Issues related to men, their problems and relationships

men problems, men relationships, men and relationships, men and women relationships, relationship advice for men, men relationship advice, men to men relationship

Archive for November, 2010

Re: Glory Hole Party!

"emily" <emilyandcar…@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:9a51f34d-e892-4abc-be78-fc0b3e2e3438@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com…

> Glory Hole Party!
> Sunday August 24th!
> Open to all Couples, Single Women, and Single Men!

> DC Bukkake is hosting another super hot Glory Hole Party! The event
> will be held on Sunday August 24th from 4 to 8pm. We’ll have several
> very sexy women on one side of the glory hole wall, and all the men on
> the other side!

> For more details and to rsvp, please login to www.LoveVoodoo.com or
> www.SwingersUnderground.com and check the event details on the Club
> Calendar.

ON A SUNDAY

AND ON THE SEVENTH DAY, HE CREATED FELLATIO

.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Violent women 'stretching police'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7550755.stm

Increasing numbers of violent women are stretching police resources, a
police association has warned.

About 240 women a day are arrested for violent crime in England and Wales,
according to recent figures.

Police in Scotland and Northern Ireland say, anecdotally, they have also
seen an increase in female violence.

The chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales, Paul McKeever, said
there was a "new phenomenon" of women using violence and joining gangs.

Mr McKeever said: "Clearly there is an increase in the number of women who
use violence in their everyday life and when they are out drinking on the
streets around the country."

Young women were also forming all-female gangs or becoming part of "violent
robbery gangs", he said.

"It’s a new phenomenon and it does stretch the resources of the police
service." —

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

'Ahwatukee Sue' tells radio show she killed man

http://www.azcentral.com/community/ahwatukee/articles/2008/08/08/2008…

Tortsen Rockwood had been dead five years when "Ahwatukee Sue" broke her
silence.

The father of her son hadn’t killed himself in the kitchen of their Phoenix
apartment in February 2001, she claimed.

In fact, she was the one who took his 9mm pistol, aimed at his heart and
pulled the trigger. She did so because he wouldn’t pay child support.

At least, that’s the story Ahwatukee Sue gave to a nationally syndicated
radio show in late 2006.

Authorities say they have identified and are seeking charges against the
woman behind Ahwatukee Sue, a moniker familiar to Tom Leykis Show fans since
the call aired.

Police have not released her name, but court records identify her as Megan
Suzanne Vice, 30, of El Mirage.

Phoenix police this week submitted the case to the Maricopa County
Attorney’s Office. Suggested charges include first-degree murder and
obstruction of a criminal investigation.

Investigators have known about Vice for more than a year. Her name came up
after the Leykis show turned over thousands of phone numbers from people who
called the show the day of the alleged confession.

Police’s first encounter with Vice was in 2001, after she called 911 to
report that her live-in boyfriend committed suicide. She told police that
Rockwood had threatened to kill himself in the past, and he made a similar
threat that day after they fought about red marks on their son’s back, court
records show. Vice said she and the 2-year-old were watching TV in the
living room when the shot rang out.

An autopsy determined the cause of death was suicide.

Fast-forward to Nov. 3, 2006, the day a woman who identified herself as Sue
from Ahwatukee called the Tom Leykis Show. Court records show that before
her call was aired, she asked a producer if there was a way to trace the
call or learn her identity. She said Sue was her middle name and that she
killed her ex-boyfriend over child support. She said she received survivor
benefits.

An MP3 file of the conversation posted on the show’s Web site,
www.blowmeuptom.com, reveals the woman telling Leykis she had a one-night
stand that produced a child. She said they were nurses at the same hospital,
and he quit his job to avoid child-support payments.

"I went over and tried to talk to him just about doing some under-the-table
money," the woman said. "He wouldn’t listen, so I shot him."

"You shot him?" Leykis said.

"Oh yes, I did," she said.

"You shot him dead?"

"I did."

The woman said she hadn’t been arrested because she lied to police.

"When the cops show up and you’re a blubbering, crying woman saying that,
‘Oh he was yelling and screaming . . . and he pulled put his gun and shot
himself,’ and I’ll be darned if they were OK with that."

She hung up when Leykis warned that he would give her number to authorities.

Police said Vice filed a burglary report the following day. She claimed
someone broke into her vehicle when she stopped at a park Nov. 3. Several
items were missing from her purse, including her cellphone.

Police say that’s the phone Vice used to call the Leykis show. Vice admitted
to placing the call when confronted by cold-case investigators, but she
denied killing Rockwood, according to Sgt. Joel Tranter, a Phoenix police
spokesman.

Tranter said part of the case against Vice includes specific knowledge she
had about the death. Tranter conceded that she could have gleaned that
information in the years since.

Attempts to reach Vice at her El Mirage home were unsuccessful. A current
phone number for Rockwood’s family in Colorado was not available.

Dr. Erin Spiers, a forensic psychologist in Scottsdale, said there are
"myriad reasons" why somebody would place that call, such as guilt or a need
to "get that off her chest."

"In the alternative, people often brag about offenses they have perpetuated
out of narcissism or grandiosity," Spiers said. "That bravado . . . is how
people are often brought to justice in the long run."

Leykis believes the latter. In an interview Thursday, Leykis said he felt
Ahwatukee Sue was "very proud" of what she claimed to have done. He thinks
she was telling the truth, despite criticism from listeners that the call
was a hoax.

"They can admit to taking a trip on the moon," Leykis said. "But when
someone calls in and says, ‘I killed my child’s father,’ we’re no longer in
the realm of entertainment.

"I think it’s important for people to know my show is a safe place if you
want to confess any peccadillo, but if you call and confess to killing
somebody, I will cooperate with the police every time."

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Icy reality cools the climate cultists

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailyt…

DAILY, new evidence emerges to demonstrate that Climate Minister Penny Wong
is wrong.

The latest blow to the Government’s apocalyptic prophet is news from the
Norwegian Meteorological Institute that there is more ice than normal in the
Arctic waters north of the Svalbard archipelago.

According to the Barents Observer there are open areas in this area in most
years during July – but this year the area is covered by ice.

A fortnight ago a Norwegian research ship, Lance, and a Swedish ship, MV
Stockholm, got stuck in the ice in the area and needed to be freed by the
Norwegian Coast Guard.

While one ice floe does not amount to a mini-ice age, the dramatic evidence
runs counter to the mantra of the climate warming cult which has claimed the
Arctic is becoming progressively free of ice.

The mantra of less ice has long been coupled with the warning that rising
sea levels will soon swamp coastal areas and both claims have been used to
heighten fears about climate change and add a greater sense of urgency to
calls for action now.

It follows last week’s revelation from leading US hurricane expert Kerry
Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that even in a
dramatically warming world hurricane frequency and intensity may not rise
during the next two centuries.

Once again real time events and science have defeated Senator Wong and Prime
Minister Kevin Rudd, despite their constant refrain that human-induced
climate change is already occurring and we must act now to protect our
prosperity and way of life.

Not only do eminent and vastly more knowledgeable scientists say otherwise,
they point out that if the Earth is to warm (naturally) by even one degree
and if carbon dioxide levels increase, we will be better off, not worse off.

Wong and Rudd’s end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it predictions are bunkum,
thousands of top scientists agree.

Among them is Dr S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental
sciences at the University of Virginia, who established and served as the
first director of the US Weather Satellite Service, now part of the global
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (the universally
respected NOAA), and is a former chief scientist of the US Department of
Transportation.

He is founder and director of the non-profit Science and Environmental
Policy Project, a body which deals with sound science, not the highly
theoretical and politicised junk science favoured by the UN-sponsored
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which the Australian Government
uses as its reference point for its heavy-handed tax and wealth
redistribution plans.

Singer and a team of renowned international scientists earlier this year
published a report titled "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate",
under the banner of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate
Change (N).

It should be mandatory reading for all who wish to participate in the
climate debate – be they policymakers, private individuals or
representatives of business organisations.

After rigorously examining the same data as the IPCC, particularly the claim
that "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the
mid-20th century is very likely (defined by the IPCC as between 90 to 99 per
cent certain) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas
concentrations," (emphasis in the original), and reached the opposite
conclusion – namely, that natural causes are very likely to be the dominant
cause.

Unlike the hysterical IPCC report, which was riddled with errors and
mis-statements, ignored available scientific data, and has already been
contradicted in several major areas by more recent research, the N authors
don’t say that anthropogenic greenhouse gases cannot produce some warming,
but they do say that the evidence shows that they are not playing a major
role.

This report – so far unchallenged – undermines the exaggerated claims Wong
and Rudd have been peddling.

It makes the point that computer models are unreliable guides to future
climate conditions, that sea-level rise is not significantly affected by
rise in greenhouse gases; that higher concentrations of CO2 are more likely
to be beneficial to plant and animal life and human health than lower
concentrations; and that the economic effects of modest warming are likely
to be positive and beneficial to human health.

It modestly concludes that, while the science of climate change is far from
settled, proposals to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gases
are premature and misguided.

Its finding – that attempts to influence global temperatures by reducing
such emissions would be both futile and expensive – should be at the
forefront of any policy planning.

The Federal Opposition must not be stampeded by the Rudd Government into
agreeing to sign on to its as-yet-unseen emissions trading system.

It must remember Australia didn’t have to sign on to the flawed Kyoto
Protocols to be a model citizen, and that when Rudd made signing the
agreement the centrepiece of his environmental policy the Howard government
had already ensured that the nation already met all its greenhouse targets.

Rudd and Wong want the electorate to believe that there is not a moment to
be lost.

While policy made by panicky politicians is generally worthless, in this
case it would not only cost millions of Australians their jobs, it would
collapse the economy and steal the future from our children.

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Woman Makes False Rape Claim, Siccs Police on Innocent Man

http://blogwonks.com/2008/08/08/woman-makes-false-rape-claim-siccs-po…

Glenn Sacks

Fortunately the man had an alibi.

The woman also applied for a domestic violence restraining order based on
her false claims of rape and abuse. Can anybody guess if it was granted or
not?

From Woman arrested for lying to police about rape (Pocono Record, 7/21/08):

  Police arrested a Pocono Pines woman after they say she admitted lying to
investigators when she accused her ex-boyfriend of assault and rape.

  Elissa Easterling, 27, is accused of lying to Pocono Mountain Regional
Police by falsely accusing a man of beating and raping her.

  After originally telling police and court officials that she was assaulted
on two occasions and raped once by her ex-boyfriend, she later said she "has
problems" and that she had not had any contact with the man in months.

  During the course of a month-long investigation after she told police she
had been assaulted, police corroborated the man’s alibi and determined that
Easterling had fabricated her reports.

  She also testified in order to get a protective order against the man,
under oath at Monroe County Court, that she had been raped. The protective
order was granted.

  When police confronted her with the evidence that she was lying, police
say she admitted to making up the assaults. Easterling said the man did not
harm her in any way.

  She was taken to Monroe County Correctional Facility where she will be
charged with perjury and making false reports.

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (3)

Feminists hate Kathleen Parker..

http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/2008/08/feminists-hate-kathle…

  Quote: American author Kathleen Parker has written a book entitled Save
the
  Males that challenges the foundations of 21st-century feminism. Bravely
she
  contends that, initially, through extreme feminism and its adoption by
  western society, women have demonised men and trivialised their
  contribution, especially to family life. Her passionate defence of the
male
  sex and their worth in the world at large has had many women across the
  pond foaming at the mouth. They regard Parker as a traitor to her gender.
  She dares to suggest that in trying to make the world fairer for women
they
  have made it grossly unfair to men.

  http://www.pressand journal.co. uk/Article. aspx/766592? UserKey=0

  The Press and Journal
  1 August 2008

  Wake-up call aims to restore men to their rightful role
  By Derek Lord

  The feminist movement has a new hate figure someone who has inspired more
  loathing among its members than Hugh Hefner, Peter Stringfellow and all
the
  other male chauvinist pigs you can think of and, shock, horror, she’s a
  woman.

  American author Kathleen Parker has written a book entitled Save the Males
  that challenges the foundations of 21st-century feminism. Bravely she
  contends that, initially, through extreme feminism and its adoption by
  western society, women have demonised men and trivialised their
  contribution, especially to family life.

  Her passionate defence of the male sex and their worth in the world at
  large has had many women across the pond foaming at the mouth. They regard
  Parker as a traitor to her gender. She dares to suggest that in trying to
  make the world fairer for women they have made it grossly unfair to men.

  She argues that by going out of our way to make single mothers feel good
  about themselves, by diminishing the role of fathers, by elevating women
as
  the superior parents, we have gone a long way towards destroying one of
the
  major building blocks of society the nuclear family.

  She laments the destruction of traditional male values that she describes
  as being "masculinity tied to honour", claiming that these values were
  regarded by feminists as a form of assault on the female gender. Thus
there
  was a move towards Metrosexual Man, a softer, gentler creature who was
  encouraged to "get in touch with his feminine side".

  So Desperate Dan was out and David Beckham was in. Men shouldn’t be afraid
  to dye their hair, wear perfume and use a little moisturiser to keep their
  complexion looking lovely.

  Parker also writes about the assault on the traditional male character in
  films and television. She calls this the Sitcom Man syndrome and asks us
to
  try to think of a wholesome, reliable role model among the hundreds of
  screen dads we have seen over the past generation or two. Although she is
  obviously referring to the American output, she could just as easily be
  writing about TV shows and movies on this side of the water.

  Look at the types of men portrayed in any British soap or sitcom. They’re
  either bumbling, feckless eejits like Coronation Street’s Steve, the
  pencil-chewing taxi driver, or serial womanisers like the ginger minger in
  EastEnders.

  The state reinforces this low opinion of fathers on both sides of the
  Atlantic. Parker states: "The family courts effectively make fathers a
  slave to the state; his wages become state property; his time with his
  children is determined by a family court judge, and he faces jail if, for
  whatever reason, he fails to pay his child support on time."

  I know of one man, a hard-working dentist and devoted father and husband,
  who suddenly found himself homeless after 20 years of marriage when his
  wife declared that she was bored with him. The courts awarded her half the
  value of the family home and a large percentage of her husband’s salary.

  How fair is that?

  Parker contends that the low opinion of fathers springs from the explosion
  and normalisation of single motherhood.

  "By elevating single motherhood from an unfortunate consequence of poor
  planning to a sophisticated act of self-fulfilment, we’ve helped to
fashion
  a world in which fathers are not just scarce, but in which men are
  superfluous," she says.

  Later, she states: "At the same time that men have been ridiculed in the
  public sphere, the importance of fatherhood has been diminished, along
with
  other traditionally male roles of father, protector and provider, which
are
  incredibly viewed as regressive manifestations of an outmoded patriarchy."

  Far from joining in with the sisterhood’s blanket condemnation of the male
  of the species, the American author waxes lyrically about the innate
  qualities of many men. When she looks at her own father and fathers around
  her, she concludes that being a father is, in fact, the manliest thing a
  man can do. She says it encourages responsibility, sacrifice and the
  ability to put others before yourself all essential qualities to a
  functioning society and to a happy home.

  "When we take away a man’s central purpose in life and marginalise him
from
  society’s most important institution (the family), we strip him of his
manhood.

  "Growing up without a father is the most reliable indicator of poverty and
  all the familiar social pathologies affecting children, including drug
  abuse, truancy, delinquency and sexual promiscuity. Yet some feminists and
  other progressives still insist that men are non-essential."

  Of course, in Scotland’s dependency culture, the state has taken the place
  of the father when it comes to providing for the single-parent family in
  many instances. Indeed, there are thousands of single-parent families who
  would be considerably worse off financially if the parents had married.
  They would probably have much more difficulty finding a council house and,
  if and when they found one, they would not get nearly as much in the way
of
  state handouts as the mother would have received as a single parent.

  It would be a tragedy if this sort of financial consideration continued to
  dominate the attitude of so many young Scots women towards marriage and
  family life.

  As for the country’s young men, unless things change drastically, the
whole
  concept of fatherhood will go the way of the dodo and Parker’s notion of
  "masculinity tied to honour" will be as outmoded as the chivalry of King
  Arthur and his knights of the round table. These young men need the
example
  of a father or grandfather to let them know what their role in life should
  be what they should aspire to but those examples are becoming
  increasingly thin on the ground.

  Kathleen Parker’s courageous book is a wake-up call reminding us of the
  importance of men in family life. She says that we ignore that call at our
  peril and society as we know it will perish. She concludes: "In the coming
  years, we will need men who are not confused about their responsibilities
  to family and country. We need boys who have acquired the virtues of
  honour, courage, valour and loyalty. We need women willing to let men be
  men and boys be boys."

  I couldn’t have put it better myself and I’m glad I didn’t try, or I’d
have
  to go into hiding for the next 20 years for fear of being tracked down and
  disembowelled by the sisterhood’s enforcers.

Posted by Christianj

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (2)

1 brave judge resists feminist agenda

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71718

A New Jersey judge recently confronted an issue that courts have been
avoiding for years: Are restraining orders constitutional? Accused criminals
have "due process" and many other constitutional rights, but feminists have
persuaded many judges to issue orders that restrain actions of non-criminals
and punish them based on flimsy, unproved accusations.

These restraining orders are issued without the due process required for
criminal prosecutions, yet they carry the threat of a prison sentence for
anyone who violates them.

Anibal and Vivian Crespo were divorced and rearing their children in the
same household when they had a fight, and Vivian asked for a restraining
order. Anibal was not charged with any crime, but the judge issued the
restraining order, which banned Anibal from his own house and thereby
separated him from his children.

Anibal made several good arguments that the New Jersey Prevention of
Domestic Violence Act is unconstitutional. Judge Francis B. Schultz rejected
most of those arguments, but he cited a long line of cases holding that
"clear and convincing evidence" is required in order to take away
fundamental rights, such as a parent’s right over the care and custody of
his children.

Feminists are in an uproar about Judge Schultz’s decision and would like the
New Jersey Supreme Court to reverse it. Feminists want courts to uphold a
woman’s right to kick a man out of his home based on a woman’s unverified
accusations.

Family courts are notorious for issuing restraining orders based on one
woman’s unsupported request. The New Jersey Law Journal reported that an
instructor taught judges to be merciless to husbands and fathers, saying,
"Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell
him, ‘See ya’ around.’"

People have a better chance to prove their innocence in traffic court than
when subjected to a restraining order. Too often the order serves no
legitimate purpose, but is just an easy way for one spouse to get revenge or
the upper hand in a divorce or child custody dispute.

Once a restraining order is issued, it becomes nearly impossible for a
father to retain custody or even get to see his own children. That is the
result even though the alleged domestic violence, which doesn’t have to be
physical or proven, did not involve the children at all.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear another case, U.S. v. Hayes,
to decide whether an old misdemeanor domestic violence conviction can bar a
man from ever owning a gun. Everyone agrees that convicted felons should not
have guns, but misdemeanors are minor offenses that usually carry no jail
time.

Under feminist pressure, most courts have interpreted federal law broadly to
deprive millions of men of their gun rights. However, in the Hayes case, a
2-1 majority on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had the courage to
stand up to feminists and rule that Hayes had no fair warning that
prosecutors would stretch the definition of domestic violence to include his
minor offense.

Randy Edward Hayes had a dispute with his wife in 1994, pleaded guilty to
misdemeanor battery and served one year of probation. Ten years later, he
was prosecuted for having a Winchester rifle in his West Virginia home.

Why are men with clean histories except for one domestic dispute punished
like hardened criminals who mug strangers on the street? The answer is that
the feminist agenda calls for domestic-violence laws to punish husbands and
fathers above and beyond what can be proven in court under due-process
procedures.

When U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., voted for the federal law
prohibiting a man from owning a gun if he has a domestic violence
conviction, she stated, "It is an unfortunate fact that many domestic
violence offenders are never convicted of a felony. Outdated or ineffective
laws often treat domestic violence as a lesser offense. … Plea bargains
often result in misdemeanor convictions for what are really felony crimes."

In other words, Feinstein wants to pretend a man is a felon even if he is
not. That’s the feminist anti-male agenda.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this year in District of Columbia v. Heller
that we all have a fundamental constitutional right to own and use a gun. We
will soon see how serious the court is in defending our Second Amendment
right.

It’s time to restore basic constitutional rights to husbands and fathers by
repudiating the feminist agenda that considers men guilty unless proven
innocent.

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (3)

Betrayal of boys: A new report says white boys need father figures at school. But the male education crisis is far more complex and disturbing

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1038112/Betrayal-boys-Why-m…

Any parent will recognise Peter Smith’s assessment of the boys he teaches at
Hampton School in south-west London: ‘Boys are like greyhounds. They love
the chase and the race, and they don’t care if the prize is a fake rabbit.’

Mr Smith had invited me into one of his English classes at this single-sex
private secondary school to illustrate the point.

The boys, aged 13 and 14, were set against each other in a timed test
involving the rearranging of jumbled lines from Shakespeare’s Romeo And
Juliet. The prize for the first one to achieve this was a
blackberry-flavoured cough sweet.

Noisy consultation ensued as Mr Smith walked around the class, giving clues,
egging on pupils and calling out the time remaining. He stopped by my desk:
‘It is noisy and messy looking, but they are engaged because they are
competing. They are not sitting there listening to me preach at them.’

Mr Smith, in his 50s, had spent years teaching in the state system before
coming to Hampton. He has seen the way boys are being let down by the
education system.

It is a view which is being heard time and again, from suburban dinner
tables to the highest realms of academia. There have been several recent
reports of boys failing in schools  -  a crisis which threatens to create an
unemployable generation.

This week, Ofsted inspectors called for more father figures in schools
because so many boys do not have a male role model in their family. But the
number of male head teachers in state schools has fallen in a decade from 50
per cent to 39per cent.

‘It’s crucial we get effective role models for the next generation. Male
heads can help provide authority figures for children who desperately need
boundaries and leadership,’ says Tory education spokesman Michael Gove.—

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (24)

The government polls and surveys that cost the taxpayer more than £1m a week

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1043065/The-government-polls-…

More than £1million a week is being spent on Government focus groups,
surveys and opinion polls to find what voters think.

In all, £55million has been paid out over the past year for a bewildering
range of citizens’ juries, telephone and internet polls and consumer
surveys.

The most expensive project was a survey to ascertain the ‘public
acceptability’ of charging motorists for every mile they drive, which cost
the Department of Transport £566,111.

It was followed by a project to test ‘ attitudes to climate change’, also
conducted by the Department for Transport, which cost £411,500.

The Environment Department spent £13,585 asking the public about their
‘attitude to farmers’ and £5,165 gauging ‘consumer attitudes to water
efficiency of bathroom fittings’.

The International Development Department commissioned a £7,400 survey to
measure interest in ‘shopping ethically for Valentine’s Day’.

The biggest spending department was Health, which paid £10,432,843 for polls
and surveys.

A single polling firm, Ipsos-MORI, appears to have been paid at least
£31million over the last two years.

The Conservatives, who uncovered the figures with Parliamentary questions to
every Whitehall department, accused the Government of an ‘astonishing waste
of taxpayers’ money’ during an economic downturn.

Their local government spokesman Eric Pickles said: ‘Labour is obsessed with
focus groups and the dark arts of spin. Local democracy is being driven into
the ground, replaced with meaningless citizens’ juries and opinion polls.’

‘Throwing millions at such pollsters will do nothing to address the growing
sense of political disillusionment amongst the public. Not only is this an
astonishing waste of taxpayers’ money, but I believe it is unhealthy for the
Government to pay so much to a single supplier.

‘I have grave concerns about such a close involvement of paid pollsters in
the development of Government policy.’

Shadow Leader of the Commons Theresa May added: ‘The subject and cost of
some of these surveys show that the government is on a different planet.’

A Cabinet Office spokesman said: ‘First class policy-making means finding
ways to ensure the voices and demands of ordinary people are heard and acted
upon by Government, maximising opportunities for people to have an impact on
decisions that affect their lives.’

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

pangborn responds to "You haven't written any books."

"You haven’t written any books."

pangborn responds,

"Well Davey, you MAY recall one from Kluwer Law Books discussed here
with Jeff Atkinson. Modern Child Custody Practice. The one YOU
screamed along with Captain SPELLPECKER claimed did not exist?"

And Duane Jackson responds,

"Pangborn you have never written any books. The Google.com archives
shows that you posted a page that has the name "Kenneth Pangborn" as
the author of one chapter in the Atkinson book but at the back of the
book where the credentials are listed, it shows that the Kenneth
Pangborn in that book is a Harvard graduate from Cleveland, OH. and a
practicing psychologist."

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (23)