Family courts running out of cash; secrecy may also end


——————————————————————————–

11 June 2006

Funding fears over family courts

“Family Courts” is a misnomer; they are there to break up families, something socialists require, as well as remove men from children’s lives, something feminists enjoy.

Another motive is to make money, for all sorts of scum – judges, solicitors, civil servants, advisors – to consume endless amounts of taxpayers money. Ruining lives doesn’t matter to them, so long as they get paid and get their big fat pensions when they retire at 60 (in the UK, retirement is at 65, but civil servants can retire five-years earlier. Earlier this year there was an attempt to end this so civil servants naturally reacted to having their privileges revoked by going on strike.)

Family Courts are not required. They should not have any authority over families. Why on Earth should government workers – especially ones who are primarily feminists and socialists – be able to tell a man when (or if) he can see his children? Who the hell are they to remove a man from his kid’s life, albeit not before going through his finances and deciding how much he has to cough up? Family Courts, or any government agency, should have no say in families or divorces. If there are genuine allegations of abuse, then it’s a criminal matter. Otherwise, the government can get the hell out of people’s private lives, especially given their anti-male nature of governments in the West these days.

If they’re running out of money, then good. Tough shit. They’re a waste of resources, just a bunch of scum on the gravy train of taxpayers money, no doubt creating delays just to get more money.

There is some moderately good news:

Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman has promised a consultation paper will be published this month on throwing open the family courts to public scrutiny.

The public and media are usually banned from them – something critics say has been exploited by fathers’ rights campaigners.

But the MPs say: “If a case must go to court, though, it would go a long way towards dispelling accusations of bias and restoring public confidence in the system if the process was open – with the necessary reporting restrictions in place to protect the child.”

I doubt if such changes will go through though. These vermin love secrecy and hate the idea of being accountable for all the damage they carry out on families.

Also, Harriet Harman is a notorious feminist scum. I caught a bit of her being introduced on a political show this morning. She was being asked about a suggestion that political legislation should be put forth in plain English rather than complicated legal-speak. This seemed like it might be moderately interesting.

It soon got boring so I flicked over, and a moment later flicked back, and there was Harriet waffling on about women! Women, women, women. Explaining how politics used to be seen as “too macho” but now “more women are involved” and how politics needs “more women” to continue helping to “make changes to women’s lives.” The discussion was meant to be about the language of political legislation yet she’d managed to get onto the subject of women! This proves the point Captain Zarmband made the other day, that female politicians only care about women and only take an interest in anything depending on whether it effects women.

Ms Harman welcomed the report, saying: “Family courts make major decisions that affect people’s lives forever.

“It is hard to overstate the importance of their work and the difficult judgments they have to make.

Yeah, I’m sure she welcomed it! Her and her feminist colleagues will try all they can to ensure Family Courts are not held accountable or put under scrutiny.

And as for difficult judgements, that’s a laugh! I’m sure it’s not that difficult for them to decide “Ho hum, custody to mummy, child support demands to daddy. Next case.” And I’m sure the psychopathic scum who work in the Family Courts sleep very easy at night after deciding yet another father will be robbed of his children and perhaps only allowed to see them once a fortnight.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 8:53 AM
——————————————————————————–

At 11:36 AM, darkbhudda said…

The whole thing looks like an excuse to stop men appealing cases. I’m sure that will be seen as the solution to the government created crisis.

Plus the author of the article couldn’t resist a dig at fathers saying the lack of a public court is “something critics say [is] exploited by fathers’ rights campaigners”.

I love how people are too cowardly to backup their opinions so it’s always someone else saying it.

SBS in Australia had a programme on female domestic violence and every time it was claimed women were capable of violence they would use “it is claimed that” or “they allege” and similar language so the viewer was given the impression it was all a crock. The people claiming women were never violent and it was all an excuse made up by violent and abusive men to get access to children were never framed by comments to put them in disrepute.

——————————————————————————–

At 7:15 PM, Anonymous said…

Quite. If there are allegations of abuse it’s a matter for the criminal courts or social services. I can’t see why it’s a matter for private law.

It’s rather strange when feminists argue that in cases of domestic violence contact between the father and child should be stopped – once the mother and father are separated(!). If this was really about protecting children you would want social services to remove them from intact households where there is domestic violence, but you don’t see them arguing for that.

(And great blog, thanks for opening the comments.)

——————————————————————————–

At 8:56 PM, Captain Zarmband said…

This sounds to me like another of Blair’s little tricks. The Family Courts will give details of a couple of carefully chosen cases and suggest that these cases are typical. They will undoubtedly chose cases where the bloke is a violent scumbag and show that this is why he has been excluded from his kids. They will then imply that this is why all men are excluded from seeing their kids. The massive majority of good dads who are routinely excluded from their children will be carefully glossed over and the public at large will get the impression that the only men who are excluded are scumbags. This is typical of the lies and deceit of Blair and his Feminist flunkies who keep him in office and as a trade off get their batty man-hatred written into law.

——————————————————————————–

At 9:12 PM, Anonymous said…

Damn right. Having Harriet Harman in charge of constitutional affairs seems to me like having the KKK in charge of the Equal Opportunities Commission.

——————————————————————————–

At 9:13 PM, Anonymous said…

Great to see the comments are back Dunc, brilliant page mate.

Andrew

——————————————————————————–

At 4:44 PM, Anonymous said…

I object to the use of the word “vermin” !

It should more correctly be “vermyn”

What do you call a whole army of feminist vermyn ? — the Ver-macht!

——————————————————————————–
At 2:43 PM, Anti Misandry said…

I can’t believe they’re accusing father’s rights campaigners of ‘exploiting’ the secrecy within family courts.

As I recall, Fathers-rights groups have been complaining about the secrecy and calling for more open scenarios for the very reason that it is feminists (and government) who have exploited the secrecy of family courts.

Unbe-kcuffing-lievable :O
——————————————————————————–

%d bloggers like this: