• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Australian "custody sisters"

Yeah well, like Lionking said, accuracy isn't one of Miranda Devine's strong points.
And 'The Daily Telegraph' isn't quite as bad as 'The Daily Mail', but it's not the best source either.

I have no reason to doubt the validity of that story though.

Miranda Devine is just a second-rate trash journalist whose only real skill is interviewing her own laptop. I can't recall which Aussie radio jock it was (Murray Olds perhaps?) that told this joke about her, but it has the ring if truth about it...

"A mate of mine reckoned that Miranda Devine wasn't a journalists arse-hole, but I stuck-up for her and told him that she was."
 
This...

For ****'s sake please try to keep up! At the risk of boring you, I am going repeat what I said earlier in case you missed it

I have never argued that she hasn't committed an offence. I have always argued, right from my very first post in this thread, that I believe what happened when the girls were dragged away from their mother was wrong. IMO, it was handled appallingly by all concerned, including the police. That is an opinion I will never change. There is never any justification for the use of violence with children. Don't much care who is to blame for the situation that this family has ended up in. The mother may well be a *********** pig, or a *********** dog or a *********** bitch or any of the other disgusting terms that some posters here have used to describe her. Perhaps she really doesn't deserve to have them. The father may well be all sweetness and light and a real angel in disguise, who only wants what's best for his kids, and perhaps he is the best choice as the custodial parent. Irrespective of ANY of all this, the use of violence with children is always wrong!!

Now if you persist in asking the same questions over and over, I will persist in posting the same answers over and over, and we'll see who gives up first.

...is in no way an answer to either of these...

So how should this offense be dealt with? What other offenses are alright to ignore if done by a mother?

...questions.

If you don't want to answer the questions fine. You don't have to. The dodge is in-artful and obvious though. If you're going to try to answer questions with non-sense non-sequiters at least have the good educate to say, 'I like cake.'

Thanks for making it clear that you're stubbornly refusing to consider that you're wrong though through your very drool use of bold 'never'.

If using 'violence' against children is wrong, how about 'force'? What about a sixteen year old with a gun? A fifteen year old having a seizure?
 
I have never argued that she hasn't committed an offence. I have always argued, right from my very first post in this thread, that I believe what happened when the girls were dragged away from their mother was wrong. IMO, it was handled appallingly by all concerned, including the police. That is an opinion I will never change. There is never any justification for the use of violence with children. Don't much care who is to blame for the situation that this family has ended up in. The mother may well be a *********** pig, or a *********** dog or a *********** bitch or any of the other disgusting terms that some posters here have used to describe her. Perhaps she really doesn't deserve to have them. The father may well be all sweetness and light and a real angel in disguise, who only wants what's best for his kids, and perhaps he is the best choice as the custodial parent. Irrespective of ANY of all this, the use of violence with children is always wrong!!.


Not true.
 
OK, if you insist



I have no idea, ask a...

1. Lawyer
2. Policeman
3. Judge
4. Prosecutor

Your choice!



I have no idea, ask a...

1. Lawyer
2. Policeman
3. Judge
4. Prosecutor

Your choice!

That's funny, because all of those people were involved and you STILL didn't like the outcome.
 
Most importantly, Parental Abduction is not a criminal offence. The federal law that prohibits kidnapping does not cover acts of parental abduction.
Since you're citing US law, the laws in all 50 states disagree. It is a crime in every single US state and territory.

You're citing federal law. It might surprise you that with rare exceptions even murder isn't a violation of federal law.

In short, you are confused how laws work in the USA.
 
Last edited:
Since you're citing US law, the laws in all 50 states disagree. It is a crime in every single US state and territory.

You're citing federal law. It might surprise you that with rare exceptions murder isn't a violation of federal law.

In short, you are confused how laws work in the USA.

You're two days late, refer to post 783

Try to keep up please

That's funny, because all of those people were involved and you STILL didn't like the outcome.

Who said I didn't like the outcome

Refer to post 799, and this time, actually READ it!
 
You're two days late, refer to post 783

Try to keep up please
Nothing in post #783 indicates you are aware of the differences between state and federal law in the US.

As I stated, murder generally isn't a violation of federal law. It certainly doesn't mean murder is not a crime in the US. It just means it's prosecuted by the various states, not the feds.
 
Nothing in post #783 indicates you are aware of the differences between state and federal law in the US.

As I stated, murder generally isn't a violation of federal law. It certainly doesn't mean murder is not a crime in the US. It just means it's prosecuted by the various states, not the feds.


Who cares?

Do you not understand that I admitted that I should not have used US law?

Are you just being a prick and trying to rub it in, even though I admitted to being wrong?
 
I do not advocate assaulting children, but it seems that you do, because you think using violence against children is OK

Therefore I'm wrong in your eyes. SW

Whatever.
Odd definition of "assault" and "violence" you're using there.

I guess it's easy to "win" when you just get to make up your own definitions.
 
Odd definition of "assault" and "violence" you're using there.

I guess it's easy to "win" when you just get to make up your own definitions.

When you commit an assault, you use violence on the person you are assaulting.

When you use violence on a person, you are assaulting them.

The victim is unlikely to spend a lot of time pondering over the fine distinctions.
 
And the government is the largest deal of interpersonal violence...

Sorry, I'm having flashbacks to other, better, deflections.
 
I don't understand this statement. What do you mean?

It's an allusion to the arguments from another poster who believes it's effective to post non-sequiters redefining 'violence' in as broad a way as necessary to support his argument because 'violence' equals 'bad'.

Is there a question in there?...Somewhere?

No, a criticism.
 
I am truly sorry for the terrible situation you found yourself in through no fault of your own.

Unfortunately, these types of situations are not a "one size fits all". Everyone's experiences are unique.

While I was lucky enough to have had my parents stay together for all of their lives, my wife was not so lucky. Her parents split when she was 11, and she initially ended up with her father in the same house and town she had lived in all her life. Then the mother went for custody and won.

She was forced, at the age of 13, and against her will, to go to a strange town (Tokoroa), where she had no friends, to live with her mother. This was in spite of the fact that she didn't want to go and in spite of the fact that she made it clear that she was frightened of her mother's new boyfriend and his two teenage sons (15 and 17). She was very, very upset by what had happened and felt that no-one had listened to her or had cared about what she wanted. Just like these girls, she made a real scene at the courthouse, but it was no use. As in your case, the mother cut ties with the father. She would not permit any contact.

Two years, several broken ribs, and at least one broken arm later, and after numerous consultations with doctors (who discovered numerous bruises, which were cunningly inflicted in places that were difficult to see; upper thighs, upper arms, under armpits etc) and with the recommendation of the Department of Social Welfare (as it was called then) her father finally convinced the courts to take her away from her mother.

By then, unfortunately, the damage had already been done. Not just the physical damage, but the emotional trauma of feeling trapped with no-one to turn to, of abandonment, of feeling that no-one cared about her, and that she had simply been left to die.

The physical scars healed in due course, although she still suffers aches and pains that both her and her doctor attribute to the frightful beatings she took. However, the emotional scars have never healed. Even now, 40+ years later, she still has nightmares about it.

When she heard from her aunt in 2009 that her stepfather had died, she wept tears of joy... This event did more to heal her than anything that psychologists or counsellors were able to do. I still remember what she yelled on the phone when her aunt told her... "Yes! Yes" Yes" The bastard is dead!!!"

If only the courts had listened to her and acted on it when she was 13!!!

This is a sad story, and I'm sorry your wife had that experience.

It's what can happen when the law places the sentience of children on a par with that of dumb animals. Ooh, look at the clever trick someone taught them. I bet they'll look back with amusement when they magically grow a human brain on their 18th birthday.
 
I do not advocate assaulting children, but it seems that you do, because you think using violence against children is OK

Therefore I'm wrong in your eyes. SW

Whatever.

No you said it is always wrong to use violence against children... I disagreed.... You're wrong.
 
It's an allusion to the arguments from another poster who believes it's effective to post non-sequiters redefining 'violence' in as broad a way as necessary to support his argument because 'violence' equals 'bad'.

So, you are arguing that violence = good, or that violence sometimes = good?

Well if you are, the you and I are philosophically poles apart, so much so, that we will never agree.

It is my position that violence is a last resort of the incompetent, and that it invariably leads to even more violence and that the level of violence in a society is inversely proportional to its level of enlightenment.

I've seen what violence can do to a family, not my own, but my wife's, and to some of the families of kids I used to teach.

Violence is OK? I think not!
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom