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 > Child abuse is a pervasive problem > Comments

Child abuse is a pervasive problem : Comments

By Cathy Kezelman, published 15/7/2009

A human rights approach must be taken if we are to see a real reduction in the incidence of child abuse.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Kathy,

My concern that you and your organisation “Adults surviving child abuse” (another NGO), is your achievements in the long run may only help to cement child abuse into the industry it is becoming: Similar to the prison industry with its corporate investments requiring a constant inflow of prisoners to maintain profits.

The article by Jeremy Sammut on the 3rd july on this site entitled “For all the Ebonys” depicts a more realistic view of the practical outcomes of child abuse, the endemic problem of solving the issue and the personal tragedy that abuse is to the child.

The sad reality of NGO involvement in the child abuse (industry) is their ability to distract Governments attention from rendering first hand, urgent and purposeful, on the ground help to the child. As you do in the disclosures of your article putting a priority on the unproven benefits of submissions to human rights commissions. Put simply, you offer more of what is at fault which is “ivory tower” academia mania.

Out there in our communities right now, are the subjected children with no hope of saving themselves. I ask you Kathy, and the ASCA to stop throwing up smoke screens such as your submission is, clouding the more urgent issues and swallowing-up valuable resources.
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 15 July 2009 4:21:08 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
Hear, hear.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 16 July 2009 7:45:00 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
Great article. I think there's a general issue here about human rights discourse and gender. Seems like the only way we can get women and children's needs recognised in human rights discourse is by explicitly naming them as "women's rights" and "children's rights" ... which begs the question: When we say "human rights", do we really just mean "men's rights"?

It's grimly fascinating that child abuse isn't really understood as a "human rights violation" because the offender isn't a "state actor". Well, no, but the state doesn't do much to stop him, do they?

As for the first two comments - it always sends up a red flag when anonymous posters start complaining about the "child abuse industry". These kinds of claims are invariably coming from "father's rights" and "false memory" activists. It's pitiful, guys. Take your wierdness elsewhere.
Posted by greenmaps, Thursday, 16 July 2009 10:59:16 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
So, if people at the coalface's strategies and the idea of a new growth industry to handle a long-ignored and serious social problem offends, what's to be done about adult survivors of child abuse in your views? Is it a human rights issue or not? Is it a public issue rather than private, or not? There's no Government response that even simplistically responds to their very real needs, and the child protection 'industry's' failure to even begin to respond effectively to the vast majority even serious cases - and how serious does it have to be before it harms a child - is a clear predictor the issue is going to continue for many years.

Shall we just continue to ignore them all - lump them all into the 'go away basket' and hope they do go away? They don't you know. Where's your solutions, not just the criticism please?
Posted by Cotter, Thursday, 16 July 2009 11:33:34 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
its still happening in our society till this day , the abuse of our children
im a forgotten australian male raped and abused in 1977,and 1978 daruk boys home by its empolyee's

yet the goverment of new south wales and australia still continue to cover up the rapes and abuse we victims suffered at this boys home and many other state run institutions orphanages , girls homes , state ward homes state run church homes foster homes out of home care and many more institutions age homes , hospitals you name it their arte victims from all types of institutions

yet our stae goverment of new south wales and that of other states and territories of australia still to this day cover up about the rapes abuse slavery , and torture we victims suffered
the goverment knows the truth of us victims but have and do not want to have the guts to addmitt to the truth of what we victims suffered as far as a lot of the politicians out their which is 95 per cent don't care about what we suffered

until something happens to a friend of theirs or a faimly member then they will know how we victims suffer ever day from what we suffered as children

so why is it that our politicians won't stand up for us victims whith the politicians who are trying to suport us i think its about time all and both goverments stand and act for us victims not just a couple of politicians , are they affriad they are going to be sacked for standing up for the truth of us victims is this what the politicans fear if that is so why the hell are they in goverment

so mr rudd your our prime minister stand up for the forgotten australians and that of the new forgotten australians , and put an end to all the cover ups by both the liberal goverment and labour goverment

we are real victims and we will no longer be fogotten , and will not stay silent

regards huffnpuff
Posted by huffnpuff, Thursday, 16 July 2009 2:03:40 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
Huffnpuff, that is the answer of course - you have to stand up collectively, because we (society) doesnt listen to individuals, and then your group has to fight ever-harder and smarter as time goes by just to get close to what any decent civilisation ought to acknowledge and address.

Thats what ASCA and many other groups have done - with varying success - but there is no easy way.
Then there will be the inevitable criticisms from the world's experts - who will never comprehend the enormity of the lived experience or the consequences to ever really 'get' what you are talking about, accompanied by simplistic, dismissinve complaints about special interest groups. In time these focus/support groups, may eventually grow to be non-govies- if your members have the stamina and passion, but then they can be either defunded or taken over by Government, and more controlled and usually more limited in what they can and will do. Its cheaper this way, and besides, making harmed people fight legally for their just desserts makes money for lawyers. And so the world turns. But if you just give up, the bad guys win.
Posted by Cotter, Thursday, 16 July 2009 2:21:18 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
NO mention of the pornography industry that people use as entrees before main course. Why no mention? Any reasonable minded person can see the correlation. Also the mention that natural parents are more likely to abuse their own kids sound like a stupid dogma with little to no evidence. Step fathers, uncles, defacto's are far more likely to abuse a child than a natural parent. One minute the study shows that aboriginals who rarely live with their natural parents are far more likely to be abused than the rest of the community and then just to make sure the natural father gets his share of blame we have this stupid finding that contradicts what has just been said.

