Good week for White Ribbon – Not
As White Ribbon invest their energy and our money in a bigoted social campaign against ‘male domestic violence’ the news this week has served up a chilling slice of reality, about life in New Zealand.
On Sunday, as fate would have it, the alleged attempted murder of a Hamilton man was captured by an in-store CCTV camera, as the offender ran a car into her partner, backed up, and as he lay injured on the footpath outside of a suburban shop, ran into the man a second time.
While the 43 year old victim recovers in hospital we understand that a 44 year old women will make a second court appearance today, on a charge of attempted murder.
Although it is unclear from the vague reports in mainstream media a New Zealand news site did quote the Police as follows.
Mr Patterson said despite the arrest enquiries were continuing and investigators still wanted to hear from anyone who witnessed Sunday’s incidents who hadn’t yet already spoken to Police and asked them to ring the Hamilton Central Police station on 07 858 6200.
Another case that attracted some interest on this site was the unattended-bath drowning of a 15 month old child in wellington – discussed here in this earlier Multi-tasking manslaughter post – this is now followed up in some detail by Stuff journalist Phil Kitchen.
– The baby’s father told police in a formal witness statement that the mother repeatedly left another baby unattended in an upstairs bath.
– The mother had a history of drug and alcohol abuse, was known to Child, Youth and Family, and had left her children unattended in a car as she shopped.
– Another witness said the mother twice threatened to make the father of the baby “regret it” if he left her again.
Questions are raised as to whether evidence known to the Police but withheld from the jury on the basis that it was not relevant to the woman’s state of mind at the time of the death, should have been given to the jury, or at the very least to the court, allowing its relevance to be challenged by the defence.
A second issue is raised as to the effectiveness of CYFS and the manner in which they dealt with this family. Surely, now that this case has resulted in the death of a child, the circumstances require some form of investigation into CYFS proceedures to ensure the safety of other vulnerable children, in the hands of unfit, unwell, or incapable mothers.
A third issue is the continued supression of the defendant’s name which affects not only our ability to review proceedures, obtain accountability and remediation for other people’s failures, and provide at the very least, the possibility that this circumstance will not repeat itself, in the same or some other form.
If there is one clear message in both these cases, it is the constraints limiting men from securing any form of help, when having to deal with a woman’s mental health, addiction or violence, which place either themselves or children in danger. It is a natural consequence that children become endangered, or further endangered, when fathers are forced from their homes due to the un-remediated behaviour of out-of-control women.
This from the NZ Herald on the victim of the hit and run;
The friend said the couple had been in a volatile on-and-off relationship for about four years.
The friend said the man sought help for the woman’s behaviour in the past without success.
This from Stuff News on the death of a 15 month old baby;
But in a 33-page statement – which the jury did not see – the baby’s father said she repeatedly left another child aged about 2 unattended in a bath.
“I’m amazed she got off,” he told The Dominion Post.
His statement reveals numerous examples of difficulties his former partner had with parenting skills, and their rocky relationship.
This is not a recent development, it is a trend that started in the 1970’s and has since developed through its own unhealthy upbringing within the medical profession and alongside the railing of feminist idealogues who have invaded government structures.
It is the same unhealthy ethos engaged in by our Family Courts; that it is simply easier, more economical and acceptable in our current social climate, to remove any male who threatens disclosure or questions feminist ideals, and leave children in the care of dangerous and ineffective mothers, without the necessary support to ensure the safety and well being of children.
[The question I’m asking right now – did Police mislead the coroner?]
Dear Downunder, thank you for your blunt summing up of these cases. The timing against white ribbon only sharpens your points.
Although you have accused the medical profession of deliberate blindness towards incompetent and/or dangerous mothering, some of them are starting to try to follow an evidence based approach, rather than idealogical parenting assessment. GPs are starting to competently address depression and other mood disorders impacts onto parenting skills, even for mothers. As a profession, they have competence reviews breathing down on them and each one has a clear image of what competence is about, in the real world.
The same cannot be said of CYFs or familycaught$, who just intimidate and bully people who try to make valid competence complaints about them. (One unfortunate classic example, being their treatment of my friend Mr. Evgeny Orlov recently.) These are people who are unable to either accept responsibility for their actions or face competence reviews. Most get to these jobs without any testing of competence at skills relevant to protection of children.
So, despite the medical profession’s chequered performance, they are the profession who are offering the best hope for the protection of children in NZ (with teachers a close second). Much hazard to children too, but definitely the best hope, as some are willing to address the uncomfortable problems in our community.
The protection of children should not be looked upon as seeking out and destroying parents, who are unable to safely look after their children.
We should be warning parents who clearly don’t have the skills to look after children, in the environments that these parents can provide, to not have their own children at all. We should be encouraging more sharing of children, so that such parents are not deprived completely of the parenting/mentor experiences.
Where some parents could only parent, with ongoing support and supervision, this should be made clear to them. They may decide to have children, or they may decide that such supervision is more deterrent than the desire to have children and abstain. Of course, trainers wheels should only be kept on while they are necessary.
To take children, rather than warn and inform, is cruel and unusual punishment. This approach reflects the low priority given to protecting children and their social and mental development in particular.
Children can only be protected, by competently judging parents skills and resources, not by prejudice. Men should have not have to have fears about stepping up to care for their own children, if the mother cannot or will not. MurrayBacon.
Thank you for bringing this as we Males endure another tirade of skewed ststistics and Disinformation. A good example of equality occoured on 29 September 2013 where “A person enticed a 13 year old boy into phone sex and other teens into online relationships has pleaded guilty.” Horrible man I hear you say? ALWAYS consider ALL facts. The offenders was a 29 year old woman named Natalia Burgess!
See http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/9223171/Facebook-predator-revealed – Includes Photo!
This raises an interesting point. Have you seen the television advertisement where the auntie tackles the team about their drink driving?
‘You can’t keep doing this one day someone is going to get hurt’ or words to that effect.
You can apply the same thinking here; if this woman had been repeatedly told, don’t leave the baby in the bath by himself, one day he could drown.
If a drunk driver is charged with manslaughter, is it relevant that he was repeatedly warned not to drive drunk or it is only relevant that he was drunk on the day.
If you look at what has happened in the above case of the mother and the baby, it appears that Police, by withholding this evidence, may have allowed the defendant to mislead the jury by saying that she did not normally do this.
You can ask the same questions about a corporate disaster like Pike River; was it a lapse of concentration on the day or a culture of corporate risk taking.
I think this case creates a very interesting position for our Police and their legal ethics team – [bearing in mind they are the prosecution] – when they apply principles of selective evidence in certain cases, especially those involving women, allowing them to be subject to a lower legal threshold.
Certainly makes a mockery of the campaign against drunk driving and auntie telling the boys off, doesn’t it.
[There’s another question though; did Police mislead the coroner?]
See also the group “White ribbon day debate” on facebook. Guaranteed free from edits except irrational abuse or swearing! The “Official” white ribbon site edits and deletes comment not complying with their notion.
Haven’t seen an update on that one yet.
Giving consideration to the question – did Police mislead the coroner? I’d want to see more before making a call like that.
But ‘if’ the statements in the Stuff article are correct: the threat to make the father regret leaving her, him leaving her two weeks before the drowning, and the repeated threat to harm her chldren when he did – one certainly has to consider the possibility of ‘intent’, which of course would possibly escalate it to a more serious charge. That she did not tell the whole truth in the interview is also telling – saying she had never left the child alone in the bath before, when she had left a child of 2 in the bath repeatedly.
It is unfortunate that her father is a police manager and her mother works for police on occasions. That in itself will inevitably give rise to accusations that she was given disparate treatment. I’m afraid though that I still can’t bring myself to trust what the reporter says without question. Gut feeling. There’s always something not quite right with their stories. They sell stuff… sometimes even their souls I reckon!
The Police may be able to present their case to a criminal court, but they are obligated to present all evidence to a coroner.
There’s going to be fur flying before the dust settles on this one.
50 years ago today the world lost a man who stood for everything we all now desperately want or don’t want depending on the subject.
Kennedy stood for Equal rights, Freedom, less Central Govt, NO abuse of power, NO war, NO Fed, NO secret societies and “they” killed him for speaking up and standing for all that is right.
The world needs more Kennedys, problem is everyone in power today – is now a permanent slave to MONEY and the threat of death if they dare speak or stand for the truth.
NO today we must all live life forced into poverty, cower from speaking the truth or be forever branded a a conspiracy theorist, be permanently spied on under the fiction – “to protect national security” – another ABUSE Kennedy wanted eradicated, be dictated to, have your children forcibly removed from you and any values you once stood for, etc etc etc – a somewhat lengthy list……
So what would the world have looked like had Kennedy been permitted to live?
The Final Chapter of a Female abuser of young boys, Natalia Burgess.
Do yoy think the sentance is fair?
The sentence does concern me.
That is simply predatory.
I get the impression this woman has no appreciation of what she has done. Probably why she ended up in jail rather than home detention with her father – (that’s why the sentencing was delayed).
To me this offender poses a real future risk on release. If she has any chance of rehabilitation then I think the sentence is totally inadequate both in that sense and for the parole board to assess any progress.
I am not sure if the sentence represents judicial ignorance to the affects of online offending or whether it was because the victims were boys or the offender is a woman?
I would imagine given the multiple victims that there would be a group of very disappointed families who would be thinking that the court simply hasn’t taken their cases seriously.
And for the reasons mentioned above I don’t think this is the final chapter in this story – I can see her back before the court again for the same or similar offending.
Hows this one A Woman’s 7 year obsession with her X Partner. Intentional damage, Breecing a Protection Order.
I think he is lucky that she didn’t think to run him over with a car!