Father for Justice pt2 - Do they really condone this ?
VTech
Posts: 4,736
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/constables-hay ... ml#RWS183P
So this time its Constables Hay Wain.
Some will say its only a painting, its a fair target for this war against cruel moms, but is it fair game ?
Is it fair to destroy historical artefacts for this purpose ?
Is it fair that Egyptians destroyed their museums last year to make a point ?
I feel for dads wanting to see their kids but they sympathy vote for this organisation is long gone, better to start a new campaign under a different name.
So this time its Constables Hay Wain.
Some will say its only a painting, its a fair target for this war against cruel moms, but is it fair game ?
Is it fair to destroy historical artefacts for this purpose ?
Is it fair that Egyptians destroyed their museums last year to make a point ?
I feel for dads wanting to see their kids but they sympathy vote for this organisation is long gone, better to start a new campaign under a different name.
Living MY dream.
0
Comments
-
-
Why did that suffragette chuck herself under the kings horse at Epsom? It angered people at the time but it raised awareness of the injustice and ultimately they prevailed.MountainMonster wrote:So why exactly are they targeting art works? I can't put the pieces together.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
Daz555 wrote:
Why did that suffragette chuck herself under the kings horse at Epsom? It angered people at the time but it raised awareness of the injustice and ultimately they prevailed.MountainMonster wrote:So why exactly are they targeting art works? I can't put the pieces together.
You said it, she put herself at harm, people will see sense in this and believe in the cause.
Destroying art and such like puts peoples backs up, no one can really come out now and "fight the cause" for this group.
I wish people would see im actually "For the Cause"
Its great to have people on your side when your kids are taken or you need support in a custody battle.
For these reasons alone I think it crazy to upset those who you should be seeking assistance from. (i.e) the public.Living MY dream.0 -
art V happiness/justice and art loses is my take on the matter - you can always paint another picture - can't ever get back the lost years.The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
Cleat Eastwood wrote:art V happiness/justice and art loses is my take on the matter - you can always paint another picture - can't ever get back the lost years.
And how will defacing art help get lost years back ?
It should land the guy in jail and have him no chance to see his kids as if I were reviewing a case where a mother was making accusations against a father and all I had was her on one side saying he was violent and destructive and on his side a case of destruction of art in the name of justice how would I side ?
You don't need violence and destruction to make a point.Living MY dream.0 -
Throwing yourself under a horse says something about the strength of your commitment and belief in your cause.
Just damaging some art from several hundred years ago says you are a self-obsessed t*sser who hasn't got the strength of your convictions to actually do something to themselves, to make a point. It just makes people less likely to trust you or believe in you.
It a Generation Y attitude.0 -
It comes as Fathers4Justice said it was abandoning its five-year "attempted engagement with the political establishment" and called on fathers to take "independent weekly direct action" in the spirit of the Suffragettes 100 years ago.
So is it the act of a desperate loving parent, or part of a co-ordinated campaign of criminal damage. It seems tobe the latter. Constable can't repaint the Hay Wain. As with vtech, I support their grievance but this campaign is cowardly and doesn't address the real issue.0 -
mrfpb wrote:It comes as Fathers4Justice said it was abandoning its five-year "attempted engagement with the political establishment" and called on fathers to take "independent weekly direct action" in the spirit of the Suffragettes 100 years ago.
So is it the act of a desperate loving parent, or part of a co-ordinated campaign of criminal damage. It seems tobe the latter. Constable can't repaint the Hay Wain. As with vtech, I support their grievance but this campaign is cowardly and doesn't address the real issue.
IMO It isnt about constable repainting the hay wain - its about anyone re-painting it - the painting only has value because the establishment says it is so - the FFJ are asking what is of greater importance a sense of justice or a sense of perceived 'value' - altering a societies sense of responsibility is not criminal damage its an act of moral evolution.The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
Cleat Eastwood wrote:mrfpb wrote:It comes as Fathers4Justice said it was abandoning its five-year "attempted engagement with the political establishment" and called on fathers to take "independent weekly direct action" in the spirit of the Suffragettes 100 years ago.
So is it the act of a desperate loving parent, or part of a co-ordinated campaign of criminal damage. It seems tobe the latter. Constable can't repaint the Hay Wain. As with vtech, I support their grievance but this campaign is cowardly and doesn't address the real issue.
IMO It isnt about constable repainting the hay wain - its about anyone re-painting it - the painting only has value because the establishment says it is so - the FFJ are asking what is of greater importance a sense of justice or a sense of perceived 'value' - altering a societies sense of responsibility is not criminal damage its an act of moral evolution.
I normally agree with you but that's a load of cobblers.
The painting is historical and someone's possession, how about if they came into your house and ransacked it in the name of grabbing media attention, is that justified ?
They are commuting criminal acts to make a point, some of these criminals are not even fathers FFS !!
I would never support this group, I'm an average person and its people like me who they need to attract to get the so called justice.
Me, you, our peers.Living MY dream.0 -
I think if these people feel the need to do damage to anything to get their point across then there must be a reason they aren't allowed to see their own kids.
There are 2 types of dads who don't get to see their kids. The ones whose ex-wife's don't feel the kid is safe with the father because of anger, violence, abuse or alcoholism (a large majority), and those who are genuinely being given the stick. The latter are much less common, thank goodness. I guarantee if you look into the fathers' record there is some form of problem on their part preventing them from seeing their children.
Defacing anything, or acting violently, will only make them see less of their kids......0 -
:shock: Pressed the wrong button :oops:
When I split up with the ex, she was extremely bitter but luckily for me she also knew I was a good dad, so after a couple of weeks "punishment" she gave me unlimited access. 20 years later and we have been on(platonic) friendly terms for years. (I did not run off with another woman, abuse them, become an alcoholic or druggie, we just wanted different things out of a relationship
)
I cannot say the same thing for everyone I know that got into the same situation, with two good friends of mine having little or no access to their kids, purely to "show them what they gave up" by spiteful, vindictive ex's who think its fair game to punish the kids as well, just to get back at their blokes. These were not dangerous, violent men, or hard drinkers/drug abusers either, but normal working guys. (One of their sons ran off to live with his dad at the first opportunity and lived with him for years after, and still refuses all contact with his mother
)
You can get all the back up you want from the courts etc, but if no one comes to the door when you go to pick the kids up, you've lost another day out of their lives and there's nothing you can do about it. There is no way to punish the mothers at the moment, without depriving the children.
It really not all cut and dry with the father at fault in the majority of cases :roll:
Having had that little rant, I also don't think it's really fair to go out and vandalise someone else' property, be it art (which has no real value, though I do appreciate it!) or anything else for that matter!
But it's got us talking about it, so there must be some method in the madness ???0 -
Agree wholeheartedly that criminal acts are counter productive. To my mind, the stunts they played eg dressing up as characters, such as Supersean, raised their profile and garnered support for their cause through humour. I assume they felt they were not getting any further forward in their quest, hence the change of strategy.Mountain Monster
I guarantee if you look into the fathers' record there is some form of problem on their part preventing them from seeing their children.
I wouldn't be so certain.0 -
MountainMonster wrote:I think if these people feel the need to do damage to anything to get their point across then there must be a reason they aren't allowed to see their own kids.
There are 2 types of dads who don't get to see their kids. The ones whose ex-wife's don't feel the kid is safe with the father because of anger, violence, abuse or alcoholism (a large majority), and those who are genuinely being given the stick. The latter are much less common, thank goodness. I guarantee if you look into the fathers' record there is some form of problem on their part preventing them from seeing their children.
Defacing anything, or acting violently, will only make them see less of their kids......
I take you speak from knowledge or experience?
Most i know, and in my case, it is spiteful exs using the kids as weapons.0 -
Pituophis wrote::shock: Pressed the wrong button :oops:
When I split up with the ex, she was extremely bitter but luckily for me she also knew I was a good dad, so after a couple of weeks "punishment" she gave me unlimited access. 20 years later and we have been on(platonic) friendly terms for years. (I did not run off with another woman, abuse them, become an alcoholic or druggie, we just wanted different things out of a relationship )
I cannot say the same thing for everyone I know that got into the same situation, with two good friends of mine having little or no access to their kids, purely to "show them what they gave up" by spiteful, vindictive ex's who think its fair game to punish the kids as well, just to get back at their blokes. These were not dangerous, violent men, or hard drinkers/drug abusers either, but normal working guys. (One of their sons ran off to live with his dad at the first opportunity and lived with him for years after, and still refuses all contact with his mother )
You can get all the back up you want from the courts etc, but if no one comes to the door when you go to pick the kids up, you've lost another day out of their lives and there's nothing you can do about it. There is no way to punish the mothers at the moment, without depriving the children.
It really not all cut and dry with the father at fault in the majority of cases :roll:
Having had that little rant, I also don't think it's really fair to go out and vandalise someone else' property, be it art (which has no real value, though I do appreciate it!) or anything else for that matter!
But it's got us talking about it, so there must be some method in the madness ???
Your points are the exact reason why fathers for justice are doing a terrible thing.
Take the average law abiding father simply wanting to see his kids whilst in some cases you have a spiteful vindictive ex who blames the father for things he never did simply to make sure he is punished by not seeing the kids.
How on earth is having a criminal record for violence and vandalism going to help this guy in the courts ?
I want the fathers to get legal rights that if not kept will be upheld by legal action if necessary but FFJ are destroying what is a great cause.
My life is great, not because I have a nice watch or a nice car and home but because I have 3 sons whom I love more than life itself, I couldnt imagine being without any of them.Living MY dream.0 -
Gazzaputt wrote:MountainMonster wrote:I think if these people feel the need to do damage to anything to get their point across then there must be a reason they aren't allowed to see their own kids.
There are 2 types of dads who don't get to see their kids. The ones whose ex-wife's don't feel the kid is safe with the father because of anger, violence, abuse or alcoholism (a large majority), and those who are genuinely being given the stick. The latter are much less common, thank goodness. I guarantee if you look into the fathers' record there is some form of problem on their part preventing them from seeing their children.
Defacing anything, or acting violently, will only make them see less of their kids......
I take you speak from knowledge or experience?
Most i know, and in my case, it is spiteful exs using the kids as weapons.
I was purely speaking from my own experiences. I have no kids, but many of my friends have kids, and this is where the items come into play. Of all of the people who were not allowed to see their kids I only know of one buddy who is not allowed to see them simply because his ex is trying to get back at him. Everyone else has had their kids removed from their life due to violence, drugs or drink. Those were in the 10'sof people unfortunately.
While it may not be representative of the UK as a whole, and while I do support the Fathers for Justice cause, I see these problems regularly, and it is normally the mans fault for causing problems in some way. Most of the conclusions ive come to these days all revolve around one central theme: I hung around with some shitheads up until a fewyears ago when i started to focus on my career. I'm so happy to be away from people who have serious problems.0 -
I was purely speaking from my own experiences. I have no kids, but many of my friends have kids, and this is where the items come into play. Of all of the people who were not allowed to see their kids I only know of one buddy who is not allowed to see them simply because his ex is trying to get back at him. Everyone else has had their kids removed from their life due to violence, drugs or drink. Those were in the 10'sof people unfortunately.
Seriously? Tens of people.
You know how to pick your friends!
0 -
Ballysmate wrote:I was purely speaking from my own experiences. I have no kids, but many of my friends have kids, and this is where the items come into play. Of all of the people who were not allowed to see their kids I only know of one buddy who is not allowed to see them simply because his ex is trying to get back at him. Everyone else has had their kids removed from their life due to violence, drugs or drink. Those were in the 10'sof people unfortunately.
Seriously? Tens of people.
You know how to pick your friends!
There is a reason there is only one person I see regularly these days. I have grown up, but unfortunately, I can't say the same for my old circle of friends. Life is better now!0 -
My best friend from school is a GREAT bloke, I love him like a brother but he has a 14 year old daughter who he has never seen or really wanted to see, he even changed his work hours so he could pay less maintenance.
He isnt violent, has a great job and is an all round nice guy but a sh|tty dad, I am sure the same can be said of many men, and women.
The problem with FFJ is that they try to condone negatives as a positive, this is counter productive and foolhardy, it simply doesnt work.Living MY dream.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:To my mind, the stunts they played eg dressing up as characters, such as Supersean, raised their profile and garnered support for their cause through humour
Yes, particularly the guy who got on to Buckingham Palace. And forgetting monetary value, people have enjoyed looking at the Hay Wain for 200 years, but a FFJ activist wants to stop that to draw attention to his cause.
Am I alone in thinking the painting is too valuable (culturally) to too many people to be worth the point he is trying to make? Even given the personal grief he is suffering.
I have been in court rooms when men with track records of violence against the mother have been given visiting rights to their children, so agree with other posts that FFJ vandals have probably got history that led the courts to stop them seeing their kids.
The other explanation is that the dads simply don't get how the court works. Family courts are extremely reluctant to make a ruling on access, as it is a gross invasion of family life. They only act when all mediation has failed. If they perceive that one party has behaved unreasonably in mediation, this will be reflected in their ruling. Above all this the principle of the child's best interest is the paramount concern of the court.
(awaits flamers)0 -
mrfpb wrote:Ballysmate wrote:To my mind, the stunts they played eg dressing up as characters, such as Supersean, raised their profile and garnered support for their cause through humour
Yes, particularly the guy who got on to Buckingham Palace. And forgetting monetary value, people have enjoyed looking at the Hay Wain for 200 years, but a FFJ activist wants to stop that to draw attention to his cause.
I am alone in thinking the painting is too valuable (culturally) to too many people to be worth the point he is trying to make, even given the personal grief he is suffering.
I have been in court rooms when men with track records of violence against the mother have been given visiting rights to their children, so agree with other posts that FFJ vandals have probably got history that led the courts to stop them seeing their kids.
The other explanation is that the dads simply don't get how the court works. Family courts are extremely reluctant to make a ruling on access, as it is a gross invasion of family life. They only act when all mediation has failed. If they perceive that one party has behaved unreasonably in mediation, this will be reflected in their ruling. Above all this the principle of the child's best interest is the paramount concern of the court.
(awaits flamers)
You shouldn't have to wait long.
I am lucky in respect that I haven't suffered the way some posters on the original thread have been made to suffer.
The thrust of FFJ campaign was the way court orders and access orders were disregarded with impunity. If as you say Family courts are reluctant to get involved with access, that gives the campaign legitimacy insofar that they have a genuine grievance. It does not give them a mandate to cause criminal damage.
If the courts don't want to get involved, because they don't want to get involved in family life, they are not fit for purpose.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:If the courts don't want to get involved, because they don't want to get involved in family life, they are not fit for purpose
The point isn't that the courts "don't want to get involved", they are set up to make these rulings only when all other means have failed and according to rules about the childs best interest as defined by the various children acts and the human rights act.
Often you get people who assume an automatic right to access, custody, contact "cos I'm his dad, innit" and either don't seek or don't listen to good legal advice. They then get a shock when a court rules against them.0