The talk of human rights in addressing these issues is contradictory. Many argue for the aboriginals to be allowed continue to collect the dole, watch pornography and live by cultural practices. Take any of these away and 'Human Rights' agencies scream. So you will need to take away one set of 'human rights' in order to implement another.

Society is bearing the fruits of secularism where young girls and boys are being sexualised and conditioned from a young age to be abused and to abuse. Strangely enough it was 'human rights' groups that demanded the freedom to do this. When we condone artist photographing nude young girls in the name of art what do we expect.

Unfortunately cultural 'human rights' are winning out over the rights of the children. This is also seen in the way we allow and promote the murder of the unborn children. Secularism is always very contradictory.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 16 July 2009 3:50:23 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
Previous posters:

What is difficult to assimilate with logic and usefulness in terms of the content of this article, is that it serves no practical purpose to follow down paths that the stand advocated by the ASCA organisation seems to recommend. I stated my points pretty accurately and clearly in my post, no point to repeat them.
As Sammut clearly pointed out in his article (in terms barely hiding his frustration at the stupidity of the current system, with its clear lack of success in achieving its stated aims) the rescue of children from abusive environments is failing dismally.

Futuristically, the same children of today arriving at the court of the Haig (if that is where it all gravitates) seeking justice from a charter on human rights would have been better served by a concentration by all with an interest in child welfare issues at this current moment.

It is also the “weeping and wailing” and general soft ego matrism approach to this issue that is compounding the failure. DOC’s in NSW, with their policy to reunite abused children with failed families (and in particular single mothers) demonstrates my stand. A better and more effective position is a hard ego patrism such as evidenced in the police force.

Child abuse is a crime and it is at that level intervention and conclusions should start and finish; we need law reform to strengthen the police position. The child must be given more credibility and support to report and to be listened to at the court level.
Reducing DOC’s. involvement in the final say of placement of abused children would be a huge step forward and urgently required.
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 16 July 2009 5:12:49 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
Who needs state sponsored terrorism, when in Australia we have had state sponsored child abuse for 35 years. As a parent i was forced to watch helplessly while my children were being abused and DOCS, far from protecting my children refused to act on hard evidence and credible independent witnesses.

The system has been infiltrated by paedophiles who have been actively grooming hundreds of thousands children for abuse daily.

I also know of non corrupt DOCS workers being victimised.
Posted by Formersnag, Thursday, 16 July 2009 5:22:17 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
Human rights law demands public debate about existing cultural patterns of private power, patterns that are so entrenched as to seem 'natural.' It works towards the increased visibility of private abuses by naming them as human rights abuse. In the case of child abuse and child sexual abuse, human rights law aims to give a voice to the abused child, not as an object belonging to parents and covered by parental rights, or family rights, but as a subject with individual rights of his and her own to protection from abuse.

If we are unable to grasp this as a society, and if we are unable to grant the dignity of human rights protection to our own children, then we have little cause to pontificate on the world stage about human rights of any kind in any other country.

It is reasonable to assume, given the figures, that the most common human rights abuses in Australia are those perpetrated by non-state actors upon children, rather than abuses perpetrated on individuals by the state. This ought to seriously alarm us.
Posted by briar rose, Thursday, 23 July 2009 4:14:30 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 first thing we have to do is get the lesbian, feminazi paedophiles out of the child abuse industry. It always has been like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank, just cut all funding to social talkers and shut down every neighbourhood centre ASAP.
Posted by Formersnag, Friday, 24 July 2009 10:55:04 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
"The growing international consensus on human rights stresses the right of women and their children to live free from violence.

Domestic and family violence can no longer be hidden as a private matter within families, nor sexual assault hidden as a personal shame beyond the reach of governments or the sanction of our communities. Violence against women and children violates the universal human rights instruments to which the international community has agreed through the United Nations."

greenmaps asks "When we say "human rights", do we really just mean "men's rights"?"

No greenmaps I don't think that's what's meant when the quote the author chose to include is considered.

That's one of the problems with much of the material purporting to be about protecting children. It often show signs of a gender agenda which has little to do with protecting children. If it's about human rights it's about the rights of all of us to live free of violence regardless of who perpetrates it. Continued focus on just the rights of women and children to live free from violence undermines that message.

I also get concerned that the discussions of human rights for children are used to create a context which is not always about doing the best job possible to nurture children. I agree that there are rights which should be protected but they are not the same set of rights as those which should apply to adults. Children are generally not capable of dealing with the same responsibilities as are expected of adults. Adults with responsibility for children carry some very specific responsibilities which they would rarely have for other adults (unless that adult is seriously incapacitated).

I'm left with the impression that much of what the author is talking of has more to do with issues other than the protection of children.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 24 July 2009 12:31:35 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
Robert domestic violence is rarely done by men but commonly by women. Furthermore in disadvantaged communities both aboriginal and white the women commonly smoke, drink, sniff glue or petrol, do all manner of poisonous drugs before, during & after pregnancy while breast feeding. This manufactures people of both genders with learning difficulties and all manner of brain damage guaranteed to produce stress in their lives together with a reduced ability to control anger. Add boredom inducing welfare dependence to the mix and in effect women are responsible for almost all domestic violence in Australia and always have been. Not only that but it's all getting worse as a direct result of implementing feminist/labour policy over the last 40 years.
Posted by Formersnag, Saturday, 25 July 2009 4:20:46 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
Interesting to read RUNNERS post. The sexualising of young [girls in particular]is almost entirely the realm of mothers, and in particular single mothers. Many pregnant young teenage mothers now are from 3rd or 4th generation single mother families. Most natural fathers are very protective of their young daughters and tend to discourage this. How many have heard of the story recently of a 12 yo girl getting pregnant with her single mother actually condoning her sleeping around with older boys. Her father had been warning DOCS for a long time regarding what was going on but they refused to listen, now i understand he has been given custody but of course all too late now. My own daughter was also abused and neglected by her mother and her life was almost destroyed, yet Families SA ignored everything including independent witnesses, police statements and even evidence from their own workers as to what was going on and recommended to the court that she stay with her abusive and neglecting mother for 3 years. These whinging lying feminazi propagandists make me sick when they highlight a few instances of abuse by fathers but totally ignore the many cases of abuse and neglect by mothers.
Only recently a friend of mine[ a non custodial father]visited me and we went round to a local hall where his 16yo daughter was having her birthday, when we arrived there were several hundred 15/16/17 year olds all binge drinking, including his daughter and only 2 adults there to keep an eye on things. When he protested to his ex about this he was told to "butt out and mind his own business". The next morning we got a phone call from the local hospital that his daughter had been admitted after drinking herself unconcious. I suppose that if one of the lads had taken advantage of her and her condition he would have got all the blame, but the real blame i believe should have been laid firmly at the feet of the mother.
Posted by eyeinthesky, Saturday, 25 July 2009 5:07:35 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
Formersnag, I've not seen anything which supports the claim "domestic violence is rarely done by men but commonly by women"

The stats I've seen have been about physical violence, there seems to be little empirical work on non-physical violence and what I've seen on physical violence which does not base it's methods on the assumption that DV is something men do to women shows that the rates of violence as far as can be measured are very similar between genders. What differs is the gender breakup at the extreme end resulting in serious injury, an artifact of mens generally greater strength.

Likewise from what I've seen when you try to put aside other factors (such as the time children spend in care) I've not seen anything which convinces me that males and females abuse children at significantly different rates. There are differences in specific categories but gender blaming seems like a strategy to avoid the real issues regardless of which gender is blamed.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 26 July 2009 5:06:12 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
Robert as we both know almost all survey/stat work on domestic violence was taken out of a corn flakes packet by radical, extremist, lesbian, femininazi, paedophiles like bobtwat, chazP, greenmaps, briar rose, fractelle, etc. The only times when real work has been done by reasonable men like Dr Warren Farrell, women come out as clear winners.

Furthermore men almost never report domestic violence, (those that do are laughed at by police) whereas women not only always report the few occasions when it is real and exaggerate it out of all proportions, they also fabricate when there isn't any. Every single man i have met in my entire life told me he was subjected to extensive domestic violence (i have met way more people than the average person). Every case of what you call real domestic violence that i have ever encountered involved a man responding, often with reasonable force to an attack started by her. What has for decades been misdiagnosed as midlife crisis and ridiculed by all women including feminazis, is in most cases, in fact a Male's experience of "battered partner syndrome".

During the Howard era large numbers of working class men deserted labour in droves because they got sick and tired of seeing their children being abused by deadbeat mothers and feminazi family law. Work choices scared them back to labour but it is now dead and the coalition parties have admitted they took workplace reform too far with it. If labour don't get rid of the lesbian, feminazi, paedophiles in the loony left faction or get them under control they will be out in the cold for decades.

I am currently organising a class action law suit for the "left behind or reverse stolen generations". Those children like mine and eyeintheskye's, who were neglected and abused by their deadbeat mothers, despite credible reporting to DOCS. Perhaps as the abuse occurred as a direct result of feminist/labour policy being ruthlessly pursued for 40 years, then all prominent feminists, politicians and public servants could be named, shamed and have their assets seized under the proceeds of crime acts.
Posted by Formersnag, Monday, 27 July 2009 1:34:33 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
Formersnag: << Every single man i have met in my entire life told me he was subjected to extensive domestic violence... lesbian, feminazi, paedophiles >>

Just what we need - yet another bitter and twisted divorced man on OLO with a very tenuous grasp of both reality and sanity.

I assume you're single, Formersnag - despite your efforts on various online dating sites?

P.S. I'm a man and I've never been subjected to any domestic violence whatsoever - at least since I grew big enough to hit my father back.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 27 July 2009 2:03:28 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
Formersnag, I'd suggest a look around http://www.mediaradar.org/

There is plenty of DV research which has attempted to remove collection bias going back a long way. Mostly based around CTS. That methodology has some flaws and plenty of critics but as far as I can tell many of the early flaws have been addressed by refinements and it appears to be far better methodology than that supported by it's critics. There has also been interesting findings about partner violence out of the Dunedin Longitudinal Study - a summary at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/170018.pdf

We are drifting from the topic however I think beliefs about domestic violence strongly impact on beliefs about child abuse so it may not be all bad.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 27 July 2009 2:18:12 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
c j morgan and robert perhaps you would like to take a look at figures from the nsw bureau of crime which show that between 1998 and 2007 the number of women charged with domestic violence has almost tripled from approx 900 to over 2300, and BTW I am certainly not a bitter divorced man, although both i and my daughter both endured plenty of abuse from her mother. I have recently become engaged to a lovely woman who herself went through an abusive marriage so i have a good appreciation from both perspectives of the effects of domestic abuse. The facts are however that incidents of domestic abuse and child murder etc by men always receive full and negative exposure in the media while incidents of domestic violence and child murder perpetrated by women/mothers rarely receive the same negative coverage, and in fact attempts are often made to excuse this behaviour by way of depression etc. If you cannot see this then you must be getting around with your eyes closed.you have only to recall recently the furore surrounding the darcy freeman case where the father threw his child off the westgate bridge, yet only 6 months previously a mother jumped off the same bridge and killed her child and THAT case received only a fraction of the coverage.I recall a year or so ago that a man kidnapped his child and ended up dropping him down a mine shaft, this story received prime media coverage for almost 2 weeks while he was hunted down all over australia. Yet while all this was going on i heard a story on ABC radio at 4.00am one morning about a woman who killed BOTH her children to get back at their father and i never heard or saw it reported anywhere else. OPEN YOUR EYES its my opinion that far from being part of the solution you are more part of the problem.
Posted by eyeinthesky, Monday, 27 July 2009 5:23:00 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
ROFL - as a non-Aussie the picture I've got of you `blokes' is that you're all sitting along the bar in Wally's Pub (Crocodile Dundee)whinging together and telling your tall stories, crying those crocodile tears in your beers and on each other's shoulders about your old ladies at home and then wandering off hand in hand to the dunny. Have a good time boys and keep up your playground antics, while others discuss the serious issues. Be good boys now and maybe there'll be a couple of snags left for you when you get home.
Posted by ChazP, Monday, 27 July 2009 5:46:41 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
I never go to the pub except when i take my beautiful fiancee out for a meal or to the local lions club meeting,and from what i have seen its always the GIRLS who go hand in hand to the dunny. WOMEN/MOTHERS have had it all their own way for decades in the family court, they expect equality in every arena in life but expect SPECIAL treatment when it comes to family law. Now men have made a few small gains and are at last starting to network and organise themselves the feminists are starting to get worried and running scared, unfortunately the only response they can manage are the usual derogatory and infantile responses such as that just made by chazp.GROW UP. Robert i hope you have noted the contents of that post and can actually see it for what it is. Perhaps NOW you can see these people for what they really are, and will stop making excuses for them.
Posted by eyeinthesky, Monday, 27 July 2009 6:31:35 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
Chaz it's quite easy to develop a minds eye picture of those we disagree with based on our own bias's. It becomes a serious problem when you lack the capacity or willingness to recognise that you don't actually know about those people. That your minds eye pictures are your inventions, not reality.

Others may be discussing the serious issues but based on your recent contributions to this thread you are not one of them. You are so focused on attacking men that show no real regard for children or human rights. Child abuse is a human issue not a gender issue. Gender warriors from both sides hinder any advancement in making the world safer for children and your one sided posts clearly put you in that category.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 28 July 2009 5:32:29 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
Well said Robert. It definitely should not be a gender issue. I have seen first hand abuse perpetrated by a mother on my own daughter. My fiancee knows of a young girl who was abused by her father. We quite often have spirited debates about issues like this as she is a bit of a womans rights activist [ as opposed to a radical feminist ] herself. Yet we both know that it happens on both sides and we both respect each others point of view. Unfortunately there are those like chazp who always resort to derogatory and hateful responses when they are unable to make an informed or intelligent one. You say gender warriors from either side hinder advancements in making the world a safer place for children and you are at least partly right, although every cause must have its warriors if it is to succeed. I have always prided myself on at least trying to see every argument from the other persons point of view even if i don't agree with what they say. But to stand by and let hateful comments like some that chazp or bobtwat make, go by without a challenge im afraid is something i can't do, you may call me a gender warrior if you wish but as far as i am concerned our childrens welfare MUST come first and i WILL fight people like that till the day i die. To do any less than that would make me less of a man and a father.
Posted by eyeinthesky, Tuesday, 28 July 2009 6:40:36 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
eyeinthesky, I don't think you need to ignore such comments to avoid being a gender warrior. The difficult bit is avoiding letting the aggrevation provoke equally one sided comments.

Back to the main issue one point which has played on my mind is the lack of a clear review process in the family law system. I wonder how much future decisions would be improved if those involved in family law disputes had the opportunity to take part in a review three years after the dispute. What has worked, what didn't? What decisions and agreements have been substantially changed? Perhaps they do something like that on a sample basis but if so I've never heard of it.

In my own situation I reached a decision to consent to changes in residency which I considered unworkable and not in my sons or my interests due to the harm being done to all of us by an ongoing dispute. I ensured that a notation to that effect was included in the material which went back to the courts.

Sometime later we had a dramatic shift away from those arrangments because they were destroying my son and my ex was not coping with our sons resulting behaviour. Dispite the notation on the consent orders no one from the courts has ever followed up to see how it turned out.

I was informally advised by a barrister that he believed that the magistrate had made an error in law in an interim judgement but was advised by the FMC that the only way to have that reviewed was to lodge a formal appeal (something which I could not have afforded, which would have dragged us back into dispute and which would not benefit my son or I at that point).

Given the impact of family law processes and decisions on peoples lives there should be a clear and independant review process of outcomes to ensure that they learn from their mistakes and do better in the future as far as possible.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 28 July 2009 7:52:48 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
C J, you have been learning about propaganda & spin doctoring from feminazis. You quote single lines out of context, Ignore everything else. A male social worker i know was flogged repeatedly as a child by his alcoholic father but unlike you he accessed appropriate counseling/recovery, he holds his mother equally accountable for standing by, letting it happen, refusing to have him charged, (which should be occurring in all cases regardless of gender) and taking him back, to do it, all over, again. Don't tell me that women never used nonphysical DV or head #$%* mind games on you. Then i will know that you are lying in order to continue justifying decades of child abuse by feminazi, paedophiles. Look up aiding & abetting in the criminal code, it means helping, assisting, encouraging a criminal, before, during or afterwards, & in law is considered equal to doing it yourself. Re Read all my posts over again slowly C J, i never said all women or anything like that, i, have referred only to radical extremists. It is the women who have been referring to ALL men/fathers/groups. No C J, not bitter either, i even feel sorry for my ex, the abuse she inflicted on my children & i, was rooted in abuse she received as a child from her mother, mostly she was self abusing and we merely got caught in the crossfire as she desperately tried to shoot herself in the foot. Unlike you C J, i have moved on and am capable of recognising the "inconvenient truth", that all forms of child abuse by both genders are equally damaging and must be stopped ASAP.

robert & C J, posts by chazP, etc, are emotional uncontrolled rants, symptomatic of "borderline personality disorder", a common disease in women.

Pynchme like Bettina Arndt, is trying to be honest, but after 40 years of dogma/entrenched positions, is incapable of facing up to either being wrong or having been duped by others.

fractelle with the smiling/sarcasm is symptomatic of a stone cold sociopsycopath which is 7 times more common in women than men.
Posted by Formersnag, Wednesday, 29 July 2009 3:35:07 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
'There are other difficulties in assessing the true prevalence of the problem - child abuse and child sexual assault remain secret crimes, with multiple bars to disclosure and the pervasive attitudes of denial within our society contribute to the silencing of both child and adult victims'.

If you read over these posts, you'll see exactly this. Pervasive denial. Blame another human 'type'. Especially those damned WICKED RADICAL FEMINISTS of either gender!

Why can't those men in the thread who seem to disrespect and loathe women so much - just stick to solving the problem - even if they only focus on stopping sexual and other violence against boys? Why can't we focus on the problem of abused kids, and not attack people trying to identify remedies and the way forward?

Otherwise, the discussion wastes everyone's time. Or is that the idea? Knock ideas and whinge, criticise and bleat 'poor me'. What about the kids?
Posted by Cotter, Wednesday, 29 July 2009 4:43:14 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
Cotter, Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this serious matter.

You are absolutely correct with what you said in your last post. But you are still missing the main point of my postings, which is the same as yours.

This debate has been hijacked by feminists for decades and all they have done is rant about men, being responsible for all of it. Denying any responsibility by women at all. Worse though is that child abuse has been getting progressively worse as a direct result of govt's implementing feminist policies that they lobbied for extensively.

The feminists have been whinging about not enough social workers for 20 years and the DOCS budgets have been increasing steadily for nearly every one of those 20 years. It has become a whole new industry that does nothing but eat taxpayers money, while children continue to be abused.

If we axed all feminist funding immediately, then practical men like you, RObert & eyeinthesky could be payed to solve it all very quickly & easily indeed. The feminists have no solutions to any problem other than whinging and blame shifting games, the sooner we stop listening to them the sooner we can save children from abuse.

For the record i don't hate women, i feel sorry for them, the lesbian, feminazi, paedophiles have made life miserable for all women and girls.
Posted by Formersnag, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 11:34:01 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
No Farmersnag – it is not the feminists who have been driving this agenda for decades, but the Male Supremacists and Patriarchal Chauvinists. This is clearly apparent in the Family Law Act 2006 which was largely influenced by the demands of the Father’s Rights Movement and is why the current mouthpieces of the FR Movement, the Shared Parenting Council and the Uni of West Sydney, are vehemently and vigorously opposing any reforms to the Act.

The Act was in fact reactionary in taking the law back to Victorian principles that children were mere possessions of the parents and their goods and chattels to be disposed of with their other joint assets.

The Act gives only a slight regard to children’s rights under international legal provisions to be protected from abuse and to have their wishes and feelings taken into account in important decisions affecting their lives. In consequence many children have suffered and are continuing to suffer serious abuse following Court decisions that dangerous and toxic parents have the right to a continuing involvement in their lives.

Children do not have the right to a say in who they will live with post-separation, who they will have contact with, and who they will have a `meaningful relationship’ with, although these are specific rights given to parents by the Act.

The 2006 Act must be reformed to be child-focussed and to give paramountcy be children's needs, rights, and wishes in all matters affecting their status.
Posted by ChazP, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 1:17:03 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
Formersnag, ChazP,et al

It depends on your view about the ideas of women - the earlier feminists, in identifying child protection issues as progress from absolute male domination in religion, government, law, and services in the mid 60's, wanting safety and equality for women as good or bad. Before then using children for sex was an unmentionable. (women had to leave public service jobs upon marriage, if they left the marriage they got the sewing machine to earn a living.)

There are as many child-sex participants still in all areas as there ever were, but with better organised groups and protections.

I cannot come correlate the idea that person who claims to care about children, can sit back and blame anyone but the perpetrators. Attacking the workers - docs, feminists, etc (and I have easily as much ire in me to 'blame them' if I thought it would help) - but it takes the argument away from anything except my bile.

So should the government just hand power back to 'men'? Which men? Are you suggesting that any man/men will do better than those you call feminists? Men had a hundred years and more to get it right. Do the men in DoCs now escape your ire because they are men, or are they the solution? How is that?

I cannot quite see what your solution is - i understand there are some nasty people out there, hateful people, cruel people, stupid people, powerful people, good people. Most of us are neither all good or all bad. But picking on types is not helpful. What is the solution?

There would be no child protection without them. Really what Kezelman was writing about - the need to make safety a human rights issue.

I am well aware that some men and women abuse, and that boys and girls are abused, and sometimes abuse other kids. The impact on the survivors is enormous as Kezelman describes
Posted by Cotter, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 4:44:42 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
Cotter both Formersnag and ChazP are focussed on the gender of those involved rather than how they act. Formersnag perceives all feminists as evil, ChazP assumes that very few fathers actually care at all for their children and that men who have objected to being treated as though their only value to children is a capacity to earn are Male Supremacists and Patriarchal Chauvinists.

ChazP may be a bit better, at least she accepts the possibility of a caring father whereas Formersnag can't comprehend the idea of an honest caring feminist.

Part of the solution lies in trying not to let those who want to make gender the issue control the debate. We need to start treating them as part of the problem.

As you said so well " i understand there are some nasty people out there, hateful people, cruel people, stupid people, powerful people, good people. Most of us are neither all good or all bad. But picking on types is not helpful."

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 6:16:43 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
chazP, The concerned fathers movement were addressing, extreme child abuse, by deadbeat, single mothers, occurring before 2006.

"The myth of male power" was a figment of your imagination or propaganda. My ex's grandfather brought his entire pay packet home, "the seal unbroken", all of his married working life. His wife, did not even give him an allowance, but bought his ration of tobacco and beer for him. If they were still alive, they would be well into their 90's. All well before anyone heard of feminism. It was feminism, that gave me, the idea that married life, should not be like that, but that, relationships were supposed to be about equality.

In Victorian times children stayed with their fathers where they have always been safest. Women who were determined to abuse their children with divorce, no matter what, left, with the clothes on their backs, and good riddance to them.

My son in 1996 expressed a clear desire to live with me, but everybody ignored him, and his mother continued abusing him, as she had done before separation, which, i only sought, because she was mentally ill and refusing treatment.

Cotter, There is more of all child abuse happening today as a direct result of feminism. It has been increasing exponentially for the last 2 or 3 decades. Undoing everything feminist will not be a total, overnight, cure, but start, reducing it.

When men, were allegedly controlling things, child abuse happened, but it was a minority, small problem compered to, the pandemic it is now. There have always been some dysfunctional families, but they have been out growing the functional ones because of left wing feminist politics.

Think about it, if, you, were, a paedophile, would you not, try to infiltrate DOCS, its the ultimate cover. Look up Aiding & Abetting in the criminal code, it means helping, assisting, encouraging, perpetrators, before, during or after. Which is exactly what the feminists/DOCS have been doing for 20 years now, in all states and territories. Read eyeintheskyes postings on what they did to his daughter, i know of many others, even worse.
Posted by Formersnag, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 6:22:51 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
F-snag

I get that you don't read my posts - being female I guess I don't count for much, but why don't you give what R0bert has to say some consideration; he is very thoughtful and while I do not always agree with him, he does have a great deal of credibility. For example, one thing R0bert never does is place labels on people, thus giving all people a fair go.

A fair go. Instead you somehow link paedophilia with feminism as if they were two sides of the same coin. You do realise that paedophilia is far more common among men than women and, given their predilection, are highly unlikely to align themselves with feminists.

Then again, I don't think you have any understanding of what feminism is about; you have stated in previous posts that women were treated as equals before granted voting rights. I suppose you think women were still equals to men even before they could own property as well. You are a very strange person.
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 6:44:12 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
RObert i have read both of chazp's posts on this thread and i can find no mention of an acceptance that caring father's exist, perhaps you can enlighten me. Like formersnag my ex also had mental problems [ since diagnosed as bi-polar disorder ] for which she refused to take treatment, and which the social workers and the family court also ignored, continually recommending my daughter reside with her, where her abuse and neglect continued for 3 years. Yes i do know that there are abusive fathers, my main beef is that fathers who abuse or kill their children despite being fewer in number [ backed up by gov't statistics even if only because more mothers have custody ]than abusive or child murdering mothers, ALWAYS get a great deal more negative coverage by the media. As a prime example how many here remember the name Darcy Freeman a good many i would say since the incident was front page news for days on end. Now, how many can recall the name of the mother who jumped off the same bridge only a few months previously killing her child solely because she THOUGHT the father might be going for custody which hardly received any coverage at all. Hark, is that a deafening silence i can hear. I am not in the business of selectively slamming either abusive mothers or fathers, i just wish that there was at least some EQUALITY in the debate especially by the media so people could make GENUINELY informed decisions on these issues instead of the one sided media bias we currently have to endure.
Posted by eyeinthesky, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 6:59:17 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
eyeinthesky try http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9151#145730

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 11:07:13 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
Formersnag - do you have the slightest shred of evidence that lesbian paedophiles have infiltrated DOCS, or is it a figment of your bitter and twisted imagination?

I strongly suspect the latter.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 6:31:36 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
Formersnag wrote 'concerned fathers movement were addressing, extreme child abuse, by deadbeat, single mothers, before 2006. No deadbeat fathers? Are single mothers deadbeats by definition if she leaves a marriage? Any exceptions?

Feminism disappointed you by not bringing equality into the marriage. But perhaps it was the choice and behaviour of the participants?

Re'In Victorian times children stayed with their fathers where they have always been safest. Hello! There's a clue!

And 'Women who were determined to abuse their children with divorce, no matter what, left, with the clothes on their backs, and good riddance to them. So divorce is the issue? people should just put up with whatever? Alcoholism, psychos, violence, rape, rape of the kids?

Your personal circumstances must have been awful, but dont your own words 'separation I only sought, because she was mentally ill and refusing treatment demonstrate exactly the counterpoint to your lines above? Ok for you but not for women?

child abuse is not happening today 'as a direct result of feminism'. For example there have been huge, known, international paedophile rings for years. Note we mask 'who abuses'by 'paedophile' because abusers are often people who also have what appears, on the surface, as normal, hetero sex life.

Re 'Undoing everything feminist will not be a total, overnight, cure, but start, reducing it. So no women's rights, no career, man-is-boss women are not, even lower wages, no birth control and all that will solve child abuse?

'There have always been some dysfunctional families, but they have been out growing the functional ones because of left wing feminist politics'. Dysfunctional family? You blame the family, not the abuser?

Child sex offenders are in every field. Church, polictics, law, service, schools, preschools. More tho, in homes. Kids home, and homes in your street. Not grown by Docs, grown by people's choice to abuse, to commit criminal acts.

Aiding & Abetting? The legal system does that all by itself and that's about the last bastion of blokiness.

And what's to be done to solve the problem, use what we know?
Posted by Cotter, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 10:51:35 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
Thankyou for the link RObert, but i wonder what chazp's reply would be if i stated that mothers who really care for their kids were an extremely rare breed, and that they were only interested in money, property and control, and forming hate groups like anonymums.
C J Morgan, i certainly don't have any evidence that lesbian paedophiles have infiltrated DOCS, but i have first hand experience of the man hating A@#$%OLES who infest Families SA. What else would you call a case worker who refuses to even read your allegations of child abuse and neglect, who tells you your child doesn't have the rights of a dog [ yes she did actually say this],who ignores statements from people such as my neighbour who is a JP, sherrifs officer, former acting magistrate and a woman who used to work with neglected children herself, the police, the school she attended and even workers in her own department, and who actually recommended my daughter live with her mother for 3 years even in the face of this mountain of evidence. She was well known as a man hater both in her dept and in the wider community and has been hauled over the coals for her behaviour several times with no effect. What else would you call her supervisor who stated that she acted entirely appropriately despite the former minister for human services deeming it necessary to remove her from my case. And cotter, no docs/Families SA didn't cause the abuse to my daughter, but they certainly did their utmost to perpetuate that abuse and neglect and succeeded for almost 3 years.
Posted by eyeinthesky, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 2:11:05 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
Eyeinthesky,

As you say, we don't remember the name of the mother in the other case. However, we only remember the Freeman name because the child's name was published - which is unusual. Darcy was the child, and I hope we never forget her. But it really annoys you and for the life of me I cant see why, especially since it appears to be so much like your own description, except your child survived.

Why can't her death be enough? Why must it be compared to others? Why can't this conversation stick to the facts and remedies? Her death was all over the media, unforgettable. What made it particularly media-worthy were the family's assertion that child protection and family court had known of the risk and done nothing - just as YOU say happened to you yet where is your sympathy for this child and the grieving family left?

Then the Chief justice had the file in her car, and somehow left her unlocked car in Melbourne where the apparently, just that file was stolen. Amazing. These are the points that drove the media, not the father's act, and the child's death alone.

And who cant relate to stories of bullying bureaucrats but to assume women are spared is to be wrong. So why only female feminists? I just dont get that anythng will be resolved by focusing on one part of the puzzle. It would be like studying moths and blaming the grubs. All I can glean is that to many of you, female = man hater. That is dumb as I can testify. People are people. Some, as you say are ass wipes.
Posted by Cotter, Thursday, 13 August 2009 5:58:52 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
Cotter. It isn't just the freeman case, what about the case of a Mr Zilich a year or so ago who kidnapped his child on an access visit and dropped him down a mine shaft, this story too received prime time exposure on all media for days while he was hunted down all over australia, yet while all this was going on i heard a story at 4.00am one morning right at the end of an ABC radio news bulletin about a mother who killed both her children to get back at their father, they didn't mention HER name and i never saw or heard it reported again. Only last week in adelaide a father woke up to find his 4 yo son dead and his 9 yo son and his wife unconcious, while the father was being treated as a murder suspect the media was all over it for most of the day, yet as soon as it became apparent that it was a murder suicide perpetrated by the mother and the father was no longer a suspect, it dropped right off the media radar. Child safety and domestic violence issues are being gendercised by the media. Perhaps you should read some articles by such journalists as Caroline Overington or Barbara B iggs who use their positions as journalists on major newspapers to present biased and one sided articles against men that if written by male journalists about women would have half the country up in arms. I do not think all women are man haters and i resent the inference that i do. My daughter certainly isn't one and neither is my beautiful fiancee, and neither are the many woman who gave me so much support during my custody battle. These are decent women and many of them would agree with much of what i say.
Posted by eyeinthesky, Thursday, 13 August 2009 7:28:17 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
eyeinthesky, there are a bunch of reasons things are reported differently and some will be based on beliefs about gender but I don't think it helps to continue to put the focus on gender. I've done it enough when I'm rebutting a clearly sexist portrayal of some issue but as an end in itself it's counterproductive.

Did you have any thoughts on my suggestion that long term decision making could be improved by making follow up interviews a routine process some time after family court appearances?

What else can be done to reduce the risks to children?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 13 August 2009 8:58:34 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
RObert, yes i do have a number of ideas about what can be done to reduce the risks of abuse and neglect of children, in fact i wrote a letter and had an interview with the regional manager of Families SA on the subject, but all my ideas were dismissed out of hand. As i have said repeatedly it is the rad fems who hold positions where they can hijack the debate to the advantage of their own gender such as female journalists as mentioned previously, universities are full of them , people like elspeth mcinnes,the social workers, child psychologists etc almost all of whom are women,who are gendercising these issues, i find it hard to believe that some one as intelligent as you seem to be cannot see this. I will ALWAYS react to these gender based attacks on men/fathers in kind, and i make no apologies for doing so, even if i do wish it were not so.
IDEAS TO MINIMISE RISKS OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT TO CHILDREN.
1 Non attendance of school by the child [ as happened in my daughters case ] should be a big red light flashing at the social workers and the court, and should always be followed up [ the social worker in my case ignored this ].
2 Just as there is now a register of violent men/fathers, so there should also be a register of mothers who are proven to be neglecting and abusive, so future allegations can be followed up.
3 A national database should be set up and administered not by some biased feminist who will act on male perpetrated abuse and ignore female/mother perpetrated abuse [as they did in my daughters case]but by some one unbiased and non prejudicial.
Posted by eyeinthesky, Friday, 14 August 2009 12:05:10 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
fractelle, i read everybody's comments slowly, several times, before i pick them apart and point out the mistakes in logic, the half truth omissions, etc.

I agree about RObert's comments, but my experiences with women privately, and femanism publicly, is that women are, generally speaking, considerably less honest than men. They use emotional language or labeling almost all of the time. So while i respect RObert's way of expressing himself, i agree to disagree. If women/feminazis wish to play, by the, "all is fair in love and war rule book", then i will not tell, deliberate, premeditated, lies as they almost always do, but i will call a spade a spade.

I do not, "somehow" link paedophilia with feminism, i have gone into it thoroughly many times, "they are 2 sides of the same coin" i respectfully suggest, that you try to control your emotions, and reread all of my comments, on all articles, again slowly and you will clearly see where i am coming from, and the extensive, child abuse caused directly or indirectly by left wing feminist politics.

The stats on paedophilia in oz have been compiled by feminazis. The incidence of all forms of child abuse by females in oz has been down played by feminazis in DOCS, journalism and academia for 40 years now. Haven't you read any of eyeintheskye's comments? I have listed others and could give hundreds more, but am restricted to 350 words.

Joke time, Q, What is the difference between a paedophile and a feminazi? A, Well, none really, but at least a paedophile is willing to do their own dirty work.

I understand femanazism better than you do, it was designed by communist, lesbians, to traumatise/victimise, women/girls, with stats about all men being bastards/liars and convert them to the new religion, "sistahood".
Posted by Formersnag, Friday, 14 August 2009 4:10:49 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
I refuse to continue this now inane digression from the topic and my basic questions - who will do the work if NGO's wont, and where do adult survivors of child abuse go if they need help to recover? And why cant they be taken seriously? They really didn't get much of a mention in the discourse.

Congratulations - you win, but seriously, engaging in this type of 'dont discuss the issue' is exactly what is meant by verbal abuse (along with name-calling, humiliation and general derogatory remarks and behaviour.. reminds me of my last spouse... and I took to long to walk away then too
Posted by Cotter, Friday, 14 August 2009 4:39:15 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
RObert, sorry about delay had to wait until i could post again.continued
4 The police must be made to attend ALL calls when a childs safety is in question,and stay with the child until they report to and get advice from DOCS etc, not just drive off leaving a young child alone, as they did in my case.
5 When an inspection is made of a house where the child is living in dirty or unsanitary conditions, the inspection should be made without prior notice, not give the mother [or father] a weeks notice so she/he can clean everything up just so it looks clean for the inspection.
Your own suggestion of making follow up contact/interviews is also a very good one
6 The family court MUST enforce its own orders especially those placed to ensure the childs safety. I had family court orders in place regarding my access, the harrassement and abuse of people who spoke up for me in court, the verbal abuse of my child and also as mentioned the abandoning of my child alone in the house. The ex broke ALL of these many times and was proven to have done so in court yet the court didn't act. I am in the process of making my own submission to the review of family laws by the AG and i would hope that all on here who really care about the welfare of children do the same.
Posted by eyeinthesky, Saturday, 15 August 2009 11:53:02 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
eyeinthesky, RObert & Cotter,

IDEAS TO REDUCE THE RISK OF ABUSE TO CHILDREN,

1, excellent,

2, excellent and we had one, in QLD during the 60's & 70's, no prizes for guessing who was responsible for removing it after the labour/green coalition was elected in '89. eyeinthesky, if your separation and divorce had occurred, in QLD, before '75, your ex would have been declared "an unfit mother" and registered as such with the then dept of families.

3, excellent, the job of social work, (ideally, social/DOCS workers, would be from church/NGO's, parents, and still happily married to their first partner) needs to be separated from the job of investigating child abuse, which should be a job for police.

4, ideally, police would conduct a joint investigation with DOCS.

5, excellent.

6, this is where it gets interesting. In my case the DOCS workers were a bit more cunning, not as obvious, in their bias, as they were in your case, (eyeinthesky) it is very easy for a corrupt/biased investigator, to make it look, like they are going through the motions, saying all the right things in the right places, etc. This is where it gets into all, government administration going wrong. We need fast, free, open, FOI, appeal, ombudsmen, etc. The Fitzgerald inquiry recommended the "electoral and administrative review commission", to cover corruption/incompetence in all, departments, which worked very well, before Beatty shut it down. Judicial review is another one, but it is all useless, if it is not free of restrictions, so that it can be, fast, inexpensive/legal aid.

Sorry if my placing blame appropriately, upsets you cotter, but, ignoring perpetrators, does not help either. Survivors of child abuse already have their own, self help group, can't remember the acronym right now. (have it at home somewhere, was going to do some work with them) Whether it is getting appropriate funding is another matter, probably not, as my experience of government, is they just love, "ignoring the elephant in the room".
Posted by Formersnag, Saturday, 15 August 2009 3:29:09 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. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

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