Just when you posted I heard on the news,

Its just as bad howevewr, some father indeed adore their children, and they are forbidden from seeing them.

yay! it was magnificent! ordinary p[eople with super-powers humiliating the Royal Family, the Givt and the security forces.

"of course, ahem, it's very serious really, he could easily have been a terrorist.."

yeh. right. dressed as Batman. cunning Al-Quaeda plot that.

hmmmmmmmmm,

---

he could easily have been a terrorist.."

---

A terrorist?? that would be a first, last I heard Terrorists want to mingle in a crowd, not stand out in one, by climbing the queens public residence and stand there shouting and raving (in a good cause if I may say so)

Problem with this is, some bad apples spoil it for the rest, some women and children are being abused by the father(-figure) and divorce from him in good reason, to prevent the father(-figure) from ever laying a hand on em. aside from that, they usually do file for a restraining order, usually with a radius of a mile or so (just to name something), but families that split up in harmony (as far as it can be considered a harmony, in any case not because of reason stated above) are literally the "dupé" or in proper english, they're up the proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle.

Edited by - Locutus on 9/13/2004 11:43:30 AM

Unfortunately, following along the lines of what taw said, what has received the more publicity, the fact "Batman" and "Robin" broke into buckingham palace or the cause fathers for justice are trying to portray to the world. With all the security breaches with the royal family me thinks it will be the security. With Osama Bin Laden gatecrashing Prince Williams birthday party and the Daily Mail reporter getting a job as a queens guard. Along with the notorious purple powdered condom issue in the houses of parliament

Provided Fathers 4 Justice stick to their guns and remain harmless in their protests, then they have my support. Obviously fathers who are complete idiots don't deserve to see their children but those who as Loc said broke up somewhat well, the UK system a good percentage of the time will favour the Mother and give very little access rights to the father.

TBH - the way the media have dealt with this is pretty appalling in my opinion.

They were accosted as they tried to get over the wall in the first instance. The police had already decided that these two were non dangerous intruders, who were not going to pose a threat to anyone, and so did not use the force that they can in stopping them. When one hopped over the wall (Robin was detained on the correct side....the outside) the other was allowed to run across and get to where he wanted to be.

Fact remains was that IF it were a breach of security that was dangerous....they would have been shot..

The media are WAY overplaying this one....making it sound like if it were a terrorist that he would have bombed Buckingham palace without any trouble - truth is he would have been shot getting on top of the wall if they suspected him like that. The fact those men dressed so stupidly for Fathers for Justice most likely saved their lives. That is probabily their intention when doing these stunts - shows they are harmless people instead of nutters.
However, it does show how they SHOULD go about it if they wanted...dress up and pretent to be nice, and then detonate your bombs instead...cause we are too nice to shoot people for idiotic stunts like that.

in reality it is the mothers who get the bulk of the support and weight of the courts and the authorities behind them, and the mothers who can get away with breaking the rules, even the one's they agreed to. this isn't laid down in law that it's mothers who benefit, not is the system intrinsically weighted one way or the other on a gender basis.

it's largely because of the 1989 Children Act, which lays down that it is the children's interests with the CUSTODIAL parent that have priority. Courts love status quos, they don't want to change anything, so it doesn't matter of the non-custodial parent doesn't get a look in, or if his former spouse simply ignores the orders laid down by the court. There isn't a court in the land that has ever or will ever convict any custodial parent of failing to keep a contact agreement, because as custodial parent the court won't risk disturbing the existing custodial arrangements. Nor would a custodial parent be fined. it doesn't even class as contempt, it's just a non-starter. However if a non-custodial parent fails to keep an agreement they're liable to be threatened with prison I was on the recieving end of this so I know what these guys are going through.

the law may not a priori favour mothers over fathers, it's just that almost all parental separations involve the father leaving the marital home and the mother retaining it as a home for the children until they're legally adults., often at the father's expense.

so lets take for granted that the vast majority of non-custodial parents are men (besides dad's easier to type)

on top of this, the Child Support Agency will impose much stricter penalties and orders on the hapless dad than a civil court. Courts have to take into acccount the individuals ability to pay, after his necessary living expenses are deucted from his nett earnings. The CSA imposes penalties from based on gross income, as it's other and some might say true purpose is to cut the govts benefits bill to non-working mothers, who in the mid-80s were vilified by the Tories as the source of the nation's woes. The CSA doesn't give a stuff about a mother who's working and paying taxes, nor does it give a dam about a dad who's on benefit. But they will rapidly locate and hound a working father for sufficient contribution to enable the mother to stop claiming benefits, regardless of his own circumstances., and regardless of any prior or subsequent arrangements made via solicitors or by a court.

and you can't take the CSA to court, although you can appeal your own case in the High Court. the CSA will usually back off then.

Some people over estimate themselves as targets. If I were a terrorist, and I could dupe security like that, I'd save the bomb or what have you for parliment or England's financial targets. If I had to pick a target to be hit, I would pick the queen, just because she is a figurehead that, while it would cause severe cultural pains to England, it would leave her government and economic systems physically unharmed, although would probably be greatly affected by morale. I'm not saying I want the queen to get shot, but if the terrorists want to use a bomb, and you're choosing between the whole of parliment and the royal family, the choice is obvious. In the meantime, let batman prance, and worry more about the issues he's protesting and less about what's in his utility belt. --- VH16

I am Nobody; Nobody is Perfect; Therefore, I am Perfect

Things are still shaking out over here. With the new gender equality, so to speak, child custody battles have begun to take on epic proportions for the purpose of establish court made law precedence.

For the men here, the problem is more related to the fact of many of our bretheren being dead beat dads. Meaning, of course, that they have shirked their duty or failed in their duty to provide the child support ordered by the court. So there already is bad publicity against the dads in this arena.

Generally, courts here also tend to believe that it is in the better interest of the child to have the mother remain as the custodial parent unless, of course, there is proof of the mother's general incapacity or lesser capacity. Most Dad's figure they are more than lucky if they win co-custody with the mom except that, generally, in a 7 day week, mom still gets 4 days while the dad will get only 3.

As the years go on and the child custody wrangles continue, though, I've noticed that an equilibrium is approaching in which the bias in favor of moms has lessened to a great degree and seems more to reflect the same tendancy that most of these dad's don't wan custody in the first place.

As for dead beat dads, that's still a different problem altogether.

Edited by - Indy11 on 9/13/2004 4:54:39 PM

Ya, I saw that on the news today, pretty funny.

Life: No one gets out alive.

---

Most Dad's figure they are more than lucky if they win co-custody with the mom except that, generally, in a 7 day week, mom still gets 4 days while the dad will get only 3.

---

Just to give you a comparison Indy, one of the most common arrangements in the UK is the dad gets to see his kids every other weekend. That gives the father 2 days to the mother's 12!

It has always been that way though. The courts are unbelievably biased when it comes to granting custody; the woman almost always wins. I believe that it is due to the societal image of the "mother" being more nurturing and secure, etc.

There is a note on exception in the US, at the age of 13 and on, the child can ask to live with either parent and unless there is a problem, ie abuse, a judge can grant it.

The Children's Act was. believe it or not, intended to negate that bias to a large extent. Nowhere in it's wording will you find any reference or implication that favours mothers over fathers; ibut courts and welfare services ahve to get by in the real world like everyone else, and most of the time it is the mother who will keep the kids and the dad who goes.

admittedley in a custody battle, a lot of judges are going to be biased towards the mother, but as a statute, it is the "custodial parent" who holds all the cards. Unless, as you say, there is evidence of abuse, inappropriate conditions, likelihood of abduction. This latter is always the Court's concern when dealing with Asian or M Eastern families, because of a spate of whisking the kids off to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, or Abu Dhabi, or wherever in recent years. This si a real problem for Western courts and agencies, as attitudes aren't the same outside of US/Europe. It is not assumed that the woman automatically gets custody of the kids, rather its assumed that the father has the rights once he divorces the woman, and she's cut loose. When the mother is a westerner, then there's a real culture clash.

Edited by - Tawakalna on 9/14/2004 11:04:44 AM