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

6 Comments »

1. 

   So how are we as “talkers” going to get behind Judy Turner’s initiative?

   Julie – can you coordinate between groups by ringing Bob McCroskie or other relevant people to see if we can facilitate some kind of impact to what UF & JT are saying? If not you what about a “bloke” – somewhere – somehow.

   I’ll be cycling the North Island visiting maraes. I’ve got a complain nearly in with the Ombudsman, a complaint in with the HRC, several letters waiting for replies – a case in before the Families Commission and a direct challenge in on Steve Maharey: Yet I would go out of my way to join up if some “bloike” decided to come up with some initiative that involved getting off the couch.

   Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 17th August 2007 @ 4:10 pm

2. 

   Oh sorry add a petition in before parliament and a submission to be heard later in the year before the Justice and Electoral select committee.

   How hard is it to coordinate a few people into some form of collective action when you have a politician (two) if you count Gordon Copeland’s recent excellent question in the House directly challenging an ineffective and child abusive Steve Maharey. Come on GUYS – gert off your bums and begin to work for your sons and daughters.

   Comment by Benjamin Easton — Fri 17th August 2007 @ 4:14 pm

3. 

   Scrap I take it you have seen the secrecy provisions given to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, with changes to the child support act, provided for in this bill.

   Comment by Bevan Berg — Fri 17th August 2007 @ 4:49 pm

4. 

   To furnish reason for those of political ilk, to recognise that “if” direct political influence is th emeans and method by which to bring reform, and “if” there could be an agreement that it can be furthered for political unity as against disunity and discord, then; in the most recent pink book of the Hansard V640 Weekly 49 on 18 July p.10485, Gordon Copeland make a most specific point that should be considered efficiently and competently if we want functionally to compete against opressive domestic violence figures. He said: ” Each year 7,000 young people are involved, in one way or another, with the youth justice system. A representative sample of those 7,000 young people has been taken through a research project, and it shows that just 12 percent of those 7,000 young people come from a home where they are living with both parents. A further 28 percent come from a home where they are living with just one parent. The remaining 60 percent – an amazing figure – come from a home where they are living with neither their mother nor their father”.

   He did not specify the research and immediately there is the age old argument of which figures any would use to calculate a point they would exploit. But what about it?

   I listened in parliament the other day to Steve Maharey entitled to scold Tariana Turia. She was asking him on the Maori based programmes supporting Maori and from where their intiiation came, whether from Maori or government initiatives. As she is apt she slipped up on the answer missing that SM had given a list of Maori sources and providers for programmes and she was further trumped when he extended the list from its original provision. Yet what I heard from him was what I received from Lianne Dalziel when the Minister introducing the COC Bill in 2004. They were all primarily about preventing violence. They were focused on the bottom of the cliff and not on thos epressures that cause people to fall. Additionally, even if the figures and details from SM do in fact satisfy the broader necessity to look beyond violence as where to influence behaviour, the economic disparity between Maori and government as it is operated will be fiscally manipulated to suit the agenda of parliament.

   That agenda does not recognise fathers as an integral as vital part of every family. That agenda is about the economic exploitation and its secuities fo the working family unit – whether it is togehter from its commitment or apart for its dysfunction. That agenda has little to do with people – as it has much more to do with power.

   Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 18th August 2007 @ 11:04 am

5. 

   Judy Turner is just great value. I think I will vote United Future (for the first time ever) in spite of P Dunne being such a twit, in recognition of Judy’s courageous tireless efforts to burst the family court’s sick and bloated bubble.

   Comment by Paul — Sat 18th August 2007 @ 8:12 pm

6. 

   I’m waiting back for an answer Paul from your observation on government double dipping with the child support and income tax both coming out of the gross, exploiting a twofold amount from a single unit. His office has replied that they will reply.

   This leaves three options.

   (1) Your assessment is wrong. That’s OK and good on you for pushing the test.

   (2) Theft has occured and there will be a flash of very wiley and cautious words that dig themselves deeper into a festering rot.

   (3) Theft has occured – and they come clean.

   As you’ve seen the original letter I wrote (and I apologise for the couple of stupid but minor errors in the question) and I am responding to your observation, and that I will publish PD’s response from that mailing address, I will seek your response before broadening the answer to this group and wider groups.

   Then, I reckon, we should look at the vote.

   Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sun 19th August 2007 @ 11:32 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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.