MENZ ISSUES

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

The Case of Tania Baron

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 9:25 am Fri 6th April 2018

Recently employed as a Police Inspector, Tania Baron’s exit from her position has been closely examined by the media.

Stuff News understands:

That her departure is related to Ms Baron forming a relationship with a 17 year old boy whom she met at a local cycling club.

While there has been an inquiry into her behaviour as a Police Officer Ms Baron has been cleared of any wrong doing.

It is noted that her husband was also in the police and has recently left.

My immediate thoughts go to yesterday’s conversation where a teacher was disciplined and dismissed for an inappropriate relationship with a pupil.

Considering the social relationship between a police inspector and an adolescent at a cycling club, a question is raised as to why this inquiry is an employment matter and the subject of a confidential agreement between the employer and a former employee.

If as stated Ms Baron received a confidential payout one assumes she left the ’20 year career she loved’ in the face of moral objections from the Police Administration. In that respect I am drawn again to yesterday’s conversation where a teacher with a 40 year career was cleared of any wrong doing after he was the subject of false allegations and question what if any comparitive compensation he received?

23 Responses to “The Case of Tania Baron”

  1. Man X Norton says:

    16 is the age of consent in NZ. This female cop did nothing illegal and the relationship is nobody else’s business including her employer unless she was acting in her professional role towards the young man. If we want older men or women not to be allowed to form sexual relationships with younger people over 16 then we should increase the age of consent or establish some maximum age differential by law. I don’t want men to be punished for relationships with legally-aged people and I disagree with calling for punishment to women in similar circumstances.

    The situation of this policewoman’s relationship is not comparable to that of the teacher who had false allegations conspired against him.

  2. DJ Ward says:

    #1 Man X Norton
    I think the point made, or comparison has validity.
    First of all if a male 40+ was shagging a 17 year old girl at a sports club there would be demands for some kind of persecution. Stupifing if he let her have a drink etc. I recall a similar case a few years back.
    The comparison is that they were both in the employement and an accusation was made. One was sacked for something they did not do, and was sacked prior to the completion of the investigation (the trial). One was investigated, found to have done nothing illegal but for image protection was given a golden handshake. The person sacked was in fact illegally sacked as they committed no imployement breaches. The person given the golden handshake probably got an illegal payment as the police uphold the law, not provide payouts for legal actions that offend somebody in administrations morals. Do the police have a contract with the crown to spend taxpayers money in this way. Can the police just make payments to anybody acting lawfully but not to that one eyed, individualised thing called a moral.

    Ultimately the females employement situation was handled with care and observed employement law.
    The males employement situation was handled in absence of care or employement law.

    The women did nothing wrong, got a payout.
    The man did nothing wrong, got shafted at every step.
    Including an incompetent investigation.
    This guy should sue the crown (police, Ministry of Education) for every cent of earnings lost, past present and future.

  3. Evan Myers says:

    @1 that’s the sort of naive point of view that makes people angry when they come to this site.

    This is at a club which has a duty of care to its members.

    Police have a code of conduct which includes their behavior outside of work hours.

    The is an age and authority imbalance similar to that complainEd about in the Law Society posts.

    You will recall there one commentor calling ‘us’ a bunch of cxxnts as he obviously wanted to distance himself from such social attitudes.

    This young man was 17 when the relationship began and this is a forty something women with children.

  4. Bevan Berg says:

    Perhaps the question the media should be putting together for Louise Nicholas is whether she thinks the sexual aggression of female police officers manifests itself in the manipulation of adolescent boys.

  5. Downunder says:

    @1

    This female cop did nothing illegal and the relationship is nobody else’s business including her employer unless she was acting in her professional role towards the young man.

    I think there would be plenty of mothers who would disagree with that, especially if the mother was in the lower ranks of the police force and there now would be a significant number of women in that position who would be voicing a concern to their employer, about the behaviour of an officer.

    If we want older men or women not to be allowed to form sexual relationships with younger people over 16 then we should increase the age of consent or establish some maximum age differential by law. I don’t want men to be punished for relationships with legally-aged people and I disagree with calling for punishment to women in similar circumstances.

    The age of consent in terms of a relatioship has been reduced from 21, and that would have thrown the question of whether the relationship was sensible into the realm of the parents.

    I can’t see the validity of your comparison with two individuals of different ages forming a relationship. Age gaps are not uncommon and in some cases very welcome because it provides a secure environment for some people.

    There are children involved here, from this women’s previous relationship who are the fathers children too.
    And you’re suggesting it’s no one else’s business.

    The situation of this policewoman’s relationship is not comparable to that of the teacher who had false allegations conspired against him.

    The manner it which these relationships are investigated is very relevant, as is the cost, not only financial, to the individual, but the social cost and many people will have seen the effects on children forced to experience such circumstances, and I’ve seen kids go right off the rails over exactly this sort of thing, and social services and the police often end up dealing with the consequences.

  6. Man X Norton says:

    If something is legal then why treat it as illegal? If people want the age of consent to be increased then lobby government to do so. With the right to consent comes the responsibility to manage that right. Buying into these new layers of restriction over our rights and actions is not a good idea.

    Downunder @5: Even if an historical age of consent of 21 was ever true this would be irrelevant to the policewoman’s situation. In fact though the age of consent was never 21 in NZ so I don’t know how you got that idea. Before 1896 the age of consent was 12, then in 1896 it was raised to 16.

    Interestingly, according to Wikipedia sexual abuse of boys of any age by adult women was not a crime in NZ until “around 2007” when the law was changed. Actually, it appears to be the Crimes Amendment Act 2005 that introduced the crime of ‘sexual violation’ that could apply to women too, and changed other sexual crimes so they applied to women. ‘Rape’ is still something that only people with a penis can be charged with, though ‘sexual violation’ carries the same imprisonment tariff.

  7. Downunder says:

    This is not a bannal mill Man X Norton and issues of consent in law are not limited to whether a female said yes, and what legislative age might be relevant to that decision.

    The public commonsense is often a better reflection of contemporary legal status, than a shallow and confused interpretation of law and history.

    In that respect it is you that needs a lesson in both, not me.

  8. Man X Norton says:

    Yeah, yeah I need a lesson from you, someone who makes up careless stories about the history of our laws.

    Your claim that my ‘interpretation of law and history’ was shallow and confused is ridiculous. You’re the one who made things up. But you seem to like disparaging others from your unwarranted belief that you know everything better.

    By the way, what’s a bannal?

  9. DJ Ward says:

    #8 Man X Norton

    I wondered about that 21 years old comment too.
    It was 12 until Great Britain change it to 16 to try and stop young girls being used as prostitutes and the males avoiding prosecution for that prostitution. NZ copied Great Britain.

  10. Evan Myers says:

    Many older people will be more likely to make the distinction between

    Being able to consent
    Being required to consent
    Being legally authorised to consent

    You might ask the question; “At what point in New Zealand law did legislation read, that a person under 16 could consent if they were married?” as one example.

    Consent is not simply a few words in a couple of sections of the Crimes Act.

  11. Downunder says:

    @8

    By the way, what’s a bannal

    I have no idea, Man X Norton, what is a bannal?

    If you were referring to ‘bannal mill’ in #7 that is an English Fuedal concept. Did you misread that or is that perhaps something you’re not familiar with?

  12. DJ Ward says:

    Wikipedia gives a good history for the word Bannal. Not something used very often these days. I thought it was a derogatory term so I learnt something today despite its near complete irrelevancy to the subject matter.

    The age of consent vs age of marriage is interesting as the US has on one hand generally quite high age of consent laws but this is contradicted by 25 states having no minimum age for marriage.

  13. Evan Myers says:

    I think you’re missing the point there DJ that it is not the age of marriage. It is in itself a consent. Such as one party could not have consented to that relationship if they had been misinformed.

  14. Downunder says:

    @12 DJ we might progress to the bannal oven and toss the bun around.

    I’m sure that would have been a concern for some people too.

  15. Old Timer says:

    The word Banal is probably pretty significant when it comes to consent. Banal meaning tired, out of date, hackneyed, trite. The concept that consent is implied by marriage is, as such, quite a banal idea.
    Indeed consent is kind of a continuous process and it can be withdrawn at any stage.
    Sorry my knowledge of the politics and economy of feudalism isn’t great.

  16. Downunder says:

    @15 Banal as is understood and used today, tends toward the offensive, as suggested in #12

    Likewise common sense tends to be used in the sense of being stupid.

    Both expressions are found in Feudal language: bannal being common to all, as in community buildings owned by the Lord.

    Hense common sense, the ordinary sense of the people, what is known to all. When in Rome do as the Romans. Common Law.

    The context of words is often lost through the space of time, and the wrong meaning taken from that.

    I didn’t see any suggestion that consent is ‘implied by marriage’ in relation to #13, rather that it is part of marriage.

    In taking that further, in divorce for example, consent rested with the courts, even more so previously, than now, with no fault divorce.

  17. Evan Myers says:

    Old Timer, with some of the bedroom antics you hear about you’ve have to agree there’d be an element of ‘implied consent’ but you wouldn’t want that to stretch to Bobbitville.

  18. Downunder says:

    Given the extent to which the public interest, as well as the interests of the individual could be affected, I see a question over this being solely an employment matter.

    I’m surprised the media hasn’t pursued this aspect and investigated whether this should have also gone to the IPCA.

  19. Man X Norton says:

    The creation of new layers of restriction over the right to behave in perfectly legal ways has been a strategy of feminists in their war against men. This has resulted in hugely expanded definitions of ‘inappropriate’ that now
    – calls compliments, humour and innocent gestures of friendship or affection ‘harassment’;
    – calls any realistic comment about women that isn’t laudatory ‘sexist’;
    – calls demands for gender equality ‘sexist’ when they don’t suit women;
    – in the Family Court and by social workers treats any argumentative behaviour, expressions of frustration or anger in a domestic relationship as ‘violence’;
    – allows women to be treated as victims who didn’t give consent when they actually behaved in ways that suggested they wanted sexual activity and even when they participated enthusiastically;
    – treats adult young women as children who can’t be seen as responsible for their own choices and behaviour.

    It’s not a good idea for men to buy into these ever increasing layers of political correctness. These layers become quasi-legal moral codes without any careful consideration of their philosophical basis, consequences or implications. Employers, social workers and numerous other people in positions of some power then apply these codes as if they are some kind of law. If something is within the law then it’s important not to treat it as though it’s illegal. That seems to be what the braying lynch mob want in the case of this policewoman, but that bandwagon will be a poisoned chalice for men.

  20. Evan Myers says:

    @9 I think you raised another interesting point in terms of socal regression.

    NZ copied Great Britain.

    It is not unusual to hear the expression in New Zealand (and we have done so for decades) the … “we are going back to tribalism”.

    This is visible in the sense that it is what is pursued by Māori and it is their recent past.

    For the European descendants our recent past and reflected in written laws is a long way from tribalism.

    That is not a slight against Māori; we need to accept that social regression will drive distinct cultural backgrounds in different directions.

    It is the same individual behavior which I would suggest is not so visible because we are not familiar with English history.

  21. Downunder says:

    Comment from the Men’s Summit NZ’s biggest social problem is fatherless-ness.

    I’m guessing that was said by Warrick Pudney. It’s been said by many people for many, many years. If you look on this site you’ll see Susan Snively is recorded as trotting out the counter argument as far back as 1994. There are career arguments, to which one side gets traction and the other side does not.

  22. Downunder says:

    @19 The significant point of the opening blockquote in the post

    FORMED A RELATIONSHIP WITH … A 17 YEAR OLD BOY

    That was objected to by his parents, one of whom would have been his father.

    I’m not even going to speculate what he would have to say to you about your ideological argument, and that’s all I have to say about that.

  23. Evan Myers says:

    It’s fair to say that the Marriage Act in New Zealand recognizes matters of affinity and consanguinity.

    Those are the practical realities we expect parents to take into consideration.

Leave a Reply

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