Today on Blogcritics
Home » Feminist4Fathers: Fathers4Justice (F4J) Protestors On Dartford Bridge, Protest PBS, Human Rights Tribunal, More

Feminist4Fathers: Fathers4Justice (F4J) Protestors On Dartford Bridge, Protest PBS, Human Rights Tribunal, More

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Breaking News! F4J-UK Protestors On Dartford Bridge

Fathers 4 Justice Protestors have scaled a gantry on the approach to Dartford Bridge. The protests form part of the group’s ‘Bedlam’ week to mark their campaign for overnight staying contact between children and separated fathers.

Over the last two months members of the group have sent in hundreds of pyjamas to Children’s Minister Beverly Hughes and tomorrow dads from F4J clad in pyjamas will march through London with their beds to the Royal Courts of Justice.

The campaign will see an escalation in direct action after protesting millionaire Guy Harrison scaled the Houses of Parliament in late September.

A spokesman said ‘we are committed to ratcheting up the campaign against the government with more protests at major landmarks and civil disruption to roads and railways over the coming days and weeks.’

~

F4J-UK To Work With Cafcass On Reforms

Despite rejecting proposals by Cafcass, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, contained in their ‘Every Day Matters’ strategy document, campaign group Fathers4Justice have conceded that whilst the reforms do not go far enough, the group will continue dialogue with Cafcass to ensure the advances made are secured and become policy next year.

F4J say that the document includes numerous positive advances including:

* A commitment to shared parenting

* Quantifies the minimum amount of contact to include overnight and weekend staying contact.

* Promotes early interventions in family disputes.

Said an F4J spokesman ‘We believe we have done as much as we can within the confines of working within Cafcass however we also want to safeguard the advances made and will continue to work with Cafcass in that respect.’

‘Our gravest concern is over the tone of the document which talks about children to the exclusion of their parents almost as if they didn’t exist and often abdicates responsibility onto their shoulders. The involvement of children is abusive. They are not mature enough to give informed consent and may have to live with guilt in later life if they make wrong decision. Professionals MUST take responsibility, not hide behind children. If children really are unhappy with a parent then they will no doubt vote with their feet in due course but we MUST start off on the premise that that which children want is generally not good for them ie unlimited sweets, not go to dentist, stay up till late, not go to school, not do homework, etc, etc.’

~

California residents can now download Shared Parenting Ballot Initative petitions here or here.

~

Please join ACFC, Glenn Sacks, RADAR, FAFNY and me in asking for equal time from PBS to rebut the bad image fathers have after they aired the biased film Breaking the Silence, the Children’s Stories (please click those links to take action).

~

Dan Romand of FAFNY and The Family Forum is requesting readers send letters to the editor of the Times Union in regards to this bias article.

~

Robert Stone, of Fathers4Justice-Canada, will be attending the BC Human Rights Tribunal on Tuesday October 25th to Friday the 28th, 2005, to fight for rightful dignity to fathers.

The case can be read HERE. (pdf file)

The case questions whether unacknowledging a father on a birth registration is a violation of one’s dignity. This has been decided at law in the Trociuk vs. BC Attorney General.

The hearing will be held at the BC Human Rights Tribunal, 1170 – 605 Robson Street, Vancouver, BC. MAP Their phone number is 604-775-2000 ext 2 for directions or hearing times.

Support is appreciated by any and all.

Please visit Fathers4Justice-Canada to hear more about the fight for our children to have their natural parents equally in their lives.

~

American Coalition for Fathers and Children (ACFC) and concerned parents are putting billboards up in Champaign, Illinois, and running radio promos for equal parenting.

~

Phyllis Schlafly has agreed to appear on PEP-talk radio December 11th.

~

Judith Miller of Cooperative Parenting Solutions will be speaking at the November 14th Help Stop PAS meeting at the JCC in Houston, Texas at 7:00 pm.
~

Please join Fathers4Justice-Canada and me in supporting Arnie Hein in his trek across Canada by bike in support of fathers’ rights.

~

More fathers’ and family rights information on the Feminist4Fathers blog.

~

Shared parenting information and free parenting plans on Shared Parenting Works.

Ed:LisaM

Powered by

About Teri in Cali, Feminist4Fathers, Queen of Equality

  • http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog The Countess

    Feh. Fathers4Justice imploded ages ago.Haven’t you kept up with the news?

    U. K. Fathers Rights Groups In Uproar Over Fathers 4 Justice

    [Fathers 4 Justice Liverpool had a rant up about Matt O’Conner and the main branch of Fathers 4 Justice, but the post was removed earlier today. A colleague had told me about it, but she had not saved the article. The article was replaced with a F4J Liverpool logo and a “we’ll be back soon” sign.

    Now, the entire site is gone. I get a message saying the server doesn’t exist.

    The web site of the Manchester branch of F4J has also been taken down. So has the web site for F4J Wales.

    The message below is from the Alienated Fathers web site. It’s not available at the web site anymore, but it’s available (probably for a short time) in the Google cache.

    There is a great rift in the fathers’ rights movement in the U. K., thanks to the implosion of Fathers 4 Justice. I’m glad to see these groups fall apart at the seams the way they are. They are being brought down by the ugly natures of their own members.]

    Explanation for removal of Fathers4Justice articles and links

    Most links to F4J articles and their websites have been removed. I have felt this necessary as I cannot, in clear conscience,  further support their efforts via this website and thus condone elements of their conduct brought to my attention, especially considering the unpleasant and distasteful responses of Matt O’Connor (F4J Founder) and Paul Watson (F4J Northeast) to my complaints and that of my wife regarding such conduct and the uncalled for, immature and provocative profanity I have read in response to members of other Fathers Rights groups who have questioned their methods. I personally do not approve of F4J’s recent attack on Tony Blair nor the unacceptable conduct reported after demonstrations and feel such conduct portrays Fathers nationwide in a particularly bad light, which opposing organisations would have a field day with. As a representing body of Fathers nationwide I feel F4J have an obligation, as all such organisations do, to exercise common sense and make every effort to ensure  they represent Fathers as responsible, respectable, decent, mature and upstanding citizens and not tar us all with the same tacky label of aggresive, immature and irresponsible louts. 

    We as Fathers have spent decades being demonized and defamed. It is foolish and counter productive to publicly convey a negative image of ourselves when so many others are already more than willing to do so. 

    Why give credence to the very image we’re fighting to negate? 

    I’d like you to consider the following articles. 

    Considering the very negative pictures that have been painted of fathers over the decades and the necessity to negate the assumptions by Family courts, welfare officers and psychologists that fathers are irresponsible people who warrant close scrutiny, distrust and suspicion, is this really the kind of immature, irresponsible, disruptive and disrespectful representation we need? Causing a parliamentary session to be suspended with such reprehensible conduct will do nothing to ingratiate F4J or the nation’s fathers they represent with the very people we need on our side.

    ***************

    UK parliament disrupted after powder attack on Blair
    http://www.chinaview.cn 2004-05-19 21:46:16

        LONDON, May 19 (Xinhuanet) — The British House of Commons was suspended after purple powders were thrown from the public gallery towards Prime Minister Tony Blair during his speech on Wednesday.

        Fathers 4 Justice, a group which campaigns for fathers denied access to their children, claimed responsibility for targeting the prime minister dispelling fears of a terrorist attack.

        The incident led to the parliamentary session being suspended and the building evacuated.

        Police confirmed that two men were arrested in the wake of the incident and that no-one was injured.

        A spokesman for the father’s rights group said the two men made their protest in the run-up to Father’s Day on June 20, aimed at demanding equal rights for fathers.

        The group, which often seeks publicity through high-profile stunts, said the purple powder, later found to be colored flour, was used because purple is the international color of equality.

        The powder appeared to have come from protestors sitting in a section of the gallery normally reserved for guests of members of parliament.

        The incident is embarrassing to the parliament’s security department given that a massive 600,000 pound (1.08 million US dollar) security screen was recently installed in the public gallery to prevent such incidents.

        Peter Hain, the leader of the House of Commons, warned last month that terrorists might attack parliament with biological weapons or deadly gas.

    ***************
     
    British Authorities Begin Thorough Review of Security Measures for Parliament
    VOA News 
    http://www.VOANews.com
    20 May 2004, 15:03 UTC

     
    House of Commons British authorities have begun a thorough review of security measures for parliament after protesters threw condoms filled with purple powder at Prime Minister Tony Blair on Wednesday.

    Police arrested two members of a father’s rights group for the incident. The powder, which turned out to be harmless purple-colored flour, hit Mr. Blair in the back and shoulder as he was answering lawmakers’ questions. The speaker immediately suspended the proceedings.

    The leader of the ruling Labor Party in the House of Commons, Peter Hain, called the incident serious. He told British radio it would have been a real victory for terrorism if the container had held dangerous material such as ricin or anthrax and had killed a large number of parliament members.

    British authorities recently installed a glass screen in front of the public gallery to prevent such incidents. But the two men had been in an unscreened section reserved for guests of members of parliament. They had been admitted with tickets donated to a charity auction by a member of the House of Lords.

    Some information for this report provided by Reuters, AP and AFP.

    ***************

    These fathers are an affront to justice
    by BARRY COLLINS, Daily Mail, Mail online 13:03pm 19th May 2004

    Smoke screen: Protestors don’t do justice to their cause

    Fathers 4 Justice’s demands for equal rights for fathers is a just cause. But their irresponsible, reckless protests only serve to undermine their case

    Comment: How ironic that a group campaigning for father’s rights so frequently resorts to childish protests. Today’s attack on the Prime Minister by Fathers 4 Justice was utterly mindless, deeply irresponsible and completely self-defeating.

    Yes, the powder paint attack will once again put this lawless rabble back on to the front pages. But for all the wrong reasons.

    No one is listening to their entirely reasonable case for equal access to children for fathers. Instead they roll their eyes and wonder how such a worthwhile cause is being hijacked by a bunch of publicity-seeking primadonnas.

    This is the same group, remember, who sent a man dressed as Spiderman up a crane near the Tower of London, causing days of traffic chaos as police were forced to shut surrounding roads. An enormous waste of public money and police time.

    Let’s hope a little more police time is spent on prosecuting these moronic protestors. Let’s also hope that the thousands of fathers who are legally seeking access to their children disown this futile mouthpiece.

    After all, what sane judge would grant care of children to men who behave in this fashion?

    ***************

    Mr. Collins states the obvious quite succinctly here. Fathers 4 Justice are doing nothing for their cause, OUR cause, but becoming an irritation to those from whom they need support and labeling all fathers as mindless and childish louts, hell bent on civil disobedience, harassment and disruption. As Mr. Collins quite rightly states, what judge in their right mind would grant care and welfare of children to men who behave in such a deplorable fashion, or more importantly any father tarred by the same brush because of the repeated, high profile, negative publicity these activists fuel. The Family courts have done fathers and their children nationwide an injustice time and again. Will it be any great surprise if this continues due to Fathers 4 Justice giving the impression that fathers are irresponsible, immature and disruptive louts? This latest stunt can only be considered of major embarrassment to all fathers.

    Glenn Sacks, presenter of the USA radio talk show ‘His Side’, has stated in am email to me “I support the action against Tony Blair and, as long as Father 4 Justice continues to protest in a nonviolent manner, I will continue to support them.” 

    I’ve got news for you Glenn, in both UK and USA law, throwing a condom filled with purple flour at a person is classed as assault. Matt O’ Connor and his group seem to believe the attackers actions should be irreprehensible despite their assault of The Prime Minister .

    While the Family Courts have repeatedly committed what has been deemed by many to be criminal acts against fathers and their children, we are not justified in breaking the laws of this land in response to their grossly unjust, callous and thoughtless deeds.

    ***************

    More from the Daily Mail.

    Focus falls on Fathers 4 Justice
    14:52pm 19th May 2004 
    Fathers 4 Justice insists its method of protest is unique and provocative – something borne out by today’s extraordinary protest.

    Founded in December 2002 by Matthew O’Connor and Tony Lewis, the group demands equal rights for fathers to see their children.

    It wants equal parenting rights and a legal presumption of contact for parents and grandparents following separation or divorce.

    F4J says it is made up of a cross section of society – fathers, mothers, grandparents, teachers, doctors, policemen and barristers – all fighting for fathers’ rights.

    The group’s website proclaims: “Fathers 4 Justice is an evolutionary, dynamic movement with specific objectives and targets that we desperately need to achieve for children and their families.”

    Major disruption

    But the group has come under fire for its protests, many of which have caused chaos and disruption to major cities.

    F4J’s self-styled “dad’s army” tend to dress up as super-heroes and scale notable buildings.

    Jolly Stanesby is veteran F4J protester – was one half of the “Batman and Robin” duo who staged a protest on the roof of the Royal Courts of Justice in October last year.

    In January this year, the registered childminder from Ivybridge in Devon climbed the gantry of the Tamar bridge, near Plymouth.

    He was joined by 36-year-old Jayne Woodman, a human resources manager from Swansea, who was the first woman to protest on behalf of the group.

    The demonstration caused long tailbacks on both the Devon and Cornwall approaches to the bridge when the pair blocked the carriageway with two cars.

    David Chick dressed up as Spiderman and climbed a 145ft crane in a six-day protest costing the taxpayer £50 million.

    The 36-year-old brought central London to a halt during his Tower Bridge sit-in last November. Although not a member of F4J, his actions were congratulated by the group.

    On June 13 last year, 50 fathers, mothers and grandparents stormed Court 1 of the Family Division of the High Court and held an hour long occupation of the court.

    In May last year Plymouth County Court was closed for an hour as two F4J members climbed on to the roof wearing Tony Blair masks and carried a giant banner which declared Plymouth as the UK’s “Worst Family Court”.

    On December 17 2002, F4J staged its first demonstration – a raid on the offices of the Lord Chancellor’s Department by 200 Father Christmases campaigning to ‘Save Father Christmas’.

    Only time will tell if today’s high-profile protest will help bring the changes the group demands.

  • http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog The Countess

    Don’t you know that the U. K. government does not support 50/50 shared parenting? It already rejected it once, and U. K. shared parenting advocates weren’t happy about it. Here is the latest debate at the U. K. Parliament aboujt the latest round regarding “shared parenting”. This is also posted on my blog.

    Earl Howe: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a simple question. Does he or does he not support the presumption of reasonable contact between both parents and the child?

    Lord Adonis: Our belief is that the courts make reasonable judgments at present.

    Earl Howe: To reject the proposition that there should be no statutory presumption of a reasonable meaningful relationship between parents and child is to say that parents should not be allowed to have reasonable contact with their own children, even if there is no good reason why they should not do so.
     
    12 Oct 2005 : Column GC117
     
    That is the implication of the noble Lord’s position and of the position taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. I invite them both to reflect on that.

    Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I shall challenge that. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said this more eloquently than I can, but I continue to be concerned about the definition of “reasonableness”. If we begin to put ourselves into the courts and the judges look to the president of the Family Law division for guidance, then we are in danger of specifying times. Children are simply not packages to be divided up. We hear of children who have to leave their father’s home at four o’clock in the morning in order to get to school the next day, and we hear of children talking about living out of suitcases. Those situations already exist under the present arrangements and they are unsatisfactory for children. That is why we are looking to ensure that that kind of situation does not continue.

    Baroness Walmsley: Will the noble Baroness give way? Does she accept that the situations that she has just described are unreasonable?

    Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I believe they are unreasonable and that is why I do not think that we should have that kind of statutory position. We need better practice right across the board, and we need to ensure that, whatever action we take, the child’s interests are paramount. It has already been pointed out that courts do not always get it right, but we have to work towards getting more cases right. In my view, that means ensuring that more children have appropriate access to their parents—access which does not affect their emotional development. That is what we are looking for.

    Earl Howe: I would not disagree with that for one second. I say to the noble Baroness that to build in a statutory presumption of reasonable contact would fetter the court only to the extent that it would prevent the court accepting a poor or bad reason to deny reasonable meaningful contact between the child and both his parents. That is the only sense in which it would fetter the court. It would certainly not override the paramountcy of the child’s needs. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that it would be for the court to decide what was reasonable in individual cases, and that decision would be embodied in terms of units of time, as it typically is now.

    The strange thing about the position of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is that he said to us at Second Reading:

    “We fully support the position established in case law that children normally benefit from a meaningful relationship with both parents following separation, so long as it is safe and in their best interests for that to happen”.—[Official Report, 29/6/05; col. 251.]

    If that is not a presumption, I do not know what is. It is a presumption of meaningful reasonable contact. The noble Lord is arguing that that presumption should not be built into the Children Act. I cannot for the life of me think why he is resisting it—it is the goal that we all want to attain.

    Lord Adonis: I think that we shall return to this matter. However, the noble Earl needs to be clear. Unless I have completely misunderstood everything that he said yesterday, he wants significantly to change the presumption. He wants courts to have to take account of a statutory presumption that one-third contact should be awarded to one of the parties.

    Earl Howe: Let us get away from the one-third issue.

    Lord Adonis: So the noble Earl does not agree with the concept of one third.

    Earl Howe: The amendment introduced by my noble friend proposing a one-third split as a minimum was a means of airing this whole issue of what a court might find as reasonable. The Government’s own Green Paper spoke of 100 nights of contact for the non-resident parent. That figure is not plucked out of the air. The Government themselves came up with the notion of 100 nights a year. If the noble Lord cares to look at the Green Paper, he will see that there is a reference to it.

    This was one way of focusing the Minister’s mind on the idea of reasonableness. Do not let us get hung up on the idea that it should apply in every single case or that the Opposition think that it should. Every case will be judged on its merits. The point is that if you have a presumption of reasonable contact, you need a good reason to deny the non-resident parent meaningful contact.

    The Minister told us that the Family Resolutions pilot had now ended and would be evaluated. The original intention in the Bill was that the contact activities provided for in Clause 1 would be dependent on the new infrastructure which Family Resolutions would have set up nationwide. Family Resolutions will not now do that, so where does that leave Clause 1? What can the Minister tell us about these programmes, classes, and information and advice sessions? Does he have a list of what they will comprise? Are plans for any contact activities in preparation and, if so, which ones? Does he have a list of accredited providers of contact activities? In other words, does anything yet exist to give substance to the Clause 1 provisions? Perhaps I could ask him to expand on that area.

    Lord Adonis: I shall come back to the noble Earl and write to Members of the Committee on where we are with regard to the arrangements. But as the provisions in the clause have not yet taken effect, one would not expect the plans to be well developed.

    Lord Northbourne: In order to clarify matters for Report stage, would the noble Lord be prepared to write to me and to other Members of the Committee explaining exactly what the instruction to the courts is at present? If it is not reasonable contact, on what basis are the courts instructed to make their judgments? If it is simply the well-being of the child, surely, as I said earlier, a whole range of different situations could equally be for the well-being of the child. Are the courts guided by some kind of research? Who guides the courts and on what principles are their decisions based at present? I am not asking for an answer now.

    Earl Howe: I am disappointed that the Minister said that he does not expect the plans to be very far advanced. The project which was supposed to usher in all these contact activities is defunct. The Minister’s statement that it is being evaluated is a euphemism for what has happened—that is, it was plainly a flop and further expenditure on it has been deemed unjustifiable. So, I say again, where does that leave these parenting plans? To what scheme are they to be attached if nothing remains of the pilot project? The situation is quite extraordinary.

  • http://feminist4fathers.blogspot.com/ Teri

    Hello Trish,
    I see you’re still busy with your hobby, spreading lies about us “angry fathers’ rights activists.” That is what you called us in your letter to my legislators, isn’t it Trish? Have I ever been rude towards you Trish? I think not.

    It’s kind of funny, actually, that you think you know soooo much about Fathers4Justice. I’m in contact with all of the players involved and I can assure you that you don’t have a clue.

    Just like you don’t even know what the fathers and family rights movement really is. You refuse to listen. I know, if you did you wouldn’t have this oh-so-fun hobby of yours. So carry on. Just know that every day that goes by that you are wrong, the more foolish you look.

    Teri Stoddard
    Feminist4Fathers (and mothers)

  • Jeremy Swanson

    Oh this is hilarious. Talk about “keeping up with the news” and all that? This “countess” is so far out of touch with time, news and reality she thinks she is giving us all a news scoop. F4J imploded? Wot? Oh that is too funny. Let her keep it up, She makes herself look quite ridiculous and does us all a favour by it.

    I was going to give her a run down on the real story behind the re-emergence of F4J-OUR HEROES-and the fact that Matt is back in full control. Not only that but also he is featured in the latest edition of Esquire magazine-as one of the 50 most influential people in the UK. No wonder the countess of crap is going ballistic. After all jealousy often knows no bounds.

    Anyway I realized after reading that juvenile diatribe of man-hate from the COC that I need write nothing in rebuttal or correction. She has made herself look so stupid and ill informed she has basically done my job for me.

    And this is the woman who tries to run us all down by calling us all “angry men”? Well at least she has that right. We are darned angry and proud of it. We have every reason to be angry and most of us wear it as a badge of honour. And this is the writing of our enemy? Damn the whole battle just got easier. When one views the quality of the enemy as represented by the Countess of Crap then holy hell we have won before we even start the fight…

    WhooHaaa !

    Teri dear you have nothing to be concerned about with this woman. She is way past her ‘best before date’

    Swannie

  • http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog The Countess

    Rather than attack me, address what I wrote. Fathers 4 Justice has imploded because of serious internal problems. Many branches of F4J closed shop and shut down their web sites after the founding group fell apart. The post I wrote showing IN THEIR OWN WORDS how these men cannot even get along with each other, let alone organize a successful group, shows that Fathers 4 Justice couldn’t even stay afloat. Recent articles about the latest publicity stunts of the remaining members of Fathers 4 Justice focused on the security lapses, not on their cause. David Chick (Spiderman) was accused of harassing his sister-in-law by sending her and her children “a string of offensive texts.” He called the woman a “sick child abuser”. He also blocked her car and made obscene gestures at her. Yeah, that sounds like a good dad.

    I miswrote something – the U. K. actually rejected presumptive 50/50 shared parenting twice. Fathers 4 Justice’s main goal was to get presumptive 50/50 shared parenting made into law, and it has failed. The Lords Hansard document shows that presumptive 50/50 shared parenting will still not be considered by the U. K. government.

    Here is more on the implosion of Fathers 4 Justice and the infighting that had continued between fathers’ rights activists. The following is in the words of Fathers 4 Justice activists. They aren’t my words. The rift was very damaging, and you can’t ignore it.

    From: Graham
    Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 20:55:38 +0100
    To: Matthew O’Connor
    Subject: I WASN’T PUSHED – I JUMPED!

    Dear All

    I don’t take kindly to people telling lies about me so this is my
    response to Matt O’Connor’s e-mail posted earlier.

    We’ve come a long way in this campaign – too long to let it
    be destroyed by a corrupt dishonest despot and his sidekick.

    For the record I wasn’t kicked out of Fathers4Justice today, I
    left yesterday the moment I learned Jeff Skinner and Chris Hawkins
    had been expelled for whistle-blowing the shameful behaviour
    of Jason Hatch. Behaviour that our leader hoped he could brush
    under the carpet. Those of you know them, know Chris and
    Jeff to be dedicated activists of the utmost integrity and will
    not be convinced by the vile accusations of Mr.O’Connor.

    We’ve heard these type of accusations before – it’s all starting
    to sound too familiar now.

    The last time I read lies about myself was in the family court.
    I never expected to read them in F4J. Far from being ‘dismissed’
    – a drunken Matt O’Connor begged me to stay this morning and
    I told him where to go. This only confirms to me I’ve done the
    right thing. It also casts doubt on everything this man has ever
    told me regarding the ambiguous expulsion of so many of our
    numbers, people who gave their time and energy to changing
    the law in this country, not motivated by greed and
    self-glorification but by the genuine belief that what they were
    doing was right. Our motto is ‘Truth, Justice and Equality in
    family law and it’s about time we extended that to include
    Fathers4Justice itself.

    No-one has been prouder than I to be part of this organisation.
    It gave me a reason to live when my reason for living was taken
    away. I will always be grateful for that. Nevertheless, I will no
    longer tolerate the bullshit, double-standards, hypocrisy and
    mis-management which has become a way of life for our so-
    called ‘management team’. Our members get enough of that
    in the family courts – they certainly don’t expect it from us.

    Chris Hawkins and Jeff Skinner – my hat is off to you both.
    Thankyou for having the courage of your convictions, and
    whether or not you’re both undercover journalists working
    for Granada, I’m glad you had the balls to speak out.

    Jenny Bostock – unlike the rest of us, your hands are tied. I
    will miss you, Jenny.

    Matt O’Connor – don’t you dare threaten me with civil, criminal
    or any other type of action – Have some dignity and walk away
    from me like I am walking away from you. Shame on you.

    Graham Manson.

    —— Forwarded Message

    From: Dave Chick
    Reply-To:
    Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 13:55:28 +0200 (CEST)
    Subject: Re: Re: I WASN’T PUSHED – I JUMPED!

