Hello tazmosis, I just re-read my post and it does come across as very rude and aggressive. I apologise for that, not like me at all.
My point about anecdotal evidence was badly made too, not saying 'your' evidence/experience is less valid then experiences on MNet.
It also gives the impression that I don't care about Dads who can't see their children, that's not true. I actually agree with you, if a loving Dad can't see his children that is a heart-rending situation.
My real issue is with F4J, I really can't bear them, for reasons which I will explain.
Firstly, I'm convinced they are motivated not by desire for equality and concern about children but by a desire to be inc charge and cause trouble for their exes. So they are not so concerned about their children and more about themselves.
Secondly, several of their members had convictions against them for domestic violence/other offences - Matt O'Connor admits this in the interview I linked to above.
Thirdly, there is unpleasant whiff of misogyny about the whole organisation. You'd think they would want to work with women, not against them. I've had a few run ins with F4J members online and they were nice people. I remember one in particular crowing over Sally Phillips death and saying she was an alcoholic who was unfit to have children.
Fourthly, I think (my opinion) that they are seeking to perpetuate a myth that there is a widespread problem of good, decent men being denied access to their children by spiteful nasty women. I don't deny that these situations occur, but I'm certain that there are many more cases where women trying to facilitate access and be reasonable (often under severe provocation. I would be very surprised if stats don't bear this out.
Anyway I've waffled on a bit. I hope that goes some way to explaining my position and shows that I'm not a complete cow!
Sorry once again.