False rape claim to get lift home from strip show
Gentlemen and most ladies, Do you ever think there will be a time where society will acknowledge that laying a false rape complaint against a man will be considered equal too if not more than damaging to the man as rape would be?
Read this article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10892816
It appears to me and I suspect to most of the human race that until men, their families and friends rise up and demand justice we will never get it.
Let me asked you all this one simple question. If you had a choice of being charged with rape or armed robbery, which would you choose and why?
What long term effect would you and your family have if you were the victim of a false complaint? Would it not be less than a woman would have in real rape?
I think the problem is men don’t count in society anymore. We have been marginalised and unconsidered when false accusations like this one has been made. And this woman did it twice!
Which MP will champion our cause for justice?
And it was her second conviction for laying a false complaint. There are 3 sets of rules in this country.
One for politicans, you know who you are Peter Dunn, one for females and one for males.
Comment by Brian — Tue 25th June 2013 @ 2:40 pm
Seeing this blatant piece of sexist sentence discount doled out to yet another NZ woman has got me thinking, and I’ve just had an idea for a great piece of investigative journalism in NZ.
It might also make for a great book and TV series or movie along the lines of “Black Like Me” which is a nonfiction book by journalist John Howard Griffin first published in 1961.
Griffin was a white native of Dallas, Texas and the book describes his six-week experience travelling on Greyhound buses (occasionally hitchhiking) throughout the racially segregated states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia passing as a black man.
Sepia Magazine financed the project in exchange for the right to print the account first as a series of articles.
Griffin kept a journal of his experiences; the 188-page diary was the genesis of the book.
In 1959, at the time of the book’s writing, race relations were particularly strained in America; Griffin’s aim was to explain the difficulties facing black people in certain areas.
Under the care of a doctor, Griffin artificially darkened his skin to pass as a black man.
In 1964, a film version of Black Like Me starring James Whitmore was produced.
Now, imagine some man in NZ does the same, only disguising himself as a woman for a period of a few weeks and recording all the instances of female only privilege that he experiences. It would be even easier to do these days than Griffin’s time what with smartphone recorders and the like.
Hmmmmmmmmmm………
Comment by Skeptic — Tue 25th June 2013 @ 6:27 pm
According the the Herald, she was “charged” with a similar offence previously but there was no mention of a conviction and her name did not come up through internet searches. It’s probable that she was discharged without conviction or some equally tolerant consequence. Whatever the justice system’s response, we can be sure she was given name suppression on that occasion. False allegations, slander, libel, malicious gossip, rumour-mongering and other deliberate behaviour that damages another person’s reputation, these are all forms of serious violence that often damage the victim’s life permanently. However, because it’s the type of violence more characteristic of women it’s generally treated as acceptable or trivial. Even then, as with all offending, should any such actions be done by a male against a female it will be seen as ‘patricarchal power and control’ and treated more seriously.
Comment by Man X Norton — Tue 25th June 2013 @ 6:31 pm
Man X Norton,
that would be the same NZ Herald that’s falling all over itself to support Julia Gillard’s dismal efforts at being elected as Oz Prime Minister.
Ah, the Herald – feminist rag/e, not worth reading when it comes to social issues these days. Gillard herself of course isn’t above making false rape claims herself with her outrageous claims about the numbers of rapes of women globally – One billion she says.
Name change in order – Pinocchio Gillard.
Many folks will be hoping that doesn’t portend a desire on her Gillard’s part once she’s been dumped by her national constituency to join the U.N. for a padded job like Helen Clarke did.
Comment by Skeptic — Tue 25th June 2013 @ 9:05 pm
I believe ANYONE making a malicious false statement to police must automatically accept liability for their costs incured in investigating the complaint, and costs incured by any person named, plus damages! Additionally of course their will be court penalties for making a false statement. NOTE:- I have deliberately framed this comment using gender neutral terms!
Comment by Gwahir — Wed 26th June 2013 @ 1:33 pm
Guys I’m concerned at the attitudes expressed above. Are the people in blue not some sort of free taxi service for our fairer gender? For heavens sake this young woman had spent all her money at the strip show on tips for the blokes there are she had a long way to go and getting a taxi in Greytown after midnight can be such a difficult task. Surely the coppers had nothing more useful to do that evening anyway?
Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 26th June 2013 @ 3:38 pm
Sorry Allan. I mis-understood the question.
Comment by Gwahir — Wed 26th June 2013 @ 3:52 pm
And another one …..
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8893464/Rape-claim-made-for-revenge
Comment by golfa — Wed 10th July 2013 @ 11:03 am
The ironic thing here is the second sentence and paragraph.
No crime has been committed by him. He is the total victim of her anger, jealousy, slander and false representation yet the writer of the article just doesn’t get it.
Even her allegation of him sleeping with another woman in Auckland could not be used to justify her physical assault on him, her mis-representation under oath to the Police and what even she realise was the hideous treatment he had received by the Police processing and ill conceived prosecution of a non-crime.
No mention of her being held to account for her actions but that is totally irrelevant to this reporter anyway.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 10th July 2013 @ 2:07 pm
#9 Allan. There is another thing to consider. After a month, “she changed her statement, asking police to drop the charges” but the Police pressed on. I’m guessing the Police are just bored and like spending taxpayer money taking up precious Court time. After all, it provides work for the Lawyers involved.
Comment by golfa — Wed 10th July 2013 @ 3:29 pm
There is huge paternalism in the cops that they know Domestic Violence more than alleged victims. The journalist writing this article still thinks he is guilty and presumably still do the coppers supporting the prosecution. That may explain why the real offender will never be prosecuted for wasting Police time, wasting taxpayer money, and causing huge distress and inconvenience to the real victim of her warped mind.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 10th July 2013 @ 7:46 pm
Allan @9,
Yes I got that too. No comment as you say of the narcissistic resource binging lying of the falsely accusing woman. The judge is a total patsy in this case too IMO. Pussy pass central.
Comment by Skeptic — Thu 11th July 2013 @ 1:41 am
Such claims are so easily made and require nothing other than the allegation in order to result in up to 20 years (per charge) in prison, more than for killing or maiming people (for which convictions, like nearly all other crimes, corroborative evidence is required). Sexual offending laws have been targetted by feminists as a vanguard of feminist domination over men and now provide a convenient weapon to any woman. The ‘Bristol clauses’, part of NZ family law for several decades that have cruelly wrecked tens of thousands of father-child relationships, resulted from almost-certainly false rape allegations made against Alan Bristol. In response to his ex-wife’s attempts to drive him out of his children’s lives he had been repeatedly assessed as a good father and indeed the superior parent between the two. After years of false allegations of various kinds by the ex-wife and her numerous breaches of contact and parenting orders that had been made in his favour (none of such breaches having been punished in any way by the Femily Court), she is said to have lured him back briefly into the relationship by fake affection and pretending to have seen the light, then immediately accused him of raping her, apparently as part of her latest plot to deprive their children of a biological father’s role. (A slightly more generous interpretation of the events would be that she engaged in some re-ignited romance with him then decided she hadn’t really wanted to so attributed it to him forcing her. Given the history of her deceit and untrustworthiness, that explanation seems less likely to be valid. After all, he would have been unlikely to be remotely interested in having sex with her after the abuse and harm to which she had already subjected him and their children, unless she lured him effectively into it.) The rape allegation was the straw that broke the camel’s back for Alan Bristol, whereupon he had a complete mental breakdown and killed himself and the three children. Of course, the feminist man-haters subsequently used this as an example in which a man who seemed very kind, sensible and together was secretly an abuser and his real violent self eventually showed itself (and this clearly applies to all men). But actually, our feminist draconian laws allowing false sexual allegations to be made with little risk and allowing sexual allegations to be prosecuted with no evidence beyond the allegations, appeared to be the main culprit in the Bristol case and many others.
Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 11th July 2013 @ 9:41 am
An interesting epilogue to this matter lies burried in the plethora of misinformation distributed by the feminist press. The widow went to New Zealands best known psychologist and absolute supporter of the fems (From Waikato University) and among other bleating claimed the town had turned against her.
http://www.waikato.ac.nz/law/research/waikato_law_review/volume_2_1994/4
In this piece she claims among other things she was fearful of returning to her home town as people would blame her. (Probably well founded, from comments and assistance provided to me and elaborated in my final paragraph!)
She is still at it! http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10873174 and note the continued association with Waikato University. I believe this continued association undermines the credibility women tend to receive, even to the point of the Womwns refuge and White Ribbon Campaign.
The subsequent relationship could be considered a pyrrhic victory. Local folk law has it, and I can find NO reference other than a very helpful librarian at the Wanganui Library Archives who implied that she had had her tubes tied after the birth of Claudia! That same librarian also drew my attention to a reference to an earlier marriage which when laid alongside some of the allegations produce tend to support them.
Any student on this subject should study the Davison Report (by Sir Ronald Davison, former chief Justice of NZ) It is highly flawed and goes beyond it’s terms of reference.
This Gentlemen is the fallacy our domestic violence laws are built on!
Comment by Gwahir — Thu 11th July 2013 @ 1:47 pm
Man X Norton (#13): This account of events by the Bristol children’s mother contradicts your account. Admittedly, Ruth Busch and Neville Robertson appeared to have accepted Mrs Bristol’s version without any effort to corroborate them by checking police, medical or other records. Her claim that Alan Bristol had been molesting their daughter was particularly pernicious and should have been explored critically. But it’s important we are realistic in accepting that the response to domestic violence back in those times was inadequate and allowed a small proportion of despots to harm family members in an ongoing manner. That however included male family members. And the Bristol clauses were an ill-considered solution relying too heavily on feminist propaganda and adopting a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ approach that was always known to cause great injustice and harm. The Bristol clauses have allowed false allegations to unnecessarily wreck numerous parent-child relationships, mainly father-child relationships.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 18th July 2013 @ 10:12 am