6/27/2005 02:20:00 PM|||Antonia|||
Well, we've moved, thank goodness. The new flat is much smaller than the old house so Jo and I are having to be really ruthless about throwing stuff away, recycling stuff, putting stuff into storage (currently the lovely Colin's front room floor, but soon to be somewhere a little more permanent - well, when am I realistically going to need my General 1 degree notes on the place of saints' cults in the early middle ages?) and taking stuff to the Mind charity shop in Jericho. (Mind, cos they employ the lovely Shannon, our wonderful pixie during the election campaign, and because we have several friends who have mental health problems. After visiting friends in in-patient care in Cardiff in a hospital which had emblazoned "Whitchurch Asylum" over the door, anyone who's campaigning for better mental health services deserves our support.)

New flat is the top half of a semi-detached house just off Rose Hill (south-east Oxford - though estate agent speak says it is "Iffley Borders" - Iffley village being a much posher part nearby). It's light and bright and a bit scummy around the edges, though judicious application of Bath Power is helping with that. Thanks to Dan, who got everything up the narrow stairs - Jo and I owe you dinner out for that!

The first items to go in were of course the books, our pride and joy - and Jo immediately started sorting them into types, so instead of our former jumble, where Patricia Cornwall could sit next Oswyn Murray who was having a nice chat with a Penguin edition of Dickens which was piled on top of John O'Farrell, we now have a front room that resembles a reference library, with well-ordered battalions marching according to subject, author and size. I think I miss the treasure hunt quality, though.

So, everything's in, and reasonably sorted out. Well, we can live there at least. Haven't really had time to blog this weekend though, so you'll have to excuse me - that means you, irritating f4j-ers below - I haven't run away, just had other priorities, like a life. Might get around to answering some of the emails and comments tonight, cos Jo is off being trained in how to be a member of NUS' NEC (and there was me thinking that she'd already done that job for a year!)

I'd also taken my eye off the blog world, so here are some interesting links.

The Virtual Stoa pointed me towards Teresa May's speech on women in the Tory party. I've said before, where it comes to Tories, I want a decent debate, not clouded by homophobia, between parties that look like Britain, even at the cost of the Tories getting more votes (there is an electoral advantage to having more female candidates, the Electoral Commission found a few years ago). So good luck with getting those 50 women and 50 men, Teresa. (Perhaps my erstwhile opponent Amanda will be one of the women?) Though of course they'll all be beaten soundly by my socialist comrades.

A couple of blogs - not least Jo's and Chicken Yoghurt - have commented on Euan Blair going to intern for the Republicans. Chicken Yoghurt also talks about accusations that Jack Straw's son profited from meeting senior civil servants at his father's dinners - seems a bit unfair on Straw-boy, to me. I'm not sure it's really sustainable to say that the sons and daughters of our politicians aren't allowed to make their own choices about politics, and that every success they have must be because of Daddy.

There's also a debate following something I wrote about abortion kicking off at let's be sensible - when I'm finally caught up, I might get around to responding to some of the points.

Feministe directed me to girl-mom, an American radical resource and community site for teenage mums who refuse to apologise. I'm going to do some exploring over there in the next few days, might come back to that.

Oh, and if you haven't enough to read, Tim Worstall has this week's Britblog round-up. Us Labour-supporting bloggers need to start nominating one another, it's all rightists or anti-ID card rants and the like.

Suppose I ought to get on with some work now, given that I've had nearly a 90 minute lunch and I can't even complain about the temperature, it being a positively mild 28 degrees at my desk compared to the 35 it was for much of last week. (Hint - don't move house in the hottest week of the year!)
|||111987846454650160|||Hello all6/28/2005 02:51:55 PM|||Rob|||Where in blazes is this "Whitchurch Asylum" sign exactly, and who can I talk to from this constituency office about getting it removed forthwith?!6/30/2005 09:24:43 AM|||Tim Worstall|||Antonia
Please do nominate people! The Roundup is (unlike the rest of my blog) precisly there so that we can see what others are saying. Any subject, any view point. We do rather hopethat the nominations are good posts, but good is not here defined by any political or world view.
Precisely becuase so much blog reading is done in ideological ghettos we really do want to see stuff that crosses the divides.7/01/2005 06:04:28 PM|||Antonia|||Hi Rob,

It's at Whitchurch Hospital - looks like a listed building of some sort, and it's carved into the wall above the entrance. That, and the fact that you have to go past the ECT room (with large sign) to get to inpatients really freaked me out.6/21/2005 01:14:00 PM|||Antonia|||
I was reading in my paper on Sunday that the BMA are to debate whether the time limit for abortions should be reduced - more info here.

Lynne Miles has a great post about this at the F-Word here.

However it’s important not to fall into the trap of thinking that we should only be concerned about women who go through the emotional wringer about having an abortion. As feminists we need to stand behind the theoretical absolute grounds for the right to abortion on request. If we are to make a decent and convincing case to the world at large that women MUST be allowed access to abortion on demand (and, remember, we don’t technically have that in the UK – a doctor must “allow” it on medical grounds) the case cannot be emotional – we cannot make it about women “deserving” abortions.

The right to decide what happens to our own bodies is fundamental – to remove that right is to take away our autonomy. We shouldn’t be allowing the debate around abortion to centre on who does or doesn’t “deserve” an abortion – indeed we should be pushing to extend abortion rights to allow us access to abortion on demand. It is insulting in the extreme that we cannot decide for ourselves whether to continue with a pregnancy, but if we want a boob job we have only to ask. It is demeaning for us to have to find not one but two doctors who will certify that having a baby will be damaging to our mental health. And part of making that case is acknowledging that some women *will* be having what the public consider ‘feckless’, ‘lifestyle’, ‘wanton’ abortions. And that it is their right to do so.

The wonderful Julie Burchill has also been writing on the subject - about why she's "pro-life" - and no, as always with Julie, it's not what you think! (Thanks Dan, for pointing me towards this)

For my part, the thought that the anti-abortion lobby would turn women into human incubators, carrying children they don't want, is horrifying.

And I'm tired of the Labour Party treating the right of a woman to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy as a "matter of conscience". No - if we believe in equality, then we should take a firmly pro-choice stance, recognising that one of the cornerstones of equality is being able to choose if and when to become pregnant and bear a child. Fair enough, if you wouldn't choose an abortion for yourself, that I can respect and understand. But don't impose your moral standards on the rest of us and force women to become mothers against their will or resort to unsafe backstreet abortions. Labour should be an unequivocally pro-choice party.
|||111935613002919272|||Pro-choice and proud of it6/22/2005 12:42:20 PM|||RichardrH|||It is quite unbelivable that you do not give a thought to any one else (in this case the foetus) in your ramblings. Whether you like it or not it is necessary for a society to funciton by giving other people (representing the majority opinion hopefully) some control over your life. Only by giving up some of your "independence" can people respect each other by understanding what is expected of others and themselves.

If one is always self centred and adamant that their rights are equally valid (or indeed outweigh) anyone elses then there can be no no absolutes (or "morality" as you call it), laws or justice.

The logic of your argument is flawed in that if you take it to its conclusion, your desire for equality actually doesn't end up as equality but anarchy. After all why shouldn't someone decide to drive 90mph down a residential street where children frequently play (this is effectively a rights issue but also a moral one because it concerns life) or any other nightmare scenario which infriges someone elses rights.

Our society is not only built solely around rights but tolerance and a framework that has been established over many years. That doesn't meen its all correct and it doesn't meen that its all set in stone. Society can change through our "democratic" system but when this is done it is imperitive that all points of view are heard and laws are drawn up that represent the majority opinion and are understandable to the whole population so that they can live their lives by them.

In the situation you are refering to there is no clear majority view from what I have read but the law is a balance between the right iof the woman and the unborn child. Undoubtably there are situations where termination can be considered by some to be appropriate (and the law allows for that) but even in this it is not a clear that a "majority" would vote for it. I for one am happy for keeping this law under review and am happy with the current debate aound the issue.6/22/2005 06:16:42 PM|||ms. b.|||How does the foetus count as an "anyone else" seeing as its not a person? Perhaps we should ask it its opinion in every case, seeing as thinking about its rights is so important6/23/2005 10:15:17 AM|||Lynne Miles|||What Ms B. said ....
I think it is misleading in the extreme to refer to 'the unborn child'. It's a foetus. Which is absolutely not to say that it is of no importance, just that it cannot be of equal importance to a woman's life.6/23/2005 12:30:40 PM|||RichardH|||Interesting comment that ms. b. considering that's what the whole debate is about isn't it? "When does the foetus become a person?" It's exactly what the governing bodies who decide on things like this (such as the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)) meet to discern. Recent advances in medical practices have found that more babies can survive at the current upper time limit and so the time limit is to be reduced. If they can survive at this age I think one has a right to say that once they are born (and I believe before) that they are a person (or baby or child).

When my wife carried our children I never believed, from the time we found out she was pregnant, that the child she was carrying was not a person, even when we had the diagnosis that one of them could have down syndrome and potentially other disabilities. It was always a baby or a person in my eyes. Ask most people who are pregnant and they will say they are carrying a baby or a child, they mostly think of the child as something real way before it is born.

If I choose to believe that someone doesn't have a valid view or I don't understand them does that invalidate their rights - in this case to the most sacred of all rights - life?

The issue isn't black and white but its more clear than just an issue of womens rights.6/23/2005 12:37:46 PM|||RichardH|||Lynne, are we talking about life here in a living/breathing sense or a being able to do everything you want to sense? If it is the former and the pregnancy would potentially endanger the mothers life then I can see that as a potentially valid reason fo the mother to have a choice (note the use of the word choice as it is not always the case that a potential risk turns into an actual fatality), if however it is the second I find that more difficult to accept...6/23/2005 01:37:56 PM|||Jo|||Hi RichardrH...

To be honest, I don't care what other people (i.e. WOMEN) do about their pregnancy - so long as, no matter what their respective choices or beliefs, they allow ME to make MY OWN decisions about my own body.

Women are not walking, talking incubators. So when you talk about "life", let's not forget what's outside the womb - a living, breathing human being who should have the right to make decisions about her own body - and that's from the right to access IVF to help with fertility, to the right to decide how many children she has - or if she has them at all. It's about the right to access childcare so she's not confined to the home. It's about the right to access contraception to regulate her fertility - and the right to make a decision if she becomes pregnant for whatever reason.

I don't care what choices your wife has made - I just want the right to make my own decisions based on my own circumastances and beliefs, not yours.

Oh - and don't for one moment think that making abortion illegal stops women from having one. It's just that where abortion is illegal, women tend to use things like coathangers or poison or knitting needles or throw themselves down the stairs. One woman dies every six minutes because of an unsafe or illegal abortion. Where are the so-called pro-lifers when it comes to WOMEN'S lives?6/23/2005 04:00:24 PM|||helen a|||Julie Burchill - fantastic as ever, witty and intelligently argued. Fantastic opinion on non-feminists!6/24/2005 02:20:37 PM|||RichardH|||Jo,

Sorry you seem so angry about all this, I can understand where you are coming from but I just don't agree with all your arguments.

I think it rather innocent to believe that some one who is pro life will automatically be against women. That is not the case in my situation but I may still have a different point of view to you when looking at a slightly bigger picture.

I agree that women (and men) should be enabled to make their own decisions about how they live their lives up to a point (and this comes back to what I was originally saying), that point is where others are involved. At this point whether it is an unborn child or a next door neighbour or someone in Africa or America or whereever, we start having to consider more than just ourselves. Taking the attitude that "only I matter" is one that does not lead to a harmonious society just like living under a dictatorship fails, but in a democracy (it can be hoped) that the best path is chosen by thinking about each other as well as ones vested interests. I know this isn't always the case as we all know we, whether we are politically active or not, often don't live our lives the way we claim we do.

So the point is that we must think of others who we are in relationship with whether physically, emotionally or socially. That being said I never said that there weren't situations where I can see one would want to terminate a pregnancy and I wouldnt personally advocate backstreet abortions or making abortion illegal. The point is that whether I am man or woman I should, indeed have to, consider other people in all I do - as I can't live in a bubble thinking that my actions only affect me.

Dont think I used my situation as an example because I forced my wife down a given line, that wasn't the case at all. It was the solution we both agreed upon, not without some agonising and not without a degree of pressure from the NHS to take a specific route, and thankfully for our daughter one that has given her life.6/24/2005 06:28:22 PM|||Jo|||Richard, I never said that you forced your wife to do or not do anything.

My point is this - you make your decisions, I'll make mine. Just don't expect my choices to be made on the basis of your beliefs.6/26/2005 10:39:48 AM|||Chris Ward|||Richard,

I'd rather have a democratic government decide on things like these. Could you imagine how bad it would be if we still lived in a theocratic society?

I'll be back later, I'm just off to sacrifice a bull in my garden and go and hunt pagans.6/27/2005 05:01:21 PM|||RichardH|||Jo,

I am not asking you to live your life according to my beliefs believe me I am far more interested (sorry if this is pushy) to know how you and everyone else see conflicting views being dealt with in a society that is based around an individuals rights but where everyone has differences of view.

Could one who disagrees with a law disobey it because there "rights" would be violated by obeying it. If yes then how do we define the code or laws we live our life by and how does a society stay together rather than flying apart, if no then to some degree as I said before we have to have respect and tolerance of the majority view that presumably has formed the law in the first place.6/29/2005 10:32:10 AM|||Jo|||I am far more interested ... to know how you and everyone else see conflicting views being dealt with in a society that is based around an individuals rights but where everyone has differences of view.

On the issue of abortion, we must extend the 67 Abortion Act to allow women to be the sole decision makers over their own bodies (i.e. if they want an abortion they can access one free on the NHS without having to jump through any hoops). On the other hand, if a woman wishes to continue a pregnancy, we make damn sure that she has rights at work whilst pregnant, can have maternity leave and pay, can access childcare, after-school and holiday clubs, that the family is healthy and well-educated and has aspirations to go out and have an amazing life.

In other words, we allow women to make a choice and support them no matter what. So if a teenageer decides to continue a pregnancy, we don't condemn her and call a slag to her face and deny her and her kid the money they need to survive. And if a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy, we don't condemn her or call her a murderer, and we don't post things such as it is quite unbelivable that you do not give a thought to any one else (in this case the foetus).6/29/2005 12:48:47 PM|||RichardH|||But making an equivalence between those two last statements is where I think you have it wrong. As I have said on several occasions here there is a difference between people condeming someone for their actions and someone saying that one should consider others.

The problem with making a statement like if a woman ... is that it is not only the womans choice in all circumstances. There are some where it is, I grant you, but not in all.

On the face of it what you say may seem to you to be a great "policy statement" but it is a long way from what can reasonably be drafted in a law as it doesn't include respect for others and doesn't consider ethical and moral issues which many people would consider essential in an issue of this sort.

In general laws have been drafted to draw a balance between these considerations and to preserve and foster a society where people are given rights but are also expected to live by certain rules so that they by doing so respect the rights of others.

You can try and deny the moral and ethical issues but you would probably be suprised to learn that far more people are members of institutions that take ethical and moral issues seriously than are members of political parties (not saying political parties and politicians don't take them seriously as well). I am not saying what they believe here but am just saying that this issue does have this dimension which is exactly why this issue is so important to people and therefore effects more than the individual.6/29/2005 09:49:17 PM|||Dan|||"On the face of it what you say may seem to you to be a great "policy statement" but it is a long way from what can reasonably be drafted in a law as it doesn't include respect for others and doesn't consider ethical and moral issues which many people would consider essential in an issue of this sort."

Of course it considers ethical and moral issues, being pro-choice is explicitly about taking a particular ethical standpoint.

There's quite a simple way to work out that your argument that it is necessary to limit individual rights doesn't apply to this.

If we let people drive their cars wherever they want, and at whatever speed they want, it affects others. If we let people choose whether or not to pay taxes, it has an effect on others. If we give women the right to choose whether or not to have a baby, it has no effect on anyone else (though you appear to believe that it will cause anarchy).

Political parties don't just exist to reflect people's opinions, but to campaign to change them. What Antonia was arguing was that the Labour Party should explicitly campaign for a woman's right to choose. This isn't anarchism, it is about equality.

Take care

Dan xxx

p.s. A foetus isn't a person. Really, it isn't. That's why it is called a 'foetus' and not a 'child'.6/30/2005 12:53:51 PM|||RichardH|||Dan,

Of course it considers ethical and moral issues, being pro-choice is explicitly about taking a particular ethical standpoint

No it doesn't it considers an individuals ethical standpoint, not one that necessarily considers others. A child is needless to say always (currently) a result of two peoples actions. Therefore it stands to reasons that both peoples views should considered. Now as I have said before I can see that there are some issues such as rape (note this is an action that results from a lack of respect for others) that may mean that the woman has a choice which doesn't have to consider the man, but in general this does not represent the majority of reasons why people opt for an abortion. Another issue may be when the childs or womans life is put in danger.

If we give women the right to choose whether or not to have a baby, it has no effect on anyone else

Disagree, it has an effect directly on the mother and the child and the father (if he wants to be effected - if he doesn't then granted it may not). By the time a pregnancy has reached the stage we are talking aboutit it potentially has an effect on many more people. Do they have a right to control the mothers body - no, are they effected by what the mother does - yes.

Political parties don't just exist to reflect people's opinions, but to campaign to change them.

Agreed, they do - but ultimately that change will not come if the population do not agree with it. It is therefore important that politicians and councillors can get out of their cosy huddles and "survey group" mentality and really listen to peoples views. Politicians should move away from sweeping statements or soundbites and engage in real debate.

Politicians and parties also have a greater responsibility to look at the bigger picture - something that an individual who only cares about what they get out of a law doesn't necessarily do.7/01/2005 06:12:22 PM|||Antonia|||Hi everyone, thanks for your comments. Been moving and very busy at work, sorry not to have weighed in earlier.

richardrh:
Choosing when and if to get pregnant and continue a pregnancy are basic fundamental rights to enable equality for women. If they do not have these rights then they cannot achieve equality. I can't agree that it is anyone else's business what a woman chooses to do when making a decision about an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy - not her doctor's business, not her husband or partner's, not her vicar or priest's.6/19/2005 07:58:00 PM|||Antonia|||
Too bloody hot. Been investigating emigrating to countries where the average temperature is something more reasonable, and Vancouver seems like the best bet. I'm definitely a hat-gloves-scarf-coat type of a girl, not a flip-flops, palazzo pants and designer water one.

Over in the US, it seems the students are in everyone's bad books, spending all their borrowed money on Starbucks lattes. If they're at U-Wisconsin, they might not even have access to emergency contraception for much longer if the state legislature have their way...

At the risk of provoking my pet loons below, Happy Father's Day to all. Here's a great article from the New York Times about Little Women and why girls need fathers who teach them how to think.

Don't expect much blogging goodness from me over the next few days, at least until we're happily set up in the new house.
|||111920635074434639|||33 degrees6/19/2005 09:29:45 PM|||Jo|||Ha - you think it's been bad here, check this out:

Soaring temperatures - reaching in one place 50C (122F) - continue to sweep India6/17/2005 07:07:00 PM|||Antonia|||
One of the things I love about living in Oxford is that loads of people from all over the world come to visit, study and work here. Walking to the bus stop after work, I nearly ran into a guy wearing a "Congressman Mark KIRK" t-shirt, deep in conversation with his friend, saying "We've got to be more American about it...". So who is this Congressman Mark Kirk? Well, it appears he's Republican of Illinois, 10th District.

There's no point to make. I was just interested. And it's Friday.
|||111903172274520687|||Who is Congressman Mark Kirk?6/17/2005 07:47:24 PM|||Bloggers4Labour|||He sounds fairly decent, if his last three articles are to believed. "Pro-defense, pro-personal responsibility, pro-environment, and pro-science" isn't bad going for a Republican nowadays. And he blogs.6/17/2005 08:25:37 PM|||Jo|||What's happening to the world? I always catch myself giving my political 'enemies' (so to speak) a few brownie points bjust because they blog...

Argh - I need a life beyond this laptop.

(Yeah, like that's ever gonna happen!)6/17/2005 08:49:21 PM|||Bloggers4Labour|||OK, forget the blog bit, but he sounds OK from this. Maybe I'm just being too soppy because it's the weekend...6/17/2005 11:43:56 PM|||Antonia|||Yeah, I suppose he is a moderate - 100% rating from NARAL pro-choice America, 80% from the League of Conservation Voters and a D from the NRA, but then 47% from the ACLU and only 27% by the NEA, so he's mixed on civil rights and anti-public education. See issues 2000 for the full list.

Can you imagine if charity law in the UK allowed us to rate politicians on issues? It would be all "Rated 7% by the Campaign to Protect Rural England, an anti-Green Belt voting record"! "Rated 2% by the IoD, a pro-bureaucracy voting record"!8/15/2005 01:38:38 AM|||Anonymous|||You should ask the folks from his district. We dislike him intensely. Pro- choice, pro- environment Ha! He only votes that way when his vote is not needed by Bush. He's a fraud and lied about WMD in Iraq along with the res of the Bush thugs. See this long winded garbage.6/17/2005 05:40:00 PM|||Antonia|||
I was interested by Boris Johnson's article in yesterday's Telegraph.

Boris was writing about childcare, and it was as if he came from another world. Firstly, he completely misunderstands the idea of "Kelly hours", to give extended schools their silly media name. In his defence, he's not alone - virtually every article I've seen talks about extending the school day, as if children were starting with a double period of maths at 8am and not being allowed to leave until after double history at 6pm.

Of course, what it actually means is that every school has a breakfast club, a range of afterschool clubs, and a holiday playscheme. None of these are compulsory for all children, and some of them will be charged for - hopefully on a sliding scale so no child misses out unnecessarily. They provide drama, music, sport, art, personal development, homework clubs and supervised play for our precious little darlings - not more lessons. I imagine lots of schools will form partnerships with the Scouts or Guides, with other existing voluntary sector providers and with the local authority youth service to deliver programmes. It'll help teachers by making sure all children get a decent breakfast and can concentrate. Crucially it will offer young people who don't get to take part in extra-curricular activities more opportunities to do so, will increase children's social skills and will end the current situation of young people roaming around in the streets in the early evening with nothing to do because there aren't any youth facilities. (Although it doesn't solve the evening and weekend problem, but then there's always the coming youth green paper for that, if it ever comes out...)

Rather than being about helping "the grandes dames of the New Labour movement - Cherie, Margaret Hodge, Polly Toynbee", the programme is aimed squarely at average- and low-income working families - families who already drop off children with a childminder at 7.30 or 8am, so that she can take them to school, pick them up and look after them until their parents come for them after work.

I also don't buy the idea that parents shouldn't use childcare that's available. Of course mothers and fathers should be able to enjoy time with their children, which is why we had a manifesto commitment to increase maternity leave and are consulting on increasing paternity leave at the moment. But children benefit from high-quality daycare, and parents (overwhelmingly low-income mothers in SureStart areas) can benefit from basic skills and personal development courses on offer.

Boris' other complaint is that families can't choose the care they want - the government only supports formal childcare. Seems right to me that government money should only be spent on quality-assured services. If grandparents want to benefit from the money available through childcare tax credits by looking after their grandchildren, they can, by registering with Ofsted - that way everyone knows that the care they're getting is good enough.

I also don't get why on earth Boris is opposing "loony anti-paedophile screening procedures" - would he want his children cared for by workers who hadn't been police checked?

I don't believe in forcing mothers to return to work, but the question that those who oppose the new childcare support being brought in by our Labour government have to answer is this: we have 3.6 million children living in poverty and an ambitious target of ending that poverty altogether in a generation. If we're not encouraging women to go back to work as the surest route out of poverty, and if we're not supporting every child to get the best start in life through early years education and care, then how on earth are we going to reach that target?
|||111902649454074238|||Boris on childcare6/20/2005 01:26:18 PM|||RichardH|||Most government policies at the moment are driving people into work and preventing people spending time with their families. The only real driver the government has for getting people into work is that the economy needs more employees, a lot of which are low paid jobs which we may find in the future have damaged peoples self esteem and consequently alienated them from society.

By going back to work (for example after having a family) there is no guarentee that anyone is lifted out of poverty, these poclicies actually only guarentee that those who dont stay there. It can also meen that some children are left in a poverty of "love" and support.

Consider the "choices" that people have to make if they feel it is right to stay at home and build a family as to whether they are fair and equal. People who choose to stay at home have to make considerable financial sacrifices and get relatively little or no help from the government. With a stick like that it is hardly suprising that most people feel compelled to return to work. Often the choice is non existant.

On the subject of equality, what current thinkers and consequently the government doesn't recognise even in this day and age is that bringing up a family shouldn't be a second class occupation but a completely valid one, in fact it should be supported all the more for in the long run it potentially influences more people for the rest of their lives than many other jobs one could do.

If of course the answer to this one is of course what I expect it to be of "people should only get something if they give something back [financially]" then I suggest there is no real choice or if there is it is based around a playing field that is anything but level - not a "fair" or "equal" choice at all. There is also no equality because the laws and tax breaks being offered and doing the opposite by enshrining the principle of some jobs are "less worthwhile than others".

Don't get me wrong, people who work can do as good a job at parenting as those who stay at home but if you turn this sentence on its head I also believe that people who stay at home do as good a job as those who work and should be valued and rewarded in the same way.

At the end of the day lets think about what we want society to be from a big picture as well as a individualistic point of view. Lets look after our kids, cherish them and love them, encourage them and support them.

And lets ask our goverment to support those who enter into parenting in whatever way they choose to implement their parenting skills.6/16/2005 06:02:00 PM|||Antonia|||
Wanted to link to this great blog from Amanda at Pandagon on rape and whether women are ever responsible for it. The context for the blog is a notorious case in Aruba where a young woman was raped.

"Women cannot stop rape. And I'm sick of being told women don't do enough to stop assault on us. The possibility of being raped is such a huge factor in our lives that most women don't really go a day without taking precautions, usually multiple ones..."

"I refuse to be so paranoid that I won't be alone with a man I trust, though statistically speaking, that's the most dangerous thing I can probably do."

"For men who are interested in doing something to help, I recommend Men Can Stop Rape."

It looks like a great programme, and I wish we had something like it in the UK.
|||111894136608907384|||Men can stop rape6/15/2005 06:39:00 PM|||Antonia|||
You wouldn't think, in 2005, it was a big deal for the US Senate to pass an anti-lynching law, would you? Well, no, and it duly passed by acclamation on the Senate floor. So far so good.

But, a furore has erupted over the fact that there wasn't a roll-call vote, which would have forced all senators to make their views on this issue public, and over the issue of who co-sponsored the bill. In the US, all senators can co-sponsor a bill to show support for it, and nearly all did, apart from 12. More info at Kos, here. He quotes John Kerry as saying "It's a statement in itself that there aren't 100 co-sponsors", pointing out that the real issue is that "that there are those who in 2005 still refuse to sign on to a resolution condemning lynching for fear of political retribution."

Some of the Senators who didn't co-sponsor it before now have, leaving a rump of (guess what?) Republicans holding out - the list is here

Pandagon makes some good points here about the connection between anti-lynching laws and modern hate crimes laws, though you need to know that a Freeper means a right-winger.
|||111885719638092940|||US Senate passes anti-lynching law...6/15/2005 06:10:00 PM|||Antonia|||
I thought this comment on the F4J post below should get a greater readership:

I have had personal experience of threatening and intimidating from F4J members, my ex is one of their 'leaders'.
Perhaps I should not have been surprised, as it was a continuation of the treatment i and my children suffered while still with him, but i did not expect others to join him in his abuse of me.
I have fought for five years to protect my children from him, so that they are no longer withdrawn insular frightened kids. During that time I have had to endure around 30 court appearances costing around £40,000 (begged and borrowed from family and friends) - even my solicitor suffered from him and has allowed me to pay my bills monthly!
In spite of him unleashing his insidious brand of nastiness (in diluted form to that which we suffered) on most of the 'professionals' involved in the case - they had to follow 'protocol' which meant most of his activities were watered down.
Earlier this year, we was caught out lying under oath and continuing to twist maniuplate control - needless to say, he is no longer able to use the courts in his attempts to further abuse the children. My misery, I fear, will continue for the rest of my life.
I am aware that a number of F4J's other 'leaders' are aware of what he has done, yet he is still there with them. Says a lot, doesn't it?
Whenever I see anything to do with F4J, i experience panic, because i know he is something to do with it, even in the background. He has bought F4J people to court hearings - they have scared and frightened me and my supporters - they glare nastily, move around me, getting so close they could almost touch, they refuse to move away. People might say i am weak - i would answer - speak to survivors and ask them what is worse - thy physical violence... or the emotional violence?
No i don't hate them - i hate what they do. No i don't hate him - i dont have enough time - i spend it all being scared.
to all in F4J: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE - leave me and my kids alone - in peace
|||111885544266528211|||F4J - comment from an ex-partner6/17/2005 04:05:04 PM|||Anonymous|||Mr Blunkett was also accused in the same way, in fact his ex was suffering from so much stress it was stated she could have lost the child.6/17/2005 04:10:11 PM|||Anonymous|||He should be removed immediatly from his post as MP. We should have start a lobbying group up her and have him removed from his post in the government.6/17/2005 04:40:07 PM|||Anonymous|||The right honourable member for parliament Mr. Blunkett has never been a member of fathers for justice, or even supported them. They are just a bunch of immature thugs and to place him in with this gang is appalling. He has placed his trust in the British legal system of justice, as all good loving fathers should do. Those father thugs when confronted with justice are “shocked that they were removed from their children” is it no surprise, when you discover their real dark tactics of intimidation and terror.

I refuse to print my name due to reprisals that those thugs would reap upon me. This is just another example of how good citizens live in fear. Their leaders and members should be locked up immediately. This is the kind of message that should be sent to their children, that might stop some of the young lawlessness which they keep complaining about in fatherless homes, criminals and thugs should not be made into heroes.6/17/2005 04:49:18 PM|||info@f4jnortheast.co.uk|||"He has placed his trust in the British legal system of justice, as all good loving fathers should do"

And now its reported he gets 2 hours a month supervised contact with his son.(Link.. http://www.parents4protest.co.uk/p4p/david_blunkett.htm )
Generous contact????

2 hours a month, can any parent reading this imagine being restricted to 2 hours a month with their child?

If anyone reading this blog thinks that family law will mete out justice, think again.

Child's best interest paramount?Replace the word 'child' with 'mother'.6/17/2005 05:48:33 PM|||Antonia|||info@f4jnortheast.co.uk:

Why you think one case proves anything I don't know. I'm sure that the judge reached the right decision for that family. These days families don't fit neatly into little boxes, and when partnerships break up, people are left unhappy. If the parents can't agree, it's up to the courts to decide how often children see a non-resident parent, taking all considerations, not just the wishes of the father into account, but basing their decision always on what is best for the children involved. I'm confident they're doing that.6/18/2005 01:22:01 AM|||info@f4jnortheast.co.uk|||The judge did not reportedly reach any decision in this case, DB accepted an offer for 'some' contact from the mother's side rather than having none at all.

Again, due to laws of secrecy we know very little about this case, hence so many personal accounts of mistakes made by courts.



Layton from P4P has streamed ITV's recent item on family law, no superheroes, just Denise Robertson and a couple of recognised legal profs debating the failings of our 'great' justice system. http://www.parents4protest.co.uk/media/ITV_%20Fathers%20_Eoc.wmv

"taking all considerations, not just the wishes of the father into account, but basing their decision always on what is best for the children involved. I'm confident they're doing that"

Your confidence in the secret family law system is based on what exactly?

One size does not fit all, I agree, but when barristers, solicitors, high court judges, head of sfla, chief exec of cafcass etc all agree that the law is failing families then surely even a belligerent blogger like yourself can agree that family law is not working and is in desperate need of radical reform?

There may be many critisisms of F4J and followers, but only by campaigning and raising these issues will sensible debate and reform ever happen.

The next generation may look back at this time in history and wonder why it took so long for our leaders to accept that many families have suffered through some terrible injustices.

Next time you are in your office or a social gathering ask a few people if they know of any of their family who have had problems with contact or in the family court, you will not have to look very far to find injustice.6/18/2005 01:45:10 AM|||info"f4jnortheast.co.uk|||http://www.parents4protest.co.uk/media/ITV%20This%20Morning%20Social%20Services.wmv

This was the link I meant to paste, oops!6/20/2005 08:50:45 AM|||Anonymous|||Mr Blunkett was accused of endangering the life of an unborn child, which as it turns out was not his.

He is not a fit father and places his own selfishness above that of the child. He should be removed from his position as Mp immediatley. The fact he was allowed 2 hours a month is shocking.6/20/2005 09:18:38 AM|||Anonymous|||As I recall Blunkett introduced the new changes to Domestic violence laws. If an individual feels threatened or intimitated by the ex partner, then this constitutes domestic violence.

By forcing the poor mother (she stated she was extremly stressed by his aggressive approach) to court he has in fact committing domestic violence. This may explain why he received supervised contact, and yes he should be removed from his post, this would send a messege to all those fathers forcing mothers to court, that this aggressive behavior is not accabtable.
It is a mothers role to decide on contact not the father or the courts.6/20/2005 01:12:30 PM|||Anonymous|||Another story of a dangerous father, endagering the lives of others.

Mother who fought case from sick bed
By Rebecca Smith Health Correspondent, Evening Standard
3 December 2004
Kimberly Quinn fought against the application by David Blunkett from a hospital bed.
Seven months pregnant Mrs Quinn was taken to St Mary's, Paddington on Tuesday after collapsing at home. She was said to be vomiting and had lost weight.
She attempted to argue that the hearing this week should not go ahead because the strain would put her own health and that of her unborn child at risk.
Instead, she wanted the hearing delayed until April. But the judge, Mr Justice Ryder, ruled that the 44-year-old Spectator publisher was well enough to instruct her legal team even though he accepted that she was experiencing "relatively severe complications" with the pregnancy.
However, today's hearing renews speculation about the state of her health at the time she became caught up in a high-profile battle with Mr Blunkett. Although she is not currently working as Spectator publisher, she has held a demanding job.
Today experts said that high levels of stress can cause serious complications during pregnancy that harm both mother and child.
Because of her age, Mrs Quinn is more likely to suffer complications and with the case coming to court now, it is a delicate time.
When a high level of stress continues for a long period, it may contribute to potentially serious health problems, such as lowered resistance to infectious diseases, high blood pressure and heart disease.
Some studies have shown that very high levels of stress can increase the risk of premature birth - Mrs Quinn's husband Stephen has already expressed his concern about this. There is also a risk of low birth weight.
Stress in the later stages of pregnancy can have devastating consequences. Studies have suggested that stress-related hormones constrict blood flow to the placenta so the baby does not receive the nutrients and oxygen it needs.
Research has found that women with stressful jobs are more likely to develop pre-eclampsia, which can be
a dangerous condition in which the blood pressure goes too high. There is also a concern that high levels of stress may increase the risk of miscarriage.
Major stressful events during pregnancy such as the death of a partner or job loss have been linked to autism in children.
There is a growing body of evidence to show that stress during pregnancy affects the baby's heart rate and may have long-term consequences for the cardiovascular system.6/20/2005 02:22:46 PM|||info@f4jnortheast.co.uk|||"It is a mothers role to decide on contact not the father or the courts."

Wow!!Therein lies the levels of discrimination and bias leveled against male carers and fathers this thread has generated.

As a single father with residence should I have handed back our then 10 month old daughter to an alcoholic mum incapable of looking after herself?

Mother knows best eh?Her judgement is paramount?B*ll*x!

There are good and bad parents whatever the gender, as such they should be treated equally as responsible for their offspring, appart from breast feeding there is absolutely no aspect of parenting a father is not capable of, so why descriminate?

So dads should just accept that if they get divorced, whoevers at fault, that its up to mum whether he can 'see' their kids?

Well whatever colour the sky is is anon at 9.18's world, I'm glad at least there is an inneffective family court to turn to rather than no legal redress at all.

Blunkett got his 2 hrs a month by consent after Ms Quinn bowed to pressure exerted by her close friends that fathers should play a role in the lives of the children, the court ordered nothing but the dna test and a review the last we heard in the press.6/20/2005 11:33:09 PM|||Anonymous|||I saw the news, saying that the mother was suffering stress. The next day, she was peddling her lies to the papers. How anyone can support this blatant cheat and liar, is beyond me!6/20/2005 11:39:45 PM|||Anonymous|||I feel threatened my my ex. She abused me, and still abuses my children. Beceause i am male, i can do nothing. Thanks to femenist bigots like you lot, my children face danger and abuse daily. She gets away with it, because she is female.

As for dragging women to court, being a form of dv, it shows yet again, that women will use dv as an excuse for anything, and think nothing of abusing children, to hurt their ex.

I have a REAL victim of dv, in my family, and you lot should be ashamed of yourselves.

All women, who use their children, are child abusers - no if's no buts!6/21/2005 12:54:14 PM|||Antonia|||Anonymous at 11.39pm:
"I feel threatened my my ex. She abused me, and still abuses my children. Beceause i am male, i can do nothing. Thanks to femenist bigots like you lot, my children face danger and abuse daily. She gets away with it, because she is female."

If your wife is abusing your children, go to the police. I can assure you that if you have some evidence of child abuse, they will take you seriously.

"women will use dv as an excuse for anything, and think nothing of abusing children, to hurt their ex."

This is misogynist rubbish.6/21/2005 03:10:28 PM|||Anonymous|||We live in a free society and Kimberly Quinn has every right to let the public know of her suffering at the hands of her ex. As again we see the true colours of these men with the language they use "misogynist" plain and simple.

As for the police they would not ignore real issues of domestic violence towards children. Again this individual is confusing protecting children from dangerous fathers, with imagined examples that any police officer would laugh at. Show us the evidence of this domestic violence, what there is none? What a suprise. And do not forget 2 women a week die at the hands of their partners, lets see you try and spin that fact.6/21/2005 08:20:31 PM|||Anonymous|||There you go - "give me evidence of dv". Why do i need evidence? Women don't need any. It is up to the man to prove his innocence. So why not the women. I will continue to defend children, while you lot continue to use them.

Antonia, as a Labour activist, you must be so proud of Margeret Hodge's record in Islington. How many children, were raped and abused, in a council she was responsible for. Nobody took any notice then.

And what sort of Man, is Tony Blair, to promote her to children's minister. I suppose this is also misogynist rubbish.

He, Margaret Hodge, and any other person, ignoring the need's of children, just to appease women, should hang their heads in shame!6/21/2005 09:05:29 PM|||Anonymous|||"As for the police they would not ignore real issues of domestic violence towards children. Again this individual is confusing protecting children from dangerous fathers, with imagined examples that any police officer would laugh at. Show us the evidence of this domestic violence, what there is none? What a suprise. And do not forget 2 women a week die at the hands of their partners, lets see you try and spin that fact."

Just for the record, i do have the evidence, of both DV against myself, and my children. Why do you lot on here, feel the need to shout down, anyone who dare tell you, that women can be BAD!. I don't need spin. I will leave that, to Antonia, and her party.

And i do not need lessons from anyone on here about DV. I spent 4 weeks in intensive care, and a year visiting hospital, to see my sister - a REAL victim of DV, by a coward scum of a so called man.

I have seen both sides - false claims, by angry ex's, and real claims, for which the abuser gets just a few years, if that, in prison.

And then, of course, there is the abuse of my children, by their mother, who only the NSPCC gave a damn about. So you lot continue promoting the myth, that women are hard done by, and can do no wrong.

I will return to the real world, where thing's are so much different.6/22/2005 12:03:45 PM|||Anonymous|||Definition of Domestic Violence from
the Crown Prosecution Service
"Domestic violence" is a general term to describe a
range of behaviour often used by one person to
control and dominate another with whom they have,
or have had, a close or family relationship and in
which the abuser operates from a position of
perceived power.
For the purposes of prosecuting offences, The
CPS definition of domestic violence is:
"Any criminal offence arising out of physical,
sexual, psychological, emotional or financial abuse
by one person against a current or former partner in
a close relationship, or against a current or former
family member."
This definition includes all forms of violent and
controlling behaviour and includes familial elder
abuse, sibling abuse, parent abuse and in-law abuse,
regardless of gender or age of either the victim or
defendant.6/22/2005 03:33:22 PM|||Anonymous|||I consider the last post regarding domestic violence was not comprehensive and have added additional information provided by the Oxfordshire County Council. Please note the additional definition of threatening mothers with court action, as part of domestic violence.

http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/index/protecting/commsafety/domestic-violence/definition.htm

Domestic violence definition

“The term ‘domestic violence’ can be any violence between current or former partners in an intimate relationship, wherever and whenever the violence occurs. The violence may include physical, sexual, emotional or financial abuse”. (Home Office, 1999)

A domestic violence incident occurs every 6-20 seconds (BCS '2000).

Domestic violence covers a range of situations, which may include:

physical, sexual or psychological abuse e.g. slapping, pushing, kicking, punching, stabbing, rape, verbal abuse, humiliation

financial or emotional deprivation e.g. withholding money, not allowing friends to visit or phone calls

the use or threat of using legal sanctions against a partner e.g. threats about the custody of the children, threats of deportation

denial of rights e.g. denial of medical care, physical freedom.6/23/2005 03:34:05 PM|||Anonymous|||This post has been removed by a blog administrator.6/30/2005 01:00:16 PM|||Anonymous|||This post has been removed by a blog administrator.6/30/2005 01:06:07 PM|||Anonymous|||This post has been removed by a blog administrator.7/01/2005 01:42:50 PM|||Anonymous|||Article by James Tozer and Suzanne Finney.

They bled him dry, says fiancee.

A FATHER was driven to suicide because the demands of the Child Support Agency left him with as little as £10 a week to live on, his family said yesterday.

Leigh Eglon, a hospital operating theatre nurse, became increasingly desperate as money deducted for his ex-wife to look after their three children left him unable to get by.

Finally the 41-year-old injected himself with a fatal mixture of drugs at the home he shared with his fiancee, Christine Allcock.

Now she and Mr Eglon's father have told an inquest they hold the CSA responsible for his death.

"The CSA were bleeding him dry - and they are to blame for his death" said Miss Allcock, also a nurse. "They were taking so much money off him he couldn't meet his other commitments."

His father Derek added: "His other debts were mounting and it was like climbing a greasy pole. Many people have died because of the incompetence of the CSA system and it was a major factor in my boy's death."

Mr Eglon separated from his wife Connie in 2001 after ten years together, divorcing shortly afterwards, the inquest in Manchester was told.

The former RAF serviceman became engaged to Miss Allcock, but at Christmas 2002 the mounting demands for child maintenance payments were driving him to despair, she told the hearing.

In one week, although he was paid more than £500, he was left with only £10 by the time the CSA deductions and tax were taken, she said.

That left him unable to afford Christmas presents for his children, now aged nine, 11 and 13, or even visit them.

Miss Allcock told coroner Leonard Gorodkin she had once talked Mr Eglon out of ending his life. He had told her: "I am tired of this world. The b******s cannot get me when I'm gone."

Speaking later from the terraced house they shared in Manchester, she said: "Leigh loved his kids and wanted to provide for them, but the payments were just too much."

"He worked hard but was left with so little, he felt demoralised and often had to ask me for money."

"Before Christmas in 2002, he was paid just over £500, but after tax and national insurance were deducted and the CSA took their chunk, he was left with £10. He got depressed and could not see any way out."

Miss Allcock said her fiance told her the CSA payments deducted from his wages were erratic. As an agency nurse, his wage varied each month.

Miss Allcock said, "The CSA did not take the same amount every month. Sometimes they got nothing if he hadn't been working, other times they took about a quarter of his wage after tax, which was OK, but other times he said they took almost all of it."

Mr Eglon had also not paid the rent on their council home for six months. He had received a court summons after failing to pay utility bills and was behind on payments for a loan, He had also acquired a £1,000 overdraft.

Miss Allcock added: "He never told me it had got this bad. I think he just felt trapped by them taking all this money away from him."

"He tried to explain the situation but the problem with the CSA was lack of communication between departments. It was either a different department or computers were down or they couldn't find the records."

Although the agency eventually reduced Mr Eglon's payments, he still continued to labour under the debts he had accumulated, and in August last year Miss Allcock discovered his body at their home.

Mr Gorodkin returned a verdict of suicide. Last night the agency said it could not comment on individual cases but insisted that a parent's contributions could be reassessed if their circumstances changed.

It is not the first time the CSA has been blamed for a death. In 2000 friends of policeman Terry Brett, of Cambridgeshire, told how he took his life after its demands left him in dire financial straits.7/01/2005 06:20:00 PM|||Antonia|||I've removed a couple of huge posts that were records of court cases. The Anonymouses who posted them are welcome to repost links and a brief commentary about why they are relevant to the discussion, but I don't see why I should have to host enormous cut-and-paste screeds.

Sorry all, my blog, my rules.7/04/2005 09:02:13 AM|||Anonymous|||You are removing evidence of state sponsored intimadation and harrassment. These are examples of what citizens of this nation are subjected to on a daily basis. From solicitors (including your own) Expert witnesses, CAFCASS, judges, CSA.

Though I should be gratefull that you did not remove the evidence of Blunkett who by your own councils definition committed domestic violence, just read his ex's story above.

All the so called stakeholders of family law can walk into your life remove everything, support unfounded accusations. At anytime during the completion of your destruction by these individuals you raise your voice or show emotion you will automatically be deemed to require "anger management" to deal with your problem or removed from your child forever.7/04/2005 09:07:01 AM|||Anonymous|||What Judges Say and Do in Britain’s Secret Family Court

[All cases involved straight-forward contact applications with no significant allegations made by either party. Full documentation available.] 8 District and High Court Judges: In a three year case extending over more than twenty hearings, none of the presiding judges have told a mother who has broken a contact order more than one hundred times either a) that contact is a good thing, or b) that breaking court orders is wrong. Dame Justice Hale: in a case where a father was appealing an earlier decision of only one hour contact per month, concluded that “this appeal is unmeritorious”. Judge Catlin: a) when a mother refused to obey an order for shared residence, he ordered the cessation of all contact between a father and his two sons in response to unsubstantiated charges of abuse; b) at a subsequent hearing 12 months later, when all charges of abuse had been dismissed by the investigating officer, he ordered 1 hour of contact between father and son per month. Mister Justice Sumner: ordered costs against a father who sought any summer holidays with his child. Mister Justice Johnson: ordered a father declared a vexatious litigant for seeking more than one overnight per fortnight with his 5-year old son. Upheld on appeal by Thorpe. Mr Justice Sumner: “It is simply not on” for any parent to return a 3½ year old child home as late as 6 pm on a Sunday. District Judge Kenworthy-Browne: A child of 3 “will have developed no Christmas associations with the father, and even if he has spent Christmases at the father’s home, he will not remember them. As such, he will not expect increased contact with his father over the holidays.” District Judge X (case pending): ordered the cessation of all contact between parent and child, with no review, “in order to try to move forward and restore the relationship.” Judge Segal: cancelled after 30 minutes a full hearing at which the father sought any summer holidays and rescheduled it for after the summer. Upheld on appeal. District Judge Lipman: ordered that a father be allowed only 2 weeks of holiday (out of a possible 13) per year: “You have the midweek contact (3 hrs per week) instead of this." District Judge Hindley: dismissed a father's application to phone his 7 yr old daughter on Christmas morning calling it “too disruptive - she would be opening her Christmas presents.” Judge Milligan, to a parent who had been unsuccessfully trying to see his child for 2 years:“This is a father who needs, in my judgment, to think long and hard about his whole approach to this question of contact and to ask himself sincerely whether in fact he seeks to promote it for his own interests dressed up as the child’s interests.” District Judge X (case pending): ordered that a father who had not been allowed to see his children for 4 months should have his case deferred for another 4 months pending investigation of an unsubstantiated 1972 domestic disagreement from a previous marriage. Mr Justice Cazalet: in hearings spaced over 2 years 1) ordered end of Friday overnights on grounds that the child had to rest after school, and 2) ordered end of Saturday overnights on grounds that she had to rest all day Sunday before school on Monday. Deputy District Judge Pauffley, in raising a father’s contact to 18 hours per month after 1½ years of litigation: “What will never be helpful is for the father to see his contact in terms of mathematical division. Apparently he is running at a disadvantage of 999 to 1 . . . The court does not look at it in those terms.” District Judge Thomas, in reply to a father who had been cut off from all contact with this three children for six months: “And I see that you would like me to grant an Order that the mother file a statement to show good reason why there should not be normal contact. Well, I’m not going to do it!” Judge Calman ordered that a father, who lived within 300 yards of his son’s primary residence, should never answer the door when his son rang. Rt Hon Lord Justice Thorpe, in rejecting the appeal of a father who wanted to cross- examine a Court Welfare Officer (whose evidence prevented him from seeing his children), affirmed that “there is no right of cross examination of Court Welfare Officers.” Mr Justice Wilson, acting against what he called “the deep wishes and feelings of three intelligent, articulate children,” ordered the end of all direct contact with their father. Upheld on appeal by Butler-Sloss, LJ. Judge X (case pending): after repeat applications about serial breaches of a contact order since early 2001, ordered that the issue be reviewed in late 2002. Mr Justice Munby ordered the end of all direct contact between a father and his three children while noting that the mother “wished the children could have contact with the father. She said there was no need for all this litigation. The children should see the father.” Judge Segal postponed a full hearing in order to obtain a Court Welfare Officer report on two parents who had brought no charges of misconduct against one another by stating: “Well, I think both parents have fallen over backwards to avoid causing the child any sort of harm, but a child always suffers when a marriage breaks down . . . You see, it is possible to kill with kindness by doing too much.” Mr Justice Sumner reproved a father who had made one application to the court over two years of litigation, and sought more than twenty-six nights of contact with his child per year:“You feel better because you can put pressure, you can bring everybody to court.” Judge Turner, in reply to a parent who sought to question a Court Welfare Officer’s report:“That confirms my suspicions. This is what members of the public do when they disagree with the recommendations. I believe that its totally wrong that members of the public can challenge Judges and Court Welfare Officers. Officers should not be subjected to it. There is a procedure outside the Court about making a complaint against the Judge. Members of the public should not have the right to make complaints.” Judge Agliomby, on refusing overnight contact for the third consecutive year: “The point that struck me most was that the very first question the father asked the mother was whether they might not get on better if she let him see the child.” Judge Lamdin dismissed a father’s request (after three years of litigation) for any overnight contact with his six year old on the grounds that “the child is growing up knowing his father, and that what we are talking about, i.e. overnight staying contact, is something quite different.” Judge Kenworthy-Browne, known by the staff at First Avenue House for repeatedly bringing his dog to court, rebuked a litigant-in-person for not wearing a tie. Senior District Judge Angel misinformed a complainant that “there is an unrestricted right of appeal” in contact cases. (There is, in fact, little if any right of appeal.) When this was brought to the attention of the President of the Family Division, her office replied that she“considered the matter closed.” Mr Justice Munby sentenced a father to four months in prison for giving his children Christmas presents (a bike, a camera and a walkman) during a scheduled contact meeting. Upheld on appeal by Thorpe LJ and Butler-Sloss LJ. Judge Goldstein, after a father filed a complaint against him, ordered all contact between that father and his children stopped for three years. Overturned on appeal by Butler-Sloss LJ, who described the judge’s behaviour as “outrageous.” Judge Plaskow rejected a father’s request for overnight contact with his 4-year-old, and ordered court costs against him, on the grounds that the child might require a special diet. Judge X (name withheld by litigant) told a father who sought more than 2 hours contact with his young child per fortnight that “it may well be that the father is being too possessive.” Judge Agliombi warned a father who was arguing that costs should not be ordered against him because the mother was depriving their child of a father: “If you go on like this you stand in great danger of never having staying contact with your son.” Judge X (case pending) ordered that a father, who had waited seven months for a full hearing without seeing his children, be permitted for six months to write them no more than one card/letter every three weeks, without any direct contact. Judge Lloyd ordered that an ordinary father be permitted to write his child once per fortnight on the condition that the letter’s contents be reviewed by an officer of the court.7/04/2005 09:30:20 AM|||Anonymous|||This post has been removed by a blog administrator.6/14/2005 12:02:00 AM|||Antonia|||
Okay, so there’s been a mini-explosion of comments below at the first F4J post, so I thought I’d reprise why I detest them and their fathers’ rights crusade.

But first, from one professional campaigner to another, kudos to F4J for a magnificent media campaign and an imaginative conceit - fathers as superheroes. Shame about the cause.

I’m glad F4J has imploded because:

1. Their campaigns are based on a bogus claim to be standing up for their “rights”. Rights campaigns are powerful, and, to use a word of the moment, they resonate with a large section of the population who are prepared to support the campaigns of underprivileged groups claiming what is rightfully theirs. As such, framing their cause as one of “rights” is savvy. But, in the end, it’s not about the “rights” of the father or even of the parents, but about the welfare of the child. In most cases the mother has been the primary caregiver of the children, and courts believe she should continue in that capacity, which is why mothers most often get sole custody. It is not due to bias against fathers in court. (On a side point, bias toward women by any court is hard for me to believe, knowing the figures of women who are raped, the tiny number that go on to report that rape, how they are subsequently treated throughout the criminal justice system and the pitful level of convictions for rape). Most mothers want their children to have contact with the children's fathers, and would only try to stop contact with them if they are worrie about the children's welfare. But, as the Newham Domestic Violence Project says, "when mothers try to protect their children from abusive fathers, they are often viewed by the courts and welfare professionals not as protective, but as obstructive, manipulative and irrationally ‘implacably hostile’." (source)

2. If there’s a rights based argument here, it’s the right of women to live a life free from violence and controlling behaviour and the fear of violence and controlling behaviour, and the right of children not to be subject to or witness violence and controlling behaviour. F4J and their advocates and offshoots belittle and question the impact of domestic violence on women and children - just see the comments below.

Just for the record (all stats available here):
  • The 2001/02 British Crime Survey (BCS) found that there were an estimated 635,000 incidents of domestic violence in England and Wales. 81% of the victims were women. Domestic violence incidents also made up nearly 22% of all violent incidents reported by participants in the BCS. (Home Office, July 2002).
  • In "Routes to Safety" 76% of separated women suffered post-separation violence. Of these women:
    o 76% were subjected to continued verbal and emotional abuse
    o 41% were subjected to serious threats towards themselves or their children
    o 23% were subjected to physical violence
    o 6% were subjected to sexual violence
    o 36% stated that this violence was ongoing
    In addition to this, more than half of those with post-separation child contact arrangements with an abusive ex-partner continued to have serious, ongoing problems with this contact (Humphreys & Thiara, 2002).
  • In 1999 a survey of 130 abused parents found that 76% of the 148 children ordered by the courts to have contact with their estranged parent were said to have been abused in the following ways during visits: 10% were sexually abused; 15% were physically assaulted; 26% were abducted or involved in an abduction attempt: 36% were neglected during contact, and 62% suffered emotional harm. Most of these children were under the age of 5 (Radford, Sayer & AMICA, 1999.)
  • In their response to the consultation paper on "Contact between Children and Violent Parents", the Association of Chief Officers of Probation stated that information received from local Family Court Welfare Services suggests that domestic violence is present in almost 50% of cases, where a welfare report is ordered. (Association of Chief Officers of Probation, 1999).
  • In a survey of refuge services, Women's Aid found that 48% of the service providers stated that adequate safety measures are not being taken to ensure the safety of the child and the resident parent before, during and after contact. In five cases involving children on the Child Protection Register or Schedule 1 offenders, unsupervised contact was granted (Saunders, 2001).


Oh, and if you believe the myth that men are just as likely to be victims of domestic violence as women:
  • A 2002 report on research conducted with male respondents to the Scottish Crime Survey 2000 found that men were less likely to have been repeat victims of domestic assault, less likely to be seriously injured and less likely to report feeling fearful in their own homes. The survey retraced men who were counted as victims in the Scottish Crime Survey and found that a majority of the men who said that they were victims of domestic violence, were also perpetrators of violence (13 of 22). A significant number of the men re-interviewed (13 out of 46) later said they had actually never experienced any form of domestic abuse. (Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, 2002).


3. The effect of F4J’s campaign has been to put pressure on the family courts to grant contact even where it may not be safe to do so, putting more vulnerable women and children at risk. See the comments from the chief executives of Women's Aid and Refuge (who should know, as together they run the National Domestic Violence helpline which received 250,000 calls in 2003-04) ) and from the police here.

4. The "problem", if there is one, is far smaller than groups like F4J would have us believe. In 2003, 67,000 contact orders were granted and contact was refused in only 601 cases, less than 1% (source). As The Guardian points out, "in 1998, only 3 per cent of fathers' applications for contact orders were refused. By 2001 this had dropped to 1.3 per cent - that is 713, a figure which barely covers the number of men who murdered their wives and schedule one offenders (child abusers)". You have to ask, if so few cases were resolved with no contact granted, just what the parents in the cases where contact had been refused had done to deserve being refused contact...

5. One size demonstrably doesn’t fit all, so advocacy of “shared parenting”, a euphemism for joint custody, presumes that the best interests of the child are inevitably best served by a presumption of a 50-50 split of their time between both parents. Surely there should be as many solutions to custody disagreements as there are families involved in them? Trish Wilson has more detail on this: "Joint custody has been shown to be detrimental to children who are exposed to conflict between their parents. Joint custody also asks a lot of children. Many of them cannot handle the shunting back and forth between homes very well. They also must keep track of which home they are to be in on a given day, which is stressful for them. They lose track of their friends, and their extracurricular activities suffer when parents pay too much attention to when the children are to be with them."

6. I believe that the advances of feminism - no fault divorce, challenges to traditional gender roles, an end to acceptance of violence against women, ending the stigma of lone parenting and having children outside marriage - are good things. Do we really want to return to the days of women trapped in loveless or violent marriages, sent to homes for fallen women and stigmatised for bearing illegitimate children? The inference is that F4J and their fellow travellers do: "The legacy of the family breakdown and the fragmentation of parent/child relationships is all around us. Teenage crime, drug taking, truancy and general delinquency... The UK has the second highest rate of young offending in Western Europe. Is it coincidence that the explosion in young offending has happened under a government that is systematically denying thousands of children 'contact' with their fathers? "

Yet we know that there is no link between single parent families and crime - "studies have shown repeatedly a consistent relationship between juvenile delinquency and large family size, marital disharmony, alcohol abuse in parents and overall social deprivation. A consistent relationship has also been shown with delayed reading age, below average scores on intelligence and achievement tests, conduct disorder of childhood and parental aggressive behaviour." For a really extreme view of the problems that feminism has visited on fathers, see Justice for Fathers UK.

7. F4J's tactics include bullying and intimidating CAFCASS (family court) staff.
See “Spate of hoax bombs hits family courts” and "Fathers 'terrorise' lawyers": "A dossier compiled by the union representing family court staff shows its members have been sent fake letter bombs and hate mail, had rotting meat put through an office letter box and been subjected to verbal abuse. In one of the worst incidents — for which nobody has claimed responsibility — a solicitor found her car engine and headlights doused in petrol, which could have exploded when she started the engine."

8. The activists of F4J are hypocrites, as they clearly do not themselves embody the “wronged fathers” they claim to represent. See here: "While prominent members of the group defend these tactics, the truth behind many of the cases they publicise is more complex than their slogans suggest. Former wives and girlfriends who spoke to the Guardian described relationship break ups involving domestic violence, being forced to live in refuges and incidents in which their children witnessed frightening aggression by their fathers."

And here: "Williams, a 36-year-old nurse, knows from experience the picture painted by militant men's groups can sometimes be far from the truth. Her ex-husband is a member of one - and in her view, he forfeited his 'right' of access when he drove the family out of the house to a women's refuge. (The police had warned her that, if she didn't leave soon, she'd leave in a box.)"

So, that's my case. If you're interested, a couple of other bloggers have been posting on this subject too. Trish Wilson is the authority on the subject - see her blog here, Volsunga has a great blog here and last November Dead Men Left blogged here .

Oh, and just to get a few things clear. I was brought up by a father (and a mother) that I love very much, I value the men in my family and my life, and calling me a feminazi isn't likely to win me over to your case (ditto homophobia).
|||111870381955424533|||F4J Mark 26/14/2005 12:44:37 PM|||ms. b.|||Great post; I stopped writing so much on F4J when I got direct threats to my family over the phone and email! If that doesn't show the extremist nature of some of their "movement" (not to mention a disregard for the safety of children in my household) I don't know what does. Seems to me much of this "i want my kids" sentiment comes from a desire to control ex-wives more than anything else.6/14/2005 12:58:07 PM|||colin baker|||i have residence of my son now, it took well over £20k and no less than 15 court hearings to achieve this. i remain a member of Fathers4justice because i actually experienced the bias, the degradation and the abuse aided by organisations such as womens aid who openly encourage false accusations and seperation of children from their fathers. your post shows such an extreme level of ignorance and arrogance that its hardly worthy of a reply, who would take what you say seriously? keep it up madam your doing our cause the world of good by showing what sort of man-hating idiots there are out there in government.
colin baker6/14/2005 01:23:44 PM|||Anonymous|||This week I attended parents' evening at the school of my six-year-old
daughter, Katie. Nothing unusual about that, you think. Except that on this
occasion Katie's mother was sitting alongside me. It was her first
involvement in our daughter's education, and I had to introduce her to the
teacher.

Katie's mum wasn't only a stranger to the school: until a few months ago,
Katie and I had not had sight or sound of her for over two years.

To understand this, we have to go back five years to when I left the family
home taking Katie with me, following months of violence and abuse at the
hands of her mother.

One year after we moved out, I sought legal advice at my family's urging. I
was shocked to learn that, as an unmarried father, I had no parental rights
whatsoever - in fact, if Katie's mother had called the police and told them
that I had abducted our daughter, they would have been obliged to come and
remove her from my home, forcibly if necessary, and place her back with a
woman who was not even capable of looking after herself, let alone a
toddler.

I was advised to apply for a Residence Order (formerly known as 'custody'),
and six months later, after several court hearings, I gained the order by
default - uncontested by my ex.

Only now do I realise just how lucky I was (if Katie's mother had even
bothered to employ a solicitor, the outcome would probably have been very
different), and what a narrow escape I had from the gladiatorial bloodbath
which all to often ensues in family court proceedings ...

What my legal team failed to tell me was that 93% of contested residence
cases go against the father. Given the odds against me, I would have been
better advised to keep as far away from the courts as possible, but I have
the feeling that in the eyes of the lawyers I was just another unsuspecting
dad waiting to be milked of his assets (legal fees can easily run into tens
of thousands of pounds).

Following the award of residence, my ex-partner continued to see Katie in my
presence, with the expectation that, once she had received help for her
addiction and psychiatric problems, we could move on to a proper shared care
arrangement. But, three years later, her self-destructive behaviour finally
saw her sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

Her relationship with Katie broke down, as her behaviour - her unreliability
was a minor issue by comparison - degenerated to the point where she was
almost unrecognisable. Katie was scared of her.

I continued to care for and look after my daughter as any single parent
would.

I only found out how exceptional it was for a father to be the 'primary
carer' (in Courtspeak) of a young child when I ventured onto the Internet to
share advice and experiences with other single fathers around the country -
I could hardly find any others!

What I did eventually discover was to change my life, and set me on a course
of protest and activism which now consumes most of my spare time and energy.

Instead of finding other single dads, all I came across was case after case
of fathers being excluded, alienated, and hounded from the lives of their
children. If they were lucky enough to have gained a court order for some
degree of 'contact', they would still only have a 50 per cent chance of
seeing their kids (half of all such orders are breached with impunity).

Loving, decent fathers, no different from myself, were being failed on a
massive scale by the very justice system in which I had put all my trust and
faith only months earlier. Worse still, their children were suffering the
appalling abuse of being deprived of a devoted parent.

It was truly an eye-opening experience, one which led me to the first
meeting in Newcastle for Fathers-4-justice in 2003.

Two years later, and I now help in the running of the www.f4jnortheast.co.uk
website and dealing with the enquiries it generates, and in the organisation
of events around the region. I feel so strongly about this issue that I have
risked arrest (I took part in the occupation of the Middlesbrough Court by
F4J last summer) to highlight the plight of the many tens of thousands of
children, parents and grandparents whose lives are wrecked every year,
senselessly, by our inept and corrupt family courts.

As for Katie's mum, I'm just glad that she's returned to our daughter's
life. Katie knows very little about the reasons why mummy stopped coming to
see her - she just accepts that mummy has been unwell, and that sometimes
she doesn't turn up or phone when she says she will, but that she loves her
all the same.

I don't bear any malice towards Katie's mum, in spite of what Katie and I
have been through, and I hope that she has finally beaten her demons - for
Katie's sake, and for the sake of the second child she is now expecting with
her new partner.

Katie now has the opportunity to build the kind of relationship with her
mother that she should always have had, and I shall do everything I within
my means to foster it - after all, the best parent for a child is BOTH
parents. It's simple concept, but one which, tragically, our family courts
have utterly failed to take onboard.6/14/2005 01:31:49 PM|||Anonymous|||And Colin's reply shows that there remain in F4J a lot of men who simply will not read what's written. Despite clarifying that the people here are not anti-male, and clarifying that the key issue of *safe* contact is vital to both men and women alike, the typical reaction is "if you dare to criticise this one group's tactics, it proves you all hate men". What a silly argument to use for a subject so vital.

No, women don't hate men. They hate violence and control, the same as men do. There are those who hate being wrongly targeted for just trying to keep their child safe from someone violent and abusive. Women who have experienced violence don't hate those that did it, they usually despair that they are unloveable and are desperate to try to find another man who WILL love them. They wish F4J would choose their targets with more care and consideration - such as those organisations who allow parents to deny contact for NO good reason. They wish F4J would act with responsibility and consideration, and campaign with humour and PR rather than violence and threat.

That set of wishes is not a crime, and it's not proof of hatred of men. As for women's aid 'hating men' or working against them, no, they hate *violence* from men and women, not "men", a point that has been gone over time after time after time. One of the most sensible F4J members I came across asked that women's aid work with F4J to build an umbrella group, and that is a sensible suggestion. How best to go about this then? Have any of them actually tried to do this? Not to my knowledge, instead, they posted up things saying women's aid's leader was no better than Moira Hindley. Is this a responsible way to act? Any member of women's aid is called a feminazi, as is anyone who dares to stand against their tactics.

Almost 15% of womens aid groups actively help male survivors of domestic violence even though they are struggling to help even a fraction of the women and children who need help.

I've been on the receiving end of frighteningly abusive messages and emails from F4J despite me setting up a group to support male survivors, conduct that resulted in me having to involve security. Mindless, pointless abusive behaviour that actually gets in the way of finding an answer.

It needs to stop.

Matt O'Connor is realising that, all credit to him. Let's hope common sense rules and they actually get to change the law, not just launch into pointless attacks on each other for utterly wrong reasons.6/14/2005 02:01:58 PM|||Antonia|||Colin,

Where is your evidence that Women's Aid encourage "bias", "degradation", "abuse", "false accusations and seperation of children from their fathers"? From a recognised study or reputable (not-biased or ideologically opposed) source, please.

And first anonymous, I'm glad you have a good relationship with your daughter and your ex-partner, but you admit that your experience is the exception, so why does it prove in any way that F4J are not guilty of the criticisms I have made of them above?

Second anonymous, rather than working with F4J, I'm glad to see women's organisations working with reputable fathers' groups, such as Fathers Direct and Working with Men, to ensure that contact and parenting meets the needs of all parties.6/14/2005 02:26:01 PM|||Anonymous|||"And first anonymous, I'm glad you have a good relationship with your daughter and your ex-partner, but you admit that your experience is the exception, so why does it prove in any way that F4J are not guilty of the criticisms I have made of them above?"

The problem I have with your post is that it totally misses the point of what myself and other f4j'ers have been campaigning for.

All I read is violence this and violence that, no wonder f4j needs a make over if that's how we are perceived?

Membership in our area is 30% female, parental alienation is not a gender issue, we support mothers/grandparents extended families etc as well as fathers.

As a loving father with no violent convictions I campaign for truth justice and equality in family law having witnessed gender bias first hand.

In no way do I or any other f4j member support placing children in danger.Why is it that courts perceive a father being a danger after separation?Why does a mother not have to prove she is a capable parent to the court?

Maybe the conflict arises when the perception of father's roles encroaches on traditionalist view of 'mother knowing best'?A situation that capable parents like myself and Colin challenge.

In a country where 30% of childcare is done by fathers why is it that 93% of contested res cases go to mother whatever her role pre-separation?6/14/2005 02:35:27 PM|||A UK Dad|||I too am a single father and resident primary career of my child. This has not always been the case and I experienced the failings of the UK Family Courts first hand. I too went in niave and expecting a logical and reasonable outcome for a post separation parenting solution. How wrong I was and for two years I was defamed, denigrated and labelled violent, and sexually abusive. The onus was on me to prove my innocence and then suitability to even feature as a parent in my childs life.

All because the courts preferred the notion that mother had been and should continue to be the primary career, and father should be desirable if agreeable to the mother. All allegations and accusation made by the mother were believed and investigated, at great cost to me personally.

The bias is rife and the likes of F4J exist because this is the truth of the matter. I am now 3.5yrs on from my first court visit, and have been the resident parent for 1.5yrs. Yes, amazingly, I managed to turn things around and actually get the truth heard, and then finally accepted. The abuse and lies carried out against our child and myself by the mother were exposed, and her resident parent status was revoked, and now she carries the sanction of a Contact Ordered parent. In fact the very sanction a non-abusive defaulting non-resident father gets automatically. And here lies the rub.

I on the other hand believe in equal parenting and I facilitate 50/50 parenting and our child thrives between both parents homes. Mother is not empowered equally and is now unable to interfere or control the parenting relationship between child & father. I am empowered like most mothers are automatically, but like all good mother, do not abuse this power. In fact the power is very uncomfortable a burden to have, but with a mother who was incapable a parent to hold such powers, or even equal powers, this is the only solution in our case. Most cases should not have any power imbalance at all, and the starting point of all parenting decisions should be equal. Sanctions exist to remove a parents equal status, so why don’t we adopt this stance, like we do in all other walks of life, and law? F4J propose this very notion, and I fully support it.

The parenting ASBO, the Contact Order, is granted in most cases to fathers who don’t want to be a sanctioned parent. Yes, very few cases see the issuing of “No Contact”, but this is disingenuous to think this demonstrates a fair system that works for children and parents. It does not. From the 700+ Contact Orders granted each year, there is no breakdown detailing how many of these orders actually involve face-to-face interaction between parent and child otherwise known as Direct Contact. In fact a large number of Contact Orders are Indirect Contact, which can be a little as a card at Xmas sent to a solicitors office to be forwarded to the child. A father with indirect contact is guaranteed no feedback or acknowledgement that the child is even receiving the communications or that the child is even aware that the non-resident parent is still trying to maintain a parenting bond with them. Many orders just fail and never return to court, and therefore again no stats exist to show if the courts involvement was effective at all.

So figures showing how many orders are actually granted, shows a real lack of true understanding of these issues.

The second issue that I take umbrage too is the mention of DV, abusive and violent men against women and children, the minute we start talking about male parents trying to maintain a relationship with their children post separation. The two are completely different subjects and to start quoting BCS DV stats, and Women’s Aid propaganda is also disingenuous and also down right dirty tricks, trying to smoke screen over the facts.

Nothing you have said promotes the ongoing relationship of a child with both parents after separation. You have clearly shown that you do not support family values, where the key point to structured family (together or not) is the ongoing and maintained relationships and interactions of the parents with each other and with the child.

Separation and divorce should mean that adults should be adult and be responsible for their children and this includes facing the things you may not like to face…your ex partner for example. If you are from a violent relationship, then sure, any such interactions should be safe, and ensure no re-occurrences of conflict. This doesn’t need spelling out. This means dealing with these difficult cases in a well managed and also well funded way. This Government would rather continue the anti-male violent man propaganda to avoid having to make such radical investments in families post separation. If you truly care for the welfare of children you would invest in services and systems that overcome these difficulties, not continue to divide and conquer by blaming men for all of life’s ills.

Fatherless Britain is a fact not a myth. The erosion of families and the lack of involvement of fathers in the lives of their children in the last 30 years have seen the current nation we live in fall into decay. Failing student, anarchy in the classrooms, youth yob crime and the ever-growing number of teen pregnancies are the consequences of people like you continuing to stick to your argument that all men are potential abusers, and rapists.

Sorry, but you need to stop thinking that fathers fighting for their rights and their children’s rights to maintain a relationship is a bad thing, and start to see that this is exactly what this country needs. The day that dads step back into the lives of their children, and share the care and upbringing with the mothers (who have also been getting a raw deal) the better. This is not about women Vs man, mothers against fathers, it’s about this Government dividing and conquering and winning the battle of the sexes. The sooner people see through the likes of you the better.

The Family courts fail (FACT) and the efforts of F4J have publicly raised this awareness from behind the secrecy of the Family Courts. They don’t like it and your Government are having to do something, too little too late. The battle continues, and until attitudes like yours, who only see the female victim side of the argument, are shifted, will we see an end to the battle of the sexes, the condemning of parent eradication and the balancing and equalizing of parenting roles for the good of the children and society as a whole.

Tell us why this is bad. Nobody is asking women to suffer violent loveless relationships, or go back to an age where men dominated women. Get a grip of the arguments and stop using the feminist ideals to try and counter the completely different argument that parents and children should be together, and that the majority of families in this country feature no violence or abuse, yet still split up and need support to maintain a balanced and continuing family structure. This is the campaign, not the anti-feminist / male ego one you would like to paint it as. Families matter, and we as a nation support single families more than we support maintaining whole families.6/14/2005 03:11:23 PM|||Anonymous|||"All I read is violence this and violence that, no wonder f4j needs a make over if that's how we are perceived?"

Exactly, anon. Exactly.

Children's voices are lost in this mire, and F4J (run by a PR expert !!) have ended up looking like violent extremists, not like loving sad fathers denied access to their children. I would argue they have actually done real harm to their own cause. Yes, there are male victims of DV which has been stated already. Yes there are people denied good contact and parenting time for no reason, which has been stated already. The question on the table is not debating those issues, but debating why F4J uses the wrong tactics.6/14/2005 04:33:38 PM|||Anonymous|||I too am a supporter of F4J . I was just an ordinary father until 3 years ago when i discovered my wifes affair. One week i was a fully fledged dad the next week i had to go to solicitors and literally beg complete strangers to help me to see my daughter. As the years rolled on i lost complete respect for the legal system as i saw solicitors who were supposed to be trying to help me get back into my daughters life , brokering deals between each other,presenting completely irreleavnt arguments to create deliberate delay and to muddy the waters to gain more fees.

I heard how being allowed to see my daughter 4 days a month was "quite generous" , a phrase i have come to hate. Generous to who ? My daughter ? to me ? or tomy ex wife? And who was the giver of such "generocity" ?

And after 3 years of reasoning , pleading, borrowing money from anyone that wouldlend it to me ,the real bomb dropped. I was accused of DV supposedly that had been a feature of my 7 year marriage throughout. I dont know where it came from and although i had read about these nightmare scenarios never thought it would happen to me. And on nothing more than an unfounded allegation the welfare mechanism kicked in.

Thank God for any organisation that will shout loud enough to anyone who will listen. I support any group that will challenge the courst and the evil that pervades it under the banner of "the best interests of the child "

I am currentlyi lost complete respect6/14/2005 05:02:05 PM|||ms. b.|||parental alienation is not a gender issue

It's also not a bona fide syndrome..6/14/2005 06:14:54 PM|||Antonia|||Hello all,

More discussion; excellent.

Anonymous at 4.33pm - if someone is a DV perpetrator, then they shouldn't have the right to see their child. If they are suspected of being a DV perpetrator, then I'm bloody glad that the courts don't grant automatic, 50-50 contact so that perpetrators can carry on abusing their children and their mothers through them.

Anonymous at 2.26 - my original post says a lot about violence, yes - because it's about time we started taking violence against women and children seriously. But it also says stuff about the threatening and intimidating tactics used by f4j, which no-one on this board has yet repudiated; it says stuff about the disadvantages of "shared parenting"; and it reveals the truth about the F4J activists. What I don't get is this - if you're a great dad, then why on earth would you want to be associated with a group whose principal activists appear to be violent or absent?

A UK Dad - I wouldn't need to talk about DV if you didn't post about Women's Aid's "propaganda" - it's not propaganda, it's the truth, and I link to the sources, unlike you. (BTW, all posters, writing FACT after your unfounded assertions doesn't make them anything of the sort) I challenged you and all the other posters to prove your claims that Women's Aid exaggerates DV, but none of you have.

Fatherlessness doesn't cause school indiscipline, young offending or teenage pregnancy. The facts are here, from reputable peer reviewed journals. Yes, the UK government does give more support to lone parent families - that's because lone parent families are overwhelmingly poorer than two-parent families. (42% of poor children live in lone parent families - source here). Only by ensuring money gets to poor families can we really end child poverty, and we all want that, don't we?

Don't post anymore sob stories, I'm not interested in your individual experiences. Post facts that you can prove.6/14/2005 06:58:46 PM|||Richard|||Dear Antonia, I don't know if you get kicks out of blackening all
fathers reputations or not but you must stop please.
If you really knew what was going on in our world then I would
respect your comments!
Until you become a parent you can never begin to understand the
unconditional love that normal parents have for their children.
When I say normal I mean that most parents are normal but you seem
to tag all parents with the deadbeat parents tag ( yes both mothers
and fathers )! You need to realise that no father would be joining
any of these groups if all was right with the world!
I myself have had my children abducted from me by the insidious
mother and has been aided and abetted by the corrupt system.
Just because we were not compatible should not mean that post split
the father is treated worse than a criminal.
The mother in question was a very poor joint parent and would
certainly not be a good single parent. My children want to live with
me and be in their natural home and not in a council house relying
on handouts and state benefits! Their mother was offered the family
home to live with our children and refused, she uprooted them far
away and I now endure a 6 hour round trip on the worst road in
Scotland to enable me to see them.
Our children are distraught when they are returned to their mother
after spending time with me.
Antonia, can you know that I cry every day, I am absolutely
devastated with this loss, it compares with the death of a close
loved one, except.....the grief never stops!
Their mother is actively trying to block my access, asks for more
maintenance money, will not consult me on our children's welfare
issues: Schooling, Medical etc! She had signed and agreed to do this
officially but won't do it.
Their mother is a violent person, she has attacked her sister and
best friend, she also assaulted me quite badly.
"if the best interests of the children" are to be upheld then if the
world was right then our children would reside with me and not the
recalcitrant mother.
Antonia, please, please, do not think that all men are bad. I and
many other loving and devoted fathers do not condone Domestic
violence and many have been the victim of DV from the mother!
I only want what is best for our children and am up against a brick
wall when it comes to residency! Why? It is because the system is
corrupt and illegal, it is also a gravy train for the
Judges,solicitors etc that bleed the cash.
Can you tell me how a Judge or a solicitor can stand there in court
and act as "God" regarding our children? They are not qualified to
do this and this should stop immediately.
Courts are for criminals and the only thing that I am guilty of is
Loving our children!
There should be equality between parents and at the moment the
system is not treating both parents equally!
Compulsory mediation should be the way to go when separated parents
cannot come to an agreement regarding the children's welfare.
My ex refused mediation 4 times in 4 months and now she is taking me
to court to cut down my time with our children ( They are very
unhappy about this ) and yes also asking for more maintenance
money......something isn't right here Eh?
Here is another absurdity, I will be liable for her court costs!
What planet are we on? I want to sit down like two responsible
adults and sort it out, because of the system the mother finds it so
much easier to go down the court route.
This in turn will cost me a lot of wasted money on unnecessary
litigation fees etc, the mother will get free legal aid to do this!
This money would be much better spent on our children!
Antonia, the pain that I feel with all this going on can quite often
leave me drained and I find it very difficult to sleep at night due
to the pre-occupation of my mind with this torture.
It has affected my job, social life, hobbies, strained close
friendships, etc, etc.
Our children have also got extended families that they rarely or
never see, Grandparents, Uncles,Aunts, cousins, friends etc.
The damage that is being done to the children is unbelievable!
This must stop and the mothers should stop the nonsense and end the
horrible blackmail and resentment that they use against the loving
and devoted fathers, more importantly the system should also end the
misery by declaring fathers and mothers equal.
All the children want and deserve is the best start in life, at the
moment this is not happening.
Antonia, if you can? please do not condemn all the fathers and
instead please try to help the fatherless children be re-united
again.

