-woofterism at its wacky Waikatoey worst.

The three ‘R’s that are taught in our teacher training institutes are ‘Read,’ ‘Revere’ and ‘Regurgitate’.

This is especially true in the case of Waikato University Professor of Maori Education Russell Bishop: a crashing charlatan whose academic output is a staple of the current teacher training programmes.

Every trainee teacher must study Bishop’s ‘Culturally Responsive Pedagogy of Relations,’ which informs both the Te Kotahitanga Effective Teaching Profile and the Tataiako Cultural Competencies for Teachers of Maori Learners document.

Bishop claims that the guiding idea of his life’s work is encapsulated in the following quote:

“This then is the great humanistic and historical task of the oppressed: to liberate themselves and their oppressors as well.

The oppressors, who oppress, exploit and rape by virtue of their power, cannot find in this power the strength to liberate either the oppressed or themselves.

Only power that springs from the weakness of the oppressed will be sufficiently strong to free both.”

                                                                     – Paolo Freire

And who pays this Bishop for his nonsensical,
sopping wet sermons?  You do.

In essence, Bishop’s contribution is the development of a race-based pedagogy built around a series of Maori metaphors.

It posits that Maori students learn differently from their non-Maori peers, and must therefore be taught differently: “as culturally-located human beings.”

Educational underachievement among Maori is attributed to negative student-teacher relations, and something called ‘deficit theory’: low expectations of Maori learners based on negative cultural stereotypes.

Echoing Paolo Freire’s great insight, Bishop coined the following slogan for his culturally-responsive pedagogy:

 “what is good for everyone is not always good for Maori; but what is good for Maori is good for everyone.”

(Could the subtext be any more obvious?)

As I would learn, anybody who dares to challenge this kind of sophistry is soon brought to heel.

The following story clearly demonstrates that one must subscribe to a race-based political ideology if one is to have any hope of gaining teacher registration in New Zealand.

QUASHING DISSENT

One of the essays that I had to write concerned the ‘roles and responsibilities of teachers and learners in the New Zealand classroom.’

The learning outcomes for this essay centred on biculturalism, te reo Maori and the historical, political, social and cultural influences on New Zealand schools.

Failure to satisfy the requirements for any one of these learning outcomes would necessitate a re-submission, and failure on the second attempt would mean failure for the course.

Frustrated by the indoctrination to which I had been subjected, I wrote critically about many of the issues we were expected to cover.

My intention was not to be provocative or incendiary, but to assess the issues in an objective, thoughtful and reasoned way.

When my essay was returned to me, I was shocked to discover that I had been given the lowest possible grade.

Even more distressing were the spiteful comments that appeared in the margin of my essay, accusing me of “monocultural ignorance” and of being “patronizing.”

The marker’s tone was defensive and censorial, as if I had no right to hold the views that I had expressed.

What follows is an excerpt from my essay in which I critically evaluate the Tataiako Cultural Competencies.

“The Tataiako Cultural Competencies for Teachers of Maori Learners document lays out a number of competencies that teachers should aim to achieve:

• Wananga: participating with learners and communities
• Whanaungatanga: actively engaging in respectful relationships with  Maori learners, parents and whanau, hapu, iwi and the Maori community
• Manaakitanga: showing integrity, sincerity and respect towards Maori beliefs, language and culture
• Tangata Whenuatanga: affirming Maori learners as Maori
• Ako: taking responsibility for their own learning and that of Maori learners

Though articulated with specific reference to Maori, one would like to believe that these cultural competencies are reducible to basic moral principles that are in fact universal.

Any decent, fair-minded, morally functional human being ought to know instinctively how to treat somebody of another culture; it would be an insult to our integrity to suggest otherwise.

Certainly, there is much in the Tataiako document of a highly questionable nature – nebulous language that conceals some very woolly thinking.

The glorification of Maori knowledge, and the attendant accusation against ‘Eurocentric’ education, should be taken with a grain of salt.

We should take heed of the request by the Maori petitioners to share with their young the fruits and the glories of Western learning.

These Maori elders understood the value of reason, science and Enlightenment principles, and they understood that a retreat into primitivism, tribalism and superstition would be detrimental to the Maori people.

As teachers, we may have a duty to people, or groups of people, but we also have a duty to truth, and to neglect this duty would be a supreme act of cowardice.”

A heretical suggestion which the examiner
forced the brave trainee teacher to rewrite.

In the margin beside this paragraph, the marker comments:

“I think you are on questionable ground yourself here, and once again your tone implies a monocultural ignorance.”

 When I complained to the Programme Leader that I had been penalised for holding contrarian views, and that the department was not upholding the university’s policy of freedom of thought, she defended her colleague in casuistic fashion:

“My reading of your assignment and [the marker’s] comments was that [the marker] was at times offering a different perspective from yours.

Staff are mindful that this programme serves as a preparation for teaching, and that our graduates must be able to meet the graduating teaching standards, and therefore on occasions do provide a different point of view.” 

(Note the way that she cloaks this statement of mandatory compliance in the language of diversity and relativism.)

My essay was re-marked by another staff member, who faulted me for not “discussing the place of te reo Maori or tikanga in either science or English,” and for using “emotive language” in the phrase “the fruits and glories of Western learning.”

Of course much of te reo Maori
is simply Maorified English.

The grotesque quest for cultural relativity.

I was forced to resubmit the essay, exactly as they wanted it, expunged of all signs of a critical intellect.

It is a terrible thing to be conscripted into writing something that you do not believe, and for this to occur in a university environment is completely unacceptable.

All New Zealand teachers must be certified
culturally safe by the Treatifarian Thought Police.

THE SILENT MAJORITY

 As far as I know, I was the only trainee teacher in my year to clash with the department over an ideological difference of opinion.

I know from conversation with my classmates that there were others who shared my misgivings about biculturalism and treaty principles, but in essays and online forums, these people were happy to toe the treaty line.

Given the time and money that they had invested in the teacher training programme, it is perhaps understandable that they should have acquiesced in the propaganda.

Most of them were simply focused on passing the course so that they could enter the teaching profession and establish a career.

But what I always found so appalling was the ease and complacency with which my classmates collaborated with the establishment.

They were willing to overlook the systematic indoctrination, and their complicity caused them no compunction.

They acted without regard for the integrity of our education system, and without regard for the educational opportunities of our young learners.

If these people were really invested in the future of our country, its people and its schools, they should have felt much more inclined to stick their necks out.

When we were invited to respond to an article advocating the compulsory teaching of te reo Maori in an online forum, I was the only respondent to reject the proposal.

During a unit of our course on the Treaty of Waitangi, I posted a link to David Round’s treaty-related essays and encouraged my classmates to examine the other side of the argument.

Not a soul responded to that thread, but one of my classmates later described my action as “extremely stupid.”

Cowardice and passivity of this kind cannot be sufficiently condemned.

It is the complicity of trainee teachers that has perpetuated the problems in our education system – and yet this state of affairs is entirely avoidable.

Student teachers: will you join the resistance?

If trainee teachers put up even the slightest resistance, there is no way that teacher training programmes could continue in their present form.

But year after year, no one speaks out.

Let us not forget that Dante reserved one of the fieriest corners of his inferno for those who, in a time of moral crisis, try to stay neutral.

President John F Kennedy paraphrasing Dante.

 SCHOOL CULTURE AND CLASSROOM LEARNING

 Placements provide trainee teachers with an opportunity to gain practical teaching experience within a variety of host schools.

They also provide illuminating case studies in how the perverse ideas propagated by our teacher training institutes infect school culture and classroom learning.

New Zealand’s cultural indoctrination system
would make a communist dictator proud.

What I observed during my placements were the manifestations of cultural indoctrination, made possible by the acquiescence of school staff and the suspension of their critical faculties.

Treaty principles, it seemed, were not only entrenched in our national curriculum, but also in the minds of our teachers and principals.

Visit almost any school website nowadays and you will find a statement of allegiance to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

If you then click open the school’s ERO report, you are likely to find a recommendation that the school takes steps to raise Maori achievement levels.

From my experience during placements, I noted a general fixation with Maori and treaty issues in professional development programmes.

In the space of two weeks, I attended four professional development seminars, and issues relating to Maori education were covered in each one.

I listened in disbelief to a one-hour presentation on how primitive Maori sacrifice rituals could be incorporated into the study of The Hunger Games in order to better serve Maori learners.

(And this was at a predominantly white school in a predominantly white area of New Zealand.)

Maori learners could read ‘This Horrid Practice’
to see how their precolonial forebears staved off
hunger. But how would that serve them?

The Tataiako Cultural Competencies for Teachers of Maori Learners document was specifically designed for professional development, and there is a constant push to ‘deepen’ teachers’ understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The real tragedy is when treaty principles encroach on classroom learning.

I am young enough to remember being exposed to an inordinate amount of bicultural literature as part of my high school English education.

Nowadays, students do not study Bruce Mason’s The Pohutukawa Tree, but New Zealand’s highest grossing film, Boy.

(This is what it means to ‘cater to Maori needs’ and to ‘include a Maori perspective.’)

Resources that have been developed by the Ministry of Education for teaching the Treaty of Waitangi are widely used in Social Studies classes, propagandizing treaty lies, and brainwashing the younger generation.

I visited one school where male students were forced to participate in an inter-house haka competition.

How is it that in a civilised country where
violence is “not OK”, it is OK to stage contests forcing
boys to rage like savages in the name of “culture”?

At the same school, a ‘He Kakano’ initiative to introduce more Maori iconography around New Zealand schools was greeted with rapturous enthusiasm.

I even heard it rumoured that the NZQA was going to introduce an achievement standard for cooking hangis in Home Economics.

THE MYTH AND THE MYTHMAKERS

There seems to be a general attitude among teachers and principals that uniting students under a common Maori banner has a positive effect on school culture: group identity enforces group belonging, gives weight to a shared vision, and if properly manipulated, promotes social order and cohesion.

Modern history provides ample examples of how those in power have created identity myths to mobilise people in pursuit of their own political ends.

We would do well, therefore, to question the myth that is being foisted on our student population, and to question the motivations of those who have prescribed that myth.

Maori culture, by which our education system now defines itself, is a primitive culture. Primitivism represents an early phase of human development, long before mankind had achieved civilisation.

Primitivism is not preferable to civilisation, and it is folly to pretend otherwise. Civilisation has elevated our minds and refined our nature; primitivism bears the stamp of our lowly origins.

What sort of education system accentuates
the primitive and eliminates the sensitive?

The ‘anarchy of instincts’ made manifest in the haka stands in symbolic relations to the mode of existence from which it sprang. To promote such barbaric practices is to turn the mind away from nobler forms of expression, and to shut out the airs of heaven.

It is anti-intellectual, and it militates against education.

New Zealand’s Samantha Powell representing
our supposedly peace-loving nation at the
Miss Universe pageant in Vietnam in 2008.

Refashioning our schools with Maori iconography to reflect the primitive mind will also have a barbarising effect. As one early European visitor to New Zealand described the Maori aesthetic: “it is all gargoyles and no angels.”

What other nation on Earth
prioritises barbarity over beauty?

The reorientation of our national curriculum towards biculturalism and ‘treaty principles’ reflects a political agenda to enshrine Maori language and culture, and to move New Zealand towards co-governance.

In taking it upon themselves to determine the identity of our nation, the NZ Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education have also been motivated by their own vanity.

They have no business dictating to us what our culture should be, and it is arrogant of them to claim this right.

CULTURALISM AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

Culturalism is defined as the ideology of ethnic politics.

A key feature of the culturalist enterprise is the fetishization of difference, such that ethnic identity assumes almost sacred value.

In a particularly revealing line from our national curriculum, it is argued:

“By understanding and using te reo Maori, New Zealanders become more aware of the role played by the indigenous language and culture in defining and asserting our point of difference in the wider world.”

While it is true that Maori culture sets us apart from the rest of the world, it is worth considering the effects of fetishizing this ‘point of difference.’

By extolling a culture simply in virtue of being different, culturalists encourage pernicious forms of relativism and tribalistic habits of mind.

This is quite evident among prominent Maori leaders such as Margaret Mutu and Annette Sykes. Convinced of their own uniqueness, they divorce themselves from the rest of the human race, and retreat into their own narrow world of Maoridom.

 Annette Sykes and Margaret Mutu.

Regrettably, I observe the same tendency in the younger generation of Maori who have been indoctrinated into thinking that they, too, are different.

We would better serve Maori students if we stressed commonality among races and encouraged an internationalist perspective.

A disturbing feature of culturalism in education is that it breaks down the essential distinction between local knowledge, acquired at home, and disciplinary knowledge, acquired at school.

Disciplinary knowledge is based on objective truth and universal principles. It broadens the mind by taking students beyond themselves and beyond their immediate environment.

The culturalist approach of making ethnicity relevant to classroom learning undermines disciplinary knowledge and cuts students off from the international community.

This is especially true in the exciting new era of online education where the proliferation of MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) and websites like the ‘Khan Academy,’ are democratizing knowledge like never before.

The influence of these resources is set to grow, bringing the best teachers in the world to the widest possible audience, and creating a level playing field for all students.

Online education is reinforcing the primacy of disciplinary knowledge and accelerating a linguistic convergence towards the language of academia, English.

CULTURE: A BETTER ALTERNATIVE

The culturalists are right about one thing: culture really does matter.

But culture (the noble pursuit of truth, wisdom and beauty) should never be confused with culturalism (the reification of ethnicity).

Educators need to learn the difference.

To illustrate this point, we might compare the Renaissance movements in both European and Maori history.

The European Renaissance involved looking outward to acquire new learning; the Maori Renaissance involved looking inward to advance a political cause.

So why is it that our schools teach the latter to the exclusion of the former?

An education system that is committed to culture, as opposed to culturalism, should reflect the humanist ideals of the European Renaissance.

It should pass on “the best that has been said and thought,” and not tailor learning to specific ethnic groups.

Western learning represents a high-water mark in the history of mankind, and this is why it dominates school (and university) curriculums.

In other parts of the world, people have embraced our intellectual traditions, and increasingly, they are beating us at our own game. Like all serious-minded people, they understand that “we see further because we stand on the shoulders of giants.”

One woman who benefited from an education in culture is Dame Kiri Te Kanawa.

She stands as an example to her people (and to the New Zealand education system) of what Maori can achieve if they aspire to excellence on a global stage.

What would she make of Russell Bishop’s ‘Culturally Responsive Pedagogy of Relations’?

And how might her life have unfolded had she been taken aside at school and told that she learnt differently from her non-Maori peers?

The race that counts is the human race.

Dame Kiri Te Kanawa succeeded not because she was treated differently from others but because she was treated the same.

She was also given the best that our culture can offer, and students deserve nothing less.

WHAT THEN MUST WE DO?

As New Zealand’s educational ranking continues to slide in international tables, the National Party rolls out managerial solutions and promises more money for teachers.

No politician has dared to question what is being taught in our classrooms, what is being taught in our teacher training institutes, and what is being prescribed by our national curriculum.

If our education system is to regain its credibility, there must be a return to disciplinary knowledge and an end to culturalist influence.

(If we require a model, the British Secretary of Education, Michael Gove, has executed precisely these moves in the past two years, rewriting both the History and the English high school curriculums.)

‘Treaty principles’ must be removed from our national curriculum and the cultural indoctrination of students and teachers must cease. The ‘cult of biculturalism’ is wasting teachers’ precious time, and it is producing mind rot in the classroom.

If everyone who reads this post sends the link
to every teacher and trainee teacher they know,
the debate will snowball and a hero will emerge.

In this post, I have provided my own personal account of the teacher training that I received.

Every teacher has his/her own story about cultural indoctrination in our schools and teacher training institutes.

I encourage all members of my profession to share their stories of ‘treaty absurdity’ by leaving a comment below.

A lone voice has little force in this context, but if we can catalogue our concerns and describe our experiences, we may create the groundswell of opposition that is so desperately needed.

____________________________________

Now back to me, the blog owner. I thank A Teacher In Exile for sending me his story. I’m proud to post it.

I share his hope that other teachers will now come forward with their own stories. Please urge them to do so.

Tell them that even their anonymous accounts, added together, will apply crucial pressure to the propaganda parrot trainers. With enough pressure to tell the truth, these habitual liars will have no choice but to back down.

So let’s get debate raging in staffrooms up and down the land. Send this to everyone you know in education. Every principal. Every Education Ministry employee. Every teacher

Ask every trainee teacher, ‘Do you have a noble ambition to inspire our children with “the best that has been said and thought”? Or will you be content to be a propaganda parrot for the state?’

In the war of ideas between civilisation and primitivism, there is no more important battleground than the nation’s classrooms.

If you’re a teacher or trainee teacher and really do want to make a difference to New Zealand, then our children and generations yet unborn need you to stand up now.

Aucklanders: speak NOW or forever bribe the tribe ($1500-$4000 for a Cultural Impact Assessment)

This just in from 1LAW4ALL. Aucklanders have until 5pm tomorrow Tuesday 22 July to register their rage against the purple pox of Cultural Impact Assessment…

———————————-

THIN END OF THE WEDGE?
or THE END OF AUCKLAND’S WORLD?

Yes – you already know about the disastrous Auckland disUnity Scam, but new revelations reveal more of just how bad it’s getting.

As a consequence of new rules and regulations recently adopted by the Auckland Council, applicable to all of Auckland, hundreds of thousands of Auckland properties and property owners will be ensnared in the Cultural Impact Assessment [CIA] financial enrichment regime of Auckland part-Maori tribes and sub-tribes.

Given that the average charge for a CIA is $2300 and that they range from $1500 to $4000, one has to wonder at one tribe’s Auckland disUnity Scam submission that asserts:

“we could not gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission.”

Yeah, right.

If you thought the epidemic of purple dots was bad enough, submissions to the Auckland Unitary Plan show that part-Maori tribes and sub-tribes want vast areas added to the schedule of ‘Sites of Significance,’ including Remuera, Pukekohe and Rakino Island!

No part of Auckland is safe from their money-grabbing hands. Waterways, volcanic cones, mountains and hills – you name it.

As one submission went:

“The entire [Auckland] area is of significance to this tribe. For the tribe, this is a single cultural landscape, not a series of occasional ‘sites’.” [Purple dots].

Just in case you missed that: All of Auckland is to become a site of significance and/or value, if that tribe has its way.

“Unfortunately, the tribe has not completed its research about sites of special significance to it, but attached is a list of those that are known. It is requested that provisions be added to the Plan to protect them environmentally and for cultural use.“

And the for-starters wish list of land grabs which one tribe wants to have control over and turn into a CIA cash cow is:

1. Hays Stream (Waipokapu)
2. Hingaia Stream
3. Ihumatao
4. Kaikaka
5. Karaka Stream
6. Mangapu (Symonds Stream)
7. Manatangi Marae
8. Mangatawhiri Forest
9. Mangere Mountain -Te Pane-Mata-Oho
10. Matukutureia
11. Mauku Stream
12. Maungaroa
13. Motu Mako (Shark Island)
14. Mt Hobson – Ohinerau
15. Mt Smart – Rarotonga
16. Mt St John-Te Kopuke
17. Ngakoroa Stream
18. Oira Creek
19. Opaheke
20. Otuataua
21. Taihiki River
22. Tamaoho (Mt William)
23. Te Aparangi
24. Te Aunaaunga
25. Te Awanui O Taikehu
26. Te Hihi Creek
27. Te la Roa
28. Te Maketu
29. Te Maketu Falls
30. Te Tokaroa (Meola) Reef
31. Titi
32. Tuhimata
33. Waihoehoe Stream
34. Waitete Pa
35. Waraha Stream
36. Whakaupoko (Bald Hill)
37. Whaneamaire Stream
38. Whangapouri Stream
39. Whatapaka
40. Whatapaka Creek
41. Papahinu
42. Paparata
43. Paparimu
44. Paraheka
45. Patumahoe
46. Pehiakura
47. Puhitahi
48. Puhitahi Creek
49. Pukekiwiriki
50. Pukekohe
51. Rakino Island
52. Remuera
53. Slippery Creek (Otuwairoa)

Unless you want to become tenants and serfs on your own property, you have until 5.00pm tomorrow, Tuesday 22 July, to get your counter-submission of concern, angst and displeasure in to the Council.

Hop to it.

For more information from the Democracy Action web site, click here.

Or click here to send an e-mail

“A victory for Maori”: judge discharges raging drunken racist boy racer mobster burglar so he can be king

How many crimes can a Maori prince commit before he’s convicted
— or crowned?

A billion dollars in assets, and still no change to the bad stats.

And that’s just in the Tainui royal family, where the ruling class and the underclass appear to be closely related.

This is the story of what happened when the most rebellious member of the rebel court of Ngaruawahia came face to face with perhaps the most weak-kneed judge of the Court of New Zealand.

It concerns the repeated offending of both Prince Korotangi Paki and Judge Philippa Cunningham.

It features the imaginative excuses of King Tuheitia, Tuku Morgan, Annette Sykes and Kim Workman.

And it goes to the heart of the crisis that this site seeks to expose: the relentless glorification in a supposedly civilised country of the primitive over the civilised, not just by those who identify as primitive, but also by those who are supposed to represent the civilised.

THE OFFENCES

The New Zealand Herald reports:

Paki was drinking with three co-accused in Kaiti, Gisborne, on March 18.

The defendants drove to the Top Ten Holiday Park where they stole two $800 surfboards which belonged to Whakatane High School, according to the police summary of facts.

One defendant returned a surf board when stopped by a member of the public. The second surfboard was placed by Paki in a car the group were using.

They then stole $650 of goods from the boot of a vehicle parked in a man’s driveway, and drove metres down the road where they stole another surfboard from a garage.

THE COURT CASE

Consequences?: PC Plod was no match for the PC judge.
(How ironic that Philippa Cunningham’s initials are also PC.)

Here’s a summary of the case with excerpts from stuff:

The defence:

Paki also applied for a discharge without conviction today. [His three accomplices on the burglary and theft charges had been discharged a few days before.]

His lawyer Paul Wicks QC told the court a conviction would impede his ability to accede to the throne. Potential successors had to have an unblemished record because of the custodial responsibilities involved as King.

 The prosecution:

However, police prosecutor Gul Qaisrani argued a discharge without conviction would set a negative precedent, describing Paki’s attitude during the time of the second offences as “reckless”.

“He knew  at the time what would be the consequences and what would be the implications of the conviction. Therefore he should be liable for the punishment,” he said.

The fact Paki had been on bail for the drink driving incident when he carried out the burglary and theft was “an aggravating factor” he said, which separated him from his three co-accused.

The decision:

Judge Philippa Cunningham discharged Paki without conviction on all charges but imposed a special condition that he provide the court evidence he did not have an alcohol problem or if he did, that he had addressed it with counselling.

 THE RAGING EGOTIST

I’ll give you my thoughts on that decision in a moment. (Quite a lot of them, in fact, because I think this is important.)

But first let’s get to know Prince Korotangi Paki — the Prince Harry of Maoridom — second of two sons of King Tuheitia Paki.

Here’s the Tainui Kid in 2012 expounding his leadership philosophy on Facebook after being ejected from his kapa haka team for unprincely behaviour…

The Tainui Kid and his expletive-laden rant.

Don’t worry if you couldn’t quite make out the words — I’ve laid them out below. In modifying them for a family audience, I realised that they would make quite a rhythmical and spirited haka…

Korotangi Paki’s leadership haka. Might there be a connection between certain
customary rituals and elevated levels of Maori youth violence?

Although I’m being satirical here, how can such angry rituals as hakas and powhiris not be fuelling Maori youth violence?

Call me an angry white male, but surely it’s time for Maori to complete the journey from the primitive to the civilised world by saying “It’s not OK” to these relentlessly boorish,  backward expressions of “culture”.

I feel sorry for all the decent, thoroughly modern Maori who just want to live their lives as equal citizens of a country in which they are endlessly patronised by the nation’s leaders, and continually shamed by their own.

Not only must they put up with being “represented” by the violence and foul-mouthed racism of the Harawira family, but now the so-called “royal” family are letting the side down as well.

This is what passes for racial tolerance in the household of the Maori “king”…

THE ABUSIVE RACIST

Anti-Asian racism by resentful Maori is nothing new.
Racist abuse by a member of the royal family is.

And there’s more from prince Korotangi Paki, this time invoking the Nazis and the Mongrel Mob…

THE MOBSTER SALUTE

This Facebook post reveals the young prince is an artist. Good on him for
that. Just a shame that “f ck” and the Mongrel Mob salute “seig (sic) hail (sic)”
seem to be acceptable usage in the Maori variant of the King’s English.

To be fair to the Mongrel Mob, they only misspell “sieg”. The king’s son manages to get “heil” wrong as well. He’s also come up with innovative new variants of both “sieg” and “dog”…

THE ILLITERATE WARRIOR

“Seigg dogg and his bro”: Prince Korotangi Paki reenacting the savagery
of his skull-smashing cannibal warrior ancestor Te Wherowhero .

If only his offending was limited to word crimes. Or even just one or two crimes.

But sadly, the second in line to the Maori throne ticks all the boxes of a typical South Auckland street crim.

No arrests for physical violence so far, it seems. Let’s hope it stays that way after September, when he becomes a father with his pregnant girlfriend.

Judging by his crazed YouTube tirade above, who can be confident?

And remember, that video was made after he’d nearly killed himself and a friend the year before…

THE DUMB RECIDIVIST

The Herald reports that in 2011, a 16 year old Korotangi was up on
boy racer charges after nearly killing himself and his friend in a car crash.
He seems to have been let off that one too.

Disgracefully, it appears the 2013 drink-driving charge is the second driving charge for which the king’s son has gone unpunished.

The media can find no record of Paki even going to court for his near-fatal boy racer crash in 2011. This despite the police having charged him with dangerous driving.

At a court appearance on 5 May 2014 over his burglary and drink-driving charges, his lawyer said that he was “appearing for the first time”.

Why did he not appear in 2011?

THE PREVIOUS LET-OFF?

The Mitsubishi Lancer that Paki wrapped round a Huntly power pole.

Question: What do the young prince’s racist Facebook posts, raging video, and near-fatal car crash have in common?

Answer: they all happened before the four charges (two of burglary, one of theft and one of drunken driving) that Judge Philippa Cunningham let him off recently.

Charges to which he had pleaded guilty.

THE HISTORY OF OFFENDING

To keep track of the prince’s largely unpunished offending:

• 2011 — wrapped a car round a power pole in near-fatal boy racer crash. Charged, then let off by police.*
• 2012 — made a foul-mouthed video rant after being kicked out of a kapa haka contest.
• 2013 — October: caught driving drunk. Let off, apart from 8 month loss of licence.
  2013 — December: posted racist Facebook comment abusing Chinese.
• 2014 — March: while on bail, went on burglary bender, stealing over $2000 worth of surfboards and clothes. Let off.

Roll on 2015. What will he do for an encore?

* At his 5 May 2014 court hearing, Paki’s lawyer said he was appearing for the first time, indicating police must have quietly dropped the dangerous driving charges in 2011.

THE WORST OFFENDER?

Let’s be clear, there are three main offenders in this story:

1. The Maori king’s son – for three times burgling and stealing while on bail for drink-driving at over seven times the legal limit, having previously been charged with boy racing and crashing a car.
2. The judge – who discharged the crooked prince because convictions would have stopped him from becoming king.
3. The king – who through his representative proclaimed Judge Philippa Cunningham’s decision a victory for Maori.

Who’s worst? I don’t know about you, but my order of offensiveness is 3, 2, 1.

In any credible monarchy, the son’s four crimes would rule him out of ever ruling anyone. And yet the King has not ruled him out. The boy’s crimes were no less criminal just because a weak judge dared not offend the sacred race.

Far better, Cunningham no doubt rationalised (in keeping with her PC tradition as a Helen Clark appointee), to offend 95% of the population…

THE ENRAGED PUBLIC

The public judges the judge harshly in stuff’s online poll.

Stuff’s poll was just the latest in a long line of polls about aspects of racial favouritism. The message from New Zealanders is always the same — about 80% opposed…

THE CONSISTENT MESSAGE

Next time someone tries to call you a fringe “redneck”, ask them if they
believe 80% of New Zealanders are rednecks. On the evidence of 12 polls (the
latest today), that’s how many don’t want a bar of racial favouritism.

And yet, despite knowing the way her employers — the people of New Zealand — feel about racial bias, Judge Philippa Cunningham was happy to ignore the 80% and indulge the 20%…

THE CRAVEN JUDGE

Judge Philippa Cunningham has “form” in slapping celebrities
with wet bus tickets. This time the Queen’s law enforcer prefers to
work for the Maori King. 

It’s clear from her comments in the Rotorua Daily Post that Judge Philippa Cunningham is a dangerously craven, politically correct fool of a judge.

‘In sentencing, Judge Cunningham said she was “driven to the conclusion” that Paki would lose out on being a successor if convicted.

“There’s only two sons and in my view it’s important that the king at the appropriate time has the widest possible choice of a successor and it’s important for Mr Paki, as one of those two sons, to have the potential to be a successor in time.”

Why is it important for a street criminal to grow up to be a king? Why is that more important than protecting the public from him?

The editor of the Manawatu Standard, Michael Cummings, got to the nub of the issue:

But the true absurdity in the Paki case lies not in the outcome, but in the logic upon which it was based.

During Paki’s sentencing hearing, Judge Philippa Cunningham asked his lawyer, Paul Wicks, to make inquiries as to the impact a conviction would have on his client’s chances of becoming king.

Wicks investigated, before telling the judge that “any conviction for any criminal offending is considered unacceptable. The chiefs around the country are often heard to say [eligible candidates] must be ‘whiter than the dove’,” Wicks said.

So, the next Maori King can be a confessed burglar, thief and drink driver, as long as the Ministry of Justice’s database doesn’t record him as such.

If Judge Cunningham took a holistic view of the case before her, she would have identified that Paki could never be considered “whiter than a dove” no matter what decision she reached regarding his request to be discharged without conviction.

Well said, Mr Ed.

THE NATIONAL STANDARD

With or without a conviction, the chiefly standard dictates that Paki cannot
be King. So why can he not be convicted?

Everyone in Tainui knows that Korotangi’s got no chance of being king — and no desire to be. In fact, the diabetic King has already chosen K0r0’s older brother as his stand-in:

In 2012 Paki announced that due to ill health he was … deputising his son Whatumoana Te Aa Paki to act in his stead.

Earth to Judge Philippa Cunningham: you are not employed as a succession-planner to the rebel court of Ngaruawahia. You are paid by the Court of New Zealand to treat all of your fellow citizens equally under the law.

THE JUDGE’S ALLEGIANCE:
TO QUEEN, NOT BOGUS KING

Someone please tell Judge Cunningham that she works for
the Queen of New Zealand, not the King of Ngaruawahia.

 Multiple offending and burgling while on bail are evidently no big deal to this serial wet-bus-ticket-wielder:

While his drink driving was moderately serious, she said, the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction were “out of all proportion” to the offence.

Moderately serious? Consequences?

After previously crashing his car into a power pole while speeding (for which he apparently suffered no legal consequences), you’d think there’d be zero tolerance of any more driving offences by Mr Paki.

But no, he was let off again, even though…

Breath testing gave a reading of 761, nearly twice the adult limit and more than five times the limit for someone under 20 at the time.

Er no, actually more than 761 times, since the limit for his age was 0.

However, she said she was concerned that alcohol had been a factor in both incidents, and made the ruling conditional on receiving a report from a medical professional clearing Paki of any alcohol addiction or alcohol abuse issues.

He was also disqualified from holding a drivers licence for eight months.

Well I guess that’s something.

By the way, according to the Herald, the king was in court to support Korotangi. Did his regal presence cause the PC judge to go soft on his son?

THE DOUBLE STANDARD

An apt drink-driving ad spoof that’s doing the rounds.

So the recidivist drunken boy racer will be back hooning around the streets in March — thanks judge.

She ordered a discharge without conviction for the burglary and theft charges, in keeping with Paki’s co-accused.’

Questions:

1. Were Paki’s co-accused let off because they were the prince’s “bros”? Why else would they have been let off charges of stealing over $2000 worth of property?
2. Why did Paki get the same non-punishment as his mates when, unlike them, he committed his crimes while on bail for another crime?

THE ROYAL PRECEDENT

If an English court can fine Princess Anne and behead King Charles I,
why can’t a New Zealand court convict a Maori royal recidivist?

Blogger Alf Grumble points out that there is a real double standard between the way the British courts dealt with an errant Princess Anne (not to mention Charles I, who was beheaded!) and the way the New Zealand court has dealt with the multiple-offending Maori prince.

Even before she discharged the pilfering prince, Cunningham had earned her own special Facebook page “Call for Judge Philippa Cunningham to Resign”.

That was over her discharge and name suppression of a child-abusing comedian because, among other things, “he makes people laugh” and “we all need a good laugh”.

THE JUDGE’S “PRIORS”

A Facebook page demanding the resignation of the serial-offender judge.

She is also the only judge to feature three times on the list of bad judgements on the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s Judge the Judges site…

THE JUDGES’ RECORDS

Judge Philippa Cunningham and her not-so-sensible sentencing
that you definitely can’t trust.

But even Judge Philippa’s offending pales next to that of the Maori king and his representative Tuku “Fancy Pants” Morgan…

THE COURT JESTER

The king’s representative Tuku Morgan. If Paki’s
discharge was a victory, what would a defeat look like?

Morgan’s comments say all that needs to be said about the entitlement ethos of today’s Maori leadership:

Outside court yesterday, the royal family’s representative, Tuku Morgan, said the judge’s decision had been a victory for Maori and recognition of their unique culture.

“[Paki] has the right as one of two sons to be included in the process to inherit or to take the place of his father,” Morgan said.

“The judge has recognised a very important and compelling cultural difference; that he is entwined in a succession process that one day will give rise to a new head of the kingdom, and his opportunity should not be in any way shape or form minimised or compromised.”

Thanks for clearing the heir, Tuku.

So a Maori royal’s “right to be included in the inheritance process” takes precedence over the public’s right to be protected from a right royal ratbag. Welcome to diplomatic immunity, Tainui-style.

To their credit, many Maori are among the 95% of New Zealanders who disagree with the sycophantic judge and the contemptible attitude of the bogus “kingdom”.

 THE COMMENDABLE KAUMATUA

Former Labour MP Dover Samuels accused the judge of suffering from
cultural hypnosis, which reminded me of another of his quotes, above.

One who condemns both the judge’s decision and Tuku Morgan’s response is former Labour MP Dover Samuels :

“I think the judge is absolutely suffering from some sort of cultural hypnosis,” he said.

“I think she’s been persuaded and I think she’s wrong, and to me I don’t think most New Zealander’s would support that.”

Paki should not have hid behind his royalty and taken responsibility for his actions, Samuels said.

“Most New Zealanders would think that this is a young man who has committed an offence and pleaded guilty to it and would have the courage to stand up and say ‘treat me no different to anybody else’,” Samuels said.

“It doesn’t matter what Tuku Morgan thinks.”

A commendable response. Samuels told Tv3:

“We have many of our young people very similar circumstances who have been confined to her majesty’s marae at Ngawha Prison … Judges need to focus on the consistency of their penalties,” he says.

Korotangi Paki should be going to Ngawha, not Ngaruawahia.

It was Samuels who, according to former prime minister Mike Moore, once said about the sycophancy of the likes of Doug Graham and Chris Finlayson, “Put a cloak on a Pakeha and he’ll go weak at the knees”.

And he wasn’t the only high profile Maori leader from the Left to criticise Judge Cunningham:

Labour Party MP Nanaia Mahuta, who is Korotangi Paki’s aunt, said the comments were unacceptable.

They did not send the right signals to young people about what was acceptable in a society such as New Zealand’s, where people were treated fairly, equally and with respect, she said.

Only problem with that, Nanaia, is that some people in New Zealand are treated more fairly and more equally than others.

THE WRONG ROYAL ROLE MODEL

King Tuheitia Paki. The man who thinks he owns your water also thinks
his son saying “Sieg Heil” can be put down to the “ignorance of youth”.
So whose job was it to educate his son?

Most organisations are the lengthened shadow of the man or woman at the top. The same applies to families.

This is how Korotangi Paki’s father the king responded to his son’s foul-mouthed anti-Asian racism and use of the Nazi/Mongrel Mob salute “Sieg Heil”:

In a statement, King Tuheitia said that he apologised unreservedly for any offence the comments had caused and had let his son know of his extreme displeasure.

(Presumably the same displeasure that had no effect when he presumably voiced it in 2011, 2012 and 2013.)

He said he did not condone racism in any shape or form, and that the ill-advised use of a gang slogan could be put down to the “ignorance of youth”.

Too true. But why is his son so ignorant?

Surely it’s the duty of a Maori monarch to impress upon his offspring the depravity of the gang culture that destroys the lives of so many of his people.

The king’s failure to do so is more high-profile evidence that poor parenting, not colonisation, is the chief cause of intergenerational Maori underperformance.

Tainui’s billion dollar asset milestone suggests it’s not a money problem, but a moral problem.

THE PREDICTABLE APOLOGISTS

Annette: If marae justice is so great, why does he keep offending?

Sadly and predictably, my Native Affairs debating opponent Annette Sykes is denying the undeniable:

“The Maori King’s son wasn’t given preferential treatment when he was discharged without a conviction on charges of burglary, theft and drink driving,” says Mana Party member and lawyer Annette Sykes.

Korotangi Paki, 19, had previously pleaded guilty to all the charges related to two separate incidents from March this year and October 2013.

His friends Te Ahorangi Totorewa, 20, Hamuera Wipoha Pugh, 19, and Raa Ngaru Smith, 18 were all discharged without conviction in Gisborne District Court on Monday over the March burglary and theft incident.

Yesterday in the Auckland District Court, Judge Philippa Cunningham discharged Paki without conviction.

Ms Sykes told Newstalk ZB this morning that was appropriate.

“The principle of equal treatment needed to be taken in to account,” she said.

“Remember [the co-offenders] were dealt with first and they got a very similar outcome. It would be wrong for three men to [be discharged without conviction] and a young man to be ostracised just because he is the King’s son.”

But hang on, Annette. You’re conveniently ignoring the distinct possibility that Paki’s three accomplices were let off precisely because they were mates of the king’s son. Why else would a gang of thieves be treated so leniently?

And more to the point, you’re also well aware that Paki’s offending was much worse than his mates’.

Judge Philippa made it clear to Paki’s lawyer that she viewed his drink-driving charge as more serious than the burglary and theft charges.

And he’d been not only caught drink-driving, but was on bail for it when he nicked the surfboards and clothes.

And they hadn’t, and weren’t.

Two reasons why he should have been dealt with differently. How many more offences should the king’s son have to commit before he receives more punishment?

Ms Sykes said Paki hadn’t been let off the charge within Tainui.

“Korotangi has really had marae justice served up to him.”

Yeah right. And what does “marae justice” mean? Surely not family violence?

One of the King’s spokesmen, Rahui Papa confirmed to the Herald that Korotangi was driving the vehicle … “When I see him, he’s going to get a big clip on his ears.”

Like spokesman, like son. Everyone in His Majesty’s court seems to be competing to be the biggest embarrassment.

As for Korotangi, how genuinely sorry is this young hoon likely to be after years of getting away with bad behaviour?

And if he is, why doesn’t he say so?

Considering he comes from a rebel tribe that breached the Treaty and illegally took up arms against the Crown in the 1860s, excuse me if I doubt Tuku Morgan’s assurance — let alone Paki’s lawyer’s — that he is “genuinely remorseful”.

More than likely they’ll all just be having another laugh at the expense of the dumb Pakeha.

THE CROCODILE TEARS

Tuku says Paki is sorry. For his crimes — or for getting caught?

All we know is that real justice has not been served, and whatever marae justice the boy has received so far hasn’t deterred him from offending (or being offensive) time and time again.

Another predictable apologist is the Maori criminal’s friend, Kim Workman of Rethinking Crime and Punishment.

THE MINIMISERS

Rethinking Crime and Punishment: essentially a movement
dedicated to making excuses for, and going soft on, Maori criminals.

Rethinking Crime and Punishment is essentially a movement dedicated to making excuses for, and going soft on, Maori criminals. Its senior advisor is none other than the former chief judge of the Waitangi Tribunal, Sir Eddie Durie.

Kim Workman’s own blog is called Smart on Crime. Now that’s a name that’s crying out for a bit of editing…

THE SOFT OPTIONS

Let shame be your punishment, says Kim Workman.
Let prison, say I.

Workman believes that all the king’s son needs is a good public shaming, and that having received that, he has now been punished enough.

Few outside the “royal” court seem to agree. I certainly don’t. I think he needs some time out in a room with barred windows .

Elsewhere on his blog, Workman goes to some lengths to portray Korotangi Paki as regal, and to minimise his offending. In the captioned image below, he refers to Korotangi, but shows instead his dignified-looking ancestor, King Tawhiao.

He implies Paki is a first-time offender when he is not. And he describes his offending as “fairly low-level”.

In describing Paki, he uses the offender-friendly word “troubled” rather than the victim-friendly “trouble“.

This is King Tawhiao, not Prince Korotangi. Paki is “trouble”, not
“troubled”. And far from being “not a typical first-time offender,”
he’s not a first-time offender at all. (So why, you may ask, is he still
waiting for his first conviction?)

Tawhiao, by the way, would actually have approved of Korotangi Paki’s illiteracy:

He preached that Kingites should keep separate from Pakeha. He was strongly against Maori children going to school to get an education.

As a result when the railway went through Kingite territory Kingites were only able to get unskilled jobs such as bush clearing.

This strong anti education stance started a Kingite tradition that led to increasing isolation and lower standard of living than Maori experienced elsewhere in New Zealand.

It was not until after the turn of the century that Kingites were finally persuaded to abandon their hatred of formal education in schools.

If you want to understand where Korotangi Paki is coming from, it’s from a tribe and a King who were passionate about ignorance. Hopefully they’ve learnt a bit since those days, though many problems clearly remain.

Kim Workman’s blog  reveals the alarming statistic that…

for Māori males born in 1975 [the year of the Treaty of Waitangi Act – JA], it is estimated that 22 percent had a Corrections managed sentence before their 20th birthday, and 44 percent had a Corrections managed sentence by the age of 35.  

So despite 39 years of indulging Griever Maori’s every whim, just over one in five Maori males born at the dawn of the Treaty grievance industry had been a guest of Her Majesty’s prison service by around the time of the Tainui settlement.

And a decade and a half later, after many more settlements and the creation of a $40 billion Maori economy, the percentage of those 1975 babies who had done time was almost one in two.

THE BAD STATS CONTINUE

Billions in Treaty settlements making no difference: of Maori males born
the year the Waitangi Tribunal was founded (1975), 20% had a Corrections-
managed sentence before they were 20 (1995), and 44% by 35 (2010).

Kim Workman, in case you’re wondering about his motivation, is part-Maori.

As, much to his apparent consternation, are 53% of our prisoners…

THE OVER-REPRESENTATION

The differential treatment of Maori within the judicial system. 

Just one more revelation from Workman’s blog before finishing up on the subject of the Maori king’s son.

Presumably the purpose of the above graph is to bemoan the unfairness of more Maori being locked up than fined. No doubt the Rethinking Crime and Punishment people regard this as evidence of racism on the part of the authorities.

But of course, there’s another possibility: that Maori commit most of the serious crimes, and not so many of the non-serious ones.

 THE FORGOTTEN VICTIM

More dishonesty from the boy who could be king.

Paki’s supposedly sincere remorse did not extend to him offering a sincere apology — or in fact any apology at all — to the manager of the Gisborne holiday park from which he had stolen the surfboards.

His claim to have apologised was evidently a right royal lie.

One of the victims of the crime spree, Matt Moore, manager of the Waikanae Beach Top 10 Holiday Park, said it didn’t seem the young men were held to account.

“I think everyone should be held to the same standards. I was a bit surprised [with the judge’s decision].

“They talked about having contacted everyone and apologised, but they didn’t contact me. It was negative publicity for my business and I never heard from them.”

BURGLAR OR LYIN’?

Another spoof doing the rounds.

And yet despite this failure at the first hurdle of the restorative process, Judge Philippa Cunningham…

…praised the work Paki and his friends had undertaken in terms of restorative justice and community work, as well as an on-going mentoring programme.

I rest my case.

The excesses of the son of the Maori king, coupled with those of the Harawira family, are evidence that in radical Maoridom, the underclass extends into the highest echelons of the ruling class.

Until some brave civilised Maori speaks out and turns his or her people against the glorification of primitivism and the anti-social behaviour embodied in the haka and the powhiri, the culture of violence and dishonesty will not change.

Until that person emerges, the least the rest of us can do is refuse to condone it.

The last thing we should do is indulge it.

 

 

Martin Doutre’s BSA complaint against Maori TV

 Native Affairs reporter Iulia Leilua ‘framing’ Martin Doutré beside
the standing stone on Mt Albert on the morning of the autumn equinox.

Along with Mike Butler and a teacher who prefers to remain anonymous, Martin Doutré has also lodged a formal BSA complaint against Maori TV for their cynically-titled Native Affairs hatchet jobs “Tall Tales” and “What Lies Beneath”.

As expected, the channel is struggling to put together a credible response. Both Mike and the teacher have had letters from Maori TV extending their 20-working-days deadline by a further 20 working days.

(Yes, they are legally entitled to do this. And yes, it would also have been nice if they’d apologised for the delay. But apologies, it seems, are the sole prerogative of the Pakeha.)

Below is Martin’s complaint. I’ve added photos and captions.

___________________________

Date: June 6^th 2014

To: Paora Maxwell
Chief Executive
Maori TV
P.O. Box 113-017
Newmarket
Auckland 1149

Attn. Vienna.Richards@maoritelevision.com

From: Martin Doutré
[address]
[phone number]
[email address]

Re:       Broadcasting Standards Authority complaint about What lies beneath (screened on consecutive weeks).

Dear Sir or Madam,

On Tuesday, 4^th of February 2014 I was invited to participate in a Native Affairs, Maori Television programme and to express my views on the following main topics raised by Iulia Leilua (convenor):

Martin Doutré

• Why he thinks Allan Titford is innocent

• Why he believes Te Roroa’s claim on his land was fraudulent

• How the Maori stories of Patupaiarehe and Turehu prove that Maori weren’t the first settlers of NZ

• An explanation of one of the ancient observatory sites he’s studied (Stockade Hill??)

• Why he continues his work despite heavy criticism from NZ’s leading academics

• If he’s right, what this means in terms of Maoridom’s place in NZ

• Also what it’d mean for the Treaty settlement process

• What impact Martin Doutré’s theories would have on Maori treaty claims if they were widely accepted

• Why it’s important for Maori and wider NZ to be aware of Martin’s research.

Despite my misgivings that the true intention of Native Affairs was to do a hatchet job on my work and integrity, but after receiving assurances from Iulia Leilui of fair and balanced reporting, I decided to give Maori Television the benefit of the doubt and participate.

In accordance with Iulia’s specific requests, I planned out an itinerary of archaeological sites that we would visit on the 21^st of March, 2014 (the Autumn equinox), where I could demonstrate accurate equinoctial fixes on the rising and setting sun, as determined from ancient solar observatories constructed by a pre-Maori people.

Martin Doutré on Mt Albert with one of many standing stone observatories
placed on the hills around Auckland by pre-Maori people. From this spot, twice
a year only, the  ancients could observe the sun rising in line with the trench they
had cut in Mt Wellington (behind) — their spring/autumn equinox marker.

To further aid Iulia in accurately reporting my views and evidence, I presented the itinerary to her in book form, complete with historical quotes related to the Patu-paiarehe people, as well as explanations and photos of archaeological sites to be visited.

The tour extended throughout an entire day, commencing before sunrise and finishing after sunset.

In the course of that long day, spanning about 14 hours of interim filming and interviews, I was agreeable to answer any and all questions that Iulia wished to ask.

I also participated at my own expense, providing all materials and gasoline for the extended tour to archaeological sites, scattered around the Auckland isthmus, at no cost whatsoever to Maori Television.

A lone piper on the Stockade Hill observatory as the sun sets in a trench
cut on Mt Wellington as an equinoctial marker. On the day we went out with
Maori TV, cloud prevented a clean shot, but the reporter had seen this photo.

Native Affairs/Maori Television later chose to misrepresent my integrity as a person, my research and views, in a clear breach of Standards 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Broadcasting Act, 1989.

Standard 4 states:

“When discussing controversial issues of public importance in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.”

Far from airing my views in a balanced and fair manner, as promised, Native Affairs/Maori Television cherry-picked only a very selective and short segment of footage from the comprehensive interviews I provided, sufficient to show what the enemy looked like and little else.

In my stead, they substituted in lengthy diatribes from a sizable group of known adversaries, hostile to my archaeological work or documented research about the Treaty of Waitangi.

Paul Moon, and later both Scott Hamilton and Ranginui Walker, have not, to my knowledge, ever visited the archaeological sites that I demonstrated to the Native Affairs/Maori Television crew, nor do they have any known expertise related to the cultural symbolism, pictograms or known forensic attributes associated with obelisks of those sites.

The sole participation of these professional naysayers centred on unfairly debunking, without any substantiating evidence whatsoever from their quarter, my tangible, observable, scientific evidence of archaeological and historical anomalies, which were certainly worthy of serious consideration in the public arena.

These adversarial commentators instead engaged in ad hominem attacks against me personally, in lieu of any counter-evidence, inferring that I was, in fact, harbouring a hidden political agenda, hostile to Maori interests.

Their clear intention in pushing this conspiracy theory was to incite suspicion, distrust, racial hatred and derision towards me personally, thereby distracting attention away from the inconvenient scientific issues that I raised.

Far from the public having any opportunity to view my archaeological evidence and have its merits debated scientifically in an open forum, it was deliberately withheld and not shown.

In the itinerary booklet I provided for Iulia, I included many direct quotes from Maori oral traditions related to the “uru-kehu – kiri-puwhero” pre-Maori people.

These quotes have come from the learned elders of yesteryear themselves, and are copiously interspersed throughout our old history books, Native Land Court Minute Books, etc.

The many hundreds of references that issued forth from Maori oral tradition sources existed before I was born and constituted historical information available to generations of New Zealanders since the dawn of the colonial era.

Despite this, the Native Affairs programme deliberately represented this pre-Maori inhabitants’ concept as something I had conjured up out of my own imagination, as if it was some form of new, heretofore unheard of, revisionist history.

Maori activist Justin Taua went so far as to call me and others being unfairly maligned and misrepresented on the Native Affairs programme “revisionists”.

This was further substantiated by Paul Moon, who, amongst other things said, “There’s a risk of some of these strange ideas almost becoming mainstream.”

My question to each of them would be:

Why are you calling me a “revisionist” when I still believe the history I was taught as a child from our history books, or the information I gleaned directly from learned Maori elders themselves in my adolescence or latter years?

I have never changed my historical views, whereas Paul Moon and Justin Taua are, by their own words, now in denial about this aspect of our long-term, well-recorded history.

I would ask them to please explain the meaning of a couple of sample quotes, out of the hundreds I could provide from our history books.

From Tuwharetoa by Rev. John Grace, chapter 7, page 115:

“Generally speaking, Ngati Hotu were of medium height and of light colouring. In the majority of cases they had reddish hair. They were referred to as urukehu.

It is said that during the early stages of their occupation of Taupo they did not practice tattooing as later generations did, and were spoken of as te whanau a rangi (the children of heaven) because of their fair skin.

There were two distinct types. One had a kiri wherowhero or reddish skin, a round face, small eyes and thick protruding eyebrows. The other was fair-skinned, much smaller in stature, with larger and very handsome features.

The latter were the true urukehu and te whanau a rangi. In some cases not only did they have reddish hair, but also light coloured eyes.”

Hone Grace had a European father and Maori (Tuwharetoa) mother.

From The Maori Race, by Edward Tregear, pp. 562-563:

“The Maoris used to pay great respect to the bones of their dead, yet here and there may be found among sandhills, etc., human remains uncovered by the wind, and of these no tradition remains, as there would certainly be if the relics were those of ancestors.

The natives say, “These are the bones of strangers.” So also mortuary-caves are found concerning the contents of which the Maoris make the same remark, and regard them with indifference.”

Neither Paul Moon, Justin Taua or Scott Hamilton are in the least qualified to comment about my well-researched views or the tangible archaeological evidence I provided to Native Affairs/Maori Television.

By their own dismissive commentary, they are obviously ignorant concerning the oral traditions related to the Patu-paiarehe, Turehu, Pakepakeha, Ngati Hotu, Ngati Hinewai, Ngati Kura, Ngati Korakorako, Waitaha, Moriori, etc., etc., (and myriad of other named, pre-Maori groups) spoken about, seemingly, by every iwi in New Zealand.

Even Iulia Leilua, who claims Tuwharetoa lineage, appears to be ignorant or in denial of this dynamic history, as recounted by her own iwi, even though she has had direct contact with Monica Matamua who has testified to being, with evidence, of pre-Maori lineage.

If Paul Moon, Scott Hamilton, Justin Taua, Iulia Leilua or others wish to diminish the mana of the learned elders of past generations and call them liars (or worse), then they’re free to do so.

However, I would surmise that the wharewaananga-trained tohunga of past ages would consider ignorant, modern day, empty-vessel, pontificating pretenders, who knew nothing of these histories, simply as pokokohua and of no worth whatsoever, except as food.

I choose to believe the words of the learned elders of yesteryear over those of grievance-industry-aligned revisionist historians such as Paul Moon or radical Trotskyites like Scott Hamilton, etc., pushing their own political agendas.

Scraping the bottom of the barrel: Maori TV’s expert witness, Trotskyite
blogger Scott Hamilton, whose idea of civilised discourse once included
posting a photo of your host captioned “Lizard man John Ansell”.

The Native Affairs/Maori Television presentation grouped me into a batch-lot of people who were referred to as “anti-Treaty and anti-Maori”.

They wrote:

“In part one of this special report, former Northland farmer Allan Titford was portrayed in the media as a man under siege. 

His supporters included people who were anti-Treaty and anti-Māori, many of whom continue to use their money, time and political connections to push their agendas.”

This accusation was reaffirmed by Mihingarangi Forbes in her introductory comments, as well as by Paul Moon, who categorised the grouped batch of individuals under attack from Maori Television as being part of a “subversive organisation” with “another agenda”.

Moon claimed that this so-called “subversive organisation”, of which I was inferred to be a part, “wanted to deny anything to do with the treaty”,etc.

This accusation is in direct breach of Standard 5 of the Broadcasting Act, 1989, which states:

“Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming:

• is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and/or

• does not mislead.”

In several interviews with Iulia Leilua, whether on the phone prior to the formal on-site interviews or during moments of casual conversation, I emphasised that I am very pro-Treaty.

I also stated that one would be hard-pressed to find three people in New Zealand who are more pro-Treaty or supportive of Te Tiriti o Waitangi than Ross Baker, Allan Titford or me.

I went to particular effort to clarify my position, as well as that of the other named individuals, but, from the very first mention on her programme of me and my work Iulia Leilua sought to misrepresent my clearly stated views.

Here are some of the dirty tricks employed in Maori Television’s attempts at character assassination:

• A sparse clip of me at an archaeological site was shown, where I had mentioned (sound-bite not broadcast) to Iulia that the intricate incising, carved bullaun bowls and chevrons in bas and raised relief on particular obelisks had been excavated from under volcanic ash from the 186 AD explosion of Taupo. The forensic evidence thus proved that these human-made features, laboriously carved into stone, predated Maori by over 1000 years.
• Rather than show the site’s component features and broadcast my explanation, Iulia immediately cut to an old archival clip of me at a Treaty-2-U protest exhibit at Rotorua in 2006 and simply stated that I:

“…dispute Maori tangata whenua status. He’s taken this message on a nationwide road show with the One New Zealand Foundation which also defends Allan Titford’s innocence.”

This is a total distortion of facts and was designed to mislead.

I wrote a comprehensive, fully documented book on the subject matter of the Treaty of Waitangi in 2005, which Iulia purports to have read, and my 2006-2007 tour around New Zealand on the heels of the Treaty-2-U propaganda road-show was to protest against the historical lies being told by The Treaty of Waitangi Information Unit.

Our small protest group provided documented proof that Treaty-2-U was totally misrepresenting the true intent, purpose and meaning of the treaty in their indoctrination of forcibly bused-in, captive-audience, schoolchildren.

My participation had nothing whatsoever to do with “Maori tangata whenua status” and was solely focused on treaty text accuracy and interpretation.

See: http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/Treaty2UPart1.htm

Iulia in her commentary states:

“They also promote an alternative version of the Treaty called the Littlewood Treaty discovered in Pukekohe in 1989. It’s been used to dispute Maori land rights and the treaty signed in 1840.”

This again is a total distortion of the facts I relayed to Iulia, and runs counter to what I clearly stated in my 2005 book about the Treaty.

None of us have ever claimed that the Littlewood document is a “treaty” or “alternative version of the treaty”.

On the contrary, we have always emphasised that it is merely the final English draft from which Te Tiriti o Waitangi (in the Maori language) was translated.

The term “Littlewood Treaty” was probably first coined in 1992 by Claudia Orange and known by that title within a close-knit academic circle.

We have merely raised a very legitimate and scholarly argument that no mainstream historian has been able to counter with documented proof.

Even Paul Moon, who is outwardly antagonistic and scathing towards those of us showing evidence the Littlewood document is the final English draft (handwritten by Busby), can’t come up with anything to counter its authenticity.

On the contrary, he’s on public record as saying the following:

• “I agree that the Littlewood document is dated 4 February 1840, and that there was almost certainly no subsequent drafting of the Treaty’s English text’ (From Dr Paul Moon’s 30/8/04 letter to treaty researcher Ross Baker, and posted onto the ONZF website.)

• “On 30th March, US Commodore Charles Wilkes, Antarctic explorer, arrived in the Vincennes to join his other ships Porpoise and Flying Fish. Damaged after their bruising exploration of the icy land, they reprovisioned and repaired their ships till late April. As he left Clendon gave him a further despatch containing a hand-written copy of the Treaty in English copied from Busby’s copy of the final draft. It is believed that Clendon then retained Busby’s copy of the Treaty” (The Treaty and Its Times, by Paul Moon and Peter Biggs, ch. 9, p. 213).

In your role as an ever-on-call expert witness about almost everything and everyone, please explain Paul!

As Paul Moon must know, for the Littlewood document to qualify as the final English draft and mother document to Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the English draft, known by our Treaty historians to have gone missing in about February 1840), it must comply to the following forensic criteria:

• It had to be on paper that preceded the signing of the treaty in 1840 and that paper had to be identifiable as stock in use at the Bay of Islands in February 1840. If the paper was from an orphan stock, then that would cast doubt upon the authenticity of the document.

Clendon’s W. Tucker 1833 watermarked stock fulfils this requirement.

• The paper had to have a pedigree traceable back to one of the founding fathers who drafted the treaty and, ultimately to Busby and Hobson.

The Littlewood document’s pedigree is impeccable and fully traceable to Clendon, Busby and Hobson himself.

• The author of the hand-written text had to be James Busby, British Resident.

That attribute of the Littlewood document is also beyond dispute.

• It had to bear the date, the 4th of February 1840, as that’s the day the final English draft was written.

It is clearly signed off, 4th Feb 1840.

Despite our exhaustive efforts to be very clear on our position, grievance-industry historians like Paul Moon continuously try to detour public thinking away from the true status of the document with such well-worn, red-herring banalities as:

“It can’t be a treaty ’cause it’s not signed.”

Well, of course it’s not signed, Paul – it’s only a draft!

Now Iulia is resorting to the same dirty tricks in deliberately misreporting and misrepresenting what I have expended great effort to explain clearly to her.

She has video footage of me explaining that there “is only one treaty and it’s in the Maori language”.

She also has video footage of me corroborating that statement with a historical quote from Lieutenant-Governor William Hobson, where he said the following about the Maori language document signed at Waitangi on the 6^th of February 1840:

“The treaty, which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi, on the 6^th February, 1840, by 52 chiefs, 26 of whom were of the Confederation, and formed a majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence. ‘This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of the original document.”

(Letter to Major Bunbury, The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L. Buick, p. 162.)

I expressed to Iulia my view that there is no English Treaty, only the final English draft from which Te Tiriti o Waitangi was translated. It has no status as a treaty and neither does anything else in English.

I stated that the lost, final English draft was definitely found again in Pukekohe in 1989 and in my book, which Iulia had in her possession, I mention three other exemplars of the final English draft wording that have languished in overseas archives since February-April 1840 (four in total known to exist in early 1840).

Iulia knows full-well that our only gripe stems from the utter reinvention of the Treaty’s meaning since 1975, after a very defective ENGLISH text was introduced to sit alongside Te Tiriti o Waitangi and be co-equal to it.

The terrible text chosen was one of James Stuart Freeman’s seven variable Formal Royal Style English versions, which were all based upon early rough draft notes and not the final English draft.

Because of the vast differences in wording between that English version and Te Tiriti o Waitangi in Maori, after 1975 the treaty meaning got deliberately reinterpreted (reinvented) until it bore no resemblance whatsoever to what was so clearly stated in either Te Tiriti or the final English draft.

Iulia has video footage of me describing Te Tiriti as a very welcome, benign “gift” from the chiefs in 1840, so, in reference to my clearly stated position and my clear evidence to the contrary, why did Native Affairs/Maori TV mischievously represent me as “anti-Treaty”?

This constitutes a very deliberate slur against my well-described and publicised views and shows that Native Affairs/Maori TV are utterly incapable of accurate investigative reporting.

The Littlewood document subject matter was very worthy of comprehensive discussion in the public arena.

Despite my giving Maori TV an entire day of time and answering any question they wished to pose, the on-archaeological-sites environment in which I conducted the interviews was, obviously, not to their liking.

They obviously wanted me in their sterile studio, being yelled down by ranting adversaries, where I could not display, first-hand, my archaeological evidence.

Even though I had already answered all their questions on camera, Mihingarangi Forbes announced to her viewing audience that I had refused to appear.

Why did I need to appear twice when they had not yet used the lengthy interviews from my first appearance?

It is my firm belief that Native Affairs are deliberately engaging in ad hominem attacks and smear-campaigns in order push their brand of self-serving propaganda.

They wish to promote only that which is beneficial to their own political agenda and have no genuine interest whatsoever towards anything considered counter-productive to their prescribed goals.

Moreover, Annette Sykes displayed an utter lack of knowledge, or worse, related to the origin and significance of the “Littlewood document”.

However, she can correct her misconceptions by studying the entire paper trail and pedigree of the document at: http://www.celticnz.org/TreatyBook/Precis.htm

Dirty tricks employed by Native Affairs further include:

GUILT BY ASSOCIATION

Although political scientist and historian Kerry Bolton, has not, to my certain knowledge, been in any way associated with the marital dispute involving Allan Titford, every effort was made to link him into a confederation with those supporting a retrial for Titford.

No such confederation exists and we pursue totally separate lines of research. His books and scholarly treatises on Marxism or other historical issues are much respected and published in academic journals around the world.

Although Ngati-Hotu kuia Monica Matamua has a dynamic story to tell about her links back to Patu-paiarehe ancestors, supported by DNA evidence and whakapapa, her claim was deliberately rendered suspect by a deceptive ruse of linking her to such dastardly fellows as Martin Doutré, Mykeljon Winckel of Elocal magazine and Kerry Bolton.

This was a treacherous, red-herring tactic employed to discredit a very dignified kuia, whose family has fought for generations to have their unique lineage and tribe recognised.

Her evidence is stand-alone and does not depend upon what Martin Doutré or anyone else “thinks”.

From my perspective, I feel that Iulia Leilua played both ends against the middle in order to get Monica Matamua to participate on the Native Affairs/Maori TV programme.

Iulia emailed me on 14/2/14 and stated:

“Kia ora Martin, just wondering if you could help me organise an interview with Monica Mataamua about her DNA testing?”

I gave Iulia the contact details that I had and, much later, after the terrible programme aired, Monica wrote the following:

“I have gone over and over Iulia’s native affairs program on the internet and the more I studied it the more crooked it got.

I must say she hounded me for months as I am wary of why people want to see me. 

I only agreed after Marty [Martin Doutré] said he had done an extensive  documentary for them so when she did turn up I thought it would be a special edition on N Hotu.

Instead she used my story, cut and spliced it to fit into her dirty scheme of hatred, prejudice and racism. Had nothing to do with the truth’”. etc. 

Monica Matamua was seemingly lured into participation largely on a pretext proffered by Iulia that I would provide visual evidence of Patu-paiarehe structures.

Monica correctly saw that a very dynamic documentary was possible, which could be composed of visual evidence of ancient astronomical and surveying structures, coupled with oral history testimony, DNA evidence and whakapapa.

Such a documentary would, undoubtedly, go a long way towards opening up a floodgate of testimony from the old learned elders, whose knowledge has been muted and supressed for many years now.

Huge new insights into our long-term history would, most certainly, result.

However, such a positive outcome obviously ran counter to the political agenda of Native Affairs.

Monica was simply used in a fashion that would diminish and trivialise her claim to pre-Maori heritage and even make a mockery of it by associating any such claim with discredited nutters and antagonists like Martin Doutré, or a gaggle of other fringe-dwellers stigmatised by the Native Affairs inquisitors.

So, it seems that tribalism, with its tradition of conquerors holding all the mana and the vanquished having none, won the day in the eyes of the unsuspecting viewing public.

The outcome was that Iulia’s Tuwharetoa tribe got to marginalise, hold at bay, and silence Monica’s Ngati Hotu tribal claim yet again by use of red-herring distractions and editing strategies.

Native Affairs are in breach of standards 4, 5 & 6 in relation to their disrespectful treatment of kuia Monica Matamua.

LOGICAL FALLACIES

They have deliberately tried to mislead their audience and unfairly instil doubt about Monica’s assertion by using a logical fallacy along the lines of:

• Monica Matamua believes she is of Patu-paiarehe lineage.
• Martin Doutré believes Monica is of Patu-paiarehe lineage, but is a disreputable fellow who tells lies.
• Monica Matamua is, therefore, not of Patu-paiarehe lineage.

This perverted form of logic, geared to unfairly manipulate the thinking of the viewers who fund Native Affairs/Maori TV from the public purse, was also used discredit the many years of documented, historical research undertaken by Allan and Susan Titford, Ross Baker and others into the Te Roroa land claim.

With regards to Titford, one of the several logical fallacies employed by Native Affairs to discredit his documented research was along the lines of:

• Te Roroa claim a right to own part or all of Allan Titford’s farm at Maunganui Bluff and seek historical redress.
• Allan Titford is a disreputable fellow who burnt down his own farmhouse.
• Te Roroa’s historical claim is therefore correct, their redress is justified and Titford’s documented research is wrong.

Several other usages of the same kind of logical fallacy could be cited in the very obvious smear campaign mounted by Native Affairs against Allan Titford and his supporters.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ALLAN TITFORD

With regards to Maori TVs accusation that “Allan Titford burnt down his own house”, I witnessed John Ansell handing Iulia Leilua two affidavits that testified to the fact that Graham Neville Cochrane, Susan Titford’s father, had committed the arson and had made a death-bed confession of having done so.

One of these affidavits had been sworn before the Police Declarations Officer and the other before a Notary Public.

John Ansell had chosen Maori TV as the media outlet for a public launch of this very special information and we have video footage of Iulia both receiving the affidavits and having their significance explained to her by Ansell.

Despite this, Maori TV’s later assault on Allan Titford relied heavily on the false premise that he was the arsonist.

The core issue or foundation upon which their case against Titford was built was how he was guilty of this nefarious act, but how he’d deceptively blamed Te Roroa for it.

Moreover, Ranginui Walker showed himself to be deliberately obtuse and uninformed regarding the final payout to Allan Titford.

With minimal research, Walker would have ascertained that Titford received a very paltry sum when he was forced, under duress and threats, to forfeit his 1746 acre farm.

Gramsci’s foot soldier: Ranginui Walker, Lebanese Maori sovereigntist and
acolyte of Italian communist Anton Gramsci, who predicted in the 1920s that
“socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture — by infiltration of the
schools, universities, churches and the media”. (Ditto Treatifarianism.)

Walker’s facts and figures smacked of pure propaganda and he came across as a hateful racist who holds “pakeha” in utter contempt.

It’s of significance also that, whereas so-called “pakeha” can be demonised or ridiculed with impunity, under the protocols of Native Affairs tribalism individuals like Alex Nathan of Te Roroa are portrayed in more saintly fashion, beyond reproach or criticism.

In the interests of what Iulia Leilua describes as “balance”, perhaps Native Affairs could do an exposé on Nathan’s stewardship over the Te Roroa rank and file funds and efforts to recover the missing millions of dollars that disappeared during Alex Nathan’s watch as chairman.

SUMMARY

Native Affairs/Maori TV have shown themselves to have a solitary allegiance to Maori grievance-industry agendas, to the exclusion of all else.

Their condescension, unashamed manipulation and insult-to-the-intelligence of their viewing audience, in only telling the viewer what they need to know, is despicable and falls far short of ethical responsibility.

There is no provision of fair, unbiased and balanced reporting, where the viewers are empowered to consider all of the facts for themselves and come to an informed, coherent conclusion of their own volition and free will.

Maori TV, within the confines of “What Lies Beneath” (all segments) coerced its audience into accepting points of view acceptable to Native Affairs.

Other points of view were not presented with sufficient clarity that one could draw any conclusions about their merit.

All in all, Native Affairs led viewers by the nose to a singular, premeditated conclusion, by providing no valid alternative avenues for consideration, after having done a hatchet job on anyone harbouring a contrary point of view, or proffering significant counter-information.

CONCLUSION

Native Affairs/Maori TV is a blatantly racist, political organ in support of Maori supremacy and the grievance industry.

It offers nothing of educational value that would be of interest to the majority of New Zealanders and, as a special interest group’s propaganda outlet, should not be funded by the taxpayer.

Martin Doutré

Teacher lodges BSA complaint about Native Affairs bias

A teacher who needs to remain anonymous for fear of losing his career saw my Native Affairs debate with Annette Sykes on 19 May and immediately lodged the BSA complaint that you can read below.

Before you read his complaint, I thought you should read his theory about how blinkered Treatifarians like Sykes are able to shamelessly sidestep any inconvenient truth that threatens their claim of entitlement to your money.

The show itself was the typical Native Affairs ambush, which I thoroughly enjoyed. I must also praise the staff at Maori TV, who are always unfailingly courteous and helpful to me — and have the best green room food of any channel. (Thank you taxpayers!)

Despite the hostility from mein host Mihingarangi (AKA Joanna) Forbes, I managed to air many points, and Forbes’ rude outbursts provoked such an outcry that we’ve been able to open up a new front in the battle: complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Association.

Please join in the fun and lodge your own.

I dared to suggest that colonisation had massively advantaged Maori.
Mihi Forbes countered with “Then what about all the Maori crime etc.?”
I answered as above. Annette Sykes’ response was fascinating, expanding
my horizons on French cuisine.

I’m not sure why Maori TV asked me back only a week after I’d posted raw footage of the Titford interview, where I gave them the affidavits showing that Sue’s father had burned down the Titford house, not Allan.

(Evidence which they neglected to screen.)

I certainly wasn’t their first choice for the follow-up story, which they made clear by mentioning the names of four other commentators who’d declined their invitation.

Forbes’ bias first surfaced when she sneered at One New Zealand’s Ross Baker for not appearing “because he lives in Australia”. In fact Ross had been happy to go on the show — knowing he’d be ridiculed — if Maori TV paid his airfare. They wouldn’t.

Her bias was most apparent after I was at last able to mention my evidence that Allan Titford was innocent of burning down his own house.

And what was Forbes’ priority upon learning that a man has been locked up for 24 years, almost solely on the say-so of a woman who appears to have lied?

Was it to sympathise with the incarcerated man and demand a retrial, as any fair person would have done?

No.

Her priority was to demand that I apologise for Allan Titford’s previous blaming of the highly plausible but now exonerated suspects, Te Roroa.

Given that even his bitter ex-wife acknowledges that Te Roroa shot Allan’s stock and committed numerous other acts of sabotage and intimidation over many years, I was not about to offer any such apology simply because the tribe’s list of offences had reduced by one.

(My opponents might say the same about Allan Titford’s list of offences. But I also have evidence that casts doubt on at least two of the rapes. And if Sue has lied about the arson and the rapes, what does that suggest about her other 36 charges?)

I did mention on the programme that Allan himself has written in recent times that he doubts Te Roroa committed the arson — even though he did not know at that stage who did. The so-called moderator ignored this, preferring to focus on the time when he did consider the tribe responsible.

With no regard for the evidence on the affidavit, Forbes then blithely accused “a member of the Titford family” of burning down the house.

Clearly, she had no interest whatsoever in acquainting herself with the facts or seeking justice for a falsely imprisoned Pakeha, only with cynically using the new evidence to invoke sympathy for Maori.

 __________________________

A TEACHER COMMENTS

(The words from here on, apart from the photo
captions, are those of the teacher complainant.)

Though I don’t expect anything to come of this, any opportunity to provoke self-criticism and self-analysis in our opponents should be seized. And nothing will irritate them more than having to draft a response to my complaint (“the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass”).

I am genuinely intrigued to know how they will defend themselves against the accusations. For, these are people who seem to possess an in-built mechanism to resist self-criticism. They are saddled with their own self-deceptions and this distorts their entire worldview.

To be sure, there are those who are knowingly cynical and act accordingly, but the opponents that you faced on Monday night really did seem to be convinced that they were in the right.

 Another enjoyable Maori TV ambush. Native Affairs, Monday 19 May
with Mihi Forbes and Annette Sykes.

I once visited the concentration camp in Dachau and I remember discussing with the tour guide the curious phenomenon of high-ranking Nazi officials who refused to plead guilty to crimes against humanity during the Nuremberg trials.

Even when confronted with evidence of genocide, they could not bring themselves to denounce the Nazi regime. How could this be?

We came to the conclusion that they had so utterly based their identity on the Nazi ideology that without this prop, their sense of self would have collapsed into nothingness.

In other words, their resistance to self-criticism and self-doubt was a psychological survival mechanism.

(Analogies drawn from the Nazi era are never very tasteful, but I think this one does shed some light on the Annette Sykes and the Willie Jacksons of Maoridom.)

So, what is needed is more skepticism and less identity politics.

Have radicals like Annette Sykes (who’s father was born in England so is less
native to New Zealand than John Ansell) “so utterly based their identity on the
[Maori] ideology that without this prop, their sense of self would collapse”?

Unfortunately, Annette Sykes seems to disagree with me on both counts. I did some research about her prior to your television appearance and I actually heard her say that what New Zealand needs is a “commitment to decolonisation”.

(To me, this has disturbing echoes of the Khmer Rouge catch-cry to “clear the ground.”)

It never ceases to amaze me how people like Annette Sykes can pass through the university system without having fostered any sympathy for Western cultural and intellectual traditions.

(Without the sense that the Greeks and the Romans and the French and the Germans and the Russians and the Italians and maybe even the British may have something more to offer than the songs and the dances and the wood carvings that have been preserved within Maoridom. And this from a law graduate!)

Maybe it’s because the Western intellectual tradition — which begins with Socrates — was founded on skepticism, and skepticism invites self-criticism…

__________________________

THE TEACHER’S BSA COMPLAINT

The Maori TV bio of Mihingarangi Forbes (Joanna until she changed her name
while attending a Waikato Maori-immersion college), included the revealing
comment: “Mihi always knew she would work in communications because she
told such tall stories as a kid.” She was still at it on Monday. [JA]

My teacher friend complains as follows. You may wish to follow the same format. You should address your complaint in the first instance to Maori TV, then when they inevitably reject your concerns, report them to the BSA.

Programme Title

Native Affairs

Date of Broadcast

19 May 2014

Time of Broadcast

8.30pm

Channel/Station

Māori Television

Programme standard(s) breached

Free-to-air TV –

1: Good Taste and Decency, Free-to-air TV

4: Controversial Issues – Viewpoints, Free-to-air TV

5: Accuracy, Free-to-air TV

6: Fairness, Free-to-air TV

7: Discrimination and Denigration, Free-to-air TV

8: Responsible Programming, Free-to-air TV

10: Violence

Reasons

 During the live ‘debate’ involving John Ansell on last night’s episode of Native Affairs, the following standards were breached:

CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES

I refer to to the presenter’s treatment of both the Alan Titford trial and the Treaty of Waitangi.

A set formula (in both cases) was clearly advanced and the contrarian guest (John Ansell) was set up as a strawman to be discredited and made to look foolish.

In the introduction, the growing number of groups who are casting doubt on modern interpretations of the Treaty of Waitangi were referred to as “racist hate groups”.

Disgracefully branded a racist hater, Martin Doutre spent years living with
Maori and learning about the pre-Maori Patuparaiahe people. They were
more honest times, before the Treaty grievance industry made it harder for
kaumatua to tell the truth about their history.

Concerning Alan Titford, evidence that was presented by John Ansell to prove his innocence was discarded with the words “well, he has been tried and found guilty already” (or words to that effect).

Also, there was no effort made to educate the viewers as to the controversies surrounding the Titford case and the Treaty of Waitangi.

FAIRNESS

Defenders of Alan Titford and, shall we say, ‘Treaty skeptics’, were misrepresented (as crackpots) and their views were denigrated and distorted.

In a previous episode, evidence presented by John Ansell that proved the mendacity of his accusers was omitted and suppressed.

Also, John Ansell was not given a fair opportunity to speak during the ‘debate’ owing to the presenter’s nasty hectoring.

DISCRIMINATION AND DENIGRATION

(as above)

ACCURACY

Describing Treaty skeptics as racists and members of hate groups, refusing to acknowledge evidence that absolves Titford of guilt, pretending that the views expressed by John Ansell are not shared by serious academics (like David Round, for instance).

RESPONSIBLE PROGRAMMING

Indoctrinating your people with false information, instilling a victimhood mentality, promoting tribalism and solipsism — these things are not good for Maori, they are not good for our country, and they are not good for the world.

Ignoring evidence when some poor sod has to sit in prison for 24 years having lost everything is also not very responsible.

VIOLENCE

The violence that was wrought on truth, good taste and decency was more than I could bear. For sheer barbarism, no amount of rugby or boxing coverage could ever have quite the same effect.

Urging your guest to apologise at the end of the debate was particularly graceless.

GOOD TASTE AND DECENCY

(as above)

 

How to complain to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – Mike Butler

I love it when Maori TV tries to ambush me and present me as a racist for demanding racial equality.

Each time they do this, we get a little more evidence that helps to convince honest, fair-minded Maori that their ignorant, one-eyed cousins are giving them a bad name.

Most helpfully, the radicals’ rants don’t just unsettle some of their own supporters and enrage all of ours. They also appal and convert lots of mild-mannered neutrals.

My live debate with Annette Sykes and the heckling partisan so-called ‘moderator’ Mihingarangi Forbes has opened a new front for us: a flurry of complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

One of these I’ll be posting shortly, a complaint about last Monday’s Native Affairs from a teacher.

But here now is a complaint about the previous week’s Native Affairs, from former newspaper sub-editor and author of the new book Tribes–Treaty–Money–Power, Mike Butler.

Mike is also preparing a complaint about last week’s show, but first things first.

It would be most helpful, dear readers, if you would each consider lodging your own complaint about each of the last two programmes.

Bureaucrats respond to numbers, and this state-funded racist channel needs to get the message that there is a difference between criticism and racism, and that they can’t get away with unfairly smearing people like Allan Titford, Martin Doutre and me.

Tying them up replying to numerous complaints, and having to provide redress for their bias, should help them in their quest to understand the meaning of balance. 🙂

_________________

Native Affairs BSA complaint

 

Date: May 26, 2014
To: Paora Maxwell,
Chief Executive,
Maori TV
PO Box 113-017
Newmarket
Auckland 1149

Attn Vienna.Richards@maoritelevision.com

From:   Mike Butler,
[address]
[phone number]
[email address]

 

Re:       Broadcasting Standards Authority complaint about What lies beneath

The Native Affairs item titled What lies beneath that aired on Monday, May 12, 2014, revisited the long story of Northland farmer Allan Titford who bought land at Maunganui Bluff in 1986 for $600,000 and was subjected to a squatter protest from 1987 during a Waitangi Tribunal claim for part of his land.

Titford had no interest in treaty claim matters until a group of bullying hostile protesters occupied his land and wrecked his business.

The occupation, that included two house fires, verbal abuse, stock thefts, intimidation, vandalism, trespass, cutting fences so that stock would wander, shooting stock, sabotaging Titford’s bulldozer, threatening with a gun, assault, looting, stalled a subdivision project and meant he could not refinance or repay a two-year mortgage.

Eventually, Titford sold the farm to the government for $3.225-million in 1995. Little was heard of the issue until last year when a matrimonial dispute resulted in Titford being jailed for 24 years.

One count he was found guilty of was for burning down his house.

What lies beneath is built around an interview with Alex Nathan of Te Roroa.

In the intro, presenter Mihingarangi Forbes set the scene by saying when Titford “accused the Northland iwi, Te Roroa of being greedy Maori who were after his land”, the country rallied behind him.

Te Roroa, he said, were violent terrorists who burned down his home”.

She went on to say: “Fourteen years later the truth came out – it was Allan Titford who burnt his house down – but some media and lobby groups continue to support him”.

Reporter Iulia Leilua’s 20-minute two-part feature could leave an open-minded viewer thinking that Titford was finally exposed as evil, that Te Roroa claimants were wronged innocents, and that there exists a shadowy but well-funded very right wing conspiracy out to deny Maori of rights.

This complaint shows that What lies beneath was a biased and inaccurate presentation of the Maunganui Bluff land claim issue, that included unfair treatment of protagonist Allan Titford, along with racist and derogatory treatment of his supporters.

The feature breached standards four, five, six, and seven of the broadcasting code.

1. Failed to present significant viewpoints on controversial issues

The Broadcasting Standards Authority is quite clear under Standard 4 – Controversial Issues – Viewpoints that when discussing controversial issues of public importance in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view, either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.

 

a) Guideline 4a says significant viewpoints should be presented fairly in the context of the programme.

What lies beneath presented in the intro what Maori TV presenters considered was the mainstream view 22 years ago, after July 4, 1992, when the Titford house burned to the ground.

That view was that Northland iwi Te Roroa were “greedy Maori who were after his land”, who were also “violent terrorists who burned down his home”.

What lies beneath also outlined in the intro the current viewpoint of Maori TV presenters, that “14 years later the truth came out – it was Allan Titford who burnt his house down – but some media and lobby groups continue to support him”.

Two opposing viewpoints were presented in What lies beneath but Maori TV presented the viewpoint it disagreed with in a hostile, pejorative manner, meaning that the viewpoint was not presented fairly.

 

b) A further assessment of whether a reasonable range of views has been presented is described in guideline 4b, which asks whether the programme approaches a topic from a particular perspective.

Maori TV claims to design its programming to deliver a Maori perspective.

It appears that presenters believe that by presenting What lies beneath from the viewpoint of Te Roroa, with Titford being non-Maori they would fulfil the “Maori perspective” role of Maori TV.

However, ifLeilua had asked a few more questions, listened, and looked further, she would have quickly found that Titford’s now estranged wife has Ngapuhi ancestry, and that Ngapuhi leader the late Graham Rankin appealed to the Minister of Treaty Negotiations, Margaret Wilson, to help the Titford family.

Rankin’s view was that the Titfords had been unlawfully dispossessed of their farm at Maunganui Bluff, Northland. [1]

For Maori TV to argue that equating the Te Roroa claim with a Maori perspective fails to understand that part of the dispute over land at Maunganui Bluff was a clash between Te Roroa and Ngapuhi.

As a result of the Battle of Te Ikaranganui in 1825 Ngapuhi dominance over the area was achieved.

Te Roroa were allowed to stay in the area under the protection of Parore Te Awha of Ngapuhi, whose name was on the Maunganui block sale deed.

Tiopira Kinaki, the other vendor named on the 1876 sale deed, was Te Roroa.

The Titford farm and the area on it claimed by Te Roroa were included in the 1876 Maunganui block sale. [2]

2. Failed to be accurate on all points of fact

The Broadcasting Standards Authority is also clear, under Standard 5 Accuracy, that broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming is (1) accurate on all points of fact, and/or (2) does not mislead.

 

a) Forbes in the intro incorrectly said: “fourteen years later the truth came out – it was Allan Titford who burnt his house down”.

In fact the house fire occurred on July 4, 1992, which was 22 years ago, not 14 years as Forbes said.

But more importantly, Titford was found guilty of burning his house, an allegation he continues to deny, and a conviction he plans to appeal or seek a retrial on.

Therefore, the truth or falsity of the statement “Allan Titford … burnt his house down” remains unknown except to the perpetrator.

Moreover, viewers were not made aware of the existence of two sworn statements that cast reasonable doubt on Titford’s guilt regarding the arson.

Reporter Leilua was given copies of these affidavits and had all details explained to her, but there was no reference to this in the final edit.

These affidavits existed at the time of Titford’s trial, but were not introduced as evidence.

Ansell recorded footage of the actual interviews because earlier biased treatment at the hands of Maori TV prompted him to take a cameraman along, something that reporter Leilua strenuously objected to. [3]

 

b) Reporter Leilua said: “By 1876 nearly 90,000 acres of Te Roroa land had been bought by the Crown. However, Te Roroa disputed the inclusion of urupa, reserves, and the lake in the sale arguing that there had been a mistake in the survey”.

The land area quoted by Leilua was incorrect. The Maunganui block upon which the Titford farm was located, was 37,592 acres and the Waipoua block 35,300 acres giving a total of 72,892 acres, which is more than 17,000 acres short of Leilua’s sweeping guess.

Leilua was incorrect to characterize that land as solely belonging to Te Roroa. The Maunganui block was awarded to both Tiopira Kinaki of Te Roroa and Parore Te Awha of Ngapuhi.

Leilua was incorrect to imply Te Roroa at the time disputed the inclusion of urupa, reserves, and the lake. The only dispute at the time of the sale was the Alleged Improper Sale Inquiry 1876 prompted by Tiopira Kinaki when he discovered that Parore Te Awha received an extra £500.

This was nothing to do with what was included in the sale.

Leilua failed to say that the first appearance of a claim for that land, known as Manuwhetai, and another area on a neighbouring farm known as Whangaiariki, was in 1899, after both vendors and all involved in the 1876 sale had died.

Neither did she say that the claim was rejected at that time.

Leilua did not mention a special sitting of the Native Land Court investigating a claim for Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki held in Kaihu in 1939.

Neither did she mention a recommendation by Chief Judge G.P. Shepherd to parliament 1942 that:

• The only reserve in the Maunganui block provided for in the 1876 sale was a 250-acre eel fishery reserve known as Taharoa for vendor Parore Te Awha;
• Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were not mentioned in the deed of sale;
• Neither were they mentioned in the inquiry into the sale held in 1876;
• The sale deed had a certificate to show that vendors Parore Te Awha and Tiopira Kinaki understood the terms of the sale;
• The deed had a certificate to show no fraud had taken place;
• A memo dated February 12, 1876, confirmed that Parore got Taharoa. [4]

Leilua did not say that nothing further was heard of this claim until 1987, after the Waitangi Tribunal was empowered to investigate claims all the way back to 1840, and when Titford began advertising sections in his coastal subdivision.

Leilua did not look into the evidence Te Roroa cited to support their view that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were left out of the sale because of a mistake in a survey.

Te Roroa claimants cited Plan 3297/8 as “proof” that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki had been taken in error by the Crown.

Apparently unaware of Te Roroa reasoning for their claim, Leilua did not look into facts around that purported evidence.

Titford found that Plan 3297/8 was created by surveyors Barnard and Stephens for a landowner named Wi Pou, of the Ngaitu hapu, as part of a proposal to buy from the government two reserves on the south side of Maunganui Bluff.

Those reserves were to be named Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki.

Plan 3297/8 remained in government files as a record of a proposal that did not proceed.

 

c) Leilua said: “Under a National government in 1995, after rejecting numerous offers, Allan Titford finally sold his land to the Crown for five times more than he paid”.

While it is true that the sale price of $3.225-million is about 5.3 times the purchase price, Leilua did not say that the $3.225-million included 1450 head of stock valued at $750,000 and plant at $50,000.

Neither did she say that out of the $3.225-million, $1.8 million went to the National Bank and $425,000 went to other creditors.

Therefore, Titford was left with $200,000 for land he paid $600,000 for nine years earlier

Leilua collected a comment from academic Ranginui Walker who alleged Titford made “a huge profit”. Far from “a huge profit”, Titford came out $400,000 behind after working nine years for nothing and facing bullying from claimants, inaction by police, and stonewalling by the government.

 

d) Guideline 5c says news must be impartial.

The selection of sources for What lies beneath, and the extra time allowed to those supporting the theme of the feature, was far from impartial. Bias appeared in the number and frequency of comments for either Titford or Te Roroa.

For Titford, Ansell was the sole representative and featured in a single, highly selective interview. Doutré, who has supported Titford elsewhere, spoke entirely about evidence for Celtic New Zealand. Former MP Ross Meurant spoke for Titford in old footage. Newman’s single comment was neither about Titford nor Te Roroa.

For Te Roroa, claimant Alex Nathan spoke six times, Taua spoke four times, Ranginui Walker spoke twice, and Moon spoke once.

 

3. Failed to be fair

The Broadcasting Standards Authority is also clear, under Standard 6 – Fairness, that broadcasters should deal fairly with any person or organisation taking part or referred to.

The word “fair” means “treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination”.

For the purpose of guideline 6a, What lies beneath was aired on a current affairs programme, a genre that is expected to be factual.

The feature breached Standard 6 – Fairness in two ways:

 

a) Fair coverage of the Titford/Te Roroa saga would present known facts on both sides of the dispute.

Instead, after jumping to the conclusion that Titford did burn down his house, reporter Leilua recorded Nathan saying: “We knew that we were right”, and subsequent comments were collected to support this view.

Evidence that raised reasonable doubt as to whether Titford started the fire, such as two sworn statements indicating another party had admitted responsibility, was ignored.

This stacking of comments to support the pre-conceived view of both the reporter and the presenter breaches standard 6, guideline 6a, which requires fairness in a factual programme.

 

b) Apparently assuming that Titford burnt his house down and blamed Te Roroa, when reporter Leilua was given two sworn statements creating a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of that assumption, Leilua ignored the affidavits and edited out of the final cut any reference to them by interviewee John Ansell.

This breaches standard 6, guideline 6b, which requires broadcasters to exercise care in editing programme material to ensure that the extracts used are not a distortion of the overall views expressed. [5]

 

4. Encouraged discrimination and denigration

Under Standard 7 – Discrimination and Denigration, broadcasters should not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status, or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.

The word “discrimination” refers to making “an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age”.

The word “denigration” means casting “aspersions on, decry, criticize unfairly, attack, speak ill of, speak badly of, blacken the character of, blacken the name of, give someone a bad name, sully the reputation of, or spread lies about”.

What lies beneath breaches Standard 7 because it encourages discrimination against and seeks to denigrate those who criticize the divisiveness of race-based affirmative action and treaty politics.

An encouragement to discriminate against those who criticise treaty politics and race-based affirmative action appeared in the intro to Part 2 of What lies beneath, when presenter Mihingarangi Forbes described Titford supporters as “people who were anti-treaty and anti-Maori, many of whom used their money, time, and connections to push their political agendas”.

The only evidence of support by wealthy individuals of critics of treatyism was an assertion that “rich-lister Alan Gibbs” backed the New Zealand Centre for Political Research that pushes against race-based special treatment.

The feature was silent on the existence of the network of multi-millionaire neo-tribal groups known as the Iwi Leaders Group that pushes for race-based special treatment.

Denigration of those who criticise treaty politics and race-based affirmative action appeared in the title What lies beneath, which captured an implication of a sinister pervasive racist undercurrent, with those drawing attention to the divisiveness of treaty politics castigated as racist.

Smearing a person with the allegation that he or she is racist appears intended to silence debate because it is based on the assumption that no right-minded person would want to speak out for fear of being called a racist.

The denigration of critics of treatyism as racist is in itself racist.

 

Remedy sought

 

Native Affairs staff members have shown an ability to investigate complex stories while asking hard questions. So why did they not do so in this 20-minute two-part feature that aired on Monday, May 12?

Errors in this feature may be remedied by a 20-minute clip on Native Affairs that includes:

 

1. An interview with someone who knows the details of the impact of the occupation at Maunganui Bluff on the Titfords, and the background of the Te Roroa claim for Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki.

 

2. An interview with Alex Nathan that asks:

a) Is it not true that on August 7, 1987, squatters moved on to the beach part of the section in force and erected signs to frighten away any prospective buyers.

b) Is it not true that on August 16, 1987, Hughie Te Rore and Huia White told Titford that if he gave them the land they would drop their tribunal claim.

c) Is it not true that on December 5, 1987, at 1.15pm, Hughie Te Rore and Huia White arrived at the house and said that if Titford removed the buildings used by squatters they would take revenge within 24 hours and it would be nationwide news.

d) Is it not true that on January 12, 1988, a group of claimants in a green Toyota Corona shot stock in Titford’s paddock. Claimants also arranged for the Historic Places Trust to come in and make the site a sacred area.

e) Is it not true that on January 20, 1988, claimants erected a large carved pole on Titford’s land, an event that local councillors, local non-Maori, Maori Marsden, and TVNZ reporters attended.

f) Is it not true that on March 22, 1988, claimant Hugh Te Rore had Conservation Department archaeologist Leigh Johnson (Mr) visit Titford’s farm. Johnson told Titford he had permission to be there from landowner Hugh Te Rore. Johnson also told Titford that the area was from then on wahi tapu and a reserve.

 

3. An interview with Ranginui Walker that asks:

a) Is it not true that the $3.225-million the government paid for the Titford farm included 1450 head of stock valued at $750,000 and plant at $50,000?

b) Is it not true that out of the $3.225-million purchase price, $1.8 million went to the National Bank and $425,000 went to other creditors?

c) Is it not true that Titford was left with $200,000 for land he paid $600,000 for nine years earlier?

d) Do you still stand by your comments that Titford made “a huge profit” out of the sale of his farm?

 

4. An interview with historian Paul Moon that asks:

a) Is it not true that as an historian, past events and old documents are your stock in trade?

b) Therefore, based on your expertise in past events and old documents, is it not true that the only reserve in the Maunganui block provided for in the 1876 sale was a 250-acre eel fishery reserve known as Taharoa for vendor Parore Te Awha?

c) Is it not true that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were not mentioned in the 1876 deed of sale?

d) Is it not true that neither were mentioned in the inquiry into the sale held in 1876?

e) Is it not true that the sale deed had a certificate to show that vendors Parore Te Awha and Tiopira Kinaki understood the terms of the sale?

f) Is it not true that the deed had a certificate to show no fraud had taken place?

g) Is it not true that a memo dated February 12, 1876, confirmed that Parore got Taharoa?

h) Is it not true that the first appearance of a claim for land known as Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki was in 1899, after both vendors and all involved in the 1876 sale had died?

i) Is it not true that Plan 3297/8 was created by surveyors Barnard and Stephens for a landowner named Wi Pou, of the Ngaitu hapu, as part of a proposal to buy from the government two reserves on the south side of Maunganui Bluff. Those reserves were to be named Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki?

j) Is it not true that Plan 3297/8 remained in government files as a record of a proposal that did not proceed?

 ___________________________

[1] Graham Rankin, Letter, June 4, 2001. http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/AllanandSusanvsTheWaitangiTribunal.html

[2] The Sale of Maunganui-Waipoua, The Te Roroa Report 1992. http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/reports/viewchapter.asp?reportID=7df6e15e-2c4d-4dd0-9e60-50a88ffb48a9&chapter=13

[3] See John Ansell’s recorded footage of the actual interviews see https://treatygate.wordpress.com/2014/05/13/what-maori-tv-didnt-show-you/#comments

[4] Native Purposes Act 1938. http://atojs.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/atojs?a=d&d=AJHR1942-I.2.1.8.4&e=——-10–1——0–

[5] See John Ansell’s recorded footage of the actual interviews see https://treatygate.wordpress.com/2014/05/13/what-maori-tv-didnt-show-you/#comments

In live debate on Maori TV, 8.30pm Monday

Undeterred by my exposé of their one-eyed Titford story (or more likely because they couldn’t get anyone else), Maori TV are flying me to Auckland to participate in a live Native Affairs debate on Monday night at 8.30pm.

Topics are:

1. The Littlewood ‘Treaty’. (I put the word in speech marks, since it’s a draft, not a treaty.)
2. New Zealand’s alternate history (ie that people other than Maori were first settlers of New Zealand).
3. The level of support for One New Zealand, NZCPR, Celtic NZ, 1LAW4ALL, the Pakeha Party and Treatygate.

They asked for teams of two from each side. But sadly, as of Friday, no one else from the above groups was prepared to front. (Disappointing, to say the least.)

Therefore I’m told my only opponent will be Annette Sykes.

Well, after my last two experiences of Maori TV debates, I wouldn’t bet on it.

The first time, reporter Semi Holland told me I’d be debating Joris de Bres and getting equal time. But on the night it was Joris and Ella Henry, giving them a two-thirds/one-third time advantage.

The next time when I was invited to debate Metiria Turei, Semi promised me she would not pull the same stunt.

But true to form, when I got there, Semi revealed that Metiria and I would soon be joined by John Tamihere. I got mad and she had to bribe me with chocolate cake to keep me in the building.

(My new name for Semi Holland, by the way, is Semi Honest.)

However I’m pleased I hung around that time, because their ambush backfired when Tamihere failed to show. Interviewer Julian Wilcox gave me a fair run and I got equal time — but only by accident.

Anyway, I believe in taking every opportunity to get the truth out there, and regardless of whether or not they honour their promise of a fair debate, I intend to give Monday night’s audience their money’s worth.

Tune in if you can. And show them you’re there by providing some pushback to the no-doubt-vicious abuse on the Native Affairs Facebook page!

What Maori TV didn’t show you

As I thought. Despite being handed two affidavits revealing that Sue Titford knew that her father had burned down the family home, Native Affairs reporter Iulia Leilua totally ignored this damning but highly inconvenient evidence.

Her report (with Martin Doutre and me featuring in part 2) blithely persisted with the line that Allan Titford had committed the arson — a charge Sue was happy to repeat in Court, knowing that National MP and now Far North mayor John Carter had guaranteed her  state immunity from being charged with perjury.

Anticipating Maori TV dishonesty from my several previous encounters with the channel, Martin and I took the unusual step of bringing along our own cameraman, John de Vere, to film all the interviews.

I’m glad we did so, as now you can see for yourself by comparing the raw footage above with the broadcast story how this state-funded channel wilfully omitted a key piece of evidence at odds with the state’s agenda to vilify Allan Titford.

Iulia did not appreciate being surprised by a second camera, but I explained that I had been surprised so many times by her channel that I simply did not trust them to present a fair account of the Titford story. I wanted a full record of everything I said, so I could post it if my fears proved correct.

The reporter had little choice but to accept this condition.

I then handed her the two affidavits from Sheryl Titford and Ileen McGrath. I explained that these were evidence of Sue’s admission that her father had confessed on his deathbed to burning down her and Allan’s home.

I thought this might be of interest to Maori TV. After all, as well as exonerating Allan Titford, Sue’s admission also exonerated the Te Roroa iwi from involvement in the arson.

But apparently they were more interested in presenting Te Roroa as aggrieved, and Allan as the cause.

You can see Iulia holding the two affidavits throughout the interview, and yet her report does not once mention this extraordinary evidence.

I’ve asked her by email why not. I’ll let you know if she ever answers.

Doutre and Ansell on Native Affairs, 8.30pm tonight

From 6.00am on the morning of the autumn equinox, 21 March (my birthday as it happens), Martin Doutre and I stood on the summit of Mt Albert with a film crew from Maori TV waiting for the sun to rise.

It did so on the other side of Auckland, in a trench which Martin said had been cut by the Patuparaiehe people to line up the equinoxial sunrise with the standing stone that we were standing beside. Cloud unfortunately obscured the event, which Martin has recorded on other occasions.

We then went down to Stanley Street to film Martin with some giant boulders which had been removed from a hill in Silverdale, and which had for thousands of years before that performed a similar astronomical role.

On a bench nearby I was filmed talking about Martin, and also about the Allan Titford case — the main reason I had made the journey from Wellington.

I thought I’d make the Titford interview more newsworthy by presenting the reporter with the two affidavits revealing that Sue Titford-Cochrane’s father had confessed to burning down Allan and Sue’s Maunganui Bluff home, not Allan, as Sue testified in Court.

We’ll see how much of this makes it to air tonight at 8.30pm. Given the media’s record so far, let’s say I’m not overly confident.

 

 

 

Doutré: boat Sue says Allan axed had steel hull!

Amongst the avalanche of lies told by Susan Titford is this big porky about Allan Titford sinking his own fishing boat.

By Martin Doutré

(Not John Ansell. If anyone knows how to get WordPress to stop inserting the blog owner’s name automatically, let’s know.)

Susan (née Cochrane) Titford putting the boot in once again in order to show the public what an absolutely dastardly fellow Allan was.

This time she’s accusing him of sinking his own fishing boat to defraud an insurance company and gain a substantial pecuniary advantage or financial windfall accordingly.

This scenario, dreamt up by Susan and/or her very naive handlers in Crown Law, the police or otherwise, then foisted onto an unsuspecting public by the presstitutes, is particularly stupid for the following reasons:

These imbeciles obviously assumed that the Helene 1 fishing boat was of wooden hull construction, capable of being holed by an axe, when, in fact, it had an ALL-STEEL, heavy plate hull.

The Helene 1 was capable of withstanding very rough seas without crippling damage, as well as severe impacts from hidden shoals if run aground in the shallows.

Such is the nature of marine steel construction, which can withstand extremely heavy punishment.

Allan Titford vehemently denies that he ever told Susan any such thing and, moreover, anyone who knows Allan well also knows, emphatically, how guarded and protective he is of his stuff.

It would be totally out of character for him to destroy his own fishing boat or house (or any other of his machines, plant and hard-won assets for that matter).

So, let’s explore the logistics of Allan Titford pulling-off this ridiculous stunt of deliberately sinking his own fishing boat.

Even if Allan Titford could actually get at a section of the inner hull with an axe and hit it with the required heavy blows (which he couldn’t), it’s certain he’d have been totally exhausted from the physical effort long before making any kind of dent or impression in the heavy steel plate.

The headroom down in the hold of the Helene 1 was only about 4’ (1.2 metres), so the idiot with the axe would have to swing it in a stooped or kneeling position, thus restricting the force of the blow.

But there’s another major problem.

The Helene 1 could act as a fueler for other fishing boats and had huge fuel-carrying capacity.

The entire length of the boat, port & starboard sides, stem-to-stern, was lined with fuel tanks, which blocked access to the hull.

This means that the idiot with the axe would first have to smash his way through the fuel tanks and end up swimming in diesel up to his belly button, before even being able to get access to the actual hull surface itself.

Any such bloody-minded and determined idiot would be quickly asphyxiated by diesel fumes.

Then there’s also the problem of the other crew members, whose lives were to be placed in great jeopardy by this moronic sabotage-attempt, 40-miles off the coast of Westport.

Isn’t it mildly possible that the others would have detected the hour-upon-hour smashing reverberations of their mad, axe wielding skipper, pounding away relentlessly a few feet below them under the deck?

Wouldn’t one of them have lifted the hatch to ask what was going on, then realised their insane skipper was trying to send the boat and them down to Davy Jones’ locker?

A bit of simple investigative journalism by the media-whores who wrote the above article, along the lines of contacting year-1969 ship builder of the Helene 1 in Timaru, would have put-paid to this stupid accusation very quickly.

The 46-feet long Helene 1 in dry dock being painted with red-lead antifouling paint to protect the all-steel hull. On the pilot house, vertical streaks of rust staining have left a mark over the central region of the name Helene 1.  

The Helene 1 was a handsome and sturdy boat that Allan Titford was, understandably, both proud to skipper and own. He was also doing quite well financially with his fishing venture.  

Loss of the boat was a major financial setback for Allan, as the long-awaited insurance pay-out was insufficient to buy a replacement boat anywhere near as large as the Helene 1 and, because the new boat was considerably shorter, Allan’s valuable fishing quota was cut drastically.

Another photo of the antifouling preservation work being done in dry dock.

This marine accident was due to a badly repaired, out of line and unbalanced propeller shaft, done by Wanganui based marine engineers.

Although the job was passed by the marine surveyor and signed off, there was, after the new shaft was fitted, a severe vibration through the boat when it was underway.

This constant vibration is thought to have eventually caused metal fatigue at the point where the propeller shaft passed through the hull from the engine room, thus rupturing the hull or piping that pumped seawater coolant to the engine.

Seawater was already lapping the top of the engine when a crew member lifted the hatch and peered down into the hold.

Frantic efforts were then made to get a hand pump working, distress calls were radioed out and other fishing boats converged on the scene as quickly as they could in an effort to save the Helene 1 and its crew.

A pump that was supposed to be helicoptered to the stricken vessel did not arrive in time and the Helene 1, listing badly, finally turned-turkey and sank while being towed to Westport by another fishing boat. 

None of the accusations made by Susan Titford concerning the loss of this boat or purported financial rewards that allegedly came from the tragic mishap, can be sustained in view of the known facts and Susan proves herself to be, once again, severely truth-challenged.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Here below is my email exchange with Mr. Trevor Robb of Aeromarine Industries Ltd, builders of the Helene 1 fishing boat:

From: Martin Doutré
Sent: 25 January 2014 7:48 a.m.
To: sales@aeromarine.co.nz
Subject: Aeromarine Industries Ltd: Helene 1, 1969

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am doing research on the Helene 1 fishing boat, built by Robb & Co in 1969 and would appreciate any specifications or photos of the boat under construction or finished.

I understand the hull was steel and that it later underwent modification to elongate the hull to 46′.

I understand also that it had huge fuel carrying capacity, with steel tanks lining the entirety of the inner hull.

Any information you could supply from your archives would be most appreciated.

Best wishes,

Martin Doutré,
Auckland.

From: Trevor Robb
Sent: Monday, 27 January 2014 7:13 p.m.
To: Martin Doutré
Cc: ‘Simon Robb’
Subject: FW: Aeromarine Industries Ltd: Helene 1, 1969

Hello Martin, Thank you for your email re the Helene.

I worked on the team that designed and built this boat.  There are possibly some records available.  What is your interest in this boat?

Trevor Robb.

From: Martin Doutre
Sent: Monday, 27 January 2014 9:03 p.m.
To: Trevor
Subject: RE: Aeromarine Industries Ltd: Helene 1, 1969

Hi Trevor,

Many thanks for responding to my inquiry and it’s especially good to know that you assisted with both the design and building of the Helene 1.

My interest in the boat is to help the former skipper of the vessel (when it was lost 40-miles out to sea off Westport in 1985), Allan John Titford, from certain slanderous accusations.

Allan was fishing very successfully with the boat, but had recently had a repair done to the main shaft in Wanganui.

He and his brother Brian, plus the other crew member, noted that when the boat was underway after the fitting of the new shaft, there was a terrible shudder through the hull.

Allan told me that he laid a spanner on the aft part of the deck and it virtually floated on air because of the vibration.

Unfortunately, these many years on, Allan, in a bitter marital split, is being publically accused by his ex of having told her how he took an axe and chopped through the hull to sink the boat and collect on the insurance.

This is based upon the assumption that the hull was of wooden construction.

However, according to what Allan has told me from Mt. Eden Prison, where he is languishing due to the testimony and character assassination of his former wife, the boat was of all steel construction.

Further to that, when it was elongated to 46’ overall, the inner hull was lined with extra fuel tanks, sufficient to travel all the way to the Chatham’s and back on its own on-board supplies.

One would have to cut through the steel fuel tanks first to even get at the hull and, apparently, accomplish all of this in a stooped position where the headroom was only 4′.

Allan vehemently denies that he ever said such a thing to his wife throughout the entirety of the marriage.

The loss of the Helene 1 was a major setback for Allan. He not only had to settle for a much smaller replacement boat, but subsequently lost a large chunk of his fishing quota in the process.

Any verification you could give related to the materials used in the construction of the Helene 1 or an overall blueprint picture, photo or whatever would be most appreciated.

Best wishes,

Martin Doutré,
Auckland.

From: Martin Doutre
Sent: Monday, 17 March 2014 5:42 p.m.
To: Trevor
Subject: RE: Aeromarine Industries Ltd: Helene 1, 1969

Hi Trevor,

You may recall my request for information about the Helene 1 fishing boat a couple of months ago.

All I really need to know is whether it was all-steel construction, as my friend Allan Titford (former owner) claims.

As stated, he has been publicly accused in the New Zealand media of sinking the boat with an axe (40-miles off Westport) … which, in and of itself, would have been very risky and put his life, as well as that of his crew members, in severe jeopardy.

Allan assures me that the boat was all-steel construction through the hull, which was also lined with fuel tanks from stem to stern.

Although I would dearly love any photos or other archival materials that you may be able to supply about the Helene 1, to exonerate Allan your simple verification that the hull was all-steel construction would be sufficient to counter and silence his accusers, who assume the hull was wooden and thereby sinkable with an axe.

Having worked in the trades myself for many years and done plenty of heavy-plate welding, I can readily see that this “sinking [a steel hulled boat] with an axe” scenario is ridiculous.

Best wishes, Martin Doutré,
Auckland.

From: Trevor Robb
Sent: Thursday, 20 March 2014 9:57 a.m.
To: ‘Martin Doutre’
Subject: RE: Aeromarine Industries Ltd: Helene 1, 1969

Yes Martin, I am able to confirm that the Helene 1 as built by D F Robb & Co Ltd was of all steel construction.

This should be able to be further confirmed by plans and approval given by the then Ministry of Transport, Marine Division.

Yours faithfully

Trevor Robb
Former Manager and shareholder of D F Robb & Co Ltd.

Martin Doutré: good on you, Ulanda!

The following are the words of Martin Doutré, a man who, along with Ross Baker, deserves a knighthood for the work he has done to enlighten truth-seeking New Zealanders.

Ross and Martin’s dogged research has exposed many Treatygate scams. They, in tandem with fellow walking encyclopaedia Allan Titford, Allan’s once-supportive wife Sue, and others like Jean Jackson, have proved to the satisfaction of all reasonable observers (not including the corrupt Waitangi Tribunal) that the Te Roroa land claim on the Titford farm is false.

For decades Ross, and more recently Martin, have spent a great deal of time with the Titford family, and got to know them all well.

These are Martin’s thoughts on the predicament Ulanda now finds herself in.

_______________________________

Essentially, Ulanda’s world got turned on its head when a bunch of conniving adults, from varied backgrounds and harbouring their own selfish motives, hatched a plan to take Allan Titford down.

The primary instigators of this programme appear to have been government and grievance-industry-aligned outsiders, who had tried to nail Allan Titford to the wall for years, in retaliation (utu) for the embarrassment he continued to cause them with his all-too-well documented evidence.

Some of this gaggle obviously included Crown Law, the Waitangi Tribunal, the police, Te Roroa opportunist thugs, The Treaty of Waitangi Information (propaganda) Unit and various members of parliament, whose dirty laundry had been hung out by Titford for all to see, etc., etc.

A unique opportunity arose to exploit Susan’s disenchantment with the rigours of dairy farm life and a marriage that was turning sour. The evidence suggests that, bit by bit, she began to play ball behind the scenes with authorities hell-bent on destroying Allan Titford once and for all.

What the authorities had failed miserably to accomplish in the public arena by fair and open means, they would accomplish via a domestic dispute sideshow and ad hominem attack that distracted public attention away from the true, outstanding issues.

The Titford children obviously became mere pawns in a strategic game being played out at a high level by government corridor-creepers with political agendas, offering enticements (pie in the sky by and by) to those in the family willing to cooperate.

It was, however, absolutely essential that there be solidarity, a singular focus and closed ranks by the entire group. Everyone had to toe the line or certain family heavies would need to intervene to browbeat or intimidate unbelievers and strays into compliant submission.

Ulanda and others of the impressionable children fell victim to severe yell-you-down adult attacks, emotional blackmail and intimidation when they broke ranks and were no longer willing to be actors in the farcical pantomime being played out.

Left: The Titford dairy farm home at Awanui was a pretty normal  rough-and- tumble household that got a bit dishevelled, then cleaned up and organised on a daily basis. The cupboards were always overflowing with plenty of goodies, the lounge was often strewn with toys and, in this photo, Xmas cards from well-wishers hang from above the sliding doors leading out to the deck. Nice portraits of all the kids hung from the walls and, although the language between siblings was often colourful, everyone interacted reasonably well. 

Right: Flounder speared at the back of the farm by James and Ulanda sit in the kitchen sink before a fry-up.

Left: Ulanda, in gumboots, gets down into a muddy ditch in preparation of getting a strop around a stranded cow before it gets gently pulled to safety by the tractor.

Right: Shiane, Ulanda and Jesse horse around in one of Allan’s vintage cars before it’s put to bed in a shed.

Left: Alyssa (background) and Ulanda (foreground) involved in the once-a-day, afternoon milking and training up the city-boy bystander on what to do.

Right: Shiane, Jesse and Alyssa in the background and Ulanda sitting in the water at Ninety Mile Beach, not far from the farm, where they often went to recreate. The also swam regularly at the local lake and frequently dined out at Kaitaia.

I was impressed that the kids were always well dressed, seemed to have all of the latest electronic gadgetry or toys, etc., and what I would have described as a nice environment to grow up in at and around the farm.

Allan maintained a level of discipline that kept the children on the straight and narrow, which situation, once he was out of the picture (2.5 years after these pictures were taken), turned to custard.

Some of the kids turned feral once they were beyond Allan’s jurisdiction. Adults such as Susan, as well as her father Graham and brother Richard turned a blind eye and blithely let the older girls be sexually exploited by live-in adult predators, a situation Allan would never have tolerated for an instant.

If anything, Allan was perhaps over-protective and ever mindful of consequences, which might explain why in about 40 years of driving he never had one speeding or parking ticket.

Alyssa and her boyfriend Tyler, as well as James, complained to me about the constant harassment they endured from Graham and Richard Cochrane, which caused them to flee the Hikurangi home and try to make a life for themselves elsewhere.

Similarly, both Ulanda and Gene Hanham (an adult who had been permitted to sleep with 13 year old Ulanda and had impregnated her when she was only about 14 years of age) complained of the almost daily violence and abuse being handed down by Graham and Richard, which caused them to flee also.

When they did finally fly the coop, however, the threats from Susan, Graham, Richard and Alyssa came in thick and fast, heavily laced with emotional blackmail to get them back into line.

Gene Hanham had been threatened with a shot between his eyes or in the chest, and, according to dispossessed Northland farmer, Don Harrison, something akin to that did in fact happen, except with a non-lethal, gun-blasted, paper-wad projectile that, according to Don, is reported to have “hurt like hell”.

Thereafter, Gene Hanham apparently saw the world in a whole new light and wrote to Allan, threatening him that he was not to, under any circumstances, release any of the supportive statements Ulanda had sent to him.

Isn’t it amazing what a near-death experience can do to an individual’s outlook on life, and how putting the fear of god into someone can bring about such a dramatic and spontaneous reappraisal of how they should conduct themselves?

So, in summary, very young, impressionable and vulnerable Ulanda, for all of her good intentions and genuine sentiments in support of her father, didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of countering the many adult bullies that surrounded her, yelling her down and bludgeoning her into dutiful submission when she refused to participate in the let’s-all-hate-Dad game.

In the end, even the father of her child, Gene, withdrew his support, seemingly in dread fear after having so recently confronted his own delicate grip on mortality.

Good on you Ulanda!

Despite your tender years and all of the intimidation or turmoil you were unfairly subjected to, you still had the courage of your convictions to speak out in defence of your much-maligned Dad.

With all due consideration to your present situation or need to survive as a young mother and partner, trying to make a go of things, your former actions of speaking the truth when forbidden to do so, stand out as remarkable and courageous.

I have great respect and admiration for you, as do others who read your words, for what you tried to do in such intimidating and difficult circumstances.

Despite your heart-felt pleas, your Dad had the ultimate gag-order placed on him.

If he contacted you in any way, even through a third party like me, it meant a serious breach of the trespass-order and immediate imprisonment … as he came to find out when he tried to help Alyssa in 2010.

What you wanted or what your father wanted didn’t count, as others held all the power over you both.

Ulanda Titford desperate to see her dad – and said Sue put sewage in his food

With some reluctance and sadness, I publish the following statements of a young Ulanda Titford, then aged 15.

Martin Doutré tells me he knew Ulanda as a nice young girl, whom he is sure has recently been pressured by her mother and Sue’s violent family into switching her allegiance, in exchange for money and safety for herself, partner and baby.

This is how much she detested her mother in 2011, and wanted to be with her father Allan — recently imprisoned for 24 years for supposedly abusing her, her mother and siblings…

Sue says Ulanda was bribed to write the above.

Oh, and the below, written the same day…

And this, written the next day…

Even though Ulanda desperately wanted her dad in her life, Sue’s protection order banned Allan from making any contact with his children.

This cost him dearly when Martin Doutré told Allan that his daughter Alyssa was roaming around the countryside out of control while under Sue’s care (she and a boyfriend having just stolen Martin’s car).

As a concerned dad, Allan decided to breach his protection order and ring Sue, and they had a long, amicable chat about the situation.

Then Sue reported Allan to the police, and he was locked up for four months — until Martin’s testimony got him released.

Amazingly, even if Allan had asked Martin to contact Alyssa — or Ulanda in the above case — Allan would still have been thrown in prison.

The state has destroyed his relationship with his children, and Sue has been free to fill their heads with terrifying stories of Allan wanting to kill them. Ulanda, for one, clearly had no such concerns about him.

Below is the statement of Denise Whitehead, the mother of Ulanda’s boyfriend Gene Hanham…

Daughter’s boyfriend accuses Sue and family of lying, bribing and threatening to kill

 From the statement (below) of Gene Hanham, boyfriend
of Sue and Allan Titford’s daughter Ulanda.

Sue says that what you are about to read was extracted from her daughter’s boyfriend, Gene Hanham, by bribery.

What do you think?

To assist you, I will soon be posting a similar statement by Ulanda herself, which Sue also says was made in response to bribe by Allan. Allan emphatically denies this.

But Sue does not deny having offered each of her children $5000, but does deny that it was an inducement to testify on her behalf. Hanham says otherwise…

Question for Sue: If Ulanda is as susceptible to bribes as you say, could your offer — and Allan’s failure to deliver on his (which he insists he never made) — explain why Ulanda is now siding with you?

Now read Gene Hanham’s statement. Note in particular the comment:

“to me we shouldn’t be afarid of allan titford we should be affarid of the Cochrane family. and im scared of grahame Cochrane & richard Cochrane because they both have got gun’s & a gun licence and they both have told me that if i ever told any bodie what i had been told bye them & Susan that they would put a bullet either between my eye’s our in my chest … the way they talk they will do anything for the money & that’s what it is all over Susan Cochrane just want’s all the money and the land.”

The Titford trial: a badly-orchestrated litany of lies

Questions and Answers from the court transcript of Allan Titford’s trial.

Last Saturday, I visited Allan Titford in his new home of Rimutaka Prison in Upper Hutt. I will be going over the hill again tomorrow, and hopefully every Saturday until I find a good reason to abandon him to his fate, or until he is released.

(Or until someone tampers with my brakes.)

So far, all I’m finding is more reasons to support him. I’m finding evidence of Sue Titford and her family having told lie after lie. The above conflicting accounts of whether she bribed her children is just one such example.

Sue admitted she did offer them $5000, but not as a bribe to testify for her.

But at the same one-sided trial, the kids were evidently unaware that she had admitted doing this, so each proceeded to lie that she had not offered them any money at all.

Meanwhile, here is the recollection of Ulanda Titford’s boyfriend Gene Hanham:

From a statement written by Gene Hanham on 2 February 2011.
Hanham, along with many others who speak well of Allan,
including Sue’s own brother, was not called as a witness.

You’ll remember in my last post I said I’d been talking to Sue’s brother, Dennis Cochrane. Dennis believes Allan is innocent.

He was surprised when I told him that Sue had said their father had confessed to burning down the house, and wondered aloud whether Sue might have done it herself.

This is what he had to say about the sister he has known all his life, and does not trust to tell the truth:

“I dont know what evidence the other famly members have said about Allan, but what I think is: Sue would have had input into all their testimonies.

As for slavery, I have video of them on holiday, as they went just about every year while Allan was still at home working the farm.

The kids are out of control after Sue left Allan — James and Alyssa into drugs —  just out of control.

Sue was the one who was telling our parents that Allan wants them dead. She was always telling them that as mum and dad would tell me so.

Just let me know if I can help. Like I said I’ll be happy to tell my side of things Sue and her famly have done to me.”

Bear in mind that Sue is a self-confessed liar. She was given immunity by the government from prosecution for perjury. This was on the grounds that she lied for Allan for 22 years because he would have beaten her up if she had not.

I say she is lying about that.

Either way, she is clearly capable of lying, for whatever reason.

(And why, you might well ask, would the state want to get involved in a marital case — unless it wanted to punish the man who had done such a good job of exposing state corruption?)

Last Saturday, as Allan Titford sat with me in his orange prison boiler suit, he shook his head and said, “I never would have believed I could end up somewhere like this.”

So disillusioned has he become about the New Zealand so-called justice system that he’s renounced his New Zealand citizenship and that of his new son, Leo, under the law of sui juris.

Now I don’t claim to understand that law. But he does, and I can’t say I blame him for disowning the country that has persecuted him so mercilessly for over half his life.

At the moment, Allan is due to have his appeal heard in June. But having been stripped of his assets, he is again reliant on the state for legal representation.

And as happened before his trial, his legal aid application is again being stalled, so his lawyer will have next to no time to prepare. Last time, the approval came so late that the first time he met his lawyer was on the first day of the trial.

How can that be called a fair trial?

Not only that, but his most inept North Shore barrister, John Moroney, refused to even visit Allan beforehand. This was absolutely necessary, since the state had banned Allan from travelling north of the Waikato — supposedly to stop him from menacing certain Northlanders, but more likely to stop him from maintaining his farm.)

John Moroney also failed to challenge the children on why their testimonies, above, conflicted so markedly with their mother’s. Am I really the first one to have noticed this?

Please send the information on this blog to as many good Kiwis as you can, and let’s see if we can find a decent MP or benefactor who is prepared to help get him out.

It will take someone with rare courage and commitment to fairness, given that Allan has been so effectively demonised as a monster by his former wife and former government.

DEATHBED CONFESSION: SUE TITFORD’S DAD TORCHED MAUNGANUI BLUFF HOME – Sue, kids, police and Allan’s legal aid lawyer knew Allan was innocent, but let the court convict him.

There has been a major breakthrough in the Allan Titford case. And sadly (but typically) every newspaper, TV channel and radio station in this country, in accord with the state’s wishes, is covering it up.

Before you read the affidavit below, bear in mind that the woman writing it, Sheryll Titford, along with her husband, Allan’s brother Brian, doesn’t like Allan. She has always supported her former sister-in-law, Susan Titford (Cochrane).

(And before you conclude that Allan must be guilty if his brother and sister-in-law don’t like him, wait till you hear what Sue’s brother Dennis Cochrane has to say about the dishonesty of his sister Sue — but that’s the subject of another post.)

This is what makes Sheryll Titford’s voluntary affidavit so remarkable. Despite being a friend of Sue’s, Sheryll has been moved by her conscience to do the right thing by Allan.

Sheryll’s affidavit reveals that Sue told her that her (Sue’s) father, Graham Cochrane, confessed on his deathbed to burning down Sue and Allan’s family home at Maunganui Bluff.

Sue and Allan’s daughter Alyssa Titford witnessed Graham Cochrane’s confession.

Sheryll gave all this information to the Kaitaia police, who had charged Allan Titford with the arson, and were in the middle of the trial trying to prove it.

Allan’s aunt, Ileen McGrath, who had persuaded Sheryll to tell the police what she knew, gave the same information to Allan’s state-provided legal aid lawyer, John Moroney.

And yet, despite Sue, Alyssa, the police and Allan’s government lawyer having information that Allan did not burn down his house, Sue testified in court — in great detail — that he did.

And the police said nothing and allowed Allan to be sentenced to 24 years imprisonment for this and many other charges, convicted solely on the evidence of Sue and her family and friends who stood to gain massively from stripping Allan of his money, property and liberty.

And the lawyer, even more remarkably, made no mention of the new evidence in his client’s defence, having previously called precisely no witnesses for Allan despite being given several pages of names!

OK. Now read Sheryll Titford’s affidavit…

Affidavit of Sheryll Titford saying Sue Titford’s father, Graham Cochrane
confessed on his deathbed to burning down Sue and Allan’s house.

Now follows another affidavit. This one’s from Allan Titford’s aunt, Ileen McGrath, telling of how Sheryll told her about Sue’s revelation of her father’s confessioni.

It also reveals that Sheryll gave this information to the firm acting for Allan — and yet Allan’s state-provided legal aid lawyer, John Moroney, did nothing to bring it to the attention of the judge before sentencing.

Affidavit of Ileen McGrath confirming her discussions with
Sheryll Titford and with Allan’s legal aid lawyer’s firm.

Now finally a statement from Martin Doutré, the dogged researcher who had already formed the view that Graham Cochrane had committed the arson before a chat with Ileen McGrath confirmed his suspicion.

_____________________________________

STATEMENT OF MARTIN DOUTRÉ
1 JANUARY 2014

To whom it may concern. 

INTERVIEW WITH ILEEN MCGRATH, ALLAN TITFORD’S AUNT, 31^ST OF DECEMBER 2013. 

On the 31^st of December 2013, I phoned Ileen McGrath, Allan Titfords’s aunt, and arranged to drop off a package of papers to her.

I had contacted her the day before to discuss the visit I had with her nephew, Allan John Titford, at Mt. Eden Prison the previous Sunday afternoon.

In the course of that earlier 30^th of December 2013 phone call I had expressed my impression that it seemed highly likely to me that the 4^th of July 1992 arson of the Titford farm home at Maunganui Bluff might have been done by Susan Titford’s father.

This suspicion had been aroused in reading letters or reports by Susan at the time, which indicated her intense fear of the Te Roroa Maori terrorists and their death threats or on-going intimidation of both Allan and her.

It appeared very likely that Susan’s father, Graham Cochrane, strongly-desired to remove Susan from the very threatening environment, at all cost, and considered that the best way to accomplish this was by destroying the home to force eviction from the property under siege.

In stating my suspicions to Ileen McGrath by phone on the 30^th of December 2013, she immediately said she had information, along the same lines, that she would not discuss on the phone, but would share with me when I dropped off the package of papers.

At around 1: 45 pm to 3 pm on the 31^st of December, at her home at Browns Bay and in the presence of Lewis Titford, Allan’s uncle, Ileen gave the following account:

• When Susan Titford’s father, Graham Cochrane died on the 16^th of August 2011, Sheryll Titford, wife of Brian Titford of Waiwera, Allan Titford’s brother, went up to visit the family the day before the funeral.

• Sheryll Titford was a close friend and confidant of Susan Titford (née Cochrane) and was belligerent towards Allan Titford, as was Brian Titford, Sheryll’s husband.

• At this family gathering or wake, Susan, very distraught and in the company of Alyssa and James, approached Sheryll and told her that Graham Cochrane had made a deathbed confession that he had burnt down the home at Maunganui Bluff in 1992.

• About a week after Graham Cochrane’s funeral, Ileen McGrath attended a family BBQ at Waiwera and washed dishes afterwards with Sheryll.

• Sheryll appeared to have a bottled-up need to share the very important revelation from Susan with Ileen and, although Sheryll remained contemptuous in her attitude towards Allan, but loyal to Susan, she was in a quandary as to what she should do with this very significant knowledge.

• Ileen McGrath told Sheryll that she should “do the right thing” and disclose the information to the police.

• At a later, unknown, date Sheryll phoned Ileen to say “It’s done”.

• Sheryll then recounted how she’d transmitted this information to Detective Eddie Evans, the individual handling Titford’s files and the one designated to provide Allan Titford with full police disclosure.

• Despite having this pertinent and highly significant information in his possession before Allan Titford was sentenced, accompanied by a legal obligation to disclose it to Allan, Detective Eddie Evans withheld this from the court.

• As a result of this omission, Allan Titford was subsequently convicted of arson, even though the police knew he was innocent of the charge before sentencing occurred.

• Also, during the 2013 trial and before sentencing, Ileen McGrath wished to speak with Allan’s legal aid lawyer and tell him what Sheryll had told her, however did not know his name.

• Allan had told Ileen that his lawyer was Mr. Moloney and that he had offices in Albany. Ileen could not find any such individual in the telephone book, so called barrister Greg Denholm to see if he had contact details.

• Greg Denholm said to Ileen that the lawyer’s name was Mahoney, but Ileen could find no such reference either, so simply went through the yellow pages to locate lawyers with premises in Albany. She then found reference to an Albany-based lawyer called Moroney.

• After verifying that Mr. Moroney was representing Allan Titford, Ileen went down to the premises of the lawyer, situated adjacent to the Albany courthouse, and asked to see Mr. Moroney, but the secretary said he was away.

• Ileen gave an account of what Sheryll Titford had told her and said that an affidavit (verbal or otherwise) about Graham Cochrane’s deathbed confession had been presented, by Sheryll, to Detective Eddie Evans, who had noted these facts.

• The secretary said that she knew Eddie Evans very well and would transmit this information to Mr. Moroney.

Graham Neville Cochrane, 1945 – 2011, arsonist, who admitted on his deathbed
to burning down the home of Allan and Susan Titford at Maunganui Bluff on
the 4^th of July 1992.

Ileen McGrath had done all in her power to convey this important information to Allan’s lawyer for use in Allan’s defence.

Regardless of this effort, the affidavit by Sheryll Titford was not presented for the court’s consideration, nor were any witnesses of Graham Cochrane’s deathbed confession called for cross-examination.

Allan Titford was subsequently convicted of burning down his own home and sentenced accordingly, based upon the known fraudulent testimony of Susan Titford (née Cochrane), who knew first-hand that her father, Graham Cochrane had admitted to being the arsonist.

Alyssa and James Titford also knew that their father was innocent of this charge, but deliberately withheld that knowledge from the court.

Susan, Alyssa and James have proven themselves to be hostile witnesses who have knowingly committed perjury and whose testimony should not be permissible in a court of law.

Ileen McGrath prepared her own affidavit concerning what was told to her by Sheryll Titford, as well as their combined attempts to transmit this very important information to the police and court prior to Allan Titford’s sentencing on this false charge.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Doutré,

1/1/14.

_____________________________________

There is much more to come out on this story, specifically about state corruption and collusion with a family of habitual liars.

But will a mainstream medium have the guts to run it?

If Sue can lie so brazenly about the arson, what else did she, Alyssa and the other children lie about?

More soon.

Talking Treaty on Radio Live on Waitangi Day

I’ve been invited to appear twice on Radio Live tomorrow, first at 8.10am during the breakfast show, then later with Colin Espiner (not sure when).

The producer didn’t say what they wanted me to talk about, just that “it’s always good to get your perspective”.

In that case, I’ll attempt to clarify two things:

1. THE TREATY OF WAITANGI WAS NOT
NEW ZEALAND’S FOUNDING DOCUMENT

If anything, the Treaty of Wellington helped turn New Zealanders into Aussies.

Yes really.

Remember, Captain Hobson was Lieutenant-Governor of New South Wales, under Governor Gipps. After Hobson had collected the signatures of the 512 chiefs, his boss declared that the borders of NSW were now extended to include New Zealand.

So what was New Zealand’s founding document?

This one…

Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of November 16, 1840

This long-ignored and much more official-looking proclamation — which made New Zealand a separate colony of Great Britain, independent of New South Wales — is Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of November 16, 1840.

Some, notably Ross Baker of the One New Zealand Foundation, argue that this date should be our national day — New Zealand’s Independence Day.

(And certainly, many would argue it’s much more important to be independent of our Brother Country than the Mother Country!)

So what was the Treaty of Waitangi?

It was a preliminary facilitating agreement by which the Maori chiefs signed over control of the country to the Queen. (Otherwise known as ‘ceding sovereignty’.)

And in return for this major concession, all the Maori people — not just the chiefs — received a great prize: equal membership of the greatest empire on earth, and the empire’s protection of their people and property.

Note: “their property” meant just that. Their things. The land they lived on. The land they grew crops on. The waters they fished on.

It did not mean the entire island on which they happened to occupy one small corner.

It did not mean they could expect to keep their land after breaching the Treaty by trying to exterminate the British they had formerly welcomed.

It did not include discoveries made by Europeans many decades later, like the electromagnetic spectrum.

The Maori word for what they got to retain was taonga, which chief Hongi Hika  defined for the dictionary current in 1840 as “property procured by the spear”.

It is hard to spear a radio wave, or a language.

2. THE TREATY REFERRED TO TODAY
IS THE TREATY OF WELLINGTON 1989

Today’s much-vaunted ‘Treaty principles’ are nowhere to be found in the Treaty of Waitangi 1840.

They come from a hastily-prepared press release which should rightly be called the Treaty of Wellington 1989, since that was the year Geoffrey Palmer conjured the principles up out of thin air.

The Treaty of Waitangi contains one overarching principle: equal citizenship for all New Zealanders.

 

Sue Titford’s diary casts doubt on 2009 rape

Sue offers two different accounts of what happened “on or about the 7th
day of July 2009”. Which is true? Is either true? Sure, being kicked out of
bed for not having sex is not very nice. But it’s the very opposite of rape.

Of the 39 convictions for which Allan Titford has been sentenced to 24 years in prison, by far the most serious are three convictions for rape — supposedly in 1987, 2008 and 2009.

(The maximum penalty for rape, by the way, is 20 years.)

In the last post, you read medical evidence for why Titford was unlikely to have been ‘up’ for a sexual violation in 1987.

After his pain problem was fixed, he may have been — but now Sue’s own diary casts doubt on the 2009 rape as well.

Martin Doutré picks up where he left off in the last post…

MARTIN DOUTRÉ TO SUE TITFORD (COCHRANE) — CONTINUED

Also as previously stated, the only rape accusation that is accompanied by a date (on or about July 7, 2009, at Kaitaia) for which Allan was convicted, is very conspicuous by its absence in the detailed list of allegations against Allan that you sent to me – even though diary entries for both the 6th and 7th of July 2009 are covered.

You wrote:

6 July 2009, Allan was grumpy and yelling at everyone all night. He never talks to use like people only like animals. Tonight after arguing when we went to bed I would not have sex with him so he pushed me out of bed with his feet and told me to fuck off, and then said it doesn’t matter because I am useless in bed any way. So I slept in Alyssa’s room the night. 7

July 09 Allan came up to Alyssa’s bedroom  kicked me in the legs and told me to get up and go to his room to talk. He told me to pack up and leave. Which would be ok if I have somewhere to go and an income to support all the kids.

Is this another one of those instances where you suddenly had a ‘flashback’ after deep consultation with the police, and the ‘repressed memory’ suddenly came to the fore, causing you to rush home and add it to your diary, years after the event?

Allan Titford has been stitched up by an orchestrated litany of lies and a smear campaign, in which Susan is merely one duped, complicit but useful participant in the greater ad hominem attack.

Martin Doutre

_______________________________________

That’s two of the three rapes that may not have happened.

So, did the third?

Doctor’s letter casts doubt on 1987 Titford rape

Letter from Allan Titford’s doctor saying Titford found
sex painful at the time his wife says he raped her.

Titford family friend Martin Doutré says that if Allan had had a fair trial, this doctor’s letter saying he found sex painful in the first six years of his marriage would have been presented.

So would various cards from Sue to Allan that make it hard to believe her claim that Allan abused her for the whole 22 years.

MARTIN DOUTRÉ TO SUSAN TITFORD (COCHRANE)

Hi Susan,

It’s certainly true that after I received your list of accusations against Allan in September 2009 I was astounded, and wrote back a sympathetic response accordingly.

On the surface of it, I had to initially accept you at your word and respond with appropriate sensitivity. It was the same case for Ross Baker and many others.

But then some serious cracks started to appear in the plasterwork.

There are a number of things that you’ve very conveniently left out of your story, which should have been raised and discussed fully in a court of law.

One of these relates to the alleged rape charges, and Allan’s ability or desire to commit that kind of act.

Now, I know that this subject matter constitutes a veritable no-mans-land, where no bloke is allowed to venture with an opinion, or have any kind of dissenting point of view.

In the standard list of accusations that a man is obliged to wear in a matrimonial dispute, this one invariably sits near the top.

Under the very hazy definition of what now constitutes marital rape (i.e. “I didn’t want it that night – but let it happen against my will”, most married men have been ‘raped’ by their wives – including Allan Titford.

So, for the elucidation of the jury, perhaps you should have mentioned:

(1) You were unable to conceive by any natural means, although you strongly desired children, and suffered disappointment in this regard for about the first 5 years of your marriage.

(2) You attended or consulted the Natural Family Planning clinic in an effort to optimise your chances of conception, which, of course, meant that Allan had to stand at the ready to perform his duty when you were at peak fertility.

(3) But, as you well know, Allan had a serious problem with his ‘man-gear’ due to a not-uncommon physical condition that plagues a fair percentage of men.

It’s called ‘Frenulum breve’and anybody interested in researching the condition can look it up on the Internet.

It means that once the penis is expanded and subjected to sexual activity, a rupture and bleeding can easily occur, accompanied by intense pain and ongoing discomfort.

Once such a tear happens to the man-gear, no further sexual activity is possible until the torn tissue fully heals.

Also, those unfortunate men suffering from this condition of extreme sexual pain (dyspareunia) must be forever vigilant to ensure the ruptured region is cleansed daily.

The stringent regime entails the application of medicated creams to forestall the onset of disease, leading to further painful complications.

(4) Despite the fact that Allan’s Catholic faith forbade the use of fertility drugs as an aid to conception, you went to Dr. Langley of Dargaville and were prescribed them.

This led to your first pregnancy.

(5) Dr Langley gave you a large batch of these drugs, and all of the pregnancies, it seems, were the result of taking fertility drugs.

(6) Shortly after Alyssa was born, and while you were carrying James, Allan was obliged to see Dr. Kevin J McKerrow of the Artemis Centre, 2 Pupuke Rd., Takapuna, regarding the on-going painful condition of his man-gear.

Dr Kevin McKerrow wrote the following to Dr Spencer Craft of the Red Beach Family Medical Centre on April 2nd 1993:

“Thank you for referring this gentleman who is uncircumcised.

He has been married for the last six years, and on erections he has a painful penis. The B.I.D use of Nizoral cream has controlled the problem.

On examination, there was superficial erosion of the corona most consistent with that of candidia balanitis. The other condition to be considered would be that of lichen sclerosus et atrophicus.”

After discussing how to best proceed, Dr McKerrow further wrote:

“I have commenced him on a course of Itraconazole 200mg daily and if the problem persists despite this, then I feel that circumcision should be considered.”

Indeed, the painful problem did persist and worsened, beyond the birth of the fourth child, Shiane, and by 1998 Allan had no other recourse but to have the circumcision operation, which was undertaken at Launceston, Tasmania, Australia.

For Allan, ‘rising to the occasion’ to service a wife who was obsessed with breeding, was, for the most part, a less than satisfying experience and was often excruciating, as well as fraught with consequent, on-going pain.

With regards to this persistent problem, Allan confided in a number of friends, including his equally dispossessed (due to the fraudulent rulings of the Waitangi Tribunal) farmer, Don Harrison.

After the operation in Tasmania, Allan’s mother, who was a nurse, commented that he should have had the condition rectified years ago.

In addition to all this, you [Susan] accused Allan of rape on a day uncertain in the months of September and December 1987 at Dargaville.

But then, strangely, you gave Allan a very mushy Valentine’s card in 1993, followed by an Anniversary Achievement Award dated the 20th of June 1993.

So, we’re now led to believe that this “raped” and “beaten” wife who is “terrified” of the brute for whose lecherous gratification she is reduced to the lowly role of a sex-slave – and who she (now-belatedly) claims burnt down the family home and left her homeless in 1992 – sends the following mushy card to him in 1993:

The cover panel for this award reads:
LOVERS’ HALL OF FAME – ANNIVERSARY ACHIEVEMENT AWARD

This is but one of several such endearing cards that Susan gave Allan.

Sue tells Allan she is “so happy to have you as my husband”
on their anniversary in 1988.

Sue told the police Allan raped her some time in late 1987.

From a woman’s perspective, Marcian comments:

‘Would a battered wife really go to this trouble? I don’t think so.

You would make an excuse of, “Oh is it our anniversary? Sorry, I forgot all about it – what with being mother of a 15 month old & 8 months pregnant with a second child … Sorry dear.”

No, Susan makes an effort.’

Martin Doutré

Evidence of Titford kids lying, stealing, pushing drugs and having under-age sex while in Sue’s care

What follows is an email and affidavit from longstanding friend of both Allan and Sue Titford, Martin Doutré.

The first line of Martin’s email refers to TVNZ’s Sunday programme of last week — a predictable state hatchet job, but one in which the children looked far from convincing.

Read this and learn why.

_____________________________

From: Martin Doutré
To: John Ansell
Date: Tuesday 3 December, 2013

Hi John,

If that was  a sober and drug-free James on the [TV on Sunday] night, then he’s a hell of a lot dumber than he used to be. The lights have certainly dimmed significantly in 3 years.

Perhaps he thought he needed a bit of “Dutch courage” to face the TV interview ordeal. He did not look or sound like the James I knew so well over the years, but more like a zombie. He was utterly away with the fairies and spoke like a complete retard, slurring his speech and having obvious difficulty saying anything meaningful or coherent.

What happened was that, between about the beginning of 2006 onwards, Allan was really, mostly, an absentee dad, rarely at home.

From January 2006 through to mid-July he was mostly on the road with me and Ross Baker, following the Treaty 2 U propaganda roadshow around the country.

The same holds true for the summer to autumn months of 2007.

Susan and the kids had ways of letting him know that they liked it better when he was away, and consequently he was often over at the Kaikohe farm or down country looking at vintage cars or whatever.

For the most-part, Susan ran the farm and household, but for long spells outsiders were paid to come in and do the milking, like Mr. Flay, a neighbour on nearby Kumi Road, or various others.

Also, a digger contractor called Barry was working almost full time, for seemingly several years,  on cutting miles of drains.

Allan did only one milking per day, in the afternoon around 3:30 pm. There was never, in my memory, any necessity for anyone to be up at 5 am and out in the milk-shed.

I stayed at the house many times over the years and everyone got up at the normal, expected hours on school-days. Susan got up the earliest and began rustling up breakfast for the kids and preparing school lunches, aided by the older girls.

The kids were out the door and down the drive to meet the bus just after 8 am or so. All were well dressed and scrubbed up, sporting flash, designer-type school bags. They certainly never looked like impoverished kids.

Alyssa, when she was about 15-16 claimed she was being bullied at school in Kaitaia and asked to stay at home and do her courses by correspondence school. A lot of the so-called bullying was, from memory, text-harassment that came through her phone.

Being a tall, strong girl I know she was capable of taking very good care of herself and, at one time, beat up a boy who was picking on James.

I’m quite sure the real reason she quit school is because she simply couldn’t be bothered going.

She enrolled in the correspondence school course and, for a time, did her lessons at the dining room table for an hour or two a day, which, from my memory, seemed to be sufficient to get through all the assignments.

James, who hated school and wanted to escape the daily drudgery of catching the bus, also managed to talk his parents into completing his education by correspondence.

His excuse for home-schooling was also bullying.

Allan, as I recall, was very much against the kids leaving school but, because of his very frequent absence from home and hearth, the older kids got their way by browbeating Susan into agreeing.

It would be interesting to go into their school records to see how many correspondence school assignments they bothered to complete.

If the onus was on anyone to monitor them and make sure the assignments were done, then that task fell on Susan, who was always there, whereas Allan was so-often absent for long spells.

Susan had, seemingly, full access to the bank account and spent large sums each week  on food or domestic necessities.

This business about them all being slaves and working until 10 pm at night is rubbish.

The milking was finished by about 5 pm and Susan, Alyssa & James had the cows back in the fields and were cleaned up by dinner time.

The girls pitched in to prepare the evening meal and then everyone sat around the lounge eating dinner, with plates in their laps, watching TV for a few hours.

Of all the group, Susan’s hours on the job were the longest, mainly due to being the first up in the morning and the last to get to bed at night after the rest of the brood were bedded down.

She often did typing for Allan in the evenings or during the day and had a very full schedule, but also leisure time and long spells of playing electronic games with the kids or reading to them or looking at stuff on Trade Me with them.

There were also the endless nappies to change and babies to hold and cater for.

The daughters Ulanda and Shiane pitched in a lot taking care of the little ones.

Ross Baker and I agreed wholeheartedly that Susan had a very heavy, unenviable schedule, but a huge part of the burden related to her having (by 2009) seven children.

That was a lifestyle choice that she chose herself. She wanted seven kids.

I don’t agree that the lack of accomplishment by these older kids is solely Allan’s fault and the largest contributing factor for the failure falls on the kids themselves, who schemed to drop out of school and then couldn’t be bothered following a daily routine of doing their home assignments.

They certainly had ample time available to fulfil those assignments on a daily basis, but opted to do other things instead.

By 2011, Alyssa was well known for pushing drugs in the North, according to a digger-driver mate of mine, Ian Pyke.

By that time Allan had been out of the picture for 18 months or more.

Just before the split, Allan told me that Alyssa was going to do a course to enter the hotel or hospitality industry as a tour guide or the like, and he had aspirations and high hopes for her in that regard.

However, she didn’t have the self-discipline to follow it through, and decided to run wild and go badly off the rails instead when beyond the jurisdiction and control of her father.

She apparently settled for being a thief and drug user and pusher instead, if the reports from people in the know in the North are correct.

When she’s accused of things or caught out, she smiles or hides behind a smile … very strange … a real smiling assassin.

Best wishes,

Martin.

_____________________________

 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I have been asked to make an account of events that transpired between Saturday 17 July and, ostensibly, 29 July 2010 related to my association and experiences with Tyler Jackson, Alyssa Cochrane (née Titford) and James Cochrane (né Titford).

As a result of these events and my subsequent devolution of critical and worrisome facts to Allan Titford (father of Alyssa and James), he phoned Susan Cochrane, his estranged wife and mother of Alyssa and James.

17 JULY 2010

At approximately 9:15 pm I received a phone call at home from Alyssa, asking for my assistance.

She was at a car stranded in the suburb of Glen Eden, Auckland.

I knew already that she, her boyfriend and James were in Auckland, as they’d asked my son Alain for money earlier in the day and had called by his flat.

He had refused to give them any more money as he’d already given James funds earlier in the week, when told that James needed gas money to get him and Alyssa home to Hikurangi.

James said in a text message, on the earlier occasion, that they had come down to Auckland seeking work and that there was a milking job going at Tokoroa to look at.

On this very frosty night of 17 July 2010, I called my son Gene to return from the city and pick me up, as we needed to tow James’s car home to safe circumstances.

We went to the fairly seedy location and found the stranded car at a BP service station.

We towed the car home to [MARTIN’S ADDRESS], arriving at about midnight.

Beds were made up at Gene’s place down the back of my farmlet, where the weary trio spent the night.

18 JULY 2010

We put James’s Nissan Laurel into a sunny spot and commenced working on it to find and check the fuel pump.

My son Gene tested all of the electrical connections to the fuel pump with a multi-meter and found them to be working, but the internals of the pump were dead.

Gene also drove Alyssa and Tyler to Kumeu to borrow money from one of Tyler’s ex-girlfriends.

James and I inspected the fuel pump on a spare Nissan car that I have, but found it to be too small to fit his much larger Nissan Laurel.

During the first day of staying at my place, Alyssa and Tyler told me how they’d been virtually forced out of the house at Hikurangi.

They enumerated their ongoing, intolerable domestic problems as:

• The constant interference in the family affairs of Susan’s father (Graeme Cochrane) and uncle (Richard Cochrane), who were at the house seemingly every day making demands and intimidating everyone or being very controlling.
• James complained that his grandfather or uncle threatened to beat him up on frequent occasions or were argumentative.
• Tyler complained that Susan, Graham and Richard didn’t like him and that he was made to feel very unwelcome.
• He also complained about the confrontational attitude of another man living at the house called Gene, who was about 26, but who had been sleeping in the same bed as Ulanda (Allan & Susan’s second eldest daughter), since she was just 13-years old.
• Tyler mentioned that he would never do such a thing, but that because Gene was Uncle Richard’s friend both Graeme and Richard turned a blind-eye to this statutory rape of a minor.
• Alyssa made a similar complaint to her great-aunt Aileen (Allan’s aunt) on the evening of 26 July 2010.
• Alyssa also complained to me about the confrontational attitude coming from Gene and Ulanda and the constant scrapping.
• After she was at my home for a day or so, she received a phone call from Ulanda stating that she and Gene were taking over Alyssa’s bedroom, and there was also some kind of altercation concerning Alyssa’s TV.
• Alyssa and Tyler said that Gene was a low-life who had stolen all of the heavy cast-iron wheels and other vintage cast-iron ornaments out of the landlord’s garden at the Hikurangi home and sold them for scrap for $20.
• Tyler said he had far more integrity than Gene, but that Susan and the others had turned against him, forcing him out and shunting him on.

During the day both Alyssa and Tyler convinced me that they were making a clean break and would begin a life together as farm workers, milking cows.

I knew that Alyssa had tremendous talent and training in that regard and assumed that Tyler was similarly trained-up and capable.

They represented themselves as an ambitious young couple trying to get a start in life, but encountering a few present mechanical-financial problems that were holding up the process.

I determined that I would help them get on their feet as best I could.

18 JULY 2010

Tyler asked me if he could work out a deal with me for a very nice, but deregistered, Nissan Avenir station wagon I had sitting in storage.

He said it would be perfect for their job-hunting around outlying farms, as they could sleep in the back.

James was running them around for the moment, but needed to get back to the North.

Tyler said he had worked as a car certifier and still had contacts in the industry that could do the certification.

I tentatively agreed, but would discuss the matter in more detail after thinking about it.

In the evening of 18 July 2010, Allan Titford called me, but I gave no indication that his children were at my home, as I had been sworn to silence by Alyssa not to tell either Allan or Susan of their whereabouts.

19 JULY 2010

Returned from work and gave Alyssa $20 for some basic supplies.

My son Gene was hooking up James’s car to haul it to a distant garage before it closed where it would be fixed by Tyler’s mate sometime later in the week.

Gene had already torn the guts out of his own car and clutch getting this very heavy Nissan Laurel home and I advised against it, especially in peak hour traffic.

All they needed was a fuel pump and the relatively easy repair could be done at home within a couple of hours once we had the parts.

Tyler purchased some parts through a mate, but when they arrived they were found to be wrong.

I took Alyssa to The Warehouse and bought her some urgently needed supplies, as well as other items.

I later got onto my digger and pulled my white 1995 Nissan Avenir up to the workshop in preparation of going over it mechanically and cleaning it up for Alyssa and Tyler.

We had started it up and it ran very nicely, but the sticking clutch cylinder needed replacement. We water blasted the car and put internal trim and fittings back in place. The little station wagon came up looking very nice.

            
Alyssa water-blasts the 1995 Nissan Avenir car while Tyler works on the right tail-
light. The deal was that they could have the car on the basis that they get their own
certification for it, and then certify another car for me that I had on the property.
The value of the car I gave them, once certified, would be between $2000-$2500.

The weather was generally very cold and often wet, and I was concerned about how lightly clad both Alyssa and, especially, Tyler were.

Tyler arrived with a cough, which seemed to get worse with each passing day. Gene gave him a jacket to wear.

20 JULY 2010

Alyssa and Tyler did more tidy up work on the Nissan Avenir, while James removed the defective fuel pump from his Nissan Laurel.

After work I went and picked up a mechanic friend who had a multi-vac unit for sucking through the clutch fluid to get the Nissan Avenir going.

Barry Taylor completed the task of making the station wagon fully driveable.

He had, the year before, done substantial work on Alyssa’s Hyundai sedan, which she had sold to her mother.

21 JULY 2010

Took them to the ASB bank to get out money.

I’d stocked up food and drink supplies to keep them going, but was mystified as to why they were smoking so much, when they were so lacking in resources.

They said they wanted to deliver the Nissan Avenir car to the certifiers and Tyler had taken new brake pads from my spare’s stockpile and installed them.

22 JULY 2010

While fixing my own car in my workshop, I was approached by Tyler, Alyssa and James, who wanted to arrange for me to pick them up later and take them to Waiwera to get the replacement fuel pump for the Nissan Laurel.

I later picked them up at the local garage from where, they said, they’d sent the 1995 Nissan Avenir to AA Compliance Centre, Portage Rd, New Lynn.

Weeks later I was able to learn that they’d very deceitfully sold the beautiful little station wagon to a towing company for some paltry sum, simply to get cigarettes and enough cash to buy James’s fuel pump.

When I finally learnt this I was heartbroken.

Alyssa had, apparently, used her driver’s licence as ID to show the tow-truck driver that she was the owner of the car being sold.

Both she and James were fully complicit as accomplices in the utterly stupid disposal of this car, which they had neither paid for nor intended to pay for in the future.

To add insult to injury, the lying trio, under false pretences, then had me drive them to Waiwera, where they purchased a fuel pump using funds from a car that they had, essentially, stolen from me.

I was now under the very mistaken impression that my valuable “gift” to them sat over in Glen Eden awaiting compliance and, that in a few days, the other car I had would undergo the same process, as agreed upon.

23 JULY 2010

A very miserable, cold rainy day.

I came home from work to find that James and Tyler had failed to get the fuel pump working and, in the attempting various things, Tyler had very stupidly cut the wires leading to the air-flow meter sensor.

Not only that, Tyler had utterly smashed the electrical plug leading to the device, then biffed it in the mud.

We searched around and retrieved the smashed plug.

Gene and I worked for hours re-soldering the mutilated parts and Gene finally got the car going, but running rough, late in the night.

Earlier I had taken them shopping and bought them groceries.

I was now beginning to see how dysfunctional, chaotic and out of control these kids were.

In my diary I described them as butcher-mechanics.

24 JULY 2010

It was a Saturday and the Nissan Laurel ran but sounded overly grunty, as if it was almost drowning in fuel.

In the morning they loaded up the car and headed north, or so I thought.

As they drove away, I was grateful to see them depart, as the last week or so had been very taxing and tiring. At last, Gene and I finally had our lives back.

Later, I had a call from my son Alain. The trio were stranded again, with no money, at Glen Eden (they’d gone south & not north).

Alain drove to them and gave them cash for gas, but told them to never ask him for money again.

They limped their gas guzzling car to me and only just made it.

The reasonably short trip across the city cost about $20.

Because the sensor was badly mutilated, the car was now consuming huge amounts of fuel.

I was stuck with the trio again. Fed them a pork roast dinner. Tyler was very sick with the flu and a terrible cough. I made him up a batch of Maori medicine from the kumaraho plant, and this cleared the terrible congestion.

25 JULY 2010

It’s Sunday and Tyler had apparently arranged for a tow truck driver friend to come and pick up the now sabotaged and defunct car in the morning and deliver it to Hikurangi.

We made a supreme effort to tow the heavy car up our drive to the main road, where the transporter could load it.

I had to finally take the digger up to push the Nissan Laurel up the steep part of the drive and onto the highway.

The trio waited at the car all day, but no tow truck ever turned up. It was all nonsense.

After a mammoth effort to get the car to the roadside for pickup, no tow-truck ever turned up.

They later came down for dinner.

Alyssa was in urgent need of more supplies, so I took her to the Warehouse and she stocked up, but also managed to bum $15 more off me at the service station for her much-needed cigarettes, saying she’d have money tomorrow and would pay me back then.

Of course, she had no such intention to do so and never did.

The Nissan Laurel spent the night on the roadside.

26 JULY 2010

I went to work in the morning, but had a break between classes where I could come home for a couple of hours.

Found the trio basking in the sun.

Tyler, said he’d like to buy a deregistered Subaru Legacy car, belonging to my son Alain, off us as he needed the motor for a car body he had over at Herald Island, near Whenuapai.

He said he’d already talked to my son.

I called Alain, who had abandoned the car at my farm and he said for me to do what I liked with it, as he had no further interest in the vehicle.

The car, although damaged, had an excellent motor in it that Allan Titford and I had hauled back from Matamata.

It also had a new clutch and pressure plate, a new gearbox and 4 new tyres, which I needed for another car.

Tyler offered $600 and I said I’d think about it.

I also said that I wanted to resolve one thing at a time, and we still hadn’t finalised the certification of the other cars.

I also said that if I sold it I would still want to keep the new tyres on it.

Later, as I hurried off to work, I passed the trio sitting in my kitchen, Tyler announced that his tow-truck mate, Junior, was coming to get the Subaru.

I said very emphatically, “NO! — the car is to be left where it is”.

Later I returned from work to find that the Subaru was gone.

The trio had also wandered off to Westfield Shopping Centre to buy stuff. (As I found out weeks later, with money obviously acquired by selling the Subaru to the tow-truck company.)

Again, apparently Alyssa used her driver’s licence to claim ownership of the car, so that the towing company were reassured that they could legally remove it from my premises.

I now knew what I was dealing with.

These were not the responsible, work-seeking individuals trying to make a positive start in life I had been led to believe they were.

Alyssa and Tyler, like Bonnie and Clyde were a couple of upcoming crims and James was little better than their getaway driver.

I was gutted that the Titford children, whom I’d known for years, would be capable of bare-faced lying to me to this degree.

But the true magnitude of the deception I wasn’t to find out until many weeks later.

For their defence in hauling away the Subaru against my expressed wishes, Tyler and the ever-deceitful others feigned surprise at my attitude, in saying, “Oh, but we thought you said it was alright to take it away”, which they knew was an absolutely falsehood.

I had been sworn to silence, and had kept the location of this triad in confidence from Susan and Allan Titford, as requested by Alyssa and James.

During the preceding week, multiple phone-calls and text messages had been sent to the trio by Susan, asking where they were and urgently requesting that James come home immediately for a farm-job that had been arranged for him.

With the theft of the Subaru, I was at the end of my tether and determined to terminate this drawn-out pantomime they were playing at my expense.

My son Gene said he’d take James home that evening to Hikurangi.

I said rather bluntly to Tyler and Alyssa to make up their minds what they were going to do — either come to Hikurangi with us or stay somewhere else in Auckland.

I left them to talk it out and loaded up James’s gear.

I called Susan and explained the situation, and that we were going to deliver James home late in the evening and possibly Alyssa as well.

She said she would wait up for us.

Tyler wanted to go to his mum’s place, supposedly over near Schnapper Rock Road, but wanted a very tearful Alyssa to go home to Hikurangi.

Both Gene and I had to work the next day and did not have the luxury of dilly-dallying while immature, love-struck brats made up their minds as to what they would do.

We attempted to drop Tyler at a video store near Schnapper Rock Rd, but he wasn’t going to let anyone know which house belonged to his mother.

Alyssa clung like a vine to him and wouldn’t get back in the car until Tyler forced her to.

He disappeared into the rainy night and Alyssa was hysterical as we drove away.

She attempted to exit the car at the lights and run off in the pouring rain to chase Tyler.

Thankfully the lights turned green while we were still rolling and she couldn’t exit.

She sobbed and yelled and it was evident there was no way we could go anywhere with her in such an out-of-control state.

I told Gene to drive home.

We’d lost a whole hour of travel time because of Tyler’s needs and Alyssa’s tantrum.

I called her Aunty Aileen, who lives in Brown’s Bay, and asked if I could drop Alyssa there.

She was very reluctant, but said yes after I explained the urgency of the situation.

Gene and I drove James home and dropped him off.

Susan and I had a talk and she gave me a number of revelations about Tyler and how he was using an alias name and had a record of convictions.

She wanted both Alyssa and Tyler to appear in the North, as the local police wished to grab and interview him.

Susan was trying to find out his real name, and was fairly sure she’d tracked it down, but would need to check more.

Susan also told me that Alyssa had been running wild, and had pretty much burnt all of her bridges with all of her friends by constantly borrowing money off them.

She had accrued large debts.

I was warned that Tyler was a very dodgy character and lied endlessly.

Susan also told me I would never see my cars again.

Before heading home, I requested some clothing for Alyssa, which I would drop by her great-aunt’s place.

Ulanda made me up 4 plastic shopping bags of items.

Gene and I were almost stranded in Whangarei when the alternator of the car failed. We later got it going again by revving the motor to red line, then headed out on the harrowing ride south.

It fully failed at Wellsford and we had to drive the last 40-miles on what power remained in the battery.

27 JULY 2010

I had just endured about 10 days of chaotic hell in trying to cater to the needs of this out-of-control trio, with at least two seasoned con-artists in the troupe.

I was tired at work, but got through the day.

I had called Aunty Aileen in the morning to say I had clothes for Alyssa, but Aunty said that Alyssa had only stayed there an hour last night.

She had been picked up by Tyler and some dodgy-looking mates in Brown’s Bay, where Aunty had been bullied into taking her.

At least the nightmare was over … or so I naively thought.

At about 10 pm, an hour after I had gone to bed, I received an urgent phone call from Allan Titford.

He had been called at home at Awanui by Alyssa, requesting help.

Because he was so far away and couldn’t render immediate assistance himself, he called me.

He said, “Alyssa missed her bus and is stranded at Westfield Shopping Centre. Could you please pick her up and give her a place to sleep for the night?”

I reluctantly explained to Allan that Alyssa, James and Tyler had stayed with me for the past ten days and made a short account of the sorry situation.

The main priority at that moment was to get Alyssa into safe circumstances, so I hung up with Allan and called her cell-phone number and Tyler answered.

I asked to speak to Alyssa and upon doing so I arranged to pick them from the Shell service station in Albany.

It was a bitterly cold night again and I found the two of them to be only very lightly clad, without decent warm jackets.

Tyler was very hesitant to get in the car and was hiding behind a pillar.

I finally said, “Make up your mind ’cause I’m leaving now”.

He climbed in and I drove them home in irritated silence, to a good bed and much-needed warmth. Why do these damned kids have to wait till such a late hour to get people scurrying after them?

I called Allan at Awanui and said that Alyssa was now in safe circumstances, but mentioned how I’d found her shuddering with cold, wearing only light attire.

I said that the two of them were in real danger of hypothermia out in the elements like that in the dead of winter.

I told him that Susan had said that Tyler is a very dodgy character, with a criminal record and using an alias. I had firmly concluded that Tyler was a compulsive liar and that everything spewed out of his mouth was false.

I still held mostly to the conclusion that Alyssa was just a stupid love-struck kiddie, who was staying dutifully loyal to her beloved.

I now know better.

28 JULY 2010

Alyssa and Tyler were getting a bus northwards at 10:30 am and Gene dropped them at the bus-stop.

Under utterly false pretences they’d had both Allan, as well as Susan, as far as I know, send down money for bus tickets that were never going to be purchased.

When I called by the Post Office in the late afternoon to mail off a package they were there and looked sheepishly surprised to see me.

I said, “I thought you were getting a bus at 10:30 am”?

Tyler mentioned how they’d missed that bus, but were now getting the 4:30 pm one … yeah right!

Later, at home my son Gene reckoned I’d be getting another call late tonight to come and pick them up, which proved to be prophetic.

I received a call from Alyssa at 9:30 pm saying that they’d missed the bus and what should she do?

I told her to call Tyler’s mother at Schnapper Rock Road and get some assistance from Tyler’s family.

Much later, Allan Titford called and we discussed the worsening situation of his daughter becoming a “street kid”.

Aunty Aileen wanted nothing more to do with Alyssa, especially chasing around after her in the middle of the night.

I asked Allan if his brother Brian, who lives just north of me in Waiwera, could take her in.

Allan then called Brian, who wasn’t interested in helping.

Allan called back and told me that there were no family resources of shelter in the offering.

I then called my son Gene and woke him up, then forewarned him of yet another nocturnal visitation.

I called Alyssa to find out her whereabouts. She and Tyler were outside Pak N’ Save beside Westfield Mall.

I headed down at midnight and found them standing near a security guard who was eyeing them closely.

Alyssa was smoking. They got into the car, out of the bitterly cold night, and I drove them home, pissed off by their out-of-control, ever-disruptive shenanigans.

29 JULY 2010

I didn’t have to start work at the university until midday, so prepared a letter-document, in the name of Tyler Jackson, addressed to the AA Compliance Centre, Portage Rd., Glen Eden detailing how the white Nissan Avenir car and Subaru were to be retrieved by Martin Doutré.

Tyler and Alyssa had continuously adhered to the lie that both cars were delivered to those premises by Tyler’s tow-truck mate “Junior”.

When Alyssa and Tyler appeared for their ride down the hill to the bus-stop, I confronted him with the document.

I told him to write down the names and phone numbers related to the individuals and companies that had removed the cars, as well as the present whereabouts of the vehicles and to sign it.

Alyssa looked very sheepish and Tyler became defensive and righteously indignant.

He nevertheless, wrote on the document, then crossed stuff out, as if very confused and under pressure after being sprung.

Gene and I drove them to Westfield Mall.

They got out of the car looking totally pissed off and angry at me and strode off without comment.

The document I tried to get Tyler Jackson (alias) to sign.

As it turned out, the cars never made it to AA Compliance Centre, Portage Rd, New Lynn and staff had no knowledge of them.

Also, the name that Tyler wrote for the towing company did not exist and the phone number given for his tow-truck driver mate was a fabrication.

Later on the same day I received a phone call from Tyler promising me profusely that he would honour his debt and commitment to me.

In the preceding days, I had primed Allan Titford about the potentially dangerous situation Alyssa had placed herself in.

Tyler Jackson was an unknown quantity, but seemingly had a criminal record for assault, if Susan was right about his real name.

She was going to tell the police the name she had found and have his identity verified.

It was in this critical atmosphere that Allan called Susan to find out what was going on and what to do about the dangerous situation involving his daughter.

I expected no less, as I was caught in the middle trying to deal with Alyssa’s problems, and had been systematically fleeced of assets in the process.

It was long past time for the parents to intervene directly and take full responsibility for the actions of their children, and I made this very clear to Allan.

By this point I’d had a gutsful.

29 JULY 2010

I made a call to Alyssa at about 8 pm to make sure she was in safe circumstances and had a place to stay that night. She assured me she was indoors and safe.

Much later that evening, I received a call from Allan Titford who said he’d called Susan to find out about Tyler.

He told me very emphatically that both Susan and he wanted me to lay a complaint with the police, against Tyler, over the theft of the cars.

I told him that I’d received a promise from the boy that he would honour his debt and that, inasmuch as I had only entered into the arrangement a few days ago, it was too premature to initiate a police complaint against the kid.

I told him that it might come to that later.

Allan then told me that if Alyssa became a bank robber it would be my fault.

He then yelled, “That’s the problem with this bloody country, everyone stands back”, then slammed the phone down in my ear.

I have not talked to him since.

For the next few weeks I remained in contact with Susan, and she kept me updated on her investigations.

She had been correct that Tyler’s real name as Anthony Matthew Lake.

She continued to have ongoing trauma in her dealings with Alyssa, including the theft of her car and later the theft of $1900, when Alyssa stole her credit card and maxed it out.

I have, however, stayed in fairly regular contact with Tyler (Anthony) who finally told me the full sordid story of what happened to my cars.

He has so far made two payments towards compensating for their loss.

30 JULY 2010

I got a phone call from Aunty Aileen that Allan had been arrested for calling Susan.

Late in the night of the 30^th I commenced a letter to Susan, conveying my disappointment that she would have Allan arrested for calling her for information that would help him intercede in the worsening situation related to their daughter, Alyssa.

I sent the letter to Susan just after midnight on the 31^st.

This is what it said:

Hi Susan,

                I find it very sad that Allan might have to go to gaol for a long spell because he called you after I told him of the terrible plight that Alyssa was in.

When he first called me to seek my help in getting her to safety, out of the cold in the dead of night, he had no inkling as to what the true situation was. He just figured she was somehow stranded momentarily and needed help. Alyssa had called him, seeking his assistance.

I had been sworn to silence by them and told horror stories about how they’d been ejected from the home, etc., and how unfairly they’d been treated … ad nauseum … but it was dawning on me that they were totally dysfunctional and out of control. 

The problem lay with them and no-one else.

I was very reluctant to tell Allan about the fiasco going on, but simply had to, as the situation was getting dangerous …  with his daughter out in the dead of night in midwinter and so lightly clad that there was a real risk of hypothermia.

She had developed a bad cough and Tyler had never stopped coughing from day-one (the incessant smoking certainly didn’t help).

I had no other option but to fill Allan in on the seriousness of the situation. To have done otherwise would have been irresponsible by that point in time. 

We had taken James home on Sunday night, but it was clear that Alyssa was not going to cooperate in getting herself back into safe circumstances and had thrown a hysterical, sobbing tantrum when we tried to drive her north with James.

After Tyler had disappeared into the night near Schnapper Rock Rd, she had attempted to exit the car at the lights, but we had kept the car moving.

I was obliged to get her to Aunty Ilene’s, as the only available, safe option. She’s an adult and has a legal right to make her own decisions, regardless of how stupid those decisions might be. I could not and would not force her to go north against her will. 

As it turns out, and unbeknown to me, she only remained there at Ilene’s for an hour.

All of this I told to Allan and he said that the only thing he could do is call you to see what the full situation was and find out about Tyler, so that he had some idea on how to proceed.

Under the circumstances of Alyssa being on the loose and out of control, I considered that to be a very reasonable and welcome move, as I was caught in the middle.

Both Gene and I have had to shell out quite a bit, both in time and money to try to normalise the situation as much as possible, but it was well past time for the parents to confer on the matter between themselves, share information and come up with a mutually agreeable solution.

It disturbs me now to know that Allan has now been incarcerated on a “technicality”. I’ve always considered that there is the “letter of the law” and there is the “spirit of the law” and the reason for his call to you was well-intentioned, with Alyssa’s well-being in mind.

In saying this, I have not talked to Allan, but heard about him being arrested when Aunty Ilene called me just before work this morning.

I’m astonished that anyone would want to penalise him in this way for trying to intercede and help his daughter.  

My last conversation with Allan was pretty much an argument over “calling the police and getting Tyler arrested for theft”. I considered I was being bullied into something too prematurely.

I have talked to Tyler and have received assurances that the white Nissan Avenir is going to be brought back here. Also, I’ll retrieve the Subaru if certain conditions are not met.

I’m going to give the young man a certain amount of time to fulfil his obligations, or, if he can’t, to return the goods and normalise the situation … before I seek to bring the wrath of heaven down on his head. 

Both Gene and I tried to help the travelling trio because I was initially called upon by Alyssa to do so, but I have no inclination to suddenly become a henchman. I’ll deal with Tyler in my own way and time.

I’m sorry to hear that Alyssa and Tyler didn’t get on the bus. Maybe I’ll be getting a phone-call at midnight again.

                         Best wishes,

                                                Martin

My only other direct contact I’ve had with the Titfords was to help James get his car, broken down and in storage at my place for over a month, going and underway on 2 September 2010.

James, brought down from Hikurangi by Maori warden and friend, Daniel, to install a new air-flow meter sensor, so that the car could finally be driven home.

The new fuel pump in the car had been purchased using funds from the illicit selling of my very tidy Nissan Avenir station wagon to a tow-truck company.

If I were to pursue any action with the police for the prosecution of Tyler Jackson, it would also have to include Alyssa and James, who were complicit in the ongoing fraud and lies told to me.

IN SUMMARY: 

I intimated to Allan Titford in several conversations between 27 and 29 July 2010 that he needed to sort out the mess and havoc that his kids were leaving in their wake. They were fast becoming chronic liars and deceitful con-artists.

Martin Doutré

These events were also directly witnessed by Gene Doutré and, to a lesser degree, Alain Doutré and Barry Taylor, as well as others who can be named.