Hmmm …..
Can’t imagine a man being treated like this by a Judge.
MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.
15 Comments »
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.
with so many preceding cases to refer to one should get away with stealing food..murder..child abuse and never have to worry about going to jail..nz is a criminals paradise
Comment by Ford — Tue 22nd May 2012 @ 10:06 pm
A Just outcome I believe. False accusations are a blight on society!
Comment by Gwaihir — Wed 23rd May 2012 @ 1:00 am
From the brief story in stuff, it isn’t possible to get a feel for the strength of the evidence either way.
I recall a well known father being tried for domestic violence (the story sounds funny now – funny peculiar, not funny ha ha). About half way through the jury trial, the judge put the jury out and said to the prosecutor, “is there any reason why I shouldn’t direct the jury to find not guilty?” “No” says prosecutor. And that is exactly what happened, taking about 7 minutes and cutting about 2 1/2 days off what already had consumed 2 1/2 days. The jury did not look very amused, maybe because they felt a lot of their time had been wasted? Maybe because they were looking forward to the hanging?
As a taxpayer, you could see a charge that should never have been prosecuted.
As a taxpayer, you could see 2 1/2 days of wasted jury time, defendant’s time (much more wasted than 1 1/2 days!), wasted Judge’s time.
So, why did the police decide to prosecute?
Why did the police prosecution decision, not include all of the evidence in police possession at the time?
Because the police are paid for prosecutions started, not justified.
So, why did the earlier hearings fail to detect this evidence, which was in front of them the whole time?
Because, to be on the “safe” side, everything proceeds to the final trial. So, why do we even have these earlier hearings.
You could see justice being achieved, at absolutely inordinate, unprofessional cost. (This is actually one form on Injustice!)
Conflict of interest, Meredith Connell are paid for prosecutions and days in caught, not for achieving correct outcomes. (They are even paid extra for appeals!)
http://menz.org.nz/2008/unmanaged-conflicts-of-interest-hazardous/
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 23rd May 2012 @ 7:17 am
Reply to MurrayBacon #3
Your comments of the following
‘Because the police are paid for prosecutions started, not justified’….Correct
‘Meredith Connell are paid for prosecutions and days in caught, not for achieving correct outcomes. (They are even paid extra for appeals!)’…Correct..
And do not forget MurrayBacon…There are plenty of very powerful, highly influential ‘Harriet Harman’s’ type of Kiwi feminists employed both in the police force and in the justice department pushing there feminists ideology…
Classic case that springs to my mind,was the Kiwi women feminist with hunt of ‘Peter Ellis’ of the Christchurch Civic Creche case.
Kind regards John Dutchie…Free at long last
Comment by John Dutchie — Wed 23rd May 2012 @ 9:49 am
Dear John, if I may make a gender comparison, the women alongside Peter Ellis were also greatly damaged, by that experimental prosecution. According to newspaper reports at the time, two were forced to sell their family homes, to pay legal bills. The other two were bankrupted, for not being able to pay their legal workers, as much as they considered they were worth. In my opinion, it shows that although their is some gender bias in our caughts, the biggest issue is just old fashioned plunder.
It is up to consumers to work out for themselves what caught$ are worth and then protect themselves from these thieves and pay them just what they are really worth. MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 23rd May 2012 @ 10:02 am
Reply to Gwaihir
Your comment Gwaihir ‘A Just outcome I believe. False accusations are a blight on society!’…Correct, have a look at these websites ..see links below….
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvroPZFP-n4
Gwaihir in this Asian country heavens forbid if you get convicted of a Rape charge…
‘But’…and here is the big ‘But’…. Heavens forbid if either a Man or a women gets convicted of laying a false sexual allegation claim against a innocent person…You get the same sentence if you were convicted of rape charge…That’s how it should be too…..There’s no …’Pussy pass’… in this Asian country
Kind regards John Dutchie”¦Free at long last
Kind regards John Dutchie”¦Free at long last
Comment by John Dutchie — Wed 23rd May 2012 @ 10:04 am
Reply to MurrayBacon #5
A genuine fair call there MurrayBacon ,concerning those poor women ….A sincere question for you Murraybacon have you read the book written by Lynley Hood,called ‘A City Possessed:’ The Christchurch Civic Creche Case…In my humble opinion that book is a must read for all adults in N.Z to read…
Kind regards John Dutchie”¦Free at long last
Comment by John Dutchie — Wed 23rd May 2012 @ 10:11 am
Dear John, yes! I don’t think our society has learned the lessons. Maybe we have gone backwards, in terms of understanding what our caught$ can achieve and what they cannot, especially in terms of value for money. MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 23rd May 2012 @ 11:36 am
Reply to MurrayBacon #8
Your comment of ‘in terms of understanding what our caught$’…After having a wee think on your comment…
I can remember what elderly retired,a very astute Barrister,who was a very close family friend to my parents, who as since passed away….
many…many …many years ago when I was a very naive and stupid young man,I asked him what he thought of the N.Z justice system …He smiled and quietly said this me…’No John, think of it as more as ‘a legalized legal system’ and the only ‘real winners’ are the legal professionals on both sides of the fence’…
And after my own experience with our so called Justice system…I understand what he meant….
Kind regards John Dutchie”¦Free at long last
Comment by John Dutchie — Wed 23rd May 2012 @ 2:05 pm
I think it is worth observing at this point a more general principle. Whenever we ask someone else to address what we consider a problem, there is always the risk that they will overcharge, and do a lousy job. It doesn’t matter whether it is a house that needs painted, a child that needs schooled, money that needs managed, or private differences with others that need to be rectified. I’m sure anyone can think of other examples.
And for those of us seasoned by experience, one thing keeps coming back. The really important jobs must be done by oneself. Only we know our most important business, and the more pressing it is, the more likely that only we have a stake in a successful outcome. No-one else gives a hoot either way. The most important thing for them is how much they get paid, how likely, and how soon.
Unforeseen difficulties will be seen to be things to avoid, and not covered by earlier assurances. Their commitment to success on your behalf will be diluted by every obstacle, whereas your interests require the opposite.
If you are mandated to require the services of another for your most important business, it is not only wicked, it is also a demand on you to be creative.
Comment by rc — Wed 23rd May 2012 @ 6:19 pm
As rc says, if you have ongoing work, then the service provider has an incentive to work efficiently for you and hope to get your future business.
Legal workers in general see you as a one night stand and go for the jugular, when they have their hand in your wallet. They have got away with these antisocial ethics for a few decades now.
I have suggested that familycaught$ be reformed by putting the work out to lowest cost tender, so that consumers can get prices that reflect the cost of getting a competent person to do the work, but without monopolistic mafia racketeering prices:
http://archive.org/details/SubmissionToReviewOfNzFamilyCourt
In the next few years, as computers develop the ability to digest natural english, the cost of purely legal work will drop down to little more than the cost of electricity to power a computer for a couple of seconds.
The only remaining use for human lawyers will be for dried out ones in museum displays. MurrayBacon.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 23rd May 2012 @ 7:46 pm
As rc says, if you have ongoing work, then the service provider has an incentive to work efficiently for you and hope to get your future business.
I did not quite say this Murray, but you would have correctly presumed me if you had said that “an honest and intelligent service provider has an incentive to work efficiently for you and hope to get your future business.”
Comment by rc — Wed 23rd May 2012 @ 8:14 pm
Let us consider what I witnessed a few years ago. Restructuring was the word of the day. In one section of my employer a department was totally “Contracted out” All the employees were declared redundant. Low and behold some reappeared employed by the contractor at much reduced wages and conditions. They were of course not very interested in using any initiative. 2 years later the contract is up for renegotiation – Needless to say at a vastly increased price! The employees that had stayed had vanished (Loss of knowledge) My workload in ensuring the contract was fulfilled greatly increased I gave up and left or more correctly got fed up with constant negotiations (Arguments) and resigned. Net result the workers lost heavily! The overall employer lost heavily. Beyond my time I am aware of serious “Incidents” that were simply brushed over.
Comment by Gwaihir — Wed 23rd May 2012 @ 8:44 pm
RC (#10) “I think it is worth observing at this point a more general principle. Whenever we ask someone else to address what we consider a problem, there is always the risk that they will overcharge, and do a lousy job.”
There’s a great Greek word that pretty much sums up “half” of what you are saying here; that word is KAKONOMICS or the strange “preference” we have for low quality outcomes. To illustrate; we continue to tolerate the less than mediocre performance of successive governments and “ministers” in NZ; yet we continue to endorse this performance by going out to vote again after another four years. We all know that a different government with different faces will still only deliver another lousy performance for the next four years. But we do it anyway; endorsing the principle of Kakonomics. The only winner is the status quo.
For any one interested, a lady by the name of Gloria Origgi explains why life sucks so often and attributes this to KAKONOMICS:
http://gloriaoriggi.blogspot.co.nz/2011/01/kakonomics-or-strange-preference-for.html
I must confess, my first thought upon reading this was to ascribe the new ministerial position of MINISTER of KAKONOMICS to Peter Dunne; but upon reflection I decided he has done anything to generate an outcome one way or the other.
RC – thanks for being so perceptive. Perhaps that principle isn’t quite so general after all?
Comment by Bruce S — Fri 25th May 2012 @ 7:22 pm
RC and Ghaihir have opened up a practical issue about how well a market works. RC has pointed out that in many situations, if you need a job done properly, you have to do it yourself. This isn’t always practical. Some tasks require lengthy training, or specialist equipment. You don’t have enough time, to be able to do everything or learn everything.
Wikipedia has a very good article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_theory
An efficient marketplace requires:
1. several buyers and several sellers.
2. balanced access to information (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry)
3. Does the principal know enough to manage the service provider?
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incentives)
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_Incentives)
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard)
When purchasers of a service don’t expect to be purchasing again, they have little incentive to learn how to become effective purchasers. In this case they may just go to the nearest service provider and accept their service.
Alternatively, if purchasers of this service worked together, to share their experiences and learn from them, they could greatly improve the value for money and quality of service they receive, even from legal workers.
The lessons would be:
1. Ask about the past performance of several possible service providers in similar tasks
2. package the task of work, so that several providers could offer competitive price offers
3. learn sufficient to monitor the service provider’s work, so that action could be taken early, when problems start to arise.
Sometimes, being too greedy can be counterproductive. Conversely, even being willing to pay a high price doesn’t guarantee you a good quality job. If you want a good quality job, you have to do your homework, if you are going to employ someone else. Secrecy sets you up for being taken for a ride, it just means lack of information!
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 26th May 2012 @ 9:14 pm