I just cannot comprehend the blather that surrounds the so called guardians of all things good better known as current affairs television.
Here we have a person with an Australian Court Order travelling off to a Middle Eastern country with a band of mercenaries, a film crew, a moralising spokeswoman all intent on snatching children in the name of compulsory family viewing.
The mere fact that you have a court order is grounds to open proceedings in a foreign court. Even if they are not signatories to The Hague Convention you still have a strong case to present.
Instead of proceeding in a proper and civilised fashion they attempt this Rambo operation and look at the outcome.
Imagine if this was reversed and someone came to Australia with their mercenaries and a film crew and presenter from their version of tripe television and pulled this stunt. We would be up in arms, and rightly so.
We now have big Ray informing us that they were acting ethically because there was a court order. Since when do mercenaries and a film crew have that legal responsibility?
What will happen now will be that the Federal Government will have to go in to overdrive on the diplomatic front so that they can be returned whilst the locals save face.
The television channel will owe the Federal Government big time, meaning that no adverse press will flow their way during any election campaign. The cretins that watch these shows can all then cry along as these miserable excuses for journalists turn the whole sorry episode in to some fanciful account of how they saved the World in the name of ethical journalism.
brickies said
03:45 PM Apr 15, 2016
Well said
Baz421 said
04:57 PM Apr 15, 2016
Yes I agree with your post 100% Dmaxer.
The Phantom said
06:35 PM Apr 15, 2016
If two men agree on everything, you may be sure that one of them is doing the thinking.Lyndon B. Johnson 36th president of US (1908 - 1973)
DMaxer said
07:15 PM Apr 15, 2016
I absolutely agree, Phantom.
Woody n Sue said
03:53 PM Apr 16, 2016
Also have to agree
Woody
dorian said
07:25 AM Apr 17, 2016
Some years ago I had a serious problem with a particular financial institution. After being jerked around for several months, I contacted one of the current affairs programs. They interceded on my behalf and solved the problem the following day (some clerk had been too lazy to lift a finger to a keyboard). As for "38 Minutes", I never liked the program, principally because the stories focus too much on the reporters rather than the subject.
The Rambo case annoys me on several fronts. The fact that some wighead in Australia granted sole custody to the mother angers me greatly. It's no wonder that the father took the steps that he did. My own brother was denied access to his own daughter for most of her young life, not by the courts, but by the mother. Every time he engaged the services of some legal parasite, it cost him big time. The mother, OTOH, had access to legal aid. If the courts are not willing to enforce their orders, then what use are they? My brother had to use a private detective to locate his daughter so that he could send her presents on her birthday.
DMaxer said
01:09 PM Apr 17, 2016
Hi Dorian. I always enjoy reading your posts. I never quite understand when people slam the legal profession. It is highly regulated yet some people have this misconception that they can charge stacks of money and do nothing. My limited experience in Family Law is that about two thirds of the parties are self represented with the various legal aid and court registries providing information kits and sample forms for the self represented people to utilise.
I don't understand when some people squawk about the costs of engaging a lawyer for supposedly doing nothing. If it all that easy, why don't they do it themselves. Everything else is do it yourself, from building to renovations, fixing the car, landscaping et al. It' s also a trifle baffling that the party that was unsuccessful always has something derogatory to say about the court or the justice system. Hopeless lawyers who charge too much, hopeless courts, hopeless systems, perhaps they don't have a mirror at their place.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Sunday 17th of April 2016 01:10:23 PM
Possum3 said
04:37 PM Apr 17, 2016
We have the best legal system in the World - What we don't have is a Justice system.
jules47 said
05:38 PM Apr 17, 2016
Trying to take a child like the above is wrong - there are thousands of parents out there denied access to their children, by the "custodial" parent - sometimes this custody is not sanctioned by law, but by circumstance, when a couple have a child or children and break up - that is not the child's fault, and they should not be punished by either parent. Keeping a child from the other parent is a cruel and terrible thing to do, the ones who suffer most are the children.
To involve TV cameras, reporters etc., is ridiculous - how confusing this would be the child or children involved - and of course the mother has now blown any chance of regaining custody of her children because of this stupid behaviour. These TV "current affair" shows are sensationalism at it's worst, in my opinion.
aussie_paul said
05:43 PM Apr 17, 2016
Absolutely Jules.
Aussie Paul.
The Phantom said
05:59 PM Apr 17, 2016
Perhaps the real answer to all these problems involving children is to support same sex marriage and children no longer are an issue. Then I guess they will all have dogs instead.
I have seen the ridiculous antics of nomads with their yappers and I guess we would then have yapper custody battles and yapper-napper type mercenaries.
Oh well, back to arguing over the kids.
The Phantom
-- Edited by The Phantom on Sunday 17th of April 2016 06:00:08 PM
jules47 said
08:53 PM Apr 17, 2016
Not as ridiculous as it sounds Phantom - there have been cases of custody battles over dogs in a marriage or relationship breakup!
Izabarack said
09:26 AM Apr 18, 2016
Possum3 wrote:
We have the best legal system in the World - What we don't have is a Justice system.
Something most people do not understand. Lawyers only attend to the legal process while parents in conflict expect them to "fix" things. I have had parents in the family court tell me they were getting rid of their current lawyer because he was not "punishing" the ex-partner enough.
Iza
dorian said
10:11 AM Apr 18, 2016
Could the father have received a worse punishment by the court than to have been denied joint custody of his children? Unless he was a child molester or a violent criminal, I can't see why he should have been excluded from parental access. No doubt he would still have had his wages garnisheed by the authorities to pay for the upbringing of the children and probably for the benefit of his ex-wife. At least now he knows where his money is going.
You only need to see some of the judgments handed down by judges in recent years to see why people in general have no respect for the legal system. Laws are enacted by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers and nothing will change until we stop electing them to parliament. It's no wonder that there is always money in the taxpayer's purse for Royal Commissions but never for the things that actually benefit the taxpayer.
DMaxer said
11:17 AM Apr 18, 2016
Hi Dorian. I think you will find if you check the Family Law legislation that "joint parenting" is the starting point. If a party wishes to move from this point then there needs to be evidence to demonstrate why it is in the best interests of the child(ren).
In relation to financial support, the fact that a court has decided that a person does not have joint parenting, reduced parenting or no parenting rights does not take away their responsibility to maintain their offspring.
I know that it is tremendous fun to pay out on lawyers and blame them for every problem in the world, but lawyers are the ones well qualified in constructing legislation. Legislation in most states and the Commonwealth needs to pass through two houses so it is hardly fair to say the legislation passes for the benefit of lawyers. The fact they interpret the legislation is what they are qualified to do. It is a bit like saying cars are manufactured for the benefit of panel beaters and mechanics.
Perhaps the world might be a better place if it was managed by career unemployed, used car salesmen and goat herders. Would that make you a more contented soul?
dorian said
01:47 PM Apr 18, 2016
If the world were to come to an end and humanity needed to populate another planet, we would take scientists, doctors and engineers. These are the professions that lay the foundation for our quality of life. The lawyers would all stay home. It's just too bad that we can't attract the STEM professions into politics. Instead we draw our leaders from a pool of rapacious wordsmiths and intellectually challenged union hacks.
What this country, and every country that is ruled by British Law, needs is a socio-political revolution to wrest control away from its legal profession. Only then can we contemplate true justice for all, not just for the obscenely wealthy and the dirt poor.
DMaxer said
03:56 PM Apr 18, 2016
Yes Dorian. Just have a look around the world at the countries where there is not a strong legal profession. Any in particular where you would like to live? Perhaps North Korea or a few of those charming places in Africa, maybe Pakistan, Afghanistan, the list goes on.
Don't blame a profession and its members just because either you or someone in your family came off second best.
03_Troopy said
07:55 PM Apr 18, 2016
DMaxer wrote:
Yes Dorian. Just have a look around the world at the countries where there is not a strong legal profession. Any in particular where you would like to live? Perhaps North Korea or a few of those charming places in Africa, maybe Pakistan, Afghanistan, the list goes on.
Don't blame a profession and its members just because either you or someone in your family came off second best.
rockylizard said
08:17 PM Apr 18, 2016
Gday...
Cheers - John
dorian said
07:28 AM Apr 19, 2016
The legal profession are the last people to understand the problems of the legal profession. That's because one's own sh*t doesn't stink. Instead lawyers need to experience the stench from the perspective of the general public. We can't rely on the legal system to reform itself, especially not from within parliament.
To attribute my hatred of the profession to personal experience is to misunderstand the outrage I feel every time some intellectually absurd, morally repugnant pontification is handed down by the unrepresentative swill that constitutes our judiciary. Who needs a dictator when you have the High Court to enact de facto legislation by way of their rulings? One example that comes to mind is the Mabo land rights case. Whether or not you agree with the decision, the fact that an issue of such national importance was left up to a handful of unelected individuals should be repugnant to any genuine democrat. Even more outrageous was a recent decision in respect of the lack of culpability of an individual who knowing transmitted HIV to his partner. My blood is still boiling over that one. Then of course we have the idiot who released a homicidal maniac into the community, resulting in the Lindt Cafe siege. These decisions demonstrate a contempt for the general public. All this crap has made me depressed, bitter, cynical, disillusioned, pessimistic, angry. In fact it affected me so badly that I stopped watching TV for 2 years in a desperate attempt recover some semblance of sanity. I now understand why wealthy people become reclusive. It's because they can afford to be.
For several years I was tormented by a psychopathic neighbour. I pleaded for help from the authorities including the police, council, local member, and lawyers. I generated enough paperwork to keep my backside clean for a year, but they did nothing. In fact they did worse than nothing. I am still suffering from the consequences of their inaction and callous indifference.
Worse still, this psychopath's wife, who wasn't much better, was involved in a custody dispute after he left her for another woman. He tormented her as well, and then claimed that she was an unfit mother because of her resultant mental state. I don't know the full story, but her brother (another worthless bastard) told me that she hung herself the day before a judgment arrived, awarding her custody of her child. He didn't tell me how long the delay had been, but my own experience in a fencing dispute was of a barrister (at the Land Board) who took several months to formally ratify his prior judgment in writing, but only after constant phone calls on my part. I also recall a case where a judge was hauled before parliament and asked why, after 2 years, he still hadn't delivered a judgment in respect of case that had already been concluded. ISTM that this laziness is a characteristic of an aloof, elitist profession which behaves as if it is beyond accountability.
After the woman's suicide, her parents filed for custody of her child and her brother asked me to be their witness. I contacted their counsel and told them the truth, namely that neither party was fit to raise the child, and that I would be telling the full version of events in court, as I saw them. Needless to say, my services were not required. And that's the problem with British Law. It's an adversarial system where one party's lies or half-truths are pitted against the other party's lies or half-truths, and the judge or the jury then decides which lies are the most believable. Instead we need an inquisitorial system -- one which endeavours to find the truth in the same way that a Royal Commission attempts to do.
DMaxer said
08:30 AM Apr 19, 2016
So what is your point, Rockylizard.
Don't tell me, you have just worked out what I do for a living. I imagine you would feel very proud demonstrating that you know how to copy and paste information that I freely put out.
Perhaps you should send this sample of your work off to one of those current affairs shows. I have always thought you had the appropriate intellect to be prominent in that vocation.
rockylizard said
09:02 AM Apr 19, 2016
Gday...
GEEZ DMaxer ya a bit touchy I see.
It is simple really ... I was simply highlighting to those whose comments had preceded me, of the futility of a 'discussion' about matters of lawyers ... not the law per se - but lawyers.
And thank you for noticing that I had indeed finally discovered, completely accidentally mind you, the incredible power of the X and the V.
There are many threads on fora that intrigue and amuse me. This has been one of them.
I find it enlightening, in fact educational, to observe the posturing of those with personal bias striving to have their bias overpower the bias of the others.
Indeed, each bias is not necessarily without justification - but it is simply that ... bias.
Anyway, enjoy your profession but perhaps develop a more tolerant attitude to those who express a different perception of your chosen profession.
Cheers - John
03_Troopy said
09:06 AM Apr 19, 2016
rockylizard wrote:
Gday...
GEEZ DMaxer ya a bit touchy I see.
It is simple really ... I was simply highlighting to those whose comments had preceded me, of the futility of a 'discussion' about matters of lawyers ... not the law per se - but lawyers.
And thank you for noticing that I had indeed finally discovered, completely accidentally mind you, the incredible power of the X and the V.
There are many threads on fora that intrigue and amuse me. This has been one of them.
I find it enlightening, in fact educational, to observe the posturing of those with personal bias striving to have their bias overpower the bias of the others.
Indeed, each bias is not necessarily without justification - but it is simply that ... bias.
Anyway, enjoy your profession but perhaps develop a more tolerant attitude to those who express a different perception of your chosen profession.
Cheers - John
The Phantom said
09:06 AM Apr 19, 2016
dorian wrote:
The legal profession are the last people to understand the problems of the legal profession. That's because one's own sh*t doesn't stink. Instead lawyers need to experience the stench from the perspective of the general public. We can't rely on the legal system to reform itself, especially not from within parliament.
To attribute my hatred of the profession to personal experience is to misunderstand the outrage I feel every time some intellectually absurd, morally repugnant pontification is handed down by the unrepresentative swill that constitutes our judiciary. Who needs a dictator when you have the High Court to enact de facto legislation by way of their rulings? One example that comes to mind is the Mabo land rights case. Whether or not you agree with the decision, the fact that an issue of such national importance was left up to a handful of unelected individuals should be repugnant to any genuine democrat. Even more outrageous was a recent decision in respect of the lack of culpability of an individual who knowing transmitted HIV to his partner. My blood is still boiling over that one. Then of course we have the idiot who released a homicidal maniac into the community, resulting in the Lindt Cafe siege. These decisions demonstrate a contempt for the general public. All this crap has made me depressed, bitter, cynical, disillusioned, pessimistic, angry. In fact it affected me so badly that I stopped watching TV for 2 years in a desperate attempt recover some semblance of sanity. I now understand why wealthy people become reclusive. It's because they can afford to be.
For several years I was tormented by a psychopathic neighbour. I pleaded for help from the authorities including the police, council, local member, and lawyers. I generated enough paperwork to keep my backside clean for a year, but they did nothing. In fact they did worse than nothing. I am still suffering from the consequences of their inaction and callous indifference.
Worse still, this psychopath's wife, who wasn't much better, was involved in a custody dispute after he left her for another woman. He tormented her as well, and then claimed that she was an unfit mother because of her resultant mental state. I don't know the full story, but her brother (another worthless bastard) told me that she hung herself the day before a judgment arrived, awarding her custody of her child. He didn't tell me how long the delay had been, but my own experience in a fencing dispute was of a barrister (at the Land Board) who took several months to formally ratify his prior judgment in writing, but only after constant phone calls on my part. I also recall a case where a judge was hauled before parliament and asked why, after 2 years, he still hadn't delivered a judgment in respect of case that had already been concluded. ISTM that this laziness is a characteristic of an aloof, elitist profession which behaves as if it is beyond accountability.
After the woman's suicide, her parents filed for custody of her child and her brother asked me to be their witness. I contacted their counsel and told them the truth, namely that neither party was fit to raise the child, and that I would be telling the full version of events in court, as I saw them. Needless to say, my services were not required. And that's the problem with British Law. It's an adversarial system where one party's lies or half-truths are pitted against the other party's lies or half-truths, and the judge or the jury then decides which lies are the most believable. Instead we need an inquisitorial system -- one which endeavours to find the truth in the same way that a Royal Commission attempts to do.
You have my sympathy, Dorian. You have had a heavy cross to bear. So sad.
I just cannot comprehend the blather that surrounds the so called guardians of all things good better known as current affairs television.
Here we have a person with an Australian Court Order travelling off to a Middle Eastern country with a band of mercenaries, a film crew, a moralising spokeswoman all intent on snatching children in the name of compulsory family viewing.
The mere fact that you have a court order is grounds to open proceedings in a foreign court. Even if they are not signatories to The Hague Convention you still have a strong case to present.
Instead of proceeding in a proper and civilised fashion they attempt this Rambo operation and look at the outcome.
Imagine if this was reversed and someone came to Australia with their mercenaries and a film crew and presenter from their version of tripe television and pulled this stunt. We would be up in arms, and rightly so.
We now have big Ray informing us that they were acting ethically because there was a court order. Since when do mercenaries and a film crew have that legal responsibility?
What will happen now will be that the Federal Government will have to go in to overdrive on the diplomatic front so that they can be returned whilst the locals save face.
The television channel will owe the Federal Government big time, meaning that no adverse press will flow their way during any election campaign. The cretins that watch these shows can all then cry along as these miserable excuses for journalists turn the whole sorry episode in to some fanciful account of how they saved the World in the name of ethical journalism.
Yes I agree with your post 100% Dmaxer.
If two men agree on everything, you may be sure that one of them is doing the thinking.Lyndon B. Johnson
36th president of US (1908 - 1973)
I absolutely agree, Phantom.
Woody
The Rambo case annoys me on several fronts. The fact that some wighead in Australia granted sole custody to the mother angers me greatly. It's no wonder that the father took the steps that he did. My own brother was denied access to his own daughter for most of her young life, not by the courts, but by the mother. Every time he engaged the services of some legal parasite, it cost him big time. The mother, OTOH, had access to legal aid. If the courts are not willing to enforce their orders, then what use are they? My brother had to use a private detective to locate his daughter so that he could send her presents on her birthday.
Hi Dorian. I always enjoy reading your posts. I never quite understand when people slam the legal profession. It is highly regulated yet some people have this misconception that they can charge stacks of money and do nothing. My limited experience in Family Law is that about two thirds of the parties are self represented with the various legal aid and court registries providing information kits and sample forms for the self represented people to utilise.
I don't understand when some people squawk about the costs of engaging a lawyer for supposedly doing nothing. If it all that easy, why don't they do it themselves. Everything else is do it yourself, from building to renovations, fixing the car, landscaping et al. It' s also a trifle baffling that the party that was unsuccessful always has something derogatory to say about the court or the justice system. Hopeless lawyers who charge too much, hopeless courts, hopeless systems, perhaps they don't have a mirror at their place.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Sunday 17th of April 2016 01:10:23 PM
To involve TV cameras, reporters etc., is ridiculous - how confusing this would be the child or children involved - and of course the mother has now blown any chance of regaining custody of her children because of this stupid behaviour. These TV "current affair" shows are sensationalism at it's worst, in my opinion.
Absolutely Jules.
Aussie Paul.
Perhaps the real answer to all these problems involving children is to support same sex marriage and children no longer are an issue. Then I guess they will all have dogs instead.
I have seen the ridiculous antics of nomads with their yappers and I guess we would then have yapper custody battles and yapper-napper type mercenaries.
Oh well, back to arguing over the kids.
The Phantom
-- Edited by The Phantom on Sunday 17th of April 2016 06:00:08 PM
Something most people do not understand. Lawyers only attend to the legal process while parents in conflict expect them to "fix" things. I have had parents in the family court tell me they were getting rid of their current lawyer because he was not "punishing" the ex-partner enough.
Iza
You only need to see some of the judgments handed down by judges in recent years to see why people in general have no respect for the legal system. Laws are enacted by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers and nothing will change until we stop electing them to parliament. It's no wonder that there is always money in the taxpayer's purse for Royal Commissions but never for the things that actually benefit the taxpayer.
Hi Dorian. I think you will find if you check the Family Law legislation that "joint parenting" is the starting point. If a party wishes to move from this point then there needs to be evidence to demonstrate why it is in the best interests of the child(ren).
In relation to financial support, the fact that a court has decided that a person does not have joint parenting, reduced parenting or no parenting rights does not take away their responsibility to maintain their offspring.
I know that it is tremendous fun to pay out on lawyers and blame them for every problem in the world, but lawyers are the ones well qualified in constructing legislation. Legislation in most states and the Commonwealth needs to pass through two houses so it is hardly fair to say the legislation passes for the benefit of lawyers. The fact they interpret the legislation is what they are qualified to do. It is a bit like saying cars are manufactured for the benefit of panel beaters and mechanics.
Perhaps the world might be a better place if it was managed by career unemployed, used car salesmen and goat herders. Would that make you a more contented soul?
What this country, and every country that is ruled by British Law, needs is a socio-political revolution to wrest control away from its legal profession. Only then can we contemplate true justice for all, not just for the obscenely wealthy and the dirt poor.
Yes Dorian. Just have a look around the world at the countries where there is not a strong legal profession. Any in particular where you would like to live? Perhaps North Korea or a few of those charming places in Africa, maybe Pakistan, Afghanistan, the list goes on.
Don't blame a profession and its members just because either you or someone in your family came off second best.
Gday...
Cheers - John
To attribute my hatred of the profession to personal experience is to misunderstand the outrage I feel every time some intellectually absurd, morally repugnant pontification is handed down by the unrepresentative swill that constitutes our judiciary. Who needs a dictator when you have the High Court to enact de facto legislation by way of their rulings? One example that comes to mind is the Mabo land rights case. Whether or not you agree with the decision, the fact that an issue of such national importance was left up to a handful of unelected individuals should be repugnant to any genuine democrat. Even more outrageous was a recent decision in respect of the lack of culpability of an individual who knowing transmitted HIV to his partner. My blood is still boiling over that one. Then of course we have the idiot who released a homicidal maniac into the community, resulting in the Lindt Cafe siege. These decisions demonstrate a contempt for the general public. All this crap has made me depressed, bitter, cynical, disillusioned, pessimistic, angry. In fact it affected me so badly that I stopped watching TV for 2 years in a desperate attempt recover some semblance of sanity. I now understand why wealthy people become reclusive. It's because they can afford to be.
For several years I was tormented by a psychopathic neighbour. I pleaded for help from the authorities including the police, council, local member, and lawyers. I generated enough paperwork to keep my backside clean for a year, but they did nothing. In fact they did worse than nothing. I am still suffering from the consequences of their inaction and callous indifference.
Worse still, this psychopath's wife, who wasn't much better, was involved in a custody dispute after he left her for another woman. He tormented her as well, and then claimed that she was an unfit mother because of her resultant mental state. I don't know the full story, but her brother (another worthless bastard) told me that she hung herself the day before a judgment arrived, awarding her custody of her child. He didn't tell me how long the delay had been, but my own experience in a fencing dispute was of a barrister (at the Land Board) who took several months to formally ratify his prior judgment in writing, but only after constant phone calls on my part. I also recall a case where a judge was hauled before parliament and asked why, after 2 years, he still hadn't delivered a judgment in respect of case that had already been concluded. ISTM that this laziness is a characteristic of an aloof, elitist profession which behaves as if it is beyond accountability.
After the woman's suicide, her parents filed for custody of her child and her brother asked me to be their witness. I contacted their counsel and told them the truth, namely that neither party was fit to raise the child, and that I would be telling the full version of events in court, as I saw them. Needless to say, my services were not required. And that's the problem with British Law. It's an adversarial system where one party's lies or half-truths are pitted against the other party's lies or half-truths, and the judge or the jury then decides which lies are the most believable. Instead we need an inquisitorial system -- one which endeavours to find the truth in the same way that a Royal Commission attempts to do.
So what is your point, Rockylizard.
Don't tell me, you have just worked out what I do for a living. I imagine you would feel very proud demonstrating that you know how to copy and paste information that I freely put out.
Perhaps you should send this sample of your work off to one of those current affairs shows. I have always thought you had the appropriate intellect to be prominent in that vocation.
Gday...
It is simple really ... I was simply highlighting to those whose comments had preceded me, of the futility of a 'discussion' about matters of lawyers ... not the law per se - but lawyers.
And thank you for noticing that I had indeed finally discovered, completely accidentally mind you, the incredible power of the X and the V.
There are many threads on fora that intrigue and amuse me. This has been one of them.
I find it enlightening, in fact educational, to observe the posturing of those with personal bias striving to have their bias overpower the bias of the others.
Indeed, each bias is not necessarily without justification - but it is simply that ... bias.
Anyway, enjoy your profession but perhaps develop a more tolerant attitude to those who express a different perception of your chosen profession.
Cheers - John
You have my sympathy, Dorian. You have had a heavy cross to bear. So sad.
The Phantom