Unsure whether to return to UK

[InnerVoice]

53 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

If you read the article, it points out that the offshore settlement scheme in Australia (equivalent to the Rwanda idea) didn't stop the boats, and it was terribly inhumane.  What has worked is turning back the boats.

That's what I thought too. They need to throw a lot more resources at stopping the boats leaving France and/or reaching the UK. The problem is that every time one goes down (and sometimes they sink themselves just to get rescued) the British public gets up in arms, all fuelled by the media of course. I recall Australians being a lot more pragmatic about our situation, with most agreeing that it was very sad when people lost their lives but it wasn't our fault. We didn't make them get on those boats and attempt to illegally enter Australia.

[Tulip1]

8 hours ago, InnerVoice said:

The Rwanda scheme was the stupidest idea ever. They should just send them back to France - that's where they're all coming from.

They can’t if they are picked up in English waters, they’re not allowed to.  If picked up in French waters then they are returned to France.  Luckily for them it seems their boats don’t usually start showing signs of failing until they’re safely in English waters.  Only then do they have to start bailing out water with their shoes and shouting for help.  Precision timing some might say. 

[Tulip1]

7 hours ago, InnerVoice said:

That's what I thought too. They need to throw a lot more resources at stopping the boats leaving France and/or reaching the UK. The problem is that every time one goes down (and sometimes they sink themselves just to get rescued) the British public gets up in arms, all fuelled by the media of course. I recall Australians being a lot more pragmatic about our situation, with most agreeing that it was very sad when people lost their lives but it wasn't our fault. We didn't make them get on those boats and attempt to illegally enter Australia.

Some of the British public may get up in arms but I assure you not all do.  Just as you say Australians think, so do many Brits.  When someone is sitting on safe land such as France and they can apply for asylum there or in any other safe country they’ve passed through, it is a choice a get in a boat.  It’s not on a whim or some ill thought out decision, it’s months in the planning at a high financial cost.  They do it because they think life will be better in the UK but no one makes them get on any boat.  They are adults that make that choice and as with anything in life, they and not others must take responsibility for their choices.  

Edited August 29, 2023 by Tulip1

[Marisawright]

19 minutes ago, Tulip1 said:

They can’t if they are picked up in English waters, they’re not allowed to.  If picked up in French waters then they are returned to France.  Luckily for them it seems their boats don’t usually start showing signs of failing until they’re safely in English waters....

But if there was a "turn back" policy, then the boat getsturned back while it is still seaworthy.   The UK does not have a turn back policy at all.  

I think it's easier for Australia because the boats have such a huge area of sea to cross.  Sure it makes it harder to patrol, but it also means the boats are at sea for a lot longer and therefore they're more likely to get spotted and can be turned back.

[Gary H]

The TV literally had the migrants on a loop when I was back, the story rotating from hotels being full, to the new barge then statistics of how many arrived.I spent 3 weeks on teh south coast near Folkstone, the coast guard sat mid-channel every day. 

The news hardly touched on the fallout from Brexit, the Tories awarding billions in contracts that evaporated to their mates, the councils going bankrupt, and the NHS issues. However, they did seem to villainize the same people applauded during the corvid for having the audacity to strike over crap pay and conditions.

Yes, it's an issue with people coming over but glaringly obvious that these people are being pushed to front and centre of public attention. A more cynical mind could think it was a distraction from other issues.

My cousin summed it all up, living here is better if you watch your finances and turn your TV off. Trust your own eyes and not what you're told to see.

[Cheery Thistle]

Yip, do agree with this. It’s like the Scottish govt absolute turkey bottle return scheme and their sex education policy which I am convinced are just a decoy to try and detract attention from the actual real issues. 
 

The problem is, what my own eyes see is not too bonnie unfortunately! 

[Parley]

On 20/08/2023 at 20:29, Nemesis said:

Thats great, hope I didn't cause any offence but I know people who have been caught out by thinking "father" wasn't interested. 

My niece has just had a little girl through IVF, absolutely lovely baby, hope you are as happy when your time comes!  

I must say I was offended.

Just with the female viewpoint of proactively trying to stop a father being involved in their child's life at any cost.

It is outrageous and would never be tolerated if a father was being advised to stop a mother being involved in her child's life.

I really hope this anti father bias is irradicated one day from society.

 

[Parley]

On 20/08/2023 at 17:27, Lomandra said:

The only male I've been involved with to get pregnant is my IVF doctor. lol 

You may find out one day that even sperm donors have legal rights. lol.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-20/can-a-sperm-donor-be-a-legal-parent-the-law-says-yes/11226690

[Nemesis]

23 minutes ago, Parley said:

I must say I was offended.

Just with the female viewpoint of proactively trying to stop a father being involved in their child's life at any cost.

It is outrageous and would never be tolerated if a father was being advised to stop a mother being involved in her child's life.

I really hope this anti father bias is irradicated one day from society.

 

Well I apologise for offending YOU by asking a question of another poster! 

You are talking as if I was advising her to try and cut the father out of her life. All I was doing was ensuring that if there was another parent on the scene, then she was aware of their rights - both his, hers, and those of the child. I would never "proactively try and stop a father from being involved" with their child and I don't know what gives you the right to assume that from my post. 

I deliberately said that I didn't want to cause offence, because I thought she just might be in a similar position to that of my niece, and I knew that was getting a bit personal. 

How the heck you turn that into anti-father bias beats me! 

[Toots]

23 hours ago, Gary H said:

The TV literally had the migrants on a loop when I was back, the story rotating from hotels being full, to the new barge then statistics of how many arrived.I spent 3 weeks on teh south coast near Folkstone, the coast guard sat mid-channel every day. 

The news hardly touched on the fallout from Brexit, the Tories awarding billions in contracts that evaporated to their mates, the councils going bankrupt, and the NHS issues. However, they did seem to villainize the same people applauded during the corvid for having the audacity to strike over crap pay and conditions.

Yes, it's an issue with people coming over but glaringly obvious that these people are being pushed to front and centre of public attention. A more cynical mind could think it was a distraction from other issues.

My cousin summed it all up, living here is better if you watch your finances and turn your TV off. Trust your own eyes and not what you're told to see.

Totally agree.  Add social media to the list. 

[Parley]

13 minutes ago, Nemesis said:

Well I apologise for offending YOU by asking a question of another poster! 

You are talking as if I was advising her to try and cut the father out of her life. All I was doing was ensuring that if there was another parent on the scene, then she was aware of their rights - both his, hers, and those of the child. I would never "proactively try and stop a father from being involved" with their child and I don't know what gives you the right to assume that from my post. 

I deliberately said that I didn't want to cause offence, because I thought she just might be in a similar position to that of my niece, and I knew that was getting a bit personal. 

How the heck you turn that into anti-father bias beats me! 

You wrote quite openly  "If there is any possibility at all that he might try and be involved with the baby, then I'd advise you to make sure you get out of Australia and back home fairly quickly"

Don't pretend you didn't write that.

[Nemesis]

12 hours ago, Parley said:

You wrote quite openly  "If there is any possibility at all that he might try and be involved with the baby, then I'd advise you to make sure you get out of Australia and back home fairly quickly"

Don't pretend you didn't write that.

She said he was not on the scene. If he was on the scene and involved or showing interest from the start thats one thing. However when the OP clearly said that he wasn't around that suggests either something like IVF, or a father not involved from the start.

In which case what right does he have to wander along at some later date, after the mother has faced all this alone, and then announce he wants involvement? I had a friend who had a guy do that to her. Didn't want to know at all until he heard from someone that she was going home, when the child was 4 years old. Suddenly he had all the rights under the sun as regards preventing her from leaving the country; however he never stumped up a penny in maintenance (cos he had no job and a big drug habit), never wanted to see the child, and only did it to be difficult. Guess you would say he was entitled to ruin her future and that of her child? In a situation like that, getting out quick would have been a  very good idea. 

[Marisawright]

23 hours ago, Parley said:

You wrote quite openly  "If there is any possibility at all that he might try and be involved with the baby, then I'd advise you to make sure you get out of Australia and back home fairly quickly"

 If a man turns his back during the pregnancy and birth, he's made his choice as far as I'm concerned.  

I have a similar story.  A friend of mine had been in a relationship for 2 years.  She got pregnant.  It wasn't planned, but they had such a settled relationship, she expected him to be supportive. Instead, he broke it off.  He's Chinese and said he could never marry an Australian girl.  She had some difficulties with the pregnancy and had to give up work early.  With no family in Sydney, she had no alternative but to go home to Darwin and live with her elderly parents (she was in her late thirties and they had her quite late in life).  Luckily she had friends in Sydney to help her pack up and move, not an easy task when she was unwell.  She kept the father informed, though he never responded to any of her emails.   

After the baby was born, she sent him a photo.  It was a boy.

As it happened, this guy worked in the same company as me.  I was stunned to see him going round the office, showing off the photo of "his son" on his phone. 

Next thing, he wanted to come to Darwin to see the baby.  She was doubtful but felt the kid needed a father, so she agreed.  He turned up with his parents in tow.   They visited a few times. Then the parents took her aside and told her that she couldn't possibly bring up the child as a single mother, and her parents were too old to help -- so the sensible thing would be to hand the boy over to them and they would adopt him.  You can imagine what she said. 

[Parley]

21 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

 If a man turns his back during the pregnancy and birth, he's made his choice as far as I'm concerned.  

I have a similar story.  A friend of mine had been in a relationship for 2 years.  She got pregnant.  It wasn't planned, but they had such a settled relationship, she expected him to be supportive. Instead, he broke it off.  He's Chinese and said he could never marry an Australian girl.  She had some difficulties with the pregnancy and had to give up work early.  With no family in Sydney, she had no alternative but to go home to Darwin and live with her elderly parents (she was in her late thirties and they had her quite late in life).  Luckily she had friends in Sydney to help her pack up and move, not an easy task when she was unwell.  She kept the father informed, though he never responded to any of her emails.   

After the baby was born, she sent him a photo.  It was a boy.

As it happened, this guy worked in the same company as me.  I was stunned to see him going round the office, showing off the photo of "his son" on his phone. 

Next thing, he wanted to come to Darwin to see the baby.  She was doubtful but felt the kid needed a father, so she agreed.  He turned up with his parents in tow.   They visited a few times. Then the parents took her aside and told her that she couldn't possibly bring up the child as a single mother, and her parents were too old to help -- so the sensible thing would be to hand the boy over to them and they would adopt him.  You can imagine what she said. 

A child is not her possession. That is what some of you fail to grasp.

It should not be up to the mother to decide whether the father deserves a role in his child's life. It is the child's right and the father's right. Women need to stop thinking like the child is their property and up to them to decide.

Really any "stories" about other men are totally irrelevant. You might as well use Lucy Letby to generalise about the merits of nurses caring for babies. It is irrelevant.

Fortunately the courts are a bit more enlightened than some of the women on here who are tainted by some bad experiences with men and seek to tar other men with their brush.

 

[Marisawright]

4 hours ago, Parley said:

A child is not her possession. That is what some of you fail to grasp.

It should not be up to the mother to decide whether the father deserves a role in his child's life.

It is the child's right to decide when he or she is old enough, agreed. But do you seriously think that a man who dumps a woman as soon as he discovers she's pregnant, refuses to offer any support (financial or otherwise) during the pregnancy or birth, and does not offer to pay anything to support the child, should then be allowed to waltz in whenever he feels like it?   

I am not generalising, by the way.  You are the one generalising, saying that every father, regardless of how disreputable or disgraceful their behaviour, has a right to lay claim to a child.

[Blue Manna]

6 hours ago, Parley said:

A child is not her possession. That is what some of you fail to grasp.

It should not be up to the mother to decide whether the father deserves a role in his child's life. It is the child's right and the father's right. Women need to stop thinking like the child is their property and up to them to decide.

Really any "stories" about other men are totally irrelevant. You might as well use Lucy Letby to generalise about the merits of nurses caring for babies. It is irrelevant.

Fortunately the courts are a bit more enlightened than some of the women on here who are tainted by some bad experiences with men and seek to tar other men with their brush.

 

I think you need to distinguish between someone being under someone's protection and someone being owned. And I really think your wokeish arguments don't have a lot of traction here. The child is what is important.

[Parley]

26 minutes ago, Blue Manna said:

I think you need to distinguish between someone being under someone's protection and someone being owned. And I really think your wokeish arguments don't have a lot of traction here. The child is what is important.

Nothing to do with woke. But you are 100% right that what is best for the child is the overriding factor. A relationship with both parents is the ideal and what family courts aim for these days wherever possible.

As long as the child is safe. Beyond that shared parental responsibility is pretty much the standard arrangement the courts would like to achieve.

Whisking the child off overseas obviously doesn't allow that and why courts often try and prevent it. Although it may be allowed in certain cases.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Parley

[calNgary]

Anywayyyyy out of respect to the OP,  time to move on please, feel free to discuss parenting rights via PM or in another thread if you so wish.

          Cal x

[InnerVoice]

17 minutes ago, calNgary said:

Anywayyyyy out of respect to the OP,  time to move on please, feel free to discuss parenting rights via PM or in another thread if you so wish.

          Cal x

Jeez... talk about hijacking a thread. This one's turned into Entebbe Airport!

Edited September 6, 2023 by InnerVoice