Talk:John Elferink

Unreferenced material

This has been tagged for > 6 months now, without referening. Unreferenced material is not part of Wikipedia ROxBo 11:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

slight word differences for corporate-gov. cover

i

This quote's final point not being RE-related to the correcting of Elferink's attempted self-protection in saying "not found to be true" (to the media/cameras), could have a while-reading the page, point-of-context, to highlight that-he-lied to the media / public ;

" As a result of the Royal Commission no criminal charges were brought to bear against any individual. Elferink's criticism of the ABC's 4 Corners program became more pointed as a result as 4 Corners had alleged torture and barbarism. “We have acted and always acted when in government with absolute probity, something 4 Corners had explained to them at length, something they chose not to run with and as a consequence they put out a story saying that we tortured children, that we acted with barbarism in our hearts and it made comparisons to Abu Ghraib,” Mr Elferink said. “All of those things are indictable offences, none of that was found to be true.” "

In reality, some of them WERE found to be true, including but not exclusive to ; 1 un-necccesary use of force, 2 improper use of extended periods of isolation / food/heat/fresh-air/etc deprivations, 3 neglect possibly leading to death(prospect manslaughter / at-least use of force leading-to accidental-death in-context of legal use of restraint-force neccessary (mitigated down while simultaneous with the restraint-force neccessary )) 4 charges of assault in OUT-of-legally-justifyable cell-entry instances of cell-entry and subsequent blows-being-struck/restraint-used without a (valid) context-of-need (annoyed guards annoyed at noise failing to use discipline to not-lose-control, etc) 5 verbal / emotional/psychological abuse by staff

---

ii

And this sentence,

" In October 2018 the Parole Board of the NT reported Elferink's reform programs continued to bear fruit. The COMMIT program which Elferink championed and drove was recognised by the Parole Board of the NT as being a significant contributor to prisoner rehabilitation in the NT. "

Is INCORRECT - the word used and statistics time-correllated, were for INCARCERATION, not reahbilitation.

The royal commission's submissions contained enough contrary opinion/anaysis/statements, to DISagree with-what the NT gov wanted to be trusted 'in-state', as in ... Wikipedia has no obligation, to protect state-govs' PREFERRED opinions/anaysis , as-presented by those that try to SINGUARLISE things-plural, in this case, whether or not the analysis of the NT parole board's OWN state-policy, was contributing AS-CLAIMED.

When the time-frames were made more narrow, Elferink and a few others' administration, had more incarceration/retention overal, in yes, lower security, but also counter-critically, also higher rates of RE-offending, after those self-delusionally hoped had been genuine under the lighter reform/training program, turned out to not ALL be as well-chosen as it was supposedly going to RELIABLY process-through. People still debate which trade-off is worse, but in terms of PREVENTION, which needs to occur BEFORE ANY kind of custody let-alone incarceration, there was COUNTER-statistical proof of WHOME he had trusted in / appointed / allowed to retain positions, etc, in terms of failures to identify things like unneccessary use of force, cell-entry , means-used to subdue, etc.

In other words, he failed to DISMISS, those that were ALREADY identified as needing to be dismissed, and instead, tried to DISTRACT people with one policy that had one trade-off rather than another.

Regardless of how one might feel about the fewer-ingenuine-program-completers getting out earlier and then re-offending vs. everyone ELSE having to suffer for longer periods when those who get out and are going to re-offend are likely to anyway ... argument, it is MISLEADING ANYWAY,

to allow the word-change from incarceration(including retention (use of powers-to-retain)) (of more serious / repeat offenders), to rehabilitation. Why, because even though the program ENTERED-IN, more than the previous choices, it is EXITING, and debateable measuring of those supposedly reformed afterwards, that needs to not-be-in-dispute - i.e. if you assume an ABSCENCE of stat.s on people no-longer being observed, you make an observer-error - i.e. the abscence of crimes-stats on those released under the program, is no absolute proof of non-re-offendING, when-possibly-not-caught - i.e. it is NOT a positive proof of-successful-reform , it is only an abscence of indicators of-failure-of, reform. There is plenty of UNCERTAINTY-principle hesitations precedent, when it comes to precautions against assuming that reform-processed discharged individuals being neccessarily-genuine, since they are more likely to be more intelligent / capable of lying their way through it , UNlike those with significantly simpler caapcities for deception. uncertainty-principles can whittle-down both positive AND negative proofs, so while an IDEA for another reform process to get ppl out of prisons might be desired by most, it's another thing to prematurely grant someone a then NON-statistical presumption, that rates-of-COMPLETING ... neccessarily = rates of successful reform.

They don't-NECCESSARILY. There needs to be RECIPROCAL statistical confirmation, and the NT Gov just wanted to FUDGE program-completion numbers,..

... AS ... successfully-reformed, numbers.

---

no quotes, sorry.

I am confident the two things i noticed from my memory of researching him when he was dismissed back in 2016, could be researched-BEYOND the media-reports LEVEL, to find the ... well-actually his-own, and the NT Gov's self-portrayals, should not be RELIED UPON, if one or both simply lied to the media,.. criticisms/precautions (of not trusting too-easily)

it might be reasonable to want to be ABLE to trust what ends up in the media, but as an Australian citizen, i don't hesitate in always insisting on realistic-cynicism about individuals in the media here - laws and principles might exist, but when the ACMA or other media-enforcing bodies have been DELIBERATELY underfunded / turned into toothless-tigers for DECADES, it is VERY WELL KNOWN, that the media do not do their job, MOST of the time.

Before you dismiss this / delete it for unreferenced-claims,

1 I'm sharing-EXPERIENCE here, of what-ELSE was said in the media at the time - claiming that COUNTER-indicative information and argument and criticism existed that is RELEVENT to the two quotes, especially the latter, which does not link to an ARCHIVED post of the media-outlet in question. not presenting enough especially of-balance, FROM what was in the media at the time, would be irresponsible of Wikipedia to choose to do, not-that i'm saying you're YET able to be sure - that's why i'm suggesting/requesting some research on it - the DEPTH of levels of quotes, is arguably ALREADY evidently-poor - one self-quote of Elferink himself, in relation to something he had bias towards / self-interest-in , and one from only ONE media source. There are many media sources used in the whole-page, but JUST FOR THAT ONE, there is only one - i.e. it doesn't take much of a fronting-the-media, for corporate-gov. to get away with a whitewash / further-misleading / latter-mis-leading in damage-control mode after a closing-statement / royal-commission, etc. Considering that, as-well-as that he was DISMISSED in 2016 because of similar misleading conduct amongst other failings AND-CHOICES while employed ;

Q1 Why should the PRESUMED-researching by those that have published the quote in my point (ii), be relied-upon-solely by Wikipedia withOUT balance? , Q2 and-why should Elferink's OWN statement in relation to something already in his self-interest / likely to be biased-towards, be presented withOUT balance?

---

. *palm up* yeah yeah, i know, no references, sorry - i DO understand wikipedia policy, that's WHY i'm suggesting-RESEARCH,.. &not direct use of my claim-here.

Suggestions ARE valid, for the talk-pages, while-not valid without quotes/proof, in the main pages.

That's what one of the reasons for the TALK-tab, is-for,

Think twice please, before deleting / requesting-to-be. I didn't have the time/access to research old counter-arguments in newspapers/gov-process statements posted bugger-knows-where. And UNlike the main pages, talk pages ARE for debate/suggestions on what should-be in the main page, (preferably with as little as possible via good research (sorry i'm unable to))

and this is (only)the talk tab, and this is a suggestion.

i.e. NONE of it is material, nor-intended to be ... YET. The INTENT AND SUBSTENCE of this post, is a SUGGESTION for researching a more complete picture - the parts where i am implying reason based on would-be's of my memory of how it all happened, go-no-further, than one-person's caution-WITHIN that suggestion.

---

120.21.168.145 (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)