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

Debate about familycaught$ Leighton Smith NewsTalk ZB

Filed under: General — MurrayBacon @ 7:30 pm Thu 6th September 2012

Recently, Leighton Smith has allowed some talk back discussion about familycaught$, on News Talk ZB

A friend told me that the discussion has been wide ranging and positively focussed.

I suggest to listen and perhaps take part!

Leighton Smith Show 8.30 am to 12 pm
– Murray Bacon.


Ashburton 98.1 FM 873AM
Auckland 1080AM 89.4FM
Blenheim 92.1FM
Central Otago 89.6FM 95.1FM 90.6FM
Christchurch 1098AM 100.1FM
Dunedin 1044AM
Gisborne 945AM
Greymouth 99.1FM 1287AM
Hawkes Bay 90.3FM 1278AM
Kapiti 89.5FM
Manawatu 100.2FM 927AM
Masterton 846AM
Nelson 1341AM
Northland 1026AM 1215AM
Oamaru 1395AM
Rotorua 747AM
Southland 864AM
Taranaki 96.4FM 1053AM 1278AM
Taupo 96.0FM
Tauranga 90.2FM 1008AM
Timaru 1152AM
Tokoroa 1413AM
Waikato 1296AM 97FM
Wanganui 1197AM
Wellington 89.3FM 1035AM


  1. Thanks Murray.
    Any chance of a recording being uploaded somewhere it can be downloaded and listened to?

    Comment by Skeptic — Thu 6th September 2012 @ 7:37 pm

  2. Hi Skeptic, you can listen on demand (I think):

    On Demand will probably make it available afterwards.

    There is a button: Click Here to Listen Live (Remember to adjust for time zones.)

    Talkback 0800 80 10 80 Overseas +64 9 307 1080

    Cheers, Murray Bacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 6th September 2012 @ 8:22 pm

  3. Today’s discussion about familycaught$ can be heard under On Demand. Today =Thursday 6th September. 10.45 am to 12 pm.

    A “lady” familycaught$ legal-worker slandered Steve Taylor, but couldn’t remember her name on air. She criticised Steve’s statistics about familycaught$ user dissatisfaction. She accused Steve of over inflating his qualifications (pot calling the kettle black? What do legal workers know about child protection?). She accused Steve of having an axe to grind. Steve pointed out that the statistics he quoted were from the Family Court Review paper published by Justice Department! Maybe she read her legal ethics book upside down, or is having difficulty paying her mortgage – that time of the month?

    If you listen to the discussion, have a friend nearby ready to resuscitate you – so you don’t die laughing…

    Murray Bacon – axe murderer (I have 3 axes to grind.)

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 6th September 2012 @ 11:27 pm

  4. “Today’s discussion about familycaught$ can be heard under On Demand. Today =Thursday 6th September. 10.45 am to 12 pm”.

    Thanks Murray.

    Comment by Skeptic — Fri 7th September 2012 @ 3:28 am

  5. Here are the links to the Newstalk ZB show about the NZ Family Court in 15 minute MP3 segments.

    10:45 – 11:00
    11:00 – 11:15
    11:15 – 11:30
    11:30 – 11:45
    11:45 – 12:00

    Comment by Skeptic — Fri 7th September 2012 @ 3:33 am

  6. My reply to the shy lady lawyer who forgot to bring her name with her:

    Comment by Steve Taylor — Sat 8th September 2012 @ 1:19 pm

  7. Whats worse is that I have since discovered they quoted from a specific affidavit of a sub judice case, all in desperate and failed attempt to discredit me.

    Comment by Steve Taylor — Sat 8th September 2012 @ 1:21 pm

  8. This is one of the family law section normal strategies. They label tax funded, low income, low asset clients as ‘those people you wouldn’t want to associate with’ – what is it here, nut bars and drug users – slight variation on the familiar theme.

    They also careful advise the financially better-off clients that it would definitely prejudice their case if they were found to be associating with any of the ‘men’s movements’ – they tried that one on me too. I came across a few men in my travels who had bought into this advice. The worst instance was one man having been milked for $500,000 in legal fees for court cases, for access to his children.

    I think it is important to understand the background to this behaviour and why we would see such risible behaviour from the family law section – they have always considered themselves, untouchable.

    Comment by Down Under — Sun 9th September 2012 @ 11:05 am

  9. Down Under – just mafioso not yet satisfactorily prosecuted. MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 9th September 2012 @ 12:51 pm

  10. I’ve found the female Family Court Lawyer who sent the letter to Leighton Smith and who attacked and defamed me on air, and who also commented on a sub judice case – on Wednesday, I begin the process of ending her career.

    Comment by Steve Taylor — Mon 10th September 2012 @ 8:44 pm

  11. #11..there arnt any but if you ask why should it be legalized..ive got plenty of reasons

    Comment by Ford — Thu 6th December 2012 @ 11:28 am

  12. emma – for what its worth …. 11 years as a police detective, a lot of life experience after that time taught me the following.

    1. Values – kids, parents people – need to define there values and what they want in life.
    2. Drugs – regardless of type being used = all drugs tend to attract the wrong associations – do kids want to bring children up surrounded by people who don’t fit the values they have defined for themselves? Do they want there kids brought up in an environment where people who use drugs are around them and their family?.
    3. Most people who use drugs, have low self esteem, are usually not trustworthy, will steal, and lie and do anything to support there habit, and I have seen first hand how cannabis in particular will cause a person to become a bit zomby like, lose there ability to concentrate and appear somewhat like a dunce, and all drugs tend to create associations with those involved in crime – usually serious crime – even if a drug is legalised – the product will still have a cost – and a drug addict will need money to feed that habit, which usually leads to crime to support the huge cost of taking it.

    Do people want to be surrounded by these types – people they can not trust?
    That is my direct experience with drug users of any kind, they can not be trusted – not ever.

    4. So again encourage your subjects to set high values for themselves – set values which will make there lives better and life live by them.

    There are many arguements that legalizing will make things better – I dont see this.

    There are also arguements that Cannabis leads to other drugs = this may or may not be true – but if you encourage it, by legalising them you expose more kids to the harm it causes in other areas of there lives.

    Comment by hornet — Thu 6th December 2012 @ 11:33 am

  13. The TLC which is the active ingredient is increasing over time. It has increased eleven fold in the last 40 odd years.

    We already have one legalised drug – alcohol – and the social consequences and management in extremely costly.

    The drug affects different parts of the brain to alcohol and the cognitive degeneration is much more severe for a lower consumed amount of the drug compared to alcohol.

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 6th December 2012 @ 11:37 am

  14. It’s not a serious question, just someone advertising their new website but that should be enough to get Ford wound up.

    Comment by Down Under — Thu 6th December 2012 @ 11:42 am

  15. hornet (12): It’s off-topic I know, but you wrote:

    Most people who use drugs, have low self esteem, are usually not trustworthy, will steal, and lie and do anything to support there habit, and I have seen first hand how cannabis in particular will cause a person to become a bit zomby like

    I would refer you to a recent post here by Down Under linking to similar nonsense about meat-eaters, i.e.

    ‘They easily cheat, tell lies, forget promises, they are dishonest and tell bad words, steal, fight and turn to violence and commit sex crimes,’

    There may well be some truth in the vegetarians’ observations as in yours, but what they see and what you see is heavily biased by the assumptions and beliefs brought to the situation. It’s a lesson for us all in that most participants here on MENZ Issues will also tend to see the things that fit with their existing beliefs and will tend to overlook things that don’t. And what exactly we see will depend heavily on our existing beliefs and our manner of seeing.

    Although like you I would never break the law, I have known many people who enjoy, who use rather than abuse, cannabis and other recreational drugs, yet maintain productive employment, excell in professional careers, contribute socially and are good family members. I have known junkies and other physically addicted people too and yes their behaviour and morals often degrade in the service of their addiction, but much of that problem is related to the illegality (and therefore high expense, risk, unreliability of quality, and association with criminal elements) of the drug they now need. Just like we all need food and if we’re starving most will lower their standards in order to obtain food. Without prohibition such degradation of behaviour and personality is much less. For example, most alcoholics maintain their habit from average levels of income and don’t become criminal, untrustworthy, exploitative people in order to get what they need. (Unfortunately the current trend of indirect prohibition through increasing taxes on alcohol and tobacco will bring about much greater ‘drug-related’ problems for those addicts too, and for the society in which they live.)

    Of course, it’s better not to get addicted in the first place, but even then the illegality of drugs reduces society’s ability to educate people in a relevant way, to influence people’s behaviour, advise about frequency and dose of safe use, methods to reduce post-high effects (to avoid addiction through ‘the hair of the dog’ method) etc. Humans throughout known history have been interested in using psychoactive substances for pleasure, insight or inspiration and such use is not all a one-way street of harm and undesirable effects. Prohibition has never been known to work. Why don’t we accept that people will take drugs, respect their freedom of choice and responsibility for themselves, and invest our resources in reducing harm rather than making the problem worse and ruining people’s lives through state violence? After all, we take that approach for most other activities that involve unnecessary risk primarily for to the person participating.

    Comment by Luther Blissett — Fri 7th December 2012 @ 8:28 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

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

Skip to toolbar