- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -


MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.
MENZ ISSUES

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

Sun 23rd September 2012

Owen Glenn is wasting his money

Filed under: Domestic Violence — JohnPotter @ 1:43 pm

Independent enquiry!!! was the subject of the email I recieved yesterday, noting that Owen Glenn is launching an inquiry into domestic violence and with the comment that this could be a chance for men’s concerns to be heard.

I have a lot of respect for Mr Glenn; I have attended a number of events at the Auckland University building named after him, and and always admired his generosity in supporting the our community. So at first, I allowed myself a small burst of excitement, before the cynical side of me kicked in and I began to investigate further.

I wondered “independent from what?” Having read more, my guess is that this actually just means independant from National Party policy.

While Dame Cath Tizzard is lending her name to the project to give it public credibility, I have no doubt that the real work will be done by Ruth Herbert, who has been named as “leader” of the 3-4 person panel.

Herbert is an industry insider, having previously been family violence programme director for the Social Development Ministry. These are the people behind the White Ribbon Day hate campaign against men.

I did a quick Google, and found her CV on an archived version of her now defunct website healthbydesign.co.nz. Herbert won acclaim recently for her Victoria University thesis which criticised the government for failing to deliver on it’s promises to tackle family violence.

I also found a paper she has published called Implementing Government Stratgies for Complex Social Problems.

She makes her radical agenda explicit:

“Addressing family violence requires a major social change in individual attitudes and relationships, cultural and religious belief systems and society’s opinions”

Based on what I’ve read, I predict this enquiry will avoid addressing any of the faulty assumptions and ideology that underpin the NZ domestic violence industry. It will recomend more jobs for the girls in Wellington (as “planners”), new layers of beauracracy to control implementation of the radical feminist agenda, and new coercive mechanisims to force non-government agencies to toe the line. And above all it will demand more taxpayer dollars.

I have no doubt that Mr Glenn is an intelligent man. I can only conclude that he has figured out where the real political power resides in NZ, and that he is attempting to curry favour.

We don’t need any more enquirys anyway

If anyone is still in doubt about where the real problem lies, they should read UK Family Commissioner Karen Woodall’s recent article: The terror of the politically correct; on silence, assumption and overcoming good intentions.

She writes:

In fact, my attendance at this [domestic violence] event lead me to wonder whether, in line with women’s refuges, there was some kind of exemption from having to adhere to equalities law. Certainly the confident way in which flawed statistics, discredited reports and gendered narratives were being bandied around, would suggest that here is a field in which the dominant group feels entirely comfortable with prejudice.

Woodall describes:

…a developing body of research that demonstrates that intimate partner violence is not just one type of violence but can be differentiated into four different and distinct patterns of violence. These four patterns are Coercive and controlling, Violent Resistance, Situational Couple Violence and Separation Instigated Violence.

Then she comments:

Expressing that view at the domestic violence event however was a bit like telling flat earth people that the world is round. Gasps of disbelief greeted the idea that violence could be something that both people engaged in and the idea that a woman who has been in a violent situation with a man could actually recover and even, dare I say it, go on to co-parent with him after separation was horrifying to many.

Woodall describes the people Glenn is planning to fund:

This world that these women inhabit, is about creating and perpetuating the notion that all violence is the same, all men are dangerous and all women are potential victims. It is about silencing discussion, terrorising those who disagree and about rigid political correctness in which those who do not conform are viewed as colluding with the “perpetrator’.

So I’m not celebrating, and I sure don’t think men are going to be listened to by Ms Herbert and her colleagues.

131 Responses to “Owen Glenn is wasting his money”

  1. Skeptic says:

    Thank you John for outing these misandric ideologues.

    I think it may well be time for men to go onto the front foot in NZ as they are in USA, Canada and Australia.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RBXVpoMlu4

  2. MurrayBacon says:

    Thanks John. I looked for her thesis in the Victoria library, but couldn’t find a copy?
    http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/browse
    Cheers, MurrayBacon

  3. Down Under says:

    I read this and I didn’t think intelligent man. His 8 million is totally insignificant in the face of the billions of dollars that have been thrown into the domestic violence industry by the state on behalf of the tax payer. If all that money couldn’t find an answer what makes him think employing the same people with a lesser amount of funding will find the answer. 8 mil – it is just a percentage of what the state will invest this year in the industry – maybe it gave him the warm fuzzies, who knows. No disagreement about the waste of money though, you could invest 8 million in any number of small businesses and change the lives of hundreds of people or you can chuck good money after bad taxpayer dollars – fool and his money easily parted or ulterior motive?

  4. JohnPotter says:

    I couldn’t find it in the Vic library either Murray, but I’ve discovered that you can download it from the Public Health Association:

    Herbert, R. (2008) Learning our Way Forward: implementation of New Zealand’s family violence strategies

  5. John Potter says:

    I’ve only read half way down page 1, and already we’ve had a list of atrocity stories, a bunch of straw man arguments, then she’s into deeply suspect statistics. 80 per cent of all NZ violence is in the home, yeah right.

    Then she quotes the ridiculous 1994 claim by Susan Snively that a “conservative estimate” of the economic cost of family violence in NZ is $1.2 billion per year. A MENZ Issues article by Stuart Birks in 2000 exposed the supposed “independent policy adviser” Susan Snively as a Woman’s Refuge fundraiser!

    Looks like “independent” in a radical feminist context doesn’t mean what it used to mean, like so many other words.

  6. Hans Laven says:

    Thanks for your research and warnings about this John. I too thought for a moment Glenn’s enquiry might provide a chance to get some realistic thinking happening around domestic violence. But I now see that we can expect more fobbing off, feminist propaganda and anti-male hate speech as always.

  7. MurrayBacon says:

    I applaud Owen Glenn for giving on a vast scale. Even if maybe his target is slightly off, he might still achieve far more than us, working on a much more humble scale.

    As a successful businessman, he is pragmatic. Rather than criticise his approach, why not offer him information about NZ’s problems and detail the people who we believe are presently working constructively and sensibly towards solving these problems.

    In this line, I suggest that child neglect (Wikipedia) is the more fundamental problem, in terms of overall negative impact on our society.

    To the limit of my knowledge, the group who are raising awareness and encouraging constructive action, are Brainwave Trust? If we could persuade Owen Glenn to divert a fraction of the donated funds to supporting Brainwave Trust, the overall outcomes might be much better?

    Anyone care to assist?

    Cheers, MurrayBacon – axe murderer…..

  8. Down Under says:

    Didn’t take long did it.

    Ruth Herbert, director of the Glenn Inquiry into domestic violence and child abuse (see Focus page 14), said she’d heard many stories of women who felt the court system let them down by allowing abusive former partners open access.

  9. Happy Larry says:

    Then she quotes the ridiculous 1994 claim by Susan Snively that a ‘conservative estimate’ of the economic cost of family violence in NZ is $1.2 billion per year.

    lol rofl lmao!!! Try …

    Ms Henare told the audience the cost of violence against women had not been analysed since the 1990s.
    But, judging by analyses from Britain and Australia, a cost of $13 billion a year and $4 million per homicide was estimated for New Zealand

    Of course, everything can be costed in some airy fairy paper money economic cost.

  10. Ford says:

    they come out with these over inflated figures to account for the money they have no idea what it got spent on..i read an article a while ago that said each road death cost that particular community 1 million..how they figure that out ill never know..even 20k for a funeral is a decent amount

  11. Skeptic says:

    Down Under,
    Thanks for the link to the NZ Herald article.
    It stinks of being a feminist beat up men piece.
    All the usual trademarks of it being such are evident.
    It starts immediately with an emotively charged image of some guy purportedly doing violence to a wife and three kids. Yet what’s also there in the first paragraph is that the guy was ONLY accused, as in charged with doing violence. Read carefully and notice that he was never actually proved to be violent and prosecuted.
    But hey, many of us know that’s not strictly necessary in NZ where feminism and white knightery has such a stranglehold that men are routinely sent to stopping violence programs without corroborative violence as a chess move on the part of separating women all too often with support from their taxpayer funded legal teams.
    The article then goes on to mention three Auckland University academics sometimes downplay the significance of domestic violence. As those academics aren’t explicitly named, this is VERY sloppy journalism. But more than that, knowing how extensive is the feminist networking between journalists, academics and certain leftist politicians it reeks of being simply the machinations of feminist apparatchiks.
    We then get the usual man bad – woman good gimmeee gimmeeee gimeeeee propaganda from the feminist industry, before the article concludes with a tug on the heartstrings note – “for the sake of the children”
    Above all else what’s makes that glaringly obvious about the article, and a dead give away is the fact that NOWHERE in the article is there any comment that has been sought from men’s groups, or indeed any commentary at all from a man’s perspective.
    It is a completely one sided ‘report’ from those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo regarding domestic violence legislation and enactment of that legislation.

    Here’s an interesting article on the author of this feminist hit piece – http://truebluenz.com/2010/12/16/steve-kilgallon-is-he-the-epitome-of-the-extreme-left-media-commentator/

  12. Skeptic says:

    Sorry for the mistake. I wrote – “The article then goes on to mention three Auckland University academics sometimes downplay the significance of domestic violence.”

    I meant to write – “The article then goes on to mention three Auckland University academics fear courts sometimes downplay the significance of domestic violence.”

    Actually I agree with the academics – but not for reasons they would back.
    I think the courts with their lack of due process and no public accountability DO routinely downplay domestic violence – against men.

  13. Ford says:

    i read the article too and still no mention of violent women who use the court system to abuse their former partners..happens all the bloody time…useless arseholes

  14. Down Under says:

    The Director of the Glenn Inquiry into child abuse and family violence, Ruth Herbert, said the issue would be investigated during the inquiry.

    “It’s part of a bigger issue of women being silenced. Some don’t have gagging orders, they have threats from judges who will say ‘be careful if you speak out, bad things will happen to you’, veiled threats around the loss of their children if they do. These are by no means isolated cases, they are commonly talked about in women’s circles.”

    Social Media and the Family Court

  15. Steve Kilgallon says:

    In reply to Skeptic:
    – the story was not in the Herald. It was in the Sunday Star Times.
    – the man was not prosecuted for killing his children because he had then committed suicide. This usually prevents a successful prosecution. If you read any of the studies of the case it’s fairly clear he did kill them. The article makes it clear that the domestic violence allegations were allegations and not proven. That said, if you read any of the case studies of the Bristol case it’s apparent that he had, at the very least, a case to answer.
    – The names of the three Auckland University academics weren’t mentioned to save space. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Happy to point you to their research and their names if you really want them (I don’t think you did though, did you? You wanted to imply I had made them up). Also doesn’t mean I agree with them, I am just reporting what they said after their study concluded because it had relevance to the subject.
    – Christine Bristol was interviewed because the law had been changed directly because of her experience. This makes her the most relevant person to interview if that law is subsequently being rescinded.
    – I didn’t see this article as a man vs woman story at all or presumed to think a man or a woman could represent an entire viewpoint. It attempted to canvass a wide palette of people directly affected by the changes, including political parties, interest groups, lawyers. Most of these, bar women’s refuge, would be gender neutral.
    – And thanks for the weblink. Makes me laugh every time I see it. I’m not sure what it’s meant to prove.

  16. Skeptic says:

    Steve,
    great to see you on this site.
    Wow that means someone in the NZ media is actually visiting.
    Thanks for the correction – it was indeed the usual NZ media feminist beat up piece – whatever newspaper. I’ve seen this sort of thing more times than I care to recall.
    Please do out the academics here – but next time do it in your rag and don’t make excuses about saving space.
    You had ample space to make men look like shit after all.
    I don’t expect you to understand viewpoint given that you don’t get the point of the link I supplied.
    But I’m satisfied others reading will know exactly what I’m talking about.

  17. Allan Harvey says:

    It’s not rocket science.
    Julia Tolmie (Law), Vivienne Elizabeth (Sociology) and Nicola Gavey (Psychology)
    They have a string of papers
    For example
    Silent Injustice : Women’s experience of the Family Court
    http://nzfvc.org.nz/?q=node/815
    The one I find most peculiar suggests with 11% shared custody being awarded by the Nz FC it has become some sort of norm. Clearly they are not professors of statistics.
    Tolmie, J., V. Elizabeth and N. Gavey. “Is shared parenting an unofficial ‘norm’ in New Zealand family law dispute resolution processes?”, New Zealand Universities Law Review 24 (1):136-166, 2010.

  18. Allan Harvey says:

    There is a 15 minute podcast from Vivienne Elizabeth describing their research online.
    http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/07/01/1077801212452049/suppl/DC1
    I am sure you will appreciate it Skeptic. I have no doubt we could find 21 male voices who would have similar disatisfaction with the FC. Such is the way of qualitative research without some quantitative studies to position the work within. However if you take the view Male bad, heterosexual relationship extremly bad then why lets numbers distort the result you wish to find.

