Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(News.com.au)   Girls ordered to spend weekends with sex offender father. But it's okay... the judge said they could have a lock on their bedroom door   (news.com.au) divider line 254
    More: Scary, sex offender registry, sex offenders, porn sites, child pornography, sex offender father, legal system, blood alcohol  
•       •       •

21111 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Mar 2010 at 7:39 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



254 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-03-14 08:18:13 PM  
Too bad there isn't the technology to transmit a signal if either daughter is molested. You could link the signal to a little guillotine locked on the judge's nads. I wonder if he would change his ruling before anything happened.
 
2010-03-14 08:18:43 PM  
Harmania: gund: Helen_Arigby:
The eldest girl told counsellors she "did not want to spend time alone with her father" and kept repeating: "Please don't tell dad."

Nice going, reporter! Way to make sure Dad finds out.


That's not in the article. If it was and was later removed, maybe because it was a lie.

Unless he actually molested his children (which the family court, not criminal court believes, with a much lower burden of proof), I don't actually see a problem. Want to be safer, just require some other adult to be around at all times, like a relative on his family's side. A lock is the best judgement for the court based on the evidence of the case.

How about this -

At his own expense, dad has to hire an overnight security guard to stand post outside the girls' room. Said guard must be the parent of a child who was molested/raped/murdered by a pedo. Said guard must also be heavily armed. Said armament must also include castration tools and dull blades.

Then MAYBE I'd be okay with it. He'd still better have a really compelling reason why supervised daytime visits aren't enough.


That's fine with me.

I'm just tired of all this "protect the children at all costs" solutions that inevitably fark up everything else. This also includes how we deal with education and health care, not just crime.
 
2010-03-14 08:19:06 PM  
Paedophilia is a Learned Behaviour. Paedophiles are overwhelmingly homosexual. Even if sexual preferences were innate, they would not be so specific as to an attraction to a certain age range. Both homosexuality and paedophilia are perversions of the normal sex drive.
 
2010-03-14 08:19:34 PM  
Tachikoma: What the fark? At first I read the headline and figured it was someone who had gotten drunk and peed in public, but then I read the article.

If I was the mother, I would say fark the law. I would grab the girls and run, and never look back.

/seriously, something is wrong with that judge too


Considering the number of judges and whatnot who have been found to be up to seriously creepy things, there very well could be something wrong with the judge as well. Some of the news stories coming out of the UK about politicians, judges, etc. that have been found to be pedophiles is quite appalling.
 
2010-03-14 08:19:48 PM  
I know a worse story, but I'm not going to post it because you all will tell me I'm full of shiat, such things don't happen. Yeah, they do. The mentally ill and abusers have more rights than you do, just by virtue of donating some genetic material.
 
2010-03-14 08:20:02 PM  
gund: Some risks are acceptable. The court is there to evaluate and estimate the risk and provide solutions.

Are you one of those "but think of the children" crowd that has been screwing with the country?


If the risk is "If they fall asleep, then they will probably get raped six ways from Sunday," then the risk is not acceptable.

"Think of the children" does not apply to legitimate concerns with potentially fatal consequences.

Are you the judge, the father, a troll or a dumbass?
 
2010-03-14 08:21:37 PM  
Disgusting.

If I was the mother, there'd be no trace of me or those girls anymore, we'd be gone. As far as what little money I had could take us.

Divorced parents should be able to spend time with their kids....but not when one of the parents is a convicted sex offender. Sorry kids, you can see your daddy again when you're 18 and too old for him.
 
2010-03-14 08:21:41 PM  
I'm sure she'll be fine
 
2010-03-14 08:22:35 PM  
gund: Helen_Arigby:
The eldest girl told counsellors she "did not want to spend time alone with her father" and kept repeating: "Please don't tell dad."

Nice going, reporter! Way to make sure Dad finds out.


That's not in the article. If it was and was later removed, maybe because it was a lie.

Unless he actually molested his children (which the family court, not criminal court believes, with a much lower burden of proof), I don't actually see a problem. Want to be safer, just require some other adult to be around at all times, like a relative on his family's side. A lock is the best judgement for the court based on the evidence of the case.


Well, I kinda came here to say this. The article says he "filmed child pornography on his computer." What does that even mean? And he had "links to child porn websites." Okay, fine... were they porno websites that had a section of child porn, or were they full-bore child porn sites?

There *is* a difference. If he was looking at cartoons or drawings, that's one thing. If he was watching 5-year olds get boned, it's something different.

"The Family Court found the father had invited one of the girls into his bed, and had 'demonstrated affection toward her in a way that was, in all the circumstances, inappropriate for a child of that age'."

Okay, this really says nothing except for "scary words."

Maybe this guy is a sick fark. I don't know. I do know that I've known guys that have been railroaded by vicious ex-wives and accused of child abuse (that they never did) just to get a better alimony payment.

I'm not quite ready to tar and feather him yet. Now, if he had been found guilty, at all, ever, of actually sexually abusing a child? Oh, hell yeah.

As far as the girls not wanting to see him? I'm sure they don't. Even if he's basically harmless, I have no doubt that the mother has done her damnedest to make sure that the girls are afraid of him and think he's the devil incarnate.

I've seen this kind of shiat happen.

Again, I'm not defending this guy. There's not enough info in the article for me to really make a judgement one way or the other.
 
2010-03-14 08:24:12 PM  
I would go to jail before I let my kids go there. Fark that judge.
 
2010-03-14 08:24:56 PM  
letrole: Paedophilia is a Learned Behaviour. Paedophiles are overwhelmingly homosexual. Even if sexual preferences were innate, they would not be so specific as to an attraction to a certain age range. Both homosexuality and paedophilia are perversions of the normal sex drive.

i44.tinypic.com
And furthermore
i39.tinypic.com
 
2010-03-14 08:25:15 PM  
kyoryu: There *is* a difference. If he was looking at cartoons or drawings, that's one thing. If he was watching 5-year olds get boned, it's something different.

From the court file:

The facts to which the father admitted a plea of guilty to involved a video tape
which the father had filmed from web pages. The video tape was a recording
of various young girls, aged approximately 10 to 14 years, some were naked
and some were in bikinis, which the father had downloaded from child
pornographic web sites.


And seeing as the kids in question seem to be around that age, and that the father was alleged to have inappropriate contact with at least one of them, this decision is just moronic.
 
2010-03-14 08:25:43 PM  
Fluorescent Testicle: gund: Some risks are acceptable. The court is there to evaluate and estimate the risk and provide solutions.

Are you one of those "but think of the children" crowd that has been screwing with the country?

If the risk is "If they fall asleep, then they will probably get raped six ways from Sunday," then the risk is not acceptable.

"Think of the children" does not apply to legitimate concerns with potentially fatal consequences.

Are you the judge, the father, a troll or a dumbass?


Again you support my point with ridiculous assertions.

Lets pretend there's only one scenario here, if they fall asleep and the father has access, they will be raped. 100% will happen.

What should the court mandate.
1. Independently verified lock that allows no access to their room.
2. No visitation.
3. Move them out of the country and give them new identities.
4. Amputate his hands and legs and castrate him.

All four are possible solutions that mitigate that risk. You apparently think that by using words like "legitimate concerns" and "fatal consequences", one solution must definitely be unacceptable because it has a higher risk which you subjectively deem unreasonably high while the court, with evidence, deems sufficient.
 
2010-03-14 08:27:07 PM  
letrole: Paedophilia is a Learned Behaviour. Paedophiles are overwhelmingly homosexual. Even if sexual preferences were innate, they would not be so specific as to an attraction to a certain age range. Both homosexuality and paedophilia are perversions of the normal sex drive.

Now that's how you troll.
 
