Another stolen policy
June 11th, 2008 at 10:47 am by David FarrarCongratulations to Annette King for successfully stealing National’s policy to allow the Police to issue instant domestic orders to protect family members,
The current system of protection orders is highly ineffective and far far too many people die or are beaten at the hands of their partners. Reform is long overdue.
Tags: Annette King, domestic violence, Labour, National, protection orders
June 11th, 2008 at 10:51 am
And people wonder why National isn’t going to release most of its policy until the election campaign …
Fair enough, if it’s a good idea then it’s good for us as a country to adopt it. But there’s an obvious incentive to not disclose your ideas until the campaign begins.
Vote:June 11th, 2008 at 11:02 am
And another thing Noone has asked her when the legislation will be introduced into the House and when it will be passed.
Watch for the Socialists to come out with a raft of ‘annoucements” that the MSM dont asked the 3rd and 4th question and expose the Bullshit.
A little investigation will so that no work has been done on any of these policies and no drafts have been pro0duced
Its all piss and wind just like the past 9 years. All pretend stuff to show the Gumints full of new and great ideas NOT. And to contrast them to the Nats who are quite rightly keeping their powder dry.
Lets hope JK et al dont start panicking and release policy for the Socialists to steal.
God the MSM are so pathetic. None of them have the wit to ask the right questions And then they get all huffy and pissed off with those of us who expose their weakness.
Vote:June 11th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Its equal as national has decided this week to ‘steal’ Labours policy on the despositions hearings and vote for something they were opposed to.
Vote:labours lifts nationals good ideas. national opposes good ideas and then flip flops,
June 11th, 2008 at 11:25 am
This has been floating around for quite some time. Seems like yet another power placed within the discretion of front-line officers (many of who are young and/or inexperienced) that is a major imposition on the freedom of those on the receiving end. I will wait for the detail before I make a final decision but there are too many laws and policies passed on the knee jerk without any serious analysis of the competing interests of, for example (and relevant here), security and freedom.
I accept that DV is a serious issue and people (not just women) in relationships have a right to feel safe. I have seen protection orders work well to provide security to abused and genuinely fearful partners. I have also seen them used as a tactic and all too often completely ignored. And therein lies an important point – a bit of paper has never stopped someone intent on committing serious violence.
One can only hope that this, on the face of it, easy option is not abused/over used by police and not used instead of investigating and taking appropriate action (ie: arrest) DV.
I have my suspicions that this will do nothing to solve the issues and simply make more work for lawyers. We will see.
Vote:June 11th, 2008 at 11:26 am
ghost
It is a flip flop when dear corrupt leader said before the 05 election that she will never support a ban on smacking then goes against her word?
Or is that simply another outright lie by the most corrupt PM we have ever had?
Vote:June 11th, 2008 at 11:26 am
FFS GWW you can spin with the best (worst) of them. National reluctantly (and in my view wrongly) acceded to the Bill after concessions were made making the worst aspects of the Bill slightly less unpalatable.
Vote:June 11th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
GWW I see a chasm between opposition support for legeslation introduced if changes are made, and announcing legislation to be introduced based on a previous opposition policy announcement
Vote:June 11th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
GWW, it’s not flip-flopping, it’s called LISTENING TO THE ELECTORATE, which is something this Labour led government has proven itself something it is completely incapable of!
Vote:June 11th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Well said GPT1. I too worry about the abuse of the existing system and the potential for that abuse to multiply under the new. The onus now goes on one person’s word. The law can be used against someone where there is no evidence of wrong-doing. Embittered partners can and do use the police as pawns in their own power-control games. Perhaps that is the price that has to be paid to save lives but the sum of injustice is about to rise.
Vote:June 11th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Who gives a stuff if it’s an initiative stolen from National.
If our politicians weren’t so focused on point-scoring rather than running the country properly then *everyone* would be rejoicing that a good idea is being implemented.
To bitch and moan because “we thought of it first” is childish and shows a kind of immaturity that doesn’t deserve our vote.
And *I* am a staunch right-winger. My comments are pragmatic, not tainted and distorted by ideology. I wish our politicians could be as pragmatic themselves.
Vote:June 11th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Methinks National cannot be far enough to the right of Labour to offer a real alternative, if the latter* has no problem adopting policies put forward by the former!
I don’t believe I’m the first one to say this – I liked what Rodney Hide said on here the other day – something about the Nats being more interested in getting into Government than about actually setting a different course for our country.
Edit: *Sorry, I meant, the evil, corrupt, socialist Feminazi control freaks who want to marginalise all men and bankrupt the country!
Vote:June 11th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
First, if it is good policy, what do you expect Labour to do? Say “Oh, we cannot do anything as it is national’s idea”? Or should good policy be implemented no amtter who thinks of it first?
Second, you remind me of the partisan cheerleaders who, when a policy is announced say “BUT 10 years ago you said blah blah blah” Well David, when someone shows me I am wrong, I change my mi; what do you do?
Third, no matter who thought of it first, it is NOT good policy. It allows the police to take action where they do not have evidence to prosecute, thus making police all powerful and not subject to judicial oversight. this is the same slippery slope of “law reform” we have with otehr proposed changes, such as removal of double jeopardy protections, not because law changes are needed, but because law enforcers are incompetent.
No doubt dad4justice will be along soon wth his two cents worth.
Vote:June 11th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
We need less police power. If the police recruits need to be taught the ABC can they have any judgement faculties? Would you trust a policeman to get you medical help if you were dying from blood loss after an assault? It’s time for their collective retraining not extending their powers.
Vote:June 11th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
aardvark said…
Who gives a stuff if it’s an initiative stolen from National.
That’s true. Not PC, has a good blog post on stolen policies.
Stealing policies
And as PC said:
if John Key’s Labour-Lite really represented a genuine alternative,and they genuinely thought their policies were best for the country then rather than wringing their hands every time the Red Team picked up one of their policies and introduced it, they’d be overjoyed that the direction of the country was changing, and that they were helping to bring it about.
Vote:June 11th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
OK so a woman provokes an argument, the man disagrees, doesn’t touch her but defends his position, she gets pissed off and calls the police. He’s chucked out of his house for 3 days, loses access to the kids and acquires the all important ‘history of domestic violence’. Next time all she has to do is repeat the formula. Remember the whole point of the legislation is that it will be used when there is not enough evidence to arrest, innocence is not a defence. You can guess how often a malicious woman will be thrown out of the house?
Why are so few commentators interested in the serious downside for an innocent man at the mercy of a malicious woman?
Vote:June 11th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I thought police already issued instant protection orders? Smack, whack in the cell by lunchtime! Oh that’s right, falsely accused middle aged WHITE fathers without gang associations are fair game for the feminazi keystone cops, who are NOW judge and jury (they always have been). On the spot labeled a respondent too prejudice proceedings, guilty without a chance to state your side of the story. Great stuff the family destroyed and family court file opened for all the blood-sucking professionals on the gravy train! ~! The lawyers, psychologist’s etc. will be the big winners here and the biggest losers, once again, dads and children. Looks like the radical feminists that saturate government are upping the anti against fathers. Who would have children in a gender bias country run by radical feminists determined to stamp their hateful ideologies upon kiwi families. This law plays right into the destructive family policy that is disgraceful and reeks of big sister tactics! The domestic violence act is already a breach of many males’ basic human rights and riddled with unlawful gender discrimination. Stolen families is the order the day. God help kiwi fathers
Vote:June 11th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
And there goes Dick4Justice again, protesting his innocence. People might be inclined to believe you Peter if you did not rave on like a lunatic, threating people, wanting to know their addresses.
Vote:Give up on trying to protest your innocence will you, your retoric doesn’t match your protestations.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Juhn Dulley ;Your spelling and your malicious lies look strangely familiar ,maybe the illiterate scribblings belonging to that Liarbour nitwit Chris Carter? Yes I think so. As far as vindication goes Mr Loser I will wait to my case is looked at by the Innocence Project, so shut your twisted cake hole silly spittoon.
Vote:June 11th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I believe Dad. I also believe that the anxiety of being wrongly accused and dragged backwards thru the system while protesting his innocence has earned him less tolerance from the authorities, leading to increasingly vociferous protestations of innocence earning him less tolerance from the authorities … etc.
Plenty of people have causes. For some it’s whales, liberalisation, law & order.. or whatever. Dad’s cause is his family and the damage he seeing being done to other families. You mightn’t like his style, but I salute his determination.
Vote: