Restoring the Presumption of Innocence Conference
Streamed live on 31 Aug 2024
Contains victims of false allegations, domestic violence, police coverups.
This is 7 hours including a lunch break. You may want to skip that.
The clip is ideal to run just audio in the background.
Contents:
00:00 Event commences
03:00 Welcome – Peter Deakin KC
06:35 #MeToo Attack – Vanessa Scammell
37:20 Men Under Siege – Bettina Arndt
1:06:30 Domestic Violence Orders Violate Human Rights – Professor Augusto Zimmermann
2:03:30 My Son Was Found Not Guilty – Dr Debbie Garratt
2:31:30 Trial By Media – Damian Coory
3:09:10 Punished for False Allegations – Ian Jones
4:55:10 Male Victims of Coercive Control
5:03:00 False Rape Allegations Aren’t So Rare – Tom Nankervell
5:19:45 Faking the Stats
5:55:30 ASF Panel Discussion
6:27:30 Fathers4Justice – Nadine Taylor
6:52:00 Call to Action Panel
Thanks Lukenz for the new topic, it certainly says a lot of things.
It is good to see people working, coming together talking.
The results of there work, is people quoting them in media.
When making another comment, I will likely do the same thing.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 10th September 2024 @ 5:15 pm
Interesting post, I enjoyed it. Injustice is never acceptable and it’s apparent the principles of natural justice have been both bent and forgotten in NZ’s DV and Family courts ( and yes the two are often one in practice) as protection orders are often used as a vexatious means to force an established pattern of care by fowl means to an applicant’s advantage in FC proceedings. Everyone knows it, everyone sees it , it’s all too often an elephant in the proverbial family court room
Comment by Jim — Fri 13th September 2024 @ 9:33 pm
I have just watched the first person, what a fighter.
If she was a politician, imagine her arguments.
Geez some was funny, especially having a go at the judge.
Magically there was three complaints, all at the same time.
How then in all the accusations, was none of them proven.
She points out a villain, someone getting paid to prosecute.
They decided they had proof, but everything was shown to be nonsense.
Look how opposite woman can be, they can be good or evil.
One scorned does evil, one scorned fights like Vanessa.
Hell may have no furry like a woman scorned, I like the good version.
Wow, they then went to a balance of probabilities court.
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 18th September 2024 @ 6:25 pm
The second speaker, is one of our best advocates.
She knows her stuff, and she is very good at speaking.
It was an interesting argument on sex, especially drunk sex.
The victim consented, but can’t remember they consented.
Not remembering is not rape, because forgetting is normal for drunks.
As an equality argument, what about males that get drunk.
Some women has sex with them, but he forgets ever consenting.
Just because he wasn’t fighting back, doesn’t mean it wasn’t rape.
So sex is viewed in a very one sided way, males cannot be victims.
He may very well wake in the morning, with hell no I had sex with her.
He may have regret even feel unclean, but he must feel no emotions.
Has no person ever asked a woman, did you have his consent.
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 20th September 2024 @ 1:29 pm
The biggest predictor of a female being a victim of violence, is the female being violent.
Mr Zimmermann knows his stuff, he knows the research.
Based on the stuff he said, women are statistically worse than men.
It’s almost on every topic, women’s violence was more common.
We live in a delusion, all violence is presented as men’s violence.
It seems 30% of the time, it’s just the male offending.
With the other 70% the person starting the violence, is the female.
How then do you get any all male %, how do you get police statistics.
What is really happening, how do you get all men arrests.
Violent men get arrested, but so do men defending themselves.
Her bruised arm, proof of him stopping her violence.
But 100% percent of the time, it’s proof he is violent.
He points out policy, men’s injuries are not even recorded.
Since they are statistically similar, why are arrests not similar.
Imagine the police explaining statistics, something is very wrong.
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 2nd October 2024 @ 11:38 am
I don’t think anyone noticed, something changed dramatically.
Someone must start intimacy, otherwise it doesn’t happen.
Someone has to make the first move, the first sexualised touch.
Someone must make the first move, sexualising the conversation.
Someone must make the first move, even if just to say hello.
Someone must make the first move, the first sexual video or text.
So feminists took all that away, do those things your a predator.
The boys are no longer trying, because everything is evidence.
Why would you make any move, if feminism makes it a crime.
Young men don’t know what to do, thousands get it wrong.
Making the first move, can ruin your life in court.
Is that not dramatic enough, making the first move stopping.
Women want intimacy, but men can’t give intimacy.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 3rd October 2024 @ 8:07 am
Is the presumption guilt, they don’t consider innocence.
The accuser is believed, the accused is not believed.
I watched a video, it was about Palestinians and law.
If they get into a fight with an Israeli, they get arrested.
If the Israeli says they started it, they are found guilty.
You can be found innocent, but you must have videos.
So the Palestinian is guilty, unless he can prove innocence.
Sounds like many things, men can be treated the same.
So the above is Apartheid, so what is it when done to men.
Is it just how it is, that sounds like an excuse.
Can you accept the Apartheid, and turn a blind eye to men.
Because that’s what’s happening, it’s like there is no morals.
Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 14th October 2024 @ 7:30 pm
The parental alienator uses other people, to harm the victim.
Social services or police, engaging a lawyer even psychologists.
That’s family court stuff, what if it’s revenge for other reasons.
The same personality person, wronged in some way.
The truth is irrelevant, the accusations are believed.
None of the people used, can spot the personality flaw.
I think you can test for lying, especially in the family court.
Do a coercive control survey, for both people.
If both say the other controls money, one may be lying.
If you can lie on the little thing, why not lie on the big thing.
What if the accused looks good, and the accuser looks bad.
Could you even trust the survey, they may lie on every question.
If the accused looks bad, do you then wrongly assume guilt.
That’s the problem with lies, they can be extremely good.
There is people in prison now, who did nothing wrong.
They just met the wrong person, with the wrong personality.
A strange protected group, making lawyers money is never punished.
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 1st November 2024 @ 10:45 pm
Look at 5:10:45, it’s very interesting statistics.
When talking about false allegations, there is proven false.
As in about 10% of the time, the police established its lies.
The rest can be argued about, the true rate is more than 10%.
Why is the prosecution rate 0%, for making a false claim of rape.
That’s true in NZ, I never hear of prosecutions and convictions.
Rape is a horrible crime, then the process of proving innocence.
He could have got 5 years prison, why isn’t she getting 5 years.
Why is the victim harmed, but the offender is helped in every way.
Lies of rape are more common, than police getting a conviction.
The speaker expands on the subject, it’s more than the police.
What of socially made allegations, not involving the police.
Friends and family find out, but why not the police.
Is it only 10% of those cases, that are complete nonsense.
I suspect a woman raped when walking a dog, is near 100% true.
But the accusations against boyfriends, can’t be trusted.
Clearly conviction rates are low, more men escape than get convicted.
So this is not a good set of statistics, for men or women.
Comment by DJ Ward — Tue 5th November 2024 @ 7:15 pm