Read more: The doctor who broke up families: Psychiatrist who damned hundreds as 'unfit parents' faces GMC probe | Mail Online
ALSO see: Child care scandal: The 'unqualified' experts who advise our family courts | Mail Online
Quote from Richard Worth checking out Frank Furedi: Paranoid parenting
Exerpt: Time to fight backThe promotion of paranoia in relation to every aspect of children’s lives accomplishes the very opposite of what it sets out to do. ...The promotion of suspicion towards adult behaviour seriously undermines the ability of grown-up people to play a constructive role in the socialisation of youngsters. The estrangement of adults from the world of children has the perverse effect of leaving youngsters to their own devices and diminishing their security. We do not have to abide by the rules concocted by self-appointed experts intent on policing how we engage with children. Nor do we have to acquiesce to a culture that denigrates parental competence and fuels suspicion about adult motives towards children. Although none of us can opt out of the culture that we inhabit, we can challenge it. We can challenge it in small ways, by protesting against the many idiotic but all-too-insidious bans that aim to restrict children’s freedom or adults’ access to youngsters. We can challenge it by encouraging our children to develop a positive attitude towards the outdoors and the adult world. Most important of all, we can challenge it by working together as active collaborators...
Quote from Richard Most conspriacy theorists have a final "criminal element" which they balme the conspriacy on. Some blame christians, christains blame satan, marxists blame capitalists, capitalists blame marxists (we all love "cultural marxist" conspiracy theory on AM, right!), right wingers blame liberals, liberals blame bigots.
Oh and let us not forget that each country has it "national champion" conspiracy theorist - the UK has its David Icke, the US has Alex Jones, Russia promotes Max Keiser on RT TV (celtic Druids favourite).
The truth is that any soceity or republic is at war with itself and various forces seek power. In ancient Rome Julius Cesar had a coup and became a dictator, Naoplen betrayed the French Revolution and Stalin destroyed the hopes of 1917. Similarly in liberal democratic societies we seen a constant threat - in mosst of Europe in the 1930s it came from fascism, today we face a new totalitraian threat.
Older/first generation conspriacy theory foundations were laid by the civil rights groups, like the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, and other liberals "protectors"
Some seek to blame a NWO movement. The truth is any powerful group - or even the government will want more and more power. It is the duty of citizens to be vigilent to stop abuses of power. Hell, if one day the AM/MRM movement got its way, we would be accused of being conspirators! (just as we accuse a feminist conspiracy)
It if sounds like a never ending battle - well here's the news - you are right! All history is the history of the rise and fall of civilisations and states, the battle of good and evil, or the history of class stuggles (depending on which conspiracy theory you subscribe to).
Only one thing is 100% sure - as Felixblue said today (?) "conspiracy theory is good business"
Quote from Richard I was browsing Christianj's profile and I saw he has a link to a neew journl - it very much seems like it is worth a look (: New Male Studies
Quote from Richard Facebook is run by CIA !!! - YouTubets a short video - of how Congress finances CIA harvesting of data.
Excellent short video
PS this is an illumanti-free serious news report!!!!
Australian research up to 1997 demonstrated empirically that women, overwhelmingly, are the perpetrators of physical, emotional, psychological and sexual abuse of children – compared with men.
Click to enlage
After 1997, the Australian government ceased requesting and recording information on the sex of offenders against children in the home, and all the subsequent proposals in “The Plan” run on the assumption that the male is the primary perpetrator.
Quote from Richard Celtic, when I come across this common law stuff I read it - it holds many answers. I think that we are obliged to ensure the upkeep of a child, but not as Max has said to pay if the woman keeps the child a hostage.
I contacted Peter Nolan - here is the link and his way of dealing with the situation: How to Lawfully Bill for a Legal Court Order - Documents on Law and Constitutions - Crimes Against Fathers - Australia Gentlemen.With respect to ‘court orders’ you are being lied to with deceptive language. You are led to believe that ‘order’ means ‘instruction’ like a man in the army is required to follow ‘orders’. Why is he required to follow orders? Because he SIGNED A CONTRACT when he joined the army and he took an oath.But a ‘court order’ is not an instruction like in the army. It is an ‘order’ like you buy a big mac meal in McDonalds.What must you do after you ORDER your big mac meal and before you EAT IT? You must PAY FOR IT.So. Whenever you are given a court ‘ORDER’ it is an irrevocable order for services. It is the JUDGES/MAGISTRATES problem to find out the COST of the order before he/she orders it. Just like it is YOUR problem to find out the price of the big mac before you order it. If you don’t have the money you should not place the order.So when you are given a ‘court order’ you have a lawful right to issue a lawful BILL for the order. Until that BILL is paid? You have no obligation to fulfil the order.Here is proof this works. This is an ‘order’ for EUR6,000 per month. At the time of the BILL the ‘arrears’ was EUR150,000. So I issued a BILL for EUR1.5M and said I would be more than happy to pay the EUR150,000 just as soon as my BILL for EUR1.5M was paid.I have not heard from these people since October 2009.
Quote from christianj New Legislation will Assure All Women..
The following bills were introduced by the Femocrat party in an emergency session of the house of representatives today – The Presumption of Future Divorce Act.
Marriage law is now changed such that signing the marriage certificate brings forward the wholesale transfer of assets from husband to wife that more usually takes place upon the future divorce. The new Presumption of Future Divorce Act states that in order to make any future divorce more efficient, men must transfer all bank accounts, businesses and property into the wife’s name on signing of the marriage certificate. It is hoped that this new legislation will bring down the cost and stress of divorce and allow women full control of her husbands assets immediately, without the extended delays common with the divorce process.Businesses celebrated the new law by offering all newly-wed women a special pampering weekend for only $5000 (specially reduced from $5100) and an unlimited line of credit at fashion stores. They said the take up of the offers has been phenomenal. One newly married woman exclaimed: ”I could never have afforded this without this great change in the law. My husband would never spend like this and the financial freedom I now enjoy can only strengthen our marriage.” When asked, husbands-to-be shrugged and cited that it was not something that bothered them because: “divorce is something that happens to other people, and in any event, my wife is not like that.”
The DNA Contributors Act.
Government today formalized what has always been unofficially practiced and enforced by the family court and stripped all fathers of legally presumed parental rights. The new law means that all fathers are now officially renamed DNA Contributors and their sole legal right is the responsibility to pay for their child’s upbringing. Women’s groups said that this was a perfectly fair arrangement as “no mother would deny a man access to his child if he was a decent DNA Contributor”, and it would greatly simplify custody hearings because such hearings would simply no longer be necessary. “Formalizing the arrangement between mothers and sperm donor in this way, makes it much easier for mothers to deal with DNA Contributors who are not behaving as she would like”, said Charlotte Harpy of the campaign group ‘Mother Knows Best’. “And it also makes it easier for the DNA Contributors, because they now know ahead of time that they will fail to see their children if they go to court, rather than kidding themselves over years and years of court appearances, that there might be a chance. Everybody wins.” DNA Contributor groups did not offer a comment as they were too busy designing a logo for their new name: ‘DNA Contributors 4 Justice’. The Legal Human Castration Act.
From today, it is legally permissible for a wife to castrate her husband or boyfriend if she has suffered abuse from him in the past. The evidence required to prove that she received abusive treatment from the castrated spouse, is a sworn statement from the woman that he was indeed abusive and/or made her cry. The minimum required level of abuse for her to be acquitted, is set at shouting and/or door-slamming. Dame Brenda Hale was also said to offer that: “periods of ignoring her for longer than 60 minutes and the purchase of one or more unwanted gifts for the woman would also count as abuse severe enough to justify castration.” Further, the man would not be permitted to ask that she actually prove that he was abusive, because the Legal Human Castration Act presumes that in enduring the unpleasant task of severing his testicles, she has suffered enough. The All Female University Act.
All-female universities are to open now that so few men are doing well enough to attend university. It is thought that bringing proper focus to women – who now make up the vast majority of students – would help bring equality to education by delivering more appropriate tuition to women, who are continually denied this when men occupy the same campus. University doors and entryways can now officially be painted pink, rather than just metaphorically and university staff have come out fully in favor of the new measures.As Samantha Smughead, professor of Gender Studies remarked: “Women will finally be able to express themselves more freely with the patriarchal agents removed from the classroom and, anyway, men tend to make the campus look scruffy.” It is also thought that incidences of campus sexual assault and rape should be much reduced, seeing as the only men on campus will be janitors and gardeners. All such staff will be required to work in pairs and made to wear police monitored electronic tags. Additionally,
Quote from Richard Looks like a good website for info and support. About CSAhell.com | child support agency hell CSAhell.com was founded in 2008 by a non resident parent (NRP) as a means to offer advice to other people caught up in dealing with the Child Support Agency. Rather than being a website for NRPs, CSAhell.com has become a site dedicated to offering advice to both NRPs and parents
with care (PWC) in their dealings with the CSA. CSAhell.com features daily news and stories about the CSA, with comments and advice from both sides of the coin. We feel that one of the main success stories of the website is in the teaching that the CSA isn’t necessarily biased towards the PWC, as many absent parents believe. The CSA in fact treats both PWCs and NRPs with equal disdain, managing to fail both. Promoted by Wirral based SEO company StuckOn; CSAhell.com has managed to reach thousands of people suffering at the hands of the Child Support Agency in the UK. If you have a tale to tell and feel that the CSA isn’t listening to you, you can tell it here. We will happily listen to you and help to publicise your story to the community as a whole, and get you the valuable CSA advice that you need. By reading some of the stories on our website you will come to realise that you are not alone, and thousands of people are going through the exact same thing as you. Their battles, their experiences and their advice could prove invaluable in your own plight against the Child Support Agency. We’re here to help, and good luck!
Quote from Richard Below is an article that appeared in the Sunday Express (17/7/11).
There is no doubt that “official state policy” in the UK was to take children forcibly from families on a pretext to meet quotas set for adoption.
In this process, one can only wonder how psychologists “rubber stamped” such actions. For me the question is how could psychologists and social workers, en mass and consciously implement such a policy? Where there any voice of discontent, or were ALL psychologists blindly implementing such policy in the UK? Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: 10,000 children ripped from their families 10,000 CHILDREN RIPPED FROM THEIR FAMILIES
Sunday July 17,2011
By Ted Jeory AT LEAST 10,000 young children have been dragged from their families and needlessly adopted due to a flawed target at the heart of Government, it was claimed last night.
Vulnerable children were handed over in their thousands under a New Labour crusade driven by artificial adoption targets.
A top Oxford academic yesterday branded the policy as Tony Blair’s worst mistake.
The expert in social work who did not want to be named said: “Forget the Iraq War. “Blair’s adoption target was the reason I left the Labour party.” Last night backing came from MP John Hemming, who said the policy led to the unnecessary adoption of 1,000 children every year.
He claims the target set 11 years ago was flawed from the outset because it contained a fundamental error of maths and he has called for a full Parliamentary inquiry to prevent further damage. One victim who had a 15-month-old baby taken from her and two siblings broke down in tears as she told her story to the Sunday Express, saying: “When you’re reliving it like this, it’s still as raw as the day it happened.
“It was like my heart was ripped out.”
Mr Hemming, who chairs the Justice for Families campaign group and exposed footballer Ryan Giggs’s misdeeds in Parliament, insists a “corrupt and secret” family court system shrouds adoption in silence and away from proper scrutiny.
Mr Blair introduced the controversial adoption formula in the wake of the abuse and murder of eight-year-old Victoria Climbie in north London in 2000, ordering a 50 per cent increase in the number of youngsters placed for adoption from care, and doling out more than £20million to councils as incentive bonuses to meet his aim.
Mr Hemming an Oxford-educated science scholar, said those rewards caused many social workers to go hunting for children from broken homes who could then be pushed through the care system into adoption. Children were ripped not only from their parents, but also frequently separated for ever from brothers and sisters.
Though the target was dropped in 2006, Mr Hemming believes it caused a lasting change in social worker behaviour.
He said: “Tony Blair meant well when he introduced the adoption targets, but he and many
others misunderstood the statistics.
“This is a really big issue. It involves corruption in the courts and legal system and a complete failure of our child protection system, which concentrates on getting children adopted rather than protecting them from harm.”
He said the formula was distorted because instead of comparing the flows of children in and out of care over a whole year, it focused on a random, meaningless snapshot by examining the picture on a particular annual date, March 31. He said this meant people were duped into believing that barely any children were being taken from care and placed for adoption, when in fact the opposite was the case and there was, essentially, no problem to fix.
Between 1995 and 1999 about 2,000 children, most of them under four years old, left care for adoption each year. As the adoption target kicked in, those numbers rose to 3,100 in 2001, 3,400 a year later and peaked at 3,800 in 2004 and 2005, before settling at about 3,200 over the last two years.
Martin Narey, the Government’s adoption adviser, conceded targets were wrong but added: “Look at the figures: there were 22,000 adoptions in 1974. Last year, there were just 3,200. We have to make it easier for people.”