Fathers 4 Justice

[mothman]

Perhaps they thought they'd get mown down by a police marksman and therefore become martyrs to their cause?

[Labian Quest]

These stunts are all very well, but I can't help thinking that if they'd have put half as much effort into maintaining a good relationship with their exes as they did into the stunts, they wouldn't need to arse around in Batman costumes, maybe a bit less attitude might help? or maybe accepting that they themselves might be partly to blame for the situation, rather than McBlair, McDonalds etc.

[Some Herbert]

I was just wondering.... am I the only person here that is a member of  Fathers 4 Justice?

You really don't do yourself any favours, do you? Are you trying to become no. 1 cunt on this board or something? Perhaps you've stolen Dekion Plexis' account.

Stop trolling and do something worthwhile with your life.

[Plank]

edit: blah, fergeddabahdit

[The Man With Brass Eyes]

there was a Fathers4Justice dude on the town hall in Cheltenham the other day.  Some people said he was dressed as Spiderman (although it was a half-arsed attempt as he only had a fluorescent yellow jacket on).
There was one guy on a roof and all the local police force - three vans, two cars, three bikes, dogs.  The entire road was closed.
Just seems to be a really bad waste of resources to lasso these twits down.  I just think they're wasting everyones' time.

[Utter Shit]

I genuinely don't see the logic behind campaigning for rights to access to children, by displaying irresponsible and ridiculous behaviour implicitous of being a terrible parent.

It's arguable that they're not being given the chance to be a parent anyway, hence their harmless pranks.

It's also arguable that "impliticious" isn't a word but I suppose it makes sense in it's own way too ;)

This is a fair point. I think I have somehow got it confused with 'duplicitous', which is what you have shown yourself to be in the way you have hideously double-crossed me in mocking my pathetic attempts to use language.

[Jemble Fred]

I just think they're wasting everyones' time.

Agreed. Which is why they should be given what they want, now.

[The Man With Brass Eyes]

Agreed. Which is why they should be given what they want, now.

Superpowers.

[Lady Beaner]

Or bigger suits, judging by what I saw a few days ago...

[thisissi]

I suppose it's a bit like the countryside alliance.  People who wanted to join a group protesting about their rural post offices and primary schools closing thought they had the best chance because of weight of numbers joining an organisation which happened also to be synonymous with supporting fox hunting.  In this case if you want to protest that fathers aren't getting fair treatment in court you have to associate yourselves with a bunch of knob-cheeses that think fancy dress is the most appropriate means of endearing themselves with the British public.  I blame 'telethon' culture.  Fancy dress is preceived as the answer to world hunger and poverty, why not anything else?

Of course, I'm talking out of my arse.  But at least I'm not dressed as Batman.

[thisissi]

Thinking about it (although I'm not sure why I still am) 'justice' in the legal sense means subject to the laws of the land.  So the fathers that don't get custody in court have already been subjected to justice.  They should change their name to something like 'fathers for fair treatment'.  Otherwise their improper naming is making themselves look like fools.  Not as much as the fancy dress though.

[Adrian Brezhnev]

I do feel deep sympathy for parents and grandparents who are unable to see their own offspring but I find F4J to be a tad aggressive.  

I wonder how many men there are in the horrid postion of not being able to visit their kids through no fault of their own? And how would this figure contrast to men who couldn't be arsed even financing the children they sire, let alone acknowledging them?  I imagine the latter would be a much higher figure.

The latter is most likely to be a higher figure. But there are hundreds of thousands of children who, thanks to 21st century law and politics, are not getting parenting from both of their parents.

It's the children that are the innocent victims in all this. Both parents are invariably to blame in the breakdown of relationships, but what is unfair is the way that fathers can be sidelined quite so easily these days.

Yes, thanks to certain members (e.g. the bat men), Fathers 4 Justice can be perceived as being a tad agressive. That's why there are other organisations out there like Families Need Fathers. But the reason that F4J does have some rather oustpoken, angry members, is that many of them have not been able to see their children at all for several years, all thanks to being beaten by the System.

[Jemble Fred]

Hear, hear. One or two unfortunate decisions in life and that could be any one of us desperately trying to gain access to our children.

[thisissi]

Yes, thanks to certain members (e.g. the bat men), Fathers 4 Justice can be perceived as being a tad agressive. That's why there are other organisations out there like Families Need Fathers. But the reason that F4J does have some rather oustpoken, angry members, is that many of them have not been able to see their children at all for several years, all thanks to being beaten by the System.

Wouldn't you be better off distancing yourself from those guys then and becoming a member of a group that makes it clear they are after fair treatment for their children and not just a thug in a costume trying to gain publicity?

At no point have I heard them mention the rights of the children.  The name even implies they are in it for their own good, not because they think a child should have the right to access to his father.

[Adrian Brezhnev]

At no point have I heard them mention the rights of the children

That is probably because you have not met many of them. It's at the centre every speech they give about the whole matter.

[Jemble Fred]

Wouldn't you be better off distancing yourself from those guys then and becoming a member of a group that makes it clear they are after fair treatment for their children and not just a thug in a costume trying to gain publicity?

I'd have thought unity would be the best weapon in your arsenal if you want to make a change. Having small split-off groups wouldn't help change the law at all.

[thisissi]

At no point have I heard them mention the rights of the children

That is probably because you have not met many of them. It's at the centre every speech they give about the whole matter.

No doubt, but all the general public see is the guys on buildings on the news.  So they're not generating publicity for their cause so much as themselves.

[thisissi]

I'd have thought unity would be the best weapon in your arsenal if you want to make a change. Having small split-off groups wouldn't help change the law at all.

Yes I know, hence my original post - but another group was mentioned 'Families Need Fathers'.  Even the name of that group suggests (rightly or wrongly) that the fathers' agendas are slightly different from F4J.  So it looks like it's not your only choice.

I suppose I could argue that because I've never heard of the other group, joining is not giving as much support to a unity, but the only publicity I've heard from F4J is bad publicity anyway.

[Some Herbert]

Or bigger suits, judging by what I saw a few days ago...

That's one of the less appealing aspects of the F4J thugs. It's as if they're saying "look at my pathetic little noblet. I stuck it in a lady's fanny and look at all the grief it's caused".

Utter losers.

[Adrian Brezhnev]

It's not quite as simple as that.

I'd have thought unity would be the best weapon in your arsenal if you want to make a change. Having small split-off groups wouldn't help change the law at all.

A large number of these so-called thugs are just fathers who have suffered years of courts ruling unfairly with a bias towards mothers.

The reason that they take part in public displays of (on the surface) very silly behavior is that they want to raise awareness of the issues at hand.

All the Batman. McBlair, dressing up as thousands of Father Christmasses is also about trying to use a sense of humour as a way of dealing with a very horrible set of circumstances. The fact that many members of the public won't get the joke, or they just think it's stupid behavior is unlikely to deter them.

[untitled_london]

I was just wondering.... am I the only person here that is a member of  Fathers 4 Justice?

You really don't do yourself any favours, do you? Are you trying to become no. 1 cunt on this board or something? Perhaps you've stolen Dekion Plexis' account.

Stop trolling and do something worthwhile with your life.

cor blimey!

i bet the view is really nice up there on that reeeeealy high horse.

[Some Herbert]

i bet the view is really nice up there on that reeeeealy high horse.

What on earth are you talking about? I'm taking no moral high ground, merely pointing out that AB seems determined to piss off as many people as possible. So wilful is this behaviour that one might easily mistake him for a troll, a la Dekion Plexis.

[Jemble Fred]

Whereas dismissing these protesters as 'Utter Losers' is just furthering the debate, isn't it?

[Pinckle Wicker]

i bet the view is really nice up there on that reeeeealy high horse.

What on earth are you talking about? I'm taking no moral high ground, merely pointing out that AB seems determined to piss off as many people as possible. So wilful is this behaviour that one might easily mistake him for a troll, a la Dekion Plexis.

i disagree! im entitled to mine as you are to yours! What he is stating doesn`t offend me!

[The Man With Brass Eyes]

i bet the view is really nice up there on that reeeeealy high horse.

he's not the one on the roof.

[Suttonpubcrawl]

I don't quite understand the attitude to Fathers 4 Justice. People are always having a go at fathers who can't be bothered with their children (in fact someone has already done it within this thread!) and then when fathers who want to see their are being prevented from doing so, all most people say is "well, they're a bit stupid aren't they?" or things even worse than that. People are criticising the attention grabbing techniques that they use, but it seems an issue that most people almost actively don't give a shit about so perhaps that's the only way they can get the issue on the agenda.

[thisissi]

so perhaps that's the only way they can get the issue on the agenda.

But they don't seem to be getting it on the agenda though.  If they were we would be here discussing what a travesty of justice it is.  But we're not, we're discussing how they dress up as Batman.

[Some Herbert]

I don't quite understand the attitude to Fathers 4 Justice. People are always having a go at fathers who can't be bothered with their children (in fact someone has already done it within this thread!) and then when fathers who want to see their are being prevented from doing so, all most people say is "well, they're a bit stupid aren't they?" or things even worse than that.

People are dismissive of F4J for various reasons. Their childish stunts have annoyed quite a few folks, and a number of their ilk are using this issue to further intimidate or abuse their former partners.

[Jemble Fred]

so perhaps that's the only way they can get the issue on the agenda.

But they don't seem to be getting it on the agenda though.  If they were we would be here discussing what a travesty of justice it is.  But we're not, we're discussing how they dress up as Batman.

That says as much about the people who are missing the point as it does about them, though.

[Some Herbert]

Whereas dismissing these protesters as 'Utter Losers' is just furthering the debate, isn't it?

Not really, no. It neatly sums up what I think of them though.