Deaths in custody

[Jerry_Atrick]

I read in today's Sunday Times (a Murdoch paper, but somewhat more balanced that their dribble in Aus) that "King" Charles will open the palaces and castles to the public (for some, opened for the first time; for others open more than they are now). He even says he will open Buckingham Palace while in residence when he gets the gong.

 

I guess he's got to justify a £300m+ reno paid for by the taxpayer (Buckingham palace is held on trust by the monarch for the benefit of the nation.. The others - maybe not... A benefit to tbe public would be if the tenants paid rent 😉

 

[onetrack]

I can recall a psychic, many many years ago, predicting that Charles will never become King.

No reason was ever given - but if Elizabeth outlives her mother - as is highly likely - it's entirely possible that Charles will keel over, before Elizabeth does.

[spacesailor]

Not that long to wait! .

AND 

Won't princess ugly be piiist. LoL

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

 

43 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Won't princess ugly be piiist. LoL

 

Come on, Spacey - she ain' that bad.. In fact, she scrubs up well for her age...

 

 

[onetrack]

Spacey, there are numerous people who have lived to 109 or 110 - and the Queen, with her long-life genes, and a pretty protected environment, is in the running to make 110!

That's another 14 or 15 years that Charlie has to wait! He's 72 now, that means he would be 86 or 87 when Elizabeth passes on, and who knows what disease might strike him down in the meantime?

He could even develop dementia, and prove to be an unsatisfactory candidate for the big throne! A lot of people reckon he's a bit demented already!  

[spacesailor]

In a normal life !.

Camilla would have been named in the divorce court.

AND

Hopefully chastised for  breaking up a marriage.

Charles would have been an adulterer.

Lots of marriages were broken by the yanks in postwar England. ( so it rings a bell ) 

spacesailor

[facthunter]

  Geez how long have we had fault free marriages?   THAT marriage wasn't working. Camila was always his first Love. Nev

[spacesailor]

Doesn't, alter those laws, that the Mortals have to live by. 

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

There is no longer a requirement in English/Welsh law to provide a reason for divorce, however, without providing a reason, one must wait two years for a grant of divorce. However, if one wants out of the marriage immediately, one of the parties has to admit some misadventure - the most common being adultery. The law does not require the person "admitting" adultery to name who they commit adultery with..

 

I can't recall the other types of misadventure, but they are such things a physical abuse, etc, so if you want as divorce immediately, adultery is the easiest to falsely admit to because a) it is not against the law; and b) no one cares. It doesn't impact custodial or property awards either. In other words, it is there to allow a get out to a law that refuses to come into the 20th, let alone 21st century.

 

Edited May 17, 2021 by Jerry_Atrick

[octave]

Just in case anyone is considering it.

 

 

 

The Family Law Act 1975 established the principle of no-fault divorce in Australian law. This means that a court does not consider which partner was at fault in the marriage breakdown. The only ground for divorce is the irretrievable breakdown of the relationship, demonstrated by 12 months of separation.

 

And Britain is a little behind.

 

 A movement that started back in 1996 with the repealed Family Law Act 1996 has finally seen the passing of the Divorce Dissolution and Separation bill in the UK. This means no-fault divorce will be available to UK couples by Autumn 2021.4 Nov 2020

Edited May 17, 2021 by octave

[Jerry_Atrick]

Yep - that is what I meant by the law of England and Wales refuses to eeven come into the 20th century.

 

In addition, Australia recognises de-facto relationships effectively as marriages (although I don't know about same sex partnerships). Here, there is no recognition and in the event of partners splitting, the male has no right to access to the children, though has to pay for the upkeep. The latter should be the case, but you can imagine the issues that compound for the poor kid when, apart from the trauma of parents splitting up, they are barred from seeing their father (on the assumption it is a loving parental relationship and the mother decides through, say vindictiveness, that she will withhold access to the child/ren). I have seen this and it is terrible.

 

This state of affairs was defended by David (Dickhead) Cameron as the stats showed that the breakup rate of partnered parents was much higher than married parents. However, the reality is that the status were not that much different, and that many parents stay togerher in what becomes belligerent relationships, which can be worse for the children. Also, there is no protection for the female in the partnership (or wasn't) in that if she gave up her career, he is only obliged to look after her while she is bringing up the kids.. Once the kids are 18, he is releived of any obligation.

 

So, in my case, I could simply walk away from my relationship and my partner who's main career over the last 19 years has been a mother would have only 1/2 the house, because we both put in the same deposit (and half our meagre cash, too, because that is in joint names). But she has no claim to my income to sustain her..

 

The refusal of the state to follow Australia's lead, where de-facto relationships provide for protection of the family unit much better has nothing to do with protecting children - it has everything to do with protecting the church's role in the family- or at least trying to preserve it. Get married. Of course, there are no registry offices.

 

BTW - my partner can come after me in the Aussie courts - she has a spousal visa based on our defacto (under Aussie law) relationship.

Edited May 17, 2021 by Jerry_Atrick

[Yenn]

A riend of mine is in a de facto relationship and he has discovered one very serious failing in how they are viewed. It is impossible to divorce a de facto partner. His comes back when he hopes she has left for good.

[facthunter]

There is a way of dissolving partnerships involving public statements etc other wise you can be responsible for their debts on into the future. Partnerships are a very messy arrangement, potentially .Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

Back to deaths in custody...  I just hate it that they think they are doing it ( jailing people )  for me. It may be that incarceration is particularly hard on aborigines...  anyway, there are alternative punishments which I think are far better. Boot camps in the outback manned by aborigines would be one such option. Without any evidence, I would bet that these could be cheaper and have less re-offending on release.

Where is the research on mental health for the alternatives? Without this, we are stuck in the darkness of superstition. Remember that the first "penitentiary" involved locking a guy into solitary with just a bible.

I don't think it would be a good idea to return to middle-age evils like mutilation though.

[facthunter]

You'll take all the fun out of it for the sado  masochists,  Bruce. 

[spacesailor]

" Back to deaths in custody...  I just hate it that they think they are doing it ( jailing people )  for me. It may be that incarceration is particularly hard on aborigines...  anyway, there are alternative punishments which I think are far better. Boot camps in the outback manned by aborigines "

Will the Australian Natives have the right ( as they did before 1700 ) to SPEAR THE OFFENDER IN THE LEG.

I Always thought that the Neighbouring country of our's, could be payed a lot more then is necessary, to use Their prisons, with their wardens.

Cheaper than Australian Native warders.

Of course the Bleeding Heart people will have a Fit, 

AND I don't think I will Name that seaside resort place.

GUESS.

spacesailor

Edited May 18, 2021 by spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

NSW has in fact tried to move away from using prisons, except as a last resort under a relatively recent Crimes (Procedures and Sentencing) Act, or something similarly named. The exception, from memory, was domestic violence (and I think it even was explicit of men against women - but don't quote me on it - when I was reading it, it was probably me thinking of the stereotypical domestic violence portrayal). It was replacing community service orders, as well as providing for offenced that were normally looking down at jail time to be replaced with a myriad of orders and the requisite supervision and support..

 

All nice in a utopian world where pollies are integral and civil/public servants have pride in living up to their name - serving the public. TBH, I have no idea of its success or otherwise.

 

One of the problems with it is, like much law enforcement (OME - please correct me if I am wrong), it deals with symptoms or consequences, and not the root issue. It is technically not the remit of law enforcement to intervene, but, while more emphasis is being placed on intervention, the bulk of policy is about applying the "best" band-aid to the cut, rather than stemming the bleeding. This is firmly still in the pollies gambit to fix.

 

Firstly, a properly trained and resourced social services function (which includes specialist mental and physical health professionals as well as social workers) to intervene is a positive way, especially in the early years of development to prevent the ills forming. This necessarily would include support for problem young families (e.g. parents themselves with mental health issues, addictions, etc), as well as the children. The focus should be child welfare, but also keeping and growing the family unit together (unless unsafe for the children, of course).

 

Secondly, compulsory national service should be looked at being brought in. The only exceptions to it should be those with severe mental and/or physcial conditions that would preclude them from anyting but full time care. So, religion, culture, education, etc would not be an out. It should cover males and females (and gender blends in between). In terms of the age, I am thinking school leaving age (I am thinking it is the same as all states) and the national service should continue to provide the education for those that want it, or apprenticeships for those that want vocational training. Some other things to consider could be:

• There should be a military version and a civvie version; the person should be able to pick which one they want to go for, however, both should be based on both discipline, teamwork, character building and community service. Some people are not militarily inclined
• There should be appropriate support for those with mental and physcial conditions; cultural and religious needs (e.g. devout members of faith should have their requirements catered for (reasonably); ATSI's would also need their appropriate support. But, the idea would be to expose everyone to other's cultures and beliefs and hopefully build respect and choesion between the communities rather than division and derision.
• The emphasis is both on individual and communal development; the learnings should be progressive rather than regressive; and focus on individual and team playing roles. Although not everyone is a born leader, an emphasis on leadership should also be a part of it to mould people into self-sufficient and confident young adults.
• The other emphasis is to develop a respect/tolerance for others and the community.
• It should send the youngans on their career path - but it should be a bit novel about how it does it. For example, it shoudl recognise thsoe with an entreprenureal (sp?) flair and develop that; those with artistic flairs and develop those (yes, I know music is one such area); and dare I say, those with a flair for politics and develop that (without being partisan, of course).
• It should develop patriotic (not nationalistic) values, yet respect that Australia is part of a wider world that we need to engage and embrace.
• It should also provide he support for those already on self-destructive paths such as sunstance abuse, anxiety disorders, anger issues, etc. with a view to ntervene and correct/manage them.

Of course, this is based on a more utopian society where, as mentioned, pollies are integral and the public servants take pride in living up to their name; but importantly it is about the development of our young folk, where, let's face it, many parents don't quite succeed. By making it compulsory, everyone is treated the same and barriers/class are broken down; people respect people rather than the school tie or the car they drive/area they live.

 

Also, it may just reduce the crime rate, prejudice, etc in society as more people develop a sense of self-worth and go onto live lives which are valued rather than devalued and admonished. And when people have these traits, they tend to function better in society.

 

[edit] I forgot to mention the biggie - self-discipline development...

Edited May 18, 2021 by Jerry_Atrick

[spacesailor]

Do you mean like the English/ African  ' National Service ' 

Were even the army said, the system was a dead loss.  A lot of 18 year olds were Raped by the bully sergeants.

And after you have done 2 years of an apprenticeship, your in the army now.

spacesailor

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

No.. Definitely not...

 

Something a little more progressive, with appropriate supervision and controls of the staff as well as the kids...

 

Can be done.. just takes the will and endeavour.

[Marty_d]

As much as I like your vision, I can imagine the problems with a massive state-based organisation dealing with teenagers on a live-in basis (if that was what you were thinking) for whatever time, eg 2 years.  Not only the potential (actually lets say inevitability) of sexual, physical and mental abuse by staff, but also by other kids.

[spacesailor]

"   Not only the potential (actually lets say inevitability) of sexual, physical and mental abuse by staff, "!.

Just like the English army in the 60s.

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

As I stated, in a utopian society where they publoc servants too pride int heir name - i.e. serving the public (not giving them a serve). Obviosuly, it is an ideal, but one starts from there and works through the issues to come up with a practical solution.

 

These issues already exist and are managed in public organisations - they may not be managed well (e.g. parliament??), How do the armed forces manage it today (from memory it is co-edc and recruits can be as young as.. shool leaving teenagers - which is where I was pitching it.. There are others - schools, etc

 

It doesn't have to be centralised either, and I guess that it doesn;t have to always be residential, either. The reality is though through effective risk management and mitgation, it can be minimised and hopefully identified and dealt with when it happens, but never eradicated - sadly.

Does this mean that we say there are a few problems, but allow this to defeat the overwhelming benefits? Of course, if you're on the receiving end of it, then your answer may be different. I guess it's finding the right balance between the net benefit to the community and the risk to the individual.

 

There is also the issue of bastardisation and bullying - I used to see it at the baording school I was at for a term. In my day, most of the boarders hated boarding school; these days, it is a totally different proposition.

 

 

[Marty_d]

14 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Does this mean that we say there are a few problems, but allow this to defeat the overwhelming benefits? Of course, if you're on the receiving end of it, then your answer may be different. I guess it's finding the right balance between the net benefit to the community and the risk to the individual.

Not at all.  Like I said, I really like your idea.

However the reality of the media/social media instant outreach to millions, means that even a statistically low level of abuse will derail the best of programs.

If it's not a residential program that would improve things I guess.  Kind of like an intensive work experience between grade 12 and uni.

(It's not like they need a gap year to go overseas, these days!!)

Edited May 19, 2021 by Marty_d

[pmccarthy]

When I left school we had a gap weekend before starting work. Fortunately our kids finished school before the "schoolies" and "gap year" thing took off.

[Marty_d]

I didn't even finish school before starting work - I'd done year 11 and was planning to do year 12, but got a job the week before the school year started.