Friday, May 30, 2008

The budget


The NZ government is giving each and every one of us a $16-42 tax reduction.

If we spend that money at K-Mart, the money will go to China .

If we spend it on petrol it will go to the Arabs, if we purchase a computer it will go to Taiwan.

If we purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala.

If we purchase a made in China hoodie it makes it easier to do a burglary.

If we purchase a good car it will go to Japan.

If we purchase useless crap it will go to Korea and none of it will help the NZ economy.

If you save it for about 4 years for an overseas holiday you will be helping someone else’s economy.

The only way to keep that money here at home is to spend it on prostitutes and beer, since these are the only products still produced in New Zealand .

Thank you for your help.

Helen Clark & Michael Cullen
(NZ Prime Minister & Treasurer)

Happy hoodie day from Nandor pot head and Sue Bradford communist feminazi.

Where have all the real men gone?

The obvious and unexplained feminisation of contemporary men.

read more | digg story

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Scott Henson: Where's the evidence of abuse? | Dallas Mornin

The old anonymous complaint to authorities trick.This can devastate a man's life forever . Just pick up the phone and talk a load of rot, because the judicial system don't need any truth to start the father persecution process. Welcome to your worse nightmare where false allegations nail you to a cross !!

read more | digg story

Pink Floyd - Shine On You Crazy Diamond (1988)

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Helen Klark supporters show their depravity with fiendish emails

Here is a few of thirty odd malicious emails I have received this month. Please anybody with the personal details of a internet slime ball going by the name fugley can you email me in the strictest confidence please.Stan & fugley can you please stop linking this blog to homosexual websites you deranged freaks.What sick creatures you weirdos are. You deserve punishment and I am ashamed that such people exist in this country.

The Republicans have pulled my name from the list of candidates, because I have been the victim of malicious crank phone calls and both my daughter and I have received recent death threats that have forwarded to police. My daughter is very frightened and it's sickening that a cowardly yellow mucus brain like fugley is allowed anywhere near a computer. Hopefully someone with a moral conscience gives me the identity of this insipid creep, so Natural Justice for my traumatized daughter can be avenged.

NB;copies of all emails have been forwarded to the New Zealand Prime Minister and Minister of Police for their records.

From Abu ben Adam,
date Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:22 PM
subject Why

Are you no longer listed as a candidate for the republican party?

Maybe they're a bunch of vipers too.

Or did they get sick of people forwarding them copies of your emails?

ha ha ha ha ha

Stan "rebel Heart" Klark

to Peter Burns
date Fri, May 9, 2008 at 12:03 AM subject Peter Burns you are a rapist
The ghost of Kristy Bentley Wed, May 7, 2008 at 7:16 PM
To: Peter Burns

Rapist murderer murderer murderer

I must protect Alex from you! Fiend! Sodomist!

4 your kids


date Tue, May 27, 2008 at 5:44 PM
subject [dad4justice] New comment on Family First Poll - NZ'ers don't want to 'move on ....

BigGirlsBlouse has left a new comment on your post "Family First Poll - NZ'ers don't want to 'move on ...":

Fuck off you fucken cocksucker! At least Sue Bradfordn has a decent set of balls you cockless wonder.

from Abu ben Adam ,
date Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:22 PM subject Why...?

Do you think the Republicans dumped you?

Do you obsess over dead schoolgirls?

Do you let your daughter meet strangers from internet chat rooms?

Are you sad and lonely?

Does god hate you so much?

Why? Why? Why?

Parental Alienation

I can relate Alec, as the most heartbreaking experience in my life has been the difficulties associated with parental alienation. In solidarity brother and enjoy your children, because nobody wins when people try to poison children against the other biological parent.

Chip off the old block: Kim Basinger and Alec Baldwin's daughter Ireland looks just like her mother

Kim Basinger and Alec Baldwin's daughter Ireland is set to be the next Hollywood beauty if these photos are anything to go by.

Full Story:

28 May 2008

Monday, May 26, 2008

Misandry is the message

A Canadian columnist lifts the lid on the last respectable form of cultural bias. Misandry is ubiquitous in the media.

read more | digg story

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Family First Poll - NZ'ers don't want to 'move on ' over anti-smacking law

Dear dad4justice,

We thought you might be interested in our latest Media Release....

Smacking Poll - NZ'ers Don't Want to 'Move On'


Media Release - 26 May 2008
A year after the passing of the controversial anti-smacking law,opposition to the law change is growing. These are the key finding of research commissioned by Family First NZ, following on from similar research in 2007. The poll surveyed 1,018 people and found continued overwhelming opposition to the new law.

Opposition to the anti-smacking law has increased from 62% last year to 73% now. Only 19% strongly or somewhat agreed with the new law despite the Police discretion clause (down from 29% in June 2007). Almost half of the survey (47%) strongly disagree with the ban on smacking.

85% said that the new law should be changed to state explicitly that parents who give their children a smack that is reasonable and for the purpose of correction are not breaking the law (up from 82% last year).

In a clear message to political parties seeking support for the upcoming election, when asked whether their support for a party would be affected if they promised to change the law, 37% said they would be more likely to vote for that party (up from 31% last year). The number of people whose vote would be unaffected by a policy to change the law decreased from 59% last year to 53% this year.

73% oppose the anti-smacking law (47% 'strongly disagree')
85% say the law should be changed
37% say they are more likely to vote for party that promises change to
the law
More than half of mothers with children under 12 admit to flouting the

Of most significance is the finding that almost half (48%) of parents with children under 12 openly admit that they have flouted the law and have given their child a smack to correct their behaviour. Over half of the mums polled (51%) confessed to continuing their use of smacking.

"This result is surprising, and a huge concern to us," says Mr McCoskrie. "For a new law to be ignored by so many people who are willing to risk a police CYS investigation indicates just how out of step with reality this law is. NZ'ers have not been fooled by the claims of the anti-smacking lobby that smacking is child abuse, they haven't been duped by arguments that children are damaged by reasonable smacking, and they have understood that our unacceptable rate of child abuse has far deeper root causes that a loving parent who corrects their child with a smack on the bottom."

"Good parents have become victims of a badly drafted law."

When asked whether they thought the new law was likely to help reduce the rate of child abuse in NZ, 79% responded that it was not at all likely (up from 77% last year).

As a result of these survey findings, Family First is calling on MPs to amend the Act, so that the law explicitly states that reasonable smacking for the purpose of correction is not a criminal act.

The poll was conducted during the week beginning May 12, and has a
margin of error of +/- 3.1%.

Saturday, May 24, 2008

Making a baby :-)

The Smiths were unable to conceive children and decided to use a surrogate father to start their family. On the day the proxy father was to arrive, Mr. Smith kissed his wife goodbye and said, 'Well, I'm off now. The man should be here soon.'

Half an hour later, just by chance, a door-to-door baby photographer happened to ring the doorbell, hoping to make a sale. 'Good morning, Ma'am', he said, 'I've come to...'

'Oh, no need to explain,' Mrs. Smith cut in, embarrassed, 'I've been expecting you.'

'Have you really?' said the photographer. 'Well, that's good. Did you know babies are my speciality?'

'Well that's what my husband and I had hoped. Please come in and have a seat'.

After a moment she asked, blushing, 'Well, where do we start?'

'Leave everything to me. I usually try two in the bathtub, one on the couch, and perhaps a couple on the bed. And sometimes the living room floor is fun. You can really spread out there.'

'Bathtub, living room floor? No wonder it didn't work out for Harry and me!'

'Well, Ma'am, none of us can guarantee a good one every time. But if we try several different positions and I shoot from six or seven angles, I'm sure you'll be pleased with the results.'

'My, that's a lot!', gasped Mrs. Smith.

'Ma'am, in my line of work a man has to take his time. I'd love to be In and out in five minutes, but I'm sure you'd be disappointed with that.'

'Don't I know it,' said Mrs. Smith quietly.

The photographer opened his briefcase and pulled out a portfolio of his baby pictures. 'This was done on the top of a bus,' he said.

'Oh, my word!' Mrs. Smith exclaimed, grasping at her throat.

'And these twins turned out exceptionally well - when you consider their mother was so difficult to work with.'

'She was difficult?' asked Mrs. Smith.

'Yes, I'm afraid so. I finally had to take her to the park to get the job done right. People were crowding around four and five deep to get a good look'

'Four and five deep?' said Mrs. Smith, her eyes wide with amazement.

'Yes', the photographer replied. 'And for more than three hours, too. The mother was constantly squealing and yelling - I could hardly concentrate, and when darkness approached I had to rush my shots. Finally, when the squirrels began nibbling on my equipment, I just had to pack it all in.'

Mrs. Smith leaned forward. 'Do you mean they actually chewed on your'

'It's true, Ma'am, yes.. Well, if you're ready, I'll set-up my tripod and we can get to work right away.'


'Oh yes, Ma'am. I need to use a tripod to rest my Canon on. It's much too big to be held in the hand very long.'

Mrs. Smith fainted

The Three Little Pigs

This is a true story, proving how fascinating the mind of a six year old is. They think so logically.
A teacher was reading the story of the Three Little Pigs to her class. She came to the part of the story where first pig was trying to gather the building materials for his home. She read ... 'and so the pig went up to the man with the wheelbarrow full of straw and said: 'Pardon me sir, but may I have some of that straw to build my house?'
The teacher paused then asked the class:
'And what do you think the man said?'
One little boy raised his hand and said very matter-of-factly 'I think the man would have said - 'Well, f*ck me!! A talking pig!'

The teacher was unable to teach for the next 10 minutes.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Keystone cops get it wrong yet again.

This is disgusting and I’m bloody livid that the dumb keystone cops allowed the murdering low life Kahui scum family time to concoct a story after the discovery of the two dead babies. The culturally sensitive lunkhead cops wouldn’t sit back and allow them time to make up a fairy tale alibi if they were white. The keystone’s can muster and dispatch half a dozen moronic idiots immediately to arrest a man for flicking his toddler’s ear lobes! In this tragic case they can’t be bothered organising an early intervention investigation that was needed. Why did they not carpet arrest and detain until the culprit coughed up the filthy name that slaughtered two babies. What a sad indictment for the totally incompetent law authorities. The keystones are bleating on about the lack of co-operation from the family but it was their ineptitude that allowed the homicidal maniacs time to cover their fetid arses! Who can respect such procedure and to make matters worse, the dumb arse cops are going to allow the perpetrators of this barbaric attack to get off scoff free! What message does this send to the criminal low life fraternity? This scum father is guilty and it is the fault of a thicko police force that this pig baby killer is laughing at you!

Who in there right mind can have any confidence in the dangerous and dysfunctional New Zealand keystone police.
This Nation is one SICK COUNTRY!!
RIP kids.

Truth Honesty Ethics Trust

Hey Dad !

Please be advised 200 plus pages of thoroughly researched material makes up the very informative Revised Edition of the book entitled "2008 - 2012 Rights and Freedom Gone !" (New Zealand Included ?) by Justin Thyme, author of "You Be The Judge."

This book (in paperback version) will be officially launched at Auckland Library, Lorne Street, on Friday 23 May, 2008, at approximately 12 noon.
You may wish to send a representative to obtain a complementary copy upon proof of media association.
The theme of the book's disclosures is firstly to briefly discuss some of the little known events which signify that basic thinking and attitudes has put this Planet and 80% of it's population, in grave danger.
Secondly the theme then recounts historic events bringing to light some common factors illustrating "how we have arrived at this mess"
Thirdly the book then proposes some solutions and closes with some very revealing confessions bound in as addendums.
It is an emotion grabbing assembly of the reality our offspring face unless collectively we act NOW!

All aspects of the greater picture will be more complete with a DVD which is still in the formatting. The DVD covers the two extreme ends of the spectrum which is outside the scope of written book material but the facts and message aptly complement the book's objective.

The E-book minus the Solutions Chapter can currently be viewed or downloaded FREE from
We trust you will help give this 30 year effort of monitoring and research, the exposure which the populace deserves.

Kind regards
Hugh Smith

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Fathers not included

Fathers not included
May 2008



Gordon Brown’s controversial plans to exclude all mention of fathers from the law covering test tube babies has been overwhelmingly rejected by the British public.

The vast majority of people believe that a child has a right to male and female parents and to know the identity of its biological parents.

But both these rights will be swept away if the Prime Minister wins a key Commons showdown on Tuesday when MPs vote on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

Mr Brown faces a Commons rebellion with 20 MPs, including 12 Labour MPs, signing an amendment to the Bill that would restore a child¹s right to a father and a mother. Many more Tory and Labour MPs are expected to support the rebels now that all MPs have a free vote on the issue.

The strength of public opposition to the Prime Minister’s move is revealed in an independent YouGov opinion poll commissioned by the Centre for Social Justice, the think-tank chaired by former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith.

The survey found that eight out of 10 people believe a child has a right to two parents and that six out of 10 believe that a child should have male and female parents.

The present law states that fertility clinics must take account of a child’s need for a father when assessing women for treatment.

This means that when a single woman or lesbian or gay couple apply for fertility treatment, the clinic cannot ignore the role fatherhood plays in a child’s welfare.

Opponents of the Bill, who include Labour MP Geraldine Smith and Mr Duncan Smith, are warning that amid mounting evidence of the damage done by absentee fathers in terms of crime, anti-social behaviour and school failure, now is not the time to send an official message that fathers do not matter.

They also point out that existing sex discrimination laws mean that it is illegal to reject a lesbian couple applying for IVF treatment on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Mr Duncan Smith said: “This move by Gordon Brown has huge symbolic significance. It will not make any practical difference to lesbian and gay couples, but if passed it will send a dismissive message about the family and about the importance of fathers in the upbringing of children. We should be including fathers in; not including them out.”

The report by the Family Law Review Group set up by Mr Duncan Smith’s CSJ think-tank also condemns Government moves to remove from birth certificates all reference to the biological parentage of children.

Babies will be registered as having two mothers or two fathers and will not know who has brought them into the world.

The report says Ministers are bidding to change the law to appease the gay lobby. But it points out that fewer than 2 per cent of IVF treatments in 2006 were for single or lesbian women. In any case, lesbians and gays are protected by laws banning discrimination against couples on the grounds of their sexual orientation.

The report, ‘Fathers Not Included’, is to be sent to 600 MPs on Monday as they begin debating and voting on the HFE Bill, says the Government is flying in the face of a wealth of social research showing the importance of engaged fathers for families and communities.

“Fathers matter to children but fatherhood itself is essential for drawing men into dependable and responsible adulthood.,” the report warns.

“It also disregards the fact that existing guidance provided by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority makes it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.

“The combined effect of this guidance and the fact that this clause does not make the need for a father absolute, is to undermine the argument that this clause impacts unfairly on single or lesbian women.

“By ignoring the benefits fathers bring to children in order to accommodate childless adults, the Bill places the rights of adults at the centre, rather than the best interests of children.

“While we acknowledge the profound distress of involuntary childlessness, such a bias is wholly inconsistent with the welfare principle usually governing family law and a wide range of other policy areas.”

The report recommends that the role of fathers and mothers should be formally recognised and protected by a new clause within the Bill and that further research should be carried out looking at the outcomes for children born by donor conception and raised by same-sex couples.

The authors of the report also back calls for greater transparency in the birth registration system which would make it easier for donor-conceived children to find out about their biological parents.

The report’s recommendations are backed up by the findings of an exclusive poll carried out by YouGov for the CSJ.

Key findings from the poll conducted earlier this month include:

*61 per cent of people believed that it was very important or fairly important for children to know the identity of their biological parents. Only 10 per cent said it was not important at all.

* 79 per cent said that there should NOT be an absolute right enshrined in law for everyone to have an IVF child if they wish.

*80 per cent believed that a child had a right to two parents.

* 60 per cent agreed that mothers and fathers both have their own unique contributions to bringing up a child and it is important children have both a male and female parent.

*Only 24 per cent thought that the law should recognise the partner in a same-sex couple who has a child through assisted reproductive treatment in the same way as a biological parent.


Note to editors:

Copies of Fathers Not Included; Assisted Reproduction, the Need for a Father and the Meaning of Parenthood are available from the Centre for Social Justice. Tel 0207 799 1477.

YouGov Polling May 2008 (Nationally representative YouGov poll of 1500 people carried out in May 2008)

For more information or to interview Iain Duncan Smith, please contact Nick Wood of Media Intelligence Partners on 07889 617003 or Alistair Thompson on 07970 162225 or 0203 008 8145 or visit


Monday, May 19, 2008

'Father' to go from birth certificates

A CONTROVERSIAL new bill that will remove the word "father" from birth certificates to recognise lesbian couples who have children through IVF will be put before NSW Parliament.

read more | digg story

This Week In Fathers Rights History

This Week In Fathers Rights History

Monday - 19th May 2004: Security at the House of Commons in London England is breached, as two protesters from the 'Fathers 4 Justice' campaign group throw condoms filled with purple flour at Prime Minister Tony Blair as he addresses the House. see link

In solidarity F4J

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Back you go, to the round cell a place the inmates label the living hell.

In amongst the madness, I dreamed a dream, that I was happy in the sun on some far away tropical island where I hugged my children with unbridled joy and love.

Now I sit like Buddha in a living hell, things aren’t well,you take a spell in the vinyl covered Paparua prison round room cell and you'll find it's no place for a human too dwell.

Protected by smash proof glass, the big brother camera rolls twenty-four-seven, viewed by twisted people far from heaven. The florescent tubes never switch off, minutes roll into days, time stands still, you feel ill, you wish for a quick lead pill. Your spirit is overwhelmed by unfairness, while the dark stench of hades saturates your shattered soul.

You’re fed through a slot, while wearing a padded jacket that always make you feel unbearably hot.

You ask for a Bible,a pen, some paper and try for a smoke, but it's a sick joke. Some bloke called a screw says; have you lost the plot, you got your lot!

Dignity is a farce as you sit on your unwashed arse.

You eat your food with your trembling hands, then you stir your luke warm tea with a finger, without any glimmer of human glee.

The old pooh and wee in the 20L used paint pail, reminds you this is definitely jail.

You walk around in circles praying for miracles.

Hauled in front of judge dread, where any sane father understandably fears to tread.

Two miss trials and you feel plucky, sadly it’s not third time lucky.

The cops got the knife in real firm,they like to watch you squirm, needless to say,the crown prosecution team are ever so keen.

You’re unlocked, take a straight line step, so easily forgotten and you're dizzy at first. No time for walk the line, manacled and transported to a freezing courthouse basement.

For a change it's a square cell , which makes you to freak, so you take a nervous leak.

For three painful days the jury glares, you don’t dare return the stare.

You constantly shake in the dock.

You decide not to give evidence, as your right, because you have full confidence in your learned barrister, who will respectfully submit your precarious plight and everything will finally be alright.

While the jury debates your fate, you pray for the hand from a caring mate.

It’s 5’Oclock on a gloomy Canterbury Friday Night and waiting as a falsely accused doesn’t seem bright,let alone bloody well right!

Guilty they say, suddenly my legs give way.

It’s sickening too watch the judiciary celebrate with callous delight, when the jury don’t get it right.

The nightmare unfolds, you hope the media leave out a story untold.

Back you go, to the round cell a place the inmates label the living hell.

Family Law Live From Las Vegas Frridays 6pm pst!

Saturday, May 17, 2008

If we can't trust our courts to uphold the principle of truth-telling, then who can we trust?

Things are corroding within our judicial systems.A paramount consideration for any Court is the truth, no matter what jurisdiction the truth is imperative at all times. Judges are corruptible and in my case a judge just followed the guide lines set down by the radical feminist regime that currently controls New Zealand. The natural decay of the Helen Klark's hateful regime of feminazi witches (who regularly flout the law) will be the first step in eradicating the natural decay of our politicized justice system.

Nothing Like the Truth ("Even judges are excusing lies in our courtrooms, which undermines the entire legal process") an article to note-from October 2002.My major depressive episode started in 2001 when I was falsely accused of child abuse and domestic violence. Judge John Strettell( PM's mockery speed-gate case) with the help of two malicious lawyers Doug Taffs( likes wearing womens dresses in bars) and Martin Sawyers(the mayor of Westport) conspired with a filthy corrupt police force of moronic maniacs to destroy Peter Joseph Burns.The lies have been piled one on top of another, year after year, the frustration and simmering anger and resentment just keeps building up.My mother died a heart broken grandmother who was denied access to her two grand daughters and hounded to death by a family court psychologist John Watson. These slime balls are not fit and proper human beings to administer the law. I just got to take the corruption and malicious actions of dirty scumbag professionals on the chin.
Who can even up the injustice? Little chance of that when courtrooms are nothing more than cess pools of lies and deceptions.

Nothing like the truth:

by Dr. Tana Dineen, special columnist,
The Ottawa Citizen

Oct. 10, 2002

http://www.tanadine /Columns/ Perjury.htm

Even judges are excusing lies in our courtrooms, which undermines the entire legal process.

While the rhetoric of "good versus evil" gets a lot of play these days, "truth-telling" has fallen off the virtues scorecardLying, it seems, has acquired a moral status all its own. We accept it as a political necessity, a form of politeness, a social convenience, even an expression of sensitivity and kindness.

But while wilful deception has become a part of our day-to-day life, we still cling to the belief that one place remains a bastion of truth. Just as God is to be found in churches and money in banks, we expect truth to be found in the halls of justice. After all, witnesses swear an oath to "tell the truth ... and nothing but the truth" and perjury is a crime. A couple of recent cases that sparked public notoriety were that of Jeffrey Archer, the former British MP and novelist currently appealing his four-year sentence for perjury and, of course, former U.S. president Bill Clinton, who came perilously close to being charged during the Monica shemozzle. But those are the celebrity cases. What about all the rest?

Too often, I hear of people lying to police, judges and juries and I wonder why it is that almost all of them get off scot-free. It's due, in part, to our tendency to use other words to obfuscate the deed. "It is not a lie," exclaimed Alexander Haig, president Ronald Reagan's secretary of state, "it's a terminological inexactitude! "

Lies these days are usually disguised as false accusations, misperceptions or emotional misstatements and talked about in linguistically misleading terms for which the courts have developed an unhealthy tolerance.

Take, for example, the recent case in which a 17-year-old Hamilton woman claimed that, while walking through a park, she was attacked by a man who dragged her toward some trees and sexually assaulted her. Providing a description of her attacker, police searched the area for evidence and appealed for public assistance. Their hotline was swamped with tips before the teenager admitted she'd made up the story. The complainant' s expression of remorse persuaded police to overlook her lying; so, she wasn't charged for giving a "false report."

A decade ago, a similar fabricated story, resulting in a police investigation costing $300,000 and the arrest of an innocent man, did prompt the Toronto police to lay charges of public mischief. But, when the case went to trial, the judge, fully aware of the blatant lies and their impact, acquitted the woman because he thought she might have been "suffering from some sort of stress disorder."

It seems that we've reached the point of viewing lying to be, if not a sickness, then, a natural trait. "Lying under oath," says Judge Roderic Duncan, of the Alameda County Superior Court, "is an accepted element of most trials." He describes an occasion when he reported "a slam-dunk case of perjury" to the local prosecutor, pointing out in a letter that "one of the parties admitted in my court that he had lied under oath." The district attorney shrugged his shoulders, never bothering to respond.

Lying under oath is just something everybody does -- even the police who whimsically call it "testilying. " The celebrated trial of O. J. Simpson provided us with a couple of pristine examples of perjured police testimony by detectives Mark Fuhrman and Philip Vannatter who, in Judge Lance Ito's words, had demonstrated a "reckless disregard for the truth." We live in an era when even the most flagrant disregard brings little more than harsh words from judges.

Last April, Nancy Jean Strobel admitted that she had committed spiteful perjury in sworn statements both in Canada and in Hawaii . B.C. Supreme Court Justice Robert Edwards told her that she was flagrantly in contempt of court orders allowing her ex-husband to visit his children and that her behaviour warranted "a substantial jail sentence" -- but he let her off. Why? Because, in his mind, it was more important to keep an angry mother out of jail than to teach her, and her five-year-old daughter, the value of truth.

Another exposed liar, Cathy Fordham of Ottawa , has left a trail of an estimated 55 complaints with the police, seven reportedly involving grievous claims of sexual assault. One man, Jamie Nelson, spent more than three years in prison before her lies were uncovered and he was acquitted. When Ms. Fordham was convicted two years ago of public mischief and given a paltry six- month sentence to be served in the community, she said she just wanted to "put it all behind her." But she didn't. The meagre penalty had no effect, so this month she'll be sentenced again in an Ottawa court, this time for uttering death threats against another man she had falsely accused. Perhaps now she'll get more than a slap on the wrist.

So what's the big deal if lying happens all of the time with little, if any consequence, to the liars?

I admit to my share of lies -- I'll say I'm busy to avoid a meeting or thank someone for a lovely gift when, really, I hate it. But I can distinguish the extremes of deception and separate the grey lies (there are no white ones) from the black lies. I find comfort in the belief that we live in a society where malicious lies are frowned upon.

But, when our courts tolerate even the blackest of lies, we risk losing not only any sense that their verdicts are based on truth, but also our faith in the moral principle of truth itself. If our courts show a disregard for veracity, then how is it possible for us to assume that anyone really cares about truth-telling?

If we can't trust our courts to uphold the principle of truth-telling, then who can we trust?
@ Dr.Tana Dineen

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes".

Mark Twain

Friday, May 16, 2008

Queerly Beloved !! - Black Robes Trash Traditional Marriage

California is run by a faggot muscle bound Nazi called Arnie Shirtlifter, what else would you expect from the warped pinko turd tappers!! No doubt homosexuals in the Labour Party like Tim Bummet, Chris Farter and Charles Aids Victim will be going on a taxpayer funded trip to San Fran with flowers up their perverted arses.


Black robes trash traditional marriage
Now California statutes limiting institution to opposite-sex couples 'unconstitutional'

Posted: May 15, 2008
1:24 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

The California Supreme Court today trashed society's traditional institution of marriage, opening it up for same-sex duos because retaining the historic definition "cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest."

In a 4-3 decision replete with concurring and dissenting opinions filed by individual members of the court, the majority opinion determined state laws specifying marriage as being between a man and a woman were unconstitutional.

"First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples," the court opined. "Permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights."

Second, the court said, "Retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children...

"Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples," the court said. "Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise – now emphatically rejected by this state – that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects 'second-class citizens'…"

Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America, accused the court of usurping the role of the legislature.

"The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and, instead, legislating from the bench. It’s absurd to suggest that the framers of the California state constitution could have ever imagined there'd be a day when so-called 'same-sex marriage' would even be conceptualized, much less seriously considered. If anyone then had suggested the absurd notion, early Californians would have laughed their smocks off," he said.

"So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it's in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable," he said. "The majority of Americans recognize the fact that legitimate marriage and family are cornerstones of a healthy society. Reasonable people have had enough and are refusing to allow radical extremists to redefine marriage and family into oblivion. So-called 'same-sex marriage' is a ridiculous and oxymoronic notion that has been forced into popular lexicon by homosexual activists and their extremist left-wing allies."

"The people of California decided eight years ago that marriage in our state will be defined as between one man and one woman. Four arrogant, elitist, activist judges decided that they know better than the people how marriage should be defined," said Karen England, of Capitol Resource Institute.

"It is certainly disappointing that the court, in declaring a right to same-sex marriage in the California Constitution, has shown an outrageous lack of respect for a majority of California voters and ignored a long history of legal precedent supporting traditional marriage," said legal counsel Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom, one of the organizations that worked on the case.

California Assemblyman Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, said, "With the passage of Proposition 22, the voters of California agreed that marriage is 'between a man and a woman.' PERIOD. The court's decision today is further proof that some activist judges value their own beliefs over the will of the people."

"This ruling defies logic. It is a gross departure from the rule of law. It is outrageous. Traditional marriage is common sense. Yet, this decision is nonsense. No matter how you stretch California 's Constitution, you cannot find anywhere in its text, its history, or tradition that now, after so many years, it magically protects what most societies condemn. Same-sex marriage is not part of our history nor is it woven in the fabric of fundamental freedom," said Mathew Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, which also worked on the case.

He cited a dissent by Justices Baxter and Chin, which concluded, "In reaching this decision, I believe, the majority violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error."

Another individual opinion called the majority opinion "legal jujitsu."

The ruling disposed of several individual challenges to California 's marriage statutes that arose after the state's voters, by a margin of 4.6 million to 2.9 million, adopted a law that states California would recognize only marriages involving one man and one woman.

That same plan now is being proposed for a constitutional amendment by the campaign, a broad-based coalition of pro-family organizations, churches and individuals. The organization already has collected about 1.2 million signatures to put the issue on the ballot this fall, although those still must be verified.

That's now needed, the campaign says, because even though voters overwhelmingly passed the Proposition 22 law, that was a "regular statute" within the outlines of the California Family Code. But politicians and judges have been bypassing it, and chipping away at it, to ignore the will of the voters, the campaign says.

For example: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom thumbed his nose at California voters by issuing marriage licenses to thousands of homosexual couples and court decisions have undermined Proposition 22 and marriage by affirming legislative plans to give "domestic partners" the full legal status of married spouses.

The battle dates to 1996, when then-Assemblyman William J. "Pete" Knight introduced legislation to protect traditional marriage. It failed by one vote in the state Senate.

He later led the Protection of Marriage Coalition to gather more than 600,000 petition signatures and qualify Prop 22 for the ballot, an effort that was approved by 61.4 percent of the voters in 2000.

It reads, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California ."

State lawmakers, however, immediately began passing laws to give same-sex "domestic partners" the legal status of married spouses in various sections of the state law, and outgoing Gov. Gray Davis in one of his final acts, signed into a law a plan conferring the full legal status of married spouses on homosexual "domestic partners."

A judge who heard the resulting legal challenge found that Proposition 22 limits only the word "marriage," not the legal status of marriage.

Then came Newsom's San Francisco action, openly defying Proposition 22 by issuing 4,000 "licenses" to same-sex duos. The state Supreme Court stopped that, finding Newsom didn't have the authority to rewrite state law, but left the door open for new legal challenges, which prompted the cases decided today.

And the dispute has continued. Just weeks ago WND reported that a new San Francisco plan that could be the last step needed to eliminate marriage from society was being advanced in the California State Senate.

SB 1066 by Sen. Carole Migden, a Democrat, gained approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"This bill functionally abolishes marriage," warned Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families. "Why get married, since you can get all the 'goodies' of marriage without the commitment of marriage?"

He also said the decision will galvanize the people of California to participate in the amendment campaign. "The people will have the last word," he told WND.

The proposal, according to Concerned Women for America of California, "extends California domestic partnerships to any two persons who share a common residence and are over 18. This means that all marriage benefits would be given to mere roommates…"

"The California legislature has already given away marriage benefits to same-sex couples without the consent of the people by passing existing domestic partnership laws," the group said. "Migden asserts that SB 1066 is 'a very practical expansion that absolutely reflects the new family unit today.'"

Six different cases stemming from the San Francisco situation were consolidated on the appeal, and Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University 's School of Law , was one of those arguing on behalf of traditional marriage before the high court.

Staver suggested the fundamental constitutional right to marry includes rights and obligations that cannot be eliminated, because they come from the inherent nature of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"Marriage is more than a private relationship between two people who love each other," he said. "While it is a private relationship, marriage serves a public purpose to preserve society's interest in procreation and to provide the optimal environment for children."

Supporters of the constitutional amendment plan say that is the only way to stop politicians and courts from "re-defining marriage." They note that about two dozen other states already have added such provisions to their constitutions. In fact, of 28 states where such a vote has come before voters, it had been approved 27 times.

Staver told WND earlier the state has an interest in protecting the institution of marriage, which predates government, in order to encourage responsible procreation among opposite-sex couples.

"Among opposite-sex couples, procreation is sometimes planned and sometimes unplanned. Children are thus the natural consequence of opposite-sex relationships. Providing for the next generation is essential to any society, but providing an environment that encourages stable relationships for the well-being of children is critically important," he said. "Marriage thus provides encouragement for opposite-sex couples to unite for the sake of children. Same-sex couples do not need marriage to encourage their unions, because such relationships never produce unplanned children."

When Newsom launched his activism for same-sex marriages, Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit on behalf of Campaign for Children and Families and its executive director Randy Thomasson.

The California Supreme Court eventually ruled 7-0 that the mayor lacked the authority to issue licenses to same-sex couples. But the court voted only 5-2 to overturn the licenses that already had been issued. Then several of those duos, as well as the city and county of San Francisco , filed a series of lawsuits challenging the state's marriage laws.

Wrong to rip kids from dads !

PAS is a sad indictment for children who learn to hate before they can spell .Custodial parents ( evil mothers) brainwash children, and use them as weapons of war in the adversarial bias judicial system!!

read more | digg story

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Judge Dread or Mr Spock ?

Judge Boshier gave a speech last month to an audience of radical feminists who are all lawyers in the De Family Court. This extract from the NZ Herald with some of his wayward comments;

Judges’ gowns are to make a comeback in the Family Court after its principal judge called for a change to help the court to be taken more seriously.
Family Court judges and lawyers are currently forbidden by law from wearing either gowns or wigs “to prevent unnecessary formality”.
Principal Judge Peter Boshier said he asked for a return of the gowns to raise the gravitas of the court in the public’s eye.
“I felt the Family Court ought to be seen by the public as a court that makes decisions that should be respected.
“We have suffered a little bit in the past from some people who have not taken Family Court decisions as seriously as they otherwise would have.
“So the introduction of the gowns is symbolic but important. It shows the court is a mainstream court whose decisions should be viewed no differently from any other court.”

Why does Judge Peter Boshier want to go back in time and adopt the Judge Dread look when he could go the way of the pommy judiciary and look like Star Trek characters? Come to think of it, he does resemble Mr Spock and I have no doubts he lives on some alien planet devoid of human feelings.He sure as hell speaks as though he his on the bridge of the Starship Enterprise.

No one in his or her right mind has an ounce of respect for the De -Family Court which is just a litany of lies, a cauldron of feminist agendas and packed to the brim with rampant unlawful gender discrimination. To rub salt into the wounds of so many f##ked over fathers’ judges salaries are obscene because golf club fees and fuel is expensive for the new jags and beamers. The De Family judges’ are guilty of large-scale parental alienation and child abuse!They cause severe heartbreak for so many paternal kiwi families. I mean to say a dad can face the same rotten judge in District Courts and then three weeks later have the creep deny you a defence in the De Family Court, which is not natural justice, let alone fair play. Thanks judge JJD - you criminal bastard!Dirty cops - dirty lawyers and judges !!!

Beam me up Scotty now FFS !! I must escape the demented and evil - Lord Justice Hogwash.

Do view the deluded pious poms on parade in the corrupt De Family Court in Pommyland;

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Part -time parents bad for children

The Families Commission creates this nonsense with 31 families as a model, meanwhile in the real world the De Family Court carries on with the wholesale destruction of the paternal family.Blood money must be wrenched from the many forced clients, who are better described as respondent in proceedings or just plain old heartbroken fathers'. Dads supply the gravy train for the parasitic lawyers, judges and psychologists making a killing financially in adversarial litigation, while adding to the disgraceful male suicide rates !They destroy father/child relationships faster than Helen Clark can speed to another big gay out event !

The De Family Court said that I was NOT a fit and proper person to visit my children for SIX LONG YEARS then my daughter said ENOUGH is ENOUGH and now I have custody of my daughter.The judge was not impressed and police were really pissed off !!!

The Families Commission much like the De Family Court, are both guilty of endorsing a stressful regime of lies,where the female applicant to proceedings is viewed as a credible Madonna . Nothing will change and it is little wonder children are bewildered by a system geared up to crush dad. The lack of gender balance by a callous prejudice system breeds resentment.Nobody cares about the truth in the gravy train cess pool of deceit in the De Family Court of corruption.
Children and fathers are on the road to nowhere, but that's the way the radical feminist agenda like it. What a disgraceful sad indictment for so many affected kiwi's!
5:00AM Tuesday May 13, 2008
By Simon Collins

A Families Commission study has found children of separated parents are better off if they either see both parents a lot or barely see one parent at all.

The study has found seeing dad only every second weekend - traditionally one of the most common patterns - actually makes the children more distressed.

And study author Jan Pryor says that pattern is changing, as both mothers and fathers realise their children need to have ongoing close relationships with both parents.

"I think that default of every-other-weekend is disappearing to some extent," she said.

"There is good research that shows that is about the worst thing you can do to kids, particularly young children."

The study is based on in-depth interviews with 39 separated parents from 31 New Zealand families, including eight where both parents were interviewed.

It is the first stage of a mammoth project the Inland Revenue Department has invited 10,000 separated parents to take part in. About 1600 parents have responded, with results due out early next year.

A third (10) of the 31 initial families shared care of the children, with both having them for at least 30 per cent of the time.

This is a much bigger proportion than similar studies in Australia, which have found the number of separated families where both parents have the children at least 30 per cent of the time has risen from 4 per cent in 1999 to 10 per cent in 2006.

Another 12 of the New Zealand families had arrangements where the non-resident parent has the children at least every second weekend, and nine had less frequent arrangements.

However, the initial study is believed to be a biased sample because the parents were found through reports in the Herald and the Dominion Post seeking separated parents who had made arrangements for their children without going to the Family Court.

Only about 20 per cent of separating parents go to the Family Court, and only about 5 per cent end up getting formal parenting orders.

About half of all New Zealand children are believed to be affected by parental separation, including 20 per cent whose parents separate before the child's first birthday.

The clinical manager of Man Alive in Henderson, Jim Heays, was one of the 39 parents interviewed and said he learned to be more involved when he went through his second separation 13 years ago.

"I've been through this twice. My older kids are now in their early 30s," he said.

"I made a lot of mistakes that time around. There was a lot of emotion flying at that time, and a lot of hurt and stuff that you have to work through, so the kids often came second-best."

With those children, and with the son of his second marriage William, now 14, he initially agreed to have the children every second weekend.

This year the arrangement has swapped over and he now has William with him in Auckland for the sake of his schooling, and William goes back to his mother in Northland every second weekend.

Dr Pryor said the evidence internationally was that what mattered for children was stability, regardless of whether it was with one parent or two.

"There is a very good study from the States showing that if kids saw their father weekly or more often they were in good shape, and if they saw him not very often they were in good shape, but if they saw him only once or twice a month they were not," she said.

"Particularly for younger children, 12 days is a long time, and then they just get to know that non-resident parent for two days and have to go back again."

She suggested the Government should offer relationship counselling to parents soon after they had children, perhaps when babies get their first immunisation at six weeks.

Monday, May 12, 2008

The War on Terror -The Greatest Hoax of all Time.

Dear Friends of Liberty:

Neocons Admit that War On Terror Is a Hoax

Key war on terror architect Douglas Feith has now confirmed Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Wesley Clark in admitting that the so-called War on Terror is a hoax.

The War On Terror- The Greatest Hoax Of All Time

Please watch the 8:28 video

The 'War on Terror' Scam

Lie #1: You are seriously at risk of being killed by a terrorist.

Lie #2: The government can protect you from terrorists.

Just as in Orwell's 1984, words are being used to distort the truth. The "war on terror" is in fact the "war on freedom."

I repeat: the war on terror IS the war on freedom.

McCain's "war on terror" remix

Please watch this 7:29 video featuring Lets Make A Deal McCain

Ron Paul: Change the World 2.0

Please watch this 7:14 video featuring "The Real Deal, Dr. Paul"

Monday, May 5, 2008

Why are girls fighting like boys?

Quote: A study by criminologist Susan Batchelor, of the University of Glasgow contradicts previous thinking that unlike in men, for women it's a spontaneous lack of control for which they afterwards felt ashamed. Her report suggests female displays of aggression have a function within a group. "Such violence was considered deeply meaningful; it served to maintain group solidarity, reinforce friendships, affirm allegiances, and enhance personal status within the group."

http://news. 2/hi/uk_news/ magazine/ 7380400.stm

BBC News Magazine
5 May 2008

Why are girls fighting like boys?
By Tom Geoghegan

The sight of two girls having a post-pub fight still has the power to shock, although it often happens between men. Why are women doing it and why are we so offended by it?

"I've beaten a boy up with a stiletto high heel and left him unconscious, " says one 17-year-old.

"I got locked up last year for putting a woman in a coma and she nearly died because I tried to throw her in front of a car," says another. "Then in October I got out from a sentence for nearly running a woman over."

That these words are uttered by teenage girls is somehow more shocking than if they were said by young men.

According to the annual statistics of the Youth Justice Board, the number of violent offences committed by girls aged 10 to 17 has nearly doubled in three years.

In 2002/3, there were 8,702 girls convicted of violence against another person, a figure that rose to 15,525 in 2005/6. During that period the number committed by boys rose 50% to 39,136.

There have been some high-profile examples. In 2005, there was widespread disgust during the trial of four youths who kicked to death a barman on London's South Bank.

The court was told that Chelsea O'Mahoney, 15 at the time, had filmed the attack on her phone and delivered the last kick "like a football" to Mr Morley's head.

The following year Claire Marsh, 18, became one of the youngest women to be convicted of rape, after pinning down another woman and encouraging a gang to participate in the assault in west London.

In a scrap

These reports still jolt society in a post-feminist age, partly because they are so rare and partly because women are not expected to be aggressive.

For a group of teenage girls in south London aged 16 to 18, interviewed by Radio 1Xtra, violence is a part of everyday life.

"Girl on girl fighting, scrapping, it's become the norm now," says one.

It's usually based on territory, they say, and happens between their all-female group and other groups of girls from different estates, often preceded by verbal sparring, rumour and gossip.

They usually just use fists, but have known bottles, knives and even pieces of wood to be brandished. Binge drinking and drugs are the main reasons they give for getting physical.

One teenager with 20 violent offences to her name says: "It's only when I've had a drink and I think I'm on top of the world and I think I can take on everybody. I know I shouldn't but I can't help myself when I've had a drink."

A police report last week suggests that the number of women arrested for being drunk and disorderly has increased by more than 50% in parts of the UK in the past five years.

Offenders at New Hall female prison in West Yorkshire say they used to get into fights to impress older boys. And one talks about the adrenaline release of fighting: "Even when I get hit myself I get a rush from it."

'No shame'

But Victim Support says the main underlying reason for this aggression is people growing up in violent homes or suffering abuse at the hands of a partner.

A study by criminologist Susan Batchelor, of the University of Glasgow contradicts previous thinking that unlike in men, for women it's a spontaneous lack of control for which they afterwards felt ashamed.

Her report suggests female displays of aggression have a function within a group.

"Such violence was considered deeply meaningful; it served to maintain group solidarity, reinforce friendships, affirm allegiances, and enhance personal status within the group."

The peer group always plays a large part in it, says consultant clinical psychologist Elie Godsi, author of Violence and Society: Making Sense of Madness and Badness.

"There's a lot more of a 'ladette' culture where young women are aping and mimicking the traditional behaviour young men engage in.

"So there's a small element of that, although I wouldn't put too much [importance] on it."

Many young people feel alienated from their family and community, he says, so the
peer group plays a big part in gang culture, causing behaviour that the individual on her own would not contemplate.

But it's important to remember that overall, women only commit 10% of violent crimes, he says.

They are innately less aggressive, whether by nature or nurture, which is why society reacts so strongly to it.

"Women are defined in terms of relationships - as mothers, daughters, wives - and men are defined as individuals, in terms of achievements or work status or what they do, rather than how they relate to each other.

"So violent women are perceived in far worst terms and it takes more for them to be violent.

"But you only have to look at how Myra Hindley was treated as an icon. A lot more men are far more violent than her and given far lighter sentences. Generally we perceive women who don't fit into traditional roles in extreme terms."

Mr Godsi believes the increase in female violence merely reflects the general rise in violence since the mid-80s.

And the reasons for it - more destructive households and more alcohol abuse - are not peculiar to women.

So we shouldn't necessarily be looking for reasons behind female aggression, he says, but asking why society as a whole seems to be tacitly encouraging violence.


Saturday, May 3, 2008

Anonymous camphylobacter keyboard cowards banned

I have had it with blogging, as the pus laden creeps have now accused me of the murder of Ashburton school girl Kirsty Bentley.I can't understand these obnoxious sad arse freaks, and it just goes to show how depraved the lefty snake supporters are. They will say anything too anybody, as their lust for Absolute Power distorts any possible decent thoughts.These Helen Clark slimy - spin doctors and misfit propaganda puppets have invented a Muslim version of dad4justice and used my name to spam comments on David Farrar's kiwiblog. These weasels leave a nasty taste in my mouth and I shudder at the thought of these criminally insane Labour Party cretins. What despicable larvae.

To the police that read this blog, especially my friend in the force, surely you understand now - Det Rex B - what I am confronted with on a daily basis? Blogosphere is full of criminality and this makes your beloved Labour Party only fit for the offal pit matey. How could they stoop to such low levels of personal attack? It is little wonder political corruption has tainted the police.

Due to many hurtful and malicious anonymous comments I have unfortunately had to switch the settings to allow only users with google accounts to post a comment on my blog.

The anonymous - warped freaks that post such garbage on blogosphere are beyond my comprehension. How could they post under the names of “The Ghost of Kirsty Bentley” and “IshaggedAlexLastNight”?For example - what kind of nutjob crank writes this ;

from The ghost of Kristy Bentley
to dad4justice ,
date Sun, May 4, 2008 at 12:28 PM
subject Why did you kill me?

hide details 12:27 PM (9 hours ago)

at 12:28 PM
subject Fwd: Why did you murder me Peter
hide details 12:27 PM (9 hours ago)

date Sun, May 4, 2008 at 10:54 PM
subject You murdered me. Now I want justice.

hide details 10:54 PM (8 hours ago)


Respond to these charges or I will haunt you forever. Be careful as you sleep tonight Peter, my spirit will be watching over you. I am working hard to make sure you are banned from contacting your children ever again. You just can't be trusted.

Death is so cold and lonely Peter, why did you do this to me?

What on earth is this malign internet coward on? Surely this is offensive to read and post on a man's birthday.These schizos should be in a straight jacket in a round prison cell !!There is no doubt a sleeper cell from the insane extreme left who would like me off blogosphere permanently.

How depraved and callous! Show some respect for both these young girls. I am horrified to think about what make these twisted minds tick.RIP Kirsty. What kind of scumbag person is behind such malicious language ? I don't want to know such weirdos. What disgraceful human beings. I can't explain their inexplicable actions.

These cowardly Internet creeps are beyond filth and I will no longer put up such dark - evil debauchery.

The reference to Kirsty Bentley and my daughter are hideous accusations that can only be expressed by a psychotic person who is badly both repugnant and severely deranged.

If anybody has the identity of the internet coward called fugley can they email me please.

I would like to thank the many people who have recently sent emails of support.
Enough is enough and cheers to the GOOD folk of this WORLD.

These insidious individuals that punch such vile rubbish into their camphylobacter keyboards are not worthy of anything useful in society.

In solidarity – 4 the kids

Police Tasers under the spotlight

Police are about to introduce these horrid things into my country New Zealand.There is no place in this world for these sadistic torture weapons.

read more | digg story

Friday, May 2, 2008

Those were the good old days.


1920's, 30's 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's !

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us and lived in houses made of asbestos.

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese, raw egg products, loads of bacon and processed meat, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes or cervical cancer.

Then after that trauma, our baby cots were covered with bright coloured lead-based paints.

Gay meant being happy and cheerful and Aids wasn't a killer!

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets or shoes, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking!

As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags.
Riding in the back of an estate or a pick up truck on a warm day was always a special treat.

We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.

Take away food was limited to fish and chips, no pizza shops, McDonalds, KFC, Starbucks , Nandos.

Even though all the shops closed at 6.00pm and didn't open on the weekends, somehow we didn't starve to death!

We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.

We could collect old drink bottles and cash them in at the corner shop and buy Curly Wurly's , Cola Cubes , Bazooka Bubble Gum and some crackers to blow up frogs with.
We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank soft drinks with sugar in it, but we weren't overweight because......
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.
No one was able to reach us all day and we were O.K.
We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. We built tree houses and cubby houses and played in river beds with matchbox cars.
We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 9 99 channels on sky TV, or cable TV,
no video tape movies, no surround sound, no mobile phones, no personal computers, no Internet or Internet chat rooms..........WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no compensation claims or lawsuits from these accidents.

Only girls had pierced ears!
We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.

We swallowed chewing gum & it didn't wrap round our hearts like we were told it would !

You could only buy Easter Eggs and Hot Cross Buns at Easter really!

We were given pellet guns and catapults for our 10th birthdays!!

We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just yelled for them!

Mum didn't have to go to work to help dad make ends meet!

RUGBY and CRICKET had trials and not everyone made it into the team. Those who didn't get in had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!
Getting into the team was based on MERIT and not due to some phoney social fear of traumatising us through fear of rejection !

The All Blacks were respected in society, as they represented pride and honour while wearing the silver fern without being paid huge amounts of cash.They played for the love of the game and country not fame and money!

Our teachers used to belt us with the back of their hand, big sticks, rulers, canes or leather straps.

Bully's always ruled the playground at school.

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of.
They actually sided with the law!

Our parents didn't invent stupid names for their kids like 'Kiora' and 'Blade' and 'Ridge' and 'Vanilla'
This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!
The past 70 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.
We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned

And YOU are one of them!
You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated our lives for our own good.
And while you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know how brave their parents were.

Good Heavens ! An honest judge!?

Good Heavens! An honest judge!? Can this be? Could there perhaps be just one in New Zealand or anymore else in the world?

Vengeful mothers leave good fathers powerless to see child, says judge

Rosemary Bennett, Social Affairs Correspondent

May 1, 2008

A senior judge spoke out against child access law yesterday, saying that the courts were powerless to help decent fathers to see their children if vengeful mothers stood in the way.

Lord Justice Ward made his comments after telling a father that there was nothing he could do to help him to re-establish contact with his teenage daughter who had been turned against him by her “vicious” mother.

The “drip, drip, drip of venom” poured into the daughter’s ears by the mother included accusations of sexual abuse against the innocent father after the couple divorced, the judge said.

The former wife’s tactics were so successful that the daughter wrote to her father when she was 9 saying that she wished he was dead. The daughter is now 14. The identity of the family must be kept secret to protect her privacy.

Lord Justice Ward told the father that the case was bordering on scandalous but the court was compelled to act solely in the best interests of the child. The girl would be too distressed if she was forced to spend time with her father after her mother’s “corrupting” campaign, he said.

“The father complains bitterly, passionately and with every justification that the law is sterile, impotent and utterly useless - we have to acknowledge there is a degree of force in what he says,” the judge told the Court of Appeal Civil Division.

“But the question is what can this court do? The answer is nothing. This is a truly distressing case. It may not be untypical of many, but in some ways it borders on the scandalous. It certainly is tragic.”

Between 15,000 and 20,000 couples go to court to resolve child access disputes each year. Campaigners say that the courts too often side with the mother, are too ready to believe what she says and rarely take action if contact orders are flouted. They want courts to start from a legal presumption of shared parenting between mothers and fathers.

Yesterday’s case involved parents who were briefly married in the 1990s but parted while their daughter was a baby. Contact between father and daughter was maintained at first but gradually disintegrated, according to the judge.

During rows over access, the mother, who lives near Lincoln, accused him of sexually abusing their child. But in 1997 a judge ruled that her allegations were wholly unfounded. However, Lord Justice Ward told the court yesterday that the mother had convinced the child that her father was guilty.

“The seeds of poison had been sown and from it has grown a wall of dislike, bordering on hatred, for the father,” he said. He described the letter written by the girl as “the most ghastly, horrible, letter for a nine-year-old girl to write to her father”. It read: “This is what I really think about you. I hate you and you frighten me. You made my life miserable and stressful. I wish you would die. Leave me alone.”

Despite this, the father went to Lincoln County Court in 2004 in an attempt to re-establish contact. A judge ruled that he should be allowed to see her under the supervision of a priest. That turned out to be distressing for the girl and the arrangement broke down. The girl insisted that she had been sexually abused.

Lord Justice Ward refused the father permission to appeal against his decision, but told the court that the mother was to blame and a copy of his judgment would be given to her and her daughter to read.

“The mother is, in my view, the source of this state of affairs by corrupting this girl so viciously and turning her against her father. That is the most I can do for you, with a heavy heart. It is a public scandal that these things go wrong.”

After the hearing the father said: “This situation exemplifies what is wrong with the family justice system.” He said he would consider taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights.