The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Misunderstanding the Family Law > Comments

Misunderstanding the Family Law : Comments

By Barbara Biggs, published 4/2/2010

Despite the recommendations, A-G Robert McClelland has flagged that he is reluctant to change the shared parenting laws.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. Page 18
  10. 19
  11. 20
  12. 21
  13. ...
  14. 31
  15. 32
  16. 33
  17. All
Antiseptic stated:

<<<< based on an affidavit which contained not a single instance of ACTUAL violence >>>>

CJ you're right. I think Anti wants a medal.
Posted by Severin, Saturday, 20 February 2010 11:06:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ

"you have to realise that it is perfectly legitimate for men to intimidate women and children, so long as they don't use actual physical violence."
Maybe some blokes do make an effort to be intimidating without being violent. Many other blokes make no effort to frighten women into compliance and no impartial observer would claim that her fear is well justified. She will still get an AVO anyway.

"How else are we going to keep them in line?"
Couples have arguments. Men have a right to attempt to get issues resolved in a way that meets their needs. It is only when they use violence or intimidation that they step over the line. Many people describe any effort to ask her to change as controlling behaviour and this attitude is decidedly unhelpful.

"Hell, without the lurking spectre of violence in the background, we might have to talk to and negotiate with them. It would be the end of the traditional family."
Without all of the free kicks that the legal and family court system gives women, they might actually need to negotiate and compromise. Nah...much easier to just use the power they have been given.
Posted by benk, Saturday, 20 February 2010 11:31:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic, i see that in their, bizarre hast, to defame you, the loony, left, radical, extremist, lesbian, feman-nazi paedophiles and their "male apologist" backers, are not, however proudly boasting about the article in today's Courier Mail, page # 19. "MUM FOUND GUILTY" by Tristan Swanwick. Hmmm, an "evil male" journalist maybe that's where the fair, balanced reporting came from, for once.

"A WOMAN who gassed HER two children to death as an act of revenge against HER ex-husband has been found guilty of murder.

THE WOMAN, 43, from Sandstone Point, near Bribie Island, had pleaded not guilty in a Brisbane Supreme Court to two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.

The court was told that in November 2002, THE WOMAN gave HER son, 8, daughter, 10, and HER 16 year old mentally disabled son crushed up sleeping tablets in glasses of milk.

SHE told them they were "going for a drive", but SHE returned shortly after the children had fallen asleep.

THE WOMAN, who cannot be named, (oooh, no public, naming and shaming of a convicted child murderer or abuser, i wonder who's idea that was) ran a piece of garden hose from the car exhaust pipe into the cabin and locked HERSELF and HER children inside the car.

The two youngest children were found dead of carbon monoxide poisoning several days later.

THE WOMAN and HER teenage son left the garage and were found alive but unconscious inside their home.

Defence barrister Craig Chowdhury told the jury the fact THE WOMAN had killed HER two youngest children and attempted to kill HER teenage son was not disputed.

However, he said THE WOMAN had been suffering from a "major depressive disorder" that seriously impaired HER ability to think or act rationally.

He asked the jury to find HER not guilty under the laws of diminished responsibility.

Prosecutor Simon Bain told the jury THE WOMAN had undergone an acrimonious separation from HER husband in 1997 and they had since been embroiled in CUSTODY and PROPERTY disputes in the FAMILY COURT.

THE WOMAN was further angered when HER...
Posted by Formersnag, Saturday, 20 February 2010 1:10:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only reason she can't be named is because she is a woman and therefore protected. I note that Mr Freeman has had his name constantly plastered everywhere and he hasn't even been convicted yet. And of course little mention of HIS mental state at the time, or any suggestion that he might be found guilty because of diminished responsibility.
Posted by eyeinthesky, Saturday, 20 February 2010 1:22:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
..."ex-husband began seeing another woman in 1999.

BTW apologies for earlier mistake. Prosecutor Ms Simone Bain (female) said the pair's relationship improved briefly in November 2001 before it again deteriorated.

She said THE WOMAN began planing HER children's deaths in October 2002 after a Family Court ordered the man be given custody on Christmas Day.

"SHE stated that SHE would rather see the kids dead than let him have them," Ms Bain said.

"At the end, the defendant was so angry and bitter towards HER ex-husband that SHE committed the ultimate act of hate."

The jury retired about 11:20am yesterday and took six hours of deliberation to reach their verdict.

They found HER guilty on all charges.

Justice McMurdo adjourned sentencing until Wednesday.

Under Queensland law a conviction of murder attracts an automatic sentence of life in prison." (i wonder which gender jihadist's pushed for that change in law?)

ChazPropaganda, single mum, suzeonline, Severin, Cotter, pelican, we are unique, mog, sharkfin, C J Morgan, Pynchme, shivers, care to comment, ladies, or are you going to continue with "the truth, the half truth and nothing but the spin doctoring, raving, ranting, dogmatic, rhetoric, emotive personal abuse, etc. Perhaps you would like to wait till after sentencing, but there is plenty of time available, before then to get some deliberate, premeditated lies in?

Gentlemen, maracas1, partTimeParent, Antiseptic, benk, Howler, skeptic, dane, mikk, RObert, eyeinthesky, anybody offering odds on the likelihood of further commenting, or do you think the girl's will continue, finding some truths, a little too, inconvenient?

BTW Anti, i notice that as usual, when some of them attack you, personally, "with rubbish", that you, "laugh it off", like the rest of us. Whereas they, engage in the usual vicious, verbal, violence after you and others have posted fair, reasonable, opinions backed with good science.
Posted by Formersnag, Saturday, 20 February 2010 3:51:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This discussion has like so many promising discussions before, degenerated from sensible debate and then into provocative attacks and ultimately into an ugly mud-slinging gender brawl. Rather than a search for solutions to the lunacy of Family Court decision-making processes, which would hopefully improve the situation of hundreds of children who are forced into residency and contact with toxic and dangerous parents. I am therefore leaving the discusssion and no doubt you will find ample opportunity in my leaving to continue to hurl your insults and abuses. Good wishes boys and I do hope you will eventually find some happiness in your poor sad empty lives.
Posted by ChazP, Saturday, 20 February 2010 4:38:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. Page 18
  10. 19
  11. 20
  12. 21
  13. ...
  14. 31
  15. 32
  16. 33
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy