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

Police abuse ‘No smacking law”

Filed under: General,Law & Courts,Sex Abuse / CYF — Julie @ 9:38 am Mon 25th August 2014

You see someone doing something excellent for people and then you see them hurting people ….. which matters to you?

Michael Laws is a difficult one for me to work out. I can’t tell if he is a good guy or a bad guy. Some time ago (2014) I got a phone call to say I was being discussed on the radio and so I phoned the radio station and learned it was Michael Laws. I spoke with him about the NZHerald article he was talking about to listeners live on air and he simply hung up on me when I tried to add something sensible….. that is, add common sense to the situation. I then phoned the NZHerald and spoke to the journalist who basically said, “Don’t take him seriously, don’t fall into his trap”. (not the exact words but same meaning)

Michael Laws makes money on being controversial. He picks at topics and what people say but selectively. He will leave out a whole lot of information which simply makes him a ‘shit stirrer.’ But then again, his shit stirring can be helpful, thus, the good guy, lol.

I came across 2 articles in the NZHerald moments ago and both are about Michael Laws. One is about a new child added to his small tribe of 5 children…..,

The former shock-jock and politician has not signed the birth certificate after his former girlfriend of four years, Trina McLachlan, gave birth in July.

McLachlan, a one-time political protege of Laws, split with Laws late last year.

A friend of McLachlan’s said the Department of Internal Affairs had been in contact with Laws.

The friend said McLachlan, a student and solo mum, was being deprived of access to a Working For Families benefit because the birth certificate was unsigned.

When asked if he had declined to sign the birth certificate, Laws said he had “no information at all that would confirm what you’re saying to me”.

Laws said he had been subject to an “ongoing vendetta” after claiming on his RadioLive talkback show that Herald on Sunday journalists were rabid and should be shot.

and the other about the controversial ‘No Smacking Law’.

Police have given former Wanganui mayor Michael Laws a formal warning after he was accused of smacking his child.

A nurse phoned the police to say she witnessed Michael Laws smacking one of his children while visiting his ex-wife in hospital for a stroke.


IF YOU THOUGHT this article is about MICHAEL LAWS, you are mislead. It’s about SUE BRADFORD. The “No Smacking article” is what I want to talk about.


The controversial anti-smacking law, championed by former Green MP Sue Bradford, came into effect in 2007, and removed the defence of reasonable force for parents prosecuted for assault on their children.

Bradford said on Friday police were administering the law well, including the use of warnings.

“I don’t know any details but it sounds like the police have acted in the usual way … I hope that [Laws] takes what’s happened seriously. It sets a very poor example from someone who has held public office.”

Sue Bradford is considered a champion of the lower class in New Zealand and when I write lower class, I mean the defenseless, those who don’t have access to top lawyers or other means of halting police corruption. The gap between rich and poor has widened meaning, IMO, that the bar for the ‘defenseless class’ is not that low ANYMORE.

She is also considered a fabulous left winger and stands….. really STANDS while Labour leaders seem to get comfortable in political seats looking forward to an early retirement with excellent benefits, IMO. They are generally middle class and few understand what their voters are going through, also IMO.

Sue Bradford seems to have been given opportunities for putting through the ‘No Smacking Bill’ back in 2007. Her thesis on whether we should have a left wing left tank has the potential to help save New Zealanders, once again IMO. I am soooo supportive of her.

But I can’t ignore my own experiences. I can’t ignore that police are extremely corrupt in New Zealand and that it’s getting worse. The defenseless sure do need champions to help them survive and especially save their children now that National has locked us into legal child theft. Sue Bradford is responsible for police corruption because she gave them the power, …… IMO.


This is what really happens in New Zealand

If CYFs wants your children, they use whatever means to get your children, right or wrong. It’s not about children, BTW, it’s about adults. It’s a them against us game and CYFs social workers want to win as much as parents want to save their children from systematic abuse. Only, one side has the system and the other side has ‘nothing’ thus defenseless.

New Zealand police are a means to get your children. They work hand in hand, or more precisely, they will use what ever means available to do CYFs bidding, for after all, they are just humans doing their job and if CYFs says children are unsafe, then unsafe they are. No cop, lawyer, or other is going to risk their hard earned career for a stranger.

They investigate parents and if they can’t find something to use against them, they say to parents, “You can either admit you’ve smacked your child in the past and we’ll give you a warning, or we will investigate you and lay charges if we find you have smacked your children, in the past”.

Of course the defenseless are going to jump at the opportunity to get out of trouble for they can’t afford a lawyer, but moreso, most people trust the police to protect citizens because that’s what adults are taught in their childhood.


What happens afterwards is shocking.

The police walk out the door and social workers walk in the door – it can be that fast though they also take the kids from school. The kids are uplifted and the parents don’t have a leg to stand on, so to speak. Police also use ‘police safety orders’ when there’s no safety issues and when the person in question doesn’t even live at the property. They also say they are using orders against you when in fact they don’t. There is no paper trail. They say things to give them time. They do everything and anything in their power for ‘possible abuse’ is a crime and people really need to get their head around the word “POSSIBLE’. You don’t need to commit a crime in New Zealand, there only needs to be a ‘possibility’ of committing a crime.

Again my question… You see someone doing something excellent for people and then you see them hurting people ….. which matters to you?


  1. ….Since I have the floor…Now is a good time to keep readers up to date and introduce some men to newcomers.

    First off….. “Why do we have possible abuse?”

    Child abuse has always existed but it became a workable crime through a child named Mary Ellen Wislon. From this case governing bodies punished parents for child abuse and created policies to invest in ‘state children’ and vulnerable children.

    Moving along, “In 1962, Dr. C. Henry Kempe and his colleagues led the identification and recognition of child abuse with their defining paper, The Battered Child Syndrome. This paper was regarded as the single most significant event in creating awareness and exposing the reality of child abuse. It gave doctors a way to understand and do something about child abuse and neglect.”

    This study went right around the world and interest in child abuse exploded. Also during the 1960’s and early 1970’s was movements to prevent rather than punish. By the 1970’s, laws to protect children were enacted that released money into communities to set up programmes to combat child abuse and neglect.

    Shortly after, US President Richard Nixon signed America’s ‘Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)’ in 1974. Other countries followed suit.

    It’s important to note that Senator Walter Mondale, who promoted and sponsored the CAPTA bill expressed concerns that it could be misused. He worried that it could lead states to create a ‘business’ in dealing with children.

    Child prevention, fostering, adoption, prevention and punishment ARE big business in our modern capitalist, neo-liberal world. Making ‘possible abuse’ a crime, has allowed money to flow into many, many agencies who say they will fix the problem by preventing the problem.

    “Dear Government, for a limited time, we here at can save you $xxxxx from the child abuse $bill you currently have at $XXXXXX. At no extra charge we will teach men to ‘respect women’, lol. If you sign up today, we can undercut all other services in New Zealand”.


    The big problem here, is that social work degrees don’t teach students that the statistics they see are in fact not child abuse cases, but diverted cases given to agencies who have a contract to prevent clients from abusing children. They are ‘possible abuse’ cases. Now-a-days, social work students think family as an institution should be done away with for too many parents look to get it wrong.

    The other big problem is that social workers who aren’t involved in shifting the money don’t know that you are meant to leave the children with parents under ‘possible’ abuse cases. They are corruptly getting police to manipulate laws and psychologists to write reports that have nothing to do with child abuse but could be a sign towards possible neglect, emotional and psychological abuse (we are still waiting on the last definition that’s either in or passed it’s 3rd reading. I think it’s a Labour initiative and they want to use it for separating parents)


    One of these days I will write a list of typical reports Psychologists write that can be used to take your children. For example, if parents have two children, psychologists typically write, “Parent gave one child more attention than the other while being assessed”. Once in your FGC, the CYF staff say, “Oh my god, the sky is falling. We are keeping your children for another year” or at least they did until Paula Bennett introduced Home for Life also offering agencies big money for new parents (caregivers).

    Soooo, there you have it. ‘Possible abuse’ was created for prevention and to move money.

    Comment by Julie — Mon 25th August 2014 @ 10:43 pm

  2. There are some men working with CYF cases and/or protesting that don’t write on this site often. One is Daniel Ryder and he has been in the media of late because of a CYF security guard asking him to set up a hit on his parents, while being a CYFs protester.

    His case has been ongoing for years now and the government is over their budget for his child. I had written details about his case here and will post it when I find it.


    Over a year ago, Daniel pulled up in his driveway to be king hit by a gang member his ex partner used to kill him. He was dragged from his car and just as a few gang members were lifting him in the boot of one of their cars, a neighbour came out with a bat and scared them off.

    CYFs said, “If you were a woman, we would put you in protective care” and proceeded to take his daughter. Fortunately that didn’t happen and instead he moved out South Auckland.

    Recently he moved back on the shore and his ex is wanting full custody and has filed to the Family Court with the help of her lawyer. CYFs don’t want to stop the mother from seeing her child even though she is still on drugs and running with gang members (she hasn’t changed her spots, no matter what they say). I feel for her too, but this is not supposed to be about adults, it’s supposed to be about children.

    Now they are saying Daniel can’t have a girlfriend and are driving by his house to make sure he has no visitors. Either they are isolating him for another hit attempt (the first social worker was buying or selling drugs to his ex and was fired on moved on to another CYFs office) or pressuring him to say he will make friends with his ex and share the parenting without CYFs assistance in supervised access. Perhaps they see their attempt as a way of closing the case because of money pressure.


    The case in the Rotorua High Court has been covered by the media and Daniel is trying to use the coverage to bring father’s issues out in the open. So far the media reports he was protesting at CYFs and the security guard told him of unsafe homes including a caregiver’s or caregivers house where several children were living in the shed.

    You can read the rest yourself here.

    So much for, “State children will be cared for”.

    Comment by julie — Mon 25th August 2014 @ 11:49 pm

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