Thank You

Richard6/14/2005 07:04:12 PM|||ms. b.|||Antonia, if you can? please do not condemn all the fathers and
instead please try to help the fatherless children be re-united
again.

Where has Antonia condemned all fathers? Maybe I failed to noticed...6/14/2005 07:07:12 PM|||Anonymous|||I have had personal experience of threatening and intimidating from F4J members, my ex is one of their 'leaders'.

Perhaps I should not have been surprised, as it was a continuation of the treatment i and my children suffered while still with him, but i did not expect others to join him in his abuse of me.

I have fought for five years to protect my children from him, so that they are no longer withdrawn insular frightened kids. During that time I have had to endure around 30 court appearances costing around £40,000 (begged and borrowed from family and friends) - even my solicitor suffered from him and has allowed me to pay my bills monthly!

In spite of him unleashing his insidious brand of nastiness (in diluted form to that which we suffered) on most of the 'professionals' involved in the case - they had to follow 'protocol' which meant most of his activities were watered down.

Earlier this year, we was caught out lying under oath and continuing to twist maniuplate control - needless to say, he is no longer able to use the courts in his attempts to further abuse the children. My misery, I fear, will continue for the rest of my life.

I am aware that a number of F4J's other 'leaders' are aware of what he has done, yet he is still there with them. Says a lot, doesn't it?

Whenever I see anything to do with F4J, i experience panic, because i know he is something to do with it, even in the background. He has bought F4J people to court hearings - they have scared and frightened me and my supporters - they glare nastily, move around me, getting so close they could almost touch, they refuse to move away. People might say i am weak - i would answer - speak to survivors and ask them what is worse - thy physical violence... or the emotional violence?

No i don't hate them - i hate what they do. No i don't hate him - i dont have enough time - i spend it all being scared.

to all in F4J: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE - leave me and my kids alone - in peace6/14/2005 08:07:35 PM|||Anonymous|||Antonia

"If they are suspected of being a DV perpetrator, then I'm bloody glad that the courts don't grant automatic, 50-50 contact so that perpetrators can carry on abusing their children and their mothers through them."

I'm not surprised some-one called you a femnazi. Your very attitude assumes that MEN (read fathers) are responsible for ALL Domestic Violence, yet something like 66% of DV against children is perpertrated by the mother or her new boyfriend.

If this is an example of your broadminded role as polotician, I am sure glad not to live in your constituency. With your narrow mind and fixed bigotries, maybe you should ask for Margaret Hodge's old job.

You (and other like you) blanketly accuse F4J memebers of hating women. How can this be so? We all have mothers, many of us have daughters who will one day become women, and we love these people to bits. It's not women we hate, it's what SOME women do, namely to our children and ourselves, that we hate, and we also despise the fact that whilst the Law is not gender biased, it practioners ARE, and that is where our repulican government lets our children down. If alledgedly democratic poloticians like yourself spoke for the avergae person in the street, rather than to further your own ego's, this country would be a good place for all familes.

Fathers 4 Justice exist because the likes of yourself created it from the foul union of selfishness and ignorance.

Dadalone6/14/2005 09:46:45 PM|||Anonymous|||parental alienation is not a gender issue

It's also not a bona fide syndrome..

That's Ok then Ms B, if it's not a bona fide syndrome it's a good idea not to believe it I suppose?6/14/2005 10:05:11 PM|||Anonymous|||Ms B said, "parental alienation is not a gender issue

It's also not a bona fide syndrome.. "

Who mentioned PAS?Not me!

Parental alienation and coaching is very much recognised in family courts today, from both genders.

Antonia said, "What I don't get is this - if you're a great dad, then why on earth would you want to be associated with a group whose principal activists appear to be violent or absent?"


As a father who is no different from many of those who have been excluded from the lives of their children, I have much empathy with the plight of any parent who is appart from their kids, it could have been very different if my ex had even bothered to seek legal advice.

As main carer for my daughter from birth I know that dads are as capable as mums if given the opportunity, I saw first hand the prejudice that exists from health profs and mothers alike towards dads with small kids.

Societies and judicary views on fatherhood must be challenged, brittish men in intact families do 30% of childcare (Source, http://www.eoc.org.uk/EOCeng/EOCcs/News/13_jan_fathers_uea.asp) so why do the family courts only typically dole out contact orders for every other weekend at best?

I want my daughter to inherit a legal system that treats both parents equally, that's why I campaign.

"a group whose principal activists 'appear' to be violent or absent?"

Your perception is based on what exactly?
A few press articles?Some questionable ambiguous testimony?

'Appear'

That is the key here, if you ever choose to delve a little deeper you may see the actual good that is done by F4J, why not visit a local meeting?I'm happy to sort you an invite to your local branch where you will receive a warm and friendly welcome, feel free to mail me at info@f4jnortheast.co.uk to arrange details.

You will find out that F4J have not and do not support individual cases, hence the court stories of intimidation are without foundation as members are barred from physically supporting others at court in family law cases.

They support each other at activist trails in large numbers yes, not at family court, no way.

If a new member turns up full of understandable frustration towards an ex partner after contact denial, he or she is guided into directing the anger in a more constructive manner, towards the system that allows and encourages the ex to deny contact, by means of non violent direct action such as protests/marches/handing out leaflets etc etc, rather than anything towards the ex.

Attendees are also directed towards lobbying MP's and writing letters to local press, before F4J there was nowhere for victims of the biased and corrupt family law system to offload and find direction and support, now we see progress after raising awareness and the start of a shift in attitude and public perception.

No way do you see violence towards ex partners or kids supported or condoned, that is a slur on the decent parents who campaign tirelessly for reform.

In fact to go further we absolutely condemn violence, we are about decent parents who wish to maintain a loving and meaningful relationship with their kids post separation.

The public perception undoubtedly varies on F4J, the public have voted in press surveys supporting our activities a resounding 80% in favour, love us or loathe us we are here to stay until the law is changed.6/14/2005 10:43:31 PM|||Anonymous|||Anonymous said at 10.05 14.06.05

"You will find out that F4J have not and do not support individual cases, hence the court stories of intimidation are without foundation as members are barred from physically supporting others at court in family law cases.

They support each other at activist trails in large numbers yes, not at family court, no way."

You are WRONG - post 15 is from me. I was there. It was a family court. It was listed only under number (no name). Yet on two days, there were F4J members there intimidating and scaring me - about 12 on the first day - i could not even begin to count on the second day, i was too scared.

So how did they get there if it was listed by number? Becuase he told his fellow F4J members, thats why. The cout had to use most of its security resources to protect me and my friend, to the point that they had to wave aside protocol and admit this friend into the courtroom for her safety becuase of F4J!

None of your comments
("Some questionable ambiguous testimony?"
+
"You will find out that F4J have not and do not support individual cases, hence the court stories of intimidation are without foundation as members are barred from physically supporting others at court in family law cases.

They support each other at activist trails in large numbers yes, not at family court, no way."
)

apply - becuase the situation was and is TRUTH regardless of how you choose to ignore it/have been brainwashed into believing otherwise6/15/2005 01:57:49 AM|||RW|||Yes, it is a shame about the cause.
Why should fathers' rights be a crusade ?
Suffragettes, yes, but why men ?
When did they earn the right ?

Antonia is right. Rights are powerful campaigning totems and so they are
best taken out of the hands of men.
Men and fathers are getting above their station and need to be slapped down.

In most cases the mother has been the primary caregiver of the children and
courts believe, rightly, that in 95% of instances, she should continue in
that capacity. If the courts had any doubts they would not do this. I'm sure
that if they looked at the NSPCC number for children abused and murdered it
would not be the mother who was the main perpetrator. If it was, by chance,
mothers who abused children more then I can't see how courts could continue
to give custody to mothers - but that isn't the case, is it, so we needn't
worry.
However, I can't help thinking that, to be consistent, the one-size-fits-all
mantra also demonstrably doesn't fit those who advocate sole residency and
so widespread sole residency must equally be rejected. From my readings of
comments made by those in the men's movement they do not want a straight
jacket of one form of custody or another but a chance to opt for a choice
befitting their circumstances - especially with more women going out to
work.

There can be bias in courts against women but unlike rape trials (criminal)
in family law courts (civil) we never know for certain because thy are held
in secret.
Steering away from any accusation of being blatantly sexist I would have to
say that if there is a rights based argument here, it is not just the right
of women to live a life free from violence but also men. As I understand it
2 women a month die as a result of domestic violence but no one mentions the
one man a month who dies in similar circumstances. We need to have a more
brotherly concern for our husbands, sons and brothers.
But everything is not all black. We should be able to take heart from recent
trends. All the British Crime Surveys, including the 2001/02 edition, show
that the level of domestic violence is actually falling. Currently it is
close to its 1987 level, having fallen year on year for 6 years. Although
there are an 'estimated' 635,000 incidents of domestic violence in England
and Wales we should remember that approximately 120,000 are male victims and
female victims account for the lower figure of around 511,000. Of that
500,000, 55% or over 230,000 are repeat or duplicate calls.
So the real level of domestic violence could be far lower than advocacy
groups would like to frighten women into believing.
Only the more gullible would be taken in by small self-selecting samples of
abused women such as the one cited from 1999. The same would be found if
abused children of fathers were sampled.
If a survey were undertaken in an insane asylum we should not be surprised
to find that our self-selecting sample produced similar proportions of
schizophrenics, manic depressives, obsessive compulsives, bi-polar disorders
etc etc.
If anything, I feel the women's movement has to do a lot more to catch up
with the accuracy of statistics produced by the fathers movement.


Yours truly,
R Whiston6/15/2005 09:23:57 AM|||paulrubert|||hello antonia and all!

my name is rubo, i'm new today, and this looks like a great blog. i would be very interested to hear antonia's and anyone else's comments on the following expereince of mine las