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?

It's under one of the M&S ones:

Fathers 4 Justice - The Official Campaign Organisation ‎"I even keep one in my own house. I find it very useful for the spiders." well that says it all really doesn't it - patronising, condescending, self obsessed etc.. Imagine if Matt wrote in his F4J biography "Mothers have always been welcome in F4J, I even keep one in my own house. I find it very useful for the cooking, cleaning, doing the washing, ironing, looking after the kids and having sex with." Nadine

Oh, cringe-makingly embarrassing.

ROFL at Nadine challenging Justine to pay her some attention.

And OMG is she really going to keep up the pretence of believing that it's not an April Fool's joke.

she really is. She's locked all of my accounts from commenting on their site, now. Free speech, and getting your facts straight, etc...

It's a really odd way to behave, when they're currently on their high horse about misrepresentation of their group and whatnot. So as a response they...misrepresent a named individual?!

Oh the shame....

Lovely man on MN FB thinks we should just get rid of the FWR section because it's outdated and obsolete... falls about laughing

Was that Spydiii I presumed it was the other one, "bannedinaminute"?

It was all very unedifying.

I've withdrawn that last message if it was Mr frothing deleted ranter who sent the pm.

TBF SAF didn't say which one, I just presumed it was the frother

interesting state side equivalent type org story

No, thisis best be on the safe side, don't want to upset the caped crusader. Oh no, that's batman isn't it?

it wasn't frothyman.

I've lost track of this thread ... so, is most of this bunfight happening because someone has (a) misinterpreted what the 'believe' campaign is for and (b) didn't notice the date on that bbc link?

So it was Mr Reasonable SAF?

Most of it Grimma, is because some people seem to think that opinions in favour of the current systems, or that some parents (mainly men, granted) may have been denied a contact order for very good reason, or that some men are a danger to their children are in fact evidence of man hating. F4J are now running a "campaign" against MN and M&S to try and get MN to back down.

As an aside to that, one person seems to think that the MN I Believe You campaign is unfair because it doesn't extend to believing men who say they've been unfairly denied contact with their children and another posted the AF article as fact, someone countered it and was promptly deleted and they're now running with Justine's "I find it very useful for the spiders" comment as fact.

The article I posted above has some great analysis of why these groups are emerging around the West.

All these groups operate in the very same way it seems.

Remo Balboa is this a dyke men haters site !
23 hours ago.

Good to see F4J still fighting gender hatred.

Fuck, mooncup, that article you linked to is unbelievably depressing. Thank christ most of these idiots are content to confine themselves to the internet only.

They have 500-odd twitter followers and 1000-odd Facebook followers. In short they have little influence and no traction"* (quote from Justine)

Well last time I looked Justine we had nearly 11,000 on this page so either you can't count or you are once again being deliberately disingenuous. So what 500 on Twitter! What you don't have access to is the database I have here in the office of registered supporters built up since 2002.

Er, so nothing to do with the fact that, when Justine made the comments, they had 1000 odd Facebook followers?

Welcome to our new Facebook page with a new design which is part of the changes Facebook themselves are making (so we don't have any choice in the matter!). As ever, expect a bit of turbulence in the coming months which might result in furt...her disruption to our social media comms.

And since then the likes have climbed back up?

I thought there had been a post encouraging people to 'like' the page and get the numbers up to 10,000, but there's no sign of that now, so I must surely have been mistaken. Only a post asking people to get the number up to 11,000.

I must get my eyes checked. I was sure I'd seen it, but obviously not. Because to delete it and then use an old quote to accuse Justine of deliberate misrepresentation over the numbers would be ... deliberate misrepresentation. If only I had eg saved or printed out the page that I thought had that post on ....

I think it was a mis-read/type by Justine because they did have about 10,000 when the comment was made (at 2am so cut her some slack!) but they're nicely dodging the not credible point by focusing on the mistake in the numbers. That post has been there for days, yet they choose now to make a public reference to it?

That article was interesting mcmooncup, but so depressing. I think in safe spaces like MN you forget how widespread the hatred of women is.

I've come round to MN's view. They really aren't worth giving the oxygen of publicity.

Yes, Narked, agreed. I think you can do one of your nice lines under this now.