Fathers 4 Justice

[Leila]

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.

Interesting point.

Keeping a civil relationship with the mother and keeping it out of the courts is the best way to get access to the kids.

I do question the mentality of the mothers involved in these cases as well.  Only a spiteful bitch would keep her kids away from their father (unless he was a violent psycho or a paedo or something).

[bill hicks]

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.

Do you honestly think that if F4J had not used any stunts and just made a few public speeches about not seeing their kids and maybe had a demo at the high court you would know who they are?

What's the publicity going to be on the six o'clock news?

"Pressure group made a speech"?

And why is it so fucking terrible that someone dressed as Batman once? Did he jump in a black 4x4 and mow down a playground after or something?

[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.

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

I don't think so.  Is it ok to go to any extreme to highlight your point?  Presumably not.  Individuals will decide for themselves whether someone has overstepped the mark doing so.  In this case most people seem to think that acting irresponsibly isn't a good way to promote this particular cause, so aren't going to give it much time.

To take it to an extreme, imagine if a group takes hostages to publicise an issue.  Would you say people are missing the point if they are worried for the saftey of the hostages, rather than the cause being promoted?

Ok, I know 'going to extremes' usually clouds the issue with irrelevance, but in this case it's the best example I can come up with.

[terminallyrelaxed]

But they aren't going to extremes though are they. They're dressing up as superheroes to try and get themselves on the news to raise the profile of the issue.

[Jemble Fred]

Look at him. Terrorist scum. All the people he's making suffer, just so he can take his kid to the football.

[terminallyrelaxed]

Only a spiteful bitch would keep her kids away from their father.

Such people do exist - possibly as many as potentially feckless fathers? It could be anything, new boyfriend and not wanting to confuse the kids, not wanting any contact with the father themselves, just because they don't rather than because he's a violent nutter, anything. I think reducing it to either the woman being a bitch or the man being a psycho isnt helpful.

Keeping a civil relationship with the mother and keeping it out of the courts is the best way to get access to the kids.

But for these guys, its already too late for that, and its not necessarily always their fault.

[thisissi]

Do you honestly think that if F4J had not used any stunts and just made a few public speeches about not seeing their kids and maybe had a demo at the high court you would know who they are?

What's the publicity going to be on the six o'clock news?

"Pressure group made a speech"?

And why is it so fucking terrible that someone dressed as Batman once? Did he jump in a black 4x4 and mow down a playground after or something?

I know who they are, but I have little respect for them so I'm unlikely to get motivated about their cause.  I think the actions they've taken aren't those of a good role model for children.  When their being a responsible parent is crucial to their campagne, what conclusion should I come to?

I appreciate it's diffcult to get a platform, I just think they've gone about it the wrong way.

[thisissi]

But they aren't going to extremes though are they. They're dressing up as superheroes to try and get themselves on the news to raise the profile of the issue.

Ok, I will allow them to dress up whichever way they want.  I'm referring more to throwing stuff in the house of commons and breaking into MPs offices.

[Cerys]

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.

Okay, I don't think I've ever done this before but here goes: you, sir, are a twat.

a) Do the people who are dismissive of F4J have any idea of what it's like to have their kids taken away from them for no better reason than 'it's better for children to be with their mother'?

b) Are the stunts F4J use any more childish than those used in court by women and lawyers insisting that the children should stay with their mother purely because she's a woman?  Or any more puerile than mothers using access as a stick and/or carrot to manipulate a father after the breakdown of a relationship?  A breakdown which may not even have been the father's fault?

c) Isn't it childish to brand an organisation by the reprehensible actions of a minority of its members?

d) Do you have any idea of the desperate measures to which fathers may resort purely to retain the 'privilege' of seeing their children?  Presumably not, if you insist on using 'oh, they dress up as Batman and climb on to roofs' as your argument against them.

[terminallyrelaxed]

See? You've broken Cerys, you heartless anti-F4J bastards!

[Cerys]

I'm going to go and have a little lie-down somewhere until my brain realigns itself.

[Adrian Brezhnev]

If there were more Ceryses in the world, then there probably wouldn't be the need for organisations like F4J.

[Banana Woofwoof]

All this talk about Batman and their methods is irrelevant, the fact is that the judicial system is biased in favour of the mother.  Is this down to gender or is there something implied or written in the law, legal beagles?

[terminallyrelaxed]

Yeah, but think of the dress code.

[terminallyrelaxed]

Or that theres something written in the law that makes it come down to gender?

[Banana Woofwoof]

Or that theres something written in the law that makes it come down to gender?

You know what I mean, however badly I am articulating it.  I mean is it down to the attitudes of people (the judges and the like) that they'll naturally favour the mother or is there something that is actually written down.

[Adrian Brezhnev]

It's all a matter of controversy. I would say it is more to do with solicitors finding ways to make money by fighting each other on behalf of the parents.

Soceity is changing, and the law is having trouble keeping up with it all. Government policy on the whole thing has also caused problems, that is why F4J protests tend to be of a political nature.

To give them credit, the Government are looking in to how they can improve matters, but it will always take longer to make changes than some people want... and inevitably it ends up being a compromise, meaning that not everyone is happy with the result.

In the mean time, the lovely Ann Widdecombe has written a novel about it all...


http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0297829629/qid=1116347657/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/026-2167320-4870047

[thisissi]

Okay, I don't think I've ever done this before but here goes: you, sir, are a twat.

a) Do the people who are dismissive of F4J have any idea of what it's like to have their kids taken away from them for no better reason than 'it's better for children to be with their mother'?

b) Are the stunts F4J use any more childish than those used in court by women and lawyers insisting that the children should stay with their mother purely because she's a woman?  Or any more puerile than mothers using access as a stick and/or carrot to manipulate a father after the breakdown of a relationship?  A breakdown which may not even have been the father's fault?

c) Isn't it childish to brand an organisation by the reprehensible actions of a minority of its members?

d) Do you have any idea of the desperate measures to which fathers may resort purely to retain the 'privilege' of seeing their children?  Presumably not, if you insist on using 'oh, they dress up as Batman and climb on to roofs' as your argument against them.

I don't think anyone's denying any of things you say about the way fathers are treated is true.  But you've just explained your points clearly and without the need for criminal damage or dressing up.  Neither of these things will give them much credibility in my mind.  Like I said it's up to an individual to decide whether to look into a particular cause, and they don't seem to have done themselves any favours.

[Leila]

You know what I mean, however badly I am articulating it.  I mean is it down to the attitudes of people (the judges and the like) that they'll naturally favour the mother or is there something that is actually written down.

As I said upthread, the millions of deadbeat Dads don't exactly help fathers that really really want to see their kids and can't.

[Adrian Brezhnev]

...they don't seem to have done themselves any favours.

Well, they are starting to find that press articles are saying more about the cause than they used to do, when they would purely tend to report on the details of the publicity stunts.

[Some Herbert]

Okay, I don't think I've ever done this before but here goes: you, sir, are a twat.

Congratulations on such a well-thought out response. Must've taken you a while. You disagree with someone's point of view, ergo they are a twat. I can't fault the logic.

a) Do the people who are dismissive of F4J have any idea of what it's like to have their kids taken away from them for no better reason than 'it's better for children to be with their mother'?

Do you know for a fact that the courts are using this reason as the sole purpose of denying the poor little tykes access to their fathers? Or are you just trotting out the propaganda off the F4J web site?

b) Are the stunts F4J use any more childish than those used in court by women and lawyers insisting that the children should stay with their mother purely because she's a woman?

There you go again. Unsubstantiated claims that could easily come straight out of the F4J propaganda machine. If courts award custody more often to women then isn't it because women are often the ones who end up having to bring up the baby at home and give up work? Therefore it's often logical for the courts to continue with that situation to minimise upsetting the child.

Or any more puerile than mothers using access as a stick and/or carrot to manipulate a father after the breakdown of a relationship?  A breakdown which may not even have been the father's fault?

I dare say that happens. And yes, it would be equally childish. However, the courts can mandate contact between the child and its father. If the mother ignores the ruling she can be jailed.

c) Isn't it childish to brand an organisation by the reprehensible actions of a minority of its members?

The activities of its members are not above suspicion. I find the whole purpose of its existence questionable, when there doesn't actually seem to be anything fundamentally "wrong" with the current law. I suspect they're a front for a bunch of militant misogynists, hell bent on "teaching those upstart bitches a lesson".

The worse thing about this thread is that you just know Mr Brezhnev is sitting there stroking his hard-on at all the attention he's getting. Has everyone so quickly forgotten his girlfriend-dumping saga?

Shame on us all for helping him stroke his wand.

[Adrian Brezhnev]

Herbie.... let's hope to god that you never have children.

No, few people have forgotten the girlfriend dumping saga, but most of us have managed to move on from it.

[Leila]

I
In the mean time, the lovely Ann Widdecombe has written a novel about it all...

(picture)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0297829629/qid=1116347657/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/026-2167320-4870047

I heard her being interviewed on the radio when this book was released.

I found myself agreeing with her quite a lot. She wants the courts to bring in different rules for women who disobey court access rulings. Currently if a woman constantly ignores an order i.e. Daddy gets the kids on saturdays the only thing that can happen is that she gets sent to jail after it is drawn out in the courts for ages.

Anne Widdecombe suggests community service for the mothers who disobey access rulings, and the Dad gets to mind the kids whilst the mother is off doing her service.

[Suttonpubcrawl]

You know what I mean, however badly I am articulating it.  I mean is it down to the attitudes of people (the judges and the like) that they'll naturally favour the mother or is there something that is actually written down.

As I said upthread, the millions of deadbeat Dads don't exactly help fathers that really really want to see their kids and can't.

But I still don't see why that makes sense. Is it like some sort of school assembly type thing? "Some of you have been very naughty and don't want to see your kids, so until you all change, no one is allowed to go out at break time!". If a man is fighting for access to his kids, why would the fact that other men don't care have any bearing on that case. It's just ridiculous.

And you're doing what I was talking about, you're telling off fathers for not taking enough interest in their kids and then using that as some sort of explanation for the reason that fathers who do want to see their kids can't. It's like putting obstacles in front of people and then telling them off when they get in their way. It doesn't make sense to make it difficult for fathers to see their children and then tell fathers off when they don't bother.

[Leila]

And you're doing what I was talking about, you're telling off fathers for not taking enough interest in their kids and then using that as some sort of explanation for the reason that fathers who do want to see their kids can't. It's like putting obstacles in front of people and then telling them off when they get in their way. It doesn't make sense to make it difficult for fathers to see their children and then tell fathers off when they don't bother.

I never said it was fair. I'm just pointing out why there is an obvious bias against men in access rulings.

[Some Herbert]

Herbie.... let's hope to god that you never have children.

Amen to that.

[Adrian Brezhnev]

Good. Does that mean you can leave us alone now?

Thanks!

[Some Herbert]

Anne Widdecombe suggests community service for the mothers who disobey access rulings, and the Dad gets to mind the kids whilst the mother is off doing her service.

Well, if that's her position, then I shudder to say that I think it's a sensible one, albeit with certain caveats. The father would have to have NO history of violence to either the mother or their child(ren).

I see no sense in sending women to prison for refusing access.

[Some Herbert]

Good. Does that mean you can leave us alone now?

Thanks!

You really have no shame at all do you? Fascinating.

[Cerys]

Okay, I don't think I've ever done this before but here goes: you, sir, are a twat.

Congratulations on such a well-thought out response. Must've taken you a while. You disagree with someone's point of view, ergo they are a twat. I can't fault the logic.

Why do you think I don't tend to use it as an argument?  It got your attention though, didn't it?

a) Do the people who are dismissive of F4J have any idea of what it's like to have their kids taken away from them for no better reason than 'it's better for children to be with their mother'?

Do you know for a fact that the courts are using this reason as the sole purpose of denying the poor little tykes access to their fathers? Or are you just trotting out the propaganda off the F4J web site?

Unlikely, since I've never been there.  Believe it or not, I'm using evidence gleaned from watching and reading the news.

b) Are the stunts F4J use any more childish than those used in court by women and lawyers insisting that the children should stay with their mother purely because she's a woman?

There you go again. Unsubstantiated claims that could easily come straight out of the F4J propaganda machine. If courts award custody more often to women partly because women are often the ones who end up having to bring up the baby at home and give up work. Therefore it's often logical for the courts to continue with that situation to minimise upsetting the child.

And what about the cases in which courts award the child to the woman despite the fact that it was actually the father who gave up work?  Oh, of course - that's a lie made up by the F4J website.  Which I have never seen.

Or any more puerile than mothers using access as a stick and/or carrot to manipulate a father after the breakdown of a relationship?  A breakdown which may not even have been the father's fault?

I dare say that happens. And yes, it would be equally childish. However, the courts can mandate contact between the child and its father. If the mother ignores the ruling she can be jailed.

Does that ever happen?  If so, wouldn't it upset the child in a way that you state the courts tend to try to avoid?

c) Isn't it childish to brand an organisation by the reprehensible actions of a minority of its members?

The activities of its members are not above suspicion. I find the whole purpose of its existence questionable, when there doesn't actually seem to be anything fundamentally "wrong" with the current law. I suspect they're a front for a bunch of militant misogynists, hell bent on "teaching those upstart bitches a lesson".

By dressing up as Batman.  Yes, I bet Catwoman is shaking in her stilettoes.  Many organisations have members who are 'not above suspicion'.  Amnesty International and Greenpeace spring to mind.

The worse thing about this thread is that you just know Mr Brezhnev is sitting there stroking his hard-on at all the attention he's getting. Has everyone so quickly forgotten his girlfriend-dumping saga?

Shame on us all for helping him stroke his wand.

Or maybe you just want to think that because it means you don't have to think about anything he actually says.  You disagree with someone's point of view, ergo they are an attention-seeking wanker. I can't fault the logic.

You know something?  I don't even know why I feel so strongly about this.  I don't have kids.  I don't know anyone who is trying to gain access to theirs.  But for some reason every time I hear about a father being denied fair access for spurious reasons, I get a feeling as though a large muck-spreader has passed outside my open window.  The whole thing stinks.