Discussion:
America is a shit country:
(too old to reply)
Special Care
2010-02-14 22:18:11 UTC
Permalink
http://nospank.net/n-s76.htm

The fully legalised USA practice of hitting children on their buttocks
with something resembling a cricket batt produces a bonanza for the
S&M prostitution and pornography industries.

The Mafia cash in on what your teacher did to you when she beat you on
your buttocks with something that looks like a cricket bat.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this really happening in 2010?

..... only in the The Confederacy, The Confederate States of America,
the repository on the North American Continent for the filthiest scum
that had been discharged out of Europe's arsehole.

Dirty Southerners..... wife-beating, slave-owning, child-abusing
Confederates.

The filthiest, dirtiest scum out of Europe's anus - The Confederate
States of America.
http://nospank.net/n-s76.htm
Special Care
2010-02-14 22:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Is this real?
Only the Confederates?
Not the much more progressive Yankees?
http://nospank.net/violatn.htm
Mike Smith
2010-02-14 22:45:48 UTC
Permalink
Show us your evidence that kids in the USA are treated any differently
to kids in the UK? You would be far better off taking up the case of
children being molested in Britain's Public Schools, where most of our
ruling class are being trained to be fucked up individuals (and so
prepared to inflict their revenge upon the bulk of the British
population when they get into positions of power).
Special Care
2010-02-14 23:05:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Smith
Show us your evidence that kids in the USA are treated any differently
to kids in the UK? You would be far better off taking up the case of
children being molested in Britain's Public Schools, where most of our
ruling class are being trained to be fucked up individuals (and so
prepared to inflict their revenge upon the bulk of the British
population when they get into positions of power).
I didn't know there was any dispute about the legal situation, that in
about one third of the states of USA, corresponding approximately to
the Condererate States of 1861, prior to the Civil War, children,
teengagers and juvenile detainees even today have no legal protection
against physical assault by parents, teachers and juvenile detention
officers.
If bones are broken, the Rebs might discuss it. Other than broken
bones, children and teenagers have no legal protection against
phycical assault by the Rebs.

There's another revolution waiting to be won here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I HAVE A DREAM:

Mike Smith
2010-02-14 23:15:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Special Care
Post by Mike Smith
Show us your evidence that kids in the USA are treated any differently
to kids in the UK? You would be far better off taking up the case of
children being molested in Britain's Public Schools, where most of our
ruling class are being trained to be fucked up individuals (and so
prepared to inflict their revenge upon the bulk of the British
population when they get into positions of power).
I didn't know there was any dispute about the legal situation, that in
about one third of the states of USA, corresponding approximately to
the Condererate States of 1861, prior to the Civil War, children,
teengagers and juvenile detainees even today have no legal protection
against physical assault by parents, teachers and juvenile detention
officers.
If bones are broken, the Rebs might discuss it. Other than broken
bones, children and teenagers have no legal protection against
phycical assault by the Rebs.
There's another revolution waiting to be won here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I HAVE A http://youtu.be/PbUtL_0vAJk
Whatever you think the legal situation actually is, where are the
statistics to back up what you are saying? I don't believe there is
any more abuse, assault or whatever in the Southern States of the USA
than you will find (say) in the suburbs of London, where kids
regularly die from being tortured by their parents.
Special Care
2010-03-04 23:45:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Smith
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­------------------------
http://youtu.be/PbUtL_0vAJk
Post by Mike Smith
Whatever you think the legal situation actually is, where are the
statistics to back up what you are saying? I don't believe there is
any more abuse, assault or whatever in the Southern States of theUSA
than you will find (say) in the suburbs of London, where kids
regularly die from being tortured by their parents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

You may be right about some parts of London, but still - a society
degrades itself if its laws do not give children and teenagers the
same protection against physical assault as adults have legally.

It may be difficult to enforce those laws in some parts of London and
elsewhere, but at least there is a degree of "dignity" in putting it
in writing, on the statute book, that under our legal system children
and teenagers have the same legal protection against physical assault
as adults, even if difficult to enforce.

[In UK it is legal, for parents only, to smack a child lightly to
signal emphatically that the child is in error. There may be a case
for that, in a dangerous and highly imperfect world.]

On the basis of the foregoing, the Rebs need to straighten out their
laws.

The Rebs in The Confederate States of America give no legal protection
against physical assault to young people. Parents, teachers and
detention officers have almost a blank cheque to commit physical
assault against young people in their "care."

If there are broken bones, the Rebs might talk about it, and say that
someone "crossed over the line between discipline and assault."

A useful smokescreen to hide behind.

The Rebs need to straighten themselves out now.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following has recently surfaced:
http://nospank.net/n-s92.htm
".............................this month, another child has died: 7-
year-old Lydia Schatz, an apparent victim of repeated beating with --
as it turns out -- quarter-inch plumbing supply line. Her parents,
Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz of Paradise, Calif., who reportedly called
911 to report that she was not breathing, stand charged with her
murder. They are expected to enter a plea on Thursday. According to
the authorities, forceful and numerous whippings, apparently with
plumbing line, may have caused tissue breakdown so massive that
Lydia's vital organs could no longer function. The Schatzes also face
torture and abuse charges for significant injuries sustained by
Lydia's also-adopted sister Zariah, 11, who was hospitalized in
critical condition, as well as for extensive bruising on a 10-year-old
biological son. (The Schatzes have six biological children and three
adopted from Liberia.) Though the remaining children showed no visible
signs of abuse, they told police they'd been "disciplined" with the
tubing as well. Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey told Salon
that the Schatzes had explicitly described to police their adherence
to the Pearls' philosophy, which, as one of many horrified anti-Pearl
bloggers within the conservative Christian community observes --
recalling precisely what prompted the Schatzes' call to 911 --
includes the admonition that a proper spanking leaves a child "without
breath to complain."

