http://www.oneinthree.com.au/
Forgotten victims of home abuse
UK Corrupt Courts
THE MINISTRY OF INJUSTICE KNOWS EXACTLY HOW CORRUPT THE COURTS ARE
The Government is totally corrupt and uses the courts, police, inland revenue, customs & excise, local government as enforcement goons. You are secretly enslaved by the monarchy, and please remember they have had hundreds of years of control to practice and refine their technique.
Democracy, law, justice are just devices to fool and con you into compliance, in fact you are just a busy bee collecting honey for the queen’s agents to steal
Wake up.
This list is for the authorities to know how many citizens know the truth, who the trouble-makers are (activists, realists, victims). In truth they are shit scared the internet cum tinternet has blown their cover. And what’s more they are to fecking late the cat’s out of the bag! For those who know!
Because of their arrogance and old boys networks, they now realise the old boys they relied on have been gently screwing them for years and now we have a financial collapse. One thing you should know: money does not disappear. It buys property and assets. Where is it? After all, we keep honey in jars! Where is the stolen money now!
SOURCE
Do we have any real leaders? You can recognize them if they are marginalized, slandered and anathema to the mass media. Our real leaders are the people they slander, bankrupt and imprison or kill. {Henry Makow}
One-third of babies born out of wedlock
May I suggest that over half of the babies born in New Zealand are born out of wedlock. Sadly society wonders why children don't understand balance and respect.Western government systems promote the fractured family business because insidious Family Court judges, lawyers and bent psychologists need money to pay the golf club fees. Blood money. Poor children and you think this generation is bad, you ain't seen nothing yet!
http://www.theage.com.au/
The Age (Melbourne)
6 July 2010
One-third of babies born out of wedlock
By Adele Horin and Erik Jensen
Nothing short of a revolution has swept through the institutions of marriage and family in the past 30 years, says the director of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Alan Hayes.
The most striking change is the rise in babies born out of wedlock. More than a third of babies born in 2008 (34.4 per cent) were to mothers who were not married, an increase from 8.3 per cent in 1970.
"For many children it's been a good revolution, but it depends on the extent to which they are in safe and stable homes," Professor Hayes said.
The big rise in ex-nuptial births was to cohabiting couples, he said. The proportion born to single women on their own had remained stable since the early 1990s.
"It's difficult to generalise about the effects on the children," Professor Hayes said. "It depends on whether the cohabiting relationship is long-term and stable, whether it leads to marriage, or whether it is fragile and part of a series of relationships."
Professor Hayes will report today on the modern family at the annual conference of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, which has charted the changes since it opened its doors 30 years ago.
It was more important to focus on how a family functioned than on its form, Professor Hayes said, on whether parenting was harsh and inconsistent, and whether relationships "disappeared before children's eyes". It was easier for governments to support families irrespective of their form than to try to change marriage rates.
Rebecca Huntley, director of Ipsos Mackay Research, said for many members of the cohabiting Generation Y, the sign of commitment was the decision to have children and to buy a house together. But later, when they could afford it, the couple splashed out on a big, ostentatious wedding.
"They see the wedding as a party with 150 friends," she said. "For their parents' generation a wedding was the licence to buy a house and have the children."
Another sign of the revolution is the proportion of couples who have lived together before marrying, which reached 78 per cent in 2008, compared with 23 per cent in 1980. Both parents are much more likely to be in work, with 63 per cent of mothers of dependent children in jobs (mostly part-time) compared with 43 per cent in 1981.
--
Absent dads owe billions in unpaid child support
False allegations made in 2001 by an unscrupulous maternal family obliterated the close loving bonds of love that I enjoyed in a relationship with my two dear daughters. However with that said, I have paid child support even though I have not had meaningful access to either of them.The money does not go to them, it goes to the wayward government creeps. It is hard paying a gender bias system without enjoying the rewards of my children. It was so easy for my ex to manipulate the sick judicial system I can only assume that the child support debtors bolted before the police locked them up and a Family Court said they were mental. This country is a tragic mess with more social problems than any other country of similar size. Who in their right mind can say they proud to be a kiwi. This country is a corrupt cess pit !!
Absent dads owe billions in unpaid child support
Barbara Kay: You’re male. You must be a pervert
In an interesting news item out of Britain, a man has received about £3,000 in costs and damages combined for sex discrimination by British Airways (BA).
A flight attendant, who later claimed ignorance of the fact that Mr. Fischer was with his wife, informed him that he must return to his original seat, as it was BA policy not to allow adult men to sit next to an unaccompanied minor. After some discussion, Mr. Fischer did ultimately return to his seat, unwilling to make a spectacle of himself, but felt “embarrassed, humiliated and angry.”
For its part, BA conceded fault in not realizing Mr. Fischer was with his wife, but defended the general policy. A spokesman said, “We had 75,000 children fly with us last year and it is an issue we take very seriously.”
BA is not the only airline with that policy. It’s a common practice. In a September 2007 post in thehich after se pages in which I mused over airline inconsistencies in profiling discrimination — yes to all adult men, no to potential terrorists — I quoted an expert witness in aviation disputes: “You have to make generalizations for the safety of a child.” She cited what is apparently a well-known adage in airline circles: “No regulation in aviation takes effect without somebody’s blood on it.”
The only inference to draw from that statement is that unaccompanied minors have been physically abused on airplanes by adult men in the past, and therefore the policy is well justified. If that is indeed the case, then airlines have opened the door in principle to profiling in general.
Yet strangely, even though there’s “somebody’s blood” – more than 3,000 somebodies to be precise – on the lack of a profile policy monitoring the kind of people most likely to shed more blood, airlines still frisk little old ladies and pointedly ignore the terror profile guy with the one-way ticket and the nervous manner.
In any case, I have to wonder exactly how much “blood” has been shed on airlines by adult men sitting next to children. Does anyone have any actual statistics? Because it occurs to me that even the most committed pedophile would have to be quite a moron to take a chance hitting on a child on an airplane.
After all, men flying alone on airplanes are not exactly drunken bowery bums in sleazy porn theatres with no reputation to protect. The typical “respectable” pervert chooses his victim carefully, with a plan for isolating and controlling his target. He most definitely has an escape plan. Proximity and apparent opportunity alone would hardly be enough of an incentive to overcome the enormous risks attached to airplane overtures.
This isn’t 1954, after all, when any man in a business suit is considered trustworthy. The opposite. No men are “innocent” any more, not even the 99% of decent men to whom it would never occur to be anything but protective to a child alone. All are suspect in society’s eyes, even though something like 20% of sexual abuse is perpetrated on children by women.
Children nowadays are very well trained by their parents and teachers on the subject of “touching” and the need for wariness with strangers. Touching a child inappropriately in a tight little space surrounded by others with no possible escape seems to me the equivalent of groping a kid in a police station. You’d have to be a complete obsessive to take the chance. I suppose some men are – just like some jihadists we could name are obsessive about their desires.
When you think about it, even though Mr Fischer is quite right to label the policy sex discrimination, he was better off having swapped seats with his wife. Such is the fear and hysteria around child abuse, he might have been at greater risk than any fear-hyped child. Imagine if, having dropped his pen, and feeling for it on the floor, he accidentally brushed his fingers against the child’s leg. The kid screams, “Don’t touch me!” Three hundred eyes swivel his way, the cabin crew come rushing over, the pilot alerts the destination security, the poor sap is hauled off the plane protesting his innocence to no avail, and his life is ruined.
The onus should not be on adult men to carry out the responsibility of airline crews. Either airlines should refuse unaccompanied minors or they should take full responsibility for them, if necessary designating a special area beside the cabin personnel.
If their policy remains one of merely minimizing the risk, however, consistency should prevail. If profiling for one child’s security is justifiable, then profiling for the security of a whole airplane of people should be as well. What good would it do a kid to remain ungroped if the whole plane blows up with him in it?
National Post
Domestic violence: court affirms licence to kill as another "battered woman" walks free after execution-style murder of husband
|





