Fathers for Justice

[nosos]

I just read an article in the Independent by the lovely (no really I do rather like her usually) Deb Orr, talking about how Fathers for Justice are selfish, immature and egotistical.

Why? The article was nonsense - it was basically just a badly thought out attack on direct action as being immature.

But is there truth to it? Why do they dress up as super-heros? Is it purely to help create a media-friendly campaign? Or is it, as Orr suggests, to act out their own psycho-dramas about saving their kids from a system which has robbed them of their fathers.

Should they be supported? Or should they just grow up?

 

[silentNate]

If I was stopped from seeing my child for five years for no good reason and no legal support then I think I'd throw something a little heavier than powder-paint

 

[nosos]

<miss orr>But it would immature - you'd only be seeking to attract your child's attention - grow up and engage in more mature campaigns on these issues which haven't had any success but they are more mature and therefore they're better</miss orr>

God damn that woman is a nasty piece of work.

Totally agree with you, Nate.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

If I was stopped from seeing my child for five years for no good reason and no legal support then I think I'd throw something a little heavier than powder-paint

Nail hit right on the head.

 

[fanta]

If I was stopped from seeing my child for five years for no good reason and no legal support then I think I'd throw something a little heavier than powder-paint

Agreed 100%!

 

[nosos]

Arse.

<watches any hope of a thread go down the drain>

<trying to start an argument>
I can see why they would take the position they do but the courts are left with seeking an answer which will be disagreable to all parties. In the event of a break-up, what would you have them do? If the parents can't choose between them, then the court has to make a choice. Most of the time, the children are better off with their mothers.
</trying to start an argument>

 

[Lord Camomile]

If I was stopped from seeing my child for five years for no good reason and no legal support then I think I'd throw something a little heavier than powder-paint

And just how much would that actually help your case?

I understand and agree with their cause, but personally so far their stunts have come off as childish rather than intelligent, and haven't really helped their credibility

 

[the B]

Most of the time, the children are better off with their mothers.

Why?

 

[nosos]

Why?

Why are they better off with fathers?

 

[the B]

And just how much would that actually help your case?

I understand and agree with their cause, but personally so far their stunts have come off as childish rather than intelligent, and haven't really helped their credibility

If their stunts were regular political assassinations and severe mass disruption to transport in London - people might give in to their demands...

 

[Cloo]

I was sympathetic to them originally, but I'm beginning to think that they aren't doing themselves any favours.

Still, I do support father's rights - I think it's pretty clear that the odds are always stacked against fathers, especially when things go sour. Of course there are times when access should be restricted, such as when there has been overtly threatening or violent action from the father.

But it sometimes seems all too easy for a vengeful ex-wife to play the abuse/mental distress card with a totally innocent bloke who is then guilty until proven innocent. And I think it's that 'guilty until proven innocent' that is at the heart of what F4J are on about.

BTW, the B - some members have hinted that if things don't change they can't guarantee that they won't get more militant in action.

 

[fanta]

Why are they better off with fathers?

They are better off with both parents.

Excluding one - usually the father - is stupid and unhelpful.

 

[the B]

Why are they better off with fathers?

Didn't say they were, but I don't understand why you said you think they're better off with their mother.

 

[silentNate]

Fathers For Justice's objectives are:-

CHILD'S BEST INTEREST PRINCIPLE - ENFORCE THE WILL OF PARLIAMENT NOW! Parliament intended that the child's best interest was best served by children maintaining a loving, meaningful relationship with both parents. Is it in the child's best interests to deny them the love of their parents or grandparents? Is it in the child's best interests that their parents are forced onto benefits or effectively asset stripped fighting protracted legal battles when they have no hope of seeing their children because Judges refuse to enforce their own orders? Often the very people who proclaim to be acting in the child's best interest are those who profit the most. Money (often savings, salaries, equity in property) for your children quickly becomes an income stream for Solicitors, Judges, and a grotesque gravy train of other 'experts'. Outcomes for children have never been worse.
ESTABLISH A LEGAL PRESUMPTION TO CONTACT Parents & Grandparents have no legal right to see their children & grandchildren in this country.
ESTABLISH A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR THE FAMILY To embrace rights for all the family ® children, mothers, fathers AND grandparents including an open, accountable system of Family Law open to public & parliamentary scrutiny.
BLUEPRINT FOR FAMILY LAW F4J will shortly publish it's 'Blueprint for Family Law in the 21st Century', a radical and visionary document that proposed a top to tail revolution in family law with the creation of a minister for Family Life and a Department of Family Affairs.

All of which would seem fair enough.... Are Urbanites upset that FfJ have taken it upon themselves to use DA techniques?
Tsk tsk- Direct Action, eh

 

[nosos]

Didn't say they were, but I don't understand why you said you think they're better off with their mother.

In the absense of being with two.. nah, I give up, trying to construct a coherent argument on the back of Orr's article is tricky. Especially with a hang-over.

 

[the B]

In the absense of being with two.. nah, I give up, trying to construct a coherent argument on the back of Orr's article is tricky. Especially with a hang-over.

So you were playing devil's advocate as it were?

Or spouting tripe? (due to hangover or otherwise)

 

[fat hamster]

Most of the time, the children are better off with their mothers.

Why?

Because their fathers are generally selfish, immature and egotistical.

In my long experience, most women are more mature, grounded and just plain better better at the long, slow, demanding job of bringing up children than are most men.

(PS That good enough for you, nosos? )

 

[Lord Camomile]

If their stunts were regular political assassinations and severe mass disruption to transport in London - people might give in to their demands...

But I thought they were looking for understanding? People giving into their demand because they don't want anymore trouble would maybe help the situation at the time, but it wouldn't be good for anyone in the long run. And it would be something of a hollow victory would it not, though I can see how they would probably take any victory at the moment.

 

[the B]

Because their fathers are generally selfish, immature and egotistical.

In my long experience, most women are more mature, grounded and just plain better better at the long, slow, demanding job of bringing up children than are most men.

(PS That good enough for you, nosos? )

What if my experience was the other way round?

More devil advocate work or sexism ?

 

[fat hamster]

They are better off with both parents.

Excluding one - usually the father - is stupid and unhelpful.

Bollocks.

In the experience of most of the women I know, having the father around causing problems and making demands is far more unhelpful.

 

[the B]

But I thought they were looking for understanding? People giving into their demand because they don't want anymore trouble would maybe help the situation at the time, but it wouldn't be good for anyone in the long run. And it would be something of a hollow victory would it not, though I can see how they would probably take any victory at the moment.

Answered your own question?

If people 'gave in' to their demands and they proved to be sensible/valid - in the long run, it would be shown that they were correct.

If they are bollocks, people will (presumably) act accordingly and have their demands reversed.

 

[silentNate]

Because their fathers are generally selfish, immature and egotistical.

Yeah sounds like my Da, the househusband- selfishly laying about involved in childcare- not a proper job you know

In my long experience, most women are more mature, grounded and just plain better better at the long, slow, demanding job of bringing up children than are most men.

Agreed- and your sensible generalisations are really helpful

I'm sure you'd be the first to leap in if it was mothers for justice- in fact I might just look up some articles on children being taken from their mothers and moved to Saudi just see your reaction then, twat

 

[the B]

Bollocks.

In the experience of most of the women I know, having the father around causing problems and making demands is far more unhelpful.

But your experience isn't necessarily the case universally - to extend it from your experience to the general case woudl be making a fairly serious generalisation about all fathers and all mothers.

I'm not sure that's very helpful or 'correct'.

There is no obvious or logical reason for mothers to be better than father or vice versa as far as I know.

 

[behemoth]

I understand and agree with their cause, but personally so far their stunts have come off as childish rather than intelligent, and haven't really helped their credibility

If it wasn't for the costumes and stunts, most of us wouldn't have even heard of them. Who can blame them for seeking publicity when the courts treat them like crap? The current system seems to encourage acrimony which almost inevitably causes a vicious circle where the father and his kids lose out. Perhaps divorce should be denied to an applicant who refuses to attempt an amicable settlement.

 

[General Ludd]

In the experience of most of the women I know, having the father around causing problems and making demands is far more unhelpful.

In the experience of most children I know (myself included) excluding the father is very unhelpful. And "fathers are generally selfish, immature and egotistical." is offensive sexist bollocks.

 

[silentNate]

In the experience of most of the women I know, having the father around causing problems and making demands is far more unhelpful.

What is the chip on your shoulder fat hamster- anti all men or just those you've been in relationships with?
As I said generalisations are easy- how quickly you trot them out

 

[Lord Camomile]

If it wasn't for the costumes and stunts, most of us wouldn't have even heard of them. Who can blame them for seeking publicity when the courts treat them like crap?

I totally understand them trying to get publicity, I just think they haven't gone about it particularly well and from a personal point of view their image has been hindered rather than helped.

If people 'gave in' to their demands and they proved to be sensible/valid - in the long run, it would be shown that they were correct.

If they are bollocks, people will (presumably) act accordingly and have their demands reversed.

I just think it should be won on the merits of their case rather than because they pissed everyone off so much that people did what they wanted just to make them go away.

 

[nosos]

I just think it should be won on the merits of their case rather than because they pissed everyone off so much that people did what they wanted just to make them go away.

How do you think political change happens?

 

[the B]

I just think it should be won on the merits of their case rather than because they pissed everyone off so much that people did what they wanted just to make them go away.

Agree - and it would happen in an ideal world - but we don't have one.

 

[Lord Camomile]

How do you think political change happens?

By asking nicely