If Fathers for Justice invade again

[Nyac]

will they still be welcome?

I'm referring to the thread in the Feminism/Women's Rights section -

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a1419965-Agenda-much

where Justine said:

"an invasion - ie let's go on and tell those mumsnetters why they've got it all wrong - isn't necessarily the same as trolling tbh (ie deliberately misleading/antagonising). I think we ought to be able to be robust enough to be able to debate the issue, with the caveat, of course, that if visitors turn out merely to be here to wind up or hear to spread hatred then they are not welcome"

It appears that as long as they promote their agenda in PARD then no harm done. Is that a fair assessment?

As an aside, WRT to their earlier post asking members to report MN to Stop Hate Crime on the basis of "gender identity", isn't that actually referring to transgender people, NOT hate crime on the basis of sex?

It's truly surreal on that FB page. I've been rubbernecking.

I found it really disturbing, actually.

I think they're drinking bile mixed with too much testosterone.

Still can't get over Nadine's 'Never hate your ex more than you love your children, as we say on here.'

I can't believe they're going after Mumsnet.

Its another re-used ad: www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150412046898804&set=a.408005408803.200433.404775273803&type=3&theater

I think surreal just about sums it up.

It's the NSPCC's fault now?

Well, that's the original ad blaming Labour, The Fawcett Society and the NSPCC. Seems MN is the new scapegoat here

I don't think they know who to blame.

Whoever they think will get them the most publicity Frothy

what a pile of tosh. my son is living in a single parent household and he is not a runaway or a delinquent or any of the words they use there. what offensive bs. offensive to mothers and also offensive to men who are an active part of their children's lives despite not living with them because they managed not to do anything that made a court of law deem them unfit to see their own children even in a supervised environment.

PMSL at 'we expose extremism' and 'support of message of love not hate'. Eh? Yeah right guys.

so if i was to be deemed to be such an unfit parent that i wasn't even allowed to see my own child under supervision whose fault would that be?

i think the answer is fairly obvious.

yes there may be the odd bad ruling (and that's the odd one out of the odd few who are even refused contact) which means not very many at all for the F4Js lurking who seem to have such difficulty understanding stats and figures however the vast majority (of that tiny number) will have been refused contact for a pretty extreme reason to do with their own behaviour and history.

not because gingerbread or mn made the judge do it but because an independent cafcass report and a court found evidence of the influence being soooooo negative on the child's well being that they ruled no contact at all. which they do very, very rarely so it has to be really, really negative for them to do so.

it's not slander when it's true. it's not slander when a court of law agreed.

Do they not realise that 1 in 4 children are growing up in lone parent households?

And that they are insulting all those children?

And that if you take income out of the equation, the results for children of lone parent households are exactly the same as for their two parent peers?

So if you want to raise the achievement levels of children of LP's, the best way to do it, is to ensure they don't live in poverty?

And that the payment of maintenance - something they have nothing to say about - would help with that?

They really are incredible aren't they? I mean, I am staggered about them. Really gobsmacked. I knew they were a bunch of misogynists, but really, their cynicism in using their children, is really emotionally shocking even when you know rationally they're a Bad Lot.

basic simple fact is what rational person is going to find a person who has been deemed too dangerous to see their own child a credible authority on parenting or the legal system?

are they trying to provoke a legal confrontation because they just want their day in court?

So they're just going around winding up any organisation they can think of in the hope that one takes the bait.

The Mumsnet one is so silly the only reaction it provokes in me is 'yeah whatevs'.

It's very unclear what they're complaining about but as far as I can see they seem to be objecting that someone on Mumsnet used the word paedophile once.

Well said Basil.

As for hating boys and men, I know a lot of boys, they are all children and as such how can they be worthy of hatred. I have sons, it would be impossible for to hate them. I have a fantastic father, know many other men, I don't hate any of them. Where has anyone, anyone, posted that they hate all men?

On a lighter note, someone just posted a quote from that fake April Fool's article as fact

Yes, the quote from Justine at the end

They're trying to stir up publicity by targeting organisations that have a good public profile. MNHQ are aware and will be dealing with it.

Frankly I can't think of anything that better illustrates who/what they are than the official posts on their own Facebook page and their decision to attack MN, Gingerbread and a firm of solicitors