Thai at Heart Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Maybe next time someone's child, after his/her parents have carefully helped them pack their bag to temporarily run away from home, will encounter these friendly & helpful folks: Young students kidnapped by human-trafficking gangs Category: Khon Kaen news Published on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 12:31 Khon Kaen Provincial Police have issued warnings about human-trafficking gangs widely operating in school areas. There have been several incidences in Khon Kaen and Udon Thani of children going missing after school time attributed to kidnapping by human-trafficking gangs. http://www.khonkaengazette.com/news/79-local-news/1785-young-students-kidnapped-by-human-trafficking-gangs This story does the rounds every year in isaan. Unfortunately it is never seen to have any evidence or further coverage. A few years ago it was a gang in a mini van scooping up luug kreung kids as a story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forethat Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 This is one of the best posts I have ever read on TV. To the point. Well put. Supported by documentation. Hats off! Please point to what in the documentation you posted to that, #1 the points involved were well put. #2 How does the posted documentation, support the points of the poster? Which I find that the poster most likely did not read the act in itself. I know it is easy to simply agree with the bleeding heart response to someone else's post then to respond where the law concurs with what you posted to, I understand your statement (in a different post) that education has a lot to do with the responses on TV, but education has nothing to do with good parenting! dose it not? Education does not instil the concept of "common sense" in parenting to a parent. Many of us have a University degree and many years of paid work experience in the field of Child Protective Services, and what constitutes Abuse, Neglect or Exploitation. A parent that allows a 14 year old to run the streets, without attempting to deal with that behavior, clearly is neglecting the welfare of that child. Cheers: Reading this make me believe you didn't even read my post... But you're right, a "parent that allows a 14 year old to run the streets, without attempting to deal with that behaviour, clearly is neglecting the welfare of that child". I could not agree with you more. Thanks for supporting my opinion. That was not your opinion plain and simple~ your opinion was that she was only placed at risks after the doors were locked at 2 AM! For clarity, are you seriously telling me that you are going to neglect what I write and tell me that my opinion was something completely different? I can sense your frustration, but you see, kikoman, a debate doesn't work that way. You can't decide someone else's opinion, you understand that, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rimmer Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Personal Attack removed, In using Thai Visa I agree:1) To respect fellow members. 4) Not to flame fellow members.Flaming will not be tolerated. 'Flaming' is defined as posting or responding to a message in a way clearly intended to incite useless arguments, to launch personal attacks, to insult, or to be hateful towards other members. This includes useless criticism, name-calling, swearing and any other comments meant to incite anger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kikoman Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) Beachproperty, As you were tasked with your 14 year old step daughters well-being and you took the affirmative action of locking her out of the house at 2;00 AM, I for one consider your actions proper in dealing with a child that grew up by making her own decision in a home, where supervision was non-existent due to her mother having to work two jobs to support the family. When you came into her life after she had already formed these habits, it was up to you to deal with the issue as she was now in your care, custody and control. During the two occasions that she was locked out of the house, as you stated she was under your physical observation and at no time during or after the lock out, She was never "At risks on the streets of Bangkok" The only time by her own actions she placed herself at risk, by staying out on the street till 2:00 AM. As a result of the lock out you were able to make an agreement with your step daughter that she would be home by 10 PM every night, and now as an adult you and her had formed a good relationship. So your decision was the right one at the right time, that achieved a result that was agreeable to you both. I commend you in doing a job well done, and I voted for your action as per your poll. Cheers: Edited October 31, 2013 by kikoman 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLCrab Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Maybe next time someone's child, after his/her parents have carefully helped them pack their bag to temporarily run away from home, will encounter these friendly & helpful folks: Young students kidnapped by human-trafficking gangs Category: Khon Kaen news Published on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 12:31 Khon Kaen Provincial Police have issued warnings about human-trafficking gangs widely operating in school areas. There have been several incidences in Khon Kaen and Udon Thani of children going missing after school time attributed to kidnapping by human-trafficking gangs. http://www.khonkaengazette.com/news/79-local-news/1785-young-students-kidnapped-by-human-trafficking-gangs This story does the rounds every year in isaan. Unfortunately it is never seen to have any evidence or further coverage. A few years ago it was a gang in a mini van scooping up luug kreung kids as a story. I quoted from a story in The Khon Khon Gazette wherein they referenced the Provincial Police. The whole thing may be total urban legend. Most of the media attention toward abductions in Thailand is between spouses and family members. Still, a child wandering around late at night for whatever reason can provoke a crime-of-opportunity ... up to you. And I agree with kikoman that in this instance the OP made the right call but I would hesitate to say that might be the right call in all cases regardless of other circumstances. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachproperty Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 Kikoman.....appreciate your support! you have summerized well my awkward situation and the need to deal wnith it as fast as possible. again...thanks for your support ....and everybody else who understood my dificult situation kf which there many. ..again thanks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kikoman Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) Maybe next time someone's child, after his/her parents have carefully helped them pack their bag to temporarily run away from home, will encounter these friendly & helpful folks: Young students kidnapped by human-trafficking gangs Category: Khon Kaen news Published on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 12:31 Khon Kaen Provincial Police have issued warnings about human-trafficking gangs widely operating in school areas. There have been several incidences in Khon Kaen and Udon Thani of children going missing after school time attributed to kidnapping by human-trafficking gangs. http://www.khonkaengazette.com/news/79-local-news/1785-young-students-kidnapped-by-human-trafficking-gangs This story does the rounds every year in isaan. Unfortunately it is never seen to have any evidence or further coverage. A few years ago it was a gang in a mini van scooping up luug kreung kids as a story. I quoted from a story in The Khon Khon Gazette wherein they referenced the Provincial Police. The whole thing may be total urban legend. Most of the media attention toward abductions in Thailand is between spouses and family members. Still, a child wandering around late at night for whatever reason can provoke a crime-of-opportunity ... up to you. And I agree with kikoman that in this instance the OP made the right call but I would hesitate to say that might be the right call in all cases regardless of other circumstances. I agree with your statement "Still, a child wandering around late at night for whatever reason can provoke a crime-of-opportunity" by doing so the child is at risk of abuse or exploration, and a parent would be guilty of neglect by not putting a stop to that risky behavior, Whether the stated situation may be an urban legend or not, the message is quite clear, that the parents must be aware of their responsibility to safeguard their children and make sure they are safe at home at the required time., Cheers: Edited October 31, 2013 by kikoman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre0720 Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 The tactic worked, but I don't know if it was good parenting or good fortune. We could have been reading a post about the daughter you haven't seen in 6 years who broke into the house and stole the gifts from under the christmas tree. Or we could have been reading a post about a teen staying out late at night, getting raped and killed.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLCrab Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 As I said on the OP's 'Christmas' topic, my younger brother died at age 16 as a direct result of his own reckless behavior -- only someone on the scene and who directly observes a child's behavior can make the call as to how to safeguard and protect their own. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forethat Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 During the two occasions that she was locked out of the house, as you stated she was under your physical observation and at no time during or after the lock out, She was never "At risks on the streets of Bangkok" The only time by her own actions she placed herself at risk, by staying out on the street till 2:00 AM.I must have missed this, where did he write anything like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forethat Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Maybe next time someone's child, after his/her parents have carefully helped them pack their bag to temporarily run away from home, will encounter these friendly & helpful folks: Young students kidnapped by human-trafficking gangs Category: Khon Kaen news Published on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 12:31 Khon Kaen Provincial Police have issued warnings about human-trafficking gangs widely operating in school areas. There have been several incidences in Khon Kaen and Udon Thani of children going missing after school time attributed to kidnapping by human-trafficking gangs. http://www.khonkaengazette.com/news/79-local-news/1785-young-students-kidnapped-by-human-trafficking-gangs This story does the rounds every year in isaan. Unfortunately it is never seen to have any evidence or further coverage. A few years ago it was a gang in a mini van scooping up luug kreung kids as a story. I quoted from a story in The Khon Khon Gazette wherein they referenced the Provincial Police. The whole thing may be total urban legend. Most of the media attention toward abductions in Thailand is between spouses and family members. Still, a child wandering around late at night for whatever reason can provoke a crime-of-opportunity ... up to you.And I agree with kikoman that in this instance the OP made the right call but I would hesitate to say that might be the right call in all cases regardless of other circumstances. Whether the stated situation may be an urban legend or not, the message is quite clear, that the parents must be aware of their responsibility to safeguard their children and make sure they are safe at home at the required time I could not agree with you more. Thanks for supporting my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kikoman Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) Beachproperty, Thank you very much for your post, many times you will find despite your best efforts, you can not please everybody or that every body will see your situation as it really was not what they assumed they may have done,. Many do not care for an answer, they just want to agitate. Remember "Never argue with an idiot, they will only drag you down to their level. and then beat you with experience". Maybe one day we may get to met each other, take care. Cheers: Edited October 31, 2013 by kikoman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forethat Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 During the two occasions that she was locked out of the house, as you stated she was under your physical observation and at no time during or after the lock out, She was never "At risks on the streets of Bangkok" The only time by her own actions she placed herself at risk, by staying out on the street till 2:00 AM. After checking beachproperty's posts, I should confirm that beachproperty has in fact never stated any of the above. I dont intend to debate the reason why this incorrect argument is being used in your post - it could even be an honest mistake - but I think it is important to point out that OP has in fact NEVER stated anything that resembles or even implies the above. Credit where credit is due. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachproperty Posted November 1, 2013 Author Share Posted November 1, 2013 Foerthat....at no time was my daughter out of my sight AFTER she finally came home 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kikoman Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Foerthat....at no time was my daughter out of my sight AFTER she finally came home Thanks for clearing that point up. As your original post (Christmas in Thailand....My daughter) Clearly stated the fact's I posted to, #1 Locked out two incidents, #2 1st lock out lasted a total of 5 minutes, 2 nd lock out lasted a total of 15 minutes, we are talking about a time frame covering a total of 20 minutes, during which "she was never alone on the streets".and where she was under your direct visual supervision! Post #52 on that thread, was a great example of a poster that disagree with you inform you of that, and stated he voted for the other posters opinion, never attacking you personally. This poster you responded is a classic example of a post that I would have totally ignored! Again I think you acted responsibly and stood by your principals, and ended up with a great relationship with your daughter. All is well that ends well. Cheers: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevvy Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Foerthat....at no time was my daughter out of my sight AFTER she finally came home Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app Check your first post. You change your story like the weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kikoman Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) Beachproprerty, Why continue to post to this poster, Your post clearly states, to the facts as you present them. You can give a person the facts as they did in fact happen, but you are not responsible for anyone's comprehension abilities. If a person disagrees with a point you made, they should be able to guide you to the information they disagree with, the blanket statement may be "you changed your story", only deserves an answer if they indicate what specifically in your post, they perceived you changed. As this poster failed to do that, whether you feel it deserves a response is solely up to you, I would not respond, without the specific info they disagree with. The topic of the thread is a poll! simply agree or disagree! Cheers: , Edited November 1, 2013 by kikoman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachproperty Posted November 1, 2013 Author Share Posted November 1, 2013 Heg kevvy....your zo in the face about safety...driving on the wrong side of the road in Chicago is not only negligent but stupid....must have been drunk...and even stupider to post it as tgough its funny....people culd have died because of your stupidity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevvy Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Heg kevvy....your zo in the face about safety...driving on the wrong side of the road in Chicago is not only negligent but stupid....must have been drunk...and even stupider to post it as tgough its funny....people culd have died because of your stupidity I have seen how you answer and come to the conclusion that you have a Personality Disorder( Narcissisticis) characterized by a long-standing pattern of grandiosity either in fantasy or actual behavior, an overwhelming need for admiration, and usually a complete lack of empathy toward others. People with this disorder often believe they are of primary importance in everybody’s life or to anyone they meet. I am not drunk today .I am finished with you , as I know what you are like now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Travel2003 Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) So we are discussing, in a new thread/topic what someone said in another thread/topic? Anyhow, Have a look at Russel Peters (on youtube) talking about why you should beat your kids. Dont know how to link it anymore. Edited November 1, 2013 by Travel2003 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forethat Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Foerthat....at no time was my daughter out of my sight AFTER she finally came homeDid it ever occur to you that the current debate is caused by the fact that she WASN'T at home in the first place and when she eventually came home you refused her entrance...? All according to yourself. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forethat Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 we are talking about a time frame covering a total of 20 minutes, during which "she was never alone on the streets".and where she was under your direct visual supervision! The problem here, really, is that it gets more and more difficult to know what you are actually talking about. Myself, I have never commented on anything other then what has been explicitly stated in a post. But I cant explain your habit of referring to quotes that doesn't exist; no one has EVER claimed or written any of the above in bold that you refer to. I dont know whether these posts are a result of your perception or understanding of the OP, or perhaps that you haven't actually read and understood the other posts. But the fact remains: OP has NEVER stated anything that resembles the above. Seriously. No one has ever written any of the above. This poster you responded is a classic example of a post that I would have totally ignored! I feel that if you dont want anyone to meet your arguments in public you probably shouldn't post in the first place. In case you're only interested in discussing someone else's posts with a single individual, there's also a PM function on the forum where you can take care of private discussions. My $0.02 In addition, I always make sure I am courteous enough to include posts to quotes I comment on. I find it incredibly rude when posters comment on other posts without including a reference to the post they are commenting on. In the post I have quoted above you refer to an undisclosed poster and an undisclosed post. Incredibly rude if you ask me. Another $0.02 of mine... In your case it gets even more confusing since you are addressing other posters argument directly, and when these posters give you answer you refuse to answer and instead post the above. "This poster you responded is a classic example of a post that I would have totally ignored!". So again, if you dont want anyone to reply to your posts you should probably spend your time doing something but post here. Another hard earned $0.02... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forethat Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Beachproprerty, Why continue to post to this poster, Your post clearly states, to the facts as you present them. You can give a person the facts as they did in fact happen, but you are not responsible for anyone's comprehension abilities. If a person disagrees with a point you made, they should be able to guide you to the information they disagree with, the blanket statement may be "you changed your story", only deserves an answer if they indicate what specifically in your post, they perceived you changed. Is it only me, or did you just claim that posters should "be able to guide you to the information they disagree with", only to totally neglect this amusing fact in the previous sentence where you refer to "this poster" and "your post" and "the facts" without giving as much as a clue as to who "this poster" is, what "your post" is or what "the facts" are...? Can you at least offer us the ability to reply to your posts by giving at least a tiny little wee bit of a clue of what you're talking about.? I would really like to meet your arguments here, but since your post includes no clue to what they really are I find that difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forethat Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 So we are discussing, in a new thread/topic what someone said in another thread/topic? Anyhow, Have a look at Russel Peters (on youtube) talking about why you should beat your kids. Dont know how to link it anymore. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kikoman Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Beachproperty, Just a review of your two post on this subject, your first post titled "Christmas in Thailand ....My Daughter". that was the thread was aimed at hearing other story, that ended well with others children. The post did not turn out as you envisioned, but was hi-jacked as a discussion of "proper" parenting. So you stated this post titled "Poll regarding How to discipline your child" to vote if one agreed or disagreed with your actions of locking your daughter out of the home when see came home 4 hours after her agreed upon curfew. While on the forum it is customary to vote and make a comment on why you voted that way, but again the forum was hi-jacked by many of the original posters on the Christmas post, After a initial exchanging of post those posters seem to employ a style of rhetoric and action aimed at provoking other posters into a desired emotional response So it ends up as a game, not a discussion and posters that take themselves to seriously, try every trick that they know to get a response. The Poll has been lost in the game, as all those posters stop posting on your first thread and continued their disruption tactic on this thread. Do not play their game with them, stay on the topic of the thread! Cheers: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forethat Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) While on the forum it is customary to vote and make a comment on why you voted that wayi have never before taken notice of this "custom". Actually, I have never even heard of any such existence in ANY other situation. Why would it be customary to give a reason for voting in one way or another. If this was a poll, why didn't OP create...a poll...?After a initial exchanging of post those posters seem to employ a style of rhetoric and action aimed at provoking other posters into a desired emotional responseIt is called "discussion". Just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion, it doesn't mean you are under "attack" or that someone is "provoking". I am simply arguing the facts. In this case, the facts are that OP violates the Child protection Act on three counts; sections 22, 25 and 26. If I comment on the mitigation it is apparent that there was never an intent to harm, though this does not alter the legal position. Being a parent means a lot of risk management. Making sure a young child is never exposed to direct risk OR acting in a way that could result in indirect risk is part of parental responsibilities. The correct decision in the case of OP and his step daughter, would have been to reduce any risk by allowing the girl in to the house and deal with the situation THEN. By not allowing her into the house you exposed her to all sorts of risks, whether you like to accept it or not. And it doesn't matter that nothing happened. Discussing the way you and OP does is comparable to playing Russian roulette and claim you made the right decision to play because you survived. In my opinion. Exposing your children to unnecessary risk is not "good parenting", it is in fact exactly the type of behaviour child protection laws are trying to prevent by declaring it criminal. It's not the end of the world having to admit that I am right. Edited November 1, 2013 by Forethat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachproperty Posted November 1, 2013 Author Share Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) While on the forum it is customary to vote and make a comment on why you voted that wayi have never before taken notice of this "custom". Actually, I have never even heard of any such existence in ANY other situation. Why would it be customary to give a reason for voting in one way or another. If this was a poll, why didn't OP create...a poll...?After a initial exchanging of post those posters seem to employ a style of rhetoric and action aimed at provoking other posters into a desired emotional responseIt is called "discussion". Just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion, it doesn't mean you are under "attack" or that someone is "provoking". I am simply arguing the facts.In this case, the facts are that OP violates the Child protection Act on three counts; sections 22, 25 and 26. If I comment on the mitigation it is apparent that there was never an intent to harm, though this does not alter the legal position. Being a parent means a lot of risk management. Making sure a young child is never exposed to direct risk OR acting in a way that could result in indirect risk is part of parental responsibilities. The correct decision in the case of OP and his step daughter, would have been to reduce any risk by allowing the girl in to the house and deal with the situation THEN. By not allowing her into the house you exposed her to all sorts of risks, whether you like to accept it or not. And it doesn't matter that nothing happened. Discussing the way you and OP does is comparable to playing Russian roulette and claim you made the right decision to play because you survived. In my opinion. Exposing your children to unnecessary risk is not "good parenting", it is in fact exactly the type of behaviour child protection laws are trying to prevent by declaring it criminal. It's not the end of the world having to admit that I am right. you have stated your opinion....and I appreciate that ....however much I find that it is nonsense. .....Your right ....this is a forum....and ALL opinions are welcome .... I hope you wouldn't mind though if you answered a few of my questions.... Are you a Parent? Have you ever gotten into a relationship with a women where her child already had bad habits established before you got there? Do you agree that different parents have different disciplinary styles ...(not saying one is right or wrong....just saying their different)? You state ...".Being a parent means a lot of risk management. Making sure a young child is never exposed to direct risk OR acting in a way that could result in indirect risk" so does mean you advocate locking your child up until they are adults? (I assume your answer has to be No....as we cannot (or should not) hover over our children 24 hrs a day....BUT maybe your answer is YES as you did write that and that's what it implies). Is it really that important you that you are right? Since you have failed to read ALL the posts regarding this matter (ie ...Did you see the reference in the first post to " Christmas in Thailand....My daughter?) how can you possibly make an informed opinion which would assist all TV posters in their Parenting styles...the reason I state that is that you must not have read all the posts ....because the original post was hijacked from a "father daughter moment" to a Bad Parent Rant... Therefore the story that was told was short and DID NOT include all the specific facts that some people inferred correctly (apparently beyond you intellectual level to do the same though as evidenced by your uninformed opinions)....and more specificly when the post was hijacked more facts came out as to the situation which included ...my daughter was never out of my sight when I locked her out....it also included the fact that I tried to talk to her to reason with her like an adult (pretty hard though since I don't speak Thai and my daughter speaks no English....so my wife had to translate...and her English is poor at best)....Other facts are not included but I think enough are there to make and informed opinion.... So if you don't agree with me go to the post indicated above Hit the "like" button for Kevvy #6 post (he agrees with you)....and thats it....THAT'S what this post was about ....read the first post again....get a clue....apparently though this post has taken on a life of its own for some reason....OK ... Edited November 1, 2013 by beachproperty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forethat Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 I hope you wouldn't mind though if you answered a few of my questions... Are you a Parent? I fail to recognise any relevancy to the topic. None of the known facts will change or have a dependency on me being a parent.Have you ever gotten into a relationship with a women where her child already had bad habits established before you got there?I fail to recognise any relevancy to the topic. None of the known facts will change or have a dependency on me ending up in the situation described above.Do you agree that different parents have different disciplinary styles ...(not saying one is right or wrong....just saying their different)? Yes I agree completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forethat Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) You state ..."Being a parent means a lot of risk management. Making sure a young child is never exposed to direct risk OR acting in a way that could result in indirect risk" so does mean you advocate locking your child up until they are adults? (I assume your answer has to be No....as we cannot (or should not) hover over our children 24 hrs a day). I fail to recognise any relevancy to the topic. None of the known facts will change or have a dependency on my answers to the questions above. If I want to discuss any parental issues of my own I will make sure to let you know if and when I start a topic. Until then I will make sure I debate YOUR parenting (since you have been kind enough to launch a topic around that). In this case I am commenting on your decision to lock out a 14 year old from her house. I am not disputing the fact (!) that it was successful in this case, I am arguing that it was both wrong as well as illegal if the events are as described. Is it really that important you that you are right? not at all. In fact, I am one of the few posters on this forum who doesn't have any issues admitting when I am wrong. Since you have failed to read ALL the posts regarding this matter I have read all posts in this matter. I am confident it is obvious to a majority if posters who read this topic that I know exactly what I am talking about and that I have read every word written in both parallel threads. That is also the reason why I have no problems identifying when posters make completely incorrect and faulty statements where they refer to posts that doesn't exist like kikoman did here: we are talking about a time frame covering a total of 20 minutes, during which "she was never alone on the streets".and where she was under your direct visual supervision! That is called "speculating" since you have NEVER claimed anything like that. How can you possibly make an informed opinion which would assist all TV posters in their Parenting styles... I cant. I' m only commenting on the facts in this case. Edited November 1, 2013 by Forethat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kikoman Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) Beachproperty, As you can see by the posters answers, there is no intention of "having a discussion" (two way street) the response is a classic example of refusing to answering any points as in a discussion. As you will notice in post # 17 I also asked for his documentation of what was posted again no response to the same points he states in his last post. Its all there for anyone to read. Also, the 20 minute is a fact that you stated, someone needs to go back and read it! Prior to advising you to review the sections 22, 25 and 26 stated in the next sentence This Document clearly states "Unofficial Translation" As for the pointing to violation of section 22, 25, 26. those sections are just broad statements of the Law. no specific itemized laws that any one "violated" over 7 years ago! I have attached the complete law in PDF form for anyone willing to read the document, as you read the Translation is unofficial remember that is what it is "Unofficial". Child Protection Act (1).pdf Again you were right, the topic is a poll, vote it up or down! and go on with your life,plain and simple! Cheers: Child Protection Act (1).pdf Edited November 1, 2013 by kikoman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now