Protection Orders

January 19th, 2014 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

The HoS reports:

An emotional Judith Collins has revealed her personal pain at the loss of a cousin, murdered when her husband breached a protection order.

The Justice Minister spoke to the Herald on Sunday yesterday, after announcing plans to use GPS monitors to track violent men and stop them going near women they had threatened or attacked.

The GPS monitor plan sounds a good initiative. Ideally it could be done so an the person being protected is also notified if (for example) they get within 500 metres of their house, so they can take action (as well as automatiically notify authorities).

Sadly the reality is that for many people, a protection order has little impact. Over 2,000 a year are broken. I was debating with friends yesterday whether one should have automatic jail sentence for breaches – even say seven days. So there is absolute certainty if you breach one, you will go to jail.

The problem with that is sometimes (not often) are granted on false evidence, as we saw with Helen Milner who got her son arrested for breaching such an order, after Milner forged text messages from him.

Tags:

90 Responses to “Protection Orders”

  1. peterwn (3,168 comments) says:

    Oops, Milner’s son did not breach the protection order, Milner set things up to make it appear he had (by claiming he sent her abusive and threatening messages). See:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/9535935/Helen-Milners-son-sues-her-for-60-000

    She got 2y 8m in jail for perverting the course of justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Linda Reid (396 comments) says:

    When someone is determined to cause immense pain and or murder, and plans to suicide afterwards, it might work to lock them up for a very long time, but a protection order is just a joke. This woman should have moved somewhere else with a new identity – but even that might not have been enough. But it’s a very tough call to up roots and leave all your family and friends.

    Maybe there could be some kind of charity that helps women under threat like this to change countries and start anew.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. duggledog (1,362 comments) says:

    It’s a bit of paper.

    If 2,000 PO’s are broken every year then clearly shit ain’t working. I agree DPF, a short mandatory prison sentence would do the trick, mostly.

    And while we’re at it, one year mandatory for assaulting a prison guard or police officer, six months for stealing a car

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Great idea, just as long as they:

    1. Send women to jail who distort the truth when applying for a Protection Order.

    2. Grant no Protection Order without a full hearing being given for the accused, with legal representation paid for by the state.

    3 Place conditions on the applicant so if she contacts him or invites him around, she is arrested and sent to prison too. [For breaching a Protection Order]

    These orders are a joke and not for the reasons many well intentioned [?] but ignorant people think.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. jackinabox (637 comments) says:

    The cops were warned, did nothing, and now Judith Collins has jumped in to defend the indefensible.

    “Neighbour Mel Foot said Livingstone had talked about killing his estranged wife and burning their house down. Foot said she and her sister phoned police in August and told them about his threatening behaviour, but their concerns were never followed up.

    Dunedin-Clutha area commander Inspector Greg Sparrow confirmed yesterday that police visited Foot on Friday and told her they would investigate what action was taken in relation to the calls.

    A neighbour of the Livingstone kids, Mel Foot, said: “[Katharine Webb's] children were her world and [Livingstone] knew that. He was that insane that he thought he would kill the two things that were closest to her.

    “He’s been insane for months and months,” she said, adding Livingstone had talked about killing his estranged wife and burning down her house.

    A research paper analysing murder-suicides in Norway states psychic imbalance is “essential in the complex picture that leads to a person to commit murder-suicide”.

    Although rare, these cases are fairly consistent in their frequency, context, and warning signs.

    Family violence advocates argue that such atrocities generally are preventable.

    However, Justice Minister Judith Collins has said judges have to weigh up risk to potential victims against the rights of the accused when considering a penalty for breaching a protection order.

    “Unfortunately it is not always possible to predict a person’s behaviour, and the blame for this senseless murder should rest with the offender.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9625592/Tragedy-strikes-again-along-Dunedins-coast

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Chuck Bird (4,686 comments) says:

    “I was debating with friends yesterday whether one should have automatic jail sentence for breaches – even say seven days. So there is absolute certainty if you breach one, you will go to jail.”

    As Kea points out at present protection orders work one way. The person who gets can contact the person who it is taken out against.

    I wonder it any of these murder/suicides are because of a protect order being taken out. It is quite possible. It is also possible that automatic jail could lead to the same thing.

    Look at this scenario. A woman moves into a man’s house. She get a protection order and the man is thrown out of his won house. She then moves her lover in. I can see a guy it this case coming out jail possible job because of being jailed being more rather than less likely to be very violent.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird, you are onto it. The current system puts people at risk as the men often feel desperation and no hope. A dangerous mix during a relationship/family breakup.

    Many folk automatically think of the man as a stereotypical wife beating tyrant. But in fact they are a small minority. These orders are issued for way less than that. Often on the subjective grounds of how the applicant claims to feel !

    Maybe some of those looking to further persecute men should pop on over to the Refuge hate groups web site and check out what counts as “abuse”. Did you not let your partner blow the grocery money on a night out boozing with the girls ? Well that is economic abuse. You are an abuser. If she felt jealous you are an abuser. If you feel jealous, then … you are an abuser too. If your partner has low self esteem, you are an abuser. None of these abuses regard context as relevant.

    There is not a woman on earth that I could not sit down with and construct a solid affidavit for a PO. All men are abusers and pigs and the only the only reason you don’t have a PO is your victim has not applied for one. And that can quickly change if your partner wants to leave. Especially if she wants the kids and house, or to punish you, while playing the victim.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Scott Chris (5,893 comments) says:

    Think Chuck Bird’s still upset ’cause his bird chucked him.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    You ARE an abuser !!!

    The forms abuse can take

    The Domestic Violence Act 1995 states in Part 1, Section 3 that violence can be physical, sexual, emotional or psychological. Domestic violence can also include financial or economic and/or spiritual abuse.

    Physical abuse

    An abuser may use physical force against you in such forms as: punching; bashing; choking; slapping; pinching; kicking; hitting with something; biting; burning with a cigarette; throwing things; strangling; pushing; pulling hair; spitting; urinating; tying up; holding down; locking in a cupboard; or using a knife, gun, belt, or any other kind of weapon.

    Psychological/emotional abuse

    Psychological/emotional abuse is the most common form of violence experienced by the women and children we see at Women’s Refuge. Many of the women say it is the worst kind of abuse.

    Psychological/emotional abuse is about manipulation and coercion, and affects your emotions and personality, rather than your body. Victims of emotional abuse can feel like they are going mad, are very frightened, and often feel like it’s their fault.

    This form of abuse is often underestimated. It’s not recognised by many people because it can be subtle and hidden.

    Psychological abuse includes: playing mind games; making threats; smashing personal belongings; hurting or threatening to hurt pets; doing anything that causes fear like driving fast; stalking; taking away your power of decision-making; limiting or stopping contact with friends and whānau/family; controlling or stopping your outings (alone or together); denying or minimising the abuse; making personal criticisms; being racist; name-calling; brandishing a weapon; getting excessively jealous; apologising after physical abuse; lying; swearing; keeping you up all night against your will; humiliating you in front of others; threatening to tell the authorities; keeping tabs on you; blaming you for the abuse; threatening suicide; enforcing their will and that their way should be followed; paranoid accusations of infidelity; threatening to use an animal like a dog to cause harm; letting the children see or hear violence; and telling you what to wear and how you should do your hair and make-up.

    Sexual abuse

    Sexual assault includes: rape; forcing sex; using sex as a bargaining tool so they won’t physically abuse; sexual harassment; unwanted sexual touching; forcing someone to watch pornography; infidelity against your protestations; not using contraception when asked to; forcing someone to get pregnant; denying someone the use of contraception; forcing or denying an abortion; and making someone do sexual things that hurt or cause shame.

    Sexual violence to children is when an adult says sexual things, touches in a sexual way, or has any sexual contact with a child under 16.

    Financial or economic abuse

    Financial abuse can cause women and children to live in poverty. Women who are suffering financial abuse often can’t rent a flat, get a loan, or get the power or phone connected, because previous bills were unpaid or because they have a bad credit record. They may have a criminal record and fines after taking the blame for the abuser, and they often have no access to money to enable them to leave a violent situation.

    Financial or economic abuse can involve: stealing your money and belongings; controlling the money so you don’t have a say in its spending or saving; giving you an ‘allowance’ that doesn’t cover the bills while spending most of the money on themselves; checking all your receipts and the mileage on the car; keeping your bank cards and cheque book; refusing to pay child support or be named as the father; using your name for loans and credit cards so that you get the debt; forcing you to sign a prenuptial agreement; forcing you to work; forcing you to sell drugs or steal; making you go on the benefit illegally; not letting you go out to work or study; and not letting you have your name on the house and other shared property.

    Spiritual violence

    Abuse in any form robs women and children of their mauri-ora or wellbeing. Spiritual abuse is about attacks to your wairua or spirit, when abuse leaves you feeling soulless, empty of passion or joy, distant, and purposeless.

    Spiritual violence includes: stopping you from expressing your spiritual or religious beliefs; not letting you go to church/ temple; putting you down or making fun of your whakapapa, beliefs, traditions, or culture; and doing anything that attacks your wairua/spirit, or stops you following your dreams or passions.

    https://womensrefuge.org.nz/WR/Domestic-violence/Types-of-abuse.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Nostalgia-NZ (4,918 comments) says:

    And she’s away.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. rouppe (919 comments) says:

    Kea, plenty of women use some or all of those techniques as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. duggledog (1,362 comments) says:

    Nice link Kea. Three things that stood out for me -

    “limiting or stopping contact with friends and whānau/family”

    “robs women and children of their mauri-ora or wellbeing.”

    “putting you down or making fun of your whakapapa, beliefs”

    Now why did the writers of this decide to give the Maori word precedence? It’s only a small thing but to me it speaks volumes

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Scott Chris, you are clearly an abuser, so I take what you say with a grain of salt.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    rouppe , of course women do all those things. But the man haters at the Refuge would say you are making excuses to minimise your abuse.

    Most women would consider the whole thing as silly as we do. However, many will use it against you if the mood changes.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. rouppe (919 comments) says:

    One thing I’ve noticed a lot recently is that the person who complains first is often believed by the authorities, whereas the person who has to defend themselves against a completely made up allegation is very rarely believed until untold damage has been done to their reputation or their finances

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Scott Chris (5,893 comments) says:

    Scott Chris, you are clearly an abuser

    Heh, sure Troll. Just cause you beat your men doesn’t mean the rest of us are as depraved. And your men really do ask for it don’t they ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Scott Chris, you are an abuser because I said so. Also name calling is abuse. Just look at your behaviour this morning ! It is clearly abuse. I feel sorry for your partner.

    You will note my link to the Refuge hate groups site. They say most domestic violence is “Psychological/emotional “. This is purely subjective and totally unprovable. It is also impossible to refute.

    If you are accused you are guilty and on that basis you lose access to your kids, your home and must attend a stopping violence course, or go to jail.

    You pig !

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. wiseowl (766 comments) says:

    Chuck and Kea are right on this one.
    Have had recent experience trying to help a guy who had a PO on him.
    His ex had a child in her custody .Somehow someone let him know a relative found the 6 year old looking after herself and the mother out of it on drugs.
    What was his response.? Must have gone right round there but gets thrown in the slammer.Whats happened to the mother? Nothing I know of as yet.
    Was just starting to make progress with this guy now there is no hope.
    There needs to be some balance in this tragic but real situation too common in this fine country.We will not get the balance required with more kneejerk reactions to the law and a sisterhood of women who don’t believe women abuse men and in manipulative mental way especially.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Scott Chris (5,893 comments) says:

    You pig !

    Ooh! Ooh! Say it again Troll, you know I love it. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. jackinabox (637 comments) says:

    “rouppe (799 comments) says:

    January 19th, 2014 at 9:10 am

    One thing I’ve noticed a lot recently is that the person who complains first is often believed by the authorities, whereas the person who has to defend themselves against a completely made up allegation is very rarely believed until untold damage has been done to their reputation or their finances”

    And even if you provide audio and video proof that the first complainant is a liar the fucking cops won’t go after the liar (perjurer) if they have an axe to grind against you.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    wiseowl , most people just won’t believe it, until it happens to them or someone close to them.

    jackinabox, it is a lot worse if the false accuser is pretty. If your accused of – anything- by an attractive women, you are fucked. Unless you know the right people.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    Over 2,000 a year are broken. I was debating with friends yesterday whether one should have automatic jail sentence for breaches – even say seven days. So there is absolute certainty if you breach one, you will go to jail.

    A lot more than that are breached.  Many are breached because the person with the protection order wants to continue the realationship with their alleged abuser and therefore only makes use of the protection order by way of a punishment after an argument.

    I tell all of my clients who have a protection order against them that they should have no contact whatsoever with the person with the benefit of the protection order.  Sadly many don’t listen and respond to phone or text messages, or invitations to come around.

    Personally I think that a protection should have a mandatory non-contact clause that goes both ways, preventing the person with the benefit of the order from contacting the person subject to it, as well as the other way.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. jackinabox (637 comments) says:

    “jackinabox, it is a lot worse if the false accuser is pretty. If your accused of – anything- by an attractive women, you are fucked. Unless you know the right people.”

    http://bcops.wordpress.com/34-stephen-poynter-lady-joy-rest-home-liar/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Nostalgia-NZ (4,918 comments) says:

    ‘Personally I think that a protection should have a mandatory non-contact clause that goes both ways, preventing the person with the benefit of the order from contacting the person subject to it, as well as the other way.’

    I like that F E S. How about some sort of assessment process of both parties, or does that already happen?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Judith (7,693 comments) says:

    Protection Orders are only useful after they have been abused. Then it can be used to either punish more severely those who have abused them, or such as the recent case, provide background information to assist in understanding why a violent offence occurred.

    The fact is, that protection orders only work when they are served against an emotionally well adjusted and law abiding person. The problem is, that a person of that type, usually doesn’t need to have a protection order to stop them from being a threat to another person.

    Murder, as with most domestic assaults is an emotional crime. The perpetrator is in such an emotional and unbalanced state, that no piece of paper telling them otherwise, is going to stop what they feel the need to do.

    I do not know what the answer is to domestic violence, but I do know the current system only works on those that probably didn’t need it in the first place. Plus I have to agree, at times the application for an order is used as a tool out of spite.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Rowan (1,794 comments) says:

    As illustrated in the murder-suicide in Dunedin last week the PO wasn’t worth the paper it was written on, Linda is right. Edward Livingstone needed to have been locked up, his ex was terrified of him, he had breached 2 POs and had threatened to kill before.
    Sadly trolls like Kea will blame the wife.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Judith (7,693 comments) says:

    @ Nostalgia-NZ (4,343 comments) says:
    January 19th, 2014 at 10:32 am

    I totally agree, however, I do think that both parties should attend some sort of guidance/counselled process in which they receive advice and instruction for how to end or continue their relationship that takes all aspects (children) into consideration.

    Anger management assistance should be given to BOTH parties too. Firstly because the person with anger and violence issues needs to know how to address those issues, and secondly, the other person needs to know how anger works, how to look for the signposts and know what to do when it happens and perhaps how not to provoke violence (in some cases).

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. jackinabox (637 comments) says:

    “Sadly trolls like Kea will blame the wife.

    Pointing out that some women use protection orders for nefarious purposes is not “blaming the wife”.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Rowan, name calling is “abuse” and it is violence.

    You are a violent abuser and I pity the women you have living in fear around you.

    https://womensrefuge.org.nz/WR/Domestic-violence/Types-of-abuse.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Judith (7,693 comments) says:

    @ jackinabox (264 comments) says:
    January 19th, 2014 at 10:55 am

    I agree, but the problem is that Kea does not just blame the small minority of females that do this, he applies it to all the females.

    Females and males are different. Our rules of interaction are different, and our expectations are different. Many women simply do not realise they are pushing the wrong buttons when they interact with their partners. They can push other women in the same way and not receive a black eye for their trouble, so they simply do not know the signs to look for in a man, i.e. to know when enough is enough. On the other hand, men do not understand why women push like they do – so they get frustrated and lose it.

    Domestic violence in N.Z. is a communication problem (and an alcohol/drug problem but that is a different discussion). We spend very little time teaching our children to understand the differences between sexes and to appreciate that difference during communication. Instead we insist on telling them they are equal and the same.

    We are meant to be a civilised species, under our current social rules there is never an excuse for violence (unless you are wearing a police uniform). Blaming women for inciting the violence is a cop out – men should be civilised enough not to hit.

    All that domestic violence proves is that we are not as advanced as we would like to believe, and like it or not, basically we are still animals, something that is unlikely to ever be completely socialised out of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    The fact is, that protection orders only work when they are served against an emotionally well adjusted and law abiding person. The problem is, that a person of that type, usually doesn’t need to have a protection order to stop them from being a threat to another person.

    Judith, you seem to assume that the accuser is a “emotionally well adjusted and law abiding person”.

    Time to get real. Read what the Refuge hate group considers abuse and violence. Read it and think.

    Then tell me what chance a man would have of getting a PO based on that criteria. He would get laughed at and probably warned about wasting police time. They would probably talk to the female abuser, with the intention of finding something to charge the man with.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. GJM (58 comments) says:

    Shame self defense is effectively not legal in NZ (since seplf defense is almost alwayus prosecuted, especially if you take precautions or are prepared) , otherwise maybe she could have taken precautions and none of this would have happened, and the NZ taxpayer would be down 1 feral scum – a win all around.
    When seconds count, the police are only minutes (or hours or weeks or never in NZ) away.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Judith (7,693 comments) says:

    @ Kea (9,532 comments) says:
    January 19th, 2014 at 11:08 am

    Actually Kea, that is not what I said at all. If you read my post re communication, I have stated very clearly that females need to learn that interacting with men is different to how they do with other woman, and that they need to learn that difference. I also said they both need help.
    Just as men need to learn that when women communicate, they may say things that push their buttons, when are not intended to be that way.

    I know you feel you’ve been hard done by in this issue but the fact is there are only a very small number of cases in which the issues you raise are relevant – to apply those circumstances to all females is not fair. Yes, what you say does happen but only in a small percentage of cases – in your story the man is always wronged, and the female is always a bitch.

    There is NEVER an excuse for hitting a female – it is an animal reaction that proves the person is not civilised. No excuse and no justification – using your strength against a female for any reason other than to save a life is pathetic and weak. Be a man – walk away – only wimps stay and hit/hit back.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    I agree, but the problem is that Kea does not just blame the small minority of females that do this, he applies it to all the females.

    Judith, show me where I said that and I will retract it. Or simply admit you lied. Up to you.

    The women who should get PO’s are mostly too shit scared to do so. Persecuting innocent men helps no one. But this whole show is not about helping women. It is about persecuting men and trying to make them second class citizens to advance the feminist agenda.

    No amount of telling lies will hide that truth from the informed and thoughtful.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    There is NEVER an excuse for hitting a female

    1. What say she is attacking you with a knife or trying to kill you ?

    2. When is it ok to hit a male ?

    I have twice witnessed, first hand, cases where women have threatened their husband with a knife and were discharged without conviction by the Judge, who rambled on for ages trying to Justify it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    “Shame self defense is effectively not legal in NZ”

    Only if you are a Man.

    Because of bitter harpies like this one : “There is NEVER an excuse for hitting a female”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Judith (7,693 comments) says:

    @ Kea (9,533 comments) says:
    January 19th, 2014 at 11:15 am

    Kea, time and time again in the past couple of days and before you have referred to ‘women’ and never clarified it as being only a small percentage of them or otherwise. Your statements infer that you think that of all women, just the same as you bundle your critique of women’s refuge, as all people involved in that organisation.

    You are simply wrong. I often agree with what you say e.g. women can provoke etc – but your statements that continuing say what women think/do etc are not correct, anymore than ‘all men are rapists’, just because some do.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Judith (7,693 comments) says:

    @ Kea (9,535 comments) says:
    January 19th, 2014 at 11:20 am

    You are being irrational now – if she was hitting you with a knife, then hitting back would be saving a life – wouldn’t it?

    The vast majority of men can outrun, and are stronger than females. If they are under threat then they to can apply for a protection order, they are not exclusive for females.

    Men who are victims of domestic abuse have the same rights as women. I also can name MANY cases where men have appeared in court for violence and got off – it works both ways Kea. You need more objectivity.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Chris2 (758 comments) says:

    If 2,000 protection orders are broken, then there is also a possibility the subject of the order may not even known there is an order against them.

    The same thing happens when someone accumulates 100 driver demerit points. The NZTA write to the person’s last known address (that is, known to NZTA), but if they have moved address they never know they have been disqualified from driving.

    There are many people driving today who don’t even know they are disqualified. This is why 10 year driver licenses are ineffective from an enforcement point of view – some addresses on record with NZTA will be years out of date.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Judith (7,693 comments) says:

    @ Chris2 (670 comments) says:
    January 19th, 2014 at 11:28 am

    If the male has never been served with their protection order, then should it be breached, they would be able to defend that in court – the Crown having to provide evidence that the order had been served. Of course this would not allow that person to get off an assault charge if they had subsequently hit the person who got the order, but it would defend a ‘breach of order’. That is, making contact.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Chris2 (758 comments) says:

    @Judith

    I never made a distinction between male and females, why introduce your own bias into the discussion?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Judith, so you are judging me on what you “feel” I think, rather than what I say.

    You would do well down at the Refuge with that sort of manipulative bullshit. Notice they admit that most “violence” is “Psychological/emotional” ? In other words impossible to prove or defend against. It also clearly implies that if a female feels bad, has self esteem issues etc, it is the mans fault and he is an abuser.

    PO’s are often issued on the basis of subjective psychobabble. How someone woman claims to “feel” is a statement about her state of mind and not a description of objective reality. People can “feel” all sorts of things. Some people have panic attacks and are struck by fear, for no apparent reason at all.

    It is clear that the vile hate mongers and predatory lesbians at the Refuge think a woman should never be held to account for her wrongs, as that might make her feel bad and is violence.

    Read it for yourself: https://womensrefuge.org.nz/WR/Domestic-violence/Types-of-abuse.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    How about some sort of assessment process of both parties, or does that already happen?

    Nope.  Only the person subject to the order will get something (I think usually an order to attend a stopping violence course), and those can be initially made without notice.  Many people who are subject to an order never contest it, because to do so would cost money.

    GPT would know more on that side of things than I do, as I never go near Family Law matters!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Judith (7,693 comments) says:

    @ F E Smith (3,113 comments) says:
    January 19th, 2014 at 11:38 am

    “I never go near Family Law matters!”

    Extremely wise unless one also like walking around mine fields.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    “There is NEVER an excuse for hitting a female”

    Followed by:

    You are being irrational now – if she was hitting you with a knife, then hitting back would be saving a life – wouldn’t it?

    Judith, so it is not “NEVER” after all ?

    Why did you say “NEVER” when you actually did not mean “NEVER” ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Judith (7,693 comments) says:

    @ Kea (9,536 comments) says:
    January 19th, 2014 at 11:35 am

    Emotional violence is not always impossible to prove – in fact usually there is a great deal of physical evidence. Txt messages, or in the old days writing, manipulation of finances, permissions, and so on. Emotional violence is sometimes even more easy to prove than physical violence, unless scars have been left.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    Chris,

    I never made a distinction between male and females, why introduce your own bias into the discussion?

    because the overwhelming number of them are taken out against men. 95% or so, from memory. Men generally just don’t take out protection orders, even when they really need them.

    Judith,

    a minor quibble, but the vast majority of protection order breaches are Police prosecutions, not Crown prosecutions.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. dime (9,472 comments) says:

    Dime doesnt associate with trash anymore.. but back in the day i knew lots of trashy westie chicks. a bunch of them had protection orders out or were threatening them. usually when there was a kid involved.

    if they didnt get their own way “youll never see your kid again, ill get a protection order against you” blah blah

    a lot of these women are emotionally stunted children, uneducated and nasty.

    dont get me wrong, a lot of the guys are the same. complete garbage.

    the concern is to protect these muppets, laws come in that will mess with good buggas going through custody battles etc

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Judith (7,693 comments) says:

    @ Kea

    This is what I said – read it above

    No excuse and no justification – using your strength against a female for any reason other than to save a life is pathetic and weak. Be a man – walk away – only wimps stay and hit/hit back.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Judith (7,693 comments) says:

    @ F E Smith (3,114 comments) says:
    January 19th, 2014 at 11:42 am

    Yeah, thanks for that – I did actually know that, but get so used to typing Crown I didn’t even realise I had.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Many people who are subject to an order never contest it, because to do so would cost money.

    And remember folks he may have suddenly been thrown out in the street in the clothes he stands up in. He has no where to stay, can not contact his kids, can not contact his partner to find out whats going on, firearm licence taken, forced to attend a stopping violence course…

    All on the basis of being accused by a female. Who is often screwing around and partying hard out in the guys house, while the kids are neglected.

    If your an immoral skank, but want sympathy, it is standard procedure to claim victims status to avoid being held to account.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. jackinabox (637 comments) says:

    “When seconds count, the police are only minutes (or hours or weeks or never in NZ) away.”

    A gem!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Judith, how can you prove an emotion and what defense could one lodge ?

    How does this compare with the usual standards of evidence ? It is disgusting that our legal system is so deeply corrupted by feminists that claims made about subjective emotions, with not a shred of evidence, are actually taken into account. But only when those claims are made by a women.

    It is nothing more than guilty by accusation and trying to dress it up and cloak it in emotive psychobabble does not hide that fact. What an accuser claims are their “feelings” should not be considered by the Court. Feelings are important but they are not an area for police and courts to rule on.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Judith (7,693 comments) says:

    @ Kea

    As I said emotional abuse is frequently easy to prove. When a perpetrator abuses someone in a manner that damages them emotionally they usually leave physical evidence. Often they will have made degrading bullying comments in front of others, manipulated them in a manner that shows this abuse. As I said, these types of abusers are often easy to prove.

    Emotional abuse can case illness and do a great deal of harm, of course it should be considered by the courts. In some cases it can have more devastating effects than a simple broken arm.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Judith (7,693 comments) says:

    @ kea

    I’ll give you an example of emotional abuse that occurred here in NZ. I can’t give names for obvious reasons but the man was denied sex with his wife on a regular basis, so he would pick up other women, bring them home and make his wife watch him have sex with these women – he would deny her and the children any money on the weeks she refused to have sex with him or disobeyed him by not doing exactly what she was told, and he would take her car off her at those times, leaving it at a friend’s place, and a few other such things. One time he packed all her clothes into the car whilst she was in the shower, and took the car away, leaving her naked and stuck at home. All of which there were witnesses to.

    She was able to prove prolonged ongoing emotional abuse by her husband.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Rowan (1,794 comments) says:

    “You are a violent abuser and I pity the women you have living in fear around you.”

    Kea
    You do not know me, my living situation, or my friend/relationship status with any females at all so this is just unsubstantiated garbage. I have never ‘abused’ or shown violence to any female.
    F…k of troll.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Rowan (1,794 comments) says:

    A good article on Stuff about the Dunedin tragedy and domestic violence
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9625592/Tragedy-strikes-again-along-Dunedins-coast

    quoting from the second part of the article

    REVENGE KILLING BY FATHERS A GLOBAL PHENOMENON

    The killing of two children by their father in Dunedin is a first in New Zealand records, but only in the perpetrator’s weapon of choice – a shotgun.

    All other aspects of the St Leonards homicide on Wednesday were textbook signs of retaliatory filicide – when a parent (almost always a father) is motivated by an intention to harm the other parent.

    Edward Livingstone, 51, killed his children, Bradley, 9, and Ellen, 6, and then himself at the family home in St Leonards, Dunedin. It is presumed he acted out of anger towards his ex-wife, Katharine Webb.

    While the community understandably describes the killings as unexpected, inexplicable, research shows revenge killings committed by estranged fathers are a global phenomenon. In fact, statistics show a child is more likely to be killed by a parent than anyone else.

    Research from the Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria in Australia shows there may be specific warning signs for the risks of retaliatory filicide, such as a history of intimate partner violence, controlling behaviour towards family members, extreme anger towards the other parent in relation to the separation, and any threats or indication of an intention to harm the children in order to punish an ex-partner.

    New Zealand family violence researcher Dr Michael Roguski says “all the signs were there” in the Livingstone case.

    “While perpetrators are responsible for their actions, our governmental system also needs to be held to account,” he says. “There is growing evidence of inappropriate or inadequate responses from the likes of CYF, the Family Court and the police. I think one of our major problems in New Zealand is lack of responsiveness.

    “As a priority, women’s and children’s safety would be strengthened if statutory bodies were better at taking women’s reports of threat to their safety seriously.”

    DVRCV found 62 per cent of all children killed between 1997 and 2008 in Australia were victims of filicide. Filicide research is limited in NZ, but the Social Development Ministry reported an average of three cases of a year between 2002 and 2006.

    Statistics show women and men are equally likely to commit filicide, but the majority of revenge killings – about four per cent of filicides – are carried out by men, and usually result in suicide of the perpetrator.

    New Zealand has a history of children suffocated, strangled, stabbed, bludgeoned, thrown from heights, and now shot, by fathers acting with the notion that killing a mother’s child is a greater punishment than her own death.

    A neighbour of the Livingstone kids, Mel Foot, said: “[Katharine Webb's] children were her world and [Livingstone] knew that. He was that insane that he thought he would kill the two things that were closest to her.

    “He’s been insane for months and months,” she said, adding Livingstone had talked about killing his estranged wife and burning down her house.

    A research paper analysing murder-suicides in Norway states psychic imbalance is “essential in the complex picture that leads to a person to commit murder-suicide”.

    Although rare, these cases are fairly consistent in their frequency, context, and warning signs.

    Family violence advocates argue that such atrocities generally are preventable.

    However, Justice Minister Judith Collins has said judges have to weigh up risk to potential victims against the rights of the accused when considering a penalty for breaching a protection order.

    “Unfortunately it is not always possible to predict a person’s behaviour, and the blame for this senseless murder should rest with the offender.”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. jackinabox (637 comments) says:

    “Unfortunately it is not always possible to predict a person’s behaviour, and the blame for this senseless murder should rest with the offender.”

    That’s right Judith ignore the facts, again,

    “He’s been insane for months and months,” she said, adding Livingstone had talked about killing his estranged wife and burning down her house.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. nasska (10,696 comments) says:

    Rowan

    All okay & quite interesting until we get to…..

    ….”Family violence advocates argue that such atrocities generally are preventable. “….

    I presume they intend to indefinitely incarcerate all fathers who are kicked out of the family home. If so it will be a great time to invest in firms specialising in building penal facilities.

    In fact the only way to make absolutely certain that filial killings never occur is to separate children from parents at birth & this is probably under consideration right now.

    Me thinks it’s time to dust off “1984″ & “A Brave New World” to get some pointers.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Rowan, I have warned you about your abuse and you are continuing your violence against me.

    Once last time: STOP your abuse and violence against me.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Rowan (1,794 comments) says:

    Righto Kea

    Look in the mirror you f…kwit, and get of your high horse, who are you to complain about abuse? when you are the most abusive troll here,
    You have the gall to suggest that we apply double standards, or is there just one set of rules for everyone else and one for the bird brained freak?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    Statistics show women and men are equally likely to commit filicide

    Interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Judith, yes I know. I am not defending guys like that.

    The thing is, the most absurd and extreme feminist doctrine has been normalised and is main stream in our society. We do not even question it. It is accepted wisdom.

    I do question it. I am often accused of being too extreme. But the fact is it only seems extreme because I am going against the current. If you want to see what extreme looks like, then learn read what feminists say. All I am doing is questioning the radical feminist narrative that we are fed as fact in the msm.

    I am not soft on abusers and nor do I hate women. I have had more exposure to that side of life than most, through my work. My views are based on observation of reality and not the lies and ideology force fed us in the media. The amount of lies and bullshit told on this topic is staggering.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Righto Kea

    Look in the mirror you f…kwit, and get of your high horse, who are you to complain about abuse? when you are the most abusive troll here,

    Rowan, so I was Asking for it ? Did I deserve it ? LOL :)

    Abuse & violence is not ok Rowan. Read what the Refuge people and Courts say. There is no excuse. None of the forms of abuse listed refer to context or the victims behaviour. The victims behaviour is NOT a consideration or justification for your violence.

    I will consider my point made !

    https://womensrefuge.org.nz/WR/Domestic-violence/Types-of-abuse.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. btb (7 comments) says:

    I think a period of counseling should be considered as part of the protection order process. These tragic crimes do not occur in a vaccum. The individuals involved are clearly acopic. Both sides of the situation need to be taught strategies to help them deal with their feelings and the dangerous situations they are in, eg saying, fuck off you useless prick, could be replaced with, I know you are having trouble adapting but our relationship is over, please leave, a deliberately clumsy example. Some people haven’t learned how do deal with emotional pain and it takes time and deep personal reflection. Taking a mans children away from him is a lot even for a well adjusted man to deal with. A chance to explain their feelings have them addressed and challenged if need be, and then taught techniques to deal with them would almost certainly help. My main assertion is; it is worth it financially and socially to intervene with counseling before people end up dead or serving years in jail. Public outcries each time this happens are too little too late, it will happen again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Harriet (4,534 comments) says:

    “…..However, Justice Minister Judith Collins has said judges have to weigh up risk to potential victims against the rights of the accused when considering a penalty for breaching a protection order…..”

    Fuck Collins.

    Judges don’t weigh up the risks to potential victims when one parent is seeking divorce simply because the grass is greener elsewhere. It is well known that most children BECOME victims of divorce. They go on to suffer from lots of serious problems.

    Where violence or extreme mental anguish has NOT occured in the Marriage – then the courts should refuse divorce .

    As a family court judge said in Australia “When things are optional then people concentrate on the negatives rather than the positives.”

    Placing Marriage back on it’s rightful pedestal would see most parents taking a different attitude towards their Marriage on a daily basis. Kids benefit from that immensly.

    I’ve never liked Collins.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. nasska (10,696 comments) says:

    ….”Where violence or extreme mental anguish has NOT occured in the Marriage – then the courts should refuse divorce .”….

    Then it WILL occur….as sure as night follows day.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Rowan (1,794 comments) says:

    Kea
    Go tell your mummy on me then if you can’t handle what i’ve said here. I think its rather tame compared to the level of abuse here dished out by you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Rowan, victims of abuse and violence should just harden the fuck up then ? Especially when they were asking for it !

    Your poor wife.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Rowan (1,794 comments) says:

    I didn’t say that Kea the comment was directed specifically at you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. ExtremeRightisright (23 comments) says:

    You liberal pansies. Seven years minimum imprisonment for first breach. Second breach shall receive 25 years to life or preferably life without parole with option for assisted suicide if the offender desires to spare society the burden of yet another incarcerated parasite.
    We need far more prisons/concentration camps: preferably with 250,000 capacity. Atleast that many so called ‘citizens’ are uncivilized, uneducated, subhuman parasites. And no it wont cost more money, we can introduce forced labour and feed them a bare minimum and slash rehabilitation (it doesn’t work) and refuse healthcare. If they die, they die. Tough shit, no decent person will care.
    Or even better, deportation to Auckland and Campbell Islands. Permanently.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Rowan, I am the victim of your abusive violence this time. What I am wondering is who is next. It concerns me that you have no insight into your offending and justify it by blaming your victims.

    It is a troubling mindset and I think you should seek help before you hurt more people with your violence. I have read about the different types of violence and you tick most of the boxes.

    https://womensrefuge.org.nz/WR/Domestic-violence/Types-of-abuse.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. nasska (10,696 comments) says:

    Rowan

    In context some of the things you’ve said about Kea & the cruel way you’ve engaged with him today have probably hurt his feelings & caused him mental anguish.

    As such I’m sure that you’ll issue Kea with a full & sincere apology.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Rowan (1,794 comments) says:

    Oh poor little Kea, have we hurt your feelings? Now you know what it feels like troll. Given that you compare me with Hitler and Stalin, whose the abusive one here.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. nasska (10,696 comments) says:

    Rowan

    These pent up feelings of anger you have for Kea will wreck your life.

    Admitting that you have a problem is the first step.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Nostalgia-NZ (4,918 comments) says:

    How sweet, nasska and kea in a love nest. Or is that love shack.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Rowan (1,794 comments) says:

    Naaska
    As the most abusive KB troll here Kea is in no position to be crying about abuse. He is just being self righteous as he is quite prepared to dish it out but can’t take it in return. Talk about a double standard.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Rowan, can you find anything on the Refuge site that refers to context or justified abuse and violence ?

    Violence and abuse is never ok Rowan, even if “the bitch was asking for it” or “deserved what she got”, as you appear to suggest.

    You are blaming the victim for your abusive outbursts. Your are responsible for your actions, not your victim.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Rowan

    These pent up feelings of anger you have for Kea will wreck your life.

    Admitting that you have a problem is the first step.

    nasska, do you reckon I have enough for a PO yet ? ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. nasska (10,696 comments) says:

    You’d be a shoo in Kea….the threats & abuse show that you’re perfectly justified in fearing your antagonist. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    nasska, I really am concerned about the way Rowan tries to justifies his abuse. It is just like they say on the Refuge website. Typical abuser behaviour. I have to do something about it. Not just for me, but for all the others he may abuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Rowan (1,794 comments) says:

    Kea
    I am very concerned about your arrogance here, you don’t happen to have a mirror in your house do you? Why is it ok for you to be an abusive troll and then get all offended when its given back to you and suggest that others have a double standard?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. nasska (10,696 comments) says:

    Kea

    At least your mauri-ora or wellbeing wasn’t threatened. An attack to your wairua or spirit, when abuse leaves you feeling soulless, empty of passion or joy, distant, and purposeless would have been hard to bear on top of today’s excesses. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    nasska, Rowan is just not getting the point is he ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. goldnkiwi (1,000 comments) says:

    What a great piss take, some people take themselves so seriously don’t they lol especially ‘that’ lot.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. F E Smith (3,302 comments) says:

    You liberal pansies. Seven years minimum imprisonment for first breach. Second breach shall receive 25 years to life or preferably life without parole with option for assisted suicide if the offender desires to spare society the burden of yet another incarcerated parasite.
    We need far more prisons/concentration camps: preferably with 250,000 capacity. Atleast that many so called ‘citizens’ are uncivilized, uneducated, subhuman parasites. And no it wont cost more money, we can introduce forced labour and feed them a bare minimum and slash rehabilitation (it doesn’t work) and refuse healthcare. If they die, they die. Tough shit, no decent person will care.
    Or even better, deportation to Auckland and Campbell Islands. Permanently.

    Listen, you idiot, that is an extreme left wing response.  Check your history and you will see what I mean!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. stephieboy (2,202 comments) says:

    What appears to be missing in all this is that Judith Collins puts the full responsibility on Rex Proles for the murder of her cousin .Robyn. Nothing more, nothing less.!
    Note also he was considered to be a fine example of prisoner rehabilitation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Chuck Bird (4,686 comments) says:

    FES, have you ever heard of satire? I though lawyer were good with words.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. ExtremeRightisright (23 comments) says:

    F E Smith

    Nonsense. Im all for Right wing authoritarianism. Fascism in other words.

    Swift, merciless, lethal justice delayed is justice denied!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    ExtremeRightisright, Fascism is closer to communism, but I like your honesty. So rare to see someone say what they really want around here :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.