International Child Abduction
The issue of Child Abduction across borders is in the news again.
I also see that the story of Dr Elizabeth Morgan and her now adult daughter was discussed by Murray well known axe murderer this morning as well. The daughter Elena Mitrano is deeply scarred by her childhood experiences and the alienation of her father.
In NZ we also have the Kay Skelton saga which the Family Court in the end released significant information about after 7 years of effective support for the wrong side of righteouness. The NZ court also got it right in the Bianca Ormsby v Adam Thomas matter as well. Take care believing what Bianca and her supporters spin about this story. The ability for mum to have contact in a similar way to Kay Skelton exists because Dad is prepared to allow that to happen.
The Hague Convention is a good tool and the idea of dragging children across borders to remove their right to contact with both parents needs to be identified as madness and wrong.
This latest story from Australia is not the first. Their Government helped in the abduction of some children from Italy based on unsubstantiated accusations from the Australian Mother. Same journalist too …. funny that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF4I_gBfdp4
Comment by golfa — Thu 14th April 2016 @ 4:15 pm
I repost my reply from an earlier thread because it is more directly relevant here:
The attempted child kidnapping case in Beirut is worth a few observations.
Many fathers have experienced ex-partners’ abduction of their children to unknown and/or faraway places. We can all have empathy for Ms Faulkner and some may support her actions in trying to kidnap her children and take them back to Australia. Certainly, news media especially Australian ones have shown a lot of empathy for her. For example, this Australian article refers to a ‘heartbreaking choice’ allegedly offered to Ms Faulkner that she settle for access rights to her children in order to reduce or remove the charges against her. Well, it would be interesting to know how often Australian media refer to the standard arrangement for fathers of a minor level of ‘access’ with their children as breaking those fathers’ hearts.
What’s missing in most coverage is any background or context for this case. The limited information available is that Ms Faulkner married Mr Elamin in Australia where the children were born. The family then moved to live in Mr Elamin’s home country Lebanon. Then Ms Faulkner took the children back to Australia allegedly after an explosion in Beirut not far from their home. There is no clear account of this but it appears that she took the children to Australia without their father’s agreement and this brought about their marital separation. He then visited his children in Australia periodically and in the last of those visits in May 2015, with the agreement of Ms Faulkner, he took them back to Lebanon for a holiday to see their paternal extended family. Once in Lebanon he informed Ms Faulkner that he wouldn’t be returning them.
So in fact, Ms Faulkner had deprived the children of their family unit, abducted the children to Australia and left their father with no choice except to move back to Australia or to visit them there when he could. He probably knew it would be pointless for a male to appeal to a western feminist saturated family court for some rights as a father concerning where the children lived, but we don’t actually know whether he tried. What does seem clear is that he carefully worked to create an opportunity to do what she had done to him. When he did, she found this unacceptable and did not visit them internationally as he had. Instead, she obtained a custody order in Australian Family Court, a strange gesture because any such order would carry no weight in Lebanon. When fathers have their children abducted to other countries they are obliged either to live with it, move there or to mount proceedings in the foreign Court concerned.
It appears now that the Lebanese Court is steering Ms Faulkner towards accepting an access arrangement. That Court’s respect for the father’s right to choose where the children primarily live is anathema to western feminism-saturated societies, but really is no different from the sexist position taken by western jurisdictions in the opposite gender direction. One assumes Ms Faulkner still has the option of applying to the Lebanese Court to change the parenting arrangements, as so many fathers have to do.
Of course, the extensive coverage of this case stands in contrast to the lack of attention media pay to the much more frequent cases in which men have their children abducted and their hearts broken, as indeed happened to Mr Elamin. And in covering this case news media consistently fail to mention that fathers are much more often subjected to child abductions than are mothers.
Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 14th April 2016 @ 9:33 pm
A few more observations on the Faulkner case in Lebanon:
Note the western media frequently show photos of the mother with her smiling children but none with the father and children. There was footage shown on some television news of the children looking very happy with their father in Lebanon, but those pictures aren’t shown. Instead, the normal empathy shown towards mothers has been exploited mercilessly by media.
Note also this paragraph from the article republished in the NZ Herald, “Australian mother and TV crew questioned by Lebanese judge 5:50 AM Thursday Apr 14, 2016”:
So even though their law shows some respect for the wisdom of males, the idea that Lebanese society treats women worse than men is thrown into question. Of course, such female-favouring sexism occurs in many places, especially in western jurisdictions such as NZ which provides much more comfortable prisons for women, much better visiting areas and arrangements, and even allows women, but not men, to have young children with them in jail and provides for some women special home unit type accommodation.
Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 15th April 2016 @ 10:19 am
This is perhaps a more balance article.
It shows the children smiling with both their mother and with their father.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-15/60-minutes-lebanon-mother-sally-faulkner-may-renounce-custody/7328396
Comment by sharingiscaring — Sun 17th April 2016 @ 3:31 am
Thanks for finding that reference sharingiscaring @ #4.
A couple of interesting matters arise from the article. Firstly, it appears that the mother has been obstructing her ex’s attempts to obtain a divorce after she had abducted the children to Australia against their father’s wishes. Female self-entitlement seems to show no limits.
Secondly, the Australian Family Court appears to be at least as much of a white-knight, female favouring institution as is its NZ equivalent. According to the article, that Family Court even granted her the right to use Australian police or her own hired agents to retrieve the children, the latter being what she tried to do. It’s unclear whether Mr el-Amien (funny how many different spellings of his name have appeared!) had any input into that Australian court case. Ironically, the pro-mother decision by the Australian court appears to have inspired Ms Faulkner to employ thugs to break another country’s laws and use violence to get what she wants, perhaps hoping her court order would enable her to get away with this.
Questions arise here: Why don’t Australian and NZ courts specify that police can be used to enforce their orders when it comes to fathers’ contact visits etc? Why do police eagerly enforce some Family Court orders but not others?
Thirdly, the article implies that Mr el-Amien’s own court order granting him custody is somehow trivial and/or lacking in merit, emphasizing that it came from a ‘religious court’. In fact, if that court had legal authority to grant an order in Lebanon then that order is as valid as any from Australia. The Lebanese religious courts are probably no more blighted by ignorance, false ideology and injustice than are Western Family Courts.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 17th April 2016 @ 12:57 pm
I would happily describe familycaught$ as a ‘religious court’. The religion being legal workers grasping other people’s money.
If the familycaught$ Australia has negative respect for foreign courts, then how in common sense would it ever hope for its judgements to be respected anywhere else in the world? Real respect has to be two sided.
The Hague Convention, many years ago, was intended to encourage mutual respect and trust by courts, to better protect children from abduction and manipulation and discourage abductions before they happen.
So NZ and Australian familycaught$ are fueling abduction, not working in any useful sense to discourage it.
Children keep on suffering, while legal workers holiday all around the world spending other people’s money.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 18th April 2016 @ 8:02 am
A sad case but it’s interesting to see the different tone of the reporting when the man is fighting for custody and winning in a jurisdiction that favours his rights over the mother’s, the total opposite of what we expect in the west. The mother will return home a sainted martyr and make a lot of money from selling her story to the media, a man in the same situation would likely be ignored or vilified on return.
And the children suffer either way.
Comment by Doug — Sun 24th April 2016 @ 10:53 am
The mass media originally tried to paint the mother as a poor victim and the 60 minutes crew as White Knights. However the mass media quickly got a dose of reality from social media. The public backlash against child kidnapping and an assumption the father was “bad”, was immediate and almost universal. Most of the media got the message and used more even language. As more facts came out the more this was enforced. Channel 9 and 60 minutes hired a PR company and made several attempts to turn or at least limit public opinion but these all failed.
I see this as part of the tide turning against feminism.
Comment by Vman — Wed 4th May 2016 @ 8:52 pm
#8 Vman. I didn’t see the 60 Minutes report that way at all. They called it a “child recovery” throughout the programme and the Mother was portrayed as a “victim”. There was no mention that she left Lebanon with the children on a “holiday” to Australia and refused to return them. Unless they copped a backlash after the programme aired and have changed their approach, I can’t see them changing their stance. Nice manipulative touch to interview the reporter without any makeup on etc. ….. makes her look like a victim too.
