As I've said in earlier threads, some of the 'fathers' of these kids are ducking out from their financial obligations to support the mother of their child ? It's a case of 'a fling' and run ?

On the other hand these unlucky kids, and their dysfunctional mothers, are sometimes far better served when some of these fathers decide to remain away, rather then interfering with both the mother and child ? Their characters are so fundamentally flawed, their habits so disgusting as to strongly influence these very impressionable young children ?

Problem is these children fall under the aegis of the relevant government (welfare) department (most with chronic staff shortages), and when their Officers enter these homes for inspection purposes, the occupants often disregard or ignore the advice and warnings that are given. Yet when it deteriorates to such a point, it becomes a police matter, it tends to reverse itself and the occupants are too scared to openly communicate with the coppers ? You know, it's a case of 'a rock and a hard place scenario !

And it's always the children who continue to suffer and remain the real victims here ?

Never mind, spindoc...Suse won't nominate your abusive post for deletion.

But I have....

As have I!

Thanks ladies, that makes three of us.

It beats me how any of these tough posters would force these fathers and mothers of uncared for kids to 'face up to their responsibilities', so the rest of us don't have to contribute in their care via our taxes.

Don't you think this Government and those before them have tried everything to avoid having to pay single mother's benefits or the dole etc? You all think you know better?

I hope I never see our country refuse to provide for these kids, or that there is ever any question of forced contraception.
In any case, the men who like to love 'em and leave 'em would never agree to chemical castration to control their 'urges'....

Joe,
In simple English, what I meant is that you and your fellows here are acting like sad, miserable old men who get pleasure out of trying to spread their misery as widely as possible.

I tried to soften the blow with a metaphor. I won't make that mistake in future.

You'll be pleased to know this will be my last word on this topic. My initial purpose was to make it clear that my nation isn't represented by the squawking of the mob of galahs that were attacking two decent people for things they have no part in. I believe I have done that.

I've seen some of your other comments, particularly on some aspects of Aboriginal welfare and history and the stuff you're putting up here isn't worthy of your talents or of your nature. Leave it to the sad, miserable semi-literate buffoons.

‘morning Poirot, Foxy and Suze,

Isn’t progressive hypocrisy a joy to behold?

I guess it’s OK for you to accuse me of wishing to see children “die of neglect and malnutrition”, a truly dreadful, offensive and abusive comment to make, but it is not OK for you to be labeled by me with a simple line from a “rapper” song?

In admitting to nominating my comment for deletion, you have clearly demonstrated a mind numbing level of hypocrisy that you neither “see” or “accept”. I posted my comment separately as a “sacrificial anode”, anticipating your astonishing hypocrisy in rushing for the delete option.

We can conclude that it’s OK for the “Three Witches of Eastwick” to make vile comments but hey, don’t you dare threaten our victimhood by biting back?

Your faux quest for ownership of national compassion is disturbing. You glibly refer to the source of social funding as “taxpayers”, the “Government” and even the “Country”. What you will never acknowledge is that fact that everything the nation spends is funded with “borrowed” money. Billions of it.

The likes of you and me won’t be paying anything of course, but our children and grandchildren will. So enjoy spending the inheritance of your own future generations in the name of ideology and living off their credit card.

Sick puppies.