So, you don’t have empathy or you don’t feel like you have empathy?

A small percentage of the population don’t and that has a significant affect on their personalities and their relationships with other people.

But don’t let feminists fool you into believing you’re not empathetic if you don’t agree with them or don’t feel for the person hanging out their broken wing.

Your empathy (more…)

Andrew Little is here to increase the male suicide rate in New Zealand.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/124274106/sex-violence-bill-crosses-the-line-on-access-to-a-fair-trial

Do you want to know how you fade away the rights of an individual? You do it in steps. When people become accustomed you just add another step. A layer. Removal of common law rights.

Countries around the world have done this. Germany 1939 – 1945 against the Jews. USA from the 1800’s onwards against the blacks. In New Zealand against the Maoris. Everything from laws to restricting them from voting, then only allowing them to vote in 4 zones North, East, West and South so they could never use their vast numbers to win. Taking of lands. Smacking Maori children for speaking their tongue in class. The list is too huge to write.

After a while the law becomes so imbalanced against a group. It further opens the door for false convictions.

Today that imbalance and hate is against a gender.

Andrew Little. Clearly points out the distress of a complainant. How we should look after that complainant. How that complainant must now be given advance notice of questions so she can formulate answers with the help of her lawyer in advance. Andrew Little made no mention of the distress of male victims of false complaints.

Andrew Little is either,

1. Not aware of false complaints
2. Thinks false complaints are rare.
3. Doesn’t care about false complaints.
4. Not aware of the male suicide rate in New Zealand.
5. Is aware of the male suicide rate but does not care about it.
6. Wants to keep his job and not cross the Metoo movement.

Lets look at some of those steps. I have not included all of them. Its just a broad brush.

1. Remove name suppression for defendants under the guise of a policy of open court. This fair policy does not apply to complainants.

2. Calling the complainant, a victim from the outset. Even after a not guilty verdict. She, and in 99.9% of the time it is a she remains a victim.

3. Cash payments to her even it is a not guilty verdict. None to him if him even if he was a not guilty verdict.

4. Publication of his name in the news so they can run a media trial first. Ruin his name before trial.

5. And now removal the complainant from the trial

Andrew Little made no mention of how this may increase the suicide rates of men. Men who face media before trial, men who are left financially crippled, unemployable and in many cases homeless.

Andrew little speaks of fairness. It wasn’t fair for the Blacks, it wasn’t fair for the Jews, it wasn’t fair for the Maori and it is not fair for the accused.

Marie Dyhrberg, QC, president of the Auckland District Law Society, says the bill as proposed will deprive the defendant of a right that in every other area of criminal law is automatic and inviolable.
Andrew Little will be remembered as a politician who hounded thousands of men. A lot of young men and boys who consider their empty future. Men and boys who quickly work out they will not have a future. They in their minds eagerly welcome with such relief their slipping into unconsciousness forever by their own hand.

Andrew Little is here to increase the male suicide rate and get paid by the public to do it.
Now here is the part where the digital newspapers list phone numbers of counsellors if you consider suicide. Kind of like a disclaimer. I’m not going to do that. They just call the Police who come and arrest you under the appearance you have mental health. When really you were just abused.
In its place I’m going to list the leaders of the opposition parties. Write to them. And if you can’t think of anything to write, cut and paste what I have written.

Judith Collins [email protected]
David Seymour [email protected]

I am reminded it only took a child to point out the Emperor didn’t have any clothes on at all.

Two swindlers arrive at the capital city of an emperor who spends lavishly on clothing at the expense of state matters. Posing as weavers, they offer to supply him with magnificent clothes that are invisible to those who are stupid or incompetent. The emperor hires them, and they set up looms and go to work. A succession of officials, and then the emperor himself, visit them to check their progress. Each sees that the looms are empty but pretends otherwise to avoid being thought a fool. Finally, the weavers report that the emperor’s suit is finished. They mime dressing him and he sets off in a procession before the whole city. The townsfolk uncomfortably go along with the pretence, not wanting to appear inept or stupid, until a child blurts out that the emperor is wearing nothing at all. The people then realize that everyone has been fooled. Although startled, the emperor continues the procession, walking more proudly than ever.

So you can see it from a child’s prospective. Let’s change some names in that 1837 classic.

The swindlers are the 3rd wave feminists.
The weavers are Me Too Movement
The public officials are the MP’s
The townsfolk are the voters.
The child is Marie Dyhrberg, QC
The Emperor is Andrew Little.

Although startled, Andrew Little continues the procession, walking more proudly than ever past the families sitting beside graves of their once helpful loving male relatives.

An interesting critique of the new Sex Violence bill by a QC:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/124274106/sex-violence-bill-crosses-the-line-on-access-to-a-fair-trial

One thing the proposed new law seems to do is make it more difficult for a woman’s relationship history to be brought up in court.

Fair enough, you might say – obviously there’s a danger of someone’s past behaviour being used against them unfairly or irrelevantly.

In fact, I did see a defence of the new bill in Stuff recently – I can’t seem to find it again now – stressing that past relationship history would only be deemed inadmissible if it was irrelevant.

One worry I have is that there does seem to be a trend to edit out relationship history that any reasonable person would deem relevant.

See, for example, this alarming exposé of an article in The Spinoff, which described an encounter in terms that suggested assault while – astonishingly – leaving out the fact the two people involved had been in a relationship for eight months.

Is a Spinoff threshold of guilt to convict more men of sexual assault actual justice?

My conclusion is that there are good grounds to be worried that the irrelevancy test will be used by unscrupulous individuals to prevent men from bringing very relevant evidence (evidence that might quite justifiably acquit them) into a case.

Obviously marital rape can happen, but it should be equally obvious that someone who’s in a relationship with a woman (or even has a history of dating or flirting with her) might have a better reason to think his advances will be desired and reciprocated than a stranger.

Think about a man going up to a woman on the street and giving her a kiss. Outrageous. What if you then find out it’s his girlfriend? Completely normal. What’s the difference? You got it – past relationship history.

This political position may have emerged somewhere in the past prior to NZ Opposition Leader Judith Collins’ announcement that this was her personal view, back somewhere around our recent 2020 election.

It’s gained some traction amongst right wing supporters although I wouldn’t say Conservative supporters.

It’s another of those (more…)

Men here might be interested in this men’s group in Wellington. It’s limited to 9 members but has a few vacancies right at the moment: https://www.cab.org.nz/service-provider/KB00040354

The attached video – Pauline Hanson reports the Family Court in Australia has caused male suicides and female murders. It includes the murders of children by both male and females and other family members. Hanson had identified filicide. That is the killing of one’s son or daughter. A repugnant crime that Hanson says the stats show filicide is committed by more mothers than fathers!

The Australian Government has closed the Family Court. They could not repair or change the set ideology, they could not get rid of the hidden agenders. In one king hit, the Australian Government closed this industry down. The Federal Closed Circuit Court will now take over. 155 Stakeholders i.e. the people who choose to “keep the ball in play” to maximize the hurt and cost to all are now fired. Dismissed for the mental health and deaths they have caused in families. See them scream in the following link.

155 Stakeholders

This is I think the very first major pushback of the feminist ideology worldwide. The beginning of the end of hatred towards men.

On to New Zealand. Minister of Justice Andrew Little has his limited response to the same issues we have.

In 2009 Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier identified 22 people involved in Family Court cases who died as a result of either suicide or homicide. Of these 18 (82 per cent) were suspected suicides, and 41 per cent of the deceased had been, either directly or indirectly, involved in domestic violence proceedings,” he said.

Andrew Little has been the minister of justice for 4 years now. I can only conclude Andrew Little must be overwhelmingly pleased with the suicides otherwise he would have done something over the past 4 years.

If Andrew Little decides to ask for a review or royal commission of enquiry, I and I suspect the voting public will take this as its OK to carry on and cause more mental health, more suicides while he puts it to the bottom of his list of things to do and gleefully claims “I’m waiting on the report”.

Employing more judges will only slightly shorten wait times. The backlog is huge. It will not address the suicides. The core of the matter is the law does not address fairness towards men. The only way forward to reduce mental health and suicide is to;

1. Automatically give dads the same equal share of children as mothers have. If he does not have a home, then it should be parent week about hot swap.
2. Force FCJ to either jail or fine those who commit perjury.
3. Dump the outdated and failed Duluth model. Ordering men to agree to such nonsense before he can be with his children is harmful and causes suicides.
4. Openly acknowledge women can be violent and nasty. They do it by manipulation, perjury, gaslighting and parental alienation. Make such behaviour a serious crime.
5. Make the penalty for parental alienation punishable by returning children to victims.
6. Fund all family court lawyers. This will take away the pressure of limited finance at a time when families are under duress, doubling their accommodation and other costs.

Another way is to force mediation first.

The Australians are reforming their Family Courts to prevent or reduce suicides and murders from happening. Minister of Justice Andrew Little is not.

The Children will ask you one simple question. Are you going to compensate me for my fathers suicide? Children will say “I didn’t get a good start in life because the Family Court did everything they could to stop my loving dad from seeing me”. If you reply ACC, it will be pointed out it was not an accident. The Family Court is designed to cause mental health and suicide.

It also puts the child at risk of suicide too. Maybe not straight away, but certainly further down the track when that kid is old enough to see why he or she has ended up with their lot in life.

I am reminded it only took a child to point out the Emperor didn’t have any clothes on at all.

Two swindlers arrive at the capital city of an emperor who spends lavishly on clothing at the expense of state matters. Posing as weavers, they offer to supply him with magnificent clothes that are invisible to those who are stupid or incompetent. The emperor hires them, and they set up looms and go to work. A succession of officials, and then the emperor himself, visit them to check their progress. Each sees that the looms are empty but pretends otherwise to avoid being thought a fool. Finally, the weavers report that the emperor’s suit is finished. They mime dressing him and he sets off in a procession before the whole city. The townsfolk uncomfortably go along with the pretence, not wanting to appear inept or stupid, until a child blurts out that the emperor is wearing nothing at all. The people then realize that everyone has been fooled. Although startled, the emperor continues the procession, walking more proudly than ever.

So you can see it from a child’s prospective. Let’s change some names in that 1837 classic.

The swindlers are the lawyers and mothers.
The weavers are feminist Ellen Pence and mothers.
The public officials are the Judges.
The townsfolk are the voters.
The child is the child.
The Emperor is Andrew Little.

Although startled, Andrew Little continues the procession, walking more proudly than ever past the children sitting beside graves of their once loving fathers.

I’ll leave it to the Minister of Justice to choose to be remembered as a Minister of effective action and resolve or a Minister of a department that causes unnecessary mental health, suicides and lifelong crushing debt.

The MENZ site burst into life in May 1997.

Is that cause for celebration – 25 years?

This is a new one for me.

Interested to hear from any Hobosexuals about the lifestyle.

One might suspect it’s a natural consequence of the changing status of men in society and perhaps the declining opportunities in home ownership.

I found this proudly displayed in the public domain so I can’t see a issue with sharing this here.

How many fathers do get full custody now days?

Is shared parenting still a thing in the family court?

Male suicide is a national crisis that kills more men that the road toll.

A Book Review

About The Author:

Briar Lipson is a Research Fellow specialising in education.
Before joining, The Initiative (A NZ Project) she was a maths teacher and assistant principal in London. Briar co-founded the Floreat family of primary schools and has worked for International Education consultancy CfBT, and the Westminster think tank Policy Exchange.
Briar arrived in NZ in 2017 and her book is the product of research into the NZ education system.

At face value that may not interest you but before you dismiss this, let me add …

The text evolves from (more…)

Lots of positive, active dad support still happens here? Great! 🙂
Long live the inter – web? Imagine a DadzKare office, a Group?

In Onehunga every Wednesday, a bunch of actual Dads gather, in Tauranga and Raumati, Wellington on Tuesdays
7-9pm, any Dad issues, all welcome, bringers of cookies – double welcome!

Kidz Need Dadz are also looking for DadzKare Support Workers, part time in Auckland and Christchurch, possibly Whangarei, Hamilton and Dunedin.

The pay is poor, but the team is great, the resources developing, our website relies on our predecessor as we share our support for Dads at all stages and know,  half the dads who find us say, ” if only I had known! “

Part time, paid DadzKare Support Workers or Navigators, coordinators, lots of volunteers,
together, share, learn, prevent, survive, peer support and DadzKare groups, all over NZ.

Try 0800563123 almost anytime or email [email protected]

This is what a real bloodstained suicide note from a man who experienced the Family Court looks like.

Before he killed himself he wrote: “FAMILY LAW NEEDS REFORM”. I recommend mandated lower costs and less reward for false claims of abuse. Parental Alienation is devastating. I loved my children as much as a husband and father could. I see no light. Recommend; an authority consistent during high conflict separations: It is exploited in family law.

“Sorry Dad and Angie. I’m very sorry.”

He was 45 years old when he died. He had 2 children.

His bank accounts were locked, he lost his home, his vehicle, his business.

You emasculate a man and take away his ability to provide … he’s a human being. He has limits and the Judge crossed them.

The children want their dad back. The public opinion and liability for male suicide is growing.

Why has the New Zealand government given the power to family court judges to cause mental health and the suicide of hundreds of dads in New Zealand? And why is it that no one in the New Zealand government wants to pick up the mantle for male problems like this one? Are they fearful of the backlash and political future? I look up to people like Pauline Hanson who has put herself on the line for all the male suicides in their country. Pauline’s future is strengthened by her stance as I’m sure our own ministers would be if they open up the shame of our own appalling male suicide figures.

The children of these dead fathers want answers. The liability for male suicide is growing.

Jacinda Ardern – All I ask is to break the cycle of male suicide in New Zealand. Be the world leader of reform and stop the shameful bureaucratic nonsense and end the slaughter.

The next clip can only be viewed on youtube and not in a window here. It lays blame 270 men a year commit suicide at the hands of the Family court and the collection agencies.

YOU MUST VIEW THIS VIDEO CLIP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5n9vUZYZhc

And for all those twits who would gleefully point out the clips were of our Australian cousins….. the New Zealand system practically mirrors just that. The only difference is we do not have collection agencies taking a commission (reward money) and the Australians Parliamentarians are on to it.

I urgently need examples of parental alienation. Higher court examples if that is possible. Something a Family court would have to compare and follow.

Experiences with this could be helpful too.

Building further on my past 2 posts.

One mans fight to see his son. It has taken 14 years so far and counting.

He claims the mother lied.

He calls out Judge Timothy Hindmarsh Druce for perjury and acting legally. He further calls out Judge David Burns and how has his verdicts have been overturned six times by a high court Judge.

The Judges did all they could to ruin a good hard-working mans right to see his son.

His son was desperate to see his dad. His son recorded his mothers partners Mr Brian Raymond Wood violence and abuse towards him. (see it in the video).

When will mainline media pick up on this crap? 60 Minutes, please help these children.

There will be a time when history will reveal just what the New Zealand family court Judges are doing and it will be there for all to read.

There will be a time when the Government will have to compensate the real victims. And what is a going rate for a dad who committed suicide at the hand a corrupt family court judge?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b07djpi6f-M

It’s been a while since I posted here …. or anywhere, for that matter. And I need to overcome this hurdle quickly, because I’m venturing into an online magazine dedicated to ‘Empowering Single Parents & their Families’, both dads and mums. (btw, your input is valued and desired)

Something is blocking my willingness to expose corruption and abuse of power while I’m highly motivated using anger and rage (considered dark energy by Jim Bagnall that’s formed during interventions (I.e:, CYFS, Family Court)) heightened when dealing with corrupt interventionists who abuse their power.

(Btw,I have wondered if you saw my dealings with Police 10/7). That was before I learned to manage the ‘dark energy’ that simply appears when dealing with new interventions similar to CYFS and their corrupt,power abusing, destructive, interventionists.

I do visit and write posts while preferring to use office word, 🙂 so you can’t read the embarrassing drafts.

But THEN…. grrr, shoot, bummer….
I’m stuck….
I can’t post…

Instead I save the post, hide it away, and leave.. only to return when once again, angered or enraged.

I think perhaps, I am affected by expected consequences and empathy whilst I’m in a ‘priviledged’ position having the best of information and knowledge.

I am also sad and sorry for attacking Sue Bradford which may be the last post I wrote. As I become wiser, I understand things much clearer. Was she placed in a bad position as was Peter Dunne from United Future (given the CS portfolio when wanting to empower families, especially nuclear families)?

Have you ever experienced what I am dealing with? Do have some advice to share?

Building on my last post a family court lawyer exposes the domestic violence racket corrupting courts.

A system which gives women the right to make allegations of violence with absolutely no evidence which is then used to destroy men’s lives.
I agree with the importance of protecting women from violent men. However without notice orders has become is now corrupting our judicial system every week.

Bettina Arndt hears from people who are outraged what’s happening here. It includes from the police force who are required to enforce laws they know are grossly unfair by fabricated stories which place offices who are then required to take as factual evidenced to remove men from their homes and denied in contact with their children.

Your stories please.

We are all used to rules. They are important to safeguard everyone. No one wants to spread the virus. And I am convinced lockdown saved lives and we are all better for it.

That being said there were provisions made for shared bubbles. You had to be family and you had to live in the same health zone.

But what do you do when your recent ex flatly refused to acknowledge the provisions and deny access to you kid under the caveat of lockdown. Is it just another lawyers fee? Say $300 for a letter. A few thousand to appear in court if the letter isn’t responded to. And is there a way in which costs can be claimed? And lets just say you do not have the extra money because you are paying for your ex and her lifestyle and trying to keep a roof over your head with the odd meal of noodles. What then?

And whats the point anyway? The courts were closed and only listened to urgent hearings. And is the abuse of a man and his childrens rights important enough to claim urgent?

I hear a lot about violence. Emotional abuse. It seems to not apply when a mans access and his children are abused.

What happened to you?

Was it to expensive?

Or did you give up? Burnt off from fees?

Your opinions and stories please.

As per the current family court policies it can be decided by the court to place paternal responsibilities on a father without proving paternity in many situations.

Studies also show that as many as 1 in 10 fathers are not biologically the fathers of their children and can end up raising and paying child support for a child that is not theirs.
It is suggested that if there is a chance of children being someone else’s in cases where cheating is suspected being as high as 30%.

It’s suggested that all fathers get a paternity test done in order to insure your position and legal responsibilities before you could possibly end up with a lifetime of responsibility to children who might not be yours.

Courts right to choose paternity
http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/nzlc/pp/PP54/PP54-8_.html

Better Bachelor discussing fake paternities and false paternities
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LxpxNhDrPc

Firstly I am not a lawyer. If you need advice on trusts go to a lawyer who specialises in trusts. Large legal firms have specialists in each field.

From what I understand.

1. Man goes to legal firm to get advice on how to protect his assets. i.e. his home.

2. Legal firm draws up trust. Put home in trust.

3. Ex wife takes him to court for half his trusts house.

4. Man adds his legal firm as a third party at the hearing.

5. Ex Wife wins however legal firm has to pay directly ex wifes what the man loss. i,e, half a million. Plus legal costs.

News Story here

Law fuel review here

Ruling PDF Here

I have already heard it said by the new National Party Leader Todd Muller,,, it is the word FAMILY.

There is a strength in that word alone.

I was just watching old footage of the 1978 Election campaign, it was kinda pleasing seeing the senses of humour and the banter between the leaders of parties and their comfortable connection with the public and a seemingly respectful relationship with journalist and the media, .. but it struck me how enjoyably engaged the public seemed,, a whole bunch of NZers’, from old to young, being just as individual as they like , comfortable together, enjoying the politics and very much feeling a part of it, a big part of it.
I know these were a bunch of NZers’ who were as we were back then, a people who have come from good values, albeit they considered conservative, but these times allowed for the individual just fine, underlying this feel good time was the very thing that we all not only had in common but what was a large driving force of New Zealand, it was the FAMILY…the family extended to the community for many of us as we grew in small towns all over lil’ Ol’ NZ. That is when it struck me, like..I had never considered it before, the fact that what was missing in the very people growing up here for the last almost two generations, the lack of strength, commitment and values of old was the lack of FAMILY.

Excuse me though, I don’t want to generalise about the young kids, they have had many burdens, technology being a biggie, I do know many that do not have what I had, a normal Family, you know the kind that has a Father in it,, It would be great to think that one day that ‘F’ word could be in vogue…FATHER the new ‘F’ word.

I’ve recently come across this Australian study of sexual harassment and assault on Aussie campuses: https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/sex-discrimination/publications/change-course-national-report-sexual-assault-and-sexual?_ga=2.229810588.1021617999.1590021521-1687158381.1589180855

Though it’s been reported under headlines claiming it shows ‘widespread’ harassment and assault, it’s worth noting two things.

One is that the definition of harassment is very broad, including ‘inappropriate leering or staring, sexually suggestive comments or jokes, and intrusive questions about someone’s private life or physical appearance.’ And in fact, these were the most common forms of ‘harassment’ that were reported.

The second point is that only 1.6% of respondents reported sexual assault in a university environment. Obviously that’s just allegations that haven’t been proven, but even so it contradicts the official narrative that universities are more dangerous in terms of sexual assault than other contexts.

At Vic uni there’s long been a campaign called ‘Thursdays in Black’ to get students and staff to wear dark clothing in mourning for the supposedly high rates of assault. I haven’t seen a NZ study similar to the Aussie one yet (and would like to), but it looks likely the idea that NZ unis have an epidemic of sexual assault is as false as it is in Australia.