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?

Justine: 'F4J are not a credible organisation'

This does it for me, thanks Justine.

And what SAF said. F4J want and try to get credibility by posting their malicious views and erroneous stats on MN.

Also for a non-credible, non-influential organisation, Cameron's government was taking their proposal for an automatic fifty-fifty split of child custody pretty seriously. And the media coverage they get has been far greater than Mumsnet has overall.

They have been able to get the misogynistic stereotype of malicious vindictive mothers keeping children away from their fathers with the help of the family courts into the public imagination in a way that no fathers rights organisation has ever managed.

Every other person will tell you it's true and it's happening.

@Nyac

"F4J's only way to get noticed is to come up with stunts. A fight with Mumsnet fits the bill - but only if we comply. Many of you have commented that F4J are trolling and as we know, the first rule of trolls is DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. I know it's tempting but by taking them on, you are totally feeding the trolls."

In your rules you say you ban trolls. If you're actually acknowledging that they are trolls and that they are coming here to troll and create publicity stunts won't you just ban them? Why all the stuff about "If they were here to engage in an honest and non-aggressive way we would let them carry on" when you've already acknowledged what they are up to and why they do it. It's contradictory.

WRT you having better things to do, I'm quite happy to wait for a reply to this for a few days/weeks. It's not urgent.

This is what I said Nyac:
If it transpired that they came only to wind folks up and/or to promote one particular orthodoxy only and not engage in genuine debate we would also, once established, ask them to leave. In other words it can take a while to discover people's motives and whether they are single issue bods or not, and we do like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Furthermore we have no control about what happens off MN and eg taking the fight to other orgs facebook page is imo also counter-productive.

Right, firstly. Apologies if I got a little heated last night. But from the word go, since speaking out against F4J the first time, they've continually targeted me, as well as the women from FWR; women that I care deeply about.

But herein lies the problem. I'm not willing to stand for the misogynistic bullshit that they're perpetuating; we can't just sit down and ignore them, because people are still buying into the cause. It's not 1000 supporters they have on FB, it's 10,000. And the number's growing. They ARE a threat on children's rights, yet they dress it up as "Every child deserves a father." Every child deserves a decent parent or set of parents.

Can we please, again, confirm what Mumsnet are doing about F4J defaming the image, not only of myself, or the FWR regulars, but of every member of Mumsnet? Because, I know it's not the case, but last night, it felt like Mumsnet were more willing to defend F4J than the members of this site. I'm sure that's not the message Olivia and Helen meant to portray, but it's how it came across.

For what it's worth, I still think it's worth reinstating the deleted posts, to make it clear what we've had to deal with. At the moment, the deletions do nothing for our reputation, because of the way things have been handled. Even if it's just temporary. Or delete the thread from public view, and let the police become aware of what has been said about us, on Mumsnet FWR and on Mumsnet's Facebook page.

"let the police become aware of what has been said about us"

That is the kind of remark that tends to generate an unwanted sense of similarity, in some respects, between some MN posters and the F4J crowd. Several posters on the other thread commented on the absurdity of a F4J suggestion that being insulted on the internet was a matter for police attention, and it is just as absurd when it comes from this side.

Similarly, I don't understand how posters can get upset about an "invasion" of MN by two or three F4J people, and at the same time feel it proper to go onto another organisations site and put their twopenn'orth in there.

What I saw over the last couple of days was a group of posters throwing insults around about another organisation (admittedly an entirely offensive organisation) to the point where they decided to fling some back. Just in terms of that behaviour there was a depressing parity between the two groups. I don't think it did either side any favours.

I don't mean us involving the police; sorry, wasn't clear. But if anything comes from F4J's "report"... Sorry, it wasn't clear.

AIBU i don't think that is entirely fair actually as it was F4J who did the initial flinging and offensiveness on the mn fb page i believe. so what you have said inaccurate in that sense.

i would imagine frothy is talking about providing information to the police in the context of F4J having already made a complaint to the police about this and therefore that info would be as a rebuttal of their complaint - that is different to going to the police in the sense you're reading it and distinctly different to F4J reporting mumsnet to the police over this.

x posted - thought that was what you meant frothy.

Nothing is going to come from their complaint (if it was even made, which I doubt) because there is no such crime as gender hatred and libel is a civil offence.

Earwicga had a better case than they do....

If anyone needs to contact a lawyer it's gingerbread.

The campaign against them accusing them of supporting child abuse (accompanied by photos that people will imagine on first glance to represent serious physical/sexual abuse) presumably goes against the law somehow.

I agree with MNHQ and others who have said that targeting high profile organisations that support mothers is likely a publicity generating tactic.

It might be useful for MN to talk to Gingerbread?

I also have a question in general. I don't know much about separation and all the rest of it, but most of the children in the f 4 j posters look quite old - teenagers. Surely then they can see their fathers if they wish? Given that they will be quite independent.

I don't understand who they are saying is preventing a 15yo girl for example from seeing her father? Surely that can't be prevented?

i'm thinking there's a child protection issue with that video and the way the children have been used by the organisation. hoping this will be investigated by the relevant bodies. such unfair exploitation of children and clearly massively inappropriate imagery used.

not to mention the glaring lies and misleading info it is full of.

or the fact that it even manages to be offensive to non resident fathers who are an active part of their children's lives by calling those children 'fatherless'

The children in the video all see their fathers. They are complaining that the family courts prevented this when they were younger. Some also have younger siblings (same father but different mother I think) still in the court system who they say they and their fathers are being prevented from seeing. I think the youngest child in the poster (who is not in the video) is there for effect. errs on the side of caution

I keep forgetting that asterixes do the bold format on here

They can get publicity all by themselves, they don't need us. They have excellent PR skills for such a tiny organisation. They have been much more high profile for longer than Mumsnet. Mumsnet is popular with politicians because it has a sizeable constituency they can reach, not because of the size of it's brand.

This is about targeting organisations who might offer substantial criticism of them and neutering them before it happens. That's why they are going after Gingerbread and Mumsnet, because they are places where mothers dealing with abusive men can find help and support.

They want their story that vindictive malicious women are keeping their children from poor innocent men to stand. They don't want the reality - which is that there is a substantial minority of mothers who are forced to protect their children from abusive men - to get out. Hence the threats.

Those posts answer my questions very well

In case it's not clear, this isn't a publicity stunt, it's an intimidation tactic.

I agree Nyac: primarily this is about preventing criticism of their organisation.

Luckily I think we are intelligent enough on here, and have a sufficient number of lawyers on board, that we can find ways to say what we need to say in a way that is very obviously not defamatory.

The history of F4J and their own behaviour and words, both their formal official discourse and that of their supporters, speaks for itself. Quoting their own words and information about them published by organisations with a much bigger legal department than Mumsnet makes the point clearly enough. The facts speak for themselves.

As posters I think we have a responsibility to Mumsnet to not put Justine & co in the shit simply by not quickly googling to check facts or being careless with our words. Given what happened with Gina Ford, which must have been a hideous time for MNHQ, we know that a lot of hassle can be caused by legal challenges.

However if they come on here and start being defamatory about us I will expect Mumsnet to back us up: I am not prepared to sit here and get accused of child abuse or manhating and be told to 'rise above' it. Women have always been told to rise above what men do to and say about them, and how very convenient for the patriarchy that is.

Please can someone clarify how the Facebook page works? Does MNHQ have the facility to delete messages and ban posters as they do on the site?

I agree Tunip.

I think we have to report things on FB via the forum, I don't think there's a function on FB to report to Mumsnet.