The Forum > Article Comments > Government deception won't reduce family violence > Comments
Government deception won't reduce family violence : Comments
By Greg Andresen, published 9/6/2011The truth is that violence in families is an equal opportunity crime.
- Pages:
- ‹
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Page 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- ...
- 19
- 20
- 21
- ›
- All
1stly men are less likely to report violence against them, 2ndly Kate Ellis lied 3rdly she has no excuse, if she wants a responsible position impacting on women and children she should research properly so she doesnt have a reverse impact on those she represents
Posted by Havenr64, Monday, 13 June 2011 3:25:57 PM
| |
Oh and one other point, I have been ans
Many others, Subjected to false reports, no idea where you get your info from Doctor Posted by Havenr64, Monday, 13 June 2011 3:29:11 PM
| |
Robert - "I object to the pretense that it's just about child welfare when that's not the reality. Adult's lives matter and solutions that pretend that's not the case or use a pretense of child welfare as an excuse to be grossly unfair end up hurting everyone involved regardless of the perceived short term gain's."
There is no pretence in caring about the safety and protection of children. You have said consistently that you care about the safety and protection of your own child, then why can you not extend that caring to all children whose future care is determined by the Family Courts. Courts which do not have the powers nor expertise to investigate allegations of child abuse.!. Courts which dismiss such allegations because those whose opinions they obtain, do not have the requisite expertise and can offer only whimsical conjectures and speculations. Courts which with increasing frequency are ordering children into contact with and custody of toxic and dangerous parents because a protective parent refuses to comply with orders for their child to be in contact with such a dangerous parent. What would you do to protect your child if the Court ordered your child to have contact with the other parent who you knew to be violent and abusive?. Would you flee interstate or even abroad, as some other parents have done?. Or would you watch your child scream in terror every time you had to deliver her/him into the hands of his/her abuser and then comfort your child every time your child returned screaming in pain from the abuse?. Can you even begin to imagine the pain such a protective parent can suffer?. Or are children totally matterless when it is easier just to engage in a gender battle and score a few embittered pyrrhical points off females and merely dismiss their concerns for children as a pretence, because the rights of adults are so much more important in your view.?. Too easy a way for you to turn a blind eye Robert. Wake up to the realities of children suffering. Posted by ChazP, Monday, 13 June 2011 6:14:32 PM
| |
The following excerpt from Prof Patrick Parkinson's submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Family Violence Bill provides much interesting data on the prevalence of false allegations of violence and abuse as a legal strategy in Australian Family Courts.
In particular Parkinson questions why interim and uncontested family violence orders are being re-introduced without reasons – after removal by the 2006 shared parenting amendments – as a criteria for determining parenting orders. Parkinson is on the record as opposing Shared Parenting in the past, so his submission is very interesting indeed, although note his language uses the typical minimising, industry-speak like the public "think", "have a perception" "strongly believe"! If the community and public at large "believe" false allegations are prevalent, why is this government now selling us snake oil in the form of a Family Violence Bill based upon the disastrous Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) driven by NOW in the USA? VAWA: “Hate Men” law - Time to defund Feminist Pork http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2005/oct05/psroct05.html Why is the government not hearing the common EXPERIENCE off the public that false allegations are rife and common place largely fuelled (of necessity) by our adversarial legal system which favours a presumption for sole custody in which only one parent is likely to "win"? Take win/lose out of the equation, bring in zero tolerance for false allegations with strong sanctions, bring in the notion of custody to the "least angry parent", and compulsory mediation and watch the false allegations all but stop! Excerpt: “There is now a very widespread view in the community that some family violence orders are sought for tactical or collateral reasons to do with family law disputes. People have become very cynical about them. A national survey conducted in 2009, with over 12,500 respondents, found that 49% of respondents agreed with the proposition that ‘women going through custody battles often make up or exaggerate claims of domestic violence in order to improve their case’, and only 28% disagreed. While it might be expected that men would be inclined to believe this, 42% of women did so as well. Posted by Howard Beale, Monday, 13 June 2011 6:27:00 PM
| |
Chaz why does it have to be an either or? Is it so difficult to conceive of both child protection and fair treatment of parents both being legitimate considerations?
R0bert Posted by R0bert, Monday, 13 June 2011 6:55:05 PM
| |
Doctor this Professor that, look, those who post on here with their titles and rhetoric making claims they know it all being paid most probably by the governement, are full of it, talk to those who have kids, who have been or going through the system, I have crawled through corridors of smoke trying to save lives, I have ridden in the back of ambulances doing it, been on a recuss team, have been commendated for bravery by NSW police, blah blah, so what !
Posted by Havenr64, Monday, 13 June 2011 7:46:21 PM
|