<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Robert Whiston</title>
	<atom:link href="http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>Policypuzzles - Just another weblog from an Englishman in Westminster</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:02:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on 12. The Law Commission&#8217;s Infamous ‘Supplement to Working Paper No. 96’. by Children Act 1989 – the elimination of shared parenting &#171; Robert Whiston</title>
		<link>http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/12/#comment-97</link>
		<dc:creator>Children Act 1989 – the elimination of shared parenting &#171; Robert Whiston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:02:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/?p=101#comment-97</guid>
		<description>[...]        &#8592; 10. Mothers Who&#160;Kill 12. The Law Commission&#8217;s Infamous ‘Supplement to Working Paper No.&#160;96’. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]        &larr; 10. Mothers Who&nbsp;Kill 12. The Law Commission&#8217;s Infamous ‘Supplement to Working Paper No.&nbsp;96’. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 5. Twenty wasted years &#8211; Joint custody is not new or untested, two decades ago it was common in England by Children Act 1989 – the elimination of shared parenting &#171; Robert Whiston</title>
		<link>http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/5/#comment-96</link>
		<dc:creator>Children Act 1989 – the elimination of shared parenting &#171; Robert Whiston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:51:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/5/#comment-96</guid>
		<description>[...] 5. Twenty wasted years &#8211; Joint custody is not new or untested, two decades ago it was common i... [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 5. Twenty wasted years &#8211; Joint custody is not new or untested, two decades ago it was common i&#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 10. Mothers Who Kill by RW</title>
		<link>http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/10/#comment-95</link>
		<dc:creator>RW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:31:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/?p=31#comment-95</guid>
		<description>DearJohn, That is known as the proximty theory and it does not stand up to scrutiny. I could go into masses of detail but in terms of being proportionately adjusted it is not worth looking in that direction. Search the web for why not and in particular look, eg, at what Warren Farrell (Father and Child Reunion) has written on this topic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DearJohn, That is known as the proximty theory and it does not stand up to scrutiny. I could go into masses of detail but in terms of being proportionately adjusted it is not worth looking in that direction. Search the web for why not and in particular look, eg, at what Warren Farrell (Father and Child Reunion) has written on this topic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 3. ‘Self-harm’ is good for you ! by RW</title>
		<link>http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/3-%e2%80%98self-harm%e2%80%99-is-good-for-you/#comment-94</link>
		<dc:creator>RW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:22:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/3-%e2%80%98self-harm%e2%80%99-is-good-for-you/#comment-94</guid>
		<description>Dear Anonymous. Your reply is thoughtful and well considered. Suicide statistics are not my first love but they are intriguing. Over the months they have, to my surprise, been one of the most popular pages people have visited, so it hope they have preoved useful in some way. Now I am a dull sort of chap and numbers are my favoured currency. I tend not to draw my own conclusions but let the public draw their own, though I do pose options and quote the conclusions of others. If I were to hypothesise about a population that could be classified into two or more mutually exclusive groups it would be a much longer article and slip into the contentious - which was not my goal. I agree the example you give should convince everyone that a little more thought is necessary before drawing conclusions - and if that is so then I am pleased to have met my target.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Anonymous. Your reply is thoughtful and well considered. Suicide statistics are not my first love but they are intriguing. Over the months they have, to my surprise, been one of the most popular pages people have visited, so it hope they have preoved useful in some way. Now I am a dull sort of chap and numbers are my favoured currency. I tend not to draw my own conclusions but let the public draw their own, though I do pose options and quote the conclusions of others. If I were to hypothesise about a population that could be classified into two or more mutually exclusive groups it would be a much longer article and slip into the contentious &#8211; which was not my goal. I agree the example you give should convince everyone that a little more thought is necessary before drawing conclusions &#8211; and if that is so then I am pleased to have met my target.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 1. Cohabitation in the UK &#8211; A Legal and Political Jihad Against Males by RW</title>
		<link>http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/hallo-wereld/#comment-92</link>
		<dc:creator>RW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:44:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-92</guid>
		<description>Dear John, Thank you for your comments. Did you read the short version or the much longer version at :-http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/13/ ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear John, Thank you for your comments. Did you read the short version or the much longer version at :-http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/13/ ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 10. Mothers Who Kill by John</title>
		<link>http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/10/#comment-91</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:33:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/?p=31#comment-91</guid>
		<description>If children spend more time in the company of their mothers, then surely we would expect there to be more killings attributed to mothers?

What are the figures when proportionately adjusted?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If children spend more time in the company of their mothers, then surely we would expect there to be more killings attributed to mothers?</p>
<p>What are the figures when proportionately adjusted?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 1. Cohabitation in the UK &#8211; A Legal and Political Jihad Against Males by John</title>
		<link>http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/hallo-wereld/#comment-90</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:32:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-90</guid>
		<description>The state is of course addicted to mugging its citizens, it cannot survive without it.

Having thoroughly damaged family life through its interference, it now wants men to pick up the bill.

I read this and just wonder how these people sleep at night, but presumably they are so lacking in moral integrity that thay actually think they are doing something worthy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The state is of course addicted to mugging its citizens, it cannot survive without it.</p>
<p>Having thoroughly damaged family life through its interference, it now wants men to pick up the bill.</p>
<p>I read this and just wonder how these people sleep at night, but presumably they are so lacking in moral integrity that thay actually think they are doing something worthy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 3. ‘Self-harm’ is good for you ! by Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/3-%e2%80%98self-harm%e2%80%99-is-good-for-you/#comment-89</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:14:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/3-%e2%80%98self-harm%e2%80%99-is-good-for-you/#comment-89</guid>
		<description>Thank you for the information.  It seems you&#039;ve spent quite a lot of time in the article discussing suicide, even though the title makes one think it&#039;s going to be a refutation of the myth that self-harm is always bad and that the primary goal of its treatment should be to simply reduce the number of people practicing it.   Of course, that isn&#039;t to say that your discussion of suicide isn&#039;t interesting.  I didn&#039;t know that suicide was the biggest cause of death among young men, for instance.

I&#039;d like to take a moment to mention that although your statistics are useful, I worry that some of the figures might be slightly misleading as presented.  For instance, you said that 91% of people who commit suicide are &quot;white, and usually well-educated and from middle-class backgrounds.&quot;  That may very well be, but does this fact alone imply that people of this background are at higher risk of committing suicide than others?  For example, consider a town whose population can be classified into two mutually exclusive types: type A (91% of the population) and type B (9% of the population).  Now suppose that everybody in the town is equally likely to commit suicide, regardless of whether they are type A or type B.   It follows naturally that, on the average, 91% of the people who commit suicide will be of type A -- even though in actuality everybody is equally likely to commit suicide!  Moreover, even if we supposed that EVERY person of type B will commit suicide, people of type B will still make up only a minority of the people who commit suicide as long as at least, say, 10% of people of type A commit suicide (because 10% of 91% is 9.1%, which represents a larger part of the population than the 9% of the population who belong to type B).  Of course, one can also imagine a population distribution in which the fact that 91% of people who commit suicide are of type A really does correlate with the fact that people of type A are at higher risk for committing suicide (e.g., if people of type A made up 50% of the population and people of type B the other 50%), and this may very well be the case in the United States; but since about 75%  of the population of the United States is white, I don&#039;t think it&#039;s an obvious conclusion to draw that people who are &quot;white, and usually well-educated and from middle-class backgrounds&quot; are at higher risk for suicide simply because they make up 91% of all suicides.  The example I just gave should be enough to convince anyone that, at the very least, a little more thought is necessary before drawing that conclusion.

Still, I appreciate the work of people like you.  More people should know about suicide and self-harm, and in particular I think it&#039;s important for people to learn that in both cases, the goal should not simply be to reduce the number of occurrences.   I understand why people generally prefer not to see others commit suicide or harm themselves, but (and especially in cases of self harm) it&#039;s essential to make the mental health of the &quot;victim&quot; top priority -- the goal of reducing the number of people who commit suicide or practice self-harm should be secondary to ensuring that these people lead a good mental life.  That&#039;s the most important thing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for the information.  It seems you&#8217;ve spent quite a lot of time in the article discussing suicide, even though the title makes one think it&#8217;s going to be a refutation of the myth that self-harm is always bad and that the primary goal of its treatment should be to simply reduce the number of people practicing it.   Of course, that isn&#8217;t to say that your discussion of suicide isn&#8217;t interesting.  I didn&#8217;t know that suicide was the biggest cause of death among young men, for instance.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d like to take a moment to mention that although your statistics are useful, I worry that some of the figures might be slightly misleading as presented.  For instance, you said that 91% of people who commit suicide are &#8220;white, and usually well-educated and from middle-class backgrounds.&#8221;  That may very well be, but does this fact alone imply that people of this background are at higher risk of committing suicide than others?  For example, consider a town whose population can be classified into two mutually exclusive types: type A (91% of the population) and type B (9% of the population).  Now suppose that everybody in the town is equally likely to commit suicide, regardless of whether they are type A or type B.   It follows naturally that, on the average, 91% of the people who commit suicide will be of type A &#8212; even though in actuality everybody is equally likely to commit suicide!  Moreover, even if we supposed that EVERY person of type B will commit suicide, people of type B will still make up only a minority of the people who commit suicide as long as at least, say, 10% of people of type A commit suicide (because 10% of 91% is 9.1%, which represents a larger part of the population than the 9% of the population who belong to type B).  Of course, one can also imagine a population distribution in which the fact that 91% of people who commit suicide are of type A really does correlate with the fact that people of type A are at higher risk for committing suicide (e.g., if people of type A made up 50% of the population and people of type B the other 50%), and this may very well be the case in the United States; but since about 75%  of the population of the United States is white, I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s an obvious conclusion to draw that people who are &#8220;white, and usually well-educated and from middle-class backgrounds&#8221; are at higher risk for suicide simply because they make up 91% of all suicides.  The example I just gave should be enough to convince anyone that, at the very least, a little more thought is necessary before drawing that conclusion.</p>
<p>Still, I appreciate the work of people like you.  More people should know about suicide and self-harm, and in particular I think it&#8217;s important for people to learn that in both cases, the goal should not simply be to reduce the number of occurrences.   I understand why people generally prefer not to see others commit suicide or harm themselves, but (and especially in cases of self harm) it&#8217;s essential to make the mental health of the &#8220;victim&#8221; top priority &#8212; the goal of reducing the number of people who commit suicide or practice self-harm should be secondary to ensuring that these people lead a good mental life.  That&#8217;s the most important thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 5. Twenty wasted years &#8211; Joint custody is not new or untested, two decades ago it was common in England by rwhiston</title>
		<link>http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/5/#comment-88</link>
		<dc:creator>rwhiston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:23:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/5/#comment-88</guid>
		<description>Thanks Dave for your comments. You have only to look around Europe to see that is still perfectly possible, e.g. Belgium. I hope you are putting peressure for change on your MP or on the candidate in wainting ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Dave for your comments. You have only to look around Europe to see that is still perfectly possible, e.g. Belgium. I hope you are putting peressure for change on your MP or on the candidate in wainting ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 5. Twenty wasted years &#8211; Joint custody is not new or untested, two decades ago it was common in England by David Thomas</title>
		<link>http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/5/#comment-87</link>
		<dc:creator>David Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:44:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/5/#comment-87</guid>
		<description>Great article. The spin around shared parenting by the Labour Government re. splitting children like a CD collection is appalling, and shows that they do not understand the whole area of what&#039;s best for children. The State needs to be taken out of all bu the most serious cases.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great article. The spin around shared parenting by the Labour Government re. splitting children like a CD collection is appalling, and shows that they do not understand the whole area of what&#8217;s best for children. The State needs to be taken out of all bu the most serious cases.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 10. Mothers Who Kill by yvonne</title>
		<link>http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/10/#comment-86</link>
		<dc:creator>yvonne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:56:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/?p=31#comment-86</guid>
		<description>very touching and informative</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>very touching and informative</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 12. The Law Commission&#8217;s Infamous ‘Supplement to Working Paper No. 96’. by Anna Freud &#8211; Her secret failure (Part 1) &#171; Robert Whiston</title>
		<link>http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/12/#comment-81</link>
		<dc:creator>Anna Freud &#8211; Her secret failure (Part 1) &#171; Robert Whiston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:48:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/?p=101#comment-81</guid>
		<description>[...] Links        &#8592; 12. The Law Commission&#8217;s Infamous ‘Supplement to Working Paper No.&#160;96’. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Links        &larr; 12. The Law Commission&#8217;s Infamous ‘Supplement to Working Paper No.&nbsp;96’. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 5. Twenty wasted years &#8211; Joint custody is not new or untested, two decades ago it was common in England by Anna Freud &#8211; Her secret failure (Part 1) &#171; Robert Whiston</title>
		<link>http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/5/#comment-80</link>
		<dc:creator>Anna Freud &#8211; Her secret failure (Part 1) &#171; Robert Whiston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:52:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/5/#comment-80</guid>
		<description>[...] See ‘Twenty Wasted Years’ R Whiston  http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/5/ and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] See ‘Twenty Wasted Years’ R Whiston  <a href="http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/5/" rel="nofollow">http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/5/</a> and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Cohabitation in Britain &#8211; a Legal and Political Jihad Against Men by American Statistics &#171; Discussing cohabitation law reform in the UK</title>
		<link>http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/13/#comment-73</link>
		<dc:creator>American Statistics &#171; Discussing cohabitation law reform in the UK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 02:31:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/?p=130#comment-73</guid>
		<description>[...] births, legitimate and illegitimate births by gender age of mother etc (see Fig 9 and Fig 15 http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/13/ and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] births, legitimate and illegitimate births by gender age of mother etc (see Fig 9 and Fig 15 <a href="http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/13/" rel="nofollow">http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/13/</a> and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 8. Non-Resident Fathers in Britain by USA - Fatherless Children &#171; Equal Parenting @ Ration Shed</title>
		<link>http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/8/#comment-69</link>
		<dc:creator>USA - Fatherless Children &#171; Equal Parenting @ Ration Shed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 08:53:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/?p=27#comment-69</guid>
		<description>[...] 8. Non-Resident Fathers in Britain [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 8. Non-Resident Fathers in Britain [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Cohabitation in Britain &#8211; a Legal and Political Jihad Against Men by UK - Legal and Political Jihad Against Men &#171; Equal Parenting @ Ration Shed</title>
		<link>http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/13/#comment-67</link>
		<dc:creator>UK - Legal and Political Jihad Against Men &#171; Equal Parenting @ Ration Shed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:58:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/?p=130#comment-67</guid>
		<description>[...] GO - http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/13 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] GO &#8211; <a href="http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/13" rel="nofollow">http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/13</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 2. Mediacentre Netherlands sees Christmas meeting of Dutch fathers&#8217; organisation &#8220;IkVader&#8221; by Jim Bailey -/-JimBWarrior-/-HandsOnEqualParent</title>
		<link>http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/2-at-the-mediacentre-netherlands-for-the-christmasmeeting-of-dutch-fatherorganisation-ikvader/#comment-66</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Bailey -/-JimBWarrior-/-HandsOnEqualParent</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 06:14:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/2-at-the-mediacentre-netherlands-for-the-christmasmeeting-of-dutch-fatherorganisation-ikvader/#comment-66</guid>
		<description>YO! - Now I can put faces to the Emails we exchange - Keep up the good work 

Onward - JimBWarrior</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>YO! &#8211; Now I can put faces to the Emails we exchange &#8211; Keep up the good work </p>
<p>Onward &#8211; JimBWarrior</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 12. The Law Commission&#8217;s Infamous ‘Supplement to Working Paper No. 96’. by Review of Child Custody Law (1986) - Supplement to Working Paper No. 96 &#171; Law Commission - England and Wales</title>
		<link>http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/12/#comment-62</link>
		<dc:creator>Review of Child Custody Law (1986) - Supplement to Working Paper No. 96 &#171; Law Commission - England and Wales</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:51:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/?p=101#comment-62</guid>
		<description>[...] An Introductory Summary to the Law Commission’s Infamous Supplement to Working Paper No. 96 « by ... [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] An Introductory Summary to the Law Commission’s Infamous Supplement to Working Paper No. 96 « by &#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 1. Cohabitation in the UK &#8211; A Legal and Political Jihad Against Males by joepzander</title>
		<link>http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/hallo-wereld/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>joepzander</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:10:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-2</guid>
		<description>Hi, fine I see you got your website. 
See you.
Joep Zander
http://joepzander.wordpress.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, fine I see you got your website.<br />
See you.<br />
Joep Zander<br />
<a href="http://joepzander.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">http://joepzander.wordpress.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
