Some Recent News Stories of Interest
Are man-minding services offensive?
This humourous man-minding service is apparently spreading around retail places, offering to look after women’s husbands / partners to relieve the women from care-giving of their man-children and to let them shop in peace. Most men seem happy to take the joke in good humour but then most men don’t think about the implications. Feminists of course, that group claiming to want gender equality, aren’t bothered when men are treated in ways that would be totally unacceptable for women.
Woman sentenced over kidnapping of 8-week-old baby
Another pussy pass of considerable proportions. Kidnapping carries a maximum tarrif of 14 years imprisonment, so how does this case result in such a small punishment even though it involved aggravating factors of a completely vulnerable baby victim and huge distress caused to other parties? The female judge referred to this woman as being young and confused; compare the kind of comments one would expect towards a male offender who kidnapped a baby!. So for this kidnapping PLUS four unrelated fraud offences in which she deliberately ripped off inncocent parties, the woman received four-and-a-half months home detention and 150 hours community work.
‘That’s what you get for being white’
And here’s another pussy pass for a woman who was in a group that randomly attacked someone from another group, then she violently attacked one of them even though police were already intervening to establish control of the situation. Not only did this woman commit serious violence, she repeatedly taunted one of the victims with the words “That’s what you get for being white”. She then resisted arrest. As usual, police charged her with the minimum number of offences possible (when they would have charged any male in similar circumstances with other offences such as resisting arrest or violence towards police). This racist, violent woman who showed no regard for her commitments as a citizen of a civilized state was sentenced to 140 hours’ community work. Yeah right, ‘Violence is not OK’ unless it’s done by a female.
Sleepless nights for Tiger Woods over Vonn split, father’s death
Tiger Woods’ life is proceeding very much as would be expected from post-concussion effects of the moderately serious closed head injury he suffered either directly, indirectly or both as a result of his ex-wife’s domestic violence towards him. From the time of that concussion his golf has reduced significantly though he’s still capable of good play on a good day. He has caused his body various injuries through playing with a brain that just isn’t putting his movements together smoothly as it used to. His new relationship has broken up. Yet police did not charge his ex-wife with domestic violence (and they did not need him to lay a complaint because their laws, as in NZ, allows them to prosecute even when the victim doesn’t want them to). Media undertook no investigative journalism about the incident that changed Tiger Woods’ life and since then media have ignored the elephant in Tiger Woods’ room, that he has been permanently damaged through domestic violence.
Injured boy, 2, ran on to road twice
Essentially because of fanciful feminist ideology and dishonest, manipulative lobbying, care givers for children in NZ are now not allowed to use physical force in discipline. That appears to have led to this toddler being seriously injured because he ran on to the road for a second time after his adult caregiver responded to the same behaviour shortly earlier in one of the ineffectual ways available to her now under our law. If this toddler had experienced a brief shock of harmless physical pain through a smack on his legs when he ran on to the road the first time, it’s highly unlikely he would have done so a second time. But such caring, responsible and sensible parenting would have landed the grandmother in Court for ‘assaulting’ the boy.
Prostate cancer: Kiwi men are dying too soon
A study on prostate cancer treatment and survival showed that in NZ treatment is poorly organised and, when the severity of the condition and other factors were controlled for, men in NZ are twice as likely to die from prostate cancer than men in Britain. Men in NZ are more likely to die from prostate cancer than in other developed countries, and are less likely to receive gold standard forms of treatment. Oh sorry, I forgot, screening for prostate cancer is a bit less reliable than for female cancers so we should just sit on our hands and let men die. It’s promising though that a study has been done and the problem is being recognized.
Why are prostate cancer outcomes in NZ so poor?
And of course the Radio NZ interviews about the prostate cancer research showed little interest in identifying the extent to which sexism and callousness towards males had contributed to the poor treatment and high death rate. Instead, Nine to Noon’s Kathryn Ryan mainly sought to turn the debate towards the race factor that sees Maori men die at a higher rate than pakeha men. Maori of course fare more poorly on most health matters and that is an important issue to address, but it’s no reason to obfuscate the gender discrimination that underlies the poor management of prostate cancer compared with cancers mainly affecting women. Radio NZ previously championed the right of women suffering from breast cancer to receive multi-million dollar individual increases in the duration of taxpayer funded Herceptin even though the efficacy of this change had not been properly established. That kind of favouritism and resource allocation towards women actually underlies the dire situation in NZ for men dying from prostate cancer.
AC/DC drummer Phil Rudd wanted employee ‘taken out’
Feminists often complain that female celebrities, politicians etc have their appearance and clothing reported on even though such matters are irrelevant to the story. This article shows that attention to appearance and clothing is not simply a gender thing because male celebrities can get the same treatment. The difference is that when it’s done regarding a female, the feminists get up in arms but when it’s done regarding a male the silence from feminists is deafening.
Campaign tackles myth of women ‘asking for it’ through clothing, behaviour
Here’s another of the many articles spreading confusion, female paranoia and unbalanced consideration about sexual provocation, consent and rape. Of course it’s fair to assert that the clothes a woman wears does not mean she is asking to be raped. However, a general issue around articles such as this one is the lack of any responsibility expected from women concerning the messages they put out through their clothing and behaviour, or for ethically managing the sexual power nature has given women over men.
Aside from that, the claims made by feminists concerning investigation of rape allegations deserve to be challenged. The fact that police will ask a woman who alleges rape what she was wearing will be based on their need to investigate the case and to gather evidence for a possible prosecution of the rapist. The question will in no way be a suggestion that the woman was responsible for being raped, as the feminists suggest. Other questions will also be related to proper investigation. It’s appropriate and essential (if justice is of any concern) that police ask a female complainant why she decided to let an alleged rapist in the house when he knocked at the door, and so forth. It’s not a suggestion that she’s responsible for being raped if indeed a rape happened, but it’s necessary firstly to rule out the very real possibility that the complaint is false for any of numerous reasons and secondly to prepare a case in anticipation of the questions that will inevitably and reasonably arise in Court. Feminist interpretation of such police questioning is clearly disingenuous and aimed at maintaining women’s perpetual victim mentality. What feminists actually want is for women to be relieved of any scrutiny of their allegations against men. They want women to be given the power to send men to jail at their command. The state keeps on pandering to such feminist demands, protection orders and police safety orders already enabling women to force men out of their own homes and deprived of many normal civil rights (such as the right to parent and protect one’s children) on the basis of nothing more than a female’s demand. Feminists will rejoice when a woman’s word can have a man convicted of rape and sent to jail for 20 years without any need for her to answer questions about her allegation.
Teenage witness tells of indecency
And finally for today, this teacher was undeniably foolish, naughty and in breach of his employment rules. However, the case shows how male sexuality is demonized. A teenage male student claimed to have seen a teacher masturbating in an empty, locked classroom during lunchtime. The teacher admitted he was looking at pornography on a laptop but denied he was masturbating. The student claimed that he knew the door was locked but he got his friends to lift him up so he could peer in the classroom window, and he claimed he did this because he wanted to speak to the teacher about moving into a more advanced class. This account doesn’t sound credible because peering in the window of a locked classroom would not enable him to address his matter with the teacher. The student was in a class for low-achieving pupils and may well have been prone to behaviour problems.
But regardless of the facts of the matter, the student is being portrayed by the prosecution as being terrified and traumatized by what he claimed to see. This is the first demonization. Why would a normal male behaviour cause deep trauma? Why would a teenage boy who probably masturbates himself find such a problem with the fact that another adult male also does it? The suggestions given to the boy by (mainly female) teachers when he told on this teacher and by the (probably female) police interviewer would have involved exaggeration of the incident and the idea that it must have been terrifyingly traumatic. Then again, perhaps the boy’s emotional difficulty in talking about his allegation was due more to his awareness that he was not being entirely honest, or his awareness that spying on private situations should at least be kept to oneself.
More general demonization is apparent in the lack of respect shown for a male’s privacy. If this same male teacher had his mates lift him up to look into a locked room where some female teachers happened to be undressing for a dress rehearsal of the school play, he would likely be facing charges of peeping and peering rather than the females being charged for indecent exposure. Men it seems don’t deserve privacy or most other rights.
Even more general is the double standard that demonizes male interests. If a female teacher used her school-issued laptop to ogle at male celebrities or royals that might be depicted in the online edition of ‘Woman’s Day’, nobody would bat an eyelid even though she broke rules concerning use of school property for personal purposes. But when a male looks at equally legal material (because if it had been illegal the prosecution would be making a meal of that) that men tend to more interested in, it’s sullied and demonized. He is quickly forced out of his job and suspended from his whole career based only on his admission that he looked at what interests males (because the allegation of (gasp) masturbating had not yet been proven).
Further demonization is clear in his suspension as a teacher, because even if he was masturbating whilst looking at pornography in a room he reasonably expected to be private this did not mean he presented a risk to pupils as a teacher. It’s simply superstitious to suggest he was a risk. He presented a risk of being a male who might break minor employment rules that are routinely broken by other teachers. He presented the risk of believing he should be able to engage in a normal male way to dissipate the high stress involved in his work, as long as he took some steps to ensure privacy. To turn this into a terrifying crime is just typical of the sexist disrespect we see towards males and maleness in the feminist era.
Yes, it does make a great article.
It would also make a great Youtube video showing the world something of the extent of gynocentrism and misandry in NZ..
Comment by ManAlive — Sat 9th May 2015 @ 2:43 am
We have become aware from the journalist that the boy who got his mates to lift him up in order to peep and peer at a male teacher then told on the male teacher for appearing to be masturbating, was actually interviewed by male teachers, a male principal and a male police officer plus a female guidance counsellor. That’s interesting and if true means the assumption about mainly female interviewers was incorrect, but none of this refutes the main points made in the post. Most teachers are female and the whole education system is saturated with feminist male-bashing. Most males have bought in to the misandry involved in this case, and besides, one female guidance counsellor would be quite enough to manipulate a teenage pupil into making a mountain out of this molehill. The journalist warns that more is to come out about this case so we had better hold off. Too late unfortunately, so we’re shaking in our boots that our men’s consciousness perspectives on the case will be discredited. Not.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Wed 13th May 2015 @ 12:19 am
What is it like for single women in NZ? Researchers want to know
I suggest that there is also a similar need to understand men’s experiences of relationship life in NZ. Possibly best if researched with at least a few men among the researchers.
Back to the case about the man teacher being publicly humiliated and career damaged, I am not sure that women teachers are so pure, when it comes to picking off some of the low hanging fruits in front of them.
Too many men don’t understand the consequences for boys of being part of a manipulative relationship, at an inexperienced young age. Although boys don’t usually suffer as much fear as some girls might, sexual abuse isn’t the stuff of dreams and the consequences may be subtle, later relationship vandalising, cruel and long lasting for boys too. (I suspect that most judges are lacking knowledge of these practical realities too, as indicated by their public comments.)
There is a strong need to protect children’s best interests, ie boys and girls. Demonising men teachers is far off best serving children’s interests. It all sounds so english/Christchurch, like Peter Ellis again.
Does this fear of not serving women enough parallel the poor judgement in familycaught$?
Is the child manipulating the adult interviewers, or are they manipulating him?
Either way, the outcome speaks for itself. Being manipulated by children isn’t good parenting or good teaching.
Although many people “blame” feminism, I blame the paramount financial greed of the legal workers and their lack of useful, working, relevant child development knowledge.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 13th May 2015 @ 1:20 pm
Here’s a Melbourne story about a woman who decided that a man unknown to her was taking photos of children in a public place. The woman then stalked him, took a photo of him and posted it on Facebook with “Ok people, take a look at this creep”, claiming the man approached her children while they were sitting watching a video on a screen in the children’s clothing section at Target. She claimed “He said ‘hey kids’ they looked up and he took a photo, then he said I’m sending this to a 16 yr old”. She wrote “Centre management were straight onto and so are the police, hopefully he is caught. Police said if he is a registered sex offender he will be charged, this happened at Knox, be safe with your kids.”
When he became aware of the Facebook posting the man went to the police station. Police actually interviewed him and analysed his phone, supporing his account that he had only taken a selfie next to a Darth Vader photo opportunity cut out and he intended sending this to his children. Children present were actually waiting to have their photos taken with Darth Vader and the man simply told them he would only be a second to take a selfie for his kids.
This episode is one result of the demonization of male sexuality as shown in the story of the teacher who was peeped and peered at then had his harmless private behaviour turned into a major crime. That’s not to say his alleged behaviour was acceptable in the context, but the anti-male witch hunt has people believing that harmless male behaviour is dangerous and has people looking for peds under their beds.
It was correct for police to inform this woman that if the man was found to be a registered sex offender then he could be charged, but why wasn’t it made clear to her that otherwise he was breaking no law and his rights should be respected? Because like all witch hunts the hysteria has spread widely and the rights of anyone who might be a witch (i.e. all men) can now be safely ignored.
As far as I’m aware there is no law in Australia against taking non-intimate photos of clothed people in public places. If there were such a law then journalists could not take photos without the permission of all subjects. So if a woman alleges a man took photos in a public place, that’s legally no different from alleging that your neighbour talked on the phone. It should not result in any interest taken by law enforcement unless the person is under some Court order prohibiting the activity. In the Melbourne case, police should not have proceeded to interview the man or searched his phone because he was not a registered sex offender therefore there was never any question of a law being broken.
The woman probably did break laws against (e.g.) defamation, hate speech, inciting violence and threatening public order, but of course she wasn’t charged with anything because women tend not to be and her victim was only a lowly male.
Incidentally, the judge in the accused teacher’s trial decided he was masturbating. Question: How can a conviction be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ when there is only one accuser and one denier without any other evidence? Answer: When it’s a male who is accused.
Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 15th May 2015 @ 1:09 pm
And while we’re at it, check out this objectification of males. Imagine the outcry if the genders were reversed in this article!
Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 15th May 2015 @ 1:23 pm
‘Sexually distracting’ dress lands schoolgirl in detention – but she hits back, telling boys to learn ‘self control’
Shelley Bridgeman: If you don’t like the rules, change schools
Bearded High School Student Stood Down …….. Beard ban student still out of class
I guess people are becoming more challenging of “rules” and willing to fight it out with Boards of Governors and caughts.
This is good in the long run, as challenges well handled do lead to improvements.
It is sad that the familycaught$ doesn’t rise to challenges, or even accept challenges about quality and accountability.
Thus – no improvements can ever be expected from within the system.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 16th May 2015 @ 2:17 pm
Editorial: Equality before law vital
Email Dylan
@Bay_Times
Dylan Thorne Dylan is the deputy editor of the Bay of Plenty Times.
9:00 AM Wednesday May 13, 2015
Everyone should be treated the same when appearing before the courts.
However, questions on this subject were again raised when a high-profile rugby player avoided conviction for his role in a bar brawl.
Blues player George Moala was discharged without conviction on the assault charge with intent to injure charge, despite a judge telling him he took his statements of remorse “with a large grain of salt”.
Judge Rob Ronayne said his decision was not influenced by Moala being a celebrity sportsman, but by the impact it would have on his career and ability to look after his wife and 4-year-old daughter.
The consequences of a conviction, in particular to Moala’s rugby career and future prospects, would be out of all proportion to the crime, he said.
The case has raised accusations that New Zealand courts have become a “two-tier system of justice”, giving preferential treatment to celebrities.
…………………..
Others, such as Tauranga lawyer Paul Mabey QC, see it differently. In a letter in Saturday’s Bay of Plenty Times he argued anyone before the courts can apply for a discharge without conviction and this will be considered according to the facts.
Judges, he says, are the ones to make these decisions and the professor’s comments are not only wrong, but risk undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
He makes a good point but this doesn’t mean laypeople, or those in academia, cannot have opinions on this issue or disagree with a judge’s decision.
…………………………..
– Dylan Thorne is the deputy editor of the Bay of Plenty Times.
– Rotorua Daily Post
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 17th May 2015 @ 9:59 am
Thanks for those links Murray. The schoolgirl’s complaint that school clothing rules discriminate against women is bunkum in light of the fact that boys are also restricted in what they can wear and how they are groomed. As shown in Shelley Bridgeman’s opinion piece, a boy was discriminated against by not being allowed to have long hair and a pony tail whereas there would be no such rule applying to girls.
More importantly, the bare-shouldered schoolgirl’s argument is similar to that of the ‘slut walk’ people and other feminists, that females should have no responsibility for males’ reaction to their clothing and presentation. That’s a fair argument; it’s sensible to hold ourselves responsible for our emotions and how we express them. However, what’s lacking in this feminist line is consideration for others. Their argument could equally be used to justify gang patches being worn by males at school, the fact that others may feel intimidated by that is their responsibility and, as the bare-shouldered schoolgirl recommended, those who have uncomfortable reactions should go and learn to cope better with that.
It’s not easy to decide where the line should be drawn between consideration for others and leaving others to be responsible for their own reactions. I suppose that the first step is to ascertain the reality and extent of others’ reactions to particular situations. There is no doubt that many people will experience significant fear and discomfort if others around them wear gang patches, and the feminists would probably accept that and would care about those feeling uncomfortable. There is also no doubt that many teenage boys and younger men will experience strongly distracting sexual desires if young women around them wear clothes that are unusually revealing (e.g. compared with the clothes all the other schoolgirls wear according to the rules), and indeed young men’s reactions will be so even if most women around them wear such clothes. The feminists may also accept that, but they simply respond “We don’t care”. It seems fair enough for a school to teach them to care and to be as socially considerate as they expect men to be.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 17th May 2015 @ 12:49 pm
Dear Man X Norton, thanks very much for your neutral or central review.
I would just add that in my opinion, many of these issues are relative, it is how much something deviates from the central position, that seems to drive most people’s reactions. Thus pedantic focussing on exactly where the line is drawn, degenerates to a tail chasing exercise, that doesn’t really go anywhere anyway!
Who else is sitting in the same room with the brightly coloured hair, affects the decision outcome more than the girl’s mixing of hair dyes….. Maybe she should have chosen her classmates more carefully?
Although there is much talk of the difficulty of managing young men’s arousal responses and very little thought given to young women’s responses, possibly this reflects the limitations of what we are willing to see?
Research shows that women’s arousal response is almost as active as young men’s, if you measure it directly, rather than ask them afterwards. (Actually most women respond to a much wider set of stimulations than men, so there is another evidence based argument that women should have someone walking ahead of them waving a warning red flag and carrying a tranquiliser gun, if there might be any loose men or animals visible when the women come along….)
Most women are rather cruelly socialised to limit and control their social sexual responses and this is suspected to be a factor in generally women’s higher depression scores. So if men’s accidental arousing of young women could be better managed, by covering them** from head to foot with boring, plain black gowns, women wouldn’t have to be so cruelly repressed. Women cannot advocate for this protection for themselves, as they are not allowed to admit that they have strong responses, that might need to be repressed……. So, it is up to men, to help protect them from themselves….
What I am trying to say, is we all need to listen more carefully and to be willing to help each other more effectively and with less ego.
**them It seems to be ambiguous whether them means the men or the women, or both……
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 17th May 2015 @ 1:36 pm
The pussy passes just keep on coming, as shown by this violent, racist woman.
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 1st June 2015 @ 12:13 pm
Men cop it regardless in public for real.
1. Has any male out there and im saying any ever encounted been viewed as a pervert simply for not averting their eyes on contact with another woman.
I have witnessed so many times a Womans reaction to a males glance where they have reacted throw there head back and snort with disgust averting there eyes away they sometimes self endanger themselves not looking where they are going..lol.
But the worset is when they react differently to another male who glance at them and the woman decides they are acceptable to stare.They are even acknowledged
This behaviour only re enforces woman dress up and down and behave this way for their own pleasure, with their own selective set of rules morally or ethical.
Feminist advocate that Woman are entitled to dress and behave without restrictions and should be free to do so. Fair enough.However been selective in their response is a different kettle of fish altogether.
If no form of harassment or intereaction is evident.Why the selective attitude?
All it does is highlight the old saying of “you can admire without touching is nonsense.”
Woman been constantly pampered too by males,other woman the media,woman advocates, magazines and activists banging out the fear factor even up bringing have resulted in this selective attitude.
Sorry but the very idea the very thought process from a woman that any male at a glance is going to throw away his life and everything in it for you is boarding on stupidity.
Honestly the very idea is remote it just doesnt happen not at a glance,
“get over yourselves”
Comment by joseph — Mon 15th June 2015 @ 12:06 pm
p.s Tiger woods… because he cheated
He was chased out of his home trying to avoid been assaulted by suffering wife resulting in crashing his car. Where upon he was smashed in the face losing front teeth?
result ex wife no conviction 200 million settlement WITH a public apology.
whats wrong with this picture…so bad.
Comment by joseph — Mon 15th June 2015 @ 12:44 pm
http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/bitter-ex-cuts-possessions-in-half-posts-them-on-ebay/story-fnjwmwrh-1227404203751
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 19th June 2015 @ 9:58 am
http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/mother-sentenced-to-10-years-six-months-jail-for-profound-cruel-and-selfish-negligence/story-fnii5s3x-1227414297276
Where was the childs father in this childs life. Lets take a guess as he wasn’t even mentioned in the artical. She gets a discount for helping to testify and punish the step father yet she was willing to film him abusing the child while she egged him on? She should be more guilty as she had more responsibility. She was the parent, the step father was just a mongrel that she was reponsible for allowing in the childs life. She lied to the police but gets a discount for helping them? She gets a discount for being remorsefull?
And it was not murder?
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 25th June 2015 @ 3:30 pm
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/actor-kate-hudson-and-brother-oliver-disowned-by-dad/story-fn907478-1227419416868
‘When we split up, she never had a bad word to say about me,” he says. ‘But when Kurt came on the scene, the narrative changed and I became the big, bad wolf. I would say to her ‘Goldie, why are you trashing me and saying I’m an absent father when it’s simply not the case?’ and she’d laugh and go ‘Oh Bill, you know it makes for a better story.”
Sound familar gentlemen.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 29th June 2015 @ 9:54 am
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/health-wellbeing/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501238&objectid=11473098
“It’s a question of can the state continue to look after them, but also we don’t have paternity data so we don’t know what the family care resources are for ageing men who are on their own.”
-This is because the people who collect the data ‘ministry of statistics’ commit a human rights violation in the census. They ask women how many biological children they have but tell men to piss off. Men are not allowed to answer the question. Why? Because the truth is that the female population are so prolific at lying about who the father is, if they can even be bothered answering who the father is, that any data collected would be worthless. It would also bring to the notice of the public just how prolific this female sex offending is in the community. It may expose to the public the crowns role in protecting these sex offenders.
All the article is data and analysis about women, except the afterthought quote above. Bets on if this would be mentioned at all if the person saying it, wasn’t a man?
The crown has no information about men, because the crown simply does not care about men. Would a Minister for Men care about men? Maybe that’s why the government does not have one. So they can hide their dirty little secrets, with statistical silence.
Another act of bigotry is that the editor put this on the front page of the newspaper and thought it was OK. Guess our newspapers are so used to sexually bigoted reporting that they are just too stupid to notice, or worse, do it intentionally.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 30th June 2015 @ 3:41 pm
Example for #16
http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/mum-who-had-baby-to-young-boy-blames-bad-marriage-for-affair/story-fnii5sms-1227423674390
The vast majority of this ‘female’ child sex offending is never discovered. The example also shows how badly affected the victims can be. Also shown in reseach on NZ young male sex offenders, 30% were sexualy abused by there own mothers. No prosecutions.
“claimed she had fallen pregnant to a colleague and the victim’s mother even helped her through the labour, not realising she was witnessing the birth of her own grandchild.”
Who’s ya daddy?
“The woman repeatedly denied any impropriety, but finally confessed after police moved to take DNA samples from the baby.”
DNA does not lie gentlemen. What would we discover if paternity testing was compulsory.
And she blamed the husband.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 2nd July 2015 @ 10:14 am
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/judge-sends-kids-to-jail-for-refusing-to-go-to-lunch-with-their-dad/story-fnq2o7dd-1227436429920
WOW!
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 10th July 2015 @ 3:30 pm
# DJ ward…wow for sure give that judge a job well ….everywhere ..lol
What does the photo of Yemen prison and children in max prisons dying have anything to do with this..
by [email protected]
Juvenile Detention and Yemen are worlds apart…
Is this a deliberate attempt through the media to miss lead that children been abused at home
by a vicious mother…taken off her and ordered to juvenile detention because of the mothers actions
is somehow going to suffer a fate with similar goings on in another prison in Yemen in another country…
extreme b/s using suffering and real time death with children as a toxis response to this judges ruling through media..
the world we live in classic…[email protected] very poor taste and not relative at all with those poor lost souls…shezzzz
Comment by joseph — Fri 10th July 2015 @ 5:01 pm
Example for #16
This may look innocent but it shows the hypocrisy of the police.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/70416150/police-take-dna-samples-in-inquiry-into-1080-infant-formula-threat
So as a result of a crime the police have gone on a fishing expedition with DNA testing to find an offender. There is nothing perversely wrong with this due to the testing being targeted at suspects. I hope they find the person. As a personal interest my child presently is given formula, although it’s made overseas.
The point here is that when a mother does not name the father on a birth certificate, absolutely no effort is made by the police to find out why or to test potential fathers. Also when a female sex offender is caught lying on a birth certificate due to paternity testing, absolutely no effort is made by the police to find out why or to test potential fathers. They don’t even hold them to account for their actions proven to have taken place by the paternity test failure.
Let’s take a guess. 1080 crime probably committed by a male (they should know this by their DNA evidence) so full DNA testing resources are provided. A women commits a crime that requires DNA testing to solve and the police turn into service providing bigots.
How is DNA testing even allowed in court rooms to convict men of crimes, when it’s off limits to use it for the examination of female sex offending?
Looks to me like it is not innocent. Its a culture of bigotry and systematic corruption.
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 22nd July 2015 @ 9:35 am
We saw in the posting for this thread how violently and superstitiously a male teacher was treated when he looked at legal pornography on one occasion in an otherwise empty, locked and private classroom during his lunchtime. He was deregistered as a teacher, prosecuted, convicted in criminal court of an indecent act and publicly named, the conviction being based not on proof beyond reasonable doubt but simply on an allegation by one student who claimed to see the teacher masturbating when the student was lifted up by friends to look in the otherwise private classroom window. Now we see what happens to a female teacher who committed much more serious, repeated and proven sexual misconduct. She had sex with a Year 13 (Form 7) male pupil on ‘a number of occasions’ at his home, at school and during school hours. She was censured and deregistered as a teacher but her name was suppressed and she faces no charges.
Although the lad was probably 16 or over, she behaved sexually towards him him at school during school hours. For the male teacher, school buildings were ruled to be public places where privacy could not be expected. So she could easily have been charged with the same Indecent Act offence that the male teacher was convicted of. But she wasn’t. Her misbehaviour was clearly much more serious than that by the male teacher. It happened a number of times and it involved sexual use of a vulnerable teenage boy from her position of power, placing his emotional and mental well-being at risk. She knew that if it were discovered as it probably would be, this was likely to be traumatic for the boy and his family, to sully his reputation and to attract teasing or worse for him. But because she’s a female, her behaviour is relatively played down and she gets various forms of pussy pass compared with how harshly the male teacher was treated for much less serious misbehaviour.
And of course the terminology used by the Teachers’ Tribunal and in the news article was minimizing for the woman. She “had sex with a student”, an “affair with” him, “an inappropriate relationship” and “exchanged inappropriate Facebook messages with the student”. Media attention for the female teacher has been minimal whereas the male teacher was repeatedly targeted by print, radio and television as if a major criminal for his much less serious misbehaviour. If the male teacher had been having sexual intercourse at school with a female pupil of the same age as the female teacher’s boy, police would almost certainly have found some crime to charge him with, while the Teachers’ Tribunal and the news articles would have used terms such as “lured a teenage girl to have sex”, “used his position of power to exploit a young female pupil”, “took advantage of the naive girl”, “groomed the girl on Facebook”, “twice her age”, “predator” or worse.
There’s the misandrist, duplicitous environment we now live in.
Comment by Man X Norton — Tue 25th August 2015 @ 10:42 pm
#21 Man X Norton
I agree with what you have said. Those two events, is a clear example of society’s oppressive behaviour towards males and the enabling behaviour towards females.
It is madness that a person who to all intent, was privately masturbating in school, is prosecuted. IE an ‘indecent act’ on oneself. Yet females can go much further, IE performing the indecent act, with or to another person, a vulnerable person, a child in their care, yet it’s OK.
Clearly there must be something wrong with prosecution guide lines. I can’t find the bit that says, ‘If the offender is female, give them a pussy pass’.
Should the male have been prosecuted?
Did he actually have intent etc?
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 26th August 2015 @ 7:57 am