The Forum > General Discussion > A bridge too far. Should there be penalties for disruptive protests?
A bridge too far. Should there be penalties for disruptive protests?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
- 7
-
- All
Posted by Peter Hume, Monday, 16 May 2011 6:06:27 PM
| |
Peter Hume<"So, are you in favour of policy to enforce the payment of "child support" even against people who never agreed to pay it?
If so, then you do have sympathy for people who threaten or commit violence to aggressively bully people into obeying their sexual or moral opinion, and you are guilty of it yourself, aren't you?" What the hell are you talking about? I am in favour of the policy to enforce the payment of child support for dropkicks who were happy to make the babies, but not happy to give ongoing financial support to them! That's only fair. I doubt this bridge guy's problems were about child support issues anyway. He seems too concerned re his children's welfare to be one of those men who refuse to pay child support. I say again, I don't believe in violence of any sort. Do you? Posted by suzeonline, Monday, 16 May 2011 10:44:48 PM
| |
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8249327/harbour-bridge-protester-vows-more-stunts
http://manly-daily.whereilive.com.au/news/story/narrabeen-bridge-protester-was-not-sas/ There is probably a lot more to this story. The protester according to some reports is suffering from PTSD. It appears he was working as a private security guard in Somalia, Iraq and other war torn areas. He obviously needs some help and this appears to be a cry for help. The issue does appear to be about child access but no reasons given as to why there is reduced access. Clearly this is a family in crisis and rather than all the finger pointing from dad's groups and the other way from some women's groups what about just helping this family find a resolution, and if the ex-soldier/guard requires mental health assistance ensure he gets it. Too many veterans are left without adequate support networks when they come home (if that is indeed the case). Somehow truth gets lost in other people's agendas. Why not wait and see what the real story is about before passing judgement. Posted by pelican, Monday, 16 May 2011 11:19:43 PM
| |
I've written enough letters to pollies and others over the years and heard enough spin from them to have some sympathy. Legitimate mean's are treated cynically by those who should know better.
I don't agree with the choice he made but the reality is that quiet protests that don't cause disruption draw little attention unless you have something else in it for the media. Suzie "He seems too concerned re his children's welfare to be one of those men who refuse to pay child support." - that assumes that he thinks that so called child support actually helps his children. Whilst I paid it when we were doing shared care I did so because I thought fighting it would do more harm than good. I think in my case and many others so called child support was a big part of the problem. Those who've not been on the wrong side of that particular system rarely understand just what a corosive damaging mess it is. Rather than helping kid's it often add's to conflicts over custody and perpetuates conflict between parents who really need every opportunity to move on with their lives. BTW as the full time carer I've never received (or sought) child support. We are all better off without that particular mess in our lives. We do need penalties for actions that cause so much disruption but we also need penalties for politicians and others who create the mess that lead's to such a lack of trust in legitimate means of complaint. R0bert Posted by R0bert, Monday, 16 May 2011 11:39:43 PM
| |
Pelican is right in saying this poor guy obviously needs help, and we still don't know the whole story. He broke the law though.
Robert, obviously not all parents try to beat the system, and I don't want to tar all separated parents in custody disputes with the same feathers, but I was replying to Peterhume's nasty comments which would surely not further any group's cause? I don't want to get any further into a gender dispute on this issue anyway, because the thread is about penalties for disruptive protests, which I think we all agree should be given in this case. Although I would stipulate that this guy get some counselling as well, if I was the judge. Posted by suzeonline, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 12:32:31 AM
| |
Pelican....If there was ever a truer post on this thread, yours is the one.
Thank-you. LEAP Posted by Quantumleap, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 4:19:25 AM
|
Yes fair enough.
I thought he was protesting against DoCS, i.e. the child protection department?