Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]


Without being critical, it seems as though your reaction fits the study findings you linked in your #123. I fail to see however how you could link those types of behaviours you witnessed to blameworthiness on 'feminism' per se.


Why would you say this - are you trying to be provocative? I'm not really interested in your opinion of me, but if you wish to dissolve our discussion into this type of nonsense then I can oblige.


No doubt if I didn't believe it wouldn't have said it. I fail to see however how your opinion on liberals has anything to do with my point. Did you understand it?


Isn't it though? Except perhaps with indisputables such as the earth being flat, 1 plus 1 equals 2 and so on?

Perhaps it's different in the USA, but here in Oz we don't equate these types of arguments with a political doctrine.


I'm unfamiliar with this bloke and this philosophy. Sounds fascinating though - can you elaborate? How many advocates are there?


Is it really ridiculous? Doesn't the fact that your 'truth' being at odds with my 'truth' support the notion that there is no one indisputable truth but rather a whole set of 'truths' relative in strength, merit and credibility to every different person or set of persons. Or are you saying that the 'truths' you believe to be true must be true simply because you don't ascribe to relativity and because of that your truth is better and cannot be challenged simply because relativity is ridiculous?


Murder is wrong, in relative terms, and subjectively speaking. Or did you mean for me to try to be 'objective' cf 'subjective' and simply mixed up the wording? On second thought, you can't have meant me to 'be objective' because if you had, then you wouldn't have precluded me from arguing objective notions of mitigation or self-defence, the test of which is objective. Am I wrong here, or am I testing you?

History / Is there any part of Polish history that's at least a bit glorious? [192]


I find it difficult to believe that you would profess ignorance of the breaches to the Treaty given that you and I have discussed it at length and you were shown prima facie breaches.

If memory serves, the ball was left in your court some time ago in our discussions on another thread (Should HMG compensate Poles etc) regarding Art. 5. when you said:


Are you back in the office yet? Now's your time Harry...


Peking Plan, no? For the benefit of those unfamiliar with it, by mutual agreement between Britain and Poland, several ships of the Polish Navy steamed to a British port and served the balance of the war ostensibly under British command -that factual matrix is correct isnt it Harry? Out of interest, do you have any piccies of those Polish ships fighting for Britain?

Perhaps if the British had steamed some of their ships to Poland's aid at or before the commencement of the war and placed themselves at the disposal of the Polish navy then... well, we couldn't have had that because that would have been honouring Art. 1 of the Treaty.


On the information to hand, it was base betrayal of the Ukraine. Pilsudski's attitude toward, and apology to, the Ukrainian delegation at the conference, is evidence enough of that. Ergo, there is no point in arguing against the occurrence of a historic truth, no matter how distasteful to Poles, unless you can show something in mitigation of that act to serve as an explanation rather than an excuse or complete defence.

Your last part is correct - whilst Poland indulged in an act of stupidity and betrayal, such act does not serve to preclude Poland from arguing that some other nation betrayed it, particularly where such act of betrayal arose in circumstances and per agreements wholly unrelated to the Polish-Soviet War.


Harry is a true-blue, dinky di Aussie just like me.

Were you born in Sydney like me Harry? We could have been born in the same hospital mate and shared wet nurses?

Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]




I thought you had more to bring to the table than these vacuous comments and I am, with respect, disappointed that someone who professes an interest in critical thinking would choose to deliver rote rather than analysis. It seems I was mistaken as to your capacity and intent.


So who, then, is the arbiter of 'truth' when a dispute as to the truth arises in metaphysical debates (as opposed to non contentious issues such as one plus one equalling two)? I'm looking for something other than "you're a liberal, I'm not, so I don't need to argue anything because being non-liberal means I'm always right" and would prefer you opting out of the discussion if that's all you can come up with mate.

Would it make you feel better if I said that to me, truth is subjective, however in finding the truth, my beliefs, no matter how strong, will be held subservient to facts which I subjectively believe to be objective and therefore plausible as being true in fact? If you pick that sentence apart you'll see I've posited some aspects of my 'truth' rationale outside of the liberal paradigm to which you ascribe me. What do your philosophical studies arm you with when faced with a person or situation that does not precisely match a political/philosophical mantra?


Why would you escort your lawyer out of your office when it seems that lawyer presented you with a prime opportunity to exercise your critical thought by having a face to face discussion involving, as it would seem, all the topics you show an interest and expertise in?

If you didn't understand the point I was making then ask for an explanation in more simplistic terms rather than discounting it as gobblygook. It seems that again you misconceive or don't apprehend what I was saying because I was speaking of 'truths' (not facts, which are foundations for truth to be determined upon) and trying to challenge your notions of same.


Again, I agree. There were no 'ifs' in what I was saying nor was I trying to spin it, and I thought that that was fairly clear to someone who seems to have capacity to discuss these types of issues. You asked me to look at it in subjective terms and I did. Relative to me, it is wrong. Subjectively speaking, it is wrong. I did what you asked and still you argue against my though processes as though you know what I think more than I do?!


How on earth did you come up with that comment in answer to the words you quoted me on? I challenged the basis to which you asked me to respond by presenting you with clear contra-indicators (it should have been objective cf subjective because self defence is objectively tested) to your premise being the correct one.

I know it's not murder, you know it, so why point out the obvious? Hang on though. You're trying to catch me out here aren't you. Are you trying to say that if 'self defence' is established objectively, it is a complete defence, and the act of murder cannot have been committed by virtue of it being a complete defence to the charge? Or are you saying that self defence, as a defence to such charge, is a factor in mitigation which does not contain a complete defence but serves to ameliorate the harshness of a penalty for murder in those circumstances?


I thought I was fairly correct, but if you say otherwise could you please pick my assumptions apart and tell me where I've erred so I can save myself the embarrrassment of being wrong again?


No thanks - I'd much prefer to hear your take on what he says - it is a forum after all.


No problem. I like the way you threw in the self serving 'my posts are better than yours because yours are ambiguous' at the end. Forgive me for self indulging, but it's been my epxerience that those types of comments usually mean the person making them feels like they're coming second.

Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]


I regret you took offence to some of my comments. I suspect however if you look objectively at the chain of posts passing between myself and yourself you'll see that you instigated these types of remarks. You could perhaps start by looking at


at your #126. If you play the game don't spit the dummy if you get played.


No, I meant what I said. If you review a dictionary you'll understand.


Whilst I accept your explanation I find that scenario difficult to believe. No need for further comments though.


Now that's a good point and hits the nail on the head, though I would again suggest that it's impossible to be objective in many scenarios and all one can do is acknowledge that 'failing', if it can be termed as such.


I'm not sure where morality comes into the act of self defence. I would have thought that considerations as to the morality or otherwise of the act occasioning self defence would be subservient to the immediate instinct to survive, thus defending oneself. It could be that if a defendant per se argued that they thought their act of self defence was moral, the prosecution could seize that revelation and say if you had time to consdier the pros and cons of the morality of that act, the act of self defence was effectively pre-meditated and not a spur of the moment fight or flight reaction, which is the real test of self defence isn't it? Moreover, wouldn't the question of morality, if it applied, be an objective test, on the balance of probabilities? If it were subjective to the defendant then anyone could say that they shouldn't be punished for doing something which they subjectively believed to be right, just or moral.

As to your #137, I comment as follows:

1. Legal cases rise or fall in the main on the evidence presented to the judiciary and the way in which the alleged facts contained in the evidence are applied to the law when trying to persuade the judge to prefer or favour one side's story over the other. No Western jusridiction that I'm aware of is subject to star chamber justice and if the judiciary are seen to have erred there's always the appeals process after the first instance decision.

2. I can't help but feel that if you took the time to actually sit in on legal proceedings you would broaden your understanding as to how the legal system works but more importantly how it effects the participants in it. Whilst statisitics, studies, blog comments and so on are interesting, they don't replace experiencing the law first hand.

3. If you feel that the 'law' fails men, look to your government who make the law. Anything else is preaching to the converted.

4. You seem to infer that the legal system fails men because it is feminised, biased and so. Could it be that men fail themselves because their evidence is bad?

Anyway, I think we've reached the end of this debate. That said, I think you're pretty wide of the mark and, with respect, wrong in saying the law is feminised, because it isn't, and there's no proof of that. I do however appreciate your points of view and they've certainly given me some food for thought and I hope mine have too. Catch you around chief.

History / A view of Poland from far far away [14]

Hi GalloG and welcome to the forum. Great post too by the way.


The one on top of the battlements of Kamieniec-Podolski between Pan Wolodjowski and the Turk?

Off-Topic / Übertough Pole with bullet in his head [16]


I find it difficult to believe that he was unaware of this. I had bullet fragments lodge in my face as a kid and knew about it straight away. The burning sensation and rivers of blood are usually a dead giveaway! Still a dull ache under my cheekbone when I press on the little buggers.

Genealogy / Mixed-Blood Poles in America (Do we count?) [118]


G'day mate. What about calling myself "half-Polish" or an "Aussie of Polish descent". Would that be considered as being a Plastic? Do you think genetics are more relevant to national identity than where you were born?

History / Is Jozef Pilsudski the king of modern Poles? [138]



A benevolent dictator perhaps, but a great man nevertheless. Most Poles here in Oz have reliefs or pictures of him on the lounge room wall.


Pilsudski? Why would you say that?

Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]


Sorry, I thought we were talking about morality vis a vis legal implications cf ethics. If so (ethics), then I agree with you, as long as you mean morality as in 'right' and 'wrong', and assuming the act occasioning self defence is appropriate to the threat.

Is it still moral though to defend oneself with say a gun if another comes at you with say a clenched fist?

If we accept your credo that there exist certain 'truths' that are immutable and not subject to cultural/moral relativism, then isn't the answer to the question I pose automatically 'yes'?


Sour grapes Zimmy. Instead of challenging my assertions, you seek to belittle my contribution to the discussion. Why don't you show me precisely what is gibberish and argumentation and we can go from there. Simply saying it is without saying why is telling me that you either don't understand or have nothing in reply. I've done you the courtesy of answering nearly every one of your genuine arguments so why can't I have the same courtesy from you?


I should have clarified that by saying my assumption is that you haven't sat in on any Family Law or DV proceedings. I assume that because you haven't based any of your arguments on your experiences there and I think I'm on the money in saying that if you had those experiences you would have raised them by now. Conversely, if you had those experiences you haven't raised them in your argument because they probably align with what I'm arguing and we can't have that, can we ;)


Automatically and enshrined in legislation or subject to what is in the child's best interests?


Why? If a former spouse earns $500K a year and the other earns $40K, looks after the kids, can't get a better job because the skill set is lacking after spending so much time looking after the kids during the marriage (etc) shouldn't that spouse assist the other?


Where? If women are nowadays over-representing men in Uni in all the professional areas of study, men need to get off their bums and enrol.


If fathers/ex-husband's are in contempt of an order obliging them to pay child support or spousal maintenance and if the law permits it, why not? I'm not too keen on my tax dollars paying for someone else's non-paid obligations when the wife/mother claims extra government allowances because the ex ain't paying.


Just women eh? What about men who do the same? Aren't costs orders against the 'perjuring' party sufficient?


Agreed. Parity of sentencing (viz gender) mustn't be applicable to the USA if you're saying this though.


No - if a person is found to have committed DV and convicted of same, why can't that be used in say a Family Law matter, if DV is one of the considerations apposite to the case at hand? To do otherwise would be to invite another jurisdiction to reconsider and retry something that's already been done elsewhere. A waste of time, money and resources.


I'm unfamiliar with these so can't comment.

History / Poland provoked Germany to start WW2 by mobilising first [94]


I for one acknowledge that it happened and regret that it did, particularly in respect of the children and women who suffered. Can you acknowledge and do you regret the fact that when the Gerries were trying to ethnically cleanse Warsaw during the Rising my dad was machine gunned and had German Shepherds set on him?

Do you regret the actions of your forebears wherein many children in Warsaw were forced to stand next to their parents and family members against a wall and suffered irreparable emotional and psychological damage when these children were left to survive after watching their family shot around them?


Precisely. Responsibility to the Polish population as a whole could be apportioned to same if those 'expellations' (expulsions) were carried out by a government or representative body acting under a democratic mandate of the Polish people. There was no such government acting under such auspices so saying that Poles, as a people per se, are responsible, is misconceived and incorrect. Unless of course one can produce a document setting out that the entire eligible population of Poland were subject to say a referendum on the issue and a majority consented to the expellations...


Let's go back even further in time - do you admit that the German nation per se ought to be eternally grateful for the fact that but for the magnanimity of Zygmunt August permitting the survival of the Prussian embryo that was to become Germany, there would be no Germany, ergo no WW1, no Versailles, no Nazis, no Hitler, no WW2, and, in all likelihood, no you?

How do you, on a daily basis, acknowledge that the existence of your nation was suffered by a nation that your nation subsequently tried to exterminate?

If the situation was reversed, and the King of Prussia had before him on bended knee the King of Poland, would the result have been the same? Aberrations aside, I think not, and that, I suppose, is the eternal difference between Poles and some Germans. It's a real shame and a blemish on your character that you say, in what I can only assume to be a reference to the amount of Poles killed (or should have been killed) in WW2:


Apart from harping on about how you miss your helmet, what is your purpose and agenda on this forum?

What did your kin do to stop the Nazis? What did they do to help the Poles?


What lies Chri... sorry, Harry? Do you mean 'lies' as in Poles 'lie' about the events not occurring, or 'lies' in the sense that Poles do not accept blame for something that they had no control over?

Am I lying when I say that when these events occurred Poland did not have a (genuine) popularly elected government?

Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]


So what's your answer then? That response took 30 odd words, carried another insult, but didn't answer my question, when a 'yes' or 'no' would have sufficed. Ironic response, no?


Why ask me? Does it?


And did your observations of same align with your arguments on this thread? Why didn't you raise this before, given that I initially said my comments were based solely on my experiences in practice? I would have thought that if your observations in court aligned with your arguments you would have mentioned that, rather than relying on your blogs, stats and videos. You must admit it is a bit curious, no?


Yes you did. You relied on a couple of personal experiences where you say you witnessed some domestic violence incidents. I suppose if I wished to be technical, I could also say all the studies you've put forward are anecdotal too in that they cannot be tested as to their veracity or otherwise.

In passing, would it be anecdotal evidence to put forward (hypothetically, as it would be very difficult to do) copies of ALL judgments issued by whatever court in respect of domestic violence matters in the sense that if say 5000 judgements showed females were convicted of having committed DV and 5000 men were convicted of same your position would be vindicated?


That's interesting. I'd hate to be in the poor judge's shoes who has to make equal custody by virtue of a guillotine law when other evidence shows it wouldnt be in a child's best interest to do so because of say a parent is a drug addict, or abusive and so on. On second thoughts, if we adopt your model, no one would have to go to court because custody would be 50/50 automatically, no q's asked etc etc, thus no need to litigate even if litigation is needed to ensure a child's best interests are protected.


Where's the proof that this is the way the law works. Can I have a link please to the section or Article (I think thats the term in the USA) that prescribes this?


Ok, so the education system has favoured women purely because they are women? Isn't that discrimination (ie treating someone less favourably purely because of their gender)?


Why agonise over this issue when you can go to the off topic lounge?


Could it be that the US government kept a special place in jail for defaulting payers because the US government wants to send a clear message that non payment of child support will not be tolerated and the govt is reluctant to pay for a child when the father or mother should be doing so.

Non payment of child support really irks me. Does it irk you?


How do you know they are 'false'? Are you saying this because when you went to court and observed DV cases as you mentioned the judge struck them out for want of prosecution or found in favour of the respondent. Whilst I value your opinion, with these sorts of issues I'm not really interested in your opinion but I am interested in the facts and material in support.

I also note that you didn't actually respond to my assumptions. In any event, here's a link to the case of Kennon, which is authority used when arguing DV issues in Family Law property settlements:

austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/1997/27.html

It's an interesting case for two reasons: it talks about DV in Australia and gives insight as to how property settlement works here. If you're interested in how parenting matters work, let me know and I'll give you links to some cases and legislation, or you can have a squiz yourself on the austlii website.

History / Poland provoked Germany to start WW2 by mobilising first [94]


No, you didn't. What you did though is try to deflect by saying someone totally unrelated to you did something that you don't have the intestinal fortitude to do yourself.

Where's your acknowledgment and expression of regret?


Sounds like it but it isn't. It's the reality of the situation whether you like it or not.


If we accept that it was, do you repudiate what Germany did under such dictatorship? Do you find repugnant what that dictatorship did to Poland?