Comment by golfa — Wed 4th May 2016 @ 10:17 pm
Here’s another self-entitled woman who thinks she should be able to deprive children of their father. Sophia Nash abducted her two children from their father to Australia, and at the time she left there just happened to be a warrant for her arrest in NZ for failing to show in court to face charges of theft, driving while disqualified and breaching a community-work order. Oh, but that wasn’t the reason she left (she said smiling sweetly). She left to ‘escape’ an ‘unhappy relationship’ with her ex, the children’s father. Who knows what was unhappy about it, but one could venture a few guesses. The father was probably being uncooperative about giving her enough money, or in objecting to her boozing her brains out while responsible for the children. WHAT A BASTARD! DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS SUCH A MALE PROBLEM!
Quite frankly, abducting children to another country away from their other parent is an act of greater violence than many. It should always be prosecuted and, if proven, punished severely.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Wed 11th May 2016 @ 10:14 pm
We are a team of individuals …who are dedicated to creating a comprehensive resource that will enable mothers, domestic violence advocates, attorneys and judges to better prepare themselves for Hague Convention cases in the United States’ legal system.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 6th November 2016 @ 2:25 pm
NZ’s difficulties with managing child abduction in a manner to protect children’s relationships with both parents, are too profitable, to be solved by familycaught$. Instead, they are “managed” for maximum financial return to legal workers.
Despite the wording of the Care of Children Act 2004, it seems that women can still be custodial parents and fathers can only have breakable custody of their children. Breakable by the mother, on her whims, not for the protection of the children.
The attitude that custody still exists for mothers to possess, is laid out quite clearly in the NZ Herald article:
This aspect of parent’s inequality before the bench clowns in familycaught$, is an old illegal story, that is still repeating without end.
Time for NZ fathers to lobby for the Care of Children Act to actually work. Boshier tried, but failed.
Transparency is the keyword, to get child protection to actually work. Secrecy is the refuge of scoundrels.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 15th January 2017 @ 7:16 pm
Yes, when was the last time that police prosecuted any of the thousands of women who breach FC orders by withholding children from fathers or taking children to live far away from fathers? Police tell aggrieved fathers that they will have to obtain yet another special order before police act on breaches of child care or contact orders, yet when a father breaches such an order here they are white knighting yet again. They already waste so much police time attending spurious family call outs that they neglect real crime, as shown by many cases such as this one in which they were too busy to catch car thieves whose number plate and direction of travel were immediately reported, then didn’t have time during the subsequent 6 months to collect car break-in tools left by the thieves, and this one in which the victims of thieves told police where their stolen mountain bikes were and had photos available of the neighbourhood thieves riding the bikes.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 15th January 2017 @ 10:54 pm
Sometimes it is hard to take police seriously.
Reminds me of the ongoing denials of perjury in the Crewe murders prosecution of Arthur Allan Thomas. He was a better man than the police.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 16th January 2017 @ 9:53 am
Alan Langdon; Master Mariner.
A Warrem Catamaran.
Designed by James Warrem in 1950. Over 10,000 plans have been sold with thousands built having done long distance global crossings. People laughed when J Warrem built his first, then sailed it across the North Atlantic with two German Girls writing a book about the experience called Two Girls and A Catamaran.
It is likely that James left out aspects of his voyage with these two girls.
To say Alan Langdon’s crossing was not safe is subjective rubbish, fit for Mainstream Media (The Herald For Example)This guy is a master mariner, a trip like this for him is like Sir Ed Hillary taking a strole through the park.
Fact; They arrived Safely.
Therefore it was not Unsafe. That is a dead argument based on FACT.
The child was happy and effusive of her trip, seeing whales, sea birds, playing on the swing her dad made her off the mast.
The Alternative:
The NZ Family Court Process;
Traumatise the child
Traumatise the father
Traumatise his family
Face the Shark Infested Process (that they would certainly be in) or Shark Infested Waters (that they were not in)
Alan may have had direction’s with out evidence, a C$C who is prepared to pervert the course of justice. A judge to break the law to cover that up and a whole host of other crap. The sort of thing many have experienced.
Chuck in a couple of arrests and it may be argued that avoiding this process was (in terms of care and protection of the child) the absolute right thing to do as a caring dad.
Well done Alan Langdon, what a pity your rudder broke and you were blown to your country of origin away from the shark infested processes.
P.S. Unless you are as experienced as him, it would be better not to blown off course like that.
Comment by Simoin Grant — Mon 16th January 2017 @ 11:52 am
Murrary Bacon 12.
You mention Judge Boshier.
I wrote to his office, it appeared that her honour Judge J Yep (Porirua again) had made directions with out evidence.
I was advised of this by a person who was blind, couldn’t read brail and was running for a bus at the time. (some blind lawyers catch buses)
His honour replied, explaining that he was unable to get involved in matters directly. Interestingly one week later Judge J changed her tune, mind and directions and after that, never presided again in our matter. Her honour may have been in the background working with her collegial buddy her honour Judge U.
C4C seemed to work closely with three judges there, never one to bite that fed him. (above all else)
I have high regard for Principle Judge Boshier’s efforts and for some Judges, not others, C$C, the court coordinator, psychologist – clearly an opportunist with three reports contradicting each other.
No real accountability – just SPIN
Comment by Simoin Grant — Mon 16th January 2017 @ 12:10 pm
It’s hard to work out what’s going on in this case.
Due to the secrecy of the FC.
My guess is the mothers access ment take child to Sweeden for awhile.
With a promise to return.
We all know that ment she would stay there and Alan would never see his child agian.
IE she would be the person taking the child from NZ.
Defying court orders.
Bet there would be no prosecution then.
Or child protective services taking the child from the mother.
But the child support bill would continue.
Hague convention ignored.
Also to commit a crime police must prove intent.
Did he break the rudder and blow the wind in a direction on purpose?
Anyway if faced with never seeing your child that you have spent every day with, ever agian.
What would be justified to stop that.
Just a pity it’s an everyday experience for dozens of men.
Apparently 20000 children become fatherless every year.
A lot, actually most of it due to our sexually bigoted police force.
Who systematically ignor or support female offending.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 16th January 2017 @ 12:23 pm
A well researched submission from Dr Murial Newman explained that the number is 20,000 children per year become fatherless due to the NZ Family Court/Police, more than in the first world war.
So what did he do wrong?
A Parenting Order Breached? Sparking Police and all the rest of it thousands of mothers do that every year but the police don’t do a thing, nor does the NZ Family Court.
A Protection Order Breached?
No talk of care and safety issues other than the size of the boat danger and claptrap which does not apply because the FACT is the kid was safe so in terms of the journey the little girl was safe, no stress, no trauma.
Perhaps some sort of Don’t leave the country order?
If he is getting jerked off re access and the Family Court Process does nothing other than support mummy then some might suggest the breaking rudder was the to blame.
A small point.
Mummy was in Switzerland yodelling so who was supposed to be looking after the little girl?
Comment by Simoin Grant — Mon 16th January 2017 @ 4:51 pm
I heard on the radio that the mother planned to take the child to Golden Bay and ‘bring the child up’ there. Now we hear that she was never the primary parent yet wants to take over as such and to move the child to a place that will be onerous for the father to get to and isn’t in the father’s home country. The FC probably condones her plan, under the longstanding policy that the child’s best interests are served by ensuring a happy mother who gets everything her way, while when it comes to the father’s happiness this suddenly isn’t in keeping with the FC’s legal responsibility to consider only the best interests of the child. Even when the father has always been the primary parent. Go figure.
The police decision to prosecute the father will be intended to bolster the mother’s takeover attempt and the other things she wants the FC to do for her. While it would be sensible to find out a bit more about the case, this one may warrant a protest outside the FC when the case is heard.
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 16th January 2017 @ 5:40 pm
Oh, this story today tells us the mother wants 50-50 care. If so, that’s ok but will be difficult if she chooses to live in Golden Bay.
The prosecution of Alan Langdon might end up costing the country a lot. International experts will probably be required to investigate and testify that his rudder probably didn’t break and the winds probably didn’t force him to head to Aus.
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 16th January 2017 @ 6:05 pm
It does look a bit that the father didn’t have much confidence in the capability or competence of the familycaught$. Who could be surprised?
There could be a lesson there for these clowns, but I am guessing they aren’t listening at all anyway.
I was looking through the old TV cuttings and newspaper cutting regarding the Kay Skelton abduction of Jaydon Hedley. Again the feeling that the familycaught is not learning from its mistakes. Unfortunately, they are getting paid whether they get it wrong or get it right. So, who are the idiots? The people who are paying them!
Although handling the manipulations of manipulative parents is a problem all around the world, the NZ familycaught appear to be among the least capable. Don’t repair them – replace them with people who want to do the job successfully.
How can we know when this case will come back to familycaught$?
Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 16th January 2017 @ 6:31 pm
Someone will need to be in touch with Alan Langdon who can let us know.
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 16th January 2017 @ 9:29 pm
Well, well so mummy snatched the kid using this Child abduction investigator dude.
Alan Langdon quoted, I went to get Que something to eat when I came back she was gone. He is the one who called the Police.
Mummy came on TV, I have been through hell, no mother should have to go through this, not being able to see her child. To go across the Tasman with out even an EPIRB is irresponsible.
Mummy is the abductor,via this Kid snatcher Cole something (the shifty prick). Alan had custody
Comment by Simon Grant — Mon 16th January 2017 @ 11:18 pm
Mummy appeared to justify this abduction by simply being a woman, a mother. The high handed distain and arrogance. Fathers don’t go through pain in not seeing their children,the suicide statistics confirm trauma for fathers alright.
The media need to be careful here in terms of painting mummy in a victim light. Lets watch to see if the “Gender biased old trout about” do a little U turn on the poor Mummy Front. The Herald will be interesting to watch.
Does this child snatching prick Cole something work for fathers or simply mothers? If he only snatches commercially for mothers, perhaps a little focus might apply to him and his snatching company?
Comment by Simon Grant — Mon 16th January 2017 @ 11:31 pm
The police certainly seem to be taking obvious sides, in how they are interpreting this situation, as they have many times in the past. It sure is time that as much public spotlight is shone onto police assumptions as possible.
If the child was taken from the father by a third party, even with the consent or request of the other parent, then I would have thought that that was a clear abduction. This abduction is every bit as serious as the possible abduction by the father.
Children can only be protected by applying the same standards and rules, for mothers as for fathers. The Care of Children makes this requirement clear, to anyone but thieves.This is proper accountability for both parents.
We have now had 2 generations of this type of social and individuals damage. Well time to do anything to bring this vandalism to a halt and bring back a working rule of law.
Quality of caughts isn’t just a matter of coming to the right decision. It is also about achieving good outcomes at a workman like cost – not just robbing the public blind behind closed doors. Accountability is essential for protecting children’s and adults’ interests.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 17th January 2017 @ 6:23 am
Accepting payment for child abduction is clearly a crime, so Mr. Cole appears to be another form of prostitute. No better than a legal worker! He is described, apparently by the NZ Herald or by himself, as an “expert”. This suggests he has done it before, so maybe there are quite a few abduction cases that should be actively investigated by police?
Incidentally, who ever heard of a quick getaway by sail boat? The are difficult to hide from the air. They don’t really go that fast……. People do take an active interest in boats comings and goings. So the mother’s claimed justification for “re-abduction” seems very weak. Maybe it was just an abduction and needs prosecution as such? If police want to be taken seriously by non-custodial parents and fathers, then this would be important.
In any case, the mother could have contacted the father and daughter and asked for contact in Australia. This would have been less heavy handed for everyone and certainly safer for the child. If the mother was worried about the father absconding, she would have had full Australian police backup available, much more so than a father could rely upon. (Checkout the Jaydon Hedly abduction, where police were very slow to take it seriously.) The father couldn’t have made a quick getaway from a small Australian seaside town! Lets get real.
This case needs some real analysis and publicity based on truth! Maybe then the public will see that police and familycaught$ behaviour does need close scrutiny and positive action for improvement.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 17th January 2017 @ 6:39 am
Ok Murrary;
Cole Chapman or his associates, snatched the kid.
The father had custody
Mummy was yodelling in Switzerland.
The media says mummy engaged Cole Chapman, I don’t buy that.
Alan Langdon is supposed to face charges on 25 Jan in Te Awamutu Court re taking a child out of NZ. Clearly he was not supposed to.
So who actually engaged Cole Chapman?
Mummy -who was in Switzerland?
Was it in fact the NZ Family Court directly or via C$C ?(court at arms length, nice and tidy)
How did “Dear old Cole The Merry Old Snatcher” get the kid out after Alan Langdon called the Police after he found his daughter gone? What the Australian Cops didn’t look for he child?
Come on a child had been snatched and ‘Dear Old Cole” just wandered to the airport and got on a plane back to NZ, no mummy went to Australia “to be reunited with her daughter under the nose of the Australian Police”.
Nope, Dear Old Cole had all his paper work in order.
Did the Police engage “Dear Old Cole”? How could they with no application from mummy to the Court and no subsequent court directions?
Nope, not mummy as far as I am concerned.
We know C$C often has such close relationships with the Police that some have been Police.
No, for me not mummy. I suggest Cole the snatcher was engaged by someone other than mummy.
So now what?
Alan could come here on 25th Jan to court.
It is likely that he won’t
Is it a case of Alan, if you want to see your kid again you will come to court 25tth Jan?
If so isn’t that Kidnapping, with a ransom the relationship with the kid?
Bye Bye daddy.
Comment by simon Grant — Tue 17th January 2017 @ 11:14 am
http://www.childrecoveryaustralia.com
“…Parental Abduction” is the unlawful taking of a child by one parent, depriving the other parent or guardian of their lawful custody of the child.
Did she have custody?
Was there actions legal?
The have admitted there actions.
From the research page.
Both the mother and father are likely to abduct their own child. In Australia prior to the Shared Parenting laws, fathers were responsible for 72% of child abductions. Since 2006 mothers have been responsible for 84% of abductions. Abductions to Egypt, North Africa and the Middle East are predominantly by fathers in over 92% of child abductions. Worldwide mothers are the majority abducting parent by 78%.
Few studies have identified a psychological or sociological profile of the abducting parent. However our studies of national and international child abduction cases show that in over 72% of abductions, the abducting parent has been or will later be diagnosed with various mental illnesses ranging in severity from minor to severe. Examples of mental health issues abductors suffer from included; Bipolar types 1 & 2, Borderline Personality Disorder, Narcissistic, Psychopathic and Sociopathic behavioural tendencies, Depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Notice the change in abduction rates.
When it was full custody to the mother, dads abducted due to the bigotry of it I suspect.
When it is shared care, women abduct because they are power and control nut jobs.
“Some abductors are so narcissistic that they do not have the ability to view their children as separate entities from themselves.”
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 17th January 2017 @ 11:18 am
All of the scenarios ie mental health conditions that you listed, are the conditions that have the highest risk of severe child maldevelopment, particularly if the child is denied regular access ie a workable and unrestricted relationship with the other parent.
The Care of Children Act is surprisingly well in time with child development / parental mental health research. I don’t think this is complete accident. I have read praises of Judge Boshier in that respect. (I don’t know if those compliments are well founded, as many compliments to judges are courtesies from other legal workers. Technically known as “I will piss in your pocket, if you will piss in mine”.)
Also consider that on average, if one parent has some degree of mental health issues, then it is probable that the other does too. Usually not the same issue, so if a child has access to both parents, then they do have a high degree of protection from these types of issues.
This is why the non-compliance with Care of Children Act by “judges” is so serious – it does have serious long term costs to the children’s development.
For that reason, I would suggest that NZ familycaught$ judges are more valuable when they have cooled down to room temperature.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 17th January 2017 @ 11:51 am
See Victims of another War on YouTube
A few references to research papers on child development are listed in my submission to Parliament, for familycaught reform.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 17th January 2017 @ 11:58 am
http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/88459079/nelson-victim-says-he-was-brainwashed-and-violated-by-former-lovers-fraud.
Great work Brendon ! Its rare that these girls ever have to face a judge for these kind of crimes.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Tue 17th January 2017 @ 9:40 pm
Good example of a nasty and expensive women to have in your life.
Was he compensated for his expenses to prosecute her?
$15000/240 hours equals $62.50 per hour.
Contact the minister for women.
It’s more than the average man earns.
Might take 6 months to do.
She will be slim agian by then. Lol.
Not asked to pay the money back?
Sell the personnel items etc?
Interesting thing is activities to deceive for money is very common for women.
I remember seeing stats that 50% of women will go into thier partners accounts without permission and steal.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 17th January 2017 @ 10:04 pm
No.30
Great video.
More reason for parental allienation/abduction to be an offence.
Unfortunately not actually a good idea.
As the police will only see it as a crime.
If men do it.
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 18th January 2017 @ 10:46 am
Victims of another War on YouTube
This documentary covers well the emotional damage. It doesn’t explain in detail how serious the damage is. So many people watching are likely to underestimate the damage done. Inability to trust people in general and intimate partners in particular is likely to have a serious impact on ability to form validating, supporting and rewarding adult intimate relationships. It usually has a large impact not just on social relationships, but also on enjoyment and value in sexual relationships.
In the sense of assessing a sum of money as compensation for such damage, what would you award to one of the adults talking in the film?
More to the point, lets protect children from abduction, whether by one parent or by anyone else.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 18th January 2017 @ 3:05 pm
Voices @ 31: Interesting that this victim of a lying, exploitative woman had a lot of trouble to get the police interested in her fraud. You can bet if the victim were a damsel claiming a male had deceived and stolen from her, the police would have white-knighted the case swiftly. It sounded like the male victim had to take a private prosecution in the end. And interesting too that the judge, despite referring to this deceitful bitch’s “deception which went on for many months” and aggravating factors such as her lack of remorse and serious emotional harm (what? to a man?), still sentenced her only to some community work. Imagine if the offender had been a male who took advantage of a woman in that way!
Comment by Man X Norton — Wed 18th January 2017 @ 10:39 pm
35, Yes I agree, this bloke deserves a medal for his persistence with police. Clearly he didn’t do it for his own good as the damage suffered could not be alleviated. He did it to reduce the chances that she will easily do the same to the next guy.
I had a similar situation three years ago except mine involved physical violence against me by a female. After more than 30 visits to the police station,Complaints through all official channels, and meetings with mps about it I gave up. So I have tremendous respect for this man for his efforts. I intend to travel to Nelson and congratulate him personally. I believe I can likely find him as I found other info about him from uncle Google. For me Letters from mps to police took 5 months to be replied to so no line of communication was practically accessible. This year I will protest outside police stations and the doors of other agencies about bias against male victims of DV.
I look forward to posting more about this and some other methods to bring light to the situation in coming months.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Thu 19th January 2017 @ 9:41 am
Good on you Voices! Let us know when your protests are planned and I will do my best to come and support. It’s an issue of crucial importance for our law enforcement and justice systems and indeed the welfare of our society. Here’s an article from the US bemoaning the incredible denial and trivialization there of female-on-male violence. Readers comments show how much people are waking up to the fact that feminism has mainly been a dishonest, destructive and discriminatory ideology of hate.
Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 19th January 2017 @ 10:45 am
According to the CDC’s statistics — estimates based on more than 18,000 telephone-survey responses in the United States — roughly 5,365,000 men had been victims of intimate partner physical violence in the previous 12 months, compared with 4,741,000 women. By the study’s definition, physical violence includes slapping, pushing, and shoving.
More severe threats like being beaten, burned, choked, kicked, slammed with a heavy object, or hit with a fist were also tracked. Roughly 40 percent of the victims of severe physical violence were men. The CDC repeated the survey in 2011, the results of which were published in 2014, and found almost identical numbers — with the percentage of male severe physical violence victims slightly rising.
Thanks Man X Norton for that link/article
Along with many studies it proves that.
White ribbon
Womens refuge.
Politicians.
Judges.
Police.
Media.
When they talk about domestic violence.
Are lying bigots.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 19th January 2017 @ 11:26 am
Outgoing US President Obama in his final press conference as president said that there’s one thing he wouldn’t tolerate and that would see him back in the media would be ‘discrimination’. WTF. Where were his objections to the appalling escalation of anti-male discrimination in his country, from specific ‘Violence Against Women’ laws for convenient automatic blame and persecution of men in domestic disputes to allowing US universities to adopt a ‘guilty unless he can prove innocence’ kangaroo court system to deal with sexual allegations?
Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 19th January 2017 @ 12:16 pm
Yep.
He once said, implying to himself.
“This is what a feminist looks like”
Thank our lucky stars.
That Hillary failed.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 19th January 2017 @ 1:26 pm