2010-03-14 08:28:18 PM  
smooshie: Full text of the decision (new window, PDF!)

kyoryu: There's not enough info in the article for me to really make a judgement one way or the other.

Seems the judge was somewhat bound by legalities despite believing the mother and children had valid concerns and the father's emotionally stunted.

Yech.
 
2010-03-14 08:29:29 PM  
letrole: Paedophilia is a Learned Behaviour. Paedophiles are overwhelmingly homosexual. Even if sexual preferences were innate, they would not be so specific as to an attraction to a certain age range. Both homosexuality and paedophilia are perversions of the normal sex drive.

Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant. Need as well as greed have followed us to the stars, and the rewards of wealth still await those wise enough to recognize this deep thrumming of our common pulse.
 
2010-03-14 08:31:54 PM  
theinsultabot9000: ">

Attention armchair lawyers:
Ya know, this made me wonder: if someone were to have sexytime with one's adopted wards rather than actual offspring, does the law punish that too, and just as heavily? I'm not talkin about teens and shiat here, I mean if the adopted one is already like 20-30, a totally adult age.

'Cause the whole "don't mate with your progeny/relatives" instinct might not kick in so easily if you adopted some teenaged eastern european sexpot who walked around looking like that.
 
2010-03-14 08:32:11 PM  
smooshie: kyoryu: There *is* a difference. If he was looking at cartoons or drawings, that's one thing. If he was watching 5-year olds get boned, it's something different.

From the court file:

The facts to which the father admitted a plea of guilty to involved a video tape
which the father had filmed from web pages. The video tape was a recording
of various young girls, aged approximately 10 to 14 years, some were naked
and some were in bikinis, which the father had downloaded from child
pornographic web sites.

And seeing as the kids in question seem to be around that age, and that the father was alleged to have inappropriate contact with at least one of them, this decision is just moronic.


So, if I'm reading that correctly, he went to child porn sites, viewed the images on his monitor, and video taped the monitor?

If that's right, it's pretty screwed up. I can see some potential cases where that might be innocent (if he was an artist and needed reference material, but I'm kinda stretching it there). If the images were pornographic in nature (not just pictures of kids), then actually compiling them and recording them demonstrates a level of intent.

I'd still like to know what the hell "inappropriate contact" means. It just sounds like "scary words."

As I said, I've just seen too many cases where, in a divorce, one party or the other will just find *anything* to attack with. So I can't really condemn this guy, but I sure as hell won't defend him. I just don't know enough about what *actually* happened.
 
2010-03-14 08:34:07 PM  
letrole: Paedophilia is a Learned Behaviour. Paedophiles are overwhelmingly homosexual. Even if sexual preferences were innate, they would not be so specific as to an attraction to a certain age range. Both homosexuality and paedophilia are perversions of the normal sex drive.

Sounds like someone might wind up farking eight years. Maybe you should have a seat over there, Letrole.
 
2010-03-14 08:34:32 PM  
I sense troll.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2010-03-14 08:35:30 PM  
gund: lennavan: gund: Unless he actually molested his children (which the family court, not criminal court believes, with a much lower burden of proof), I don't actually see a problem. Want to be safer, just require some other adult to be around at all times, like a relative on his family's side. A lock is the best judgement for the court based on the evidence of the case.

Because other adults don't sleep during the night and can be there to watch at all times? Do you really think it's a better situation to have the kids living with daddy who have to remember to lock the doors so daddy doesn't molest them? You don't have your own kids, do you? You'll change your stance when you do, I promise.


1. They aren't living with them. They are visiting.
2. This is an argument for risk. Another adult, or lock, or whatever reduces risk differently.

You seem to be arguing no risk is acceptable, so I guess the only acceptable solution is the death penalty. Because he could you know, with legs and hands, actually visit said children and molest them. No appeals too, because he could escape from prison and molest them.

Some risks are acceptable. The court is there to evaluate and estimate the risk and provide solutions.

Are you one of those "but think of the children" crowd that has been screwing with the country?


So, if I've got this right, you don't see putting the girls in the same house overnight with a pedophile as being any different than those girls existing in the same country as the pedophile?

Nobody is saying that there is no acceptable risk here. Yes, him breathing the same atmosphere as them is fine.

But putting a lock on the door at night, so the girls can feel that they've sufficiently protected themselves from being raped or molested by the father they have expressly stated they do not want to visit, is hardly an acceptable DEAR CRAP JUST READ THE SENTENCE FRAGMENT I JUST WROTE! WHY WOULD ANY ADDITIONAL WORDS BE NECESSARY?!

What right do you think a guy like this even has to see daughters who don't want to see him? Are you a troll or a pedophile? That's not a "yes or no" question. Those are your choices.
 
2010-03-14 08:35:35 PM  
letrole: Paedophilia is a Learned Behaviour. Paedophiles are overwhelmingly homosexual. Even if sexual preferences were innate, they would not be so specific as to an attraction to a certain age range. Both homosexuality and paedophilia are perversions of the normal sex drive.

oh my god
the stoopid is strong with this one.

men farking male children is not equal to homosexual
it is just farking sick crap

There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..."
Link (new window)
so, the first study I found, pretty much said I was right and you are retarded.

not only are child molesters not gay, they are more likely to be in a relationship with a woman. so yah, about that.

/god I hate the stoopid people
 
2010-03-14 08:36:26 PM  
letrole: Paedophilia is a Learned Behaviour. Paedophiles are overwhelmingly homosexual. Even if sexual preferences were innate, they would not be so specific as to an attraction to a certain age range. Both homosexuality and paedophilia are perversions of the normal sex drive.

i18.photobucket.com

When the nun Chiyono studied Zen under Bukko of Engaku she was unable to attain the fruits of meditation for a long time.

At last one moonlit night she was carrying water in an old pail bound with bamboo. The bamboo broke and the bottom fell out of the pail, and at that moment Chiyono was set free!

In commemoration, she wrote a poem:

In this way and that I tried to save the old pail
Since the bamboo strip was weakening and about
to break
Until at last the bottom fell out.
No more water in the pail!
No more moon in the water!
 
Ral
2010-03-14 08:37:29 PM  
Fano: So, do pedophiles have an overwhelming urge to fark every child they see, or would incest cross the line?

Incest is not a barrier. In fact, some pedophiles deliberately find women to hook up with so they can procreate, and in a few years, they have their own little child slave who lives with them and everything, and nobody thinks it's weird when he hangs out with her a lot.
 
2010-03-14 08:37:33 PM  
He should have supervised visitation, but no overnight visits. Simple really.
He will fark his daughters up beyond repair and set them up for a life of relationships with abusive men, even if he doesn't physically assault them.
 
2010-03-14 08:38:35 PM  
lennavan: I'd...fark my sister...

Just saying.
 
2010-03-14 08:41:14 PM  
letrole: Paedophilia is a Learned Behaviour. Paedophiles are overwhelmingly homosexual. Even if sexual preferences were innate, they would not be so specific as to an attraction to a certain age range. Both homosexuality and paedophilia are perversions of the normal sex drive.

my god you are really good at this now. posting the same thing over and over, just changing a few words. and you STILL get biters. its amazing.

sorry namatad, you've been had.
 
2010-03-14 08:41:20 PM  
From the PDF court document:

In some ways the father's approach to his relationship with the children is that it is about him, not the children. He gave evidence that in about July 2009 he allowed [daughter A] into his bed. The father knew that there was an issue about him having the children in his bed, a consent order was made in June 2007 prohibiting him from sharing a bed with the children but that order was not continued when interim orders were made by me in June 2008. It is not clear whether the vacating of the prohibition was an oversight or a considered approach, in the circumstances I must hold it was the latter not the former.

12. The father gave evidence that the children went into his bed from time to time after the order of the Federal Magistrate was vacated. I have reservations about the reliability of the evidence of the father as to circumstance of the child going
into his bed in July 2009. Between July 2009 and the December 2009 hearing, the father had the children stay overnight (supervised) and he did not take them to school the next day saying he wanted to spend more time with them. I find
that his was more about his needs not those of the children. I make similar observations about his approach with the children attending choir.


This is totally farked. I was going to troll/defend the dad, but I can't come up with the words.
 
2010-03-14 08:42:45 PM  
gund: Fluorescent Testicle: gund: Some risks are acceptable. The court is there to evaluate and estimate the risk and provide solutions.

Are you one of those "but think of the children" crowd that has been screwing with the country?

If the risk is "If they fall asleep, then they will probably get raped six ways from Sunday," then the risk is not acceptable.

"Think of the children" does not apply to legitimate concerns with potentially fatal consequences.

Are you the judge, the father, a troll or a dumbass?

Again you support my point with ridiculous assertions.

Lets pretend there's only one scenario here, if they fall asleep and the father has access, they will be raped. 100% will happen.

What should the court mandate.
1. Independently verified lock that allows no access to their room.
2. No visitation.
3. Move them out of the country and give them new identities.
4. Amputate his hands and legs and castrate him.

All four are possible solutions that mitigate that risk. You apparently think that by using words like "legitimate concerns" and "fatal consequences", one solution must definitely be unacceptable because it has a higher risk which you subjectively deem unreasonably high while the court, with evidence, deems sufficient.


We're saying the court's decision is incorrect, friend. What part of that is so hard to understand?

"No visitation" sounds like an appropriate level on that scale. What are you hearing here that makes you think differently? Why do you think it's okay that these girls are now forced to visit a father they fear might molest them?
 
2010-03-14 08:43:16 PM  
Protip to all you armchair lawyers, wannabe child psychologists, and gund who seems to think that being molested by your father is just one of those things a child has to learn to deal with as an acceptable risk as part of growing up (like learning to cross the street and drive a car):

Go to the actual court decision and stop trying to parse the father's actions and the judge's decision from the article. It's right here (new window) if you didn't see Smooshie's link the first time.

There you will learn that, one, yes Daddy was convicted on the kiddie-porn charge; two, yes, older daughter did tell the counselor repeatedly she didn't like being alone with Dad; three, yes, Dad had shown the girls his porno, had had them in bed with him in what the judge delicately calls "inappropriate" ways and which may have involved Daddy's naked erect dick inappropriately contacting the older girl; and four, yes, both girls have said they don't want to be alone at night with Dad.

But don't take my word for it: Go read it for yourself.
 
2010-03-14 08:45:10 PM  
Fano: lennavan: Pedophiles have already crossed the line. You get this, right? Which is worse, incest or pedophilia? I'd rather fark my sister than a kid.

So you are saying that vice is not nice, incest is best?


Put your sister to the test.
 
2010-03-14 08:45:23 PM  
sexy time
 
Ral
2010-03-14 08:45:28 PM  
gund:
2. This is an argument for risk. Another adult, or lock, or whatever reduces risk differently.


The kids are afraid of their father. And now the system wants to force them to stay in a house overnight with that man. Lock on the door or not, this is terrifying and traumatic for the kids. Think what kind of a message this is sending to the children about how adults behave. "Oh yeah he's a monster who preys on children YOUR AGE but we don't think he's preyed on YOU yet...so just put a lock on the door."

Nauseating. And yes, with this man, no risk is acceptable. He should not have contact with his children if they are afraid of him. If they didn't know he was a pedophile and he had been a good dad to them, supervised, non-overnight visits might be okay. But not this.
 
2010-03-14 08:45:57 PM  
Ahhhhh here it is

Blame the shrink

24. The Tasmanian Child and Family Services Office arranged for a psychologist, Dr JH, to prepare a report about the father, insofar as his criminal behaviour impacted upon his interaction with children. Dr JH interviewed the father, administered a psychological test and conducted a psychological assessment with regard to the father's response to sexually explicit internet pornographic material. Dr JH was aware that the father had accessed child pornography and had made a video copy of some of that material.

25. Dr JH did not interview the mother nor did she interview the children. She wrote a report dated 22 July 2006 in which she concluded that the father does not represent any real threat to his children or children in general in the future. Further she concluded that she could see no impediment to the father having
unsupervised time with his children.


26. After Dr JH's report was released the mother was informed that the children were safe in the unsupervised care of the father. Unsupervised time between the father and the children recommenced and developed.


- From the Court decision (new window)

news.cnet.com
 
2010-03-14 08:46:08 PM  
You people need to lay off this judge. You're obviously bigoted against Australian culture.

img.moronail.net
 
Byn
2010-03-14 08:46:53 PM  
Ihopethisnamewillfi: What's the big deal? The dad hasn't tried farking the kids, has he?

The "big deal" is that the kids are saying that they're scared and don't want to stay with him.

That should be more than enough.
 
2010-03-14 08:48:25 PM  
This makes me absolutely sick. Asshole.
 
2010-03-14 08:49:17 PM  
I can't believe you guys are actually responding to someone named "Le Troll".

Welcome to the internet. Everyone is srs bizness.

kyoryu: So I can't really condemn this guy, but I sure as hell won't defend him. I just don't know enough about what *actually* happened.

Wow, what kind of justification can you give that him viewing and videotaping pedophilic material is somehow something that shouldn't be condemned?

Because seriously, you're trying mighty hard to give him benefit of the doubt when all the evidence points to him being a total scumbag.
 
2010-03-14 08:51:22 PM  
Cats_Lie: Ahhhhh here it is

Blame the shrink

24. The Tasmanian Child and Family Services Office arranged for a psychologist, Dr JH, to prepare a report about the father, insofar as his criminal behaviour impacted upon his interaction with children. Dr JH interviewed the father, administered a psychological test and conducted a psychological assessment with regard to the father's response to sexually explicit internet pornographic material. Dr JH was aware that the father had accessed child pornography and had made a video copy of some of that material.

25. Dr JH did not interview the mother nor did she interview the children. She wrote a report dated 22 July 2006 in which she concluded that the father does not represent any real threat to his children or children in general in the future. Further she concluded that she could see no impediment to the father having
unsupervised time with his children.

26. After Dr JH's report was released the mother was informed that the children were safe in the unsupervised care of the father. Unsupervised time between the father and the children recommenced and developed.

- From the Court decision (new window)


In instances like this, would the mother be able to bring a civil suit against the judge or psychologist if anything happened to her children during one of the visits?
 
2010-03-14 08:51:35 PM  
Approves:

www.tvworthwatching.com

What, am I the only one to think of this?
 
2010-03-14 08:51:40 PM  
I have seen this thing run in cycles.

Starting in 1950something,first they accuse you of being a Communist; next they accuse you of being a homosexual. Then they accuse you of smoking marijuana, then they accuse you of taking LSD, next they accuse you of snorting cocaine, and after that they get into white supremacist militias and crack cocaine, child molesting, and witchcraft and satanic cults.

On second reading, I do not recall if the witchcraft and satanic cults came before or after the militias, but I recall it's in there somewhere.

The problem here is, there is evil in the world, but at the rate people are crying wolf, you will never know for sure.
 
2010-03-14 08:52:52 PM  
lennavan: Fano: lennavan: Pedophiles have already crossed the line. You get this, right? Which is worse, incest or pedophilia? I'd rather fark my sister than a kid.

So you are saying that vice is not nice, incest is best?

Put your sister to the test.


But with your mother? That's another...
 
2010-03-14 08:53:25 PM  
kyoryu: Well, I kinda came here to say this. The article says he "filmed child pornography on his computer." What does that even mean?

He pointed a video camera at his computer screen so he could save the content of websites for later viewing. I, for one, find this the most disturbing part of the story.

Assuming that someone who looked at child porn is more likely to molest his own child is a jump to conclusions, with no more logical basis than asserting that a man who likes adult female porn intends to fark his sister, or his adult daughter for that matter. Why are we certain that a deviant fantasy is more likely to be acted upon than a non-deviant fantasy? People who are virgins far into adulthood demonstrate the possibility of not acting upon any fantasy at all.

As for "he already crossed a line", yes, broke a law but that does not mean he likes breaking laws, it means he likes child porn and this law was in his way. If I pirated some songs and movies that doesn't mean it's even remotely possible I'll ever steal money from my workplace.

However, in this case, we have a guy who can't think of how to save computer content other than to point a camera at the screen. He must be such a dimwit, I say he needs to be watched very carefully and his children should have a smarter person present with them at all times.
 
2010-03-14 08:53:26 PM  
gund: You seem to be arguing no risk is acceptable, so I guess the only acceptable solution is the death penalty. Because he could you know, with legs and hands, actually visit said children and molest them. No appeals too, because he could escape from prison and molest them.

For molesting kids? Sure, I'll happily advocate the death penalty. I wasn't before, I was merely saying when he farked a child, he lost the right to hang out with children, especially overnight visits, including his own. My own opinion, you fark a kid you should be in jail forever. I don't think you can rehabilitate someone like that but even if you could, the kid has to live a lifetime dealing with that, they should live a lifetime being punished for it.

gund: Some risks are acceptable. The court is there to evaluate and estimate the risk and provide solutions.

Some risks are not acceptable and the court is not always correct. What's so wrong with society saying "Dude, if you fark children you lose all privileges of being around them, including your own?" I mean, really, what's so wrong with that? Wanna still see your own kids without a cop and a social worker standing next to you? Don't fark children. I didn't know this was a difficult concept to understand or agree with. Is asking him to not fark kids asking too much of him? Am I being unfair?

gund: Are you one of those "but think of the children" crowd that has been screwing with the country?

Apparently saying kids shouldn't be forced to spend weekends including nights with their pedophile father makes me:

4.bp.blogspot.com

Noted.
 
2010-03-14 08:54:11 PM  
♩♪She hates this farking world, she's daddy's little girl.♪♩
 
Byn
2010-03-14 08:54:56 PM  
BackAssward: penthesilea: Couldn't believe that it was legal for a pedo to live with one of his victims.

I can't believe that anyone inviting you into that situation with no warning is someone you'd consider a friend.


Because people are so willing to talk about their family like that.

Perhaps she wanted protection, and this is the only way she knew how to get it. And really, when faced with a living situation like that, your mind becomes capable of what you may once have considered unfathomable. Like putting a friend up as a barrier.
 
2010-03-14 08:55:06 PM  
Ihopethisnamewillfi: Byn: The "big deal" is that the kids are saying that they're scared and don't want to stay with him.

So any kid who doesn't want to spend time with a parent shouldn't have to? How about kids who don't want to go stay with a parent because they have to follow the rules when they get away with anything they want with the other parent? Besides, a little incest builds character.


www.motifake.com
 
2010-03-14 08:55:28 PM  
Look, if you make it illegal for fathers to force themselves on their underage daughters, only criminals will get to enjoy pedophilic incestuous rapes.

Is that the kind of society in which you want to live, citizen?
 
2010-03-14 08:55:33 PM  
Are they hot?
 
2010-03-14 08:57:19 PM  
Cats_Lie: This is totally farked. I was going to troll/defend the dad, but I can't come up with the words.

Yeah, now that I read that, my earlier comments do not apply. This guy is the total package of farked up and he should not have the kids overnight.
 
Displayed 50 of 254 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report