MENZ ISSUES

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

It’s so easy to get political change? DV

Filed under: Child Support,Domestic Violence,Gender Politics,Law & Courts,Men's Health — MurrayBacon @ 11:34 pm Wed 3rd June 2015

Greg Andresen, of Men’s Health Australia, is a persistent and sharp political operator.

I have heard many men in NZ complain “Why doesn’t someone [else?] talk to the politicians and get everything sorted out?”.

If I have tried to explain what is required to communicate well to politicians, I have been attacked as defeatist and being too negative in seeing many challenges ahead. My critics mainly have been people who have never done more than make one telephone call, or Saturday visit to an MP. Then they complain that nothing positive happened!

I have suggested that men read How to Make Friends and Influence People, by Dale Carnegie and Dr. Brian Edwards and Judy Callingham’s book about How to Deal with Media. But these critics don’t have time to read it, they just want to jump straight in to making a submission or talking with a politician. Then they wonder why they don’t seem to have achieved anything? (Note: I am not saying they have achieved nothing, as such a judgement needs to be made over several years, not just a few days.)

So, don’t give up, be willing to put in 10x more effort than you ever thought might be required.

Learn from others who have gone before. That is why I recommend Dale Carnegie and the Edward’s books.

To give up, is to be defeated by your own decision!
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.oneinthree.com.au/news/2015/6/1/report-on-one-in-threes-involvement-with-the-federal-senate.html

Report on One in Three’s involvement with the Federal Senate Inquiry into Domestic Violence

In July 2014, the One in Three Campaign lodged our written submission to the Senate Standing Committees on Finance and Public Administration’s Inquiry into Domestic Violence in Australia. Some ten months later, our dealings with the Inquiry have finally concluded and we are able to talk about our experiences. This has been an eye-opening experience for the men and women of One in Three. We were prepared for rigorous questioning and challenging of our views, but not for the levels of direct, unsubstantiated and unprovoked attack by some members of the Senate Committee and other organisations appearing before it. What follows is a detailed account of our experiences, and is unfortunately lengthy. However we feel this level of detail is necessary for reasons of transparency.

On 30th July 2014 we lodged our first submission to the Inquiry. The submission wasn’t controversial in the least and merely outlined the data on male victims of family violence in Australia while calling for more services and support for male victims than are currently provided by Australian Governments and NGOs.

On the 4th November 2014, Greg Andresen and Andrew Humphreys from One in Three appeared in person before the Inquiry’s Sydney hearing. You can read a transcript here. Unfortunately the Official Committee Hansard document linked to above is not an accurate transcription of what was actually said at the hearings. You can read an accurate transcription

here with changes highlighted in yellow. You will note that certain phrases were removed, affecting the reader’s impression of the tone of events at the hearing.

At the Sydney hearing, White Ribbon Australia and ANROWS gave testimony that directly attacked the work of the One in Three Campaign. This, along with questions asked by Greens Senator Larissa Waters, and the opportunity to provide further clarifying information to the Committee, necessitated the lodging by One in Three of a Supplementary Submission on 24th November 2014. Some highlights of this submission are as follows.

At the Sydney Hearing, Senator Waters asked, “so the legacy of gender inequality, how is that addressed, if not with an approach that focuses on women?”

We are concerned that this comment could mistakenly be taken to mean that:

The social inequalities suffered by women in the past are justification for denying men services and protection under the law today, and that

Re-victimising men who have experienced family violence would somehow address that legacy or promote equality in the future.

We have at no time suggested that there should not be family violence services made available to women only. We have argued instead that family violence services should not exist only for women. Generalist services should service the needs of men and women together where appropriate, and gender-specific services should exist for both men and women where necessary.

At the Sydney Hearing, Senator Waters stated that One in Three was “quite disparaging in [our] remarks and in [our] submission about ‘feminist-run services'”.

We do not understand this statement. Our actual claims are that:

Feminist ideology, specifically that “family violence is perpetrated by men against women for the purposes of patriarchal control’ is unsupported by evidence, creates discrimination against men, and often fails to assist women

Programs, such as Duluth, that base their treatment model on this ideology rather than empirical evidence are failing to address the real causes and presentations of family violence, which may be a reason why the prevalence of family violence hasn’t fallen despite 40 years of these programs.

We do not believe that debate about the effectiveness of publicly funded policy and programs is “disparagement’ or that such programs should be exempt from review and critical analysis, especially when they appear to be failing to address the problem and failing to protect Australians from family violence. We do believe that publicly funded family violence services need to implement much more rigorous standards for reporting and measurement of outcomes. We do not believe it is the role of the Australian Government to fund the promotion of ideology or to discriminate against Australian citizens because of their sex, but to fund empirically proven interventions that protect and serve all Australians.

At the Sydney Hearing, ANROWS claimed that, “Organisations like One in Three… talk about gender symmetries… they say violence is equal between men and women”

We have never claimed gender symmetry, nor that violence is equal between men and women. We would have thought that the title of our organisation – “One in Three” – would have made this clear! We hope ANROWS will retract this claim accordingly.

ANROWS also stated, “I would also suggest that in a pool of limited research funding where we cannot even fund all the projects on violence against women, it might not be the best use of resources to investigate a problem that we do not even have any good indication actually exists in significant numbers.”

The best and most equitable use of limited funding would be to direct it towards those who need it the most, regardless of their gender. The current gendered approach to family violence funding is not only a waste of resources, it leaves many victims without the support that they need.

Almost exclusively funding family violence services that are only available to females has led to a disparity between male and female victims, with males who have experienced severe forms of family violence missing out, while such services are readily provided to women who have suffered equal or much lesser levels of violence.

A triage system available to both genders that prioritised making services available to those persons most affected by the most severe forms of family violence would be the best and most equitable use of limited resources. This would bring the family violence sector into line with every other service sector in Australian society.

No-one argues that all suicide prevention funding should go to preventing male suicide just because males commit suicide at four times the rate of females; or that all occupation health and safety funding should go to preventing male deaths and injuries in the workplace just because men make up 95% of workplace fatalities. Yet Australian Governments and NGOs do this in the family violence sector just because the majority of victims are female.

It shouldn’t matter what proportion of family violence victims are male (or rural, or low-SES, or young, or disabled, or LGBTI, or ATSI or CALD, for that matter). Social justice and human rights frameworks dictate that all victims of family violence have access to the services and support they deserve.

At the Sydney Hearing, White Ribbon Australia stated, “We find that the tactics and strategies of One in Three to derail the White Ribbon campaign and to undermine the evidence that exists and the statistical evidence supporting our claim of men’s violence against women to be very disrespectful of the campaign and of the space it occupies.”

All our activities are clearly on the public record. The only activities we have undertaken that have involved White Ribbon Australia have been attempts to correct factual and statistical errors used by the Campaign on their websites, printed materials and in research efforts.

We believe the public has a right to be aware of the correct, up-to-date data about family violence. We have always supported efforts to reduce men’s violence against women. We have not, however, remained silent when violence against men is denied, downplayed and diminished by the use of incorrect and misleading facts and statistics.

White Ribbon further claimed, “We know that there has been a link between the two organisations [A Voice for Men and One in Three], which is quite concerning for us… White Ribbon as a campaign has not used similar strategies to discredit [One in Three]”.

One in Three have no links whatsoever with A Voice For Men. We would hope that White Ribbon Australia withdraws this misleading statement to the Committee that appears to be an attempt to discredit One in Three by association.

As One in Three’s Supplementary Submission mentioned other organisations, the Senate Committee gave those organisations a chance to reply to our Submission. You can read the responses by White Ribbon Australia and ANROWS.

During the second Melbourne hearing of the Inquiry on 5th November 2014, evidence was given by Mr Rodney Vlais, Acting Chief Executive Officer of No To Violence Male Family Violence Prevention Association Incorporated. After he had presented his evidence, Labor Senator Claire Moore asked,

“Could I quickly put a question on notice? Yesterday, we had evidence from an organisation called One in Three that made comment about male perpetrators and the approach. The Hansard of that evidence should be available within a couple of days. If you have the time, and I know you are both very busy, it would be useful if you could look at what was said there in that exchange about male perpetrators.”

In response to this Question on Notice, No To Violence put together this document which not only failed to answer Senator Moore’s question, but was a direct attack upon the work of One in Three. Unfortunately the Senate Committee didn’t give us a chance to respond to the attack by No To Violence in the same way they gave White Ribbon and ANROWS a chance to respond to our material.

Nevertheless, we drafted a detailed response to the No To Violence document and submitted it to the Senate Committee on 16th December 2014. The rules of Senate Inquiries prevented us from sharing this document until it had been considered by the Committee. Due to some ‘clerical errors,’ and despite monthly phone calls from One in Three to the Committee Secretariat, the Committee didn’t consider our response until 14th May 2015 – some 5 months after it was lodged! Instead of publishing our response on the Inquiry website as it did with No To Violence’s attack on us, instead the Committee,

“decided to accept your response to No to Violence’s answers to questions on notice as correspondence. This means that the senators have been supplied with your response and can continue to access it, although it won’t be published on the website.”

Highlights follow from No To Violence’s attack upon One in Three, and our rebuttal.

No to Violence stated, “From our perspective, the belief by the One in Three campaign that women’s domestic violence services should be available and accessible to men comes from a space of male entitlement-based expectations, and male righteousness, that the One in Three campaign does not appear to be aware of or understand.” “The One in Three campaign appears to have little or no understanding of why women-only spaces, and services exclusively for women, are required.”

One in Three has never argued that women’s domestic violence services should be available and accessible to men. We have simply argued that male victims need services too. The claims about male entitlement and righteousness made by No To Violence come from an inherently sexist attitude that has no basis whatsoever in evidence (and none was cited). This attitude casts disparaging stereotypes upon men and boys. The perspective One in Three takes is based upon global human rights frameworks where no one should be denied a service based upon their gender, race, sexual preference, religion, etc.

No to Violence claimed, “There is significant research supporting the need to be cautious in automatically assuming that a man assessed by police or another referring agent as a victim of domestic violence truly is the victim.”

While it is quite true that some male perpetrators can perceive themselves as victims of family violence, the same is true of female perpetrators. The two studies cited by No To Violence only examined claims of male victimisation / female perpetration because of their one-sided approach to researching family violence. If they had also examined claims of female victimisation / male perpetration, it is likely that a similar proportion of female “victims” would also be found to most likely be the perpetrators of violence (or that the violence in their relationship was mutual – the most prevalent form of family violence). Domestic violence pioneer Erin Pizzey discovered in the 1970s, when she opened the first domestic violence shelter in the UK, that many of the women approaching her shelter as victims were as violent as their male partners.

The gender profiling of male victims recommended by No To Violence, like racial and other forms of profiling, is a clear violation of the human rights of victims of violence.

No to Violence stated, “Michael Flood has provided possibly the most detailed and exhaustive review of studies focusing on gender issues in domestic violence. His paper can be downloaded from

http://www.xyonline.net/content/he-hits-she-hits-assessing-debates-regarding-men%E2%80%99s-and-women%E2%80%99s-experiences-domestic-violence”

The paper by Dr Flood cited by No To Violence is not actually a detailed and exhaustive review of studies focusing on gender issues in domestic violence. It appears to have been produced primarily to attack and undermine the work of Men’s Health Australia and One in Three using claims about the organisations that are are untrue and completely unsubstantiated/unreferenced. It is a seminar paper which has not been peer-reviewed. It has no bibliography, so the references cited are unable to be verified easily. Nevertheless, we are happy to respond to some of the points raised by No To Violence below.

No to Violence claimed, “Studies that employ methodologies to measure domestic violence in its true meaning – coercive control as a pattern over time and across a range of violent and controlling behaviours and tactics – generally find that women are the victims in 90-95% of situations.”

Dr Flood’s paper did not actually cite studies that employ methodologies to measure domestic violence in its true meaning. It instead references a single peer-reviewed journal article by Michael P. Johnson, titled “Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to an anti-feminist literature review.”

Dr Flood applied the findings from the Johnson article on the typology of intimate partner violence to the data from the 2005 ABS Personal Safety Survey. From this calculation, Dr Flood came up with the 90-95% figure quoted by No To Violence. However, Flood appears to have both misread Johnson’s findings and miscalculated the numbers involved.

A correct reading of Johnson, and a correct calculation using the more up-to-date 2012 ABS Personal Safety Survey data, finds that there were some 45,000 male victims (26%) and 128,000 female victims (74%) of severe/chronic violence during the past 12 months.

We have attached a full critique of Dr Flood’s paper as Appendix A to this document.

Johnson’s paper also contains the following findings:

Johnson’s findings support the One in Three position that the causes of family violence are extremely variable and include personality disorders (matters of attachment in particular), violence in one’s childhood home, substance abuse, couple communication issues, poor ability to manage relationship conflict and/or poor control of anger.

“For more than a decade (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000) my feminist colleagues and I have incorporated Holtzworth-Munroe’s work into our analysis of intimate terrorism, work that centers on matters of personality in general, and attachment in particular. And my work with Alison Cares demonstrates the relationship between violence in one’s childhood home and male intimate terrorism (Johnson, 2008; Johnson & Cares, 2004), a central tenet of the learning approach to understanding intimate partner violence. As I have noted above, and in a number of published pieces, substance abuse and couple communication issues are central to any analysis of situational couple violence (Johnson, 2006b, 2007), and my analyses of situational couple violence have always emphasized the extreme variability of its causes.”

A simplistic reductionist view that “gender” is the cause of family violence will fail to reduce the levels of violence in the Australian community.
Johnson’s findings support the One in Three position that the best use of limited resources is not to provide services to female victims and exclude male victims, but to put in place a triage system to identify the most severe cases of violence and abuse, so they can be treated appropriately:

“courts and other institutions need to use all of the assessment tools at their disposal to identify what type of intimate partner violence is involved in each particular case in order to decide on an appropriate course of action.”

“The dramatic differences among intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence make it essential that the family courts make these distinctions in order to do the right thing with respect to the adults involved, and to serve the best interests of the children.”

“Current research provides considerable support for differentiating among types of intimate partner violence, and such differentiations should provide benefits to those required to make recommendations and decisions about custody and parenting plans, treatment programs, and legal sanctions”
Johnson acknowledges that women’s violence is a serious social issue which must be addressed.

“women both initiate violence and participate in mutual violence and that, particularly in teenage and young adult samples, women perpetrate violence against their partners more frequently than do the men”

“repeat, severe violence against a non-violent intimate is symmetrical by gender”

“I and others have always noted that situational couple violence

(a) is far and away the most common form of intimate partner violence,

(b) is perpetrated about equally by men and women, and

(c) can be extremely consequential.”

The members of the One in Three Campaign are saddened that gaining support for males affected by family violence has become so mired in unnecessary and destructive gender politics. We are working towards a future where all people will be given the recognition and support they need to reclaim their lives after experiencing family violence, and where family violence is reduced as the result of effective primary prevention and early intervention strategies.

17 Responses to “It’s so easy to get political change? DV”

  1. political change too says:

    This man is correct that some give up too easily.
    He also has clear – well defined summaries of the gender politics negatively affecting mens rights.

    Currently Kelvin Davis mp is walking 1/2 marathon daily for 17 days from west Auckland to cape Reinga to encourage men to “speak up about sexual violence”.
    Kelvin is the incumbent labour member for Te Tai Tokerau.
    He was defeated three times by Hone Harawira then after Shane Jones quit politics he got another shot and finally was elected 23 may 2014 ending the representation of Mana party in parliament. He is well known and liked up in the far north, genuinely relates to the people as he’s a fisherman and a bushie and quite an easy going sort of bloke.
    from 2001 to 2007 he was principle at Kaitaia intermediate.. just 5 ks down the road is Pamampuria primary where James parker was sexually assaulting boys as the deputy principal.
    Kelvin had his suspicions about this guy at the time and after Parker was found guilty of over 300 charges Kelvin (and others) regretted not acting on his suspicions about him.
    Kelvin is also the associate spokesman for justice and also for sexual and domestic violence.
    I wrote to him last year after I had been assaulted and also falsly accused of domestic violence.
    He replied with understanding and confirmed that there was clearly glitches in the system that need to be ironed out and that no innocent person should be subjected to such injustices.
    Kelvin also has included men on many during his statements about victims of violence.
    For the next 14 days or so Kelvin will be Walking the talk literally and I wonder what changes can be achieved as a result.
    One issue of sexual violence that feminist frantically misquote is that there’s a huge number of women being raped and not enough reporting rape and far too few convictions.
    I think the -too few convictions lie is the one that is the real agenda here.
    Yes I may be paranoid but I think the agenda if Kelvin likes it or not is to reverse the burden of proof (just for female victims of course) and we will see many more men falsly accused and held in cells and lives destroyed forever.

    So in keeping with the spirit of the above article I invite my fellow mens rights advocates to send an email to Kelvin Davis with your facts and experiences about sexual assault and DV and our hopes for a future without gender bias against men and our commitment to reducing DV in New Zealand.
    I will be writing to him again, as I believe- if we can get him onside of our issues he could well become the first mens rights advocate in parliament in New Zealand.
    Hes a grass roots bloke so Theres no need to read “how to win friends and influence people” …just send him an email and tell him your concerns. kelvin.davis@parliament.govt.nz

    The article above mentions repeatedly the feminist cultural uprising that has turned society against the rights of men.
    Sometimes I wonder if demanding, however politely- that politicians reverse that trend seem a bit too much for polititian’s to shoulder.
    I wonder if we should be concentrating our efforts on smaller issues and work together one one issue at a time. Perhaps small increases will bring sufficient attention to mens rights that the broader issue is more noticeable.
    So what one issue would you choose.?

    If I could change one thing it would be this:
    If a man is accused of violence and its known that he himself has been attacked, he should have a right to be questioned before being arrested.
    Technically men have this right but at police indiscretion as they are told theyre not arresting enough men.
    If women and girls are to be screened routinely for dv at hospitals then men and boys should have their right to answer questions before arrest when its known he was assaulted.
    Yes it might take years and its a very small change to some.

    Wouldn’t it be great if we had a bloke in parliament who understands that all domestic violence can be reduced by giving men and boys fairness and equality.

    So go on …drop Kelvin an email…

  2. Downunder says:

    If you read any of the Kelvin Davis media in his passage to parliament, you can see he is a true believer in the Labour Party Mantra – if it’s not about women, it’s not important.

    My view having, (been there done that) is email campaigns for men’s issues are a fruitless waste of time.

    What we lack most is balance in the media. We have very little exposure to men’s issues or balancing comment, because we haven’t had a large ‘representative body’ since the hay-day of UOF.

    The point being missed above, is that it is not talking to politicians that is productive,

    It’s the branding,
    The message,
    The numbers,
    The frequency of media exposure

    … but aside from that the two most important aspects are dedication and cohesion within the organisation amongst its members.

    When you do see any sort of result it is very easy to see only that and not the effort that created the result then start believing in change.

    If anyone feels the need for change or a voice for men in New Zealand, then get together and bring UOF back to life.

    Unless you have a politician who is active and vocal about men’s issues, and you don’t see many of those about these days do you, your email is going in the bin.

    Unless you have a specific issue – personal situation – (and even then it is very hard to get any real help) you’re an individual, not backed by an organisation, having a non specific bitch about something politicians would prefer to ignore.

    It’s not a vote catcher.

  3. MurrayBacon says:

    Thanks for the two sides, beautifully laid out.

    I suggest that EMAILs are a relatively weak form of communication. Downunder suggests that they are easily binned. This is too optimistic, EMAILs are so easily “binned” using the Delete Key, that they don’t even get as far as any bin! (This point is made very clearly in Callingham and Edward’s book. This is why I recommend reading their book, as it can help activists to get the most possible impact from their limited resources.)

    but aside from that the two most important aspects are dedication and cohesion within the organisation amongst its members.

