Society & Culture Things that Shit me part X- The Tenth edition!

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Fat people who demand the priority seat on a train reserved for those with special needs. Heads up fatties, you don't qualify. Why don't you all just walk home instead and do us all a favour and try and lose some weight. /end rant.
I have been tempted b4 to buy a "no fat chicks" shirt but would have to be selective about who I wear it around
 
car_flags.jpg
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

reporting and journalism has become lazy. just go to google/twitter/instagram and rehash what people are saying.

everyday i hear "social media gone into meltdown" or "gone viral". it shits me
That's the problem when people look to Nine, Seven and the rag that is the Herald Sun for "journalism" and "reporting".
 
5 year old kid finds a gun in his granddads room and starts playing with it. Shoots his 9 month old brother in the head. ****ing hell. I am becoming more and more anti gun every single day.
 
Last edited:
Would you be upset if the court had ordered him to take his kids to their junior footy games during the weekends he had custody?

If not, what's the difference?
Sounds pretty suss to me
Court transcripts seen by The Telegraph show that Judge Orrell discussed his own Catholic faith during the course of the hearing into contact arrangements for Steve’s two sons.

The legal requirement to attend mass at Christmas applies only to Steve, who is not a Roman Catholic.

His ex-wife is Catholic but is not subject to the same conditions in the residence and contact order.

It reads: “If the children are with their father at Christmas he will undertake that they will attend the Christmas mass.”

Steve, a 51-year-old psychologist, said: “It’s all very bizarre. This aspect of the contact order was not requested by the other side in the case.

“The judge decided that I would commit to taking the children to mass and he put it in the court order.

“What I think is really concerning is that it does not allow me or my children any freedom of religious expression.

“I am definitely not Catholic. The last time I went to church was some time ago and it was a Unitarian church that I attended.

“My oldest son, who is now 10, has already expressed a clear lack of belief but legally I am required to take him to Roman Catholic mass at Christmas.

“Because my contact arrangements now give me the children on some weekends, I am concerned that I will now also be required to take them to mass on Sundays when they are with me, even though that is not part of the original order.”

So mum and dad both did not request attendance at Christmas mass yet the judge imposes that requirement?
 
Flicking through the radio stations on the way to work this morning looking for any music. I listened to Taylor Swift - Blank Space, twice. And Enjoyed it. Shit.
 
Sounds pretty suss to me


So mum and dad both did not request attendance at Christmas mass yet the judge imposes that requirement?
Without knowing the ins and outs of the particular situation, it's pretty hard to evaluate the decision (although it does sound odd that neither side requested it). But on the face of it, it's kind of understandable. Presumably the parents agreed at some point to raise the kids Catholic. When you get divorced you can't just unilaterally decide to change aspects of their upbringing - it's incredibly disruptive to the welfare of the children.

It may well be a shitty decision, but if the judge had imposed a condition that (say) the father must take the children to see their maternal grandparents on Christmas I doubt anyone would be getting upset. The religion aspect is definitely a tabloid trigger.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top