I wonder if I can get this thought right.

In todays Heraldsun is a story about a man who is innocent yet went to gaol.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/i-was-innocent-but-went-to-jail/story-e6frf7kx-1225980137461

Now people like ChapZ want us to believe that 1 in 3 women will experience DV, and that women never lie, and rape is a greatly unreport crime.

Now Jewely in her post about condoms said that after she read the Danish definitions of sexual assault and rape, that she didn't realise how often she had been sexually assaulted.

Yet when it comes to men saying that they had been falsely accused, they must be liars, and that is better that 99 innocent men get gaoled so that the 1 guilty one can be caught and punished.

So ChapZ wants us to believe female accusations, without reservation and to refuse to believe any claims made by males.

I'm still tossing around a few ideas, on trying to get the picture right.

Robert - "some people have done well being raised by fathers without the involvement of mothers but that does not create an excuse to cut mothers out of childrens lives". - I have never suggested that fathers should be cut out of children's lives, so don't make such crude distrortions to suit your own agenda and purposes. What I have constantly and cosnistently mainatained is that there are an inordinate number of cases coming before the Family Courts in which there is clear and convincing evidence of domestic violence and the inherent abuse of children, and which is largely perpetrated by natural fathers. Due to the current provisions of the 2006 Family Law Act and its interpetations by certain judges, those perpetrators are being given contact with and even residency of their children whereby the abuse of the children continues, sometimes resulting in the deaths of those children. Obviously the Father's RIGHTS advocates try to minimise such occurrences or deny them, as the FL was written to suit their goals (although they are now fiercely critical of it but oppose the proposed changes). They also claim that more abuse is perpetrated by mothers and `live-in lovers' (who they also happen to be and thereby inflicting their abuse on more families). They thereby miss the point that whoever is the perpetrator should not be granted access of any kind to children where there is a continuing risk of abuse of those children.

When love leaves the room

It's fruit will often be left

Spoiling and rotten

We are unique " at the end of the day adults and parents make their own decisions via their own experiences". And that is very sad, that people don't learn from the condensed experiences others (literature)and when their experiences have been bad, they continue to make bad decisions because they make those decisions through the narrow prisms of their own experiences, as you so often do.
" I follow through with my interactions when possible, unless there is a person who deliberately takes up most of the threads with the sole purpose of degrading another, born out of their own insecurities or holding a grudge". Oh I know you get continuing schadenfreudian delight in continuing in your meddling in other people's lives, not knowing or caring about the harm you have caused or continue to cause to others with your home-spun `wisdoms' from your own `experiences' and more than a little the Agony Aunt columns of Girlie magazines.
It is not about `insecurities' or 'grudges' its about protecting people from the oft ill-considered and ill-informed meanderings of meddlers.

ChazP:"Due to the current provisions of the 2006 Family Law Act and its interpetations by certain judges, those perpetrators are being given contact with and even residency of their children whereby the abuse of the children continues, sometimes resulting in the deaths of those children. "

And far more often the children are given to mothers who neglect them or abuse them, or allow their latest boyfriend to do the same, sometimes resulting in the death of those children.

Thanks for giving me the chance to clear that up for you, Chaz.

ChazP:"Obviously the Father's RIGHTS advocates try to minimise such occurrences or deny them, as the FL was written to suit their goals (although they are now fiercely critical of it but oppose the proposed changes)."

Obviously the Mother's RIGHTS advocates try to minimse or deny such occurrences, since, although the FLA was written to suit their goals they are determined to have any hint of fairness to fathers and their children written out oof it.

Thanks again Chaz, for letting me clear that up for you.

ChazP:"They thereby miss the point that whoever is the perpetrator should not be granted access of any kind to children where there is a continuing risk of abuse of those children."

So you're in favour of negelctful and abusive mothers being completely severed from their children's lives, despite the demonstrated importance to the child of the parent/child bond?

Lovely...

Shouldn't you be off down at the beach making sure none of the toddlers are wearing bikinis?

I think I said this before, if people like ChapZ are really interested in improving the welfare of 'all' children then the focus would not be just of bad fathers or allegedly bad fathers, but would be inclusive of when children are harmed by their mothers as well.