- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -
What National is saying is that they are going to give our Police the same authority of a Judge to issue an interim injunction. This is an injunction that will automatically stop one party from associating with any children in that relationship.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.
This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.
Contact me for rates
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.
You can purchase Dry Ice on Kindle for just $6.00 here: https://www.amazon.com/Dry-Ice-Peter-Joyce-ebook/dp/B01N19JKAR
Peter Joyce writes a blog: www.blackstonesdrum.com
Womens Refuge backs domestic ticketing Does this mean they will take in all the women removed from their homes, and support them in court when they appear for breach of a protection order.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Fri 2nd November 2007 @ 2:48 pm
From listening to Simon Power and others discussing this idea it seems that what they have in mind is a shorter “cooling off” period (72 hours was mentioned) after a domestic violence callout. Although this will inevitably be directed against men unjustly, I think the idea might be reasonable. A short separation period after serious relationship acrimony seems sensible. As well, it might provide an opportunity to change the basis of longer Court-ordered protection orders. If there is an immediate safety-increasing option then the Court protection orders can be done with more care and regard for the rights of both parties.
We could push for the police-ordered “cooling off” orders to cause minimal damage to the respondent; e.g. at most remove firearms and licence only for the duration of the order, and involve no forced indoctrination sessions (but instead suggest a range of support and counselling services including anger management to both parties).
We could also seize the chance to have Court protection orders changed, e.g. that much more stringent criteria be met for any ex parte orders, that before any order is granted evidence beyond reasonable doubt be required that the respondent has actually done anything violent, and that there be a presumption of the right to have the fullest possible contact with children unless the evidence shows children were subjected to violence.
Incidently, Annette King talked about a major review of management of domestic violence coming up very soon. This provides another chance for debate, though the intention is probably to implement most of Robertson et al’s recommendations that will reduce men’s civil rights even further.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 2nd November 2007 @ 10:06 pm
The result of this will be more axe murderers killing their wives, when will these IDIOTS realise this ?
Comment by martin swash — Fri 2nd November 2007 @ 10:31 pm
The lawyer for the child will always be able to find violence against children, “hearing arguments” is the favourite one isn’t it ?
Comment by martin swash — Fri 2nd November 2007 @ 10:34 pm
Surely what we need first are safe houses after domestic disputes? Who in parliament so far has demanded that these be funded and organised – the feminists?
Then we need to have dialogue with the police about what the rules are that these safehouses demand of the police. That meansd that the directors of teh safe houses set teh rules and not the police. The only way you are going to find out what the rules could be so that they are consistent with the demands of the police is by asking the kinds of people who would opt to run the safe houses. And do they talk to these people? Fat chance. They tend just to pass the problem over to the new minister who they all hope is competent enough to whistle in a slightly different tune. If the new Minister is incompetennt then they all (opposition) tend to concentrate on how to sharpen their knives in order to inflict the deepest cuts.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 4th November 2007 @ 2:26 pm
More single mother families, more angry Dads, more fatherless kids, more Child Support for the government, more fees for lawyers, more Anti-violence courses ? Yes, obviously NZ will have even bigger domestic violence statistics, so even more draconian laws will have to be introduced. When will these ignorant tossers realise it is the laws that are causing problems ! Violence is, in many cases the fault of both parties, other countries are just starting understand this, NZ, as usual is behind
More estranged Dads into the Father’s movement !
Comment by swashy — Mon 5th November 2007 @ 10:47 am
Today i received a change in Bail conditions, it said i am not allowed to go near “my wife, or HER children”
YOU EVIL BASTARDS STEALING MY KIDS FROM ME
Comment by swashy — Mon 5th November 2007 @ 11:02 am
What region are you in swashy?
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 5th November 2007 @ 1:03 pm
Hi Ben I am in Wellington, i am in the local Union of Fathers , yes, i am being aided by Allan, thanks, just annoyed at the helplessness of it all, and how it got to be this way in NZ. Thanks for your concern, it will a long slow fight against these feminised laws, but men will win one day
Comment by swashy — Mon 5th November 2007 @ 1:56 pm
I have to meet up with Allan fairly soon as just today I have directly challenged Annette King as the Minister of Justice to recognise a glitch in the Ministry of Social Developments objectives, principles and purpose.
Allan is already pretty much aware of teh ideas that I canvas and has already given me support for their progress. The best way that I am able to implement any demand is by having direct access to those cases which clearly determine an injustice. The term “HER” children is just such an example and constiutes fair reason to reject its determination. They have to prove that teh children are not yours in order to override your natural rights as a parent so:
1: Can you prove that you are the biological parent of the children – meaning (at this stage only) that you are on the birth certificate and;
2: Are you happy to meet with me with me about the allegations you have made in your comments?
Optimally you will say yes to 1 and 2 and we should meet, preferably with Allan.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 5th November 2007 @ 3:03 pm
Hi Ben
Yes, i think you have read my previous posts, and yes, i am on the birth certificate, yes, i can meet you anytime with Allan, i would look forward to it.
Martin
Comment by swashy — Mon 5th November 2007 @ 3:32 pm
i will be at Raumati with Allan tomorrow evening (Tue)
Comment by swashy — Mon 5th November 2007 @ 3:49 pm
Great,
talk with Allan and sort out a time that is suitable. The library is excellent for me, but that’s your choice. 027 390 2169. The sooner the better really, I’ve got a bit to talk about with Allan.
Cheers.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 5th November 2007 @ 3:54 pm
No, i mean at Allan’s surgery, we meet every Tuesday at 7:30 pm, will you be there tomorrow
Comment by swashy — Mon 5th November 2007 @ 3:57 pm
My husband had those same words said to him too Swashy when he and his ex seperated.She tryed to get him to sign a contract through her lawyer saying that he would have no further input in HER children’s lives.That was until she needed a few favours done,like child support,her car repaired etc etc,then they were HIS children.
All the best.I hope you will get to see your children soon
Comment by rosie — Mon 5th November 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Thanks Rosie for your words
I wonder what would happen if there was a mass simultaneous Protection Breach by all estranged fathers ? Who would organize it ?
Comment by swashy — Tue 6th November 2007 @ 10:18 am
No, I’m not at Raumati on Tuesday evening.
I’m waiting to hear back from government to determine the next stage of New Zeland protest if the new Ministers are planning to stick to any agenda that continues to accept as unchallengable women’s violence, where if women use their natural demand of men to think of them as sexually attractive or exciting (otherwise we just don’t get much other than a synthetic testubed and corrected baby) to procure favour for preference under any shroud of demanded equality.
If the behaviours are the same then DPO’s are our direct instrument of weaponry to directly challenge the government and as I have written I think to this site earlier the date to organise that challenge is June 10th 2008.
You can breach a protection order without having to be violent. You can express your anger without having to be rude. You can be right without having to be blamed wrong.
So its a bit of wait and see really. When you see Allan ask him to figure a time when you and he can get to Wellington and we can takeyour circumstances and the unlawful as directly discrimnatory text of your bail document from there. If not and in the meantime calculate what I have just said and then go to s.21 of unlawful discrimination of the Human Rights Act.
Cheers,
Benjamin.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 6th November 2007 @ 4:04 pm
Just received word from a friend of mine the stakes have been raised on a separation he was trying make as smooth as possible. Protection order was taken out claiming physical and psychological violence.
He is devastated – and I have no experience in these matters.
Please – what are the good/sensible/logical first steps. He has a lawyer, they still have joint finances, and he has a friend (me) trying to help keep him from emotional collapse..
Any help appreciated.
Comment by Nigel — Fri 8th February 2008 @ 4:47 pm
Hi Nigel
Look back and read how devastated Swashy was.He managed to get that protection order thrown out and he now has shared care of his children.On another thread he mentions his lawyers name.
I can’t understand what makes some women tick at times and what causes the vengeful actions that some feel they need to resort to.
Your friend is lucky that he has you for support.
Hopefully others will advise you of what actions your friend should take,but tell him not to give up.
Comment by rosie — Fri 8th February 2008 @ 7:14 pm
These protection orders have been the basis of difficulties for teenagers in this country for several years now.I myself had one made against me while I was overseas and made some attempted phone calls to my ex wifes children back in 1996.I have attempted several times to get it removed unsuccessfully.The court has never seen it necessary to give a reason.My son despite huge intelligence and talent has now left school early and has no relationship with me.My daughter 12 also has no relationship with me.I have given up and am not prepared being breached again by contacting them.I suggest other fathers do the same.Look after yourselves.Be strong.Move on.Your children will seek you out when they are older.
Just accept it is what the majority of what people in NZ want that if a woman wants to stop her children having contact with their father she can rely on the polica and the family court to support her.No use fighting against the system to your own and ultimately your children`s detriment
Comment by whanga — Fri 21st March 2008 @ 6:49 pm
Nigel, go to http://www.fathers.orcon.net.nz
Comment by Andrew Wotton — Sun 23rd March 2008 @ 12:49 am
Nigel, go to the right hand side of this website and scroll up or down, click on Fathers of New Zealand and it will tell you what to do for your friend.
Comment by Andrew Wotton — Sun 23rd March 2008 @ 12:54 am
My conclusion about all the injustice that men are facing from the family laws is that men must do 2 things
1. Live apart from the woman and only meet her from time to time to keep up an “exclusive” relationship, never live with her even if she can only afford a hovel. Let them stay at your house as little as possible. NEVER buy a “family” home in which she “lives”
2. If she takes out any sort of legal order, men should assasinate them, that would make the authorities sit up. This must be done by as many men as possible.
Comment by ZubbaZubba — Sun 23rd March 2008 @ 5:19 pm
ZubbaZubba says:
This kind of comment just plays into the hands of feminists who claim that all men are by nature controlling and violent. If this is what you truly believe and advocate, I think it is completely reasonable that you be prevented from having any role in the upbringing of children.
Perhaps you might prefer living in a society controlled by the Taliban or similar extremists rather than in New Zealand?
Comment by JohnP — Mon 24th March 2008 @ 10:37 am
Well men are not achieving much by the status quo, SOMETHING MUST BE DONE FOR GODS SAKE, we are being screwed and nothing is being done. Something WILL be done if HUNDREDS of ex-wives started being topped, it would make Helen sit up, anyway.
And yes Taleban rule starts to look quite attractive when the law has stolen your kids and your house , and you have felt the injustice of the biassed NZ cops ! Are you one of these lawyer spies that we hear about?
Comment by zubbazubba — Mon 24th March 2008 @ 10:50 am
No I’m not a lawyer, I’m the owner of this website, and I don’t want it to be shut down for promoting or endorsing “hate speech”.
I sympathise with your predicament, but two wrongs don’t make anything right.
Those of us who have been around for a while know that quite a bit is being done, and that things have actually improved in recent years. My concern is that progress will be undermined if we are perceived to be a bunch of radical, dangerous nutters.
Comment by JohnP — Mon 24th March 2008 @ 8:40 pm
ok
Comment by ZubbaZubba — Tue 25th March 2008 @ 10:29 am
I am thinking of trying for a protection order against my ex for repeated verbal abuse occuring in front of the children whenever I pick up or drop off, two incidents where she lashed out at me and another two incidents of forcing her way into my home and my trying to at my parents, repeated discussion of the FC shared care application that I have made with our daughter (10 yo). A year has gone by and still can not get a hearing. Any advice out there?
Comment by Bruce — Tue 25th March 2008 @ 8:33 pm
Worth a bog off letter. Not threatening but clearly flagging a PO application if the abuse continues. Draft it and then get someone to look it over. Send it to me at [email protected] if you wish. I draft quite a few of these bog off letters. Chances of you getting a PO (even on notice) is remote. Don’t go down a pathway you are likely to loose, it will just distract from your other application. Allan, Union of Fathers (Wellington)
Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 25th March 2008 @ 9:30 pm
Things are getting worse and worse for fathers, protection orders will be made by police, who are the most biassed group of the lot. We will be thrown out of houses and away from kids lives all on the say of a biassed cop. They just love catching us on “Dommies”. Something drastic must be done by fathers. Something that will awake the politicians that there is a problem. These evil women are taken us all to the cleaners and the state is enabling it all and taking a cut. The status quo will just get worse and worse. Doing nothing is just tacit acceptance of it all. Women are just devils bitches who should be in hell.
Comment by zubbazubba — Wed 26th March 2008 @ 10:04 am
Things are getting worse and worse for fathers, protection orders will be made by police, who are the most biassed group of the lot. We will be thrown out of houses and away from kids lives all on the say of a biassed cop. They just love catching us on “Dommies”. Something drastic must be done by fathers. Something that will awake the politicians that there is a problem. These evil women are taken us all to the cleaners and the state is enabling it all and taking a cut. The status quo will just get worse and worse. Doing nothing is just tacit acceptance of it all. Women are just devil bitches who should be in hell.
Comment by zubbazubba — Wed 26th March 2008 @ 10:04 am
Populations would tend to decrease iof all women were in hell.
Lobby your MP about the PO’s being issued by Police. A lot of cops don’t want that task either. One proposal is for orders to last for just 72 hours but that is still likely to result in a total change and Dad being the baddy for ever. The matter is currently under review only and won’t see the light of day before the election so don’t stress too much now. Lobby hard at election time.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Wed 26th March 2008 @ 11:05 am
Hi Zubbazubba
Some of us women are suffering too because of the way our husband’s are being treated.We are going to sell our house and get right away out of it to look for some peace and quiet.I don’t have to go to hell,I’ve been there this past year.
Comment by rosie — Wed 26th March 2008 @ 12:27 pm
Nothing is changing, it will only get worse, now police are getting powers to give out POs, they love catching men in “Dommies” , i have heard them. Only something drastic will make the policians listen and MAKE them change these unjust laws. Men must act, there is a serious problem with our rights which requires a serious reply, the Domestic violence industry is becoming stronger and stronger, men are losing more rights every year. As long as only a percentage of older men are affected nothing will ever change, the government and lawyers will continue to profit from it all (YES I KNOW SOME OF YOU LEGAL IDIOTS ARE READING THIS !). Allan Harvey’s silly quips will not change anything, all the moans about IRD will not change anything, the government wants to take more and more from fathers and letting evil bitches get away with more and more , something drastic must be done
Comment by zubbazubba — Thu 27th March 2008 @ 7:21 am
I had a protection order served on me after moving to auckland while the ex stayed in chch over a year after i lived in chch. I was never accused of hitting her and i never did hit her. I said some rather silly things i admit i should not of said in emails and text. I started the process of fighting the order from auckland but because the order was filed in christchurch being a solo dad on the DPB i was unable to afford the air fares to fly down to chch to defend the order which has now just gone permanent. Last week i was served with papers to attend a course. I feel a in justice has been done as the ex lied in here stated not everything she said to take the order out was true and I feel ive been screwed over and handed a life sentence because I did not have the money to beable to fly to christchurch to defend myself. the people at the programm wont give me one on one and expect me to do the course in a group
I suffer from bipolar which includes a mix of illness one being Social Phobia
that stops me from being able to interact in group situations and causes me to have panic attacks. Ive now refused to do the course and have been told im going to be summonsed to court. I cant believe this is happening. Am I going to end up in jail over this what will happen to my child in my care ??? hes been with me from 9mths old hes now 13yrs old from a past relationship his mother choose to not have contact all these years.
Comment by Phill — Tue 13th January 2009 @ 1:06 pm
Nothing is changing? An Outcome Evaluation of Police Safety Orders
Your task, should you choose to accept, is to review the quality and fitness for use, of the Police Evaluation of their POs.
Has it listened critically to all participants?
Has it been able to compare the performance of the new system, accurately compared to the old system?
Has it measured the savings produced by the new system credibly?
Has it measured the costs of the new system credibly?
Has it measured perverse effects of the new policy?
Has it measured the equity to all participants?
Cost/benefit analysis?
Are the conclusions sensible and the best possible in the circumstances?
Are there issues that should have been covered, that were not addressed?
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 9th June 2015 @ 4:56 pm