PDA

View Full Version : County Council telephone call re home schooling. Here we go.



Kiforall
26th October 2012, 20:30
I got a phone call this am to arrange a meeting with the child educating dept. The lady wanted to visit the house next week. I've read not to allow them in so I've got a meeting at their office on Tuesday 10:30

She reckoned it was to see if I was qualified enough to teach my children at home lol

She mentioned social services more than once, saying that it wasn't anything to worry about etc
but I could feel her arrogance. Smarmy attitude.

She obviously doesn't know who or what she's dealing with lol.
Bring it on.

I will keep calm knowing that I have the power and the freedom to do what I believe is the best for my family.

Zoe x

4evrneo
26th October 2012, 21:08
Kiforall,
My hats off to you, for educating your children at home and for standing firm to the arrogant ones who think they have to be involved in our every choice as a parent.

I wish I had known of those choices when my kids were young.

Blessings,
Annette

Kiforall
26th October 2012, 21:35
It was so funny when she was telling me that I needed to show her how I would be ensuring my children would follow the curriculum (common purpose)

It is no surprise that she doesn't realize I've already studied their law and the curriculum does not have to be followed. The best bit is going along with the facade knowing you know. LOL they are more stupid that we think.

Zoe x

WhiteFeather
27th October 2012, 01:56
And home schooled children do not need to be vaccinated as well, another big plus. Yippeee!!!!!

Kiforall
27th October 2012, 02:02
Or participate in overseas school exchange programs.

:eek:

gripreaper
27th October 2012, 02:05
It was so funny when she was telling me that I needed to show her how I would be ensuring my children would follow the curriculum (common purpose)

It is no surprise that she doesn't realize I've already studied their law and the curriculum does not have to be followed. The best bit is going along with the facade knowing you know. LOL they are more stupid that we think.

Zoe x

Please keep us posted. Will you rescind the birth certificate and remove your children from the corporatocracy?

Kiforall
27th October 2012, 02:29
I feel at this point in time that won't be necessary.

eva08
27th October 2012, 03:11
Good luck -- my prayers are with you and your children

bodhii71
27th October 2012, 06:21
We home school as well, but haven't encountered the fascist arm bearing down at us just yet. We have an IEP since our oldest has a Autism diagnosis, which allows for leeway in the curriculum. Arming yourself with knowledge and standing in your own power goes a long way when dealing with officials on a day to day basis. From what I've experienced, they bank on your own ignorance, it isn't until you know your rights within the system and can verbalize that, do they begin to work with you fairly.

Just by mentioning child services and the implied threat of losing your children is a tactic used here in the US also. It's an amazingly sad predicament we now face on all fronts. It really is a battle for consciousness. I wish you the best.

Snoweagle
27th October 2012, 08:53
Wish you every success home schooling your children.
The authorities will be over you like a rash. Counter their efforts by coalescing your determination with consort with other "home schoolers". Their is safety and benefits in numbers.

I was recently horrified to learn that the sixth form itinerary included as a main compulsory subject to be studied for two years is "Understanding discipline".

Just remind me, why do we allow this?

Siberia9
27th October 2012, 16:38
They are looking for customers, victims, food. I dont like to give advice so I will only speak about what I do. I can say without any doubts that I would NEVER go to any meetings with these people without my lawyers there. Nor will I talk with them. I make sure that these kinds of people do not have my phone number or real address. My wife knows not to answer the door for ANYONE she does not know and NEVER for any authority types. If questioned in the yard she understands that the procedure is to ignore them and enter the house and lock the doors and call me. We also have a false wall they can hide behind should the house be entered by these thugs.

The phrase, send all your questions to my attorney in writing, I find ties them in a knot, and that is the ONLY thing I will say to them.

I went out and found an attorney that used to be the prosecutor for the family court system and paid him a retainer. The last time one of these hippopotamus women tried to ask me questions about my kids I called him on his cell and handed it to her. She was visibly shaken by whatever he said and handed the phone back to me and stated "I am outa here I dont need this" as she turned away dropping papers in the hall making haste. That was a good feeling, and well worth the Cuban cigars and vintage wine I dropped of at his office the next day.

Maybe I will give one piece of advice here, she will want you to sign a piece of paper agreeing to their fraud. DONT SIGN ANYTHING, and be polite if you are going to talk to them.

Kiforall
27th October 2012, 17:27
I can be polite ;)
I'm more in control these days.

mahalall
27th October 2012, 18:40
In the UK,
Under section 7 of the education act 1996
"The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full time education suitable:
a)to his age, ability, and aptitude and,
b)to any special education needs he may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.

Home based education is the otherwise part, and parents have the right to educate their child at home.
Local authorities have no statutory duties in monitoring the quality of home education on a routine basis.
It would be interesting to note what your local county council policy is relation to home schooling and to the law. The chances are they don't have a policy!
Lancashire county council provides some guidance,
http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/atoz/a_to_z/service.asp?u_id=388&tab=20

Carmody
27th October 2012, 19:13
I can be polite ;)
I'm more in control these days.


Bring a handheld digital memo recorder. This does not mean use the recorder, but gauge whether you think you should use it or not. Placing it on the table between you before provocation would be provocative on it's own, so the use of such is up to you and your analysis of the moment.


Fresh batteries, familiarize yourself with the use of it before hand, and put it on 'high sensitivity' microphone setting, with non voice activated (press on, press off) settings..and with highest quality recording, in case it needs to go 'legal'.

If such a device is used, there can be no argument about intent, and how things are phrased and/or spoken.

Once again, nothing about use, but have it in your pocket, ready to go, if it is needed.

I keep one, on these settings, in my car, with a second set of new batteries.

Kiforall
27th October 2012, 21:56
I young Jedi, master the art of Freudian deception techniques I shall, implement I will against the institutionalized psychopaths.

The Dark Side will be lulled into a false sense of security then......

Siberia9
28th October 2012, 03:42
Mahalall nailed it. "Local authorities have no statutory duties in monitoring the quality of home education on a routine basis"
This is where a lawyer would come in handy. One call from them asking what authority she had etc etc would put the brakes on as these goons like easy targets. Their only concern is that they may get into trouble and everyone could find out just how stupid they really are.


In the UK,
Under section 7 of the education act 1996
"The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full time education suitable:
a)to his age, ability, and aptitude and,
b)to any special education needs he may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.

Home based education is the otherwise part, and parents have the right to educate their child at home.
Local authorities have no statutory duties in monitoring the quality of home education on a routine basis.
It would be interesting to note what your local county council policy is relation to home schooling and to the law. The chances are they don't have a policy!
Lancashire county council provides some guidance,
http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/atoz/a_to_z/service.asp?u_id=388&tab=20

gripreaper
28th October 2012, 03:49
Mahalall nailed it. "Local authorities have no statutory duties in monitoring the quality of home education on a routine basis"

Actually, they really do. Since the child was "given" to the state by registration of the "birth" certificate, which certifies the child as a state asset, YES, they can and often do whatever they want when it comes to their assets, YOUR children.


This is where a lawyer would come in handy. One call from them asking what authority she had etc etc would put the brakes on as these goons like easy targets. Their only concern is that they may get into trouble and everyone could find out just how stupid there really are.

Actually, this is where a lawyer would come in anything BUT handy. Attorneys first allegiance is to the state, and then their bar association buddies, which include all judges and other attorneys. You "give over" all rights to this attorney when you sign an agreement for him to represent you, which makes you "mute" and makes the attorney the only voice.

Trying to solve a system problem in the very system which created the problem is, well... insanity.

Paul
28th October 2012, 04:22
Actually, this is where a lawyer would come in anything BUT handy. Attorneys first allegiance is to the state, and then their bar association buddies, which include all judges and other attorneys.
Lawyers can be useful if you're a more powerful member of their system than the other party, so you can get the system working on your behalf.

They can also be useful if both you and the other party are not important in their system, but you find the rules that their system happens to be imposing at the moment useful to your purposes.

In other words ... I'm agreeing ... in the above case, allowing a lawyer to represent you would not be useful.

Siberia9
28th October 2012, 09:16
Heh heh heh, I hope you guys never get arrested because you all would go to prison. Why? because you will talk to the govt thugs. There is NO common sense applied or allowed. 'Everyone talks or everyone walks' is the rule.

As far as the kids being given over to the state by birth certificate goes, you can believe that if you want but I am not interested those rules either. They cant prove where mine were born as I dont talk and my lawyers bark. Maybe give them a copy of a foreign passport or just leave the area, whatever is best at the time, I deal with govt thugs by being a ghost. I should mention that there are Lawyers that spend alot of time at private party's with judges, prosecutors and gangsters etc, these are the kind of lawyers I only work with as they get things done. You can find them in custom suits, doing big real estate closings and criminal exspungements,,, just so you know.

Also if you talk to social services with that freeman on the land stuff they will think you are nuts, its over their heads. However if they have your phone number and real address then you are already playing within the system, so your approach would be different than mine obviously. I refuse to do that myself I prefer the John Conner approach to life, but thats me.

TigaHawk
28th October 2012, 10:10
Heh heh heh, I hope you guys never get arrested because you all would go to prison. Why? because you will talk to the govt thugs. There is NO common sense applied or allowed. 'Everyone talks or everyone walks' is the rule.




On that rule - If i was to be arrested on the street. And from the point that they lay hands on me, to the point from i am released from their custody - If i am to not say a single word - AT ALL (this includes should they read me my rights) is this the appropriate thing to do?

I've been pulled asside and questioned before (before i was awake mind you, was nice and compliant - yessir nosir on those occasions) simply because i choose to shave my head rather than go to a hairdresser. So i have reason to be fearfull of "the law" even tho i have done nothing wrong.


I can only imagine what goes through their heads as i come out of the rain station and they're standing there with their police dog watching everyone that walks out the gates (this is a new thing, they've only started doing this the last month or so) my facial expressions of "oh great, i have to line up at this stupid gate like cattle to get out. and oh great, im being watched by the law like they're just itching for someone to do something so they can entertain thsmselves..." must look good, lol.

Tarka the Duck
28th October 2012, 10:12
Hello Zoe

I'm sure you've read the UK law on teaching your children at home, but here it is for those who haven't: it's all perfectly clear. There is no conspiracy here...;)

This is what the UK government’s website (direct gov) says about educating your child at home:

What’s required of you?
• you do not need to be a qualified teacher to educate your child at home
• your child is not obliged to follow the National Curriculum or take national tests, but as a parent you are required by law to ensure your child receives full-time education suitable to their age, ability and aptitude
• any special educational needs your child may have must be recognised
• you do not need special permission from a school or local authority to educate your child at home, but you do need to notify the school in writing if you’re taking your child out of school
• you will need to notify the local authority if you are removing your child from a special school
• you do not need to observe school hours, days or terms
• you do not need to have a fixed timetable, nor give formal lessons
• there are no funds directly available from central government for parents who decide to educate their children at home
• some local authorities provide guidance for parents, including free National Curriculum materials


The role of your local authority
Local authorities can make informal enquiries of parents who are educating their children at home to establish that a suitable education is being provided. If your local authority makes an informal enquiry, you can provide evidence your child is receiving an efficient and suitable education by:
• writing a report
• providing samples of your child’s work
• inviting a local authority representative to your home, with or without your child being present
• meeting a local authority representative outside the home, with or without your child being present (representatives have no automatic right of access to your home)

If it appears to the local authority that a child is not receiving a suitable education, then it might serve a school attendance order.

Although you’re not legally required to inform your local authority when you decide to educate your child at home, it is helpful if you do so. If you are taking your child out of school to home-educate them, you need to inform the school in writing.

It’s advisable, but not compulsory, to inform your local authority of any significant changes in your circumstance relevant to your child’s education, like a change of address.



And home schooled children do not need to be vaccinated as well, another big plus. Yippeee!!!!!
With regard to vaccinations, Whitefeather - we don't have a mandatory vaccination programme in the UK, and the BMA (British Medical Assocaition) has just spoken out against one.

Siberia9
29th October 2012, 06:48
Tigerhawk your in Australia, so I cant say for sure what you should do in that country. However, I myself no matter what country Im in I DO NOT SPEAK to the cops. In the US I give them my lawyers card that says in bold that I will not be speaking to them. Only food will speak to the cops. I like the Freeman guys but they are activist, I am not. I dont want to challenge the system, I use it against those that wish to feed on me. They find out quickly that I am not to be messed with and move on to those that are afraid of them, those that do not understand how to push back. Those that use common sense in their dealings with bureaucrats. Those that think they have nothing to worry about because they are not criminals and thus do not realize it IS them that is the food.


I have been arrested multiple times, my response to being threatened with decades in prison is always to just smile or lay down on the floor and take a nap. Knowing that talking ONLY incriminates myself and talking about what others have done will only incriminate myself as well. As well as ANYTHING you say will be turned around on you, even simple things you think mean nothing.

This is difficult for people to understand, it seems no matter how many times they are told not to talk, they do anyway. This is because there is a mind game that goes on when you engage these goons. They set the parameters of the conversation, then they verbally put you in a box. "you have no choice but to speak to us, otherwise we will take you to jail" type of thing. It always amazes me that people will believe the imaginary box they are put in. If you disengage and decide that you will not talk to them, that you will not dance with them, that you will not play their game, you will win in the end. You may get arrested, so what, you will be out the same day and there will be no evidence against you. Ive been there about a dozen times, charges dropped due to lack of evidence, meaning that I did not give them anything to screw me with. Then the lawyers have the wrongful arrest expunged.


This is important because talking to social services will go nicely until you have talked yoursellf into a hole and then when they are ready to drop the hammer on you and feed on you, at that point they will have goons with badges and guns show up. Then you will be right where you just said you would not be because "you have nothing to hide", and are still talking.

One of the problems regular people have is that they dont want the cops to think they are criminals, so they act like school children and do as they are told and rationalize it all with well I havent done anything wrong and I have nothing to hide etc. I dont care WHAT they think of me, and I generaly laugh at them and their stupid costumes, as I know that they have no power and will be disappointed when I wave bye bye to them as I leave the jail before they can even do the paperwork.

Again, I only speak to what I and my associates do and have done for decades, I dont suggest you do the same, just consider and know there is another way. I am a ghost, I use trust's and LLC's where you put your names, I have nothing in my real name, I dont engage the sytem in anyway, I have layers of lawyers and legal entitys that seperate me from the burracrates. This is the same thing the elite familys do and you can too you see.

AriG
29th October 2012, 11:53
Kiforall,

I am just curious about how you were contacted. Were your children previously enrolled in school and then withdrawn? Were they ever enrolled in school? How did the education department identify and find you?

Kiforall
29th October 2012, 18:02
I would not be going to anybody in the law after last night's investigating.

Judge Dame Janet Smith who will be leading the BBC case is treasurer to the Honorable Society of Lincolns
Inn.
This place is weird. It has a library with ancient manuscripts. It's own chapel. Get on the site and look at the list of benchers!

A lot of members are in some way related to Unilever and some can easily be traced back to Jesuits.
A lot have been educated at Jesus college Oxford.

Lincoln's Inn is related to Harvard's Phi Delta Phi.

Ronan Keane QC who was Chief Justice of Ireland is another name on the benders list.( my phone keeps wanting to put bender instead of benches, must be for a reason)

The Trinity college in Dublin, which was formally The College of the Holy and undivided trinity Queen Elizabeth.

This has ancient manuscripts The Book of Kells, The four Gospels and original New Testament.

Another name is Lord Lester of Herne Hill he is a member of The American philosophical society. They have lotscof manuscripts.
1st edition Newton Pricipia and Darwin's origin of a species. Benjamin Franklin's paperwork and American Indian texts etc.
The Web is huge and it all must be related.

Some more names listed on the Lincolns Inn are, Tony Blair, Cherie Booth, Thatcher. Lord Cameron of Lochbroom
who looks to have been dead for a loooong time. John Knox is another oddly given name.
The Duke of York who has been mentioned in the abuse claims and Duke of Kent are on the top of the list.

Sorry there are no links I was whizzing through last night taking notes and before I knew it was totally lost.

I have sent the info to UK Column. They probably know already it's so bloody obvious. The Whole System is crooked beyond belief.

Zoe x


I

DeDukshyn
29th October 2012, 18:18
And home schooled children do not need to be vaccinated as well, another big plus. Yippeee!!!!!

Just a reminder to all Canadians -- if you get discriminated against by your public school system for not taking / having vaccinations, immediately talk to a lawyer ... it is *still* illegal in Canada to deny any public service based on inoculation records. Same goes if a doctor denies you service ... sue while you still can and make your voice be heard.

If they say the welfare of your child is at stake, say "thank you for your opinion, make sure you exercise your constitutional right to do what you think is right for your children, and I'll do that as well, ok? Afterall, freedom of choice is what makes this such a great country, wouldn't you agree?"

In the case of school "forced" inoculations:
If they say the welfare of other children is at risk, ask them why, if they actually believe that, are they injecting those kids with vaccines that don't work then ... ?

Kiforall
29th October 2012, 23:10
Kiforall,

I am just curious about how you were contacted. Were your children previously enrolled in school and then withdrawn? Were they ever enrolled in school? How did the education department identify and find you?

Both my children attended school, I had to write a letter that confirmed my intention to home school.
You then have to inform your local authority.
It was three weeks after the letter I sent for my Son that I got a phone call.

Zoe x

AriG
30th October 2012, 13:08
Kiforall,

I am just curious about how you were contacted. Were your children previously enrolled in school and then withdrawn? Were they ever enrolled in school? How did the education department identify and find you?

Both my children attended school, I had to write a letter that confirmed my intention to home school.
You then have to inform your local authority.
It was three weeks after the letter I sent for my Son that I got a phone call.

Zoe x

IMO, you should have a solicitor file a harassment suit against the school. That response was not a routine or random standards check. I know you don't want to deal with attorneys but this sounds like a clear cut case of retaliation in that no time elapsed between the withdrawal and the letter. Certainly you can find an attorney who leans to the left to represent you. You also need to network with other homeschool parents and get some 3D support. There must be resources out there for you.

Just goes to show - don't enroll your children in school unless it is imperative to do so. Its not the same world as when we were children. It would have probably been better to have informed them that you were moving out of the jurisdiction and used a friend or relative's address as your forwarding.

Kiforall
30th October 2012, 13:24
Went to the meeting today and put their minds at rest ;)

It may be fortunate that where I live there are apparently, from what the woman said, a lot of people home schooling ( the area is quite upper/middle class )

She explained that they do have problems with parents who's children have poor attendance and behaviour issues at school. Rather than these parents dealing with the issues they just take their children out of school and don't provide any education or support at home. You can imagine the irresponsible/alcoholic/drug addict parents doing this and I understood this.

I didn't get any negative energy from her but I never took anything but positive energy into the room.
She couldn't have turned the situation into anything other than what I had intended.
I'm happy to play along with them, reverse psychology, let them think they are winning and that I am still working towards The Common Purpose.

Zoe x

panopticon
2nd November 2012, 00:50
Went to the meeting today and put their minds at rest ;)
...
She explained that they do have problems with parents who's children have poor attendance and behaviour issues at school. Rather than these parents dealing with the issues they just take their children out of school and don't provide any education or support at home. You can imagine the irresponsible/alcoholic/drug addict parents doing this and I understood this.


G'day Kiforall,

Glad it all worked out well for you. We home schooled years ago and never had any trouble with Government or services. The only thing they wanted was to make sure we were teaching a balanced curriculum (which we were).



I hope you guys never get arrested because you all would go to prison. Why? because you will talk to the govt thugs. There is NO common sense applied or allowed. 'Everyone talks or everyone walks' is the rule.
On that rule - If i was to be arrested on the street. And from the point that they lay hands on me, to the point from i am released from their custody - If i am to not say a single word - AT ALL (this includes should they read me my rights) is this the appropriate thing to do?

G'day Tigahawk,

I am in general agreement with Siberia9.

In Australia your "right to remain silent" is protected (both through common law and under State and Federal legislation) and applies during questioning (both pre and post arrest) and in most cases when in court. There are a few cases where it does not apply (for example under anti-terrorism legislation or if you are called to give evidence before a Royal Commission) however in general all you are required to do is state your name and address. You must give this or be charged with a summary offence. If you are stopped and questioned by police you can ask the officers name, rank, serial number, station house and reason for questioning (in most States I think they must provide this in writing if asked or face a fine).

There are changes coming into effect in New South Wales (under the conservative O'Farrell State Government) that will remove some of the right to silence. However these changes only appear to apply in the case of a Judge directing a jury in deliberation and as such have limited implications (though major ramifications) in the case of roadside questioning.

Always remember that police officers are able to use any statement you make at any time and that it does not matter if it is recorded or not. There is a requirement for corroborating evidence (ie it must be recorded) in some circumstances however as a general rule spoken testimony may be used by police if written down (and signed/dated by the officer in question) shortly after the statement is made. Also remember that there is no such thing as "off the record" when talking to police, everything that is said can be used as evidence, it doesn't matter if the officer says otherwise. Oh and if you opt for "no comment" then be consistent and only say "no comment" and never get angry or indignant. By saying "no comment" in response to all questions you are being consistent, if you are selective in which questions you answer this can be misconstrued as guilt or possibly hindering an investigation. Just remain calm and stick with "no comment". Remember: "anything you say or do may be given as evidence".

You may find the following talks of interest as they point out some important reasons as to why no-one, innocent or guilty, should speak to the police:

i8z7NC5sgik

08fZQWjDVKE

Indeed the NSW Law Reform Commission Report 95 ('The Right To Silence (http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/r95toc)') in 2000 stated:

It is reasonable that innocent persons faced with a serious accusation might wish to consider their situations carefully before making any disclosure, especially where the circumstances appear suspicious but it cannot be assumed that they are rational and articulate. In many cases, suspects may be emotional, perhaps panicked, inarticulate, unintelligent, easily influenced, confused or frightened or a combination of these. They may be unable to do themselves justice. Such persons may be well advised to hold their peace, at least at an early stage. They may, of course, have something to hide, but that something may simply be shameful and not a crime, or it may implicate others for whom they feel responsible. The supposition that only a guilty person has a reason for not speaking freely to investigating police is an unreasonable assumption. (at 2.116 (http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/r95chp2))

Relevent sections of Acts in NSW (http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/):

Evidence Act 1995 No 25 (this is the one that is being changed to add a Section 89A)

Chapter 3, Part 3.4, Section 89:

89 Evidence of silence

(1) In a criminal proceeding, an inference unfavourable to a party must not be drawn from evidence that the party or another person failed or refused:
(a) to answer one or more questions, or
(b) to respond to a representation, put or made to the party or other person by an investigating official who at that time was performing functions in connection with the investigation of the commission, or possible commission, of an offence.
(2) Evidence of that kind is not admissible if it can only be used to draw such an inference.
(3) Subsection (1) does not prevent use of the evidence to prove that the party or other person failed or refused to answer the question or to respond to the representation if the failure or refusal is a fact in issue in the proceeding.
(4) In this section:
inference includes:

(a) an inference of consciousness of guilt, or
(b) an inference relevant to a party’s credibility.


Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 No 103

Part 9, Division 3, Section 122:

122 Custody manager to caution, and give summary of Part to, detained person

(cf Crimes Act 1900, s 356M)

(1) As soon as practicable after a person who is detained under this Part (a detained person) comes into custody at a police station or other place of detention, the custody manager for the person must orally and in writing:
(a) caution the person that the person does not have to say or do anything but that anything the person does say or do may be used in evidence, and
(b) give the person a summary of the provisions of this Part that is to include reference to the fact that the maximum investigation period may be extended beyond 4 hours by application made to an authorised officer and that the person, or the person’s legal representative, may make representations to the authorised officer about the application.
(2) The giving of a caution does not affect a requirement of any law that a person answer questions put by, or do things required by, a police officer.
(3) After being given the information referred to in subsection (1) orally and in writing, the person is to be requested to sign an acknowledgment that the information has been so given.

I Hope this was helpful.
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

Sources & Further Reading:
Right To Silence -- NSW Law Commission Report 95 (http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/r95toc)
Submission on the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Bill 2012 (http://www.nswlaborlawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/NSW-Labor-Lawyers_Right-to-Silence-Submission-FINAL.pdf)
Silence may be golden no longer (http://www.afp.gov.au/media-centre/publications/platypus/previous-editions/2000/march-2000/silence.aspx)
NSW to change the right to silence (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3568044.htm)
Right to silence change is bad law (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/right-to-silence-change-is-bad-law/story-e6frg97x-1226452092453)
YOUR RIGHTS UNDER ARREST (http://www.aussielegal.com.au/informationoutline~nocache~1~SubTopicDetailsID~965 .htm)
Right to remain silent at risk under O'Farrell's legal crackdown (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/right-to-remain-silent-at-risk-under-ofarrells-legal-crackdown-20120814-246vy.html)
Australia: Right to silence should remain a right (http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/195376/Crime/Right+to+silence+should+remain+a+right)
Legal Aid Information (NSW) (http://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/)
Right to silence: Exceptions relevant to a criminal practitioner (www.criminalcle.net.au/attachments/Right_To_Silence_paper.pdf)

Nanoo Nanoo
30th December 2012, 22:18
I just wrote a whole essay on ow to deal with police and it got censored. Not by avalon either :-)

Copy all your posts before posting them to stop you losing info. Hmmm

Naniu