Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» UK Column
by ceylon Today at 3:18 pm

» The Ledger Bait, Dead Men Have No Rights Justinian Deception Channel and ROHAN
by iamani Today at 3:09 pm

» Predictive programming and the music industry.
by Awoken2 Today at 3:04 pm

» Let's Have Some Tunes thread.
by Society of the Spectacle Today at 2:29 pm

» The budget deceit & animal haters?
by ceylon Today at 11:15 am

» DCA called
by 1saberwow Today at 9:40 am

» Copy of signed loan contract
by Ausk Today at 9:01 am

» Joint Bank Giro Credit Slip Missing Utility Company Has Not sent with their fake bill/s Need advice please .
by LionsShare Today at 8:35 am

» Help Required By Members
by assassin Today at 3:06 am

» Liability Order in Respect of Council Tax....
by iamani Today at 1:25 am

» Water Distiller Recommendations?
by urchinatheart Today at 1:12 am

» sold debit
by iamani Yesterday at 11:41 pm

» Continued ADL censorship of the internet
by Kestrel Yesterday at 8:15 pm

» Residence and Domicile
by iamani Yesterday at 8:09 pm

» Reality chat with peter howard and company
by Society of the Spectacle Yesterday at 7:50 pm

» Options......on Presentment
by iamani Yesterday at 7:26 pm

» Cabot - Catalogue
by dkent1977 Yesterday at 7:11 pm

» The 5 Big No's Wheat,Meat,Dairy,Starch and SOY.
by WokeBro Yesterday at 3:07 pm

» Geo Engineering, are we seeing another avoidable tragedy?
by Awoken2 Yesterday at 2:47 pm

» toms house case
by jooboi Yesterday at 11:15 am

» Troy on language
by ceylon Yesterday at 10:21 am

» Has Mugabe gone? Brexit no deal? Is it the END?
by ceylon Yesterday at 10:14 am

» Gardening Cheats
by assassin Yesterday at 1:55 am

» What the health!!
by Society of the Spectacle Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:59 pm

» The House of Torlonia
by Phillpots Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:15 pm

» Dirty Tricks
by assassin Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:07 pm

» Took me a while
by assassin Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:53 pm

» MUST SEE- Re Diabetes. Just out-but only 1st episode available.--Episode 1 - The Black Death of the 21st Century--Ep 7 just uploaded.
by epsom Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:42 pm

» Halifax Overdraft
by Willy Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:58 pm

» Cabot and interesting letters...
by Gman76 Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:54 pm

» jacobs/council tax
by pieintheskywhenIdie Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:19 am

» I've got one now - "Pastdue Credit Solutions Ltd" / SSE
by pieintheskywhenIdie Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:16 am

» sol excalibre with cookiemonster
by Society of the Spectacle Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:09 pm

» Do this EVERY time you receive a debt collect demand/claim
by assassin Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:09 pm

» LINK Financial
by assassin Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:57 pm

» Slaughterbots
by epsom Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:03 pm

» Querying a Barclaycard debt
by choccylover Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:35 pm


Men

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Men

Post by handle on Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:01 pm

Do you think Men or being male is being demonised or ridiculed by the Media.

Just look at advertising and role model characters.
look at Corrie. The main male characters are either killers, in jail, fraudsters etc.
The MoneySupermarket advert showing men ridiculing themselves with high heels etc (strotters)
The admiral insurance ad. The lady dressed as an admiral looks condescendingly at a man made to make a silly comment.
Men's bottoms being spanked by a rowing oar on a beach and accentuating a bottom with the chap on the bus trying to sit in the middle.

If these were women in the adverts there would be an uproar.

Jo Brand has recently been applauded on Have I got News for you for telling someone off for the expression "she is a big girl", to which she retorted "she is not a girl but a woman". Sports presenters often call male players "boy" and nobody batters an eyelid.

handle
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 226
Join date : 2017-04-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by mitch on Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:37 pm

There are countless examples in film and tv in recent years where white fathers and white males in general are portrayed as stupid/insane/weak/aggressive/effeminate, ridiculing strong traditional family values and "the patriarchy". It's all part of the overall cultural marxism psyop to weaken resistance to the nwo

Here's a good article from couple of years ago:

http://alt-market.com/articles/2721-how-to-stamp-out-cultural-marxism-in-a-single-generation
avatar
mitch
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 51
Join date : 2017-05-27
Location : Northumbria

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by Candor on Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:48 am

Good observation Handle and Mitch but what you are witnessing is a symptomatic of something of far more core problem and fundamental error of presumption regards status.

I hope the following legislation is of some indication to you what has in fact happened, I have spent much time attempting to alert people on this forum (in vain it seems) to our core problem - the estate.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/2

(4)

"The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child is abolished"


Is that culturally Marxist enough for you or simply an outrageous destruction of natural law ?, that you would be considered less than a man to tolerate and accept ?

If that is not enough, section 3 gives artistic license for a court surrogate to loot the child's estate as they see fit.

FFS people I realise their may not be many fathers on this forum, but for the love of god stop wasting your energy discussing trivial new age shit and fantasy and perhaps get a grip of the things that you are responsible for.

Like a corporation having it's secretary tell you your children are no longer yours, read the legislation it is in plain words folks.

Candor
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 143
Join date : 2017-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by LionsShare on Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:07 pm

Could it be assumed that "Father" is a legal construct similar or same as "PERSON", "MR." etc?
avatar
LionsShare
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 309
Join date : 2017-04-26
Location : Literally Where Ever I Am

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by iamani on Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:20 pm

Hi

LionsShare - yes. Every term on there is a legal construct.

Candor - was (4) the only thing that jumped out at you? There are several possibly important oddities in that section at first glance.....

Cheers!

iamani
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 947
Join date : 2017-05-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by LionsShare on Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:46 pm

Hi iamani,

No it was not the 1st but there are many perhaps not constructs but words which may have a different meaning to what the "straight English speaker" might think.

Just in the 1 sentence:

"The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child is abolished."

guardian would be another construct as is child.

legitimate: to me is LEGAL - thier system - as in defined by them.

natural ?  not too sure, in the definition of "PERSON" in Black's Law from what I remember it is reffered to as a "natural person" but as most here know PERSON is a legal construct - fake.
avatar
LionsShare
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 309
Join date : 2017-04-26
Location : Literally Where Ever I Am

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by Society of the Spectacle on Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:53 pm

Check it OUT;


Pity the fate of young fellows
Too long in bed with no sleep
With their complex romantic attachments
Oh, look on their sorrows and weep
They don't get a moment's reflection
There's always a crowd in their eye
Pity the plight of young fellows
Regard all their worries and cry
Their Christian mothers were lazy, perhaps
Leaving it up to the school
Where the moral perspective is hazy, perhaps
And the climate oppressively cruel
Give me one acre of cellos
Pitched at some distant regret
Pity the fate of young fellows
And their anxious attempts to forget
--
Middle verses missing,
----
Pity the plight of young fellows
Consider their troubles and moan
Embrace them when they seem downhearted
Otherwise leave it alone
Everyone owes them a favour
Nobody comes to collect
Pity the plight of young fellows
And their passionate need for respect.
avatar
Society of the Spectacle
Admin
Admin

Posts : 417
Join date : 2017-01-15
Location : Castor

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by iamani on Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:20 pm

Hi

Society of the Spectacle - that is one very clever man, and a roaring indictment of next generation ego. Cool!

LionsShare - your thinking is correct. Have you looked at the sectional extract link Candor posted?

Cheers!

iamani
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 947
Join date : 2017-05-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by LionsShare on Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:35 pm

@iamani wrote:Hi

Society of the Spectacle  -  that is one very clever man, and a roaring indictment of next generation ego. Cool!

LionsShare  -  your thinking is correct. Have you looked at the sectional extract link Candor posted?

Cheers!
Hi iamani,

the overall thought behind that to me would be more over possibly the "state" has ownership but "guardian(s)" have reponsibility to look after the item (child) which the "state" owns. And as this is a country run as a military state then "order(s)" will be given & accepted by "person(s)".

(6)A person who has parental responsibility for a child at any time shall not cease to have that responsibility solely because some other person subsequently acquires parental responsibility for the child.

(7)Where more than one person has parental responsibility for a child, each of them may act alone and without the other (or others) in meeting that responsibility; but nothing in this Part shall be taken to affect the operation of any enactment which requires the consent of more than one person in a matter affecting the child.

(8)The fact that a person has parental responsibility for a child shall not entitle him to act in any way which would be incompatible with any order made with respect to the child under this Act.
avatar
LionsShare
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 309
Join date : 2017-04-26
Location : Literally Where Ever I Am

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by Candor on Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:36 pm

You know what you need to do iamani, I am sure you are savvy enough to see that their is more to it than subsection 4, but I am trying to keep it simple and tidy for the less well read and well informed, i mean some of you could master powering a truck off ape turd, but you would rather die buggered than read the Children's Act..... what with all the distractions you have to keep up with.


Candor
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 143
Join date : 2017-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by LionsShare on Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:39 pm

Sots definatly powerful words
avatar
LionsShare
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 309
Join date : 2017-04-26
Location : Literally Where Ever I Am

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by LionsShare on Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:47 pm

Sometime in media in 2013/14 it was commented that if all "law" since the start of law making in this country up to when tony blair came to power was taken to be 1 volume, then since 1997 a further 3 to 4 equivilant volumes have been written. If that in itself is not a total distraction then what is?

Could anyone ever get to know or comprehend it all?
avatar
LionsShare
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 309
Join date : 2017-04-26
Location : Literally Where Ever I Am

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by Candor on Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:32 pm

You may also recall Teflon (made by Rabbi Gavron and the Highgate temple) Tony made a speech about Children of the State, no doubt he was brought in to raise hades to a deeper level, and hence a huge increase in rules for those wards of the state too.

This is not a distraction it is a statement of fact that the secretary of state believed he had sufficient grounds to abolish the law of natural fatherhood in this country not amend or make subject to something else but abolish (do you know what abolish means ?) and if you read the thing through you will see why, distractions are the things you cannot change and are not directly responsible for, these are created daily to keep you distracted and judging by most of the drivel in the latest posts section most are quite happy for that to prevail.

Taking control of your estate, it then follows that you take control of guarding the wards of that estate .... if this is to much for you to get to grips with, you really have no defence against this system, sots is correct in identifying that their is a military structure in place, but this does not negate the fact you must deal with the underlying presumption of your status and capacity, which is by the way alluded to in these statutes, I am not saying read thousands of them, I am saying look "here is a clue" follow the clues further ..... and can you do it, no you can't, and you won't, pity the poor bloody children.

Strap me to the bloody mast people how much more ?

Candor
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 143
Join date : 2017-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by iamani on Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:40 pm

Hi

LionsShare - one doesn't need to know the content (volumes of legislation) only the rules governing the application of the content. Hard enough in itself, true, but much easier. You've probably noticed that basically all we are doing on our journey of comprehending the state system is....... learning a new language.
Your brief synopsis on the sec 2 extract is good, it is indeed about state and guardian - but keep looking and i think you'll find more....

Candor - ok, understood. And please post more often.

Cheers!

(Just seen your post Candor)

iamani
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 947
Join date : 2017-05-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by handle on Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:42 pm

Interesting - That legislation has the word "responsibility" in every line except no 4 which uses the word Guardian. Also No 4 does not say which "Rule of LaW IT IS REFERRING TO".

So, what is a Guardian "in Law"

(Yes, N0 3 does not have the word responsibility either, but references another act as not being part of this section)

I think that, conversely, this places a burden of financial responsibility on the mother.

The point I was making at the beginning is that there is a "mood" of humiliation males generally.

instead of showing men with big bottoms, (some being spanked, in advertising) why do they not show, for eg, large genitalia in cycle shorts. Is the natural genitalia of a man a taboo. The majority of which sex are attracted to large bottoms? Women, Men, Gay oriented? So why is it being promoted? Who is the audience?

Why has a man to act eccentric or silly to be a "good chap" as some characters in Corrie show.

handle
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 226
Join date : 2017-04-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by iamani on Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:55 pm

Hi handle

i think you are right, men are being emasculated. Imo you are right to ask 'who' and 'why'.

Well spotted on the guardian/rule of law stuff. If you're interested in a mental workout keep looking - there's more in there to surprise you.....

Cheers!


iamani
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 947
Join date : 2017-05-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by iamani on Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:11 pm

Hi

Candor - ( i think it was L.S. that mentioned military - jus' sayin'). Have you thought about getting 'it' all in order? The Estate stuff, i mean. A chronology of events as it were, maybe pointing out how each part affects us? At least then you'd know everyone had the same base knowledge as yourself to work from.

i agree the Estate is of vital importance, and i'm sure i'm not the only one. Keep posting, we'll keep reading.

Cheers!

iamani
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 947
Join date : 2017-05-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by Waffle on Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:46 pm

Hi guys good thread Handle.....

They abolished the guardianship of minors... in 1989 through the Childrens Act, this gave birth to Parental Responsibility and very well pointed out, the ORDERS a parent must obey.

Traditionally in law the children and wife were property of the "father", the father being the natural guardian of legitimate children up until 1989. The mother never had guardianship and she still doesn't. Now what happens it the state grant the mother parental responsibility and if the father is the "legitimate" father or registered at birth he is granted parental responsibility too.

Bearing in mind this is the state granting us mother and father parental responsibility over our flesh and blood how the frack are they doing this. I cannot go into too much detail as the projects not quite complete, but there is only one father who has guardianship of all children in the common wealth and that is Pater Patrium (father of fathers) who is also Pater Papillorium (Father of Orphans) under the very ancient doctrine Parentis Patriea.

Now all fathers are out of the picture legitimate or illegitimate and no mother has proprietary interests in her own offspring but parental responsibility granted by the state that makes all children orphans so Pater Papillorium is Pater Patrium.

All fathers in law are putative fathers unless the contrary is proven, they have been able to do this because of the advancement of DNA technology, the fathers claim is the highest claim but you have to be able to prove your not a putative father and its not a question of retaining interests in your property legally you need to understand equity.....

Then there is two types of parental responsibility that granted and that earnt.

Traditionally the fathers duties were to provide for his family, his children. It was the fathers duty to provide a home, health care, education but today the system is cleverly designed so that very few "fathers" can afford to do this so it is up to the County to provide health care, education, dental treatment and sometimes even a home. That parentage is one whats earnt, bought shall we say.

That bought parentage enables the counties to claim parental responsibility more in the form of guardianship under a doctrine known as In Loco Parentis, That is one parent is that one who is providing for the child.

The definitions of Father and Parent from Strouds Judicial Law Dictionary can be found below.


Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary 9th Ed.
31 July, 2017

Father.

The Family Law Reform Act 1987 (c.42), s.1 now lays down as a rule of construction that references to relationships such as parent and child, brother and sister are to be construed, unless a contrary intention appears, without regard to whether or not any person's mother or father were married to each other at any particular time. See also Legitimacy Act 1976 (c.31), s.1(1).
"Father" and "mother" (Guardianship of Infants Act 1886 (c.27), s.5 (as amended by Administration of Justice Act 1928 (c.26), s.16) mean father and mother of legitimate children and only if a compelling reason can be found in a statute is the father or mother of an illegitimate child to be included (Re C. T., Re. J. T. [1957] 1 Ch. 48).
"Father" (Guardianship of Infants Act 1925 (c.45), s.3(2)) means a father amenable by any means to the jurisdiction of the English Court (Re Dulles' Settlement Trusts, Dulles v Vidler [1951] Ch. 265).
Stat. Def., "For the purposes of this Act a child's father is—(a) the husband, at the time of the child's birth, of the woman who gives birth to the child, or (b) where a person is treated as the father of the child under s.28 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (c.37) (father), that person, or (c) where neither paragraph (a) nor paragraph (b) applies, any person who satisfies prescribed requirements as to proof of paternity" (s.50(9A) of the British Nationality Act 1981 (c.61), substituted by s.9 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c.41).
Stat. Def., Adoption Act 1958 (c.5), s.57(1); Superannuation Act 1965 (c.74), s.99(1).
See further mother; child; parent.
As to who is the father of children born through a surrogacy arrangement with an international component, see Re X (Children) (Parental Order: Foreign Surrogacy) [2008] EWHC 3030 (Fam).
Stat. Def., Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 s.53.




Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary 9th Ed.
31 July, 2017

Parent.

The ordinary sense of the word "parent " is father or mother (Sibley v Perry, 7 Ves. 530; see also issue; 3 Jarm. (7th ed.) 1568–1572); but it may mean any lineal ancestor (Ross v Ross, 20 Bea. 645: "I have tried hard to understand that part of the judgment in Ross v Ross that deals with the shifting meaning of the word 'parent' "; per Brett L.J., Ralph v Carrick, 48 L.J. Ch. 809). But parent in s.2 of the Intestates Moveable Succession (Scotland) Act 1855 (c.23) meant father, and did not include grandfather: see Adams' Executrix v Maxwell [1921] S.C. 418.
But see now the Family Law Reform Act 1987 (c.42), s.1 which lays down as a rule of construction that references to relationships such as parent and child, brother and sister are to be construed, unless a contrary intention appears, without regard to whether or not any person's mother or father were married to each other at any particular time. See also Legitimacy Act 1976 (c.31), s.1(1).
Where there is a condition in restraint of marriage without the consent of "parents", a surviving parent may give the consent (Dawson v Oliver-Massey, 2 Ch. D. 753; Booth v Meyer, 38 L.T. 125; see hereon Re Brown, 18 Ch. D. 61; consent).
"The use of the word 'parent' in connection with 'issue' does not necessarily have the effect of cutting down the word 'issue' so as to mean 'children' " (per Lord Greene M.R., in Re Hipwell [1945] 2 All E. R. 476).
The use of the words "parents share only" in a provision in a settlement imports a stirpital division (Re Earle's Settlement Trusts, Reiss v Merry-weather [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1118).
"Parental dominion". Parental dominion (influence) does not necessarily cease when the child marries and leaves home (Lancashire Loans Ltd v Black [1934] 1 K.B. 380).
As to gifts from a child to his parent, see undue influence. As to construction of parent in a will, see Re Timson [1916] 2 Ch. 362.
"Parent" (Immigration Act 1971 (c.77), s.2(1)(b)) does not include the father of an illegitimate child (R. v Immigration Appeals Adjudicator, Ex p. Crew, [1982] Imm. A.R. 94).
"Parent" (Social Security Act 1975 (c.14), s.38(6)). The natural mother of a child adopted by its grandmother is not the "parent" of the child for the purpose of this Act, even when, on the death of the grandmother, she takes the child into her home (Secretary of State for Social Services v Smith [1983] 1 W.L.R. 1110).
The unmarried cohabitee of a mother was not a "parent" for the purposes of the financial provisions for children contained in Sch.1 to the Children Act 1989 (c.41) (J. v J. (A Minor, Property Transfer) [1993] 2 F.L.R. 56). A person who had had his or her parental rights removed remained a parent for the purposes of the Children Act 1975 (c.72) until an adoption order was pronounced (D. v Grampian Regional Council, 1994 S.L.T. 1038).
(Adoption Act 1976 (c.36), s.16). A putative father is not a "parent" for the purposes of this Act (Re L (a Minor) (Adoption) [1991] 1 F.L.R. 171).
Once an adoption order has been made a natural parent is no longer a "parent" for the purposes of s.10 of the 1989 Act and accordingly wouild require leave to apply for a contact order under s.8 (Re C. (A Minor) (Adopted Child: Contact) [1993] 3 W.L.R. 85).
(Adoption Act 1976 (c.36), s.72 as amended by Children Act 1989 (c.41), Sch.10). "Parent" under s.72(1) of the 1976 Act meant a parent with parental responsibility for the child under the Children Act 1989 unless the context otherwise required (C. (A Minor) (Adoption: Parties) Re; [1995] 2 F.L.R. 483).
"Parent" meant biological parent rather than someone exercising a parental role (R. v Governors of La Sainte Union Convent School, Ex p. T. [1996] E.L.R. 98).
Before the enactment of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (c.37) a male parent meant a biological parent (M (Child Support Act: Parentage), Re [1997] 2 F.L.R. 90).
Education Act 1993 (c.35), s.169). A parent was one who had full time care on a settled basis for a child so that a foster parent could be included in the definition even though the local authority exercised parental responsibility for the child (Fairpo v Humberside CC [1997] 1 All E.R. 183).
Stat. Def. The term "parent" is now usually, although not exclusively, defined in statute by reference to the concept of parental responsibility under the Children Act 1989 (c.41) (particularly ss.2 and 3): see, for example, the Adoption Act 1976 (c.36), s.72.
Note also that "child" is sometimes defined as including adopted child, glossing the meaning of "parent" accordingly: see, for example, the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c.1), s.832(5).
For a wide definition of "parent" (dealing expressly with the possibility of institutional parents) see Education Act 1996 (c.56), s.576.
In Acts pre-dating 1989 the term was commonly defined by way of including references to guardians and persons with custody: see, for example, the Education Act 1944 (c.31), s.114. And it was common to find references to illegitimate relationships, something which is not now necessary as a result of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 (c.42), s.1.
Difficult questions about parentage arise in relation to artificial insemination and other recent medical advance s.For an early attempt to define "father" and mother" with this in mind see the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (c.37), s.27 and 28.
Stat. Def., including a father not married to the mother at the time of birth but who has a residence order in respect of the child, s.67(2) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c.6).
Stat. Def., including any person looking after a child, s.4(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c.14).
See child; father; mother.
“ The Children Act 1989 does not define the term "parent" used in section 10(4)(a). There is also no definition of "father" in CA 1989. We therefore have to look elsewhere for an applicable statutory definition. In this context, I respectfully agree (as did the judge) with the observations of Butler-Sloss LJ, as she then was, in a quite different context in M v C and Calderdale MBC [1993] 1 FLR 505, 509that the natural and ordinary meaning of the word "parent" is not fixed, but changes according to the context in which it is used. Mr. J is manifestly not E's natural parent. It is therefore necessary to see if he comes within the relevant statutory definition of parent contained in the relevant Act of Parliament. . . . Two Acts of Parliament define parenthood in the context of AID. The first is the Family Law Reform Act 1987 (FLRA 1987). The second is the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (HFEA 1990). The judge was addressed, and decided the case, on the basis that section 28 of HFEA 1990 applied. He was not invited to consider FLRA 1987, section 27. In this court, however, the consensus amongst counsel was that FLRA 1987 applied to the facts of this case, given the date on which AID must have occurred. In my judgment, for the reasons which follow, HFEA section 28 does not apply, and this case is governed by FLRA 1987.
J v C [2006] EWCA Civ 551 per Wall L.J. at [17]-[18].
Stat. Def., "means a parent of a young child, and includes any individual who-
(a)
has parental responsibility for a young child, or
(b)
has care of a young child" (Childcare Act 2006 s.2(2)).
See Re G (Children) [2006] UKHL 43 and [2007] CLJ 30-32.
Stat. Def., Child Poverty Act 2010, s.27; Equality Act 2010, s.212. For discussion of the modern concept of parenthood see AB v CD [2013] EWHC 1418 (Fam)

Waffle
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 769
Join date : 2017-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by Waffle on Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:52 pm

By the way you should also check out the definition of child in the interpretations of the Childrens Act Candor cited all is not what it seems.....

Waffle
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 769
Join date : 2017-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by iamani on Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:52 pm

Hi

Waffle - is a 'child' not an immature bond? i suspect a 'child' matures into a 'person' /'personal bond' at 14 years when it activates the social security number or NINo. with a signature.

Doesn't 'pay-rents' seem more fitting then 'parents'?

i suspect the reason T.H.E.Y. have schemed so hard to gain and retain guardianship of the 'children' and 'idiots' is to keep their grip on access to the Estate funds and insurance policies.

Cheers!

iamani
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 947
Join date : 2017-05-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by Candor on Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:05 am

Handle accept my apology please if you feel I have hijacked your post, but I do honestly feel the underlying issue is a legal one before it becomes a media scheme to derogate the rights of men and turn them into obedient eunuchs which I agree tv and msm is currently portraying.

The mode are of course able to slice this thread, but you may have to request that as my requests get ignored.

Look we are dealing with seriously insane minds here who know full well what they are doing corrupting the roles of the feminine and masculine - the game has gone beyond simply parasiting of us it is now and has been for some time about our total destruction and abolition as a viable social unit - they have finally achieved their great victory over God - the parasite has actually killed the host, meaning the parasite has committed suicide - that is how sick these people are.

Lion share sorry the credit for the military obso is all yours, but if you find what we are calling you to examine distraction - the problem remains yours , not mine, perhaps it becomes all of our problem if you look from a wider perspective.

Iamani - I will be restricting my input on this forum from now on, I take on board your comments about me posting and you reading but I am not really doing this for entertainment value, I am looking for others to move this forward as well.

I am fully aware I have work to do in completing this process, enough work of my own to do, I cannot and will not do it all for others too, who are looking for a "do it for me first while I watch" fix.

Waffle has given as usual more than his fair share, by the way do you know what it costs to obtain a current strouds judicial dictionary ? do you realise how much time goes into this study which is then being given here free of charge ?

Lets have some respect for those working for your benefit please

Candor
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 143
Join date : 2017-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by handle on Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:22 am

Candor, no hijack taken :-)
I know many see this as a legal issue, but there is a trend or fashion if you like which is permeating the media.

And most often, law follows custom and practice. eg there wouldnt be a law if the proletariat were against it.

handle
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 226
Join date : 2017-04-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by Kestrel on Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:32 am

@handle wrote:Do you think Men or being male is being demonised or ridiculed by the Media.

Just look at advertising and role model characters.
look at Corrie. The main male characters are either killers, in jail, fraudsters etc.
The MoneySupermarket advert showing men ridiculing themselves with high heels etc (strotters)
The admiral insurance ad. The lady dressed as an admiral looks condescendingly at a man made to make a silly comment.
Men's bottoms being spanked by a rowing oar on a beach and accentuating a bottom with the chap on the bus trying to sit in the middle.

If these were women in the adverts there would be an uproar.

Jo Brand has recently been applauded on Have I got News for you for telling someone off for the expression "she is a big girl", to which she retorted "she is not a girl but a woman". Sports presenters often call male players "boy" and nobody batters an eyelid.

As comment has already been made this is Marxism - the attack on the male in particular white male & father figure, Money Supermarket is Jewish so is Jo Brand, it doesn't take too much to work out when you join the dots.

These people are not 'victims' nor a persecuted/discriminated people & Jayne Gardner explains this well here in an article copied on this site:
http://www.renegadetribune.com/what-exactly-is-anti-semitism/

More from her here:
https://elliotlakenews.wordpress.com/2007/06/02/jayne-gardener-speaks-her-mind/

Kestrel
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 72
Join date : 2017-08-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by LionsShare on Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:42 am

@Candor wrote:
Lion share sorry the credit for the military obso is all yours, but if you find what we are calling you to examine distraction - the problem remains yours , not mine, perhaps it becomes all of our problem if you look from a wider perspective.
No need to appologise.

No i do not call it a distraction but was more over trying to get across - if you spend all the time reading all the "volumes" of "law", that to me is a distraction because have slightly more important things to do like every day survival, & dealing with all sorts of real life entities.

Certainly reading the very important to get to know the how, why, & wherefore of "done over" & to comprehend how in some cases the blatancy of the corruption without having to read statutes/acts (eg being fined for putting bins out on the wrong day - to me anyway completely immoral). That I will agree.
avatar
LionsShare
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 309
Join date : 2017-04-26
Location : Literally Where Ever I Am

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by handle on Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:08 am

Wasn't there a father's for justice thing a few years ago, where someone sat on a roof to protest

handle
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 226
Join date : 2017-04-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Men

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum