Thursday, 2 June 2016

The sad case of Kyle Sears and his death, Wayne Schefferle, Kyle's father and mental illness.

I have been reading a story about the short life of Kyle Sears.

Pretty much, Kyle came out as being gay, fled to Ballarat, and commenced a relationship with an older guy he met on-line.

Kyle also suffered mental health problems, and according to reports had a strong history with child protection. This in itself should be ringing alarm bells.

Based on the limited reporting of the case, this is my take on what COULD HAVE happened. I am open to alternative theories.

Kyle had a rough upbringing, and traumatic early childhood. This could have helped lay the foundations of what is considered his mental condition. In January of 2013, Kyle's father found out Kyle was gay. Shortly after, Kyle fled Adelaide to live with an older man he met on-line.

What was the outcome of his father finding out his son was gay? Was the Father furious and homophobic towards Kyle? I ask the question nobody else has asked yet? else what would cause Kyle to flee his home state and go and live with someone he hardly knew? Kyle's actions seem to indicate there is more to him leaving home, than just a whim. If his Father was homophobic, that'd be a good reason for Kyle to flee, wouldn't it?

The coroner fears Kyle was being groomed by the older man. If a relationship existed between Kyle and the older man, Wayne Shefferle, why does it have to be grooming? The (simplified) legal definition of grooming is one of breaking down the barriers of a child, for sexual gratification by the older person. It seems to me, that Kyle had none of these barriers. It appears he entered into a "relationship" of his own will. If this is true, and events happened like this, then there is no case to answer to grooming a child. And in reality, when you boil it down, how different is it to Hugh Hefner, an old old man, running around with 25 year old women? Why is this not grooming?

Leaving the legalities of this case aside, why do authorities have a problem understanding that a 16 year old kid could have a "crush",  a "love" or whatever you want to call it, for an older person? I mean, for god's sake, I've even seem films where young female students have "crushes" on a much older male teacher. My point is that it's socially acceptable for this to be portrayed in film, but not in real life. Maybe Kyle had a crush on Shefferle? And this relationship appears to have blossomed whereby the pair were (apparently) seen kissing by a neighbour. It hardly seems possible that Kyle is being forced into this, maybe it's exactly what he wanted?

Counsel, Anna Robertson, assisting the trial into Kyle's death, has said at best the relationship between the pair was detrimental and at worst, involved the older man grooming Kyle for sexual servitude. Is this the best a counsel can come up with? To me, throwaway comments like this just show how little some legal practitioners know about the real world. They think about everything on a legal level, rather than knowing if the relationship would be detrimental or not. It also sounds good to a court to make these stupid comments when they can't be backed up with hard evidence. For all she knows, the relationship might have had a good stabilising effect on Kyle, If this were the case, is this not a good thing? A relationship that is illegal in the eyes of the law, but does good for two people?

The legal system seems to thinks that kids these days are just dumb and stupid, but a lot more goes on in their heads than you think. My nieces and nephews tell me stuff that I'd never consider when I was their age. They know what they want and it can be a less in age than someone like Kyle. The law doesn't see it this way, and so it shouldn't, but lets not run an older man's life into the ground before all the facts are established. And, in this case, the facts can't be fully established because one person is dead, so legal practitioners should not be making assumptions, like Anna Robertson has done.

Either way, I hope Kyle is in a better place. No child, whether, black, white, gay, straight, deserves to be bought up in an abusive nasty environment. Can you really blame them for running away to try and have a better life?

Get Real

Friday, 13 May 2016

Transport Companies Fuel Levies. Hi-Trans, Auscold, Toll, Scott's, Linfox, TNT ... Why are we being charged fuel levies when DIESEL is the cheapest it's been for 20 years?? FUEL LEVIES SUCK

I work for a company which has a lot of transport costs. We bring in stuff from overseas, we export, and we move stuff around Australia.

What pisses me off is that almost all of the freight companies around are still charging a FUEL LEVY, even though DIESEL is the cheapest it's been for 15 or 20 years.

This has become a blatant ripoff and companies such as the one I work for have to bear the brunt of this cost. DIESEL FUEL is so cheap at the moment that in most cases, it's cheaper than normal unleaded.


Because it's a source of INCOME!! It's money for nothing. Transport companies will carry on about how DIESEL FUEL has become so enormously expensive, and they need to make up their rising costs. Well, the cost of DIESEL has come down enormously in the past few months.

Why do FREIGHT COMPANIES continue to rip off the buyer and in turn, the consumer?


The power is in the hand of the customer.


Legal Notice: The companies listed in this post do not reflect whether they do or do not charge a fuel levy. This may or may not be applicable. Every company is different. The chances are that they do charge a fuel levy. You will have to investigate.yourselves. Either way, we are being g ripped off, left right and centre.

Get Real

Saturday, 30 April 2016

Why are guys always to blame when it comes to domestic violence? And is there now too much gender bias against men? Guys, take a stand and let's not take this sitting down!!

Firstly, let me say ... I understand that (some) guys do attribute towards domestic violence. But then again, so do some women.

I think it's vital to separate types of violence. A man killing his wife is not the same as a man who hits his wife during an argument.

Sure, both types are violence, but the reasons they occur can be totally different.

Men are facing a tough time these days.

Apparently, it seems Men are to blame for just about everything wrong in a woman's life. We are the cause of the gender pay gap. We are the cause of why women's shelters are needed. We are the cause of violence towards women.

Apparently women do absolutely nothing wrong.

Women apparently NEVER initiate violence in a relationship. Yeah right! In my life, I have seen a number of women hit their male partners. Sometimes, there was alcohol involved and sometimes not. But, why is this not seen as violence towards men? Is it because the male is supposed to be big and tough, and therefore this violence shouldn't actually be counted as violence? It's all violence, despite who initiates it. Why is it that women can get away with it and men can't? In saying this and despite women saying they are equal to men, men are physically stronger and their violence will probably hurt more than a woman's violence toward a man.

What we also never hear about and is quietly swept under the carpet, is how women help contribute towards the violence against them. I have seen and heard this with my own eyes and ears. I have heard women put down their husbands / boyfriends in front of other people. I have heard them ridiculing their partners. I have heard them niggling at their partners, having digs. You have to wonder how long men put up with this demeaning behaviour from their wives / girlfriends before they spit the dummy and take it out on them? Add alcohol into the issue, and it's a recipe for something to go wrong. Despite this, men are still at fault. Even though they are provoked, it still rests entirely with men. What a load of crap. You can only provoke someone so much before they spit the dummy and lash out. If it was a man belittling and demeaning his partner, women would go on about the psychological damage from this behaviour. It would be added to the list of bad things men do. But, apparently, it's OK for women to do this. I don't hear Rosie Battie saying "we have to stop the behaviour of certain women who demean and provoke their male partners". In Rosie Battie's eyes, women can do no wrong. It's always the males fault.

Violence will never be combated in a relationship if the causes for the violence are not examined. Let me put it another way. There are women I work with that I know if I was to verbally demean them and put them down, they would explode and probably slap me. In Rosie Batties eyes, is this OK? because "I was asking for it" ... I was provoking them, so it's no wonder they reacted like they did. You see what I'm trying to say? How uneven the playing field is? Women can get away with doing just about anything, but men can't. We are the evil ones.

We are living in such female centric society, where females really are much better off than they think they are. Everyone knows of the Pink Ribbon campaign putting breast cancer further in the spotlight. Umpteen manufacturers from milk, to women products, to breakfast cereals got on board with the campaign. Where's the campaign spotlighting men's testicular cancer? I can't see anything around the size of the Pink Ribbon campaign. Are men not worth it?

Women also seem to forget that it was MEN who developed and invented most of the things women use on a day to day basis without a thought. Who invented powered flight: MEN. Who invented the washing machine: MEN. Who discovered the laws of physics: MEN. Who invented mobile phones: MEN. Who invented social media platforms: MEN. Who invented boats: MEN. Who developed most of the earlier medicines still in use today: MEN. Who invented computers: MEN. Who invented printing: MEN. Who design and build most of buildings, skyscrapers, offices etc: MEN. Who invented the car: MEN. Who invented railways: MEN.

If it wasn't for men, women would have no way to print literature saying how bad men are and how violent we are in relationships. They wouldn't be able to compile dossiers on violent offenders. They wouldn't be able to travel by air, road or rail to meetings about how bad men are.

And yes, I acknowledge there are women who contributed and still contribute to the above fields - Madame Curie and her X-ray work in the past for example - it is still men who have contributed the most, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries.

We have a lot of women who currently work in pharmaceuticals, computers etc, but again, if it wasn't for men, these industries wouldn't be around in the first place.

In my opinion, if we really are to combat violence between men and women, we have to examine all aspects of what makes the situation explode. No doubt alcohol is a major contributor, but lets look at how alcohol affects both genders. If we can stop drunk women provoking men to the point where the men explode, surely that has to help stop violence?

Oh, and don't get me started on how it appears that women are the biggest killers of their own children! You only have to read the media reports over the past few years. Why doesn't this receive the same attention as men who commit violent acts in a relationship?

Get Real

Some examples of what I mean:

(American) mother keeps kids chained up in a backyard like dogs

And here, we have an example of a woman who is praised by other women for vandalising her boyfriends expensive Four Wheel Drive. OK, if he's a cheater, he's a cheater, but that doesn't give her the right to do acts such as this. If a bloke did it, he'd be regarded as a bastard, immature and he'd be in court in a flash for vandalism!

Woman damages her ex's expensive 4 wheel drive and she's labelled a hero?? rather than a vandal?

Woman mutilates her estranged husbands pet dog and guts it to pretend she's had a miscarriage to get him back.

A woman (the stepmother) urges the biological father to inflict pain and suffering on his own kids

Shaikh Mohammad Tawhidi has words of wisdom for Australians, and in particular those in Adelaide

A Muslim woman has allegedly been assaulted by a man, who was later arrested and charged with offences on a bus at Kilburn, in Adelaide's inner North. He has since been granted bail.

The assault comprised of the man interfering with the woman's scarfe and further intimidation through the trip.

Shaikh Mohammad Tawhidi believes whilst the man is legally allowed to be bailed, he shouldn't be as his crime is too serious, and will result in a loss of dignity and honour with the woman.

Shaikh Mohammad Tawhidi also believes that we need new laws covering such events, which presumably will help victims keep honour and dignity.

Shaikh Mohammad Tawhidi also believes that (alleged) actions such as this, and "non strategic rulings" (as described on the AdelaideNow website) will possibly result in the affected Muslim families taking their own action, possibly including violence.

Shaikh Mohammad Tawhidi also states (and I quote from AdelaideNow story) "Us Muslim Imams are striving hard to reform the Muslim community of South Australia into a tolerant community".

I take exception to this man, Mohammad Tawhidi, and his comments.

Firstly, these events and people involved live in AUSTRALIA. In Australia, we promote people not taking the law into their own hands; That's why we have police and proper court proceedings. In Australia, (alleged) criminals also have rights as well. Maybe in countries where religion is the law, the man may have no rights, but we are not in that country. Shaikh Mohammad Tawhidi has the potential to be inflammatory. In fact, it almost seems he is wishing it to be by his comments.

Secondly, and I understand that a Muslim woman's scarfe is important to her, And I understand how she would feel if it was, in a sense, degraded. However, that issue and her response lies with her. She can either continue being the victim and continue to lose honour and dignity, or she can be strong and defiant and say "I'm not going to let this event affect me, I am a strong Muslim woman". What will she choose?

I don't know what "non strategic rulings" are ?? It sounds flash, The guy allegedly interfered with the woman, and he was bailed. Where is the aforementioned ruling?

Thirdly, and I refer to the comment in blue above. The Australian public are always believed to be the intolerant ones. Australians are at fault, not Muslims. And yet, if what Mohammad Tawhidi says is indeed true, it also appears that Muslims, or at least the ones he references, are just as intolerant as Australians. I know that Tawhihdi has come under fire for his ill said comments, but the fact remains, that this man should be ultra cautious in what he says, lest it is construed otherwise. He is in a position where people listen to him, and he should not be saying comments like he has.

I should also point out that The Islamic Society of South Australia has nothing to do with Tawhidi.

Let's all just get on with living together in harmony and leave the potentially inflaming comments out of the equation.

Get Real