0 thoughts on “Fathers for Justice”

1. On balance I agree with you. But its a decision that takes some time – as many men face far worse injustice at the hands of the family courts.The problem is that since Fathers4Justice stopped its wilder tactics the issue has been dropped by the government.They are taking the approach that has the virtue of having a chance of success. Our democracy doesn’t work for many groups now including children at 20-24 weeks gestation, Christians, unadopted children, children forced to be adopted by families without fathers or mothers, children born without the right to a father.Remember how well the I want a referendum campaign did compared to the stop Heathrow 3’rd runway protests. Which gained more media coverage, the legal or the illegal ?Fathers have been forced into a corner, it should come as no surprise if they chose to challenge the rules that mean they lose every time.

2. “but intimidating anyone in their own home is wrong – plain wrong. Having a reasonable amount of sympathy for their cause – this type of bullying and intimidation just turns me off.”Are you familiar with the CSA and their tactics, the of bailiffs and the police to ensure the states wishes are adhered too, in regards to divorce and seperation, threatening letters from solicitors, your children with held from you. Having a hero or two on your roof for a day or two is a holiday in comparison.

3. I think they are damaging their cause with this sort of stunt. I am currently getting quotes from builders to have my chimeys re-pointed. As a result I have been keenly observing chimeys as I walk around the area. I have noticed that quite a few look to have faulty pointing and I think these fathers are taking quite a gamble clinging onto a chimney of unknown soundness. It is very dangerous – reckless, I would call it.

4. Man in a shed: CHRISTIANS are discriminated against? Don’t make me laugh! They’re taken far too seriously in terms of forcing the rest of us to abide by their silly rules and forcing our children (70% of them at primary school age) to listen to their fairy tales as if they are true.I wasn’t nearly as angry about the barely-challenged christian hegemony in this country before I had a child and discovered that if, like 82% of parents in this country, I DIDN’T want her to be indoctrinated into Christianity, I’d have to pay because all the state primary schools within any distance of here are either CofE or Catholic. Oh, apart from the Muslim one.I’ll believe Christians are discriminated against when their right to indoctrinate 70% of british kids is taken away, and I won’t be unhappy about it.Lynne: I’d agree with you but for one thing. If they’re going to get arrested for protesting outside the houses of parliament, which they are, they might as well get arrested for protesting on top of Harperson’s house.

5. Jennie – I suspect we have a different view of what Christianity is. Anyway catch Hazel Blears comments today.If you are right about the 82% support for your view it will take little effort to set up a school that supports your faith (note secularism/atheism is a faith also as it is not evidence based.)

6. “note secularism/atheism is a faith also as it is not evidence based.”Ahahahahahahahahahahaha! Oh, wait, you’re serious?Point one: secularism and atheism are very far from being the same thing – I know lots of Christian secularists.Point two: atheism is completely evidence based. That’s the whole POINT of atheism. I hate to tell you to go look in a dictionary, but I see no other course of action open to me.Point three: I call troll! Since you are so clearly being intentionally provocative and factually inaccurate, I see no point in even trying to discuss things with you further.Have a nice evening 😀

7. Man in a Shed: Sorry? No specific beliefs off the back of no evidence is a faith position now? That’s a new one on me.

8. “Lynne, I never cease to be amazed by women’s double standards and capacityfor self-delusion and for being “in denial”.Who and how – allegedly – got women the vote ?The public is repeatably told it was the result of outrageous conduct by theSuffragettes.Isn’t it odd that outrageous conduct should be applauded when actioned bywomen for their rights, but condemned when men and fathers want their rightstoo (and apply less violence in its attainment) ?Lynne, you are not an anonymous mousey office clerk but a public figure -roll with the punches.Better still, be a real elected representative and listen to the grievances

9. Andy – that why I said it.Jennie – I see your point in point 1, though I think it arguable that secularism has some of the characteristics of a religion.But not point 2. Since the absence of a creator can’t be disproved, only doubted, hence its a faith, albeit a negative one.However we’re heading off topic a lot.Anon 7:33am – very interesting point. In fact if I was the Fathers4Justice campaign I’d dress my next bunch of hero’s up in Victorian women’s clothing (hard to climb building perhaps) – though no doubt the family courts would use that against them somehow.

10. Since the absence of a creator can’t be disproved, only doubted, hence its a faith, albeit a negative one.Since the absence of the flying spaghetti monster can’t be disproved, only doubted, hence [apastafarianism is] a faith, albeit a negative one.Oh, and secularism is a political stance, it has no position on the existence or otherwise of any creator/supernatural entity. If you want to say socialism, liberalism, conservatism, feminism, nationalism, etc. are “religions” based on the glib remark that they “have some of the characteristics” of a religion, go ahead, but you are only torturing the language which the rest of us need for having sensible and well-defined arguments.

11. ‘Apastafarianism’ – I like it.I think large amounts of politics does amount to faith. Its inevitable given that an individual can only have partial understanding and competence. Its evidenced by the verifiable change in thinking and political beliefs of the major political parties.As an example watch how everyone discovers the joys of lower taxation over the next few years.

12. I think Fathers for Justice have gone too far a few times, and this is one of those occasions. I do though feel strongly for their cause. I think that a lot of the time people think that protesting outside of parliarment has no effect – are they are right. That doesn’t mean targetting a politicians home is acceptable though.