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

Police and Protection Orders

Filed under: General — martin @ 4:26 pm Thu 25th May 2017

Last year, after my ex decided that she wanted another pound of flesh took my children from me under the guise of an interim custody order (I’m still fighting this in court). Prior to this (some 7 years ago and I’m sure no surprise to most) she obtained a protection order, which she then supported the removal off after 3 years. So remember “no current orders” other than the interim custody order.

While out at a bicycle race last year in which my boy was racing, his mother decided that she did not want me to talk to him or I guess intimidate him, and so she called the police. They arrived and spoke to my girl-friend who was in my car. They wanted to know where i was etc, but she had the thought-of-mid to ask them why they were here, to which they responded “there is a protection order”. “no there isn’t” she replied. “Oh yes there is” (I feel a pantomime coming on!). She insisted that there wasn’t, the policeman (yes I call a spade a spade) “yes there is, in fact i severed it on him myself not long ago”. “No you didn’t, what you are think of is the application for a protection order that she has just filed, which is before the court (who needs a lawyer when you have a gal like this 🙂 ). The policeman finally decided that perhaps she was right and needed to make enquiries with my ex. My partner ended the conversation by telling them that she was appalled that they would have the audacity to turn out to a family event and that surely this could have waited until later.

My point here, (apart from showing you how precise and careful the boys in blue are), is that somebody must have misinformed / misled the police when they made the 111 call that her ex was (and I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt) “here at a race with her and that she had a protection order, and that they needed to come immediately. What she had failed to tell them was that “had” mean used to have but no longer has, or “had” means “had requested one without notice” but had been rejected and put on notice.

Nowdays, I don’t see so much of the police (funny how things have changed now that they have been properly informed of the situation, however their domestic violence unit are actively trying to get one (a PO) put in place – I guess that will help them save face. In the meantime, I almost mis their regular appearance at my front door, accusing me of any event or bad fortune that comes before my ex. I don’t know why she is even called my ex, because I don’t seem to be able to get rid of her – you know like out of my hair!! But not to fear, as for the boys in blue, well I still get the occasional call, telling me that my car has been spotted driving up her (the ex) street, and I have to remind them, that I was unaware of it being her street, I thought she merely owned a house there! I tend not to worry about freedom of speech or global warming or Donald Trump these days. Rather I just watch as my basic human rights are now being eroded – my right to attend public events, my right to travel on a road or carriage way, my right to live without constant harassment from the boys in blue.


  1. Boys in Blue is an affectionate historical term for the police of yesteryear.

    Now days they have very little to do outside of upholding Feminist religious law and youth control.

    Comment by Downunder — Thu 25th May 2017 @ 9:03 pm

  2. Downunder – you are correct. The nostalgia of the Common Law Police man protecting your life and property and preserving the peace is fast disappearing into history – if we allow it.
    Its more than disturbing to see the police taking the time to hunt down a parent ( in most cases the father protector ) and yet they are not allocating the same resources to chasing down real criminals and cleaning our streets of crime.

    NZ is facing an epidemic of Crime and Social unrest, as our nation has been destroyed from within. We have seen work and opportunity sent off shore under the guise of free trade, we have seen towns ravaged by meth. Its important to note that the legal party pills were banned – pills which never caused loss of life, and once these were removed from the public, METH became the next choice.

    So one must ask – WHY and HOW do our police manage to rid the nation of a legal party pill, and yet they cannot rid the nation of an illegal substance which is causing this nation so much harm – suicides, social disorder, and crime.

    Its starting to become more and more apparent that some in power WANT to deliberately create more SOCIAL DISORDER and CIVIL UNREST by allowing this to happen.

    I have mentioned this before here, the crimes act has been decimated -important crimes act offences have been REPEALED.

    Information – the life blood of our police in tracking down crime, has been centralised with officers no longer permitted to run informants.

    Centralised information and strict control of informants from one source means only some information will ever be acted on.

    They have effectively strangled the good detectives and taken away their tools of trade – deliberately.

    Thats like asking a Carpenter to build a home without nails and a hammer – they have deliberately removed the tools of the trade from detectives. Which allows crime to run rampant, as we are all seeing.

    You will also notice recently police lies and deception on law abiding firearms owners – having their rights further strangled under the banner of Safety, while the entire Firearms enquiry ignored the concerns we all face with criminals obtaining and using firearms against law abiding citizens.

    This enquiry Ignored the very reason it was established to deal with – removing firearms from Criminals- not the law abiding public.

    We are all facing a rather unscrupulous agenda in NZ, we are all seeing good parents destroyed, kids harmed in the family court circus, basic rights denied, criminals permitted to run free and any chance of opportunity, prosperity and employment being sent offshore.

    Comment by hornet — Fri 26th May 2017 @ 4:40 pm

  3. A question and discussion for you all.

    Administrative reviews – were you all aware that the Rules of Evidence do NOT APPLY in the Review process.

    This explains WHY LIES and UNTRUTHS are permitted.

    It always bugged me for years as to why the TRUTH was irrelevant in these proceedings and how my ex was permitted to LIE with impunity in these hearings.

    It explains Why I was ignored and any facts I presented had absolutely no value or weight in the entire process. The rules of Evidence DO NOT APPLY.

    We all believe mistakenly that JUSTICE is based on TRUTH, JUSTICE which requires FAIRNESS – in fact in Commerce it is a Maxim to tell the TRUTH – TRUTH IN COMMERCE is an absolute.

    So all these Review decisions which are being made against parents DO NOT REQUIRE any TRUTH to be TOLD – to IGNORE the RULES OF EVIDENCE effectively means that you can say anything you like, you can LIE, you can be dishonest, you can be untrustworthy, no one will questions your credibility, or your integrity, or your honesty and you will not be held to account for lying and fabricating any story you like.

    So on the back of LIES and DISHONESTY a demand for debt with penalties can be formulated.

    This is very important to understand and get your head around – the entire Admin Review assessment process is a dishonest process – it is NOT based on FACTS, TRUTH or EVIDENCE.

    From these decisions – substantiated with NO TRUTH, NO EVIDENCE, NO FACTS, you are then held to account and forced to pay an alleged debt, on top of which you are then demanded to pay a commercial penalty.


    For without TRUTH we have no accountability and no means to hold those who LIE to account – and the present system is flourishing on this – trading on LIES and DECEPTION.

    Comment by hornet — Fri 26th May 2017 @ 5:04 pm

  4. So, what was the $500 fine for making a false statement about then?

    Comment by Downunder — Fri 26th May 2017 @ 5:27 pm

  5. Downunder what was that about? Is there a fine system in place. if there is let me know where I can find reference to it?

    These are the contradictions we need to ask questions about.

    The Commissioner is NOT bound to adhere to the Rules of Evidence when making decisions and this applies to Admin review process.

    So if there is fine system in place for making a false statement, then again this contradicts the rules of engagement and the manner in which they make determinations.

    They cant in one sense say we must adhere to the rules of evidence ( but allow Lies and UNTRUTHS to be told ) and then make decisions which ignore those rules of evidence – ignoring facts and truth – preferring what they call the balance of probabilities.

    There is another criteria in these decisions which I would also like to address and ask for comment here and that is the term “otherwise proper” which contradictorily asks if there is Evidence to show if anyone is harshly affected before such a decision can be otherwise proper. So again in one sense there is a reference to a requirement to see Evidence, and yet the ultimate decision is NOT bound by the rules of evidence – which is completely absurd.

    In the FAIR and JUST WORLD of Commerce – decisions are either made in accordance with all the requirements of Evidence – which require credibility, truthfulness, honesty and corroboration of facts sworn on oath or as appears to be the case in NZ – you can ignore all that and make a decision which ignores all rules of evidence.
    It would seem in the review process the IRD want a dollar each way ………using an anything goes policy – even accepting lies and falsehoods – my chid was even used to spy on our home – so they want to use any information true or false to fit what ever circumstance they choose on the day.

    And if they are NOT bound by the laws of evidence when making decisions against you – they can do exactly that every time.

    Comment by hornet — Fri 26th May 2017 @ 6:53 pm

  6. balance of probabilities

    the standard of proof in civil cases, demanding that the case that is the more probable should succeed. This is the kind of decision represented by the scales of justice. The court weighs up the evidence and decides which version is most probably true.

    Thus, the actual truth may never be known.

    All that is done in the Anglo-American system is to choose which of the combatants has presented the most probable version.

    If both seem equally balanced, then the person pursuing the case loses on the basis of the maxim melior est conditio defendentis, ‘better is the position of the defender’.

    I note the MAXIM above, which has never been applied in any review I have had to defend.

    In every case the position of the person pursuing the case ( my Ex ) has been given the win by IRD – so they have not adhered to this maxim in law.

    Comment by hornet — Fri 26th May 2017 @ 7:03 pm

  7. Hey Hornet,
    When you say your ex was given the win by IRD Im assuming you mean for child support/tax
    and you have had your time and evidence ignored by the review process.

    Comment by Mac — Fri 26th May 2017 @ 7:17 pm

  8. Mac, yes that is the case, every time, after going through these hearings = you realise early on the game is rigged, There does not appear to be any point presenting facts, evidence or truth since they count for nothing in these hearings.

    Lies appear to be the order of the day to support the PROBABLE argument ( since getting to the truth is not the focus ) and so from a legal standpoint I am reviewing the process by which they can and do allow this to occur.

    Using this assessment phase to make unjust, excessive debt demands against parents – which can be based on LIES – since they do not have to rely on TRUTH, FACTS or EVIDENCE when making a determination goes against all the laws of commercial agreement and contracts.

    Comment by hornet — Fri 26th May 2017 @ 8:52 pm

  9. Hornet@8 – You are saying what we all know to be true.I for one have been bled over a decade in this bullshit
    system where they take your earnings from you and it goes where.It goes to support another adult not the kids.
    The amount they calculate is bullshit.My kids live within walking distance to me and Im still paying alot of
    money that goes to the other parent.Its just plain wrong.My youngest is not allowed to stay with me overnite because the mother wants that money every month and if my kid stays with me then that could mean a review.But as you stated the review process is alot of rubbish anyway.Like you I realised early on that once you are in this IRD system your basically shafted.You can see why parents piss off overseas.

    Comment by Mac — Fri 26th May 2017 @ 9:49 pm

  10. They piss off because they got no backbone!

    I been in the system 12 years but I stayed and fought for 50/50 and got it !

    I don’t pay a cent and have an awesome bond with my son.

    Sure there is problems, shitloads , but work towards more contact and they will willing come to you.

    Comment by Buster — Sat 27th May 2017 @ 7:46 am

  11. 4 fucks sake guys

    Did you know that in your hearings with IRD you can request copies of the recordings or ask that they be so.

    then when you catch them out post it on-line and nail the assholes. If you are aggrieved then imagine how your kids are feeling as they got NO say ( like a child with a bowl full of ice-cream and they have no hands!).

    Hornet your right about the GUN laws

    Comment by Buster — Sat 27th May 2017 @ 7:53 am

  12. Only 12 years Buster, I’m past 20 years and still going.

    Yes, a lot can happen in 20 years, that’s even long enough for my legally required solicitor to become the Principal Family Court Judge.

    Comment by Downunder — Sat 27th May 2017 @ 8:04 am

  13. Buster@10 – Problem I had was the other parent brainwashed my kids not to stay with me.This went on for years and still does.I did spend as much time as I could with my children.My youngest child wanted to stay with me but ever time she went back to the mother she changed her mind.The mother very controlling and manipulative.
    Sure you can go to the family court and I did on several occasions but when they interviewed kids on staying with me the mothers influence was too strong and they wouldnt say anything.How did you mange to get 50/50 with
    your son thats awesome thats what I wanted.

    Comment by Mac — Sat 27th May 2017 @ 9:42 am

  14. @12 At least you know you can’t have PTSD yet.

    Comment by Evan Myers — Sat 27th May 2017 @ 12:05 pm

  15. Buster @10, if having no back bone is defined as “migrating to another country where you don’t have to deal with the unfair discrimination shown by your own country towards you by – for example denying you rights to your own children etc etc” then sign me up for “having no back bone”, as I would not be ashamed of that. I am glad however things have worked out well for you.

    Comment by martin — Sat 27th May 2017 @ 2:10 pm

  16. @11 – Whlle interesting to note you can request a copy of the audio (I must do that), that doesn’t actually fix the problem – having had a review and lost (supposing you are the paying parent not the applicant) now you have only one choice – take it to the Family Circus and of course who is there to listen to all your financial affairs – yes your ex, who you don’t want to have a bar of. Now how is that just? In my honest opinion it is a system deliberately designed to be divisive – the state wants broken homes, that way it can get away with low wages, poverty, etc etc. I would love to know the number of judges that end up in the FC. Divide et impera – divide and conquer – the oldest trick in the book!

    Comment by martin — Sat 27th May 2017 @ 2:19 pm

  17. Martin@16 – Im with you on this one mate.It is a family circus.Been there and seen how it works.
    Im now wating until im out of this system and get my financial freedom back.Im not sure how old your kids are and how much longer you have to deal with this crap but you have my sympathy.

    Comment by mac — Sat 27th May 2017 @ 3:20 pm

  18. Okay 20 years wow!

    Sorry to hear that Downunder! We all in the same boat, however I would agree that having more than one child is a shit load harder. I have only one. My son was manipulated, Kidnapped, I was accused of incest assaults and ooohhh those boys in blue yeah them too!

    Guess what the mother in law worked for the Poolice for 20+ years and they knew how to fuck me up and my file without me finding out until I requested a copy of it!

    So yeah no different to what WE ALL face, however you never give up. WHAT you have to do is get SMARTER on how you turn it back on them always record everything always copy yourself in so they don’t see the Bcc or Cc. Keep bloody everything. My son is my backbone and he is my rock.

    Martin – leaving just doubles your DRAMA and Australia is worse not better.
    Stop being an island and seek support, I had one man help me JIM BAGNALL and I remember when I gave him $200 for his time, he was stunned ( I latter found out he didn’t need money when I worked for him for 8 weeks on his house in Pt Chevalier.) Point was I obtained a great friend and support person along with another Mick the Electrician, a pommie and a guy that got fucked from ass hole to breakfast for his troubles of wanting to keep contact with his kids. His story was jaw dropping ( 10 bloody false Protection Orders).

    Comment by Buster — Sat 27th May 2017 @ 5:59 pm

  19. Martin

    Your ex is not entitled to attend any hearing regarding your personal circumstances about tax and IRD, not sure were you got that from. Yes you are correct the system is designed to FUCK you OVER , and so many of us allow it to happen, NOT ME MATE.

    I will die on my feet rather than live on my knees, good thing is now those pricks at the Family Court know it!

    Whatever it takes to keep contact and hours of work. Yep we all lose a lot me my entire house, and family so now there is only one and damn is worth it.

    Comment by Buster — Sat 27th May 2017 @ 6:05 pm

  20. Paedophiles

    Okay Guys this one is my pet hate

    I hate all pedophiles and want them all slaughtered! If you think its okay for an adult to stick his dick in a 10 year old GIRLS mouth while under duress I have no idea why you are on this website

    A good pedophile is a dead one end of story and a pedophile is never sorry until he is caught so there you have it a thread I hope ends very quickly. REMEMBER nothing is secret no matter how good a sites protection is. Anonymity is just that a WORD so be very careful about that topic

    Have a great day guys and seek help and support when needed over custody. Good Luck

    Comment by Buster — Sat 27th May 2017 @ 6:11 pm

  21. If you think its okay for an adult to stick his dick in a 10 year old GIRLS mouth while under duress I have no idea why you are on this website

    There is a lot of talk about male paedophiles. Not all research looks equally hard at both genders of paedophiles. There have been many researchers who looked only for male paedophiles and that is what they found.

    When researchers have taken care to look in a manner with equal chance to detect women as men, there have been about the same number of women as men found, possibly slightly more women. Really, the exact balance isn’t important, it is the damage done that is the most important issue. Commonly women have much more opportunity to have sexual relationships with young children.

    As many police don’t believe that women could possibly take sexual advantage of children, when situations come to their attention, they are ignored, helped without being reported to police etc. Thus distorting the statistics.

    There has been an attitude among counsellors and police, that women sexual offenders do less harm to child victims. Again, this may be used as a reason to not report. Or the woman may be seen as a victim herself (the same is true of most male paedophiles too). As women are less likely to be reported if detected, they usually have less fear of prosecution. So they don’t tend to put as much pressure onto children, to not report. For this reason, they might cause less harm. Women counsellors would often refuse to believe boys who spoke of being sexually assaulted by their mother or some other woman. This often further traumatised the boy. This prejudice among counsellors is less common today, than 20 years ago.

    Complicated set of issues. But these issues should be properly taken care of. Children should be protected from all adults, of both sexes.

    Similarly, we should offer help and treatment to both sexes of offenders.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sat 27th May 2017 @ 9:39 pm

  22. Buster @20 – It is IRD Child support review, nothing to do with tax. I got that information from the booklet they send to you with their determination.

    Buster @21 & MurrayBacon @21 – I don’t think you have this comment on the right thread. However you don’t get it. I am sure what you mean is that you hate child sex offenders. Pedophiles haven’t necessarily hurt anyone. It’s like saying guns kill people. Have you ever seen a gun getting charged for murder? OK bas analogy, but a pedophile is just a person who has a perversion in the head, not someone who acts it out.

    Comment by martin — Sat 27th May 2017 @ 11:47 pm

  23. Buster @20; Buster, Come on Buster . . . show me the contribution on this site where anyone has written that, I am Quoting you “If you think its okay for an adult to stick his dick in a 10 year old GIRLS mouth while under duress I have no idea why you are on this website”. Maybe I’m not carefully reading this stuff coz if its there, I missed it. Nobody here is voicing the opinion you have written, and I doubt any hold it secretly either. I sympathise with anyone who has a noxious fettish endangering them and ruining their families and their lives. I advocate trying to treat them heal them – not murder them. Murder would be violence and that too should not be advocated on this site. And as per my referencing those mothers who dress their child daughters as if slutty adults, they also are relevent to the paedophilia discussion, because they must be aware of paedophilia, but knowingly make their children into jail-bait anyway.

    Comment by Jerry — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 6:17 am

  24. Martin or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

    Your question is one in the same. I say again a paedophile is never guilty until they are CAUGHT.
    I find your simple logic disturbing , however you are providing an interesting profile of your belief system. Be careful what you put up because copy and paste can provide a time line and a thread is not safe on any site. I am providing my agenda on this topic openly.

    Jerry – You forgot the fundamentals, A paedophile needs first to acknowledge there is a problem (most don’t or won’t) there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support this.

    Secondly, whilst I agree with your statement about mums and their predilection to dress girls (sometimes like sluts), the overriding issue is that an adult knows EXACTLY what their intentions are thus they have power to STOP, children are innocent.

    Please don’t say that you blame the mother when the perpetrator doesn’t give a shit he/she justs sees meat! When I see a women dressed with the express intention of revealing her Assets!! I still don’t go and act on it, what your suggestion is that we should all turn our heads in contempt. That my friend is evolution and how the species survives. I couldn’t live in a world were we all dress like nuns!

    I would take all, thats all serial paedophiles from prison and bump them out of a plane at 15,000 feet so thus optimum terminal velocity is achieved and put the Go Pro right on them so that the next wanna be paedophile can see his fate prior to his/her actions.

    If you think you can convert a serial paedophile or rapist (Malcolm Rewa) then good Sir you are in La-La Land.

    I say again be careful on this topic as nothing on the INTERNET is neither safe or unattainable.
    Martin you are providing an interesting profile.
    These are only my views as a father and as we can see when admission is given then support most follow and I admire that quality and hope that it helps. did you know the largest concentration of paedophiles (convicted ones) live in the Hawkes Bay.

    Comment by Buster — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 6:49 am

  25. Buster@24 – Adults who abuse children need to be dismantled.Have to agree with your views on paedophiles.
    Never guilty until they are caught and wont admit or acknowledge that what they have done is wrong.
    Our children need to be protected against these predators fullstop.Can you convert a paedophile I doubt it as well.

    Comment by mac — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 7:49 am

  26. dress their daughters as slutty adults

    Is perhaps better described another way.

    In the preservation of society a woman’s focus is on reproduction and producing in turn another good mother.

    In the sophistication of society when sexual and reproduction behaviors separate the woman’s focus changes to make her daughter the most attractive and above competition from other daughters.

    Comment by Evan Myers — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 8:55 am

  27. Mac and Buster – I don’t think it is one and the same. To believe that a thought results in automatic action then there no hope for any person – a man sees his partner in bed with another and thinks “I’m going to strangle him/her” – are you saying he has to then do that? I doubt you believe that, yet you are saying that all pedophiles will molest children. I would imagine that it would be hard to know where the largest concentration of pedophiles are, because what you are talking about is convicted child sex offenders.

    I never mentioned the probability of being able transform the individuals way of thinking. Lets suppose the status quo continues – we continue to label people who even think of these actions (molesting children), do you think that one of these people is going to come forward and say “Dr I’m looking for help, I am attracted to children, I don’t think it’s right, I need to do something about it, can you help?”. I know this is possibly a long shot, but if this person feels that they are going to be imprisoned just for having the thoughts then they are unlikely to seek help. If you look at it from another angle, a guy sees a pretty young girl in the street, one thing leads to another and it turns out she is below the legal age – does that make him a pedophile – I ‘m sure you will say no. What if he knows she is young, walks past her and thinks to himself “I’d like to give her one” does that make him a criminal, I wouldn’t think so. But if I apply your argument Buster I should. I don’t have any experience with child sex offenders (I had to look that up) and am sure what they do is barbaric to say the least, but I am not with you on the “need to be dismantled”, but thats a different argument.

    I have to say the same Buster, you ar providing an interesting profile, as you have looked up the definition, and still continue to equate pedophile with child sex offender, which is not the same thing, despite the media having encourage you to think that way. In fact you are even implying that anyone (me) you tries to correct this mistake could well be one also.

    Comment by martin — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 9:20 am

  28. I say for the last time “It is NOT an offense to be a pedophile” certainly not in this country!
    Read Here!
    Or Pedophile

    Comment by martin — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 9:26 am

  29. Buster @24

    I say again a paedophile is never guilty until they are CAUGHT.

    At which point would you have them dropped at 15000 ft?
    When they are accused?
    When they are charged?
    When they are convicted?

    Comment by Voices back from the bush — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 9:28 am

  30. @26 Going back to the debate on Muriel Newman’s shared parenting bill, some silly bitch in the Labour camp screamed that it was like treating children like chattels (fridge and washing machine from memory were used to clarify that).

    Of course that’s totally different to a woman’s right to make her daughter the most sexually attractive, without interference from any male, especially the father.

    Comment by Downunder — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 9:34 am

  31. 30 yeah thats a totally different thing. Making them pretty on the outside “ass and tits hanging out” gives them confidence and self assurance and makes them pretty on the inside as well.
    Just the same as covering your fridge with magnets and hope phrases keeps your cheese longer.

    Dr Newman identified Lianne Dalziel as the principal oppnonent to a shared parenting bill. (Proposed three times).
    Dalziel was said to belive that it would undo all the good work that had been done.

    Comment by Voices back from the bush — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 9:43 am

  32. I was impressed by Dr Newmans presentation at the men’s summit.

    She and her husband, Frank are also the authours of the book ‘how to live off the smell of an oily rag’.

    A couple of weeks ago I got around to forwarding her a note of thanks.

    Her reply included:

    Yes, the law was very unfair to separating families, as a result of the pressure of the feminist movement, and while it may have improved to some extent, a great deal more needs to be done to bring about true ‘parenting equality’.
    The men’s groups do a great job of providing good advice and support – it’s just a real shame that resourcing is so difficult for many of them.

    Comment by Voices back from the bush — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 10:17 am

  33. Martin@27 – Yes I see from the definition there is a difference between the word pedophile and child sex offender.Point taken.For me to clarify I refer to convicted child sex offenders who are the pedophiles that have acted out.They are low life and should never be allowed anywhere near children. Serial offenders should be locked up indefinetly.Our children are innocent and need to be protected.

    Comment by mac — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 10:21 am

  34. Evan @26; I give you all of that. But if that is true, the same mitigation goes for men who will prefer younger – therefore most fertile females. It is hypocritical to puff on about paedophiles on one hand; while making choices on the other hand which encourage males to see youngsters in a sexual way.
    As for other comments here – really they give me a chill. I am innocent, always was, and always will be. Never thought it in my darkest thoughts – but have been accused twice, and had a gun pointed at me by a guy who sound exactly like some of you do. Same will apply to others here. I feel the seeds of the “WITCH-HUNT HYSTERIA” have germanated ane are sprouting rapidly are on the site. This reveals much about those I have been honestly and candidly sharing with. I now FEAR YOU. I have come across this before. So how can those riding this high-horse protest any injustice put upon them? They of course think we should trust and believe in them, but they don’t expect to treat others as they themselves feel entitled to be treated. There was a very thinly veiled accusation that some of us a paedophiles and predators of children. Standing up for equal principles and justice for everyone does not amount to being guilty. Take a good look at yourselves. The double standards in this is revolting. And what does your hollier than thou attitude do in helping to change real predators of children? You advocate brutal action against them, but I point out that Mr Pierrepoint – Executioner of England – the one who hanged around 450 persons {some innocents} was quoted in an interview of saying that capital punnishment achieves nothing. Reckon he should know. You don’t just make the real predators fear and go under cover – but you effect a lot of innocents too. How dare you . . !!!!

    Comment by Jerry — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 10:37 am

  35. @32 if I happen to see her, I’ll tell her she is right – In 20 years nothing has changed.

    Comment by Downunder — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 10:38 am

  36. 35, I pleased though Dr Newman hasn’t given up.

    Her reply also included:

    And regarding family law, I will be writing about it in my NZCPR newsletters ( next month, when I pull together some ideas on the best way forward.

    We’d do well to take a leaf.
    For us Dr Newman is -a bird in hand.

    Comment by Voices back from the bush — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 10:55 am

  37. Jerry@34 – I can see how the witch hunt hysteria you mention may gather momentum from one size fits all comments about pedophiles and sex offenders.Of course its not that cut and dried and every situation is going
    to be different.
    The Mr Pierrepoint reference could be seen as being the reaction from the masses to just
    lynch offenders end of story.Your right that this mentality will cast a wide net where innocent people
    are caught up in and thats wrong.
    For me specifically I dont believe a convicted serial child sex offender,convicted serial pedophile offender
    should be allowed out in the community.Im referencing the very worst offenders here of child abuse/crimes.
    These offenders do not think they have done anything wrong i.e its just normal behaviour to them.
    They dont give a shit and dont want any help.They have to be stopped so childrens lives arent ruined

    Comment by Mac — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 4:05 pm

  38. I have not seen any contribution which supports or excuses the abuse of children on this site. So what really is going on here – rhetorical? I think the Lynch Mob is here on MENZ. Contributors here have no right to bleat about injustice against them in the courts, under feminism or by the IRD or any other kind as long as they reserve special exceptions for some others guilty or not. I have seen posts here some time back which have advocated killing people – so what, advocate violence & murder, but then mount one’s highly selective moral horse in regards to others? I actually can’t know the contributions I see here portray the truth in a balanced way. I took that on trust and in good faith, but this now looks quite ugly and pointless to me. I’m now convinced its pointless me being here. Justice like free speech and the freedom to have one’s opinions should be sacrosanct.

    Comment by Jerry — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 5:07 pm

  39. Yes there is no contribution which supports or excuses the abuse of children on this site.
    Not sure if my previous comments are what you are referring to or someone elses
    when you say reserve special exceptions for some others guilty or not.
    Was it that or something else.

    Comment by Mac — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 5:51 pm

  40. Jerry @38 – sadly I tend to agree with what you say – however, rationally speaking, you have to tolerate others, including those you would advocate violence.

    Maybe the rules of the site should be changed to reflect a set of beliefs such as “no tolerance of violence towards anyone” or something like that. Ironically I’m the one that will be up in court next month for violence (at least accusations of the domestic kind). I’ll tell you what though, I’d rather hear honest opinion than some form of censored opinion.

    Comment by martin — Sun 28th May 2017 @ 7:50 pm

  41. Wow!

    No hysteria here just peoples opinions, that’s democracy working.

    Comment by Buster — Tue 30th May 2017 @ 8:18 am

  42. @32 Not sure if that’s a bad taste joke or just a bit rich; someone who previously wrote books about easy money, now writing about living off the smell of oily rag?

    Comment by Evan Myers — Tue 30th May 2017 @ 11:31 am

  43. @41 give us all a whittle stick and a lump of fat, and all will be well in the world.

    Comment by Evan Myers — Tue 30th May 2017 @ 11:33 am

  44. 42 can you supply a reference to your critisism please?

    Comment by Voices back from the bush — Tue 30th May 2017 @ 11:49 am

  45. Ask Frank for a complete list of his publications back to the 1980s.

    Comment by Evan Myers — Tue 30th May 2017 @ 1:17 pm

  46. Im a bit of a sceptical sort of bloke. Some might say cynical.
    As much as I realise these aren’t good qualities, I have no intention to change.
    As opposed to common practice, when I hear an accusation- be it a small thing or a serious crime, I dont follow the usual method of finding someone to blame or confronting those accused.
    I question the allegations truthfullness until I am certain that wrongdoing has occourred in the first place.
    More than half the time I find that allegations are simply allegations.

    And the truth is usually revealed that the accusers agenda is source of the allegations light.

    Comment by Voices back from the bush — Tue 30th May 2017 @ 2:57 pm

  47. Someone gave me Karl Popper’s book to read, which I did, said, “thank you,” and gave it back.

    Comment by Evan Myers — Tue 30th May 2017 @ 3:06 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

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