In the paper today was a story on the trial of a woman who abandoned her children in a car at a service station shortly after having injected speed.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/runaway-mum-vickie-barrett-high-on-speed-when-she-abandoned-daughters-and-disappeared/story-e6freoof-1226163955809

I think she got off very lightly, but that's not the point of this thread. At the end of the story there is a report on the magistrate's sentencing remarks, among which is this: "``By leaving your children asleep in an unlocked car, you certainly gave up all of your parental rights on that night.’’".

So that prompted me to ask the obvious question: what exactly are the "rights" of parents referred to by the Magistrate?

Can anyone enlighten me?

i can only try to guess anti
but it seems like he might be refering to a version of abandonment
[though clearly locking up the car and taking the keys would refute that premise]

abandonment means to desert or leave PERMANENTLY
clearly mum intended to return

but your general question asks re parental rights
well we dont got none..we got custodial privledges[not rights]

we are REQUIRED to inform govt of everything
from income to birth..marriage to motering
because we legally have been declared incompitant..[wards of the state]

and thus need to inform our nanny
and beg nanny..to do anything

and we unthinkingly obey..every time
we are asked to put our mark here...so we put our mark[of the beast]..upon another fiorm making application[apply means beg]
everytime we beg for advantages..UNDER the many acts

meaning the act rules..over us UNDER the act
so cause we begged to be under the births deaths marriages act
we fall under the act

buty whats the use telling you you begged
then got what you begged for

[by law
a begger is PRESUMED to know..for what we begged]

we wanted a nanny to tell us what to do
when to do it..[heck in just voting you begged to fall under that act
and by voting you chose who would act on your behalf..[ie who will be the next nanny]

i just turned off parlement question time
it was so much like courts...with the lawyer saying this
the other ignoring what was said..calling for the next guiliteen
next case please

its funny bob brown noser used to rally against cuiliteens
till he finally got some serfs under him..now that ninny remains mute.

Antiseptic yes! she got off lightly.
If she knows, and she may not, how disgusting her act was, if she does not she got of lightly.
A mother, son in very real mental health danger, suffering from drug induced paranoia.
Watching this victim of her parenting a life not truly started, suffer.
Sits in hospital, drinking Wine and Orange juice.
And we let the PC dragon continue to harm, not mum, she is past caring , our kids.
We condemn future generations, by compliance with? the human rights of every one.
Except the kids.

Dear Antiseptic,

With parental rights come parental
responsibilities. Which is what the mother reneged on
and thus the judgement in her case.

Parental responsibilities is all the rights, duties, powers,
responsibility and authority which by law a parent of a child
has in relation to the child. Which means that the parent is
recognised in the eyes of the law as having all the legal
powers to make appropriate decisions in relation to the
upbringing of the child.

This includes protecting the child from harm. Providing the
child with food, clothing, a place to live, financially
support the child, providing them with medical care as needed,
and so on.

Yes, what rights?

Fathers can be casually deprived of any "right" to see/keep/influence their kids, so casually, on the strength of not much, that it might be that there are none such recognised by law.

Similarly child protection efforts can easily displace dysfunctional parents and substitute something worse. Actual "rights" would surely impede this in many ways.

Could it be whole legal system recognises no "rights", natural or otherwise, of parents?

Rusty

I think your rights as a parent are seriously diminished by taking drugs . Anything that impairs your mental status is a failure of your parental rights. Those kids could have been taken from the parent, as a consequence of her actions.

Thanks for the responses folks. It seems to me that you all conclude that parents have no rights at all. All we have is obligations and some conditional prerogatives that depend on our diligent fulfilment of our obligations. We retain our prerogatives only until some state authority decides we have failed to fulfil some obligation.

Would that be a reasonable summation of the collective view?

Dear Antiseptic,

No I don't agree with your summation.

The role of a parent is to protect their children
until they're old enough to make their own way in
the world. Parents do have rights regarding their
children which entail making
decisions about how they bring them up.
They have the right to make decisions about religion,
schooling, discipline, medical treatment and where
their child lives. The law allows parents pretty much
a free reign. It
allows parents the right to bring up their children according
to their own values and beliefs without interference - unless
the child's well being is at risk. Unless a child is being
mistreated, is not receiving education, is not allowed
medical treatment when it is needed and so on. Which is fair
enough. Every child deserves to be safe, to be treated
with affection, to be educated, to have medical care and
to be protected against cruelty and abuse. Parents do have
rights but let's not forget they also have responsibilities
to their children. It's part and parcel of being a parent.

.

Actually Anti, it's an interesting question.

The subject of education in the industrial world is doubly interesting as in the main "education" is not something that is handed down any longer from parents to children.
It may be seen as a right, for instance, to choose a school (and an obligation to oversee school attendance) but most parents wouldn't for a minute deem that they have a "right" to educate their children themselves. Of course, they do have that right - it's enshrined in state legislation. In my state, there are three categories of education legislated for - public, private and home education. Even so, I'm obliged to follow the state's curriculum and we have a visit from a moderator once a year (although it's no sweat as the curriculum comprises pretty well 'the bleedin' obvious" except it's couched in nebulous verbosity)

That would have to be one of the most black and white statements I have ever witnessed 579.

I have two questions 579.

Do you include alcohol in that ?.

And have you considered that there are people whom should never have parental rights or dominion over children, that has nothing whatsoever to do with drugs ?.

Religious extremists for example, or social interest lobbies.

Parental rights are a clouded area Anti, I for one am not exactly sure what they are these days.

Lexi:"They have the right to make decisions about religion,
schooling, discipline, medical treatment and where
their child lives."

Do they? Or do they simply have the choice of a few approved options?

If I were to decide to take my kids from school and go on the road would the state support me? It seems unlikely if the Qld education department website is any guide

http://education.qld.gov.au/everydaycounts/

"Every Day Counts promotes four key messages:

all children should be enrolled at school and attend on every school day
schools should monitor, communicate and implement strategies to improve regular school attendance
truanting can place a student in unsafe situations and impact on their future employability and life choices
attendance at school is the responsibility of everyone in the community."

What about discipline?

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs19/rs19.html

"The degree of physical punishment that a parent or carer can use with a child is subject to legal regulation in Australia. In most states and territories, corporal punishment by a parent or carer is lawful provided that it is carried out for the purpose of correction, control or discipline, and that it is "reasonable" having regard to:

the age of the child;
the method of punishment;
the child's capacity for reasoning (i.e., whether the child is able to comprehend correction/discipline); and
the harm caused to the child (Bourke, 1981).

Corporal punishment that results in bruising, marking or other injury lasting longer than a 24-hour period may be deemed to be "unreasonable" and thus classified as physical abuse."

Doesn't sound like there's any "right" there, just a list of proscriptions.

[cont]

Medical treatment?

http://www.kidslife.com.au/Page.aspx?ID=1047

"Recently a New Zealand couple was jailed for refusing medical treatment for their baby who ended up dying. Although an extreme situation, it has made many parents wonder exactly what their legal rights and responsibilities are.

As parents, our main duty is to meet our children's basic physical and emotional needs. Among other things this requires us to seek medical treatment for them when necessary.

Failure to do so can - in the most severe cases - lead to the child being taken into care and/or the parents being prosecuted."

No "rights" there as far as I can see.So, now to your last, where the child lives.

http://www.familylawcourts.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/FLC/Home/Children%27s+Matters/Relocation+and+travel/

"Moving with the children to another town, state or country is known as relocation. If moving is going to limit the time the children live with or spend with a parent or another significant person in their lives, a court may not give permission."

No "right" there.

I don't dispute that children have some needs that have to be met, but I think parents are living in a fools paradise if they think they have any right to influence their child's upbrnging in any way that is unapproved by the State.

This, of course, is not a trend that is confined to parenting. Our lawmakers shy away from the unpredictable judgement of "the man on the Clapham omnibus" as a guide to reasonableness and are moving us toward heavy-handed regulation in all aspects of life. We are no longer free to do what is not prohibited, we are constrained to do only what is permitted.

That may suit you when what is permitted is in congruence with your desires, but what if a future regulation prohibits you from doing something you think important, or demands you do something you think will lead to a bad outcome? Will you be happy to defer to the demands of the State?

Any substance that can lead to maltreatment of a child, can only be judged as a basic human rights malfunction. You can't have part time parents. Whoever your parents are they are your parents for life. No matter what your treatment is under the supervision of your parents, so we have a system that removes a child that is in a relationship of part time parenting, from illicit drugs and alcoholism.

Dear Antiseptic,

I can't understand your apparent refusal to accept
that fact that the law is simply there to protect
the abuse and mistreatment of children. It doesn't
mean that under normal circumstances parents don't have
the right to make decisions about how they bring up their
children. If you take your child on the road and the
child should be in school, then yes, the law may interfere
with your decision - depending on the circumstances.
Of course as a responsible parent -
you could always take your child on the road -
during school holidays - there's many of them during the
course of a year - that would not interfere with your
child's schooling.

Anyway, I know this is going to be another fruitless
discussion with you. I suspect this thread is another
excuse for you to vent your spleen regarding family
law courts decisions and you're using "parental rights"
merely as an excuse.

I'll leave you to it.

Hi Lexi,

Yes, but you see, your thought is constructed to fit a certain paradigm. Would it ever cross your mind that a child would probably learn much much more in travelling around the countryside for several months than s/he would learn boxed up inside four walls in a collective environment without one-on-one attention?

We're conditioned to believe that "education" only takes place in schools.

Dear Poirot,

I totally disagree with you. I have relatives who
follow the "alternative" route of education - and
while I grant you that some parents may well have
the discipline to be excellent teachers to their
children and teach them many things - from experience
this is extremely rare and the child misses out on
a great deal in the basics. Certainly parents should
and do supplement and add to their child's education
with what the schools provide. This is the best of
both worlds but I certainly do not approve that this
should take the place of a set curriculum as provided
by the schools. It may also cause a lack of subjects
when wanting to enter university at a later date.
The child may also have problems fitting into a
more structured system.

As I stated earlier - take the child on the road,
or anywhere else you care to - that's what holidays are for.
And by all means supplement your child's education - but
totally replace it with what you've got on offer? - no
with that I don't agree - and its not a result of any
sort of "conditioning," it comes from experience when
dealing with schools and children of all age groups.

But hey - that's only my opinion. I respect your "right"
to disagree.

See you on another thread.

Lexi, you mentioned the Family Law, not me. You seem to find this topic very difficult. Perhaps it is best you find something less challenging to "think" about, since you're obviously unable to find the appropriate labels to apply to this and it's doing your head in.

See you on another thread.

I still haven't heard anyone point out a single "right" applying to parents. Surely if the magistrate used the word he did so with some specific meaning in mind?

Lexi,

I see you're not a great fan of children getting the gist of independent and self-directed learning in their formative years. It seems to me that schools are designed to redirect a child's instinctive talent for directing their own inquiries and replacing it with compartmentalised "subject-based" dictatorial "learning"....more of a "thall shall learn this" theme.

Most children, with a bit of guidance, are capable of following their nose in a way that connects their learning, allowing them to absorb and apply information instead of just memorising it.

Anyway, there's no point in arguing the point here. I'll finish with a quote from George Bernard Shaw which is pertinent to the subject:

"What we want is to see the child in pursuit of knowledge, and not knowledge in pursuit of the child."

Dear Poirot,

What counts in education is attitudes expressed in
skills. The attitudes that count are known. In fact,
teachers are tired of hearing about them again and
again at every conference and convention.

In theory, most of us know what a good education is.
Most thinking parents have all the concepts.
Unfortunately, one cannot educate children on
conception alone. You need the necessary skills
that as I stated earlier - very few parents possess.
Teachers are expected to reach unattainable goals
with inadequate tools. The miracle is that at
times they accomplish this impossible task due to
their skills and on the basis of techniques developed
in child therapy and tested in the classroom.

Children present problems
which do not disappear, even when the teacher believes
in democracy, love, respect, acceptance,
individual differences, and personal uniqueness. Though
magnificent, these concepts are too abstract, and too
large. They're like a thousand-dollar bill - good
currency, but useless in meeting mundane needs such as
buying a cup of coffee, taking a cab, or making a
phone call. For daily life, one needs coins.

For classroom commerce, teachers need psychological small
change. They need specific skills for dealing effectively
and humanely with minute-to-minute happenings - the
small irritations, the daily conflicts, the sudden
crises. All these situations call for helpful and
realistic reactions. A teacher's response has crucial
consequences. It creates a climate of compliance or
defiance, a mood of contentment or contention. It
affects the child's conduct and character for better or for
worse.

These are the facts of emotional life which make teaching and
learning possible or impossible. At their best, teachers
recognize this core truth. Learning is always in the
present tense, and it is always personal.

Many teaching problems will be solved in the next few
decades. There will be new learning environments and
new means of instruction. One function, however, will
always remain with the teacher - to create the emotional
climate for learning. I wish you every success in the
teaching of your children.

Antiseptic,

Just a correction. I do not find this topic
difficult. What I find difficult is
communicating with you. I'll leave you to your
corrosive sarcasm. I'm slowly becoming deaf to it.

Cheers.

Thank you, Lexi.

I'll just add that second-time round I'm little more relaxed and comfortable about "education". I know from my daughter's experience that she feels most of her learning came from her reading and the pursuance of her own interests.
Both my kids read early and, yeah, I agree on an emotional climate for learning. My son came up to me recently and began talking about a correlation in the time line of events between Pope John Paul and another Pope a couple of centuries ago - he'd looked it up himself because he was curious about something else and one thing lead to another - he's ten.

He loves Lego and playing with his friends too, but he knows he's free to explore the world : )

Dear Poirot,

This is for you:

Haiku

Child, give me your hand
That I may walk in the light
Of your faith in me.

Hannah Kahn

What are parental rights - something you think you have but legally don't - and have little hope of getting after the proposed family law (family violence) amendments.

This feminist pork for the election of the first women PM - the "Hate Men" laws - which remove "he said" from "he said/she said" and remove all penalties for lying will likely be passed in the Senate next week.

The Greens actually go so far as to demand the repeal of shared parental responsibility and that any parenting time be discretionary.

Lexi:"What I find difficult is
communicating with you"

Yes, that's obvious. Perhaps it's best you confine yourself to topics that aren't too challenging. We could have a lovely chat about the weather.

As long as ignorant academics can interfere in normal peoples' lives with impunity then it is that long that parents have no power to control their children. Parents rights , what are they ? I'd like to know too.

Dear Antiseptic,

Weather is the state of the atmosphere,
to the degree that it is hot or cold,
wet or dry, calm or stormy,
clear or cloudy.
Most weather phenomena occur in the troposphere,
just below the stratosphere. Weather refers,
generally, to day-to-day temperature and
precipitation activity, whereas climate
is the term for the average atmospheric
conditions over longer periods of time.
When used without qualification, "weather"
is understood to be the weather of Earth.

Weather is driven by density (temperature
and moisture) differences between
one place and another. These differences
can occur due to the sun angle at any
particular spot, which varies by latitude
from the tropics]]. The strong temperature
contrast between polar and tropical air
gives rise to the jet stream. Weather
systems in the mid-latitudes, such as
extratropical cyclones, are caused by
instabilities of the jet stream flow.

Because the Earth's axis is tilted
relative to its orbital plane,
sunlight is incident at different
angles at different times of the
year. On Earth's surface, temperatures
usually range ±40 °C (100 °F to −40 °F)
annually. Over thousands of years, changes
in Earth's orbit affect the amount and
distribution of solar energy received by
the Earth and influence long term climate
and global climate change.

Thanks Houllexi. An inspirational piece of plagiarism.

Houellie, (ha, ha!)

It's a tad overcast here at the moment, but the wind has dropped : )

(As a channel 9 weathergirl
talking about snowfall)
I had a good 8 inches last night.

Not interested in the weather after Gillard’s $trillion sacrifice to the Sun gods in the interest of our children – says she with no children.

However, I do have something to say about the family law (family violence) amendments which are designed to make shared parenting unobtainable. The Senate postponed the vote last Wednesday to oppose the CO2 tax bills guillotine.

Litigated divorce (profit) dropped 22% after the “weak” shared parenting reform of 2006. In countries implementing equal shared care it dropped 55%. The AG says – in contradiction to 2000+ peer-reviewed research studies – that the shared parenting law went too far – an increase of 3% in court ordered shared parenting arrangements to 17% – which has put children at risk because women are afraid to make allegations.

Therefore “reform” which redefines family violence to be whatever the accuser says it is, to effectively repeal the presumption of innocence for men and the removal of all penalties for false allegations.

Further the legislative protections against poisoning and/or alienating the child against the other parent, the most insidious and long-term damaging form of child abuse, specifically enacted to prevent children being used as weapons in custody disputes, are repealed to protect children. The objective soon becomes clear – sole maternal custody.

Unfortunately throwing the baby’s father out with the alleged “domestic violence” bathwater is neither prevention nor protection. There is not one case of child abuse in a court mandated shared care arrangement whereas 80% of reported child abuse occurs in maternal sole custody homes which FVB will unavoidably increase.

More than half of all new “domestic violence” incidents are reported after separation [strategic] which the Bill encourages. Temporary protection orders, the main tactical weapon for sole custody, repealed in the 2006 reform are reinstated without explanation. Protection orders already accounts for 45% of litigation profit. $600 for a lawyer just to show up in court.

Of course the FVB has nothing to do with the Far Left needing more divorce for green female votes and power. 70% of unmarried/divorced women vote for the welfare protection & social justice [wealth redistribution] of the Big Brother party. Far left power follows family tax benefit Part A (sole custody excludes men) – with feminists extremists Crossin, Pratt - herself married to a transman – sitting on the FVB Senate committee instructed by childless Gillard, Plibersek, and new “father” Penny Wong.

Decimating the conservative voting powerbase of middle class family and redistributing that patriarchal wealth [power] to victim women is good socialist policy. And guarantees election support and contributions from a multi-billion dollar family law-domestic violence industry, paid to cry “family violence” wolf.

With divorce ending 52% of 1st marriages and 68% of 2nd and higher for defacto’s the FVB puts half the nation’s private wealth into the hands of a few unelected “controllable” family court judges handing out 100K commissions to brethen lawyers to make allegations of family violence that do not have to be proven or even be reasonable.

In regards to the issue of control consider the female chief justice of family court submission to the Senate in response to proposed law amendments that, in effect, repeal the presumption of innocence and legalise perjury – in short sabotage the fundamentals of western jurisprudence – “when should they start and how much extra funding”

“In the best interests of the child” suddenly becomes more akin to “work will set you free” on the deathcamp gate. Call your senator

Howard, very timely comments, thanks. I wasn't aiming this topic at the issue of separated parents, but nothing illustrates more starkly how few rights parents possess. All it takes for a parent to be effectively removed from the life of a child is for the other parent to say "He's violent and I'm scared", with no evidentiary requirement at all, even as the Law stands prior to the amendments.

Of course, the financial obligation of the parent that is removed don't stop...

Plibersek is not childless but I cannot see how being childless makes anyone less able to make policies for the greater good. There are more politicians with children than not and they don't seem to be doing too well on the issues of child raising all being hellbent on economic productivity over other facts of wellbeing including family.

Parental rights are present in many ways Anti but ill-defined; I am not sure how the law would represent those rights or how it is written.

As a parent of two, I did not feel my rights were diminished only my influence. As children grow, become curious about the world outside the cocoon of the family unit, peers, teachers, media all play a part in influencing your children. So it is less about rights and more about influence.

The ACT is deliberating on a no-smacking law at the moment. Some may argue that is a diminishment of rights but it all depends on one's point of view. My view is that it is a step too far. Parents are still able to homeschool under the law, are able to take their children to Church (if that is their thing) or not. We worry too much about parental rights really, overall Australians are not doing too badly. Children also have rights such as access to medical attention if it is a life and death decision. Does a parent have the right over the best interests of the child and who determines that interest? There has to be a standard agreement that saving life is better than allowing some warped belief to enable the death of another person even if it is your child.

That is not to say erosion of those rights should not be scrutinised. And 'rights' probably have a greater meaning to those who have experienced divorce or who have had children removed under child protection orders especially considering an element of error.

Alcohol included, but not an undeniable urge to enforce a belief system on the child 579, as I also enquired in my last post.

My children are all grown ups, should I continue to abstain from all substantially influenced moments on their behalf ?. Should it really be their business anyway ?, this is the question I would ask 579.

I believe all human experience contributes to the social structure, 579.

Seeking to influence the formative years of human existence with indoctrination, by Gov'ts, Commerce, Religions etc, "even by actual parents", is a hard thing to avoid for sure 579, let alone by interest groups wishing to obtain the rights of a parent in order that they fulfil their own lives. Having said that, I wouldn't like a more convoluted or controlled view of the world than we already have 579.

Substances (including anti-biotics and environmental contamination with poisons) and organised indoctrination, may have equally negatively or positively effected the development of the capability overall, (who knows) ?, of the human organism to progress and sustain a future for itself already, or even the earth itself, including humans in my view 579.

Historically recreational substance use, has not had "the hand braking effect" or the overall negative effect over the centuries that organised religion, politics or oppression have had upon human progress. In some area's of human endeavour, such as in the arts and possibly science in many forms, progress may have actually benefited from substance use.

Environmental and systemic contaminants however are a different matter altogether. There's no going back with some of those !. Someone has too pay.

It is fundamentally inaccurate to suggest that substances that are regarded pleasurable, are also deadly by nature 579. (Once again a personal view).

It is the circumstances of their use in a clandestine environment that is deadly, costly and socially destructive by nature.

Don't worry about druggies, they would be too stoned to think about molesting your children in a safer and more sensible world. (joke).
Please don't take offence 579.

Plibersek is not childless but I cannot see how being childless makes anyone less able to make policies for the greater good.
pelican,
I believe Penny Wong is going to be a daddy. I wonder if that's going to provide him with some sense in regard for the greater good of normal people. Childless until now hasn't made him see reality thus far.

individual
At first I could not believe what I was reading - manner clearly left your house some time ago. What a deeply tragic, bitter and resentful post - it is not worth responding to any further.

pelican,
it was meant that way only you obviously can't appreciate what some of us have lost under that useless outfit that harbours the likes of Wong at our expense. Now that is tragic.

Individual:"what some of us have lost"

The rush to remake society into a half-arsed Fabian worker's paradise, in which everyone is a worker; even mums with babies, even old people who might have expected to enjoy a comfortable retirement, even the nice people who used to enjoy helping people because helping people is a nice thing to do have been told they need to work "for the good of the country", has been a gross failure of public policy and the greatest shame of the ALP, it seems to me.

They have been enablers for the Corporatist dream of full employment at minimal wages.

The destruction of the family unit is another of those gross policy failures that has to be laid at the feet of the ALP, who introduced both the Family Law Act and the CSA for cynical political motives that amounted to an attempt to buy the votes of middle-class women, who now own the party through Emily's List.

Hasn't that worked out well for them?

Well it is the first time I have read the LNP as a Fabian influenced group. They set the standard for the 'everyone as workers' mindset Antiseptic. ALP was equally responsible for pushing the neo-liberal bandwagon. Please tell me how they differ in this respect.

I still don't see the point of making appalling statements about Penny Wong as relevant to the failures of the ALP and as I said it is just poor manners not to mention highly discriminatory.

Perhaps you should change your username 'individual' as clearly you only respect the individualism of those whose views or sexuality match your own.

Actually, Pelican, it was Hawke who started the ball rolling in a big way.

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/cce/default.asp?id=15391

"The Hawke Government’s most important initiative was the Prices and Incomes Accord, which was an agreement reached with trade unions and workers to make the economy more productive by trying to keep wages and inflation rises low."

and

"An initiative which improved the status of women in Australian society generally, and in the workplace, was the passing of the Sex Discrimination Act in 1984, which made it illegal for women to be discriminated against on the basis of their gender, and gave legal support to women who were, for the first time, entering occupations which were previously considered the preserve of men."

Of course, women weren't entering such occupations "for the first time" at all, merely being set up to dominate the more influential, such as law, public bureaucracy and education.

Purest Fabian gradualism in the service of Corporate interests.

Also, the Child Support legislation was introduced in 1988 (Hawke again)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Support_Agency_%28Australia%29#History_.26_evolution_of_the_scheme

while the Family Law Act was a Whitlam creation.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MULR/2000/30.html

Dear Pelly,

I'm convinced that some people make statements in order
to elicit reactions that confirm their negative views of
women. They also create threads in which they can
continue to feel victimized. Best to ignore these people
they are as Ammonite so aptly described - "toss-pots."

BTW:

Here's a few interesting names listed as being Fabians:

John Elliot, Andrew Peacock, Arbi Parvo, Rubert Murdoch,
John Howard, Kerry Packer, Robert Holmes-acourt, Alan Bond,
Malcolm Fraser, and more.

Lexi:""

Sorry Lexi, all I can hear is a little whine; the dog whistle you're blowing seems to have a faulty proposition. It's letting all the hot air out through it's fundamental orifice or something.

I'm sure the dog you're blowing for will hear it nonetheless...

Antiseptic,

LOL.
Don't worry.
He already has.
Gotcha!

Lexi, the only way I've been "got" is that I wasted time responding to you as though you were a sensible, rational person.

Sorry about that, I'll try not to let it happen again.

Antiseptic,

Come on - you set yourself up for that old chap.
Admit it!

You claim you responded as if I was a "sensitive
etc person." You can't be serious. Re-read what
you stated:

"...the dog whistle you're blowing is letting all the
hot air out it's fundamental orifice ..."

And :

"I'm sure the dog you're blowing for will hear it
nevertheless."

Wel, he certainly did!

Gotta laugh. So much for sensitivity.
Your claim to sensitivity is only
because you're easily put out!

You're far too deep for me Lexi. I'm afraid I'm irrevocably bound to the realm of logic and sanity. I'll leave the inscrutable inanities to others. You should do a book - you're really talented in that direction.

Antiseptic,

Been there, done that.
Several actually.

"The Dewey Decimal System: 3 decimal places are not enough - a libro-Feminist perspective" doesn't sound very compelling. I think I'll leave it in the rather tatty pile on my left.

Antiseptic,

Try a few simpler titles.
You may enjoy Roald Dahl's
The BFG.

Good Luck.

It's interesting how you two gravitate toward each other.

Delumptious tension..... : )

Dear Poirot,

I'm heartbroken. I wanted to empty the
ocean with a broken ladle and I found
out: mission impossible.

Perhaps you should change your username
pelican,
I'll lower myself to your mentality just for this & might I suggest you change your username to ostrich.

Dear Individual,

You may be interested to know that if you see an
ostrich in your dream - according to one website
on dreams, this suggests that, "you're not facing reality.
You are in denial about something and living in a
world of your own." The website goes on to say that,
"Perhaps there's a situation that you're unwilling
to accept."

Alternatively they say that the ostrich can symbolize
truth and justice. And if you dream about an ostrich
egg - that means rebirth.

Interesting isn't it.

Poirot, I just wish Lexi would respond to a thread with something other than non-sequitur and personal anecdote, interspersed with expressions of wounded pride.

It's tiresome and doesn't lead to good discussions.

The Family Violence Bill has been postponed in the Senate. There are only 2 more sitting weeks this year. This presents possibilities. The public is blissfully unaware of the consequences of these "Hate Men" laws while Gay marriage, a strategic component in the far socialist/feminist extremist attack on family, is saturating the media.

I managed to get a "bigger picture" comment published in the Daily Telegraph in response to Miranda Devine's op-ed on Gay militantism & intimidation tactics - "Call off the thought police"
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/call_off_the_thought_police/P0/

Gay marriage with inevitable adoption rights, the removal of parental gender from passports, the legal erasing of a father's name from the child birth certificate, the family violence amendments which guarantee sole maternal custody all portend to one of the most destructive (and successful) strategies of the socialist/feminist Left in recent years: the exploitation of children as political weapons. How often have we heard the Gillard mantra “for our children” – when she has no children.

Children have become the levers by which one forces social change. This understanding underlies the militancy of the gay rights agenda.

Conservatives and Christians who allow their attention to be monopolized by carbon tax and government financial management and leave family policy to socialists from the Australian Lesbian Party will discover only once it is too late the power of “the hand that rocks the cradle.”

Rebutted by FundamentalistAtheist replied to howardBeale

"‘The proposed changes were welcomed last night by former Family Court chief judge Alastair Nicholson, who said they were long overdue.
The changes, which are directed at cases involving abusive parents, elevate the safety of children to the top priority in custody disputes
He said the Howard government’s changes to the Family Law Act had not been thought through. “There was too much sound and fury and not enough proper analysis,” he said.’ (The Australian)

Decent and loving parents will lose their kids..wrong! It is about violence toward children. The evidence is considered by a Judge will determine outcomes.

‘....Leave family policy to socialists from the Australian Lesbian Party...’? Really? I don’t think so."

Dear Poirot,

I wish that Antiseptic would just once not turn
overything into a gender war and when people
disagree with his opinion make things personal.
It is not only tiresome - but boring. Have you
seen his latest thread - another attack on guess
what? a female, our Prime Minister. No mention of the
incompetence of Mr Abbott and Co. (or any other male). -
And,
All of his threads usually turn
out to be attacks on females in one form or another.
Take a look at his posts on the other threads...
It would be so refreshing to just
once have him say something positive about
famales. How can anyone have a discussion with a
person who doesn't want to discuss - but wants to
argue, and doesn't respect your opinion, and gets
insulting. Then blames you for not wanting to talk
to him. As the saying goes - you can't keep doing
what you're doing - and expect different results.

Lexi:"blames you for not wanting to talk
to him"

You're perfectly welcome not to talk to me. It would be infinitely preferable to the dribble that you're serving up at the moment.

Antiseptic,

I would actually love to have a serious heart-to heart.
But I suspect that I'd first have to tear down the wall
that you've
built around yourself - and at present I'm too tired
to try. Perhaps sometime down the track we can meet
meet each other half-way and start afresh.
Until then ...