In answer to Anon June 6, 2010 10:44 AM
I would say that your observations as a relatively new reader of this blog with its list of posts and comments, accurately describe the tensions that exist between opinions and sympathies. I will say that the blog itself, my creation, is decidedly pro-Bayne family reunion because I personally believe that a wrong diagnosis was made and that the parents did not themselves harm their child volitionally or accidentally. I believe that the child's injuries were accidental or otherwise medically accountable. I write with respect for social workers, case workers, the ideal mission of the Ministry of Children and medical professionals but I write critically of incompetence. I am critical of what I perceive to be errors in judgement by those who are commissioned with so much power they are virtually immune to second guessing and discipline. The Baynes have an army of people who are their defenders, supporters and advocates whose opinions the Ministry has chosen to ignore, and the Baynes themselves do not contribute to the regular comments on this blog that either support them or are critical of the Ministry behaviour. I have permitted a ranging expression of comments all within the filter prescribed on the comment page. I permit defenders of Ministry actions and people committed primarily to the welfare of the children to write comments. No comments are edited. Truly offensive comments (my judgement) are rejected. I will not publish obscene, malicious or slanderous comments. The Bayne plight has given voice to numerous individuals who have similarly been deprived of parental and family rights and needless to say are not quick to hold back their anger with systems and people and who at times will express what they honestly have come to believe to be a financially driven conspiracy. I myself do not buy this implausible notion but I will not rebuke those who have lived with such grief and loss sometimes without hope of remedy.
Monday, June 7, 2010
WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? / Part 212 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/
On the Saturday, June 5, 2010 blog entry called Munchausen Syndrome / Part 210 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/ someone left a comment. You can read it in full but I can synopsize it with this comment. The writer has become a recent reader of this blog and seeking to catch up on some of the previous posts has left a comment to describe the impressions which the numerous comments have produced. My blog itself without the colour of comments from readers would be uncomplicated and certainly clear in its intention. It would exclusively speak in favour of the restoration of the Bayne family. From the beginning of the blog I had the option of either permitting readers to comment or removing this possibility. I chose to welcome comments. I knew that comments from others might seem to compromise my purpose of advocating for the Baynes. I also knew that an equitable comment opportunity would increase the likelihood of two opposed persuasions listening to one another 's issues and arguments. The writer of the comment struggles with the contending medical opinions, and stories and objectives and outcomes. I wrote a response.