  19. Down Under says:

    @ Steve Kilgallon

    I didn’t see this article as a man vs woman story at all or presumed to think a man or a woman could represent an entire viewpoint.

    How could you not see this as a man v women situation; mother v father, husband v wife, and court cases that are labelled in a similar manner (C v W) unless of course you are suggesting it is all about the children?

    The possibility that one person could represent an entire viewpoint is highly unlikely but that is the position a Family Court Judge is in, that’s why a particular group of women lobby so hard, because they only want a women’s perspective represented.

    I don’t think for a minute that you are ignorant to the extent that you couldn’t see that the article you wrote adopted that point of view but you are arrogant enough to suggest we lack the capacity to see that – maybe that pays your bills and exercises your ego but it does nothing for you credibility as a journalist or your reputation here.

    It attempted to canvass a wide palette of people directly affected by the changes, including political parties, interest groups, lawyers. Most of these, bar women’s refuge, would be gender neutral.

    The Bristol case (as sad as that was) became highly politicised and the Davidson clause was as knee jerk reaction which was more about protecting the reputation of a court driving a political agenda than it was about providing successful outcomes for families.

    The article attempted to canvas a wide palette of people, but you didn’t; I am not sure if that is colour-blindness, laziness or your preferred artistic bias. The ‘people’ directly affected by the changes are not one woman from a 20 year old case, nor are they a gaggle of lawyers that have grown in number and have a vested interest in the preservation of the political nature of the court or lobby groups like Women’s Refuge and now the Owen Glenn Trust which have arisen out of the social direction of the country and the shadow of family law.

    The people who are affected are the Men and Women who have experienced the social circumstances being talked about here and also the children who have been subjected to every imaginable intervention used over the past two decades.

    Your article quite simply does not make any attempt to canvas those points of view which would be both negative and positive, nor does it make any attempt to relate the current social position to the proposed law change.

    While you are happy to take a representative point of view from Women’s Refuge you could have easily obtained a representative position from any of the Men’s organisations that deal with the corresponding fallout and men processed through the business of the Family Court.

    It is an article without balance (as are most of the related news articles written by our current media)…

    and this orchestrated absence of balance, is in effect, a bitter and critical attack on men and fathers throughout the country, by conveniently denying that the point of view exists.

  20. Skeptic says:

    Down Under @ #19.
    Absolutely spot on brother.
    I agree with every word you’ve written in response to Steve Kilgallon.
    Too often journalists act as useful idiots or cynical players for misandric feminism. We do well to name them and shame them.
    A Voice for Men website in USA has gone onto the front foot in exposing judiciary, academics and journalists who act as the three pillars of misandry there by writing in detail about their actions and attitudes. I look forward to more of that happening in NZ through this and other websites. It leaves a permanently archived record to show the history of misandry as it is developed, enacted and absorbed in recent times in New Zealand. This site is also increasingly being linked to other Men’s Rights websites globally. There is a quickening and spreading of knowledge of men’s issues that is occurring which means 2013 will see significant numbers of folks taking the red pill, and those on the wrong side of history will be etched for a long long time on the internets’ recorded memory where justice through reputation increasingly often gets served.

  21. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Skeptik and Down Under,

    I cannot see any point in shooting the messenger, ie Steve Kilgallon?

    I might agree with your criticisms of his article, if it was to be judged as investigative journalism. Surely his article is entertainment and should be judged on this basis? I don’t make this as any comment on Steve, but on his employer.

    Steve’s article ignored separated men’s perspectives. Fathers and even men in general, lack spokesmen with credibility, who comment on men’s issues.

    Although this sounds like a contradiction in terms, alas it is true.

    The men who have spoken out in public haven’t been well educated and haven’t been expensively dressed. I could look at this from a different perspective and suggest that these men have earned their income, paid tax on it and what money they have spent on clothes, is what remains after paying for housing, food and tax. Some of these representatives don’t even wear shoes, (the other end of the evolutionary spectrum said Basil Fawlty).

    The judges who have dismissed these men’s representatives as thugs and wife beaters, have received their generous benefits from taxpayers, weren’t under pressure for competence or quantity of output. I forgot to point out that these tax paying men’s representatives usually had had to pay substantial lawyers bills too, along the way.

    But shortage of public credibility isn’t the biggest problem facing men’s representatives, it is the apathy of still married men, the confidence that divorce could never happen to them (until of course when it does happen).

    As NZ has faced more difficult terms of trade, newspapers have had to face the economic pressures of delivering what their customers were willing to pay for. Unfortunately, this is primarily feel good entertainment, rather than investigating journalism. As a result, profit media carries very little investigating journalism, particularly where an real exposures might have downstream costs of legal defence or embarrassment of advertising customers. The Sunday Star Times and all of its competitors are in the same situation. We should not criticise employees for the situation that we as newspaper customers put their editors in.

    Our politicians are also finding that wealthy capitalists and individuals have been more willing to make financial donations to political parties, than the majority of citizens. This has led to harsh pressures on politicians and to embarrassing and bizarre exposures of these donations.

    Both of these dynamics should lead to citizens being very concerned for the health of democracy in NZ. As individuals, we must spend our cash, to protect democracy. It takes much more than just moaning on blog sites.

    Until we can persuade as yet unseparated men to support human rights for about to be separated men, these issues will languish.

    Steve, if I can assist you by providing some background research about domestic violence in western societies and the consequences of these policies onto children of separated parents, I would be pleased to assist. ph (09) 638 7275

    Best regards, MurrayBacon – deranged axe murderer.

  22. Skeptic says:

    Murray #21 – “Surely his article is entertainment and should be judged on this basis?”

    Entertainment? WTF? Do you mean for Feminists? Sadists? Masochists? Fantasy fans? Dementia patients?

  23. Down Under says:

    @ Murray. I don’t see ‘shooting the messenger’ as being the apt saying for the occasion – the message came with an expectation that we should accept a position of feminist morality as correct and obediently comply with the position .

    While the reply might have fallen on deaf ears at least the position is apparent to anyone else who passes this way. (What, Murray ex axe murder with no axe to grind?)

  24. Luther Blissett says:

    MurrayBacon #21: Yeah right, we are all uneducateed buffoons who dress poorly and are unable to express any worthwhile opinion (all except your erudite self of course), so it’s perfectly ok for journalists to ignore any balance in their commentary and simply to spew out party line feminist propaganda. We should never hold such journalists to account for their poor professional ethics because that would be shooting the messenger. Especially when those journalists are writing entertainment pieces on such light-hearted topics of trivial import as domestic violence, false allegations, judicial ideological corruption, wrecking children’s lives. And of course the feminist propagandists who misuse science to generate bullshit statistics (or simply make them up without any pretence to research) are much better dressed so it’s perfectly ok for journalists to treat their utterances as the only valid and worthwhile ones. Nobody should ever expect any journalist to see as credible the businessmen, engineers, teachers, chemists, doctors, psychologists etc in the men’s movement none of whom obviously can be expected to string a sensible sentence together. And anyway, the journalists are just doing as they are told by their employers (no wait, it’s actually us the consumers telling them to be unethical) so it’s not their fault; they are just downtrodden, misunderstood folk and we shouldn’t harass them further by criticizing their anti-male hate speech. And of course none of us should speak up at all until we have the full backing of all the apathetic married men in New Zealand. Actually, we should just keep quiet until we have the backing of every person in the country, otherwise who do we think we are?

  25. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Down Under, in my opinion you are taking our entertainment / profit media too seriously. By comparison to USA media companies, NZ is better served, but this is no compliment. Even so, our newspaper and TV channels do much less investigative journalism than 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

    Economic forces pressure newspapers and TV channels to follow the biggest financial returns, not to do investigative journalism. On top of this, advertisers exert pressure on editorial behaviour, which our society ignores at it’s peril.

    Media company agglomeration leads to less competition to sell newspapers and again to take the highest returns, which is mainly entertainment, not investigation or challenging the powers that be.

    I am trying to suggest that instead of passively and femininely accepting these commercial forces, we try to develop non-commercial information channels, that are able to communicate to the widest group of voters. In particular, the majority of men are taking little interest in men’s human rights, for example to be heard competently and fairly in caughts.

    I do have several axes to grind, as I believe that you already know. I would guess that the conflicts of interest that I exist among are reasonably obvious, but if not then I am happy to clarify.

    Happy New Year, MurrayBacon, re-arranged and still deranged.

  26. Skeptic says:

    @ Murray #25
    “I am trying to suggest that instead of passively and femininely accepting these commercial forces, we try to develop non-commercial information channels,”

    It’s already happening. They’re called smartphones.

  27. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Luther, I am not sure if we have ever met? In any case, it would probably be constructive to meet in person. You might notice that I am the neanderthal referred to, who doesn’t even wear shoes…. Kerry Bevin is organising a meeting for Sunday 13th January, for people to work together on submissions about familycaught$. However, if you would care to meet me prior, then this would be better still. Submissions close 13th February 2013. ph (09) 6387275

    I am just suggesting not to hold your breath waiting for ok quality journalism in NZ. I don’t see much point in criticising a journalist, who might be more hungry than us and more desperate for employment even than us? I am trying to criticise the newspaper companies, but without wasting much time doing so. Better to put the time into several somethings more constructive.

    Dear Steve, please detail your suggestions about cellphones? (I am presently bringing together a collection of documentaries from around the world, trying to show all viewpoints on these issues. Viewable on smartphones or TV) If you have suggestions, these would be gratefully received. Cheers, MurrayBacon.

  28. Skeptic says:

    Murray, Contact me and I’ll fill you in on formatting for smartphones.

  29. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Luther Blisset #24,

    And of course none of us should speak up at all until we have the full backing of all the apathetic married men in New Zealand.

    On the contrary, I am suggesting that we should be aiming to communicate and better still, persuade the still married (not yet separated?) men, to take an interest in equal human rights for men, for fair and competent treatment in familycaught$.

    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

  30. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Luther Blisset,

    “my” criticisms of men’s spokesmen, were presenting comments made to me by friends and acquaintances, not in men’s movement.

    Whether we like this image or not, I am suggesting if we would like to be heard and understood by the voting public, then we probably need to constructively address these images. (This isn’t necessarily saying that we have to be better dressed than “judges” or thieves.)

    These images have been repeated and used in propaganda by several judges, in defending their roles in familycaught$ malpractices and thievery:
    Judge speaks up on Family Court criticisms By Chris Barton 4:59 AM Saturday Jun 10, 2006

    I apologise, if you felt that I was taking any pleasure in repeating these comments. If I am a ruffian and cheapskate, so what? Mainly I want familycaught$ to be competent, cost effective and protect all family members from each other and lawyers too.

    Cheers, Murray.

  31. Oh Dear says:

    Oh Dear,
    Owen Glen inquiry has appointed a Think Tank of 36 International and local “creative thinkers” and “subject experts”.
    Among the subject experts is Neville Robertson who has raised his head here once before and when asked for a meeting to discuss ideas refused.
    Other names include Catriona MacLennan well known Women’s Refugue lawyer of Auckland.
    Janet Fanslow, Vivienne Elizabeth and Nicola Gavey from Auckland University bring their “research” and prejudice to the table as well.
    There are a few people who may bring creativity but clearly the weight of qualitative evidence is stacked in favour of 24 women whose stories form the basis of a lot of “research”.
    Professor Ferguson is notably absent.

  32. Oh Dear says:

    If you would like to see the full list it is available at

    https://glenninquiry.org.nz/who-is-involved-in-the-glenn-inquiry

  33. Skeptic says:

    Thanks Oh Dear @31, 32.
    It looks too much like a who’s who of those feminists who have lead to the mess we’re in!
    Some of the least creative sorts I can think of who are apparently still operating from a long ago dis-proven Duluth, Minnesota model paradigm – gynocentric dinosaurs.

  34. MurrayBacon says:

    Owen Glenn rejects claims of funding issues
    NewstalkZB | 08:07am Sat 02 Feb 2013
    Sir Owen Glenn’s rejecting claims he’s got issues with his funding for anti-child abuse objectives.

    The millionaire philanthropist who was knighted in the New Year’s Honours is funding a number of key projects in fighting family violence.

    Sir Owen has pledged to give a tenth of his $800 million fortune to combating child abuse.

    He says he’s planning on spending lots of time in New Zealand this year to see the money poured into community projects in Otara.

    That money will come from his foundation, which is funded by his family trust, but overseas trustees are reportedly against the idea.

    Sir Owen says he’s in discussion with his trustees, and it’s a personal matter.

  35. Gwahir says:

    Why focus on Otara? Is this saying child abuse is exclusive to this particular community! Sorry Mr Glen it’s everywhere.

    If you are talking about a “Pilot Scheme” why not say so!

  36. roo says:

    Mr Glenn and his panel are asking for assistance with experiences of child abuse. I have signed up to give this information to him. The abuse of children by the New Zealand family court. Abuse of process, andjustice in many cases leaving children without a parent, usually father. The Pyscological abuse of children is on the rise according to the statistics. Statisticssupplied by those who (incredibly) seem to finacially benefit from “treating/councelling” these children. These facts are of course supported by our friendly team of lawyers at the family court as suits their needs. Mr Glenn should really have all of these facts to hand. There are many forms of child abuse, some of these are state supported and sponsered. Surely these would be the easiest to fix Mr Glenn and would be worth investing in.

  37. Gwahir says:

    Yes Roo, it is called systemic abuse! Don’t forget the abuse visited upon children by the government department supposedly charged with protecting them. I refer ofcourse to the department of child youth and family along with their sychophants!

  38. roo says:

    Indeed. They are part of the state sponsered and supported by the state. I just think that if Mr Glenn wishes to “spend his dosh” wisely then he should have some facts that won’t be given to him by his new “panel of creative thinkers” because these kind of facts will of course undermine somewhat their statistics. And of course Mr Glenns kind donations is obviously the new “gravy train” to be on for those who finacially benefit from councelling/treating the victims of their own Stats. More stats more money!!!!!More damaged kids more money!!! I applaud Mr Glenns wish to help, and believe he has the childrens best interests at heart, but believe he needs information from those outside the “experts” (most it seems who don’t actually have children) or real personal experience with the family court, CYFTS and its circus of hanger on service providers.

  39. Gwahir says:

    I read the list of Owen Glen’s panel, What a mess. There is only one I could carry any trust in.

    I believe this group could come up with a much preferable alternative group. I must admit I can think of several highly experienced ladies also who would have a positive contribution to make! Suggestions Gentlemen. Did you spot the diamond in the dungheap of owen glen’s group.

  40. Allan Harvey says:

    There are 2 in the Glenn group I have confidence in but I’m not going to name them here.

  41. roo says:

    I know none of these people. What I do know is that what the are attempting to do is great. Its how they do it, and what information they have to decide how to go forward. We need to ensure Dads are not left out, and that the causes of these statistics that have driven this groups existence are truthfuly known. It would be interesting to know what Mr Glenn has been told, and what has been left out from the information given to him. I would suggest that given the “status” of the professionals involved, that the common “man” will be probably be the cause of a lot of these statistics, and not the common woman. I will happily go along and discuss with the “panel”.

  42. golfa says:

    #41 roo, looking through the list, I can’t see ONE person who will speak up for Dads. Or men for that matter. They all look to me like if the issue was solved, they’d be out of a job and their “careers” would be over.

  43. Gwahir says:

    @ Roo & Golfa, I would encourage you to closely examine the credential of those New Zealanders on the list and lobby thore (Both Male & Female) that show some measure of sympathy with your views.

    Positivity can achieve much more, especially if supported with hard facts!

    The weaponry is available to you. You only need the perception to see like minded people, join with them then the courage to stand up!

  44. roo says:

    #42 and #43. Not knowing anyone on the list I don’t know anyone who will speak up for dads either. Thats why I figure someone should be at least haveing a look to see it their is the opportunity to do that. I don’t believe that is the most important iem on the agenda here though. Someone needs to get across to the panel if possible there are other causes that are just as abusive to children, ie the state entities (cyfs, IRD and Justice) the law (process the family court and lawyers) and the cottage industries (psychologists, councellors, etc) all of those who benefit from prolonged assosiation with parents and children financially. I believe that these could be addressed using Mr Glenns $$. As far as speaking up for dads to this panel, if I am the only Dad volenteering, then I guess that will be me then.

  45. Gwahir says:

    Roo, you have caught on! Examine the list of members. Thouroughly scrutinise their history. (Google is your friend) and contact your favourite! Be (Very) positive. You are not the only one taking this approach.

    The more the better. Use your own style. It will shout louder than Form letters. As an individual you can cite your own experiences and observations. If Practical, offer to meet them. Good luck. Remember you are not alone! The worst outcome for you personally is to have your letter trashed. Do not post here, other than to say it is done! That way we have individual cases! Believe me there will be many similarities!

  46. roo says:

    #45 google has been my friend all day:) You are right they are all members 🙂

  47. roo says:

    I have received a reply from the Glenn Inquiry people. And surprise surprise it seems that they are interested only in children, women and their families as you can see. There is no reference to men or dads.
    Mr Gelenn you are going to be wasting your money. I will be popping along to meet with them to discuss my take on the mens aspect of the following.

    This inquiry is about the Solutions – what do we need to do about ensuring the safety, protection and well being of Children, Women their Families and Whanau in this country. In order for the Glenn Inquiry to develop a Blueprint for Action we need your input, your views, your suggestions, and your recommendations as to how this can happen.

    To date we have received hundreds of emails from Survivors, Front Line Workers, Those Affected and Supporters sharing with us their views, opinions, suggestions and recommendations for change in New Zealand via email and phone and soon we will be visiting 20 towns throughout the country to hear from Survivors and Front Line Workers themselves firsthand. Thus, if you wish to speak to the Glenn Inquiry about your recommendations (what is working, what is not working and what System changes need to happen) then please keep in contact with us.

  48. Gwahir says:

    Reading between the lines of their response, Men are not part of the families.

  49. Manu Caddie says:

    Hi guys, I’m a member of the Think Tank for the Glenn Inquiry and you may be happy (or disappointed) to know my career certainly wouldn’t be over if we solved the issues of family violence and child abuse. I am a dad of two young children (7 and 11) and keen to ensure the voices of any men who wish to contribute are heard and taken into account through the process. Having helped establish men’s groups, organisations and services in Gisborne I have some local and national networks but welcome any of you to contact me directly. The Inquiry doesn’t have the resources to get involved in individual cases or situations but if there are messages, stories or key issues you want to share, please do.
    Cheers,
    Manu Caddie (manu@ahi.co.nz).

  50. Gwahir says:

    The main reason you don’t hear from men is that they have learn’t – the hard way – that they have no rights. You are ignoring the males who are victims of female abuse. Police statistics revealed that the biggest abusers of children are their mothers! We hear our educators crying out for more males right accross the board.

    Women are not the innocent little darlings you may believe! Police 10-7 14 march more females were wanted or in trouble than males!

    I suggest you widen the scope of your enquiry to include ALL abuse of children, not restricting it to any culture or gender. Male interest may become a little higher!

    You could jouin Pauls-News a “Secret” Yahoo group working more fore equality. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pauls-news/ but be open who you are. They are very sensitive.

    Basically men treat the Owen Glen Enquiry as a joke. Hence the lack of interest. The choice is yours, prove us wrong (Please) silence only supports the antagonism towards females!

  51. Gwahir says:

    BTW Manu, I have faith only in one member in the whole panel (Sorry it is not you – YET) I am certain that John (List Owner) would be only to happy to have MENZ used positively.

  52. Paul Catton says:

    Dear Manu,

    I feel you have an audacity as to now finally commenting like a”Jack in the Box” upon this Menz forum without regard to having researched this site and the numerous Posters.
    Perhaps your start of dialogue should have been with the privately financially constrained providers of services for Men who are well documented.
    Union of Fathers, John Potter Menz Webmaster, Child Reunion, Father and Child,etc……..
    Simple research upon this site should conclusively suggest “all is not right”.

    I am always available to also provide insight.

    Paul Catton

    South Auckland Refuge for Men with Families
    (09) 269 4411
    021 221 9192

  53. Down Under says:

    Well, Manu – you have established men’s group. Jolly good, so have dozens of men, who have contributed to or view this site, you are not alone there. When they have understood some of the issues, apart from the philanthropically self-serving ones, they have written about their experiences, observations and thoughts here. Consider this some bedtime reading – a bit like the bible, you do not have to read it cover to cover, if you find an author that particularly interests you can read that book for a little inspiration or understanding.

    When you get over your arrogance and your ignorance feel free to join the discussion and perhaps then, you might have something to contribute to your cause.

  54. Scrap_The_CSA says:

    Hi Manu,

    I see from your website that you are actively involved in the white ribbon campagn. Could you please outline your position on female partner violence toward men and children and your experience in this.

    Also coud you please provide links to the social researh you have authored.

    Regards

    Scrap

  55. Manu Caddie says:

    The tone of your posts suggests you are sceptical at best about my interest in your views. I’d prefer to hear something specific any of you individually or collectively thought was important to communicate to the Glenn Inquiry based on the scope of what we are interested in, rather than wade by way through ‘the bible’ from cover to cover.
    In terms of my position on female violence toward men, I think it’s as bad as male violence against women and children should not be exposed to either. We had a meeting of the Inquiry team today and it was very clear from the discussions that this Inquiry is not exclusive to violence against women and children, that violence by women against men is very much part of the scope of the project and we look forward to hearing from anyone interested in speaking to those issues, particularly if they have suggestions for what can and should change to improve the situation for everyone, men, women and children.
    I’ve had the debates with the White Ribbon folk and agree with them that the majority of intimate partner violence resulting in injury and death is still men physically assaulting women, but we all need to acknowledge that male victims of partner violence have just as much need as female victims for support and alternative living arrangements and often those services are do not exist. For this reason in Gisborne we established a safe house that can be used by men who are victims of partner violence along with advocacy and support services specific to men – like all services it struggles to keep the doors open but the outcomes to date over the past three years have been very positive, I can put anyone interested in touch with the people running it now.
    Apart from the odd household object thrown at me during the first year or two of my marriage 15 years ago, I haven’t experienced any significant intimate partner violence myself and don’t purport to be an expert on it or any of the issues covered by the Inquiry. I was asked to participate because Ruth and Owen decided I might have some useful contribution to make and I agreed to do so, bringing the little experience, knowledge and skills I have acquired to date.
    In terms of my social research much of it has been done as a contractor for government departments and NGOs and I don’t think they’ve posted much of it online. I did lead a project on rites of passage for young Māori and that is available here: http://rangatahi.wordpress.com/documents/research/ The stuff I’ve done for Te Puni Kōkiri and the Ministry of Social Development would be available under an OIA request if you really wanted it. I was involved in evaluating the impact of the Campaign For Action on Family Violence for MSD a few years back, that should be of interest I guess.
    I’m not sure why ‘Down Under’ thinks I’m arrogant, but happy to hear more. In terms of being a ‘Jack In the Box’, the thread was brought to my attention, perhaps mistakenly I assumed it was a public discussion given the lack of administrative restrictions on my participation and I thought I’d identify myself as someone on the Inquiry interested in men’s perspectives on the issues in case you were wanting to make some constructive contributions, I guess I’ll just be a ‘silent’ observer if the discussion continues and the majority of you and/or the Admin would prefer I don’t persist with comments or questions. 🙂

  56. Allan Harvey says:

    Hi Manu and others,
    I have known Manu for over 12 years and can vouch for his sincerity and excellent work on many different fronts.
    Personally I think it a good idea for blokes to engage with him as a means of seeking to influence and inform the Glen Inquiry.
    Allan

  57. Gwahir says:

    Thank you for your comments Manu. We may be heading for a meaningful discussion.

    Two points I would like your comments on, On Facebook During the Green Paper submission period it seemed that many posts were being deleted? Including several from our own euridite Hans Laven!

    The same thing happend during the White Ribbon Debate. It became boycotted by men! One of the menbersof this started a page The White Ribbon Debate (www.facebook.com/groups/391716290877922/) It wasopenly stated no post would be taken down or edited except to delete profanity.

    Yoy start mens services in Gisborne Great! Why no mention of Paul Catton also on this group operating in Auckland, totally at his own expense.

    You ask for evidence! 7 years ago I started keeping an Access Database of Newspaper items and court reports of instances of female convictions. It is in Access 2000 but any later version should read it. Sadly it is far from complete 🙁 Interested? It certainly “Evolved” over this period.

  58. Gwahir says:

    Thanks Allan. You I do respect! Iwill follow your advice.

  59. Down Under says:

    @ Manu – You walk into a room full of people and announce your presence and then state, ‘if anyone wants to talk to me, I’ll be outside.’ If that’s not arrogant mate, you have a warped sense of perspective and an attitude that suggest you already know what is best and you’re not prepared to engage with the man in the street. Who the hell do you think you are?

  60. Manu Caddie says:

    Gwahir: Re deleting comments in public forums. I have no other information on those particular situations but expect the Glenn Inquiry will provide opportunities for everyone to be heard, though it’s not about providing a soapbox for every person with an axe to grind in public – my understanding is there will be panels that will hear from people around the country, I think those will mostly be private hearings. I can only say I support free and frank discussion providing it doesn’t attack/defame individuals or disclose information that could jeopardise the rights to privacy or the safety of any individual, particularly children.
    And I didn’t mention Paul Catton, because I’ve had no involvement with his initiative/s. I’m sure there are plenty of other people doing worthwhile things too.
    In terms of your database, happy to have a look and if you have any comments about the trends, issues and suggested action to improve the issues you see based on the stories recorded there, I’d be keen to hear those.

  61. Bruce S says:

    Hi Manu; welcome to MENZ. You say you come from Gisborne? And you say “…and agree with them that the majority of intimate partner violence resulting in injury and death is still men physically assaulting women”. I take it you are aware there have been 3 murders in Gisborne in the last 3 years? And in every case the deceased has been a male? And in every case the perpetrator has been a woman? So Gisborne is an exception to the white ribbon definition of “majority”? Are the men of Gisborne who are regularly being beaten to a pulp by their “lady associates” reporting their partner violence? To whom?

  62. Down Under says:

    Good on you Manu. You have your secret discussions. Let us know when are willing to talk in public with those men wearing the look of the hunted dog.

  63. Manu Caddie says:

    Have you got the details of those three murders in the last three years Bruce? Allan sent me an article from the states that challenges the claim of a majority of victims being women, I asked him if he has some evidence from NZ and welcome any references you may have too. I’m aware of three murder-suicides in Gisborne a few years back where the male was the aggressor and in all three cases killed himself after the attack on his partner.

    ‘Down Under’ – you’re welcome to have your own public discussions, it’s just that most people don’t want to air their dirty laundry in public and public servants don’t want to lose their job by pointing to failings in the system or suggesting alternative approaches in public. If the ‘men who wear the look of the hunted dog’ want to talk in public, I’m sure we can arrange that too, provided it’s focused on what could be done better rather than just as a platform for public blood-letting against some individual or organisation they feel they have been let down or shafted by. The focus has to stay on solutions, not relitigating individual cases. Individual situations are important in understanding the structural issues but that needs to be point of sharing, we are not therapists or judges in this process, simply listening to the stories and drawing out the issues to highlight the problems and identify solutions that we hope and expect a range of stakeholders to then implement.

    Tauawhi Tairāwhiti Mens’ Centre regularly welcomes men who have been both victims and perpetrators of partner violence. Tim Marshall is the Manager if you’d like to contact him to discuss the issues they deal with.

  64. Down Under says:

    This is a public forum. Why don’t you have a look at what the White Ribbon Campaign had to say about the owner of this site just because he existed within the realm of the country. Let us know when you have the balls to take on the feminist media – after all, you are pretending to be a politician, aren’t you. And you’ve got the gall to come here and defend your leader – the silly bitch couldn’t help herself as soon as she had a new platform to launch from.

  65. Bruce S says:

    Hi Manu; nope these weren’t murder suicides; references here:

    1. 2010 – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10646959

    2. 2012 – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10785670

    3. 2013 – http://www.police.govt.nz/news/updates/34507
    Okay – the “death” of Amandeep Singh hasn’t been proven to be murder yet; case still ongoing.

  66. Manu Caddie says:

    Not sure if I’m pretending to be a politician. I got elected and accepted the responsibility so I think that makes me as much a politician as any politician?

    Who’s my leader I’m defending?

    When you say the White Ribbon Campaign made comments about the owner of this site, was that a statement by an individual or everyone involved in the campaign or what?

  67. Gwahir says:

    Personally I am concerned at the White Ribbon Campaigns focus on female victims AND is fully funded by a Government! Now if it were to demonstrate the wearersopposition to violence against Children, Men, and women, I may be much more charitable towards it!

  68. Skeptic says:

    Manu,
    You say –

    “public servants don’t want to lose their job by pointing to failings in the system or suggesting alternative approaches in public”.

    In that case they’re not PUBLIC SERVANTS, because they aren’t serving the public.
    They’re gutless fraudsters sponging off the tax paying public by colluding with inefficient largesse. There’s a word for that – corruption.

  69. Down Under says:

    Not sure if I’m pretending to be a politician. I got elected and accepted the responsibility so I think that makes me as much a politician as any politician?

    You keep thinking like that Manu; with the decreasing voter turnout in this country, that’s a real badge of honour.

    Who’s my leader I’m defending?

    Ruth Herbert, director of the Glenn Inquiry into domestic violence and child abuse (see Focus page 14), said she’d heard many stories of women who felt the court system let them down by allowing abusive former partners open access.
    Herbert said it was proven that in 60 per cent of cases involving domestic violence, the children were also abused, and studies show all children in such situations suffer psychologically.
    Herbert said: “Why would we make things looser if we want to keep children safe? The rest of the world has gone in the other direction.”

    Are you sure Ruth didn’t hand pick you for being young, gullible and manageable.

    When you say the White Ribbon Campaign made comments about the owner of this site, was that a statement by an individual or everyone involved in the campaign or what?

    http://menz.org.nz/2012/comment-on-the-white-ribbon-campaign/

  70. worried says:

    I have something important IMO to add to the inquiry based on regular events in my neighbourhood.

    I think instead of ‘Don’t do this and that’ it would be good to say, ‘Do this and do that’. We are doing this by saying ‘walk away’ instead of ‘don’t hit’, etc and that IMO gives a positive and an answer.

    The only problem then is having the other partner action the ‘Do’. Like ‘do’ let him/her walk away. In my neighbourhood, the partner trying to walk away is being hit and yelled at by the partner who didn’t walk away as they are walking. (mind you, they are also hitting while neighbours come out and the one trying to walk away is standing still).

    I am sure you have already got lots of information on alcohol and drugs and how this loosens anger from both parties and you are aware that we need to give a lot of support to help people process anger (the events leading to anger).

  71. Down Under says:

    https://glenninquiry.org.nz/the-current-situation-in-new-zealand

    The decision has already been made. Blame men.

    Domestic violence is a gendered issue

    The Glenn Inquiry will examine both child abuse and domestic violence as separate but inextricably connected issues. There are two major reasons for this:
    International research shows that children who are directly abused, and those who are exposed to domestic violence, have similar negative outcomes later in life. Exposure to domestic violence needs to be recognised and counted as a type of child abuse – this is not yet happening in New Zealand.
    Police say that in 60% of domestic violence cases children are also being abused and indications are that in a similar percentage of child abuse cases there is also domestic violence occurring. Evidence shows that strategies aimed at addressing child abuse will be unsuccessful or less successful unless any current or past domestic violence is also addressed and vice versa.

  72. Allan Harvey says:

    If you want to take that attitude Down Under than thats fine. Personally I’m happy to talk to people and share my experience and help people dedvelop a wider outlook.

  73. John Brett says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8766754/Corporate-twist-has-family-violence-experts-scared
    Something fundamentally wrong here- is there a difference of opinion?

    Is Own Glen NOT toeing the line?

  74. Scott B says:

    Methinks it is more than a corporate twist that has the family violence “experts” scared!

  75. Down Under says:

    Can’t have any of these corporate attacks on feminism.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22807887

    The Competition Bureau in Ottawa said it has uncovered “evidence” suggesting price-fixing of chocolate.

  76. John Brett says:

    Dear Manu
    A debate was developing on the White Ribbon facebook site site about domestic violence against men and their children. This debate was shut down by White Ribbon, and anyone not supporting their sexist agenda was banned.
    I then started the facebook site “White ribbon Day Debate” https://www.facebook.com/groups/391716290877922/
    This site took off. I have banned nobody from the site.
    I have also written a formal complaint to the Families commission about the sexism of White Ribbon. I hope I contributed to the FC recently cutting WR adrift.
    You need to look a little deeper than just following the spin of the domestic violence industry. In New Zealand many of the biggest social problems result from children being forcibly separated from good fathers, usually by allegations of domestic violence.
    One of those consequences is children living with their mother and mum’s new boyfriend, where they are 75 times more at risk of suffering violence and abuse than they would be if they had been left in the protection of their father.
    People peddling their DV = violence against women agenda (give us money) agenda are themselves responsible for deaths, injuries and poor outcomes for children and their families.
    Just an example- imagine a good Maori father, married to a white women. Imagine she separates, accuses him of being violent, and takes HIS children, and prevents any contact with him, or his Maori family and culture. Imagine that she gets all the help and assistance, and he gets only grief. In addition, HIS children are being abused by her new man. This is a very typical scenario. Put yourself in this man’s place and imagine how you would feel. Regards John

  77. MurrayBacon says:

    At risk of making a fool of myself, here is my attempt to rationalise Why Abuse Project is Broke Down in Tears:
    (I hope that I am wrong and there is a more innocent explanation.)

    Owen Glenn had an idea for a constructive, broad based, evidence based investigation into child abuse. Very Noble.

    His pr lady, Nicki Schurr suggests Ruth Herbert as leader and Owen Glenn accepts and Ruth accepts.

    Ruth Herbert subverts inquiry to have DV as main (actually only) focus and forget children (other than as sympathy gaining symbols to help women’s interests). Rather than have child abuse and neglect experts, she loads it up with women’s DV advocates, all on a gravy train.

    Evidence based as seen by academics, is changed to women’s histories as told by women, thus child abuse has gone completely out the window. The itinerary is kept secret, so that only cherry picked, invited friends can present “evidence” or histories. As it is in secret, there is no possibility to hear any other side of the story from related parties, or to cross examine witnesses. Natural justice will not be allowed to happen here, not even by accident! Quite the opposite of a Government Commission of Enquiry.

    I suspect that Ruth Herbert so loaded down the budget, that the cash supply lines couldn’t keep up and she asked “Please Sir, can I have some more?”.

    Sir Owen realised that money was going out the window fast, with no results to show and asked for wider comment on what was going on. Got comment from wider group of academics, about how child abuse investigation could or should proceed and thus realised what Ruth Herbert was up to.

    Ruth tries to blackmail Owen Glenn, by handing in her resignation expecting him to capitulate, which he gladly accepts! She knew that many people would walk out with her, but this was what Owen Glenn ended up wanting anyway!

    Ruth Herbert’s lackys hiss, spit, sing and dance, as they walk away from the bank, but they have backed the wrong horse.

    Owen Glenn talks to the people that he usually talks to, accountants and lawyers, who persuade him that what he needs is one of THEM to manage the investigation, to keep control ie corporate wank-wank. This means top down control by money, money, money. How else would child abuse researchers be motivated and controlled?

    World renowned practically-fired ex-judge bill wilson gets the job (this is even more wacky than Ruth Herbert previously having the job!).

    Reason that employing lawyer ignorant about Conflict of Interest is more wacky than Ruth Herbert:

    He is known greedy and arrogant, thus probably will end up costing more than Ruth Herbert and her cronies ever did!
    (This seems impossible, but remember he cost Government over $1million just to get him off his arse at SupremeCaught$. He hasn’t started bleeding Owen Glen yet. Within a few months there will be a collection where abused children are asked to donate money, to save Owen Glenn from bill wilson and get the inquiry refunded and moving again.)

    judge bill wilson probably cares about child abuse as much as a prostitute’s john cares about who works in a condom factory. How is he relevant and able to contribute to a useful enquiry about child abuse? What are his strengths and weaknesses? Does he have any history of philanthropy or care for vulnerable people? I haven’t heard about it, but then I haven’t looked. Given the abuse he did of his judge’s job, it is hard to conceive that he is sensitive about child abuse?

    I am scared that Owen Glenn has used up all of his enquiry budget, getting and getting rid of Ruth Herbert and bill wilson. Unless he is willing to refund the entire project, it is dead, lifeless and close to bankrupt in the water.

    Child emotional neglect doesn’t leave visible scars, but the injuries are much more difficult to heal than broken bones. Our entertainment media beats up about physically injured children, but doesn’t give any attention to emotional neglect, which damages far more children, by a worse amount.

    Anyway, NZ is not much worse off for this entertainment, other than attention has again been distracted away from child neglect and abuse.

    Again, I hope that I am wrong! MurrayBacon – just another axe murderer.

  78. Down Under says:

    Feminism views child abuse in a different manner – it has to in order to have its principles succeed.

    Their three basic principles as I see it are

    1. Women are superior to men.
    2. All women should have equal opportunity (with each other not men)
    3. All women should be protected from failure.

    If a child isn’t feed it is because the woman is financially abused.
    If a woman cannot keep the child clean and tidy, it is because she is a low energy person and should not be expected to do the impossible.
    If a woman lashes out in anger it is because she lacks the support she needs to cope with life.
    If there is an unwanted pregnancy it was a man’s fault etc, etc.

    In the early days, feminism targeted the individual man, it was easy to get away with that shame and blame which society ignored.

    Since, the blame game has grown to all men are bastards and now even further to the point of domestic violence having evolved its own political definition far beyond any discord in a family home.

    In this respect there is no way that you could have an inquiry into child abuse and domestic violence – well certainly not one conducted by feminists from the domestic violence industry.

    The Glen Inquiry was only ever going to get as far as someone counting the cash, the corporate approach, throw a hissy fit and walk off.

    It’s not like the feminists need the money, however many million Glen was prepared to stump up is a drop in the bucket compared to what can be sourced through government.

    I wonder if the man will be returning his knighthood now that he realises he got it from the House of the Bitch rather than the House of Windsor.

  79. JohnPotter says:

    I think you’ve hit the nail pretty much on the head, MurrayBacon.

    Ms Herbert certainly makes no secret of her ideological bias:

    “Seventy per cent of the child abuse cases also have domestic violence happening, mostly the father abusing the mother,” she explained.

    It’s pretty clear Herbert was committed to making sure the outcome of her ‘inquiry’ would follow the feminist hard-line:

    In April, Ms Schuck and Ms Herbert helped the Weekend Herald to interview a survivor of domestic violence for a story about Family Court reform, but Ms Herbert and the survivor withdrew their comments the day before publication because the story also included comments from a men’s group activist who was alleged to have abused his partner.

    Does anyone know who this allegedly abusive ‘men’s group activist’ is?

    According to Matt McCarten, the problem is that Owen Glenn is a bully. Many tycoons like Glenn even ‘display psychopathic traits’, apparently.

    But I think McCarten gives Glenn one piece of sound advice:

    But here’s the key to success. To ensure his place in the sun he needs the support of experts in the anti-violence community.

    In our society, any male looking for social affirmation and prestige does well if he is prepared to become a feminist toady. Glenn presumably realises this – so perhaps his motives are genuine?

    There are some interesting comments on the McCarten article. This first one is almost certainly written by someone close to the centre of the feminist spin-machine.

    These are the lies which enable ‘business as usual’ within the domestic violence industry, and which inhibit any criticism or challenge by non-feminists.

    brn (New Zealand) 02:12 PM Sunday, 2 Jun 2013
    Matt McCarten is quite correct in his analysis – and more. One correction to some subsequent comments (e.g. John). The ‘evidence-based’ approach was the approach sought by the Herbert-led team, not Glenn. Therein, I suspect, lay part of the problem.

    Any comments regarding a so-called ‘domestic violence industry’ usually come from males frequently associated with groups that define themselves (contentiously) as ‘men’s rights groups’ and simply ignore the empirical fact that domestic violence is deeply gendered.

    I like many other Pakeha, Maori and Pacific males want to see a future where we as males acknowledge patriarchy (in all its forms), learn to act differently, and treat women and children with the respect, integrity and autonomy that is their right.

    It can only be hoped that some of the supposedly evil “corporate” types controlling Glenn’s investigation share this guy’s view.

    Professor Bunson Honeydew (New Zealand) 09:42 AM Sunday, 2 Jun 2013
    “But here’s the key to success. To ensure his place in the sun he needs the support of experts in the anti-violence community.”

    No he doesn’t. If they were experts they would have been making progress but they aren’t. He needs to think outside the square, kick butts inside and outside parliament, name and shame.

    We wont get anywhere by consulting the very people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. No turkey in social welfare is going to vote for an early Xmas.

    I think Owen Glenn would have got far more value from hiring Professor Honeydew to head his inquiry instead of Ruth Herbert!

  80. MurrayBacon says:

    Radio New Zealand: 07:28
    The chair of Sir Owen Glenn’s inquiry into family violence says he’s confident the $2 million can go ahead, despite three of the inquiry’s four chairpersons resigning: Owen Glenn’s inquiry chair says confident inquiry will go ahead

    He doesn’t say anything new or unpredictable.

    I hope that the inquiry can get back onto child abuse, but all of the entrenched interests are fighting each other and carefully keeping the discussion away from Child Protection. While the infighting is going on, children are being wasted and money isn’t being protected.

    Although women might be the obvious candidates for accusations of child neglect and emotional neglect, a large part of the underlying problem is men not being willing to take a large and patient role in bringing up children when the need arises, in the way that they did through the millenia up to 2000BC. MurrayBacon – from back in the jungle.

  81. Down Under says:

    Glenn did not inform inquiry staff of the allegation, and did not tell the government-backed White Ribbon anti-violence campaign, for which he has applied to become an ambassador.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8859258/Millionaire-philanthropist-denies-abuse-claim

  82. Allan Harvey says:

    Maybe that is because he realises allegations may be just that and that the Police, legal system and Family Courts work on the theory that an allegation equals fact.

  83. Steve says:

    And neither would I tell any potential employer or colleagues or employees of unfounded allegations against me, including anything where charges were simply dropped. Glenn O did the right thing.
    And even if he ever had been found guilty of an assault on a woman (or anyone else), would that invalidate him spending his own money to help resolve issues of domestic violence in this country? No.
    If anything, the only thing Owen G is guilty of, is buying into the feminist victim industry foundation stone that DV only occurs by men against women.

  84. Bruce S says:

    Allan #82 – “…allegation equals fact”. Yes that; and in the feminized “justice” system, all men are guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

  85. John Brett says:

    Steve beat me to say this. If I am charged with a felony, theft,violence, murder, the Police can of course question me. They cannot however detain me longer than a set time unless they charge or arrest me. I cannot be dismissed from my job,denied access to public places, or even stopped from driving (say if charged with a driving offense). If I am charged with ‘abuse’ (wrong use?) of a woman or a child, I am GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. I am prevented from contact with my children, can be dismissed from my job, denied access to schools, kindergartens etc. I get called ‘you people’, and ‘the abuser’ and ‘the perpetrator’. To PROVE MY INNOCENCE is very difficult, my lawyer said IMPOSSIBLE. For these reasons I have had to refuse my grandchildren ACCESS TO ME. They have grown up without their grandad, because of my fear of ‘the perpetrator’ re-offending, as she is probably still angry about losing the last time.

  86. Pretty In Pink says:

    Ah … the power!!!!!
    By the mere allegation of a mere suspicion, women can get their way, block men from any involvement in not only their children’s lives, but also their grandchildren. Sorry to hear your plight, John B. Never a truer word spoken in the Bible [s]”He punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation” (Exodus 34:7).
    Women don’t care if they hurt their children. They don’t care to take a father or a grandfather away from their child. Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned. Punish her ex; Punish her ex; Punish her ex. That’s all it is about.
    To Owen Glenn – see, your past shall always haunt you, no matter how grounded in fact (or not). Anything to see the downfall of a man. Anything to cut a tall poppy. My suggestion: take your money, go enjoy your life. Spend it on yourself. F### the victims of abuse you tried to help.

  87. John Brett says:

    Hello Pretty in Pink. I take issue with use of the biblical quote ” ‘He punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation’ (Exodus 34:7).
    I am not sure in what context it is meant in the bible, however I have a story about this quote. My youngest daughter Angela was born with Cerebal Palsy, AND and IQ up around 160! She has long since learnt to walk, won the Catherine Mansfield young writer of the year prize, gained degrees in maths, computer science, works as a scientist at CERN in Switzerland, pays no tax, has a wonderful life. When I was still married, when she was in a wheelchair, when we still went to church, some busybody church lady quoted this quote at us, over my daughters head, as if she was stupid, or deaf. She was implying that my daughters handicap was due to some sins that God was punishing us for.
    My daughter brought her head up, and said “So- what were your parents being punished for then?” Lady stormed off going “Humph! Humph!” Judge Not Lest You Yourself Be Judged!

  88. Pretty In Pink says:

    John, my quote of the Bible is clearly taken out of context, and applied to your both situation (you have no contact with your second-generation; and also to Owen Glenn where 10 or so year old allegations have been raised to de-rail his current efforts. I have no knowledge of your daughter’s history (and full credit to her for rising above her physical challenges). No offence is meant; however in both cases, (Owen Glenn and your loss of Contact with your grandchildren) it is clear that certain factions are intent on wrecking as much havoc as possible for as long as possible. In that sense, the quote is quite apt.

  89. John Brett says:

    No offence taken- I told the story about my daughter for amusement.I wonder what Owen Glen will learn from this. Is he actually trying to save the world, or is he just wanting to look good to earn praise and credit?

  90. Down Under says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8866546/Owen-Glenn-drops-anti-violence-role-nomination

    Owen Glenn finds out the reality of the feminist machine but what knocked me off my chair is the quote from failed family court judge Boshier. When did the family court ever take the word of a man when there was no evidence to the contrary.

    “Sir Owen stands by his statement that he is living violence-free, and that he has no history of violence towards women or children. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, we must take Sir Owen at his word,” Boshier said.

  91. Scott B says:

    Once again a NZ man is treated as though he is guilty just on the word of a woman. And what a surprise, our old friend judge bolshy fronts up and treats him as guilty too. Remember the charges were dropped. Ah good old fem zealand.

  92. Jack says:

    Hehe – funny how people like to quote that Exodus 34:7 verse like its all bad news. I prefer Exodus 20:5-6 which has a much happier ending: “…punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me…”

    Agree entirely with your conclusion also John. Personally I like to apply this one: 1 Corinthians 5:12: “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?”

    Having said that, the issues here apply across the board regardless of race/colour/creed. The main problem would appear to be gender.

  93. kumar says:

    Shocked to see ex-principal fam caught official as “Chairman” of anti violence specially targetting men. Shows his inherent bias towards men while he was at the helm of affairs as a Principal. Should those not be totally “Unbiased” institutions.??? Is it not their job to be “Unbiased”. All cases and decisions should be audited and re-visited to check this “bias”.

  94. John Brett says:

    I actually got WR posters banned from Family Courts due to sexism. No doubt they have crept back in their usual cockroachy way.
    Of course WR is sexist- this is why we set up this facebook page https://www.facebook.com/groups/391716290877922/, after being BLOCKED from the official WR facebook page https://www.facebook.com/groups/181428761872686/ which is NOT OPEN as advertised.

  95. kumar says:

    This link doesn’t work John

  96. John Brett says:

    Worked for me just now

  97. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    The white knight NZ Herald is now making a celebrity out of the woman who accused Sir Owen Glenn of violence a decade ago before withdrawing the allegation and allowing a ‘no contest’ outcome. She has now refused to answer his charge that her allegation was false and designed to extort money from him, or his claim that she recently contacted him again wanting money now in return for making a statement to clarify that her previous allegations had been incorrect. Yet the Herald simply accepts her refusal without drawing any implications, and goes back to describing her life and history in glowing terms, also promising more exposure that will bless us all with her opinions on his enquiry. Yay!

  98. Skeptic says:

    “White Knight” NZ Herald – Spot on. love it!

  99. MurrayBacon says:

    Glenn inquiry stonewalling (dated Sunday Mar 23, 2014)

    A few weeks ago, we were told:

    Inquiry into family violence report due (dated Sunday Feb 23, 2014)

  100. Bruce S says:

    Murray (#99) – from the article; “Somebody needs to start asking, ‘what are these guys doing?’ Any chance that a massage is in the works to insure the outcomes just confirm the over publicized gender stereotypes, innuendo and rhetoric? We can’t have a report that undoes all the radical feminist “misdirections” by actually revealing the truth now can we?

    Brings to mind what Marc Bekoff said – ‘The plural of anecdote is not data.’

  101. Allan Harvey says:

    Fathers hugely overwhelming number of interviews were done with women and feminist groups. I do not expect any conclusions outside of the standard line from this lot.

  102. Allan Harvey says:

    Not sure how the word fathers made it into the above post. I suspect over 70% of people interviewed were women.

  103. MurrayBacon says:

    One father told me that he was listened to patiently and courteously, in one of the inquiry’s meetings in Hawkes Bay. It will be interesting to see if the Inquiry hears men, any more or any less than familycaught$ hears men?

  104. Downunder says:

    Ludditejourno This is ACC Sexual Violence Injury Prevention Programme manager Sandra Dickson.

    Gives a good insight into the introspective thinking that occupies some of our government agencies.

    What should feminists make of the Glenn Inquiry?

    Owen Glenn pledged $80 million to sort out child abuse and domestic violence, including a $2 million inquiry to answer the question:

    “If New Zealand was leading the world in addressing child abuse and domestic violence what would that look like?”

    The appointment of Ruth Herbert to head the Inquiry was the best decision Owen Glenn could have made, and her swift recruitment of the most well-connected (to community) and well-informed (about the dynamics of domestic violence) to advise this Inquiry was inspired. Her staff choices were not half bad either, including several women with many, many years of experience responding to domestic violence and working with survivors.

    Disclaimer: I know Ruth Herbert professionally, and have done for many years. She is, in my opinion, the single most brilliant feminist structural thinker working in the gendered violence sector in New Zealand. Which doesn’t mean I always agree with her – but it does mean if I was going to pick one feminist to change structures which fail to ensure victims of domestic violence are safe, and fail to hold people using abuse to account, it would be her.

    All swims along nicely. There’s a website, community meetings starting to take place, and of course that Think Tank.

    Then in May, Ruth Herbert and her Operations Manager Jessica Trask both resign. In just over a month, 28 of the 38 original Think Tank members have left, and the old allegation of assault which Mr Glenn pled no contest for becomes public knowledge. Other staff members also resign.

    Ms Herbert and Ms Trask make it clear there are confidentiality issues in the leaving of the Glenn Inquiry, and who knows how much legal action someone with Mr Glenn’s fortune can buy? So the exact issues at play in all these resignations are sketchy.

    But was has been made clear is the issues at the root of this were safety. In the words of one of the former interviewers for the Inquiry:

    “I think the safety, the literal life and death safety of these people is in jeopardy at the moment under an inquiry being run by people who haven’t experienced [domesticviolence] and have no understanding of how real it is.” She hoped experts were”warning off”victims who had been asked to co-operate.

    It’s hard to see how this is salvageable, but then to complicate matters further, a quite astonishing review is made public, which makes allegations about the practices of the Inquiry under Ms Herbert and Ms Trask. Allegations, it turns out, they were unaware of:

    “We were unaware the report was being released and were given no opportunity to respond to the direct criticisms about us contained in the report before it was published. We continue to be unable to speak publicly due to the confidentiality clause in the contracts we had with the Glenn Family Foundation. We are now seeking legal advice.”

    This is astonishing precisely because, if the problem was Ms Herbert, why have 28 out of 38 Think Tank members resigned because she left?

    It’s hard not to see this “independent” review as a contracted cover-up, with just a little bit of utu thrown in. The report says the authors were “engaged” but it’s unclear if that means the Inquiry paid them, or if they were paid, how much. The authors make their priorities clear when they state:

    the most critical challenge for the Board was to secure stability within the organisation, ensure that the leadership and management could function effectively and was sufficiently resilient to withstand any attempt to dislodge the purpose of the inquiry.

    They go on to make a bunch of recommendations about data storage, governance and dis-establishing the Think Tank. They also think the Glenn Inquiry should hire a PR specialist in there pronto.

    Today a critique of this review surfaced, from a former Think Tank member Rachel Simon-Kumar. If you read one link to this post, go to this one:

    Nowhere in the executive summary is there an actual definition of the term “safety” that the authors are trying to evaluate”¦.

    The concern with this lack of rigour is that the report focuses on aspects of personal relationships that are irrelevant to safety (ideal, though, for character assassination) but alongside, misses out on key issues central to understanding it.

    Central to women-centred research is the understanding that safety is not merely about data collection, storage or retrieval; it is equally about who interprets the data and draws conclusions from them. The values and the framing of the findings is central to ensuring safety of voices of survivors.

    In the end, it seems the inquiry would have been served best if a fully objective review had been undertaken by experts who have the skill sets to assess women-centred research. Until such time, it is safe to say that the perils that others have pointed to still persist.

    I’m going to leave you with the words of Louise Nicholas, who can always be relied on to put the safety of survivors first. She withdrew her support immediately after Ruth Herbert and Jessica Trask resigned.

    When I heard that Ruth Herbert and Jessica Trask had resigned from the inquiry I didn’t believe there was any safety left for survivors I was going to support through this inquiry. My own personal opinion is it isn’t safe for survivors.

  105. John Brett says:

    I wonder what Own Glenn imagined he could achieve.
    I wonder what preconceived ideas he had before he volunteered his money?
    And now- I wonder what he thinks?

  106. MurrayBacon says:

    Reading Sandra Dickson’s discussion, I am left with worries that the sky is falling in?

    My 2 cents worth about what Owen Glenn’s money might have been able to achieve:

    Sir Owen Glenn identified the largest set of problems that underlie NZ society – domestic violence and abuse of children. It is not enjoyable, to look at the darkest faces of our society. But the benefits from this work are large, most of all for the people who should be given a fair start in life. Even if we are in a secure family, addressing these issues might benefit our grandchildren or even our own children.

    Sir Owen earlier offered to part-fund a new building for the Auckland University Business School. That project is now turning out a thousand business graduates a year. He is very successful at identifying worthwhile targets.

    Owen Glenn publicly identified murdered and assaulted children as his intended beneficiaries, at other times he mentioned abuse, which includes emotional neglect.

    Most media discussion has been about physically injured children and mothers. There are far larger numbers of children who are under-developed, due to emotional and social neglect. Emotional neglect causes damaged development for the child, that is far harder to cure, than physical injuries. For every child savagely beaten or murdered, there are many hundreds of deprived children.

    Intuitively, we might expect bruise-less, emotionally deprived children to be healed with just a few good meals and a kiss and hug. A broken bone may heal in six weeks but, counter-intuitively, emotional deprivation often takes decades to heal. Better to not let emotional deprivation happen in the first place.

    Presently, there is good evidence about the extent of physical abuse, but relatively little direct evidence about the prevalence of emotional neglect in our population of children. School records, crime surveys, hospital records and court records provide indirect evidence, which allows us to infer the extent of emotional neglect in our population of children, 20 years ago.

    Sir Peter Gluckman, The Government’s Chief Science Advisor, has been encouraging the government to base social policy on careful research evidence and social policy analysis, rather than ideology. The social challenge is that sympathy is loud and most evidence is quiet. Unless we are careful, ideology rules over evidence and analysis. These problems become all the bigger, when there is insufficient research and analysis.

    The Government has been challenging teachers on their poor ability to lift up the outcomes of the lowest two performance deciles of children. Although our teachers are now better trained in general teaching and remedial teaching than they have ever been, the evidence shows our lowest group of children are still slipping backwards. The ability to be educated, of our lowest two deciles is becoming an intractable problem, that cannot be effectively solved in schools. We are talking about two hundred thousand disadvantaged children.

    The Glenn Inquiry has assembled a collection of mainly women’s stories of violence and abuse, at the hands of men. In one sense this is evidence, but having been taken from only one side of arguments, it lacks the rigour of challenge by the other party and by outside observers who might have insights lacked by the parties themselves. These stories are perhaps a rather unsatisfactory type of evidence, not suitable for the purpose of safely changing legislation or social policy. The truth, the whole truth?

    Throughout the world, there have been projects to protect and develop these lowest performing children, such as Early Start in USA (which provides well managed pre-schooling for 3 to 5 year old children). But when these projects have been carefully evaluated, the evidence shows the delivered outcomes have been much less than had been expected.

    In NZ, Brainwave Trust has been spreading the message that babies need active, patient and loving parenting. They show neurological evidence of the effects of deprivation on baby’s brains, in the form of MRI scan images. Children who are denied attentive and loving parenting, tend to clog our schools and fill our prisons. We have a duty to protect and develop every one of our children.

    If resource wealth isn’t the determinant of satisfactory parenting, then what is? There is a long list of factors which increase the risk of negligent parenting, but none guarantee it. By the time that emotional deprivation can be detected, huge damage has already been done. Observation of children cannot be a basis for successfully protecting children from emotional neglect. If the parents had a happy childhood, then the risks to their children are much reduced, but this is not a sufficient basis to license parents. It is hard to measure a child’s social wealth, but much easier to check on parent’s proven experience of caring for babies.

    Lack of motivation to care for children is a large factor. Unfortunately, depression is one of the problems with a high degree of risk to babies left alone with an adult. Substance abuse is also high risk. In NZ, both of these are fairly common in new and inexperienced parents. Clearly there is a high need for more support for young parents, which isn’t being satisfactorily met at present. The nuclear family concept is fine for the half of parents who are skilled, but for the less skilled and experienced half of parents, they will need far more intensive support, if the children are to be safeguarded. (Can we remember Plunket nurses?) Babies are adept at taking the best from their parents, that they have frequent daily contact with, even if only for an hour. Wider families generally offer children better protection from the limitations of their parents, when this is required.

    Protecting children by waiting for the damage to be done, cannot successfully protect children from damage. Child protection can only be successfully done proactively, by making sure that babies are never left alone with unqualified parents or caregivers, for more than an occasional few hours.

    I would prefer that we let anyone drive on our roads and fly in our skies and that we licensed parents.

    Presently we damage more children emotionally, through inadequate parenting, than we injure or kill on the roads. These injuries are not coloured red and black and blue. Photographs of injured limbs are loud, but evidence of deprived children is almost silent. They only make headlines if the end result is murder or mayhem or suicide years later.

    If we were more knowledgeable about child deprivation, we would be more motivated to prevent these children from becoming deprived, rather than focus only on injuries.

    The ball we should be watching is measured in DALY (Disability Adjusted Lost Years), a metric developed by World Health Organisation, for prioritising Government intervention funds in healthcare, education and social services. We measure our road toll in deaths, but the damaged and lost living is a bigger issue and bigger problem. By another name, we should look for society wide wellness and happiness.

    Rather than dwell on murdered children, we should be putting the larger focus onto emotional damage of children and acting to protect all children from insufficient, inadequate and dangerous parenting.

    I am suggesting that if babies were reliably protected from being left alone with unqualified parents, most of our lowest two deciles of children would enjoy performing reasonably well in school and later in the workplace too. Fewer teachers would be required (and fewer jailors too).

    Separations are the single adult behaviour, that results in the most children being left alone with one parent for significant periods of time. The evidence from child outcomes shows that we are mismanaging separations, by failing to protect children from the long term effects in many cases. Children need at least two significant and active relationships, preferably more.

    If many parents lack the knowledge about which situations are likely to be hazardous for children, then there is a need to restrict separations, so that they cannot hazard the children’s development. Staying together for the children’s sake may have been painful for parents, but it gave children far better protection than many of today’s separations.
    Respectfully handled separations will protect children, though it won’t give some parents the freedom that they demand. Having children has always been a big compromise. Less skilled parents may be able to parent while together, but when separated, they may be quite hazardous to their children.

    Is our Family Court acting to reduce hazard to children, or unwittingly leaving children exposed to much greater mental health injury hazard after separation? The quiet evidence does not look good.

    Are our courts evaluating real evidence carefully, with an eye to protecting children’s welfare, or are they media shy and making decisions targeted to reduce the risks of them being loudly, publicly exposed as failing to address accusations of violence? Unless we are careful, sympathy rules over weighing of evidence. In the absence of real evidence, no-one can foresee every single outcome. Nonetheless, a partly child focused approach would put less pressure on parents to fight in court, on a winner takes all basis.

    Careless sympathy takes us to worrying only about physically injured children. If we are not focussed on wellness for everyone, we easily ignore the plight of the large number of emotionally deprived children.

    Child protection agencies have been turning towards projects aimed at developing and protecting younger and younger children. (Many medical projects now start pre-natal. For example, encouraging women to avoid alcohol and drugs, if they are not sure of contraception.) Baby’s development depends critically on the way that they are responded to. If parents are depressed and not motivated, or are distracted by spending all their hours working or looking for drugs, then their babies will remain unstimulated and under-developed.

    Neglected children are found in wealthy households, roughly as often as in poor households. Although there are no visible bruises, these emotional scars of under development may take decades to heal, if at all. How long is a life sentence for murder? (About the same time as the time it takes to heal from emotional deprivation.)

    Research into adult’s suicide issues, repeatedly raises issues about the quality of parenting, particularly through the first three years of life.
    Valuing motherhood and fatherhood – for our children, not for consumer goods
    NZ as a society has dangerously under spent on social research, usually under $200 million per annum. We have paid a high cost for this long term under investment. Many of our social policies have not worked as hoped, costs have been higher than authorised and social outcomes poorer and perverse. One example is DPB, in terms of financial costs and especially in terms of long term poorer outcomes for the children. Legislation has too often been poorly researched and passed into law under urgency and a party vote. Ideology has substituted for research and analysis. When these good-management and democratic safeguards are bypassed, there is much social hazard. (Our Building Act is another less expensive example.)

    Philanthropists who are considering entering into an area, where spending is dominated by Governments and large well funded charities, cannot hope to compete on an equal footing. Usually they will try to target gaps and blind spots in the Government’s approaches and achieve what the Government could not, due to its political and ideological limitations. In a sense, this is what Sir Owen was trying to do, but he didn’t stand far enough back from the protagonists, to get a broad view.

    In Alberta Canada, the Norlien Foundation has traditionally targeted adult disabilities. As it has developed further, it has initiated projects for younger and younger children, such as The Alberta Family Wellness Initiative. It has identified gaps in Government funding and performance. It has targeted transferring medical research to the practitioners in the field. In particular, speeding up and securing this transfer of knowledge.

    On entering the less well developed young childhood development area, it has tried to bring together stakeholders, who are too often protagonists. It has made available information about children’s needs, where this seemed lacking. It has tried to assist parents groups to listen and understand each other, to find workable and ongoing solutions to underlying social problems, using good quality evidence supplied by professional social and medical researchers.

    The Norlien Foundation’s methods might be a good example for Sir Owen Glenn’s future philanthropy.

  107. MurrayBacon says:

    Going backwards to 23rd February 2014:

    “He wants this done and he wants this done properly. He has donated a further $1m but if I went to him and said we needed more to get this done I know he would give more.”

  108. John Brett says:

    If I was a multi-millionaire- I would EXPECT, possibly even DEMAND that everybody treated me with GREAT RESPECT
    Because I had the money, or-
    Because I was so clever and/or hardworking to create all the wealth.
    After all, respect is BOUGHT isn’t it?

    I might even start to demand respect for my views on things like- oh- global warming, or football, or politics, or stray cats, or- er- even- DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

    Clearly great expertise on any subject would come naturally from my great wealth!

    It is not as if I was, say, some deadbeat dad, or mum, who has been through the family Court and lost their children to false allegations. Obviously no-one would listen to such a loser!

    Look at the New Year’s Honours list- it’s rich, well-meaning philanthropists like me who deserve the awards, not these losers whose only achievement has been to love their families!

  109. MurrayBacon says:

    Compare and Contrast
    1. Rod Duke quietly gives $36m for research child and adolescent mental health at Auckland University
    2. Owen Glenn protecting children (from violence and neglect) and community development

    I am left wondering if this is a repeat of the story of the tortoise and the hare. The tortoise pays tax without any difficulty in NZ and the hare avoided tax that could have been paid in USA and trusted a commercial lawyer Bill can’t even remember his name?

  110. Downunder says:

    Glenn Inquiry report due Monday:

    Monday’s report will analyse the experience of around 500 survivors, front line workers and offenders who participated in the inquiry.

  111. MurrayBacon says:

    Tag all family abusers: Judge by STEVE KILGALLON

    The former Supreme Court judge leading the Glenn Inquiry wants to electronically tag men on domestic violence protection orders so an alarm sounds if they approach the family home.

    Bill Wilson, speaking ahead of tomorrow’s release of the inquiry’s People’s Report, also wants a complete reform of the Family Court and is calling on a cross-party commitment to an overhaul of the family violence system.

    ….

    “I believe the country will be shocked by the descriptions of family violence . . . and it is my hope that shock will translate quickly into a widespread agreement, including between the main political parties, that something has to be done as a matter of urgency.”

    The report contains no formal recommendations of reform, which will come in a final report, The Blueprint, in October.

    But Wilson says the patterns he has seen have led him to come up with preliminary ideas of his own.

    An electronic tagging system for domestic-violence offenders could be introduced.

    “We’ve had a number of tragic incidents in recent times where a former partner and children who were meant to be protected by court order have been killed by the man against whom the order was made. That’s an appalling situation.

    “The reality is a man who is minded to attack his former partner and children will not be deterred by a piece of paper. If we can avoid one more situation [like this] then it would be justified.”

    The electronic tags would trigger an alarm with Corrections if the offender breached an agreed perimeter, and they would alert the former partner and police. A similar system has been used in Spain and France.

    In January, Dunedin man Edward Livingstone murdered his children. He had twice breached a protection order his estranged wife, Katharine Webb, had taken out against him but received diversion and a discharge without conviction for the offences.

    Debbie Hager of the Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children said she wasn’t sure that Wilson’s idea would work.

    “It could stop some physical offending but it may not prevent the range of other breaches, for example, phone, text, via children and friends,” she said.

    “Does it take into account freedom of movement? They could still be harassed in the street, at the school gates or at work.”

    Police Minister Anne Tolley said GPS tracking was used for high-risk and child sex offenders, but had been widened to a small number of domestic violence offenders, and the Government was considering ways to expand that number.

    ….

    The Government was also considering a scheme modelled on a British law change called Clare’s Law, which allows police to disclose violence convictions to a new partner.

    Wilson said testimony in the People’s Report also suggested the existing court system was too adversarial and “hostile” and suggested a change to a European-style “inquisitorial” system where a specially trained judge investigates the case.

    “I suspect that hostility comes from the fact of the adversarial system – each party not only puts forward their own case but can attack the case of the other side.”

    Another major theme was the link between binge-drinking and family violence, which Wilson said was unsurprising, but graphically detailed. He said he supported recent attempts to reform the supply of alcohol.

    “It is difficult to quarrel with the position that as a country we have a problem with binge-drinking.”

    Wilson said the inquiry’s independence had seen witnesses be much more open about flaws within government systems, and said there were “certainly issues to be addressed” at Child Youth and Family and the Ministry of Social Development.

    …….
    “We need a groundswell of public opinion [for reform] and we’re hoping the People’s Report will bring that about.”

    – Sunday Star Times

  112. MurrayBacon says:

    Protecting Children from Neglect and Violence
    At present, the familycaught$ allows mothers to unilaterally remove children from the marital home. Although contrary to legislation, this then allows the mother to make all guardianship decisions on her own, with no involvement of the father and no accountability to the father.
    Through the last 30 years, this “mother power and control” has advantaged mother’s freedom of lifestyles, at serious cost to children’s neglect outcomes. Both child neglect and out of control teenagers have become serious social problems. Child neglect creates great difficulties for the children, when they enter school and when they later become parents. We now have 2 full generations of this dynamic. It has been painful and costly to society, to allow mothers to not be accountable to fathers or to society, for the quality of their parenting.
    Entrusting the familycaught$ to make without-evidence POs, has been very destructive to children’s relationships with their fathers and also to the quality of their socialising, thus just adding to the disasters mentioned above.
    This note suggests a move back to making decisions about children’s lives, in accordance with the Care of Children Act, passed by Parliament in 2004, but only occasionally actioned in familycaught$.

    Proactive Protection of Children
    Prior to birth, check on parent’s mental health, experience with caring for babies and young children and the extent of family support that has been arranged.
    Where mental health issues indicate that neither parent has the skills to be left alone with the baby, negotiate 24 hour support and supervision. If these arrangements cannot be completed, to meet the needs to protect the baby, remove the child and make arrangements for permanent placement/adoption.
    Where skills resources appear insufficient, arrange Karitane Nurse support through first 3 months after birth.
    Where the parent’s skills have not developed sufficiently under support (as often occurs for parents who were seriously neglected as children), then the support and supervision may have to be extended through toddlerhood. This can be done through sharing a home with a more experienced couple having older children, or being supervised by a more experienced couple living nearby.
    Parents with good mental health and parenting skills and experience, could parent between 80/20 to 20/80 care of their children. Parents where one has poorer mental health or parenting skills and experience, could parent between 20/80 to 50/50 care of their children. This would be evaluated on the situations of the parents, not just by assuming based on gender. However, support would be targeted, to try to resolve these issues and open up the full range of options for them.
    If parents choose to attend parenting courses, this is likely to allow the relaxation of restrictions on parenting time ratios.
    As the eldest child reach 4 years, very few parents should still be needing such intensive support, except perhaps for a couple of months at the birth of additional children. As children pass through 10 years, the parents may need additional support again. This would be provided similarly to that provided for the protection of toddlers. Support would be offered when the situation indicated possible need, not waiting for serious problems to develop and then offering too little, too late.

    Separation
    If the parents wish to separate, then a new parenting plan would need to be submitted and approved, prior to removing children from the marital home. This avoids the enhanced disputes, that fuel destructive fights in familycaught$ and waste the parent’s time and money resources. This scheme allows parents to look ahead and see what their options in separation would be, without committing themselves. This allows safer decisions to be made, with the least damage and disruption to ongoing parenting relationships.
    Parents with strong mental health would have parenting plans approved through the range 30/70 to 70/30, as long as the children do see both parents daily for children under 3, every 3 days for children under 5 and weekly for children older children. Exceptions may be permitted, by agreement and having been approved.
    Parents with poorer skills and/or mental health would be limited to close to 50/50 care.
    This system gives strong incentives to parents to develop their skills, to improve their wellness and mental health and also helps in arranging support. The concept is that deficiencies are not punished, but draw support and suffer moderate loss of freedoms, as required to protect the children’s developmental interests.

    Disputes between parents
    Disputes between parents would initially be negotiated with assistance from their supervisor/supporter. If this person felt that the nature of the dispute threatened their ability to supervise day to day parenting, they could step back and pass the parents on to more professionally qualified mediators/counsellors. Although this support is quite expensive, it is much lower cost that long term prison sentences for children, caring for families of murder victims, as we do too often at present. The mediator would need to be able to competently judge and resolve parenting disputes and recognise mental health issues and pass one or both parents on to appropriate professionals or community supports.
    The mediation could be expected to keep the majority of disputes at a low level.

    Addressing manipulation and Violence Between Parents
    Where accusations of violence or manipulation were made, these would be mediated as above. If there were real concerns about physical safety, then arrest and imprisonment could be applied through police, based on real evidence and Crimes Act. By addressing issues, rather than by allowing manipulation, the vast majority of disputes should be resolved fairly quickly and with minimal dysfunctional behaviour. Where dysfunctional behaviour does occur, the costs would be brought back to the party who caused it. This incentivises constructive behaviour between parents. Where parents keep on with such behaviours, this reflects poor mental health and changes may be required in parenting plans to protect the children and the other parent. (The familycaught$ steadfastly refused to judge against custodial parents, thus incentivising them to do destructive behaviours. This ended up being destructive to constructive parenting and fathers were often excluded, often due to destructive behaviours by the mother alone. Mediators would need the skills to assess the quality of parental behaviours, to be able to do their job.)
    At present, the familycaught$ enables without-evidence POs to be used to deny children access to their fathers, for extended periods of time. This is the largest single factor resulting in 10 to 15% of children having no working relationship with their fathers. This is not what Parliament intended the DV Act to achieve. Therefore, it is necessary to give this work to mediators qualified in assessing parenting issues, assessing evidence about violence and finding constructive solutions to parenting disagreements.

    Risks Inherent in This Proposal
    Many fathers will find that this scheme demands more of their time, in parenting for the children, particularly those whose wife is poorer in parenting skills or mental health. Many fathers will find that this creates difficulties in negotiating their job situation. Similarly, mothers whose parenting experience, skills or mental health are not satisfactory, will come under more pressure to find employment.
    Finding couples who are experienced at parenting and willing to share their guidance and time, in a medium term commitment, will be a social challenge. Suitable recompense would have to be offered, to cover the demands of this work.
    As many of the parents who are required to put more time into the care of their children, will find that obtaining employment may be a very difficult challenge. I expect that considerable Government assistance would be required, to encourage employers to negotiate part time employment conditions.

    Savings
    The familycaught$ could be retained, just for adjudicating disputes about the custody of family pets and ceremonial duties.

  113. MurrayBacon says:

    The People’s Inquiry into Addressing Child Abuse and Domestic Violence by Glenn Inquiry

    Although called “People’s Report”, it reads more like “Mother’s Complaints”. Fathers are mentioned only in connection with sexual abuse, violence and not in respect of their role in developing and bringing up healthy children. Similarly, sexual abuse of men was very much played down. Neglect was denied to be a mother’s problem, it should be put down to men as well – but with no justification for this claim?

    Reading this report, you wouldn’t realise that 80% of NZ children are brought up pretty well. The report focusses on negatives and appears to ignore that fact that these problems occur in a select minority of NZ. I mention this, because surely positive lessons can be learned from the 80%, to be transferred to the 20% who live out disaster? Wouldn’t this comparison be one of the first places to look for constructive ideas?

    If among the 80%, fathers are a positive, developing, mentoring and supportive force, apparently absent in the 20% who live by disaster – then isn’t there a lesson waiting to be learned?

    Technically, the story recording and concepts transcribing appears to be good. But if you don’t gather sufficient wisdom to address the issues, then the output is doomed to fall on the deficient foundations that were relied upon.

    You cannot solve a problem, with the same brains that built it – attributed to Einstein. Sadly, this appears to be exactly what the Glenn Inquiry are attempting to do.

    Complaints about familycaught$ from women’s point of view. Roughly similar to men’s complaints – so what?
    The suggestions for positive change seemed like “do more, do it harder”. In my opinion, this is a recipe for bigger disasters than we already have.

    Anyway, a few women have enjoyed tripping around the country and being well fed for a time. I guess it shows what a group of women can achieve, given the money, resources and time. In this case, I haven’t seen anything more valuable than bitching?

    Women have had the media ear and all that has been achieved, is to delay solving these serious social problems. I suggest the only positive message out of this, is that it is critically important that men play a substantial and leading role in discussions of how to solve the care and protecting of babies and children in NZ.

  114. MurrayBacon says:

    Women have had the media ear and all that has been achieved, is to delay solving these serious social problems. I suggest the only positive message out of this, is that it is critically important that men play a substantial and leading role in discussions of how to solve the care and protecting of babies and children in NZ. (Besides, if you look at all of the people who have opened up major new areas in child development, every single one is a man. So expecting a major contribution now from a group of women, is obviously unrealistic.) It is time for men to start work.

  115. MurrayBacon says:

    Report welcomed – NZ Herald

    The Human Rights Commission has welcomed the Glenn Report and urged all political parties to work together to realise the human rights of all New Zealanders.

    “Violence is the biggest human rights issue facing New Zealanders, it always has been: its up to all of us to change this,” says Human Rights Commissioner Jackie Blue.

    Families Commissioner Belinda Milnes says the Peoples Report confirms what we already know about the impacts of domestic violence.
    _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
    mcb comment:
    Put into different words – they are saying there is nothing new in the report.
    If this is the case, then it doesn’t sound as though anything useful is likely to come from it.
    I would strenuously disagree with Jackie Blue, that violence is our biggest single problem.
    I suggest that poor parenting motivation and skills is the biggest single problem (especially among solo mothers), closely followed by denying many fathers the opportunity to take an active role in bringing up their own children.

  116. MurrayBacon says:

    #55 Manu Caddie gave a link to his research into rites of passage for maori men. Try this link.

  117. MurrayBacon says:

    TV ONE reported the release of Glenn Inquiry People’s Report, at 6 pm. It was all positive noises, but no discussion about the contents. This was surprising, as the report had been out for 6 hours, plenty of time to get critical comments from both sides, but not even meaningful comments from their reporters about the breadth of the report.

  118. MurrayBacon says:

    ABOUT THE NEW ZEALAND FAMILY COURT CONSUMER WEBSITE
    “Because sunlight really is the best disinfectant – every post media-circulated”
    Featured

    Press Release 16/6/14: Glenn Enquiry Response.
    Consumer-based feedback from Glenn Enquiry long-overdue, and welcome, says Practitioner, & Social Services Outcomes Researcher

    The release of the “Peoples Report” generated from the Glenn Enquiry is the first public enquiry into Domestic Violence and Child Abuse that significantly privileges the Consumers voice, while dovetailing into some practical solutions, and is both long-overdue, and welcome, says Steve Taylor, Counselling & Family Therapy Director at 24-7 Ltd, and Social Services Outcomes Researcher.

    “70 years of social service outcome research reveals that the stronger the voice of the Consumer, the more effective a social service can become, providing that this service has effective routine outcome measurements in place” says Mr Taylor.

    “It has been an open secret in New Zealand that the Family Court and CYF are utterly, utterly dysfunctional institutions, and what has made these organisations so dysfunctional is that the voices of Consumers brutalised by these institutions have been deliberately and covertly silenced through fear, control, and intimidation, characteristics which are at the very core of the enquiry – child abuse and domestic violence”.

    “I note that there is a call by Consumers for a more sophisticated and integrated level of training, intervention, and service provision, and these factors certainly have an important place in improving consumer outcomes – but again only in the presence, not the absence, of routine outcome measurement of services”.

    “For me, the most influential recommendation that I can see rapidly improving service provision is in the establishment of an independent forum for consumers to lay complaints, although such a forum would need to have meaningful powers to name, shame, censure, and stand down incompetent and unethical practitioners, otherwise it would just be another toothless self-governed professional association designed to protect its own, similar to the New Zealand Law Society, or the New Zealand Association of Counsellors” said Mr Taylor.

    “In Social Services, as in every other industry, we must be able to measure success and failure, otherwise we will most often achieve failure” said Mr Taylor

    ENDS

    Steve Taylor

    Director,

    24-7 Ltd

    0212592506

    Email: 24-7@maxnet.co.nz

  119. DJ Ward says:

    One is able to establish the legitamacy of these reports by what is missing
    No discusion on the mass falsification of the birth certificates of newborn babies
    No discusion on the female version of rape (non consensual conception)
    No discusion on the effect of the apartheid clause of the Guardianship Act (arbitrary baning of men having parental status due to not being in a relationship with the mother during pregnancy)
    No discusion on the slaughter of teenage fathers
    No discusion on female specific versions of domestic violence, eg Oxytocin abusers
    No discuion on the fact that as many men die during the administrative stages of the Domestic Violence Act as there is women who are murdered by men
    No discusion on services provided to women but not men by the crown (Human rights violations)
    etc etc etc
    Bigotry IS NOT OK

  120. MurrayBacon says:

    DJ Ward,
    thanks for your sharp analysis. Ity is much harder to notice the absence of something, than to check presence.

    No discussion on the fact that as many men die during the administrative stages of the Domestic Violence Act as there is women who are murdered by men.

    I would estimate a factor of 10x to 20x.

    I don’t see children’s interests actually being developed in this report. There is scant mention of mental health and none about the impacts of mental health problems onto parenting skills, other than to say that mothers shouldn’t be disadvantaged in court by their mental health problems.

    This is essentially asking that the mother’s interests be put above the children’s interest to receive a healthy development.
    Is this mother trying to claim that mothers are a more vulnerable group than young babies?

    Curiously, I would suggest that the familycaught$ already do do what that woman was asking for, as they are almost completely ignorant about the impacts of mental health conditions on mother’s parenting skills and refuse to listen if psychologists comment on that topic.

    Although the People’s Report mentions child abuse, the recommendations all are about women getting more from Government and from men and nothing about respecting men as fathers and carers of children, in any way.

  121. DJ Ward says:

    One is able to establish the legitamacy of these reports by what is missing

    For example, those that are Lawyers, and participated in creating this report inherently fail the good caracter test to be Lawyers and thefore have no legitimacy.

    They knowingly subject themselves to a human rights violation to get thier degrees.
    IE that the Ministry of Education (a prolific humam rights violating, sexualy bigoted entity) forces law students to take a womens studies paper to get thier degrees, but requires none of them to do a mens studies paper. This is a act of professionaly conducted indoctrination that disables thier thinking process regarding issues that pertain to men. It inherently creates intelectual BAIS in thier ability to conduct proceeding justly represent men.
    The fact that they are unable to percieve that they are participating in a human rights violation meens that thier degree should be taken off them. Inherently as Lawyers, they are defined as inteligent, therefore thier participation in ths human rights violation is not a accident, but intentional. They fail the good caracter test that is required to be a Lawyer, Ie to undeniably participate in SEX OFFENDING based human rights violations that create BAIS in court proceedings makes all (without exception, Criminal or Family Court) of those court proceedings invalid.

    Nothing these Organised Criminal Group members say is worth listening to.
    However as these documents can be used in criminal courts as evedence against them, regarding providing proof of BIAS etc etc, sleep easy tonight Lawyers.

    One document is not proof. Just as one sexual abuse victim making a cliam is extremly dificult to gain a conviction, lining up multiple complianants against the same defendant garauntees the conviction.

    IE The People’s Inquiry into Addressing Child Abuse and Domestic Violence. The MSD White paper on Domestic Violence and Child Abuse. The last review of the Domestic Violence Act. The Chief Justice and the Human Rights commissioners review in 2004 of the question, is there anything wrong with how men are being treated. John Key and co-offenders vote for the Birth Death and Relationship Registration Act 2008.

    If you need any other proof of lawyer corruption in domestic voilence cases.
    Ask yourself would a man who confessed, that in his non violent but dissapointing relationship he decided that to make his relationship better, would commit a act of physical violence. Then waited for his partner to go to sleep, then fetched a large knife, then rolled her over so he could plunge the knife into her chest. Killing her. Would be found not guilty of murder?

    No man would be found not guilty of murder, but women have, not only in the common knoweledge examples, that this comment references, but in many others.
    This can only happen if Prosecutors, Judges and Defence Lawyers conspire to get not guilty verdicts for women, and conspire to get guilty verdicts for men.
    Conspiring to pervert the course of justice is a crime that carries 7 years in prison.

    This report has no legitimacy

    Sleep easy tonight Lawyers

    Bigotry IS NOT OK

  122. MurrayBacon says:

    Impact Collective launched

    Former Glenn Inquiry director Ruth Herbert and former operations director Jessica Trask have formed a consultancy, the Impact Collective. The collective specialises in “strategy, policy, implementation and evaluation and work with those who plan, fund and deliver services to achieve maximum results in the work they do”. They are working on a discussion document which will be released in the new year. Ruth Herbert said, “We intend circulating our document widely among Government, non-government and community sectors to stimulate discussion, encourage a collective conversation and potentially reach a consensus view about ‘where to next'”. She said it was not a challenge to the Glenn Inquiry’s planned Blueprint but could shit alongside it.

    New Year = July 2014! Maybe tomorrow? Look under your pillow, first thing in the morning….

  123. John Brett says:

    Is this a Freidian slip in the last sentence?

  124. MurrayBacon says:

    Yippee, the report is now available.

    page 113:
    The
    Integrated System makes good economic sense for New Zealand and continuing with the status quo
    is not a viable option.

    Correct, but I am not persuaded that this report addresses the underlying issues. For this reason, such an investment would provide disappointing returns and largely fail to address the underlying problems – poor parenting skills and motivation, poor negotiating and dispute resolution skills in population and caught$.

    The present preschool initiatives currently underway will also fall into the same hole. Some improvements, but too little for the amount invested. This has already been seen in the similar USA Early Start initiatives, which have now been running around 20 years.

    Cheers,
    MurrayBacon.

  125. The man in Absentia says:

    New site page for this Murray, read it, pulled it to bits in my mind, hidden gems.

  126. The man in Absentia says:

    PAGE 5
    “On 2 August 2006, retiring Governor-General Dame Silvia Cartwright used her farewell speech to contrast New Zealand’s peaceful image abroad with the ‘nightmare’ of violence at home. She said she hoped New Zealand’s ‘dark secrets’ would never become known internationally.”
    What dark secrets did she know about but hasn,t told us about?
    Governer General with New Zealand’s ‘dark secrets’ ?
    PAGE 11
    It is time to think and act in a new way

  127. Phil Watts says:

    Dear Owen Glenn and NZ Government,

    Consider this my job application to replace the 774 Govt funded ‘Family Violence’ Agencies in New Zealand. Please retire all these agencies for failing to deliver on their mandate and send me a mere three years of their funding in order to solve all mother and most child deaths in NZ.

    phil.r.watts@gmail.com for bank a/c details.

    I’m not sure if i’m doubling up but i am sick of seeing feminist male-haters lying to the nations in order to steal our money and abuse our children by spouting anti-male ‘domestic violence’ one-sided hypocritical propaganda.

    Paul Henry interviews Ruth Herbert(feminist anti-male propagandist) and helps her lie about the ‘domestic violence’ ‘epidemic’.

    Paul says there is 774 NZ Government Funded Agencies in New Zealand! Does no one see that this blatant anti-male ‘domestic violence’ and ‘child abuse’ ‘epedemic is a self-serving ‘cycle’ that all these agencies have kept repeating in order to keep all the female staff of these agencies in taxpayer funded employment at the expense of our children?

    I recommend watching this short video:
    http://www.3news.co.nz/New-Zealand-family-violence-services-like-a-maze–Ruth-Herbert/tabid/1837/articleID/353611/Default.aspx

    I can solve almost all the Children & biological mother deaths in NZ in two strokes:

    1. Get rid of Human rRights removing ‘Protection’ Orders.

    2. Instigate automatic 50/50 custody of children (for willing biological parents) immediately upon all break ups of parents.

    3. Get rid of all court secrecy and make all courts public in order to reduce lawyer/Judge corruption.

    4. Bring back ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and jury trials for all jailable ‘offences’.

    5.No one should be allowed to be kidnapped and tortured and held hostage by the State Police without proof of harm to another person.

    6. Upon request to the court or police or upon break-up of parents with children: Make joint one – on – one counselling 3 sessions each per couple and child. This will allow closure and moving on.

    Yours Urgently,

    Phil Watts (yet another accused axe murderer who has never actually hit or shouted at or imposed my will on a female despite all those things being done to my children and me on countless occasions by females).

  128. MurrayBacon says:

    The money has all been spent!

Leave a Reply

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.

Since May 2019 this site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

« »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar