Fathers 4 Justice

[Biker]

I think it is a sad that a group that stands up for the rights of fathers has today been suspended because of the aledged actions of a few extremists.

Whatever you may think of Fathers 4 Justice, they have raised the profile of the lack of fathers rights very successfully, even if there has been no action to rectify this shortfall by the government.

While I have not always agreed with their methods, I have always had sympathy with their cause. I was shocked this morning to see the headlines of 'Plot to kidnap youngest Blair', but then more suprised to see that it was all about a mere idea that someone had voiced but not followed up on. There were no arrests, no seizures of items or anything other than 'we heard someone talking about it!'

I am sure there will be the inevitable conspiracty theories about this one but it is truely a shame to see the demise of a group that did stand up for the rights a minority.

[landmarker]

Every story is different, every family different. A few of these guys will have a case, possibly excluded from access by some vengeful woman.

It's a shame that some , not all of these 'fathers for justice' did not put some of their energy into keeping their relationships going and stable for the sake of their children, who should come first.

Fathers have few 'rights;' if they are not married. They have tons of responsibilities, married or single.

Many, sadly do not fulfil those responsibilities. You'll have gathered I dont have too much time for this organisation, which has lost credibility by some foolish actions. The flour 'bomb' throwing in the House of Commons had made it more difficult to gain admission to the strangers gallery. This latest plan, to kidnap Leo Blair, if it is true is reprehensible. No wonder the founder wants to wind it up. It is well and truly tainted.

I have no doubt some good people have been wronged and certain issues need addressing but juvenile direct action, much less serious abduction of minors are not the way forward in my opinion.

Personally though I would not be surprised if this kidnap plan had been whipped up to deflect the heat from Ruth Kelly - call me cyncial.

[Biker]

Landmarker,

As I said, there will be the inevitable conspiracy theories including your Ruth Kelly one.

I must however call into question your comment:

"It's a shame that some , not all of these 'fathers for justice' did not put some of their energy into keeping their relationships going and stable for the sake of their children"

I think it is very wrong to look at placing the collective blame on all men for the breakdown of relationships. I am sure that many men have worked hard to hold a relationship together but have been thwarted by their partners. Is it not a good sign that many of these men are ready to fight for access to their children and sad that certain women and the government see fit to deny them that right.

You obviously, like the law, look at the woman as being the innocent party and the man as responsible for ensuring the realtionship works well and having no direct right of access to his children.

Why must everyone assume that the woman is the best person to take on the role of a single parent?

Surely this is a serious form of discrimination!

[Bobinovich]

It's a shame that some , not all of these 'fathers for justice' did not put some of their energy into keeping their relationships going and stable for the sake of their children, who should come first.

OK I know you said 'not all' but you can't lump all the blame for keeping relationships going onto the father - it takes two to tango!

It's also an often used phrase that a couple shouldn't stay together simply for the sake of their children. The animosity between the adults can create tension which children will pick up on. Many families become much closer and more functional once the parents split.

[Biker]

OK I know you said 'not all' but you can't lump all the blame for keeping relationships going onto the father - it takes two to tango!

It's also an often used phrase that a couple shouldn't stay together simply for the sake of their children. The animosity between the adults can create tension which children will pick up on. Many families become much closer and more functional once the parents split.


I totally agree Bobinovich. Very much in line with what I was saying.

[Tugmistress]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1689681,00.html

It seems there was Fathers 4 Justice and a bunch of jokers called the RealFathers 4 Justice, sort of the Continuity IRA, talk of kidnapping lil Leo was never serious, but they claim that regardless

Jolly Stanesby, a veteran of the Fathers4 Justice campaign whose exploits include scaling the high court dressed as Batman and handcuffing himself to Margaret Hodge, the then children's minister, heard the knock on the door at his Plymouth home last week. He opened it to find three special branch officers who had come to deliver a brief but chilling warning.

"They were very hearty and said they were visiting purely for my safety," Mr Stanesby said. "They said if I was planning on doing anything in London in the near future they would *shoot to kill. They said there were plenty of armed plainclothes officers around the city and things had changed over the last six months*. It was a clear warning."

So, SB just trying to put the wind up them or do we have lots of plain clothes policemen roaming around the city with a license to kill?

[landmarker]

"It's a shame that some , not all of these 'fathers for justice' did not put some of their energy into keeping their relationships going and stable for the sake of their children"



I was very careful to say 'not all' Biker. It wasn't an accident.
I also mentioned 'vengeful' women.
We can't generalise in cases like this but too many absent fathers are feckless.

Many aren't of course.

To be perhaps, controversial I would say as a hard and fast opinion that if parents split up, and both parents are equally loving, equally committed to their children, then the children still belong, for the most part, with their mother.

That's my view.

Incidentally, what do you ride?

[badger]

Unless a father's behaviour is actually bad for his children, e.g. abusive, violent, I do not believe any mother who bars her children from seeing their father can really claim to be a loving mother. The pain caused to children who are cut off from seeing their fathers, or have every visit turned into an unpleasant battle, must be permanently damaging. I have never forgotten the story I heard on radio of the little girl who saw her father in the street, rushed up to him calling "Daddy, Daddy" only to be dragged away by her mother saying it wasn't the father's access time. That isn't love and it upsets me even now when I think of it.

[landmarker]

Unless a father's behaviour is actually bad for his children, e.g. abusive, violent, I do not believe any mother who bars her children from seeing their father can really claim to be a loving mother. The pain caused to children who are cut off from seeing their fathers, or have every visit turned into an unpleasant battle, must be permanently damaging. I have never forgotten the story I heard on radio of the little girl who saw her father in the street, rushed up to him calling "Daddy, Daddy" only to be dragged away by her mother saying it wasn't the father's access time. That isn't love and it upsets me even now when I think of it.

I agree wholheartedly. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned is an old adage indeed, but this takes fury to a new level and is reprehensible. To use the children as pawns in a power struggle, or with the motivation of spite is utterly wrong.

[DrSzin]

To be perhaps, controversial I would say as a hard and fast opinion that if parents split up, [...] A hard and fast opinion?

Lol, that's a good one! I've heard of hand fast fast rules, but not opinions. I must remember that one next time next time I'm in a heated discussion. I'll try it out in the pub tomorrow night. :grin: