Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #29

[sosocurious]

Thanks, soso. I read that all wrong apparently.

Yes, I do believe the foster parents are concerned about the privacy of all children. And abide by the laws that restrict them.

Ditto

 

[sleepinoz]

So why do you think facs decided she was the one they were going to take to court?
I seem to remember it being said it was on other social media sites that William was in foster care.

I just don't get it.
Maybe she was the only one in communication with both the bio family and ACA.

imo

Her name was on the Petition that was being organised and has now been rejected.

 

[sosocurious]

The dangers of unofficial missing person campaigns

We all want to help, we all feel frustrated and heartbroken that we can't magically bring this beautiful boy back to his family. It can be so painful for parents to read about this case and see no recent updates being given by the police (although we must remember that just because we aren't seeing public updates, it does not mean the police aren't making progress). But, even though we might feel this way, we need to realise that not all 'help' is helpful, some is actually a hindrance to the investigation and painful for the family.

Take for example, the unofficial W4W Walking Warriors Australia Facebook group, who creates and shares their own William posters on social media, despite the family asking that only official police approved posters be shared. As a result, an image circulated last year with the incorrect Crime Stoppers phone number attached to it. The group have also publicly questioned the police investigation and released rumours and hearsay that are not of benefit to anyone.

Loren O'Keeffe, sister of Daniel O'Keeffe and Founder and CEO of the Missing Persons Advocacy Network told Kidspot that these measures should be left to the family and the police to organise.
"It is very distressing when third parties create unofficial materials for missing persons," Loren said in a statement.
"Families are upset enough as it is when a loved ones disappears; to have the additional stress of a stranger assume a role or identity only adds further trauma.
"It also muddies waters when clarity is absolutely critical; it’s very important that people understand that duplicating pages for a missing loved is not helpful. It is counterproductive, misleading, and can be dangerous.
"Our organisation will only work with the families of registered missing persons, and families are always given complete control over which media stories and campaigns they participate in, as well as all materials that are published.
Loren also reminds those that wish to 'help' that they need to be mindful they are heeding the family's wishes.
"It is their loved one who is missing, so they should always be the ones to decide what is published publicly, where and how."

http://www.kidspot.com.au/parenting...s/news-story/d87ddf67c0517030f0ecf23c0172d252

Interesting that NC says the police have not even been to speak to her.

 

[frogwell]

She broke the law, they asked her to stop, she didn't, they took her to court. Yes she won, but what did she win - outing the bio parents, they've lost their privacy what good did it do?

If she had of stopped when they asked, none of this would be in the news.

Free Speech??? The only free speech we have in Australia is Parliamentary Privilege.

She broke the law.

https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/1998/157/chap6/part1/sec105

She broke the law? According to FACs lawyers she did, apparently according to two courts she didn't.

It remains to be seen what was gained. I don't think Karlie or Brendan being identified as WT's bios is the work of APS or the decision around her having freedom of speech about whose care WT was in when he disappeared. I think Bo posted a summary from the court proceedings which stated that KT was aware that her and her children etc, may have discomfort if identified, but she thought it was important that people know. I don't know if that means they know that WT is her biological son or if it means the public should know he was in the minister's care when he went missing. The point being, she was prepared to take the public heat and scrutiny to claim WT as her child in public and therefore put up with the probing I guess. I am guessing these things were nutted out in court at the same time as APS's stuff but APS is not responsible for it. As for knowing for a fact that a 3 year old who mysteriously vanished was in the ministers care at that time, allows the public to put the government department under scrutiny, something that has been avoided for over 3 years now. The buck stops with them. MOO

 

[sosocurious]

IDK, it was not a private site, she seemed to be organising people to ask questions of the minister for FACs if I recall correctly, however the judge seemed to take into account that knowledge of WT's status was already well known, the very real possibility WT is deceased and therefore the interpretation of FACs protection of identity laws being moot. MOO

Top of the list obviously if she was organising and campaigning people to ask questions of the minister.
imo

 

[sosocurious]

Her name was on the Petition that was being organised and has now been rejected.

She broke the law? According to FACs lawyers she did, apparently according to two courts she didn't.

It remains to be seen what was gained. I don't think Karlie or Brendan being identified as WT's bios is the work of APS or the decision around her having freedom of speech about a well known situation. I think Bo posted a summary from the court proceedings which stated that KT was aware that her and her children etc, may have discomfort if identified, but she thought it was important that people know. I don't know if that means they know that WT is her biological son or if it means the public should know he was in the minister's care when he went missing. The point being, she was prepared to take the public heat and scrutiny to claim WT as her child in public and therefore put up with the probing I guess. I am guessing these things were nutted out in court at the same time as APS's stuff but APS is not responsible for it. As for knowing for a fact that a 3 year old who mysteriously vanished was in the ministers care at that time, allows the public to put the government department under scrutiny, something that has been avoided for over 3 years now. The buck stops with them. MOO

The buck stops with the person that snatched William. Doesn't it?

 

[frogwell]

The buck stops with the person that snatched William. Doesn't it?

Was William snatched?

 

[sleepinoz]

She broke the law? According to FACs lawyers she did, apparently according to two courts she didn't.

It remains to be seen what was gained. I don't think Karlie or Brendan being identified as WT's bios is the work of APS or the decision around her having freedom of speech about a well known situation. I think Bo posted a summary from the court proceedings which stated that KT was aware that her and her children etc, may have discomfort if identified, but she thought it was important that people know. I don't know if that means they know that WT is her biological son or if it means the public should know he was in the minister's care when he went missing. The point being, she was prepared to take the public heat and scrutiny to claim WT as her child in public and therefore put up with the probing I guess. I am guessing these things were nutted out in court at the same time as APS's stuff but APS is not responsible for it. As for knowing for a fact that a 3 year old who mysteriously vanished was in the ministers care at that time, allows the public to put the government department under scrutiny, something that has been avoided for over 3 years now. The buck stops with them. MOO

The only reason she won this battle was because the Judge decided that William was most likely dead - if that is the case then that Law doesn't apply to Williams status. That is the only thing that has changed.

(1A) The prohibition in subsection (1) applies to the publication or broadcast of the name of the child or young person concerned until:

(a) the child or young person attains the age of 25 years, or​

(b) the child or young person dies,
​

whichever occurs first.

https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/1998/157/chap6/part1/sec105

S105 still applies to ALL other children in care.

 

[sosocurious]

Was William snatched?

Police also suspect the kidnapper may not have acted alone.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...g/news-story/8e4b17549bd4a361e0df0f5b1a365069
William Tyrrell: Police suspect toddler’s kidnapper may not have acted alone

 

[frogwell]

The dangers of unofficial missing person campaigns

We all want to help, we all feel frustrated and heartbroken that we can't magically bring this beautiful boy back to his family. It can be so painful for parents to read about this case and see no recent updates being given by the police (although we must remember that just because we aren't seeing public updates, it does not mean the police aren't making progress). But, even though we might feel this way, we need to realise that not all 'help' is helpful, some is actually a hindrance to the investigation and painful for the family.

Take for example, the unofficial W4W Walking Warriors Australia Facebook group, who creates and shares their own William posters on social media, despite the family asking that only official police approved posters be shared. As a result, an image circulated last year with the incorrect Crime Stoppers phone number attached to it. The group have also publicly questioned the police investigation and released rumours and hearsay that are not of benefit to anyone.

Loren O'Keeffe, sister of Daniel O'Keeffe and Founder and CEO of the Missing Persons Advocacy Network told Kidspot that these measures should be left to the family and the police to organise.
"It is very distressing when third parties create unofficial materials for missing persons," Loren said in a statement.
"Families are upset enough as it is when a loved ones disappears; to have the additional stress of a stranger assume a role or identity only adds further trauma.
"It also muddies waters when clarity is absolutely critical; it’s very important that people understand that duplicating pages for a missing loved is not helpful. It is counterproductive, misleading, and can be dangerous.
"Our organisation will only work with the families of registered missing persons, and families are always given complete control over which media stories and campaigns they participate in, as well as all materials that are published.
Loren also reminds those that wish to 'help' that they need to be mindful they are heeding the family's wishes.
"It is their loved one who is missing, so they should always be the ones to decide what is published publicly, where and how."

http://www.kidspot.com.au/parenting...s/news-story/d87ddf67c0517030f0ecf23c0172d252

Interesting that NC says the police have not even been to speak to her.

I remember when the moderator used to delete anything from this pulication not deeming it MSM. The "article" is serving someone's agenda. That incorrect crimestoppers number was also used by BS in his video. It was a valid Crimestoppers number. This was a poorly veiled go at W4W. The difference between Loren O'Keefe's situation and WT's is, who are considered WT's family and who has the right to make these decisions?

 

[frogwell]

The only reason she won this battle was because the Judge decided that William was most likely dead - if that is the case then that Law doesn't apply to Williams status. That is the only thing that has changed.

(1A) The prohibition in subsection (1) applies to the publication or broadcast of the name of the child or young person concerned until:

(a) the child or young person attains the age of 25 years, or​

(b) the child or young person dies,
​

whichever occurs first.

https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/1998/157/chap6/part1/sec105

S105 still applies to ALL other children in care.

Well, APS, was probably already aware of that law and therefore within her rights to behave the way she did, but had to wait for it to be tested in court.

 

[sleepinoz]

Well, APS, was probably already aware of that law and therefore within her rights to behave the way she did, but had to wait for it to be tested in court.

Yeah OK

 

[frogwell]

(1A) The prohibition in subsection (1) applies to the publication or broadcast of the name of the child or young person concerned until:

(a) the child or young person attains the age of 25 years, or​

(b) the child or young person dies,
​

whichever occurs first.

https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/1998/157/chap6/part1/sec105

RSBM
BUBM
Many people are aware of child protection laws in regards to publishing names. Either through fostering or having been in the system themselves. It is quite possible that APS, assumed that when WT's name was published with the correct spelling in MSM, that government departments, had come to the conclusion he was most likely deceased. MOO

 

[SouthAussie]

Yeah OK

Or ... projection.


But while Ms Smith said she didn't know Ms Tyrrell, she admitted she had personal experience with the system failing children.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-leader-reveals-William-Tyrrell-mission.html

 

[Bohemian]

Or ... projection.


But while Ms Smith said she didn't know Ms Tyrrell, she admitted she had personal experience with the system failing children.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-leader-reveals-William-Tyrrell-mission.html

There are also many children for whom DoCS/FaCS’ intervention in their dysfunctional families has had a stabilising effect. Removing children from biological parents who have consistently neglected and/or abused them, putting them at risk of serious harm — despite those parents being legally and morally responsible for their care. Who is Allana Smith, or anyone else for that matter, to say what is/was in the best interests of William and all other children, past and present, under the care of the Minister, based on their personal experience? That is the preserve of the NSW Children’s Court. Or to comment on the adequacy of active police investigations? They are not privy to all of the facts of the matters. Pretty grandiose way of thinking, if you ask me.

 

[Josie2014]

Is everyone on here aware, that APS, talked of WT being under the Minister's care on another site repeatedly and she was served a cease and desist by FACS. Believing she had the right to free speech she did not comply. So they took her to court. The judge ruled in favour of her over FACS, so FACs appealed to a higher court where they lost again.She didn't take anyone to court, she just didn't bow down, because we all have rights, that if you don't fight for them sometimes, people/ organisations just take from you. I support her in principle. MOO

Before she was served, Facs had asked her more than once to remove the "under care of the minister" reference on the petition. She refused. Facs took the legal avenue. I wonder how different the outcome might have been had Alana and her buddies sat at a round table with Facs and had a polite discussion.

 

[Bohemian]

In the end, I am growing weary of everyone (including myself), who has been involved in advocating for William and the individual players in his case, pointing our fingers at one another, Who profits? No one, except for the person or persons responsible for William’s disappearance.

 

[Hbayne]

Sorry to jump in here as I haven't read last two pages but I just wanted to say that there is an angry bunch of women out there (Alana whatever her name is ) included who are so quick to jump on many and any sm page about William . They are an angry bunch of trolls who in my opinion are getting their own back at Docs, Facs whatever for their own crap that got their children removed from them. They are a vicious bunch. All quick to befriend NC on fb. I've come across them in other sights and they have an agenda which I think is personal because they hate the system and blame blame blame . No responsibility to their own short comings as a parent. Ok rant over but they make my blood boil.

 

[SouthAussie]

Sorry to jump in here as I haven't read last two pages but I just wanted to say that there is an angry bunch of women out there (Alana whatever her name is ) included who are so quick to jump on many and any sm page about William . They are an angry bunch of trolls who in my opinion are getting their own back at Docs, Facs whatever for their own crap that got their children removed from them. They are a vicious bunch. All quick to befriend NC on fb. I've come across them in other sights and they have an agenda which I think is personal because they hate the system and blame blame blame . No responsibility to their own short comings as a parent. Ok rant over but they make my blood boil.

That is sad to hear.

I don't imagine any parent who has had their child removed is too happy about it. And there are foster children out there who would not be happy about it either, for various reasons. I think most people think they are doing alright by their children, and forget that their rules for their own children are not the only rules they need to abide by.

FaCS don't always get it right (Chloe Valentine, who was left with her abusive mother till her negligent death/murder at age 4), but it is the best we have. An overstretched, overloaded agency, who do what they can to assist parents to do the right thing - with the help of supportive agencies - and then finally remove the children when there is no other way to keep the children safe from abuse/neglect/harm.

William had all the appearances of a happy, healthy, well loved, well care for child, with his foster parents.

The anger is misdirected. It should be directed at the sick perp who took William. imo

.

 

[PainExpress]

Was William snatched?

Very good question.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk