The Forum > General Discussion > The law is an ass
The law is an ass
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Page 15
- 16
- 17
-
- All
Posted by csteele, Saturday, 25 June 2011 10:04:59 PM
| |
@ CSteele,
<< I think we have tried that [ removing children] as a country using just such a mindset and have had to offer two apologies. I think we should pass>> Hmmmm …It appears to have missed your notice, CSteele --but, we’re still doing it! http://www.smh.com.au/national/number-of-children-removed-from-parents-soars-20100701-zqqv.html And one of the most common grounds is where the wellbeing of the child is felt to be at risk. Some even propose obesity as valid ground for removal: “ SEVERELY obese children should be notified to child protection authorities, and even taken into care, if their parents are unwilling or unable to help them lose weight, experts have argued. The continuing failure of parents to ensure treatment for their obese child could be considered medical neglect when the child is suffering, or is at high risk of suffering, associated severe health problems” http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/call-for-obese-kids-to-be-taken-into-care/2009/02/01/1233423045494.html If obesity threatens a risk of “ severe health problems” and requires intervention. How much more would a value system that preaches this: “HOW LONG ARE WE GOING TO STAY WEAK, NO MORe MR NICE GUY, WE WILL DEFEND OUR iSLAM AND OUR SISTERS WITH OUR BLOOD, BLOOD, BLOOD.” Posted by SPQR, Saturday, 25 June 2011 11:41:14 PM
| |
SPQR do not bend thanks for the thread thanks for representing nine tenths of Australians.
Your thread has bought out interesting things, the links I posted include the trouble makers out side the court. And NO ONE! could make a film More anti Muslim Than all those who defended this woman did. I posted in another thread, unsure this one would survive its lurch away from its subject, saying an appeal has been called for ,fingers crossed. CSTEEL,thought you would take a step back after getting to see it all but will question anything you say in future ,this clearly is a case of a crime she got away with. Posted by Belly, Sunday, 26 June 2011 5:29:40 AM
| |
Not sure how this crept in, sonofgloin...
>>...Einfeld, a fine man with issues...<< Sorry, but on all the evidence, the guy is nothing more than an arrogant bully. Oh. And a liar. Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 26 June 2011 6:41:37 PM
| |
Dear belly,
You said "unsure this one would survive its lurch away from its subject", I thought I had made every effort to keep the thread dead on its subject, ie whether or not the law is an ass. I have been stridenly been putting the position that particularly in this case it clearly was not. If the thread was suppose to be about bashing Muslims then all I can say in my defense was that it used false and misleading advertising. Perhaps to keep you happy the title should have been "Let's make damn sure these trouble- making burka babes get what's coming to them whatever the law says". Posted by csteele, Sunday, 26 June 2011 7:48:08 PM
| |
Csteel: Perhaps to keep you happy the title should have been "Let's make damn sure these trouble- making burka babes get what's coming to them whatever the law says".
Thanks csteal. Sounds like a plan to me. She can't go around flouting the Law then clam Racism, or is it Religionism? In this case. & oh, "you can't do that to me I got babies." snif, snif. Chuckle, chuckle, "stupid Australians." Posted by Jayb, Sunday, 26 June 2011 8:01:58 PM
|
You said, "Unlike you, I don’t have The Mentalist’s power of telepathy, so I don’t know why she reacted the way she did."
This is essentially the ruling of the second judge that I have been supportive of while you and others seem so incensed. This is why he said it could not be determined that the woman willfully filed a false complaint.
You said "And in view of the magistrates description of the woman as “ deliberately malicious and …ruthless”, I am also reticent to accept her justifications."
This is the same magistrate who was found to be incorrect in law twice. So what clouded his judgement? Perhaps like others he had difficulty in seeing the forest for the trees, or rather the woman for the burka.
You say "It is conceivable that should the woman be incarcerated and the children be placed in foster care (which is not likely given the husbands presence) the children might actual benefit from the experience"
I think we have tried that as a country using just such a mindset and have had to offer two apologies. I think we should pass.