The idiocy of "Fathers for Justice"

VTech

If ever there was a way to alienate the people you need to support you these guys find just about every method possible.
Today in their wisdom they decide to deface a painting of the queen donated to the gallery and not belonging to them in what they classed was a "cry for help" !

I've worked with a few campaigns and the aim is normally to get companies and powerful individuals onboard to support your cause, like lance did with livestrong but when the line is crossed you find people want to distance themself from you and your cause for fear of personal or business reprisal.

These guys have no substance and will never get anything passed and I feel for the genuine members who just want what the organisation is meant to stand for to have substance in the mindset of the British public. I'm not sure that can ever be the case now due to the hugely negative view towards FFJ.

pease

If I was ever in the unfortunate position of needing help/support following a family breakup these bafoons would be last on the list after taking up mtb or dance.

smidsy

The problem is that the system simply does not uphold basic moral principles and genuine, decent men who just happen to find themselves separated and trying their level best to keep contact and pay their way are treated exactly the same as 'absent fathers' who never intend to pay a penny.

You may not agree with what they have done but I for one understand their frustration and can quite easily see how they feel it is the only course of action left open to them.

VTech

smidsy wrote:

The problem is that the system simply does not uphold basic moral principles and genuine, decent men who just happen to find themselves separated and trying their level best to keep contact and pay their way are treated exactly the same as 'absent fathers' who never intend to pay a penny.

You may not agree with what they have done but I for one understand their frustration and can quite easily see how they feel it is the only course of action left open to them.

Im not denying the cause of justice for father who want to be fathers but would you join this group ?
They have ruined what was a good cause.

Like the IRA killing soldiers to make a point or Al Qaeda beheading people to make a point.

I am sure that both organisations had an original valid point of protest but due to the way they went they lost all support from the average people, FFJ have done the same which in turn has done more harm to the people who wanted the support than good.

smidsy

But would you feel the same if you had 40% of your net income whisked away regardless of your personal circumstances?

Wunnunda

I don't know why but men aren't really very good at this kind of campaigning, where it's about 'rights' as they apply to individuals. I guess part of the problem is that each case tends to be individual, and there are also enough truly 'feckless' fathers who get the cause a bad name, so that it's hard to get a flag to rally round.

VTech

smidsy wrote:

But would you feel the same if you had 40% of your net income whisked away regardless of your personal circumstances?

I have more than that taken now but I know what you mean. Please confuse me as not supporting the route cause, I do, fully. The issue is the way the radicals go about it. Defacing a private painting isnt the way forward, it alienates the people they need support from.

sloppyschleckonds

VTech wrote:

Like the IRA killing soldiers to make a point or Al Qaeda beheading people to make a point.

It's only a painting. You really are showing yourself up to be thick son.

VTech

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

VTech wrote:

Like the IRA killing soldiers to make a point or Al Qaeda beheading people to make a point.

It's only a painting. You really are showing yourself up to be thick son.

No, your failing to understand what ive written, I didnt write that fouling a painting is the same as what the IRA and Al Qaeda do, I am saying the methods are similar in alienating the very people they need support from.
Think about that and you will fully understand that I am in fact 100% correct.

Who has thought today after reading or viewing the news "Wicked, im gonna join this band of merry men" ?

cornerblock

VTech wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

VTech wrote:

Like the IRA killing soldiers to make a point or Al Qaeda beheading people to make a point.

It's only a painting. You really are showing yourself up to be thick son.

No, your failing to understand what ive written, I didnt write that fouling a painting is the same as what the IRA and Al Qaeda do, I am saying the methods are similar in alienating the very people they need support from.
Think about that and you will fully understand that I am in fact 100% correct.

Who has thought today after reading or viewing the news "Wicked, im gonna join this band of merry men" ?

No it's not. It is a case of you failing to understand what you are writing. By using the word 'like' it makes it look as if you are comparing the defacement of a painting to the murder of people. The word 'like' does not come into it, they are nothing of the sort, anyway anyhow. Instead of telling people they have misunderstood you, why not try thinking about what you say and how it comes across.

nathancom

Good, the Queen is a waste of skin.

However, it is likely they have decided to follow this strategy for the media attention and it has clearly got yours. Middle aged white men are unlikely to get much sympathy with all the other causes that abound so I think they are probably forced into these wackier actions in order to be heard. Anyway, it is only a painting, no one got hurt and no reason to draw comparisons with not one but two murderous terrorist groups.

Daz555

This is not just about money - it is also about access.

Defacing a picture of the Queen is utterly insignificant compared to the injustice that some parents have faced when it comes to access to their children.

My children are the most important thing in my life. What would I do if I was ever denied access? I hope I never have to find out.

VTech

Cornerblock wrote:

VTech wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

VTech wrote:

Like the IRA killing soldiers to make a point or Al Qaeda beheading people to make a point.

It's only a painting. You really are showing yourself up to be thick son.

No, your failing to understand what ive written, I didnt write that fouling a painting is the same as what the IRA and Al Qaeda do, I am saying the methods are similar in alienating the very people they need support from.
Think about that and you will fully understand that I am in fact 100% correct.

