Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #28

[Bohemian]

Another point here is wasn't KT a victim of DV with her drug taking violent & abusive ex partner? Where is the empathy i wonder from people toward a victim of DV, and losing her children because of it?
I agree & she might have got manhandled by police, it does happen if they restrain & hurt you in the process.

Point of order:

‘Julian was removed from the care of his mother at 7 months’ age because of concerns that he was at risk of harm (associated with domestic violence and drug abuse), and placed with foster carers.

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58853ecfe4b058596cba36a9

Perpetrator(s) and/or victim(s) not specified.

 

[sosocurious]

And someone needs to be big enough to not continue the behaviour, and start turning things around.
We should never enable someone by providing excuses for their bad (and/or criminal) behaviour imo.

I agree ... sometime the enabler can be the route of the problem.
I guess the underlying reason for enabling is really just trying to control the outcomes....soften the blow.
I guess it is experiencing the consequences of our own actions that help us learn from our own mistakes.
jmo

 

[Warshawski]

Bill Spedding was told the washing machine needed to be fixed because the family is coming to visit.

Hey Tony those kids that Ms Loweke knows from Natalie, well they are coming to visit this weekend & I need to fix the machine. I told Marg as well......
IMO everyone knew.


“Ms Loweke is living with Mr Jones’ brother-in-law and she personally knows Bill Spedding”

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...t/news-story/295f4d26d06a4b543a3eec6d9d2f8953


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

:clap:

Absolutely TGY, and in a small town everyone knows everyone. News travels faster than a bush fire. . Especially if something 'interesting'.

I'm also wondering re Kim's application for a house. My mind had jumped to conclusion that TJ's brother-in-law lived in her place, but perhaps was / is other way around. Was she going to ditch him & move to her own place? And is Natalie on her own & was looking for a place too?

 

[Bohemian]

That is a good question and since the judge did not want to uphold the injunction on the grounds that it would at the very least display to the public the very common situation judges find themselves in, during intractible disputes.

What about the very common situation children find themselves in?

‘So too, I think it only proper that the public be made aware that, despite the fact that the parties to such disputes almost always claim to be motivated by a desire to advance the best interests of the child or children in question, the tragic fact is that it is usually the child, or children, in question who is, or are, most likely to be hurt by the bitterness and tensions to which it is, or they are, exposed, and the irresponsible actions to which it is, or they are, subjected.’

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58853ecfe4b058596cba36a9

 

[sleepinoz]

Another point here is wasn't KT a victim of DV with her drug taking violent & abusive ex partner? Where is the empathy i wonder from people toward a victim of DV, and losing her children because of it?
I agree & she might have got manhandled by police, it does happen if they restrain & hurt you in the process.

A victim???? Nothing to say who was the victim, all SM talk unless you have a link?

The baby boy had been *removed from his biological parents — both of whom had *encountered problems with police — and placed in the care of foster parents.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...t/news-story/1f79e414e57cde0d1cfae86cab96115e

 

[frogwell]

I agree ... sometime the enabler can be the route of the problem.
I guess the underlying reason for enabling is really just trying to control the outcomes....soften the blow.
I guess it is experiencing the consequences of our own actions that help us learn from our mistakes.
jmo

Not everyone accepts the roles and rules society thrusts upon us without choice when very little. Some may find it an interesting exercise to examine how much of their morality is based upon fear of consequences and how free they really are.... since the conversation drifted towards morality...... I'm the most law abiding scaredy cat I know, just for the record... MOO

 

[Bohemian]

I agree ... sometime the enabler can be the route of the problem.
I guess the underlying reason for enabling is really just trying to control the outcomes....soften the blow.
I guess it is experiencing the consequences of our own actions that help us learn from our own mistakes.
jmo

Enablers kid themselves that they are trying to soften the blow for the other person. In reality, the only people enablers are softening the blow for are themselves, eg:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-anatomy-addiction/201207/are-you-empowering-or-enabling

 

[SouthAussie]

:clap:

Absolutely TGY, and in a small town everyone knows everyone. News travels faster than a bush fire. . Especially if something 'interesting'.

I'm also wondering re Kim's application for a house. My mind had jumped to conclusion that TJ's brother-in-law lived in her place, but perhaps was / is other way around. Was she going to ditch him & move to her own place? And is Natalie on her own & was looking for a place too?

And this is why I don't find the 'coincidences' in this case suspicious. Because, as you say, in a small town everyone knows everyone .. virtually. They have been to school together, or worked together, or their parents know each other, or their kids do, or they have played sports together, gone out to the same pubs, etc etc.

 

[sleepinoz]

Not everyone accepts the roles and rules society thrusts upon us without choice when very little. Some may find it an interesting exercise to examine how much of their morality is based upon fear of consequences and how free they really are.... since the conversation drifted towards morality...... I'm the most law abiding scaredy cat I know, just for the record... MOO

So we shouldn't have morals or laws to abide by? It should just be a free for all?

The way society is today, that's exactly what it will be in the future.

Glad to see Karlie has another enabler. :thinking:

 

[SouthAussie]

Not everyone accepts the roles and rules society thrusts upon us without choice when very little. Some may find it an interesting exercise to examine how much of their morality is based upon fear of consequences and how free they really are.... since the conversation drifted towards morality...... I'm the most law abiding scaredy cat I know, just for the record... MOO

Isn't it just about treating others with respect and decency? The old "do unto others as you would have done to yourself"?

I certainly do not base my own behaviour on fear of consequences.

 

[sleepinoz]

Domestic Violence isn't always committed by the man in the relationship.

[h=1]‘There is nowhere for us to go’: Domestic violence happens to men too[/h]http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/there-is-nowhere-for-us-to-go-domestic-violence-happens-to-men-too/news-story/d736e990f7528ade77ef3ba69e99f53e


I am not accusing either, because it has not been proven who was the perpetrator. Just saying it goes both ways and without proof we do not know who the violence was being committed by or against.

 

[SouthAussie]

Domestic Violence isn't always committed by the man in the relationship.

[h=1]‘There is nowhere for us to go’: Domestic violence happens to men too[/h]http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/there-is-nowhere-for-us-to-go-domestic-violence-happens-to-men-too/news-story/d736e990f7528ade77ef3ba69e99f53e


I am not accusing either, because it has not been proven who was the perpetrator. Just saying it goes both ways and without proof we do not know who the violence was being committed by or against.

Or, as is sometimes the case, the domestic violence (and drug taking) is a joint affair. Especially when the children are removed from both parents, and it is not a case of issuing a restraining order and having one person removed from the premises.

 

[Bohemian]

Not everyone accepts the roles and rules society thrusts upon us without choice when very little. Some may find it an interesting exercise to examine how much of their morality is based upon fear of consequences and how free they really are.... since the conversation drifted towards morality...... I'm the most law abiding scaredy cat I know, just for the record... MOO

‘Little’, as in age? We’re talking about adult behaviour here, aren’t we froggy?

My ‘morality’ or social ethics is based on my (outdoubtedly flawed) philosophy of the greater good and not on the fear of consequences. If I err, I accept responsibility and modify my behaviour accordingly.

 

[Karinna]

Point of order:

‘Julian was removed from the care of his mother at 7 months’ age because of concerns that he was at risk of harm (associated with domestic violence and drug abuse), and placed with foster carers.

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58853ecfe4b058596cba36a9

Perpetrator(s) and/or victim(s) not specified.

No it isn't, but i can guess just like anyone else that is speculating here.

 

[Karinna]

And someone needs to be big enough to not continue the behaviour, and start turning things around.
We should never enable someone by providing excuses for their bad (and/or criminal) behaviour imo.

It likely was not okay by Karlie to go through domestic violence, but it is okay by her, apparently, to spit in a police officer's face. That is assault.

Were you there when this all went down at the shopping centre? No one here knows what all went down unless they witnessed it all, and how this all came about in the first place and i will leave it at that.

 

[frogwell]

So we shouldn't have morals or laws to abide by? It should just be a free for all?

The way society is today, that's exactly what it will be in the future.

Glad to see Karlie has another enabler. :thinking:

Morals are usually personal and hopefully based on personal experiences. Laws are for people to live in societies together, a collective agreement we are indoctrinated into from birth, if we want to continue to be connected to like minded people, or get the benefits of living in society, we abide by the laws. e.g. Corporations have zero moral obligations to many societies, but benefit from those societies moneys, so they follow that societies laws to the bare minimum. Societies tolerate corporations lack of social morality if all participants in the society has the chance of profiting from the corporation directly and indirectly. Who is Karlie's new enabler? MOOO

 

[SouthAussie]

Were you there when this all went down at the shopping centre? No one here knows what all went down unless they witnessed it all, and how this all came about in the first place and i will leave it at that.

What on earth does that have to do with spitting in someone's face? Someone may have forced her to do that?

Yes, maybe it is best left at that. She ended up in criminal court.

 

[sosocurious]

Were you there when this all went down at the shopping centre? No one here knows what all went down unless they witnessed it all, and how this all came about in the first place and i will leave it at that.

She pleaded guilty and will be sentenced next Monday.

 

[Warshawski]

It's good WT hit the headlines again, except it was messy and not for the right reasons.

If the bio mum is now in a stable place, and was indeed in regular contact with WT, it bothers me a little that she wouldn't want to speak up for him. To remind us.

And it might now be too late, but the foster parents could help us with more context of their movements that day. The vibe from GM is that it was planned, but if that is true then the movements of the foster family would be essential details. Being able to place them, and know them, maybe see security footage of them stopping for McDonalds, allow the general public to potentially link things together.

It would take bravery from the bio or fosters. It would be disruptive to their lives, and WTs sister would undoubtably be exposed in a way that his brothers are right now after images were published of them and bio mum ......

... But the point is, William needs SOMEONE to be calling for him. Brave enough to put their face to the call.

I believe Karlie had a court appearance today for spitting at Police and 'turning the air blue' in a shopping centre whilst 2 children with her. They were put in care of relatives - not sure if that was just whilst she was appearing.

For me this is a sad reminder that everything has some type of ripple effect. How fragile would she be, I can't begin to imagine being in her shoes, and having to try to remain 'together' in order to do the best by her latest two... it's all just so wrong. And I can't believe that in these times with all the technology available, they can't locate this little boy & provide answers to his disappearance.

 

[sleepinoz]

Morals are usually personal and hopefully based on personal experiences. Laws are for people to live in societies together, a collective agreement we are indoctrinated into from birth, if we want to continue to be connected to like minded people, or get the benefits of living in society, we abide by the laws. e.g. Corporations have zero moral obligations to many societies, but benefit from those societies moneys, so they follow that societies laws to the bare minimum. Societies tolerate corporations lack of social morality if all participants in the society has the chance of profiting from the corporation directly and indirectly. Who is Karlie's new enabler? MOOO

What do Corporations have to do with Karlie's abusive and irresponsible behaviour?