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?

Something else I would like to see answered.

F4J say that to have father is a human right that all children deserve. They also say that to deny a child its father is abuse. They say that mothers who do this to their children are child abusers.
By the same logic, are fathers who by their own choice are inconsistent with contact or have minimal or no contact also child abusers?

no doubt it's the mum's fault thisis.

Screening of members: We don't have members, we have supporters just like you do in the FB page. People can purchase the guidebook (small amount) and ask advice but it's all done on a voluntary basis. We vet people in the middle, everyone else is an external supporter. That said, anyone known to be violent, a problem etc... is weeded out, naturally. That's reasonable I think.

Stat-stealers. How many of those 1 in 3 are as a result of the Family Court? How many are as a result of men simply walking away?

This is my own conclusion (C&P from the other thread) from the 3.8 million children fatherless/1 in 3 fatherless stats. Perhaps Spydiii can confrim?

"3.8 million children (which is about a third of all children in the UK) live in a single mother family, which is their 3.8 million fatherless stat.

In a different statistic, 1 in 3 children whose parents have separated lose contact with their father. I think this comes from research from the Centre for Social Justice, reported here: www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/divorce/6575997/Third-of-family-break-up-children-lose-contact-with-fathers-in-failing-court-system-poll.html
which is a survey of 4000 people whose parents have split over the last 20 years, not really a picture of what is happening right now.

So the two statistics are not the same."

Presumably because the F4J trolls would like you to STFU, SaF?

No runningforthebusinheels, I >>>personally

Spydiii - But it's a significant part of your campaign? And I can tell you now it is an utterly misleading statistic. If you come on MN asking for 'reasoned debate', isn't it appropriate you know the provenance of a statistic that forms such a major part of your campaign?

ThisIsExtremelyVeryNotGood, re fathers who can't be bothered being abusers. I personally have not thought that much on that specific point, but now you've asked... I guess it depends on the quality of the father. If he's a good dad (in which case he would not be absent anyway) then it would be detrimental, but by definition he wouldn't do it. So, maybe kids with dads who can't be bothered are better off without them given they are not a good role-model. It is in my view abusive to deny a child a good parent where they exists and are willing (wanting) to be part of the child's life. It doesn't matter much which way round that is, I've certainly voiced my opinion about dads who do same thing in reverse. So, to mix the issue of intentionally withhold with can't be bothered is not an appropriate comparison. Saying a dad who withholds a child from a mother without reason is an abuser, is. Hope that helps explain my view on it?

runningforthebusinheels; honestly I cannot know everything. I'm pretty busy outside of the campaigning stuff. Hope you understand. But will look into that as would like to know the origin. And, can tell you that if false I would be one to oppose it's use. To date, all I have looked into has been correct.

From their site:

For over a decade, Fathers 4 Justice has fought to ensure fathers play a fundamental role in the parenting of their children after parents separate.

How do you ensure that those fathers that don't turn up for contact with their children play a fundamental role?

Do you believe that the majority of children growing up with no contact with their fathers are doing so because of actions of people other than their father?

As a country we can?t keep telling fathers to have equal responsibility and not give them equal rights.

Do you think that the rights of fathers trump the rights of children?

What laws do you wish to see in place of those that currently exist?

It does, thank you. I would say that I do consider my XP to have committed an emotional abuse on my oldest in particular (my younger two were thankfully young enough to be mostly unaffected thus far), having been a part of his life until he was 7 he was distraught when his Dad moved away and still is 10 months later. I am quite offended by a certain member of your organisation who insinuated that the fact that my XP committed this abuse was more than likely my fault. I would do anything to take my son's pain and confusion away.

It seems you've not personally considered a lot about your chosen organisation Spydiii.

Your FB page is not 'guidance' it is a load of anti-mother rhetoric from both men and women (I'm ashamed to say). THe only advice I've seen on there is how to bung up Gingerbread's helplines and troll their (and our) messageboards. Very helpful to single parents I must say!

Perhaps you should re-consider your association with a group who uses bully-boy tactics, threats of police(!), intimidation and handcuffs to females to make it's point?

Ah, you don't get the advice until you hand over your £20.

Have we ever been invaded by a political pressure group before. I can't think of any.

When the Tories or the Labour party want to canvass for votes or support they generally do webchats through Mumsnet HQ. Although I'm not sure how many Mumsnetters would be interested in a F4J webchat.

Why have you targeted Mumsnet Spydi. What's your thinking here. What are you hoping to achieve.

Do you get to be a member for that £20, Narky?

You join The National Family Forum apparently. It looks like the only way to access the advice/support forum and their helpful publications. Happy to be corrected If I'm wrong.

Say not sat

Why are we tolerating the presence of these people whilst they have this on their FB page?

"Thanks to the bigotry and prejudice of organisations like Gingerbread and Mumsnet, the epidemic of fatherlessness continues with catastophic social consequences."

WTF?

How do you ensure that those fathers that don't turn up for contact with their children play a fundamental role?

• Thats not what we are campaigning for. Bit like asking what does feminism do to promote fathers? It's a related topic but not what F4J are about, the primary cause is hard enough to achieve without diluting effort on associated problems.

Do you believe that the majority of children growing up with no contact with their fathers are doing so because of actions of people other than their father?

• Honestly, don't know. I fight for those that give a damn and that are, as far as it's possible to determine, good dads. In those cases, and there are very very many, the reason dad isn't there is because he was prevented from being there. The sheer level of legal action in this area speaks volumes.

Do you think that the rights of fathers trump the rights of children?

• No. Neither do I think a mothers rights trump those of a child. The latter is what we have in English law through the paramount principle (child's needs are only met by mothers being met) which many of us would say is fatally flawed as it ignores each case being treated on an individual basis. The latter being the usual argument of those saying the law is not biased.

What laws do you wish to see in place of those that currently exist?

• The Children Act 1989 was meant to be one of equal parenting, however it was stifled outside of parliament by the legal profession who probably (rightly) saw no money in it. The act we have now is not the one debated and agreed in parliament. However, since then we've learned more. We know know that for a wide range of complex and interrelated reasons that automatic shared parenting upon split EXCEPT where there are reasonable grounds to deny that, result in better outcomes for ALL parties. The system we have now that pits parent against parent in a 'winner takes all' binary dog fight means each party has to pounce first and go for the jugular in the most extreme way if they are guaranteed to see their child or have any equity after. It's no coincidence that all those that advise we continue with this system also happen to make money from it. Go figure. Personally, I'd like to see more mediation backed by knowledge that the judge, if required, will treat both parties equally and on the basis of best interests of the child. As I've touched upon above, that does not happen due to the paramount principle.