Men convicted without trial & restricted from applying for employment.
The police practice of issuing “formal warnings” to people who haven’t been convicted of any crime then and sharing that information with other parties has been found to be illegal.
So the process is:
1. Man gets a formal warning for an allegation of a sex nature.
2. Man applies for a job and has to sign a vetting form.
3. The allegation is disclosed.
4. No job. And the employer has the mans allegation in their office.
Justice Davison ordered the Police to delete the warning.
In law, an allegation is a claim of an unproven fact by a party in a pleading, charge, or defence. Until they can be proved, allegations remain merely assertions.
My question is, when are the Police going to compensate that man?
I think the more important part here is trying to distinguish between the civil and criminal boundaries.
This has been a growing issue with policy policing rather than law enforcement.
The way I see this situation is that the warning is a trespass against a person’s civil reputation.
The police obligatory investigation didn’t find any or enough evidence to satisfy a criminal allegation and the matter does not proceed to court.
The purpose of a warning is to excuse someone from the criminal process that could have occurred.
Used in the sense you describe it is a placatory mechanism to satisfy the complainant at the man’s expense.
This is a similar situation to what was denied for years, in the ‘remove the male policy’ at domestics.
[The longterm effects create a female dominated government structure which is already around the 80% mark.]
We’ve seen this played out recently in parliament where our Speaker did the same thing, wrongly accusing a man of rape and the civil process for compensation has been long and expensive for the victim.
Mallard went as far as changing the constitutional nature of parliament to have the taxpayers pay for his indiscretion.
He’s raised the precedent that the state should compensate the victims of false female allegations.
Or is it one law for him and another for the rest of us?
It is covering there arse time.
Look we saw it was wrong.
To let police, create pretend convictions.
The missing question is.
What are the vast majority of censure about, sex?
Not mention the rest, the significant majority.
Illegally, enabled by government bureaucracy.
There lies the propaganda.
In the statistics.
Don’t ask what they tell.
Ask about the silence.
There lies the corruption.
In the statistics.
Don’t ask about compensation.
Ask about the money, made.
There lies the exposed.
I have written that I support warnings.
For sex crimes.
Obviously that could be relevant, on other issues.
But I do not support, public access.
Legally tested, convicted crimes, yes.
But warnings secret to the police.
Obviously with the face to face.
We have this warning, we are nearly 100%.
You are guilty, but not 100%.
Do it again, be certain.
Our confidence that your guilty, will rise.
So don’t do it again.
Get help, that you may need.
Otherwise a confident police officer.
Will arrive with paperwork, to arrest you.
Seeing it is wrong.
How police presently behave.
And hatred of men, in bureaucracy.
Do you think you could make your point in normal English instead of poetry. Any man doesn’t want to have to work hard to figure out what you’re on about.
I do not think the Police would be foolish enough to appeal the ruling. Worst for them would be a court of appeal rubber-stamping it 6 months from now. You see as you move up the court chain the law becomes very black and white. We have just seen what happens when the supreme court ruled against the police to add people to the sex register for offences that happened before the act. Instant urgent retrospective laws with no time for public submissions.
The issue is a very strong one. The police are there to catch and prosecute and not to convict. That role is done in courthouse with lawyers, judges and jury.
The problem is we in NZ have over time, particularly with men become so far removed from natural justice parliamentarians can not recognize it any more. As Downunder wrote the political effect of woman.
Example… When Prime Minister Scott Morrison held firm on court process first for his friend attorney general, Scotts rating went down about 8%. So he had to fire him.
In my narrow view, I think what will happen is the Govt will carefully word a new policy (probably call it guidelines) for the police. However, it will not be natural justice. The police will say it is a specialist team, or we have safeguards. They will allow the Police to choose. See so far removed from natural justice. And that is just so wrong.
I think what needs to happen is if the police have the evidence, they should prosecute. And I mean real evidence and not just a statement.
Interesting issue – yet another example of how men are made pariahs in the face of unlimited state power. Here’s a different but related issue. My co-accused in the historical rape allegation against me was the accuser’s father. He is a friend of mine, but I’d never met the daughter. I was interviewed first, seven months before the father (even though he was allegedly the main offender, having raped his daughter and recruited his friends to do the same). During those seven months he had had no contact from the police, so the only way he knew he was a suspect was because I had told him – against police advice. However, the police clearance he needed for his job (and he and his wife needed for permission to continue hosting foreign students) was continually denied, and no reason was ever given. Officially all he knew was that something was happening behind the scenes to prevent clearance being granted. I wonder how many times this outrage happens.
Well it might surprise you, the NZ police release not guilty verdicts if its on your police record. With reportedly 87% of sex allegations resulting in not guilty verdicts, the police knowing there is a mandatory employer check, you might as well be guilty. The police say, well you did sign the vetting form. You need not apply for those job.
I think the vetting needs, by legislation to be taken out of the hands of the prosecutor and put back into the ministry of justice. This would solve it.
My understanding of what you are describing is that only district court precedent is non binding whereas high court precedent is binding precedent.
The precedent then exists until it is successfully appealed against.
In terms of policing, the origins of which we can trace to Rome are policy enforcement rather than law enforcement.
Modern policing developed in England during the development of the Westminister System and Criminal Law.
We’re seeing a regression to the Roman process of civil law and a continual distancing from Criminal Law.
As much as its it’s convenient to hold the police to account for the sharp end of the outcome it’s the law and policy that’s at fault and you can see how feminists have successfully neutered male political power to get the outcomes they have determined women should have.
I have to say in my own proceedings where my father and I were accused of sexual assault against the applicant, the Police were very good. However, where as the Police investigate evidence and come to a conclusion, the Family Court becomes the fallback position for the Applicant and the 3 pillars of abuse (Verbal, Sexual, Physical) are used to allow double jeopardy. The applicant also alleged I was punching and kicking our children. After another Police investigation and EVI’s from the children, the Police gave myself AND the Applicant a Formal Warning for physically disciplining our children. Of course, the Family Court is blinkered to the Applicant’s warning letter. I was told that it wouldn’t affect my employment and wouldn’t show up on Police vetting.
Not so sure now.
As an aside, I had to chuckle after the bubble opened with AU and the media found every story they could about families/children who were separated. The Family Court separates children from their father’s everyday and some of these durations last several months to years. Some fathers can’t even speak to their children during this time let alone see them.
Downunder. I think you will find Justice Paul Davison is high court. His rule is now law until they either the police go to the court of appeal or the minister.
Behind door number 2 is ask the minister to legislate retrospectively in their favour. Evidently Poto Williams has been asked. Right now Poto, staying out of the corner is using the 20-day appeal window and the matter will be at cabinet level. Cabinet will just be trying to work out the right wording to sell it to the public. That working will take the form of “risk to the public”, risk to our most vulnerable. And that is far more important than natural justice.
It simply means with unlimited funding, and the very best crown prosecutors, a jury decision is overruled in favour of the narrative.
You know, so often I hear the words “separation of powers” but only when the Government get what is wants with “natural justice”. Let me tell you that is a lie.
Whether it is in the media or the family court ‘appeal to emotion’ is a logical fallacy that distracts its audience from engaging in the logic and facts of the occasion.
It was basis of an article last century by lawyer Terry Carson entitled fiction in the family court.
Of course the family court is a civil court not a criminal court.
#11 – Nice pointer. 20 years later and nothing has changed: https://menz.org.nz/menz-issues/april-may-2001/#Fiction
When it comes to the separation of powers argument I’m a willing supporter. The last argument I had over this got me banned from my favorite group for a week. Quite simply the other person involved was to ingrossed in his emotional investment in the occasion to even understand what I might have meant.
Men can’t understand this when they’re thinking like girls and are clambering for recognition from the girl’s club and it doesn’t matter if your thinking is logical and correct, if it conflicts with the sentiment of the event or the moment or the personal crusade you’re an abusive lowlife.
That’s how far removed we are from the separation of powers and as the political model continues to change, if there is no political resistance to that the situation we can only expect this to get worse.
Your comment is a good one.
I had think into why I’m writing like that.
And came to some conclusions.
My opinion of the subject anyway.
Logos, vs poetry.
As the Logos, Jesus Christ is God in self-revelation (Light) and redemption (Life). … Jesus Christ not only gives God’s Word to us humans; he is the Word. The Logos is God, begotten and therefore distinguishable from the Father, but, being God, of the same substance (essence).
So there is a few thousand of his words in the bible.
But obviously, a million words spoken and lost.
“Do you still not understand?” (verse 21)
Maybe a more scientific word would be discourse.
noun: discourse; written or spoken communication or debate.
verb: discourse; 3rd person present: discourses; past tense: discoursed; past participle: discoursed; gerund or present participle: discoursing; speak or write authoritatively about a topic.
Aristotle Logic is an inherent set of laws to arguments.
Or Universal theorem compliant arguments.
Socrates clearly to me was able to do Logos/discourse.
Poetry is different.
As they are often story’s.
Or describing something.
Getting the reader to feel an emotion, etc.
Logos/ discourse could then itself take many forms. In a long paragraph for example, with many sentences. Or a shorter one, like this one.
An argument could be exactly this long.
Or 4 sentences, then 4 more sentences.
Like a poem, but each 4 sentences.
And each sentence an argument.
And each 4 sentences an argument.
All the arguments filtered down, finally.
Again, did you not listen.
From the post article.
“He said when a police officer could make a decision impacting someone’s life without any regulation or practice guidelines, it was effectively a police state.”
They know, they act illegally.
They recognise the behaviour.
As that of a Police State.
Proof in words.
“At the moment, police are acting basically as judge, jury and executioner – they are doing their investigation, reaching their conclusion and there is no way anyone can challenge it.“
Sounds like Police Safety Orders.
I can assure everyone.
That’s not being discussed, in the article.
As there is essentially no investigation.
And no legal process.
Where is the nearest male.
He is therefore guilty.
Government demands his guilt.
Issue the PSO, against the male.
The woman can use it as proof.
Of a, who is violent, ‘judgement’.
In the family court.
Media banned from reporting, the ‘truth’
10,000 PSOs over 10 years.
That’s 100,000 corrupt acts.
Protection orders, next.
That magically get created, from nothing.
Double, that figure?
As without notice cases in the FC.
Dramatically, magically created, in response to process.
Mediation, or near guaranteed victory, in court.
Be fair, or have complete Power & Control.
File a PO, the judge has a rubber stamp.
With man automaticity guilty, in fine print.
No actual trial needed.
He said, she said.
We know who judges believe.
Of course, it’s only a mans job, at stake.
Who cares, if he misses a child support payment.
More penalties, more money.
Soon no man will be allowed to work.
Women will get 50% plus in everything.
We males can all just sit back and relax.
GPS bracelets on.
Employment rights, removed.
Soon government will pass judgement on men.
They will even decide, no court case required.
No forensic evidence.
Damn slaves, these men.
Let conspire to commit Paternity Fraud as well.
And women virtually never, facing judgement.
I find it interesting how these things get discussed.
Imagine just changing the genders in the article.
Woman’s presence in community challenged by police.
While no trial took place.
Police actively conspired to destroy her employment rights.
Preventing her from being, anything.
Female homeless rates have dramatically increased.
As a result.
And another one here.
Innocent man branded a criminal by police database.
Judgement now attached in link. I think the warning letter was not warranted because the Police in point  found there was insufficient evidence to identify any criminal offending.
 That and Ms X underwent a Specialist Child Witness Interview in which she reiterated her position that the applicant had been supportive of her and that no indecent conduct had taken place.
The warning letter clearly put there by Police who knew very well his teaching career would be finished. Thats the police intention and the teacher suffered loss. The Police rightfully as investigator, but not Judge, jury, and sentencing Judge.
There are 2 wrongs here. A warning letter for no criminal activity and sending it out to prospective employers.
This man should have compensation from the police for loss of income, embarrassment, his court costs. And what is the dollar sum for a ruined life? No job, can’t pay for his home, could lose his home, his family, things that make life better. His shame, his having to go to court, his information sent to his employer to be discussed amongst staff and beyond. His having to explain himself to family and friends. The mess may end his relationship with his partner. There could be his own children as victims too.
How much is your life worth in a dollar sum Mr Policeman/woman? If you are reading this, close your eyes for 1 whole minute and imagine what your own life may be worth to you. Thats the sum he should be paid !
I think the police database should remain internal. Especially for not guilty verdicts simply because the database purpose does not give right to convict.
The people have rights that extends right back to the year 1215.
People are promoting what they call a vaccine, when factually it is not a vaccine but is a genetic manipulation. They might also try to force ‘no jab, no job’ but this goes against the Nuremberg code, the Bill of Rights and common sense that says that having a ‘vaccine’ endangers your health, you will still catch Covid, and you will still transmit it.
Being accused of it myself I can tell you it’s not nice. Even though it never got to court another government agency decided to hold a meeting with third parties involved and repeating at least dozen times i was a sexial predictor. This of course spread around and we’ll let’s say I received alot of abuse. Mentally physically. Had my life threatened. I have been trumized ever since. But like most most men I move on. Got a reasonable job.
For some people moving on is simply not possible when the hatred and insanity moves past the children into the grandchildren and the the legal repercussions continue because it suits those insane minds not to let go.
#20 – you are right again Downunder. Despite my father successfully defending a PO from my ex, the court has done nothing to re-establish my children’s relationship with their grandparents. My children run and hide even though they all live on the same property. The children’s (and their grandparents)wellbeing and interests are not of primary concern despite what the childcare act states – personal egos and the siphoning of money make up the fabric of our justice system.
The sad thing is, just a moment, for these men.
When meeting people, seeing there faces.
As they read, the accusation.
Sometimes a very bad reaction.
Possibly, for the innocent.
A moment of terror, as there life gets ruined.
I experienced a moment of terror once.
Surprisingly the 3rd day of running away, into the bush.
It was just before dawn, and I was freezing cold.
Barefoot, jeans, and a t shirt.
On a steep slope, of gravel, and some tea tree.
I found myself clinging on, face down.
But still just sliding, and not able to see below me.
That was a terrifying moment for me.
Thanks tea tree.
I ended up having to find trees below me.
And let myself slide over to them.
What price does a man pay.
For a moment of terror, to another.
When it is so easily free, to government.
I am going on holiday soon.
Unless fate interferes.