My wife (Professor Felicity Goodyear-Smith) had an article published today on The Daily Blog.
The post begins:
The Sexual Violence Bill, currently before Parliament, looks to increase convictions by effectively revoking the defendant’s right to silence, and prohibiting types of evidence tending to indicate innocence. As an academic, qualified forensic physician, and expert witness in sexual cases (for both sides), I am concerned by the rationale for this bill.
Greta Aurora makes a video to explain Infantilization. It is the approach or methodology where grown women act out and make others believe they should be treated as children. And the receiver of such a performance gets emotionally involved, believes it. (more…)
If you ever wondered how you came to live in a democracy?
It was not because people thought it was a good idea. It was not because you expected it. It had to be fought for.
War is not polite. It has rules yes. But those rules tend to be ignored by the aggressor when the bombs fall and bullets fly. I can assure you the defenders quickly learn to ignore those rules too. (more…)
When you knowingly falsely accuse a man of rape, have the Government pay compensation to the man using my taxes to the tune of $333,000 but then continue to accuse him using privilege, – What sort of nonsense is that?
Have you ever wondered why your child has lost contact with you? Why they might be behaving poorly towards you or not openly communicating as they did the week before?
Below is the 17 strategies used by narcissists to alienate the other parent.
It has been a real struggle to get the narrative to accept this form of child abuse.
How many can you tick off that has happened to you?
1. Badmouthing (Example: Constantly criticizing the character of the other parent in front of the children.)
2. Limiting Contact (Example: planning activities for the children during the other’s parent time.)
3. Interfering with Communication (Example: placing unnecessary restrictions and rules around phone calls with the other parent.)
4. Interfering with Symbolic Communication (Example: Getting rid of the child’s pictures of the other parent.)
5. Withdrawal of Love (Example: Subtly giving the child the message that if they love the other parent, they are less valuable.)
6. Telling Child Targeted Parent Does Not Love Him or Her (Example: “If your dad really loved you, he would have never done what he did.”)
7. Forcing Child to Choose (Example: “Are you going to be loyal to me or your mother?”)
8. Creating the Impression that the Targeted Parent is Dangerous (Example: Packing pepper spray in the child’s bag on a visit to the other parent and teaching them to use it “in case the other parent tries anything.”)
9. Confiding in Child (Example: Telling the child all the details of your ex’s affair.)
10. Forcing Child to Reject Targeted Parent
11. Requesting Child to Spy on Targeted Parent
12. Asking Child to Keep Secrets from Targeted Parent
13. Calling the Targeted Parent by First Name
14. Referring to a Step parent as “Mom” or “Dad” and Encouraging Child to Do the Same
15. Withholding Medical, Academic, and Other Important Information from Targeted Parent/ Keeping Targeted Parent’s Name off of Medical, Academic, and Other Relevant Documents
16. Changing Child’s Name to Remove Association with Targeted Parent
17. Cultivating Dependency (Example: Making the child feel like they need to be with the parent to be OK. Or making the child feel like the parent needs them to be OK.)
Clause 8. Can’t present previous sexual experiences with the person who claims they were raped.
Clause 14. Defence to present a year before the trial.
As you may be aware it is the inconsistencies between statements that finds if she is not telling the truth. The complainant could get to discuss their answer with the police or whomever they want for a year before trial.
Bill of rights report gives the new law the approval. Bridges says no lawyer could give the new law that approval.
Bridges says many 100’s of innocent young men will be imprisoned.
Many have questioned, “How will bringing the Australian Family Court into the Federal Closed Circuit Court make a difference?”
It is becoming clearer the difference is wiping the Family Court rules and replacing them with the Closed Circuit Court rules.
To that end Australian Family Court Judges are to be retrained. It will include how to recognise victims of domestic and family violence whose stories are often not heard. i.e. Partners who have been falsely accused. And that it is usually the father.
This occurs when a woman, who may be feeling vindictive, tries to turn children against the other parent and makes unsubstantiated claims of violence and even child sexual abuse.
Such claims can be made out of malice and/or to bolster the party’s prospects of securing a favourable outcome – from their own perspective – in family law cases such as custody and property proceedings.
The law and penalty was always there under section 314 of the Crimes act 1900 (NSW). Punishable for up to 7 years jail. It just wasn’t in play in the Australian Family Court rules.
Where statements were made under oath that can be prosecuted for perjury under section 327 of the same act which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.
New Zealand has similar laws under the crimes act 1961 section 115. Conspiring to bring false accusation upon conviction is liable for imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
I am not entirely sure, but I think in NZ such accusations would need to be taken out privately in the district or High Court.
The direction the Australian Government has indicated is quite a significant one. It seems the Closed Circuit Court are arming and training Judges to award significant imprisonment penalties to those people who choose to lie in court.
There’s no doubt there’s been some great success in the past. Some men responsible for this are still on this forum. Reaching anywhere near that level again seems out of reach at this present time. Most of us are just hanging in there consumed by family court processes, lawyer and child support bills.
Let’s not make this confusing. There are a number of players here.
1. The Police have for a long time believe they are Judge and Jury by providing criminal history that has not been tested.
2. Justice Davison knows he is the decider on who has criminal history.
3. The teacher may or may not have been grooming the 15 year old girl.
4. The 15 year old girl believes she was not groomed and will not participate in a trial.
5. Clinical psychologist Kathryn McPhillips thinks it’s a useful workaround when victims who say they are not victims to stop people without convictions getting employment.
6. Professor Andrew Geddis said it could cost the Government $$$ is a possibility under the NZ Bill of rights act for the harm people have suffered.
7. Andrew Geddis thinks the Government should legislate to stop money being paid out to men who have suffered this side stepping on the NZ Bill of rights act.
I think any Court Of Appeal Judge will agree with Justice Davison.
I further think the Government may create a law to remove men’s rights under the NZ Bill of rights retrospectively. This would be a big step. But a step this Government may be willing to take since the latest sexual violence act that removes the right to a fair trial almost all lawyers are against here. Innocence Protection Project
Westpac fails to take into account men usually have physical jobs and a buggered when they finally get home. That and we build fences, service cars, mow lawns, trim trees, paint and a lot of other stuff.
Men who earn the bulk part of the income. Pay most of the tax that supports the nation.
There are many things we can’t do, but moving accounts and business away from companies we can. I am talking to my broker to move my mortgage to a bank that likes men. I suggest you do the same.
The sanctions in the Family Court Act for a breach of Section11B involving identification of children are a maximum of three months imprisonment, or a $2000 fine for an individual or $10,000 for an organisation.
IRD are generally unaware of the cause of death. Presumably Sue Gilles thinks what she calls the customers can apply for an administrative review if they have special circumstances. Seemingly she and IRD thinks thats an acceptable disclaimer for their policies. Men, usually don’t ask for help, they just cope. It is how they are wired. And calling the deceased customers??? WTF is that? Zero compassion.
As we all know, it is almost always the father who is the non-custodial parent. That and IRD thinks it helpful to hide the suicides inside the natural deaths, health problems identified by Nurit Zubery Thesis (click here) caused by severe stress.
Well, it looks like 2020 (year of the lockdown) was a bumper year. The best yet. Hon David Parker minister of revenue (including IRD) must be very delighted with that result. A real team effort.
I refuse to call them customers. I will only call them victims of IRD policy.
The least IRD could do is reach out to the fathers and ask if they are coping with it all. Loss of home, loss of their things in the home, loss of income, no faith. Monitor them. How they find living without seeing their kids because seeing them in the eyes of the mother would reduce payments. And when you call them, use a man because they have very good reason to distrust women.
My condolences to the children for their great lifetime of loss. No dad to help you when you need it. Not knowing the bond, love and faithfulness of a father, a grandfather.
One day, and I hope it is soon. A Government, maybe a Prime Minister will step up and say “I will no longer support policy that puts human beings in a place of hopelessness and despair”. You see NZ has these policies for unemployed, the sick, elderly, children, Maori, women, refugees, even plants, pets and live stock. But not separated fathers.
While I am not restricting general comments about the stats, if you are a dad, a grown child, extended family, friends, workmates of the deceased. If you leave a comment, please tell me if you are struggling with payments, how you were treated by IRD, the courts and the mother of your child.
Many years ago I went out on a limb with This Post, to make a point. This was about Mallard as an MP in the Clark Administration … you can’t comment on that though.
He was behaving like a girl then and it suited Clark not to sack him because she put herself above the principle.
Some people would call that playing God because you put yourself above the established, known, learned, previously successful principles of the past.
Today Mallard, who is now our Speaker has repeated the same silly behavior as if it was routinely acceptable.
Our current prime minister is in the same position around the same time in the political swings and around abouts of our centrist politics.
The difference is that, Mallard is now our Speaker rather than an MP.
There is only one acceptable way out of the current situation and Mallard must go.
We cannot allow the these absentee processes to take hold or we will be in a much worse position than having this isolated to the family court and any other specialist civil courts that are and might develop.
The police practice of issuing “formal warnings” to people who haven’t been convicted of any crime then and sharing that information with other parties has been found to be illegal.
So the process is:
1. Man gets a formal warning for an allegation of a sex nature.
2. Man applies for a job and has to sign a vetting form.
3. The allegation is disclosed.
4. No job. And the employer has the mans allegation in their office.
Justice Davison ordered the Police to delete the warning.
In law, an allegation is a claim of an unproven fact by a party in a pleading, charge, or defence. Until they can be proved, allegations remain merely assertions.
My question is, when are the Police going to compensate that man?
This is from another page but in reading it I felt it hinted at the long term involvement of women in politics since they achieved voting rights.
Their involvement in the protest movement, the anti-war movement, left wing causes, and now in this age climate change and particularly in the international arena has been a more singular global voice.
NZ teacher Peter Joyce’s settled life was disrupted when a woman he had never met accused him of historic rape. With a unique brand of angry humour, his diary plots the stages of his despair and traces his attempts to find justice in the face of the current insistence that we must “believe the victim”.
Dry Ice is a compelling memoir, but much more. The accusation made the writer a reluctant expert on similar cases from all over the world. He throws light on everything that limits public knowledge of false sexual allegations, from dangerous counselling to flawed statistics, and he exposes police investigation methods as blinkered, inefficient and insensitive.