Antiseptic ~ Its not often you’re right, but you’re entirely wrong again.!.
The ChildLine figures are not the official statistics in the UK on reported child sexual abuse. Those figures are collected and maintained by the Department of Children, Families, and Schools. The ChildLine figures are only the numbers of children seeking their help and advice and its likely that only a very small proportion of those children are eventually reported to the DCFS as they are not required to disclose personal details. Even with the DCFS a number of informed professional observers in child protective services contend that they represent probably less than 10 per cent of the actual number of children who are sexually abused in the U.K. every year.
So the ChildLine figures have no utility for general comparative statistical purposes and extrapolating them and applying them to the overall population is a futile exercise.

A further correction is that the population of female children under 15 years of age in the U.K. is probably around 4.5 million of which a further third can be eliminated as they are under 5 years of age.

As for the Massachusetts documents of 1990 and 2002, it is only the FR rednecks who claim to hold no credibility in them (for obvious reasons) and their findings have been supported by similar findings in Australian research in recent years into Domestic Violence and Child Abuse as it is viewed by the Family Courts and it is certainly the view of many who are able to closely observe the workings of Australian Family Courts and by the testamentary evidence of many hundreds of Australian women who have encountered the Australian Family Court system. They frequently state that after years of Domestic Terrorism and Abuse they are subjected to similar abuse and even a mental ‘Gang Rape’ by the lawyers and Family Court officials. The 2003 Arizona study also supported the original findings.

I’ll be happy to call the SES to help you to pull your Gumboots out of your mouth!.
Now run along and play with your toys in your Shed.

ChazP:"The ChildLine figures are not the official statistics in the UK on reported child sexual abuse. "

Well done you! knew you'd work that out eventually, although you did need rather a lot of help, didn't you?

chazP:"they represent probably less than 10 per cent "

So you now claim that the rate of sexual abuse in the UK is about 0.1% of girls?

Thanks for continuing to point out that it is a tiny problem for society. You're doing a marveloous job. Really.

ChazP:the population of female children under 15 years of age in the U.K. is probably around 4.5 million"

erm... I suggest you do some research that's more recent than 1989...

At the 2001 census the figures was, as I stated, 5,293,871 females between 0-14. It is no doubt quite a lot higher now, which only makes ny point stronger. Wikipaedia has an excellent discussion on the subject, although you'll probably struggle to grasp it. Perhaps you could ask someone to explain it to you.

The Massachusetts report is not only wrong, it is not applicable to Australia. To quote the link I cited earlier:"the very same data from which this 70% claim was derived also supports the following statement: The rate at which mothers’ requests for sole custody were honored is 65% higher than the comparable rate for fathers’ requests."

As I said, it's a great piece of toilet paper

All of the recent reports into the Family Court found that shared care is working in most cases where it has been granted and that the biggest predictor of a failure of shared care is a vindictive and uncooperative mother.

The CJ herself has said that she is concerned at the number of allegations of violence or abuse that are put forward then dropped. It has become a standard tactic for ambulance-chasing lawyers and dollar-chasing ex-wives to use the claim of violence to place unwonted pressure on the father, usually with no basis in fact.

Now off you toddle and see if you can't find someone to explain all that to you.

'a mental ‘Gang Rape’'
ahahahahaha

I just pissed myself laughing over that one. Nice work!

Antisceptic ~ I must very sincerely applaud your uncanny and incredible ability to write with great authority on matters which you clearly know little, or nothing about. You will note that I said the ChildLine figures are NOT the official figures on child sexual abuse in the U.K. and therefore have no utility in applying them to the general population of female children. So multiplying that figure by ten, has no relevance whatsoever. Duh!.

“The CJ herself has said that she is concerned at the number of allegations of violence or abuse that are put forward then dropped.” ~ the CJ was corrected regarding this comment when she learned that mothers are being advised by their lawyers NOT to raise issues of domestic violence and intra-family terrorism, nor of child abuse because the perverted perpetrator will obviously deny the allegations and as there is unlikely to be corroborative evidence, then such allegations are extremely hard to prove to Family Court Judges, as it will be a case of the child’s word against the abuser's. The benefit of the doubt is always given to the accused. Some Judges will simply refuse to even consider such evidence, or not even allow such evidence to be entered into the Hearing, so if the allegations are thereby unproven then the penalties for such mothers are being made to pay the full costs of the Hearing, imprisonment for refusing contact, and probably the children being removed into the alleged abuser’s care with no contact by the mother. E.g. Darcey Freeman. These punishments have been meted out to several mothers by the Family Courts. Faced with such threats, it is little wonder that mothers decide not to put such abuse allegations by the child forward to the Court.

Houellebecq, - perhaps your mind cannot encompass the fact that there are lawyers who are FR associates, supporters, or sympathisers who take as much delight in degrading, reviling, and defiling females and with the same amount of ferocity and venom as Antisceptic and yourself

ChazP:"they represent probably less than 10 per cent"

ChazP:"multiplying that figure by ten, has no relevance whatsoever. Duh!."

Duh! indeed...

I see you've had trouble finding anyone down at the collective who understands percentages.

ChazP:"if the allegations are thereby unproven then the penalties for such mothers are being made to pay the full costs of the Hearing, imprisonment for refusing contact, and probably the children being removed into the alleged abuser’s care with no contact by the mother. E.g. Darcey Freeman."

Oh dear, where to start?
Firstly, if an allegation of a serious crime such as child sexual abuse cannot be proven, it is mostly because it didn't happen.

Secondly, children are at far greater risk of harm if the father is removed from the picture. Six times greater risk with a single mother than a single father.

Thirdly, there are many, many cases of women making false allegations about abuse, the most recent being Wen vs Denison http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2009/1251.html
in which the mother was granted sole and exclusive custody after making numerous false allegations despite the Court regarding her as a dishonest and manipulative witness and the father as a caring and decent man who only wanted the best for his kids. The judgement is tragic reading.

Fourthly, point to a single example of the calumnies you mention ever actually befalling a woman who was found to have made false allegations. Your fevered imaginings don't count.

If you'd like to discuss child murder, the figures indicate that Mum does it about as often as Dad and Mum's new boyfriend does it about as much as either of them, which is pretty damn infrequently. Dad's place would be a good safe haven for a lot of abused kids if Mum would only tell them where it is...

Now off you toddle, there's a good girl.

*AntiSeptic*

I am wondering. Are you aware that this place is "public record?"
Am I correct about that anyone?

And, for the record, I did not take offence at *AntiSeptic's* remarks about my alleged "abnormality," but rather interpreted it to mean that statistically speaking my case

(that I related quite openly to everyone as an additional contribution to the discussions in this thread above and beyond what I would normally make)

was off the bellcurve, but still appreciated *SuzeOnLines* in principal defence, especially kind considering that recently I had been unnecessary sharp edged and critical in regards to a particular view that she expressed in relation to "murder and mental health."

This brings me back to *AntiSeptic* If I am correct as above and you can accept that in some cases, financial responsibility should be enforced against some fathers but custody ought be declined, then why is it that you wave the flag one way or another?

Statistics for example are largely irrelevant. These determinations are made on a case by case basis, in light of the evidence accepted in relation to the requirements of the Act.

Now, are you perhaps projecting? Please forgive me if I am a little slow on the uptake, but are your circumstances one of being forced to pay with no custodial rights? Or are you just a flag waiver for a minority group.

Further, are you aware that give the impression of a hostile, antagonistic individual who may be a risk to others? If you carried on like this in the Family Court you would be lucky not to get a restraining order for good measure. Would you care to comment on that?

..

I am of the view that few parents who proceed to litigation understand the effect that it can potentially have on the kids.