- 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.

Sat 9th November 2013

Roast Busters

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 10:34 am

The events of the last few days have seen shades of village green rising across the country as the Roast Busters story unfolds. Flaming torches and pitch forks are not going to promote any level of understanding as to why this has happened – I would suggest quite the opposite.

If there is any attempt to understand this behaviour it will be claimed as the sole right of women to analyse, understand and remediate society to protect women from sexual abuse.

Any man publicly attempting to do anything other than express condemnation, can only expect to be vilified for daring to offer an opinion, but the thing is men will talk about this in smoko-rooms and pubs and if men are publicly shut out of the debate – and the solution – then all that can be expected in return is disapproval and a level of indifference.

The group concerned will be seen as men and girls/victims not as immature teenagers – this is in accordance with the prevailing attitude in our country where it is common and acceptable for women to display a general contempt for males.

Because this has come into public view via social media there appears to be an accompanying assumption that this is a single isolated incident and I would put money on that not being the case.

So, men standing back and remaining silent while the incident makes its way to a public lynching is neither productive for society or for the future of our children – that’s what these kids are – children that we haven’t taken care of.

There are no winners here, male or female, when young people in their formative years engage in sexually motivated encounters as a form of entertainment.

This situation is not understood by our view or perception of what has happened. Society is being conditioned by the experiences and memories of the participants in this behaviour, not by our opinions.

What is happening here doesn’t surprise me. As parents we have had our authority and control usurped by an academic state that holds the belief that it not only knows better, it can do better.

I have a vivid memory of Helen Clark and John Key standing almost hand in hand on the public stage, like mother and father of the nation after the amendment of section 59 of the Crimes Act, which removed our parental authority. There was a lobby group that wasn’t happy to accept that a few parents would fail and now will have to watch a much greater number of our children fail.

As serious and discouraging as this might be what will happen next is quite predictable.

First, we’ll see some statistics depicting the state of crisis.
Second, we’ll come up with some academic literature.
Third, there will be the demands for funding the remedial do-gooders that can fix this.
Fourth, we’ll lynch a few coppers for not doing their job.

Last we will have a few taxpayer funded investigations while the majority of us will go back to sleep. Other kids, who now know not to advertise this on social media, will keep doing what they are doing.

65 Responses to “Roast Busters”

  1. Downunder says:

    Our mainstream media appears to have developed a sense of responsibility around the Roast Busters issue – for a while I thought they were about to pursue it with the same vigour as the Len Brown saga and milk it for all it was worth – perhaps realising they were sailing too close to leading the hysterical mob has brought them to adopt a more disciplined approach.

    Unfortunately that seems to have returned us to polar opposite position of the collectively-injured-female mentality leading to the usual loss of objectivity by journalists that are capable of much better work.

    This opinion piece from stuff journalist Andrea Vance

    The bit that really gets me is this;

    Being wrongly accused destroys lives and families. But it should be noted that police say false complaints make up 8 per cent of sexual violence cases – lower than other crimes.

    So, one in ten cases of rape taken to the police are false complaints but because ‘some people’ make a greater number of false complaints about ‘other unspecified crimes’ possibly property cases for insurance money this somehow diminishes the significance of this destructive behaviour.

    Then this …

    That those opinions are carried by the mainstream media is not freedom of speech. It’s perpetrating an attitude that it’s OK to treat women like a piece of meat if they don’t conform to your conservative standards of behaviour.

    What would any self respecting man have to say to this journalist?

    That those opinions are carried by the mainstream media is not freedom of speech. It’s perpetrating an attitude that it’s OK to treat men like a piece of shit, if they don’t conform to your obnoxious expectations.

  2. Shinhee Yi says:

    When it comes to rate It seems women has no responsibility what so ever.

    Women seem to think they has right not to get raped even if they where walking naked queen street midnight.

    I think it will make life be easier if women have some responsibility and avoid things attracting rape.

  3. John Brett says:

    “Lock it or lose it”
    “Don’t leave valuables in view”
    “Fit an effective burglar alarm”
    “Don’t walk alone at night in certain streets”
    “Don’t keep your wallet in an outside pocket”
    “Avoid parking in areas where thieves are known to operate”
    Would you call this VICTIM BLAMING?
    Likewise, women should avoid wearing provocative clothes(clothes designed to provoke males to be attracted and aroused) unless they are in a safe environment.
    ANYONE should avoid becoming debilitatingly drunk, unless they are in a safe environment
    THIS IN NOT VICTIM BLAMING- IT IS SAFETY ADVICE

  4. Downunder says:

    The evolution of women – the shifting sands of entitlement.

    I’ve got a problem, now fix it or fix it now (depending on the time of the month)

    I’ve got a problem and you don’t need to fix it, just listen.

    I’ve got a problem and an income, I’ll buy my own and fix-it thanks.

    I’ve still got a problem and now I’m going to fix you.

  5. Downunder says:

    While the feminist-infested media rants on about rape culture, somehow, someone managed to get an article in mainstream media talking about the real issue here, raising teenagers.

    Safe teens: A daughter’s view by Keri Carter

  6. Yew Topia says:

    I was listening to a lawyer women on radio today. Brenda some-thing, I think her name was. In essence she said, women don’t dress up for the guys; they dress up for other girls.
    Guess that explains the roots of lesbianism.
    Anyway. Her basic premise had some merit – that young girls dressing to ever decreasing hemlines, are simply bowing to peer pressure to conform – to other girls.
    Now, she didn’t say that men were responsible for fashion (although that has certainly been expounded in the past).
    So – if girls are dressing up to impress other girls, in order to ‘fit in’; then are those other girls responsible for the way these girls dress?
    If a kid wears next to nothing, are other girls responsible?
    If so, and if boys are allured into uncontrollable acts of animal lust when they see these dressed up girls, then are these girls in part victim to collective-girl’s stupidity?

    Now, if all of the above holds true, can we assume that girls are drinking excessively (binge drinking) also to impress (or at least keep up with) other girls?
    After all, it makes sense if you, as a girl, dress up with no interest in alluring or impressing boys, who after all have no right to leer and lust; then why would you binge drink to impress and allure those same boys? You wouldn’t.

    Of course, no one should blame victims of rape; but when will they wake up?

    Those roast-busted boys, if I understand the essential facts, encouraged the girls to drunkenness with the intention of raping them once drunk. They effectively stupefied them. They need to be arrested.

  7. Scott B says:

    What a load of rubbish. Girls dress to impress guys (unless they are lesbians) end of story.

  8. Downunder says:

    I agree with you there Scott B. These role models don’t just dress up, they screw around, get married and divorced, sometimes in less than 24 hours, they go to rehab and have babies for fun.

    I don’t disagree that girls compete with each other and copy role models but their primary motivation is to attract a guy and that’s the bit that is being conveniently left out of the feminist argument.

    In some respects you could say the only thing that has changed since we were kids is the style of clothing. That’s not entirely correct, the social scene and the way kids interact have also changed but you get what I mean.

  9. Yew Topia says:

    Don’t shoot the messenger.
    Refer National Radio 11 Nov about 14 1/2 minutes in. Comments attributed to Judith Collins in the Herald? “Girls dress for other girls”. Then listen to the next minute or so.
    Sorry, I mis-linked the comments to an interviewee (Brenda) a few minutes earlier.
    The Herald article says it all:

    Well, for a start, John and Willie, they’re not dressing for you. They’re not even dressing for teen boys. Girls dress for other girls. They dress to fit in. They dress to be part of a group. They want to be respected and they want to be liked. They want to be beautiful. They dress to impress. They copy their celebrity idols. These might well be fashion crimes, but short skirts and cleavage don’t signal a willingness to be victimised.

    My point is simply this. If this is the case, then surely other girls are responsible for the way the roast buster victims dressed? And presumably likewise for how much they drank?
    Oh but we can’t blame women, can we?

  10. Downunder says:

    I don’t think it is simply a matter of dress. What I think happens is that girls that dress to attract a male are more likely to exhibit body language and behaviour to attract a male. Dress takes the blame for that. Dress, alcohol, behaviour, tone of voice, language, atmosphere are all part of a set of circumstances that can lead to what might end up as being some form of regret or rape.

    The political arguments are designed to entitle girls and blame boys. These are not adults we are talking about – and these children should not be the subject of this political rubbish – that doesn’t help them understand how to be adults.

  11. hornet says:

    Semantics – semantics – the point everyone is missing is this……….and its a big point!!!!!

    If ANY PERSON feels violated in any way they should be permitted to make a complaint to the police and have it INVESTIGATED and PROSECUTED if the evidence and facts support the allegation. ( MAN OR WOMAN – CIVILIAN OR POLICTICIAN )

    What no one is addressing – rather everyone is just playing the BLAME GAME – and dividing the genders even more – is asking WHY DID THE POLICE NOT INVESTIGATE the complaints that were made? Why do we see this across the board with reported crime – all being “FILED” no further action taken by police, why is this happening with the vast majority of reported crime – as a matter of course?

    POWER CORRUPTS – those in power want to look good – and Crime statistics – especially bad crime statistics make them look very bad indeed. Just like Unemployment figures which most of us readily acknowledge are manipulated day to day.

    So what have we seen over the years…….which directly effects the Police and their ability to investigate and Prosecute CRIME.

    a. Budget cuts – staff and resource reductions – especially in CRIME INVESTIGATION UNITS – ( not in Traffic enforcement – because that GENERATES REVENUE – notice how they get all the new traffic cars and speed cameras )
    b. Deliberate removal of PROACTIVE INVESTIGATIVE Policing UNITS – because they FIND AND DETECT CRIME and INCREASE the reported crime statistics.
    c. You now have Detectives being asked to issue TRAFFIC TICKETS – Revenue collection over protecting public safety. In fact they are now being asked to pull over 4 cars per hour and issue ONE ticket per hour – 8 per shift – which is only 2 less than a dedicated traffic officer.
    d. Complaint reporting – make it more and more difficult and time consuming – the paper work and time to complete has only increased year after year – making the time to file reports = longer and restricting officers to less time to actually fight crime.
    e. PUblic counter reporting – ONE civilian on duty = one report – while ten to twenty people wait and then leave and DONT report their concerns – which lowers the reported crime statistics.
    f. The ONLY crimes you will see being PROSECUTED – are those which hit the public consciousness – IE MURDER and or VIOLENT crime. ( how do I know this = because I was told by those who prepare the prosecutions – that is ALL THEY DO everything else is FILED)
    g. If you Discourage reporting and or prosecutions – what is the impact?- less reported crime and less people coming forward to make complaints of a similar nature.
    h. What you should also be concerned about are recent changes by the Attorney General as to WHAT and WHO the police can investigate and or prosecute – this is very dangerous for NZ society – because then you have the Govt interring with the duties of the POLICE – who are supposed to be NOT POLITICAL.
    j. I have also been told, that SERIOUS crimes like Street robberies and the like – which back in the day were ACTIVELY investigated by DETECTIVES – are now just FILED – NO ACTION taken….

    This plays out year after year – and the only people who lose out are the public – we lose more and more SERVICE as the system is manipulated and twisted for political gain. If someone just had the FORTITUDE to stand up and actually tackle our societies concerns – and ADMIT the problems we face – rather than cheat with statistics – we would all be better for it……..

    Can you all see a problem here – and I bet you all have a story to tell where you have NOT received the attention to your complaint that you should have been given –

    Why has all this blown up – and rightly so – because people of BOTH SEXES are outraged.

    So it finally gets public attention and those accountable are forced to deal with it – or should I say – move into save their butts mode……..and what better way to save their butts – get the genders blaming each other, blame the police etc etc……and the real culprit = those looking to manipulate the real crime stats will escape enquiry – until the next MAJOR PUBLIC issue………..

    Lastly I have a mate who is investigating a crime in CHINA – they dont have much crime apparently – and then as you dig deeper – the SYSTEM does allow COMPLAINTS to ever proceed – there are so many road blocks and walls to climb before a complaint is actually acknowledged – very few ever go to print – so they have no crime – get the picture people………if you want this here in little old NZ – keep missing the POINT……..

  12. Bryan says:

    Basic instincts in humans need to be controlled in a civilised society. Males have to learn to control their sexual urges regardless of temptation. Fathers can do this for sons by teaching them to have dignity in their choice of partner rather than telling them to sow their wild oats. Females also need to control their basic instincts which are to lure as many men into their honey trap as they can and to avoid all responsibilities of the consequences. Mothers can teach their daughters that men should not be objectified and they do not exist for the sole purpose of providing females their every desire.

  13. shafted says:

    #11. Noted. The key question in all of this is why the complaint was not dealt with, and why it has taken public outrage and political (yes political) pressure to get the ball rolling. I totally object to the media commentary collectively referring to men as a broad group who have the same broad pattern of behaviours.
    How’s this for thought provocation (and no doubt i am opening myself up for a beating) If a man is found in, say, a pair of speedo togs in the bushes at a children’s playground, he is no doubt (properly)assumed to have a certain mind-set. If a woman goes to a party with all her wares on display, she is assumed to be dressing for her girlfriends. WTF .Common sense is NOT ALLOWED to prevail in this debate. Yes i agree that the way a woman dresses does not give a male the right to rape, but surely as a society we should recognise that the way one dresses (male or female) can titillate some that are lesser able or willing to control themselves.
    I don’t notice a whole lot of outcry about “Vinny” in Shortland street, taking his shirt off at every possible opportunity.
    Have you ever witnessed female behaviour at a male strip show? It is terrifying and far more aggressive than that of males in a strip joint. Surely it is the sexual tension in the air that gives rise to such behaviour, and the state of undress that fuels this. Why is it different for scantily clad females? We need to educate our daughters to respect themselves and their bodies (i.e. cover them somewhat-not suggesting a kaftan) and teach our sons to respect women. To find a good woman, first you must be a good man

  14. hornet says:

    Shafted – 13 – again we fall into the trap of discussing HUMAN nature – if men and woman did not attract each other – none of us would be here……so even discussing the difference between man and woman – who are fundamentally different in many ways physically and behaviorally – is a trap which leads to division…….

    The main concern for society is – why are we seeing a reduction in service and protections of our most basic rights at all levels – over a system which now sees revenue collection and manipulation of fact to protect power – as more important than protecting citizens who fall foul of bad people ……..

  15. Downunder says:

    These roast buster kids were not men and women, they were all under 16 at the time. Discussing their behaviour is important to parents.

    Taking the behaviour of children and generalising it into adult behaviour, I agree with Hornet, that it is an intentional and dangerous politically motivated campaign to support female superiority.

    You only have to look at a hypocritical wanker like Peter Boshier who parades himself in front of White Ribbon, yet ran a court that covers up serious female abuse of children.

    When you look at the damage done to thousands of children under his legal care and protection, it is no wonder there are a lot of confused individuals in this country.

    This ‘man’ would be one of the biggest social menances this country has ever seen.

  16. shafted says:

    I actually think we are on the same page. There are profound differnces between men and women that should be celebrated.
    It’s funny Hornet. Yes, we are having a constant chipping away at our basic rights, all dressed up in the guise of “rights”-the right not to be the victim of domestic abuse is a self evident truth, but the reality is , it’s become a weapon for disenfranchised partners seeking revenge on their hitherto loved ones. The courts and the police have allowed common sense to go out of the window, on many occasions.
    Accusation has a consequence regardless of proof, or of fact.

  17. hornet says:

    15 – downunder – I NEVER ONCE said there was a political campaign to support female superiority – I STAND for EQUALITY for BOTH MAN AND WOMAN – for ALL PARENTS.

    As for the semantics – MEN v WOMAN, MOTHER v FATHER – children are still either male or female – adolescent children are engaging more and more with sex at an ever younger age – is this right or wrong?

    IT happens, and has done so throughout time – as parents we can not control the urges of nature. All you can do as a parent is teach – CONSEQUENCES to your kids – and to have RESPECT for the other sex – which also means not humiliating them after the fact and deliberately trying to destroy their integrity and reputation …….. because NO matter what we do as parents, children – as they reach adolescence will go off and test the water…..that is human nature…..

    What I do say is there is a consequence currently in politically managing the police service – reducing budgets and not putting the resource where it is needed when complaints are made by the public……..all complaints must be actioned – not selectively – not just dealing with the ones which get public attention….

  18. Downunder says:

    I NEVER ONCE said there was a political campaign to support female superiority

    Increased Revenue Gathering – Decreased Police Expenditure – Funding a Family Court that helps abusive women escape prosecution. Here was me thinking you understood this was a campaign for Female Superiority.

  19. hornet says:

    18 – I was totally fked over by the family court – and it is my contention that was more directly created by lawyers who refused to help resolve conflict in the pursuit of revenue and profit for themselves.

    My experience with the police -was they wanted to help – but were constrained by rules and obstructions created by lawyers…..

    You have to also remember while we all feel there is an agenda to persecute parents ( men on this site ) much of it can be traced back to greed – by lawyers and the usual incompetence of bureaucracy, fence sitting and lack of accountability – at any level.

    I have said many times on here – if the family court system and its officers – lawyers and judges – were forced through legislative changes which required active prevention and active requirement to stop parental alienation – with punishment to those who allowed it to continue or who enflamed it – we would see a massive decline in conflict, harm to kids and good parents……until that happens we will never see any change in the current system.

    lawyers deliberately ignore this and will not implement changes themselves because it would impact on their business …….

  20. John Brett says:

    Hi Hornet- You have my deepest sympathy and support. I think that you need to step back, and see the Court system for what it is. It not remotely about Justice, the lawyers are not social workers. It is just a grand debating society, it is all about words on paper.
    The Court is like a tool-box with only a hammer- you can only use the hammer for every job.
    I know this is no consolation when you are being fked over, and losing your family- it’s hard then to even think straight. My friend Jim Bagnall has helped many men in the Family Court. I am preparing a big Court case right now (not about Family).
    To be the best for your family- avoid the Family Court at all costs. If you cannot, just be prepared to play the word game in as unemotional way as you can. Best wishes

  21. Downunder says:

    This is an interesting interview to turn up at this point in time.

    Conservative Party analogy on 3 news

    There is a significant point here from Colin Craig, that if repealing the anti smacking law is important to New Zealanders it is important to him. It is conservative policy going into years next election.

  22. hornet says:

    20. John Brett – thanks for the comments – mate I am a long way down the track now – remarried with more kids, to a great woman – but I am still disgusted by what family court has done to so many of us good parents and children – and that is why I still post here – because there needs to be change and they need to be held to account…..only parents uniting and demanding changes to the legislation will make a difference ……binding conditions preventing them allowing parental alienation from flourishing…..with consequences if they are caught enflaming this behaviour.

    21. Downunder – yes I heard the interview and it appears Mr Craig from what he said – has to go – he will look to repeal that decision given the nats completely ignored the majority of the population – rock on – its time for a totally new party – only then will NZ see change away from the Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right – neither of who have cared a fk for what is best for the people of NZ……Craig is a FAMILY MAN – with good family values – and he seems to be on the same page as the average citizen….sick of the lack of accountability ……..

  23. Rachel says:

    I should have come back to visit more frequently. It appears that many of my views are here too, which is refreshing. It’s difficult to discuss these issues publicly without the inevitable ‘labels’ being thrown around.

    Downunder and John Brett, you have some really sound views. I’ve used the same ‘Lock it or lose it’ argument myself. My mistake was using it on a WR Facebook post – boy did I get flamed! Actually, someone called me a man! I nearly fell off my computer chair!

    I’m starting to slowly unravel the mysteries as I go – having developed some very feminist views over the years, it’s interesting for me to see how many of them are simply ‘taught, heard, and inherited’ statements that just don’t stack up under close scrutiny. I’m starting to really believe that the Roast Busters has only created the hype it has because it’s convenient to the launch of White Ribbon’s business. I don’t accept that the ‘facts’ are what the hysteria makes it out to be, and I’m shocked that the statistics are not being clearly portrayed, if they are being portrayed at all. Only the feminist thinking is being touted – there is no logic involved. Even the Police have come under fire, but I haven’t yet seen anyone say they were raped! Everyone else has said it for them, but has anyone here seen a quote from any girl saying she was raped by this crowd? Please let me know where if you have – I’m seriously trying to find one.

  24. Matt says:

    My grandfather lived in the racist south in America. His brother was beaten by Ku Klux Klan members. He says that yes his brother should have known better than to go out at night alone. But he also said, we shouldn’t be living in a world where the Ku Klux Klan does that to other people.

    That young girl Malala who was shot in the face on the way to school. She lives in a world where young girls cannot leave their house and go to school without getting hurt. Some have probably said, “She shouldn’t have left her house and gone to school. She should have known better.” Other say that she shouldn’t have to live in a world where she can’t go to school.

    And while it may seem trivial in comparison, I believe women should be allowed to drink beers after sunset and wear short skirts without fear.

    My grandfather’s brother was given safety advice. Malala was given safety advice. Our mothers, sisters, and daughters have been given safety advice.

    But still, we should all be able to live in a world without fear of violence, sexual or otherwise.

    And to the Ku Klux Klan who beat up my grandfather’s uncle, you committed a crime.

    To the man who shot Malala in the face, you committed a crime.

    To the man who raped my daughter, you committed a crime.

    I, and everyone else out there want to live in a world where these types of violence do not exist. Sure, teach personal safety. STOPPING IT AT ITS ROOT IS THE ONLY WAY TO STOP IT. Otherwise, it will continue to thrive and spread. Stop the violence and hatred at the root. Stopping women from drinking and wearing skimpy clothes will not stop anythin in the long-term.

  25. Rachel says:

    “Stop the violence and hatred at the root.” – the problem with this argument is that we are all human, as such we all have the capacity to hate and to kill.

    There is no huge anti-female hatred movement that I can find. But there are a few really big anti-male hatred movements out there. Men are subject to just as much violence as women though. In that, women found their ‘equality’.

    At the same time as I would say young women need to be taught to be careful where they go and who they are with and what they are doing (and yes, wearing) so as not to attract trouble – I would say the same thing to a young man. That’s not hating women. It’s not misogynist, its not anything but plain old safety advice like “buckle your seatbelt”. They have a right to do as they please, but they must be told that they have to take the assumption of risk that goes with it.

    Having said that, that does not apply to men and women who would have been assaulted or killed no matter what of course. Because we all have the capacity to be evil lurking within us, and some victims are just the unlucky target.

    And I’m sorry that your daughter was a victim. I hope you’ve been able to find her the support she needs to carry on. It is apparent she has a passionate and caring parent – that’s a wonderful start. 🙂

  26. Matt says:

    Giving safety advice is great. It’s like building a bomb shelter. It’ a good idea. But working towards disarmament would also be very effective. More effective in the long run. We can’t all just cower in our bomb shelters. Just as I don’t want my daughter to not be able to live a life as free from the fear of sexual violence like her males counterparts.

    Also, while you bring up the subject of anti-male hatre movements. I feel that here is nothing more anti-male than saying to a girl or woman that her rape was her own fault because she was wearing provocative clothing, or that she was drinking, or that she was out too late, or that she should have known that we live in a dangerous world, or that he should have protected herself better.

    That is anti-male because that is saying that a man’s natural state is as a rapist and criminal and that he is nothing more than an animal and a walking penis.

    Men are better than that. Men are NOT animalistic beasts who cannot control their urges.

    ALL men should be insulted anytime someone tells a woman she was asking for it or it was her own fault. Because it implies that us men have no self-control and that we are all rapists-in-waiting.

  27. Rachel says:

    Why do we tell people not to drink and drive? Because there are bad cars on the road? Bad roads? Bad street signs? No, it’s because bad things happen when you drink and drive. Imagine if you went into a supermarket car park that was crowded with other drunk drivers. Would you feel safe? I know I wouldn’t.

    Whether violence is sexual or not, it is still violence, and therefore entirely unacceptable behaviour. And it has been established that men are subject to as much violence as women. As a society then, we perhaps need to be looking more closely at the issues that give rise to the violence, rather than being gender selective about it?

    Alcohol, parenting, media input – these things are gender neutral starting points for recreating a less violent society. On these things we can find a place to agree if we try hard enough. I hope we all can find enough inner peace to at least try.

  28. Downunder says:

    Matt, we are not talking about men here, we are talking about juvenile humans – teenagers learning to negotiate the world – that’s what the Roast Busters post is about.

    Apart from that there are some men in our society who are ‘animalistic beasts’ to use your phrase, and as sure as the sun rises and sets, one of the behaviours they will engage in is rape.

    Equally, there are some women in society who exhibit predatory sexual behaviour towards boys – Teacher suggest threesome with students.

    Women may not be as forceful and violent and they obtain consent by deceit, rather than not obtain consent.

