MENZ ISSUES

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

Should Men’s Advocates Work as Access Supervisors?

Filed under: Domestic Violence,Law & Courts — JohnPotter @ 2:18 pm Mon 1st February 2010

Over recent weeks there has been heated (and often abusive) debate about Union of Fathers’ president Alan Harvey working as an access supervisor. He is not the first men’s advocate to have done so – Craig Davis from Shore Fathers has also been employed in this position, and likewise faced a torrent of abuse and accusations from an angry male client.

It will be obvious that I have not been doing much moderation in recent weeks – many of the comenters repeatedly break the MENZ rules – my only excuse is that the sun was shining, and the trail inviting.

I’m leaving the discussion unaltered because I think much of it is valuable. There is very little mention of the NZ Supervised Access regime in the mainstream media, and many important issues are raised.

At Men’s Centre North Shore in the mid-90s, we heard regular reports by a member who had been sentenced to supervised access on the basis of an uncoroberated accusation by his ex-wife.

The treatment he received was downright abusive, and seemed calculated to destroy any possibility of meaningful relationship with his daughter. The false belief that daddy was bad and dangerous was repeatedly re-inforced by the supervisor. She constantly interrupted conversations to abuse the father, and most normal father-daughter subjects were forbidden.

The visits were consistently so stressful and unpleasant that the child eventually refused to attend, and complete parental alienation was achieved. I am thinking Skeptik may have also met this particular father.

I would particularly like to invite comments from other men who have personally attended a NZ supervised access centre.

The Domestic Violence Act stipulation that children automatically get added to a Domestic Protection Order is the root of the problem in my view. There is no evidence that partner violence in the context of a relationship breakdown automatically places the children in increased danger.

No child should undergo forced separation from a parent at the hands of the State unless there is actual evidence that the child is unsafe. There must be proper judicial due process for establishing this, not just a rubber stamp. The process should take days, not months and years.

Until we reform this aspect of the law, the supply of new victims (both fathers and children) continue to provide unnecessary jobs for supervisors. I’m with the hardliners on this point – the current system is plain wrong and it needs fixing.

But, in the meantime, we are stuck with the fundamentally flawed and gender biased Family Court and the ideologically-based laws which support it. Even if the revolution were to succeed tomorrow, we can hardly solve the problem by lining up every Family Court collaborator against the wall and executing them!

Separating parents will continue to argue and manipulate and hit each other. Conflicts will still need to be resolved by outsiders in many situations. There will still be children who want to see their parents even though they actually are potentially dangerous, in which case supervision might be entirely appropriate.

So while we are waiting (and advocating for) major reform, isn’t it useful to work with the system and attempt to influence cultural change from within?

In addition to the two mentioned above, I have met a number of men working for the Family Court or its agencies who are in a position to make the environment around them marginally more male-friendly. I sure know who I would want to supervise my access if the choice was between Alan or a hairy man-hating lesbian!

Martin, I have given you much more leeway than I normally would, because I am aware there is no effective due process for making complaints or resolving disputes about supervised access.

But your efforts to circumvent moderation only succeeded because I wasn’t paying attention – be warned that I can and will ban you completely if you continue to suck up my time and energy by breaking the rules. I’m particularly annoyed with you for hi-jacking the excellent airline seating discussion. If the oppositional behaviour you are demonstrating on this site is the way you habitually deal with the world, I am not surprised that you have failed to achieve a satisfactory outcome with regard to your boys.

I think much of the abuse directed at Alan is over-the-top, and unfair, and I believe he genuinely has got men’s interest’s at heart. However, when any of us accept payments for professional services, we have to accept the possibility of dissatisfied clients. Ideally there is a professional mechanism for resolving complaints; where there is not then we become fair game i the public arena.

I think it is great that men like Alan engage in discussions on MENZ. I worry that many of the responses this site generates make it a hostile environment at times, but then I reflect that this is the nature of most un-moderated forums. But others are more likely to consider your point-of-view if you treat them with respect. Carrots work better than sticks, blah blah. Why can’t we all just, you know, get along?

Is there anything basically wrong with financially benefiting from working within an institution that is corrupted? I suggest not – if every male-friendly Family Court worker was to resign tomorrow the system would not collapse – it would just become a whole lot tougher for fathers. I say the more non-feminist workers the better!

In the interests of full disclosure I should note that my wife Felicity gets paid for expert witness work in sex abuses prosecutions, many of which would not occur if NZ laws were less influenced by feminist principles.

I don’t agree that organisations like UOF should always put men’s interests first, in the way that feminist organisations do for women. This “us against them” mentality which has been driving the gender wars is part of the problem, not the solution.

I strongly support the idea that laws and social services should operate “in the best interest of the child”, and I think that when they eventually do this, there will be little need for a Father’s Rights Movement.

I like to thing we are heading towards a Truth & Reconciliation commission rather than a firing squad!

99 Responses to “Should Men’s Advocates Work as Access Supervisors?”

  1. Skeptik says:

    “So while we are waiting (and advocating for) major reform, isn’t it useful to work with the system and attempt to influence cultural change from within?”

    Emphatically. No it isn’t.
    Doing so is collusion and only feeds the corrupt DV – family law system in NZ making it live on to perpetuate yet more misandry and misery for our kids.

    Another hard liner view huh?
    Personally I call it a common sense view.

  2. Keen Skier says:

    Please allow me to present a story. You are in a mini. There is a bus coming down a hill towards you. You hit it head on. Your Mini is totalled. The bus is scarcely dented. However you qyickly turn, get along side the bus and deflect it, you can change its direction, maybe even stop it. Your mini will still be totalled, you however are much more likely to walk away to fight another day. Thinking people will undoubtedly see the analogy!

  3. Keen Skier says:

    I forsee a drift into examining the DVA act. The Act had its origins in Wanganui’s Bristol incident in the early 90’s. In this the mans wife seemingly hounded him to the extent that he killed their children (I think 3) and himself. The law at the time was examined by Retired Judge Sir Ronald Davidson. to submit a report. Davidson went totally outside his terms of reference in preparing this report.

    A seperate report by Neville Robertson (A well known feminist apologist) of Waikato University was also published. This latter presented Christine Bristols version only with no effort at critical analysis or other views. a perfectect example of GIGO! The NZ environment must have been similar to the Salem witchcraft trials! Certainly not a good environment to produce fair and ballenced legislation, which we certainly don’t have.

    Feminism was heading to it’peak, all men are rapists etc, and men had not yet thought of begining to organise! Look out guys they are off again. some man hating cop will be able to issue an instant PO purely on a whim from July. Worse still Refuge staff routinely attend all DV callouts. What coercion are they going to apply to the few possibly fair and honest police we have left. There is going to be a lot of homeless men around! Read the alterations to the act. They are draconian!

    Google Bristol, & Davidson. Read the hell hole you are walking towards. We can’t save you from your selves.

  4. Thanks for this thread John,

    I had stopped visiting your site as my roles were being deliberately confused.

    I am involved with Union of Fathers and I have a seperate role working in supervised contact. Union of Fathers has clear policy about s16 of the DVA (automatic inclusion of children in orders) which is not too dissimilar to how John P describes things could be different.

    The normal way mens activists end up in supervisory roles is because parents ask them to be. That was how it was with Martin and many of my clients.

    There is a professional body for such work, Aoteoroa New Zealand Association of Children’s Supervised Contact Centres http://www.nzacsas.org.nz/

    The role has traditionally been dominated by one large NGO provider and the association has offered more diversity of provider, standards, training and a professional development for staff involved in this work.
    Allan

  5. Yes we have Neville Robertson and Ruth Busch to thank for the DVA. There are many other readings of the Alan Bristol murder suicide. Basically he was about to loose custody of the girls and he gassed himself and his three daughters in the family station wagon in his distress at their likely removal six hours away from him.

    There are parralles which Mr Robertson and Ms Busch refuse to acknolwledge. They even have the indignity to list and mis-spell three young lives in their 212 long list of male violence where the aggressor was mummy who was worried that the Court might grant dad unsupervised contact.

    The tragic murder suicide of Rosemary Perkins and her three daughters Alice, Maria and Cherie, aged 8, 6, and 23 months, is a shocking reminder of the urgency of the need for change to New Zealand’s family laws.

    The present system, based on an adversarial “winner takes all” ideology, encourages conflict and aggression, as parents are driven to fight over the most precious thing in their lives, their children.

  6. MurrayBacon says:

    Sir Ron Davison’s report well illustrates the embarrassingly poor professional quality of the sociological research in most NZ Government Justice Department reports. These “research projects” are not well considered and targeted, they are more like coffee table magazines. They are not based on a research plan setup to obtain sufficient information, useful or safe for being used to make decisions on changes to these systems.
    The reports are based around supporting the present government’s policies, whether they would be workable or not!
    It is not surprising that Sir Ron Davison is a spectacular failure at writing sociological research reports, as he has no relevant training. In these areas he is a dogooder amateur (I try to do this too! If you are interested in my “research” efforts, send an EMAIL to me: murray_bacon@clear.net.nz) I believe that he has no professional level training to be a “judge” either, so I guess he is as well qualified to be a sociological researcher, as a “judge”.

    His report was not peer reviewed and really only contained his idle speculations. The report is really only useful as a window onto his mind – if you had any interest? (I am not sure if his legal achievements were any better than his sociological research? It is too late as he has escaped with the money, now!)
    Although I am lambasting Justice Department researchers, to be fair to these individuals, the Government is paying them to write these types of report and they end up having little choice.

    To carry out worthwhile research takes a lot of open minded planning and preparation, careful gathering of data and then a lot of work analysing and explaining the observations. This is expensive work.

    Australia does put in the funds and does achieve worthwhile research. See AIFS.

    Even so, the uptake by the wider public and by politicians largely destroys what value these researchers have created!

