Anti-Paedophile Party founder arrested

[mellowyellow]

A doctor accused of running a child snatching ring claims hundreds of children need protecting from sexual abuse by their fathers.

William Russell Pridgeon, 64, allegedly helped a mother abduct and hide her twin children for four years after their father was awarded custody. Federal police allege Pridgeon, founder of the Australian Anti-Paedophile party, was the main financial backer and planner behind efforts to help two women take their children, contrary to family law orders.

'It doesn't matter if I end up in jail, there are hundreds of children out there who need rescue and protecting and that's more important,' he told Daily Mail Australia.

'This case is not about child stealing, it is about child sexual abuse of the worst kind and the desperate actions of good people to save these children from ongoing rape.'

The doctor's medical licence was suspended on October 29, less than two weeks after he was charged, pending the outcome of his case….

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ion-ring-protecting-kids-abusive-fathers.html

 

[mellowyellow]

The family court is sending children back into the care of the abusive father. This man tried to stop it but will probably end up in jail.

 

[fuzzybuddy]

I don't believe anyone in this forum knows the details of why the courts awarded custody to the father., Obviously, the mother's case was heard and rejected. Child abuse by parents does exist, and children should be protected. Yet fathers are not the sole perpetrators of that crime. The courts are the best judges of what is best for a child, not some vigilante crackpot with an agenda.

 

[Murrmurr]

I don't believe anyone in this forum knows the details of why the courts awarded custody to the father., Obviously, the mother's case was heard and rejected. Child abuse by parents does exist, and children should be protected. Yet fathers are not the sole perpetrators of that crime. The courts are the best judges of what is best for a child, not some vigilante crackpot with an agenda.

Speaking from personal experience, that's not always true.

 

[fuzzybuddy]

Speaking from personal experience, that's not always true.

Murrmurr, you're right. Most of my divorced buddies would agree with you. I believe there is court bias towards mothers. So, when a court awards custody to the father, there's usually a good treason. But the courts offer some review, and it's what we have.

 

[Jules]

A loaded question. Could there be ethnic distortion of details? There just aren’t enough details from either side.

 

[Butterfly]

Courts don't always get it right, but I don't believe the solution is to have some private citizen jumping in and snatching children from their custodial parent, either. If this doc thinks there is abuse going on, then I assume there is a requirement to report it to authorities and have them pursue it. You can't just have everybody and their brother deciding courts are wrong and taking matters in their own hands, except possibly in an immediate emergency, and even then, they have to turn the matter over to the authorities.

Vigilante justice just isn't the way to go.

 

[Rosemarie]

I don't believe anyone in this forum knows the details of why the courts awarded custody to the father., Obviously, the mother's case was heard and rejected. Child abuse by parents does exist, and children should be protected. Yet fathers are not the sole perpetrators of that crime. The courts are the best judges of what is best for a child, not some vigilante crackpot with an agenda.

Another case of 'Trial by Twitter'. It's too easy to pass judgement without knowing the full facts.