After the Colston four, the Gill one?

matticus

Well-Known Member
There are two main points about F4J:
- their PR ain't great. (you can include in that their not brilliantly thought through "Mission", and some dodgy forms of protest carried out a few times in their name)
- their cause is almost certainly justified if you look at the fathers who have got the shitty end of the stick, and who really do want to see their kids for the right reasons.

We all know about mothers+kids who have suffered abuse, and the courts have rightly kept dangerous fathers away from them. But that isn't every situation. Sometimes there is just a nasty divorce, and the courts side too far with Mum. Sometimes Mum takes the piss and repeatedly obstructs access* granted lawfully by the court (it's not hard to find evidence of this occurring, and it's not hard to see it's a negative spiral). Sometimes Mum is the problem (or Mum's new partner, or parents), and the police/courts fail to see this.

So I think it's reasonable for the men who want to be the best fathers they can to protest, even if we can argue about the details until the cows come home. Calling them cosplay superheroes doesn't accurately reflect their situation IMO.

[* I personally know someone in this situation. And I know a woman with a court order limiting access to her son - alcohol is involved - and recently served a prison sentence for breaking that order. YMMV]
 

theclaud

Active Member
There are two main points about F4J:
- their PR ain't great. (you can include in that their not brilliantly thought through "Mission", and some dodgy forms of protest carried out a few times in their name)
- their cause is almost certainly justified if you look at the fathers who have got the shitty end of the stick, and who really do want to see their kids for the right reasons.

We all know about mothers+kids who have suffered abuse, and the courts have rightly kept dangerous fathers away from them. But that isn't every situation. Sometimes there is just a nasty divorce, and the courts side too far with Mum. Sometimes Mum takes the piss and repeatedly obstructs access* granted lawfully by the court (it's not hard to find evidence of this occurring, and it's not hard to see it's a negative spiral). Sometimes Mum is the problem (or Mum's new partner, or parents), and the police/courts fail to see this.

So I think it's reasonable for the men who want to be the best fathers they can to protest, even if we can argue about the details until the cows come home. Calling them cosplay superheroes doesn't accurately reflect their situation IMO.

[* I personally know someone in this situation. And I know a woman with a court order limiting access to her son - alcohol is involved - and recently served a prison sentence for breaking that order. YMMV]

I'll ask again - did you read my link? Your assessment of F4J bears scant relation to the facts.
 

Ian H

Active Member
There are two main points about F4J:
- their PR ain't great. (you can include in that their not brilliantly thought through "Mission", and some dodgy forms of protest carried out a few times in their name)
- their cause is almost certainly justified if you look at the fathers who have got the shitty end of the stick, and who really do want to see their kids for the right reasons.

We all know about mothers+kids who have suffered abuse, and the courts have rightly kept dangerous fathers away from them. But that isn't every situation. Sometimes there is just a nasty divorce, and the courts side too far with Mum. Sometimes Mum takes the piss and repeatedly obstructs access* granted lawfully by the court (it's not hard to find evidence of this occurring, and it's not hard to see it's a negative spiral). Sometimes Mum is the problem (or Mum's new partner, or parents), and the police/courts fail to see this.

So I think it's reasonable for the men who want to be the best fathers they can to protest, even if we can argue about the details until the cows come home. Calling them cosplay superheroes doesn't accurately reflect their situation IMO.

[* I personally know someone in this situation. And I know a woman with a court order limiting access to her son - alcohol is involved - and recently served a prison sentence for breaking that order. YMMV]
Family law is bound to be messy & to sometimes leave one parent or other aggrieved. The courts' emphasis will be on the best interests of the children, not the parents. Parents have responsibilities towards their children, not 'rights' over them.
The F4J Wiki entry doesn't describe a responsible organisation to me; Their 'mission statement' is just unpleasant hyper-bollocks.
And anecdotes don't constitute evidence (though I can think of at least one fatherless family bringing up a delightful child).
 

Rusty Nails

Upright Member
I'm ignoring it because it's a tiresome overreaction to a bit of rhetoric. I mention that the guy is an F4J activist, and your first reaction is to worry whether I'm being mean to the organization? You could try being less sensitive on their behalf.
LOL. Straight from the Boris school of deflection and still no explanation of how I have shown some sympathy for them or am a fan of the the organisation.
By rhetoric I can only assume you mean untruth and exaggeration. My first reaction was not about concern for F4J but bemusement at your hyperbolic shtick.
Sorry you find my dislike of being unfairly accused tiresome, but you could try being more accurate, and not about F4J, who I have no love for, but about posters who do not fall in line 100% with your pronouncements.

Edit: after reading some of the other posts I would like to make my position clear. I am initially sympathetic to any parent of any gender who is denied access to their child(ren) following a break-up of a relationship. That sympathy might be strengthened or weakened, or even vanish, once the facts of the situation are known. I have no sympathy with the tactics I have seen used by F4J. I believe the courts get decisions right most of the time, but not all.
 
Last edited:

matticus

Well-Known Member
after reading some of the other posts I would like to make my position clear. I am initially sympathetic to any parent of any gender who is denied access to their child(ren) following a break-up of a relationship. That sympathy might be strengthened or weakened, or even vanish, once the facts of the situation are known. I have no sympathy with the tactics I have seen used by F4J. I believe the courts get decisions right most of the time, but not all.
Ditto: but the struck-through bit - I don't see any harm in the "cosplay" stunts, or draping banners across Tower Bridge. They might look ... let's say foolish dressed as Batman, but they believe in their cause, and it does get them in the press!
 

dutchguylivingintheuk

Active Member
Gladly. I introduced new information about the political affiliations and possible motives of the person whose act is the subject of the thread, and you, Rusty and the incoherent dude got all salty because you're sympathetic to these F4J creeps on some level.
What's that obsession with trying to insult someone who clearly does not agree with you? It makes you look like an ugly person in my view.
I'm not salty at all i just explained why i don't agree with some points. That i would feel sympathy for ''F4J creeps'' in your words is wrong. I never said or implied i feel sympathy for them.



They're a pernicious, misogynistic organisation doing actual damage way beyond Ariel's appendages - to women, children, and the family courts. Their MO is to perpetuate damaging myths in order to prejudice family courts against women.
You know that broken url is a column right? So that is an opinion sometimes mixed with facts. Upon reading it's a bit what Mudsticks wrote including the assumption that domestic abuse victims are only women... (ok she says something about men being victim in one sentence or two and then starts her cry again. )
It's an biased article that adds nothing to the discussion.

I would also argue that their contributions to the actual problems they claim to care about (men's mental health, children having fulfilling relationships with both parents after separation, and so on) are largely making them worse -

How many organistation striving the same goal do you know? For women there are loads for men not so much. But yes partly the issues are made worse by them, particularly because they hammer so much on Father/mother roles in a world where it whether you like it or not more to father and or mother figure because poeple are more comfortable being who they are also if that is anywhere in the LBTQ+ space.
the episode that occasioned this thread does not suggest to me that its perpetrator is in a good place, after decades of their 'support'. They did once chuck flour at Tony Blair, mind, so maybe they're not completely irredeemable.
Nope but issues like he seems to have are never solved over a cup of tea but takes years and need participation of the perpetrators. otherwise ''support'' is just pointless. Seeing the comments on Blair elsewhere on this forum i don't think that the most extreme thing they have done.
 

theclaud

Active Member
What's that obsession with trying to insult someone who clearly does not agree with you? It makes you look like an ugly person in my view.
I'm not salty at all i just explained why i don't agree with some points. That i would feel sympathy for ''F4J creeps'' in your words is wrong. I never said or implied i feel sympathy for them.




You know that broken url is a column right? So that is an opinion sometimes mixed with facts. Upon reading it's a bit what Mudsticks wrote including the assumption that domestic abuse victims are only women... (ok she says something about men being victim in one sentence or two and then starts her cry again. )
It's an biased article that adds nothing to the discussion.



How many organistation striving the same goal do you know? For women there are loads for men not so much. But yes partly the issues are made worse by them, particularly because they hammer so much on Father/mother roles in a world where it whether you like it or not more to father and or mother figure because poeple are more comfortable being who they are also if that is anywhere in the LBTQ+ space.

Nope but issues like he seems to have are never solved over a cup of tea but takes years and need participation of the perpetrators. otherwise ''support'' is just pointless. Seeing the comments on Blair elsewhere on this forum i don't think that the most extreme thing they have done.
Thanks for your input, caller. :okay:
 

matticus

Well-Known Member
OK. yes I did read it. Headline:
"Evidence shows that the disproportionately male judiciary is more likely to rule against abused women and children"
Then I read on ... and the column is all just opinions.

Now I think they are all very reasonable opinions; but like those posted by us NACAs here, they are all very subjective. This is an area of the law where hard evidence will be like gold-dust, and opinions available on any angle. To quote our (currently injured) honourable member above:
Family law is bound to be messy & to sometimes leave one parent or other aggrieved.

Meanwhile, you could read a different view of the F4J top man here (a completely subjective interview piece by Susanna Rustin):
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...ought-i-could-change-the-world-in-three-years

:okay: whether anyone who needs to, will actually read it - is much less certain.
 

theclaud

Active Member
OK. yes I did read it. Headline:
"Evidence shows that the disproportionately male judiciary is more likely to rule against abused women and children"
Then I read on ... and the column is all just opinions.

Now I think they are all very reasonable opinions; but like those posted by us NACAs here, they are all very subjective. This is an area of the law where hard evidence will be like gold-dust, and opinions available on any angle. To quote our (currently injured) honourable member above:
Family law is bound to be messy & to sometimes leave one parent or other aggrieved.

Meanwhile, you could read a different view of the F4J top man here (a completely subjective interview piece by Susanna Rustin):
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...ought-i-could-change-the-world-in-three-years

LOL. 'Himpathy' in action. The bloke's a walking red flag. Do you know the difference between writing an informed and well-referenced opinion piece about a serious issue and allowing yourself to become a credulous conduit for a a career self-publicist?
 

farfromtheland

Regular AND Goofy
I read the Guardian piece - cringeworthy. It does express a certain wistfulness that his campaign started with something and deteriorated. Oh dear, sounds familiar.
 

theclaud

Active Member
Again, although it will be a tough burden, I am happy to live with my guilt of having empathy for a male of our species.

Please pray for me.
It must be a lonely business all this empathising with the, er, underdog. Just you, The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph, The Mirror, The Star, ITV, Sky News, Radio 4, LBC, The Sunday Express, GBNews, GQ, Esquire, The Shropshire Star, The Royal Society, UKIP, Guy Ritchie, Simon Danczuk, Will Self, Bob Geldof, George Galloway, David Blunkett, Tom Kerridge, David Beckham's Sister's Ex, 104 MPs and the entire manosphere...
 

shep

Über Member
Any views on the Gill sculpture, Shep?
None whatsoever other than the bloke damaging it should be prosecuted for damage, I couldn't give a t0ss what this bloke did in the past I've got far more important things in life to take up my thought process.

The travel arrangements for the next away match for example or getting my campervan seats re upholstered in time for the new season or shall I have Indian or Chinese on Saturday or..................................well you get the picture.
 
Top Bottom