yayyyyy!!!!
shipton, schollum, rickards…NOT GUILTY.
MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.
21 Comments »
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.
I have two daughters but if I had sons I would be a worried man. These men cried because they knew the verdict could go either way. Lets remember that the women on this jury agreed that the evidence was not sufficient to convict. I am pround of those female because they must have struggled with dissonance of a woman’s right to sexual consent and a mans right to have group sex where all parties agree. If you feel bad about women behaving badly remind yourself that these women went against the current and saved 3 men from unjustly going to jail. As it is they will forever be scared.
Comment by triassic — Fri 31st March 2006 @ 3:35 pm
Will Louise now be charged with laying a false complaint?
Why not?
Her allegations first surfaced ten or so years ago. Did she receive ACC funded counselling? ACC funded lump sum payment for mental injury?
If so, will she pay it back?
Men beware.
Louise has shown us all just how easy it is for woman to decide some years later that she was not your willing partner, and that you in fact raped her.
Comment by Al D Rado — Fri 31st March 2006 @ 4:38 pm
triassic, i’m not sure whether you mean these women will be forever scared or sacred. they certainly shouldn’t be scared. it must have been nothing short of terrifying in the current climate for these accused men to face a jury predominantly female.
i’m sure they cried out of sheer relief at the verdict. this case has taken a very long time to play out and the cost to them and their families must have been enormous. we can be assured that the cost to the taxpayer has been huge.
will louise be charged? you know better al d rado. she will be excused as having been ‘mistaken’.
Comment by miss mug — Fri 31st March 2006 @ 5:16 pm
Sorry, I meant the accused would be scared forever & Rickards Career destroyed.
Louise represents many spoilt young girls who I use to see on their OE on the bus trips in Europe. Boozed up, screwing every thing that moves, inviting multiply men back to their tent then crying near the end of the trip when they sober up and realise what they have done. What have they done??? nothing more that a lot of men do except that females find it hard to reconcile their actions with the expectations placed on them. The way back to innocence??? Blame someone else for your actions. How do you do that without feeling guilt?? Tune in to pop psychology where it’s your duty to condemn the great SATAN, men. If your story is not believed you will not be required to be responsible, in fact you will receive accolades from many sections of society for have the courage to bring your sordid past into the public domain.
Comment by triassic — Fri 31st March 2006 @ 6:35 pm
gotcha triassic. but i disagree about the need for these men to be scared forever. anyone with a brain will realise that this case has taken years to see the light and that the media have trawled for other victims all that time to come up with nix in their nets!
we also see that louise is a serial accuser coming from a family exposing her to cops for many years.
maybe she is more likely to be seen as a woman with a uniform fetish! and someone with a vendetta against men with the audacity to treat her as the commodity she has made of herself!
Comment by miss mug — Fri 31st March 2006 @ 6:43 pm
The uniform fetish makes sense as she testified that she remembers Rickards comming to her with his uniform on. It was shown that at the time he was a detective and as such did not wear a uniform. I bet Rickards did wear his uniform as requested.
Comment by triassic — Fri 31st March 2006 @ 7:08 pm
I have a confession to make.
In some poorly understood part of my mind I found myself ‘hoping’ the three would be found guilty of at least one charge.
All day I have been aligning their positions with mine, and asking myself ‘why’ I wanted them to be found guilty of something.
I conclude my wish is based in a deep distrust of our police-force. I had been brought up to believe our Police were always beyond question, yet so many examples in the years between my ‘training’ and now have shown our police to be less than perfect.
You see. I have to believe in some strong-point in this society. Some touch-stone which allows me to believe that at the end of the day the truth will out.
My touch-stone had been, for many years, the police and the courts. But, of course, I have now joined the ranks of the defiled and no longer trust either police or court. And I’m 56 years of age. I wonder how my 13-year-old grand-daughter is going to view these folk when the ash settles.
And so I have come to understand that I wanted Rickard, et al, to be found guilty so that I could confirm that I could no longer trust authority.
Hmmm. In retrospect, having thought my way through this, I am now enormously pleased that the three have been exonerated because, it is now quite clear to me that Nicolle was doing to the three what CYFS have been doing to me.
But as with me, the stain will never ever leave the skin of Rickard and his friends.
We will have to bear these vile stains till we die. But will our accusers suffer the same fate?
Oh no. Nicolle will be set aside as confused, while in my case CYFS will assert they simply haven’t enough to prove their case. Not that I’m innocent, just that they have insufficient to ‘prove’ their case. Vile Bitches.
David
Comment by dpex — Fri 31st March 2006 @ 8:40 pm
i know what you mean david. as soon as the case came up i thought “typical. corrupt police abusing their positions of power”. i also thought louise nicholas the sad little victim. so pretty, so well presented, so hard working in the milking shed.
then it became obvious what was really going on and what that woman was doing. i already understood why i had leapt to a guilty conclusion by default.
don’t be too hard on yourself, the police and cyfs have only themselves to blame. respect is earned, as is disrespect. the police have been playing the politically correct game where women, rape and domestic violence are concerned for way too long and they are reaping the benefits.
cyfs are plainly a feminist organisation who will move heaven and earth to keep children with their mothers and aid and abet them in excluding fathers. their modus operandi is criminal.
Comment by miss mug — Sat 1st April 2006 @ 8:08 am
I hate to be a wet blanket, but this could backfire on men in this country. I fear a possible backlash, which would make it even easier for men to be convicted with rape. I was watching close up last night and it spewed its usual anti male, one sided trash. Just remember, the laws can be easily changed…
Comment by tonyf — Sat 1st April 2006 @ 9:12 am
Not a wet blanket tony, an alternative perspective and we all know how vigilant we need to be about any shift to the goal posts. I’d have thought this would be a positive step in the right direction since it should kick-start public debate about the dynamics involved.
For example, the prosecution made the observation that Louise Nicholas must be genuine or she would hardly pursue this case for 20 years. On the contrary and as most of us know, vindictive women are indefatiguable in their bloody-minded determination to wreak revenge.
Joe Public needs to be able to get his/her head around this before we can expect to start the rumblings of discontent at the theft of public money to fund the hidden agenda in the courts etc.
What do you forsee?
Comment by miss mug — Sat 1st April 2006 @ 10:28 am
I now feel inclined to tell you a story that illustrates that the police force is a microcosm of society as a whole.
My Ex wife took my child away from the town I live in without my or the courts permission. I took legal action to have my daughter return. Upon serving papers on her I was accosted and threatened (I have a witness) by her new boyfriend whom she had met in this new town. Shortly before the hearing my X laid a complaint of a sexual nature against me regarding my child. I was to discover that it was encouraged by the new boyfriend. I lost contact with my child while this matter was investigated by CYFS. I was cleared of suspicion and the matter was not taken any further.
The relocation case went to court and I was successful at the hearing. However an appealed was lodged and it was whilst waiting for that hearing my X sent her boyfriend to pick up our child from me. He was abusive to me and upset my child to the point she became hysterical. As he took her away I rang my X and asked that he not be present at future changeovers. At the next changeover he was there sitting at a table with my child at a food restaurant. As my child saw me she ran away from me crying to ward her mother some 15 meters away. I reiterated to the boyfriend again that he should not be present. He snapped at me that I should mind my own business. I then approached his table lent down close to his face and called him a ‘Cunt’ and a child abuser. I let him know that two can play the allegation game and he would find himself in a worse position if I was to do the same to him. He threatened to punch me unless I backed away from him. I lent even closer and again called him a ‘Cunt’.
Much to my disappointment at the time he did not retaliate so I left.
He was ordered by the court not to be present at any more changeovers and I thought was the end of the matter.
Some three months later, and one day before a new hearing, I was arrested and charged with threatening to injure the boyfriend. The Police Woman heard the same story as above but said she preferred to believe his story as they had a witness. I said that the witness would corroborate my story but she said the witness was deaf and only saw me standing over the complainant. When I protested her decision based on the clear lack of evidence and the past false allegations she said, and I quote “You are too use to bossing women around and this is one you won’t” I was stunned. I realised she had been beguiled by my X and was making a biased, sexist decision.
The next day in court my X saddled up next to me and said quietly “my boyfriend will drop the charge if you drop this case”. I quickly relayed the threat to my lawyer who put it to her when she was giving evidence. After some persuasion she admitted what she had said. No action was taken against her for this attempt of blackmail.
Back to this Police woman. I have a mate in the force and he told me that this cop is a man hater and the male offices have a nightmare working with her.
I have pleaded not guilty and have a status hearing coming up. I will again plead not guilty even if I am offered no conviction in return for a $50 donation to charity.
This has been a complete waste of police and court time. It is in fact harassment. It is also bigotry by nature and would not be tolerated if it was race related.
In the last 3 years I have experienced about 14 stories similar to this one, illustrating how females can abuse the system, cause the male to be humiliated, endure costs in defence and when she is proven to be malicious in conduct no punitive action is taken.
Misandry is coming from the top of the Police force and must be stopped in its tracks NOW!!!!
Comment by triassic — Sat 1st April 2006 @ 5:06 pm
Triassic, I hope that you have the resources to wire yourself when you are dealing with these people. It is hopeless to find yourself in a tit-for-tat confrontation where it is your word against theirs.
Is it too late for you now? I hope not — but for any father facing such a situation with the newbie boyfriend (who no doubt is suckered into the role of the chivalrous rescuer) you can’t achieve anything productive for yourself or your kids if all you have left is whispered anger.
Of course the police are a microcosm of society, they are made up of ‘ordinary’ men and women, some of whom wear their own scars.
You must stack the cards in your own favour when you are dealing with a society that treats men as pariahs and at the same time treats ALL women, irrespective, as Earth Mother.
Comment by miss mug — Sat 1st April 2006 @ 6:00 pm
triassic, i missed the bit where you say that male officers working with that particular female cop report that she is a problem to them.
how about asking them to do their bit in making their disapproval of her tactics known to their superiors.
it seems to me that the monster has to die the death of a thousand cuts.
whether we are fathers, sisters, judges, mp’s, neighbours, coppers, social workers or whatever, we all have a razor blade each.
Comment by miss mug — Sat 1st April 2006 @ 6:17 pm
I would be more concerned that the dirty little game of feminist politics, pursued historic complaints against two serving police officers, both who hold superior positions to the most senior police women.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Sun 2nd April 2006 @ 2:56 pm
what’s that about bevan?
Comment by miss mug — Mon 3rd April 2006 @ 8:01 am
Its not about Ricketts from Auckland and Powell from Hamilton, its about the first female commissioner.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Wed 5th April 2006 @ 12:39 pm
Triassic
As Miss Mug said – wire yourself when you do changeovers.
A cheap double density tape recorder that is easily concealed in a pocket costs under $100 at Dick Smith Electronics.
To bring charges against the ex’s boyfriend for harrassing you in anyway, means you must not antagonise him.
let the recordings speak for themselves.
You are also free to record your dealings with the police.
Label your recordings ‘confidential, legally priviledged, for my lawyer’.
Technically the police cannot take them, as it is legal material for your lawyer’s benefit.
In reality, police can take anything they want, because they’ll just say they didn’t see the sign.
Duplicate the recording at the earliest opportunity, and leave a copy with a trusted friend, or your lawyer.
Protect yourself; gather evidence any legal means you can, and take no prisoners.
Imagine if you had played a tape recording of your wife, after she had denied it!
Comment by Al D Rado — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 4:41 pm
you also need to record telephone conversations, conversations with cyfs etc. you can’t get too paranoid when dealing with this rather grubby culture. i record all conversations at this point, even with police although i have to say that they have been downright reasonable in my dealings with this particular vindictive woman since they can plainly see what she is. good on them in this case for blocking her moves.
didn’t half take a long time for cyfs to get the point though.
Comment by miss mug — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 4:59 pm
Men who use this forum need to keep in mind that is not a male against female issue. Does the FACT that [suppressed info deleted by webmaster] not a huge indication that Ms Nicholas was in fact telling the truth?? This is an issue about justice for all – don’t let your own life experiences tarnish your world view!!!
Comment by Justice4 — Tue 18th April 2006 @ 8:12 pm
justice4, the “fact” that [suppressed info removed by webmaster] is irrelevant to the nicholas case. those matters were suppressed so that the jury were able to consider the facts of the nichols vs. schollum, shipton and rickards case based solely upon the evidence presented. the jury plainly found that there was sufficient reasonable doubt to acquit the defendants.
you’re saying if it waddles and quacks it has to be a duck. maybe.
consider, i was arrested for a cannabis offence when i was 16.
Today, i am a hard-working, law-abiding business owner and employer, 50 years old now, long since grown out of the drug scene and getting on with a productive life. but i am charged with possession of cannabis for supply because a disgruntled employee chose to set me up to get back at me (none of it so actually but for the sake of argument).
The prosecution are able to admit the evidence of my previous offending, the jury feel sorry for the aggrieved employee, how do you think my case will go?
Comment by miss mug — Wed 19th April 2006 @ 7:04 am
I would say if you live by the sword-you die by the sword.
My view on this is that there is more -no -much more than just a court case and an accused and a victim and an accuser.Oh yes brothers.
How about this!!
What say you and I clean up our acts..thats right you and me brother.
You see the world view is that if you break the law then you come under the law. If you simply decide not to even create a situation that leaves doubt as to your innocense and your integrity then you dont leave hooks for the darker sides of humanity to leave its ugly hats on. Make sense? How can we as men be unified when we see that kind of behaviour being publicly displayed in our homes , our wives our girl friends and daughters.
Taking a side in this case is asking for division as men of integrity and truth.
Come on men!! True men. Rise up out of the gutter.Honour our women- take responsibility for our faults and lead our families-then and only then will we see the changes we so desire.
Can we say ourselves that we are worthy to judge?
Comment by DavidM — Fri 21st April 2006 @ 6:43 pm