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!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10509715
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.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
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.
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/neocons-admit-that-war-on-terror-was.html
The War On Terror- The Greatest Hoax Of All Time
Please watch the 8:28 video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZcQOjV0zzA
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.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/52/macgregor/macgregor7.html
McCain's "war on terror" remix
Please watch this 7:29 video featuring Lets Make A Deal McCain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElvNgBholBw
Ron Paul: Change the World 2.0
Please watch this 7:14 video featuring "The Real Deal, Dr. Paul"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klSek88t54w
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.
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/neocons-admit-that-war-on-terror-was.html
The War On Terror- The Greatest Hoax Of All Time
Please watch the 8:28 video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZcQOjV0zzA
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.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/52/macgregor/macgregor7.html
McCain's "war on terror" remix
Please watch this 7:29 video featuring Lets Make A Deal McCain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElvNgBholBw
Ron Paul: Change the World 2.0
Please watch this 7:14 video featuring "The Real Deal, Dr. Paul"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klSek88t54w
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. bbc.co.uk/ 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.
---
http://news. bbc.co.uk/ 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?
mailed-by gmail.com
hide details 12:27 PM (9 hours ago)
at 12:28 PM
subject Fwd: Why did you murder me Peter
mailed-by gmail.com
MURDERER! MURDERER!
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.
mailed-by gmail.com
hide details 10:54 PM (8 hours ago)
Theghostofkristybentley4justice.
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
d4j
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?
mailed-by gmail.com
hide details 12:27 PM (9 hours ago)
at 12:28 PM
subject Fwd: Why did you murder me Peter
mailed-by gmail.com
MURDERER! MURDERER!
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.
mailed-by gmail.com
hide details 10:54 PM (8 hours ago)
Theghostofkristybentley4justice.
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
d4j
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
read more | digg story
Friday, May 2, 2008
Those were the good old days.
CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL MY FRIENDS WHO WERE BORN IN THE
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 WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!!
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 time.......no 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
HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!
And YOU are one of them!
CONGRATULATIONS!
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.
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 WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!!
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 time.......no 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
HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!
And YOU are one of them!
CONGRATULATIONS!
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
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3850658.ece
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.
Vengeful mothers leave good fathers powerless to see child, says judge
Rosemary Bennett, Social Affairs Correspondent
May 1, 2008
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3850658.ece
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)