CONFUSION REINS AT ETT

Some ETT arguments and allegations are so confusing it is becoming difficult to comprehend whether they can:
1 Understand English
2 Actually believe what they are writing

Today’s humour section from ETT is in blue

Shared Parenting Council is the SLR
More trickery from Shared parenting Council where they try to create an illusion that the other groups involved in the "portal" are unrelated when it is clearly not the truth.

11. Self-Represented Litigants Program
A close alliance has been fostered between SPCA and the Self-Represented Litigants (SRL) group and program

Well that’s a change of tone – now it has become a ‘close alliance’. Firstly it was founded by the SPCA but now it’s a ‘close alliance’ – finally ETT has got part of the message! Mind you we had to repeat it half a dozen times. If you had to repeat the same thing that many times to a ten year old you would be booking a visit to a doctor or specialist.
We wonder how close the alliance is because certainly neither of the two ETT arch fiends [Wayne Butler and Michael Green] have any control over the decision making process of SRLR.

ETT then rather naughtily goes on to quote confidential internal FAHCSIA material [which has never appeared on the FLWG site]
whereby SPCA jointly assisted numerous persons in Court Cases and with their individual Child Support issues.
But as usual this is selective, why was the reference to Mothers left out?

ETT has quoted confidential internal FAHCSIA correspondence on a number of occasions –isn’t that a breach of trust from a committee member passing information onto third parties?
Sorry, that was a rhetorical question – we should have said it demonstrates the overall morality of the ETT blog.

Again we are confused because ETT continually attacks the SPCA as being anti Mother but has a ‘close alliance’ with an organisation whose membership is 40% female and has 30% of its Family Court cases supporting first wives. Well we can spot the contradiction but can ETT understand their own contradictions?
Now we got the information just by asking. We wonder why ETT cannot ask questions directly to the SPCA? or is it because they have no credible questions to ask?

Another internal FAHCSIA document leaked by ETT.
The Honourable Deputy Chief Justice has been a supporter of SRL reforms to enable the SRL to better prepare. We have also further enhanced our relationships with key major lobby groups
Well that’s no surprise as the DCJ was the ‘chair’ on the SRL Project in 2001

Every other group listed on the familylawwebguide community page is a part of the Shared Parenting Council of Australia and is not independent like they want you to believe.

By ‘every other’ does ETT mean one in two? We know they have math problem –so what is it 50% or 100%?

Saying that a group such as SRLR is not independent will surely bring chuckles from the SPCA who do not have any control over that organistion. Likewise Mothers4Equality does it own thing independently of the SPCA and so does the FLRA. Perhaps ETT does not understand what independent actually means?