• Log In
• Register
• Find Password

• home
• rss
• submissions
• masthead
• letter from the editor
• mra principles and goals
• lifestyles
• vLog

How to survive the coming food shortage.

9 Responses to “Domestic abuse: Does money fuel false allegations?”

Flag this comment

1. wls1

   2006-12-22 at 10:10 am

   I suppose amfortas would have us believe the atrocious Jim Crow laws were `fueled by money’ because the police who were charged with enforcing them were usually rewarded by how faithfully they did so: in fact the only reason such laws were on the books was so some people could have a career and make a living upholding them.

   The question vis-a-vis the Lisa Scott quote was: what’s the court’s logic when it denies, usually joint-, custody to a parent who’s been falsely accused of DV or child abuse? The answer that was given is essentially attested to and exploited by unscrupulous lawyers and therapists. The accusations don’t have to be believed by the court—and usually aren’t—for them to steer the court toward giving primary or sole custody (to the politically correct parent) due, by its way of thinking, to the conflict between the parents evinced by the fact that false accusations were made.

   That’s what really fuels false allegations in family court, and what must be addressed to turn things around for fathers.

   #25393
2. Denis

   2006-12-22 at 8:08 am

   It does’nt surprise me one bit that Darren Mack shot and almost killed the Family Court judge in his divorce. What amazes me is that many more judges are not shot.

   #25382
3. amfortas

   2006-12-22 at 4:56 am

   Wls1, where I am the police have ‘benchmarks’. They have to make ‘n’ arrests or they get hauled over the coals. No promotions for them. So arrests ARE money in their pockets. Men are automatically arrested and no bail is allowed. Men are arrested at the drop of a hat, especially if she has dropped it.

   Also, the idea that the number of allegations, cases – false or otherwise – doesn’t matter is a strange arguement. I wonder how the insurance industry would take to that were it suggested to them? “Sorry, Mr Insurance Executive, but the number of cases you have to deal with doesn’t matter”. The insurance industry you see, doesn’t see the premium income as a bottomless bucket to pay out from.

   We had some stupid politician women here saying the same – and more. She (Nicola Roxon, Federal Opposition MP) opined that false allegations should not be prosecuted as it would put off people making ‘actual’ reports. Can you imagine the insurance man’s attitude to THAT! I can just hear it. “Oh no. We at Ajax don’t mind paying out to false claims at all. Investigate and prosecute? Good Lord no. What would our customers think! They might be afraid of making real claims!!”. Can you hear him say that?

   You see, the Executives AND the customers EXPECT investigations. They WANT to see cheats caught and prosecuted, Wls1, because it keeps the premiums down. And the public purse is not a bottomless pay-out pool either, though that is what the public servants seem to think.

   I love this bit. “the courts know the allegations are false, but take them to indicate _conflict_ between the parents, which by their reasoning precludes joint custody or coparenting.”

   Sheer stunning beauty. How do you do it. In anyone elses reasoning it would indicate that the liar, the FALSE ACCUSER has no business having the children at all. But as we are all aware, the liars get the kids most of the time regardless of their moral bankrupcy. The only reason I can see that they are not prosecuted and get the kids is a CONSPIRACY to support BIAS against fathers. Prove I am wrong.

   #25373
4. wls1

   2006-12-22 at 1:57 am

   This is pretty good coverage, but while it makes some very good points RADAR also needs to clean up its act.

   Adopting this paranoid, conspiratorial position—that an officer can figure a certain amount of cash ending up in his pocket every time he makes a DV report or arrest—is nonsense and tends to discredit the legitimate criticism of the DV regime. The official quoted as saying the number of allegations, cases, etc. does not matter is absolutely correct.
   All state governments and their agencies, as well as many non-profits (in this case the battered women’s organizations and shelters) go after as many federal grants as they can—there’s nothing particularly distinguished about the DV racket in that regard—but what’s really happening is that they are being manipulated by the gender feminist ideologues who set the terms of the grants. It’s not fundamentally a money-grubbing scheme: it’s big problem is the deliberately unsound concept of domestic violence which underlies it.

   Lisa Scott, in saying “the courts are too willing to grant these orders to cover their butts in case it’s real” is also missing the main, very serious point: that the courts know the allegations are false, but take them to indicate _conflict_ between the parents, which by their reasoning precludes joint custody or coparenting.

   Some of this junk plays well in the introverted blogosphere or echo chamber of already confirmed critics of family court, but we have to act much smarter if we are going to persuade the public to support significant change and reform.

   #25369
5. TheManOnTheStreet

   2006-12-20 at 7:09 am

   HI! COme on in! Oh, please ignore the pink elephant in the corner. Elephant? What elephant!?

   TMOTS

   #25179
6. snootfish

   2006-12-20 at 2:06 am

   Anybody involved in the DV industry who denies that there are false allegations is a liar.

   Citizen’s arrest by victims? My god. What a stupid concept. She is beating the crap out of him and then says “I was arresting him and I had to beat him because he was resisting arrest?”

   Oh man. Sounds like a license for women to to commit DV. What a frigging nightmare.

   #25174
7. amfortas

   2006-12-19 at 6:08 pm

   What a thorough news article. The reporter should be congratulated for her balance and digging. The clear contradiction by the Court Official of the cant and mendacity spouted by the taxpayer-funded deniers was a gem.

   The efforts by ‘our’ two well known, well respected – and dare I say it, well loved and admired – MRA women, the Terrific, Tenacious Terriers is appreciated. They inspire hope.

   #25149
8. jaustin9698

   2006-12-19 at 6:03 pm

   My ex-wife used a domestic violence charge against me so she could take the children out of state. It worked great for her. The judge automatically granted a restraining order so that I had to stay away from my ex-wife and my children ( no more visits with my children). She had no proof and actually told the judge that I was OK but she didn’t like my wife. Since she was not working and filed under the divorce case I had to pay mine and her attorney (stupid Florida law). It is kind of useless to pay an attorney to fight the best attorney that my ex-wife can hire at my expense. After a year and 25K in expenses, almost losing my job and license for being an accused domestic violence offender I gave in and let her take my children out of state. And she agreed to drop the charges. Never once supplying one ounce of proof that I had ever harmed anyone and admitting in open court that I was OK but she didn’t like my wife??? So I know first hand that these are filed daily with out cause or proof. (sit in court on the day that these are handled and you will see this over and over) I guess our constitutional rights only apply to the female sex.

   #25146
9. Roger Knight

   2006-12-19 at 12:28 pm

   The problem with protection order cases is the death of due process as a meaningful protection:
   http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com/gourley.htm

   #25103