The family breakdown is catastrophic in the true sense. To state the obvious, all members of the broken family become victims including Grandparents, uncles, Aunties; you name it. Sure the children matter, but not only the children matter.

Whole networks are built around families: to have a system that demands the unravelling of a family breakdown that must be clarified in the cauldron of plunder containing the interconnected industries that rely heavily on family failure for their own collective welfare is THE madness. What person in their right mind would NOT rort collectively or individually its parts for their own ends. It has become a monster of collective systems that relies on and encourages rorting to ensure its perpetuation.

As has been aptly pointed out in these posts, the author of this one eyed article is but a product or an output of a University mentality of deliberate engineering. She is on the Gravy Train and an active member in the cauldron of plunder, as is the University at which she was educated (or brain washed of any free thought).

Remember folks, Runner is a parody of fundy christianity intended to bring ridicule upon genuine christians.

In fact, The christian bible emphasises the high regard held by "god" for a man who offered his daughters to the crowd rather than expose "god's" supposed messengers to rude propositions.

Remember that "angels" are not depicted as fully human, and so could hardly be "threatened" in any genuine sense by sexual advances.

Throw kids to be raped by the crowd. It's approved by the bible!

Oh, says a hypocritical fundy, that's not true anymore. Yep. Along with the rest. Keep on picking which bits you like.

Rusty

"“It has been well documented that men are much more likely to commit suicide or to die from other causes, following divorce and separation.” – JamesH.
Such an assertion may possibly be true if the reason for each of those suicides were confirmed by a Coroner’s Inquest.Is it not more likely that such men commit suicide because they have been rejected as unsuitable partners and parents, and cannot face such truths and realities.?. Or that they have failed to get their own way in the Courts and this has been a severe and unbearable blow to their self-esteem.?."
-ChazP

Huh? Such an assertion is true if it is can be shown that it is more likely that men will shuffle off the mortal coil following divorce and separation. From a statistical perspective, the motives behind death are irrelevant to the probability of death. Congratulations, you've just earnt yourself the Non-Sequitur of the Week Award.
to be continued...

...continued
"The real issue is the discrimination shown by university academics in not presenting full information and in hiding information so as to portray a gender in a negative way.

This is outside of the anti-discrimination policies of the universities that harbor these individuals, but this is ignored by the universities and the discrimination allowed to continue.

The acceptance of this discrimination by universities basically means no information coming from anyone in a university can be relied upon or trusted in any way."
-vanna

Alright vanna, I am getting heartily [expletive deleted] sick of you whingeing about the evils of university education without providing a shred of evidence to support your position.

Is it just a case of sour grapes 'coz you obviously missed out on the benefits of a university education, and are consequently jealous of those with a better education than yourself?

For the record: none of my lecturers portrayed gender in a negative way. Presumably 'coz gender issues have little bearing on the physical sciences. None of my lecturers showed any inclination toward sexual discrimination. And all of the information they provided accords nicely with information from chemists the world over. Which means that either (a) the entire science of chemistry can't be relied upon or trusted in any way (seems unlikely, doesn't it?); or (b) my lecturers were providing me with trustworthy and reliable information. Given that option (b) is vastly more probable than option (a), I would request that you cease & desist from making such appallingly stupid generalisations.

To the memory of those wrongfully incarcerated by misuse of the AVO.

FROM WHENCE AND TO WHERE

In the land of nowhere
Jingle the keys of crime
Where overlord is jackboot
And enemy time
Future called empty
Suppression the King
Supine the body
Medication bell ring

Correction a mantra
A transient verb
Suppression the object
No argument heard
Crashing steel door
The song 24
Prisoner in shackles
down on the floor

Mother of Son
Not hers was the crime
Wife and the children
All do their time
Nine AM Sunday
A gathering crowd
Front of the main gate
All looking proud

Prisoner excited
Expectancies rise
Suddenly remembers
The sorrow in eyes
Visit a joy?
No, a passing event!
Capitalist toy now
Asunder to rent

diver

How is it that family law has become synonymous with restraining orders, abuse, and violence? These rightly belong within the authority of our criminal codes. If there are increasing numbers of otherwise law abiding decent individuals becoming violent and abusive within the current family law auspices, then the problem could well be the culture of the family law itself.

It is essential to clearly and accurately designate he violence as a distinct and separate criminal matter; the family issues another. By allowing these two to intermix, any debate must become and remain inane and destructive.

The current system seems unconscious to the powder keg of emotions which could ignite violence from the very best of us. Rather then perpetuate a system which in fact rewards one party to egg on the other to cross the line of decency, the system must endeavour to minimize its own complicity.

I am saddened by members who cite their experience of dealing with immature couples who care not for their children. As a father, who has and continues to have an amicable arrangement with their ex-wife both socially and as a co-parent; and as a friend of many who have gone thru the mill - the number one agent for igniting animosity are the legal representatives.

Ostensibly to protect each clients interest, they ensure that every unconscious or forgotten slight is raised, written, read and responded to. Every advantage no matter how puerile is canvased and applied.

This is not a gender issue, it is a ruthless game where the state is cruel and active agent which tortures both men and women alike. And like most things in our culture, it is not the fittest but the most ruthless who the system favors.

The embedded presumption of the family law system to investigate minutae of personal details, to encourage each parent to make claim and counter claim against the other and then to be surprised when those people can no longer work together for the best interests of the children. What kind of idiots have we become?