Kyle and Jackie O have a radio show on 2Day FM. They had a segment called “Lie Detector”. They accepted participation from a mother who wanted to quiz her reluctant daughter on such things as wagging school, taking drugs, and having sex.
The daughter is 14 years old.
They had a lie detector and lie detector user in the studio with the mother and daughter. The daughter was reluctant to participate which is obvious from the transcript below. The daughter was hooked up to the lie detector.
What do you all think.Transcript
[intro music]
Jackie O: Here’s a little quick recap before we do the Lie Detector.
Mum: Um, last Thursday night she went to bed at nine o’clock. I gave her a kiss goodnight, and 2:30 in the morning I got a knock on the door from two undercover police bringing her home.
Jackie: What’s your worst fear? Is it the sex, is it the lying, is it possibly doing drugs, smoking… what do you think?
Mum: Um… drugs and sex. And older boys.
Jackie: Yeah.
Mum: Yeah, and older boys.
Jackie: Do you think – has she actually told you she’s had sex before, or do you think she’s a virgin?
Mum: I think she – might have had sex before.
Jackie: Right, but she hasn’t said anything?
Mum: No.
Kyle: Have you asked about the drugs? And things like that?
Mum: Yes, I know for a fact that she’s been smoking marijuana.
Kyle: Right, so she’s admitted that, has she?
Jackie: So you want to know if she’s doing anything harder than marijuana then?
Mum: Yes, yes.
Jackie: Alright, we have her hooked up to the Lie Detector! She’s not happy! I just saw her listening to that [bleep]
Daughter: I’m scared. It’s not fair.
Jackie: It wouldn’t be fair on any kid, I tell you. No – they’re sympathising…
Kyle: Is that true, Charles? Is that true?
Charles: That is true.
?Kyle: She is scared, everyone, yeah.
Jackie: Yeah. Mum, you have a series of questions that you’re going to ask your daughter, and [name bleeped], you reply either Yes or No, and then it will be picked up on the Lie Detector whether [with a laugh in her voice] you are telling the truth or you are lying. Ok Mum, what do you want to start with?
Mum: OK, about school. [name bleeped] recently started a new school, and I want to know: Have you wagged at your new school?
Daughter: I have not wagged at my new school.
Jackie: So the answer would be no?
Daughter: No, I haven’t.
Charles: Now, that’s a fail.
Daughter: I haven’t wagged! Are you kidding me?
Charles: I’m just calling it…
Daughter: I haven’t bloody wagged!
Jackie [laughing]: Poor Charles is going to cop it this morning!
Kyle: You’re not within arms reach there are you Charles?
Jackie: Yeah he is!
Daughter: He is.
Jackie: So the Lie Detector’s saying you have…
Daughter: I haven’t wagged!
Jackie: What’s happening here, Charles?
Charles: Well maybe she’s skipped a class or something like that.
Jackie: Have you done that, skipped a class?
Daughter: No! I haven’t!
Mum: Have you left there early?
Daughter: No. I haven’t.
Kyle: Could it come up a fail – like, have you had a sick day or something, where you bunged on a bit of a sickie, and you thought …
Daughter: Oh, yeah, plenty of them.
Kyle: Could that be it? Yep.
Jackie: Well, that’s it apparently. Yep. Ok, what’s your next question, Mum?
Mum: OK. Have you had sex?
Daughter: [quieter] I’ve already told you the story of this. And don’t look at me and smile, because it’s not funny. [louder, announcing with bravado] OH, OK. I got raped when I was twelve years old.
[silence]
Kyle: Right. And is that the, is that the only experience you’ve had?
[huffing sound - is this the daughter fake-laughing in disbelief?]
Mum: I only found out about that, um, a couple of months ago. Yes, I knew about that.
Daughter: And yet you still asked me the question.
Mum: The question was, have you had sex other than that.
Jackie: [name bleeped] I’m really sorry, we didn’t actually know that that was the case, and I think that we might actually abort this segment. I had no idea that you’ve been through that, so I’m really sorry. And we’ll just let you off the hook, I think. I think it’s best not to continue. Are you alright? It’s ok, you just take a breather, it’s fine.
We always have counselling services here. [Name bleeped] Have you had any counselling over this issue?
Mum: No, she’ hasn’t.
Jackie: OK, well we have all the right people in place if you need any help or support in regards to that. Which it sounds like you might. I’m really sorry; I had no idea that this had happened to you. I don’t think we would have gone ahead with that had we known.
OK honey, we’ll just let you go for a while.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realise that that was…
Kyle: OK, Mum, sorry. Look we needed to, we, that’s something we probably should have known before we started this.