Who has thought today after reading or viewing the news "Wicked, im gonna join this band of merry men" ?

No it's not. It is a case of you failing to understand what you are writing. By using the word 'like' it makes it look as if you are comparing the defacement of a painting to the murder of people. The word 'like' does not come into it, they are nothing of the sort, anyway anyhow. Instead of telling people they have misunderstood you, why not try thinking about what you say and how it comes across.

No, like as in the word like (similar) in methods of losing credibility.
My point is valid, often people or groups start with a valid idea that is in general a valid point. This valid point is lost when violence and a use are used rather than discussion.
At no point would I suggest that cause isn't good, I made that point quite eloquently but also made the point that credibility is lost. If you read what I am saying and have capacity to understand, you will realise I support the cause, just not the action.
This group need high profile supporters, just like child sex crimes that were wiped under the table for countless years until Esta Rantzan become involved and changed the laws forever.
Who could possibly support this line of action, they have set themself back to a point where I'm unsure if they can recover. Argue with me all you like, it won't change perception.

cornerblock

I am not arguing with you, I am telling you that your analogy is rubbish. You may wish to blow your own trumpet, but you're being more crass than eloquent.

VTech

We all have a right to an opinion and if wishing that what is in fact a great cause could be run in a way that would allow the majority to be in both agreement and partnership is "blowing my own trumpet" then I'm happy to blow away.
Also, you may want to read up on the meaning of crass, lacking of sensitivity is destroying paintings displayed in an abbey or breaching airport security stopping planes landing that were low on fuel risking hundreds if innocent people's lives or destroying 3 businesses losing over 40 jobs with a protest on tower bridge in 2003 or throwing powder filled condoms in parliament during he time the ricin attacks were happening.

Like violent organisations, they are using fear and intimidation to make a point. This is not the best way.

meursault

This group need high profile supporters, just like child sex crimes that were wiped under the table for countless years until Esta Rantzan become involved and changed the laws forever

So, in order to effect actual change in society, we have to wait until Esther Rantzen, or Joanna Lumley feel guilty enough, to be bothered to do something about it?

Marx is turning in his grave.

VTech

meursault wrote:

This group need high profile supporters, just like child sex crimes that were wiped under the table for countless years until Esta Rantzan become involved and changed the laws forever

So, in order to effect actual change in society, we have to wait until Esther Rantzen, or Joanna Lumley feel guilty enough, to be bothered to do something about it?

Marx is turning in his grave.

Well, history would say yes !
We are not talking about what's right or wrong, just what happens.
History tells us that in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and early 90's kids were being abused and perpetrators were getting away with it, Rantzan made a huge campaign which changed the law, the same law that had not altered even after tens of years of lobbying by various people after their kids were abused.

Society thinking suggests that with famous people involved in charities or campaigns they get
It's done. As I said, that's historical fact. It Gould have to rely on famous people but it does.

Removing your group or campaign from the very people who would dearly love to support you spells death as that's a pity. We all want equal rights and as a father if 3 I would dearly love to know that if ever my wife realises that I'm not in fact a half decent husband and runs off with her lover and my kids, there would be somewhere I could turn for support.

nathancom

I think you should sort out your wife for playing away when you know all about it mate. That is just cruel, leave her first. That is something Gerry Adams would do to a Unionist.

Bobbinogs

smidsy wrote:

The problem is that the system simply does not uphold basic moral principles and genuine, decent men who just happen to find themselves separated and trying their level best to keep contact and pay their way are treated exactly the same as 'absent fathers' who never intend to pay a penny.

You may not agree with what they have done but I for one understand their frustration and can quite easily see how they feel it is the only course of action left open to them.

^^ This, eloquent and to the point. Not sure who has logged in as Smidsy though

smidsy

Ha Ha :-)

This is one subject I happen to actually know something about :-(

imposter2.0

meursault wrote:

Marx is turning in his grave.

What has Groucho Marx got to do with any of this..??

Frank the tank

VTech wrote:

smidsy wrote:

The problem is that the system simply does not uphold basic moral principles and genuine, decent men who just happen to find themselves separated and trying their level best to keep contact and pay their way are treated exactly the same as 'absent fathers' who never intend to pay a penny.

You may not agree with what they have done but I for one understand their frustration and can quite easily see how they feel it is the only course of action left open to them.

Im not denying the cause of justice for father who want to be fathers but would you join this group ?
They have ruined what was a good cause.

Like the IRA killing soldiers to make a point or Al Qaeda beheading people to make a point.

I am sure that both organisations had an original valid point of protest but due to the way they went they lost all support from the average people, FFJ have done the same which in turn has done more harm to the people who wanted the support than good.

Not condoning the mans action, but no way can defacing a painting be put on a par with killing someone.

daviesee

Frank the tank wrote:

VTech wrote:

smidsy wrote:

The problem is that the system simply does not uphold basic moral principles and genuine, decent men who just happen to find themselves separated and trying their level best to keep contact and pay their way are treated exactly the same as 'absent fathers' who never intend to pay a penny.

You may not agree with what they have done but I for one understand their frustration and can quite easily see how they feel it is the only course of action left open to them.

Im not denying the cause of justice for father who want to be fathers but would you join this group ?
They have ruined what was a good cause.

Like the IRA killing soldiers to make a point or Al Qaeda beheading people to make a point.

I am sure that both organisations had an original valid point of protest but due to the way they went they lost all support from the average people, FFJ have done the same which in turn has done more harm to the people who wanted the support than good.

Not condoning the mans action, but no way can defacing a painting be put on a par with killing someone.

I don't think anyone said it was. :?:
VTech baiting seems to be flavour of the season.

cornerblock

daviesee wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

VTech wrote:

smidsy wrote:

The problem is that the system simply does not uphold basic moral principles and genuine, decent men who just happen to find themselves separated and trying their level best to keep contact and pay their way are treated exactly the same as 'absent fathers' who never intend to pay a penny.

You may not agree with what they have done but I for one understand their frustration and can quite easily see how they feel it is the only course of action left open to them.

Im not denying the cause of justice for father who want to be fathers but would you join this group ?
They have ruined what was a good cause.

Like the IRA killing soldiers to make a point or Al Qaeda beheading people to make a point.

I am sure that both organisations had an original valid point of protest but due to the way they went they lost all support from the average people, FFJ have done the same which in turn has done more harm to the people who wanted the support than good.

Not condoning the mans action, but no way can defacing a painting be put on a par with killing someone.

I don't think anyone said it was. :?:
VTech baiting seems to be flavour of the season.

I see no baiting in this thread at all. What I do see is a person being told that they are making a stupid comparison by suggesting that the spoiling of a painting will ruin a cause and lose public support in the same way that the blowing up of innocent people did for the IRA. I see the point trying to be made regarding sympathy for a belief, but in this case it's just a terrible analogy, especially to those who have lost loved ones at the hands of terrorists. Seeing a piece of artwork being vandalised doesn't really anger me in quite the same way as murder! That's just me though.

meursault

Imposter wrote:

meursault wrote:

Marx is turning in his grave.

What has Groucho Marx got to do with any of this..??

Mikey23

I agree that this is not a way to win friends and further your cause..

I split up with my first missus some years back when my kids were 6 and 15. Her choice not mine. It was without doubt the worst time of my life. It was a huge struggle to establish and maintain a meaningful relationship with them and many years on we still bear the scars. And because I was an easy target, the lovely child support agency took a huge amount of my disposable income while Madame sat back on social security and lived in the marital home which she eventually got while I had to go and rent and afford something that I could bring them too at weekends. Oh and no access to legal aid whereas she did. I don't envy anyone who has to go through this stuff and I can fully understand the desperation that absent fathers feel and how heavily things are stacked against them...

smidsy

It's the way the CSA treat you like the scum of the earth whenever you have cause to contact them.

I even went to court in person once (much to the surprise of everyone involved) just to show that I was a person with morals and to look them in the eye when they spouted their rhetoric.

Obviously made absolutely no difference but I can rest easy at night.

meursault

I have not been through this, but talking to guys at work who have, there is one thing I can't get my head around.

Once the money has been decided by the CSA, how do they know that money goes towards the kids needs? Can the ex Mrs just piss it up the wall? Does ex mrs need to provide receipts?

Every father in this situation I know, wants to provide for their children, but where is the accountability?

smidsy

The CSA do not know and they are not even interested. They simply ensure the money goes to the parent with care and then that parent can do what they like with it.

My eldest went to Uni last year and could not afford the rent in the halls. When I tried to get my ex to pay (with the money I was paying through the CSA) she simply laughed and told him to get an overdraft. I conacted the CSA and they just said there was nothing they could do.

I could not pay for him as I was 40% light on my take home pay already (thanks to the CSA).

VTech

The rules are that not only do you have to pay for the kids, you also have to maintain the lifestyle of the ex wife if she can prove to have given up her life or time to bring up the kids.

To translate - you will lose almost everything.

I have been with the same woman since I was a kid and couldn't imagine losing my kids so I'm very sympathetic to those who have suffered but to put Cornerblock in the picture, at no point have I put killing people in the same catagory as defacing a painting, it's the loss of support that I have drawn attention too and for that reason I am correct and he has been arguing a point that was never made nor insinuated.

cornerblock

VTech wrote:

but to put Cornerblock in the picture, at no point have I put killing people in the same catagory as defacing a painting, it's the loss of support that I have drawn attention too and for that reason I am correct and he has been arguing a point that was never made nor insinuated.

I will have one final try! I know you are not comparing the defacing of a painting with the killing of people. I get that! If you had read my previous post properly then you might see that it is the comparison you make of a group losing public sympathy for a relatively trivial matter, like spoiling art, to a group losing support for actions that actually kill that I find stupid.

So now you go on believing you are 'correct' and 'eloquent', self praise is no praise by the way, and I will stick to my opinion that the anology that you have made regarding support for a cause was a terrible one.

I shall bid you goodnight.