After the Colston four, the Gill one?

[mudsticks]

Knowing what we know of F4J, I wouldn't be surprised if the guy's motivation had something to do with his ex-wife leaving him for someone she'd met whilst appearing in a production of The Tempest.

Or for an Archers scriptwriter perhaps ??

The potential drivers are possibly too numerous to do full justice to here.

Still, it's raining in Devon, the chores are all done, Sunday afternoons can drag...

 

[Rusty Nails]

Word on the interwebs is that the bloke who took a hammer to the Gill piece is a Fathers 4 Justice campaigner. Bit ironic really, as their main aim is to prevent women being able to get their children away from men like Gill.

Not sure what you're driving at, TBH. Their schtick is that men have some kind of inalienable right of access to their children. I'd have though the consequences of that would be obvious.

My issue was with the use of the words in bold in your first post.
I agree that there is an over-strong element of in the Fathers4Justice group that are bitter about the circumstances surrounding their own particular cases, rather than any real fight for justice or fairness, and many of them are idiots who do themselves no good with some of their tactics, but to say that the "main aim" of the organisation is preventing women getting their children away from "men like Gill" is not true, and a pointed accusation that more deserves use of the word "schtick". Unless, of course, you can prove to me most cases of denying access are based upon physical or sexual abuse of children, in which case I readily accept your point.

There is probably a valid debate to be had about whether they believe they are fighting for their inalienable right of access or against what they see as women's inalienable right to deny access. I am happy to see the individual cases dealt with via the legal system based on their merits, primarily the best interests of the child, and if any of those fathers is guilty of abuse I have no issues with them losing access.

 

[theclaud]

My issue was with the use of the words in bold in your first post.
I agree that there is an over-strong element of in the Fathers4Justice group that are bitter about the circumstances surrounding their own particular cases, rather than any real fight for justice or fairness, and many of them are idiots who do themselves no good with some of their tactics, but to say that the "main aim" of the organisation is preventing women getting their children away from "men like Gill" is not true, and a pointed accusation that more deserves use of the word "schtick". Unless, of course, you can prove to me most cases of denying access are based upon physical or sexual abuse of children, in which case I readily accept your point.

There is probably a valid debate to be had about whether they believe they are fighting for their inalienable right of access or against what they see as women's inalienable right to deny access. I am happy to see the individual cases dealt with via the legal system based on their merits, primarily the best interests of the child, and if any of those fathers is guilty of abuse I have no issues with them losing access.

Nit-picking much? They're a mens' rights organisation that exists mainly to rationalise mens' grievances against their former wives/partners and to help them retain power over women and children. I think everyone understands that their members are not all child abusers. We could have another thread about it if you like. My point here is that, whilst I understand that Gill's piece in that location and context is being read as a prestige monument to paedophiles adorning a public organisation that is guilty of enabling and sheltering sex offenders, and that such a reading is resonating with a wide range of people angry about the protected status of prominent sex offenders, we might be a little hasty in hailing the hammer-wielder as some kind of progressive - I suspect his actions belong to a less noble tradition of moral panic about 'paedos' and conservative outrage about 'degenerate' and 'obscene' public art. It certainly seems a long way from the grassroots democratic activism and wide-reaching conversations about Colston's place in Bristol's public life that culminated in the statue being tipped into the harbour.

 

[matticus]

They're a mens' rights organisation that exists mainly to rationalise mens' grievances against their former wives/partners and to help them retain power over women and children. I think everyone understands that their members are not all child abusers.

So why did you post to strongly imply that they are child abusers?
It was pretty clear what you meant.

(Your first sentence is an opinionated distortion of reality.)

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Word on the interwebs is that the bloke who took a hammer to the Gill piece is a Fathers 4 Justice campaigner. Bit ironic really, as their main aim is to prevent women being able to get their children away from men like Gill.

No their main aim is giving fathers a voice, which is needed as not all women are angels, not defending child rapist and abusers.
edit: @Rusty Nails with this point earlier so i will reply to your reply below

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Nit-picking much? They're a mens' rights organisation that exists mainly to rationalise mens' grievances against their former wives/partners and to help them retain power over women and children.

You are the master or your own worlds, you wrote ''men like gil'' as if he is a terrible person. You could be right but that's not the point.
There a mens rights organisation trying to give men a more equal position in for example divorce fights. But they stepped away from abbusers more then once and offcourse now everything gets publicity. Claiming they blank out rationalize mens grievances is simply not true.

I think everyone understands that their members are not all child abusers. We could have another thread about it if you like. My point here is that, whilst I understand that Gill's piece in that location and context is being read as a prestige monument to paedophiles adorning a public organisation that is guilty of enabling and sheltering sex offenders, and that such a reading is resonating with a wide range of people angry about the protected status of prominent sex offenders, we might be a little hasty in hailing the hammer-wielder as some kind of progressive - I suspect his actions belong to a less noble tradition of moral panic about 'paedos' and conservative outrage about 'degenerate' and 'obscene' public art. It certainly seems a long way from the grassroots democratic activism and wide-reaching conversations about Colston's place in Bristol's public life that culminated in the statue being tipped into the harbour.

I don't see a difference between the Colston statue killers and this one, same as a see a court case where the jurors where pressured(not my opinion but the Judge in that case has said that) to stand ''on the right side of history'' making their decision as a good one. If they had peacefully protested up until the council came with a truck and crane to remove it then you could have called it a win. Now it's just legalized vandalism. We get's to decide what the ''right side'' ? The nazi found the one betraying jewish families ''the right side'' Just to illustrate how dangerous that discussion is.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Nit-picking much? They're a mens' rights organisation that exists mainly to rationalise mens' grievances against their former wives/partners and to help them retain power over women and children. I think everyone understands that their members are not all child abusers. We could have another thread about it if you like. My point here is that, whilst I understand that Gill's piece in that location and context is being read as a prestige monument to paedophiles adorning a public organisation that is guilty of enabling and sheltering sex offenders, and that such a reading is resonating with a wide range of people angry about the protected status of prominent sex offenders, we might be a little hasty in hailing the hammer-wielder as some kind of progressive - I suspect his actions belong to a less noble tradition of moral panic about 'paedos' and conservative outrage about 'degenerate' and 'obscene' public art. It certainly seems a long way from the grassroots democratic activism and wide-reaching conversations about Colston's place in Bristol's public life that culminated in the statue being tipped into the harbour.

I am sorry if you think that my picking on your patently untrue statement is nit-picking, but use of words like that is important, as you well know from your carefully chosen use of them.

You will get no defence from me of J4M because I don't think they help the situation of children in divorced/separated families. I do not however see it, like you, as part of an all-encompassing gender war, but as as a bunch of people blind to anything but their own feelings of injustice and victimhood.

I agree it is not to be confused with issues like those in Bristol re Colston.

 

[theclaud]

LOL start another thread if you're fans of the superhero cosplay dudes, peeps. If you don't get why we need be wary of men whose self-image is that they are the wronged good guys protecting the innocent children from manipulative womenfolk and paedo strangers, then I don't know if I can help. I'm just saying I don't think Eric Gill's public artworks are the number one child protection issue of the day.

 

[Rusty Nails]

LOL start another thread if you're fans of the superhero cosplay dudes, peeps. If you don't get why we need be wary of men whose self-image is that they are the wronged good guys protecting the innocent children from manipulative womenfolk and paedo strangers, then I don't know if I can help. I'm just saying I don't think Eric Gill's public artworks are the number one child protection issue of the day.

Rather than writing self-justifying, deflectionist rubbish please tell me where I have acted as a fan of J4M?
You know that that your last sentence was not about you "just saying" anything in your op..........LOL.

I do not align myself to DGLUK's views of J4M

 

[mudsticks]

My issue was with the use of the words in bold in your first post.
I agree that there is an over-strong element of in the Fathers4Justice group that are bitter about the circumstances surrounding their own particular cases, rather than any real fight for justice or fairness, and many of them are idiots who do themselves no good with some of their tactics, but to say that the "main aim" of the organisation is preventing women getting their children away from "men like Gill" is not true, and a pointed accusation that more deserves use of the word "schtick". Unless, of course, you can prove to me most cases of denying access are based upon physical or sexual abuse of children, in which case I readily accept your point.

There is probably a valid debate to be had about whether they believe they are fighting for their inalienable right of access or against what they see as women's inalienable right to deny access. I am happy to see the individual cases dealt with via the legal system based on their merits, primarily the best interests of the child, and if any of those fathers is guilty of abuse I have no issues with them losing access.

Aiui in the majority of cases that come before the court both parents are granted access, by the courts if it's considered to be safe for / in the interest of the child / children.

So access being denied to one parent by the courts will tend to be around the risk of abuse, yes, generally continued contact with both parents is considered to be a good thing unless there are solid reasons for the courts to judge otherwise. .

There is not, nor should there be, any 'inaliable right' to have contact with your children, whether mother or father..

And certainly no right for one parent to have contact with the other parent.

And therein often lies the problem.
I'm sure you don't need telling, that there are too many cases where an abuser, has used access to the kids , to get at the ex, to continue the abuse.

Trouble is, what some people see as 'normal' and or 'justified' behaviour in relationships, or in the case of relationship breakdown, is in fact abusive and or coercive.

Victims of domestic abuse, not always but far more often the mother - are not properly protected in these cases.

Hence we are still seeing horribly high numbers of women suffering violence at the hands of, or even being killed by their partners, or ex partners.
Sometimes via having had contact with the kids

Sometimes the kids get murdered too

No their main aim is giving fathers a voice, which is needed as not all women are angels, not defending child rapist and abusers.
edit: @Rusty Nails with this point earlier so i will reply to your reply below

Who has ever said that all women are Angels..??

Since when did father's not have a 'voice'..?

It's not long since father's had total control and ownership of their children, and indeed of their 'wives'.

The fact that power imbalance has been redressed (somewhat) still seems to offend some people.

LOL start another thread if you're fans of the superhero cosplay dudes, peeps. If you don't get why we need be wary of men whose self-image is that they are the wronged good guys protecting the innocent children from manipulative womenfolk and paedo strangers, then I don't know if I can help. I'm just saying I don't think Eric Gill's public artworks are the number one child protection issue of the day.

Good plan - on the fresh thread - or maybe not..

To be fair to Rusty I think he has opined that he has no particular sympathy with F4J (J4M?) as he observes that they're not particularly helping anything much, particularly not around the welfare of children...

 

[theclaud]

I do not align myself to DGLUK's views of J4M

That's a relief, anyhow - I don't know what J4M is so I assume you mean F4J?

 

[matticus]

It's not long since father's had total control and ownership of their children, and indeed of their 'wives'.

How is this relevant to court decisions in the 21st C?

 

[theclaud]

In related news, apparently Save the Children has announced that it will stop using Gill Sans in its branding. I mean, OK, I guess - other typefaces are available - but let's not kid ourselves that this is child protection rather than optics. Hopefully they've started taking allegations about creeps and harassers in their own senior management seriously, now that they're back on the government contract train...

 

[mudsticks]

How is this relevant to court decisions in the 21st C?

It shouldn't be relevant, to court decisions, and hopefully it isnt..

However the reaction to these court decisions, still often suffers from this cultural overhang, and or these unconscious biases..

Now if you'll excuse me, I've dinner to cook

 

[theclaud]

You could be right but that's not the point.

I think I'm going to use this as a sig line.