The evidence is overwhelming – a Paedophile Protection Network is operating within the Ministry of Education and the NZ Teachers Council. Below, we will name some of the individuals involved and describe details of their activities. Due to the gravity of this issue, we have included an amount of detail – hence this communication is 8 pages. We encourage you to read it carefully and forward it along as you see fit.
Primary child sex abusers and Secondary predators
We make the distinction between the primary child sex abuser, who commits the initial child sex crime, and the secondary predator, who becomes involved later to take advantage of the vulnerable sex crime victim.
It is not uncommon for unscrupulous predators to take advantage of young vulnerable victims of under age sex crimes. Predators seek out young victims of sexual crimes - vulnerable girls they know have had under age sex and group sex with adult men. These secondary predators portray themselves as being there to help, however it quickly becomes very clear to alert adults that the predator has sinister ulterior motives. Young child sex crime victims are vulnerable, troubled, and easy pickings for the charming, devious manipulator. Generally, the only obstacle in the way of secondary predators is the victim’s family.
An example is the recent high-profile UK case where school teacher Jeremy Forrest took his 15-year old girlfriend to France. Jeremy Forrest was the primary child sex abuser. The family have now told how, after Forrest was sent to prison, other men such as a 30-something IT consultant started hanging around the victim in order to take advantage of her vulnerable state. The IT consultant got close to the sex abuse victim under the guise of being there to help, and is an example of a secondary predator:
The 4 tactics of Predators
Research identifies 4 tactics of predators:
1. Isolation. Predators isolate their victims from their family.
2. Alienation. Predators alienate their victims against their family. They do this focussing on small differences the child has with her family, and making them big issues.
3. Dependency. Once isolated from family, the child becomes dependent upon the predator. This increases the predator’s power over the child.
4. Secrecy. The predator pressurises the child to keep secret what is going on.
Isolation from family is a key early objective of paedophiles and secondary predators. Good, capable, loving families offer safety and protection for the child. The predator’s key objective is to remove this safety and protection. Isolation gives the predator opportunity, and continued isolation maintains secrecy. Once isolated from family, the young vulnerable sex crime victim is easy prey for an unscrupulous secondary predator. Most articles on predators stress the isolation element – here is a sample:
According to an FBI brochure (https://safetracker.net/crimestats.php/): “A sexual predator works to isolate his child victim from the family. By creating distance between a child and their family, the predator tricks the child into becoming more dependenton him. As the predator makes minor issues the child is having with the family into major issues, the child feels they are growing closer to the predator because the predator understands them, while the family does not”.
Psychology Today also stresses the importance of isolationof the child from family, by the predator: “Every parent must ask themselves, "Is there someone who seeks to use their position or status to access and isolate my child? For predators, every effort is made to have lone access to the child”.
The University of Missouri studied tactics used by predators to entrap children: “Predators…work to isolate(their victims) both physically and emotionally from their support network…Isolation causes the victim to become more and more dependent on the perpetrator”.
In many cases, the effects of this secondary abuse by secondary predators, is far worse than the initial abuse caused by the child sex criminal. The degree of isolationfrom family often determines the extent of long-term harm from the abuse.
Paedophile Protection Networksseek to cover up and run protection for both or either the initial sexual criminals and/or secondary predators. It is this definition of a Paedophile Protection Network that we use here. The secondary predator may not necessarily be a proven paedophile, in many cases it is very difficult to prove sex crimes involving a secondary predator. The more extensive the isolation, alienation, dependency and secrecy, the more the evidence is hidden. However the predator’s opportunity arises purely because paedophilia crimes have previously occurred, creating a vulnerable victim. By covering for the secondary predator, by accepting, ignoring or encouraging the predator’s isolation, alienation, dependency, and secrecyactivities, a Paedophile Protection Network ensures that more inappropriate sex, and possibly sex crimes, are likely to take place involving the young, vulnerable victim.
Our daughter was victim of under age sexual crimes, and then more significantly, abuse from secondary predators keen to take advantage of her vulnerable state. The initial child sex criminals were members of the St John ambulance paedophile gang – Karl Berghan (aka Karl Berg) and Sam Brens. The secondary predator who caused far more damage, was far more sinister, far more skilled at isolation, alienation, dependency and secrecy,was Westlake Boys High School Head of Science, David Hayden. Specific details are in our summary document linked below.
School teacher David Hayden
David Hayden was only able to do what he did with our family because of extraordinary assistance from other education employees:
- Ministry of Education psychologist Maryke Lind
- Westlake Girls High School counsellor Alison Horspool
- Kristin College Principal Peter Clague
Isolation. Together with David Hayden, these education staff took the most extreme measures to ensure that our child was completely isolated from good, capable, loving family, and in the full-time clutches of the secondary predator. They ensured that our family were gagged and unable to say a word about what was going on. If we said anything to anyone, we faced imprisonment. This provided David Hayden full and unfettered 24-7 access to our vulnerable daughter for a crucial period of the final two years of her schooling. It enabled for example, additional secondary sexual abuse by people such as TV presenter, night club and strip club owner Brooke Howard-Smith. This man was able to take advantage of a young, vulnerable sex abuse victim, who was totally isolated from the protection of her family. Had our schoolchild been living at our home, we doubt 33-year Brooke Howard-Smith would have knocked on our front door asking to take her out. In the clutches of secondary predator David Hayden however, isolated from her family, 33-year old Brooke Howard-Smith was able to take full advantage of a vulnerable schoolgirl.
Evidence from the UK shows that sexual predators specifically target teenage girls who are isolated from family. Predators in positions of authority (such as teachers) often target those that they can thereafter isolate from family. As soon as he had our child under his control, David Hayden stopped her attending professional sexual abuse counselling with Dr Christine MacKay, because he wanted to stop even indirect contact between our child and her family (through the psychologist). He told us this. Perhaps he had a more sinister motive as well in that he did not want our child to benefit from any sexual abuse counselling. Does David Hayden support under age sex? He had previously told us that he strongly disagreed with our pressing criminal charges against the St John ambulance men who had committed statutory rape and gang rape against our daughter. Our child had volunteered to give evidence in the criminal court against the St John men. She had made a detailed statement to police. However, the sex crime trial was scheduled several weeks after she moved into David Hayden’s house, and during that time our daughter was influenced to change her mind and she refused to testify. Two serial paedophiles walked free.
Whenever we phoned Hayden’s house asking to speak with our child, he always refused to hand the phone to her. Despite all our attempts, we had absolutely no contact at all with our child during the two years she lived with teacher David Hayden. Our child was cut out of our life to such an extent that we were even prevented from paying her school fees even though we were very willing and able to pay. Our child could not have been more completely cut off and isolated from her whole family.
When David Hayden decided to prey on our child, he knew she was a child sex crime victim, experienced at sex and group sex with adult men. David Hayden also knew our daughter only had immediate family in New Zealand (2 parents and 2 brothers), and no extended family within at least 5 time zones. All David Hayden had to do, was to neutralise the young girl’s parents and brothers, to isolatehis victim totally from her family, and he achieved this in conjunction with our teenage daughter through gagging orders.
Alienation. The evidence of David Hayden’s activities alienating our child from her family are contained in our summary document linked below. In the gagging court cases against us, Family Court Judge Lawrence Ryan said that our child had been severely alienated against her family.
Our child was so severely alienated against her family that she tried (with the active assistance of David Hayden) to have her parents imprisoned for trying to make contact with her. See the summary document for details. Some psychologists believe the alienation of our child is so severe that it can be classed as Stockholm Syndrome.
Dr Joe Carver, a world-renown expert on Stockholm Syndrome wrote to us: “In your situation, you have almost all the high-risk components (of Stockholm Syndrome) with the exception of life-threatening (hostage, prisoner, death threats, etc.). The support of the pastor (David Hayden) is especially distressing as that family is using their position as supposedly moral, honest people to provide credibility and approval to your daughter's situation.
Here Dr Carver highlights the sinister involvement of teacher David Hayden under the guise of helping, and says he finds this particularly distressing.
An explanation of Stockholm Syndrome can be found here (it is well worth a read and very pertinent):
David Hayden told us he would do everything in his power to ensure our child never has a relationship with her family ever again (see document linked below). This is his secrecy enforcement. It has been many years now since we heard anything from our daughter.
Dependency. Once completely isolated, our child was totally dependent upon teacher David Hayden for the remaining two years of her schooling.
Secrecy. The secrecy activities could not have been more extreme. David Hayden and our daughter took out gagging orders against her parents and brothers. During the two-year court case, at one point we asked if we could have a cup of coffee with our child, having not had any contact with her for over a year. Such was the extent of the secrecy efforts that our daughter’s lawyers insisted that her parents sign a non-disclosure agreement covering the cup of coffee with their child. The non-disclosure agreement covering a cup of coffee with our teenage child obviously wasn’t her idea – it was the idea of those manipulating her. There clearly is a lot of sensitive information they want to keep secret. The activities against us were certainly extreme, ensuring isolation, alienation, dependency and secrecy. We refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so never had a coffee with our child.
At one point during the two-year court gagging proceedings, our daughter’s lawyer made us an offer: they would return our child to us for three months on condition that we accept permanent gagging. Clearly the desire for secrecy was driving these actions. The court was being asked to gag parents in order to enforce the secrecy of a dangerous predator. We urge you to ponder the implications and gravity of this offer. They tried to blackmail us – if you want your child back, you have to agree to keep quiet about what has gone on, agree to keep it secret. We never accepted the blackmail offer.
It has been 8 years now since our child moved in with David Hayden, and 6 years since she moved out of his house when she finished school. However our child still has absolutely no contact whatsoever with her family. She maintains that this is due to secrecy– the secrecy pressures are so great that our child is prepared to completely ignore her entire immediate and extended family long-term in order to maintain the secrets.
Auckland psychologist Sara Chatwin described our experiences during a 2012 interview broadcast on TVNZ’s Close Up programme: “all power and all control of their child has been taken away, particularly by people with an agenda, people who want to exploit children”. Sara Chatwin was referring to the power and control over our daughter in the hands of secondary predator David Hayden, assisted by those listed above. This psychologist highlights that David Hayden, along with others, wanted to exploit our child. The TVNZ interview can be viewed here:
A NZ school teacher friend of ours who has known us for over 30 years wrote a letter which was printed in Investigate magazine: “The disgust that I feel for the misguided Rosa counsellors and a justice system that gives minors more rights than parents, in this case, truly caring parents, is nothing compared to what I feel about the actions of a liberal Christian church and its ‘pastor’ (David Hayden), whose actions cruelly cut (their daughter) off from her parents – (mother and father) – who are the only people who truly care about her and love her. An institution that aids in the decimation of family relationships is an abomination…”
John Saks, Founder and Chairman of the For the Sake of our Children Foundation in NZ, wrote: “(In your case, you) have state sponsored alienation of a family……Your daughter is considerably more fortunate than most in her circumstance as evidenced by the tremendous effort you have put into ‘righting the wrong’. Your efforts should be applauded, and I am very thankful that at least one daughter in our nation has parents hugely committed to her….It is my hope that your suffering/agony has not been in vain – and that many other sons and daughters of our nation and other nations may be better off because you ‘stood tall’ for them also”.
For our family, the damage caused by this secondary abuse with predator David Hayden at the centre, was undoubtedly more severe than the primary harm caused by the initial sexual predators.
Further evidence of the extreme isolation, alienation, dependencyand secrecy tactics of school teacher David Hayden are contained in our summary document linked below as well as in our complaint to the NZ Teachers Council.
David Hayden is no ordinary predator – he is a monster. The Teachers Council refused to investigate him, and refused to even read our complaint.
The evidence of a Paedophile Protection Network at the NZ Teachers Council / Ministry of Education
The evidence can be described in four points, which are numbered 1- 4:
1. The NZ Teachers Council ensure it is illegal to report a paedophile teacher
Accept for a moment that a Paedophile Protection Network exists, and the NZ Teachers Council wants to investigate problem teachers while at the same time protect paedophiles and secondary predators, how would they achieve this? What if they designed their complaint reporting procedure to make it illegal for anyone to report a paedophile teacher or secondary predator – this would protect paedophiles and secondary predators wouldn’t it? This is precisely what the NZ Teachers Council have done – they have imposed an internal rule on complainants which in effect makes it illegal to report a paedophile teacher or secondary predator to the NZ Teachers Council. So, the Teachers Council can act as if they are clamping down on paedophiles and secondary predators, whereas in reality they have structured matters to protect the paedophile and secondary predators and ensure paedophilia and predatory behaviour is covered up.
Here is how the scam operates: It is against the law in NZ for anyone to identify a victim of under age sex crimes. Anyone who does identify an under age sex crime victim can be imprisoned. We know this because when we tried to raise awareness about what teacher David Hayden was doing in isolating and alienating our daughter, he tried (and nearly succeeded) to have us imprisoned for allegedly identifying our child as an under age sex crime victim. The terrifying experience of facing possible prison because we wanted to see our child, resulted in us fleeing the country. Our son’s experience facing possible prison because his parents allegedly identified their daughter, we believe, certainly contributed to his untimely death. It is described in our summary document linked below – one needs to read our experiences to understand how terrifying the experience was for us in the NZ Family court.
The NZ Teachers Council require a complainant to identify themselves, however by doing so they are identifying their child, the sex crime victim. The child sex crime is an integral element in our complaint, without it, the behaviour of our child cannot be properly understood. So too, the behaviour of the secondary predator cannot be properly understood unless in the context of the child sex crimes.
The NZ Teachers Council complaint process is that they would then pass our identity (and by implication our child’s identity) on to the education staff we filed the complaint about – Westlake teacher David Hayden, Westlake counsellor Alison Horspool, and Kristin Principal Peter Clague. These three were the very people so instrumental for earlier attempting to imprison us for allegedly identifying our child! Obviously, having gone through such a terrifying experience earlier, facing imprisonment, there is no way we are going to identify ourselves (and our daughter) to these same people, as they would obviously once again attempt to imprison us for identifying our child.
It is a brilliant scam for those wanting to protect paedophile teachers and secondary predators. The NZ Teachers Council can confidently pretend that they have a process to deal with paedophiles and secondary predators, whereas in reality, their process ensures that paedophile and secondary predators are completed safeguarded and excluded from investigation.
When we submitted our complaint, we tried to explain this to the Manager of Teacher Practice, Andrew Greig, but he wanted none of it and was not prepared to listen. So we asked him to please read our complaint, as it explains why we earlier faced imprisonment. In his arrogance, Andrew Greig even refused to read our complaint saying it is “too long”.
The NZ Teachers Council has already struck teachers off the register for having schoolgirls move out of the family home and into their home:
However, in the really serious cases such as ours, teacher David Hayden, counsellor Alison Horspool, and Principal Peter Clague are quite safe from investigation by the NZ Teachers Council – because a Paedophile Protection Network operates to safeguard them.
Clearly, our identity would make no difference to an investigation. David Hayden already knows our identity, after all, our child lived with him for two years. School counsellor Alison Horspool already knows our identity as she took our child to Youthlaw to gag her family and hand-held our child throughout the two-year gagging process. School Principal Peter Clague already knows our identity as he filed an affidavit with the court asking for our imprisonment for allegedly identifying our child to him.
If there are any doubts about who submitted the complaint, we could have withheld our identity and the Teachers Council could have simply shown David Hayden this photograph and told him that the complaint has been filed by the parents of this bikini-clad teenager who has her arm around him.
No wonder school teacher David Hayden is smiling – he is in the arms of a sexually-promiscuous, young, vulnerable, bikini-clad sex crime victim whom he has totally isolated from her family; he has completely neutralised her family by gagging them; she is totally alienated from family to the extent that together with David Hayden she applies to have her family imprisoned if they attempt to contact anyone around her; she is completely dependent upon David Hayden and is living in his house; he is able to pressure her into complete secrecy; and he knows he need not be concerned about the NZ Teachers Council and Ministry of Education as their Paedophile Protection Network will cover for him. Being in that position would make any serious predator smile.
The evidence is there – if a Paedophile Protection Network exists in the NZ Teachers Council, they would set it up to protect paedophiles and secondary predators exactly as things are set up now.
2. Prevent Ministry staff from finding out the real information
If there is a Paedophile Protection Network operating within the Ministry of Education, they would likely suppress all information about paedophile teachers and secondary predators who operate with impunity. A Paedophile Protection Network would not want Ministry staff to find out about what David Hayden has done, as staff may ask questions why he is still registered. This is precisely what the NZ Ministry of Education have done – their Paedophile Protection Network arranged for the document containing details of David Hayden’s activities to be specifically blocked from the organisation.
A London-based IT security expert has confirmed and gathered forensic evidence that our document containing evidence about the activities of teacher David Hayden is specifically blocked on the Ministry’s email server. The email server has been configured to automatically reject every incoming email that contains a link to this specific document. The Paedophile Protection Network clearly want to hide the activities of David Hayden, and by implication the lack of censure from the NZ Teachers Council, from Ministry staff members.
This certainly indicates the existence of a Paedophile Protection Network. If the Ministry were confident that David Hayden is not a secondary predator, they would have nothing to hide. However, they know that every reasonable person reading our summary document quickly concludes that teacher David Hayden is a very dangerous secondary predator who should not be in a position of authority around children. We believe that informed parents would also not want their children anywhere near school counsellor Alison Horspool and Principal Peter Clague due to their involvement. Parents, NZ schools, and professionals, informed of our experience have told us this. A Paedophile Protection Network has suppressed the information.
3. Belittle the complainant
When we communicated with Ministry of Education staff pleading with them to investigate David Hayden, they tried to avoid dealing with the issue by instructing us to take the matter to NZ Police. We did as they suggested and contacted the NZ Police Child Abuse unit at Police HQ. Police personnel then arranged a meeting with Ministry of Education personnel and others.
We have it on reliable authority that at the meeting, Ministry of Education staff were simply dismissive of our complaint and made disparaging remarks about us. Why would Ministry of Education staff treat this matter so trivially? Why would they regard our family with such disdain? Our complaint must surely be one of the more severe they have received. David Hayden is surely one of the most dangerous monsters in the country – we have not found an equal for his extreme isolation, alienation, dependency, and secrecyactivities anywhere in the world (kidnap victims do not have the alienation element). There is only one explanation – the Ministry have no desire to disturb a dangerous secondary predator from doing his sinister deeds. This conduct is consistent only with the operation of a Paedophile Protection Network – they simply do not take the matter seriously and had no intention of ever investigating David Hayden because they are running protective cover for him.
We suspect the NZ Teachers Council and Ministry of Education will dismiss this document as well, with similar disdain and simply ignore it – this is the modus operandi of a Paedophile Protection Network. There will likely be a further flourish of disparaging remarks about us behind the closed doors of these institutions. It is unlikely that Andrew Greig will read this document as it is also probably “too long”.
We lost two children as the result of these events. One dead, and one so severely alienated that it has been years since she has made any contact or communication with her family or extended family. For Ministry of Education staff to belittle these matters and make disparaging remarks is highly reflective of what their objectives are – it is a Paedophile Protection Network.
4. Regarding teenage sex as far more important than teenage education
The evidence for this is in our summary document linked below. Rather than repeat it here, I will simply refer to the appropriate pages in our summary. The evidence is overwhelming – clearly these education staff regarded our daughter’s sex with adults as far more important than her education. The results speak for themselves:
- During the two years our child lived with David Hayden, she was truant from school for a massive amount – 67 half days in one year alone – having never previously been truant when she lived in our family home.
- During the two years our child lived with David Hayden her school performance deteriorated dramatically – from 88% average when she lived in our home, down to 42% average when living with teacher David Hayden (these percentages are converted from grades in order to calculate averages). Teacher comments on her reports indicated dramatic deterioration for every subject, in line with the percentage drop.
- During the time our schoolchild lived with David Hayden she had at least one highly inappropriate sexual relationship with a much-older adult man. It was with a TV presenter, night club and strip club owner who was almost twice her age. This sexual relationship was so inappropriate and scandalous that it featured as cover story in the Woman’s Day magazine.
- Our child testified in the gagging cases against her family, that while a schoolchild living with David Hayden – she was treated as an adult, free to do whatever she pleased. One can simply wonder why a secondary predator would find this attractive.
Details as to why it is irrefutable that the key education staff who had influence over our child regarded her sex activities as far more important than her schoolwork, is in our summary document (linked below) on the following pages:
David Hayden - pg 4 - 6
Maryke Lind - pg 18
Alison Horspool - pg 4 - 6
Peter Clague - pg 4 - 6
Other key education staff who had influence over our family:
- Alison Gernhofer, past Principal Westlake Girls High
- Roz Mexted, current Principal Westlake Girls High
We have not yet written up the actions of these two school Principals and will do so at some stage. Briefly, when Minister of Education Hekia Parata told parents that if they have any concerns about the activities of teachers or school staff, they should take their concerns to the School Principal and Board of Trustees. We did exactly as the Minister advised and wrote a courteous letter asking for help, however we were simply threatened with lawyers and the police by Principal Roz Mexted. Previously we were threatened by lawyers on instruction from Principal Alison Gernhofer for the same action. They encourage complaints, but not serious ones involving paedophiles and secondary predators. Was Alison Gernhofer concerned about our child’s education – apparently not one bit, the results speak for themselves.
Our daughter has testified that she is more interested in protecting those such as David Hayden and all the others mentioned in our document, than in having a relationship with her family. This is entirely consistent with the behaviour of under age sex abuse victims and victims of secondary predators, and is indicative of the damage caused. The extended period without communication from our daughter (many years now) with any member of her family, is due to pressure brought upon her by the predators in order to maintain secrecy.
Summary
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, the likelihood is that it is a duck. The evidence is overwhelming – a Paedophile Protection Network operates within the NZ Ministry of Education and the NZ Teachers Council. They insist that we break the law with likely consequence of imprisonment in order to follow their complaint procedure requirements. They hide the truth about predators from their staff. Education employees treated our child’s sex activities with older men as far more important than her education. Ministry staff show disdain for our serious complaint and absolutely no desire or intention to act.
Moreover, David Hayden is still a registered teacher long after details of his actions have been exposed. The Ministry and Teachers Council ignore this devious teacher’s isolation, alienation, dependency and secrecy activities with a child sex crime victim. This dangerous, unscrupulous predator is still licensed to work with children and choose his next vulnerable victim. Has anyone checked the safety of any school pupils who may currently be living in his house?
We do not know the names of all the Ministry and Teachers Council staff involved in this Paedophile Protection Network, however the employees that we came in contact with, include:
- Andrew Greig
- Katrina Casey
- Peter Lind
- Lesley Longstone
For the Paedophile Protection Network to be as successful as it is within the Ministry and Teachers Council, we have no doubt that there are many more individuals involved, and suspect that these protection activities are at the very least given tacit approval from all executives within the organisations. They surely have known about teacher David Hayden for a while now (there have been well over 100,000 emails circulating in their environment with details), and yet they do nothing about him.
We do not make these allegations lightly. We are capable, well-educated parents aware of the ramifications. The father has three university degrees, is a recognised global leader in his field, and CEO of a London-based global, high-tech firm. The mother has a degree in psychology and holds a responsible position at a high-profile London venue. It is high-time NZ government departments start taking this matter seriously, many thousands of others in New Zealand and around the world already do. It is high-time the NZ Cabinet start doing something proactive about this Paedophile Protection Network. We believe prosecutions entailing prison sentences are in order.
Paedophilia and secondary predators are a big problem in New Zealand, and will continue to be, while given free reign from Paedophile Protection Networks. This problem is not peculiar to the Ministry of Education and Teachers Council. We know details of other Paedophile Protection Networks for example, one involving the Governor General Sir Jerry Mataparae, another involving Principal Family Court Judge Lawrence Ryan and Judge Dale Clarkson, others in the NZ Association of Counsellors, CYF and the NZ Police. It is a scourge on New Zealand society, and long-term heartache, damage and distress for victims and their families.
and check out these websites:
10,000 influential people in NZ and around the world are being copied in on this email, and encouraged to share it with all their contact list. To make it easier, we have placed a copy of this information online so that it can be downloaded in pdf format from here: http://bit.ly/PPNatMinedu 
The Privacy Act has special provisions dealing with the 'news medium' and 'news activity'. Journalists are subject only to the jurisdiction of the Press Council and Broadcasting Standards Authority, both are a bit of a joke, and good examples of the failure of self regulation and lack of ethical or moral standards in what passes for 'journalism' today.
