Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (230823)	12/7/2007 6:24:57 PM
From: FJB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793824

to act in behalf of the children that can be identified. That should not be a problem if you read the original article. They are proud of this behavior. Their names are in the article.

To: goldworldnet who wrote (230823)	12/7/2007 6:31:49 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793824

Much as it pains me to say it, Gold, probably not. CHild Services has its hands full with physical abuse and neglect. Proving emotional harm from wearing a collar is probably something that they won't touch unless pressure is exerted beyond the norm. After all, police were there letting in these kids with parents. Gosh, I am mad. I argue for the rights of parents a lot. For instance, notification of parents re: abortion and birth control in minors, or spanking. I believe that parents should NOT have their rights taken away by the state. I want ultimate authority to stay with the parent, unless it is blatantly abused. Now my personal opinion is that was abuse. But I don't think it will hunt in a court of law. I would love to be proved wrong.