    Mr O’connor

    You use, abuse, and ignore countless decent people who have made f4j
    what it is (although you really are losing the plot of late). Your
    slagging off of Graham Manson, particularly the bit about him not
    having any children of his own, shows you to be a very
    sick man as well as the above mentioned. You did good early
    days but now you are just a liability causing more damage than
    good, its time for you to hand the reigns over to someone who
    can remain focused on the job in hand, rather than you
    drag the whole fathers / children‚s rights movement back to
    where it was before f4j began. Where is all the money going?
    how much of it have you wasted on alcohol and other
    things for yourself? What did you do with the thousands I gave to
    f4j and what did you do with the 5 figure donation in 2003. On
    top of that you showed up at the last day of my trial pissed –
    do the right thing, better late than never and move aside.

    Dave Chick

    —— Forwarded Message

    From: PETER MOLLOY
    Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 01:11:51 +0100
    Subject: RE: I WASN’T PUSHED – I JUMPED!

    Graham,

    I’m glad that you have been able to see the light at long last
    mate,

    When I was advocating what you have said below and a lot
    more in the middle of last year F4J members just rubbished
    me saying it was `sour grapes’ and I was full of shit. I
    am still waiting for these scumbags to say it to my face and
    they will have the opportunity again on the 17th, but they
    won’t cos they know I was right. Those who said that are only
    in it for themselves or too busy getting stoned on F4J demos
    and it being swept under the carpet. Those dead beat dads
    amongst us are a liability to our cause & to every decent parent
    and grandparent who at one time believed F4J was a good thing.
    Not only as the egotistics and drug addicts of the Fascists, sorry,
    Fathers 4 Justice let the respectable members of the organization
    down they have also let our children down.

    F4J could have brought about something really good but not for
    certain personalities, whom I don’t have to mention, it as
    failed. Well done you pricks and shame on you. Tick tock tick
    tock time is running out Matt & co.

    I’m off to America tomorrow for a nice little holiday and to
    spread the word about the real F4J and to pass the word round not to
    send money to Matt or F4J because nobody knows where it goes.
    Remember in April 2003 at the meeting in Bristol when Matt told
    us that the organization had received a `5 figure donation’
    well that was not declared through companies house and not on
    F4J’s accounts. What are you doing with the money Matt?

    How is your own company doing!

    Matt is a liability folks and can’t be trusted and at long last
    people are starting to see through him. We can’t have a dead
    beat dad in charge of this organization and it is up to you, the
    members to do something about it. If I was you I would hit Matt
    where it hurts and that’s his pocket and cancel your membership
    but remain a supporter of the aims of F4J. The arsehole won’t
    even get on a roof himself but instead wants ordinary members
    to do it and when they go to prison just fucks them off. Come
    `ed folks wake up to him and stop being used.

    To the tune of `London Bridge is falling down’ : `F4J is
    falling down falling down falling down. F4J is falling down poor
    old Matty’.

    Take care and see you on the 17th.

    Pete

    PS Has anyone seen some ladies £500!

    —— Forwarded Message

    From: Michael
    Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 23:39:00 +0100
    To:
    Subject: Re: I’m off too…

    Guy,

    Thanks for replying so quickly. The argument you bring
    forward with regards to Matt’s talent and contribution is
    without a doubt true. Only a fool would argue that F4J
    would have got as far as it has without Matt.

    Nevertheless we are dealing with people’s life and that of
    their children and their aspirations. We are very close to
    the Promised Land. We came a long way and contributing
    it solely to Matt as if he is God is in my view a mistake. Many
    people, good people put much effort to this assent including
    you and the brave act you committed. It wasn’t one man, it
    was our willingness to do his bidding without questioning,
    without thinking about ourselves and consequences of our
    actions first. There are many good men in this organisation
    who had laboured behind the scene, risking their livelihood
    and freedom as we witness recently and had little credit for
    their endeavours, little rewards and little in return when you
    considering the fact that some individuals in the top F4J had
    never done more then risking their launch appointments.

    Further, it is not accepted that other individuals are caught with
    their hands in the till, and Matt is trying to silence those of had
    the decency and courage to bring this mater to the attention of
    the group. In addition, he smears them with allegations that
    they are `working for the enemy, the press’. If Chris
    Hawkins does work for the press, at least he doses his job properly
    by exposing corruption and wrong doings sussesfully.

    History teaches us that leaders who cannot be questioned or
    challenged do commit mistakes and worse, start believing in
    their own immortality. Well, sadly none of us is irreplaceable
    including me, you and Matt.

    I will have no part in what I consider to be wrong or worse
    corruption and bullyboy tactics.

    Take care and I hope you get to see your kids soon as I wish
    it for the rest of us too.

    Michael

    —— Forwarded Message

    From: Michael
    Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 21:48:40 +0100
    To:
    Subject: I’m off too…

    I just finish reading the words of Graham Manson who I
    deeply trust, respect and appreciate as honest and
    upstanding friend.

    Over the last six months I have heard these sentiments
    expressed by many of my friends and I too share the feeling
    that all is not well. Having no regrets or misgivings about my
    involvement in the group I would have carried out my tasks as
    required of me many times over. However, enough is enough
    and I am no longer prepared to stand idol while members of
    this group mismanage the group or funds in whichever order.
    I can live without my children as painful as it is but not prepared
    to lose my dignity or my standards and morality, I therefore
    follow Graham Manson by departing from F4J.

    Michael Sadeh

    Seeing how Fathers 4 Justice can’t even stand on its own two feet because of all the infighting and, to use the words of former members of Fathers 4 Justice – “sour grapes”, “scumbags”, “too busy getting stoned on F4J demos”, “deadbeat dads amongst us”, “egotistics”, “other individuals are caught with their hands in the till”, “corruption and wrong doing”, “bullyboy tactics”, and “mismanage the group and funds” – you are doing yourselves a disservice in supporting Fathers 4 Justice. Groups like Fathers 4 Justice don’t represent decent fathers, only those who want to soothe their massive egos with infighting and publicity stunts.

  • http://feminist4fathers.blogspot.com/ Teri In Cali

    Trish,
    Come on, you’re smarter than this. Look at the dates. This was in May. The truth is you only know what you read in the news and in online posts.

    I know these people. I work with F4J management, with every branch of F4J all around the world. And the movement is much larger than just F4J, there are advocates, activists and reformists worldwide. The movement for equal parenting rights for all fit parents is stronger than ever.

    Why don’t you spend your time learning the truth instead of chasing shadows? You could actually help kids. Try reading something other than your radical feminist studies. I know, you could read my blog and website.

    One day we’ll all be on the same side. We all want the best for children. But you’re gonna have to stop the negative propaganda if you ever want to get real. When you do, let’s talk.

    Teri

  • http://feminist4fathers.blogspot.com/ Teri In Cali

    Hey Trish,

    Thanks for the link to the God/Goddess test. I scored a Amun- “In spite of Amun’s political ascension, he also enjoyed popularity among the common people of Egypt, who came to call him the vizier of the poor, the protector of the weak, and an upholder of justice.”

    PROTECTOR OF THE WEAK
    UPHOLDER OF JUSTICE

    Yep, that’s me!

    Teri

  • http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog The Countess (Trish Wilson)

    Teri, I know the truth. I think yo’ure wasting your time with groups like Fathers 4 Justice. Fathers’ rights activists can’t even stop their infighting and bickering enough to allow their groups to become effective. Fathers 4 Justice isn’t the only fathers’ rights group I’ve seen implode because those men and women can’t even get along with each other, let alone work together to get anything done. That doesn’t include their own accusations against other members and leaders of fraud, mismanagement, and egotism. Fathers 4 Justice will not see it’s number one priority to fruition. The U. K. has rejected presumptive 50/50 shared parenting twice already. The Lords Hansard also do not support it. As Baroness Howarth of Breckland had said, “Children are simply not packages to be divided up. We hear of children who have to leave their father’s home at four o’clock in the morning in order to get to school the next day, and we hear of children talking about living out of suitcases. Those situations already exist under the present arrangements and they are unsatisfactory for children. That is why we are looking to ensure that that kind of situation does not continue.” How effective can a fathers’ rights group really be if it can’t make any headway on the issue it has said is it’s number one priority?

    Yeah, that God/Goddess test was fun, wasn’t it? I was Coyote, a trickster god. Didn’t surprise me one bit. ;)