?Mum: Yeah, definitely.
Kyle: So let’s do that, let’s get you – if you guys haven’t had any counselling, or any, anyone to talk to about that, we’re happy to pick up the bill for that. We’ve got ‘em here. Do you want that, Mum?
Mum: [quietly] Yes, I think that would be good. That would be good.
Kyle: OK, well that might um, that might, going through that might answer some of the questions that you guys are having difficulty communicating with.
Mum: OK. Yup.
Kyle: OK, [name bleeped] Thanks for coming in, darl. Sorry about that. OK, we’re out, everyone. Jackie’s got some news coming up.
[outro music]
Well that is it.
What a disgusting child exploited little episode in Australian radio history.
I cannot understand how anyone thinking in a rational way would think that it is ok to do this.
I think Kyle and Jackie O are not fit to be on radio again. They should be immediately sacked and probably the radio station lose it's license. It all depends on how much the radio station executives knew of the sordid stunt.
Over to you bloggers.
Here is the reaction of Kyle and Jackie O 2 Day FM
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Kyle and Jackie O
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Update, Simon Singh's article made Lawyer friendly
Here is a "Lawyer Friendly" version of Simon Singh's original article in the Guardian that brought on the libel case.
Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results – and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.
You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that “99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae”. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.
In fact, Palmer’s first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.
You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying – even though there is not a jot of evidence.
I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.
But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.
In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.
More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.
Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.
Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: “Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.”
This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.
If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.
Simon Singh is a science writer in London and the co-author, with Edzard Ernst, of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. This is an edited version of an article published in The Guardian for which Singh is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.
Beware the spinal trap
Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results – and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.
You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that “99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae”. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.
In fact, Palmer’s first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.
You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying – even though there is not a jot of evidence.
I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.
But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.
In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.
More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.
Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.
Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: “Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.”
This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.
If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.
Simon Singh is a science writer in London and the co-author, with Edzard Ernst, of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. This is an edited version of an article published in The Guardian for which Singh is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Bowing to the Exclusive Bretheren
I was reading the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) over my corn flakes this morning when I suddenly gagged and coughed milk and corn flakes all over the newspaper.
The article that I gagged on was by David Marr about a Tasmanian mans fight for access to his children in the Family Court.
The man and his wife were both in the Exclusive Bretheren with their 8 children. The man left the sect in 2003 and subsequently lost access to his children. At that time 3 of his children were of child age and he started Family Court action to get access to the 3 children.
Quoting from the SMH.
"After a three-year battle in the Family Court, he was granted limited access to the two youngest. In a 100-page judgment, Justice Robert Benjamin declared the steps taken by the Brethren to discourage the children from seeing their father "psychologically cruel, unacceptable and abusive".
Access started in 2007. After the visits to their father, the children allegedly wrote heartbreaking letters objecting to their visits. The sect deny that they coach children to write letters of protest.
This court action was vigorously opposed by the mother and of course the church. The mother, one of her children (I assume was one of the adult children) and one of the children in law were threatened with prison for failing to facilitate access.
The mother used the leading family law silk Noel Ackman plus a supporting legal team. You would of course expect the sect to pay for the court action but they deny this and say individual members have given the mother money for the court action. Pigs fly as well.
The father was broke spending $100,000 on the 5 years of litigation.
This story is now more complex with the mother now being diagnosed with advanced breast cancer. The family allegedly blamed the father for the cancer. How cruel and totally lacking in any logic are these people.
Now it continues with the father wanting new access plus custody of the youngest child. The mother wants the ex husband to have no custody in the event of her death.
Now this is what made me gag.
Quoting from the SMH.
"Justice Sally Brown declared the faith of the children the "crucial factor" in the case and sided with the mother and the church. She took no account of the sect's long history of trouble with the Family Court and did not address the role the Brethren had played - and may still be playing - in the extreme hostility of the children to visiting their father. The hostility was to be honoured: "It is not realistic to expect them to go against the … teaching of their church. Though she found Peter was a loving father with a comfortable home in which children could live, she birched him for his attitude to the sect; for embarrassing his children by putting birthday greetings in newspapers; for seeking custody of only one child and not two; and for claiming the Brethren had robbed his children of autonomy. Wasn't his own departure, she asked, proof the sect allowed debate and dissent? But he was 46 when he left and his children are 15 and 10. In a remarkable finding by a Family Court judge, Peter was even castigated for seeking to enforce the earlier orders of the court. A door that had been ajar was shut, said the judge. "The continuation of the litigation after [the mother's] diagnosis in May 2007 has driven both children from their father. In their best interests, the litigation must end."
The father has now lost any chance of custody and has lost all access.
Quoting the SMH again.
"It may be that viewing this terrible and tangled situation, Justice Brown found a fair and secular outcome just too hard - too hard on the children, too hard on their dying mother, too hard in the face of the implacable hostility of the Brethren.
But her decision has reward the sect's intransigence. Once again the Family Court has flinched.
Athol Greene insists these cases are rare and that the church will submit to the law while continuing to argue that the best outcome for these children is to remain solely within the Brethren.
"You won't change us," he says, fixing me with his old eyes. "You. Won't. Change. Us.""
How horrid is this, I could not believe that the Family Court would fold to the demands of a cruel sect that separates families because one parent is not a part of the sect.
We need individual rights, maybe a Bill of Rights that can overide this madness.
This has saddened me greatly.
Exclusive Bretheren SMH article
The article that I gagged on was by David Marr about a Tasmanian mans fight for access to his children in the Family Court.
The man and his wife were both in the Exclusive Bretheren with their 8 children. The man left the sect in 2003 and subsequently lost access to his children. At that time 3 of his children were of child age and he started Family Court action to get access to the 3 children.
Quoting from the SMH.
"After a three-year battle in the Family Court, he was granted limited access to the two youngest. In a 100-page judgment, Justice Robert Benjamin declared the steps taken by the Brethren to discourage the children from seeing their father "psychologically cruel, unacceptable and abusive".
Access started in 2007. After the visits to their father, the children allegedly wrote heartbreaking letters objecting to their visits. The sect deny that they coach children to write letters of protest.
This court action was vigorously opposed by the mother and of course the church. The mother, one of her children (I assume was one of the adult children) and one of the children in law were threatened with prison for failing to facilitate access.
The mother used the leading family law silk Noel Ackman plus a supporting legal team. You would of course expect the sect to pay for the court action but they deny this and say individual members have given the mother money for the court action. Pigs fly as well.
The father was broke spending $100,000 on the 5 years of litigation.
This story is now more complex with the mother now being diagnosed with advanced breast cancer. The family allegedly blamed the father for the cancer. How cruel and totally lacking in any logic are these people.
Now it continues with the father wanting new access plus custody of the youngest child. The mother wants the ex husband to have no custody in the event of her death.
Now this is what made me gag.
Quoting from the SMH.
"Justice Sally Brown declared the faith of the children the "crucial factor" in the case and sided with the mother and the church. She took no account of the sect's long history of trouble with the Family Court and did not address the role the Brethren had played - and may still be playing - in the extreme hostility of the children to visiting their father. The hostility was to be honoured: "It is not realistic to expect them to go against the … teaching of their church. Though she found Peter was a loving father with a comfortable home in which children could live, she birched him for his attitude to the sect; for embarrassing his children by putting birthday greetings in newspapers; for seeking custody of only one child and not two; and for claiming the Brethren had robbed his children of autonomy. Wasn't his own departure, she asked, proof the sect allowed debate and dissent? But he was 46 when he left and his children are 15 and 10. In a remarkable finding by a Family Court judge, Peter was even castigated for seeking to enforce the earlier orders of the court. A door that had been ajar was shut, said the judge. "The continuation of the litigation after [the mother's] diagnosis in May 2007 has driven both children from their father. In their best interests, the litigation must end."
The father has now lost any chance of custody and has lost all access.
Quoting the SMH again.
"It may be that viewing this terrible and tangled situation, Justice Brown found a fair and secular outcome just too hard - too hard on the children, too hard on their dying mother, too hard in the face of the implacable hostility of the Brethren.
But her decision has reward the sect's intransigence. Once again the Family Court has flinched.
Athol Greene insists these cases are rare and that the church will submit to the law while continuing to argue that the best outcome for these children is to remain solely within the Brethren.
"You won't change us," he says, fixing me with his old eyes. "You. Won't. Change. Us.""
How horrid is this, I could not believe that the Family Court would fold to the demands of a cruel sect that separates families because one parent is not a part of the sect.
We need individual rights, maybe a Bill of Rights that can overide this madness.
This has saddened me greatly.
Exclusive Bretheren SMH article
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Update on Simon Singh
Just an update on Simon Singh.He is coming to Australia and he will be speaking at,
Seymour Theatre Centre
Corner of City Rd and Cleveland St, CHIPPENDALE Sydney
When: July 15, 2009 6:00 PM.
Here he is being interviewed on Lateline ABC TV last night. He is talking of the current libel case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)