Is the police force politicised and out of control?
The answer to that lies within the Opotiki courts case regarding young men and under aged girls indulging in sex acts. Judge Louis Bidois shows great wisdom in the handling of the case and is to be commended for such. The girls in this case have ended up being collateral damage due to Police policy that holds a belief (communists and other totalitarian regimes do so) that the ‘ends justifies the means’. Before Helen Clark politicised the force wisdom would be used in police investigations of this nature. Now there is zero wisdom and hence we see bigotry and ignorance operating at a high level. The only way to climb the ladder in the Police Force is to be female or a eunuch. The NZ police force is just a tool of feminist bull shit and has lost its credibility as a servant of the whole community.
Behind the bike shed in the 1950s and 1960s has simply progressed over time. What constitutes ‘underage’ should relate to the age difference and the circumstances of each case but in these feminist times where female politicians rule Justice, Police, Education and Corrections Statute Law takes precedence over humanity. Certainly makes a change to see a Judge adopting a humanitarian approach and when all is said and done a country sporting a ‘pony tail pulling” prime minister needs to lighten up on these issues.
This process of abusing children or young people to ‘get’ a male happens commonly. An allegation is made against a male by someone and the child is dragged in for an evidential video interview in which (s)he is encouraged to provide dirt on the targeted male. In the interview, anything the child says that can be used against the male is shown interest and encouragement while anything that might compromise the case against the targeted male is ignored, incorrectly stated back to the child who might then agree with the amended version, or repeatedly questioned thereby conveying to the child that the answer previously given didn’t please the interviewer. Under these manipulations, when the child then finally gives an answer that the interviewer wants, that is somehow seen as the truthful answer. As with the Opotiki girls, the effects on the child of encouraging him/her to speak badly of a boyfriend/father/uncle etc are not weighed against the effects of anything that might have happened to the child. As long as the authorities get their man.
The police are not making those decisions. It is crown law that is make the decision to prosecute (or not to). The reasoning behind more prosecutions and less police discretion is because too much power of discretion has led in the past to corruption. If it is illegal then it should be prosecuted or the law needs to be changed. Obviously someone laid a complaint (probably a parent) – in which case the Police have a duty to investigate and lay charges.
We see the skull beneath the skin.
#3 Yes, that is indeed the process but it is preceded by the amount of energy and resources that the police are prepared to inject that the Crown eventually acts on. Both Govt departments are on the same band wagon in regards to this matter. Have a gander into the prosecution of Mark Pearson in the uk for sexual assault on a female actor. There they act in tandem. Feminism (3rd wave) is a pernicious dogma that has infiltrated every part of our system. I eagerly await the critique of Judge Bidois’s decision in this case.
We have to focus on natural justice. Ask any fear-men-ist how she would FEEL if she was accused of falsely molesting her daughter. Use the broken record technique. Ignore the abuse and shaming accusations you will get. Just repeat the question. Once the audience gets bored, they might even open up and you might even be able to change their lives for the better :-).
Crisis point was Louise Nicholas. A delusional serial false accuser, whose history was inadmissible in court. A time when being a man in uniform (soldier, policeman, etc) made you the sexual fantasy of almost every woman (yes, I have talked openly with my mother about her experiences during WW2, and still has a powerful effect today). Yes, the guys were assholes, but she was not ‘RAPED’, it was not part of police ‘culture’ but more a symptom of female lust. What can even the good ones do though, there is a charge ‘male assaults female’. ULTIMATE SEXISM! Assault is assault. 70% of domestic abuse is initiated by the feminine partner. This phrasing also applies to non-heterosexual relationships. We have to man up and ‘play the game’. But our masculine way, facts, logic, reality, survival. Complain to the authorities. I know it sounds like whinging, but what you are doing is adding your voice to the statistics. Men naturally don’t tend to complain; we tend to fix. But you can fix by making sure your voice is noted officially.
Suggestion based on a technique we used in my left-wing days? Spread a standard-worded email to everyone you know. They put their name on it, sign it, and send it to their MP.Your individual voice may not be heard, but believe me, if a MP gets more than 20 contacts on a single issue, you get noticed 🙂
prouddad (#3): The police practise plenty of discretion. They often ignore men’s complaints about women’s violence towards them. They evict or prosecute only the man when clearly both parties have been violent and also when the man’s only force was done in self defence against the woman’s attack. Police don’t do much or anything when men complain their ex-partners have committed perjury in Court or in sworn affidavits as they so often do. Even when they decide some woman’s complaint to them was false they seldom prosecute her. If illegality should be prosecuted then why is it so often not prosecuted when it comes to female offenders?
Certainly, it’s desirable for police to investigate alleged criminal behaviour. But surely a proper investigation should evaluate the validity of the allegations and seek to find out what happened, not simply look for evidence to prosecute? When children are subjected to video evidential interviews, indications of coaching surely should be investigated rather than ignored in favour of simply pushing forward the contaminated evidence? Manipulation of children to provide dirt surely isn’t proper? Especially when doing so is likely to result in more suffering for those children than anything caused by the alleged crime.
The classic is of course, breach of a parenting order. How many dads have gone to the police with a copy of the parenting order after the mother has not complied and made the children available?
All of us at some point?
We’re you told, hello, hello, hello we don’t get involved in that, talk to your lawyer on Monday?
Did the lawyer say, I suppose you could apply for an order to enforce the order?
Did you say, why, what is that, why do I need one of those, we already have a court order about access, remember if cost me $4000?
What is this new thing?
How much, how long?
Did the lawyer say well about $2000, and ther are no guarantees, perhaps 3 months?
Then you said what did I spend the $4,000 on?
Are you saying this is a worthless unenforcable piece of paper?
DADS, we know the drill here right?
Recently the mother has complained to the police four times that: he has breached the parenting order.
The first time a cop came to my house and I was told ” if you breach the parenting order you will be arrested”
The second time it was over the phone ” you are in breach of the parenting order and you may well be arrested”
The third time it was a phone call to me, no threat of arrest but the cop talked to the children who told him “we are with our dad and mum said we should spend the next week with him” ( the children were 13 years 10 months old) Undetered and uninterested the cops called me two days later then went to where the children were which was at their good friend’s 69 year old grandmothers, took a statement from her, went away typed it, came back and got her to sign it, called my daughter again then they realised that perusing this would be futile based on the grandmothers statement which was ” the father is fulfilling the children’s wishes”.
I have shared care
No care and protection issues for the children.
The mother’s father is a retired policeman.
Breach of a Parenting Order is a Civil matter, not a criminal matter yet I was threatened with arrest.
So come on Dads, what do we think of that?
Is that difficult to respect?
Does that smack of out of control police simply pushing their own agenda?
How about gender bias?
How about one rule for the woman and no justice for the fathers?
I believe that the family court, the police should just say ” hey you dads, you are not wanted, the orthorities do not want fathers, all fathers must leave their children, do not bother appearing int the court because if you do we will give you a worthless piece of paper, but we will give her the opportunity to have you arrested because you don’t have tits.
So fathers just get the message leave, now! Leave your children, we are not wanted, our input is not supported, wake up, get going, don’t worry that mummies new boyfriend needs no qualification or to be held up to the light, he can come, have a relationship with the mother, bash the kid, abuse your daughter, it’s ok, it’s what they want other wise something would have been done to stop this happening, after all it’s been going on over 30 years. Realise that this must be the desired outcome otherwise it would have been changed to supporting the natural father, the protector, helping him be involved, admonish the mother when the children aren’ t available for access (sorry I do like to make jokes, I know it’s a funny one)
Understand the frustrations Paul. Back in the 1980s when my ex was constantly flouting access order section 20A of the Guardianship Act applied and prior to the start of each school term I filed an ex parte application for each access weekend. Those orders to enforce were always granted and every access weekend I presented at the police station closest to their mother’s home and waited while cops went to pick up kids. The Guardianship Act has since been replaced by Care of Children Act 2004 and section 73 of that Act is similar to the old section 20A. Sections 63-77 are worth familiarising yourself with if you are a non-custodial parent and it’s also worth noting the sections 78 and 79 of the Act provide penalties for custodial parents who breach parenting orders. Every non-custodial parent should become familiar with every aspect of enforcing access to his/her children and learn how to prepare ex parte applications to avoid legal costs.