Special Treatment for Women
Special privileged treatment of women by our judiciary and media continues as normal.
In one case this week, the Coroner found that a woman killed an innocent person by driving into the victim’s car in a suicide attempt. The killer refused to cooperate with the police investigation claiming she couldn’t remember, she refused to give evidence at her trial for manslaughter and it appears that the Court also disallowed relevant evidence, so the jury didn’t have enough evidence to find her guilty. However, the Coroner was able to consider all relevant evidence and the truth was clear. The killer woman had a history of suicidal thoughts and her father had previously called police to report she was suicidal, telling police that “there is also a chance she might just drive into someone and kill herself or someone else”. Yet even the Coroner tried to downplay her culpability by expressing a belief that she made a ‘snap decision’ to drive into the victim’s car and that she didn’t mean to cause any harm to the victim. WTF? These just seem to be convenient ways for a white knight to reduce a woman’s blame. The Coroner also ordered name suppression for this selfish killer. Are women to be protected from all accountability for their wrongdoing? She’s probably out driving again as we speak.
In another case, teenage woman Lana Tutty is wanted by police who have issued a mugshot and appeal for information. However, the police refused to state what crime she is alleged to have committed. Why? This doesn’t seem typical for males wanted by police. An article on Stuff reported she faces charges for Assault with Intent to Injure and Wilful Trespass. This is serious stuff and surely the police owe the public a warning that she is dangerous. Also, without knowing the nature of the charges against her the public are less likely to feel motivated to assist police. Note also that the NZ White-Knight Herald’s story on this case attempts to turn this violent offender into a folk hero. It states nothing about her alleged crimes or dangerousness but focuses only on her ‘thumbs up’ response to the police release, how many ‘likes’ her response received and what a successful fugitive she is. Ho ho ho, what fun when a woman commits serious violence and tries to evade police.
This is typical of the court system in this country the woman can say what she likes and is taken as the truth even in accusations on crimes as serious as rape.but even when she is found out on lies still nothing is done.to bad for the person that was accused and there family.makes me so angry.just pull the old memory trick what crap! But yet if a male tried this hell no way.
Comment by Deb — Thu 12th January 2017 @ 3:43 pm
It never takes long for further examples of female privilege to arise in our media. In this one yesterday, Gaylyne Fowler through jealousy had printed off naked photos of the woman with whom her husband had been having an affair, and had distributed those photos with cut out letters from newspapers naming the woman to various people including the woman’s own husband. At the time she did this she had already separated from her husband due to his affair. For her jealous psychological violence she was charged and convicted for Offensive Behaviour and was fined $250.
The first pussy pass for Ms Fowler was probably from the police in regard to the offence with which she was charged, carrying a maximum punitive tariff of a $1000 fine. If a male had obtained compromizing images stolen from his ex-wife’s phone or computer and had copied and distributed those images in order to take revenge on her, you might expect police to charge him with something more serious. For example:
– Receiving Stolen Property (Crimes Act s247) (in this case images stolen from the ex-husband’s private computer or phone) carries a maximum punitive tariff of 7 years imprisonment;
– Dishonestly Taking or Using a Document (Crimes Act s 228) carries a punitive tariff of 7 years imprisonment;
– Accessing Computer System Without Authorization (Crimes Act s252) carries a punitive tariff of 2 years’ imprisonment;
– Possessing an Intimate Recording (Crimes Act s 216I) carries a punitive tariff of 3 years imprisonment;
– Publishing (including displaying) (Crimes Act s216J) an Intimtate Recording carries a punitive tariff of 3 years imprisonment.
The second pussy pass was from the sentencing judge who, even though Ms Fowler was clearly without remorse, felt entirely justified regarding her offending and indeed stated she would do the same again, gave her a trivial punishment that was only one quarter of the maximum tariff for even the trivial offence she was charged with, without reparation for any of the victims. Even if Ms Fowler had been charged with a more serious and commensurate offence, the judge would probably only have given a trivial sentence.
The third pussy pass was from the White Knight NZ Herald that gave this offender a soap box to boast about her offence, to justify it and to make it clear she felt no remorse; essentially to continue her psychological violence against her ex husband and his lover. Nothing in the article mentioned the harm to the victims of her offending or showed any consideration towards them. It’s appalling that the Herald would condone criminal offending in this way.
Nothing herein is intended to support the infidelity committed by Ms Fowler’s husband or his lover. We continue to support some formal consequences for marital infidelity both by the married person and any other person who fails to respect another person’s marital commitment. Such consequences would reduce the risk that people like Ms Fowler take it upon themselves to carry out revenge violence.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sat 14th January 2017 @ 10:02 am
Incidentally, s216G of the Crimes Act and its associated sections, involve yet another example of gender specific sexist law favouring women. The definition of ‘intimate recording’ specifies ‘female breasts’ and excludes male breasts as being ‘intimate’. This law is a recent one so we see that our parliament is concerned to avoid gender specificity only when this might benefit males but has no problem maintaining and extending gender inequality when women might be specially privileged or protected by it. We have previously challenged anyone to identify any gender-specific law that favours men but as yet none have come to light.
It’s true that female breasts are more associated with sex than are male breasts and that it’s considered more acceptable for men than for women to display their bare breasts. However, this is only a cultural norm given that the nipples of both genders are erogenous zones, a man’s chest is a source of attraction to women, and other cultures don’t have any special attitude to women baring their breasts. Further, some men would experience at least as much embarrassment and sense of invaded privacy as women if their breasts were photographed and distributed unauthorized. For example, some men have gender atypical breast development and others don’t have manly chests, and surely they deserve as much right to privacy as women do? For our parliament to provide a special status to women’s breasts, including criminally punishing men for possessing images of women’s breasts in certain circumstances but not men’s breasts similarly, is simply and entirely sexist.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sat 14th January 2017 @ 10:37 am
Re section s216G:
This does appear to be yet nother example of gender inequality. This was most likely proposed by a woman who has “deep rooted breast issues”.
These issues may include;
No man ever having been interested in her breasts and there may be a wide range of reasons for this.
For example:
“inverted nipples”
Persistent hair growth around the areola.
Breasts touching her knees (lets assume she is of normal leg length)
So rotund that her breasts are indistinguishable and appear as another roll.
She may be a “Pirates Dream” with a “Sunken Chest”.
She may be your typical “hair in a bob”, “dumpy’, “lonely”, “gender biased old fart box rug muncher and fully paid up member of rug munchers refuge”
She may even be a “Breast Cyclops” with only one breast in the middle or even “Terminator Breast Woman” with three breasts.
For all of the aforementioned suggestions she may be concerned that she is only wanted “For Her Mind”.
It would appear that woman with no “deep rooted breast issues”, with appealing breasts, proud breasts, breasts that lead, breasts with personality, breasts that are smooth and yearn attention will be disadvantaged.
What do we think “Madonna” must think of New Zealand. Next thing, her stage costumes will be outlawed by the same breast disadvantaged.
Comment by simon Grat — Sat 14th January 2017 @ 12:35 pm
simon Grat @ 4. Don’t quite follow your reasoning. The law basically says it’s criminal to make, possess or distribute a recording of a woman’s naked breasts but not a man’s. Thus women have a special, gender-specific legal protection of privacy regarding their breasts that men don’t.
You may be thinking this law somehow makes breasts indecent or baring them illegal, but that’s not the case.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sat 14th January 2017 @ 6:22 pm
Yes I do get it.
There are many women out there who are proud of their breasts. This law or its specific section relating to women’s breasts is likely to have been proposed by a woman or women with their own “deep rooted issues of breast inadequacy”.
It is an example of gender inequality as has been pointed out, with the potential motives for the inclusion of women’s breasts (but not men’s breasts) as I have pointed out.
What other motive could apply for a law to be proposed that it be “a criminal offense to make, possess or distribute a recording of women’s naked breasts but not men’s naked breasts”?
I am examining the potential motive behind such drivel.
Comment by simon Grat — Sat 14th January 2017 @ 9:12 pm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=11784576
http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/crime/ten-police-officers-injured-in-sydney-domestic/news-story/81d5fb527254836e4a8268591ef5adf5
Interesting to see what the outcome will be compared to the male case.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 19th January 2017 @ 2:54 pm
OMG, how blatant can pussy passes get? Oriwa Kemp, one of those who participated in and was previously jailed for the sustained, horrific violence that ended up killing little 3yo Nia Glassie, has just pleaded guilty to assaulting her current male partner and failing to appear in Court. A further charge of breaching a ‘protection’ order (that was in place because she had previously assaulted the same partner) was dropped by the police. For the current assault she was sentenced to, wait for it, 12 MONTHS’ SUPERVISION AND A PARENTING HELP COURSE!
The chivalrous judge discharged Kemp for the failure to appear.
So we have an offender with a long history of violence, who also didn’t show up to Court as required, getting a helping sentence rather than any punishment. Why? Because she didn’t have a penis.
As for the ‘parenting help course’, that’s a bit rich given that all of her children have been removed from her care by CYFS. She’s pregnant again now and this one will also be removed. Was the judge perhaps thinking that if she did a parenting course CYFS would let her keep the next baby and she will magically change to become a good citizen?
Where are the feminists shrieking in objection to such inequitable treatment of partner violence? Where are the media interviews giving the likes of Amy Adams, Kim McGregor and Catriona MacLennan a chance to spout about family violence and how abusers aren’t treated harshly enough?
Oh, that’s right, I forgot. This offender was female and the victim was a man so he must have deserved it. It’s ok for women to bash men, and a man is to blame if he makes a woman angry. This worthless representative of the rubbish male gender wasn’t cooperating with Kemp’s every demand so, go girl! Kemp was a woman so she must have been the ‘primary victim’ who had no choice but to hit out. Yeah, women can do anything (and get away with it). Partner violence, like racism and sexism, doesn’t count unless the victim is a woman. And so forth.
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 23rd January 2017 @ 8:10 pm
If it wasn’t for her history- this would’ve just been another case of – Man assaults female.
Comment by Voices back from the bush — Mon 23rd January 2017 @ 9:59 pm
It a miracle.
A women might face charges for lies in regard to domestic violence.
Well…maybe.
And there’s a twist.
No suprise of course.
The victim was female.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=11783279
Linton said she called the police because she “wanted the argument to stop”.
Wow the police provide a stop the argument service.
Just for females.
IE no offence was taking place.
Is wasting police time an offence?
“After speaking to a lawyer, Linton accepted she had told the police about an assault but that she had made it up.”
Your kidding.
I didn’t think women could lie about domestic violence.
“Ms Durham has suffered on at least three occasions where she has been arrested and placed in custody.”
So the victim was arrested 3 times over this?
I don’t get that.
It not like what she was accused of doing was at the bad end of DV.
Here it is.
“Though it was out of his hands, the judge said it was likely Linton would be charged with making a false statement.”
Don’t worry a white knight will come to the rescue.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 24th January 2017 @ 5:10 pm
Women that kill there partners are not monsters like men.
It’s the mans fault.
And women wouldn’t lie would they.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/united-states/news/article.cfm?l_id=110&objectid=11787661
“reveals the shocking stories of female prisoners who were driven to murder, according to Daily Mail.”
Women are driven to murder.
Men murder for power and control, apparently.
“Amber, whose husband Josh died when she pushed him out of their apartment window 25 floors up following a violent row, maintains that she was acting in self defense on the show”
What? A violent row.
Meaning a heated argument.
Not beaten and fearing for her life.
Following?
Meaning any danger had passed and things had cooled down.
“The 5ft 5-tall prisoner describes the moments leading up to 6ft 6-tall US Air Force Veteran Josh’s death, and how the pair argued and he attacked her, before she retaliated by pushing him.”
Yeh right. That’s a bit far fetched.
He never saw it coming.
“and includes chilling original CCTV footage of her admitting to her grandmother that she had pushed her husband out of the window.”
There it is.
She was not telling the truth to the police about what happened.
They needed a seperate source to get a confession.
Nothing she says can be believed.
“Amber, who married Josh when she was 18, was seven months pregnant when she was sentenced”
Maybe she got pregnant without his consent and he didn’t like it.
That would have really pissed her off.
Another honesty thing.
In the other case.
“Crime scene evidence helped to convict her after experts proved that blood spatter patterns meant her version of events was very different to what the evidence showed.”
Agian.
He was attacking me.
It was self defence.
All bullshit.
It is amazing how these feminist media entities view the world around them.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 24th January 2017 @ 10:23 pm
Yes, good observations DJ Ward. Retaliation is not the same as self-defence, but when women retaliate by murdering men the feminists insist it is, inventing convenient terms such as ‘slow burn provocation’ and ‘battered woman’s syndrome’ to excuse the woman’s violence. Of course, some cases didn’t even have anything much to retaliate for.
Comment by Man X Norton — Tue 24th January 2017 @ 10:36 pm
This case is interesting for a few reasons.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/84182375/dead-baby-autopsy-revealed-dunedin-father-and-daughter-had-second-child-together
“In court on Wednesday the judge sentenced the 37-year-old man to six months’ community detention and two years of intensive supervision. His 23-year-old daughter is subject to judicial monitoring.”
Two adults.
Same crime.
Different sentences.
“Crown prosecutor Craig Power said the man showed little remorse over his offending and remained a risk, while the woman was in need of psychological counselling.”
Male = offender, continued risk
Female = victim needs help.
Little remorse? I wonder why?
“Court documents showed that when the man was 14 years old, he had a sexual relationship with his 30-year-old foster mother, resulting in the birth of his daughter.”
Now let’s see.
The 30 year old wasn’t prosecuted as it was not a crime for women to have sex with children.
A male that did that would be charged with rape.
Also male victims of child sex offending have a high risk of becoming offenders themselves.
So she wasn’t prosecuted so why should he.
How can he have remorse.
He can only have contempt.
“He had little contact with his daughter until she was 16.”
Also since when do victims of a sex crime not inherently get custody of the child?
With the sex offender being banned.
When the sex abuse victim is the father.
Probably made to pay child support too.
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 25th January 2017 @ 8:29 pm
Yes, an interesting incest case DJ Ward. Rachel Smalley had a piece in the NZ Herald today asking why this couple, more so the male, are not being treated in the mental health system. We sent her the following message:
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 26th January 2017 @ 9:11 am
This has to get the mother of the year award
http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/wa-mother-who-starved-baby-to-be-sentenced/news-story/89f30e3a4f78771bc37138a6c90aad7f
“Thompson didn’t want Destiny as she was unplanned and a constant reminder of the infant’s biological father, her meth dealer who wanted nothing to do with them.”
Blame the bad man.
Didn’t want child, and child died.
1+1 does not equal 2 apparently
Just negligence.
Meth is of course a vile drug.
Why didn’t the medical profession, midwives, plunket pick this up.
Where’s the dad to the other children?
What would happen if a father did and admitted these things?
Comment by DJ Ward — Sun 29th January 2017 @ 4:57 pm
DJ Ward @15: Yes, we await the merciful sentence and the sentencing judge’s kind, understanding comments blaming some man or men, as is typical for female offenders.
Lenient treatment of women compared to men seems to occur across the western world. In England this group of 3 women decided a football player who went out with them was a ‘dork’ or ‘dick’ (the middle letters were censored; and the feminists keep complaining about how demeaning our language is to women…) so they sexually attacked, humiliated and terrorized him. The ringleader was sentenced to 31 months jail, one of the other women was sentenced to 10 months and the third woman was yet to be sentenced (probably she’s getting assessed to blame her violence on a psychiatric problem caused by some male). It’s good to see that women are jailed sometimes, but really, a group of males doing the same thing to a female could expect longer sentences, and the feminists would likely be protesting if such males were given the sentences these women received.
Keep reminding us all that men are the violent ones and women the victims.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 29th January 2017 @ 5:19 pm
Where was the making an intimate visual recording charge?
Stupefied charge?
Making a false statement charge?
Yes she did the males did bad thing lie.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sun 29th January 2017 @ 5:36 pm
It’s relatively ok for women to murder, as shown by the glowing excuses the judge made about this murdering woman, the pussy pass provided by our prosecuting authority and the biased, supportive article written about this woman’s homicidal violence.
The feminists are still well on the way to convincing parliament to give women a legal right to murder men under various excuses none of which amount to self-defence.
Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 3rd February 2017 @ 4:15 pm
The lead article.
A women killed an innocent person by driving into victims car.
Is an example how women are treated by the justice system.
This is an example how males get treated.
He was a stupid idiot who did not mean to kill.
The victim being partly responsible due to not wearing a seat belt.
Also just as guilty to the theft.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/89041116/shay-robert-richards-sentenced-to-jail-for-crash-that-killed-invercargill-teen-nakita-strange.
Notice this part.
“Justice Gendall said Richards’ sentence had to send a message to young drivers, particularly young men.”
So the judge admits he was punished harsher just due to being a young male.
Not for killing someone due to reckless driving.
Because if that’s all his sentence was for it would be the same as the females.
Nothing.
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 3rd February 2017 @ 5:08 pm
DJ Ward (#19): Good example of comparative gender justice, thanks. And the judge’s comment that sentencing had to send a message to ‘particularly young men’! How can such sexism be tolerated? What if a judge in sentencing a Maori offender said a message had to be sent ‘particularly to Maori’? Wow, the Human Rights Commissioners would be out in force, the UN would send a special investigator and our media wouldn’t leave the story alone for weeks. But men are an acceptable target for any discrimination, stereotyping and abuse.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sat 4th February 2017 @ 9:51 am
Is there a different legal system for women?
The case might convince you that there is.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/89061027/woman-burned-toddler-with-hot-fish-slice
“The sentence needed to defer and denounce Lieven’s actions and send a message to the wider community about this kind of offending, because assaults on children were unacceptable.”
We can all agree on that.
“Lieven had pleaded guilty to the offending from the outset”
Then this.
“She was originally charged with wounds to intent to cause grievous bodily harm, but Judge Harland dismissed this charge.”
Admitted guilt but judge withdrew her guilt?
Never ever heard of that happening to a male.
But wait there is more.
“During her summing up, Judge Harland took into consideration the woman had appropriately treated the injury with cold water and ointment and seemed remorseful about her actions, but this did not excuse the offending.”
Judge didn’t excuse the offending but the judge excused the offending?
No she didn’t appropriately treat the injury.
The injury was obviously not appropriately treated. All bad burns should have water put on them. Then the victim should be taken to the doctor. The ointment failed as it was destined to fail due to the severity of the burn. That was the attempt to cover up the injury in the misguided hope she would get away with the offending.
Guess that child would never have been allowed to go to a kindergarten.
Nappy change due.
Hey look at this fish slice pattern printed on the child’s butt.
“I unreservedly accept you did not intend to hurt [the child],” she said.
What, that’s just nuts.
So when she accidentally pressed the fish slice on the bum cheek resulting in the smoke of burnt flesh in her face. Why would you place a fish slice on a child’s bum?
It does nothing.
Nope this fish slice is not warm. The child might like the comfort of a warm fish slice.
Nope this fish slice is searing hot and it is going to hurt and burn.
Take that, innocent defenceless child (probably male or mother may have got prison if it was a girl).
By the way.
Burns hurt like hell.
“In terms of the degree of recklessness, the judge said she considered this action to be on the “lower end of the scale”.”
So she was charged with “disfiguring with reckless disregard”
The victim will have fish slice patterns on the arse for life?
If a man did this to his partner the man would get prison.
Men can get prison for causing no pain or disfigurement. Pushing, threats etc.
As for degree of recklessness. No not reckless.
It’s off that scale. It was purposeful.
Nope this fish slice is searing hot and it is going to burn.
You will crack up at this bit when referring to violence against children.
“The court will take it very seriously,” he said.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 4th February 2017 @ 10:59 pm
DJ Ward @21: Yes, 100 hours community work which for men would be relatively hard outdoor labour but for women is likely to be something comfortable and non-onerous, plus 18 months ‘intensive supervision’, essentially a helping sentence.
Comment by Man X Norton — Mon 6th February 2017 @ 10:04 am
We never have to wait long for another example of pussy-pass treatment by our journalists, especially the NZ Herald. In this story regarding a female teacher’s violent behaviour towards a student, the presumably female journalist Frances Crook devotes the entire article to the offender’s excuses, remorse, actions to address her problems with a bit of incidental victim-blaming thrown in.
If this offender had been a male teacher he would be very lucky to get a line in the story allocated to what he wanted to get across, ant the rest of the story would likely consist of emphasizing how serious the assault was, reporting the victim impact statement and possibly an interview of the victim to show how much harm was caused.
Comment by Man X Norton — Tue 7th February 2017 @ 7:25 pm
#2
Look at the vast different in treatment that men get.
“and one charge, laid under the Harmful Digital Communications Act, of disclosing information and intimate images with intent to harm.”
As MOMA pointed out that charge was available for Ms Fowler.
She was only charged with offensive behaviour.
Fined $250.
“He was taking steps to address his “attitudes” and had paid $2000 in reparations to the complainant immediately following his guilty plea.”
“Judge Dawson ordered the man serve six months community detention with a curfew of 9pm-7am, except the nights he was working. ”
“He was also ordered to do 100 hours community work and 12 months intensive supervision, with the direction he complete any treatment that was appropriate. ”
Ms Fowlers pictures were naked pictures.
His were not.
Can he appeal his sentence based on the precedent of the Ms Fowler case?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/89524347/i-want-to-ruin-you-auckland-man-in-court-for-harassing-woman
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 17th February 2017 @ 8:24 pm
Here’s another way in which media try to foster sympathy for female criminals. This dishonesty offender in Queensland was described as ‘a single mum’. The parental role of male offenders is rarely mentioned.
The article, as usual for articles about female offenders, went on to blame her offending on her ‘dire financial straits’ and of course blamed a man who in this case was a husband claimed to have walked out on her, left her to raise their daughter on her own and left her with a mortgage and other debt.
Well, maybe. More likely she kicked him out or hounded him out. If they were married why would she be the only one left with a mortgage? Any other debt that he had signed for would still be his responsibility. And what about the so-called ‘child support’ that she will be getting one way or another?
It may well be that he wanted to maintain a significant parental role with the daughter but she took advantage of a femi-centric Family Court and laws to sabotage that out of spite. He may well have been fighting her in the Family Court while the criminal proceedings were painting her as the victim, or he may already have thrown in the towel having realized how little chance he had of having his father role valued or protected and how much he would be fleeced regardless. This scenario is a much more frequent one than the male-blaming one presented in this case and that the media almost exclusively portray about a wife and children being left destitute by a selfish, callous partner running away from his responsibilities.
Comment by Man X Norton — Fri 17th February 2017 @ 10:06 pm
#13 With regard to the incest prosecution mentioned above.
Culpability is based on knowing what was going on and what the situation is and who took the decisions that led to the illegal events?
Our judges seem to have great difficulty listening to the evidence presented to them and also be unprofessionally lacking in knowledge about natural human behaviours. In the case of Genetic Sexual Attraction (not really a precise name for this phenomenon), separated parts of families are likely to experience strong positive attractions on re-meeting. Nowadays, adoption reuniting services counsel about this, before reintroductions occur, to largely protect people from these powerful forces.
GSA is embedded into human behaviour, to increase the prospects of survival in times of huge survival stress. Eg ice ages, or lots of volcanoes, or being overrun by wild animals etc…..
It also shows up in more everyday situations, when contact between parts of families has been prevented by some outside force eg familycaught$ POs or familycaught$ driving father away from his children, or the mother or her mother, driving the father away from his children. In the example of Kathryb Harrison, it was her grandmother who drove away her father when she was a baby. The grandmother created the GSA situation for Kathryn Harrison.
The outcome, as seen (more likely the mechanism works by lack of smelling the family members ie pheramones) by the separated parts of the family, mimics huge social stress and ultimately leads to incestuous relationships occurring.
Punishing the “guilty” parties, is in the same intellectual territory as punishing anyone for breathing or being sexually active.
In the case listed below, the woman was the active party in driving the incestuous relationship. But the man (her father) was seen by the prosecutor and judge as being the “more guilty” party and the book was thrown at him!
Hope I am not boring, by quoting evolutionary biology? Although men might initiate many sexual encounters, when it comes to initiating encounters where a child is conceived, women may initiate more often than men? Doubtless, this applies in GSA incestuous conceptions too. But our judges are ignorant and unable to learn on these topics.
So our prosecutors and judges are behaving in abject ignorance and dangerously to our society.
Interestingly, the Care of Children Act, as printed on paper, protects children’s relationships with both of their parents and to a lesser extent, with wider family too.
It is only when the Care of Children Act has been ignored and breached, that these GSA type situations occur. So, we should be prosecuting the familycaught$ “judges” when they flout the Care of Children Act and put children and parents into situations of high GSA risk. (Similarly of course, for breaches of CYFs Act.) The failures of these “judges” are serious and are damaging to members of families. We needs judges who are able to listen to evidence and respond appropriately to it. Good old fashioned competence is what it is all about!
Recent Incest Case brings Police Voyeurs into the Open
The Kiss by Kathryn Harrison A Study in Obsession
2009 example, which shows active woman let off and more passive man sentenced!
‘Father and daughter’ on incest charges
4:00AM Thursday Jul 02, 2009
By Andrew Koubaridis
A woman who went overseas to meet her long-lost father is now on trial accused of incest.
The man is also on trial, but denies being her biological father.
The pair allegedly had a sexual relationship for more than 10 years. They met when she was almost 30 and he was in his late 40s, living in Britain.
On the first day of the couple’s trial in the Auckland District Court yesterday, Crown prosecutor Scott McColgan said that though they were consenting adults, if they had a sexual relationship it was “incestuous”.
The accused have interim name suppression.
Mr McColgan said that after the woman tracked the man down, she spent three weeks with him. When she returned to NZ, she split from her husband, then moved back to Britain.
She and the accused man eventually returned to New Zealand and lived in the house where the woman had lived with her husband and children.
Mr McColgan said they appeared to be “besotted with each other”. The woman sponsored the man when he applied for residency, telling authorities he was her biological father.
After a complaint was made to police, officers searched their bedroom and found sex toys and pornography.
During a police interview, the man admitted the couple were in a sexual relationship but denied he was her biological father because he claimed the woman’s mother was sleeping around about the time she was conceived.
Asked who the father was, he gave two names -including his brother.
Mr McColgan said DNA samples were taken from the men and they were excluded as being the father.
However, DNA samples from the man showed he was one million times more likely to be the father.
Scientists would testify there was strong scientific support the accused were biological father and daughter.
When police spoke to the woman, she denied she and the man were in a relationship but said he was her partner and soulmate in other ways.
The woman’s mother told the court her daughter changed “overnight” when the man arrived on the scene.
At her daughter’s 30th birthday party, the man told her he wondered what it would be like to have both mother and daughter as the three danced. She was shocked.
A few months later she confronted the woman about the “unnatural” relationship.
The witness said the claims she was sleeping with several men at the time she conceived were “disgusting lies”.
Man guilty of incest, woman acquitted
4:00AM Saturday Jul 11, 2009
By Andrew Koubaridis
A man has been found guilty by a district court jury of incest – but his co-accused, his daughter, has been acquitted of the same charge.
The pair, who have name suppression, met after the woman went looking for her biological father in Britain. When she finally met the man they began a consensual sexual relationship which spanned 10 years.
To find the man guilty the jury had to be convinced there was a biological connection between the two, that they had sex, and that he had sex with her knowing she was his daughter.
For her to be acquitted, jurors must not have been satisfied that she had sex with him knowing that he was her father. During the trial the court heard that the man told her he doubted he was her father when they first met.
The man will be sentenced in the Auckland District Court on August 20.
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 21st February 2017 @ 10:27 am
This does fit under this thread, but is not reacting to previous comments.
Yesterday, I found out that a very special man had died. Geoff Thompson helped so many people while blind to race, age, gender and so on. Who would have thought anyone could have got me into a gymnasium or to trim down after a life of obesity – chances were better at winning powerball. But Geoff managed it.
An Headline in the Manawatu Standard talks about a woman who promoted Women’s cricket had passed away – and does not name Geoff. Yet Geoffs Tangi will no doubt be huge and reportable.
Geoff is mentioned incidentally after and below the Women’s cRicket. Geoff was working with Mid Central PHO when I tangled with him. He was helping ill people improve their lives and cope with disabilities and pain. He was so happy and positive always even though he had terminal cancer himself. He worked helping others until he no longer could. I’m a grumpy pessimist, and he was so happy and positive that naturally we had a good humoured “Good vs evil” kind of interaction. He called me “Happy Gilmour” and I called him the “Fizzing cheer-germ”. I saw his chest one day and it had so many lumps “Hernia’s” erupting from it, but with his shirt on we would never know.
So here is the URL to the item which estimates a Women’s cricket stalwart as more headline worthy than a male like Geoff.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/sport/90862860/womens-cricket-in-manawatu-wouldnt-be-the-same-without-pamela-harvey
Sure No dount Women’s cricket has positives for women, but cannot be in the same league as what Geoff did.
With Geoff, I controlled blood pressure, reduced my blood sugar levels, lost 40kg, and obtained cardio fitness. Not bad considering my first encounter with him, I needed physical assistance to mount the GYM cycle. My story is not unique – hundreds of lives were changed by Geoff.
Comment by Jerry — Mon 27th March 2017 @ 6:11 am