I submit the ALP/Greens intentionally created the DV epidemic by fiddling the definitions of family violence and guillotining UNILATERAL family law amendments for the purpose of socially engineering female votes using the Court.

Single women tend to vote left (2:1) for Big Brother government and welfare. When they marry and have children they this flips to (1:2) to conservative. By increasing the divorce rate, the ALP is flipping conservative voters to the left and keeping them by DV welfare funding – National DV Plan.

Female voters outnumber men by 3%. That swing margin determines election.

No surprise they attack anyone attempting an inquiry into a divorced male suicide rate 8 times that of women.

Most people don’t realise that 90% of DVO’s involve no physical contact between the parties. Men are criminalised for replying to text, driving within 200m of their own home, looking “scary” or just not doing what their partner wants.

Moreover, the taxpayer is being forced to pay for legal aid to fund this trivial litigation.

Feminist laws prevent the accused from defending himself. Only lawyers are allowed to cross-examine the alleged “victim”.

If you don’t have $10K then the law requires the Court to ORDER legal aid to fund a lawyer. If you don’t qualify then you are convicted. No more government jobs, police force, practicing law or running for Parliament to change the law. Complete emasculation.

In this way the DV stats are ridiculously overinflated for more funding.

The recommendations for more funding should not be implemented. There is no evidence that the $740M/year has been effective in reducing DV such that more funding is not justified.

We need to address the root causes of the so called DV epidemic and change the laws.

Hey Foxy,
I was going to say:
'If you want to play gender wars, then I'd prefer not to but if you really want to then fine;
If you think the men are dragging their feet then fine point the finger at men;
- If you are convinced the issue holds merit.'

I was going to say that Foxy;
- Until I read Howards Beale's contribution.

Now I'm considering the idea that these laws that support the womens point of view might be the damn reason in itself for the backlog.

Re your link:
I'm not going to defend a peedo, what's your point?

Children are often worse off in the care they are placed in than where they were in the first place.
This is nothing new.

I know of situations where some mums and women have been railroaded by by a sub standard bloke and his well to do affluent family.
Sometimes losing custody of kids unfairly.

"The statistics and facts speak for themselves AC."
- Yes, what the women have come up with ISNT working.
Their answer is to take a whip to men; after they probably pushed their own men into a corner which caused them lash out at them.

Can any man imagine THESE women wouldn't do that?

I'm trying to make concessions here for both sides Foxy;
- If you pay attention to what I'm saying -
Try to see the bigger picture.

So now I'm going to say something else:

Cloward and Piven.
I've said it enough times, you should all know what I mean by now.

I wonder how many men who support Pauline Hanson's position on the inquiry are doing so because they are woman bashers.

I make no apologies for this being so long. I may even have to wait 24 hours to finish Posting.

Foxy: Pauline Hanson's recent unsupported claims that women are frequently making up allegations of domestic violence in family courts?

I sense a little Bias against men getting any justice against women who work the System with help from their Lawyers. However, moving on.

I wish to point out the Accusation made by Pauline was, “Some women,” not Women. Would you be so bold as to hold a view that, “Women never lie?” I have heard Rabid feminist exclaim something very similar previously, like, “Only men are Violent. Women are never violent.”

Mr. Opinion: a clash between Pauline Hanson and Rosie Batty.

Both ladies are trying to fix a crocked System, but they’ve both got different ends of the same stick. I can understand Rose Batty’s dislike of men given she has that Scar on her face from a man when she worked in that famous Street in Kalgoorlie after coming from Sydney when the Yanks pulled out of Vietnam & there was no more Rest & Recreation for the Troops in Sydney. 😉

Foxy: I've read all the criticisms of this inquiry. And some very valid concerns have been raised.

Mostly from Rabid Women’s Groups & Leftist who hate Pauline with a Passion. Yes, I seen them too.

Belly: Hanson used her personal view to taint her understanding before it even got started.

All she said was that. “Some women lie.” & you are right Belly. <However yes some women do lie> Careful, or you will get lumped in with Pauline.
Cont

Belly: And yes, the court is biased against men.

Yes, it is. I have had a Barrister tell me that I could not present & he would not present the evidence against my ex because, “The Judge would not allow any evidence to be presented that denigrated a Woman & Mother or show up a woman in a bad light.” That was letters & admissions from ex boyfriends she had while we were still married. Not even the hundreds “Letters of Demand” over 16 years. Averaging at least one, sometimes two a month. Do you realize what that adds up to in Solicitors Charges?

Foxy: Katherine Murphy in The Guardian tells us that the PM's family court inquiry is a "boneheaded gift to Pauline Hanson and men's rights activists".

Is Katherine saying that it’s OK for women to take action against me but it’s not for Men to take action against men. Is that Biased, or what.

Foxy: Australian Law Reform Commission has already presented a bunch of detailed recommendations to over haul the family court system in August.

& as usual the Lawyers will get in on the act so they will not lose their Lucrative Cash Cow. The interference of Lawyers. “Looking after their Clients interests” is what drives Lawyers for their own Benefit.

My second wife couldn’t take any more of the constant harassment from my first wife, at her place of employment. We split amicably. We divided everything, made a list of who got what & she started her move back to Brisbane from North Queensland. We went to our Solicitor & he said he couldn’t accept the agreement & could only act for one of us.

He called his brother-in-Law of the rival Firm & she took her copy down to him. Just before she left, I received a letter from my Solicitor want to know what I was going to do about a letter of demand from her solicitor. I asked my Wife what it was about & she didn’t know. So, she rung him & her said, “I’m looking after your interests.”