    This line is the most important point of all. We do need to bring Jim back to life!

    Unfortunately, most men see themselves as alpha male leaders and will not listen to those who have gone before or to those beside them. End result, all “chiefs” and no “indians”.=disaster built out of wasted effort.

    Where there is a will, there is a way?

  4. Downunder says:

    What pulled UOF apart in the end was political decisions:

    a: remaining an independent voice for men

    b: being a clingon to one particular political party.

    c: attacking specific problems in a particular way lead by specific people.

    d: agendas and lack of agreement around a b and c.

  5. Ministry of Men's Affairs says:

    Emails and other communication with MPs, letters to the editor, responses online to newspaper articles are all worthwhile. Change is happening and the sea change is starting. It is resulting from the communications. Keep up the efforts, all two and a half of you who ever do anything.

    Turning up for organized meetings and protests would be worthwhile too, but it always seems to be only those two and a half people who bother.

    Or we could just keep on competing with each other, attacking other posters when we disagree with them, refuse to provide any positive encouragement, refuse to lift a finger, refuse to spend any pittance on anything. Yeah, go men!

  6. MurrayBacon says:

    I suggested that EMAILs were easily deleted and intended to imply that a formal typed letter, with signature, envelope and stamp usually had more power than an EMAIL.

    MoMA widended that comment, to detail the many other forms of communication that can be effective. Also add in submissions to Parliament (which in essence is the topic of this post).

    MoMA also pointed out the scarcity of mutual support.

    On looking back, I think a large factor in that was reducing disposable income in most men’s pockets.

    As fast as children may become more expensive or awkward to care for, housing costs have risen (more correctly to maintain the same standard of accommodation, the costs have gone up). Additionally, some men have been in situations where their resources were unfortunately wasted by the custodial parent. (Of course the concept of custodial parent was removed from law by the Care of Children Act 2004, but the concept seems still alive in dead judge’s sheep brains.)

    Some fathers have put more of their spare time and cash resources into trying to help fathers dealing with familycaught$, so those resources were not available to political action.

    Surprisingly, there have been quite a few Parliamentary submissions made through the last 20 years. I have tried to collect as many as I can, by fathers, mothers, other organisations… If anyone is interested in making submissions in the future, this library is available for use as background, ideas and styles….

    For the resources available, I think that there have been achievements. But certainly the lack of teamwork has been the single factor most restricting what could be achieved. Teamwork does take time, more time than most fathers are prepared to invest.

    Perhaps, I wouldn’t so much criticise those who made political efforts, more those fathers who took support and when they were in the clear, couldn’t be seen for dust.

    Most of them wanted to focus on the visible trappings of success, rather than support the forces that supported them. These are the factors that impress our females and lead to the greatest mating success????

    Perhaps that support given, restricted the resources available for political purposes? I see that as a very limiting factor.

    Anyway, I only open my cake-whole, in the hope that those older fathers (who are now in more stable situations) might regroup, re-man the Men’s Centre Suicide Bomber Squadrons and again flex their combined muscles?

  7. MurrayBacon says:

    Some people have predicted the demise of masculinity. If it can survive the harshness of the present situation, then I see masculinity as absolutely un-killable. This is not to say that maltreatment is ok.

    Sorry if it looked like I was being critical of men. Given the tight resources, I think we have done well/ok in a very hard situation. I would have liked to have done much better, of course. Mainly now, I am worried for the quality of our children’s lives, sons and daughters. They are at risk from the relationship vandals.

  8. Downunder says:

    There’s a simple bit of logic missing here.

    Society is logical. Men have built it and men have run it.

    Put a multitasking woman in a house and it’s a closed environment. Only she has to know what is happening.

    Reverse the situation.

    Put a logical man in a house and it will still function.

    Put a bunch of multitasking women in charge of society and no one knows what the fuck is going on and it all starts to fall apart.

    When it’s all over, we’ll go back to the benefits of masculinity.

  9. Paul says:

    The situation for fathers is becoming worse in my view.

    We have seen Family Court reforms several times over the last 10 years. It seems that nothing changes much for the better.

    Look at the new toy, the Temporary Protection Order. I had one.
    The mother needs protecting
    The children need protecting

    SPECIAL CONDITION
    The parenting order which refers to shared care still applies.

    True, fair dinkum Mummy had the Temporary Protection Order with the special condition and shared care still applied yet the children were addressed in the order as needing protection.You have 90 days to defend it or it becomes permminant .

    Cost to defend oh 4 to 6 thousand dollars.

    Legal aid applies where DV is alleged – get the picture, the children didn’t need protecting and would be far worse with out the fathers involvement.

    This one was the mothers third go at getting a protection order, the first two were defended successfully but the mother is still allowed to have a third go at it, with a new legal aid jockey, legal aid jockey number 8.

  10. MurrayBacon says:

    What matters in familycaught$ isn’t what legislation says should happen, isn’t what politicians say should happen, but what actually happens in familycaught$. Quality control of secret courts is necessary, by working accountability.

    Therefore, reforming legislation or rules may have no impact at all. What actually happens may go in quite opposite direction to what what people say will or should happen.

    The “reforms” were intended to reduce money wasted by Government in familycaught$. Legal workers would bear the brunt of the reduction of money wasted, so are they going to happily wear that?

    But the biggest social costs occurring as a consequence of familycaught$, is the damage done to children’s upbringing and relationships.

    This is ostensibly the justification for all Government spending in familycaught$!

    So worrying about the financial cost of familycaught$ is almost totally missing the point.

    So, if familycaught$ is damaging what we pay them to protect, why pay them at all?

    User pays seems to be a SkyCity/National Party mantra. So, lets apply that concept to familycaught$ and let the users pay for their judicial or judgement service and choose from properly qualified and accountable service providers. Then let them pay the bill. This principle applies for user contribution to medical doctors fees, plumbers, electricians, engineers, cake cookers, drug suppliers. These are all more complex areas, than deciding how to share children’s time, or protect children’s development.

    More importantly, lets make sure that parents have sufficient resources of skills, experience and finance, before leaving them in sole care of children.

    These checks would also be applied if care arrangements were to be changed, before the change took place! The checks would be based on evidence, rather than evidence-free as too often occurs in secret familycaught$.

    If monkeys can care for their babies, people should be able to too!

  11. MurrayBacon says:

    I suggested above user pays operation for familycaught$ type services. Practical application is detailed in submission to Parliament, made before the last “reforms”.

    Any suggestions for improvement or correction of errors would be greatly appreciated!!!!

  12. Voices back from the bush. says:

    Me too.
    Special thanks to MurryBacon for all your achievement and efforts in supplying quite detailed info in the past few days – especially.

  13. Marisa says:

    Frozen cow dung was used as a hockey puck in the olden days, after which the upgraded
    version involved using sliced-up lacrosse balls. It is no secret that being a parent is
    the toughest job you will ever have. If you have poor
    golf swing alignment, you could end up slicing or hooking the ball, having the ball go off in the wrong direction, or even embarrass
    yourself by totally missing the ball.

  14. joseph says:

    one and the same

    @@_

    __________))

    … .. … .. … .. … missing marbles… .. … .. … .. …

  15. Voices back from the bush. says:

    Some say that recent incomprehendable rambling posted as comments are a code of some description ??
    Menz.org has been a dignified account of men’s issus until recently we’ve been fed all this jumbled jargon. !!

    Whats going on John?

  16. joseph says:

    well im having a slight problem decoding Marisas post myself in all honesty
    cow dung,puck in the olden days,golf swing and anything else in Marisa post that reveals
    well anything
    is there perhaps a golden message ..is it morse code
    Im sure you can enlighten us all about having an opinion.

    regards.

  17. mantle says:

    What’s up, alll is going sounjd here and ofcourse every one is sharing information, that’s in faact excellent, keep up writing.

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