My, my - touchy aren't we. Given I live in Oz, you are mistaken. Achtung - can I please have back the not insignificant family fortune that was stolen by your Nazi dictatorship during WW2. It's MY treasure, MINE MINE MINE!! Mein gott!


I'm dead serious. What did they do?


Did they have puppet regimes though?

History / Poland provoked Germany to start WW2 by mobilising first [94]


Awesome response! When losing an argument, just call the other side out as being 'defensive', throw in an Americanism and finish off with 'you don't have the guts'.

We've been here before haven't we Bratwurst? Prussian Partitions ring a bell? No donning of helmet and into the fray eh? Where's the bravado you normally show...gone.

History / Poland provoked Germany to start WW2 by mobilising first [94]



Would you prefer Tomato or BBQ sauce with your humble pie Krautwurst? Goose.

The really sad thing is that you can't be a man and acknowledge your own countries wrong doing and in doing so, you ostensibly and by default defend the actions of your so-called Nazi dictatorship.

Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]


It’s disappointing that you treat the discourse on domestic violence as being a victory or loss equation. I never knew there were such considerations when discussing various degrees of human misery but obviously it seems important to you. Notwithstanding your casual statements about you ducking down to the beach to pose which littered this thread before my appearance, I actually took you seriously as having a genuine and passionate concern for the topic. The above quoted merely serves to tell me this is all an ego trip for you and the topic is nothing more than a vehicle for your posturing.

Your continuing diatribe of 'no responses to my...' is fine but you seem to have forgotten that I've done you the courtesy of responding to nearly all your genuine comments, so what you're saying is really untrue, isn't it.

Indeed, in reviewing our exchanges I see that quite a few of my more weighty contentions, particularly in respect of objectivity/subjectivity/relativism, have either been entirely ignored by you or glossed over. Accordingly, I can only assume my positions on those points are vindicated and can only conclude my ‘victory’ is complete in the absence of genuine responses. Feel free to revisit and respond if you wish to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory ;).

Anyways, here we go again, and as you seem intent in perpetuating this debate I'll oblige you...


There’s no need to be more specific because I laid the parameters here:

“Is it still moral though to defend oneself with say a gun if another comes at you with say a clenched fist?”

then added:

“If we accept your credo that there exist certain 'truths' that are immutable and not subject to cultural/moral relativism, then isn't the answer to the question I pose automatically 'yes'?”

Do you now see the folly of ascribing to notions of immutable truths and discounting relativism? In asking me to ‘be more specific’ you have effectively acknowledged that relativism is necessary to this type of discourse because being more specific entails relative considerations. In trying to answer the question I posed you have, by implication, said that the morality of the act of self defence is relative to the perceived threat “depending on the particular circumstances”.

You can’t have it both ways, your answer is therefore “Yes”, and unfortunately you are wrong.


No, it’s not an information gap, because if it was, I would have had to have not read the studies you posted. I did, then I challenged some of the foundations to which those studies were based and you largely ignored my challenges.

In any event, I've always been candid in saying my comments are based on my experience in practice. Ergo, you can assume they are not based on studies, blogs, youtube and so on. My experience does not align with your studies, though I have indicated that if your studies sometime in the future align with my experience my position will probably change accordingly. I've now had the benefit of making my comments in the context of real world experience but also after considering your material, which, again, is contrary to my experience. You, on the other hand, have no genuine experience in the matters being discussed. Who then is better placed to make a more persuasive argument?


The fact that you answered in the above fashion (which has nothing to do with my contention) merely demonstrates that when cornered with one of the many contentions I have made challenging your credibilty you choose to deflect rather than concede. It doesn't work with me.


Once again, your answer is irrelevant to the ambit of my comment. I said they could be considered anecdotal because they cannot be tested. Rather than challenging that by commenting on how they could be tested, you simply said they cannot be anecdotal because of their volume. You couldn't answer the statement because you either don't understand what anecdotal means in the context to which I placed it or understood it but didn't have a genuine response. Again, smoke and mirror tactics don't work on me.

And yes, I do enjoy playing with words and definitions. The main theme of our discussion has been focussed on just that. If you can't play the game then I suggest you look to another interest other than 'critical thinking' because I've presented you with prime opportunity time and again to indulge your hobby.

As to kicking me out of your 'office', can I assume that's toilet cubicle no. 2 at the beach where you do your posing?


No, I'm not. I asked if it should be subject to the child’s best interests or legally enshrined (equal custody). You said legally enshrined which to me means that no matter what, equal custody would apply because that’s the guillotine law. Guillotine Law, or guillotine orders, here means a law that automatically applies with no other consideration as to whether or not it should apply. A parallel could be our drink driving laws here which say that if you blow over 0.05 you will lose your licence, no argument, no exception (unless of course you go to trial and win on saying that the breath tester was faulty and so on).


No, it doesn't. The Family Law Act does not automatically vest by default full custody to the mother – indeed, there is absolutely no reference to gender bias viz parenting in Pt 7 of the Act.

The ‘legislative pathway’ is clear and was set out in the case of Goode & Goode. Briefly, there is a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility that applies subject to there being say domestic violence, child abuse and so on, or if it is not in the child’s best interests for the presumption to apply (see s60CC for the best interests considerations). If it does apply, then it may be appropriate for equal custody arrangements to prevail and if not, a child may spend substantial and significant time with one parent whilst living with the other. In extreme examples, interim orders may mandate that a parent can spend time only when supervised by another person. This can happen to both mothers and fathers.

I repeat – the Family Law Act does not automatically vest custody in the mother. It is gender neutral. Can you comprehend that?

I further repeat – unless you provide me with concrete proof that your family/DV laws are biased I don’t believe you. You can so easily vindicate your position by providing a link to the relevant sections of the law. You won’t though because you’ve probably never actually seen them.


Sorry, but I'm not, yet again. It has nothing to do with 'quotas', and you know that. You advocate for automatic equal custody no matter what. I added that if we adopt that modle no-one would go to court over custody because a judge would not have to make the decision because the legislation has already made it. Do you understand that implication?


Link please showing judgments from the ‘judicial system’ whereby loss of employment was ignored – actually, don’t bother – you haven’t bothered to provide any links to any law or judgment I’ve requested. I reckon that’s because you’re making this up as you go along.

Again, does non payment of child support irk you?


You really don’t understand the concept of child support, do you. Child support is paying another parent your share of the costs of raising a child. It has nothing to do with whether or not the custodial parent is denying ‘visitation rights’ (do parents in the US really have that right?) but all to do with supporting your child.

I think the old maxim of cutting off your nose to spite your face is apposite here.


They’re not put in jail because if a father reckons they are being denied time with their child then, wait for it, perhaps they should apply to the court to have that time?

If on the other hand there is an order that a child is to spend time with their father and the mother has breached it then, wait for it, perhaps the father should apply to the court for remedy for such breach.


Is it the case that in the USA child support is automatically determined by a court unless the parents otherwise agree as to an amount? You'll have to clarify how it works in the USA please. Given your expertise on CS, please also set out the formula for calculating child support in the USA – I don’t think you’re able to though because yet again you’re making this up as you go along.

In any event, I find it difficult to believe child support payments would be made to the tune of $20,000 per month. Is this just another story Zimmy?


Good attempt at obfuscation. I'm not contradicting myself. You said most applications for a DVO are false. That is an opinion, unless you provide genuine material in support. I said that whilst I value your opinion I wanted facts and material in support so that I could decide if that opinion was based on fact or if it was fiction. Instead of giving me that, you said I was contradicting myself – good one.

C’mon Zimmy – give me a real run for my money with proper responses rather than smoke and mirror, and genuine sources backing up your myriad opinions – dare you.

Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]

Ok, that sounds vaguely similar to the approach here in Oz, which is effectively a sum worked out on the basis of each parents gross income, then looking at the overnight time spent arrangements per annum, then crunching numbers and coming up with the figure. Likewise it can increase/decrease with income fluctuations which are taken off the previous FY Tax returns.

The difference seems to be that even if their is an equal lives with (custody) arrangement there may still be child support payable if one parent earns less than the other.

Issues of reasonable weekly expenses impacting upon a CS sum are usually raised if there is an administrative or judicial appeal/review.


Why not? ;-) We've crossed swords on this issue on previous pages. He's actually a highly intelligent bloke and I enjoy the exercise but can't resist having a dig if I think I can give it some legs.

Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]


It's best to come to an agreement with your ex on child support. Insurance payments for children are theoretically covered under the principal sum of child support paid but of course extras like that can be added on top, as well as things like education costs and so on.


Yeah, I though it was a bit high, and would be theoretically impossible here in Australia if working under the Agency's formula because last I checked the cap on the payer parent viz income is a bit over $100K per annum. What that means is if you earn right on the cap or $500 million a year it will make no difference to the calculation. This of course benefots payer parents who are rich. There could be exceptions though I'm no child support expert.

However, if parents agree to it, then the sky's the limit for the amount of CS paid.

Edit:


I'm so glad to hear that and I hope you remain on amicable terms - have you formalised that arrangement or is it an understanding? There's some very interesting studies out there regarding the veiled but devastating impact upon children who are subject to or witness conflict between parents who are in these types of disputes. In some cases children developed severe personality disorder, suicidal ideation, extreme defensiveness toward one parent and other very traumatic manifestations. Drug use, criminality, cyclic parental dysfunction are other legacies left by parents who expose their kids to this.

The bottom line is kids must never be exposed to parental conflict in these situations and be kept as blissfully unaware as possible of the issues between there parents.

USA, Canada / EMPIRE STATE BUILDING IN NYC DISRESPECTS POLISH AMERICANS! [88]


Crikey Shazza, give it a rest will ya! You're giving us Aussies a bad name with all this Pole bashing!

History / Unusual soldier (The bear - named Voytek) [71]


I'm sorry, but I don't think the Poms have any cause to erect a monument to Katyn on their own soil. Katyn had nothing to do with them.


Thanks mate - will do. Just need to sign up to facebook first.

History / RAF podcast tells tale of Polish pilots fighting in the Battle of Britain [12]

I'd like to think that if given the choice, and with all that we know now about HMG's betrayal of Poland, and with the way some of these pilots were treated when their usefulness expired, these heroes would probably have done it all again. What do you think?

Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]


Great argument. I have responded to what you've said though. You've post the titles of some laws with a bit of your own commentary, to which I then said:

"I further repeat – unless you provide me with concrete proof that your family/DV laws are biased I don’t believe you. You can so easily vindicate your position by providing a link to the relevant sections of the law. You won’t though because you’ve probably never actually seen them."

and rather than doing what I've requested and vindicating your position your above post infers that you do not understand that I CANNOT COMMENT ON A PIECE OF LAW WITHOUT YOU PROVIDING ME WITH A LINK SO THAT I CAN ACTUALLY READ IT.

You merely saying something is not proof of something. You continuing to hand wring and not provide me with the links tells me you really don't know what you're on about and got those laws and comments from a blog.


Another awesome argument Zimmy. I call you out as not actually having any genuine experience with the law in respect of the topic and instead of commenting on that with what your experiences were you say I have made false assumptions - prove they're false.


Oh no you don't mister. You started all this when at the very beginning you were losing the argument and called me a "liberal" to obfuscate, then distilled the way in which we were discussing the actual topic down to your arguments being better because they weren't 'liberal'. Just face it mate - you started it when you couldn't challenge my comments and chose to try to attack the way in which you perceived my comments were made - and you lost. Take it like a man and move on ;)


See my preceding post.


You're correct in assuming that I didn't review all the studies, but forgive me the fact that I do have a life. I did however do you the courtesy of reading a dozen or so. Did you read Kennon? If so, what is your take on the way DV is treated in property settlements?

In any event, my proposition that that evidence is anecdotal still stands and you haven't displaced it. Good one though in arguing again that they cannot be because of their volume.

I'll use that style of argument next time I'm in court and want to lose - "Your Honour, this statistical evidence is not anecdotal because there are hundreds if not thousands of people who say vampires exist and these stats show that. It doesn't matter that that cannot be tested because I haven't provided any sworn affidavits, or subpoenaed witnesses for cross examination - the volume in and of itself speaks as to the veracity of there being vampires".

This'll test you - have I myself used anecdotal evidence? If so, where specifically, and is my form of anecdotal evidence sufficient if I've used it?


Sheer brilliance - rather than giving me links to judgments or the law to sway your argument toward a semblance of plausibility, you merely say it is so because you say it is so - pure, unadulterated, anecdotal gold!


Unless you're my client, which you aren't, you are not instructing me. You are, in this context, 'advising' me.

Nice blog too, but I'm not really interested. Good to see that yet again you haven't answered as to whether or not non-payment of child support irks you or given any genuine material backing up your contentions.


Oh Zimmy, that's just silly games now - what do you think I earn? Have a guess mate. My missus looks after the household finances. Amongst myriad other things, women are just so much better than men at organising finances, but you wouldn't know that, would you ;). Go on chief, call me a mangina - it'll make you feel better.

USA, Canada / EMPIRE STATE BUILDING IN NYC DISRESPECTS POLISH AMERICANS! [88]


I don't catch your drift friend. Are you saying I'm a troll?

Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]


I throw female fish (and crabs, yabbies etc) back because females produce more fish and that needs to be respected and cherished to sustain the marine ecology. Male fish are expendable if you're after a feed. Germaine Greer taught me that.

History / What happened from 1650-1795? [68]


A good point. Analogous to this type of conquest justification mythology is the similar stories put forward by the colonial powers in the C19 and C20 vis their conquering of Pacific nations, such as New Zealand and so on. Briefly, the propaganda put forward was that these races of 'noble savages' needed to be conquered and capitalised on not only under the Social Darwinism doctrine but also because of the perceived inherent flaws in their societies' makeup.

Isn't it funny how wrongdoing on a national level is always tempered by the perpetrator trying to justify their actions to afford a semblance of legitimacy?

Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]


Bugger it! I was trying to have a light hearted dig at Zimmy and be funny too. Germaine Greer is an Aussie feminist. She was reviled for her comment that Steve Urwin deserved to be stung and killed by that sting ray. I couldn't resist raising the connection between feminism and fishing but it was obviously lost. Oh well ;)


Tfui! What possessed you to mix the two Pat? Can't think of a worse combination.

Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]


I think I'm with you here Pat. I'm really not interested anymore in continuing the debate.

Sorry, Zimmy. I enjoyed our fairly robust discussions but I really don't see any point in perpetuating our debate. I'll respect your POV, though I disagree with it, and I trust you'll reciprocate - hopefully that'll be the one thing we can agree on as a baseline.

In parting, I again appreciate the fact that you've given me food for thought and for what it's worth, you've made me think deeply, particularly about the nuances of subjectivity/objectivity. If you're ever in Oz and need a mediocre lawyer, let me know and I'll gladly help you. Unfortunately I don't do office visits so you'd have to attend my office, and no, I wouldn't kick you out ;)

I hope you achieve what you're after, however you measure that benchmark. If I can offer some constructive criticism though, it's this - practicing law, if nothing else, has taught me one thing - be your own devil's advocate - after doing that, argue your point with finesse: bullshit delivered in a vat of honey will, 9/10, be taken over a diamond wedged between someone's arse cheeks (metaphorically of course).

And I really can't stand Ms Greer either - I was just having a lend of you. Catch you round mate.

News / Praising Poland can be dangerous [45]


It is though, isn't it (a good way to avoid blame)? How can a people, per se, be held responsible for the actions of a government with no popular mandate, moreso given that it was foisted upon them by an alien power? Isn't it a non sequitur to say that Poles should be responsible for the actions of a government that was not democratically elected. I would have thought that's anathema to the concept of democracy.

I see you profess an interest in law - I'm no constitutional/international law buff but I'm pretty sure my proposal is fairly safe. I'd like your take on it, given your interest.


What about the Teheran Conference and HMG's contemptuous breaches of the Treaty of Mutual Assistance? Isn't one entitled to voice a grievance, and continue to voice it, until the perpetrator is recognisant?

If you'd like a background of my theories, have a look at my thread "Should HMG compensate..." so I don't have to repeat myself here with the minutiae. Feel free to respond on that thread....

Chris (sorry Harry) and Jonni, feel free to join the debate too chaps - I seem to recall you both leaving a similar debate without the benefit of your genuine comments some months ago - now's your chance to both respond - perhaps even swap notes perchance?

News / Victory in 'anti-Polish camps' campaign in US [170]


Isn't that a misnomer though? Or are you saying that in this day and age religious identifiers take precedence over citizenship in establishing identity objectively?

I would have thought that the better identifiers would have been say a "Pole of Jewish faith" or a "Briton of Muslim faith".

Life / Expats in Poland - would you fight for your new country? [105]

The honey-pot beckons...