Love him or hate him he has been one of us!
Is he being suppressed by the clobering machine?
Its worth “Googling” “Benjamin Easton” to see the causes he has fearlessky fought, including fathers rights.. I conjecture that his success gaining the publics eye championing his various “Causes” has caused the establishment to attempt to muzzle him.
Whatever else Ben has always remained true to the cause. To quote the song “He was willing to follow that quest, without question or pause, To be willing to march into hell for a heavenly cause”
We may not agree with Ben, but in the interests of free speech, no matter how nutty his cause, there is no doubting his sincerity.
From todays Dom Post http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/9357616/Easton-loses-fight-to-get-back-on-dole
Is this “The system” trying to starve him out?
Ben made one very big mistake as quoted ‘… he was voluntarily on the dole and wasn’t looking for work’ right there is his problem. Had he not said that he would have been ok going on as he was within reason… Had Work and Income offered him a job and he turned it down is the only other way he could have lost his benefit by failing to comply like with appointments, training, interviews etc… I like Ben and he has done many great things… he is one of us…he ‘He has “sacrificed” his career to take up “social issues”, he said at the time’ and again very true.. He has helped me when he could…. had he not made them two statements they could not have removed his benefit as long as he was looking for work while fighting the Social issues… I am looking forward to winning Lotto but that day might never come LOL… They are looking for life on Mars… etc the looking aspect is not that big of a problem to overcome….
Comment by Graeme — Mon 4th November 2013 @ 11:00 am
That ‘silly public statement’ lost him the dole, but that is not what this post is about.
Ben has taken an arbitrary argument to court that ‘what he does’ qualifies him for the dole. Quite simply the law doesn’t say that. What is the judge to do, pretend that parliament made a different law that is not written down in front of him?
It is bad enough that our Family Court operates like this, but expecting the same from the High Court is, to put it bluntly, ridiculous.
Ben wanted to get back on the dole ‘on his terms’ and that failed – and that has nothing to do with free speech or being starved out.
There is nothing stopping Ben asking parliament to change the law to include his point of view, although I don’t see that happening any time soon.
If it was a case of Ben wanting to receive the dole again, he could have argued that in the absence of a suitable job he remains motivated and mindfully alert by undertaking voluntary work. And that what he does is furthering his knowledge and education in the field of work he believes he is most suitable for, while he continues to seek employment and would otherwise comply with WINZ requirements, if he was receiving the dole.
He could have also have argued it as a human rights issue. This goes back to the origins of the dole which comes from Latin bread-queue. That in the absence of work he is at least entitled to his daily bread or that portion of the dole that represents food.
If you look at the way the unemployment benefit is now structured it is a minimum amount plus top-ups for accommodation etc, which vary from place to place, as they do, depending on where you live.
Certainly the human rights argument would have given the judge something to think about and the media something better to report on.
I too know Ben and admire his dedication to his Lot; but I can’t be sympathetic in this case when his motivation is not pursuing a public issue, but one, purely of self interest.
You can campaign in court for a different interpretation to placed on a law, but you cannot campaign in court, for the court to re-invent the law on your behalf.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 4th November 2013 @ 11:40 am
Actually there is something to be said for Rome in that you can walk through the city even to this day and drink fresh water from the aqua duct system build during the age of the empire.
Water wasn’t something to be factored into the equation back then.
Going back to the human rights argument it should be daily bread and sufficient fresh water.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 4th November 2013 @ 7:03 pm
Ben Easton showed how critically important it is to continuously monitor your legal worker and manage the way in which you give them work and monitor the quality of the work that they are doing for you.
I suggest to men that when you look at the history of any man (or woman) really financially screwed by the familycaught$, they have suffered more damage by their own legal worker, than they have by the other party’s lawyer, or the judge too.
Wellington City Council told their legal workers to fight Ben at any cost!!!!!
Miracle after miracle later, they are orgiastically moaning about their $350,000 legal bill (against Ben Easton, who hasn’t even won one the cases where the facts were on his side and there were several)!!!!
It looks to me that they are quite happy and the WCC manager responsible for their employment of legal workers has just received “free” tickets for his next overseas holiday? He has to moan, to imply that he had no choice, but to do this.
He did have a choice.
Pay your legal worker to do a single task and then pay their invoice immediately. Then you can see value for money, or ripoff for good money. Then you can decide whether you would ever want to pay them to do anything for you in the future.
WCC against Ben, they could have just ignored Ben and he wouldn’t really have caused them any problems at all. However, they wheeled in their heavy, expensive, worthless artillery and ran up stupid bills, to pay using ratepayer’s money, other people’s money.
Parents have a responsibility to themselves and their children, to spend most of their money wisely. This wouldn’t involve spending more than say $500 a year on legal workers, if even that. More than that, is wastage.
Over 90% of familycaught$ work, is producing paperwork of zero value. Why pay good money to get a caught order, that they are very unlikely to ever enforce if a need arose? In the unlikely event that it was ever enforced, it is again extremely unlikely that it would be enforced in time, to be worth anything anyway?
Face reality and understand the value of the familycaught$. Then spend your family’s money wisely.
In the early days, I believe that Ben was in the right. After he was steamrollered by the caught$, he just went on rampage and took on any cause. Who can blame him? So he has taken on stupid issues, but he has only done that after being ruthlessly crushed, by a valueless caught$ system. These “judges” may laugh at Ben, but if I was Saint Peter, I would let Ben into heaven, before any of these manipulative, self serving thieverous “judges”.
Before dealing with familycaught$, think through what you are paying for. If there is no value, don’t get involved with them.
Ben clearly shows up legal worker’s strengths and weaknesses. It is important that we learn from the examples that Ben has given us, about these people’s ethics, skills and behaviour.
MurrayBacon.
Comment by Murray Bacon — Tue 5th November 2013 @ 9:28 pm
Marie Curie, scientist, Nobel laureate (1867-1934)
Comment by Downunder — Fri 8th November 2013 @ 1:25 pm
#5 very sharp comment.
I admit that I find it hard to get worked up over one small unemployment benefit, given so many are unemployed. All the while, tax dodgers are siphoning off amounts of money that I couldn’t imagine, let alone be able to spend.
If Apple Corp pays only 1% tax in USA and this hasn’t been challenged by USA Government over many years, then I am left wondering if the USA Government seriously needs any taxes at all? There must be a massive flow of unearned, quiet money to congressmen and representatives, to get a thousand blind eyes to look the other way?
Similarly in NZ, I would like to see all of the payments to MPs laid out for all to see. I suspect that Saint John Banks is at the bottom of the list of sinners, with both Nabour and Lational far, far ahead of him……
Our Government is challenging builder’s conflicts of interest, regarding the high cost of houses in NZ. Legal Worker’s Aid gives more value to legal workers, than to the public. This is all paid for by the Government, out of taxpayer’s money.
If I remember correctly, legal workers are far over-represented in Parliament, as MPs.
I suggest that they are not abstaining from votes, which transfer huge amounts of Government money to legal workers, despite the obvious conflict of interest. Not a direct conflict of interest, but even indirect conflicts of interest may be used to fraudulently transfer wealth from the poor to the rich!
I suggest that Ben has done less harm to NZ society, than almost any legal worker…
Accordingly, I suggest that the Legal Worker’s Aid budget be transferred to subsidising very cheap red wines***.
(Statement of Conflict of Interest: I enjoy very cheap red wine***, not as often as I would like though.]
Oh, I forgot to mention that through the Building Act changes, passed by legal worker MPs, 90% of buildings in NZ were soundly constructed, despite the severe commercial pressure ie conflict of interest that builders were under. Could anyone claim that 90% of legal workers are honest?
I say I trust builders, way more than legal workers!
Could we employ builders to write all of our new legislation?
I cannot imagine that a builder would ever have taken part in producing a Domestic Violence Act, or set up the system under which psychologists are quietly employed by the familycaught$ so that they are under the thumbs of the unmanaged judges.
Giving Ben an unemployment benefit must be among the smallest problems ever to face NZ!
The highcaught$ hearing probably cost more than Ben’s unemployment benefit anyway, it would have been sensible and wiser, to just give Ben the money, or the wine***?
Maybe Sir Douglas Graham could be persuaded to give his knighthood to Ben? Perhaps it wouldn’t work, Ben hasn’t dodged enough tax, yet?
Besides, I happen to know that Ben doesn’t need food, as he has survived without unemployment benefit for about 3 years. Thus, as he is still alive without unemployment benefit, he obviously doesn’t need it anyway!
My accountant told me that when I was being assessed to pay child [and spousal support] tax on 30% more than I was earning, that if I borrowed to pay it, then this would prove that the IRD assessment was right all the time. Then I would have to keep paying it at that rate…..
Ben thought that familycaught$ was a madhouse. I think it is a psychiatric hospital where nobody gets competent treatment, staff or customers.
I am getting confused….. I am going to put twice as much imaginary gin in with my tonic.
Cheers, MurrayBacon.
Comment by Murray Bacon — Fri 8th November 2013 @ 2:22 pm
Thank you Down Under.
In the case of Manners Mall Ben was correct. Once opened to bus’s many incidents occured of injury, serious injury, and mabey even a fatality? But certainly the basic goal was not achieved. I think the Wellington powers that be (Including Police) could not admit that Ben was correct!
Comment by Alastair — Fri 8th November 2013 @ 3:15 pm
@Alastair – I see that this post is titled ‘Love him or hate him he has been one of us’
Should I infer from this that Ben, no longer is one of us – that he has turned his back on us and is actively rejecting us?
Comment by Downunder — Fri 8th November 2013 @ 4:16 pm
The word “Has” can be read in either the present or past tense. Were it the latter “Was” would be a better word. I am not aware of Ben’s present activities, hence the use of the word “Has” which I felt was more appropriate.
Comment by Alastair — Fri 8th November 2013 @ 7:03 pm
The one thing I most distinctively remember about Ben is him telling me about the judge eying him and saying
If anyone thinks Ben is not one of us, you have most probably have never actually talked to him.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 8th November 2013 @ 7:50 pm
I remember that comment being made to Ben. At the time, I thought that there was quite a bit of truth in the implication, behind the question. Although unfair, I do agree that both parent’s duty about caring for their children is a high priority, despite unfairness or manipulation.
Since then, I have seen placeholder “judges” fail to put the same responsibility onto mothers, again and again.
Whether it be Kay Skelton, or the wife of a man that we know, how can a “judge” poke borax at Ben or any other father, when s/he has themself failed to hold a mother accountable for denial of access, lying behind someone’s back, criminal perjury, theft via ird child [and spousal support] tax, child abduction, benefit fraud, failure to discipline children, failure to share guardianship responsibility?
Maybe mainly mothers acting in contempt of caught, but alas also too many fathers too, when they are the mythical custodial parent.
At the end of the day, these “precious” self important, narcissistic “judges” are failing many tens of thousands of children, by milking families and criminally derelicting their duties and responsibilities. In the end, the outcome is professional child neglect.
By comparison, Ben makes it as a saint, any day. MurrayBacon – horrified axe murderer.
Comment by Murray Bacon — Fri 8th November 2013 @ 8:31 pm
Very well put Murray! On All Counts!
Like all of us Ben has made his fair share of errors. I recall one of our brethren, a public relations expert no less, following the Manners Mall episode closely and praying Ben would not claim to represent the greater group of fathers. Yet I was with this man as we detoured past Ben in Manners Mall and he slipped him some money.
Almost as an apology he then stated as we walked on ‘I always try to help Ben!
Yes I have spoken with Ben. As I said the debacle of Manners Mall Ben was proved correct, though he was (And still is) being crucified by that wonderful wizard that purports to be our justice system.
Whatever Bens failings, he has tried more than the vast majority of others.
Do not Judge others unless you wish to be judged the same way. Let us learn from Bens errors so that those who follow behind will not make the same errors.
Comment by Alastair — Fri 8th November 2013 @ 10:43 pm
@Murray. You know better than that. In New Zealand only women can be saints.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 9th November 2013 @ 7:04 am
#13 Darling, your slip is showing!
NZ may have a block of people, a sizeable minority, among whom men are demons and women are “good” mothers. These are mothers who cannot stand being evaluated, but for the sake of their children, they need to be looked at closely and professionally.
But the majority are sensible and still respect men and women for what they are. The majority never fall to the point that they would deal through familycaught$ and legal workers. They protect their mental health, their wisdom and their finances. Their children grow up healthy and strong.
I remember a few months ago, the mother of a boy at Auckland Boys Grammar School organised a fundraising to help a man teacher, who had been diagnosed with an aggressive cancer, for which the best treatment is not available in NZ. The outpouring of appreciation for this man teacher, was not just talk, but enough action to get him to USA and treatment. The teacher was astonished, but not totally surprised. I was astonished, but I have to learn about the breadth of our society.
We must keep our eyes and ears open to all facets of NZ society and try to bring help from the stronger to those weaker members. With their psychiatric problems, even if only intermittent, they fall to working in caught$ as legal workers, or as $heep customers of familycaught$.
Walk around with your eyes open!
Feel the love, MurrayBacon – blunt axe murderer…
Comment by Murray Bacon — Sat 9th November 2013 @ 9:16 am
I don’t share your view, Murray, that the mental health of women or lack of is limited to the confines of the Family Court. There is a dwindling minority of women in New Zealand that have any genuine respect for men.
The feminist media, the women’s injustice system, the women’s entitlement system and our schools are openly representative of an attitude that shows a general disregard for males as individuals and men as parents.
At the lower end of the communicative scale we are regarded as either a f@#ktard or a f@#kstick, and the higher end at best unfortunately necessary and sometimes convenient to have around but only under conditions of compliance.
It is not only demeaning but destructive and infectious. While the majority of New Zealanders may still engage in a form of revolving-door cohabitation if there was enough bromide in the drinking water I would suggest that would no longer happen.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 9th November 2013 @ 2:20 pm
Downunder, I admit that I am trying to be optimistic, with great difficulty. I agree about respect for men.
Men need to understand their place and value in society and then to stand by it.
However, it was mainly men who voted for the DPB and continue to support it, even if it is now dressed up under a new name. We are pretty much our own worst enemies.
Maybe it is only when most men look at what is happening and decide to take action, that change will occur.
Presently most men don’t stop long enough, to even think these issues through, so how could we hope for change?
Our society is like steering a boat, there is a huge time delay for full understanding and changing direction. You need to look a long way ahead. Then maybe someone will pull on the wheel, but we will oversteer and lose control in the other direction. This is a socially dangerous dynamic.
It is only by careful, tedious, meticulous policy analysis, that we can move forwards stably and sensibly.
We need to identify perverse effects in our social policies, before these have created many tens of thousands of poorly parented children, working their way through to the prison system.
We need to foresee the impact of weakening controls in the Building Act, before we have built ourselves a legacy of $22 billion of built-damaged buildings and a $ 5 billion set of valueless legal bills.
If Singapore could devise a DPB, where women would receive a benefit based on their earnings performance, to avoid creating perverse incentives, then why do we not try to achieve policy as effective?
We pay our police for prosecutions started and this is exactly what we get. We pay them to jail anybody, so Mark Lundy and Teina Pora get jailed. These are perverse incentives..
We pay police for prosecuting parents for assault, but with no consideration of whether the assault is technical or real, so we get thousands of socially destructive prosecutions. These are perverse incentives..
Most of the recent reductions in crime, seem to result from changing social demographics, rather than intelligent or skilful policing.
We pay judges for show trials instead of working justice. And miraculously, we get lots of well dressed, but socially poor value show trials. These are perverse incentives.. TV can deliver show trials safer and cheaper…..
It all comes back to standing by your values, putting in the work to achieve useful social policy and then managing the implementation, not just saying we have passed the law, the job is done!
Comment by Murray Bacon — Sat 9th November 2013 @ 2:57 pm
If there is one thing I like about America it is that they do publish stupid Family Court Cases. The same thing happens here but we don’t see it in the paper.
Bad-Dad loses access
The irony here is he wasn’t being a McDonald’s Dad. But what was more interesting is the comment from the man’s mother.
I guess he put his child on the alter of his principles and lost – when really all he wanted to do was be a good parent just like his mother.
I think this little tale speaks volumes about how a feminist society promotes compliant idiots rather than intelligent and competent practitioners.
Perhaps if Ben’s case had been in the paper the crusty old dripping bastard that was assigned to his case would have been exposed and Ben may still have been a parent.
Comment by Downunder — Sat 9th November 2013 @ 3:38 pm
Downunder, you have hit the nail right on the head. Secrecy is the refuge of scoundrels. If familycaught$ was an open caught in reality, then none of the problems that the familycaught$ produces would remain. Such problems would have been quickly solved, by public discussion and ideas.
Your comment applies just as well to tens of thousands of fathers.
familycaught$ judges have no relevant training or skills. They are appointed from the ranks of successful barristers, which mainly shows that they are hungry and have survived in an environment where honest and public respecting pratitioners have gone out of business. In other words, the very last type of people that a family respecting Government would ever appoint as a familycaught$ judge.
Cheers, Murraybacon.
Comment by Murray Bacon — Sat 9th November 2013 @ 5:13 pm