Can anyone spot what’s missing from this report ?
Given the path that other recent similar cases have taken, I’m surprised the Police haven’t acted …. Maybe they have, but it’s not mentioned in this article? Know what it is ?
This line interests me:
If it had been the daughter seeking refuge 2 years ago, it would have been dealt with immediately
It had been happening for at least 8 years before police and Child, Youth and Family (CYF) were notified and the media release says nothing about what either agencies did to help. Of course feminist media focus on ONLY MALES ARE ABUSIVE and are reluctant to admit females abuse kids more frequently than males usually because they spend more time with the kids. Anyone who has been a parent knows full well that there are times when other life pressures make kids a damned nuisance and giving into those frustrations is easy to do. When it becomes a regular lifestyle component then it’s time to seek help. Sadly CYFS and Police are not the best options.
There is no mention of the children’s father(s) or any current or recent men in the household, who generally end up being prosecuted along with any violent mother.
It would also be possible to prosecute teachers and other professionals involved who turned a blind eye to obvious evidence of this mother’s violence.
Of course there is also no mention of the background to why this mother ever retained care of the children. There is no mention of any appallingly faulty Family Court decisions in this mother’s favour because that Court is never held accountable for its child abuse. There is no mention of the DPB system that incentivises women to keep producing children and to get rid of the fathers, leaving those children in danger of neglect and/or violence at the hands of the mother and/or the various men she introduces into the household.
Of course there is no truthful analysis.
The years of violence that went on before appears to have been directed mainly at the son. It is only the above situation last August (involving the daughter) that action has been taken.
Correct MoMA. It’s been a recent trend. Probably thanks to that dickhead Chester Borrows who concluded that if a woman is claiming a single parent benefit, then her boyfriend is also guilty of benefit fraud (even though he may not be on any sort of benefit.) Although, I’m not sure how that would stand up in Court as he’s not the one claiming or even signed any paperwork to claim the benefit ….
Once again, it’s making men responsible for women’s behaviour.
…but as they are not able to find out what the benefit status is (eg woman working but also secretly drawing unemployment benefit), they can only guess at exactly what is going on and they have no legal right to discuss with WINZ what is going on, let alone stop it.
It seems that they only have the right to be prosecuted afterwards and help pay reparations, for something they couldn’t find out about, let alone do anything about.
There used to be a principle that the responsibility should be carried by the person who made the relevant decisions. That is a constructive approach to ensuring public interest, accountability and responsibility. Any other approach to these situations is just destructive.
Anything can stand up in caught$, even cardboard cutouts. I would trust the common sense of a cardboard cutout more than the common sense of the majority of judges.
So the solution has to be, that all men have open access to all women’s benefit status. WINZ seemed to be working towards that, with their open access data kiosks. Why did they stop that?
“eg woman working but also secretly drawing unemployment benefit” – Not quite.
They actually have to show reasonable cause to believe the partner would know.
a better example would be a woman/man on a benifit moves in a new working partner. This partner is now expected to know they are classified as a de facto couple, and should be suspicious if they see a continuing relationship with WINZ, eg letters/meetings/ discussing with partner. How this works in practice is anyones guess, I have not seen in media complainys from lawyers or welfare advocates.
Do not expect this to change with either tribe of government, as they are only claiming that the partner has benifited from extra income (knowingly or not) and so should help with the repayment of the debt, ie govt will get their money faster.
Please show where this requirement is made?
“Have” may be written into legislation, but whether this will be interpreted loosely or carefully by caught$ might be another matter. I always like to see that responsibility is actually placed on the person who made the decision ie in this case – that it is reasonable that the partner should have known?
“How this works in practice is anyones guess, I have not seen in media complaints from lawyers or welfare advocates.”
It’s still a law that seeks to blame males for females’ wrongdoing, and to exploit males to pay for females’ wrongdoing. Otherwise a similar law would apply to the partners and wives who knowingly benefit from men’s burglaries, theft, fraud and drug dealing.
Aside from which it represents another giant step towards witch-hunting injustice, on this occasion a departure from the principle that a person should not be punished for another’s offending.
The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 covers these situations:
6 Meaning of significant criminal activity
(1)In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, significant criminal activity means an activity engaged in by a person that if proceeded against as a criminal offence would amount to offending-
(a)that consists of, or includes, 1 or more offences punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years or more; or
(b)from which property, proceeds, or benefits of a value of $30,000 or more have, directly or indirectly, been acquired or derived.
(2)A person is undertaking an activity of the kind described in subsection (1) whether or not-
(a)the person has been charged with or convicted of an offence in connection with the activity; or
(b)the person has been acquitted of an offence in connection with the activity; or
(c)the person’s conviction for an offence in connection with the activity has been quashed or set aside.
(3)Any expenses or outgoings used in connection with an activity of the kind described in subsection (1) must be disregarded for the purposes of calculating the value of any property, proceeds, or benefits under subsection (1)(b).
7 Meaning of unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, a person has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity if the person has knowingly, directly or indirectly, derived a benefit from significant criminal activity (whether or not that person undertook or was involved in the significant criminal activity).
You may be sceptical that a few burglaries, or sales of low value drugs could reach $30,000? Remember that the person accused of crimes and unconvicted by any caught$, finds it hard to dispute any allegations pointed at him, even if they are obviously untrue. The figure may be said to be the total of many years of burglaries or drug sales… The caught$ just have no sympathy for this poor soul – accused but never convicted of burglary, or drug sales, or the like. How could he ever hope to “prove” that his income did not exceed $30,000, after the accusation was made?
A couple of years of benefit fraud would reach the $30,000 threshold too…
JnF above suggests that there have been very few, if any, complaints from aggrieved beneficiary’s partners. This proves very little, as most men in this situation are not wanting to attract any more attention to themselves, as far as possible.
How many detailed complaints do we get from men aggrieved by ird cs’s actions? No detailed complaints at all. They are scared of future abuses!
Given the obvious sympathies of the caught$, I don’t share JnF’s confidence in caught$ process. We do need to make sure that legislation is sensible and that the caught$ actually work to the legislation. Too often the caught$ are like a locomotive, cruising huge distances off the proper tracks.
#11 MoMA and #13 Murray Bacon. The question was asked in an Editorial in the NZ Herald in 2013 …. Chester Borrows has remained predictably quiet.
There has been a trend in legislation, to make partner’s more easily responsible for the other partner’s debts. This applies right through from the costs of aged care, to proceeds of physical crime. Same sex marriage actually reduces costs to Government, by more effectively shifting these costs onto partners. It is funny how same sex marriage has sailed through, when the financial costs to Government are less than zero, after waiting many years for approval based on equity!?
Curiously, partner liability doesn’t seem to be anywhere near as rigidly enforced for the proceeds of white collar grime.
A good example is the financial fraudster, The Right Honourable Sir Douglas Graham, Minister for Justice and Treaty Settlements in a National Government (before they were reverse taken over by Sky City).
I am not aware that fines or recompense was sought from family trusts, that almost certainly would have contained much of the proceeds of excessive director’s payments, made possible by trading while clearly insolvent and using new investors payments to show an apparent return on earlier investors investments.
Of course, not that white collar griminals look awfully like cabinet ministers and prime ministers…….??
The Herald Editorial notes that it seems mean and not fairly balanced across all types of crime, to chase beneficiaries and their hapless partners for a total of $30 million a year.
What the Herald didn’t note in black and white, is that white collar grime probably runs more like $5 to $10 billion per annum, closer to 1000 times the amount of beneficiary fraud that has been detected. The amount is so huge, that most people cannot see it!
Add in the social impacts that flow on from political manipulation by anonymous political party donors, and we have many more billion$ of costs from white collar grime.
Two examples that come quickly to mind are:
1. Building Act removal of inspections, resulting in leaky buildings ($20 billion)
2. Alcohol controlled to meet industry’s needs, not public’s wishes (%2 billion per year??)
3. familycaught$ costs to Government from unwarranted needless hearings ($80 million per year??)
4. Value to legal workers, of not prosecuting perjury ($100 million per year??)
5. gambling harm resulting from failure to enforce control acts (maybe
6. Restraint of Health and Safety Inspectors, costing worker injuries and deaths (50 deaths x $4 million each most years?? social cost not corruption profit)
7. Failure to prevent agglomeration in supermarket retailing $500 million per year cost to consumers??)
8. Failure to enforce Commerce Act on electricity companies, owned by Government, resulting in $500 increased bills to average consumer each year, ie $0.5 billion per annum)
9. Very poor regulation of finance industry….
If we were to guess that 10 to 15% of the corruption achieved turnover finds its way back to the politicians who restrained themselves from serving the public interest, then we can see that graft can have a large impact on political outcomes, for both the Labout and Sky City/National Parties.
It seems that NZ is not quite as clean and green as is claimed. There is room to improve and we need to get in and improve. There are huge benefits for the public, from reducing corruption in NZ. So, voters need to donate much more generously to political parties, if they would ever like to be protected from Government actions.
I’m really glad that they are chasing a few beneficiaries, who are on the bones of their arse and not chasing the Right Honourables in Government or still living in Remuerahhhhh! (To be said with orgasmic satisfaction.)
Should we be having public floggings for these Cabinet Ministers? Sorry that just slipped out, of course it should have been beneficiaries!
I think I am going to have to start taking my tablets again, I am just getting too bitter and twisted and frothing at the mouth and both ends.
So, best wishes to Chris Cairns, he seems like a tiny sacrificial lamb to the public slaughter.
I would rather see Pike River managers properly prosecuted and the Cabinet Minister for Business etc and the Cabinet Minister for Gambling jailed.
Here’s another example of a man being blamed and prosecuted for a woman’s behaviour. His partner deceived him over time telling him she was pregnant, and when she then kidnapped someone’s baby from hospital and phoned him to say she had delivered her baby, he collected her from the hospital and took her and stolen baby home. His only offences appeared to be naivety, trust of a woman and perhaps below average intelligence. Oh, and quite likely fear in that if he challenged her or called authorities about his sense that something wasn’t right, she may have harmed him emotionally or physically. Never mind, he’s a male so let’s convict him. Men used to be legally responsible for their women’s behaviour and surprisingly this hasn’t changed much under our feminist jurisdiction.
Excuse me @Ministry of Men’s Affairs, when were men ever legally responsible for women’s behaviour.
In the 1950s a man could be given a court order to return to his wife, if he had left her. Liable for his own actions.
Men might have been responsible for women’s financial impropriety, but were they ever responsible their unusual impropriety.
In reply to Downunder: For sure, I am one who was held legally liable for my wife’s criminal behaviour [ That is violence and abuse against the children] – well anyway if a male does it he’s criminal – are women not criminal for the same offense? I know there are a number here who have been held responsible one way or other for women’s misbehaviour. Fighting it has cost us dearly, and I’m still dealing with the kids issues. Now if you are asking if its written in law that we are responsible, that could be argued since some laws are gender favoured. But most are written gender neutral – BUT its the way its applied. Also its the way statistics are cooked up to create the image they want to support the bias. Example, citing Women’s affairs, Women’s refuge, police, and medical stats. The first three I know to be biased from first hand experience. But when it comes to the ED, there is a number of reasons a male victim either won’t present, or will give an untrue explanation of injuries. I also point out that medics ask women about violence, But never asked me, even though we received violence and abuse.
Stats are also skewed by the threat and or use of false allegations. Again in our case the offender went into a refuge and using false allegations, the kids joined her there, turning the true stats to reverse. While the system adopts those shonky stats they never mention the academic peer reviewed studies which are replicated, not just here, but in most all Western countries. Women offend equally with men. So yes we are held legally responsible – I quote the constable who arrived after I called police. He encountered my wife admitting it, the daughter with marks around her neck and me as complainant – so here is what he said ” What are you doing to make your wife hurt the kids?”, so even when mum hits and hurts, we are held responsible.
Downunder (#17): I was talking about history long before the 1950s. e.g. from the Free Dictionary when referring to British common law that was also applied historically in the US. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Husband+and+Wife:
And from the book ‘Lethal Imagination: Violence and Brutality in American History’
By Michael A. Bellesiles :
We happened upon this site, Pete Patriarch’s Musings, that is another contribution to the tidal wave that continues to build in gender politics. Although many of the links on this site are corrupted some still work and provide interesting insight into US gender politics.
If men are being prosecuted and held financially responsible for benefiting through their female partners’ benefit fraud, then this woman (like many other in similar circumstances) should also share in responsibility for her male friend’s behaviour in stealing a car, because she benefited from his crime by getting a free ride in the stolen car.
Incidentally, the farmer in this story is lucky he wasn’t prosecuted for harassing the woman or even her male friend when he ‘apprehended’ the low-life thieves.
And here’s another case of a male being punished for a woman’s behaviour. He was driving a car (apparently as the sober driver) when a drunk female passenger hung some of herself out of her window. Yes, she also was fined so it’s not a pussy pass as such, but the Police continue the trend that if they ever prosecute a female they also prosecute any male associated with her if possible.