Complete and utter bollocks!

Well, well, well.

Constable Plod is becoming very inventive. I have just received a report into the 'investigation' of my complaint. According to Ploddly and his pals:

• I never disputed access to the police
• I was having a jolly discussion with police in the kitchen area until another member of the residence left his room and instructed me to cease speaking about the gentleman they had come to arrest.

What complete and utter bollocks! Absolute lies!

I told the police over and over that I wanted them to leave, that I did not want them there or entering the building. To claim otherwise is a 100% proof lie!

I never even spoke to police inside the house prior to or during the arrest, in the kitchen or anywhere else for that matter, other than to say 'that's his room there,' and that was uttered while standing in the hallway. I never even had police stand in the kitchen or common area with me until after the arrest and after the time that police supposedly overhead that statement telling me to be quiet.

Another resident did indeed leave his room to find his doorway swamped with Blue Bottles and demanded to know what they were doing there. I then called him out to the common area which was completely free of the wallopers. There was most certainly no discussion as claimed by the police whatsoever and I would like to know who the hell said it did! It was not until after the arrest that I finally screwed my courage back up again to demand to know why all six of them had all entered the building contrary to my express wishes. I was rudely blown off with some crap about operational procedure. They then had the hide to return and ask me to give a statement against the arrested party - which I flatly refused to do. How much more of their dirty work did they expect me to do?

I have challenged all police involved in this affair to individually stand before a judge and give evidence on oath about this affair, in particular those statements that are complete bullshit fabrications. I'm quite happy to do so and my conscience would be clear. Which is a damned sight more than any of that lot would be if they continued to make those statements under oath.

Here's a little warning to you all. If you ever speak to the Australian Federal Police about anything, according to the information provided to me today by the Intrepid Investigator, you 'may' be called a 'complainant' thereafter, regardless of what you spoke to them about. You could be doing a Good Samaritan act, picking the wounded chap up and letting the police know you had found him. And that is enough to qualify you as being a 'complainant.' Of course, the Intrepid Investigator did say 'may' be called complainant ie you also 'may not' be called complainant. That does beg the question why they did so in this particular instance? Are they really so simple as to not realise that to do so would be causing trouble to be both identifying me and calling me a 'complainaint'? Of course at this point, I only have their word for how I have been described as so far I have been refused access to any actual information on the actual event itself. It's apparently fine and dandy to go naming people left, right and centre but how dare they ask exactly what it is that Ploddly and his mates are alleging you to have said or done.

So far the 'investigator' has successfully managed to 100% avoid any discussion about the officer who originally took my details and stated 'he [the ultimately arrested party] will not know it was you who made the complaint.' FACT: that statement alone makes it abundantly clear that the police were treating this as a 'complaint' from the outset. Never mind the fact that I repeatedly stated that I was NOT making a complaint. So then, just how does my name appear on AFP documents identified as a 'complainant' when there wasn't apparently even any need to refer to me as a complainaint? Doesn't really add up, does it? FACT: I had just been told by the police that I wouldn't be indentified anyway - and I was.

Just what the hell is actually going on here?

The police are also sticking to the story that they originally presented to the court that they had no knowledge that alcohol was involved until during or after (that's their words, not mine) the alleged 'welfare check.' This
investigator's report insists that is correct but also quite happily makes reference to discussions about the consumption of alcohol that occurred before they talked their way into the house for other purposes. Yet the arrest has been justified on the basis that they had no knowledge prior to entry of that existence of alcohol.

Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

Now back to the alleged 'welfare check'. The investigation has successfully managed to avoid any single reference to my complaint about the way this was undertaken - six armed officers, clustered over one individual, interrogating in a hostile manner and even loudly accusing him of spitting on them - I had a clear view of that incident and no deliberate spitting occurred at all. Oh no, this was all just fine and dandy, just another day of sunshine and daisies. Nothing to be worried about at all. As I have stated before - if this is how ACT Policing deal with 'welfare checks' then should not be allowed within a bull's roar of anyone needing one! The investigation has just breezily claimed in so many words that is none of my business.

The reality is that everyone there in that location is simply being lumped together as a collective of undesirables and thus it is apparently quite permissible to treat us all like some sort of filth on the sole of the shoe.

Now did I ever want to live at Ainslie Village community housing? No bloody fear. But I had nowhere else to go. I still don't. I am not allowed access to public housing and thus am one of those who continue to fall through the cracks. Attempts to resume working even part-time have failed and so I am reliant on my small pension - just enough over the general invalid pension to make me ineligible for any assistance whatsoever, my multiple health conditions apparently not worth considering, but sure as shit nowhere near enough to be able to live by myself anywhere. I have already gone over the reasons why I ended up there often enough - all thanks to the lies and machinations of my former employer, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in their desperate bid to avoid ever being found liable for any workers compensation cases at a time when they had openly confessed to staff that reducing the size of the annual premium was considered essential for future financial well-being. I still have all of these well-documented lies if anyone is every interested, not that anyone in authority gave a shit.

I used to think the idea of police treating those lower on the socio-economic ladder was a bit of a beat up. But now I have experienced it for myself. And I am not just talking about this latest mess.

Take for example the fun and games about twelves months when an evicted resident at Ainslie Village was found to have left a bomb and bomb-making equipment behind. The place was put in 'lock down' at mid-morning, with a civilian used to monitor traffic - not a member of the constabulary, not even an employee of the management company, but another resident at Ainslie Village. When I arrived home from my then-work at around 7pm, I was turned away from the entrance but had no difficulty penetrating the perimeter by foot over a footbridge. The police weren't even aware I was there until I approached them. Pretty good 'locking down' work there, boys. At that point I was still wearing my suit from work, and it was all 'yes sir, no sir, can we be even more obsequious sir.' However when a group of us, previously determined to have been safe, were kicked out at midnight, assured to be for only an hour or two, I was in a comfortable albeit tatty pair of trackpants and windcheater that wasn't much better. No more calling me sir! From then on I was lucky to get a 'hey you' for the rest of the night. And rest of the night it was - forced from one building into a supposedly safer location that was actually nearer the potential blast site, in direct line of site, with one side of the building facing open water and thus in even greater risk of ricochet and with the end of the building directly facing the blast, being all glass windows and doors. In reality we were much safer where we originally were. And from the moment we were summarily booted out, we were treated like absolute pariahs. The comparison in attitude to when I looked like just another 'suit' was very marked and not in any positive way!

Interestingly, the best way to become left alone by the police at Ainslie Village, seems to be by becoming a drug dealer. Little enough is ever done about it. Could it be possibly be that they have simply decided that 'all the scum are in one place so we know where they are?' So ignore all that, but by all means ginger up a story in order to make Ploddly and co look better!

The bottom line is that the police behaviour on the night in question was a bloody mess. They have now seen fit to ginger the story up by denying I ever even objected to their presence, not mention inventing farcical conversations as taking place. I shall challenge Plod and his mates again - I dare you all to individually go before a judge, in my presence, and make those same statements on oath. I wonder if they all will decide to continue telling porkies before His or Her Honour?

Pathetic, Constable Plod, absolutely pathetic.

Honestly, is it any wonder that some call them 'filth?

Request lodged

I have now lodged a request for Freedom of Information access to try and find out exactly what this complaint is that I am supposed to have made against another individual that the Australian Federal Police used as justification to arrest that individual.

I still believe that it beggars belief that police are allowed to claim such information exists but despite it allegedly coming from me, I am not allowed to know what it actually is, let alone sight a copy of it.

Again I ask, why is it that an arrested party can be given that information but the person it is alleged to come from in the first place is not allowed to know anything about it?

As this is a simply outrageous position, I have also brought matters to the attention of the ACT Attorney General and the media.

Anyone prepared to wager that the AFP will be less-than cooperative in providing this information? If it even exists.

Exactly when did we become a police state?

Since posting my last entry, I have already had a couple of people querying this need to go through FOI systems at the AFP in order to find exactly what it is I am supposed to have made in a complaint against another person.


So in direct response to my express request for that information, I received the following by return email from the Professional Standards area of the AFP:

"Should you wish to obtain information in relation to any information held about you on AFP systems you may do so by placing a request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982."

Later in the day this was endorsed by the officer assigned to investigate my complaint against the AFP:

"As pointed out by XXXXXXX below, the Freedom of Information process is the most appropriate way to request documentation or information held by the AFP about you"

Their justification? That they are not permitted to release anything to me about another person. Excuse me? Exactly when did I ask them to reveal jack shit about anyone else? I didn't. The immediate matters of particular relevance I have asked for:

• for details of what the complaint is that I am supposed to have made
• a copy of the documentation being handed to others that claims I made such a complaint against another person but so far has been denied to me
• for any other information or documentation regarding me and this alleged complaint that is being held which may shed some light on the matter.

So exactly what is so secret that I am asking for? Where is all this information about other people that they have implied I was asking for? The bottom line is that the Australian Federal Police have arrested someone, supposedly on the strength of a complaint that I made against them, but I am not allowed to know anything about it!


So it seems that we have indeed descended to the level of police state, without any of us actually realising, that the police are apparently within their rights (at least in their collective minds) to refuse to tell anyone what they are alleging a person has said in an alleged complaint against another party. With that logic, they could make up any crap they like as justification for pinning anything on anyone. And then refuse to release it.

This matter has already escalated to such ridiculous levels that, as well as delivering my FoI request in the morning, I shall also be sending a complaint to the Minister in charge of ACT Policing and commencing a complaint with the Ombudsman.

The really sad thing about all of this is that I come from that lovely, safe middle-class sort of background that is taught to respect the police, that the police can be relied etc etc. Yet the events of the last eleven days will make it very hard for me to ever trust a copper again.

As for Constable Plod that the AFP tell me is now monitoring my blog, happy reading!

Q: When is a 'complaint' a 'complaint'?

A: Apparently whenever the Australian Federal Police feel like saying so, not letting the little manner of nobody actually making a complaint getting in the way of things.

For reasons of discretion, I have elected until now not make any further comment on my blog about the dramas with the police. However I have just been informed by the AFP that they are in fact reading my blog. All I can do is congratulate them on their taste! For the record, no, I did not expressly provide the link as an additional information, but merely it appeared as part of my signature block.

So here is an interesting little development. Quite a major one actually.

The other chap in this affair has apparently received formal documentation from the AFP, advising him that I both made a formal complaint against him and expressly requested police attendance against him. I say 'apparently' because I haven't seen it although a highly credible witness was shown it on Saturday and reported the contents to me on Monday. Since the emergence of that documentation. Mark has told me in no uncertain terms to get out of his sight and stay that way, so I am hardly going to be able to waltz up to him and ask to see it.

Now as a direct result of this stunt, to the vigelante-minded attitude of people in the immediate area I am a police informant and have had threats made against me- no, not by the other chap. The ever-so helpful attitude of the police to that was 'tell them it isn't true.' Oh yeah, while I'm on the ground, getting the shit literally kicked out of me, all I have to do is squeal 'it isn't true' and that magical mantra will make all the bad things go away back under the bed once more. That advice has now been updated to advise me to report any further instances of such threats. Hmmm let's see now. Police apparently making up a crock, gets me 'outed' as a police informant and cooperative. So that gets me in deep shit with some of the locals. And somehow, running back to the wallopers again is supposedly going to make it all better? Do these people even listen to what they are saying?

In discussion with someone from the AFP today, allegedly managing the complaints purpose, he could neither confirm nor deny the existence of any such documentation.

This has really put me in a most awkward spot. I have been protesting my innocence for days, claiming I did not make any complaint etc etc. And it turns out that the AFP have gone and handed out documentation informing people otherwise.

So I have been screaming at the police that I want to see a copy of this document, seeing as it makes such free use of my name. I want to see a copy of this complaint that I supposedly made. What about a copy of a statement perhaps? Of course they can't provide these because I did not make any complaint and flatly refused to give the requested statement against Mark. Or has the mere act of speaking to a police officer now sufficient to claim a 'complaint' has been made?

Now we come to the really lovely part. Despite the AFP openly describing me as having been a complainant etc, I am only allowed to see such alleged documents if I lodge a formal request under the Freedom of Information legislation. The ever-so-generous AFP, if they agree to provide me with the documents, will do so - at a charge of $15 per hour to find any such documents, plus photocopying costs, plus postage, plus fees for the time spent deliberating on the decision. Going by that scale of charges, why not also charge me for the cost of dunny paper from toilet breaks, plus an allowance for the biccies and coffee? To get out of those, I have to be able to demonstrate 'financial hardship' or that "the giving of access to documents is in the general public interest or in the interest of a substantial section of the public." And no, this allegedly making a complaint apparently does not fall within the list of things that may be released without resorting to formal FoI processes.

This is beyond ridiculous. It is quite alright to formally advise someone else that I made a complaint against them but I'm not allowed to know anything about it or even get access to the alleged information without invoking external legislation. So one man was thrown in gaol as a direct result of police deliberately conning me and abusing my trust, and now it also seems that they have decided to ginger the story up by making outrageous claims of me being a complainant against the other, making matters still worse by doing everything they seemingly can to block me from getting at any of the actual information. I do hope they are not thinking I will just go away if they stall long enough.

As Agent Muller used to say, 'the truth is out there' even if our alleged custodians of law and order seem intent on placing as many barriers to that truth emerging as possible.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

On Friday evening, one of my housemates arrived home around 10pm, a little under the weather but also greatly upset about something. We had a bit of a chat. He seemed calmer and went to his room. Shortly afterwards, he began shouting and screaming.

I have had manic episodes in the past and I have been around others who have had them. And this is just what that sounded like. I stepped outside to try and think about what to do next. At that point I found something outside belonging to my housemate that was of great value to him. It had been torn to pieces. This wasn''t just a result of a drunken lashing out or something but a deliberate and sustained effort to achieve that degree of demolition. Then the stereo went on - loud. He has never done that before at night, being too considerate of others in the house. And the shouting and screaming were going on over that.

By now, I was getting really worried. Walking  around puzzling over what to do  next, I saw a police car  arrive at the complex.  I approached the two police officers who exited the vehicle wanting to speak to them and get their opinion. Initially they did not want to, explaining they had been called to a disturbance elsewhere. But after explaining my concerns about the extent of my friends outburst, they agreed to come and have a listen. However by the time we were back at my place, all had gone quiet. I said if he had enough control to turn the stereo off then things can't be quite as bad as I thought. I apologised for wasting their time and the police gave me every indication that they were now leaving, telling me to call them if any problems arose.

I now walked up to the nearby vending machine for a can of drink. By the time I had returned to the house no more than three minutes had passed but there were now seven police at the rear of the building. I was first introduced as the person who had called them. What? I soon put that straight. I hadn't called anyone and they then backpedalled, admitting that they had originally been called for something else.

I insisted that all was now quiet and there was no problem. But I had seven police, all taller than me (including the single female officer) and staring me down, continually insisting that they needed to enter the premises to do a welfare check. I refused, again insisting that all was now quiet. They continued to argue with me that this was essential.

I then stated I did NOT want all of them coming into the house as that would only be provocative and cause trouble with someone who was already obviously upset over something. Two police then accompanied me back into the house. Perhaps foolishly, I left the rear door open. I pointed the two towards the relevant bedroom door and then stepped back out of their way. Next thing, four more police decided to let themselves into the building and went trooping down the passage to join their colleages.

When my housemate opened his bedroom door, he was now confronted by six police, all grouped around him and staring him down.

According to the subsequent police report, all they were doing was a welfare check. What complete bullshit. The report implies they had no knowledge the individual had been drinking, until during or after the welfare check. Yet more bullshit as they had gotten that out of me earlier.

The police approach in supposedly doing this 'welfare check' and their report says that was all they were doing, was to be hostile, aggressive, demanding and interrogative. I was becoming furious now. They had conned their way past me, not to do any welfare check, but to very obviously act in a provocative manner. They got what they were after. I defy anyone to keep their cool in front of that. At one point my housemate was accused of spitting on one of the officers. Excuse me - I had a clear view of that supposed deliberate spitting. He was answering a question for fuck's sake and a stray bit of spittle may have gone from his lips and landed on the officer's front. That hardly justifies accusing him of deliberately spitting! Yet my housemate apologised and said he had not meant to spit. He admitted to being upset but was not that keen on revealing all the details. He asked the police to come into his room for a talk. They flatly refused.

In the end, they got what they wanted. All of a sudden, my housemate was swamped, handcuffed and dragged away under arrest. As they were leaving, I asked why had they all come into the house and thus directly causing that confrontational situation that I had repeatedly stated I wanted to avoid. I was fed some b.s. that all officers 'called' to an incident 'must' be present in the building. What a load of crap. For that matter, they were not 'all' in the building. Only six entered - the seventh went around to the front of the building and we later realised had let himself into the greenhouse attached to the front of the building. He left both front and back doors open and we found numerous pot plants knocked to the ground and damaged.

I made repeated calls during the night trying get through to the Watch House, to check on my housemate's state and try to the get message across that  I was greatly concerned about his mental state. I finally got someone at the City (Canberra) station talking to me. In response to my concerns, I was basically told 'don't worry your little head about that' sort of thing.

I attended court the next morning in an attempt to try and give evidence in a bail hearing. For reasons that still escape me, the magistrate refused to hear that particular application, requiring it to be held over until Monday. My housemate has now been transferred to a gaol just out of town. He is still wearing the same clothes he wore on Friday and I have no way of even getting a change of undies to him. All I can hope is that someone at the court may allow me to give them a change of clothes for him to change into down in the cells before being brought before the court Monday morning.

I should note that while waiting for my housemate's application to be heard, I listened to one made by another person who had breached their bail conditions, being found highly intoxicated in the city centre the preceding evening, despite bail conditions of (a) not entering the CDB between the hours of 7pm and 6am, (b) not consuming alcohol and (c) not entering any licensed premises. Their explanation for why they had breached all three was "I forgot." But it gets better. They then denied entering any premises, arguing that they only drank what they were able to get outside on the street! Oh yeah, we all manage to get skin-full walking around the street. "Hey mate - got a spare schooner? Can you spare a rum and coke, missus?"

To my amazement, the magistrate bought this crap, continuing that individual's bail and letting them go.

Meanwhile, my housemate, who was arrested as a result of my concerns about his mental health, only because I was conned by the police into allowing them into the house, not to do any welfare check but to engineer a confrontation which is what they bloody well did, was refused a hearing and is now sitting in gaol.

I then got to see what I can only call, police stupidity.

An accused drug dealer was also facing a bail hearing. The police opposed him being granted bail. Given the amount of drugs found on the premises, I don't blame them. However the main thrust of their argument as to why he should not be granted bail was that he did not have any income including no welfare receipts, did not have any employment and thus would continue to deal. The police evidence had already stated that they had been investigating this individual for some time. Yet when questioned by the legal aid representative, who had only had a quite short to question her client that morning, the police admitted not knowing he had been in full-time employment until two weeks ago, thus, according to the Legal Aid rep, some of the money found in the premises was part of his final payout. Next the Legal Aid rep asked if they had checked with Centrelink to ascertain the precise state of her client's receipt or non-receipt of welfare monies. No, was the admission. Well if you had, advised Ms Legal Aid, you would have discovered that my client is not only a full-time student, he has an application for AusStudy before Centrelink, currently waiting on the outcome.

I sure as hell don't want drug dealers walking free. But if this is an example of how well the Australian Federal Police investigate a criminal matter, then God help us all. No wonder the Australian Capital Territory has one of the worst conviction rates going around!

I became even further incensed in listening to the police report of the incident at my place the night before. They claimed to have been expressly called to the house in relation to a disturbance. Bullshit. They implied that they had no knowledge of alcohol consumption until during or after the welfare check. Even more bullshit. Not only had they managed to get that out of me earlier, one of the officers subsequently asked me to make a statement about that consumption of alcohol for the police to use against my housemate. In view of their earlier behaviour, I did something I have never done before. I flatly refused a police request. It should also be noted that this report made no mention of my repeated concerns about my housemate's mental health, nor that I had made repeated calls during the night to try and ascertain his state of health and continuing to express those concerns.

On arriving at the court, I had with me some of the remains of the item he had torn to pieces as evidence of my housemate's state of mind. These were some shreds of light wood, some 3mm thick. Security refused to let me bring them into the building as they were a security risk. For crying out loud, I could have done more damage with the pen in my pocket, or the keys in my pocket or the clipboard and pad in my backpack, but they were allowed in. But not evidence relevant to the hearing!


How on earth can we be expected to respect the police and the judicial process when stunts like these are pulled? The law is supposed to be blind - not entirely fucked up! But then again, this is the same system that happily let a notorious drunkard sit as a Justice.


I have already lodged a written complaint to the AFP's Professional Standards area about the conduct of those officers. I can only hope that Monday morning's hearing will be conducted in a much more sensible manner.

Of course, I also have to live with the fact that it was my actions and my letting myself get conned by the police that directly resulted in my mate being dumped in gaol.

No Confidence in ‘No Confidence’ convoy

Oh boy. This was going to be bigger than Ben Hur. Organisers were at one point touting that between 5,000 and 10,000 vehicles were going to be taking part in the Convey of No Confidence, intended to display dissatisfaction with the current Australian Government of Julia Gillard.

Towns along the route were warned to expect large numbers of travellers arriving en route to Canberra. The Canberra populace were warned to expect major traffic disruptions. Parliament House staff were geared up for the thousands that the organisers insisted were going to be arriving for the protest on the lawns in front of that edifice.

Instead, the whole affair came and went as a major anti-climax. I have three separate reports of there being 180, 200 and 300 vehicles that took part. Even the highest of those three estimates is a long way short of what we all were told to expect. Organisers are now back-pedalling claiming ‘oh, we never actually said how many would be coming.’ Rubbish. It was being bleated far and wide, not least of all by Sydney DJ, Alan Jones.

Never one to shy away from creating controversy, Jones addressed the ‘rally’ claiming that police had been turning vehicles away from Canberra’s border. More bullshit. But this is Alan Jones after all. Don’t expect him to ever let the truth get in the way of a good sound bite. Al-baby wouldn’t know the truth if it bit him on the arse.

Jones supposedly later recanted the statement. But as a caller to Canberra local ABC radio pointed out this morning, it wasn’t Jones who made the retraction but merely his radio station on his behalf. Well, really, did anyone expect Jones to actually admit that he was wrong? He was quite possibly mislead by the organisers, but isn’t the onus on him to get his facts right? But then again this is the same clown who thought it was a great idea to actually advertise the Sydney race riot that spilled over from the beach to the streets and public transport system. He read out text messages on the air that said where and when. And he escaped unscathed from that mess. How he has any credibility left at all after the infamous Cash for Comment scandal is beyond me. I’d probably get more accurate information on pretty much anything from Dodgy Brothers’ Used Cars than from Alan Jones.

The whole Convoy thingy has been a fiasco. At present it is the local Canberra taxpayers who have to bear the cost of all the infrastructure movements set up in expectation of the vast hordes, expected to be the biggest and baddest flock of visitors anywhere since the Vandals decided to go on a package holiday to Rome. Reports have also emerged of the organisers contacting businesses on the travel route, asking them to be ready to cater for large numbers. Instead, hardly anyone showed, leaving said businesses out of pocket for all the perishable food stuffs brought in at the request of said organisers.

Do I have confidence the Gillard government? No, not really. But nor do I see the Jug Ears Abbott’s Opposition being much chop either. Sadly Australia has gone from being essentially a ‘two’ party system (remembering that the Liberals only get government from their Coalition with the National Party, who are increasingly becoming non-entities anyway) with some minor players at the fringes, to a No Party Worth Jack-shit system. I suspect the lack of confidence in the Convoy of No Confidence suggests public apathy more than anything.

An open letter to Miranda Devine

Dear Miranda

You really stirred up a shit storm with your recent column about the perils of the 'fatherless society'. And now in your follow up, you stir even further.

Now if what you claim in that follow up about persons inciting others to harass and bully your Facebook friends is true, then that is unacceptable. Before firing up, I will agree that you did indeed make some positive comments about Senator Wong and the impending birth. And I will also happily agree that 'Twitterverse' can soon distort a story. However your earlier column is nowhere near as innocent as you are making out.

"We are supposed to ignore Tony and Margie Abbott’s three daughters because every time he is seen with them it is some sort of unfair snub to Julia Gillard and reflection on her marital status."


What complete and utter crap. I have never once heard ANYONE make any such claim or suggestion. What about all the media coverage last election where Tony Abbott spent several weeks hardly making a move without the girls being seen with him? How does that exactly equate to us being 'supposed to ignore' them?

"The traditional heterosexual norm of a nuclear family and children is something to be kept in a closet like an embarrassment."

Where the hell did you come up with that piece of tripe? How about having a look at your own paper some time at the number of 'traditional heterosexual' marriages being reported on and included in the classifieds? Yeah, that's really pushing it all into hiding in the closet.

"In countries where [same-sex marriage] has been legalised, there has been no rush to the altar."

At the risk of sounding Hansonesque - please explain; how about some figures to back that one up? I'd go and look for myself, but hey - you're the one being paid to write that crap, not me.

The real gem however was "You only had to see the burning streets of London last week to see the manifestation of a fatherless society."


The rest of your article up to that point had opened with focusing on Penny Wong and her partner (and no, they cannot call each other anything other than 'partner' cos they ain't allowed to get married, are they), then fired salvo after salvo against same-sex marriage. From there, 'fatherless' children (which by definition includes those of two-female-parent families) were now the cause of the London riots. Now if you really weren't trying to give the impression that lesbian couples with children weren't part of that problem of rioting fatherless children, then why in hell did you even bother introducing the subject in the first place? Sweetheart, you've only got yourself to blame for that backlash.

I shall happily take your word for it that Britain is "reported to have the highest proportion of single mothers in Europe and nearly half of all children suffering family breakdown by the age of 16." But...


Miranda, honey, I think you better have a bit of a think about a little thing called cause and effect next time. It is not the lack of the father per se that is the cause of those problems including the rioting (and indeed the problems on housing estates that your friend referred to) but the fact that it is a single parent trying to cope with it all. Then there is the little thing called parental responsibility and example. By your argument, it necessarily follows that put a father in the scene and hey presto - the problem is gone. Golly - didn't the Moran family of criminals have a dad? Why yes they did. Two of them over the years in fact. And the Moran boys turned out to be such pillars of society, didn't they.

I have experienced single-parent families with children running wild but I have sure as hell have also experienced 'nuclear' families that were absolute hell on wheels. My aged parents went through an unbelievable time with a 'nuclear' family terrorising their entire street. I grew up right next door to another such family. And I have also experienced single-parent families that do not have any such problems whatsoever. In fact I was having coffee with a single-mother only earlier today and I can 100% guarantee you that her child is about as well-behaved as you're going to get. Then there is another friend of mine who finally threw her junkie husband out and is raising their three girls on her own. And those girls are as polite, respectful and well-behaved as you're going to get. Oh yeah, they really need their Dad back in their lives, don't they!

A breakdown in family structures is definitely a social problem. No argument there from me. But don't deliberately try and paint a picture that same-sex marriage is bad then leap into suggestions that the fatherless (ie including the product of all-female-parent families) were the cause of the London riots only to put your hands up and try to claim innocence afterwards.
 
It isn't a matter of having presented 'unfashionable mainstream views' (although isn't that something of a misnomer?). It is a matter of you writing a distorted mess that leaps about all over the place and crying foul afterwards when people follow your arguments to their logical conclusions.
 
Live by the sword, die by the sword; write journalistic crap, expect to receive a bucketing afterwards.
 
Politically incorrect love and kisses
 
Rossco