I still find it quite bewildering that pain makes no impression on
human beings and you have not the slightest interest in ending human
suffering by simply ABOLISHING the mother-infant relationship in its
present form and RETRAINING OUR WOMEN SO AS TO TEACH OUR WOMEN TO HAVE
A BIT OF DECENCY IN THEIR DEALINGS WITH BABIES.

Why will you people not do that? Why will you not RETRAIN our women so
as to TEACH our women to have a bit of DECENCY in their dealings with
babies?

Under the present survivalist-mode mother-infant relationship, every
mother in the world is a child abuser.
We urgently need to teach our women to
STOP being child abusers.

Is that really too much to ask - just that mothers stop being child
abusers?

  --------------------

Nearly all members of the present civilisation have had the experience
of being 'jilted.'

Our songs, art, literature and poetry all sing the same theme, of a
love that has been lost............

When someone you love and adore ABRUPTLY ENDS her sexual relationship
with you, it's a terrible blow.

Much can be said about this. For example, if we didn't have a 'ban on
loving more than one,' then things would be different and there would
never be any such thing as being 'jilted.' The concept of being
'jilted' would never arise, if we didn't have this amazing 'ban on
loving more than one.'

However, let's just apply relentless logic to the situation as it is
today.

Nearly all of us have experienced the pain of being 'jilted,' of
someone we love and adore ABRUPTLY ENDING an intense sexual
relationship, and leaving us feeling hurt and devastated on account of
the loss of the love we thought would last forever.

Ring any bells?

--------------

The mother-infant relationship is an INTENSE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN EVERY MOTHER IN THE WORLD AND HER BABIES. The mother and the
infant are locked into this intense sexual relationship for several
months. The infant believes it will never end.

Then, as the infant gains movement and vocabulary, the mother - every
mother in the world - ABRUPTLY ENDS HER SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH HER
BABY,  without giving any exlanation to her baby for this dreadful act
of cruelty and child abuse, then covering her betrayal under an
avalanche of toxic shame, whereby the mothers of this world pretend
that human beings are inherently defective on account of being
attached to body parts which are so irredeemably evil that they must
be concealed from view and never spoken of unless unavoidable. The
infant KNOWS that his mother has gone insane, but the infant has
nowhere to go.

In the words of Bernardo Bertolucci,
'CHILDREN ARE TORTURED UNTIL THEY TELL THEIR FIRST LIE.'

--------------------------------

It's a question of PAIN, isn't it..........

It's solely a question of how much PAIN must be inflicted upon the
inhabitants of this planet to make them ABOLISH the mother-infant
relationship and thus END their pain.

I have to live with you fucking imbeciles.

I want you to get a grip on yourselves now.
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dddp6bt4_829zpt8ffd

is it legal for an employer to say if you are found not guilty in a
criminal case,that they are not intrested in what the law says,you are
still guilty by the employer.Can everdence which was bought up in
court be allowed to be use by the employer even though it was found to
be faulse in a court of law in front of a jury?can the employer
question some oner as if they were the police?

On 7 Jun, 10:46, tezer...@googlemail.com wrote:
> is it legal for an employer to say if you are found not guilty in a
> criminal case,that they are not intrested in what the law says,you are
> still guilty by the employer.Can everdence which was bought up in
> court be allowed to be use by the employer even though it was found to
> be faulse in a court of law in front of a jury?can the employer
> question some oner as if they were the police?

In a criminal case the test is whether you are guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. At the civil level the test is less onerous -
matters can be decided 'on the balance of probability'. It could eg be
the case that someone is found not guilty of stealing money from an
employer, but that they are still in serious breach of their
employer's procedures for handling and recording financial
transactions which resulted in serious discrepencies.

It depends what you mean about the evidence 'being found false in
court'. If evidence was specifically found to be untrue or was
disproved in court that would be important, but there may be
additional evidence to the contrary which wasn't tested in court. And
the fact that someone is found 'not guilty' does not necessarily mean
that the evidence against them is untrue; only that it wasn't
sufficient or relevant to convict them of the charge.

No, an employer can't question someone 'as though they were the
police'. They can question and seek information if they think their
procedures or terms of employment have been broken, and they can ask
any reasonable questions to determine this, particularly within a
properly notified and constituted disciplinary hearing.

Toom

On 8 Jun, 10:13, Toom Tabard  wrote:
> On 7 Jun, 10:46, tezer...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > is it legal for an employer to say if you are found not guilty in a
> > criminal case,that they are not intrested in what the law says,you are
> > still guilty by the employer.Can everdence which was bought up in
> > court be allowed to be use by the employer even though it was found to
> > be faulse in a court of law in front of a jury?can the employer
> > question some oner as if they were the police?
>
> In a criminal case the test is whether you are guilty beyond
> reasonable doubt. At the civil level the test is less onerous -
> matters can be decided 'on the balance of probability'. It could eg be
> the case that someone is found not guilty of stealing money from an
> employer, but that they are still in serious breach of their
> employer's procedures for handling and recording financial
> transactions which resulted in serious discrepencies.
>
> It depends what you mean about the evidence 'being found false in
> court'. If evidence was specifically found to be untrue or was
> disproved in court that would be important, but there may be
> additional evidence to the contrary which wasn't tested in court. And
> the fact that someone is found 'not guilty' does not necessarily mean
> that the evidence against them is untrue; only that it wasn't
> sufficient or relevant to convict them of the charge.
>
> No, an employer can't question someone 'as though they were the
> police'. They can question and seek information if they think their
> procedures or terms of employment have been broken, and they can ask
> any reasonable questions to determine this, particularly within a
> properly notified and constituted disciplinary hearing.
>
> Toom

a lot of this was down to a woman who likes spreading rumers about
people and its ok for her to do this but not a man,this person was
someone who did every think for every one.the evedence in court was
prompted by other people spread by rumers from one woman who did not
come to court to give her evidence,so could not be questioned.

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 02:46:33 -0700 (PDT), tezermac@googlemail.com wrote:

> Can everdence which was bought up in
> court be allowed to be use by the employer even though it was found to
> be faulse in a court of law in front of a jury?

You may infer from a verdict that a particular implication attached by the
prosecution to certain evidence was not accepted by the jury, but how do
you know that the evidence was found to be false?  Did the judge warn the
jury that the evidence was unreliable and was to be disregarded?  The jury
would never give their views on particular evidence submitted to them as a
separate finding and it would be illegal to ask a member of a British jury
about it.  In most cases the verdicts of bench (judge decided) trials are
far more transparent than those given by juries.

Tony

On 8 Jun, 19:43, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 02:46:33 -0700 (PDT), tezer...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > Can everdence which was bought up in
> > court be allowed to be use by the employer even though it was found to
> > be faulse in a court of law in front of a jury?
>
> You may infer from a verdict that a particular implication attached by the> prosecution to certain evidence was not accepted by the jury, but how do
> you know that the evidence was found to be false?  Did the judge warn the
> jury that the evidence was unreliable and was to be disregarded?  The jury
> would never give their views on particular evidence submitted to them as a> separate finding and it would be illegal to ask a member of a British jury> about it.  In most cases the verdicts of bench (judge decided) trials are
> far more transparent than those given by juries.
>
> Tony

is an employer allowed to read police evedence even if it was not used
in court,i suppose they could get va copy of the evedence used in
court as this would be public knollege,but if it was not used it
should not be avalible?it is hard to say much about this as there were
reporting restrictions with the case.