Tom Phillips - any Kiwis (or others who know the story) want to discuss?

[Iwishiknewwhatiwasdoing]

Posting for traffic…

Such a nightmare of a situation. So insane how he managed to evade police for 4 years. The youngest may not even remember his previous life?

I've read that article three times now. What uncle? There isn't a single relative quoted in that article.

I think that overall most of his family were fairly quiet and some uncooperative about it all.

Yes, but two posters have mentioned the uncle that was "quoted" in this linked article.

The uncle's comment is an interesting one. He knew his nephew was a proper wrong 'un, and broke ranks to say so.

and

His whole family particularly the uncle have a lot of explaining to do now!

What frigging uncle?! There's a bunch of locals and farmers quoted, no uncles I could see.

The uncle is quoted in the Slate article.

Yep, if you do a search of the word Uncle on the Slate article you will see the quotes.

Thank you! The placement of the para about the uncle below the second link indicated to me it was in that article. Will look at the Slate one now. I guess.

People keep saying the baby situation is disgusting, unverified, and shouldn’t be repeated.

So I pose this as a question for those of you denying it - what if it is real?

What if the family courts were involved and removed custody from Tom because it was clear the dangers involved in him having them in his care. It was an active case before court that has been locked down TIGHT.

The truth is - Tom had an extraordinary viewpoint that his children were his property. Not allowed to go to school, have friends or have anything to do with those outside of his very immediate inner circle. Tom was controlling and a narcissist. Not a loving father.

These children were his “possessions” and he was raging that the courts dared to take his control away or that their mother may have access but he would either not gain back his custody of them or have to share that custody.

What if those flags hinted or pointed directly at the most unimaginable abuse and Tom knew that. He knew he’d not get them back. He knew the evidence was stacking up.

Tom lost custody…. so I pose to you WHY would a man lose custody of his children in a country where Oranga Tamariki leaves children with parents who openly abuse their kids by neglect, hitting them, exposing them to violence and drugs every day - but they would remove them from a “loving father who they had no very real and verified concerns about”.

What was it that was so red flagged that he lost custody?

Again those of us saying these things have to be careful in how we relay this information or pose these questions.

But what if this is the truth? What IF Tom has committed this most heinous of acts and his behaviour four years ago pointed to this already being a major concern and this is why the family court documents - discussing the removal of them from his care - have been in lockdown for FOUR years.

Now he’s dead, there is no court case. Not against him - but there’s still an injunction STOPPING OT’s findings and concerns about him as a father. Why would they need an injunction to stop these being released if they weren’t completely damning? His parents have paid HUGE money to stop these being viewed by the public.

There are multiple people close to the situation who say a baby exists.

Again, I pose this as a question so as to not cross any boundaries - If that’s true, it should be acknowledged, so the public can see the monster this man really was instead of comparing him to some kind of Ned Kelly “hero” who was only protecting his kids. The reality is, what he did destroyed their lives, and they will carry the scars of this evil forever.

The people wishing death on the cop or hurling abuse at the children’s mother need to hear the truth about the man they are defending in the thousands. Only then will the blind support stop, and those same people will have to face the fact that they spent all this time standing behind a monster.

And as for his daughter - she has done NOTHING wrong. She is the biggest victim of them all and one day - once she’s been deprogrammed- she will share her story. No one in any country would find fault with her in this situation.

She was and still is a child.

A child, that had her life stolen by the person who she should have been able to trust most in this world.

She is an innocent.

But those saying - people should stop spreading such vile lies or even discussing this situation - should really stop and think who are you really protecting in the long run?

It’s not his daughter. Because this will all come out one day.

The answer is you’re protecting Tom - the monster.

Family Court documents are by default confidential. They are never a matter of public record unless a court order states otherwise (rare). This is largely because it is unfair for children to have details of their lives viewed and gossiped about by strangers. HTH.

@kiwiAussie85 I can kind of see what you are saying but all I think is that it must be horrendous to have your life picked over in hyper focus by strangers the world over. I would hate that as an adult, let alone a 14 year old (I will be forever grateful that SM wasn't even a thing when I was that age) and even on this tiny corner of the internet that she will probably never read I don't want to contribute to any distress this may cause.

I have no intention of protecting Tom Phillips but he's dead and there is no justice that can be handed out to him now, so instead look at the people who are still here. Who knew what and how clear are their consciences looking?

We have no idea if any of the children will ever talk about what they've been through. Some people who've lived through unthinkable events as children never do, even into adulthood when undoubtedly they could earn a good payday for doing so. So until they choose to do so my personal feeling is that they should be off limits.

I agree that I think his parents have gone to great lengths to ensure the injunction covers Tom’s behaviour but I wonder whether it’s because they are worried about the impact it will have on them, rather than their son’s image or grandchildren’s wellbeing.

The Phillips’ live in a very rural area and whilst plenty of their neighbours have probably heard the speculation, they are possibly thinking of themselves having to continue living and working there. They don’t seem to want to stop the current rumours about a baby or that the baby could be their great grandchild.

Ultimately it comes down to what little we know. We know there were early questions because there was speculation a baby was involved (no suggestion, as far as I am aware, about who the mother or father of the baby was, just of there being a baby), we know those involved have called Tom a monster for what he did to his children, we know his mother obtained an injunction and has done done to stop the baby rumours, the police have done nothing to formally acknowledge and end the baby rumours, so the conclusion is either there is something to the rumours or the truth is far worse that the rumours are a good distraction.

Whatever the injunction is hiding, it’s clearly awful behaviour.

The gossip comes from a question posed at a livestreamed press conference by a Herald reporter and of course is being fuelled by the quite disgraceful Stuff article today.

I knew our Press were pretty scummy (having personally seen John Campbell clambering over the rubble in the aftermath of the Chch quakes, and practising his crocodile tears for the camera; see also the exploitative interview of Scott Guy's pregnant widow; see also reporting on David Bain's child; see also...) but I find this circus and salacious gossip mill about these kids appalling.

Good to see 1News has scrubbed the previously published pictures of the children from its website as the kids are found and now no good to them and only harm can accrue from their being identifiable. Shame some other media outlets lack that integrity.

I've just reread Lloyd Burr's article in Stuff today and all I can hear is the whining of a journo who is stamping his foot in chagrin that he was prevented by the courts from publishing his scoop, writing his grubby little article that would be guaranteed tens of thousands of clicks.

The upshot of this IMO is that it is more likely that the courts will be applied to for and grant UK-style super injunctions preventing any mention of the existence of the injunction. Because if the press are just going to publish in this faux-innocent way "what can we do about these Internet sites X Y and Z flouting the order and publishing the things we aren't allowed to tell you" then clearly they aren't obeying the spirit of the law.

Shame on Stuff. They don't do this when it's a comedian up on sex charges, or a billionaire charged with possession of unspeakable things- they don't openly direct you to the sites which are publishing this and that about them in defiance of the orders. Defenceless kids? Another matter entirely.

Clearly you were one of those clicks and you seem to be going out of your way to promote their site by continually mentioning it to a predominantly British audience who otherwise wouldn’t be searching for it.

This thread is for Kiwis and this is our main news site.

The thread says or others so I’ll disagree with you about it being for Kiwis.

OK, but if you can't recognise our main news outlets (it's the main story on stuff.co.nz ffs) then I would question how closely you had followed any of it. Explains your ignorance of certain NZ matters upthread, though.

Your comment is like saying "YOU ARE DRAWING ATTENTION TO THIS BY POSTING IT11!111" ... when it's the main item on the BBC.

I really don’t want to comment on the possibilities specific to this case but I know two parents who had contact with their child removed and spend a lot of time telling anyone who will listen about the injustice involve, the bias of the courts - one against mothers, one against fathers - and how much they love their children and have a ‘right’ to them. I also know those children and their families and exactly what they did to lose contact with their children. I see the supportive comments they get and the way people treat their exes because of what they are saying, and it infuriates me. The necessary discretion of the family court and the distrust that comes from some of the decisions made which do seem undeniably unfair mean that there is a lot of potential for some total shits to claim they are innocents, and their children and families suffer for that all over again.

Interesting take. My take is there is something vitally important including to public interest (ie what actions / inaction was involved on part of police especially if the children were harmed in Phillips care, any other charges coming for involved people etc) that they are legally not allowed to publish - because the Phillips family took out the injunction. It looks like scummy behavior but it's exactly the opposite in my experience. The general public will never know why. They are walking a very careful, difficult line and you have no idea how much is going on behind the scenes to ensure public interest is balanced against the welfare of the kids. Keeping in mind there's a subset of people who are behind Phillips, think he's a hero, crowning him poster boy of their causes - that is also dangerous. Police are walking a similar line to media, as is the Police minister. His comments are telling.

Similar to family court, which again out of necessity looks to often be horrifically unfair but in actual fact the safety of children is paramount in those decisions made about care and contact. The general public out of necessity is not privy to the details, and should generally not be, but the courts, lawyers and other parties have their hands tied when it comes to people in the community attacking them. Just something to keep in mind.

Also the comedian on sex charges that media only mentions briefly? You can guarantee the victim was a relative. It is illegal for media to identify in any way a child victim of sexual abuse - which includes naming the perp where their position or relationship to the victim has reasonable chance of leading to the child's identity being out there. Last I checked doing so risked a hefty fine or jail sentence for the journo. People were so outraged by the lack of inquiry into the Doyle case, being clearly unaware that media would be committing a crime by pursuing that. It was a police matter and stated with police, as was right. Didn't stop people baying for blood and splashing the poor kid's photo everywhere over social media.

Here is an article on the case reported in the UK daily mail today, the NZ media is silent for the last few days except for the article about internet sites and the injunction.
The articles sums up the worry and concern the mother and the childrens older sisters have not been listened to and failed by the whole system during this whole saga.
The mother asks the same questions that have been raised on this thread, why were her concerns not acted on earlier by the government agency's and he was able to abduct the children a second time?
I hope the mother and older sisters get to see and have custody of the children as soon as possible. It will be difficult for them to trust government authorities after what they have all been through.
This is a public interest topic as the public needs assurance this is ever going to happen again.
What's also concerning is the same government agencies have all had heavy job and budget cuts in the last few years so i'm worried the problem is just getting bigger
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15094459/Dark-secret-New-Zealand-wilderness-family-father-mum.html

The SpinOff and The Herald have run similar opinion pieces to Stuff @IllBeLookingAtTheMoon

I don't like it either but you can't ignore it when there is so much rumour around - look at this thread. Easily googleable. The law can't keep up with social media. Of course the media is right to examine this issue and the powers we have to control it.

Injunction now until 17th October.

Can an injunction be for life?

Yes, depending on the circumstances involved. Or at least that's the case in the UK anyway. NZ might be different.

Why have you told us about British law when it is an New Zealand case? It's not a case of NZ maybe being different, it's a fact that British law is not NZ law.

The answer is yes, under NZ law a permanent injunction is possible.
https://legalvision.co.nz/disputes-and-litigation/what-is-an-injunction-in-new-zealand/