What is something that really affects you?

Forums › Off topic › What is something that really affects you?

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#3412957 9-Sep-2025 13:15

Ge0rge:

I wholeheartedly agree with Mike. There are parts of this story that should absolutely never see the light of day. He has gone. The focus should be on the children and supporting them to live healthy lives, not digging into the last four years for some perverse pleasure of those not involved.

I can only hope that the court-ordered injunction issued for 48 hours yesterday becomes permanent. Nothing good will come if the suppression order is lifted, mark my words.

There has to be a beginning and end to this. Yes, the children deserve privacy, 100% like any other kid in Oranga Tamariki care. Frankly I am hopeful of never hearing or seeing anything of them ever again, God willing.

But given the huge amount of resources and the risk to the public from the (alleged) armed offending, I think the realities of who has been assisting/sheltering and allowing them to evade capture for the last few years is something that should not be just swept aside.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3412967 9-Sep-2025 14:01

GV27:

But given the huge amount of resources and the risk to the public from the (alleged) armed offending, I think the realities of who has been assisting/sheltering and allowing them to evade capture for the last few years is something that should not be just swept aside.

I agree, but just like all compliance, if the cost is greater than the benefit, then is it the right thing to do ? We could spend millions (and it will be that at least) investigating, most of that investigation would easily be blocked by a lack of co-operation, and even if with full co-operation you could hold someone accountable, the likely penalties are unlikely a deterrent. It would be entirely possible that even if charging someone could be achieved, a defense lawyer would just declare they co-operated under duress and fear for the safety of themselves and the children, and the whole prosecution would fall over.

This is the first time in modern history NZ something of this magnitude has occurred. It feels like the answer to a question that not many people are asking.

SepticSceptic

2263 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 779

Trusted

#3412973 9-Sep-2025 14:26

networkn:

Rikkitic:

I don't know what the truth of this situation is. I have no inside knowledge. But it is at least possible that the kids were not suffering at all but were having the time of their lives, one big adventure holiday. Apart from the death of their dad, they might not like being removed from that at all. I know I wouldn't.

I am in agreement about this. There is next to no chance you could keep 3 young kids miserable cold and in constant danger for 4 years. He is an accomplished bushman and whilst life probably wouldn't appeal to everyone, I'd suggest things have been far better than people may be thinking.

When the hunters stumbled across them a while back, they weren't exactly busting a gut to be rescued.

Still, seeing your father shot will be very traumatic.

Sad outcome for all

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3412982 9-Sep-2025 15:07

GV27:

There has to be a beginning and end to this. Yes, the children deserve privacy, 100% like any other kid in Oranga Tamariki care. Frankly I am hopeful of never hearing or seeing anything of them ever again, God willing.

But given the huge amount of resources and the risk to the public from the (alleged) armed offending, I think the realities of who has been assisting/sheltering and allowing them to evade capture for the last few years is something that should not be just swept aside.

The question of assistance/sheltering and shortfalls etc needs to be addressed by the various authorities but not in the public domain or the court of public opinion. Healing started yesterday and continued public debate and exposure with do continuing harm to the family and damage the chances of good outcomes.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

kiwifidget

"Cookie"
3640 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1969

Lifetime subscriber

#3413015 9-Sep-2025 17:31

I'm feeling really sad for all the GZers that have crap TVs in their house.

Delete cookies?! Are you insane?!

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3413470 10-Sep-2025 16:53

That the world and more specifically the world collective moron leaders have gone completely nuts. They also seem hellbent in getting into a global conflict.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

networkn

Networkn
32862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15453

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3413927 11-Sep-2025 21:50

Good God, I hope the police throw the book at the scumbag(s) who leaked the Tom Philips audio.

It's all incredibly despicable.

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#3413944 12-Sep-2025 06:19

MikeB4:

The question of assistance/sheltering and shortfalls etc needs to be addressed by the various authorities but not in the public domain or the court of public opinion. Healing started yesterday and continued public debate and exposure with do continuing harm to the family and damage the chances of good outcomes.

The bit I struggle with is other certain high-profile cases involving children where families have enabled abusers and closed ranks, seemingly without consequences. You start to run into issues with the rule of law if there are no visible consequences for high visible offending. It should not be something people can temporarily opt out of.

100% agreed that this needs to be balanced against the interests of the children involved but there is a wider justice question here, particularly given the implications for other family/custody disputes.

cddt

1965 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1904

#3414048 12-Sep-2025 10:32

GV27:

The bit I struggle with is other certain high-profile cases involving children where families have enabled abusers and closed ranks, seemingly without consequences. You start to run into issues with the rule of law if there are no visible consequences for high visible offending. It should not be something people can temporarily opt out of.

I'm a little puzzled by the media reporting, which keeps repeating that "he did not have legal custody of the children at the time of their disappearance" but not a single source has said who did have legal custody of the children then...

My referral links: BigPipe | Mercury

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#3414112 12-Sep-2025 12:35

cddt:

I'm a little puzzled by the media reporting, which keeps repeating that "he did not have legal custody of the children at the time of their disappearance" but not a single source has said who did have legal custody of the children then...

I suspect that no-one had legal custody. I may be wrong... my experience is over 35 years ago. Perhaps things have changed, but I suspect not materially. With that caveat, and IANAL,...

It requires a Family Court hearing to decide on custody and access (as it was then, previously custody and visitation, subsequently shared parenting agreements I think). Until there is a hearing, either parent can essentially do whatever they like with the children, including denying the other parent access to them. Of course, doing the wrong thing risks the ire of the Family Court when it does finally come to a hearing. It can take a year to get a Family Court hearing, or a few months in the case of an emergency (e.g. a parent is preventing access).

So I think it was deliberately misleading when the Police said "he did not have legal custody of the children at the time of their disappearance". Yes, he did not have "legal custody", just as 90% of parents in NZ don't have "legal custody" of their children. But he was completely within the (absence of) law when he took them into the bush. I don't think there was any subsequent in absentia Family Court hearing relating to Phillips and his children, so I believe this limbo situation is still the case.

The Police have all along been going out of their way to paint Tom Phillips as a bad person, without considering the situation that he found himself in 4 years ago.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19063 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16304

Lifetime subscriber

#3414118 12-Sep-2025 13:00

frankv:

The Police have all along been going out of their way to paint Tom Phillips as a bad person, without considering the situation that he found himself in 4 years ago.

Thanks for pointing that out. I have been disturbed by the apparent efforts by police and media to paint him as black as possible. There seems to be a concerted campaign to portray him as a villain. Of course he did become a villain and he did try to murder a police officer. That should not be minimised. But I don't think things are as one-sided as they are being portrayed.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

cddt

1965 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1904

#3414124 12-Sep-2025 13:17

frankv:

So I think it was deliberately misleading when the Police said "he did not have legal custody of the children at the time of their disappearance". Yes, he did not have "legal custody", just as 90% of parents in NZ don't have "legal custody" of their children. But he was completely within the (absence of) law when he took them into the bush. I don't think there was any subsequent in absentia Family Court hearing relating to Phillips and his children, so I believe this limbo situation is still the case.

Poor form for the journos who repeated this line without clarification.

My referral links: BigPipe | Mercury

SepticSceptic

2263 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 779

Trusted

#3414254 12-Sep-2025 15:10

Rikkitic:

frankv:

The Police have all along been going out of their way to paint Tom Phillips as a bad person, without considering the situation that he found himself in 4 years ago.

Thanks for pointing that out. I have been disturbed by the apparent efforts by police and media to paint him as black as possible. There seems to be a concerted campaign to portray him as a villain. Of course he did become a villain and he did try to murder a police officer. That should not be minimised. But I don't think things are as one-sided as they are being portrayed.

This so much.

Mark Mitchell needs to keep his trap shut.

Tagging Tom Phillips as a scumbag will do nothing to help reintegrate the children back into normal life.

The kids obviously adored their dad, and MM's comments will introduce another layer of complexity, and possibly future resentment to any law and order personnel.

Handle9

11924 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9675

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3415498 16-Sep-2025 23:58

Ge0rge:

MikeB4:

I think there is a lot more to the Marakopa saga that is not public and never should be. I don't think it needs to be in the public domain like it is now. The social media frenzy is disgusting.

I wholeheartedly agree with Mike. There are parts of this story that should absolutely never see the light of day. He has gone. The focus should be on the children and supporting them to live healthy lives, not digging into the last four years for some perverse pleasure of those not involved.

I can only hope that the court-ordered injunction issued for 48 hours yesterday becomes permanent. Nothing good will come if the suppression order is lifted, mark my words.

Give what's going on via social media and various rumours the injunctions aren't working. I'm not sure what the answer is but the suppression orders seem to be making things worse rather than better.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#3415957 18-Sep-2025 16:40

frankv:

So I think it was deliberately misleading when the Police said "he did not have legal custody of the children at the time of their disappearance". Yes, he did not have "legal custody", just as 90% of parents in NZ don't have "legal custody" of their children. But he was completely within the (absence of) law when he took them into the bush. I don't think there was any subsequent in absentia Family Court hearing relating to Phillips and his children, so I believe this limbo situation is still the case.

My wife believes that Phillips's parents had legal custody of the children. She doesn't know where she got that information, but believes it's true. If it's true, it does change the legal position from "just a parent taking his kids into the bush" to "kidnapping his kids". However, I think that if it was true, the police would have immediately labelled Phillips as a kidnapper, so I think it's not true.

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17