    Against this background, I can only conclude that NZ kills more citizens through it’s ham fisted attempts to be legally and legislatively creative, than if we followed the far safer path of watching the larger countries and then copying the outcomes that we were more comfortable with.

    Defective legislation can and does kill, within our shores, at least every third day.

    Ms Busch and Mr Robertson also include an example of a mother manslaughterer in their list, but this is a trivial digression. Lets not let facts get in the way of a good yarn. I only found out because she told me.

    When you carry out an experiment on people, the worst sin is to fail to evaluate the outcomes professionally. NZ does this continuously. If the experiment was a success, it is desirable to know, maybe you can improve outcomes. If it wasn’t a success, it is even more essential to find out, so that you can halt the damage being done.

    NZ has never professionally evaluated the performance of the DV Act, in 15 years! The number of lives unnecessarily lost, is several jumbo jetloads.

    Legislation quality requires professional quality research and monitoring of outcomes. When we do this research, I believe that we can save about 100 lives per year, compared to present outcomes. There would be no increase in costs, on the contrary there is a cost reduction waiting for us. Lets throw off fixed ideology and raise our aim far higher. After the research is completed, then it takes the public and politicians to read and understand it. NZ is very slow and poor at this, to our severe cost in lives.

    People have pointed out the conflict of interest, in taking money from a system that you don’t believe ethically serves families. I can only support these challenges.

    However, I know Allan Harvey fairly well. In my opinion, that conflict of interest does NZers far less harm, than all of the other hidden conflicts of interests, which “our” “judges” deny they are influenced by.

    These “judges” honour is protected by a judicial complaints commissioner, who has never once found any problem, as a result of hundreds of complaints submitted to him, over 6 years. I have fairly little respect for these “judges” who are defended by a corrupt and valueless expensive commissioner.

    Until our “judges” can honestly defend their names, from the corrupting influences of many many many conflicts of interest they are exposed to, then they will find it hard to earn my respect. By comparison, USA, UK and Australia discipline, reprimand and terminate several judges per year, for both criminal and ethical breaches. Comparing the jcc in NZ to those overseas commissioners, shows how naive the NZ public is and how hollow the NZ jcc is.

    Lets worry about the bigger and more destructive problems, before we worry about Allan Harvey helping with supervised access. To the limit of my information, he does help fathers in a very important way. I am not sure how much and how well Keen Skier or Skeptik help others? I would like to see a fair comparison.

    Axe-murderers aren’t getting good press just at present, so please leave me out of the comparison!? MurrayBacon.

  7. Hi Murray and thanks for comments.
    However I’m not sure all Aussie “research” is positive stuff. There is 300 pages in the Prof Chisholm’s report that had predetermined conclusions “That too many Dad were getting a fair shake in the Family Court.” Surprisingly he found just what the Fc industry wanted him to.
    This was released last week.
    http://resources.news.com.au/files/2010/01/28/1225824/414897-chisholmreport.doc

  8. julie says:

    I’m glad you wrote something JohnP.

    Allan, it’s wonderful to have you back. You’re extremely valuable to the men’s movement IMO and it would be a great loss if you were driven away.

  9. Skeptik says:

    Murray,

    I still have unanswered questions about the role of uof in supplying feminists with research statistics which then get turned into misandric social policy.

  10. Skeptic,
    Can I again say my role providing contact services has nothing to do with my UoF role. If you continue to deliberately confuse matters it is not helpful.
    As the saying goes, liers, dammed liaers and B***dy statisticians.

  11. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Skeptik, I don’t keep a very careful eye onto this site, so I apologise if I have missed out on seeing your exact question. As you state it above, it is unclear to me and I don’t see how Allan could usefully answer such a vague accusation.

    Would you be so kind as to be specific? Cheers.

  12. John Dutchie says:

    I don’t agree that organizations like UOF should always put men’s interests first, in the way that feminist organizations do for women. This “us against them” mentality which has been driving the gender wars is part of the problem, not the solution……

    To a certain degree I do concur….But lets get real shall we, look what has been happening here N.Z for the last 25 years concerning the False inappropriate behavior allegations against Fathers and the repercussions of these false allegations …My so called ‘Agenda’ with our Justice system,this includes the is there is no criminal charges

  13. John Dutchie says:

    Bugger my big fingers hit the wrong key…..Again…!!!

    I will finish off now…… …My so called ‘Agenda’ is to do with our Justice system,and this includes the Family Courts there is no criminal charges brought against the Accuser who made the serious False allegations….that is so wrong.!!!…..And please spare me the usual spin of ‘I was Distraught’…etc….etc…. You made a serious allegations which could potentially destroy someones Life for good…And there is no consequences for basically committing perjury,because you are bitter and twisted….!!!!..Oh,this is just my opinion and if a Man or a Father commits perjury concerning making false Allegations the Mother of the Child/Children I expect charges to laid too…..!!!!!

    Kind regards John Dutchie

    Correct…..on the statement below…

    ‘I strongly support the idea that laws and social services should operate “in the best interest of the child”, and I think that when they eventually do this, there will be little need for a Father’s Rights Movement.’

  14. Scrap_The_CSa says:

    I strongly support the idea that laws and social services should operate “in the best interest of the child”, and I think that when they eventually do this, there will be little need for a Father’s Rights Movement.

    They claim to do that now!

    Regards

    Scrap

  15. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Scrap_

    ‘Tongue in cheek’ and ‘Just stirring the Pot’….

    Hmmmmmmmmmm…This reminds me of when a Kiwi Feminist says every time a Woman is Liberated by Feminism so is a Man….Yeah right…!!!

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  16. John Dutchie says:

    And this is what I am talking about……And you wonder why I sound so critical of Feminize N.Z ….!!!!
    Secondly, can you image the outcry from the Kiwi Socail Engineering Feminists if it was a Man or a Father that only got 50 hours of Community services of putting a Woman or a Mother into prison on false allegation charges …

    This for you Allan from union of Fathers…Do you honestly expect a decent

    Justice? Woman who lied and sent her partner to prison for 10 months gets away with 50 hours community service!If anybody knows what it is like to be celled up when you’re innocent of any crime, then you can relate to how this bloke feels. I was sent to prison on false allegations of sexual abuse and domestic violence, but who cares in feminazi New Zealand with it’s corrupt judiciary! Kiwi injustice hurts big time!

  17. John Dutchie says:

    Bugger hit the wrong key….Again

    To finish off….

    This for you Allan, from the union of Fathers…Do you Allan honestly expect a decent Father who as been falsely accused of inflicting sexual abuse either on his partner or his own Children and as been imprisoned and then released and on while strict parole conditions to sit there in the family Court and take this crap and expect him to be ‘Civil’ and ‘polite’ and not feel Bitter ….!!????

    …..No..!!!!!!!..’Tongue in Cheek’ Allan….Maybe your client should be glad he as been liberated by Feminism ….

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  18. John, you are not the only chap to have done some time.
    I have sat on remand for 4 nearly 5 weeks the crime of phoning my children. I told a Judge or a JP twice a week if he let me out the door on bail the first action I would take would be to phone or visit my children. I also told them I would never sign a bail bond that had non-contact conditions for my children.
    I took the opportunity to write to my children every day from inside which thankfully made their way out and some even got delivered. I also read the two volumes of Family Law in New Zealand from cover to cover to up-skill myself. It was an experience and the start of a journey.
    I waited for the case to be heard and was eventually convicted of the breach of protection order and was released unpunished.
    While inside I negotiated an agreement that I could contact my children via phone at any time and visit them at their school at any time.
    I am grateful to the FC Judge who mediated the agreement, to Lawyer for Child who took calls and carried messages and some Police and Corrections staff who supported me throughout. Maybe it was “kiwi injustice” but I learnt a lot and reflect very positively on the experience.
    Don’t be bitter, as it is yourself and your children you hurt the most.

    And yes John I do expect a decent Justice system and it is every citizen’s obligation to work for that goal. The alternative is to move to Thailand.

    Now can you and Skeptic stop baiting me and can we spend some time discussing how we do effect change and support parents and their children!!

  19. This shall be the final time I shall respond to the baiting from you John or Skeptic.

    Yes I do expect all people to be civil, polite and not feel bitter. Society works better that way.

    We do so because we love our children more than our egos.

    We accept that we choose to bring them into the world, it was our choice not theirs! We put aside our bitterness because we need to respect and honour their mother because we choose to have children with her and that was our choice not theirs!!

    Yes, we should put on different even rose coloured spectacles and we see things from children’s eyes. That is what being a man and fatherhood is about!!

    Yes I chose to be liberated by feminism and masculism.
    I welcome a world where my daughter and my son can grow, and prosper in the care and love from both their mother and I.

    That is what life is about for me John. Making this country, this society a place where I’m proud to raise my children and maybe one day be blessed with grandchildren.

    The above political broadcast was from Allan Harvey individual and not wearing either his UoF or his supervised contact hats.

  20. Skeptik says:

    Mushy words don’t answer the questions I’ve respectfully asked.
    A party political broadcast avoids the issues presented to you.
    Too bad. Others are reading and will no doubt be concerned that you choose to accept payment to supervise father’s access and don’t give a damn whether they’re there legitimately or have been stitched up with a false allegation in our star chambers the ‘family’ ‘court’ of NZ.
    I’ve repeatedly pointed out how statistics gathered on numbers of fathers sent to supervised access of our kids are used to further villify manhood in NZ.
    Yet you continue to wriggle and squirm and offer no comfort to those of us who seek answers to reasonable questions.

    Imagine the hew and cry there would be if it were mothers being routinely sent to supervised access to thier kids simply because of a false UNCORROBORATED accusation. Imagine the uproar there would be if some supervisor of access said publically ‘I don’t care whether these mothers should really be here for supervision of access to thier kids’!!!

    I despair at your attitude Allan, but realise you’re operating within the twisted laws of NZ.
    Your actions and attitude gives me no hope that fatherhood will be restored to a place of dignity in NZ (Jim reckons 400,000 kids in NZ have NO father in thier household.
    Please think about this next time you open your wallet to buy something with your paypacket as some of it will odd on be gained from the unjust suffering of children and fathers.

    Don’t be bitter you say.
    Better to be bitter and working for truth and justice than cool, calm and corrupt I say.

  21. Skeptik says:

    Yes indeed reasonable questions remain…

    Yes indeed, worrisome questions still remain —

    How widespread within Union of Fathers is Alan’s admitted blithe indifference to the circumstances in which fathers are assigned to him for supervised access to thier kids?

    Is it in fact a policy of Union of Fathers to simply take fathers for supervised access and pocket the fee for doing so without regard for the fathers innocence or guilt of some sort leading to them being forced to either attend supervision or NOT HAVE THIER KIDS SEE THIER OWN FATHER?

    Furthermore if it isn’t Union of Father’s policy then is Alan working unilaterally outside the policy guidelines of his own organisation interpretting the rules for engagement with fathers in his own ideosyncratic way?

    What position does Union of Fathers hold about the NZ family court’s refusal to give due process to fathers? (family court decisions are made behind closed doors, with no public access to the courts as is the case with District courts, no records are kept of court proceedings so there’s no accountability and there’s longterm MASSIVE amount of anecdotal evidence sited by fathers of anti-father bias therein)

  22. John Brett says:

    I was seperated from my children because of false allegations made against me.
    My ypoungest daughter wrote me a note saying that she would like to see me- she had heard that there was this place etc.
    I discovered “Care for Kids” and met with them.
    I was APPALLED at their attitude, I asked what safeguards there were for me. Answer NONE.
    I put up with being treated like this to see my daughter.
    There was an incident where I tried to show my daughter a letter from my sister- it was confiscated, and I was accused of trying to pass over indecent material.

    THE FAMILY COURT WAS WRONG TO INSIST ON THE SUPERVISED ACCESS
    “CARE FOR KIDS” PROVIDED APPALLING AND DEGRADING SERVICE

    I AM SURE THAT HAD ALLEN BEEN OFFERING A SERVICE, THAT MY DAUGHTER AND I WOULD HAVE
    1 Experienced a far more appropriate service, and
    2 Would have thanked, not blamed the service provider for providing the opportunity for us to meet.

  23. Skeptic, I relent for one question but as Murray says what is your question.
    It seems to be about collection of statistics. Yes I collect statistics for Kidz need Dadz and UoF, we use these statistics in grant applications and in lobbying. I am not aware that any statistics I have gathered have been used “to further villify manhood”. I assume Skeptic has some evidence for this?
    In my role providing supervised contact some is Court ordered, a lot is not. I currently have both men and a woman I am supervising. 1 case is Court ordered, 2 are informal arrangments where Dad has consented to the supervision of changeovers and 1 is a mother who agrees to supervision. There are seven children involved.
    When wearing my supervsion hat I try to leave all judgments at the door and get on with what people are asking for help with. No-one can force a parent to accept supervised changeovers or full supervsision. My wallet remains rather empty from this work and I get on average about $10 an hour less costs.

  24. julie says:

    Skeptic,

    Please think about this next time you open your wallet to buy something with your paypacket as some of it will odd on be gained from the unjust suffering of children and fathers.

    This is getting silly now.

  25. Skeptik says:

    3.And union of fathers and Alan would have pocketed the fee…
    4. and NZ feminists would jump with glee as they get yet more statistical ‘evidence’ to produce yet more draconian misandric social policy……or simply to consolidate that which they’ve already put in place.

    Those of us who challenge this corrupt paradigm are simply brushed aside as being ‘bitter’.
    What arrogant nonesense.

    It all reminds me of how pathetically correct the NZ men’s movement has become.
    Too many comfortable bums on comfortable seats looking the other way and ducking and diving when the real tough questions get asked. Flossing up their responses with nice fuzzy feel good statements.

    I’d love to see Alan and his ilk out protesting on the steps of the NZ ‘family’ ‘courts’ demanding an open and publically accountable institution therein where father’s get due process.
    Alan shows no indication of that though.
    Nope. Taking the dough and feeding the fems at the same time. Which leads to further villification of fathers in teh family court and yes, you guessed it folks….more father’s being sent to Alan for ‘supervision’.
    Then there’s the trumpetting in a holier than though manner about ‘services’ provided for fathers.
    To me it’s nought but a strong reminder of just how appallingly lost NZers are when it comes to men’s issues and how corrupt to the core NZ is.

  26. Skeptik says:

    I wish it was just silliness Julie.
    Unfortunately Alan’s paycheck will comprise of money taken for ‘supervising’ father’s access to thier kids based on mere allegations.
    Which reminds me…
    I wonder if it’s still common practice in NZ for feminist counselors in Men’s organisations to forgo telling men who get sent to them for anger management (AGAIN WITHOUT DUE PROCESS but simply based on UNCORROBORATED allegations)that they have a right to appeal against the decision that they undergo such a community based sentence. Or are they still taking the cash and providing the feminist system with more ‘statistical’ evidence to generate unwarranted hysteria with, and more ‘clients’ for thier anger management services.

  27. Skeptik says:

    Stop fudging.
    The questions I ask are plain and simple to understand.
    AND they’ve been asked on this thread and another repeatedly now.

  28. onewomanDV says:

    @Skeptik & SickofNZ and others
    First I would very much like to extend a humble apology for my unusual rant from before, it happened to be a day of a FC breakthrough and it would not have been possible without Allan & Alastair’s help, and some strong comments against Allan just rained on our parade.

    @SkeptiK

    You are right. It is true that extreme feminists have used the statistics of rape and DV cases to fuel momentum and funding to their causes which has resulted in the extreme bias that exists in the laws today and this in turn has vilified many innocent men that have not even been given the benefit of the doubt from the start.

    But the statistics will usually be biased (even is people like Allan did not supervise contact) mainly for 2 reasons: First, under normal circumstances it is usually very hard if not physically impossible for an adult woman to rape an adult man. Therefore, the majority of the rapists will be unfortunately be men. Second, the majority of men are straight; therefore, the majority of their victims will sadly be women. This is just the common reality.

    Nevertheless upon closer observation, it is clear that this is not discrimination or female gender oppression. This is just how it is because of how men and women are physically set up. I am sure given the same muscles and/or the same strength, almost all women would strike the living hell out of their partners, and recent observation has shown that they do and have been doing so for a long time. And this has gone unchecked because for a decent man it is usually very humiliating to admit that he has been brutalized by a woman. The first kind comment he would probably get from his mate would be something along the lines of, “That sucks mate… want a beer?” when it should be, “Here is my phone mate; I have dialed 111 for you”.

    Regardless of this social predisposition, it is clearly becoming more and more evident that women (in western society) are matching men in domestic abuse, blow for blow. And so many more men are being further brutalized through the legal system usually in silence.

    A lot of young women (who have truly been abused) are waking up to this terrible situation and are deciding to not feed the fire further by adding to the already skewed statistics. I know this can seem very far-fetched from the perspective of falsely accused disgruntled fathers, many of whom frequent this site, but it is true. After all, it is not the best outcome for children if a good and loving mother strips them of their father(regardless of what has occurred in the past to her) and vice versa.Because besides that fact that it cripples the family, it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that this hurts the children as well, and they ultimately are the next generation.

    IMO, this is where some helpful groups like the Union of Fathers come in to support fathers (some that have been abusive who can benefit from a none intrusive but necessary supervision & sadly some that have been wrongly accused that are also caught in the sticky web as well). The sad thing is women who have been abusive also need help but rarely get the full dose of the punishment that men suffer because of the already biased system in place.

    In the end though the points I want to say is these:

    To John Dutchie – From what you have shared, I truly respect and understand your situation. The spectrum of hurt when punished whilst being innocent spans wider and farther than just what you feel today. But you can take back what you have not lost yet (the future) and prevail over the wrong that has been done by rising above the injustice and showing it up for what it truly is through sharing your story through the internet because it resonates to other men and women that seek to understand what men go through so they can think twice before making false claims and also lobby for and choose leaders wisely. Stay and fight the good fight with the truth of your experience. It matters too much to many people.

    To Skeptik – The only comfort I can offer is the assurance that the tide is truly turning. Many of us are trying to bring about change at the grass roots level, where we are most effective, by doing what we do best – talking to one another and everyone to spread awareness – one battered woman is most receptive and open to another battered woman’s experience and voice right in front of her, more than any social worker, lawyer, policeman and feminist advocate – and believe you me we are spreading the word over coffee like wild fire (not to mention the stream of YouTube videos, twitter accounts, Skype conferences, blogs and emails the fly all over the internet)… throughout our networks. It is the best way we can bring about awareness. And in doing so not only do we learn to acquire the skills to put away the destruction from the past to regain and embrace our lives to come but we embrace the evolution of our children by forcing ourselves to learn to nurture a good relationship with their fathers. This is all I can offer you.
    Nonconfidence, I hope I have not broken any rules by making this so long =) Sorry!.

    Kind regards to everyone
    (Man! that was difficult to write)!

  29. Skeptik says:

    OnewomanDV says the following (my response in itallics)
    @Skeptik & SickofNZ and others
    First I would very much like to extend a humble apology for my unusual rant from before,

    (apology accepted and my radar switched on incase you get yourself triggered again and launch another abusive tirade. I also wonder if you’re getting help for your anger problem like so many men sent to anger management counseling?)

    It happened to be a day of a FC breakthrough and it would not have been possible without Allan & Alastair’s help, and some strong comments against Allan just rained on our parade.

    (No excuse for dishing out abusive comments. Are you backsliding here into justifying your rant?)

    (Warning the forecast is for more showers and perhaps even a thunderstorm or two!)

    @SkeptiK
    You are right. It is true that extreme feminists have used the statistics of rape and DV cases to fuel momentum and funding to their causes which has resulted in the extreme bias that exists in the laws today and this in turn has vilified many innocent men that have not even been given the benefit of the doubt from the start.

    (Hallelujah! Someone else gets the obvious! Are you listening to this Alan et al?)

    But the statistics will usually be biased

    (Yep, no argument with you there)

    (even if people like Allan did not supervise contact) (People like Alan DO supervise access though!)

    mainly for 2 reasons:
    First, under normal circumstances it is usually very hard if not physically impossible for an adult woman to rape an adult man.

    (Not so. It depends entirely what your definition of rape is. The standard definition in NZ is for it to be seen as forcing penetrative(M)/enveloping(F) sex onto minors, incapacitated folks and the unwilling). Lots of instances have been sited on this website of adult females caught having sex with boys who are minors)

    Therefore, the majority of the rapists will be unfortunately be men. Second, the majority of men are straight; therefore, the majority of their victims will sadly be women.
    This is just the common reality.

    (I don’t think this is relevant as any father accused of rape wouldn’t even get supervised access to his kids in the first place, so we’re talking about an entirely different cohort of men)

    Nevertheless upon closer observation, it is clear that this is not discrimination or female gender oppression.

    (Oh yeah? says who? Try telling that to the guys I’ve had to counsel because thier suicidal at being stitched up by feminists in NZ with false accusations! Ever heard of Peter Ellis by the way? An interesting guy our Peter!)

    This is just how it is because of how men and women are physically set up. I am sure given the same muscles and/or the same strength, almost all women would strike the living hell out of their partners, and recent observation has shown that they do and have been doing so for a long time. And this has gone unchecked because for a decent man it is usually very humiliating to admit that he has been brutalized by a woman

    (Yes I’ve met guys who are deeply ashamed that the ‘little lady’ beat the crap out of them and they would be the last guys to blow the whistle on the female abuser)

    The first kind comment he would probably get from his mate would be something along the lines of, “That sucks mate… want a beer?” when it should be, “Here is my phone mate; I have dialed 111 for you”.

    (Yep, I’ve got to agree with you there too.
    Too much pressure on men to be staunch, it’s the price paid for making men security objects – If you don’t get the concept just think of sex objects who are only valued for sex then extrapolate to success/protection objects only valued as disposable protectors if you haven’t already)

    Regardless of this social predisposition, it is clearly becoming more and more evident that women (in western society) are matching men in domestic abuse, blow for blow.

    (And many women are victimizing men in western nations like NZ not only with thier fists, heels and weaponry, but also with thier tongues and thier false allegations)

    And so many more men are being further brutalized through the legal system usually in silence.

  30. gwallan says:

    First, under normal circumstances it is usually very hard if not physically impossible for an adult woman to rape an adult man.

    Rubbish. There are many ways other than the physical to coerce others to do ones bidding. Do you wish for a return to the days when a woman had to show signs of a brutal physical assault for her claim of rape to be taken seriously? Be careful what you wish for.

    Good to know my experience of a decade ago was “impossible”. Clearly I imagined the entire thing right down to the scars around my scrotum.

    Therefore, the majority of the rapists will be unfortunately be men.

    Women are a third of child sexual abusers and, given the hilarity and denigration that greets any male victim of a female rapist, we have no idea of the ratios among adults.

    Second, the majority of men are straight; therefore, the majority of their victims will sadly be women.

    A third of male committed rapes are of men or boys. If we go further and actually count prison rape – unfortunately viewed in our communities as a justifiable part of the punishment – there are more rapes involving male victims than female.

    This is just the common reality.

    It is actually the common prejudice. Time to get over it.

  31. SicKofNZ says:

    @ onewomanDV:

    @Skeptik & SickofNZ and others
    First I would very much like to extend a humble apology for my unusual rant from before …

    You’re right in that it is unusual for you to be less than constructive with the content of your posts here and I do forgive you. None of us are perfect.
    I just wanted to comment on the assertion about the physical impossibility of a woman being able to rape a man.

    it is usually very hard if not physically impossible for an adult woman to rape an adult man

    To agree with your statement one would need to assume that rape can only be described from a woman’s perspective, where she is penetration by him against her wishes. Unwanted digital penetration or the use of objects to cause penetration on an unwilling participant can also be a valid description of rape. Rape is apparently not about sex but rather about power & control although it generally describes sexual behaviour. Some men and boys are definitely raped by women.
    Even if one assumed that rape can only be described from a woman’s perspective, where she forces him to penetrate her, I’ve found a news article that explains exactly how that was achieved by one deviant … here.

  32. Fudging what Skeptic.
    Murray does not understand your question, clearly I didn’t either. Your rants are personal attacks and violate the first of JohnP’s rules in that you are inaccurate and manipulative in how you label me, my work and history.
    You (and others) have my e-mail address and can comminicate with me if you wish. For clarity’s sake it is allan@uof.org.nz I do answer personal correspondence if you have genuine questions.
    Good bye to MENZ, there is work to be done and I can spend my time more productively away from here.

  33. Pete says:

    Skeptic,

    {working with the system} is collusion and only feeds the corrupt DV — family law system in NZ making it live on to perpetuate yet more misandry and misery for our kids.

    Now what is your alternative?

  34. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Allan, union of Fathers…..

    Allan, Good Sir you can take your Kiwi style of Socail Engineering ‘Feminazi’ Feminism and shove it where the Sun doesn’t shine…..I will not have a bar of this Evil Feminism social engineering ‘Feminazi’ crap…..Over my dead body will I be so called liberated by Feminism, or even think of submitting to Feminism …..To often I have seen the results of a complete destruction of a Good and decent Family caused by this Evil Feminazi social engineering crap !!!!!!!

    Reply to Onewoman

    ‘Onewoman’…. Thank you for your kind words and I do sincerely appreciate it, I have to leave .N.Z …..Sorry this is going to sound really harsh and very brutal….But I won’t mince my words as in my reason why I am leaving..

    But I will never, ever get invoked or love a ‘Kiwi’ Woman ever again……And I do really mean this…..I truly fear Kiwi Woman,and you might be very surprised ‘Onewoman’ how many good and decent Kiwi Men/Fathers think the same as I do…..And that is not a pleasant way to Live…Hence,that is why I have to leave….kind regards to you Onewoman

    John Dutchie

  35. John Brett says:

    If I was a casualty or a victim, I would appreciate any help:
    As I said about Supervised access:
    “I AM SURE THAT HAD ALLEN BEEN OFFERING A SERVICE, THAT MY DAUGHTER AND I WOULD HAVE
    1 Experienced a far more appropriate service, and
    2 Would have thanked, not blamed the service provider for providing the opportunity for us to meet.”
    I trust that he would have treated us with more dignity, and avoided accusing me of being guilty as charged.
    Don’t blame the ambulance driver for the accident, or assault.

  36. Skeptik says:

    Hi Murray,
    here are the questions again –

    How widespread within Union of Fathers is Alan’s admitted blithe indifference to the circumstances in which fathers are assigned to him for supervised access to thier kids?

    Is it in fact a policy of Union of Fathers to simply take fathers for supervised access and pocket the fee for doing so without regard for the fathers innocence or guilt of some sort leading to them being forced to either attend supervision or NOT HAVE THIER KIDS SEE THIER OWN FATHER?

    Furthermore if it isn’t Union of Father’s policy then is Alan working unilaterally outside the policy guidelines of his own organisation interpretting the rules for engagement with fathers in his own ideosyncratic way?

    What position does Union of Fathers hold about the NZ family court’s refusal to give due process to fathers? (family court decisions are made behind closed doors, with no public access to the courts as is the case with District courts, no records are kept of court proceedings so there’s no accountability and there’s longterm MASSIVE amounts of anecdotal evidence sited by fathers of anti-father bias therein)

  37. Skeptik says:

    John Brett,
    you may well have gotten better treatment from Alan at uof if he were your supervisor for supervised access.
    That doesn’t alter one jot that fathers are often sent there by judges with NO DUE PROCESS in the family courts. Nor does it alter the fact that feminist academics will then gleefully sieze upon statistics of fathers sent to supervised access and use them as a stick to further beat fatherhood and manhoood even further.

    Let there be no doubt that the serious questions I’ve asked remain unanswered.
    For anyone interested I’ve posted them aghain here ->

    How widespread within Union of Fathers is Alan’s admitted blithe indifference to the circumstances in which fathers are assigned to him for supervised access to thier kids?

    Is it in fact a policy of Union of Fathers to simply take fathers for supervised access and pocket the fee for doing so without regard for the fathers innocence or guilt of some sort leading to them being forced to either attend supervision or NOT HAVE THIER KIDS SEE THIER OWN FATHER?

    Furthermore if it isn’t Union of Father’s policy then is Alan working unilaterally outside the policy guidelines of his own organisation interpretting the rules for engagement with fathers in his own ideosyncratic way?

    What position does Union of Fathers hold about the NZ family court’s refusal to give due process to fathers? (family court decisions are made behind closed doors, with no public access to the courts as is the case with District courts, no records are kept of court proceedings so there’s no accountability and there’s longterm MASSIVE amount of anecdotal evidence sited by fathers of anti-father bias therein)

  38. Skeptik says:

    Hi John Dutchie,
    regarding your comments on Kiwi women –
    that was pretty much my feeling just before leaving NZ.
    You can meet seemingly the most lovely women in NZ, yet they only have to get into a bad mood and then they can crush you with the whole weight of the Kiwi feminist/chivalrous state machinery behind them. Your just a means to an end for those folks.

  39. Skeptik says:

    Alan at uof says –
    Your rants are personal attacks and violate the first of JohnP’s rules in that you are inaccurate and manipulative in how you label me, my work and history.

