FREE TAPATALK APP

Shiner · 9th March 2013, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

Yes, the law was enforced to the letter. That this is in the best interests of the children is far from evident. How can you say this with such certainty? The children don't seem to think so, and although this is not the wholly deciding factor, it is a factor. Don't you think the children's feelings should play a crucial role in deciding their best interests?

I can't be any more certain than you of which decision would ultimately be in their best interests. I'm simply saying there is no alternative under the current legislation. The law was applied to reflect the best interests of the children.

People say it shouldn't have gone down this way. I say, there was no alternative. We can't realistically ignore the Hague convention, just because these girls like Australia. Remember it was the mothers decision not to return to Italy. This was the sole reason (afaics) for the girls distress. I don't see how it could ever have been resolved peacefully, given the circumstances.

Shiner · 9th March 2013, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

. Don't you think the children's feelings should play a crucial role in deciding their best interests?

That's a pretty loaded question.

If it can be shown that the children have been manipulated, co-erced, brainwashed, blackmailed, then no, we can't take what they say they want as gospel. At what age do we let them decide for themselves? What about an intellectually disabled child? There's just too many variables to realistically put this into action.

It can be shown that sending a child to school is in their best interests, yet most children express their feelings about not wanting to go at an early age.
Plenty of teenagers go to school against their wishes. Daily. Globally.
Yes, I know this is a bit more significant than a 6 hour period. It's the same end result though; forcing a child to do something they don't want to, in their best interests.

We are addressing the childs best interests and wishes here, whilst this whole case and debate only happened because of the mothers wishes. The mother refuses to return with her children to their rightful home and birthplace. She is acting in her own best interests and is the only cause for the girls distress.

smartcooky · 10th March 2013, 12:54 AM

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

I haven't got that impression from any poster here.

Can you provide one or two examples of such blind faith?

Sure, and these three are just from looking back at a couple of pages.

Originally Posted by ehcks

There IS a judge "out there," in Italy, that will determine the outcome of this case. This is a legal custody case that will be determined by law.

Originally Posted by ehcks

If there is a legally justifiable reason for this law-breaking, it will be heard in court.

Originally Posted by katy_did

The court will decide (and I'm sure will take the kids' feelings at that stage into account

Blind faith that the courts will make a fair decision in the interests of the children, regardless, of course, of what they might want.

Having personally seen the disastrous, life-altering results of an arbitrary (and wrong) decision made by a Judge in a Family Law Court, I have absolutely no faith in them; none whatsoever!

Caper · 10th March 2013, 03:58 AM

smartcooky,
Why do you support parental kidnapping?

Why do you want two disgusting old hogs and a kidnapper looking after children?

Caper · 10th March 2013, 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

Yes, the law was enforced to the letter. That this is in the best interests of the children is far from evident. How can you say this with such certainty? The children don't seem to think so, and although this is not the wholly deciding factor, it is a factor. Don't you think the children's feelings should play a crucial role in deciding their best interests?

No. They were kidnapped.

uke2se · 10th March 2013, 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Sure, and these three are just from looking back at a couple of pages.

Blind faith that the courts will make a fair decision in the interests of the children, regardless, of course, of what they might want.

That's not blind faith. That's just correctly pointing out the flaws in your argument. Do you have a problem with due justice?

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Having personally seen the disastrous, life-altering results of an arbitrary (and wrong) decision made by a Judge in a Family Law Court, I have absolutely no faith in them; none whatsoever!

Well then, let's abolish all court of law then, shall we? Wouldn't that make the world so much better?

Giordano · 10th March 2013, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Blind faith that the courts will make a fair decision in the interests of the children, regardless, of course, of what they might want.

Having personally seen the disastrous, life-altering results of an arbitrary (and wrong) decision made by a Judge in a Family Law Court, I have absolutely no faith in them; none whatsoever!

I doubt anyone here believes the courts are perfect- is any human construct perfect? Of course they are flawed. But what do you propose instead? Should we determine custody based on the desires of the girls as expressed at a news conference with their mother sitting next to them? The same but with their father next to them? A written statement of the girls' wishes as interpreted by their grandmother? A poll of the press who are covering the story? Do we have a toll free phone number the children can call if they later change their minds after a fight with the custodian parent over homework?

Given that you recognize that the wishes of be children can't be the only factor, how do we also incorporate and balance out the other factors necessary to determine the best interests of the children? A computer algorithm?

Sorry, but for all their flaws I can't see a better way than having an experienced family law court and judge work through these complexities and do their best for the girls. From what I've read so far, I have no reason to distrust the Italian court that will judge this case. If you think so, you should argue to have the judge changed, not the principle of having a court decide.

Yes, I agree courts can be wrong. However I have yet to come up with a better idea.

banquetbear · 10th March 2013, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Caper

smartcooky,
Why do you support parental kidnapping?

Why do you want two disgusting old hogs and a kidnapper looking after children?

...do you really think comments like this help the conversation here?

smartcooky · 10th March 2013, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by banquetbear

...do you really think comments like this help the conversation here?

He's on ignore, so I didn't see that comment, not that I would have dignified it with a reply anyway.

P.J. Denyer · 11th March 2013, 02:40 AM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Cite your source.

Post 8 of this thread. AFAK, it's not been in dispute.

Shiner · 11th March 2013, 03:47 AM

Good way to kill a thread. Ignore all who oppose......

Wildy · 11th March 2013, 04:03 AM

That's because we're too stupid to ~~blindly agree with smartcooky~~ understand the nuances of this issue.

Shiner · 11th March 2013, 04:38 AM

Yep, so stupid that we can't get all emotional about it.

smartcooky · 11th March 2013, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Shiner

Good way to kill a thread. Ignore all who oppose......

I has become clear that none of the pro police/court/judge group (for want of a better name) have firmly made their minds up and there is no argument that will convince them to change their minds.

It has also become clear that the pro children/choice/non-violence group (for want of a better name) have firmly made their minds up and there is no argument that will convince them to change their minds.

Further debate is pointless, so I'm not going bother wasting my time on the issue any longer.

After this post, I'll be taking this thread off subscription.

tyr_13 · 11th March 2013, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I has become clear that none of the pro police/court/judge group (for want of a better name) have firmly made their minds up and there is no argument that will convince them to change their minds.

It has also become clear that the pro children/choice/non-violence group (for want of a better name) have firmly made their minds up and there is no argument that will convince them to change their minds.

Further debate is pointless, so I'm not going bother wasting my time on the issue any longer.

After this post, I'll be taking this thread off subscription.

You haven't presented a sound argument that the police and courts are wrong in this case.

No one is arguing that courts or authorities can't be wrong. Courts can be and have been wrong in other cases. How do we know this? By following the evidence. It doesn't mean that we can conclude therefore that they are wrong in this case. Examples of other courts (or bizarrely school officials in the US) don't prove anything for this case. So what's the evidence that the courts are wrong in this case? Nothing. Not a thing apart from assertion. It isn't even that we can argue that the courts didn't do their due diligence in examining the case as they spent two years on ultimately baseless appeals AND have shown the reasoning/evidence for their judgement.

Have women absconded with their children for good reasons in the past? Yes. That's not evidence that in this case the abduction was justifiable. What evidence is there that in this case it was? Nothing, just assertion and speculation that maybe it was. And again, we cannot reasonably argue that there were justifiable reasons that we don't know of because of the extensive interviews and investigations.

Have courts ignored the wishes of children before? Yes. But yet again we know that in this case it is explicitly not so. The court investigated that avenue and stated it's completely plausible reasoning in not following what they stated their wishes are.

No one is arguing that the courts are right because they're the courts. No one is having blind faith in the courts. You've made up your mind and refuse address the basic flaws in your argument. Your loaded words might make you feel better, but it's painfully transparent.

banquetbear · 11th March 2013, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I has become clear that none of the pro police/court/judge group (for want of a better name) have firmly made their minds up and there is no argument that will convince them to change their minds.

It has also become clear that the pro children/choice/non-violence group (for want of a better name) have firmly made their minds up and there is no argument that will convince them to change their minds.

Further debate is pointless, so I'm not going bother wasting my time on the issue any longer.

After this post, I'll be taking this thread off subscription.

...yet another fallacy from you. I'm pro police/court/judge and pro children/choice/non violence. I don't fit your "labels." And neither does anyone else. Further debate is pointless not because people won't change their minds: but because you see this as an issue where you need to "pick a side."

Shiner · 11th March 2013, 09:02 PM

In my day to day life, I'll go either way as far as Police/court/judge go, and I'm very much pro children/choice.

It's a pity not everyone can see that, as they say, we can lead the horse to water......

Giordano · 11th March 2013, 09:17 PM

Gee- I thought I was in the pro-fluffy kitten/pro-Nazi group.

DreamingNaiad · 12th March 2013, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

I'll take a stab at that. The children should have been separated from the mother days before the departure and held incommunicado. They should have had some time with a child psychologist during that time, and the transfer to the airport and the boarding of the plane should have been done with the press kept completely in the dark.

This in no was absolves the mother of her horrible actions , of course (or the press, for that matter). I think that justice was served by repatriating the children, I just think it could have been served a bit better. I think that's what DreamingNiad is suggesting.

It is, thank you. Apparently it's dumb and unrealistic to some, though

ponderingturtle · 12th March 2013, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

It is, thank you. Apparently it's dumb and unrealistic to some, though

Why does delaying their departure help? You are basically saying the kids should be taken by suprise so the media isn't there. They will still fight with the police and holding them prisoner away from their parents for a short while isn't going to be helpful.

So yes it is dumb and unrealistic.

DreamingNaiad · 12th March 2013, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Why does delaying their departure help? You are basically saying the kids should be taken by suprise so the media isn't there. They will still fight with the police and holding them prisoner away from their parents for a short while isn't going to be helpful.

So yes it is dumb and unrealistic.

I'm pretty sure holding someone prisoner means unlawfully detaining them. With a court order it would be lawful. Just as dragging them off against their will wasn't kidnapping or abduction because of the court order.

And iirc several posters here have suggested they only played up because the media were there, so perhaps without them things would have calmed down quicker.

ponderingturtle · 12th March 2013, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

I'm pretty sure holding someone prisoner means unlawfully detaining them. With a court order it would be lawful. Just as dragging them off against their will wasn't kidnapping or abduction because of the court order.

And iirc several posters here have suggested they only played up because the media were there, so perhaps without them things would have calmed down quicker.

So prison breaks don't involve prisoners as they are lawfully detained?

Kidnapping and abduction have an unlawfull component but prisoners can be lawful or not.

DreamingNaiad · 12th March 2013, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So prison breaks don't involve prisoners as they are lawfully detained?

Kidnapping and abduction have an unlawfull component but prisoners can be lawful or not.

You're right. Looked it up and the definition seems to be along the lines of "someone deprived of their liberty or held against their will". Which happened to these girls anyway when the police took them. Taking a few days to calm them down, perhaps flying the father in to talk to them (it's the least the Aussie government could do since their embassy was involved in this mess) couldn't hurt.

joesixpack · 12th March 2013, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Why does delaying their departure help? You are basically saying the kids should be taken by suprise so the media isn't there. They will still fight with the police and holding them prisoner away from their parents for a short while isn't going to be helpful.

So yes it is dumb and unrealistic.

Actually, they were only fighting when the press were present. By all accounts they were calm and compliant when the press were absent.

ponderingturtle · 12th March 2013, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Actually, they were only fighting when the press were present. By all accounts they were calm and compliant when the press were absent.

So the warnings and notification was the problem? I guess they don't need their stuff.

And yet somehow despite her causing this it is still an endorsement of the mother.

joesixpack · 12th March 2013, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So the warnings and notification was the problem? I guess they don't need their stuff.

And yet somehow despite her causing this it is still an endorsement of the mother.

I'm sorry, I can't make heads or tails of this. Are you suggesting that I'm supporting the mother?

ponderingturtle · 12th March 2013, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

I'm sorry, I can't make heads or tails of this. Are you suggesting that I'm supporting the mother?

You are trying to give her what she is after.

joesixpack · 12th March 2013, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

You are trying to give her what she is after.

I'm trying to take the kids away from her. Have you read a single one of my posts on this thread?

9th March 2013, 09:52 PM	#1001
Shiner Motor Mouth Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Up the creek. Posts: 1,083	Originally Posted by lionking Yes, the law was enforced to the letter. That this is in the best interests of the children is far from evident. How can you say this with such certainty? The children don't seem to think so, and although this is not the wholly deciding factor, it is a factor. Don't you think the children's feelings should play a crucial role in deciding their best interests? I can't be any more certain than you of which decision would ultimately be in their best interests. I'm simply saying there is no alternative under the current legislation. The law was applied to reflect the best interests of the children. People say it shouldn't have gone down this way. I say, there was no alternative. We can't realistically ignore the Hague convention, just because these girls like Australia. Remember it was the mothers decision not to return to Italy. This was the sole reason (afaics) for the girls distress. I don't see how it could ever have been resolved peacefully, given the circumstances.
	__________________

9th March 2013, 10:24 PM	#1002
Shiner Motor Mouth Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Up the creek. Posts: 1,083	Originally Posted by lionking . Don't you think the children's feelings should play a crucial role in deciding their best interests? That's a pretty loaded question. If it can be shown that the children have been manipulated, co-erced, brainwashed, blackmailed, then no, we can't take what they say they want as gospel. At what age do we let them decide for themselves? What about an intellectually disabled child? There's just too many variables to realistically put this into action. It can be shown that sending a child to school is in their best interests, yet most children express their feelings about not wanting to go at an early age. Plenty of teenagers go to school against their wishes. Daily. Globally. Yes, I know this is a bit more significant than a 6 hour period. It's the same end result though; forcing a child to do something they don't want to, in their best interests. We are addressing the childs best interests and wishes here, whilst this whole case and debate only happened because of the mothers wishes. The mother refuses to return with her children to their rightful home and birthplace. She is acting in her own best interests and is the only cause for the girls distress.
	__________________

10th March 2013, 12:54 AM	#1003
smartcooky Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 1,007	Originally Posted by kerikiwi I haven't got that impression from any poster here. Can you provide one or two examples of such blind faith? Sure, and these three are just from looking back at a couple of pages. Originally Posted by ehcks There IS a judge "out there," in Italy, that will determine the outcome of this case. This is a legal custody case that will be determined by law. Originally Posted by ehcks If there is a legally justifiable reason for this law-breaking, it will be heard in court. Originally Posted by katy_did The court will decide (and I'm sure will take the kids' feelings at that stage into account Blind faith that the courts will make a fair decision in the interests of the children, regardless, of course, of what they might want. Having personally seen the disastrous, life-altering results of an arbitrary (and wrong) decision made by a Judge in a Family Law Court, I have absolutely no faith in them; none whatsoever!
	__________________ _{OCCAMS Razor 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Muslim extremists who were organised by Osama Bin Laden. The Apollo astronauts walked on the Moon JFK was assassinated by a single gunmen, Lee Harvey Oswald, who acted alone}

10th March 2013, 03:58 AM	#1004
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023	smartcooky, Why do you support parental kidnapping? Why do you want two disgusting old hogs and a kidnapper looking after children?
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023	Last edited by Caper; 10th March 2013 at 04:00 AM.

10th March 2013, 04:00 AM	#1005
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023	Originally Posted by lionking Yes, the law was enforced to the letter. That this is in the best interests of the children is far from evident. How can you say this with such certainty? The children don't seem to think so, and although this is not the wholly deciding factor, it is a factor. Don't you think the children's feelings should play a crucial role in deciding their best interests? No. They were kidnapped.
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023

10th March 2013, 04:04 AM	#1006
uke2se Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,229	Originally Posted by smartcooky Sure, and these three are just from looking back at a couple of pages. Blind faith that the courts will make a fair decision in the interests of the children, regardless, of course, of what they might want. That's not blind faith. That's just correctly pointing out the flaws in your argument. Do you have a problem with due justice? Originally Posted by smartcooky Having personally seen the disastrous, life-altering results of an arbitrary (and wrong) decision made by a Judge in a Family Law Court, I have absolutely no faith in them; none whatsoever! Well then, let's abolish all court of law then, shall we? Wouldn't that make the world so much better?
uke2se Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,229

10th March 2013, 08:53 AM	#1007
Giordano Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by smartcooky Blind faith that the courts will make a fair decision in the interests of the children, regardless, of course, of what they might want. Having personally seen the disastrous, life-altering results of an arbitrary (and wrong) decision made by a Judge in a Family Law Court, I have absolutely no faith in them; none whatsoever! I doubt anyone here believes the courts are perfect- is any human construct perfect? Of course they are flawed. But what do you propose instead? Should we determine custody based on the desires of the girls as expressed at a news conference with their mother sitting next to them? The same but with their father next to them? A written statement of the girls' wishes as interpreted by their grandmother? A poll of the press who are covering the story? Do we have a toll free phone number the children can call if they later change their minds after a fight with the custodian parent over homework? Given that you recognize that the wishes of be children can't be the only factor, how do we also incorporate and balance out the other factors necessary to determine the best interests of the children? A computer algorithm? Sorry, but for all their flaws I can't see a better way than having an experienced family law court and judge work through these complexities and do their best for the girls. From what I've read so far, I have no reason to distrust the Italian court that will judge this case. If you think so, you should argue to have the judge changed, not the principle of having a court decide. Yes, I agree courts can be wrong. However I have yet to come up with a better idea.

10th March 2013, 11:20 AM	#1008
banquetbear Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 373	Originally Posted by Caper smartcooky, Why do you support parental kidnapping? Why do you want two disgusting old hogs and a kidnapper looking after children? ...do you really think comments like this help the conversation here?

10th March 2013, 11:59 AM	#1009
smartcooky Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 1,007	Originally Posted by banquetbear ...do you really think comments like this help the conversation here? He's on ignore, so I didn't see that comment, not that I would have dignified it with a reply anyway.
	__________________ _{OCCAMS Razor 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Muslim extremists who were organised by Osama Bin Laden. The Apollo astronauts walked on the Moon JFK was assassinated by a single gunmen, Lee Harvey Oswald, who acted alone}

11th March 2013, 02:40 AM	#1010
P.J. Denyer Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,185	Originally Posted by smartcooky Cite your source. Post 8 of this thread. AFAK, it's not been in dispute.

11th March 2013, 03:47 AM	#1011
Shiner Motor Mouth Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Up the creek. Posts: 1,083	Good way to kill a thread. Ignore all who oppose......
	__________________

11th March 2013, 04:03 AM	#1012
Wildy Adelaidean Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia, not that you'll read the "location" field. Posts: 9,955	That's because we're too stupid to ~~blindly agree with smartcooky~~ understand the nuances of this issue.
	__________________ Latest Blog Posts:Atheism+ More Atheism+ stuff

11th March 2013, 04:38 AM	#1013
Shiner Motor Mouth Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Up the creek. Posts: 1,083	Yep, so stupid that we can't get all emotional about it.
	__________________ Last edited by Shiner; 11th March 2013 at 04:40 AM.

11th March 2013, 11:29 AM	#1014
smartcooky Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 1,007	Originally Posted by Shiner Good way to kill a thread. Ignore all who oppose...... I has become clear that none of the pro police/court/judge group (for want of a better name) have firmly made their minds up and there is no argument that will convince them to change their minds. It has also become clear that the pro children/choice/non-violence group (for want of a better name) have firmly made their minds up and there is no argument that will convince them to change their minds. Further debate is pointless, so I'm not going bother wasting my time on the issue any longer. After this post, I'll be taking this thread off subscription.
	__________________ _{OCCAMS Razor 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Muslim extremists who were organised by Osama Bin Laden. The Apollo astronauts walked on the Moon JFK was assassinated by a single gunmen, Lee Harvey Oswald, who acted alone}

11th March 2013, 12:46 PM	#1015
tyr_13 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Falconer, NY Posts: 9,790	Originally Posted by smartcooky I has become clear that none of the pro police/court/judge group (for want of a better name) have firmly made their minds up and there is no argument that will convince them to change their minds. It has also become clear that the pro children/choice/non-violence group (for want of a better name) have firmly made their minds up and there is no argument that will convince them to change their minds. Further debate is pointless, so I'm not going bother wasting my time on the issue any longer. After this post, I'll be taking this thread off subscription. You haven't presented a sound argument that the police and courts are wrong in this case. No one is arguing that courts or authorities can't be wrong. Courts can be and have been wrong in other cases. How do we know this? By following the evidence. It doesn't mean that we can conclude therefore that they are wrong in this case. Examples of other courts (or bizarrely school officials in the US) don't prove anything for this case. So what's the evidence that the courts are wrong in this case? Nothing. Not a thing apart from assertion. It isn't even that we can argue that the courts didn't do their due diligence in examining the case as they spent two years on ultimately baseless appeals AND have shown the reasoning/evidence for their judgement. Have women absconded with their children for good reasons in the past? Yes. That's not evidence that in this case the abduction was justifiable. What evidence is there that in this case it was? Nothing, just assertion and speculation that maybe it was. And again, we cannot reasonably argue that there were justifiable reasons that we don't know of because of the extensive interviews and investigations. Have courts ignored the wishes of children before? Yes. But yet again we know that in this case it is explicitly not so. The court investigated that avenue and stated it's completely plausible reasoning in not following what they stated their wishes are. No one is arguing that the courts are right because they're the courts. No one is having blind faith in the courts. You've made up your mind and refuse address the basic flaws in your argument. Your loaded words might make you feel better, but it's painfully transparent.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

11th March 2013, 02:06 PM	#1016
banquetbear Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 373	Originally Posted by smartcooky I has become clear that none of the pro police/court/judge group (for want of a better name) have firmly made their minds up and there is no argument that will convince them to change their minds. It has also become clear that the pro children/choice/non-violence group (for want of a better name) have firmly made their minds up and there is no argument that will convince them to change their minds. Further debate is pointless, so I'm not going bother wasting my time on the issue any longer. After this post, I'll be taking this thread off subscription. ...yet another fallacy from you. I'm pro police/court/judge and pro children/choice/non violence. I don't fit your "labels." And neither does anyone else. Further debate is pointless not because people won't change their minds: but because you see this as an issue where you need to "pick a side."

11th March 2013, 09:02 PM	#1017
Shiner Motor Mouth Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Up the creek. Posts: 1,083	In my day to day life, I'll go either way as far as Police/court/judge go, and I'm very much pro children/choice. It's a pity not everyone can see that, as they say, we can lead the horse to water......
	__________________

11th March 2013, 09:17 PM	#1018
Giordano Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,393	Gee- I thought I was in the pro-fluffy kitten/pro-Nazi group.

12th March 2013, 05:55 AM	#1019
DreamingNaiad Muse Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: The forgotten sweet abyss Posts: 516	Originally Posted by joesixpack I'll take a stab at that. The children should have been separated from the mother days before the departure and held incommunicado. They should have had some time with a child psychologist during that time, and the transfer to the airport and the boarding of the plane should have been done with the press kept completely in the dark. This in no was absolves the mother of her horrible actions , of course (or the press, for that matter). I think that justice was served by repatriating the children, I just think it could have been served a bit better. I think that's what DreamingNiad is suggesting. It is, thank you. Apparently it's dumb and unrealistic to some, though

12th March 2013, 09:45 AM	#1020
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,558	Re: The Australian "custody sisters" Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad It is, thank you. Apparently it's dumb and unrealistic to some, though Why does delaying their departure help? You are basically saying the kids should be taken by suprise so the media isn't there. They will still fight with the police and holding them prisoner away from their parents for a short while isn't going to be helpful. So yes it is dumb and unrealistic.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

12th March 2013, 10:43 AM	#1021
DreamingNaiad Muse Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: The forgotten sweet abyss Posts: 516	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Why does delaying their departure help? You are basically saying the kids should be taken by suprise so the media isn't there. They will still fight with the police and holding them prisoner away from their parents for a short while isn't going to be helpful. So yes it is dumb and unrealistic. I'm pretty sure holding someone prisoner means unlawfully detaining them. With a court order it would be lawful. Just as dragging them off against their will wasn't kidnapping or abduction because of the court order. And iirc several posters here have suggested they only played up because the media were there, so perhaps without them things would have calmed down quicker.

12th March 2013, 11:30 AM	#1022
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,558	Re: The Australian "custody sisters" Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad I'm pretty sure holding someone prisoner means unlawfully detaining them. With a court order it would be lawful. Just as dragging them off against their will wasn't kidnapping or abduction because of the court order. And iirc several posters here have suggested they only played up because the media were there, so perhaps without them things would have calmed down quicker. So prison breaks don't involve prisoners as they are lawfully detained? Kidnapping and abduction have an unlawfull component but prisoners can be lawful or not.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

12th March 2013, 12:39 PM	#1023
DreamingNaiad Muse Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: The forgotten sweet abyss Posts: 516	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle So prison breaks don't involve prisoners as they are lawfully detained? Kidnapping and abduction have an unlawfull component but prisoners can be lawful or not. You're right. Looked it up and the definition seems to be along the lines of "someone deprived of their liberty or held against their will". Which happened to these girls anyway when the police took them. Taking a few days to calm them down, perhaps flying the father in to talk to them (it's the least the Aussie government could do since their embassy was involved in this mess) couldn't hurt.

12th March 2013, 12:47 PM	#1024
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,489	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Why does delaying their departure help? You are basically saying the kids should be taken by suprise so the media isn't there. They will still fight with the police and holding them prisoner away from their parents for a short while isn't going to be helpful. So yes it is dumb and unrealistic. Actually, they were only fighting when the press were present. By all accounts they were calm and compliant when the press were absent.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

12th March 2013, 01:19 PM	#1025
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,558	Re: The Australian "custody sisters" Originally Posted by joesixpack Actually, they were only fighting when the press were present. By all accounts they were calm and compliant when the press were absent. So the warnings and notification was the problem? I guess they don't need their stuff. And yet somehow despite her causing this it is still an endorsement of the mother.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

12th March 2013, 01:28 PM	#1026
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,489	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle So the warnings and notification was the problem? I guess they don't need their stuff. And yet somehow despite her causing this it is still an endorsement of the mother. I'm sorry, I can't make heads or tails of this. Are you suggesting that I'm supporting the mother?
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

12th March 2013, 03:01 PM	#1027
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,558	Originally Posted by joesixpack I'm sorry, I can't make heads or tails of this. Are you suggesting that I'm supporting the mother? You are trying to give her what she is after.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

12th March 2013, 04:29 PM	#1028
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,489	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle You are trying to give her what she is after. I'm trying to take the kids away from her. Have you read a single one of my posts on this thread?
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.