I see someone as scaled the town hall, i think it's terrible the way dads are treated.

Not all fathers who don't get custody are bad, not all mothers who do get custory are good.

However, if you're a father trying to demonstrate that you're a responsible adult, some of the antics of these people would certainly make me think twice about giving them anything more demanding that a 'Tiny Tears' doll to look after.

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Not all fathers who don't get custody are bad, not all mothers who do get custory are good.

However, if you're a father trying to demonstrate that you're a responsible adult, some of the antics of these people would certainly make me think twice about giving them anything more demanding that a 'Tiny Tears' doll to look after.

Joe

Agree with you yes some of these grown Men can act in very strange ways... But most of the Fathers are proving that they will do anything in the way of seeing their child...

I know someone very close to me who is going through very tough times at the moment... Its almost heartbreaking to see... All he wants is to spend time with his son... His son is only 3... the poor little mite is stuck in the middle of it all not having a clue what is going on around him...

This is all down to the Mother not communicating and taking things personally... Why should a child have to suffer...

How can a Mother look after a child when she doesnt even see her own son for one full day in a week? and wont give the Father rights to see him...

What kind of an unbringing is that?

As i said on the last thread of Fathers 4 Justice... Everything is even between Mother & Father... That is until a new partner is introduced to the situation... an the new partner is (sometimes) given the role of the missing Mother or Father... Leaving the biological Parent out of the equation...

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Not all fathers who don't get custody are bad, not all mothers who do get custory are good.

However, if you're a father trying to demonstrate that you're a responsible adult, some of the antics of these people would certainly make me think twice about giving them anything more demanding that a 'Tiny Tears' doll to look after.

Joe

Alot of these farthers have been pushed to the limit to do this sort of thing. If they were given the chance they wouldn't do daft things, but no-one listens to them.

what happens when this chap falls off the town hall...subject highlighted but child with no father...???

It's a shame that when a relationship goes belly up that the supposed grown ups can't even communcate between each other without going through the courts and ripping each other apart. Surely, if they really cared about their child's welfare then they'd stop trying to get one over each other and work to a compromise. If only!!!

Have the police closed Pinstone Street yet for public safety?

Originally posted by chri5
Alot of these farthers have been pushed to the limit to do this sort of thing. If they were given the chance they wouldn't do daft things, but no-one listens to them.

I appreciate that these fathers are being pushed to the limits by a stupid system that needs binning.

But everytime this is done gives the powers that be the opportunity to say 'Look how stupid they are. We can't give custody of a child to them. Blah blah blah.' The media are NOT interested in the cause; they're interested in having a juicy story for the day.

Depends whether the fathers want to get attention or get change; if the latter they need to take the slow and dignified approach - silent vigils with big photos a la Deepcut, sensible meetings with ministers, winning hearts and minds of people as a whole. The current spokespeople of this cause couldn't be doing more to bugger up the chances of the average father who's misisng their kids getting them back if they were actully working for the CSA!

Joe

women are vindictive bunny boilers when a relationship breaks up,they see kids as weapons to be used as revenge.......and no i haven't been through this but at my age i have plenty of mates that have,for instance i was talking to an old school mate the other day,his missis split up their marrige,moved in another bloke and my mate now lives in a one bedroom flat.....his ex is not working (officially) but her new bloke is he's taken over the house and pays all the bills etc but through no fault of his own my mate hasc a 3rd of his wages stopped by the CSA....

He says he's staying up there for 3 days…..brrrrrrrrrr

Good answer Joe, I guess it's the pace of which things move when you go down that route which fuels the aggravation more. When you watch the years fly by waiting for a change in policy your kids have grown up!

A good friend of mine who has done everything he can through the 'proper channels' has come to the safe conclusion that he'll never see his kid and that's that!

just been on news that a guy has got on to the town hall and plans to stay there for 3 days cops say that they are not going to intervene for the time being

the reasons for him doing this are what?

And at the risk of taking the pedant of the week, nay month, award.....

It's FATHERS.

Not FARTHERS.

I know it's petty, but it's annoying the hell out of me.

Joe :)

Originally posted by JoePritchard
And at the risk of taking the pedant of the week, nay month, award.....

What do you win, a pedant pendant? :rolleyes:

Sorry :)

Originally posted by Robbie_Lovin
the reasons for him doing this are what?

for his son..............................his ball went on the roof yesterday after a kick about in the peace gardens:)

Originally posted by kirky
for his son..............................his ball went on the roof yesterday after a kick about in the peace gardens:)
did the lil copper stop him getting his ball back?

Hi Chri5,

I know....it IS a nightmare that the individuals find themselves in, but this is where they need to THINK about what they're doing.

If individuals are fighting for THEIR kids, then they need to be aware of that and not set themselves up as 'fighters for the cause'.

If the organisation IS determined to change the law, then they need to realise that it's going to be a long drawn out process that the powers that be will fight with every weapon they have. And the best weapon they have is time - they'll sit on stuff and hope that people get worn down.

If FFJ are setting up shop as a group for social change, then they need to look at the time it's taken for people like the League Against Cruel Sports to get the change that they've wanted through Parliament.

If they're setting themselves up as a support group for individuals who have decided to take actions of civil disobedience to bring attention to particular cases, then carry on as now.

It will be difficult for them to meet both needs with equal success.

Joe

Originally posted by rinty
What do you win, a pedant pendant? :rolleyes:

Sorry :)

Just what I've always wanted....:)

Originally posted by gezmac
I see someone as scaled the town hall, i think it's terrible the way dads are treated.

yeah tight buggers could have provided him with a ladder........i think this kind of behaviour is dangerous i reckon the council should provide our boys in blue with cherry pickers n golf clubs..that would put a stop to it.........:D

Right. I'm off for a wander into town to point and gawp at the man. It's quite exciting really. Would it be wrong to throw things?

*joke*

Just went for a look. There is indeed a man dressed as santa on the balcony. Theres a few people around with placards and stuff.

It was quite sad seeing a man holding a banner saying "let me see my kids"

Originally posted by boyface


It was quite sad seeing a man holding a banner saying "let me see my kids"

blunketts been saying it for years:)

I say good luck to them. It is a sad fact that occasionally you have to get off your backside and rattle some cages in order to get justice. That's what these guys are doing and they are getting their message across.

Originally posted by chill
I say good luck to them. It is a sad fact that occasionally you have to get off your backside and rattle some cages in order to get justice. That's what these guys are doing and they are getting their message across.

still aint acheived owt though.

Good on them!! I hope that they manage to get their point across to as many folk as possible.

Originally posted by kirky
still aint acheived owt though.

well its got us talking about it on here and thats a good thing:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Originally posted by kirky
still aint acheived owt though.

Yes they have; the issue is now widely known about, whereas this was not the case before. I for one certainly didn't know how bad the situation was before they started dressing up as Batman and scaling walls and the like.
They have a long way to go, granted, but at least the issue is now on the agenda.

I hate the fathers for justice group, but what Joe has been saying makes a lot of sense and I thnk i probably would have a lot more time for them if they took a different approach.

I have been through too much and seen friends suffer too much as mothers too really have much sympathy for these men.

surely thats a gross generalisation?

So you're saying all men are the same because of the experiences you have witnessed with some of your friends?

Isn't that a little unfair?

is he still on the roof ? Police will leave him up there till he freezes and falls off.

Why don't they ever do these stunts in the summer when the weather is more temporate?

poor lads banged up now....free him without charge i say:thumbsup:

Originally posted by kirky
well he's in west bar now so who gives a flying ****

some of us care kirky man your attitude stinks

Oh yes I agree very much

I must say there is alot of backing for this i personally agree with it to.
I myself am a single dad with a son at 4 stuck in the middle of a battle with my ex the girl in question had a son previous to me and she couldnt take care of him hes been lots of trouble with school and police now my son doesnt want to be there and wants to be with me.
The problem being i have no real rights and no real proof to drag her through court and take him away to give him a better upbringing i have to sit by and watch her ruin his life..

When i can provide a better life and keep him out of trouble why wont the courts give in to the fathers..


The world is changing why dont we change with it......!!!!

Originally posted by panda79
some of us care kirky man your attitude stinks

sorry about that i was on one coz i was scared of the dentist:(

Originally posted by kirky
sorry about that i was on one coz i was scared of the dentist:(

did it go ok then man i hate dentists:o

Originally posted by panda79
did it go ok then man i hate dentists:o

gotta go back for a filling in 2 weeks..wish he had got it over and done with there n then:mad:

Originally posted by JoePritchard
And at the risk of taking the pedant of the week, nay month, award.....

It's FATHERS.

Not FARTHERS.

I know it's petty, but it's annoying the hell out of me.

Joe :)

Certain members may or may not be dyslexic... so for those people that just might be on here... I feel we should give them the benefit of the doubt for incorrect spelling...

they need to at least give him a hefty fine. Its happening every week now. They just prove that they obviously aren't responsible enough to be a father anyway. What an example to set...

Originally posted by Angel05
Certain members may or may not be dyslexic... so for those people that just might be on here... I feel we should give them the benefit of the doubt for incorrect spelling...

Fair point.

Although I think that half the time people just type a word how they say it.

Joe

Originally posted by robbie
they need to at least give him a hefty fine. Its happening every week now. They just prove that they obviously aren't responsible enough to be a father anyway. What an example to set...

heaven forbid you have kids and never can see them i support these guys 100% and i hope the next protest is bigger than this one:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

heaven forbid that you tell your kids if you want something you cannot have you should climb on top of a buiilding looking like a T***:thumbsup:

Originally posted by robbie
heaven forbid that you tell your kids if you want something you cannot have you should climb on top of a buiilding looking like a T***:thumbsup:

hey id love to be able to tell my kids somthing but seeing as the laws in this country are so wrong im unable to do so:rant:

Do any of these fathers for justice disrupters ever do stunts in their own areas? I wonder if the reason they travel a distance to do things is so that people who really know them won't come out saying the real reasons they don't have access to their kids.

Originally posted by Patchy
Do any of these fathers for justice disrupters ever do stunts in their own areas? I wonder if the reason they travel a distance to do things is so that people who really know them won't come out saying the real reasons they don't have access to their kids.

well the ffj protester from yesterday was from worksop now if he had done a protest there im sure it wouldnt have got the same amount of publicity as the one in sheffield

nobody knows the reasons why a person cant see their children as cases in the familly court are behind closed doors without members of the public allowed in i for one would welcome a change in the law so that anyone within reason can see how these kangaroo courts operate

i think this is the 2nd thread on ffj and i hope they will be many more in the future but can anyone who posts on this subject at least show a bit of compassion for the thousands of dads in the uk me included who wont be able to see there kids this xmas its not too much to ask for is it
:mad:

I think that the family justice system in this country does need reforming but I think that ffj is approaching it wrong because it is not just fathers who are being treated unfairly - kids and mothers suffer too.
If ffj became Families for Justice and campaigned properly for the family as a whole then I would probably support them.
As they are at the moment they are causing a lot of distress to their families and sometimes being a father means the best thing you can do is walk away...look at David Blunkett - would he not be doing the better thing for his kids by letting the man they have bonded with as a father bring them up without dragging them through all the legal crap that he is threatening?

Originally posted by elf
I think that the family justice system in this country does need reforming but I think that ffj is approaching it wrong because it is not just fathers who are being treated unfairly - kids and mothers suffer too.
If ffj became Families for Justice and campaigned properly for the family as a whole then I would probably support them.
As they are at the moment they are causing a lot of distress to their families and sometimes being a father means the best thing you can do is walk away...look at David Blunkett - would he not be doing the better thing for his kids by letting the man they have bonded with as a father bring them up without dragging them through all the legal crap that he is threatening?

there is no need for "families for justice" though. Maybe "kids for justice" in addition to ffj. But mothers have nothing to worry about under the current apparently heavily biased legislation.

Don't you think it's rather unfair on a father (even if it's david blunkett) to be asked to have nothing to do with his children.
Children aren't stupid, they are capable of having a relationship with 2 different male figures and understanding that one is their biological father and that the other is their mothers partner.
Or god forbid, they are capable of living with their father and getting to see their biological mother on a regular basis whilst calling another woman mum.

Originally posted by elf
As they are at the moment they are causing a lot of distress to their families and sometimes being a father means the best thing you can do is walk away...look at David Blunkett - would he not be doing the better thing for his kids by letting the man they have bonded with as a father bring them up without dragging them through all the legal crap that he is threatening?
Not wanting to get deeply into a specific case, but of the two children involved above one has still not been born yet. How exactly has it already developed a relationship with either prospective father ?

More generally, it's easy to say walk away. But if you love your kids, how exactly do you do that ?

Does anybody else think that the family court system will treat David Blunkett the way it treats all the other fathers in these such cases?

...
thought not!

basshedz

Originally posted by Patchy
Do any of these fathers for justice disrupters ever do stunts in their own areas? I wonder if the reason they travel a distance to do things is so that people who really know them won't come out saying the real reasons they don't have access to their kids.

The father in question joined Fathers For Justice in sheffield

http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/viewarticle2.aspx?ArticleID=898554&SectionID=58&Search=father&Searchtype=any&SearchSection=58&DateFrom=011995&DateTo=122004&Page=1&ReturnPage=Results.aspx

basshedz

Originally posted by basshedz2
Does anybody else think that the family court system will treat David Blunkett the way it treats all the other fathers in these such cases?

...
thought not!

basshedz


I think David "Nanny State" Blunkett will be the only man in the country to get a fair deal from this countries Family court system.

On FFJ -
FFJ are forced to take these actions because the state sees fit to discriminate against men. The family court system in this country is a disgrace. But remember, for every figure quoted in the media and press on fathers being let down by the family court system, you can bet their is an equal or greater number of men who cannot afford to go through the court system who are also loosing access to their children!

"To every Mother, Father and Grandparent who think FFJ are taking things too far. Take away one of your children or grandchildren, and be told you can never see them again. Why? Not because you have broken any law, nor because you are a bad parent. No simply because the relationship with this child’s mother has broken up.

Now tell me you wouldn't move mountains if you thought it would give you access to your children/grandchildren".

Originally posted by elf
I think that the family justice system in this country does need reforming but I think that ffj is approaching it wrong because it is not just fathers who are being treated unfairly - kids and mothers suffer too.
If ffj became Families for Justice and campaigned properly for the family as a whole then I would probably support them.


"I'm not just fighting for fathers who want to see their children. It is for mothers and for grandparents too."

Quote, Alan Haynes, the FFJ guy from the town hall balcony

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Fair point.

Although I think that half the time people just type a word how they say it.

Joe

But is that not what dyslexia is... People tend to write things how they sound when spoken aloud...

Sorry back to the thread...

Newsflash:-
A man wearing a Batman outfit has been seen on the crane next to the Town Hall. He appears to be waving a white stick. Reports say he has a guide dog with him dressed as Robin........then I woke up!

Yes Mr Blunkett will get splendid treatment from the courts - but of course he won't have intervened and asked for this directly.

Originally posted by Angel05
But is that not what dyslexia is... People tend to write things how they sound when spoken aloud...

Sorry back to the thread...

Sorry to deviate...

Dyslexia does manifest itself in poor spelling - such as 'fyl' instead of 'fly' but I'm afraid that much of the poor spelling on forum (and I include myself in this) is based on laziness, carelessness and application of texting language use to the wider written word.

Whilst acknowledging that statistically there may be a couple of hundred dyslexics using this forum, most o what you see is due to people being slackers.

Like I said, myself included...:)

Joe

re: I think that ffj is approaching it wrong because it is not just fathers who are being treated unfairly - kids and mothers suffer too.

oh, get a grip, elf.

No-one's saying that custody battles are easy for anyone, least of all the children. However, the law is strongly in favour of the mother, even if they are less able to care for the child than the father and this what FFJ are trying to change. I don't know what the situation is now, but three years ago a man would have had no paternal rights to his child unless he is/was married to the mother. Is that really fair?

I feel so sorry for good fathers who are denied access to their children, esp. at Christmas.

There are obviously a lot of fathers who are good parents but are not allowed to see their kids, there are mothers in this position too.
But how exactly can the law be changed to ensure that parents can see their kids? the law as it is stands now does allow both parents access regardless of whether they were married, how is ffj proposing that this law is enforced?

in custody cases the courts clearly favour the mother. And subsequent visitation rights after the mother wins custody are generally very restrictive.
Those are things that ffj would like to see changed.

Originally posted by Cyclone
subsequent visitation rights after the mother wins custody are generally very restrictive.

One of the issues that affects a friend of mine (and lots of other fathers in the same situation) is that even when visitation rights are granted - and i agree, these rights are extremely restrictive - the mother can break them without punishment.

The courts take the view that imposing sanctions, such as fines, on the mother is not in the best interest of the child. This is fair enough, but it does send a message to the mother that they can violate these visitation orders with impunity.

basshedz

who gives these people the right to deny access of either parent, surely there isnt a law that states : i can do what i want with my children: kida need both parents now before the damage sets in.

Do all fathers without care really put their childs best interests before their own? Stats show that 4 0ut of 5 men do not pay the full amount of maintenence towards their childrens upkeep which suggests that they do not equate financial responsibility with good fathering.

I also feel that it is is not the right of the father (or mother) to have access to a child if it is going to be harmful to the child, and this is often the reason why some fathers are denied, or given restricted access by the courts.Unfortunately, in an attempt to get more fathers in a relationship with their children
, court welfare officers are sometimes ordering access where there is potential for harm. This is evidenced by the number of children harmed or killed by their fathers during access. Welfare officers are in a difficult position but should not be swayed to put children in jeapardy because of the antics of ffj

There will be mothers who try and deny the father access through vindictiveness etc (just as fathers ask for access and then do not turn up for the same reason) and this can never be condoned. But mothers who raise concerns about access are often seen as being obstructive by the courts rather than having their concerns addressed. In these circumstances, such mothers find they have no other alternative way of protecting their children other than denying access regardless of any court order. We have all read in the papers about fathers who take their children during ordered access, drive off somewhere and kill the children and themselves.It happens, we know it does

.It is the childern that need justice, we need to put their welfare first. Dressing up as batman does not address the serious and complex issues surrounding access and the best interests of the child.

firstly .........as ive said in the petition thread, i wholly believe BOTH parents SHOULD have access where theres no case of harm, abuse.

secondly..........i wholeheartedly believe in their tactics,,,,which keeps them in the public eye (silly yes, but come on we dont have to be serious 24/7) ............without the stunts the general public WOULD forget about the group and its cause

Originally posted by tralee
[B]Do all fathers without care really put their childs best interests before their own? Stats show that 4 0ut of 5 men do not pay the full amount of maintenence towards their childrens upkeep which suggests that they do not equate financial responsibility with good fathering.



about this point ..............i think its a fine line tbh, some fathers may not care, some do.
some may want to pay but cant (think about it .........the woman who is the carer for the kids might have just those to pay for, the bloke who doesnt have access may be required to pay maintenece for those kids AND might have another set to pay for?) i know my wages prolly wouldnt cope trying to keep 2 families.
then theres the csa and all its problems, which means a bloke may have paid and it isnt getting through.
my missuses brothers ex tried to get the csa to take more money off him for their daughter and they looked at it again and decided he was paying too much :P

its not about the parents.....................its about the kids...............its the kids who suffer the most.......................wen i split with my partner our 4 yr son wasnt an issue cos we both love him and want the best for him regardless of our we felt towards one another...................we both get equal time with our son ................... the kids dont understand wots happening ...............one minute their parents are together and the next their not it must have a really bad effect on the kids.................. and kids dont forget that they didnt get see much of one parent cos of personal feelings, without thought to the child who wants contact with the missing parent.

All of the issues which melthebell has raised in his last 2 posts should be addressed by CAFCASS, www.cafcass.gov.uk. It is a government body, ie .gov suffix. Therefore the Human Rights Act applies. Both parties are entitled to a fair hearing (Article 6.1) with equality of arms, ie if one party has a solicitor and the other is unrepresented, our learned judiciary, mediators and their administrators are required to ensure fair play and protect the unrepresented party.

This is also quite clearly prescribed by the Woolf Reforms 1999 which amended the Civil Procedure Rules in order to ensure that unrepresented litigants could bring a claim, have their case listed and heard.

As I think the content of CAFCASS' website seems quite clear I see no point in replicating content here. Those unfortunate souls who need to use CAFCASS are advised to read it carefully. I think it is generally prudent to work on the basis of least said, least mended and be concerned for your child's best interests rather than self-gratification.

Originally posted by wendygs
All of the issues which melthebell has raised in his last 2 posts should be addressed by CAFCASS, www.cafcass.gov.uk. It is a government body, ie .gov suffix. Therefore the Human Rights Act applies. Both parties are entitled to a fair hearing (Article 6.1) with equality of arms, ie if one party has a solicitor and the other is unrepresented, our learned judiciary, mediators and their administrators are required to ensure fair play and protect the unrepresented party.

This is also quite clearly prescribed by the Woolf Reforms 1999 which amended the Civil Procedure Rules in order to ensure that unrepresented litigants could bring a claim, have their case listed and heard.

As I think the content of CAFCASS' website seems quite clear I see no point in replicating content here. Those unfortunate souls who need to use CAFCASS are advised to read it carefully. I think it is generally prudent to work on the basis of least said, least mended and be concerned for your child's best interests rather than self-gratification.

i had the misfortune of going going to one of the cafcass centres and if my experience is anything to go buy id never go to one again

it seemed my ex could say anything about me and it would be passed off as fact yet if i said anything it was vindictive and petty , its about time the whole system was looked at to try and sort it out before it destroys anymore lifes (mine included)

My wife stopped me seeing my three kids after we split. At first I had them every weekend, then when I met someone else, she put a ban on me seeing them anywhere other than at her home (very clever ploy as she wanted to get back together but not in the Childrens' best interests).

I went to Court and placed my trust in CAFCASS and it took 5 months to be resolved. That was five months of me seeing my children for an hour a week as that was all I could bear of being near 'her'. She even fed them what to say to CAFCASS and they complied 'cos they were scared. If only I knew then what I know now.

So CAFCASS were useless, well Gordon was. It came right in the end. My girls now live with me and I see my son on a very regular basis. I think he will opt to live with me soon as well.

I didnt say CAFCASS was perfect. It is the system people have to use and as I said in 2 other now removed threads this is not my area of expertise.

For clarity, CAFCASS site sets out the basis of the law **and**, as importantly its complaints procedure for what I would imagine are its many dissatisfied users, probably mainly men.

In one of these threads, I then suggested some relevant law that can be used to remind our highly learned, extremely humble judiciary (sic) and their administrators (in practice self-appointed judiciary) of entitlement BOTH parties have to a fair hearing.

There are lots of problems with these so-called systems. Its exactly the same for unrepresented litigants who want to sue major companies in the County or High Court.

In the 2 threads to which melthebell refers, I had made some generic comments on my experiences as an unrepresented litigant. In my view, it is therefore regrettable that the threads were removed because I would not now need to clarify my views to this extent. Hopefully the mods will prune and merge the 2 threads to ensure the issues are clearer, more manageable and self-contained.