Fathers4justice storm Loose Women Set

stoplooklisten

In the middle of the programme, Fathers4Justice stormed the set and shouted " 'Fathers for justice! No kids no cash!'" and threw around 20 pound notes. They are accusing loose women of reverse sexism

'The group have accused Loose Women of repeatedly denigrating men and "reverse sexism". On Tuesday’s show, the model Caprice Bourret said, "Men are very simple creatures", to rolls of laughter from fellow panelists.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3642878/Fathers4Justice-campaigners-storm-set-Loose-Women.

I didn't have the pleasure of watching the show myself today but have seen it on occasion and have to agree. the amount of anti-men dribble being spouted on this particular show is outrageous, yet silence from the ususual crowd.


Fathers4justice are 'the launching of a boycott of the child support system until fathers are given equal rights'.
The spokesman said: 'The group have asked supporters to stop all child maintenance payments, averaging £300 per father per month, for at least one month.

eviltwin

I'm all for fathers rights but by not paying maintenance they are hurting the very children they claim to love.

Lollipops23

I'm totally supportive of fathers' rights, but that's a terrible idea. How is depriving their own kids of the necessities going to further their cause exactly?

osarusan

The two people behind Fathers4Justice are horrible f**kers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fathers-4-justice-and-the-mother-of-all-hate-campaigns-9786179.html

Good cause, wrong group to advance it.

stoplooklisten

PurpleAki wrote: »

There are good ways to generate attention to your plight and cause.

This was not one of them.

Why what's wrong with interrupting that awful show?

osarusan wrote: »

The two people behind Fathers4Justice are horrible f**kers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fathers-4-justice-and-the-mother-of-all-hate-campaigns-9786179.html

Good cause, wrong group to advance it.

I don't know much about the group, but the twitter case was reviewed 3 times and dropped, now they're suing for libel, if I've understood correctly. I agree with their sentiments on mumsnet et al,

Imagine if men were sitting around cackling about how women were "simple creatures"..there'd be uproar

At the end of the day, money talks. Even in this thread.. everyone most concerned about the cash, can't stop the money....meh, whatever about the rights.

The family courts are biased in most instances,

maxwell smart

retro:electro

Reverse sexism? Surely it's just sexism?

discus

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I'm totally supportive of fathers' rights, but that's a terrible idea. How is depriving their own kids of the necessities going to further their cause exactly?

Come now, don't play silly beggars. You know that they award stupidly high costs that take into account the 'mothers lifestyle' into account. When I was in the forces, I knew a lot of guys paying CSS payments, and their access was nearly always the worst possible "every second saturday 12-4, supervised". TBH, I'm not a father but I wouldn't be able to stomach my child being reared by other people but funded by me.

LDN_Irish

Loose Women and F4J in the same room at the same time? That was a missed opportunity for karma

stoplooklisten

anna080 wrote: »

Reverse sexism? Surely it's just sexism?

Thanks for explaning it, I'm just a simple creature, I wouldn't know.....here's 20 euro

Lollipops23

I think that as long as they're paying they should have reasonable access (as per the best interests of the child). Stopping payment is not the answer though- they're your child, you should pay to maintain them.

The_Valeyard

Did they go topless like that Femen group?

stoplooklisten

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I think that as long as they're paying they should have reasonable access (as per the best interests of the child). Stopping payment is not the answer though- they're your child, you should pay to maintain them.

Would you suggest harsher punishment for women who refuse access or mess about with it?

The flying mouse

Fathers get a raw deal when it comes to court/justice re children after marriage/relationship break up, In the majority of cases, the visiting rights, the finance, almost every aspect in the relationship with the father and his children is slanted towards the mother.Yet you have program's like above which if it was visa-versa there be huge outrage,If that protest is the only way to bring the attention of there points to the masses, so be it. Equality is a two way street.

It is changing slowly but very very slowly. (I talking about here)

discus

What is the answer? The courts are useless, women can and do make up lies about their partner to secure better terms, Police hand out protection notices because they live in fear of getting it wrong.... What is next? All they want to do is see their children. If it makes the public take notice, I'm all for it.

Dravokivich

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I think that as long as they're paying they should have reasonable access (as per the best interests of the child). Stopping payment is not the answer though- they're your child, you should pay to maintain them.

I think that would be simplifying the issue.

A lot of the time, it's felt that maintenance is not just contributing towards the child, but also supplementing the other parent.

Access should not be based on payment of maintenance either. They are 2 separate issues and should be treated individually. On the basis of that, I do not agree with withholding maintenance for more access.

beach_walker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rihu8_nbhw8

Muahahaha

Blast from the past

http://fddp.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/09/14/batman_wideweb__430x300.jpg

That was in 2004, its a very long campaign they're on

Potatoeman

discus wrote: »

What is the answer? The courts are useless, women can and do make up lies about their partner to secure better terms, Police hand out protection notices because they live in fear of getting it wrong.... What is next? All they want to do is see their children. If it makes the public take notice, I'm all for it.

No maintenance, just split all cost and time with the child.

discus

discus wrote: »

What is the answer? The courts are useless, women can and do make up lies about their partner to secure better terms

Men lie too in Court to secure better terms. All the time. No they don't drink and never raised their voices, no they didn't cheat, no they don't earn a cent more than what appears on their tax returns and never do nixers etc. etc.

People lie.

pickarooney

discus wrote: »

What is the answer? The courts are useless, women can and do make up lies about their partner to secure better terms, Police hand out protection notices because they live in fear of getting it wrong.... What is next? All they want to do is see their children. If it makes the public take notice, I'm all for it.

Well maybe they should have sabotaged their careers and stayed at home to mind them then instead of enjoying the high life in the factory/office 40 hours a week.

Potatoeman

Potatoeman wrote: »

No maintenance, just split all cost and time with the child.

Usually tricky, particularly if one parent has moved away and one thinks about matters like school, homework, activities at weekends etc.

discus

Cool, so working on the fact that people lie - presumably, equally split across the genders - why are men still getting a fraction of the custody yet still being the ones to pay up?

Tasden

Dravokivich wrote: »

Access should not be based on payment of maintenance either. They are 2 separate issues and should be treated individually. On the basis of that, I do not agree with withholding maintenance for more access.

This 100%.

Whatever your opinion on how the other parent is spending the money or the fairness of the amount or any other issues, access is an entirely seperate issue to maintenance and linking the two together is a slippery slope.

Sure what happens if the father is a well known dangerous drug addicted criminal who puts his child's life in danger every time he has access, he should continue be given all the access hours he wants because he can afford to pay a lot in maintenance from his criminal dealings?

Access should be granted on the basis of what is best for the child. Maintenance should be assessed based on genuine need and ability to pay. One should not depend on the other, and they are doing absolutely nothing to help their cause by encouraging people to withold maintenance. Its doing the same thing many parents are berated for when they don't let the other parent see the child until they pay. Both are equally selfish.

And I'm saying that as a single parent who recieves zero maintenance and is still continually trying to maintain and encourage what little is left of the father and child's relationship.

glued

stoplooklisten wrote: »

Would you suggest harsher punishment for women who refuse access or mess about with it?

Didn't you know? It's perfectly fine to use the child as a weapon against the father.

eviltwin

discus wrote: »

Cool, so working on the fact that people lie - presumably, equally split across the genders - why are men still getting a fraction of the custody yet still being the ones to pay up?

Do you not think a parent should support their offspring?

glued

glued wrote: »

Didn't you know? It's perfectly fine to use the child as a weapon against the father.

No it's not.

Potatoeman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Usually tricky, particularly if one parent has moved away and one thinks about matters like school, homework, activities at weekends etc.

That would be a special circumstance. The 50/50 split would mean less court involvement

stoplooklisten

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you not think a parent should support their offspring?

When family's split, maybe both parents should be forced to work full time and wages garnished. children will be in school/daycare/.

ceadaoin.

Potatoeman wrote: »

No maintenance, just split all cost and time with the child.

That's great in theory but the fact is, lots of men don't want to have the child half the time, or even any of the time in some cases. I don't know why women get the blame for this.

discus wrote: »

Cool, so working on the fact that people lie - presumably, equally split across the genders - why are men still getting a fraction of the custody yet still being the ones to pay up?

Because more women still end up being the primary caregiver, even those that are working full time.

discus

eviltwin wrote: »

discus wrote: »

Cool, so working on the fact that people lie - presumably, equally split across the genders - why are men still getting a fraction of the custody yet still being the ones to pay up?

Do you not think a parent should support their offspring?

Support isn't money. Supporting a child is leading by good example in every aspect of your life. It's teaching your child how to get about in life, helping with academic work, providing a shoulder to cry on and to watch out for any trouble or issues your child might have. Money should be the last thing.

But there we have it. In the eyes of eveiltwin, a mans support is only as much money that he provides.

SEPT 23 1989

Any mother who denies a father access out of spite is an absolute toerag

Fair f*cks to them.

Potatoeman

ceadaoin. wrote: »

That's great in theory but the fact is, lots of men don't want to have the child half the time, or even any of the time in some cases. I don't know why women get the blame for this.

That would be abandonment and necessitate intervention. I didn't blame anyone. The whole process should be simpler if possible.

Tasden

Tasden wrote: »

Sure what happens if the father is a well known dangerous drug addicted criminal who puts his child's life in danger every time he has access, he should continue be given all the access hours he wants because he can afford to pay a lot in maintenance from his criminal dealings?

Why go directly to the utterly ridiculous, oulandish example?

Of course nobody is saying that payment of maintenance should result in access in circumstances where there is a likelihood of danger to the child's health or wellbeing. Surely that's implied into a reasonable, adult conversation ffs?

Why not deal with the real issue, which applies to the overwhelming majority of cases, where neither parents live in dangerous environments, where both want the best, but one parent, by dint of sex, is generally presumed to become the primary carer, where the child is only given limited access to the parent of the male sex.

Tasden

discus wrote: »

Support isn't money. Supporting a child is leading by good example in every aspect of your life. It's teaching your child how to get about in life, helping with academic work, providing a shoulder to cry on and to watch out for any trouble or issues your child might have. Money should be the last thing.

But there we have it. In the eyes of eveiltwin, a mans support is only as much money that he provides.

As the mother who is the sole provider of every kind of support to my child because their dad left, i can assure you money is the form of support that causes most stress in my case. Working to get money costs me money. Working so much because im the sole earner means i have less time with my child. Less time to provide her all the other supports you list in that post.

Yes children need all types of support but you cannot act like money is irrelevant to their upbringing.

Potatoeman

Tasden wrote: »

This 100%.

Whatever your opinion on how the other parent is spending the money or the fairness of the amount or any other issues, access is an entirely seperate issue to maintenance and linking the two together is a slippery slope.

Sure what happens if the father is a well known dangerous drug addicted criminal who puts his child's life in danger every time he has access, he should continue be given all the access hours he wants because he can afford to pay a lot in maintenance from his criminal dealings?

Access should be granted on the basis of what is best for the child. Maintenance should be assessed based on genuine need and ability to pay. One should not depend on the other, and they are doing absolutely nothing to help their cause by encouraging people to withold maintenance. Its doing the same thing many parents are berated for when they don't let the other parent see the child until they pay. Both are equally selfish.

And I'm saying that as a single parent who recieves zero maintenance and is still continually trying to maintain and encourage what little is left of the father and child's relationship.

I wouldn't have much faith in a mother that would choose a well know drug addict criminal as the father of her child either.

Tasden

Tasden wrote: »

This 100%.

Whatever your opinion on how the other parent is spending the money or the fairness of the amount or any other issues, access is an entirely seperate issue to maintenance and linking the two together is a slippery slope.

Sure what happens if the father is a well known dangerous drug addicted criminal who puts his child's life in danger every time he has access, he should continue be given all the access hours he wants because he can afford to pay a lot in maintenance from his criminal dealings?

Access should be granted on the basis of what is best for the child. Maintenance should be assessed based on genuine need and ability to pay. One should not depend on the other, and they are doing absolutely nothing to help their cause by encouraging people to withold maintenance. Its doing the same thing many parents are berated for when they don't let the other parent see the child until they pay. Both are equally selfish.

And I'm saying that as a single parent who recieves zero maintenance and is still continually trying to maintain and encourage what little is left of the father and child's relationship.

But do you think custody should be given automatically to the mother, which, let's face it, happens 99% of the time?

stoplooklisten

What if its the mother that's the well known dangerous drug addict?


or has a constant stream of strange men coming through the place?

Tasden

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Why go directly to the utterly ridiculous, oulandish example?

Of course nobody is saying that payment of maintenance should result in access in circumstances where there is a likelihood of danger to the child's health or wellbeing. Surely that's implied into a reasonable, adult conversation ffs?

Why not deal with the real issue, which applies to the overwhelming majority of cases, where neither parents live in dangerous environments, where both want the best, but one parent, by dint of sex, is generally presumed to become the primary carer.

Because if grown adults can't understand why access and maintenance shouldn't be linked then they may understand one possible clear cut example where it obviously wouldn't work. There are plenty others where it wouldn't work, just like the one in op where if men are unhappy with their access agreement /order they withold payment. They are separate issues and one isn't dependent on the other, for very good reason.

Ave Sodalis

SEPT 23 1989 wrote:

Any mother who denies a father access out of spite is an absolute toerag

Agreed, but any father that doesn't realise that maintenance is meant to go towards children, and cuts it out of spite is equally as toeragged.... and arguably worse.

stoplooklisten

sup_dude wrote: »

Agreed, but any father that doesn't realise that maintenance is meant to go towards children, and cuts it out of spite is equally as toeragged.... and arguably worse.

and any mother that doesn't realise that maintenance is meant to go towards children and spends it on nails and hairdos...

Ave Sodalis

stoplooklisten wrote:

and any mother that doesn't realise that maintenance is meant to go towards children and spends it on nails and hairdos...

I can honestly say that I have never seen that happen, and the only people I hear it from is fathers who feel they shouldn't have to pay anything.

sup_dude

sup_dude wrote: »

I can honestly say that I have never seen that happen, and the only people I hear it from is fathers who feel they shouldn't have to pay anything.

But surely if they are expected to pay, they should be allowed to have 50/50 access with their child?

I'm sorry, but a father being denied the right to see their child is utterly disgusting, especially if they are a good one.

Tasden

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But do you think custody should be given automatically to the mother, which, let's face it, happens 99% of the time?

No. Never said that.

I purely gave one possible (extreme, fair enough) example of why people shouldn't be calling for maintenance and access to be dependent upon each other. Every single case should be based on its own merits.

Story Bud?

What if we all stopped posting the most extreme examples ffs.

In general, men who are not abusive, violent, dangerous etc, should not have to fight for access to their children. They should not have to beg anyone to be allowed them see them as often as they wish (being reasonable of course to have a structure of some sort in place for the child's stability).

The level of maintenance paid should have absolutely nothing to do with access.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Fathers' rights are a joke, probably more here than in the UK. There are tens of thousands of dead-beat dads, but that shouldn't get taken out on all the decent men who want to support their child and have a good relationship with them. Of course the other thing is that in cases where both parties are behaving decently and not weaponising their child, it doesn't get to court. It probably seems like there's far more useless lumps/vindictive wagons around than there are because of that.

I'm not sure I'm a fan of the attitude of 'I'm not getting the time with my child that I've bought and paid for' though. You can't pay your way into being a suitable caregiver. F4J tactics aren't to everyone's taste, but they've brought more attention to the issue than anyone else, like a lot of issues polite and easily ignorable protest doesn't do shít. But yeah, no kids no cash, ew.

Tasden

Tasden wrote: »

Because if grown adults can't understand why access and maintenance shouldn't be linked then they may understand one possible clear cut example where it obviously wouldn't work. There are plenty others where it wouldn't work, just like the one in op where if men are unhappy with their access agreement /order they withold payment. They are separate issues and one isn't dependent on the other, for very good reason.

The golden rule of citizenship in a fair society is this: Rights and obligations are counteracting forces. Obligations entail corresponding rights, and vice versa.

There absolutely should be a rebuttable presumption that a parent who is obliging with their responsibilities towards their children, financial and otherwise, should have coextensive rights in the upbringing of that child.

That is a perfectly just principle, and the only argument I have seen used in countering that principle has tended to be implicitly sexist in nature.

ceadaoin.

Deleted User wrote: »

But surely if they are expected to pay, they should be allowed to have 50/50 access with their child?

I'm sorry, but a father being denied the right to see their child is utterly disgusting, especially if they are a good one.

They arent paying for access, they are paying towards the upbringing of their child. Some fathers have been denied access to their children by the courts, for valid reasons. Of course, if you ask them their ex is a bitch, made up lies etc. They still have to pay maintenance though.

Yes, women withholding access to a good father if they don't get money is wrong, but I really don't think it's very common.

stoplooklisten

Story Bud? wrote: »

What if we all stopped posting the most extreme examples ffs.

In general, men who are not abusive, violent, dangerous etc, should not have to fight for access to their children. They should not have to beg anyone to be allowed them see them as often as they wish (being reasonable of course to have a structure of some sort in place for the child's stability).

The level of maintenance paid should have absolutely nothing to do with access.

yes of course they shouldn't. How do you propose enforcing such a system in a fair way?

Ave Sodalis

Deleted User wrote:

But surely if they are expected to pay, they should be allowed to have 50/50 access with their child?

Did I not agree that withholding access for no reason but spite is not on? 50/50 is ideal, in which case there shouldn't be any maintenance as long as costs are split too... however, that isn't always possible.

To be fair, the fathers that cause the most problems with maintenance are the ones that are crap fathers, who are reluctant to have access anyway.