Monday, 24 November 2008

Police arrest a father over access dispute?

In a media report yesterday the ABC reported (see article below), that the police arrested a man over the abduction of children. But were these his children?

By the sounds of it making this man 'estranged' to these children in the eyes of the general public?

Well the ABC never cleared that up so we don't know.

So he was like this 'known man' who abducted them and nobody closer than a friend?

Then the police media stated that a six year-old boy and his two-year old sister were allegedly taken from their Fairfield home the day before by quote “a man who is known to them”. Un-quote.

So who was this man known to them? Their father?

But was the word father omitted out of the report? And why would a reporter omit that the person of interest may have been the father of the children?

Was that reported by the police PR media unit?

Was that special operation 'we don’t have a clue?’

What about special operation 'we don't believe in fathers'.

Would you believe special operation 'we only deal with criminals.'

They then reported that he kidnapped them? Not allegedly kidnapped them, but he did kidnap them. So he was guilty in their eyes.

But did he kidnap them? Well they were kids i'll grant them that.

Although it does sound more like he did not return the children say after an access visit? Or perhaps he, the [father], just wanted to be with his children? Perhaps, even say, an access visit gone wrong or even in direct contravention of a Family Court order? We don’t know.

Police then said, according to the media or police PR Quote: that the [man] allegedly threatened to harm them, ‘these [known] children. “

But does this cause unnecessary, alarm and affront and did he threaten these ‘known’ children?

If he were their father would he have been more likely to threaten his own children if a crisis situation had developed?

Police had earlier issued a rare amber alert during the search for the two young children.

Seems that this could have just been a dispute between parents of children?

So if the police arrested the man over a dispute why didn’t they report this alleged crime for what it may have been?

Why make an access dispute into a DANGEROUS situational crisis? Could that have gone wrong and caused this person to panic?

What is wrong with the label [father] if that is what the man was to his children?

What does changing that label do to the family in crisis?

Is this how people get shot and killed when police have no notion of family in their vocabulary?

And is a father a dirty word to the Police Force?

The reason I raise this article is that the breakdwon of families means that because a family is strong it can usually withstand intimidation by the authorities and therefore allot harder to breakdown. Once broken down into sepparate entitiies can easily be manipulated by the STATE.

I do understand that the Police want to criminalise people so that allegedly more attention is gained in order to arrest this person having others in the community think that this man is and could only be a danger to society but that's not true.

Because this notion can also go very wrong say if the person thinks that all he is, (in this case) is a criminal and did do something stupid like what happens in police pursuits . If that had occured and there was a death then would the police take the blame? I don't think so.

Personally I think it is fair for the word, father, brother, uncle etc to be included in the report if that is in fact what relationship the person was to those children and this would rather calm down the situational crisis much better. Man is more like a stranger and that's not fair to the family.

Related Article:

Police arrest man over child abduction

Police have arrested a man over the kidnapping of two children in Sydney.

A six-year-old boy and his two-year-old sister were allegedly
taken from their Fairfield home yesterday morning by a man who is known
to them.

Police said the man allegedly threatened to harm the children before driving off with them in a grey four-wheel drive.

A police spokesman says the man was found near his four-wheel drive in Campsie.
Police had earlier issued a rare amber alert during the search for the two young children.

Updated: 8:31am (AEST)

Dad charged after kidnapping man-hunt

Police say a man who allegedly abducted his two children in south-west Sydney yesterday did so on the same day an apprehended violence order (AVO) was taken out against him.

Officers allege the 37-year-old took his six-year-old son and two-year-old daughter from their Fairfield home about 8:00am (AEDT) on Saturday.

He was arrested about 7:50pm (AEDT) yesterday at Roselands, where police seized the car.

The father has been charged with eight counts of breaching an AVO.

The man spent the night in police custody and will face Fairfield Local Court today.

The children were safely returned to their mother yesterday.


Quote: Oh! Dad better late than never. And when they say that the apprehended violence order (AV0) was issued on the same day. That is usually also Police, Media PR propaganda, and not necessarily before the act of child access.

Because police can make out the said AVO even before they speak to the defendant or accused person. Just more media tricks to break down this family and have the person appear more guilty.


Law council backs Family Court merger plan
The Law Council of Australia has backed recommendations to revamp family law by integrating the Family Court with the Family Law Division of the Federal Magistrates Court.

No comments: