• 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"

uke2se said:
I don't understand how this thread has reached this lenght. It's a clear cut case of kidnapping.
Click to expand...

She played the media like a fiddle as well as played her kids and so won over some people who continue to support her. Most don't and you now have an explanation of the thread.
 
IMO, the biggest problem here seems to be that some posters are simply unable to read things in context.

"A" makes a statement,

"B" removes it from its context and places in another context that was never intended by "A"

"B" then proclaims that "A" is wrong, based on their own context, not that of "A's"

That is the sort of crap I expect to see on BAUT/CQ, David Icke or GLP, not here!
 
smartcooky said:
IMO, the biggest problem here seems to be that some posters are simply unable to read things in context.

"A" makes a statement,

"B" removes it from its context and places in another context that was never intended by "A"

"B" then proclaims that "A" is wrong, based on their own context, not that of "A's"

That is the sort of crap I expect to see on BAUT/CQ, David Icke or GLP, not here!
Click to expand...

The problem is that you remove the context yourself by use of absolute statements.

"Violence should never be used against children."
"Well what about in this circumstance?"
"You're taking it out of context!"
 
I would like to know what people who think the Aussie police were overly heavy-handed expected them to do.

Lure the kids with candy?

Ask really nicely?

Simply leave the kids with their kidnapping mother, in spite of the law?
 
ehcks said:
The problem is that you remove the context yourself by use of absolute statements.

"Violence should never be used against children."
"Well what about in this circumstance?"
"You're taking it out of context!"
Click to expand...

My statement was in the context of THIS thread.

Take a look at he title of this thread and tell me how discussing violence against bears and 12 year old kids wielding guns in classrooms is in any way related.

This thread is only about what happened with regards to the events under discussion. Bears and kids wielding guns is irrelevant bollocks that has no place in here!

Of course you may need to use violence/force, or whatever you need to use, in order to protect a child from an immediate life-threatening danger, whether be from within or without. That does not give you a licence to use violence because they are having a hissy-fit, disobeying you or aren't behaving the way you want them to.
 
uke2se said:
Simply leave the kids with their kidnapping mother, in spite of the law?
Click to expand...

That's what I would have done, rather than treat the children as though they were stolen livestock belonging to someone else.

Whatever you think of the mother, she is not the one who was dragged into custody and flown to another country against her will.
 
uke2se said:
I would like to know what people who think the Aussie police were overly heavy-handed expected them to do.

Lure the kids with candy?

Ask really nicely?

Simply leave the kids with their kidnapping mother, in spite of the law?
Click to expand...

No, no, and no

Arrest the mother for "obstructing the police in the execution of their duty", and drag her away by force if necessary. Refer post #706 for the rest of what I suggest they should have done.

So far, no one has been able to fault this idea, but I'm sure someone will dream up some bogus reasons why it couldn't have been done.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
My statement was in the context of THIS thread.

Take a look at he title of this thread and tell me how discussing violence against bears and 12 year old kids wielding guns in classrooms is in any way related.

This thread is only about what happened with regards to the events under discussion. Bears and kids wielding guns is irrelevant bollocks that has no place in here!

Of course you may need to use violence/force, or whatever you need to use, in order to protect a child from an immediate life-threatening danger, whether be from within or without. That does not give you a licence to use violence because they are having a hissy-fit, disobeying you or aren't behaving the way you want them to.
Click to expand...

The perhaps you should not have said one can never use violence/force against children.
Just as you should not have said words to the effect that the wishes of the children are always paramount.
Words have meanings, and when you say 'never' and 'always' it is reasonable to think you mean 'never' and 'always'.
I never say 'never' unless I mean 'never'.
Next, if you wish, we can discuss just what you mean by 'violence' and 'force' since that also seems to be causing some confusion.
 
I never used any corporal punishment on my kids: I never spanked them or hit them in any way what-so-ever. But it was not unusual when they were small that I picked them up and carried them off when they needed to go inside and they insisted on staying outside. Or when they wanted to stay at the zoo and they needed to be home. Sometimes they were kicking and screaming when I did so, but I had no choice after attempts to reason with them failed. And I always tried to reason with them first! They both agree that I am the pushover in the family.

Of course they were never hurt at all- I just picked them up and held them (although I ended up with a bruised nose when one accidentally head butted me once). It was comforting them as well as getting them someplace they didn't want to go. When they got bigger, sometimes I grabbed their hand to hustle them across a street crossing faster before the light changed. Once I physically blocked my teenager exiting the house because i disapproved of where they intended to go. They shoved me, I stood my ground, and he cooled off.

Only a few times was it truly a question of life and death.

So in my mind it is not only okay to use "force" on children, but it is actually unavoidable. Not force that would injure them, but force none the less.

In fact, police have to use force on children all the time: a drunk 16 year old, or two 12 year olds in a violent fist fight, or a 10 year old shoplifter trying to get away.

So I think the force issue is largely irrelevant here. The mother appears to have set up the physical confrontation with the police, who in turn used relatively minimal force to diffuse the violent actions of the children.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
No, no, and no

Arrest the mother for "obstructing the police in the execution of their duty", and drag her away by force if necessary. Refer post #706 for the rest of what I suggest they should have done.

So far, no one has been able to fault this idea, but I'm sure someone will dream up some bogus reasons why it couldn't have been done.
Click to expand...

I can't see that the mother obstructed the police, or that arresting her would have resolved the problem. The problem was that the kids did not want to go. With kids that age, I would have respected their preference rather than dragging them away by force.
 
Last edited:
kerikiwi said:
Next, if you wish, we can discuss just what you mean by 'violence' and 'force' since that also seems to be causing some confusion.
Click to expand...

When discussing violence, I default to the WHO definition, and I have highlighted those parts which, if you read them in order, show that what was used against these children was violence not just force,

"Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation."
 
Giordano said:
In fact, police have to use force on children all the time: a drunk 16 year old, or two 12 year olds in a violent fist fight, or a 10 year old shoplifter trying to get away.

So I think the force issue is largely irrelevant here. The mother appears to have set up the physical confrontation with the police, who in turn used relatively minimal force to diffuse the violent actions of the children.
Click to expand...

???

The only "violent actions of the children" were a defensive reaction to being forcibly dragged from their home.

This is not a case of a drunk 16 year old, or 12 year olds in a fight, or a 10 year old shoplifter. It was nothing like that. There was no disturbance until the cops showed up.

It seems like the people wandering into this thread have lost all ability to make critical distinctions. This mother has been compared to the men who abducted Jaycee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart. The reaction of the kids to being separated from their mother has been compared to children crying because they don't get ice cream. And now this lunacy.
 
smartcooky said:
When discussing violence, I default to the WHO definition, and I have highlighted those parts which, if you read them in order, show that what was used against these children was violence not just force,

"Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation."
Click to expand...

Would you then agree that in the post above, what Giordano has decribed is violence against his children?
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
???

The only "violent actions of the children" were a defensive reaction to being forcibly dragged from their home.

This is not a case of a drunk 16 year old, or 12 year olds in a fight, or a 10 year old shoplifter. It was nothing like that. There was no disturbance until the cops showed up.

It seems like the people wandering into this thread have lost all ability to make critical distinctions. This mother has been compared to the men who abducted Jaycee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart. The reaction of the kids to being separated from their mother has been compared to children crying because they don't get ice cream. And now this lunacy.
Click to expand...

As noted multiple times before in this thread, the mom could have told the children to cooperate with the police, thereby eliminating any chance of them being hurt in a scuffle. But instead she told them to resist the police by force. Surely she must have known this put her children at risk of injury, and yet would not change the ultimate outcome. Even worse, the mom called in the reporters to splash the scene on television and in the papers, greatly increasing the circus like atmosphere and endangering the privacy of her kids.

In fact the mom could have taken her kids to the airport herself and reassured them that she would see them soon. Even better, she could have gone with her kids on the plane to Italy, at least for a few days, and helped calm them and get them settled in. The father was willing to pay the cost. She could have reassured them that they should tell the court their preferences and that the court would take their wishes into consideration. In fact, given the ages of the children, I am certain the court would have listened very carefully to the wishes of the children before reaching a custody decision.

I don't see how anyone could really know what the kids truly want, and what the best circumstance would be from the broader adult perspective, without having the family court hearing. Do you really know what each of the kids wants right now? Do I? Do we know the living conditions in the two homes, or the fitness of the two parents? Based on what I read, the mom appears to have disqualified herself as a reliable parent, but I might be wrong. How does society decide the best for the kids without the court listening to all sides and making a judgement? Presumably some sort of shared custody and extensive visitation rights would have been the usual result.

Instead the mother wasn't willing to allow a court to decide: she sprinted the children away before that could happen.
 
Giordano said:
As noted multiple times before in this thread, the mom could have told the children to cooperate with the police, thereby eliminating any chance of them being hurt in a scuffle. But instead she told them to resist the police by force. Surely she must have known this put her children at risk of injury, and yet would not change the ultimate outcome. Even worse, the mom called in the reporters to splash the scene on television and in the papers, greatly increasing the circus like atmosphere and endangering the privacy of her kids.

In fact the mom could have taken her kids to the airport herself and reassured them that she would see them soon. Even better, she could have gone with her kids on the plane to Italy, at least for a few days, and helped calm them and get them settled in. The father was willing to pay the cost.
Click to expand...

The mom could have handled a lot of things better than she did. She certainly has attracted a merry band of haters. But let's face a couple of facts.

Number one, the kids don't feel that way about her. To them, she is not some horrible woman in the news. She is their mother, they love her, and they want to be with her in Australia.

Number two, the kids, not the mom, are the ones who ended up being treated like criminals by the police.

Giordano said:
She could have reassured them that they should tell the court their preferences and that the court would take their wishes into consideration. In fact, given the ages of the children, I am certain the court would have listened very carefully to the wishes of the children before reaching a custody decision.
Click to expand...

???

The children, especially the two older ones, made it clear to the court and anyone who would listen that their wishes were to stay in Australia with their mother. The court responded by sending the cops to drag them onto a plane bound for Italy.

Giordano said:
I don't see how anyone could really know what the kids truly want,
Click to expand...

I'm about to give up, but I'll give it one last shot.

Have you seen the video of these kids being dragged out of their home, and then the video that was shot in Italy where their father had to drag the oldest one away from the gate in front of his house?

Have you seen any of the letters their mother has posted on Facebook since the kids have been in Italy?

That is how anyone can know what the kids truly want. I'm struggling to think how they could have been more clear or emphatic. I can't come up with much, short of self-immolation.
 
kerikiwi said:
According to smartcooky's definition, the girls were definitely being violent.
Click to expand...

Not my definition, the World Health Organisation's definition

Who exhibited the violence first, the first or the police?

Would the girls have had to do what they did if that hadn't been treated like cattle on the first place?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

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