i live in Norway, and can say that those kidnappers simply are a detached state of its own where none have power over them and they can do whatever they want... (and lets not forget that Sweden is right next to us, and they are the rape capital of the world because of the migrant crises... so in my mind, i am wondering why there are no law suit on the country's state for risking the well beings of EVERYONE around them, so put just those two together, this country ain't so great anymore, since any sucker with a gun can go on a killing spree in our country and the police are there to catch drugs(making money) and picking up our corpses if something actually threatens our safety as we are not allowed to defend what's so ever)
A one time smack in the hand or in the butt is not bad.. It was needed to discipline some kids.. Some even needed a weak pinch in the ear.. So that they will know that what they're doing is wrong.
Spanking a child isn't a terrible thing, it's only when it goes too far and is used as stress management or a source of pleasure that it becomes a bad thing. Sometimes grounding, time-outs, and taking away their possessions isn't enough to show them what they did was wrong. If a child has no respect for authority and acts like they are immune to consequences, they will get in trouble as adults and end up going to suffer. If a spanking can prevent that, I'm all for it.
It's a form of socialist democracy, it's corrupt and will protect itself against the normal citizens and abuse it's power. It's what many young adults believe America should become. They believe it is better and helps the poor and weak. Norway is currently in the early stages of corruption, but give it another 10-20 years and it'll only get worse as the government takes on more and more authority that should belong to the citizens. Even the so called progenitor of socialism didn't see it as a viable form of government. To add the mob rule of democracy on top of it just makes it even more susceptible to corruption and flagrant violations of human rights and dignity.
Lol, So I heard an interview once, he said the only reason why bad guys can get away with bad things is because the good guys don't bring guns. That's why he register himself as a deputy to legalize himself carrying a gun even on a plane or internationally. It might sound draconian but sometimes it works. I live in a country where the law system just punishes people coz the law wants to squeeze money out of money earning minor offenders by ticketing them or extortion. Thieves would just get jailed for months and get back into circulation. The reason why there's no rampant roberry? Sometimes people are beaten and burnt for stealing bikes and such. My point: if you find a guy like this, you should just shoot him in the head and nobody should sue you for it.
Come to eastern Europe and trace those back to the UK, France, Germany. You'll be quite surprised for how close and hidden–in–the–plain–sight they were. From counterfeit $, cracks, to the meat industry.
There are no socialist or democracy in it. Those were feudal with men and guns. Seriously nothing connected to socialist–democracy–capitalist etc anymore. Violence rules and for profit and profit only. Just be thankful that they can't do it so blatantly on larger scale with military industry and high tech violence like warplanes or nuke. Each to their own wore a facade that they have to keep for their survival and growth.
.... takes several kids away from one parent because the parent smacked one of them once so they would let go of their sibling instead of continuing to clamp on with their teeth, & doesn't return them for 5 years despite the new caretakers reporting that the kids are so well-adjusted the parents must have been doing a great job; lets the psychiatrist guy keep custody of his kids despite being found guilty of downloading more than 10 thousand child rape videos; refuses to review any of the cases psych guy was involved in, saying there's no problem with them. Wow. That's so crazy it almost doesn't seem real.
What goes around comes around. By your suggestion: If Abraham decides that Ben is wrong by Abraham's own moral standards, Abraham can shoot Ben because Ben is evil. Then Conner decides that Abraham is wrong, so Conner also decides he's legitimate in shooting Abraham in the head. The law can't punish Conner although he killed someone else. Then Daniel thought he's the only one right and all the others (such as gays, lesbians, anime lovers) are wrong so he can go on a shooting spree killing everyone he believes to be gays, lesbians and anime lovers. Mind you, some countries execute gays and lesbians and some countries ban animes. Now, what if you are Ben. You didn't do anything wrong, at least not that you're aware of. However, you were eating pork in front of Abraham, and Abraham said you're insulting his religion, and that makes it okay for him to shoot you in the head. Of course, this is an example, it can be anything. Vigilante justice is never the answer. It's the enforcement of a good law and justice following commonly accepted values that apply to everyone is the only way to go. If you let anyone shoot anyone based on their own judgement, you'll get USA, where your cousins can be shot just because he read the map wrong. Oh, in the USA, you can also be shot just by going to school. Man, USA has so many guns they can afford to cull their own next generations.
The article was written with one particular intention in mind, which makes it biased. We don't hear what the children said to the protection services, or even the accusations due to which they were separated. But we hear from the disgruntled parents of their defence. Having said the above point, law should make sure to facilitate the basic rights and not intrude upon personal lives of people and how they should raise their kids. There shouldn't be a law that I can't sit on my bed because it's meant to lay on, it's dumb and its intrusive. Child protection services are necessary. But a proper system must be developed with people who not only have knowledge but also empathy. And separating the kids from the family should be the last resort and should only be taken when the parents haven't acted in repeated written warnings as well as several visits. While serious issues should result in separation of kids from their family, for example, sexual abuse. Having a vague system gives a lot of power to the one operating it. You can operate it any way you like and still justify yourself by claiming that you have always been following the law while acting on its behalf.
Sometimes when I interact with the next generation of Americans... Well sometimes i think to myself "maybe these shootings are like natural wildfires." But in all seriousness it sucks, there is failures at so many levels for events like school shootings to happen.
Woah, calm down there! Mistaken on point one? Spoiler: Example 1 Parent: Parent again: Lawyer: Child: Child again: Not hearing anything from the child? Sure, not from the article, but from the Child Protection Services. Transparency from the country 0 and even better, 0 understanding as well: Spoiler: Example 2 Parents (from the account of the sister's kidnapped sister): Child Kidnappers (Protection Services): Child: Child again: @Tramsloof, you sure like to "attack" the article, but did you read it? While I agree with the rest of your post, the article itself spreads awareness about the horrible situation there. Child Protection Services are indeed necessary, but in the case of Norway, they should be renamed to “Smart Kidnappers”. Sigh, and the sad thing is, Child Protection Services commit one really important work. Norway's entire system, however, should be reworked, and the people responsible for the many tragedies there should be hanged, or at least pay for their crimes. At the very least I don't think that only removing the person's rights to work for someone who ruined the lives of hundreds of families is proper. (He only got jailed for downloading child pornography and for 22 months at it. Almost nothing done for the moral crimes he committed against those families.) The man couldn't have not saved even one kid from misfortune, but for the hundreds of others whose life he ruined he should go to Hell. Trash like him should just rot in prison, as well as others who've done the same thing, or allowed it to happen.
Spoiler: Example 2 Leen was taken first to a foster home, then to another care institution, then to a hospital. Eventually – a year after she was first put into care – she ran away. She met up with her mother, who took her to Poland, where they have lived for the past year. [/Quote] Child again: [/QUOTE] ------------------------------------------ (For some reason, the quote is malfunctioning, mixing your post above with that of mine below) You are triggered for some reason. Although I do agree that the service is pointlessly excessive in its doing, the article is biased. Yes, you hear the side of children, but only a single sentence that may even be out of context. And these sentences are not directly out of their mouth, but the parent or the reporter is using their own words to say what the children said. As an example, this sentence they said, 'the number of times the children said that my mother is violent, is zero'. Don't include this as what the children said, this is just parents or the writer saying what the children did not say. And in your example there's a sentence where the writer or the parent narrates, 'the CPS asked did your parent ever hit you and the child said no, never.' Yes, it could be counted as a direct reply. But was this truly all that the child said? Why were the CPS even there, there must be an accusation or suspicion at the very least. Why do I see none of this? What I mean are quotes with an official saying something, I don't want parents narrating what they heard or what the writer has to say. Some of the things are downplayed in it. For example the condition of house which was disorganised but the parents side justified it, because we only see this side in the article. And such is also the case with that cheap bread case. The issue may be true, but the article is doing exactly what the it's claiming the CPS is doing. It's outrightly ignoring the other side of the story. Even if they are in the wrong (CPS), their side of the story should be heard too. As I said in my original reply, I am not in favour of how the CPS is operating. But I would never become emotional because of this, and in my sentiments support a one sided story which may be false, whereby I would actually be raising my voice for a parent who is truly abusive to their children. They goto courts with the issue. And the courts then decide in the favour of CPS. I can't accept the fact that children were separated from their families due to minor issues like the ones mentioned in the articles. Now if that truly happened, that would truly be wrong. See how many ifs I had to use. I would'ave liked to see what the CPS or the courts had to say of this. Only after hearing both the sides could I truly form an opinion. I am talking of reason here, and I wouldn't rush to judge. Nonetheless it's rare for you to burst out like this. You even said 'Tramsloof did you even read the article'. Actually that's an attack. Obviously. I wouldn't have said what I did without reading it. Nonetheless, that's the least of courtesy I I extend to my friends. I am very patient with them, so you are in luck.
Was annoyed from the article, and it shows in my reply, xD, couldn't help it. I wanted to side with the parents more than to the Child Support Services and... well, you see how I felt about them when I was done reading the article: ... Anyways, sorry for attacking you, might've gone a bit too far on my post too. Still, I might say something about it later on. Well, they are statements, and through them we have what the kids said. I will admit that hearing their side too, would help, but facts and conclusions (such as the child running away from foster care to join her family once again) showed me the stance the kids had was aligned with their parents. Which was, they didn't want to be separated. Their presence and side isn't so much ignored as you make it out to be in your post: Also, we do hear the accusations they were separated due. Granted we're only presented with two cases, and I shouldn't push this matter too far, but the detail we are shown in those cases, disregarding the point of view it was said from stands to make a point. As you said, the Child Protection Services should only as a last resort take away the kids romto their parents, and just listening to the reasons the kids were taken from their parents made me not want to look at their case at all, which I will admit made me only more biased. I would think It's a flaw I had corrected, but I won't support the CPS case regardless of wether I had considered it from their POV or not, talking in particular for the cases presented in the article, and the ones not shown, but existing. True, and I agree with you, we should be given more information if we are to make a clear conclusion out of this. That being said, a conclusion was reached from the court, so I will go by that. And after that: I don't event understand what goes on inside their heads... probably meth. Though: (Once you lose your trustworthiness, It's hard to get it back and I don't trust the one person who was supporting child pornography. ) True, I can't say much against her financial situation, as I'm lacking the information to do a proper comment on it. That's one thing they "twisted" into negatives (per claims of the mother), but the reason they took her daughter was: Unfortunately, I still truly can't support her case due to lack of information. Which is also why I didn't mention it as an example. I couldn't take a random case that had nothing written on it and post it as an example of how children were even participating, or how the judgment of the child pornography guy was not trustworthy. (Another piece of information we're missing in this case is the partner of that guy, a female phychologist, who was crucial to the kid's separation from It's parents.) While true, and I would also like to have it, them being rectified at the court, and even providing false information at the second example, doesn't do much to help their case. And what do the courts base their verdict on? The CPS report, while the parents try to defend that. And in my first example, how was the dealing inside the court? Though again, we're missing information, even more so than before, so I will rest my case on this part. What can I say, It's a touchy subject to discuss upon... And I was salty seeing this comment from you: Because the children aren't as invisible in this whole story as you make them out to be, nor are the accusations. I commented on this before saying "you attacked the article", because honestly, we hear way more from the children than the CPS, who aren't so transparent. The CPS can't really say anything normally (for the family's privacy), but when the matter gets too out of hand, maybe a statement would be appropriate. And as I said, I agree with the rest of your post. ... ... ... Darn! Only after reading my post like 20 times did I see how I missed my original point Argh, thank you @Tramsloof, because I got off track. I was talking particularly at those two cases in the beginning, then switched it up to generally distrusting the CPS. Now, I realized this as I was writing the reply, so you see how I... let's say got tricked, for the lack of a better word. The article paints CPS in a bad light, as most advocates for... "justice", try to do the same. Because CPS can't really defend themselves per law, the families are free to twist the situation however they like. You can't say that no one makes mistakes, and that's why I only wanted to comment on those two cases, but as I read further and further, I got too biased. I continued replying only about these two cases of course, and said I'm talking about only the bad cases like those we were presented in the article, albeit a bit indirectly, I started generalising. At the end, I consider those examples the exceptions rather than the norm like I had before. Edit: In all of the cases I'm assuming the kids... were how to say it, knowledgeable? Sometimes small kids don't know better and this is a fact not easily disproven in any case. That said, I too used assumptions when I was arguing against you. Well, it's a huge topic after all.
Thank you first of all, for the understanding, patience and realisation. I know these things that, A) People lie/ People justify/ People try by hook or crook B) Children lie, more than an adult gives them credit for. C) Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as George Orwell says. D) Media/People are mostly biased in some way, especially when there's nothing stopping them from being so. (In the end, when sued, they always say that they were expressing an opinion and not saying a fact) E) Seeing all the above and much more, you should always evaluate everything and judge for yourself. Now you wouldn't believe this, I myself got tricked this afternoon. Yes, I was watching divorce court on YouTube and I was thinking that the judge was biased. That the couple seemed dysfunctional and it didn't make sense. Then I got to the comments, trying to see if I could figure out something that could help me in deciding what I saw. I see that the wife commented once and she's defending her husband. Alright. I dig a little deeper into the comments and there you have it, the wife admitted that she was on the divorce court just to earn a quick buck and her husband was opposed to the idea but she convinced him anyway, making out a lie to just come to the divorce court to earn quick money. ---- Now on the note of CPS, courts and Norway. I know this, A) Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. (Vague laws and no security checks) B)Laws are made by humans and enforced by humans. And to err is human. C)where there's smoke, there should be a suspicion of fire. Hence, the CPS, the courts and the law may be at fault here. Maybe not in all cases, but given the amount of smoke, there should be cases that raise questions like the child porn viewing psychologist. Since, there's a system at play here with many layers and levels, I.e bureaucracy, I am even more inclined to be suspicious of any smoke that may arise. --------- Given the above, what you want are quotes, facts, raw data and expert opinions. Not one independ expert, or statements or probabilities. I know of a case where a newspaper printed something along the lines of, "Sanjay Dutt, a terrorist?" Sanjay Dutt and his family went to court to sue the editor and the newspaper, and the editor and the newspaper got away free because they wrote a '?' question mark at the end. This mark ruined the life of his family and himself. (Meaning, they weren't staying anything and it was merrily a question) You want quotes, facts and figures from officials who directly have to do with the case. Who can be judged, sought and verified. A single incidence shouldn't define an entire outline but should nonetheless warrant an investigation. You wan the results of that investigation and how they reached that conclusion. ------- In a matter in relation to the life of kids, both would be a disaster: A) CPS tore the kids away from their family due to an issue that didn't matter, was minor, or wasn't there at all. B) Abusive parents got hold of their children again, using the hook or the crook. I am saying in terms of possibilities, both can happen, and they are both a disaster to the kids. And if the CPS disbands entirely, that's another disaster. A proper system should be constructed, with fair laws and warnings. Proper measures should be to taken to monitor and evaluate the dealings of CPS. Complaints of the parents should be formally heard and noted in case they claim injustice and investigation by an independent organisation should be carried out to validate the truth of the situation. You can't afford but not to be thorough in cases like these. As they say, the devil is in the detail. And when it's concerning the welfare of children, you wouldn't want the devil left unchecked or unnoticed.
Darn, that's a long reply with many points I can't help but agree on. And as I look back at those two examples I stated, I found something against one of them when you said this: About the child that run away from its foster parents, Leen. There is something very wrong with that case, because the family coordinated an escape with an underage child, possibly putting her in danger, and more over you can't deny that she was in a bad mental state and... they sort of took advantage of that. It's a lot of things to take in with those examples and the subject itself. Undoubtedly, however, separation should only be the last resort of CPS as it just solves everything through brute force... which can create further problems down the line, or even immediate aftereffects. At the end, we can only judge based on the decision of the court, which sometimes might be incorrect, while others prove us wrong in a positive way. No system was ever without failures, or even costly mistakes, but seeking to improve is what humans have in their DNA. It's what led us to go so far and the one thing that saves us from our failures. Maybe humans will improve upon the current systems and even with the possibility of corruption we will have no worry of being falsely charged for a crime, or someone escaping imprisonment when he shouldn't. It's a dream, but no one can stop me from sleeping! Hehe~
transparency, people awareness and integrity that related to income and education as whole cuz well how you can think of complicated thing if you are too busy with searching money and or lack of education to even understand it on first place~ that aside for da article seem like another case of failure on self check on a department on government side add with lack of awareness and or people just let it be cuz apathy toward it cuz too many case and seem too few or none attempt from government to fix it~ ranged from law maker to law enforcer~ well I'm not norwegian but based on what I know from experience my country was listed as numba 3(or was it 5 or top 10) as most corrupt country(wow~ awesome right? lel idk now~ last time I see it rank around 90 of 170 country for transparency blablabla rank)~ each department have mechanism to self check it own policy, member and another stuff related to it~ now here lay da problem~ it have probability da lack of will to run such mechanism for various reason or lack of update on it(like lack of update on program so da law become hoahem on never seen case before) or mix of them~ plus~ sometime when a scandal happen da department try to hide not solve it cuz again various reason~ foala then you get many situation~ my country law not really have CPS despite there law which I think can be used to to forcefully take children from their parents because of various reason~ hmm it not my field so idk~ there is department to protect children but idk how far it responsibility and power on children related case~ wait is that part of CPS? who know~