MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Its that time of year when the Tax Police are busy issuing their Child Tax Assessments.

Don’t forget to object to your assessment. It doesn’t matter if you are unsuccessful and it costs you nothing except a few minutes to draft an objection letter.Its your legal statutory right to object.Objections cost IRD as they have to respond to the letter and review your objection. Every letter they have to write and every phone-call they have to answer is a cost of compliance. Imagine how much it would cost if 1000 parents objected!

Now we are all familiar with the saying :”you pay peanuts you get monkeys.” and IRD has its fair share of monkeys administering child tax. I’m all for being kind to monkeys and would encourage others to do the same. Every time IRD writes to you they seem to include an addressed envelope so why not take the time to send it back to them? (No stamp required!) I would suggest that you put in a little note saying “Peanuts for the Child Tax Monkeys” and 2 or 3 peanuts.

Lets call it a peanuts for the Child Tax monkeys campaign. The purpose is simple, increase the cost of compliance.

1) It costs the monkeys to open the letter
2) Its takes the monkeys time to read the note
3) It takes the monkeys time to dispose of the peanuts
4) It costs money while the monkeys talk about the peanuts.
5) It can be done frequently and targeted at major monkeys (E.G. David Udy, Ken Pope, Heather Styris……)

Compliance and the “Compliance Triangle” is the holy grail of child tax collection. Increase the cost of compliance and the Dogma of voluntary compliance fails to keep the collection costs down!

Operation 2008 is slowly building in its attack on the compliance model used by IRD with the aim being for members to make it cost $10 dollars for IRD to collect 1 dollar of child tax.

Get sending those peanuts and keep reading. This is just a small beginning of that escalating non violent direct action targeted to explode at election time in 2008 .

N.B. No insult to monkeys intended and no peanuts were consumed while writing this article.

Regards

Scrap

Source: WATCHING CYFSWATCH New Zealand

cyfswatch Says:
February 28th, 2007 at 9:16 pm e

Message from cyfswatch:

We did NOT delete the blog – we have made contact with wordpress to try to ascertain what might have happened. We will keep you posted. Blog is saved so won’t be an issue, plus we have the watchingcyfs mirror site. May have been hacked? Not sure.

CYFSWATCH

Has CYFSWATCH New Zealand been got at ????????????????????

Its gone again

The authors have deleted this blog. The content is no longer available.

You can create your own free blog on WordPress.com.

The dictionary describes fatherhood as:
to act as a father to somebody, especially giving advice, comfort, and protection.

The Family court describes it as:
all the above unless Mother doesn’t want it, then just give us your wallet.

For the last four and a half years I have held on to the belief that the Justice system would have within its fold some wisdom. Wisdom is the love of truth and knowledge. Our system has little of that. Did you know that there has been no study to understand the effects on a father of false sexual abuse on his children by the mother? Wouldn’t you think that understanding these effects might give Judges some wisdom in dealing with the aftermath? Judges tend to think that fathers are bullet proof and that he should be able to handle any crap sent his way. If a Father raped the Mother of their child you can imagine and understand the reaction of the Judge. He would be sympathetic of her fear of him and realise that a normal trusting relationship would be difficult. He certainly would not accuse her of “not working with him and always being mistrustful of his actions” and then stating “therefore you are not suitable for co-parenting so fuck off” (abreviated)

Take it from me, the family court is a joke and treat it with respect at your own peril.

Here is a summary of what I have learnt over 4.5 years

1. Society does not want fathers to be hands on. Just financial providers.

2. Women want men to be sensitive but just sensitive to their needs.

3. Judges believe that men are the instigators of violence until they prove
themselves innocent beyond reasonable doubt.

4. Judges interpret a women lies as “unfortunate”

5. Legal Aid Services are an agency to help women to destroy men.
They break their own rules in order to aid a woman in “distress”

6. The Police are political when it comes to applying law in Male Vs Female. Misandry rules.

7. The courts are administered in a dubious way in which a Judge can have
transcripts altered or even deleted to stop any enquiry into the way they
conduct a case.

8. A Man’s Human and Civil Rights are only as good as the integrity of the woman he
has a relationship with.

9. Becoming a father is the worst mistake a man can make in this society.
If I had sons I would have them all sterilised.

A New Zealand training programme helping to identify child abuse trauma in mental health patients will soon be helping victims in the United Kingdom.

University of Auckland psychologist Doctor John Read has been commissioned by the professional development journal of the Royal College of Psychiatry in England to describe the training programme.

Dr Read said: “Childhood physical abuse, sexual abuse and neglect are extremely common experiences among those who suffer from serious mental illness .

“It is incumbent on all our mental health professionals to know how to ask about past abuse and how to respond appropriately.

“Sadly, this is still not the case, largely because of the over-emphasis on diagnostic labelling and medication.”

The one-day training programme has been running at the Auckland District Health Board since 2001.

Funding was currently being sought to make the same training programme available in Britain, Dr Read said.

“We are delighted that British psychiatry is taking the lead from Auckland in prioritising the taking of trauma histories when undertaking mental health assessments.”

The training programme was based on University of Auckland research on the relationship between abuse and severe mental health problems, including psychosis, he said.

Dr Read’s paper called “Why, when and how to ask about childhood abuse”, will be published in the March edition of Advances in Psychiatric Treatment.

- NZPA

NOTE: The comments expressed in these articles may not reflect that of the post author

I remain very concerned that Bradford’s bill is being touted as an ‘anti-smacking’. It is not that at all. This bill will outlaw ‘all’ forms of violence toward children which, on face-value, seems like a damned good idea.

However, what is completely missing throughout is a definition of violence.

Over the years, at this site, we have all read reports from men who have been deemed violent for little more than a look or a huff.

The power this bill will give to the small group of CYF mad-persons amongst the sane CYF workers, to wreck even more families, is beyond imagination.

This small group of CYF mad-persons, which from what I have observed on CYFWATCH, is limited to about 100 out of some 1500 otherwise decent social workers, will have a field-day with this new legislation if it passed.

These social misfits will be able to remove children and bust up more families with even less substance for reason than they are required to have now….and even now it ain’t very much.

This bill must be stopped.

Personally, I have never had to do much more than give my kids the ‘evil-eye’ to get them to understand that some behaviours were unacceptable….but then I do really good line in ‘evil-eye’, even though my kids learned quickly that it was an act.

But I find it perfectly acceptable to force a child away from danger, and although I don’t actually understand why some children need a smack, I accept a mild jobbie to a hand as okay when parental skills, or whatever influence is working to muddle the amazing results returned from mutual love and respect between adult and child fails.

But as soon as that light slap turns into a thwack, then my red-lights turn on. Countless now are the times I have stopped to ask a ‘parent’ why they just hit (not slapped, but hit) a small child, or have remonstrated with a small child with language fitted only for the gutter, and had the pleasure of seeing utterly perplexity on the face of the hitter, followed by a violent response.

But, so far I have managed to talk my way past the inevitable angst of a challenged ‘parent’ and been rewarded with an attenuation of vitriol.

Don’t get me wrong here. They haven’t all stopped to consider the error of their ways and thanked me for interceding, but the F-words and C-words (all adjectives used to describe me, in front of the children concerned) have slowly died away to mumbles and the odd ‘bugger’.

The only people (and I use the word loosely) who have the wish and ability to enforce the ‘letter’ of the Bradford Bill , are those few utterly mad CYF workers mentioned ealier herein. But the power it will deliver into their deranged hands is incomprehensible.

Real anti-violence is not a government issue, it is a family and social issue. So long as families refuse to do nothing it will continue. So long as folk, unlike me, who refuse to intercede, it will continue.

But the potential for family violence which is being delivered into the hands of the fractous few is beyond imagination.

David

Marc Alexander – Smacking away parental rights

When governments start debating what reasonable means, when they second-guess the care provided by good parents, and confuse parental responsibility with child abuse, it’s clear they deserve to lose the confidence of those they purport to represent. They need to go.

If this is a vote of no confidence in our current parliament then there are at least two sensible people left in New Zealand. I’ll support that.

The velvet underground-Labour’s quiet revolutionaries

It used to be said the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Now, people whose hands have never been near a cradle are deciding what’s best for children, and the country.

Margaret Shields says, “We began to reorganise the Women’s Section of the Party so that it became an agent for change; through organising, training and encouraging women to take a larger, more strategic role in politics”

She says things are not done by accident. John Tamihere agrees saying that these people think in timeframes of 10 to 15 years. They don’t have families so they plot because they have nothing better to do.

Feminist and Communist Kay Goodger attended the first-ever feminist United Women’s Convention as well as Helen Clark, Margaret Wilson, Marilyn Waring and Silvia Cartwright along with nearly 2 thousand other women.
(more…)

There are no grounds for the alteration of section 59 of the Crimes Act, on the basis of child welfare. The proposal of this bill was only ever intended to empower the state in its authority over the child, and to empower the family court. Even the alteration being proposed by Chester Burrows is unacceptable. Mothers and Fathers must never be open to or subject to any threat or allegation that undermines that authority. Any change to this legislation will not protect the children who are most vulnerable. If children are ill treated it is a time to help. We have created a climate of fear in households where those that need help fear asking because of the consequences they might face. Parents will fear admitting the truth because it will bring prosecution instead of help. We have always had the means to help and we still do. This raging debate is not about is not about welfare, it is about power. Authority invested in the family being transferred to the state. It is an unfortunate fact of life that some parents will fail, and some parents will fail their children, but we cannot ever criminalise the position of mother and father. If we start imprisoning parents we will not be locking up child abusers, we will be incarcerating failed parents One step in the wrong direction is one step too far. We should concern ourselves about community, and how to help each other, not about dominion over one another.

Not so long ago I was in a gas station in Auckland when the attendant ran out of the office and stood in front of a car. It was already clear from the behaviour of the three boys in the car that it was a drive off in progress, and I had made a decision to get out of my vehicle and head over to their car. As I got to the drivers window he was reaching for the keys, something he quickly decided was not a good idea. His two mates in the rear continued to yell at the driver “just start the car, drive off don’t worry about him”.
I had a word to the courageous couple in the back seat and they decided to run off. The driver decided it was a wise to move to sort things out, and he went off to the office to arrange payment for his stolen gas. Why would I bother? No one else in the service station did, they all hid in their cars.
If we do not want to live in a climate of fear, from an undisciplined society, then we must recognise the need for urgent change. If there is a mess in the back yard it is from the rubbish flowing from the house. It isn’t going to be fixed by some lame duck families’ commission whose first words were “repeal section 59”. These people are just expensive mouth pieces paid to say what the government wants to hear. A Government that is entirely responsible for the deterioration in our society over the past 8 years. If New Zealand wants a decent society it isn’t going to come from a Government that is a threat to our society, the society that we grew out of.