Labour’s official policy is you must prove you are not a rapist

July 5th, 2014 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

This is a major policy by , that has had very little attention. It is now Party policy that you have to prove your innocence if accused of .

said on the 2nd of July:

“A better measure would be to hand control of all examination of a victim to the judge with lawyers for both sides notifying the court which issues they want dealt with, along with shifting the burden of proof on the issue of consent to the defence.

This means that if two people have sex, and one person accuses the other of rape, then the accused must prove beyond reasonable doubt they had consent.

Now you might think this is just Andrew Little musing aloud. Not so.  He confirms in this tweet it is official policy.

Graeme Edgeler sums their policy up:

Andrew Little says:

“This approach does not contradict the fundamental principle that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty – the basic facts of the case still have to be made out – but it does mean the prosecution doesn’t need to prove a negative, namely that there was no consent.

This is sophistry. If the act of sex is not disputed, just consent, then the defendant does have to prove themselves innocent.

I wonder how many hours it will take until Labour does a u-turn on their policy, once people realise its implications.

Rape is a terrible crime, and the court process is very hard on many victims, and I am sure it can be improved. But reversing the presumption of innocence and burden of proof is not the answer.

Tags: , ,

66 Responses to “Labour’s official policy is you must prove you are not a rapist”

  1. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    So if I video all my “sexy times” I’m not a pervert, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Graeme Edgeler (3,290 comments) says:

    then the accused must prove beyond reasonable doubt they had consent.

    I doubt it would go that far. For the few other matters in criminal law that have a reverse onus (e.g. insanity, possession of drugs with intent to supply), you only have to prove your innocence on the balance of probabilities.

    [DPF: I take reverse the burden to be literal. Either way it is pretty insane]

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. dog_eat_dog (789 comments) says:

    If this is true, Labour should be polling in single figures.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Harriet (5,121 comments) says:

    NZ women have never been given pepper spray because they can’t be trusted to use it for it’s intended use – to ward off violence.

    Every cop and lawyer knows that.

    I can’t see this ever going ahead.

    Good PR though…………..falsly sticking up for women. What a fucken loser. :cool:

    Vote for the Conservatives and support Marriage. Women and young girls do far better.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    It’s insane, but this is exactly what most people who use the term “rape culture” want – if you don’t have explicit consent then it can be counted rape, regardless of anything else.

    Lives are already being ruined by this sort of thing being rolled out in kangaroo courts in US colleges.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. OneTrack (3,221 comments) says:

    GE – “I doubt it would go that far.”

    That makes me feel so much better. Labour’s policies, as clear as any of their other policies.

    They. Are. Unfit. To. Govern.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. OneTrack (3,221 comments) says:

    DPF – “This is sophistry. If the act of sex is not disputed,…. ”

    This is worse than that. How would the government prove you had sex or not? Just ask the complainant, she’ll tell you. Solves that problem.

    Ok, where were we? Oh, that’s right, left-wing totalitarian nightmare coming to you soon, care of Labour.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. TM (99 comments) says:

    What is the situation now? Do they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no consent to get a conviction?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Harriet (5,121 comments) says:

    Would you ever pay your lawyer $20k to defend your privilage of ‘inviting home a 6 drink girl from your mates BBQ’?

    Well you soon will be.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. FeralScrote (224 comments) says:

    Good to see the Labour party “tackling” the crime of being in possession of a penis.
    All men are rapists doancha know?
    Lucky for the Labour party none of them are equipped with said offensive item, `cept for Helen and shes` gone.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Redbaiter (9,561 comments) says:

    Another wedge driven into our society.

    Karl Marx would be partying if he was alive today.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. s.russell (1,646 comments) says:

    Labour’s problem here is that National has a near monopoly on sensible polices, so Labour has to invent stupid ones just to be different.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    This is typical leftist thinking. The idiots see a wrong and weep and wail over the humanity of it all their idiot galloping mentalism takes over their entire processing capacity and the moronic fools wind up with an idiotic solution which overrides years or decades or in this case centuries of accepted wisdom. Which wouldn’t be that bad if it happens every now and then. But this is their standard operating procedure.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Sporteone (49 comments) says:

    Jesus, Joseph and Mary. What an abomination. As an ex Cop who investigated many rapes and also many accusations that were not rapes, I find this very hard to stomach. Reversing the burden of proof is just going to make it easier for a women or man for that, to make a complaint of rape with no evidence to prove it. Sure, there are some pretty clear cut cases but some are like, when the cheque bounced it became rape. This is not a statement that people will say does not happen. It does.

    Several rapes I investigated were where people had consensual sex and then the next morning it becomes rape. How does someone defend that. I am working on one such case right now. It is a he said, she said. No injuries at all, just two drunk people. Figure that one. No matter what happens, the guy will always be branded a rapist and she walks free. She is never called a slut or anything like a rapist. People will have all the sympathy for the women, but not the men or do we just go along with David Cunliffe and say sorry for being a name.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    It’s quite simple.

    The anti-smacking law allows the government to deal with any parent they don’t like. But that only covers parents.

    This covers all the people who don’t have kids reasonably well.

    So next, look for a law that’ll make it really easy to arrest grey-power members, and single religious women. That should cover pretty much everybody, won’t it?

    (Tongue firmly in cheek of course)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Harriet (5,121 comments) says:

    Women saying ‘we shouldn’t be doing this we should stop’ ain’t a defense – and that’s what men will be defending.

    Seriously. On the legal side of things, this is one seriously exspensive and time consuming way to get to ‘Stop Rape!’

    Until women say Stop Rape! – they’re fair game. That’s the end result legally. Besides, Stop Police works.

    Otherwise rape isn’t being taken seriously. It’s either rape or it’s not – and ONLY the women will ever know for sure. Sop Rape cuts out bullshitting women.

    Fuck paying for the government to work this out the expensive way. And fuck paying for lawyers along the way. And fuck the indignity of it all.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    On the reverse side, you expect a victim to prove that they did cry out “stop I don’t want this”.

    Just how, when there are only two people involved, does one prove that, either way? It relies solo on the honesty of both parties, and when one is facing a potential conviction, there is plenty of motivation not to be truthful.

    Of course the offender is going to say consent was given, but expecting the victim to ‘prove’ they made an important statement, when the only person capable of attesting to that, has every reason not to ‘remember’ it, has always been a stumbling point. We expect a rapist to tell the truth to assist in his own conviction?

    I’m not sure the proposed law change is right the way it is worded here, it looks a tad like scare mongering to me. The law is an ass, but its not that stupid, there would be defining aspects to such a condition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. fernglas (168 comments) says:

    Rape has been the subject of other changes in principle before, most notably when the law was amended to apply an objective standard to whether there was belief in consent. So, instead of the question being whether the accused believed the complainant was consenting, the test became whether that belief, if held at all, was a reasonable belief. In other areas of criminal law it is always the state of mind of the accused that is in issue. This proposed reform goes way beyond that, by reversing the onus. As Graham Edgeler points out above, that is not unheard of. The illustration of drug possession and the presumption is one. Unlawful firearms possession is the same. In those cases, however, the reverse onus only kicks in after proof of an illegal act, in the case of drugs possession, or one where there is a high public interest in proper control, in the case of the Arms Act.
    Sexual intercourse is neither.
    Or there is a raft of strict liability regulatory offences where quite often the requisite evidence is exclusively within the control of the alleged offender, and again social utility requires the assumption of a legal burden if the accused wishes to avail themselves of a statutory defence.
    I agree with Graham that while the burden of proof (the legal responsibility for proving consent) will rest with the accused, the standard of proof will not be beyond reasonable doubt, or even necessarily on the balance of probabilities. With drugs, for example, there is legally an evidentiary burden, which means basically that as long as there is a foundation laid for acquittal, the Court may acquit without regard to fixed standards.
    That, however, does not excuse the reversal of the onus in the case of rape. While rape is to be deplored and has its own singular characteristics, so have other crimes, and there is no principled or even practical reason for such a significant reversal of criminal law standards. If rape and other sexual offending were to be removed from the criminal jurisdiction to a separate “truth and reconciliation” type of tribunal, then maybe. But while rape remains a crime punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment, such a change is simply wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    This idea will cause a furore when the young man molested at Labour’s social event in Parliament lays a formal complaint. There will be Labourites running for cover.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. beautox (422 comments) says:

    I can see why he apologized for being a man. Under this regime it will be wise to be on record as a grovelling fool.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. tas (646 comments) says:

    Wow. This is unthinkable. Guilty until proven innocent. There is no way they will actually implement this.

    What if both people accuse the other of rape? Presumably neither can prove their innocence. Do they both go to jail or is Labour’s policy that the male is automatically guilty? That seems to be Cunliffe’s view, given his recent apology.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. nasska (11,797 comments) says:

    Labour have made a mistake if they think that all NZ females will be won over by their patronage.

    Many women have sons.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Zapper (1,027 comments) says:

    Cunliffe could be outed as a serial killer and Judith would pop in and say:

    “Well on the face of it, it’s not something you want a future PM doing, but the people he killed are not going to be overly missed. On the other hand, John Key forgot a 10 second conversation he had 7 years ago. He should be in jail! This is just a smear, National planted the bodies.”

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Harriet (5,121 comments) says:

    “……It relies solo on the honesty of both parties, and when one is facing a potential conviction, there is plenty of motivation not to be truthful….”

    That is blatant crap Judith!

    Only the women will ever know if she was raped or not!

    The Court itself only ever gets to the point of what it percieves to be the truth!

    Like I said “A women is fair game till she says ‘stop rape!’

    You can’t not say ‘Stop Rape’ – and then lay a complaint with police that you were raped!

    Don’t women no longer know what rape is Judith – so how then is a man to ever know?

    No one has to defend the serious charge of rape – based on women’s chatter Judith :cool: :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. maxwell (56 comments) says:

    I’m struggling to keep up – it’s less than 24 hours since Labours last idiotic outburst

    what would happen if you got your sex partner to sign an approved consent form
    (standard copies available from all good lawyer$, keep one in your wallet son )
    and the next day she/he claimed to be drunk when it was signed
    and didn’t really give 100% consent ?

    if this stupidity ever becomes law the penalties for false accusations of rape should
    the same as for rape

    I’m still not sorry for having external genitalia, and I’m not sorry I’m not sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “and also many accusations that were not rapes,”

    And how many of the false accusers were prosecuted Sporteone?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “……It relies solo on the honesty of both parties, and when one is facing a potential conviction, there is plenty of motivation not to be truthful….”

    Not when you’ve got your wingman on the job.

    http://mobius-actioncam.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. meow (20 comments) says:

    It’s brilliant policy – Labour loves crims, and most crims would be Labour voters, so Labour want to officially make everyone (who’s had sex) a criminal. More voters for Labour.

    It’s actually sad that I can try and poke a joke on a subject involving rape, but Labour obviously need help from the public to point out the absurdity of their policies. It also shows that the rot runs deeper than just Cunliffe.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. adze (2,129 comments) says:

    Here is a rebuttal to the simplistic construction that is rape culture:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Mark (1,489 comments) says:

    Do you think that the participants will still be in the mood once they have read the consent forms and have had them witnessed and notarized.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Mark (1,489 comments) says:

    Perhaps the answer is having a witness :)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Longknives (4,868 comments) says:

    There is nothing more vile than a false rape complaint.
    I have seen one destroy an innocent man’s reputation, career and life…and the stigma NEVER goes away.
    And it detracts Police resources from legitimate rape/sexual violation victims….
    Lying women who make false rape complaints should be jailed.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Mark (1,489 comments) says:

    Is it just me or have the labour leadership simply lost the plot completely now.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    “Lying women who make false rape complaints should be jailed.” – subject to normal rules of evidence, of course.

    I heard (think it was an OT law, but not 100% sure) of an old law that a false witness would receive the punishment for the crime they had invented. Worth considering, I’d say.

    As Instapundit say, any behaviour you reward, you’ll get more of.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. All_on_Red (1,644 comments) says:

    Looks like someone from Labour has been spending time on US campuses because this is pretty much the policy there. Also, if both parties have been drinking and then have sex, it’s automatically the mans fault…
    Needless to say the number of suspensions and prosecutions of men is rising and Colleges are being sued frequently when the accusations turn out to be false.And then having to pay large sums as damages.
    This video may amuse as it looks at what might be the future.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwQmYSASlXo

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    The comparison with drugs is idiotic.

    In the case of drug possession, the law pretty much works like this-
    * Crown must prove possession of illicit substance
    * If the volume of drugs involved is above certain amounts (this is specified for each substance) then it is assumed that it is for the purpose of supply.

    The rationale here is that if you have a very large stash of drugs on your person or in your possession, it is assumed that it is too much for an individual to consume on their own (without killing themselves anyway).

    There is a big difference between this and the proposal tabled by Labour. To only need to prove sex, then assumption of rape is outrageous. For starters, sex is not illegal. If it was, we would have a serious population issue about 20 years from now, as there would be no children outside of IVF.

    The presumption of innocence is a sacrosanct issue of law in the developed world.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. goldnkiwi (1,519 comments) says:

    No wonder ‘men’ are an endangered species David Cunliffe.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Meatloaf (239 comments) says:

    I’ve just emailed David Cunliffe, that I have no confidence in his ability with numbers and facts. Last election, I was tempted to vote Labour, although I didn’t, because I liked David’s approach with his finance ideas. But, over the last few months I’ve seen his ability with good financial ideas, No GST on fruit, first few thousand $ a year of income, no income tax on that, completely nosedive.

    Now he can’t even see he’s had the wool over his eyes. He talked about high statistics of violence towards women, and he’s ashamed of being a man. Before the White Ribbon Society asks for money, they say a third of all women have been violated. 33% is a lot. But if each of these women have gone on 20 dates, 33% / 20 is 1.67%. So at least 1.67% of the dates a woman goes on are guaranteed to be violent. And David thinks we need to do something about it. He doesn’t know how to crunch figures.

    And how many relationships are violent towards men?

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

    How many men can say that a woman has played mind games on him? Obviously David, has no idea what he’s doing, and has no ability to crunch figures.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Meatloaf (239 comments) says:

    Yes Scrubone, you’ve hit an important point. It talks about this in Exodus and Dueteronomy, and yes those who make up malicious lies should be punished.

    And yes Redbaiter, Karl Marx would be celebrating today. The third plank of the communist manifesto says to abolish inheritances. What better way to take men out of the family than give the image as the violent. 99.9% of cases that go to family court give the woman the house and children, and the man nothing but alimony payments.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Meatloaf (239 comments) says:

    Scrubone, I’m wondering what you think of this:

    http://freedom-school.com/reading-material/van-koten-v-van-koten.pdf

    Its a court case where the woman said I don’t want any money from my divorce. But the state said no you have to, and they told her why. Do you think this has anything to do with why us men are looked upon as the violent people, at least in family court.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Manolo (14,046 comments) says:

    Based on this “policy”, I expect P.G. to join and start campaigning for Labour.
    Mother Teresa George of Dunedin has found his place!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Considering Andrew Little’s serious resemblance to Oliver Cromwell he should be careful what he wishes for! :)

    http://www.politics.ie/forum/history/12820-oliver-cromwell-pimp-child-sex-trafficer.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. kowtow (8,755 comments) says:

    Labour have form for un necessary , un warranted and un mandated changes to the constitution. Think Privy Council.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. altiora (279 comments) says:

    And the saints go marching on into the glorious Labour led police state. What next on the Labour law and order policies? Thoughtcrimes? Offences involving counter-revolutionary activity? Self-criticism and re-education as a form of restorative justice for crimes of false consciousness?

    I’m a little exaggerating here, but this policy is the thin edge of a wedge; and given how much our British ancestors fought against state tyranny to ensure we have this right, this policy should be greeted with massive demonstrations in the street.

    Of course Labour will tell us that rape is evil so we must burn down the forests of England to chase the devil. But where shall we seek shelter when the storm comes?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Meatloaf (239 comments) says:

    I agree Altiora, this is another battering ram attack on the remaining liberties we have. Dairies are now being encouraged to not sell lollies to children in uniform. If they do this policy about so-called rape, that their doing, and there is no demonstration against this, they will continue to take and take away from what liberties we have. And this is why I wrote a letter to Mr. Cunliffe today, telling him he doesn’t even know how to crunch numbers let alone manage the country’s finances (see my post 12:49).

    If we take out the man from the family, then if the day comes when a dictator rises, the strong men, will have already been separated from their families, who will protect? So that’s why I take this seriously. I’m not saying we are a dictatorship, but I am saying this is one of our protections.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    Is there anything in writing that the presumption of innocence is going to change under Labour besides a tweet from Little? In other words is it now official policy and not still being debated within Labour?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Keeping Stock (10,414 comments) says:

    A good friend was recently cleared by the court after his ex wife had accused him of molesting their son. Taking him to the cleaners financially wasn’t enough; it was the second such malicious allegation, and was made because he dared to remarry. She still wanted to exert power and control over him, even though they had divorced around 20 years ago.

    On the first occasion, the police couldn’t find enough evidence to prosecute. So she concocted some. Fortunately, my friend is a meticulous record-keeper, but it still took almost 18 months to convince a District Court judge that the allegations were baseless and malicious. It has cost him thousands of dollars, and aged him significantly but his new wife was convinced of his innocence, and their marriage is stronger than ever.

    Sure, this is an extreme example. But as my friend found, it is incredibly difficult to prove one’s innocence, even when one is innocent!

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. David Garrett (7,533 comments) says:

    I don’t know why Judith @ 10.44 got 15 downticks (OK, 5 are probably just reflexive, but 15 is overdoing it..)

    This is exactly the nightmare I posted about a few days ago…and said that all men my age (except PG who is some kind of saintly person) have to fear the knock on the door about the party 30 years ago when you had consensual sex with a woman who has now “remembered” that she asked you to stop half way through but you didn’t…As someone above has said, how would you prove that didn’t happen like that two weeks ago, much less 30 years ago?

    Still, when you have a leader who says he’s ashamed of being a man this is what you can expect I guess…

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Meatloaf (239 comments) says:

    Yes Keeping Stock, this is exactly what I’m talking about, in my college years their was a girl who talked dirty to me. She said she was a prostitute, as a way of saying she was sexually experienced. One day, she asked me for something, and I said no, so she said your selfish. I said at least I’m not a prostitute and everybody heard. She didn’t do anything until I said I don’t like Megan R very much. Thats when she and her friends said we’ll spread rumours that you molest girls. After this, she said she still wanted me.

    “all is fair in love and war” and “hell hath no fury like a women scorned”, with some of these sorts of girls, they don’t care what they have to do to get what they want, as long as they get it. Then there are lawyers who just want to get money.

    http://freedom-school.com/reading-material/van-koten-v-van-koten.pdf

    If you click on the link, it will tell you something. When married under a licence, the man and woman’s roles become official. If the woman divorces and doesn’t want anything, the state said no you have to take something. And why? If the woman’s role is to take care of the child, the man’s role is to provide. The people who created the licence only care about the child being taken care of. So you have unscrupulous lawyers and unprincipled women (not all women, but some) coming together, and the unscrupulous lawyers know exactly what to do. They know that the state especially cares about the wellbeing of the child, and is willing to invest in public education and working for families. That is why the burden of proof is on the man. That link says that marriage is a contract. In a contract, the person who hasn’t kept their side of the bargain loses.

    The woman’s job is to take care of and protect the child. So she’s obligated to speak up for the child. When I use the roads, I’m not under common law. If i go through a red light, I get fined whether or not I cause an injury. Getting a driver’s license involves a process where you agree to use the road safely, in return for using the road. If the article is correct in saying marriage is a contract, with the state as a party, this explains why things are not in the husbands favour.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. David Garrett (7,533 comments) says:

    KS: No disrespect intended, but just about everyone knows someone this sort of thing has happened to…in my own case, my wife and I separated messily almost three years ago…One of her malicious friends told her to tell the police that my daughter – then aged 10 was “unsafe” with me…she was actually advised to make it as vague as that, because the more vague it is the harder it is to rebut, and the police and CYF (or whatever its currently called) apparently just “play it safe” and prevent a man seeing his kids in such circumstances..

    To her great credit my wife rejected this advice, said she knew it wasn’t true, and she wasn’t going to invent such a damaging accusation…Had she done as advised I wouldn’t be taking my kids to Rotorua next week…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Meatloaf (239 comments) says:

    David Garrett, CYF stands for Children, Youth, Family. It means that the only thing the government cares about in family is the child and youths wellbeing, when the family is concerned. Now you’re a lawyer, and I understand you know something about admiralty law. Does admiralty law, only affect the seas, or is their something more to it, than that. I’ve heard of the UCC code and people have explained how it relates to ordinary people. I’m just wondering, what your thoughts are? I’m not a lawyer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Keeping Stock (10,414 comments) says:

    No argument from me there David. I just think that making a false, malicious allegation against a father is a particularly insidious tactic. When he came to talk to my wife and I, our friend was at his wit’s end, because it was history repeating itself.

    But how do you prove your innocence in a case like that? It’s nigh on impossible, and had the case gone to trial, his lawyer would have faced the task of getting the son to admit that his mother was a liar, and had made the allegations up. The poor kid, now a young man had been brainwashed and poisoned by his mother. What decent parent wants to subject his child to cross-examination?

    Hopefully, this is just Andrew Little flying a kite. I cannot imagine a more destructive change to our criminal justice system than to reverse the burden of proof.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    KS, I hope you are right about this just being Little flying a kite. It had not be reported yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Longknives (4,868 comments) says:

    “and said that all men my age (except PG who is some kind of saintly person) have to fear the knock on the door about the party 30 years ago when you had consensual sex with a woman who has now “remembered” that she asked you to stop half way through but you didn’t…As someone above has said, how would you prove that didn’t happen like that two weeks ago, much less 30 years ago?”

    Don’t I know it….Well said David Garrett.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    @dog_eat_dog – “If this is true, Labour should be polling in single figures.”

    Agreed. Just when you are *sure* that Labour can’t come out with any more bone-headed policies, they come out with *this*. What a pack of morons.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. goldnkiwi (1,519 comments) says:

    Andrew Little for Labour Party Leader post Cunliffe then lol? Those law suits could rival the Treaty Settlement process. The pickings for Lawyers are thinner on the ground than previously……so I can’t imagine the profession complaining.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. goldnkiwi (1,519 comments) says:

    Put the man back into ‘mankind’, do not worry about saving the whales, there is an endangered species closer to home.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Meatloaf (239 comments) says:

    Goldnkiwi, David Garrett and others. I’ve finally done what I’ve promised I’d do. I’ve created an online petition, which will make a difference. If a man and woman split, why should the man lose the house, children and pay alimony. Why shouldn’t the woman sacrifice too.

    Before the DPB came out, social security meant, when you were in need, you received money through your social security account, and this was recorded as your debt to society. When you paid income tax, this offset this debt to society. Once this debt was offset, and this included you receiving a state education, any amount extra you paid went into your social security account, as the amount you were entitled to retire on. Part of the proof that it worked like this was in the 1991 world book encyclopedia which said until the 1960s when people paid income tax they paid it into their social security account. After the 1960s they made it anyone who is willing to work, but doesn’t have it, can get a benefit. 10 years later we have the DPB.

    So this petition deals with the financial impact, and says if we stuck with the old system, we wouldn’t have the situation where if there’s a split almost always the woman gains and the man loses. The woman would also have to pay for part of the cost. I was only allowed 200 characters in the petition. But in the reason for the petition I brought up gender neutral counselling services as oppossed to men bashing.

    So have a look at the petition, and if you agree to sign it will make a difference. One of the things is it has the information as to why the woman wins usually, and the man pays. I don’t think they want a lot of people to know, so just them knowing the word is getting out will make a difference.

    Here’s the link, and if you agree, sign and spread the word:

    Simon O’Connor, NZ MP: Anybody getting state support for their living costs, because they are looking after the children, should have to wait an extra year for there retirement, per year they receive state support.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Meatloaf (239 comments) says:

    http://www.change.org/petitions/simon-o-connor-nz-mp-anybody-getting-state-support-for-their-living-costs-because-they-are-looking-after-the-children-should-have-to-wait-an-extra-year-for-there-retirement-per-year-they-receive-state-support?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_created

    Sorry above was the wrong link, here’s the real one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. goldnkiwi (1,519 comments) says:

    First thing I noticed was the spelling of their(there) can you change it in the title? I shall go proof read the rest, it looks better.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. goldnkiwi (1,519 comments) says:

    Meatloaf, is Simon O’Connor your MP? I note it is also addressed to Paula Bennett.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Meatloaf (239 comments) says:

    Thanks goldnkiwi, I’ll try to. And wait for your reply on the rest. But please understand, I was only given two hundred characters, so please keep in mind I’m limited with space.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Meatloaf (239 comments) says:

    Hi Goldnkiwi, Simon O’Connor is my MP, but I was required to send it to a 2nd person, just in case, something goes wrong. But Paula is the minister of social development so it is in her court.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Meatloaf (239 comments) says:

    Hi goldnkiwi, if you click on the same hyperlink, it does have the correction in the petition. Any other recommendations, in regards to the spelling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. goldnkiwi (1,519 comments) says:

    Totally get the Paula, there are two there/their instances. You have inadvertently or not put your name out there, on that petition.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Meatloaf (239 comments) says:

    Hi Goldnkiwi, I’ve looked for any other there/their instances and have changed it appropriately. Yes my name is on the petition. I was looking at the Parliament site, and it said you need to identify yourself. So yes, it does have my name on it, as one of the signers, and this is why I haven’t put my picture on it. And it doesn’t have my full address. Anyway I’ll take a look at editing it again, to see if I can reduce any personal details, I’ve given.

    I’ve just done this, on purpose it leaves certain things out, like your full postal address is asked for, but not stated. And I’ve definitely avoided having my picture in it.

    Having said this, its becoming less and less safe for men, so if I do nothing, I won’t be safe anyways.

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