Monday, August 31, 2009

Is Twitter account owner lying to media over Bradford death threats?

update: apparently so - Henk van Helmond responds in comments
The man who owns the Twitter account that had this threat addressed to Sue Bradfords twitter account said he had no knowledge of the threat until TV3 appeared on his doorstep. He claimed his Twitter account had been hacked. He said that after TV3 turned up he looked at his Twitter account and saw the tweet.

Now TV3 could not have known that Henk van Helmond owned the Twitter site that made the threat before I blogged this yesterday. Neither did Sue Bradford.

But van Helmond knew about the threat on his Twitter site. He knew before TV3 turned up. Because he wrote this on the CYFSWatch site at 12:04pm yesterday, commenting on the Sunday News report of the tweet. And as far as I am aware, Sue Bradford knew about that post on the CYFSWatch site before the media was told of the name of the owner of the Twitter account the threat came from.

Van Helmond’s story does not stack up. Either that or his CYFSWatch site was hacked, or someone is writing very similar words to him. Here's what he wrote on CYFSwatch when it was on Blogger in 2007 ( now deleted)
If ever someone needed a beating, it is this sociopathic witch.She is projecting her own allergy to correction or any form of discipline onto the families of New Zealand, so that our kids can end up as sick as she is.Bradford is a worthy candidate for NZ's first political assassination - I only wish I had the resources to do it.
And from his Twitter account in 2009
@suebr is STILL a good candidate for NZ's first political assassination. (watch sue run to the Police because of a death threat, stupid cow).
Go figure.




Anonymous Henk Van Helmond said...

Your facts are wrong, and I would expect you to fix them immediately. For starters, you obviously missed this story in the herald. This is what Sue said.

Ms Bradford yesterday outed the author of a message to her Twitter site on Thursday that said she was "a good candidate for NZ's first political assassination".

She was contacted yesterday by a credible source from the pro-smacking camp who gave her the identity of a man who linked back to CYFSwatch - an anonymous site previously shut down by Google for its distasteful postings about her.

find the story here.

Further, on Sunday, I saw the story posted on STUFF about the threats. I then posted that the CYFSwatch site had nothing to do with the threat this time. I posted that because I have tried to rehabilitate the site since the original CYFSwatch threw in the towel and I inherited the site.

The site now will NEVER contain another death threat OR ask for MPs personal details such as phone numbers of addresses. I objected to that when it was posted back in 2007, but as I was only the host i could not delete them.

Since taking over, I have deleted them. Anyone making death threats to anyone else is a moron. Right!

So your entire story is wrong, beneath contempt and does nothing to sort this out, in fact, Sue when she told Sunday News about the twitter message had NOT gone to the Police, it was only after I demanded she do that she did. Would a guilty person do that?

Also, when the TV3 news crew turned up, they asked me if I owned the account, I said yes, now would a guilty person do that? I did not know why they were there till they told me.

I run 5 websites, I know computers and how websites work, why would I use my own twitter account? If I wanted to make a threat, I would create a whole new bogus twitter account, and use a proxy to hide my IP, and make as many threats as I want. So why would I use my own twitter account?????????????

Yesterday, on my site, I said that I heard the contents of the Email threat and I was disgusted, so disgusted that I was willing to call a truce to allow this debate to settle down, its getting nasty, and later on that day, Sue Bradford said she would like to meet me to clear the air. I have accepted...

So for a guilty person, why the hell am I acting like a decent person about all this? Both Sue and I want the matter sorted, people like YOU are not helping matters.

Your uninformed post only makes matters worse. Please fix it or delete it.

Thank you.

Henk Van Helmond

Also, you should activate Email verification to prevent people pretending to be others and saying what they liked. Anyone could log on here and pretend to me "kiwi1960" and abuse the crap out of you, and isn't impersonation what caused all this crap I am having to deal with now?

You're lucky I am not the evil kind of person.

September 1, 2009 at 10:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

thanks Henk, Not sure what needs corecting.

I assume that the Stuff story you saw was the Sunday News story.Yes you're correct that the CYFS Watch site per se had nothing to do with the threats. But you run the offending Twitter page and the CYFSWatch site. I never said Sue Bradford went to the police. Actually I was unaware that she had. Neither did I say she went to the media.

My point was that you saw the Stuff story before TV3 turned up to your door- which you pretty much admitted on your comment here. Therefore you knew about the matter before TV3 turned up to your doorstep - so why did you tell TV3 that you had no knowledge of the threat when TV3 called?

BTW I never specifically said you used your Twitter account to do the offending tweet.

Big News

September 1, 2009 at 12:36 PM  
Anonymous kiwi1960 said...

Listen, where did you learn your journalism degree? Where did you earn your cub status, meaning, who employed you first. You know nothing about balance, and you miss the obvious clues. Allow me to explain.

The Sunday News story (on Stuff) mentions the original CYFSwatch complaint, this is why I posted on CYFSwatch saying "Not us, not this time"... not knowing that my Twitter account had been hacked.

Right, understand now? Any journalist would have seen that, they are taught to notice these things. Where is the balance in your story? Where is the ethical reporting? All I see are assumptions (which I have shot down) and opinions... You are like Whaleoil, full of assumptions which try to pass off as 'fact'.

So, tell me now that you are "not sure" about what needs correcting? I'd say from start to finish needs fixing.... right?

September 1, 2009 at 6:55 PM  
Anonymous kiwi1960 said...

Just re-reading your EDITED article, If you are a Journalist then you would be aware of the Libel laws in New Zealand right? But the truth is, you are not a journalist, you are a wannabe. You are not worth wasting my time on. BTW, most REAL journalists would have a REAL blog with a REAL domain name, not a blogspot wannabe one.

I won't waste my time on you, you're obviously not worth it.

September 1, 2009 at 7:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL you been SPAMMED!!!!! Good Job... For your next expose, how about revealing how scammers and spammers log on to blogs like yours?

October 4, 2009 at 1:49 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Clicky Web Analytics