The Press goes to Labour patsy for comment

Yesterday The Press ran a story about the changes in Family Law. In that article they quote Erin Ebborn:

Experienced Christchurch family lawyer Erin Ebborn held grave concerns many families would be left “extremely vulnerable and left to go it alone” under the new changes. She feared restricted access to lawyers and the $897 FDR fee would become “daunting hurdles” to people needing help.

Many of Ebborn’s clients had limited literacy, mental health issues or spoke English as a second language. She said they would struggle to fill out legal forms, speak in court on their own behalf and fully understand the system without guidance.

The community was “not aware of the extent of the reforms”, she said.

So who is Erin Ebborn? 

Unfortunately the Dompost neglected to tell readers that it is highly unlikely that they have got an unbiased opinion there because Erin Ebborn is a constant candidate for Labour, standing in the 2008 election in Wigram and was listed at 51 on their 2008 list. She has ofcourse dropped the hyphenated part of her name in order to confuse the repeaters at the Dompost.

She also put herself forward for selection in 2009 in Christchurch Central.

  • Pissedoffyouth

    “Do you prefer David Shearer as the Labour Leader?”

    I chose yes, because Bumbles being in charge is only a good thing for the country, as he’ll never get in.

  • Steve Taylor

    I penned a response to this article in the Christchurch Press, and emailed it to the reporter. For those who may be interested, the main premise of the press release is here: http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=1625

    The Labour Party have already attempted to muddy the waters on this issue, seen here: http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/157119/labour-warns-against-family-court-cost-cutting

    I am hoping that the people most affected by the Family Court process, the service consumers, get to have a much stronger say in the reforms, because judging by these results, leaving the clients voice out of the mix hasn’t worked: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1208/S00051/family-court-reforms-need-to-heed-client-feedback.htm

    • Bob

      Oh please ???? enough of your reconstituted dribble.

      • Steve Taylor

        Hi Bob: Goodness me, if you are a Lawyer, and this is the quality of your argument – then you MUST be a Family Court Lawyer :) Again, don’t be afraid to use your own name.

  • Allyson

    To get into power the evil axis will trash talk our economy into recession, pimp our poor and debase our values. The media with their poor standards will be complicit.

  • Whafe

    Propose a total ban on all daily newspapers around the country……………..
    We all know they are a bucket of Pinko lefty BS, just need to get that message out there far more…..

  • Phar Lap

    Are they the people she talks of,who were once bribed to vote for Lie-bour in Mangere ,by buying them buckets of Kentucky Fried on election day.Or are they the people who have no problem filling in forms at Winz .Or is she a bigger liar than Shearer, on his claims that Auckland houses could be built for $300,000 dollars.Or is it the same Dom-Post that allegedly caused a well known NZ identity to take his life.

    • Patrick

      Or the hundreds residing at one South Auckland Labour candidates’ house? The very same fellow that Labour Party Politicians fall over themselves in the rush to be seen at the Indian cultural events every year?

  • blokeintakapuna

    When bereft of ideas and credible investigation abilities, parachute in a “Labour” plant so the ” random off the street” fits the propaganda angle the paper is trying to spin.

    How inconvenient for them that their ruse has been so easily discovered.

  • quirky_username

    As I have noted in the last post on the Family Court review proposals there are parts of the Bill that I believe will not promote justice or fairness in the resolution of family disputes and am therefore opposed to and am making a submission on. I am a member of the National Party.

    • Steve Taylor

      Hi Quirky. We may well meet each other at the Select Committee Hearing then.. I’ll be the one evidentially disagreeing with you. You will need to identify yourself within that environment however, as all submissions are made public.

      • Bob

        You before the Select Committee Steve? Now that’s a joke and a half to begin with, I mean really, get with the plan here Steve, how are you going to get your head out of your ass long enough to address the Committee, let alone find your way there through all of your bullshit falsely perceived self importance.
        I will be there , standing proudly next to quirky, both armed with shovels and manure bags to remove your crap from the floor.

        • Steve Taylor

          Hi Bob, Well, I guess I base my premise on having appeared in person at Select Commitee processes before? Goodness, I seemed to have really upset you, haven’t I? I would invite you to wait another couple of weeks, and then find yourself a spare $8.90 – then we can have a more informed discussion on the credibility or otherwise of my position. Alternatively, you are welcome to to more fully articulate your rebuttle within this forum, rebuttle being somewhat different to ad homenim responses? Wikipedia link for you in case you get a bit stuck: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

          • Bob

            ad homenim responses?

            Something that you are undeniably an expert at as witnessed in your previous postings on this very forum.

          • Steve Taylor

            What’s your real name, Bob?

          • Bob

            Me? Well my name is Bob, that’s all you need to know for now.

            The question that perhaps should be asked is who are you?

            The answer of course can be found here:

            http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2007/08/12-starters-confirm-for-auckland-mayoral-race/

            Argumentative little snob aren’t you?
            However it is such a relief to realise that as time goes by and everything else changes, you at least remain the same.

          • Steve Taylor

            Hi Bob, Ok, so you are not going to discuss or debate the theme of this post, which is the Family Court reforms; you are not going to use your real identity, as by doing so, readers would realise who you are; and you are going to “troll” instead, owing to some as yet undisclosed issue you may have with me. In accordance with appropriate post protocol, you will need to bring your attack to me in person, as your obvious issue with me has no relevance to the tenure of this post. In my observation, “Trolls” are very unwelcome on this website, “Bob”, and the owner of the site has over the years demonstrated a remarkable ability to publically “out” the “trolls”. Email me at [email protected] and bring your “A” game.

          • Bob

            Well excuse me for being confused Master.
            Your posting yesterday refers to 3 links, all about YOU!
            2 are written directly by you and the other made up of a thinly veiled promo story , again about you.

            As someone who has experience in the Family Court System , I am far better qualified to discuss it than you are.

            The level of change and completely off the wall statements that you generate only display a desire to make changes to suit yourself and mean bugger all to the “clients” as you refer to.

            There will always, no matter what the system changes, be “clients” who are grieved with the FCS. Its the nature of an adversarial system such as we have. There is always one “winner” and one “loser” , that’s why they meet in Court.

            Thats why the system uses the services of recognized, qualified, registered professionals. When you meet this criteria in all 3 areas then you can be expected to be taken seriously.

            So don’t pull the “troll” card on me you twat, sort yourself out first then maybe you will be taken seriously instead of a joke.

          • Steve Taylor

            Hi “Bob”, ah, so you DO want to debate the issues at hand -excellent!

            You state: “Thats why the system uses the services of recognized, qualified, registered professionals. When you meet this criteria in all 3 areas then you can be expected to be taken seriously”. You mean the sorts of professionals who have achieved such appalling outcomes for clients as detailed here?

            http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/justice-system-improvements/family-court-review/family-court-review-documents/Online-questionnaire-final-report.pdf

            “Bob”, would you consider a Lawyer for Child, who has had just 3 days training for the role (including 30 WHOLE minutes of child development) a qualified professional for working with children?

            You state: “There will always, no matter what the system changes, be “clients” who are grieved with the FCS. Its the nature of an adversarial system such as we have. There is always one “winner” and one “loser” , that’s why they meet in Court”

            That is why the Family Court Reforms are heading down the track of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) – ADR outcomes far and away exceed the outcomes of an adversarial process, and it is also why the “recognized, qualified, registered professionals” that you champion are being so deservedly sidelined, an issue I commented on in more detail here: http://familycourtstories.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/daily-post-family-court-10-10-11.pdf

            Yes, I know “Bob”: yet another example of me “not being taken seriously”.

            Regarding your claimed experience in the Family Court: in what role? Lawyer, Applicant, Respondent, Mackenzie Friend, Counsellor, Social Worker, Psychologist – what?

            Bob, I think that the reason that I am taken seriously is one of the factors that most upsets you – you saying I don’t, doesn’t make it so. Registration as a panacea / guarantee? Not according to the Outcome Research: http://tvnz.co.nz/breakfast-news/call-social-worker-registration-video-4866939

            So “un-seriously” did the ANZASW take me on this issue of registration, they wheeled out their CEO the following morning on the same programme, who failed to address any of the issues I had raised, and even struggled to defend her own position on issues I hadn’t raised: http://tvnz.co.nz/breakfast-news/compulsory-registration-social-workers-video-4869760/video

            Up until recently, the Family Court legal profession had no public opposition, because they tried to scare everyone into silence. Has it occurred to you that the reason some Family Court lawyers get so “uppity” with me (albeit anonymously), is that they know I’m not afraid of them, and that I can’t be silenced?
            Ok, you’re up.

          • Bob

            I’m up?

            No Steve its your time that is up.

            A Google search of your name reveals just what sort a vile Troll you are yourself.

            No point in even trying to debate anything with you, it only results in you pushing your own soapbox regardless of the opinion of others, usually because the others are always right.

            Perhaps other readers , after doing their own Google search of you, will take you for the fool that you are and pull the soapbox out from under your feet.

          • Steve Taylor

            Hi Bob, giving up already? Who I am, what I do, what I stand for, and the opinions I hold are no secret. If they were, I would post under a false identity (kind of like what you are doing right now) – so yes, Google away :)

            The fact is, I am not afraid of my own name, and I back up my arguements with evidence, and I think that the reason I am not afraid of my own name, and provide evidence, and publically defend my position on issues, gives me the very credibility that you seem to so desperately wish I didn’t have.

            You may wish to look up the definition of what a “Troll” is “Bob” – because you are a carbon copy of the profile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

            You only lasted 1 post on the actual issue at hand – how disappointing.

            Ultimately, “Bob”, the acclaimed wisdom on an issue at hand is only ever proved by what eventually results from it.

            Perhaps you would like to share what outcomes you have experienced in your life as a result of your own “wisdom” as it may relate to the Family Court process you say you have been a part of?

            For example, if say you “Bob” have a daughter who was the subject of a custody dispute with the Mum (a quite common Family Court experience, yes?) – how do you feel the Family Court process was for you? For your daughter? For the Mum? What changes might you want to see happen? How would these changes have helped you / them at the time?

            I have no care whatsoever about what you may think of me (quite indifferent to this, to be frank), however I am very, very interested in your claimed Family Court experience, the Family Court being the tenure of this post.

            There are over 100 other people I am in dialogue with who have also had a NZ Family Court experience – feel free to join us at http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Zealand-Family-Court-Stories/195310380525508?ref=hl#

55%