The best will be you send the editor your response and let the public be the judge if they post your letter. I am definitely "blocked" or moderated as Trevor puts it. He also says to me " you know why". Actually I don't. Must be because I criticize, and it appears it's always the same people here who post messages here. Laura has worked for NGO's and has been involved with the good of the underpriviliged for more than 30 years, she was also an activist under Apartheid. I cannot speak for her, but I think she is the watchful eye, and has only has best intentions. By the way, why is Brian Amery not jumping up and down? He was consulted on the article, as it clearly states. My other concern is, you really cannot force people into "havens" or off the streets. What you think might be better for them, is not something that you can enforce on them. Sure Obsid has done some good work, but according to the article also some horrific work. It is a matter of opinion, and even the homeless have opinions. As do I and Laura Schultz. At least we don't infringe on copyright as Trevor does (or condone it) as Reinmar does by downloading it and thanking him publicly. He is waffling on about the fair interest.... I have to work now, I am shouldn't even be getting involved as it's no use. Like I said to begin with, let the greater public be the judge. Melanie
On 17 October 2011 15:08, Justin Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > Melanie though that her posts were being blocked so sent a mail directly to > me. For the record, here is my response to her:**** > > ** ** > > Hi Melanie**** > > I don’t know why or whether your posts are being blocked. I have seen some > of your posts on this forum in the last few days both on this and the parks > issue. But I don’t know how this forum is moderated or who moderates it so > I can’t comment there (its isn’t an Obsid forum by the way – its an ONW > forum). **** > > ** ** > > I am aware that Ms Schultz is a long term resident of Obs and I didn’t make > the allegation that she wasn’t.**** > > ** ** > > I am also definitely not posting the article from Big Issue to this forum – > only my response, once I’ve received board approval to do so. I support the > Big Issue and always buy a copy from my regular vendor, and I would not ever > try to violate their copyright or threaten their vendor’s livelihood by > copying or distributing their content without permission**** > > ** ** > > I have already posted about this article – I believe that the article was > fair and presented all sides of the story well. I don’t agree with those > who say it was one-sided because I really don’t think it was (although the > headline, as newspaper headlines tend to be, was rather sensational).**** > > ** ** > > However, I do not believe that we treat homeless people badly at all. > Certainly not in a disgusting manner. We actually do a whole lot of work to > help them, which unfortunately the article didn’t mention, and which I’d > like to highlight in my response.**** > > ** ** > > We at Obsid are very aware of our mandate and we take every criticism we > get seriously. We are not perfect, and most of us are volunteers who get no > financial benefit from the work we do here, and I am sure that we make > mistakes. But we are diligent about following up on the mistakes we do make > and correcting them.**** > > ** ** > > I do feel though that Ms Schultz is implacable in her opposition to the > CID. It seems to me that she cannot see that any good at all could come out > of the CID. I do not feel her criticism is coming from a place of wanting > to help us become better at what are trying to do; but rather from a place > that we should not be doing what we do at all, and that we should be > disbanded and thrown out. It’s difficult to engage with her, but we have > tried and would try again if she were open to it.**** > > ** ** > > Regards**** > > Justin**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf > Of *Melanie Hoffman > *Sent:* 17 October 2011 02:22 PM > *To:* [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [obsnw] Re: Intriguing by line on the cover of Big Issue*** > * > > ** ** > > For your information, Mrs Schultz has lived here for over 25 years. **** > > You are infringing on copyright by making this article available at no > charge, and going against the Big Issues core, depriving the homeless > again. **** > > Treating the homeless in a disgusting way is another issue. **** > > Brain Amery was consulted. **** > > A small group of people is controlling a huge amount of money, our money. > **** > > Look what they do with it - lock up parks - spend money on signs. > Collaborate with Woolworths. **** > > Mishandle the homeless. **** > > Come on. Can you not see it? There has to be people who look at things > critically. **** > > I emailed this to you directly, as my posts are blocked. I wonder why? *** > * > > Melanie Hoffman**** > > ** ** > > On 17 October 2011 14:05, Reinmar <[email protected]> wrote:** > ** > > Hi Trevor, > > Thank you for the PDF. I have read through the article and am honestly > shocked by the one sidedness of this article. The reporter who did > the article didn’t at all do a good report on both sides of the story, > but only from 1 side, and also only asking 2 Obz residents, one of > whom have been in the news recently for various comments and > applications made. I’m refer to this “Ms Shultz” > > I’m sorry, but is it pure coincidence that since her name have > appeared in all the google group mails regarding Obz that we’ve had 2 > big problems with this “Ms Shultz”? Parks that must be open 24/7/365 > and now all of a sudden an article in the Big Issue on the ObsID. It > seems that this “Ms Shultz” has it in for Obz. Then why did she move > to our suburb? If she wants a suburb with violence, drugs, robbery > and vagrants, why don’t she move to a suburb with the appropriate > levels of it. > > I’m also abhorred by the fact that Kenneth (the social worker) wasn’t > at all contacted or interviewed by the journalist with regard to the > article. The work the he does is amazing, and he actually tries to > help people. This is not what is coming across in the article. I > also know that more and more journalists always try and sensualise > every piece they write (sorry if I’m offending people – but this is > just what I’ve been realising in the past months in the media – I do > realise that are actually good journalists out there, and give and > apology if I offend you) > > My husband and I moved to Obz 5 years ago, and I can remember what it > was like living in Obz then with break-ins, robbery, crime and drugs > absolutely rife in the streets and bars. In the past 5 years the > suburb has become a brilliant example of how you can turn around a > hotspot of crime and make it a beautiful suburb. And this all because > of the efforts of VS, ObsID, ObsNW, OCA, SAPS and Premier. I commend > each and every single person in these organisations that have changed > Obs to what it is today, and will gladly give my name and signature > and comments on any of the above organisations, and what brilliant > work they’ve done. > > I’m also not too happy with the editor’s letter, and feel that a > letter from the ObsID needs to be written and explain what is really > going on in Obs. Neither this “Ms Shultz” nor the editor has ANY idea > what has happened in the past 5 years, and how Obz has literally made > a 180º turn-around as a suburb. > > And now because of this “Ms Shultz”, it also seems that Obs is getting > another piece of negative report, which is damaging to the suburb as a > whole and now takes away at some of the good work done. > > Suspicious people are allowed to be asked to remove their hoody – > being it a resident or anybody travelling through the suburb. Not > complying to the said request shows some form of guilt. > > This is just my point of view, but I feel that this article has > actually done more bad than good for our wonderful suburb and needs to > be dealt with. > Reinmar > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Observatory Neighbourhood watch" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/obsnw?hl=en.**** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > Melanie Hoffman**** > > Tel: +27-722161416 (Mobile)**** > > Tel: +27 21-6857701 (Landline)**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Observatory Neighbourhood watch" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/obsnw?hl=en.**** > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Observatory Neighbourhood watch" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/obsnw?hl=en. > -- Melanie Hoffman Tel: +27-722161416 (Mobile) Tel: +27 21-6857701 (Landline) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Observatory Neighbourhood watch" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/obsnw?hl=en.