    Clearly my writing about you at this site has got your back up. But I don’t see it as anything other than calling you to account.

    You can wriggle all you like yet serious questions of your conduct as supervisor of father’s supervised access still remain. Those questions are posted repeatedly on this site and in this thread for all to see.

  40. Kiwi in. Space says:

    There is a bus coming down the hill full of solicitors driving on the wrong side of the road acting like hoons. We are in a mini , they intentionally drive towards us and want to damage us , cost us money. We can either let them carry on past , crash into us or we can jump out and put a tyre shredder on the road before they damage other minis.
    You remain a bully and an idiot Allan aka KSkier

  41. Kiwi in. Space says:

    He has just been posting in other names

  42. Skeptik says:

    Get out there and bother the powers that be with protest.
    Embarrass them so much they are shamed into listening instead of turning a deaf ear.
    Climb Harbour Bridge, Sky tower or the houses of parliament if necessary.
    Imagine big banners saying ‘The family court is corrupt anti-father’
    Turn the heat up on the scumbags who wreck families in NZ with thier anti-father misandry!
    My goodness, the passivity of most Kiwi guys is breath-taking. This from a nation that once got a man up everest!
    Look what the poms achieved by contrast in 2 short years with such methods. Sure UK’s court system hasn’t altered much but almost everyone in UK now knows about anti-fatherhood and the family court in UK. I spent time there recently and it was commonplace for young men I met there to avoid marriage and the subsequent shafting they knew would be coming from the DV/family court system.

  43. noconfidence says:

    On the subject of kiwi women. My own experience with a few kiwi women ahs had me wondering about their mental health, and thus it is easy to just brush a stereotype that all NZ women are like that. Certainly, it would be true that alot of kiwi guys would be ‘too manly’ to report a DV incident against them, but that does not mean that ALL men are like that. Certainly, the reaction I got from the police and other agencies when I reported my incidents tells me that the “she’ll be alright” attitude exists in our support systems.

    However, let’s be real. Taint all women from a geographic location with the same brush and you will be laughed out of here.
    We may have had experiences that were …. not pleasant, but there are (and I remain optimistic) that there are lovely NZ women out there too 🙂

    I am not going to get involved in the issue of Allan’s supervised access work.
    The questions Skeptik asked probably should be answered by UoF, but I doubt that any answer would be acceptable to some on here.

  44. Keen Skier says:

    Sir, I take that as a personal insult. In times gone by Honour could only have been satisfied by pistols at Dawn, or Donna, or Ruth, or eveb Alliena, any of which are closer to my real name.

    All I can say “Are you a space Cadet?”

  45. Keen Skier says:

    I think Davidson is in the files area of Pauls_News or it was when I last looked.

  46. Skeptik says:

    Alan says – I am not aware that any statistics I have gathered have been used “to further villify manhood”. I assume Skeptic has some evidence for this?

    Wow that’s another shocking admission!
    You mean to say you, a professional supervisor, had no idea whatsoever that the NZ family caught itself researches numbers of those sent to supervised access?
    Holy shit.
    Just take a good look here.

    scroll down to administartive functions and read how stats ARE compiled.

    It took me 2 minutes to find this info online.

  47. Pete says:

    Raking up grass root support, right? This is fantastic to force a change in the long-term.

    However, if you fight for contact or day-to-day care with your kids you better work with the system even if you don’t approve of it.

    The latter is where UoF comes in and assists. The UoF is far more effective if accepted by the system and therefore it isn’t surprising that UoF doesn’t throw mud.

    In essence, raking up grass root support and going through court fighting for contact or day-to-day care are both worthwhile causes but incompatible if performed concurrently.

  48. Paul MacKay says:

    reply to Skeptic.

    I think I know where your coming from though I feel your comment is no informed one.
    I was only one of a handful (not even) of male access coordinators in the north Island. I worked for a well known childrens charity for a year while I studied at Uni (mature student before you say anything). This position allowed me gain better outcomes for those fathers who were ordered to have supervised access. An access coordinator works closely with both partners councels and CFC as well as police and the occasional judge. I advocated for no psychological assessments during access and in fact I banned these assessments while I was coordinating access arrangements for non-custodial fathers because of the obvious floors in this type of assessment methhod and the stress it placed on non custodial fathers. In meetings with the local police it was made clear to them that during access visits police will stay clear of the access center unless otherwise informed as the police were ‘hanging’ around and even taking the opportunity to check warrants and regos of fathers waiting to see their children. ( lucky nobody was killed). And you say that thats collusion? If you have not worked in this field then I suggest you do so before making hollow statements like the aforementioned.

  49. Mits says:

    This position allowed me gain better outcomes for those fathers who were ordered to have supervised access.
    Did it ever bother you that some of those men “ordered” to have supervised access to their own children mightnt have actually needed supervision?

  50. Paul MacKay says:

    reply to mit.

    Nothing like stating the obvious

  51. tren Christchurch says:

    I had a good supervisor. He wrote positive reports about me to the court. Indeed he was the only positive element i met from ‘behind the FC barricades’. He later tells me that they had a meeting with a FC instructing them to provide early feedback on supervision so that supervision is removed early on.(instead of just report that are not important in the FC unless negative about a father)

    This man when I see him, I shake hands with him and have occasional chat. My children like to see him.

    However I refuse to accept the concept of supervision unless it is proved beyond doubt that a father or mother is dangerous or unsafe to his children.
    Supervision is meant as a humiliation tool. Be nice and good and we will give you back your children when we decide so. If you show anger or violence towards us we will remove the children from us. So think the FC mafia

    I told the l4c on the phone that supervision is humiliation she replied I know!

    Right now I have no supervision with my children. Tell me what changed? How come i changed from unsafe to safe after 2 years of battling the mafia?

    I had my children in a family for 10 years. They were loved and had all we could afford. Well fed, educated, well schooled, enrolled in swimming drama tennis etc
    and suddenly my wife was caught in the FC net and the next day i had to be supervised. Is not this the work of the devil? I will NOT forget.
    My family (wife) is not my enemy. The FC is. They destroyed my family.

    I have no doubts about the FC. They are a mafia. Period.
    I am a fair and reasonable person but i do not eat any crap.

    When I see the FC tackle the real problems of violence
    When I see the FC engage in constructive solution
    then I may believe.
    For now they are the problem and not the solution.

  52. Skeptik says:

    Tell that to the guys in NZ who I’ve had to counsel because thier distraught, even suicidal as a result of false allegations and having to attend supervised access or anger management or both!

    And you think you know where I’m coming from.
    Yeah right.

  53. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Tren

    ….And who rules and runs the Family Courts here in N.Z..?????…Socail Engineering Kiwi ‘Feminazi’ Feminists….

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  54. mits says:

    reply to mit.

    Nothing like stating the obvious

    C’mon humor me, state the obvious. When you were “supervising” some poor chap who in your opinion didnt need “supervision” and the fact that it was “court ordered” didnt legitimise it one iota. In those cases where the poor chap is being humiliated like this, did it ever bother you? Can I look up somewhere where you “as only one of a handful (not even) of male access coordinators in the north Island” made a stand and said No this is wrong?

  55. tren Christchurch says:

    I am of the view that Womens’ Refuge runs the Family Court.
    The FC are a mere contract agency for them. Every time, I go to the FC I always see a red-haired Woman’s Refuge soldier shepherding a kiwi family in the premises. Usually a young mum, her dad and mum and a little fella suckling a dummy. No judge will make a decision against a case brought there by Women’s Refuge.

  56. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Tren

    …And guess who runs the Woman’s refuge centers…???…You don’t have to a Genius to work that one out…..

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  57. Shelly says:

    To Skeptic (and to various others of you, i.e. NoConfidence, Martins etc)
    and all of you slating Allan Harvey / Union of Fathers, but especially to you Skeptic.

    I have read the majority of your posts. It seems to me that in your cases Supervised Contact was probably warranted, the way you have been going on against Allan. If I was your partner, I would have left you by now.

    And no, i am not part of any men’s crowd. And yes, I do have hairy legs.

  58. SicKofNZ says:

    Shelly says: It seems to me that in your cases Supervised Contact was probably warranted, the way you have been going on…

    Your dissatisfaction with, or opposition to, or anger at another person’s opinion is NO reason to expect a child to be forced to see their male parent in a supervised access center. It appears that you are suggesting that child abuse and discrimination against MEN is warranted if a woman becomes upset, without any danger to their child being apparent. Shame on you Shelley! The abuse that you prescribe to children and their fathers is precisely what Fathers and many decent women are working to eradicate.
    Your comments are unashamedly misadric and a promote child abuse. Could you not have made your point without being offensive to all fathers?

  59. keen.skier says:

    On the contrary, there are circumstances when supervised contact is warranted.

    Why must we assume a contact centre? There is absolutely NO reason for it to be at a particular place or with a particular person. The upside for the non custodial parent, they cannot be accused of wrong. I equally believe it MUST be a segment of a process of restoration of normality for the child.

    Thank you Allan for trying to do your part.

  60. Alastair says:

    And in New Zealand:

    It will be noted that a woman could only be charged with rape since 2005. I’ve seen a photo, and is she ugly!

    A 23-year-old woman who admitted having sex with a 13-year-old boy has been sentenced to community work. And after breaching 4 times: Woman who had sex with 13-year-old boy avoids jail
    An administrative error and a commitment to finish community work has saved the first woman in New Zealand convicted of having sex with an underage boy from going to jail.

    Briar Dravitski, 24, made a brief appearance in the New Plymouth District Court yesterday.

    She was due to appear for her fourth breach of community work after having her review of sentence dismissed earlier this week.

    Judge Allan Roberts had indicated he would impose a 15-month jail term as a replacement sentence for the community work. That offer was declined by Dravitski’s defence counsel, Pamela Jensen.

    Having already breached three times, as well as being on a final warning, Dravitski faced jail yesterday.

    The probation service withdrew the fourth breach, however, citing an administrative error.

    That leaves Dravitski with close to 350 hours’ community work to complete. She has finished 90 hours of a sentence that was handed down after she had sex with a 13-year-old boy. She was also convicted for assault and wilful damage.

    The case attracted national headlines last year after she was the first woman convicted under new laws that meant men and women were treated equally as sex offenders.

    Judge Roberts told Dravitski that he had no doubts that if she was a man, she would have gone to jail for her sexual offending.

    Briar Jayne Dravitski is believed to be the first woman sentenced under laws introduced last April. Previously it was not unlawful for a woman to have consensual sex with a boy under 16 years.

    In the New Plymouth District Court today, Dravitski was sentenced to 240 hours of community work, put under supervision for nine months and ordered to attend counselling.

    She admitted two charges of performing an indecent act with an underage boy.

    The court heard the boy was brought to Dravitski’s home by a friend and was told the boy’s father had been beating him.

    They had sex that night, and were having sex the next night when the boy’s mother walked in on them.

    Dravitski said she had no idea the boy was only 13.

  61. SicKofNZ says:

    On the contrary, there are circumstances when supervised contact is warranted.

    I hope that remark wasn’t directed at me. At no point did I state that there is never any good reason for supervision to be necessary. In fact my ex-wife was supervised during her visits with my son and that was definitely necessary. She had previously attempted to kill him and his sisters, my daughters.
    Neither did I criticise Allan for the role he plays. Whether a contact center or whatever is the method used is pedantic and irrelevant to my post above.
    Supervision must only ever be necessary if a child is at risk from one or either or both parents and must NEVER be the result of the manipulations of one parent to punish the other.

  62. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Shelly

    ‘It seems to me that in your cases Supervised Contact was probably warranted, the way you have been going on against Allan. If I was your partner, I would have left you by now.’

    Shelly after reading your above statement …Shelly you would be perfect Cannon Fodder materiel to be employed at ‘The Ministry of Misandry Woman’s affairs’ of New Zealand…

    And this message is for you and the rest of your Feminist cohorts,like ‘Helen Clark’,’Sue Bradford’ …. Over my dead body will I ever be liberated or submit or be submissive by your ‘Hairy legs’ social engineering Feminazi Feminism…you can shove Feminism to hell where it truly belongs….!!!

    And again,I will repeat this ,and say this loud and clear to you Shelly,and if need be I will say to your face in person…What happen to ‘Peter Ellis’ was nothing more the a Evil Kiwi Femi Nazi Witch hunt….!!!

    Kind regards to you ….John Dutchie

  63. John Dutchie says:

    Another reply for you Shelly

    Do a Google search on a Lady called ‘Erin Pizzey’…You will find it a very interesting read…This a direct quote from this incredibly strong Lady….Enough said don’t you think Shelly…Oh if you want to carry on the debate with me on your feminist beliefs I am keen……!!!!!!

    Quote from Erin Pizzey… Why I loathe feminism… and believe it will ultimately destroy the family

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1215464/Why-I-loathe-feminism—believe-ultimately-destroy-family.html#ixzz0fAjvwDnD

    Kind regards John

  64. gwallan says:

    Erin Pizzey spoke at the California Alliance for Families and Children’s From Ideology to Inclusion conference in 2008.

    Part One
    Part Two

  65. John Dutchie says:

    reply to Gwallen

    …..Yes, what a incredible and a very strong Lady ‘Erin Pizzey’ is, and this wonderful fine Lady has put everything into a very well balanced perspective,relating to the radical rise of ‘Extreme Feminism’ and the destructive power it as played in the demise of Manhood, Fatherhood and more importantly, the ‘Family’ unit in the Western Society ….’Kudos’ must be given to this brave fine beautiful and well spoken Lady….
    I have emailed all of these part1 and part2 of Erin Pizzey to all of my Barrister friends…….I also emailed part 1 and part 2 of Erin Pizzey to The Ministry of Woman’s affairs of N.Z…’Tongue in Cheek’…I haven’t yet been arrested by the Police on ‘A Unpolitical correct statement’ charge….L.O.L …..
    Kind regards John Dutchie

  66. Shelly says:

    SickofNZ
    It seems you miss my point. It is not your opinion I am opposed to; it’s the way you all keep badgering Allan, and badgering and badgering and badgering. That is nothing short of unashamed bullying.
    If I have read all your various posts correctly, the mere fact that a man is subject to Supervised COntact, he should never submit (other than perhaps in a few clear cases where a man has clearly commmitted some crime); and above all, Allan should never supervise firstly because he is a man; and also because he is involved with a man’s support group.

    Turn your vitrole against me – you too John Dutchie. It simply confirms my conclusion. You are both unashamed bullies.

  67. Shelly says:

    Oh, and regarding an earlier post of yours, quoting from Ephesians 6; When i read the entire portion, it seemed to me
    (1) that it is talking about spiritual warfare, not man-made processes (however evil they may be) – although Satan clearly is able to employ human institutions.
    (2) that you must also girt your loins with truth; having on the breastplate of righteousness; feet shod with the preperation of the gospel of peace; and above all, the sheild of faith, wherewith to quench the fiery darts of the wicked. Take the helmet of salvation; the sword of the Spirit (which is the helmet of God); praying always with all prayer and supplication.
    It clearly is talking about defences against those who attack you because of your faith.

    I don’t know you, SickofNZ; you may well be saved; in which case, yes, submit to all scripture, given by the divine inspiration of God. It is profitable for doctrine, re-proof, correction and instruction in righteousness.

    That usually means humility to guidance from those wise in God (from preachers, pastors, elders, as well of course from the Holy Spirit and God, through Jesus Christ), something which is quite opposite to simply having no interest in debating anyone else’s interpretation of scripture.

    Your quotes from scripture appear to be from the translation used by Jehovah’s Witnesses. I have reverted to the King James. The actually translation is not the point. But perhaps you are a reader of William Blake, theologian?

  68. Shelly says:

    I couldn’t agree more about Peter Ellis. Does that justify the battery against Allan Harvey?

  69. SicKofNZ says:

    Shelly says: SickofNZ It seems you miss my point. It is not your opinion I am opposed to; it’s the way you all keep badgering Allan, and badgering and badgering and badgering. That is nothing short of unashamed bullying.

    Please correct your mistake. I definitely have not been involved in the behaviour that you describe. Offering my opinion should not cause you to believe that I have badgered or bullied Allan. In fact I have endeavored to ensure that I have remained out of that particular debate. Allan understands my position after having communicated with him privately. It should not be assumed from my opposition to unnecessary supervision that that should translate to a slur against Allan or his work. It does NOT!
    Please read any of my posts on this forum for confirmation of my assertion.

    No sorry, I have not read any of the writings of William Blake however I might check him out, thanks. With respect, I am not interested in discussing nor debating scriptural interpretations with the myriad of experts who so kindly offer their help. Please respect my wishes.

    I do not believe that your point was lost on me at all. I assumed that your post was written to those who have opposed Allan assuming the different roles that he works at. I have NOT! I did not expect that your post was directed at me when I replied to your post. After reading that you believe that your displeasure should be cause for a father and child to submit to Supervised visits, I was disgusted with your attitude and so replied with my view on that matter. A child and father should NEVER have their contact supervised because a woman is angry!

  70. Shelly says:

    SickofNz.
    If you read my first post, you were not mentioned. The ‘you all’ refers to those (and others) who I named in my first post.
    I reiterate my sentiments (to Skeptic and to various others of you, i.e. NoConfidence, Martins etc);
    to all of you slating Allan Harvey / Union of Fathers, but especially to Skeptic. You are nothing short of bullies. If I was your partner, I too would have left you by now.

  71. SicKofNZ says:

    Thank you for clearing that up for me.

  72. Shelly says:

    Whilst I accept the right of people to express their views, to discuss and yes, to challenge, this is a public site. I was aghast at the views being expressed. It is not that you men shouldn’t be talking about your views, but it seems to me that some of you here are so bitter, that you are imploding in on yourselves.

  73. SicKofNZ says:

    Neither Men nor women are perfect. However I can almost guarantee that a man would apologise to me and retract an undeserved statement made in error or caused from his own confusion or over-emotional state or bitterness or whatever reason caused him to be undeservedly offensive.

    Shelly said to SicKofNZ: Turn your vitrole against me — you too John Dutchie. It simply confirms my conclusion. You are both unashamed bullies.

    Like you, I am also aghast at your expressed view and also your apparent inability to accept responsibility for your mistakes.

    Shelly says: …but it seems to me that some of you here are so bitter, that you are imploding in on yourselves…

    I would suggest that it is more likely your lack of understanding of the issues that affect Men and Fathers that has caused you to form this view.

  74. noconfidence says:

    Reply to Shelly. So you think I have slating Allan Harvey do you. Please tell me how I did that ?

  75. noconfidence says:

    oh.. sorry, I mis-read.. I will change my question…
    So you think I have been slating Allan Harvey AND UoF do you. Please tell me how I did that ?

  76. Skeptik says:

    Shelly,
    if you were my partner and decided to leave I’d be relieved and delighted. It would be just another case of a man saying goodbye to a false accuser as far as I’m concerned.
    I’ll continue to question the practice of anyone who states they don’t give a damn whether those they supervise in supervised access centres deserves to be there. If you want to use the old feminist chestnut of trying to silence my questioning by labelling me a bully go ahead.
    As Clarke gable once said –
    “Frankly madame, I don’t give a damn!”

  77. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to shelly

    ‘but it seems to me that some of you here are so bitter, that you are imploding in on yourselves.’

    Now how you would feel Shelly if you were falsely accused of inappropriate sexual behavior on your own Children by your ex partner and The bias Feminized Courts believes the

  78. John Dutchie says:

    hit the wrong key again…!!!

    To finish off……..And the Bias Feminized Courts believes only the Woman/Mother and because you are the Man/Father you are already have been Demonized ….

    Wouldn’t you as a decent human that truly love and cherish your own Children.. feel Bitter with a false allegation throw at you…?????

    Or do We as in Men/Fathers have to accept the fact, We have to all the time have to bend over here in N.Z and get shafted to ‘Hell and back’ ……by the ‘Feminism’ Justice system… Over my ‘Dead Body’ will I accept that type of so called Justice Shelly….!!!!

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  79. Shelly says:

    Skeptic and John Dutchie
    I don’t wish to be drawn into discussing how you feel about being falsely accused of some impropriety.
    No Confidence
    I am not going to be drawn into a similar badgering akin to the torrent you all have hurled towards Allan Harvey of late. It is clear to me that were Allan to answer your questions, you would not be satisfied.

    It is time you all wake up and see the damage you are doing to your cause.
    You might all feel bitter and shafted by your ex wives, Family Court, the system.
    You need to find a way to deal with it that is much more beneficial, rather than simply taking it out on anywhoever your can.
    When you bring your own into your firing line, you do neither yourselves not your cause any good.
    As Pink Floyd once said “together we stand; divided we fall”.

  80. One-Legged Ostrich says:

    I’ve been thinking about this false allegation crap, and here’s my 10c worth:

    Test all allegations to the same standard as real criminal charges.
    If proven, great! charge the bugger with a real criminal charge.
    If no substantive evidence is found, charge the allegor with a real criminal charge.
    (that leaves a grey area where maybe allegations aren’t proved, but there might have been some grounds)

    Do away with all namby pamby claptrap in family court, and focus on the real issues – shared parenting (for those who want it), and making it work.

    I too defend Alan Harvey.
    The place to argue whether supervised contact is needed is in family court – not by whoever steps in to supervise.
    They must be impartial. And yes, not simply accpet the man’s claims of injustice.

    Once supervision is inflicted, submit! See your children no matter what.
    But always work towards moving on from supervision.
    Finally, yes! fight the unjust systems.

    I have never been domestically violent – beyond the most generalised and entirely unsubstantiated claims.
    I too have had vague and entirely false allegations of sexual abuse thrown at me.
    I too have been subject to supervision.
    I finally conquered in Family Court, although the court seemed to do everything possible to avoid admonishing my former-wife.

  81. Skeptik says:

    Shelly,
    It’s an easy cop out to say those who argue strongly for men’s rights and complain about the status quo are simply bitter.
    When you’ve been down the road they’ve been down you may understand the depth of feeling.
    It’s great to have this site to share such with other men and increase the numbers of those who DON’T feel isolated any longer because they’ve finally connected with those who’ve unfortunate enough to have gone through the same oppression as themselves.
    Labelling them bitter and espousing the opinion that they detract from the men’s rights movement is completely at odds with my view.
    By contrast I think it’s great that men can finally vent and connect (however crudely and however much it may upset your sensibilities) it’s how the men’s rights movement is growing from the grassroots up.
    You can swim against the growing tide of strident men, that’s your choice. However don’t come complaining when you get swamped with feedback!

  82. noconfidence says:

    shelley said:

    No Confidence
    I am not going to be drawn into a similar badgering akin to the torrent you all have hurled towards Allan Harvey of late. It is clear to me that were Allan to answer your questions, you would not be satisfied.

    Um.. I’m still waiting to find out what exactly what I’m supposed to have said !!!

    Please shut up Shelley. You are embarrassing yourself by making false allegations. That’s how some of us get peeved as we’ve been down that road before.

    I have not said anything negative about Allan or UoF. You may be surprised to know that Allan and I have had email correspondence off here before and after the supervisor issue erupted.
    I was very careful in the way I wrote about Allan and have published no judgement of him. Others have, and that is their right as this a a ‘discussion group’. His supervision work is separate to his UofF work so I have no idea where UoF came into the equation.

    Perhaps you are dyslexic or maybe someone who like to abuse others. Either way, it’s repugnant.

  83. martins says:

    I think much of the abuse directed at Alan is over-the-top, and unfair, and I believe he genuinely has got men’s interest’s at heart. However, when any of us accept payments for professional services, we have to accept the possibility of dissatisfied clients. Ideally there is a professional mechanism for resolving complaints; where there is not then we become fair game i the public arena.

    I agree, it is over the top, but i think that fathers must have the information about him, and that HE IS NOT COMPLETELY ON THEIR side, as fathers expect. In my case he went to visit my (attractive) wife several times, and he is still in touch with her, as a recent post about my sons’ birthday showed.
    I would like to repeat again , the minimum that i expect from a leader in the men’s movement is TO BE ON THE SIDE OF MEN. He is capable of the same legal double speak that the government workers use, but in reality men must be very dubious of this man.

    [Personal abuse removed by moderator] He has a financial interest in father’s misery, like the legal workers. That is OK if he can live with himself, [Personal abuse removed by moderator]

    But men who have had such emotional and financial abuse from these terrible courts, should not have it all compounded by double dealing men like Allan.

  84. Hans Laven says:

    I disagree with this portrayal of Allan. No evidence has been provided that he has behaved dishonourably. He has chosen to work in the system rather than attack it from outside, and the men’s movement needs many more like him, for example, lawyers who understand fathers’ plight under sexist legislation. Although they will have to collude with legislation they disagree with, this happens wherever one works. But they also have the chance to increase their colleagues’ awareness and to contribute to law changes through appropriate channels. Have those who criticized Allan here spent countless hours preparing submissions to select committees as he has done? How many others here would be listened to by those who run the system? The men’s and fathers’ movement can hardly claim to have achieved much success through attacking the system from the outside (though I agree that’s one important form of pressure).

    It is important to identify those few in any movement who jeopardize that movement’s effectiveness. Allan most certainly does not fall into that category. While some infighting that damages the movement may be justifiable in dealing with true threats to the movement, it’s important to avoid this otherwise.

  85. Darryl Ward says:

    I have all but completely stopped using or visiting MENZ. This is because it has degenerated into a forum in which individuals anonymously attack others in the movement.

    While anonymity has its place, it is clear that there are individuals on MENZ who are using their anonymity to bully and harass others in the movement. I have been the target of this in the past, seemingly because I do not favour becoming a republic. Now it is Allan’s turn to be harassed.

    I can understand people wishing to remain anonymous to protect themselves from agencies with which they are embroiled. However, using anonymity to attack others in the movement is cowardly and reprehensible.

  86. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Hans

    Okay Hans….Lets not mince words here shall we…And I will admit it,and I have the ‘Guts’ and the ‘Fortitude’ to admit …

    I have had a ‘rant and rave’ at ‘Allan from the so called ‘union of Fathers’ on the Menz forum….And Why…???

    Allan mentioned this Menz forum site he had been so called ‘Liberated by Feminism’……that statement rang major ‘alarm bells’ within me……And my Gut feeling tells me when someone who states ‘I have been liberated by Feminism’ ,that person in my opinion and note the word I use ‘My opinion’ is on the ‘Gravy train’ with in the political system…The Justice department and the Family Courts!!!!….

    That is my opinion and I have no problem in meeting with ‘Allan’ from the ‘union of Fathers’…and saying what I said on here,directly to his face….

    And ‘No’ I am not Sorry that I expressed my Forthright and my blunt opinion …

    And I will say this loud and clear to all concerned ….There are a lot so called ‘Organizations’ that are on the ‘Gravy train’ with this ‘feminazi’ Feminist social engineering Agenda here in New Zealand…and the family courts is a classic one….And who suffers the most….The Children

    Secondly,If I have totally wrong I will publicly apologized to ‘Allan’ from ‘Union of Fathers’,and to all the members on ‘Menz’……

    Kind regards to all…John Dutchie

  87. noconfidence says:

    Darryl;

    A number of posters on here (including Alan) know who I am and I have even left an email address on here so ppl can contact me if they wish to discuss matters off the forum.
    I understand the point you are trying to make but, which posters are you referring to? I can only think of one and that is Martin…

    Martin; you continue to make accusations without any evidence. Which ‘aliases’ are you referring to ? Prove it or shut up.
    You are just showing your bitterness, which, in my opinion, you need to get over and start to enjoy life.
    Please read the post header again as John P has quite clearly put you on notice.

    I do hope you can find peace within. I seek it, and so do alot of posters here.

    signed ‘noconfidence’.
    No confidence in New Zealand social engineering, politicians, and judicial – as opposed to ‘no confidence in myself ;)’

  88. So what evidence do you have for your claim?

    There are a lot so called ‘Organizations’ that are on the ‘Gravy train’

    Surely it is for John to put up or shut up. I suspect you will be making thiose very public apologies very soon.

    What evidence do you have that Alan, or Union of Fathers have had one cent from this so called gravy train? As I understand it Union of Fathers is a registered incorporated society and as such their annual audited accounts will be publicly available.

  89. Hans Laven says:

    Reply to John Dutchie

    In my opinion feminism had its place and time, and both men and women were in some ways “liberated” from unnecessary boundaries on their social and family roles. And, although western laws have become considerably more than equal towards women’s rights there is still plenty of room for further movement away from longstanding attitudes that restrict women’s roles unnecessarily, and for grappling further with challenges such as adequately honouring child-bearing and homemaking roles and allowing world politics to benefit from female as much as from male perspectives.

    For me the problem is not feminism in its early definition, i.e. seeking gender equality (though such complex matters deserve close philosophical and scientific scrutiny). The problem is that modern feminists have long since abandoned that aim and instead feminism has become a supremist movement, hypocritically promoting inequality and injustice against men while complaining about any hint of the same against them. Indeed, men are increasingly becoming slaves to a superior female class and feminists seem quite comfortable with that. The disrespect, hatred, blame and dehumanization common in feminist propaganda point to the serious war being waged against men that many men have not yet fully recognized. They will though, and they tend to be quite good at wars once committed to them. Let’s hope our efforts at diplomacy and political action can prevent that.

  90. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to John Dutchie 2

    Firstly,you are very sadly mistaken Good Sir/Madam…. I won’t ‘Put up’ or ‘Shut up’….Note what I have said in concerning with ‘Allan’ from ‘Union of Fathers’…I have an opinion …..And I will defend any one right to give an opinion,even if its ‘blunt’ and ‘forthright’ …And even if its an ‘opinion’ that I personally find offensive………

    .And if I have got it totally wrong concerning Allan from the union of Fathers…And I have No problem what so ever in giving a public apology……..

    I will however look forward to seeing those ‘annual audited accounts’…But been business for myself,and been employed in upper management of numerous companies …I know how easily ‘annual audited accounts’ can be manipulated to suit the powers to be….

    Classic examples, look at all the Finance companies that have toppled over…. but still had a so called clean bill of health from there ‘annual audited of there accounts’…

    Now the so called ‘Gravy train’ concerning the Family Courts…….Have a think on this one, good sir…..surly you can work that one out for your self….’Yes’ or ‘No’….?????

    Kind regards to you Good Sir/Madam John Dutchie

  91. Darryl Ward says:

    Yes, that is the main person to whom I was referring re Allan’s story, but numerous individuals got quite scurrilous with me, seemingly for not supporting the republicans.

    However, as noted, I have all but completely stopped using or even visiting this forum.

  92. John Dutchie says:

    Reply to Hans

    ….Good and valid points Hans …Interesting topics you have raised.

    This I can only relate to my own upbringing by both of my Dutch parents, and I can remember so clearly as in both of my Parents worked as a ‘untied team’…

    My Father had no problem doing housework,cooking,ironing,washing etc…Even my Mother laughed and said many a times, Dad was a better cook,cleaner then she was…and Father was more domesticated then my Mother was…And did my Father have problem with that…No…Do I have a problem with that too…No……

    My Dutch grand Mothers when they came to visit us in N.Z in the early seventies mentioned, my Dutch Grand Fathers pulled there weight around the Home, even changing the Children nappies…that was in 1930’s …

    Lets make thing clear I will and have always treated Woman as my ‘Equal’…And if I see a Woman been discriminated because of her Gender …I will loudly voice my concerns too..bluntly and forthrightly …..And I done so too…This was mainly concerning Equal pay issues….And I have ‘fired’ for it too…

    But what I don’t like,is whats been happening here in N.Z for the last 25 years is all this extreme Feminism that as slowly but surly ‘demonizing’ Manhood and Fatherhood.

    My biggest concern is all the ‘false allegations that as been occurring ,and it as been destroying good ,decent and caring peoples lives as well as Families, relating to false allegations to ‘Rape’ and false allegation of ‘inappropriate sexual behavior’ on a Child…. Very rarely there as been a ‘consequences’ to that person who as made those false allegations,that have been totally caught out in Court…that is so wrong and so morally corrupt ….Any person as in, I include ‘Man’/Father’ as well, or Woman/Mother that makes a false allegation out of pure spite and pure hate towards there former partner/s should be charged and severely dealt too by the Justice department ….

    Kind regards John Dutchie

  93. Allan Harvey says:

    John,

    Your comments here are completly speculative. You have already stated that you were accused of crimes and you protest here that such accusations were unfounded. However you make completly unfounded allegations in matters you have no knowledge of at all. If you wish others and “the system” to behave better might I suggest you start with number one.

    For the record, I state that I have not personally received one cent from the Family Court or any goverment institution in the past 10 years for my work in supervision or any other Family Court related matter. Almost all payments I have recieved for supervision or as a Mckenzie Friend have come from parents or grandparents involved. Martins was one such happy customer for many months and remained so until he left the Country to lick his wounds. A few have had my expenses paid for by various charitable trusts, for many I have provided services pro bono.

    I have recieved payments as a Court witness via Lawyer for Child and I am employed as a teacher and receive a salary from the Ministry of Education. That is the nearest I have been to any gravy train and I work hard for that income.

    As I understand it Union of Fathers accounts are published on the net as part of the Companies Office website. However John has said he will not believe such accounts anyway and will impune the integrity of our auditors. Perhaps he is accustomed to creative accounting in his own affairs and therefore he doubts everyone else?

    Clearly John and others like Skeptic, Kiwi in Space and Martin do not wish to shut up and that is why I have chosen to leave this site. I make this post just to clear the air and I thank those who have e-mailed me to inform me of the slander against me.

    I have been on MENZ for about 10 years and it unfortunately seems to have reached a very low point at the moment with personal abuse and libel.

  94. John Dutchie says:

    Allan ,my reply posts towards you is not meant to be taken as a so called personal attack on you,as you seem to take it.
    If you do, I do apologize,but I will not ever apologize as in, to express an ‘opinion’ on any given subject …even if its ‘Blunt’ and ‘Forthright’ and it’s not done in a ‘Political Correct’ manner…..

    I sure you as a Teacher will understand the word ‘interpretation’ Yes..????.But what you, as in a person, might find offensive and baiting…

    I might find that persons opinion as so refreshing that someone as the ‘Fortitude’ to speak and says what they think and feel…Even if I don’t agree with that persons so called opinion,and I will defend that person right to express an opinion..And I will defend your right too Allan,as a person to say what you think and feel,and to express an opinion….

    Right ,lets deal with this once and for all….

    You stated you have been liberated by Feminism…..That is right to say to say so,and I will defend your right to express your opinion…..And I have stated quite bluntly and forthrightly ,and its my ‘opinion’ …’You can shove ‘Feminism’ where the shine doesn’t shine’…Do I apologize for voicing that opinion…No..Allan I do not…

    Its not illegal yet, to have an opinion….????…Again this is my opinion … What I have seen,and my own personal experience of the results of ‘Feminism’ here in New Zealand as been a disaster to Manhood and Fatherhood…I resent, and I am appalled when I have seen Placards stating ‘All Men are Rapists’ carried by protesting Feminists…..

    ‘Tongue in Cheek’ Allan…If that’s a definition of been ‘Liberated by Feminism’…..Thanks kindly…But no thank you….I don’t want a bar of it!!!

    Your statement …. ‘However John has said he will not believe such accounts anyway and will impune the integrity of our auditor’…Now you are putting words into my mouth Allan….I stated that Audits can be easily manipulated……Did I say I wouldn’t believe those audits concerning the ‘Union of Fathers.’…No….I did not……But would I be ,lets say,…Be a little wary of them..Correct…So I have voiced an opinion there too ….Is that a crime also.. …??????

    So you are a Teacher Allan,good on you…Well Kudos to you Good Sir,we …That is one profession we do urgently require here N.Z as in Male school school teachers …

    I won’t even consider it,or even let my adult Son become a Male School teacher here in N.Z…I remember Peter Ellis to well…

    And I have stated here on Menz,as in what happen to ‘Peter Ellis’ was nothing more then a Kiwi Feminazi Feminist Witch hunt…… Now is that ‘opinion’ offensive to you as well Allan…????….Sorry Allan but that is thoughts and my opinion on the Peter Ellis case…..

    Kind regards to you Allan..John Dutchie

  95. martins says:

    I have already given evidence about his behaviour above and in previous posts Hans. How he was mainly interested in my ex wife’ needs. I NEVER FELT THAT HE WAS ON MY SIDE AND NOW I KNOW WHY !

    I have not used aliases, you are wrong. Allan may say he is leaving but he is clever bombastic bullying man, he will no doubt be the one who will use aliases, “no skier” is his latest and greatest.

    I was a happy customer , i agree, while i thought HE WAS ON THE SIDE of fathers, UNTIL the penny dropped. I saw that he used many of his own resources for the UoF and i wanted to encourage him, was I naive or what!!!!!! I say again, the minimum that men’ groups should expect for a leader is to BE ON THE SIDE OF MEN.

  96. noconfidence says:

    ‘no skier’ aye ?

    I haven’t seen posts from them on here.

    I saw that he used many of his own resources for the UoF

    Probably the most interesting thing you’ve written to date. You’ve admitted that Alan has used his own resources for the UoF. Anyone putting their own resources into an organisation must have passion for that cause.

    That is relevant to the posting title.

    You are disgruntled by Alan. You are entitled to have an opinion. However, unless others come forward with similar stories then I have to say that you in a very small minority.

    Before you reply with another attack on Alan. Please check that it is relevant to this discussion, which I will remind you is “Should men’s advocates work as access supervisors”

  97. noconfidence says:

    Alan said:

    However you make completly unfounded allegations in matters you have no knowledge of at all. If you wish others and “the system” to behave better might I suggest you start with number one.

    Unfortunately, this is why we are where we are today at menz… sigh..
    Don’t need to comment further as this is getting off topic.

  98. JohnPotter says:

    Martin, you are wrong when you accuse Alan of using an alias on this site.

    Your continued personal abuse is not acceptable, and from now on all your comments will be moderated. There will be no more warnings. If you attempt to circumnavigate moderation, you will be banned completely, which represents much less on-going effort for me.

    Your belief that organisations and individual workers should “be on the side of” clients based on their gender is badly misguided IMO. You are simply claiming that two wrongs will make it right!

    The majority of fathers who I have come in contact with over the years agree that the children’s needs should come first. I think parents who really don’t “get” this principal legitimately call into question their suitability to have custody of their kids.

    I believe that if ALL workers in the Family Court arena truly worked in the best interests of children, there would be fraction of the current dissatisfaction with the system.

  99. John Dutchie says:

    And that is fair call,and that’s how should be… The Children well being, and there needs must be the first concern for any parent .. for both Mother and Father…..

    ‘The majority of fathers who I have come in contact with over the years agree that the children’s needs should come first.’

    Kind regards John Dutchie

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.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar