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

18 Comments »

1. 

   Bevan,

   This is one man that people will follow and he does have people just like me who would do …. hello …. do you understand the word DO lol, something for.

   But … and here is the scoop. It is not about what YOU want, to get into politics, it is about the people that you have to serve. REAL leaders don’t dictate under democracy. They serve. Why do you think the people voted for MMP? What is your age group in Central Auckland? You need to know these things. What to they do for a living? How do THEY feel? What does the majority want? You need to understand your voters. It is all available to you if you look to the censors statistics of the last national censor.

   I mix with the people as you know and they want the rates changed. When I went to the Lesbian Ball, I got the scoop of what the councils are doing that is not yet public knowledge. If you want to be a candidate for the most of the people and want to represent them you have to give the majority what they want. You have to have the inside scoop and bring down the councils getting together or just stop their outrageous spending and putting up Auckland’s rates and water rates. They will come to you if you have something worthwhile to say.

   Comment by julie — Mon 27th August 2007 @ 6:25 pm

2. 

   Bevan,

   I don’t mean to come across as an awful person but I cop this sort of thinking from the people myself. They say, “If you want to care about people why don’t you stand and do this and do that”. As you know, I am not a citizen so I can’t help you. But, wow, gosh, if I was I could rock Waitakere. lol

   John Tamihere is copping the same but people generally don’t trust him as far as they could throw him. And that isn’t very far. lol

   Comment by julie — Mon 27th August 2007 @ 6:29 pm

3. 

   You’re laughing out loud a lot Julie: and your defining most thoughts around your own idea and your experiences, of what should happen and how it is done: in my view.

   Your confidence then is growing. Yet what have you learned? Have you learned that when you become confident that those who would challenge you drop away and you are able better to define your direction, that others are better able to respond to your energy as you would like?

   Have you talked to Maori to subscribe a view on JT’s popularity or for that matter how he and WJ can tag team their way into a new face of politics? At some stage in these kinds of proceedings the jewels will laways drop.

   Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 28th August 2007 @ 12:50 am

4. 

   I know that Jim means well, but this is a complete waste of time and energy.

   Not only will the Repbulicans get absolutely nowhere, but there is a remote danger that they may possibly lure votes away from someone who actually has a chance.

   Jim would do far better to ensores somebone who has a hope.

   Comment by Darryl Ward — Tue 28th August 2007 @ 9:07 am

5. 

   I’ve been of the same mind as well Darryl and probably still agree with you, not just from a logistical point of being small so late into the proceedings but from a point of public opinion. Yet, the platform is that of better to protect men. If this is the central issue and good old Jimmy is the central voice then it will certainly attract some attention. Where there is certainty, however, (and if not for truth then for my wish to dispel any accession in madness) the 5% vote is beyond the limit, so that being the case: 1 seat has to be isolated and picked. That seat has the best candidate who would attract the public attention: meaning best orator who is well groomed and without a (too difficult) past. Every (public interest) financial resource from groups like these should be centralised and chanelled into that area. Bust open the piggy banks boys its time to bet on the human horses. That’s the only realistic chance. So it isn’t really down too much to the likes of Jimmy and the boys it is down to their supporters. How many?

   I would like to give them my support, and given that the other politicians who are picking up their emphasis on menz necessity issues are comprehensively void on issues of constiution to the truth, and that the Republican’s for their main platform and in response to the facts I have presented them to be tested refuse to establish themselves to truth: it makes grim reading for the future unity under one banner for one people.

   Not that that’s what I believe either: and anyone with subjective sense will recognise the necessity to observe objective principle will recognise that in this land before we are one we have to stabilise two.

   At the moment: sadly, Winston Peters is the only politician in the frame. And are we any wise to want him for the way he has arrived at this legal juncture in that frame? – Probably unlikely.

   Good to see Jimmy out there though, you have to admire our toughest of the roosters – still crowing loudest – and still as tough as they come!

   Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 28th August 2007 @ 9:44 am

6. 

   And a republic isn’t stable. Not for human horses anyway.

   Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 28th August 2007 @ 9:50 am

7. 

   It is astonishing that a conservative right wing party does not exist in New Zealand . Anything would be better than the lying criminals we have presently running the country into the ground !!!
   Helen Clark and her cohorts should be in prison !!!!!

   Comment by dad4justice — Tue 28th August 2007 @ 12:42 pm

8. 

   The question here Pete is has the law been broken?

   Taito Philip Fields case will set the precedent of “where too from here”.

   The ability to prosecute so far from recent events from parliament has been limited to the power of the executive through privelege to set remits of investigation and these remits one would seem have sketched very non definitive lines over executive responsibility to the public interest.

   My case and the relevant allegations however, is different. The difficulty the acting administration is exercising is that they maintain that it is legal to continue in a non constiuted condition and that that condition is excusable. For breaches on due process and manner and form alone can this presumption be tested and on that test alone will the effect of its merit take hold. Where we are at after TPF will shuffle the chairs a few notches to either the left or the right where if he is charged then the prison gate is accessible.

   For whom they would be open is quite a new and different question.

   Let’s hope we can get some rationality out of Peter Boshier for teh Court response to teh new wave of allegations on their past performance. I heard that Leighton Smith had him on his show this morning and the signs aren’t looking all that good for the judiciary.

   Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 28th August 2007 @ 4:18 pm

9. 

   dear ben and all others , after what happened today both Peter Boshier and Helen Clark are in very serious trouble . This is very bad = this is the end of the New Zealand Family Court as we know it . Police know all the sordid details of my case = FINALLY .
   Make God show his justice , love and grace .

   Comment by dad4justice — Tue 28th August 2007 @ 10:44 pm

10. 

    Hope you’ve won. You well and truly deserve it. No better time now then than to stay cool and calm – eh.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 29th August 2007 @ 12:34 am

11. 

    Jim would do far better to ensores somebone who has a hope.

    There is always the morning after Darryl. You should at least be able to focus on the keyboard by 9 am.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Wed 29th August 2007 @ 11:54 am

12. 

    If two typos are the only faults you can find with my post, then I am very pleased.

    Kind regards

    Darryl

    Comment by Darryl Ward — Wed 29th August 2007 @ 9:19 pm

13. 

    That’s so undarryl to ward off criticism with restraint and composure.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Thu 30th August 2007 @ 9:31 am

14. 

    Benjamin, #3

    Have you talked to Maori to subscribe a view on JT’s popularity or for that matter how he and WJ can tag team their way into a new face of politics? At some stage in these kinds of proceedings the jewels will always drop.

    I don’t understand. Who is WJ?

    Comment by julie — Thu 30th August 2007 @ 9:48 am

15. 

    I like Jim as I meet with while he was dressed as judge dread on the steps of parliament . I was batman and Kerry was father christmas . We had a good day protesting in beehive grounds . I think you will all like this that I just posted on Ian Wisharts site ;

    This makes my blood boil that police think that a 4-hour session on morals is sufficient to satisfy an increasingly number of concerned citizens. With police integrity at an all time low with a corrupt government and politicised senior management within the police force the word moral and police should never be in the same sentence. I hope the police investigation, which I have brought about concerning widespread underage sex and paedophilia is not tainted by Helen Clark’s radical feminist ideology and lack of accountability from people in positions of authority? The police , judges and MP’s didn’t believe so I proved it my way . It only took police over six years to listen to my genuine concerns about my daughters’ safety, however my belief in a moralistic society will see many in the dock, including senior Labour politicians and justice officials. The Families Commissioner has said to me that he is putting money to the full exposure of my tragic case of the blind leading the blind. As a soldier of truth I will destroy many careers, that you can be certain about. How do you feel today Helen Clark and Steve Maharey and do ring the Christchurch Police sex offenders unit and have a wee chat if you don’t believe me. Got you maggot Clark!!

    Comment by dad4justice — Thu 30th August 2007 @ 9:57 am

16. 

    Hi to you all It is time us kiwis got out of this procrastinating mode we and our forefathers have got into and realize it is time to make NZ a Republic. By saying we should vote for some other is putting our head in the sand and hope we find things come right when we pull it out.We don’t need to be jumping from to Labour’s fat to the Nat’s fire each election.You can make a difference on election day try for your offspring’s sake if not for your own.

    Comment by davel — Sun 2nd September 2007 @ 1:16 pm

17. 

    Julie,

    Willie Jackson. He and JT are both standing for mayoralty. WJ, I believe wants a one mayor fits all option and if so, along with, as they describe each other, “my mate” JT they command a significant portion of common thinking (I think this, not suprisingly, is how all talk back show hosts think).

    Additionaly to add to their calculable appeal, the middle ground Maori vote is well and truly within their ability to harness. If there is, as there seems to be, a general revival of Maori tikanga and that this revival expand as welcomed into mainstream thinking, then these two fellows can round up and lasso a full posse of convinced and convicted voters.

    I am being exceptionally facetious out of frustration and anger after watching, only in part, WJ’s show on Eye to Eye from Front of the Box on Saturday morning. Heather Henare and a fellow from a national body challenging domestic violence were interviewed on one side of the debate with the Deputy Police Commissioner and a Family Court lawyer the other. They were all concentrating on the recent report from Hamilton and the occurance of domestic violence with women’s general inaccess to aquire protection orders.

    I found the first part of the debate primarily offensive where the only challenging comment WJ made to step up against an oppressive society that conditions domestic violecne into its various departments and societies of collective well being was WJ attempting to pick up on the Family Court lawyers (if) inconsistency for something she wrote previously against her in interview statement that “DPO’s were not that hard to get”. The most frustrating limitation WJ presented was the leading statement to the male from the national body of “so men have no rights in this”. He was satisfied as non controversial the answer of “No, it is all about security”.

    This kind of game play is tiring when individually I have spent so many hours separated from my son and daughter proving irrefutably that women’s violence is an unlimited condition of exploitation as lasso’ed by those in the media industry tanning the citizen’s backsides like its the COC Bill in leather.

    It would have been too gruelling to watch another segment of this exploitation rewarding, (by regarding) itself as profound for its ability to construct the truth. There are no effective measures to isolate manipulating social circumstances as a form of domestic violence.

    This manipulation which the media demand they must ignore is an exploitable commodity for which the public pay handsomly cooing on cue going “oooh” and “aaah” as horrific anecdotes (few in number of the model taken) of men’s violence outweigh every other connection with what is “really” happening.

    WJ and JT, who are used now to the limelight and can capitalise upon that limelight in confidence will establish these political strengths into harvestable votes.

    However, I do not believe that they should be so confident either for the credentials of calling a few MP’s “front bums”, maybe even, fashioning an illusion through coloured eye or eye, to what “front of the box” could possibly mean, being promoted by Willie Jack son protecting women from men, or any assumption under indigenous politics.

    At some stage these people who run the media are going to have to take a better stock of and thereby be accountable to truth. That would be refreshing.

    Sorry, that was a long answer to a simple question, yet its construction was to establish a reasonable ground to answer davel, who is in the same realm as most other NZ’s who simply reject the demand to observe the truth.

    There is only one version to the Treaty of Waitangi. That is the Maori version. Until this is consolidated from history and constituted into a collective future, the adversity of complications, as naturally by corruption factored into any national condition or realm of reason (if it is not too late) will never be resolved. This means that the subjective view (ie republicanism) has no grounds of authority until the principality of objectivity (once defined) has been established as a base.

    “Until we observe being truthful the climate can never change”.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 3rd September 2007 @ 3:34 pm

18. 

    It is what is needed ! All sorts of pressure must be applied, from being fathers AND activism AND other action, also it must have a broad base to be successful and must NEVER EVER be violent !

    Comment by swashy — Wed 21st November 2007 @ 11:23 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.