It's one thing for those of us outside the fundamentalist Christian/
Christian home-schooling world to point fingers at the Pearls and
voice outrage at their methods. What really matters, and what stands
to have actual impact, is the outrage inside the Pearls' world. And
right now, more than ever, an anti-Pearl movement within the
conservative Christian community is rising up in heated, if sometimes
whispered, fury. Some say -- even pray -- that Lydia Schatz's death
will bring Michael and Debi Pearl exactly the kind of attention they
deserve.

"I think many in the Christian and/or home-school community wanted to
see Sean Paddock as an 'extreme' example. Lynn Paddock was 'just' a
foster mom. She already had issues. Whatever someone could use to
rationalize away the influence of Michael and Debi Pearl, they would.
Because they did not want to admit that a 'normal' home-schooling mom
could abuse her child to death, they did not want to admit that a book
that has been normalized in home-schooling circles was a factor in the
death, they did not want to admit their own vulnerability to being
deceived or hurting their child," says Alexandra Bush, 35, a "home-
schooling mom and theologically conservative Christian" in Sarasota,
Fla., who grew up with Pearl-style teaching around her (though not in
her family) and who is an oft-heard anti-Pearl voice online. "Now,
with Lydia Schatz, it is harder to explain away. I have seen a
stronger response than before to her death and her sister's
hospitalization. The defensiveness has cracked a bit. This is the
logical outcome of the spank-until-submissive teachings of the Pearls.
People are no longer able to see it as just an 'exception.'"

In a statement issued in response to the Schatz arrest, Michael Pearl
said, "We do not teach 'corporal punishment' nor 'hitting' children.
We teach parents how to train their children, which sometimes requires
the limited and controlled application of a spanking instrument to
hold the child's attention on admonition ... No Greater Joy does not
advocate spanking to the point of serious injury. If indeed these
parents were abusive, and that has not yet been proven by the courts,
it is regretful that our teachings were not able to turn them from
their predisposition to abusive habits."

Many critics of "biblical chastisement" -- notably, those close to the
controversy, and even to the Schatz family -- might say that Pearl has
it backward. They suggest that his teachings, with all the weight of
their godly imprimatur, could exacerbate, or even create, the impulse
to abuse. Paul Mathers, 32, a used bookstore owner in Chico, Calif.,
knows the Schatzes well, or thought he did. They attended his church
for about eight months. He and his wife, Laurie -- who wrote in a
wrenching blog post about her special bond with "little Lydia" -- have
had dinner at the Schatzes' house; the Schatzes, remembering that the
Matherses needed a bookcase, dropped off an extra just to be nice.
"There is nothing about the Schatzes that would ever have made us
think abuse of any kind was going on," Mathers says. "They are the
dearest, sweetest people. This is completely unimaginable." Could the
Pearls' principles have triggered abusive tendencies out of nowhere?
Obviously, Mathers -- who says he finds the Pearls' "chastisement"
philosophy "morally repugnant" -- can only speculate. "But one of the
things the Pearls suggest is to have the piece of piping in every room
and possibly even hang around your neck as you go around the house to
keep the child in line," he says. "If you're going around wearing an
instrument with which you hit things many times a day -- I could
imagine that does do something to people."

As Laurie Mathers wrote on her blog: "The Pearls' system does not just
mold children, it molds well-meaning parents into the kind of people
who think they can and should expect perfect obedience and perfect
behavior from imperfect and defenseless little creatures. In fact, it
teaches them that if they don't succeed in this, they are not fit to
be parents at all."

Or take Meggan Judge, interviewed by the Raleigh News & Observer and
then by Salon in 2006, who found that her postpartum depression and
the Pearls' principles were such a toxic combination that she had to
lock herself in a separate room for fear she would "beat [her son]
senseless."

"Obviously, I don't think Mr. Pearl stood over Lydia's body with
plumbing line in hand," says Rebecca Diamond, a Bible Belt-born
observant Christian and home-schooler in eastern Canada whose blog is
critical of the Pearls. "But when he uses phrases such as continuing
to whip until the crying turns into a 'wounded, submissive whimper' or
'without breath to complain,' I'm not sure how he doesn't bear moral
guilt for this. Legally, I don't know if he can be charged. But
morally? I believe that absolutely, anyone who advocates treating
children like that bears responsibility."

It's not just about parents who lose it or children who die. A Pearl
spokesperson says that more than 1,400,000 copies of their book "To
Train Up a Child" are in print worldwide, distributed at conferences,
in church-member welcome baskets, and to military families. What about
the kids who live with this "discipline" every day? Diamond, for
example, recalls hearing a mother talk about hitting her 6-month-old
with a glue stick because the child "cooed and wriggled during a two-
hour-long church service, and she wanted to 'train' the child to be
silent."

"My wife and I are Christians and the Pearl system is one of the most
anti-Christian systems I've ever heard of," says Mathers. "Part of
what unnerves me is how many Christians I've encountered in the past
week who either follow the Pearl system or step around it, saying,
'They may be a little extreme, but there's some good principles in
there.' It scares me that there are people walking around with such
things being acceptable in their heads. It scares me that people who
call themselves Christians are willing to be so mean and merciless, or
at the very least, that they feel OK condoning people like
that." (Mathers is also not alone in believing that -- long
hermeneutical story short -- the Pearls’ entire ministry is based on
flawed, even heretical, theology.)

He adds: "Not to be crass, but you slap the title 'Christian' on
something, and all of a sudden it's the 'Christian' thing. Sometimes,
in my experience, that's all it takes for Christians to start
following something. There's not a whole lot of discernment."

There are other, more concrete hypotheses as to why the Pearls'
extreme philosophy -- though based on principles that are hardly brand-
new -- has taken such hold now. Some see it as another weapon, taken
up out of fear, in the ever-escalating conservative Christian vs.
"secular" culture wars. Diamond's theory: "Pearl's books play on
common fears in the subculture of the deeply religious home-schooling
family, who is already by their own choice on the fringes of society:
the fear that 'the world' will steal children away, the fear that
somehow the parents will be to blame."

Also, the particulars of child-training are only one aspect of the
Pearls' ministry. "The focus when their teachings are promoted isn't
on the spanking, but on the 'tying heartstrings' and enjoying your
kids," says Alexandra Bush. "It is easy to filter out the harsher
teachings, the extremism, when surrounded by word pictures of
peaceful, loving, fun families. The Pearls seem to tell parents that
they just have to 'win' once and make sure their children know who is
in charge, and then they will never have to spank again. That's how
parents get sucked in -- promises of a fun, peaceful home, minimal
confrontation, doing the 'right thing' for their children. Basically,
the BS detectors are turned off by the pretty promises that are
made."

Bush believes that's why the Pearls' teachings hold so much appeal for
conservative, home-schooling parents who are, overall, "highly
motivated to spend time with their children, love their children,
willing to make sacrifices for their children, want the best for their
children. They are not, in general, people prone to neglecting their
kids or motivated by abuse and anger," she says. "So when people
criticize the Pearls and in the same breath misrepresent parents who
use Pearl parenting, those parents easily tune out the criticism."

And that's where the Pearls get their relatively "free pass," she
concludes: "People know parents who are amazing and love their kids
and don't abuse them -- and recommend the Pearls -- and so they have
trouble believing the truth about the awful teachings. After all, if
your home-school neighbor family looks like they have it all together,
has sweet children and a calm mother -- and they use the Pearls, and
they don't beat their kids -- then obviously it must be the critics
who are wrong. Add to that the loyalty home-school parents have to the
home-school movement -- hard to criticize one's own. Finally, even if
someone can see the problems with the Pearls' words, they may be
unwilling to admit that the Pearls are completely wrong and off their
rocker, because that would be admitting that they themselves were
susceptible to bad advice and may have harmed their own kids."

In other words, says Diamond, Pearl devotees are "loving people,
people who take joy in their children, in their marriages, who like to
participate in the community and do good for others. They aren't
monsters. It would be easier, I think, to speak up loudly if they
were."

Well, with the Schatzes, the anti-Pearl agitators have their monsters.
Diamond believes that the already growing criticism of the Pearls
within conservative Christianity -- which, beyond child-"training,"
also involves complex doctrinal differences and quasi-feminist debate
over Debi Pearl's view of "heavenly marriage" -- will now continue to
gain in volume. It's already happening, Diamond says: "I know of many
women and men who are quietly speaking out. When material from the
Pearls is suggested for parenting classes or Bible studies, they are
speaking with the pastor, refuting the materials, begging people to
really read what is being said. When another parent mentions the
material, they politely respond with the reasons why they'd never use
or endorse it. And they are often successful."

Bush reports the same thing. "In my local circles I've seen [Lydia
Schatz’s death] as a catalyst for people and leaders in the church to
speak up," she says. One church is planning a Sunday school event to
focus on abusive parenting, aimed at parents and at grandparents,
given that they might also be effective at intervention. In other
churches, a mothers’ group director and other lay leaders have vowed
to remain silent no more when they hear someone promoting the Pearls.

Christian and home-schooling bloggers are also voicing increasing anti-
Pearl sentiment, and not just the ones who already reject any form of
punitive parenting, Bush notes. Timberdoodle, a highly regarded and
influential resource for conservative home-schoolers, responded to
Lydia Schatz's death by exhorting its community to speak up: "Read, be
informed, and share with your friends. There are many new, well-
meaning parents who are looking for instruction and help in parenting.
Use your knowledge to help them keep away from this dangerous path."

But discrediting the Pearls shouldn't depend on word-of-mouth or the
grass roots, Bush argues. "As a Christian, I believe it has been a
failing of the evangelical church in the U.S. as a whole for not
warning their members about this type of harmful teaching. It is
something the church cannot, biblically, ignore," she says, noting
that increasing resistance to the Pearls comes at a time when even
those in the most conservative Christian circles are reevaluating, on
theological grounds, the evangelical movement's embrace of the
practice of corporal punishment.

Still, Bush doesn't believe that the Pearls will ever be fully
discredited or lose their influence in the Christian home-school
community. "But," she says, "I do believe that their teachings will be
more vocally warned against, more critically evaluated."

At the very least, critics of the Pearls are holding fast to the hope
-- or, rather, growing evidence -- that Lydia's death will, somehow,
not be in vain. "I hope that this will wake up enough people who
follow them," says Rebecca Diamond. "If everyone stopped buying their
books and hiring them to speak, they'd be as powerless and voiceless
as all the children who have suffered under their teaching."

Paul Mathers shares that vision. Though unlikely to be fully realized,
it's a pure expression of his and his wife's grief and rage -- for 7-
year-old Lydia, for their friends the Schatzes, who had them for
dinner, who gave them bookshelves. "If there were a strong enough
popular opinion against the Pearls you wouldn't have a large number of
Christians in a system like this, and then you wouldn't have a small
number of Christians who go too far or make a mistake," he says. "I
would love to see the people rise up and say no to the Pearls, that
this will not stand. I would love to see the Pearl system become
anathema, disgusting, and shunned by the world. I would love to see
the Pearls out of a job. Before another child dies."
Mike Smith
2010-03-05 00:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Special Care
Post by Mike Smith
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­------------------------
http://youtu.be/PbUtL_0vAJk
Post by Mike Smith
Whatever you think the legal situation actually is, where are the
statistics to back up what you are saying? I don't believe there is
any more abuse, assault or whatever in the Southern States of theUSA
than you will find (say) in the suburbs of London, where kids
regularly die from being tortured by their parents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You may be right about some parts of London, but still - a society
degrades itself if its laws do not give children and teenagers the
same protection against physical assault as adults have legally.
It may be difficult to enforce those laws in some parts of London and
elsewhere, but at least there is a degree of "dignity" in putting it
in writing, on the statute book, that under our legal system children
and teenagers have the same legal protection against physical assault
as adults, even if difficult to enforce.
[In UK it is legal, for parents only, to smack a child lightly to
signal emphatically that the child is in error. There may be a case
for that, in a dangerous and highly imperfect world.]
On the basis of the foregoing, the Rebs need to straighten out their
laws.
The Rebs in The Confederate States of America give no legal protection
against physical assault to young people. Parents, teachers and
detention officers have almost a blank cheque to commit physical
assault against young people in their "care."
If there are broken bones, the Rebs might talk about it, and say that
someone "crossed over the line between discipline and assault."
A useful smokescreen to hide behind.
The Rebs need to straighten themselves out now.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following has recently surfaced:http://nospank.net/n-s92.htm
".............................this month, another child has died: 7-
year-old Lydia Schatz, an apparent victim of repeated beating with --
as it turns out -- quarter-inch plumbing supply line. Her parents,
Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz of Paradise, Calif., who reportedly called
911 to report that she was not breathing, stand charged with her
murder. They are expected to enter a plea on Thursday. According to
the authorities, forceful and numerous whippings, apparently with
plumbing line, may have caused tissue breakdown so massive that
Lydia's vital organs could no longer function. The Schatzes also face
torture and abuse charges for significant injuries sustained by
Lydia's also-adopted sister Zariah, 11, who was hospitalized in
critical condition, as well as for extensive bruising on a 10-year-old
biological son. (The Schatzes have six biological children and three
adopted from Liberia.) Though the remaining children showed no visible
signs of abuse, they told police they'd been "disciplined" with the
tubing as well. Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey told Salon
that the Schatzes had explicitly described to police their adherence
to the Pearls' philosophy, which, as one of many horrified anti-Pearl
bloggers within the conservative Christian community observes --
recalling precisely what prompted the Schatzes' call to 911 --
includes the admonition that a proper spanking leaves a child "without
breath to complain."
It's one thing for those of us outside the fundamentalist Christian/
Christian home-schooling world to point fingers at the Pearls and
voice outrage at their methods. What really matters, and what stands
to have actual impact, is the outrage inside the Pearls' world. And
right now, more than ever, an anti-Pearl movement within the
conservative Christian community is rising up in heated, if sometimes
whispered, fury. Some say -- even pray -- that Lydia Schatz's death
will bring Michael and Debi Pearl exactly the kind of attention they
deserve.
"I think many in the Christian and/or home-school community wanted to
see Sean Paddock as an 'extreme' example. Lynn Paddock was 'just' a
foster mom. She already had issues. Whatever someone could use to
rationalize away the influence of Michael and Debi Pearl, they would.
Because they did not want to admit that a 'normal' home-schooling mom
could abuse her child to death, they did not want to admit that a book
that has been normalized in home-schooling circles was a factor in the
death, they did not want to admit their own vulnerability to being
deceived or hurting their child," says Alexandra Bush, 35, a "home-
schooling mom and theologically conservative Christian" in Sarasota,
Fla., who grew up with Pearl-style teaching around her (though not in
her family) and who is an oft-heard anti-Pearl voice online. "Now,
with Lydia Schatz, it is harder to explain away. I have seen a
stronger response than before to her death and her sister's
hospitalization. The defensiveness has cracked a bit. This is the
logical outcome of the spank-until-submissive teachings of the Pearls.
People are no longer able to see it as just an 'exception.'"
In a statement issued in response to the Schatz arrest, Michael Pearl
said, "We do not teach 'corporal punishment' nor 'hitting' children.
We teach parents how to train their children, which sometimes requires
the limited and controlled application of a spanking instrument to
hold the child's attention on admonition ... No Greater Joy does not
advocate spanking to the point of serious injury. If indeed these
parents were abusive, and that has not yet been proven by the courts,
it is regretful that our teachings were not able to turn them from
their predisposition to abusive habits."
Many critics of "biblical chastisement" -- notably, those close to the
controversy, and even to the Schatz family -- might say that Pearl has
it backward. They suggest that his teachings, with all the weight of
their godly imprimatur, could exacerbate, or even create, the impulse
to abuse. Paul Mathers, 32, a used bookstore owner in Chico, Calif.,
knows the Schatzes well, or thought he did. They attended his church
for about eight months. He and his wife, Laurie -- who wrote in a
wrenching blog post about her special bond with "little Lydia" -- have
had dinner at the Schatzes' house; the Schatzes, remembering that the
Matherses needed a bookcase, dropped off an extra just to be nice.
"There is nothing about the Schatzes that would ever have made us
think abuse of any kind was going on," Mathers says. "They are the
dearest, sweetest people. This is completely unimaginable." Could the
Pearls' principles have triggered abusive tendencies out of nowhere?
Obviously, Mathers -- who says he finds the Pearls' "chastisement"
philosophy "morally repugnant" -- can only speculate. "But one of the
things the Pearls suggest is to have the piece of piping in every room
and possibly even hang around your neck as you go around the house to
keep the child in line," he says. "If you're going around wearing an
instrument with which you hit things many times a day -- I could
imagine that does do something to people."
As Laurie Mathers wrote on her blog: "The Pearls' system does not just
mold children, it molds well-meaning parents into the kind of people
who think they can and should expect perfect obedience and perfect
behavior from imperfect and defenseless little creatures. In fact, it
teaches them that if they don't succeed in this, they are not fit to
be parents at all."
Or take Meggan Judge, interviewed by the Raleigh News & Observer and
then by Salon in 2006, who found that her postpartum depression and
the Pearls' principles were such a toxic combination that she had to
lock herself in a separate room for fear she would "beat [her son]
senseless."
"Obviously, I don't think Mr. Pearl stood over Lydia's body with
plumbing line in hand," says Rebecca Diamond, a Bible Belt-born
observant Christian and home-schooler in eastern Canada whose blog is
critical of the Pearls. "But when he uses phrases such as continuing
to whip until the crying turns into a 'wounded, submissive whimper' or
'without breath to complain,' I'm not sure how he doesn't bear moral
guilt for this. Legally, I don't know if he can be charged. But
morally? I believe that absolutely, anyone who advocates treating
children like that bears responsibility."
It's not just about parents who lose it or children who die. A Pearl
spokesperson says that more than 1,400,000 copies of their book "To
Train Up a Child" are in print worldwide, distributed at conferences,
in church-member welcome baskets, and to military families. What about
the kids who live with this "discipline" every day? Diamond, for
example, recalls hearing a mother talk about hitting her 6-month-old
with a glue stick because the child "cooed and wriggled during a two-
hour-long church service, and she wanted to 'train' the child to be
silent."
"My wife and I are Christians and the Pearl system is one of the most
anti-Christian systems I've ever heard of," says Mathers. "Part of
what unnerves me is how many Christians I've encountered in the past
week who either follow the Pearl system or step around it, saying,
'They may be a little extreme, but there's some good principles in
there.' It scares me that there are people walking around with such
things being acceptable in their heads. It scares me that people who
call themselves Christians are willing to be so mean and merciless, or
at the very least, that they feel OK condoning people like
that." (Mathers is also not alone in believing that -- long
hermeneutical story short -- the Pearls’ entire ministry is based on
flawed, even heretical, theology.)
He adds: "Not to be crass, but you slap the title 'Christian' on
something, and all of a sudden it's the 'Christian' thing. Sometimes,
in my experience, that's all it takes for Christians to start
following something. There's not a whole lot of discernment."
There are other, ...
read more »
I don't know what you are trying to prove? Sure, there are cases of
child abuse in the USA, but no law is going to stop this happening. We
have had the recent cases of children killed in their own homes here
in the UK - that is against the law here, but it still happens. Sh*t
happens everywhere, and no matter what laws are in place to stop it -
Law means nothing to those who care nothing about the Law.

The care of children in society is something that is based on the
norms within our society. If we collectively turn a blind eye to child
abuse then it will continue. Some parents should not have custody of
their own kids. We all know that.
Freddy
2010-03-05 01:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Smith
Post by Special Care
Post by Mike Smith
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­------------------------
http://youtu.be/PbUtL_0vAJk
Post by Mike Smith
Whatever you think the legal situation actually is, where are the
statistics to back up what you are saying? I don't believe there is
any more abuse, assault or whatever in the Southern States of theUSA
than you will find (say) in the suburbs of London, where kids
regularly die from being tortured by their parents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You may be right about some parts of London, but still - a society
degrades itself if its laws do not give children and teenagers the
same protection against physical assault as adults have legally.
It may be difficult to enforce those laws in some parts of London and
elsewhere, but at least there is a degree of "dignity" in putting it
in writing, on the statute book, that under our legal system children
and teenagers have the same legal protection against physical assault
as adults, even if difficult to enforce.
[In UK it is legal, for parents only, to smack a child lightly to
signal emphatically that the child is in error. There may be a case
for that, in a dangerous and highly imperfect world.]
On the basis of the foregoing, the Rebs need to straighten out their
laws.
The Rebs in The Confederate States of America give no legal protection
against physical assault to young people. Parents, teachers and
detention officers have almost a blank cheque to commit physical
assault against young people in their "care."
If there are broken bones, the Rebs might talk about it, and say that
someone "crossed over the line between discipline and assault."
A useful smokescreen to hide behind.
The Rebs need to straighten themselves out now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--------------
The following has recently surfaced:http://nospank.net/n-s92.htm
".............................this month, another child has died: 7-
year-old Lydia Schatz, an apparent victim of repeated beating with --
as it turns out -- quarter-inch plumbing supply line. Her parents,
Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz of Paradise, Calif., who reportedly called
911 to report that she was not breathing, stand charged with her
murder. They are expected to enter a plea on Thursday. According to
the authorities, forceful and numerous whippings, apparently with
plumbing line, may have caused tissue breakdown so massive that
Lydia's vital organs could no longer function. The Schatzes also face
torture and abuse charges for significant injuries sustained by
Lydia's also-adopted sister Zariah, 11, who was hospitalized in
critical condition, as well as for extensive bruising on a 10-year-old
biological son. (The Schatzes have six biological children and three
adopted from Liberia.) Though the remaining children showed no visible
signs of abuse, they told police they'd been "disciplined" with the
tubing as well. Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey told Salon
that the Schatzes had explicitly described to police their adherence
to the Pearls' philosophy, which, as one of many horrified anti-Pearl
bloggers within the conservative Christian community observes --
recalling precisely what prompted the Schatzes' call to 911 --
includes the admonition that a proper spanking leaves a child "without
breath to complain."
It's one thing for those of us outside the fundamentalist Christian/
Christian home-schooling world to point fingers at the Pearls and
voice outrage at their methods. What really matters, and what stands
to have actual impact, is the outrage inside the Pearls' world. And
right now, more than ever, an anti-Pearl movement within the
conservative Christian community is rising up in heated, if sometimes
whispered, fury. Some say -- even pray -- that Lydia Schatz's death
will bring Michael and Debi Pearl exactly the kind of attention they
deserve.
"I think many in the Christian and/or home-school community wanted to
see Sean Paddock as an 'extreme' example. Lynn Paddock was 'just' a
foster mom. She already had issues. Whatever someone could use to
rationalize away the influence of Michael and Debi Pearl, they would.
Because they did not want to admit that a 'normal' home-schooling mom
could abuse her child to death, they did not want to admit that a book
that has been normalized in home-schooling circles was a factor in the
death, they did not want to admit their own vulnerability to being
deceived or hurting their child," says Alexandra Bush, 35, a "home-
schooling mom and theologically conservative Christian" in Sarasota,
Fla., who grew up with Pearl-style teaching around her (though not in
her family) and who is an oft-heard anti-Pearl voice online. "Now,
with Lydia Schatz, it is harder to explain away. I have seen a
stronger response than before to her death and her sister's
hospitalization. The defensiveness has cracked a bit. This is the
logical outcome of the spank-until-submissive teachings of the Pearls.
People are no longer able to see it as just an 'exception.'"
In a statement issued in response to the Schatz arrest, Michael Pearl
said, "We do not teach 'corporal punishment' nor 'hitting' children.
We teach parents how to train their children, which sometimes requires
the limited and controlled application of a spanking instrument to
hold the child's attention on admonition ... No Greater Joy does not
advocate spanking to the point of serious injury. If indeed these
parents were abusive, and that has not yet been proven by the courts,
it is regretful that our teachings were not able to turn them from
their predisposition to abusive habits."
Many critics of "biblical chastisement" -- notably, those close to the
controversy, and even to the Schatz family -- might say that Pearl has
it backward. They suggest that his teachings, with all the weight of
their godly imprimatur, could exacerbate, or even create, the impulse
to abuse. Paul Mathers, 32, a used bookstore owner in Chico, Calif.,
knows the Schatzes well, or thought he did. They attended his church
for about eight months. He and his wife, Laurie -- who wrote in a
wrenching blog post about her special bond with "little Lydia" -- have
had dinner at the Schatzes' house; the Schatzes, remembering that the
Matherses needed a bookcase, dropped off an extra just to be nice.
"There is nothing about the Schatzes that would ever have made us
think abuse of any kind was going on," Mathers says. "They are the
dearest, sweetest people. This is completely unimaginable." Could the
Pearls' principles have triggered abusive tendencies out of nowhere?
Obviously, Mathers -- who says he finds the Pearls' "chastisement"
philosophy "morally repugnant" -- can only speculate. "But one of the
things the Pearls suggest is to have the piece of piping in every room
and possibly even hang around your neck as you go around the house to
keep the child in line," he says. "If you're going around wearing an
instrument with which you hit things many times a day -- I could
imagine that does do something to people."
As Laurie Mathers wrote on her blog: "The Pearls' system does not just
mold children, it molds well-meaning parents into the kind of people
who think they can and should expect perfect obedience and perfect
behavior from imperfect and defenseless little creatures. In fact, it
teaches them that if they don't succeed in this, they are not fit to
be parents at all."
Or take Meggan Judge, interviewed by the Raleigh News & Observer and
then by Salon in 2006, who found that her postpartum depression and
the Pearls' principles were such a toxic combination that she had to
lock herself in a separate room for fear she would "beat [her son]
senseless."
"Obviously, I don't think Mr. Pearl stood over Lydia's body with
plumbing line in hand," says Rebecca Diamond, a Bible Belt-born
observant Christian and home-schooler in eastern Canada whose blog is
critical of the Pearls. "But when he uses phrases such as continuing
to whip until the crying turns into a 'wounded, submissive whimper' or
'without breath to complain,' I'm not sure how he doesn't bear moral
guilt for this. Legally, I don't know if he can be charged. But
morally? I believe that absolutely, anyone who advocates treating
children like that bears responsibility."
It's not just about parents who lose it or children who die. A Pearl
spokesperson says that more than 1,400,000 copies of their book "To
Train Up a Child" are in print worldwide, distributed at conferences,
in church-member welcome baskets, and to military families. What about
the kids who live with this "discipline" every day? Diamond, for
example, recalls hearing a mother talk about hitting her 6-month-old
with a glue stick because the child "cooed and wriggled during a two-
hour-long church service, and she wanted to 'train' the child to be
silent."
"My wife and I are Christians and the Pearl system is one of the most
anti-Christian systems I've ever heard of," says Mathers. "Part of
what unnerves me is how many Christians I've encountered in the past
week who either follow the Pearl system or step around it, saying,
'They may be a little extreme, but there's some good principles in
there.' It scares me that there are people walking around with such
things being acceptable in their heads. It scares me that people who
call themselves Christians are willing to be so mean and merciless, or
at the very least, that they feel OK condoning people like
that." (Mathers is also not alone in believing that -- long
hermeneutical story short -- the Pearls’ entire ministry is based on
flawed, even heretical, theology.)
He adds: "Not to be crass, but you slap the title 'Christian' on
something, and all of a sudden it's the 'Christian' thing. Sometimes,
in my experience, that's all it takes for Christians to start
following something. There's not a whole lot of discernment."
There are other, ...
read more »
I don't know what you are trying to prove? Sure, there are cases of
child abuse in the USA, but no law is going to stop this happening. We
have had the recent cases of children killed in their own homes here
in the UK - that is against the law here, but it still happens. Sh*t
happens everywhere, and no matter what laws are in place to stop it -
Law means nothing to those who care nothing about the Law.
The care of children in society is something that is based on the
norms within our society. If we collectively turn a blind eye to child
abuse then it will continue. Some parents should not have custody of
their own kids. We all know that.
Mike ***special care is Peter Newmann***, hes anut of the 1st water,
mate of O'Gara et all, he will argue for the sake of arguing, hes a
complete waste of space, unless u change ur name to O'Gara and rant on
about midgets, sniffers, dwarfs, homos, peds, and I understand he has
a fetish for an ass or 3, expect rubbish from him or to be forever
pestered by him
Special Care
2010-03-05 02:48:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Freddy
Post by Special Care
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­­------------------------
http://youtu.be/PbUtL_0vAJk
Mike ***special care is Peter Newmann***, hes anut of the 1st water,
mate of O'Gara et all, he will argue for the sake of arguing, hes a
complete waste of space, unless u change ur name to O'Gara and rant on
about midgets, sniffers, dwarfs, homos, peds, and I understand he has
a fetish for an ass or 3, expect rubbish from him or to be forever
pestered by him
------------------------------------------------

I think Mike knows who I am.

I have something to contribute.

I took an interest in the anomalies of the Yorkshire Ripper case, as
you did, Tony.

[I have no personal connection with Noel O'Gara but admire him for
having kept the truth about the Yorkshire Ripper cover up alive in the
public consciousness for all these years.]

I've also offered a hitherto ignored analysis of the mother-infant
relationship, including the question of anal eroticism.

It's a bit rich for you to talk about someone "pestering" someone
else, after the way you pestered Noel O'Gara following the abortive
press conference in Leeds in December 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHO IS TONY HOLLAND?
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.uk.law/msg/3047f8ea2b6506eb

THE SNIFFING MIDGET:
http://www.legalspring.com/articles/uk-legal/20060521/1176181_The-sniffing-midget.html

------------------------------------------------------
REPRODUCED FROM ARCHIVE:

Fredie Smith is....... Tony Holland of Australia, although he doesn't
advertise his connection to his previous posts.

-------------------------------------------

REPRODUCED FROM GOOGLE GROUPS ARCHIVE:

NOTICE BEFORE ACTION

Patrick Cullinane


42 Augustine Road


Harrow Weald


Harrow


Middle. HA3 5NP


FAO: Tony Holland


31 Kidman Street


Yarraville, 3013


Melbourne


Victoria


Australia


Tel: 0061 390 125 217


Statement of Truth


Defamation Act 1996


I Patrick Cullinane have been Libelled by you Tony Holland under the
law of
defamation by your malicious falsehoods in your e-mail (below) to
Phillip
Inman of The Guardian, which was copied to a list of other prominent
people
to do me serious harm.


It is imperative that you Tony Holland supply the following evidence
forthwith to support your accusations:


1. Your evidence of Patrick Cullinane's "attempts at
Blackmailing
certain prominent persons"


2.. Copies of ALL: "letters of demand were sent which contained
threats of
violence unless large 5 figure sums of money were paid."


3.. Your evidence that Cullinane is a bankrupt person: "You will
also know
that Cullinane even though a bankrupt person"


4.. Your evidence to support this rant: "You should also know that
he
charges like a wounded bull for that help"


5.. Supply ALL evidence of this please: "and does not help
(victims)
unless he is paid what he calls his "expenses" ".


6.. All evidence of Cullinane's expenses for October and November
2004:
"For instance, Cullinane's "expenses" during the months of October
and
November 2004"


7.. All evidence of the 4 star hotels Mr. Cullinane stayed at for
several
weeks: "where he stayed at 4 star hotels for several weeks"


8.. Supply ALL evidence of the substantial 4 figure sums: "where
substantial 4 figure sums"


9.. Mr. Cullinane is a non-drinker. Please supply your evidence to
the
contrary: "Cullinane is not a shrinking violet he likes good food
and good
wine"


10.. Supply ALL your evidence to support this rant please: "he likes
good
food and good wine as long as some else is paying for it".


11.. Mr. Cullinane owns an R reg Ford Escort. Please supply your
evidence: "Cullinane also has it seems a very expensive automobile,"


12. Supply All the evidence to support this rant: "a very expensive
automobile, which he casually parks anywhere at any time"


13. Supply all your evidence to support this rant: "as well Cullinane
will
sell you a book for which he gets a 10 pound commission"


14.. Supply all your evidence to support this rant: "10 pound
commission,
300 books is not bad commission in 2 months is it."


15.. Supply all your evidence to support this rant: "And yes, there
are
lot more little earners Cullinane has going for him"


16.. Supply all your evidence to support this rant: "and all are to
do
with him capitalizing on the misery of others."


17.. I ask you now to supply ALL this evidence: "If you want
receipts for
4 star hotels meals, expensive wine, parking tickets, just ask."


In a round robin e-mail on 29 January 2005 you state: "Let me add, I
hold an
LLB and I do not practice law for money and my partner is studying for
an
LLM". Therefore you Tony Holland would be fully aware of the
character
assassination you endeavoured to achieve on my exemplary character as
a
person, and as a Caseworker for the Irish in Britain Representation
Group.
The malicious falsehoods in your wide broadcast e-mail below was
designed to
do the following damage to Mr. Cullinane:


a) Defamation of my blemish less Character.


b) Cause my State Benefits to be stopped, and be evicted from my
home.


c) Destroy my reputation as the honest caring caseworker that I
am. My
many clients will answer this one.


d) Cause Phillip Inman of The Guardian to abandon his invaluable
support in highlighting and exposing the serious crimes that was
committed
against me by the Inland Revenue, The Wembley General Commissioners,
KPMG
and High Court 'Judges'.


e) Cause humiliation, shock, panic, stress, alarm, fear, worry,
pain,
anger, shame and frustration, etc.


It is also imperative that you retain a copy of your March/April
telephone
bill, which will show you rang my number incessantly in the middle of
the
night (to harass me) when I was telling you to . off and putting
the
phone down on you.


I will also copy this correspondence to His Excellency The Honourable
Richard Alston, Australian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom for
him
to take this serious matter up with the appropriate police force in
Australia for a FULL investigation.


Please note: Evidential Burden (is now on you Tony Holland) - "He who
asserts must prove" - Therefore, I am determined to clear my good
name, and
in doing so I will clear Phillip Inman's good name also. There will
be many
others I feel who will also benefit from this action.


From today's date you have 28 days to supply the requested evidence
to
support ALL your allegations about Patrick Cullinane in your e-mail
below,
"Subject: The dishonesty of Phillip Inman, Date: 10 April 2005".

Owing to the serious malicious falsehoods, and public interest in this
case,
I now await a swift positive response from you Mr. Holland.

Implied admission by absence of the requested evidence.

Yours truthfully,

Patrick Cullinane, Victim of British State Terrorism.

PS. Is Tony Holland still working for MI6?

Quote from The Guardian Photographer, " What has happened to you would
have
killed twenty (20) men"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian_jobs_and_money/story/0,,952455,00....
-&-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian_jobs_and_money/story/0,,952457,00....
-&-
http://money.guardian.co.uk/tax/story/0,1456,1411088,00.html


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
=
-----------------------

ALSO REPRODUCED FROM GOOGLE GROUPS ARCHIVE:

Tony Holland. Why should anyone believe what you write?
Seeing that you posted these lies it is necessary to reply to ensure
that people know your credentials because nobody would
sue a man of straw for libel nor a mentally unstable person, but in
your case both descriptions apply.
Tony Holland was a Bradford man who was arrested and jailed there in
1981 for fraudulently procuring a mentally retarded youth to steal
materials and household goods for him. The youth was later found dead
in his cell and Tony was deported to
Australia within a year of his conviction in a deal with the
authorities to stop him talking about other embarrassing incidents in
a former career. Details of his life of crime were not passed to the
Australian authorities under the amnesty deal and he entered Oz with
a
clean slate.
But Tony had been recruited as an agent and an assassin for MI6 in
Africa and the Middle East on her majesty's service and by his own
admission had murdered some dissident natives by burning them with
car
tyres laced with petrol and because of that and many more crimes
committed on her majesty's secret service Tony considered that he was
above the law. Without doubt when Tony committed these crimes he was
armed and well briefed on how to deny all knowledge of his motives as
he outwardly worked for Marconi Plc. He had been selected for the job
because of his education as an engineer and his criminal proclivities
to serve the queen as a mask for his crimes. Tony was well schooled
in
the art of deception, denial and misinformation.
When he got to Australia he became very aggrieved with the British
authorities and wrote a manuscript of his life story of crime in a
blackmail attempt to get money and repatriation from them.
Nobody would publish his work and in the end he did it himself.
In it he tells how his own mother ran at him once as a boy and tried
to cut off his penis. He claims that she was mental but it appears
she
recognised that she had produced a dangerous criminal son even at the
early age of 10.
So why is this ex MI6 criminal murderer, blackmailer and cunning liar
living in Oz writing lies about Noel O'Gara?
By a coincidence back in the early eighties Tony had some business
dealings with the same legal firm in Bradford that acted for Peter
... who confessed to many more murders than he committed in his
deal with the police. Tony also was a
personal friend of detective Superintendant Dick Holland who had been
responsible for the negotiations for ...'s deal on behalf of
the
police in Yorkshire. He was the bent cop who had earlier framed the
innocent Stefan Kiszko for a murder that
was committed by Peter .... Kiszko was exhonerated and released
in 1992 but died shortly later without an apology nor compensation
nor
an investigation into police crime. Dick Holland died a few months
ago
a disgraced ex policeman who had brought shame on the force not so
much by his crime but by being exposed as a criminal cop.
I had written a book about the Yorkshire Ripper in 1982 in which I
claimed that the police had framed ... as the Ripper when he
was
only a copycat killer and thereby let the real Ripper get away. I
knew
this because I had a man in my employment whom I knew was the Ripper
and because of this insight I knew that ... had been fitted
up.
Tony Holland contacted me in 2004 when he found out that I had
written
a book about the Ripper through my web site www.yorkshireripper.com
He wrote to ... in Broadmoor the next day advising him to
appeal
his conviction based on his assertion that he couldnt have got a fair
trial because he Tony, was a partner in the firm of solicitors who
acted for him back in 1981.
To make a long story short, Tony tried to hijack my story to enhance
his own life story because he saw it as a stick to beat the police
with,those police who had deported him and given him such a hard time
back then. He knew several of those same senior police involved in
the
Ripper case when he was living in Bradford. Tony, who studied law in
jail passed himself off in Australia as a British lawyer of repute
and
a millionaire who knows all the really important people both in Oz
and
the UK, in order to be recognised as an official prison visitor
there,
until he was exposed as a fraud by the governor of the state and
dismissed from that function.
This dangerous liar has bad mouthed everyone he came in contact with
on google groups since he bought a pc as can be seen from the record
and ever since I told him to get stuffed he has concocted the most
outrageous lies about me.

http://groups.google.ie/group/uk.legal/browse_frm/thread/dc6d567d47cb...

http://yorkshireripper.com/index.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------

Special Care
2010-03-05 02:26:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Smith
Post by Special Care
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­------------------------
http://youtu.be/PbUtL_0vAJk
I don't know what you are trying to prove? Sure, there are cases of
child abuse in the USA, but no law is going to stop this happening. We
have had the recent cases of children killed in their own homes here
in the UK - that is against the law here, but it still happens. Sh*t
happens everywhere, and no matter what laws are in place to stop it -
Law means nothing to those who care nothing about the Law.
The care of children in society is something that is based on the
norms within our society. If we collectively turn a blind eye to child
abuse then it will continue. Some parents should not have custody of
their own kids. We all know that.
---------------------------------

Well right now I'm just saying that the Rebs should at least put it on
paper, put it in writing, in The Land of the Free, that children and
teenagers have the same protection from physical assault that adults
have.
Even if it's difficult to enforce it, at least it's something to build
on.
The Rebs should at least do that - put it in writing, and then we have
something to build on.
Loading...