    Perhaps you can relate this adult female’s behaviour back to the teenage situation we are talking about and accept that girls also play a part in this equation.

  29. hornet says:

    27,. Rachael = this INDUSTRY – this SICK BUSINESS – is all about ensuring CONFLICT is enflamed and maximized.

    When there is such a direct CONFLICT of interest – between a family court LAWYER and their INCOME – REVENUE is MAXIMIZED BY KEEPING CONFLICT ALIVE – over helping – actually HELPING resolve conflict and there is ABSOLUTELY NO OVERSIGHT to monitor this sick business = the legal profession will NEVER change their ways.

    NO other business known to man gets away with this – a total unregulated monopoly – running a business and maximizing revenue and returns by failing to actually provide help – the service offered but never delivered on.

    Men have been persecuted deprived of their kids – and financially penalized more so in the past = because they were the PRIMARY bread winners for a family – the revenue stream – but watch this space, make a note of the time and date I made this comment – the next game plan is to go after BOTH PARENTS – because what has changed in society – thats right – just as many mums now earn good money as do fathers – in fact BOTH parents are forced to give up their kids at the earliest opportunity – BOTH PARENTS now have to work to earn the wage ONE parent used to get years ago to sustain a family…..

    I cannot believe WOMEN are not gathered around parliament protesting the recently introduced ABHORRENT requirement that a MOTHER is now forced to hand over her child and must now WORK to receive a benefit – ANY GOOD Mother knows that there is plenty of WORK to be done at home caring for the child – and the work required to ensure that HOME environment is good for the child – and yet we sit back today in this brainwashed society we now live in and accept that FORCING MUMS to give up their kids and work for assistance is a good idea…..have women got their priorities wrong?????????

    Im a father and a man and I find this offensive to good mums and the children. But I don’t see mothers or woman uniting on that issue at all?????????

  30. hornet says:

    Forgot to mention – thats right – there is no protest by the masses because as usual the govt attacks a MINORITY group and gets away with persecuting them as individuals.

    It is not until more mothers in the future – are forced to give up their kids, and see what dads have had to deal with, that we will actually see a reaction – in numbers…….but by then it will be to late to oppose…….

    All I can say is this – its not until you actually have your own child deliberately taken from you, time you never get back officially removed do you realize how horrible that experience is.

    In fact as one mate said, its like having to deal with a DEATH in the family – or as I have compared it to – I now know what its like to have my child KIDNAPPED and deliberately taken from my life – sanctioned and ably assisted by the very system you go to for help – which delivers NONE.

    Only when you go through that experience do you realize how destroying that is for a parent to deal with – and sadly many are forced to deal with it on their own – in isolation and as individuals – and thats why the system gets away with it – ONE person ONE GOOD PARENT – has NO Voice …….and never will……..

  31. Rachel says:

    hornet:

    I’ve just been back over your post at 11. above. If I read it correctly (tell me if I haven’t) you’ve asked “Why did the police not investigate the complaints that were made?”, and then in partial answer you’re suggesting that across the board reported crime is being filed and not acted upon further by police.

    I looked at this when it came out with the RB issue, although I had looked at it before. I think part of the answer lies with NZ Police being one of those organisations that is unable to defend itself from criticism, so it therefore is an easy target for allegations that it isn’t doing it’s job. Combine that with the ‘mischief’ of some internet groups to try and discredit the police further and the scramble for ratings behind programs like ‘The Vote’, and you have a public perception that the Police cannot be trusted and do not do their job. That leads to a bias against them from the outset. It’s also easy to confuse the work of Police (to enforce the law) with that of lawyers, judges, law-makers (all of whom engage in the ‘system’ and manipulation of law).

    Insofar as the specific RB matter is concerned, I think there was a considerable amount of deliberate manipulation of the information there too. There appears to be little more the Police could have done in this situation though. There are some issues of underage sex and underage drinking, but without a witness willing to come forward and give evidence (which is a big ask of a young person) they would only be subjecting that ‘victim’ to an awful amount of grief in the long run and maybe still not be successful.

    The schools knew, the kids themselves knew, the teenagers were warned, we can assume the parents knew since the schools knew, CYF knew – it’s not the job of the Police to babysit the young people. It’s the job of parents to keep them safe from harm. Shame the Government decided to take that right away from so many parents, and tell the rest of them they didn’t need to do it. It is unfortunate that young people seem to think they don’t get to spend enough time with their parents. Perhaps the alcohol and the drugs makes them feel better, at least for the moment? Apparently 92% of young people say their lives are OK, but 29% of girls and 18% of boys are self-harming. That’s not OK.

    Many of the other factors you mention are probably correct – restructuring and cuts to staff, expectation exceeding budget, support staff cut and frontline staff doing the paperwork – all have and are happening. At the same time, the public seems to want them to be there for the most ridiculous of matters at the drop of a hat. Once again, the public need to step up and tell our politicians in no uncertain terms that they need to support our Police force, not make them flunkies of the system and it’s political leaders. Then we might start seeing some turnaround.

    As to your later point regarding sole parents being made to go out to work, that would be another casualty of the system and possibly another contributing factor to the way some of our young people behave at times. And I agree with you entirely. Paula Bennett’s flawed logic is forcing parents to put their children in care while going out to work, while at the same time forcing them to compete with an ever growing number of unemployed people who need the work more and have no dependants. Don’t forget to vote!

  32. Rachel says:

    Eek! Long post. Sorry people – I do tend to rant at times. I shall slink away and go cook my man some eggs now. He’s starving to death apparently.

    🙂

  33. hornet says:

    Rachel, good post, my comments are supported = directly from information I have from front line staff in senior positions – still current – who tell me what is actually going on. As usual they can never speak out publicly because their jobs would be on the line.

    I was in the police for 11 years – and I can also confirm first hand – the significant reduction in service provided to the public since I was in there from the early 1980’s through to the late 1990’s – service steadily declined = from what was previously given back then – with HALF the staff before the traffic merger…….( the traffic merger as I recall – increased police numbers by 50% – but did we see a corresponding reduction in crime? – (HAWKINS from labor rolls out with much fanfair – more TRAFFIC CARS for HIGHWAY patrol – why – revenue collection )

    In a nut shell the police service has been turned into a corporate business – we moved away from the military structure to a corporate management structure – notice senior officers are all now called ” MANAGERS” = fighting crime costs money – collecting tickets brings income. before time sheets and statistics collection – cops actually just went about their work – fighting crime.

    There are clearly concerns today – as to the QUALITY of staff in some positions within the police – most certainly – they lost many good experienced staff after the traffic merger – those staff that left – saw the changes in direction the police were taking …..

    if you go back to the traffic cop days – most of them failed the police recruitment requirements -( thats an important point when you look to see where some senior managers of police today came from – traffic?? ) failed police recruits – which is why they became traffic cops – but with the stroke of a politicians pen – we ended up with them all becoming policemen – and the reputation, integrity and trust in the police has declined ever since……( as an aside, the present team of senior officers running the police are all very good honest people – least that was my personal experience when I worked with them. )

    It was interesting when NZ was deciding to merge traffic with law enforcement – other police departments around the world had all seen first hand – that when you did this, it introduced corruption and a lowering of standards in policing – but did NZ take that advice – no Mr banks ignored this and rolled them all into one.

    As I referred and you concur – the police always get the blame – and my point was – because we immediately blame the cops, we miss the fact they have their hands tied currently in many areas which prevents them providing the service we should expect from them. So the real culprits avoid any blame.

    IN my day – because its how we did the job, if a young girl came in complaining about being raped – we would have been on to it immediately …..may I also say here – given its a menz web site – because we were experienced Detectives – we did sort out before it ever went to court – the odd misguided False complaint – and that saved both parties (Complainant and Suspect) from a lot of embarrassment and harm – financial and reputation. I am not sure today you have detectives in the front line with the experience to make those calls as they arise.

    As for complaints about police service – I had many investigations against me while in the police – and I can tell you if they can get you for something you have done wrong – they will – I can confirm that – they investigate their own ruthlessly – you are just a number in the system and if they can chop you out – you will be gone.

    It used to be hard to get into the police – but easy to get out if you did something wrong.

    Lawyers, judges = the judiciary – again my point – there is no oversight of this “business” by a group of people who are NOT LAWYERS – who are currently a protected industry with too many conflicts of interest where revenue is concerned – many here will support that view.

    Voting – if we have a genuine CHOICE for change……for sure, but it will take many people to walk away from the false promises of the left and the right and support a new alternative if we are going to see any real change…….for the good of the people…..

    As for the EGGS – hope you didnt get a “Jake the Muss” call from the lounge…….hahahaha

  34. "Frank Jackson" says:

    This problem is rife in New Zealand. Authorities go to extraordinary lengths to cover up under age sex crimes committed by child sex gangs. Our 14-year old daughter was also victim of a gang like this in Auckland. NZ authorities gagged us (parents) and our two sons in order to keep us quiet. The NZ Head of State gave the sex gang members medals.
    http://bit.ly/ourNZexperience

  35. hornet says:

    So as Wisharts new book = TOTALITARIA suggests – has the very state become the enemy of society? Has the pursuit of POWER and MONEY – become the ONLY Focus , over protecting the rights of good people – parents and children.

    Such a very sad story Frank and family – I really feel your pain – not to the extent you have had to endure, but I do know what it is like to have a child removed from your love and protection – deliberately supported by the very organizations you should expect to go to for help, and receive NONE.

    So where do parents go, when after doing everything right and all that was asked of them – -and they still DO NOT get justice?

    Do we see a break down of law and order – because good people – have LOST TRUST in the system – and are sick of a system which is NOT PROTECTING the good people.

    Is this the outcome so desired by those in the power? – a shattered, disillusioned, dysfunctional society is easier to control – divided, poor and unable to oppose govt tyrrany……..

    Watch the following video….while this is about the US – the same is happening in NZ and most western cultures……

    http://agendadocumentary.com/trailer/

    YOu can sometimes find the full version on youtube …..

    Also – another article on the same subject – an independent conformation of the above film.

    http://www.overlordsofchaos.com/html/new_order_of_barbarians.html

  36. hornet says:

    Trevor LOUDON – a NEW ZEALANDER – has the same view …. and he lectures in the US. Wake up NZers.

    http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/11/americas-decline-an-inside-job-2822082.html

  37. Rachel says:

    Downunder: “So, one in ten cases of rape taken to the police are false complaints”. My research suggests that 34% are classified as ‘no offence’ (18%) or ‘false’ (16%). I’ve been trying to find out more, but of course every time I post that I get the standard “you’re really a man, right?” response. Waste of time even trying to talk to some of these women, they’re worse than rabid dogs. Does anyone here have more information on this? I know the 2% theory is already well debunked as a feminist myth internationally.

    Taken from:
    – ‘False Allegations of Sexual Offending’ – A paper presented by Dr Donald Stevens QC to the NZ Law Society Criminal Law Symposium at Wellington in November 2004.
    – ‘Responding to Sexual Violence: Attrition in the New Zealand Criminal Justice System’ – Sue Triggs, Elaine Mossman, Jan Jordan and Venezia Kingi. Crime and Justice Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington. Published in September 2009 by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs.

  38. Matt says:

    Perhaps you can relate this adult female’s behaviour back to the teenage situation we are talking about and accept that girls also play a part in this equation.

    No, I can’t relate what the adult female did to what happened to the teenage females. Because like you said…

    Matt, we are not talking about men here, we are talking about juvenile humans – teenagers learning to negotiate the world – that’s what the Roast Busters post is about.

    Unless you’re trying to say that the boy students were at fault because they were so cute and wearing tight clothes, then I can see your logic. Because if you then say the girls with the Roast Busters were wearing skirts, so it’s similar because both could have prevented their rape, then I can understand the way you think. But if that is not what you’re trying to say, then I’m very confused. Please enlighten me.

  39. Downunder says:

    @Rachel Taken from Andrea Vance’s article

    But it should be noted that police say false complaints make up 8 per cent of sexual violence cases – lower than other crimes.

    That’s a very vague statement attributing the source to ‘Police’ which is then used to minimise the crime, which was my point above.

    I have no idea what the actual rate of false complaint might be, and how many women are prosecuted for these crimes. I did read very recently in another article that Police were currently considering prosecuting two such cases.

  40. hornet says:

    downunder – from my personal experience – false complaints were very rare indeed – I only had ONE which the girls admitted to before any prosecution took place – yes GIRLS plural – who formulated a plan to get back at a couple of lads they had sex with – their motivation was on several fronts – PARENT reaction to what they did so the girls blamed the boys, pregnancy concerns and the consequences of that, and disease – they were looking to blame someone if this became a concern – which from memory it did not.

    Every other rape enquiry I worked on was clearly genuine for all the obvious and traumatic reasons.

    I still have serious concerns as I have voiced previously that much serious crime is NOT getting the investigative service it should – reasons as previously tabled – confirmed by serving police staff in confidence.

  41. Downunder says:

    @ Matt

    Unless you’re trying to say that the boy students were at fault because they were so cute and wearing tight clothes, then I can see your logic. Because if you then say the girls with the Roast Busters were wearing skirts, so it’s similar because both could have prevented their rape, then I can understand the way you think. But if that is not what you’re trying to say, then I’m very confused. Please enlighten me.

    I didn’t say anything about clothing – that’s the way you are choosing to look at it.

  42. hornet says:

    I might add to that last comment – it was only the fact that I was experienced – that I had the knowledge to challenge what I was hearing from the girls….. it did not add up and was clearly not factual – if I had not had that experience – there is every likelihood the complaint would have continued and the two boys in question would have been subjected to the wrath of society and the courts – when they were completely innocent in a consensual act.

    I had one other case – a laugh actually – a young lad picked up a prostitute = thinking He was a SHE – the horror when he located parts he was not expecting = led him to make a false complaint to the police of Robbert by the Transexual – he confessed again because he was interviewed by an experienced detective who saw through the bullshit – and he was charged with WASTING police time……he also promised to plead guilty and as such I removed the facts in the summary that he was given head by a fella………so his mates did not find out…….

  43. Downunder says:

    I have just read through your (Frank Jackson’s) link – what a horrendous story.

    One part that particularly interested me was that a Coroner’s Court didn’t properly investigate a suicide death because the primary cause was the abhorrent behaviour of a female Family Court Judge.

    I am wondering if this is the same Judge that made the news earlier this year for similar behaviour in court.

    Other interesting links and an amazing amount of work given the circumstances that existed in their lives.

    I am not surprised by this statement;

    Our multiple secret court appearances left us frightened and afraid, and concluding that it is too dangerous to live in a country where one has no protection from the law – the family courts are NZ’s Guantanamo Bay where, cloaked in secrecy, the State does it’s dirty deeds beyond the constraints of the law and the rule of law.

  44. Matt says:

    Downunder, well I’m confused about what point you’re trying to make. Please, explain it to me because my thinking is clearly going int he wrong direction.

  45. Downunder says:

    Hey Matt, do you want to have a read through Frank’s story and post a comment on that?

  46. Matt says:

    I read through it, and wrote him a direct email, instead of just leaving a comment here.

    So back to what you were saying. Could you please explain the point you were trying to make? I’m still not following you. Cheers.

  47. Downunder says:

    And did his story have anything to do with girl’s and boy’s clothing?

  48. Matt says:

    You asked me to relate the adult female teacher’s actions to the teenage female students actions to “accept that girls also play a part in this equation.” But I am having trouble to doing that. That’s why I’ve asked you to please elucidate.

    Also, let’s drop the clothing thing, because it seems we both agree clothing has nothing to do with anything, obviously.

  49. Matt says:

    Are you saying women rape and molest? Well, I agree with that! My male cousin was raped by his female babysitter.

    But I don’t understand what that has to do with the teenage girls involved in the Roast Busters case. I am just totally lost on the point you were trying to make by relating the adult teacher to the teenage girls.

  50. Matt says:

    Well, until I understand the point you were trying to make… I am going to teach my two daughters to be safe AND how to respect others and their boundaries AND about giving and receiving consent.

    And I will teach my son how to be safe AND how to respect others and their boundaries AND about giving and receiving consent.

    Because all genders have the capacity to violate. And all genders can become victims.

    I will also tell them to wear their damn seat-belt because there are drunk drivers out there. And I will also tell them, don’t drink and drive. See, protect AND prevent.

    You see, my daughter who was raped is actually doing remarkably well now finally. The other who was not assaulted though, has anxiety about being raped in the future. She is a prisoner in her room most of the time now unfortunately. I don’t believe she should live in fear. That’s why I believe not only educating about self-protection, but also in educating every gender about consent, sexual assault, and rape prevention. I want to de-gender the whole issue of sexual assault and protection. I have a male family member who is beyond ashamed of his rape. My good childhood friend was raped by his basketball coach and has huge shame about that too. They feel they can’t speak out. They feel they will be perceived as weak. They feel like freaks. Like they shouldn’t have been victims of rape because they are male. That is wrong.

    I want to live in a world where this does not happen as often as it does and it is not aided and abetted and covered up and ignored (ala Frank’s horrific experience). Education education education. De-gendered education is the answer. Burying your head in the sand, living like a prisoner in your own home, wearing a bullet-proof vest every time you go out, and not drinking past sunset is not the answer.

    Give girls and boys the role models and education they need. No more Miley Cyrus with her nakedness and over-sexualised image. And no more Robin Thicke with his extremely disturbing song and over-sexualised video. No more rap music objectifying women. I don’t want to hear my son talk like that. And I don’t want my daughter to feel her value comes from what’s between her legs. I want my children to be better and know than that. So I will educate them and why those messages those pop stars send out are so wrong and so bad and so damaging to all genders.

  51. Downunder says:

    Females are just as capable of forming sexual intent as males – yes I agree with you there Matt.

    There is a stage in maturity when teenagers begin to develop their sexual thinking, and as parents we should be responsible and do our best to deal with this. We are not always going to succeed, but we try.

    The way that New Zealand parents were sucked into legal/academic mess was with the great smacking-debate, which resulted in a law change to remove ‘parental discipline’. Parental discipline is not physical violence as constantly portrayed by the media but authority to discipline and included the right not to face a charge with assault, when raising a child.

    It was included elsewhere in terms of consent, where a teenager could not consent to sex, when they were aged under 16 years, although they could if their parents agreed – teenagers under 16, could marry. This was within the ambit of parental discipline.

    Reading Frank’s story you can see that in the absence of a law providing for parental discipline, the State now in possession of that authority, allowed a child under the age of 16 years to explore her sexual fantasies with adult men. The law supported it, the States child protection agency encouraged it, and the courts hid the consequences and suppressed the information along with the consequences of their behaviour.

    This was State Sanctioned legal ‘Roast Bustling’ that these parents could NOT do anything about.

    On one hand this is what the State is doing behind closed doors, then when these ‘Roast Busting’ teenagers engage in their own experiment we rise to occasion and ask the State to hunt them down and punish them because it is wrong.

    If you’ve watched the history of this you would know that the then Principal Family Court Judge Boshier (who now leads the White Ribbon Charade) publicly went head to head with CYPS to enforce the legal authority over children as the responsibility of the court.

    The consequence of all this, is that we have various forms of teenage sexual exploration, some of which will involve inappropriate behaviour, various forms of regret, ignorance about consent, and rape.

    Now, watch all the feminists rail on about a girl’s right to dress as she wishes and endorse their entitlement to rebel and behave badly in their teenage years, and watch the idiots who call themselves fathers and good men clutch their white ribbons and say, ‘there shouldn’t be any violence against my child’.

    They don’t realise that ‘it’ is not even their child anymore, according to the law, and their children live with them by the State’s consent.

  52. Matt says:

    Girls should not behave badly. And boys should not either. Boys (and girls) should not act with impunity just because a girl (or boy) “was behaving badly” or had put him/herself in a risky situation.

    Focus on children of all genders.

  53. Matt says:

    There should be NO violence against any child. Doesn’t matter what gender.

  54. Downunder says:

    I don’t think there is any great distance in our individual outlooks of life, Matt.

    What concerns me is that this will turn into a feminist cry to change rape laws to the point where a female is absent from court and a male is in court charged on paper – that’s the direction these women are headed, in their desire for female superiority.

    If we are going to protect our children, Roast Busters needs to be viewed from the point of view of an absence of parental authority and responsibility for their children, not a political campaign to change rape laws.

    I really don’t think the majority of parents want the State consenting to our children’s juvenile desires for sexual experimentation. The damage will not be limited to the few cases we might see in the courts.

  55. Matt says:

    Well, it seems like we want to talk about two different thing. You want to talk about the state, etc. And I want to talk about education and two-pronged prevention, etc.

    Though I’m still not sure about the point you were trying to make in asking me to relate the adult female teacher to the alleged teenage victims who were girls. But you’ve gone off that even though I’ve asked you to explain a couple times.

    Let’s just agree to disagree, even though I can’t for sure say we disagree on anything at all actually. We’re just interested in talking about different things at the moment.

    I’ve heard what you had to say and it has raise some very good things to think about. Thank you for taking the time to say it to me. I hope I have given you some things to think about too.

    God bless.

  56. Matt says:

    Oh dear, well we disagree on some things. Sure some females want superiority. Some males want to be superior. And some females want to be treated as equal to men. Some men want that too. Some don’t. Some women don’t too. And just like me. Certainly not all us black folk want to be superior to whites. Some sure. Some don’t. You just can’t generalise with abandon like that unfortunately. It would be easier if we could.

    Now we can agree to disagree.

    God bless.

  57. Downunder says:

    I did say this in my post.

    This situation is not understood by our view or perception of what has happened. Society is being conditioned by the experiences and memories of the participants in this behaviour, not by our opinions.

    What is happening here doesn’t surprise me. As parents we have had our authority and control usurped by an academic state that holds the belief that it not only knows better, it can do better.

    You may want to discuss this from a different point of view and could become an author, Matt, and express those views – I would, and I sure others who have read your comments, would be interested to hear more from you, and engage you in discussion.

    There is a contribute section above the ‘recent comments’ heading at the top right of the page.

  58. hornet says:

    Down under – 51 – good points at 54 – also include – using the Roasters example – to expose the current failings with the police service provision – in not responding to complaints at all – and why this is so in the current political and economic environment – Profit protection is more important than protecting rights and liberties – that goes for the family court – which is why that BUSINESS is shrouded in secrecy – the destruction they cause by failing to actually do their job in the pursuit of money is why they leave behind a trail of shattered parents and destroyed kids……..

    Until there is an independent oversight of Family court and lawyers – there will never be a change – they are not accountable to anyone or anything……a peoples oversight commission of NON lawyers is the only way to turn the tide on the current conflicts of interest…….

    No other business on earth gets away with this – not one…….

  59. hornet says:

    Every problem in the world today can be traced to the two evils – power and profit. Keep focused on that and you will always understand the concern and where to start to fix it………deliberating on the differences between men and women and their human characteristics relating to procreation is just a diversion.

  60. hornet says:

    Nice try – divert us all to a thread from a month ago, and throw in some antagonistic and contentious comments…..

    Perhaps this article will help your debate as to the content discussed on here alison??

    http://intellihub.com/2013/11/13/kidnapped-syrian-girls-used-as-sex-slaves-report/

    THis is what happens to “girls” when governments fund rebel insertions into countries in the pursuit of power and profit…..the only difference between doing this in a democracy and a poor nation are the tactics used to attain the objective……..democracy uses free trade agreements to legitimise the agenda, whereas in a poor country where you have no rights, no money and no guns, they just take it – take everything they want……..because the people cant do a thing about it……….are you happy for this to take place Alison? or is it ok because its been kept hidden (legalised) here in NZ?

  61. Downunder says:

    It will be interesting to see how people respond to Rachel’s Facebook page about Roast Busters.

  62. Downunder says:

    Law Society suggests separate court for sex offences.

  63. Rachel says:

    They won’t – they will not draw attention to it for fear it will raise questions they don’t want to have answered. Any and contributing factors need to be looked at though. Otherwise we threatened to kill those boys for nothing.

  64. Rachel says:

    Sheesh!

    “Any and all”…

    G’nite!

  65. Downunder says:

    The Herald really does it with this headline – Roast Busters: Protests today aim to ‘bust rape culture’

    I assumed that the protest was about ‘Rape Culture’ then I saw this list of demands from ‘Protestors’;

    The protesters are campaigning for:
    “¢ Rape crisis centres to be adequately and sustainably funded
    “¢ Educational programmes set up focussing on rape prevention and awareness
    “¢ Police to put measures in place to allow for better support of survivors
    “¢ The Law Commission report into pre-trial and trial processes for sexual assault victims to be reinstated immediately.

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