Proving your innocence – get f***ed

June 16th, 2014 at 3:37 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Sir Owen Glenn’s independent inquiry into family violence suggests shifting the burden of proof in “domestic” cases so that alleged perpetrators are considered guilty unless they can prove they are innocent.

With respect – get fucked.

I am a big supporter of doing more to prevent . I believe protection orders are inadequate and blogged support a few days ago for the idea of tagging people who have broken a protection order or have previous convictions.

But shifting the burden of proof, so that the accused has to prove they are innocent is repugnant and if that is the quality of what they are proposing, then the report is a waste of time.

But it offers “ideas for change” from those who gave evidence, including “a major review of the court system”. Ideas include:

• “Revisit the burden of proof so that it lies with perpetrators not victims.”

• Review the adversarial system which “places an excessive burden of proof on victims”, replacing it with “a more collaborative system where the burden of proof is on the perpetrator”.

That’s alleged perpetrator.

Tags:

165 Responses to “Proving your innocence – get f***ed”

  1. mikenmild (11,179 comments) says:

    I didn’t see that point in the Stuff coverage. I did read:
    - National strategy for addressing child abuse and domestic violence across all levels and branches of society and government

    - Funding early intervention

    - Funding long-term help and free counselling

    - Establishing a code of rights for victims and a code of conduct for court workers

    - Better training for professionals who work with family violence victims.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Judith (8,219 comments) says:

    Can someone please quote where in the report it states that?

    I’ve got the report here, and can’t find it by skimming through it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. redqueen (506 comments) says:

    I agree, when I read that article earlier, my first thought was, ‘Get fucked’ as well. People who commit crimes should be treated appropriately (I am entirely in favour of tagging them, particularly if they’ve already breached a protection order), but saying that we’ll simply ‘shift the burden of proof’ is absolute bollocks.

    First off, that is selecting one time of crime and say it somehow deserves a different standard than others (what about hate crimes? what about rape? what about murder? why is domestic violence somehow special compared to other horrible crimes?) So I question their logic, beyond simply wishing to make a ‘statement’ that domestic violence, as their particularly problem, is worthy of ‘special’ treatment compared with all other horrors.

    The second issue is that the reason we have an ‘innocent until proven guilty’ system is that otherwise an accused person could be put into an absurd position. This would be subject to significant abuse by private persons and, potentially, state officials. Every person who’s unhappy with their ex-spouse could now simply accuse them of abuse and bingo, they’ve got to now prove their innocence and go through legal proceedings. The Police, to expedite an arrest, could simply accuse someone of being ‘violent’ towards their partner. This is simply put, a BLOODY STUPID idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Spam (595 comments) says:

    I don’t know what you mean, DPF. No-one would ever make an unfounded accusation against their partner / former partner, particularly when children are involved.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. kowtow (7,856 comments) says:

    Best way to prevent “domestic violence”.

    Traditional loving relationships. But the horse has well and truly bolted on that one.

    No amount of taxpayer money or legislation is going to fix a broken society.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. David Garrett (6,647 comments) says:

    I am with you there 100% DPF…Reversing the burden of proof in ANY serious criminal matter is a massive step…in this area, fraught as it is with false and uncorroborated allegations, it would be a disgrace…

    Yet we almost have this as the de facto position now…men are locked up all over the country every day on the uncorroborated statements of their exes who have made allegations of assault against them…The very last thing we need is to increase this already worrying reversal of the presumption of innocence…

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Kimble (4,392 comments) says:

    Best way to prevent “domestic violence”.

    Traditional loving relationships. But the horse has well and truly bolted on that one.

    Yeah, TRADITIONAL. Because domestic violence didnt exist before now.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. kowtow (7,856 comments) says:

    Also men expelled from their own property based on an allegation.

    Gender warfare, cultural marxism.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Judith (8,219 comments) says:

    People indicated to the Inquiry that there needs to
    be zero tolerance for violence in our communities,
    and that the media has an important role to play
    in promoting a non-violent society. New Zealand
    has to become more children-focused and friendly,
    because if we look after the children (who are
    New Zealand’s future) we are more likely to keep
    them safe and prevent the inter-generational effect
    of child abuse and domestic violence. The current
    attitudes and cultures, particularly the acceptance
    of violence and binge drinking, need to shift from
    being normal to being abnormal.

    hmmm, can’t imagine many accepting that reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Meatloaf (152 comments) says:

    Well, this just proves my worst fears, are coming about. In November, even before the Roast Busters faced trial and acquitted, the White Ribbon Society were using that, to push for a new law, which would mean, that if a young girl had a complaint against a man, the young girl would go on camera, and not have to defend herself in court. They were saying that the court system was too complicated for a woman to make a complaint, and now its time to change it. Now it looks like other people are fighting for the same thing. But like I’ve said before, violence is not just physical. If someone belittles you cause you haven’t done what they want, this psychological pressure is actually violence, defined by police.

    http://www.police.govt.nz/advice/family-violence/help

    So the reason why people believe men are more violent than women, is because us men try to be tough and take it. And its far harder to prove psychological violence than physical violence. Until this becomes well established, we will continue to go down the road we’re going, that if a women complains against a man, cause she hasn’t got what she wants, he is considered a criminal.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. davidp (3,550 comments) says:

    Judith>I’ve got the report here, and can’t find it by skimming through it.

    It took about 30 seconds to find “Many argued that the burden of proof should lie with the perpetrator” on page 85.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Huevon (206 comments) says:

    You can already get orders without notice to the “alleged” abuser. Seen it happen once. Interestingly this involved an allegation of abuse against the woman (by the man, just to clarify, given the age we live in). The Anti-Family Court judge granted an order, the police swooped in and grabbed the kid off the mother. All on the basis of a sob story. Turned out the guy had made it all up too. Crazy.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. kowtow (7,856 comments) says:

    Yep i knew someone would come up with the old “it didn’t exist before” Of course it did,but it wasn’t as extensive,as violent or as pervasive as it is now.

    Did we always have this problem with murdered babies, “partners” and girlfriends?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. dad4justice (7,898 comments) says:

    The Femily Caught is a breeding ground for false allegations that are invented by vindictive and vengeful women. Nothing will ever change for falsely accused fathers’. The sick system is a gravy train for unscrupulous gender bias individuals. It is a total let down for the children. Often the Femily Caught does not allow a dad to prove his innocence!!

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Judith (8,219 comments) says:

    This is the report – I can’t find anything in it that suggests what is said above. I’ve only speed read it and are happy to be proved wrong, but I would hate to see some of the good recommendations in the report be ignored because someone has made a mistake.

    https://glenninquiry.org.nz/uploads/files/The_Peoples_Report_-_full_document.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Albert_Ross (263 comments) says:

    Davidp at 3:52, noting in a report that “many argued that xxx” is not the same thing at all as the report actually recommending xxx.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Graeme Edgeler (3,273 comments) says:

    Can someone please quote where in the report it states that?

    Judith – it appears at the top of page 119 (which is in section 4).

    • revisit the burden of proof, so that it lies with
    perpetrators not victims.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Kimble (4,392 comments) says:

    Yep i knew someone would come up with the old “it didn’t exist before” Of course it did,but it wasn’t as extensive,as violent or as pervasive as it is now.

    Source?

    Did we always have this problem with murdered babies, “partners” and girlfriends?

    Yes.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Albert_Ross (263 comments) says:

    kowtow, how do you know it wasn’t as extensive, as violent or as pervasive as it is now?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. mikenmild (11,179 comments) says:

    davidp
    Yes, but did the inquiry recommend that measure?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Judith (8,219 comments) says:

    @ davidp (3,455 comments) says:
    June 16th, 2014 at 3:52 pm

    Yes, but that is not a recommendation of the report, only stating what some of the participants said. The report does not suggest shifting it onus of proof – but rather highlights what we often see and that is victims being put through the ropes and having to constantly relive their experiences due to the process.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Harriet (4,607 comments) says:

    “…….Sir Owen Glenn’s independent inquiry into family violence suggests shifting the burden of proof in “domestic” cases so that alleged perpetrators are considered guilty unless they can prove they are innocent……..”

    That won’t happen:

    “…….Also, how about we teach boys to be men, and girls to be women? According to family and feminism expert Suzanne Venker, many men have decided never to get married because “women aren’t women anymore.”

    “Ever since the sexual revolution, there has been a profound overhaul in the way men and women interact. Men haven’t changed much – they had no revolution that demanded it – but women have changed dramatically,” says Venker. She concludes that today’s women are “angry” and “defensive” because “they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.”

    In other words, feminists like Maxwell are mourning a culture that they helped create, and, with their unwavering support of abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, same-sex marriage, and they like, are continuing to damage. Little will change until these efforts stop…….”

    There will always be rapists in society and their will always be ‘partner-bashers’. And fatherhood is the only thing that has ever kept that under control.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. kowtow (7,856 comments) says:

    http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/violent-crime/page-1

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. RightNow (6,778 comments) says:

    Judith: “Can someone please quote where in the report it states that?”

    DPF never said that is what the report states.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. David Farrar (1,867 comments) says:

    I wonder whether reversing the burden of proof means that someone accused of domestic violence means they have to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt?

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. mikenmild (11,179 comments) says:

    No Judith, the report actually recommends ‘revisiting the burden of proof’. On p119 as noted by Graeme Edgeler above.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. straya (65 comments) says:

    Fuck me Judith, have you ever heard of word search in a pdf? Type in “burden of proof” and you find it in 5 seconds flat.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Judith (8,219 comments) says:

    New Zealand needs a national strategy that is based
    on the recognition that child abuse and domestic
    violence is extensive and one of the most complex
    problems facing our country and its communities.
    A national strategy needs to ultimately aim for
    a society that values and respects people and
    communities that look after one another. People
    indicated that politicians needed to take the
    lead, and that there needs to be a national social
    marketing and education campaign aimed at raising
    people’s awareness of what healthy relationships
    look like and educating people how to respond to
    those affected by abuse and violence. It needs to
    convey a clear message that ignoring child abuse
    and domestic violence is no longer acceptable.
    Any strategic approach must be multifaceted.
    It needs to be:
    1. CHILD FOCUSED: Everyone needs to be
    responsible for helping parents to grow healthy
    well-rounded children. Healthy children grow
    into healthy adults, and child abuse and the
    presence of domestic violence disrupts this.
    2. EVERYONE’S CONCERN: People talking to
    the Inquiry indicated that all New Zealanders
    need to talk, share and work together to
    overcome child abuse and domestic violence,
    especially those working in these areas.
    3. PROMOTION OF HEALTHY
    RELATIONSHIPS: Healthy relationships are
    crucial for caring and non-violent relationships,
    be they relationships with children, partners or
    friends and neighbours.
    4. PROTECTION OF THOSE AFFECTED:
    The safety of women and children must be a
    top priority. When women and children ask for
    help or show signs of needing help they need
    supportive, non-judgmental responses that
    keep them safe.
    5. PREVENTION OF ABUSE AND VIOLENCE:
    Preventing abuse and violence, particularly
    intergenerational violence, is vital to stopping
    child abuse and domestic violence.
    This requires focusing on people and families,
    and also changing prevailing attitudes and
    cultures that contribute to child abuse and
    domestic violence.
    6. RESTORATION OF RELATIONSHIPS AND
    FAMILIES: Addressing the trauma and impacts
    for people and families living with child
    abuse and domestic violence. Equitable and
    culturally appropriate approaches are needed
    to address the social and cultural differences in
    the nature of child abuse and domestic violence
    experienced by different people.
    7. LONG-TERM STRATEGIES AND
    INTERVENTIONS: Achieving change will
    not happen overnight. It needs a long-term,
    sustainable approach that the government is
    committed to funding.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Judith (8,219 comments) says:

    @ straya (57 comments) says:
    June 16th, 2014 at 4:01 pm

    I had searched for guilt, innocence and several other words but not burden of proof.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Meatloaf (152 comments) says:

    Redqueen and Spam? Why treat domestic violence differently to other crimes, and why would anyone do that? I have a happily married friend, who’s got relationship invites though he’s stated he’s happily married. If my friend cheats, he can lose his wife, and half of his wealth. Who gains? When sued for divorce the lawyers get a piece of the pie. And if the house is sold, the real estate agent gets a piece of the pie. So if their are a few unscrupulous lawyers and real estate agents, they just might hire these people to wreck it. And on that link in my previous post, it says, a protection order can be used even if the victim doesn’t complain. So if a neighbourhood lawyer makes up lies about someone, well you get the picture.

    Or maybe a neighbourhood lawyer will pay a child to lie about the parents. Well that’s if they change the law system.

    http://www.police.govt.nz/advice/family-violence/help

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Judith (8,219 comments) says:

    @ mikenmild (10,001 comments) says:
    June 16th, 2014 at 4:00 pm

    Thanks Mike, that is what I was wanting, an actual page number, damned if I could find it, but then I’m only up to reading page 114

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. thedavincimode (6,574 comments) says:

    get fucked

    Does this signal that the judicial committee will be relaxing his views on “fuck off”?

    [DPF: Only when justified, of which I'm the sole judge :-)]

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. redqueen (506 comments) says:

    @Judith

    Page 119 of the ‘People’s Report’ (see section 4).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. mikenmild (11,179 comments) says:

    DVM
    It has to be ‘get f***ed’ to be acceptable, apparently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Judith (8,219 comments) says:

    David Farrar (1,835 comments) says:
    June 16th, 2014 at 4:00 pm
    I wonder whether reversing the burden of proof means that someone accused of domestic violence means they have to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt?

    Whilst their stated reasons are honourable, in that the victims, as you know, are often put through a terrible and seemingly never ending process, it is a change that I would not agree with – however, I do think we could make it better for the victims by making other changes.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. thedavincimode (6,574 comments) says:

    Fuck off milky. That would be ridiculous.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. davidp (3,550 comments) says:

    Albert_Ross and others>Davidp at 3:52, noting in a report that “many argued that xxx” is not the same thing at all as the report actually recommending xxx.

    From the Herald: “The first report, called “The People’s Report”, does not make specific recommendations, which are expected in a final report by the end of this year. But it offers “ideas for change” from those who gave evidence, including “a major review of the court system”.”

    So it isn’t a recommendation, because the report doesn’t recommend anything. But they did think it was worth noting the “idea for change” that people are automatically presumed guilty unless they can prove otherwise. I presume that they wouldn’t have included this if they thought it was an unmitigated bad idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Chris2 (765 comments) says:

    On a related issue of poltical correctness, I object to the misuse of the term “survivor” when applied to victims of rape. The womens’ groups all go on about “rape survivors” as if it were a near-death crime in which others did die.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Judith (8,219 comments) says:

    @ redqueen (410 comments) says:
    June 16th, 2014 at 4:06 pm

    Thanks, I finally got it. I hadn’t word searched ‘burden of proof’ just every other relevant one.

    Don’t agree with that recommendation but I hope it doesn’t overshadow the other points the report makes that do need to be considered.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. mikenmild (11,179 comments) says:

    Would you prefer ‘rapee’?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Kathleen (2 comments) says:

    My nephew was kicked out by his partner but invited back so another child was conceived. Then kicked him out again. Then nephew found new (non-neurotic) woman. Ex-partner then went to police (a female family member) and complained that ex-partner had abused her and interfered with children. Grandfather said untrue. Then ex-partner said he also a paedophile. Then I objected and then female police officer made personal false statements about my husband (children’s uncle). I went ballistic and caused officer to be censured. CYFS acknowledged (after a year) that mother was lying. Police refused to take action against mother. Mother implied would top herself if children taken off her, which was highly likely. Nephew went back to ex-partner to protect children. God help us all from the presumption that women are all victimised saints.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Longknives (4,620 comments) says:

    Bit of a worry for any bloke that might have a psycho, bunny-boiling ex…

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Judith (8,219 comments) says:

    Chris2 (732 comments) says:
    June 16th, 2014 at 4:11 pm

    Do you know how many people, including children, that do die after being raped?

    And not just from the actions of the perpetrator but sometimes by their own hands when they can not longer live with the effects of being raped.

    Surviving rape, by getting on with your life, and living life how it is meant to be lived, takes a hell of a lot of guts. Many just succumb to lives of being perpetually ‘injured’.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Judith (8,219 comments) says:

    @ Kathleen (2 comments) says:
    June 16th, 2014 at 4:14 pm

    That happens far too often, and sadly deflects from those who are actual victims of violence. These fake claims by nasty women only make it harder for the real victims.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. dad4justice (7,898 comments) says:

    Kathleen – Believe me there is nothing an innocent dad can do when the mother of the children makes up malicious false allegations.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. tas (596 comments) says:

    Taking a perpetrator to court is tough for victims. That’s unfortunate and some parts can be improved. But some parts are unavoidable. For example, a defence lawyer must be able to cross-examine the accuser. As uncomfortable as it is to have to relive the event, you need to be able to stand by your version of events if you are to be believed.

    I object to the terminology used; “victim” is also “accuser” and “re-victimised” is also “required to give evidence.” It’s unfortunate, but the justice system must be fair and treat accusations with suspicion.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Longknives (4,620 comments) says:

    “I object to the misuse of the term “survivor” when applied to victims of rape. The womens’ groups all go on about “rape survivors” as if it were a near-death crime in which others did die.”

    A close friend tried to Commit Suicide after a completely fabricated Rape complaint against him almost destroyed his life. Is he a ‘Rape Survivor’??

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Albert_Ross (263 comments) says:

    Graeme Edgeler, page 119 is a list of points made to the inquiry by witnesses, not a recommendation by the inquiry itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Harriet (4,607 comments) says:

    “…..RESTORATION OF RELATIONSHIPS AND
    FAMILIES….”

    Judith you progressives dismantled that, and now you say they need to be ‘restored’ so society is cohessive?

    We told you so!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Meatloaf (152 comments) says:

    Yes Dad4Justice, this is exactly what is happening. A licence in black’s online law dictionary means, permission to do something, husband in a law dictionary means house bound. Wife in a law dictionary means married to a husband. When people sign the marriage papers, it puts married couples under a legally binding agreement, that says we can take half of the big earner’s wealth, in case of a divorce, and the woman will look after the children. So this explains why the judge listens to the woman, if she’s looking after the child, but the judge never believes the man. I now pronounce you “husband and wife” means you are no longer a man under common law, you have an agreement with the state, that you are housebound to the needs of the house, your family, your child, and that means the man’s primary responsibility is to earn, and the wife’s primary responsibility is to look after the children

    I know some people in situations like this, when they go to Family court they find out the real truth. And some have been lucky enough to find out, its the licence that changed everything, this is admitted by there own lawyer. Before the licence a man could leave the house, and the family with nothing of his. The marriage licence changed that. It used to be “man and wife”, after the licence “husband and wife”.

    So now you know why husbands don’t really have that many rights in the family court, and now they want it to be even worse. “Our children are our greatest treasure” sums up the purpose of the state. Child, youth family, (CYF) says that the purpose of the family, is about the child and youth, as these are the future earners.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. mikenmild (11,179 comments) says:

    I think nutcases should be forbidden by law to consult legal dictionaries.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Judith (8,219 comments) says:

    @ Longknives (4,241 comments) says:
    June 16th, 2014 at 4:20 pm

    He’s a survivor – one of many men that falls victim to the wrath of women.

    We are at a tricky stage of our social development. Whilst clearly there is a problem with violence, the pendulum swings both ways, and when we become a vigilante type community, where we see perpetrators everywhere – we allow innocent people to get caught up and become victims –

    the whole process is not dissimilar to the witch trials – or at least the trial of Peter Ellis. It is a matter of finding the balance, to protect the innocent whilst ensuring the guilty are punished, and making sure that others do not get used, simply because we have a society that sees evil everywhere.

    I think the report is good in so far as it does not seem to use particularly sexist language – it does not ‘blame the men’.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. thedavincimode (6,574 comments) says:

    [DPF: Only when justified, of which I'm the sole judge :-)]

    Oops, channelling redtweeter :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. sledgehammer (1 comment) says:

    “Victims of abuse need…. a plan that will make domestic violence victims and children safe,” women’s spokeswoman Jan Logie said.

    Isn’t this the same woman that wants to decriminalise abortion ?
    So Jan’s plan is that you make children safe by killing them?

    Jan’s Plan is a little to Brutal for me.

    ‘…….The inquiry said New Zealand needed to adopt a zero tolerance policy to violence, and adopt a culture shift that put children first.’

    For all the same reasons killing newborns reflects a sick culture, so to does killing unborns.
    And doing nothing about the killing of newborns rots a culture just as much as doing nothing about killing unborns

    This report is an inevitable legacy, no doubt linked in part to the barbarity of a culture that aborts itself and calls it choice.

    Violence breeds violence, if you can batter a baby in the womb,(and disguise the reality by calling it a termination) why can’t you batter at baby outside of the womb?. How is the killing of a newborn dissimilar to a late term abortion?

    For a strategy against violence to be effective it has to begin where the violence begins.. In this country it begins in the womb.

    14,745 females consented to 14,745 abortions in 2012.
    The majority of abortions being performed by female abortionists.
    Half of those aborted were female. Females, consenting to females killing other females. What an irony for feminists to confront.

    The inquiry said New Zealand needed to adopt a zero tolerance policy to violence, and adopt a culture shift that put children first.
    Amidst many other changes that would also mean ‘woman-killing in the name of women’s rights; (Abortion; the place where feminism meets barbarism), would have to diminish.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. dad4justice (7,898 comments) says:

    Meatloaf – I have a couple of mates who are criminal lawyers who have said the Family Court is a ” sewer of filth for men” and ” a tragedy for falsely accused fathers and their children”. I feel sorry for the falsely accused who have taken their own lives when confronted by the horror of unnecessary protection orders. RIP dads.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Mobile Michael (428 comments) says:

    I have my concerns about this applying in criminal cases. I’d rather see the family court being able to order the forfeiture of matrimonial property from the instigator of family violence to allow the victims to be able to get the violent party out of the home without severe financial problems. There would have to be safeguards to prevent manipulation of this by a vindictive party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Meatloaf (152 comments) says:

    Milkenmild, open your eyes. Those who’ve been to family court understand what I’m talking about. A law dictionary is what courts use. Lawyers don’t usually explain things that well, cause if they did you could do it yourself. When you find out what is at the bottom of everything, everything else makes sense. So how do you explain what is going on. How do you explain the judge believing the wife no matter what, when the husband has done nothing wrong? How do you explain gay marriages being legalised, gay people can’t make children. But if they get confiscated due to the antismacking bill, they have a child. The only thing that makes sense is people have made an agreement with the state that they will never split and are fit to raise a child. And at any time that people think you aren’t keeping up with your agreement you lose.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. thedavincimode (6,574 comments) says:

    As Al Bundy once observed:

    “Women, you can’t live with them … the end.”

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. mikenmild (11,179 comments) says:

    But JerJer, Meatloaf and D4J say the courts would be against you. Are you lying, or are they?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Meatloaf (152 comments) says:

    Dad4Justice, so you obviously understand what I’m talking about. Accussed husbands are not treated with the same respect as men and women under common law are. That the child’s concerns and the caretaker of the child (mothers), there concerns are taken far more seriously than a husband. There has to be a reason, and I think it has to do with the fact that their is an agreement between the parents and the state.

    So tell me, if a protection order is taken against a man, who has just paid off his mortgage. How long will he have to stay away from his own house. Does it get confiscated? Does it get sold and he keep half, less lawyer’s fees? What can you tell me?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. JerJer (9 comments) says:

    Longknives (4,241 comments) says:

    “Bit of a worry for any bloke that might have a psycho, bunny-boiling ex…”

    I had to deal with one of these.

    I have a permanent protection order in my favour, with special, more strict conditions attached.

    The bunny boiler can be dealt with if done correctly.

    …and yes, I was blamed with everything under the sun whilst in court, but it did not work for her.

    The family court worked for me.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. dad4justice (7,898 comments) says:

    Meatloaf – if the protection order is challenged, the man will not be allowed near his home until he proves his innocence. On many occasions the “civil” family court will not allow evidence that will clearly show the protection order should not have been granted. To fight the protection a lawyer will charge a huge amount of money and often is it a complete waste of money. Often the family court is not interested in the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. mikenmild (11,179 comments) says:

    How did JerJer’s comment appear after my comment, which was on his comment?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Griff (6,965 comments) says:

    I noticed that as well tdvm.

    but

    It would all be a little pointless if DPF coped a ban.

    DPF leaving us alone whilst gallivanting around the top of the world resulted in a state of anarchy for the lunatics on kb that I would not like to see repeated.

    f**k off can be excused from our host when he cares deeply about a subject. Just as he does occasionally make allowances for the excesses of the most passionate of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Meatloaf (152 comments) says:

    So dad4justice what you are saying, is once the protection order comes about, the man has lost his house, unless he sells it for half of its value, or is willing to go through a worthless process. And what process does a protection order come by? Does it have to go through a trial first, or can a protection order just be granted? I’m not too sure about how it happens.

    And if the family court doesn’t care about truth as you say, then perhaps its all just a way, of plundering people’s wealth.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. dad4justice (7,898 comments) says:

    A without notice protection order can be issued anytime. It can be a big lie the cops don’t care. All it takes is an allegation of domestic violence. The alleged offender is locked down for 48 hours no questions asked.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. thedavincimode (6,574 comments) says:

    milky

    His point was that the system was loaded against him. His story suggests that there was a starting presumption in favour of the mother and even his own legal advisers didn’t think he had a chance. That he made it through isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of the system that he had to grapple with and that other men have to deal with simply because of that starting presumption.

    Kathleen’s (at 4.14 pm) tale isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of the system either. I know two guys who were subjected to physical abuse by raving psycho bunny boilers. Luckily for them and their abusive spouses they removed themselves whilst the storm subsided rather than responding in kind. They both stuffed off in the end. The ex of one of them told all and sundry that he was abusive but fortunately didn’t go to the coppers, although if she had, he at least had the scars to prove just who the abusive one was. The other ex didn’t lay a complaint either fortunately – which would have been interesting because she was a copper.

    The point is that we will not improve an imperfect system by pretending that these fruit cases are weak, perfect and helpless and further stacking it in favour of banshee psychos with this suggestion regarding the onus of proof.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. UrbanNeocolonialist (195 comments) says:

    I think most people in NZ probably know of a case or two amongst acquaintances where false abuse allegations have been made against a father by a mother as a manoeuvre in a custody or separation case. (I know of a couple personally, both nasty bitches)

    Seemingly never any negative consequence for the accusing party – which is of course the reason it is so pervasive and such a massive problem – and incredibly destructive. In the absence of good lie detection what the hell can be done to correct it?

    A few suggestions:
    1/ if kids involved then immediately remove both parents from home, stick them in temporary accommodation (govt owned single room apartments) and replace them with a CYPS carer for duration of investigation (with supervised visitation). Would be expensive, but would act as a huge brake on false allegations as the accusing party would not benefit.
    2/ if kids not involved (abusive partner cases) then also remove both parties from family home.
    3/ investigators to solicit anonymous submissions from family, friends, acquaintances, work colleagues to get a rounded background as to character of accuser and accused. If accuser involved in cult or other fervently held unreasonable belief system then reduce their credibility (having seen Brethern abusing the system).
    4/ get it resolved ASAP, eg days/weeks not months or years. Least damage to the kids and accused.
    5/ proper punishment of false accusations – long community service or prison time, delayed until after kids leave home if guilty party ends up being the care-giver.
    6/ Stalkers (breaking protection orders) banished to live in other Island, banned from travel to other island for more than a few days per year and then only with notification of the stalked for a couple of years, names entered on a public register that people can consult when getting into relationships, daily check-ins fro stalker via cell phone to establish their whereabouts. I’ve known a couple of stalked individuals (one really scary) and sadly the only thing they could do was to leave their life, cut off ties with friends and family and change name – I knew them under their new name. That is a bit shit, and we should be able to manage it better in this day and age putting the pain on the perpetrator not the victim.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Meatloaf (152 comments) says:

    Dad4Justice, a protection order can be used any time, for 48 hours. After that time, what’s the next step? After 48 hours, is he allowed in? What happens?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. UglyTruth (4,543 comments) says:

    “Revisit the burden of proof so that it lies with perpetrators not victims.”

    Get fucked with the contempt that is so well deserved by NZ mobocracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. tom hunter (4,532 comments) says:

    There are a number of things that I’d like people to try and explain.

    … there needs to be zero tolerance for violence in our communities, …

    The implication being that we don’t have this now, so I’m wondering how zero tolerance is defined? What are the things about our current society that make it not zero tolerance, and what would zero tolerance look like? Tougher sentences for violence? Instant condemnation in the media, including being named and shamed? No murders or violence on TV shows? What specifically is meant in this phrase.

    … and that the media has an important role to play in promoting a non-violent society.

    Promotion how? What are they supposed to do and not do?

    The current attitudes and cultures, particularly the acceptance of violence and binge drinking, need to shift from being normal to being abnormal.

    Which parts of our society or is it all of New Zealand? Who accepts these things? Can we identify them down to individuals and what specifically do we do then?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. dad4justice (7,898 comments) says:

    Meatloaf – you will not be allowed home until you satisfy a gender bias court system that you have done nothing wrong. The adversarial civil court system could take years ( and lots of money) to resolve the issue. Basically it’s a road to nowhere. No wonder they call it the Kangaroo court.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. nasska (10,821 comments) says:

    If the consequences for the allegedly abusive partner are going to get more serious then the consequences for a complainant lying to the court must be stepped up & drastically so.

    As UrbanNeocolonialist has noted ” get it resolved ASAP, eg days/weeks not months or years.” Dragging things out certainly helps lawyers cream the fees & suits the Court system but this is one area where justice should be even handed & quick.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Meatloaf (152 comments) says:

    Tom hunter, I think what its saying, is the accussed have too many rights. And we need to act swiftly in regards to any hint of any kind of violence. For instance in 2nd Season of Melrose Place 1994, Kimberley Shaw was upset with her cheating husband, so she ripped her dress, used makeup, for the bruises threw alcohol on the wall, and two minutes before he came home, she called the police, and as soon as he arrived, he was declared guilty.

    That’s what acting swiftly means. Its easier to stage violence with 0 tolerance. That’s what White Ribbon was advocating in November, that due process of law gives violent men too many rights, and the accusser if a child should just go on camera, and not have to face her accusser. The media makes things sound like a good idea, but when you see what these people actually do, different story.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. gump (1,538 comments) says:

    Some of the comments in this thread are a sad indictment of the Kiwiblog community.

    I’d suggest that some of you have reaped what you sowed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. David Garrett (6,647 comments) says:

    gump: what a stupid statement…how would you have any idea whether the stories told here are accurate or not?

    I myself came close to a long weekend in the slammer on a totally false allegation by my ex….If I had lived in the city and not out here, where the cops are a bit more worldly, I would have…

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. dad4justice (7,898 comments) says:

    Grow up gump. If only you knew the truth of the Family Court. I guess people like you use the system to destroy good dads.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Fisiani (976 comments) says:

    Guilty till proved innocent discredits the entire report. Utter stupidity and thus a waste of time and money.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Meatloaf (152 comments) says:

    Okay, thanks Dad4Justice, I think a good idea, would be to explain to people, no you can’t own a house. Even when you’ve paid off your mortgage, you have to pay rates or you lose your so called house. And if your partner is upset with you, they can force you to leave your house. So better to invest your savings until your married for at least ten years, to be sure, that you haven’t married someone who just wants your wealth.

    Another idea I’ve had is to reform the DPB system. Before the 1960s, people understood that when you received public education or welfare this went on one side of your ledger, as what you owed to society. Then when you paid income tax, this offset what you owed to society, once your income tax paid was greater than what you had received, this was for when you retired. In the world book encyclopedia of 1991, they explained that until the 1960s the income tax you paid went into your social security account. If we were to go back to this system, those who go on the DPB, would understand that the longer they stay on the DPD, the less they have for retirement. Before they introduced the DPB, they changed the social security act to mean, as long as you are willing and able to work your fine, and everybody gets the same retirement package. This would put a stop to this whole situation of someone giving their partner the flick, unless it is really, really necessary.

    Ok, so a question for you dad4justice, if you’ve been given a protection order, can you sell the house. And if not, are you still required to pay the weekly mortgage payment.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Meatloaf (152 comments) says:

    Gump, that’s what Job’s friends said to Job. Hard enough, harder with accussatory friends.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. dad4justice (7,898 comments) says:

    Meatloaf – the protection order overrides any collateral you have in the family home. As a respondent to proceedings I am not sure whether you are still required to pay off the mortgage? In my case I lost everything through false allegations.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Red (7 comments) says:

    Your headline says it all.
    This change would have it totally stacked against (generally) the male – I’m stunned today, with comments relating to access rights crossing over protection orders, as I have a pal, right now who’s banned from access – complete with a protection order, on nothing more than an unproven claim from his ex Mrs…. yeh… I know, but… seriously, that’s the situation. He’s spent thousands already to the glee of his embittered ex.

    The only other circ’ I know of like this is “Careless Driving.” The cops don’t need to prove you were careless – you need to prove you were not…. Ay? What?? Yup… Imagine that for a minute – then imagine how it’d go for all you upstanding citizens reading this, if you’ve an accusation made against you, but in a family court. Anything you say is going to sound lame and regarded with suspicion. Let alone the cost involved, which would skyrocket.

    A change to this, for family law would be nothing more than a great leap backwards.
    The solution is to start locking these pricks up for a long long time. Easy peasy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Colville (2,148 comments) says:

    It would be nice to see Maori MPs take a leadership position in this problem and denounce the code of silence and “narking” issue within their people.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. mikenmild (11,179 comments) says:

    No, a protection order does not affect the equity you may have in a family home.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. the conservative (59 comments) says:

    This is not rocket science; the sickness in our society is liberalism/progressivism and nothing more.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. JerJer (9 comments) says:

    “mikenmild (10,011 comments) says:
    June 16th, 2014 at 4:53 pm
    But JerJer, Meatloaf and D4J say the courts would be against you. Are you lying, or are they?”

    I am not sure whether the courts were against me. People have different opinions, and I was advised not to proceed by my own legal team because they suspected the same. I proceeded because I believed I had the correct information, and strategy to present what needed to be presented to a judge. I was very worried about the outcome, but in the end it was overwhelmingly in my favour.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Fisiani (976 comments) says:

    Main author Marama Davidson Green activist and utter nutter.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Meatloaf (152 comments) says:

    Hi dad4justice, I’m so sad to hear that. At the moment, I don’t have a house, or a mortgage. And I’ve been reading some things that have really pissed me off. About the fact of whether or not you can for real own a house. I’ve read the book “They own it all including you by means of a toxic currency”, which explains that if you buy a house by using money created by a registered bank and not gold, their are conditions, such as paying property tax, even if you’ve paid off your mortgage, and if you fail on those conditions you don’t really own it. Then I read David E Robinson’s books which explained how the system works in more detail, and how to get your freedom back. One of the things it explained is that when you get married by licence, you have made an agreement with the state, and you aren’t under common law, you’re basically under a new contract, and if you fail, they can take everything away from you.

    It also explains the certificate of title. That a certificate in a law dictionary is always issued by the owner. So if you have a certificate of title, it means you have the right to use the land, provided you keep the payments up. When you sign the title deed. Deed in a law dictionary means to give away. So a solicitor solicits you into deeding your property, and now you have to pay property tax/rates.

    So I’m glad we’re having this chat, as I am ready to take the White Ribbon Society on, I’ve absolutely have had enough of them, and your stories indicate how corrupt these people are, and what they’ve done. And I am going to make a scene about it before the election. Late last year, I put 850 fliers in people’s mailboxes about the White Ribbon Society, and to tell Paula Bennett they don’t deserve any financial support. Oh if you do look at those books on Amazon my user name is meatloaf.

    The next attack is going to be far more severe, so again thanks for your stories, I’m going to get revenge, not illegally, but by exposing these crooks. And lastly I’m going to write a book about how to know whether a woman will play mind games on you. I’ve had 11 years experience in this. And what I’ve written is true. So watch out White Ribbon Society, your going down.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. mikenmild (11,179 comments) says:

    What exactly do you have agasint the White Ribbon Scoiety?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Meatloaf (152 comments) says:

    They have talked about men, like a cancer. For two years in Auckland, they have posters denouncing men as the heartless, violent offenders, but the link below, tells you that psychological control is violence.

    http://www.police.govt.nz/advice/family-violence/help

    Because us men, haven’t complained about pschological violence they keep on going on and on with their ranting that men are violent. Its also because us men try to be tough, rather than moan. They use duress, discrimination and misleading conduct. They say only 20% of violent cases against women are reported, and a third of all women enter into a violent relationship. So if a woman has gone on 20 dates, their’s a 33% chance at least one will be violent. 33% divided by 20 = 1.67%.

    Now, if all a women does is call you names cause you haven’t done what they want, that’s psychological violence. Any physical or pschological pressure to get people to do what they want is violence according to the police. I can say at least half of my dates are violent, because more than half use mind control games if they don’t get what they want. As soon as they say 33%, they ask for money. 33% is a big number. 1.67% isn’t. If they said 1.67% of a women’s dates are violent, nobody would care. But 33% forces people to care. Then before people have time to think they ask for money. By using these antics they get more money out of people, than if they had stated the truth. They use discrimination, misleading conduct, and duress to get more money out of people.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. RRM (9,596 comments) says:

    Reminds me of a haunting scene in Laura Doone..

    Name?
    Charge?
    Guilty, death by hanging. Name?
    Charge?
    Guilty, death by hanging. Name?
    Charge?
    Guilty, death by hanging. Name?…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Martin Gibson (229 comments) says:

    What don’t I like about White Ribbon?
    That it’s a feminist Trojan horse that seeks to demonise men and sanctify women.
    The whole “show you’re against violence toward women” when we should be against violence to everyone.
    That the local men’s group urge men to wear women’s clothes and march in “solidarity” with women.
    A mate of mine hung himself last week rather than attend a meeting with his lawyer after his wife “frivorced” him then made false allegations about violence, so I might just be a bit more disillusioned than usual.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. mikenmild (11,179 comments) says:

    How, exactly, does it ‘demonise’ men? Many men are happy to stand up against violence towards women.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. David Garrett (6,647 comments) says:

    Martin: “frivorced”?? Explain please…I am very sorry to hear about your mate…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. dad4justice (7,898 comments) says:

    Martin so sad to hear that. I would like to know how many good men have killed themselves since the disgusting Family Court came into existence? I know of heaps. Simple victims of false allegations. The Family Court has a lot of blood on its insipid hands. The dysfunctional court belongs in a Nazi regime! Feminazi’s thrive on the gender hateful agenda!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. adze (1,934 comments) says:

    The whole “show you’re against violence toward women” when we should be against violence to everyone.

    This; a thousand times this. Think about it: What is lost or diluted when you say you don’t support violence against any group?

    Answer: Nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. RRM (9,596 comments) says:

    No, thanks, I’m actually for violence towards women… :neutral:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Meatloaf (152 comments) says:

    It implies that men are the problem, and women are the victims. It doesn’t say “are you man enough to stop domestic violence”. If it did, I’d have no problem. The implication would be that violence happens in the house. But the fact that they say towards women, implies that women are the innocent victims.

    Then their website goes and talks about men as being the problem and judge rutherford never seeing a case where a women is the problem. And of course it uses the 33% statistic to alarm people, instead of breaking it down, 33% divided by 20 = 1.67%.

    And its costing money. Their’s people starving to death in Africa. And what it does is it keeps the DPB going on for longer. National has allowed one loophole for moving on to the DPB, if your partner is violent. And these people are making sure us who work pay up. I say abolish the DPB, or actually no, go back to the old system, where the longer your on a benefit, the less you get in retirement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    All the violent people I’ve ever met were female. Most of us chaps would rather just get on the piss and compare notes! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Meatloaf (152 comments) says:

    Yes, so sad to hear that, about the suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. duggledog (1,412 comments) says:

    Family / child abuse goes across all income bands and ethnicities, they said today, upon the publishing of a rich old guy’s attempt to salve his conscience and leave something positive behind.

    Anything in there about the disproportionate Maori statistics, and the Maori propensity for violence, propelled forward by the grievance mentality, the haka, ‘mana’ etc? As an example, the crash tackler Hemopo who dealt with the streaker. He smashed the shit out of him. No sympathy for the streaker really but what is it with the bro’s these days. Shit they’re angry.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. David Garrett (6,647 comments) says:

    duggle: I heard on RNZ tonight – and I am not making this up – that apparently before the arrival of the evil honky, Maori valued wahine and tamariki as taonga (no mention of the slavery and infanticide)…Apparently the evil honky is at fault for Maori family violence because we saw women and children as mere chattels to do with what we may..

    So the clever Maori – greatest race since the Phoenicians – immediately thought “the honky way must be right!” and started abusing their women and children…

    Manu Kohiri (not sure of the spelling) News, RNZ at 5.45 today

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Harriet (4,607 comments) says:

    “……• “Revisit the burden of proof so that it lies with perpetrators not victims.”
    ……..• Review the adversarial system which “places an excessive burden of proof on victims”, replacing it with “a more collaborative system where the burden of proof is on the perpetrator”………”

    LOL women are such fucken hypocrats:

    “…..burden of proof is on the perpetrator…..”

    Get 12 coloured photos of the same unborn baby at 1 month intervals, and then ask for the ‘arguement/proof’ to abort each one.

    As Mother Teresa taught us, abortion breeds violence: “Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships.”

    And to think the whole family court thing is ‘for the children’ – what a fucken joke – it’s siding with selfish women!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. jackinabox (735 comments) says:

    “But shifting the burden of proof, so that the accused has to prove they are innocent is repugnant”

    In the USA persons who might be guilty of an offence are known by the police as suspects. What do the NZ Police call “suspects” here? They write them off as “offenders” and it is impossible to shift them from that mindset without proving your innocence in Court. But if you do prove them wrong in Court the perverse buggers will treat you as the enemy till the day you die.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Dom Knots (155 comments) says:

    lol mother teresa – that thieving bitch.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. big bruv (13,450 comments) says:

    So Sir Owen spent a shit load of money to tell us nothing.

    I have not read the report but I would wager that when it comes to domestic violence and violence against children they have not gone within a hundred miles of the real question that should be asked. That question of course is this, why do Maori commit so many crimes of violence and why do so many Maori men kill or harm children?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. big bruv (13,450 comments) says:

    “As Mother Teresa taught us”

    All that stupid old cow taught us is that the Catholic church and its teachings are evil.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    It’s a deep down situation with Murri bb. When they used to kill and eat folks (cause the Pakeha had never arrived on these shores with porkbones etc). the little sprogs were the tenderest to eat….like Fillet Steak.

    It’s hard to get that sort of historic stuff out of the psyche even if KFC is doing it’s best! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. big bruv (13,450 comments) says:

    Does the report mention finding ways to make absent fathers pay child maintenance?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    I never saw anything in the report that suggested supergluing GPS locator beacons to their cocks bb?

    Good point thought! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. kowtow (7,856 comments) says:

    Dom Knots = numb nuts.

    And bigot bruv being bigot bruv.

    Jeez guys just stick to wimmin bashin’ without going for the Taigs, keeps things civil around here.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. big bruv (13,450 comments) says:

    Just pointing out the truth kowtow.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    The influence of the Fenians is very deep kowtow.

    Once upon a time Hutt chaps used to have great regard for their enemies over the water in Petone.

    Since the Priests have moved in and taken over HOBM it’s a war to the death……… sort of like Shite v Sunni.

    Unfortunately no one can tell who the shites are anymore! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Chuck Bird (4,726 comments) says:

    “That question of course is this, why do Maori commit so many crimes of violence and why do so many Maori men kill or harm children? ”

    Why do so many homosexuals sexually abuse underage adolescents.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. kowtow (7,856 comments) says:

    JB

    Whatever about the shites up your way ,I have a good idea of who the shights are around here me old boyo.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Fentex (898 comments) says:

    I haven’t read this report so have no knowledge if the claim it suggests a reversal of the burden of proof is accurate, which would seem a silly thing to do.

    But if it instead speaks of developing a different way of doing things when people are in dispute over facts, that has been shortened to “reversal of burden of proof” it may be a misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

    Other jurisdictions do apply some different methods that are neither our adversarial model or it’s inverse – for instance in France (and other nations) disputes on evidence are investigated by state procurators in a non-adversarial manner.

    It may not be pointless to investigate the efficacy of such methods.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. mikenmild (11,179 comments) says:

    The report does raise the issue of the adverarial system, but it also talks about reversing the burden of proof.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Dom Knots (155 comments) says:

    go get a big dog right up ya, kowtow

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    Getting lawyers that are competing for their fees out of the equation would seem to be a good first move Fentex.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    Inquisitorial rather than adversarial must be a good start and with luck it will filter through to the rest of the legal system.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    Not that lawyers would want anything standing between them and their fat fees of course! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. mikenmild (11,179 comments) says:

    A move to an inquisitorial system is often mentioned, but I don’t recall any evidence showing that it would produce better outcomes.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    Should reduce posing and ever increasing lawyers fees milkey. Would take a quantum leap by the legal folk to impose it of course and Turkeys never vote for an early Xmas! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. big bruv (13,450 comments) says:

    Chuck

    “Why do so many homosexuals sexually abuse underage adolescents.”

    What a stupid statement to make.

    Newsflash Chuck, most of the scum abusing kids are heterosexual or paedophiles.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. mikenmild (11,179 comments) says:

    Saeeing as the lawyers generally make the laws, Johnboy, I can’t see any reform that reduces their role ever getting off the ground.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. kowtow (7,856 comments) says:

    Numb nuts,

    “go get a big dog right up ya, kowtow”

    Could you translate that into English please?If you’re capable.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Dom Knots (155 comments) says:

    well since you seem to need it translated into english, numb nuts. sure thing: go get a big dog right up ya, kowtow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. nasska (10,821 comments) says:

    ….”Could you translate that into English please?”…..

    Bend over & bite the pillow…..Fido’s going in dry. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. kowtow (7,856 comments) says:

    Numb nuts is a rude ‘un.But at least he responds to “numb nuts.” Fido’s probably better trained though.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    You’re brilliant milkey. You’ve just hit the sharp end of the nail, that is the law, with the blunt end of your hammer.

    Lawyers should NEVER be allowed to make the laws. How can any sane society allow the chaps who profit from something make the rules on how that profitable thing should be organised. It would be like getting car dealers creating the CGA etc.

    The people should be making the law, not the lawyers! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    A bit more thinking like that milkey and you’ll start hitting the blunt end of the nail with your hammer! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. deadrightkev (314 comments) says:

    I agree with you David. What one earth are those so called social policy reformers thinking? Sheeesh. That is just awful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. UrbanNeocolonialist (195 comments) says:

    Harriet: The only thing that Mother Teresa taught us was just how needlessly cruel fundamentalists of any religion can be. Her love/tolerance of suffering amongst those in her care was abhorent, (and typically hypocritical – she got the best palliative care money could buy in the USA). She diverted most of the donations intended for helping the sick to missionary work, while hiding her deceit from the world.

    She didn’t give a shit about those in her care, why would so we believe she had any sensible insight into welfare of people outside of her warped vision of morality? Maybe a good catholic, but a bad person, as is typical of so many big name religious leaders. History will not remember her kindly.

    http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Teresa-The-Final-Verdict/dp/8188248002
    “We are not nurses, we are not doctors, we are not teachers, we are not social workers. We are religious, we are religious, we are religious.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. David Garrett (6,647 comments) says:

    BB: See my post earlier…the Murris apparently learned this behaviour from us…funny that they are massively overrepresented in the child bashing stats now though …

    Re my earlier post, this absurd statement wasn’t presented as a hypothesis, rather a solemn conclusion of fact from some taxpayer funded Maori outfit…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    Murris have always been full of shit David. They’re always rabbiting on about “Whanau” and “Aroha” and beating the snot out of anyone when they take a mind to do so.

    Only the politicians support that crap cause they don’t live in the real world and it suits them to do so.

    The rest of know that Murri are a nasty, vindictive bunch of losers that you couldn’t trust with anything.

    Particularly other folks money! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    Witness the Murri Television fiasco if you think I’m full of it! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. kowtow (7,856 comments) says:

    G’night John Boy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    Bugger me. Even the Murri don’t watch the shit, it just makes cringing, white liberals feel good that they can waste our tax dollars on the shite! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. David Garrett (6,647 comments) says:

    I certainly get very very tired of being told we are responsible for all Maori ills…I grew up in a state housing block in gisborne…most of our neighbours were Maori…some of them were better off than us…we played together, went to school together…

    Disposessed of land? Grandfather Garrett lost the family farm in the depression…that doesn’t give me an excuse to be a gang member..

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    You can put a ring round it that the two little pieces of shit that killed that poor dairy owner in Henderson are murri.

    I’m getting really fuckin sick and tired of hearing about how bloody badly the poor murri have been treated.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. David Garrett (6,647 comments) says:

    JB: I learned something quite chilling about that killing today…apparently the dairy owner wasn’t scared because little scrotes coming in an threatening him with weapons happens often…he usually successfully shooed them out…these two little mongrels cut his throat instead of leaving..allegedly

    It is dreadfully unfashionable to say it these days, but I do not believe there is a colonized race anywhere who were treated better…Imagine if the fucking Spaniards or the Portuguese or the Dutch had come down here…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    You seem to attracting my friend Minus tonight too David! :)

    Caught my cancer I guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    Silly old Queen Victoria got a twinge of the conscience David. …..Noble savage and all that….. what! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. David Garrett (6,647 comments) says:

    Re the said little shits JB…as soon as I heard the family were in court yelling out “Be strong my baby” “Love you babe”…it was pretty damn obvious what sort of home they came from…I might lose some points by saying it, but in a real sense, you cant blame them…my son’s role modelling is to help the weaker ones at school; to resolve conflict with your brain and your words if you can – but stand your ground, and protect what is yours…

    these kids have grown up in “homes” where violence is the first and not the last resort, and taught that if you want something you just take it…If my boy wants something he asks me for ” a five dollar job”…at 9 he knows he has to work for things, and you don’t just bash people and take them…I have met kids like these two, and it’s quite chilling…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    I’m lucky, in my life I’ve never met shit like those creatures David and I hope I never do but I am getting heartily sick of watching the bastards and their whanau on TV telling me how it’s all my ancestors fault that they have turned into the shit they are.

    I’m beginning to think that there is a race of untermenschen in this world of ours. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. David Garrett (6,647 comments) says:

    What do you mean “beginning to think…”? … I am very tired of hearing the Judith’s of this world – actually that’s not entirely fair she does say some stuff that makes sense….except for her bizarre defence of the Golden Arches….she says she’s never met him, but apparently he’s “demonstrated” he’s a better man than me…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Johnboy (15,382 comments) says:

    Perhaps he’s taken over the ol’ boys duties David like Davina wanted Liam to? :)

    What fun it’s all been tonight!

    Must hit the hay!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. gump (1,538 comments) says:

    @dad4justice

    I stand by my comment.

    You – in particular – have reaped what you sowed. You’re just too blind to see it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. big bruv (13,450 comments) says:

    Well said Gump

    Given D4J’s obvious anger issues it is no surprise that he has had problems with the courts. While I am sure that there is the odd case of injustice we should not forget that the courts are there to protect the interests of the children, it is not there for deranged men with anger issues to wage war with their ex partners and use their kids as pawns in that battle. I might also add that irrespective of the judgment handed down by the courts there is no excuse for fathers to stop paying child maintenance.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Chuck Bird (4,726 comments) says:

    BB

    “What a stupid statement to make.

    Newsflash Chuck, most of the scum abusing kids are heterosexual or paedophiles.”

    I could say the same to you. Did you ever pass math at school? While it is true that Maori are overrepresented in child abuse the same applies to homosexuals. They are greatly overrepresented in sexual abuse of minors.

    It is true that more heterosexuals sexual abuse children due to the fact that homosexuals and bisexuals make up less then 4% of the population. Due to this fact homosexuals are far more overrepresented in sexual abuse of children than Maori are in physical abuse of children.

    Even if that does not fit with your libertarian ideology it is a statistical fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. gump (1,538 comments) says:

    @Chuck Bird

    “Even if that does not fit with your libertarian ideology it is a statistical fact.”

    ———————–

    No – that’s not correct at all. You’re confusing same-sex abuse with sexual orientation.

    Most same-sex abuse is actually carried out by men who identify themselves as heterosexual. Child abuse is typically a crime of opportunity and the abusers aren’t discerning in their choice of victims.

    This is reflected in the intake statistics for NZ prisons. The proportion of prisoners that identify as homosexual is close to that of the general population.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Martin Gibson (229 comments) says:

    Sorry to comment then sleep.

    David if you’re checking back here, the word “frivorce” is a contraction of frivolous and divorce that is in common use in “the manosphere”; a predomininantly American web community that articulately debates the ongoing damage caused by the feminist orthodoxy. Dalrock’s blog a good example.

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/why-arent-men-responding-to-economic-signals/

    A woman tends to frivorce her hard working faithful and non-abusive husband when a non-specific feeling arises in her that she is not haaappy and perhaps she amplifies it by watching movies like Eat Pray Love, which sell post-separation life as a magnificent adventure with the same axing men whose attention she enjoyed in her early 20s.

    So she presses detonate on the marriage, hopes for cash and prizes then uses “the hamster wheel of rationalisation” to blind her to how unnecessarily destructive and unrealistic she has been.

    This is in no way related to people in abusive dangerous relationships, and a clear distinction needs to be drawn.

    In my own marriage, I removed the cash and prizes by marrying a woman who earns far more than I do.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Scott1 (479 comments) says:

    David Garrett is right – we already have that system.
    I have a case of someone I know who was convicted on clearly insufficient evidence ignoring evidence that should have been enough to defend him (and it appears will be, once it finishes going through the appeals since he is able to do this).

    And as per Fentex,
    from what I heard they were suggesting the inquisitorial system (as opposed to the adversarial one).
    If that is the case then it is a very good idea because the adversarial system is more expensive and creates an artificially hostile environment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Chuck Bird (4,726 comments) says:

    gump

    “Most same-sex abuse is actually carried out by men who identify themselves as heterosexual.”

    What utter nonsense. That pervert school teacher up north it turns was a bisexual. It he chooses to identify himself as a heterosexual are you trying to say the his abuse would be put down as abuse by a heterosexual?

    I look at things quite simply. If you are male and take it up the arse or are into sucking cocks you are definitely not a heterosexual. You are either a homosexual or bisexual.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. ross411 (284 comments) says:

    Harriet (4,251 comments) says:
    June 16th, 2014 at 7:27 pm
    As Mother Teresa taught us, abortion breeds violence: “Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships.”

    The problem with zealots like you, Harriet, is that you believe what you’ve been told. Then proceed to bandy it about as proof.

    Mother Teresa was a nasty horrid and violent woman, who was made to look like a role model, for political purposes. Look into her for yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. ross411 (284 comments) says:

    Link 1: Mother Teresa embezzles donated money, and leaves poor in squalid “hospitals” while she uses the money to take herself to quality western hospitals.

    Link 2: More of the same.

    Link 3: Mother Teresa friend to evil people in power who also oppressed others.. This link isn’t as mainstream, but it gives solid references to the sources, where others do not.

    Mother Teresa was a true product of the church, and if there is a hell, she is down there burning in eternal fire. If she was against abortion, likely that’s a reason to be for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. big bruv (13,450 comments) says:

    Chuck

    Why are you so scared of poofs?, are you that insecure in your own sexuality that you feel you need to tell the world how hetro you are just in case they suspect you might be gay?

    The facts are that most of the vile scum who abuse children are heterosexual or paedophiles.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Mark (1,403 comments) says:

    Guilty until proven innocent is a giant leap to far in trying to find a resolution to family violence and child abuse. Can you imagine the number of false claims that would be filed in messy and acrimonious breakups of couples whether married or not which could result in a myriad of unsafe convictions.

    Under the Glenn Report proposal if family violence turned to murder would the perpetrator be considered innocent or guilty before trial. Where would the line be drawn between charges.

    Would an alleged rapist known to a victim be treated differently under the law to an alleged rapist who is a stranger. ie one presumed guilty and one presumed innocent?

    The suggestion (not sure whether it is actually a recommendation) of the presumption of guilt is a legal minefield this country does not want to go down.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Chuck Bird (4,726 comments) says:

    @BB

    “Why are you so scared of poofs?, are you that insecure in your own sexuality that you feel you need to tell the world how hetro you are just in case they suspect you might be gay?

    The facts are that most of the vile scum who abuse children are heterosexual or paedophiles.”

    Your reading comprehension is as bad as your basic statistics. I am not scared of poofs as you say but concerned about peadophile enablers like you who put underage adolescents at risk.

    You are happy to bash Maori because they are overrepresented in child abuse statistic but defend your homosexual peadophile mates who are vastly overrepresented for sexually abusing underage adolescents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    “I’m beginning to think that there is a race of untermenschen in this world of ours. ”

    What a surprising declaration from a National voter…I think not

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. dad4justice (7,898 comments) says:

    “it is not there for deranged men with anger issues to wage war with their ex partners and use their kids as pawns in that battle.”

    Who are you referring to big blouse?

    And gump who never sleeps ” You – in particular – have reaped what you sowed. You’re just too blind to see it”

    I hope you’re not blind and you enjoy my book about my terrible injustice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    Well, I certainly think D4J and Meatloaf were the life and party of this thread

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Meatloaf (152 comments) says:

    Thanks Wikiwhis business, I’m glad someone thinks myself and D4J spiced it up. Now, Dad4justice, have you actually written a book, or are you planning to. If so, could you tell me the title of it. Because as I’ve said I’m in the middle of writing my own book, which is about being able to in a short time be able to tell, whether someone is manipulative or not. I’ve used this technique for years, and whenever I’m stuck I just refer to my notes and know what to do. But part of the motivation is about knowing that the Family courts are a woman’s best friend.

    I’m not going to copy your book, except for a few brief sentences or paragraphs, and I will give you proper reference, so your sales will actually increase. And yes their are some very good women out there, so there is hope. And there’s also ways to protect yourself. Like buying a safe, putting gold in it, keeping it at a brother’s house. They might have a protection order so you can’t go into what you think is your own house, but surely they can’t stop you from owning gold.

    Anyhow, if you haven’t started yet, I’m sure we’ll catch up on kiwiblog sometime. Look out for me, and I’ll look out for you. I’m keeping the title of my book a secret for now, as I don’t want people to steal the best selling title of it.

    And thanks ‘Martin Gibson’ for the use of the word frivorce, very clever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Aussie Aussie Aussie (22 comments) says:

    Yeah and You all voted for the Right to be Judge Jury and Executioner and give any kid
    the GOD DAMNED BASH

    and THAT IS YOUR RIGHT TO BASH BASH BASH

    so add KISS MY A R S E

    to Proving your innocence – get f***ed

    Beating Innocent kids is LEGAL so
    get f***ed

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Meatloaf (152 comments) says:

    Yes Red, when you are using the road with a driver’s license you are under a different domain than common law. A license in a law dictionary means permission to do something. Driver in a law dictionary means “one who is employed to drive passengers and freight”. By going through the road code, agreeing to abide by it, you are not under common law when using the road. Common law says if your actions cause an injury, than you have committed a crime, but are entitled to trial by jury.

    But by applying for a driver’s licence and getting one, you are saying that you are up to scratch to use the roads to a professional level, so you can get fined for going through the red light, even if no accident is caused. Now how bout the other licences then? In the 1930s most of the licenses came out. It was the great depression, and as people were starving to death the government announced a new deal. In the original care of children act of 1994, it states that the mother’s responsibility is to protect and care for the children. So if she cries out this man is violent to my children, the marriage license applies, the mothers role is to protect the children, she says that your not.

    What does husband mean in a law dictionary, it means house bound. Before the license, if a man split, the woman keeps nothing of his. But the license changed that, the man’s responsibility is to provide till death does he part. And what does CYF mean, child, youth and family. The purpose of the family is about the youth and child, as far as the government is concerned. Why? Because these are the future earners, and all they care about is money, taxing these people. The family court takes what the woman says at face value as it is. This would only justify their position, and stop people finding out what is really going on. If people found out, they would find a way around these rules. Like living at two different apartments 10 minutes away.

    The thing that really bothers me about this, is the man losing his wealth, to a manipulative woman, and lawyers. If it was simple if your violent you get locked up, and keep your wealth this would stop false accussations. 2ndly if the person who is the sole parent, has a reduced retirement package for every year they are on their own raising children, this would also put a change to false accussations, as it wouldn’t be a free ride.

    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.