MENZ ISSUES

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

NZ Police Discriminate Against Men

Filed under: General — Ministry of Men's Affairs @ 11:03 pm Wed 22nd October 2014

We all know that anti-male sexism is rife throughout our country including our police. We all know that police routinely discriminate against men and behave as ‘white knights’ serving the interests of women as if royalty. We all knew that ‘police safety orders’ would become yet another tool with which to blame and harm men while condoning violence committed by women. However, that police proudly parade pro-female sexism on their reality tv series ‘Police Ten 7’ shows that they fully expect most New Zealanders to agree with discrimination on the grounds of gender and is an indication of the degree to which feminist privilege has become normal.

Frankly, it’s rare to watch an epsiode of ‘Police Ten 7’ without noticing that police handle males much more harshly and punitively than females. Even the narrator often refers to male suspects in dehumanizing ways (“these animals”, “these violent morons” etc) but you will never hear such hate speech directed at female suspects. Quite often you will see blatant examples of pro-female, anti-male sexism in the way police carry out their work. I decided to share a few notable examples in recent episodes.

On the ‘Police Ten 7’ episode screened on 27/07/14 the first story begins with the police communications to a squad car as follows:

Police HQ: “Informant’s calling from a pay phone reporting a domestic incident. I believe it’s her partner she’s having an argument with. The partner was smashing up the house.”

Narrator: “The woman has fled to some nearby shops, and while Manurewa constables John Ollison and Anoka A Lo look for her, John’s already encountered her partner several times before.”

Officer Ollison then tells us that the partner is well known and there have been (an inaudible number of) incidents with that one person, so… (The so… is not explained for us, but the implication was “so…he’s being violent to her again”. As the rest of the story unfolds one suspects it should have been “so…she’s using the system to get power and control over him again”. But make up your own ending!).

The constables locate the ‘informant’ woman who tells them her partner who lives with her wanted her to drive him somewhere but she refused because there was “no gas in the car”, then he “just started getting angry” and then tried to stop her getting into the car to leave. No mention now of him smashing up the house. The police notice scratches on her neck and tell her “Looks like he grabbed you by the neck” which she does not confirm, then the constable asks “Did you hit him as well?” which she denies having done.

The woman’s young adult son Darcy is standing next to her as she tells her story and the police ask him what happened. He tells them he was at home watching tv when he heard the woman (who we are now told was Leanne) and her partner arguing. He heard the partner ask if she could drop him off, she said no and he said “I’ll take the car”. Darcy then said he looked around the house for his mother who was gone, but that her partner told Darcy that she had tried to whack him with a bat. Officer Ollison asked Darcy if he saw that, but Darcy replied “All I could hear was ‘Get out of my house’ her screaming”. The narrator tells us “There’s clearly different points of view here”, and shortly after that the two constables talk about the claim that Leanne was trying to hit her partner (Tyrone) with a bat. The constables then head off to find Tyrone and the narrator tells us they are going to get his side of the argument. Leanne lets them into the house and they walk around finding nobody home, but also there is no sign or mention of evidence to support the initial claim that Tyrone was smashing up the house. The narrator tells us that police give Leanne and Darcy “strict instructions to call if he returns”.

Narrator: “And sure enough a few hours later he’s back.” The constables are in the car on the way back to the area and Constable A Lo says: “Got a phone call saying he came back to the address and now he’s left on foot. Hopefully we’ll find him and issue him his police safety order.”

We see a brief cameo (almost certainly contrived for the show) of Leanne talking on her phone to police about what direction Tyrone might have walked. We are told that there are ‘multiple units looking for him’ and it doesn’t take long to track Tyrone down. Then Tyrone tells the police, calmly and clearly, “We had planned that I was going to go fishing today but right on the last half hour she decided ‘oh na’. I was a bit brassed off so I was like stay out of my way and stuff cos I’m angry. She goes ‘oh, shut your effing face or I’ll punch your f(beep)ing head’ and I was like ‘Go on then, do it’. Last time she done that she head butted me in the nose and I’ve still got a swollen nose from last week. She went and grabbed the cricket bat and she went to swing at me and I blocked her with my arm. And I went to grab the bat, she wouldn’t let it go and we ended up on the ground and I ended up on top of her trying to get the bat off her.” The constable asks if this is “an ongoing thing between you and her” and Tyrone replies that they are mostly all good. The narrator then informs us “But their unstable history says otherwise so the officers are going to issue a police safety order keeping him away from Leanne, and her home, for two days”, and we see Constable Olllison giving Tyrone the piece of paper with the safety order and tellng him what this means.

So here we see a case in which a woman made allegations against her partner. The allegations actually involved no clear significant violence towards her other than his alleged efforts to prevent her from leaving in the car (that she had just claimed had no gas to take him to catch fish for the household, yet it must have had gas to take her wherever she was planning to go). When she refused to keep to what had been agreed, he informed her he was angry and asked to be left alone. Instead of respecting his request and his effort to communicate his feelings responsibly and safely, she threatened him with violence and tried to assault him with a weapon. But at no stage was there any hint that the police might consider holding the woman responsible for the violence that the evidence suggested she had committed both on this occasion and the week before, or indeed for the untruths that she appeared to have uttered to police from the time of her first contact and throughout this incident. She knew that police will almost always side with her, blame and punish any man at her will and fail to hold her accountable for almost any wrongdoing she commits, and she terrorized her partner accordingly. This was ‘power and control tactics’ supreme with taxpayer-funded support.

The police were initially said to want to hear Tyrone’s ‘side of the argument’ but then before they found him they had already decided to issue him with a safety order, making it clear they were never interested in basing their decisions on any fair hearing of his account. The evidence suggested that Leanne was the one who deserved the safety order. But police issued the order against Tyrone even though he was calm and there was no evidence that he had lied to them but plenty of evidence that Leanne lied. Tyrone was thereby ordered to keep away from Leanne and ‘her home’ for two days (but he lived there so it was as much his home as hers). There appeared to be no young children she was responsible for so no reason that would make her eviction from the house for two days any more onerous for her than for him. The safety order was issued to Tyrone simply because he was male. He will need to find someone’s couch or a spot under a bush somewhere to sleep for at least two nights, and in any subsequent Court proceedings either Family Court or otherwise, the fact he was issued with a police safety order will be brought up as though it is factual evidence of his past violence. His anger at the injustice of the situation, and/or his need to find food and a warm place to sleep for a few days, may well provoke him to carry out some real crime but of course the system’s abuse of him will never be seen as contributing to this.

I will describe other male-abusing discrimination by police as shown proudly on ‘Police Ten 7’ in subsequent posts. Many men have shared experiences here on MENZ Issues of police discrimination against them in favour of females. There has never been an example of similar discrimination against women from what I have seen. Equal before the law, yeah right.

25 Responses to “NZ Police Discriminate Against Men”

  1. mopardad says:

    Top Notch post.

  2. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    A further observation: On the way back to the neighbourhood, before speaking with Tyrone at all about what happened, the police officer said “…Hopefully we’ll find him and issue him his police safety order.’. This language suggested that police routinely see a safety order as belonging to a male, and that they routinely expect to issue one to a male in any domestic call out. A safety order will be ‘his safety order‘ regardless of the circumstances.

  3. DJ Ward says:

    Human rights act says that the police must make an effort not to be sexualy bigoted.
    Clearly they are being sexualy bigoted.

    The Bill of Rights Act says that punishment should not be arbitrary.
    Clealy they are being arbitrary in regard to only men recieving “his safety order”

    No wonder men on average have no respect for the police. They dont deserve it.
    And they want to be armed with guns. Madness, they dont deserve the priveledge.

    Examples like the one given should make up the basis of a human rights comission compliant.
    Video makes great evidence.
    I agree that there is many examples of police sexual bigotry in the police ten 7 programme.
    You could put together a collection of videos showing how the sexual bigotry is normalised behavour.

  4. DJ Ward says:

    She went and grabbed the cricket bat and she went to swing at me and I blocked her with my arm.
    Thats assualt with a weapon.
    Why was she not arrested and charged.
    Bigot police is the only answer.

    She goes ‘oh, shut your effing face or I’ll punch your f(beep)ing head’
    Making threats.

    but that her partner told Darcy that she had tried to whack him with a bat.
    Confession to a seperatly stated event, by the victim independantly.

    This event shows the truth behind how appaling the police behave.

    but also there is no sign or mention of evidence to support the initial claim that Tyrone was smashing up the house.
    Making a false statement to police.

  5. golfa says:

    Don’t forget this video from Police 10-7 in 2007. It was put on youtube and after lots of negative comments about the New Zealand Police’s sexism when it came to instances of domestic violence and their apparent practice of handing the children to CYFS rather than to the non violent Father (perfectly illustrated in the video), it was pulled.

    http://menz.org.nz/2007/police-10-7-video-of-callout-for-female-offender/

  6. Nice post , and reply’s, and what’s changed since 2007 Not much.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Police Safety order was issued not because he was male it was keep both parties safe…and Tyrone agreed that he needed to keep away…trying to discredit all NZ Police and this write is certainly misleading..the Police Officers involved were only doing their job & following the correct procedure…Tyrone could have laid charges against his partner but didn’t..you can only speculate but don’t know the full story…

  8. kiranjiharr says:

    @ 7.
    Why couldn’t the safety order be given to the woman.. afterall her son Darcy confrimed he heard her shouting and threatening..

  9. kiranjiharr says:

    am sure thats within procedure… or is it??..

  10. The man in Absentia says:

    If we look at the result. Nobody seems to be further harmed by the domestic violence. The house could be hers and this was just a new boyfriend. He may by his own choice, been the person to leave the property. There can be other reasons such as the past history that dictated the result.
    No 7 is correct in that regard.

    As for always prosecuting when they are witness to a physical assault by men “and the victim is female” and not acting in the same manner when the violent person happens to be female “and the victim is male”.
    Logic dictates that the assault with the bat took place because one person verified a confession, and the victim without knowledge of what the others have said, stated that the assault happened. Logic dictates that it must have taken place.

    Assault with a bat.
    Imagine women’s refuge if the male did that to her.

    Do you notice the bigotry we on this site see, No 7.

  11. Brian says:

    These types of situations really pee me off. CYF’s and the cops need a real hard look at. Both are targeting ONLY men.

  12. soMENi says:

    #7 … the Police Officers involved were only doing their job & following the correct procedure

    Bullsh!t! Since when has the correct Police procedure been to not prosecute offenders of domestic violence or those who assault others with a weapon?
    The inaction of the Police denied the perpetrator of domestic violence the intervention she needs. When is that boy big enough for her to take to with a bat (if she hasn’t done so already)?

    What is the rate of female on male domestic violence that is not only unreported to the authorities but also ignored by them when they do become aware of it?

    I recently reported a female neighbour beating her male partner and the Police did an excellent job. She was arrested and received a Police Safety Order to stay away for X number of days despite the tenancy being only in her name.
    Could it have been the Sergeant in charge was a woman that made the difference? The male Constable who took my statement was a little uncomfortable seeing her temporarily banished from her own home until I reminded him that they do it to men all the time.

  13. There’s always someone that has no idea what its like in the real world, either they choose to ignore and live in la la land or they have not been on either the receiving end as a guy its that’s simple. must be nice thinking that we have a perfect court system, perfect police and a fair and equal father mother fairness, with absolutely no biasedness towards males lolz.
    They are out there !!! with their pet unicorns,,,,
    They also are good at getting a reaction by hijacking pages with little to no understanding of how things are as it doesn’t matter what they say when you have lived it for decades you know that that’s not the case , sound familiar …. mmmm

  14. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Remember also that the law was changed quite a few years ago now to enable police to prosecute suspected family violence offenders regardless of whether the victim wants to ‘press charges’. The police do not need a complainant in order to prosecute for domestic violence. How that now usually plays out is that if the victim is female and she doesn’t want the male prosecuted, the police will often prosecute anyway, but if the the victim is male who doesn’t want the female prosecuted, she never is.

  15. @ 14, YES funny how that also works, seen many examples of that the guy gets asked when its the other way around its automatic ,its one way traffic as usual, and time for guys to insist that they do get charged and stop thinking with the little head instead of the big one.

  16. @ 12 good on you and the police, its only fair right ?

    Yes it must have been strange to that police man as he’s so used to doing it to guys constantly.

    First time I have ever heard if it being that way , maybe things are changing or are we all just becoming more aware of our rights and what a crock of poo its been for many many years. ?

  17. ornerybloke says:

    Greetings all. I have been away from Menz for a time. Very interested to see this post however. I served 21yrs in the Police, 18 of those in New Zealand. In fact, I worked at the same station as a contemporary of the esteemed retired Det. Insp. who fronts Police 10-7 as narrator. I know him to be an extremely effective investigator, and a very fair, reasonable, compassionate and empathetic person. I also know, that Police 10-7, while being a snapshot of things which are current and happening in NZ, and a platform for the NZ Police to seek information, is also Entertainment, which is perhaps foremost as a TV production consideration. Not only that, I know too, that serving Police people believe in what they do, and do not go out of their way to be sexist, racist or discriminatory in any way. Part of the Police oath is to exercise their duty “without fear or favour, malice or ill-will” – and cops do believe in that; and despite many claims to the contrary, and some very notable and public exceptions, people should generally trust in that.

    BUT, here is the thing.

    There is also political influence, which hands down policy direction, providing frameworks for dealing with situations in a generic sense, and those have to be adhered to by ground floor troops, to appease political agendas, and to create statistical avenues for resource, funding, pay and staffing arguments, part of the Job Description of the Politically appointed Commissioner.

    And here is my main point.

    I would almost guarantee, that there is not a serving, or ex Police frontline member worth his or her salt, that could say in all honesty, that the main aggressor in domestic dispute situations is male. Overwhelmingly, the aggressor, and the one most likely to lose their rag, is female. But, also overwhelmingly, the biggest and strongest person and the one least likely to be able to verbally articulate frustration is the male. And it is more often the male that explodes and does damage, to walls, doors, and partner.

    In a civilised society, one would expect that the female of the species would understand that – “I know he is big and strong and he gets really angry when I go out of my way to make sure that I piss him off, and when he can’t take it any more, I know it is gonna hurt, so maybe I should take a leaf out of his book, and be a bit more circumspect.”

    But no, we do not live in a civilised society. We live in one where the female enjoys a massive sense of expectation that they can have whatever they want, whenever they want, and it can be provided by the male, sucked up by them, with no consequences or responsibility for the female, who simultaneously engineer the Government to make it law. The saddest, saddest part, is that while it was women who demanded it, it is stupid men, thinking only with the head of their dick, who allow it to happen; men who continue to give and give and give. Please, do not blame the attitude of NZ’s Policemen and women. I think they do the best they can with what they have to work with.

  18. OMG! You're (*&^%$&^*! says:

    And therein lies the sexism, enacted by our beloved Police, as servants of the State. Regardless of who initiated or enacted violence, men are to be removed from the home.
    Message to Children: Regardless of provocation or cause, Your father is dispensable. He is merely an auxiliary optional add-on to parenthood and raising you.
    Children are brought up to believe Police look after them, and take care of the nasties in life. Police lock nasties up. Jails are for nasties, for criminals.
    Message to children: Your father is a nasty – a criminal – who needs to be locked up.
    Anti-violence programme staff, thanks to pressure groups of feminist lawyers, women’s refuge etc, require men to vacate family homes. Family Court policy usually results in mothers retaining family homes and most chattels. Men have to ‘move on’. Men have to pay child support.
    Message to children: Your father is nothing more than a cash-cow, whose sole purpose is to work to to provide (mainly money) for your mother and you. Secondary message to children: If you’re male, don’t bother accumulating wealth or assets, or a good income. It’ll only all eventually go to the mother of your children.
    Police policy is to confiscate firearms of men, whenever there is reported domestic violence.
    Message to children: Your father is a killer (or at best, a potential killer).

    In war, men are ordered to shoot the enemy. They comply, because that is their duty. Where unacceptable horrors are committed, it is not the front line men who are prosecuted as war-criminals, but their superiors, the commanding officers.
    Policing is no different. Front line Police who merely carry our orders. It is the commanders, those who make and enact policy, who are guilty of war-crimes against children – of denying them their fathers.

  19. Man X Norton says:

    ornerybloke (#17): Thanks for your comment. We understand that coal-face police officers operate under orders from above and have to respond to various situations as ordered even if that may be contrary to their own preference or wisdom.

    However, if police mainly discriminate against men and in favour of women, regardless of whether this was ordered from above or not, they cannot be said to be acting ‘without fear or favour, malice or ill-will’.

    If a narrator as a retired detective inspector refers to (male) suspects as ‘animals’, “sickos’, ‘perverts’ and various other degrading or dehumanizing terms, he cannot be said to be acting without malice or ill-will, or indeed to be ‘fair, reasonable, compassionate and empathetic’ as you claim. In fact, he is uttering hate speech that is discriminatory on the grounds of gender and can only encourage a lynch-mob attitude in viewers rather than any reason or compassion.

    Routinely issuing ‘safety orders’ against men almost regardless of the circumstances cannot be said to be acting without favour. Attempting to justify this on the basis of general male characteristics is no more valid than previous police attempts to justify racism in their practice on the basis of the general characteristics of darker-skinned people.

    Sorry, we will blame NZ’s police men and women for their gender-discriminatory attitude and practice. It is unacceptable and will be called out here whenever we come across it. If the coal-face officers are acting under orders to behave unethically and contrary to their ‘without favour’ code of ethics, then it is their responsibility to challenge the orders or to speak up about them.

  20. ornerybloke says:

    Thanks OMG and Man X.

    Both of you illustrate the issue I tried to express.

    To keep the matter in perspective is vital.

    The front line copper, who is invariably the youngest and least experienced, both in terms of life and work experience, is the one who is tasked with making the often split-second decisions that, in the exercise of their duty, affects them, and the people they deal with.

    The front line copper is also the target of criticism, and/or challenge, and/or violence, in the field, often by people who are seriously affected by emotion and/or substance, and, at the same time, is always in the cross-hairs of the Police Administration, which has the benefit of as much hindsight as it takes, to scrutinise those decisions made in a split second.

    It is true that those front line coppers didn’t have to join the Police, but, I would rather not think about the alternative.

    I didn’t come on here to defend Police actions, or to justify the presentation of a TV show, with a ‘particular personality,’ which, in precisely the same way that people are not forced to join the Police, the viewer doesn’t have to watch.

    I disagree very strongly that it is the responsibility of the coal-face cops to challenge orders to behave unethically. I also disagree that such ‘orders’ are actually given, or even contemplated.

    To my mind, the problem is much, much more insidious than that. It is a systemic failure, unfortunately, mostly on the part of men, throughout the whole of western society, over the last forty or so years to recognise feminism for what it actually is. Mostly, it is men that have, under the banner of protecting their ‘women,’ been responsible for demonising themselves.

    There are still fewer women in Parliamentary Ministerial Positions than men, but this systemic introduction of marginalising men has largely been signed into legislation by a pen, more likely than not, especially over forty years, held by a large, un-manicured hairy hand, with unpainted nails.

    And now we want to point fingers at Women, Police, Justice, Welfare, and claim the right to snivel about how hard done by we are, making sure we feel we can blame someone else.

    Sorry, but doesn’t that have a familiar ring to it?

    Go figure……

  21. dunnuffinwrong says:

    Welcome back orinerybloke.

    Referring to the story at the top of the page..
    I think this guy got off lightly comparitivly .but I didn’t see police ten7. I don’t have a telly.or much of my possessions. This is why.
    On may 3 this year I was attacked by my former partner. I was assaulted with a blindsided slap or punch, then a lashed at with a power chord then she tried to smash a wall mirror into me. She fucked around in the bathroom for half an hour or so then returned to tell me she was going to destroy my life. Then she went to the neighbours. I had no idea what that meant until an hour later when police arrived imnediatly arresting me for assaulting her. I had not retaliated at all.
    I was held in a police cell for fifty hours then walked home after being bailed to find myself homeless and permanently outcast.
    Even though in her statement she admitted to becoming extremely angry and assaulting me without provocation except that I wouldn’t answer her.

    She claimed in her statement that she was savagly beaten with punches and kicks repeatedly.

    The police entertained her story dispite a full hospital report issued within an hour noting the only in jury found on her was a bruise to the back of her hand.
    I have struggled in life since as a result of the allegation.
    Finally my day in court came in september I had a defended hearing and finally I would get to be judged. The judge said come back in four hours. Then I was told they were all so busy and all needed holidays so the case will now be heard next year. For me its a sentence of months more accused.
    I’m in total disbelief at this charge as ive had no previous charges or allegations or complaints.
    My complaints to police are ignored they’ve only said that they’ve been told they’re not arresting enough men.
    I have managed to successfully defend a permanent protection order so whenever this is finally over this story will be told and full police disclosure will be posted on a website so everyone can judge for themselves.
    I’ve appreciated all comments in this post as this is a very relevant topic in my life. Thanks to you all.
    One question for you orinarybloke..
    Can you explain or give further insight to the ways police are pressured by government policy. ? What avenues or medium is used by government?
    I guess I’m asking how do they influence?
    I appreciate your experience and insights as I do that of many other qualified men and women in this- most appreciated forum.

  22. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    ornerybloke (#20): Oh ok, so because you claim some men have put in place policies to abuse men and to treat them in a discriminatory and routinely unfair way, we all deserve to be treated with systemic dishonesty and abuse. Sorry, no. Front line police are the people who are attending ‘family violence’ incidents and choosing to misrepresent the facts, to show favouritism towards females (both their stories and their treatment), to give ‘safety orders’ to men by default and/or to charge men unfairly and contrary to all evidence that might exist to contradict a female’s lies. Front line police are as responsible for their actions as are any bosses or politicians who make policies. The enemies of NZ men are being identified and called out.

  23. dunnuffinwrong says:

    Ive been told by my lawyer that the charge against me persists because of the determination of an overinthusiastic and overinterested new constable. An immigrant man who is from a city called Punjab.
    He was sworn in.. In 2012. Formerly a security guard. He proclaimed upon receiving his badge that he joined the police because he wanted to specialise in a field. When I was read my rights by him, I just made out the last bit..”court of law” and figured out I was being arrested without question. I work for a company of 30 men and one woman and I’m the only kiwi. But I couldn’t relate to or understand this man. I wish the police could find another – field for this mans endeavours, The other cop was also Asian with English as a second language and no clearer. He just smiled at everything. I expect a more experienced New Zealand policeman or policewoman might be able to figure that if a woman had really been thrown onto a tiled floor(by the throat), repeatedly kicked and savagly beaten( by a man that spends his days installing stone) as she had described…. She might have more than a bruise to the back of her hand. But common sense is not a requirement for police when a woman’s body is allegedly interfered with. Roles reversed,the same would not happen… its a comedy. But let’s try another analogy. –
    Say she claimed she was in her car and rammed another car that she decided she was angry with. Then claimed that driver retaliated and rammed her car over and over.
    Yet there was nothing wrong with her car but a scratch on the bumper that had the same paint as her fingernails. Would that complaint be considered factual? Would the police say..we will lock that man up till up till monday afternoon you get to his home and throw out anything of his you don’t want. He won’t have a chance for another nine months for any known facts to be considered.
    A couple of MPs are petitioning parliament on my behalf to change an aspect of the dv act.
    I believe that if it is claimed that a man is assaulted by a woman and its alleged that he has retaliated- if he has a clear history and no previous complaints.. And if there are no witnesses or evidence.. The man should have a right to be questioned before he is arrested.
    Of course that’s only a start and a small change but I’d really like to be the last kiwi bloke subjected to the indignity that I’ve faced because of an allegation by a woman with borderline personality disorder. And a cop that can’t tell shit from clay in a new Zealand field. ..

  24. Phil Watts says:

    Any one who knows my children are being held hostage as i have told them, is guilty of accessory to their kidnapping. Silence is consent. u know who you are. my children got kidnapped by the child abusing NZ Police and their mother and Judge Grace and Judge Ulrich and cops Victoria Press and Paul Fleck and Liam Stewart and one of the leading cops John Spence knows about it too and does nothing.

    They are all paedophile child abusers as is ‘lawyer-for-child’ Chris Dellabarca who my children told me they don’t want to be locked in a room again with him. he refused to video record the interrogations for my children’s safety and give the only copies to both parents and the court as should happen, although no l4l should exist and only family conferences with a small jury of peers should exist.

  25. paul smith says:

    In the case of Peter Ellis wasn’t one of the police banging one of the mothers/

    My children’s mother has two children to another guy.

    Before I arrived on the scene the mother had a non molestation order placed on that guy.

    The cops came to a call from her.

    Soon after one of the cops started banging her.

    Some time later this cop got her off a drink driving charge.

    Now days it seems that she hangs out with bikies, takes or has taken serious drugs.

    Evidence was given in court in 2013 which included;
    Its a nice place. (bikie bar)
    They have an open fire.
    I do waitressing there.
    She appears to still have close relationships with the police.
    She appears to still have close relationships with gang members/associates.

    Recently I was arrested, the same woman called the police.

    The Police withdrew the charge after pleading not guilty, selecting trial by jury.
    It seems that this woman has total police support from the police, perhaps she is now helping them.

    I have received advise that clearly the children should have come into my care in 2013 based on that evidence and verbal submission from counsel for the children who may well be closely associated with the police himself.

    Naturally when the mother’s lawyer and the children’s lawyer work for the same law firm and from the same office and are funded by the tax payer we must become concerned, it just does not seem right.

    My house has been entered.

    Items removed.

    This has ben reported to the police (why bother)

    What is next, they come and do what they did to Arther Allen Thomas and put things there?

    Are they capable of it do we as the public think?

    I have no criminal record but it remains likely that the police have their favourites, what does a woman do to become a favourite?

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