AIBU to stop buyng The Independant because of this ad?

[NowThenWreck]

The one from Fathers4Justice, where they accuse MN of:

"carrying abusive and distressing anti-male content which promotes gender hatred against men and boys"
and, apparently, labels "men and boys as rapist, peados and wife beaters."

The ad has a lovely picture of a sad little boy with words like "rioter" and "homeless" and "sperm bank" written on his skin.

I am confused, as I have never come across a thread on here where people routinely call men paedophiles and rapists. In fact, usually, if someone implies that a man being left alone with a child is dodgy, posters will pile in and say "God, don't you know not all men are paedos.?"

As I understand it, this is a forum for discussion, not a political movement with a manifesto. There are many and varied opinions on MN, and the minute one opinion is aired, another will be along to refute it.

Or should I just laugh at F4J? The ad is quite gruesomely funny.

At least one or two of the groups targeted should take legal action.That's something F4J really couldn't afford. I'd chuck a few quid in if you need to start a defense fund.

Perhaps if f4j members put as much thought, energy and effort into being good dads and partners as they do into their ridiculous campaigns they wouldn't be in the situation that they are, which is entirely of their own making.

m&S have had their solicitor write to f4j. f4j have published the letter on their facebook page. The solicitors point out that they are defaming their client, and breaking advertising rules.

Obviously MNHQ are taking this seriously hence the deletions.I would expect M&S to do the same.

"Perhaps interpretative dance would work?"

NarkedPuffin that is inspired

MN as 1000s of posters and 1000s of views.

Women with shity Exs are going to be anti men in general after a bad day.

Those of us with lovely, but chronically untidy, child care avoiding DHs will rant too.

Those of us who know pedophiles exist, but that labelling every man as one is very damaging, will try to calm down some threads.

My strong beliefs in extended BF and the dangers excess political correctness will inflame others.

That's the pleasure of MN.

Personally I think some divorced/separated dads get a bum deal and others who have affairs or walk out on SN children are shits.

In the response by f4j to M&S's legal letter, (which seems to have been written by Mat, rather than legal representation, and you know what they say about someone who represents themeslves in court) "With regard to the ASA, it's an unelected, shady cabal of moral arbiters. We deal in truth, not opinion"

Hahaha

The letter from F4J in response to the Olswang letter on behalf of M&S is, legally speaking, a crock of shite. They have failed to properly address any of the points raised in Olswang's letter and I expect tht Olswang will be swiftly instructed to open a can of whoopass. That's a technical legal term, you understand. Innit. :)

The letter from F4J is actually quite extraordinarily bad and is likely to get them into even more trouble. It is likely to be regarded by M&S as futher defamation, particularly as they havr plastered it all over their facebook page. There's nothing lawyers hate more than a reponse that completely fails to address the points you have carefully crafted.

is there a link to the fb page?

enjoy

just having a look at his website

'O'Connor has masterminded the creation of one of the highest profile campaign groups in the world'

bit full of himself isn't he

That letter to olswang from f4j would be funny if it weren't tragic.

Haven't any if those men hit anything better to do tomorrow, like contact?

really fancy some percy pigs now

Why has my last post been deleted?

Chubfuddler - they'd rather waste their time on ill conceived publicity stunts.

Triple post alert, as I haven't actually addressed the OP (very rude of me). YANBU, and I'm surprised at The Independent.

Does anyone else think some of them on the F4J page are getting MN confused with NetMums?

"Just a point of worthy note Mike - talking of EVIDENCE. Why not ask MN what EVIDENCE they have for some of their continued "fact" based postings and media ramblings and see how you go. The last time I posted on MN (before being banned for asking a question) I was told (and numerous other women "liked" the post) that there had NEVER, EVER been a case in the UK family courts whereby a father had been denied access to his child unless the child or mother's safety and well-being was in question. THAT is the sort of FACT and EVIDENCE you get from MN and Gingerbread"

You can't like posts on MumsNet

Again, I don't get the thought as to why the newspaper would think it would be a good idea to get involved in mud slinging or think this would just blow over.

This was bound to end up badly and effects just very poor decision taken by a newspaper .... Not on the level of phone hacking, but still ....

round of applause for Mike though. Go Mike!

I keep having to check the date to make sure this isn't some sort of huge April Fools joke.

This sort of stuff always reminds me of the poem about the wise men and the elephant ..

Look hard enough and you can find justification for almost any view point

Yes Mike is v good :)