Two Powder Missiles thrown at PM @ House of Commons

Originally Posted by zovat

People who are desperate will do desperate things. Until you know the circumstances that drove these people to make such a protest (whether you agree with the action or not) you cannot possibly make a judgement on them.

Or course you can judge them on the act alone, the driving force behind the act is irrelevant. The logical extension of your argument is that we are currently in no position to judge the 9/11 hijackers as we are not 100% certain of their personal motivations.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Or course you can judge them on the act alone, the driving force behind the act is irrelevant.

What about when a person offers up the defence that when they commited an act, they were 'depressed' or it was 'out of character' or 'desperation'?

[zovat]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Or course you can judge them on the act alone, the driving force behind the act is irrelevant. The logical extension of your argument is that we are currently in no position to judge the 9/11 hijackers as we are not 100% certain of their personal motivations.

The scale is totally different - the hijackers of 9/11 deliberately killed thousands of people, these guys threw some flour at the PM...

come on - lets get some perspective on this.

what I said was that you cannot judge someones ability to be a parent by such an act.
That is like saying that XX is unfit to be a parent because he/she once got dressed up as a cartoon character and threw an egg at john prescott....

The fact that they show one bit of bad judgement (in your eyes) in terms of
how they wish to bring public visibility to their grievances, cannot, and should not beused as any measure of their ability/willingness to bring up a child. The issue should be whether they can bing the child up in a loving environment, and (in most cases) whether they are the best parent to do so(as the law so often favours the mother no matter what they are like or what the wishes of the child are).

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by towny

They did absolutely nothing of the sort! The throwing of flour, eggs, rotten fruit and all kinds of other stuff is a firmly established part of political campaigning in this country. It's a tradition that goes back centuries. Hurling missiles at politicians doesn't suddenly become a '[mock] terrorist attack' just because a real terrorist organisation is thought to be plotting outrages in the UK.

This has nothing to do with eggs and rotten fruit - it has everything to do with a coloured powder. If you stop and think what every member of the commons was thinking when they saw that dispersing infront of them then maybe you would see where I was coming from. Just becuase they are public figures, whatever your personal political views, does not mean that they should be exposed to such a terrifying event. And where does the word terrorist come from?

Originally Posted by Russ D

Sorry, I know you're just giving your views but that's IMO just rubbish. F4J are left to such 'stunts' because there is no other way to bring the injustice of the family courts to the public's attention.

You mean by discussing the nature of any reforms with the Conservatives (sorry I got it wrong yesterday when I said Government) - from which now they will be no part at all - would have no effect? Geting an opposition party on-side would be quite effective - but now sadly they don't have a voice. I heard someone reading out an email on the radio - he was a member of F4J, currently going through a difficult time with access rights and so on - he was very anti the events. Like I said - it's not every member that's the problem, it's the front of the group that are the liability.

Not very scientific, granted, but on the talk show I was listening to last night, the presenter was saying that they had around 800 e-mails on this subject, approx 3% were in support.

The problem you have now is that the group has not become the news - working in the media as I do, I know that the story will not focus on the plight of the group, rather the stupid stunts they get up to - mission failed.

The public then only see the stunts, and see them as a joke. Message lost.

I don't know how to better get the message across - if I had all the answers I'd be PM, but this is not the way to do it.

Originally Posted by Russ D

How about instead of criticising those who are trying to make life easier for those treated unfairly, we concentrate on changing the way family courts treat fathers like third class citizens? Women have always traditionally been held back in the workplace and unfairly disadvantaged, and quite rightly have had laws changed for them and steadily over the years changes have been implemented.

Like I said, this is nothing to do with the issue - the issue is a serious one - but the actions of this group are not. There are, I know, members of F4J that are there for the right reasons, support and so on - but the people fronting it are not.

Originally Posted by zovat

Pesonally - Yes I would - in this country we have the right of free speech and the right to protest.

Really? I don't think you would - I think you would call them (like most rational people) irresponsible and misguided. Take this to next level then, what about an Iraqi firing a gun into the sky as a protest to the occupation of his country? Is that legitimate too? Or should he be shot?

Originally Posted by zovat

would so many people be aware of this issue without the coverage caused by F4J ?

Well along the same lines as I said above, I don't really believe that this does help to further the promotion of the subject - it only serves to promote the group themselves - which I think is rather selfish towards the normal and hard-done by fathers who are also members of the group.

Originally Posted by zovat

And if this gets one more person who is affected by these injustices to contact them and realise that he is not alone, then I cannot see the problem.

I see your point, but I would hazzard a guess that for every one person that is now supporting the organisation, there are many more that have dropped their support.

Originally Posted by zovat

You obviously feel strongly about this issue, and feel that F4J are doing more harm than good - I have a different opinion, though I feel no less stronly about the issue.

I feel strongly about people launching mock-terrorist attacks on the foundation of our government. I feel strongly about any injustice on any individual anywhere in the world. I also feel strongly about freedom of speech and opinion - which is why I respect your viewpoint. Trouble is for expressing mine I seem to have been castigated by some. Shame the freedom they seem to want doesn't apply to others.

Originally Posted by zovat

How can you decide whether someone is fit to be a parent based on one act?

So if a father murdered someone (only once) it wouldn't be acceptable for me to judge them an unfit parent?

Originally Posted by zovat

People who are desperate will do desperate things. Until you know the circumstances that drove these people to make such a protest

Absolutely, I complete agree with this. Trouble is that these two don't currently have wrangles over parental rights - so one has to ask what their motivation really is. It's the guys who are suffering I feel really sorry for, becuase these two have not helped them at all.

Originally Posted by zovat

as always these are my opinions - feel free to disagree, but I'm not going to change them any more than you are likely to change yours.

ABSOLUTELY!!! As Johnny Roten said once...'It's our differences that make us valid' - I respect your point of view, hopefully as much as you respect mine!

Originally Posted by Russ D

What about when a person offers up the defence that when they commited an act, they were 'depressed' or it was 'out of character' or 'desperation'?

Out of character, desperation - Simply not a defence. You could apply the defence of desperation to a Palestinian suicide bomber. I'm surprised to find you supporting them.

Depressed - They would have to be assessed to determine the level of depression. They will then either be found fit to stand trial, so no defence, or clinically insanse, in which case they would probably be locked up anyway.

[Russ]

The reason the law often favours the mother is it's because it's she who gets left. In divorce and seperation cases the law does it's best to keep the child at the family home. Statistics prove that the majority of people who leave the home are men - so intially the mother is given custody as she is home with the children.

However it is viewed by many that because the man left them, he is obviously unfit to be a parent ("how could a loving parent leave?") and unable to form a full-time relationship with his children. Irregardless of the fact his wife/girlfriend made made life unbearable for him, or they just could not stand the site of each other and it was mutually agreed that he be the one to leave.

It is this scandelous way of thinking which needs to be changed.

A man can easily establish a safe and loving home for his children - anyone who say otherwise is either being deliberately sexist and stupid or incredibly naive.

Originally Posted by zovat

The scale is totally different - the hijackers of 9/11 deliberately killed thousands of people, these guys threw some flour at the PM...

come on - lets get some perspective on this.

I would argue that it is you who does not have perspective if you decide to pick and choose in this nature.

Originally Posted by zovat

what I said was that you cannot judge someones ability to be a parent by such an act.
That is like saying that XX is unfit to be a parent because he/she once got dressed up as a cartoon character and threw an egg at john prescott....

An egg is one thing, a bag full of unidentified power is another entirely.

Originally Posted by zovat

The fact that they show one bit of bad judgement (in your eyes) in terms of
how they wish to bring public visibility to their grievances, cannot, and should not beused as any measure of their ability/willingness to bring up a child. The issue should be whether they can bing the child up in a loving environment, and (in most cases) whether they are the best parent to do so(as the law so often favours the mother no matter what they are like or what the wishes of the child are).

A bit of bad judgement? They have a department specifically to think up this kind of thing, that much they have admitted themselves.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by andygrif

Not very scientific, granted, but on the talk show I was listening to last night, the presenter was saying that they had around 800 e-mails on this subject, approx 3% were in support.

If that's true then it's the first time I've ever heard of such a statistic being so low.

Originally Posted by andygrif

Like I said, this is nothing to do with the issue - the issue is a serious one - but the actions of this group are not. There are, I know, members of F4J that are there for the right reasons, support and so on - but the people fronting it are not.

Absolutely not - how many people had previously heard about F4J before they started such protests? This issue (amongst others, obviously) needs to be rammed down the throat of every politition in the country.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I'm surprised to find you supporting them.

Supporting them? I've been a subscribing member of the Swansea F4J for almost a year now.

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by Russ D

It is this scandelous way of thinking which needs to be changed.

A man can easily establish a safe and loving home for his children - anyone who say otherwise is either being deliberately sexist and stupid or incredibly naive.

Russ I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing with that - but I also don't think this is the topic on discussion. Like I said yesterday, there are injustcies, but this is not the way to bring them to people's attention - which I firmly beleive they have not done on the wider scale anyway.

The knock-on effects of yesterday's ourbust could be far more serious. The rock this country's democracy was built on is based on accessibility.

I have the right to go to the House of Commons and observe proceedings, check my representative is there expressing my opinions and so on. There is every possibility (although I hope it won't happen) that questions will be asked as to whether the public should be allowed anywhere near the Commons after this. This would further remove the government from the public, increase apathy, and move us far further away from the democratic state in which we live.

Originally Posted by Russ D

If that's true then it's the first time I've ever heard of such a statistic being so low.

This was just the figure on Talk Sport last night - I'm not saying this is the total support for people's plights - just the stunt. As mentioned, a member of F4J also joined in the condemnation of the stunt.

Originally Posted by Russ D

Absolutely not - how many people had previously heard about F4J before they started such protests? This issue (amongst others, obviously) needs to be rammed down the throat of every politition in the country.

But isn't that the point? now they've heard of fathers for justice - but do they then go away and study what the message is? No. People want information spoon fed to them - and the media is not reporting one single thing about F4J's message - therefore the people don't know. Plus, like I said, if the vast majority of people really do think yesterday's stunt was stupid, then they will not go and find out.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by andygrif

Russ I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing with that - but I also don't think this is the topic on discussion. Like I said yesterday, there are injustcies, but this is not the way to bring them to people's attention - which I firmly beleive they have not done on the wider scale anyway.

The knock-on effects of yesterday's ourbust could be far more serious. The rock this country's democracy was built on is based on accessibility.

I have the right to go to the House of Commons and observe proceedings, check my representative is there expressing my opinions and so on. There is every possibility (although I hope it won't happen) that questions will be asked as to whether the public should be allowed anywhere near the Commons after this. This would further remove the government from the public, increase apathy, and move us far further away from the democratic state in which we live.

You and I obviously have opposing views. The problem faced by so many fathers in this day and age is so serious (and widely ignored) that I'd say almost any tactic to bring it to the nation's attention is worthwhile, falling short of breaking the law. The problem is just about the only acts which make people notice are ones which will land the purportrator in jail.

It's been for so long assumed that it was 'right' for women to have the upper hand in family courts that people just assume that's the way it's going to be. Perhaps it's been ignored due to the rise of women's rights. That's of course a different subject and I'm not going down that road but yesterday's actions I feel are just a tip of the iceberg.

Originally Posted by andygrif

But isn't that the point? now they've heard of fathers for justice - but do they then go away and study what the message is? No. People want information spoon fed to them - and the media is not reporting one single thing about F4J's message - therefore the people don't know. Plus, like I said, if the vast majority of people really do think yesterday's stunt was stupid, then they will not go and find out

That's another opinion I'd disagree with. Some may want it spoon fed to them, but I'd say the majority will want to find out more.

[andygrif]

I don't think our views are really that different, it's our views of how your group are attempting to deliver the message where we differ.

So let's look at the news today:

Sky News - no mention of F4J.
BBC News - 1 mention of F4J, 4/5ths of the way down a story, that is istelf way off the headlines page. No mention of the message.
ITN News - 2 mentions of the group, no mention of the message.

I'd say that was a lesson in how not to promote yourself really.

Originally Posted by Russ D

Supporting them? I've been a subscribing member of the Swansea F4J for almost a year now.

I was referring to your implicit support of Palestinian suicide bombers if you consider desperation to be a valid defence.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by andygrif

I don't think our views are really that different, it's our views of how your group are attempting to deliver the message where we differ.

So let's look at the news today:

Sky News - no mention of F4J.
BBC News - 1 mention of F4J, 4/5ths of the way down a story, that is istelf way off the headlines page. No mention of the message.
ITN News - 2 mentions of the group, no mention of the message.

I'd say that was a lesson in how not to promote yourself really.

It was brought to the attention to readers of 2 of the largest news sites in the UK - I'd call that successful.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I was referring to your implicit support of Palestinian suicide bombers if you consider desperation to be a valid defence.

Hmm, apologies if that's how it sounded - I never 'imply', I'll try to be as direct as possible at all times, and no I don't support them.

[zovat]

Originally Posted by andygrif

This has nothing to do with eggs and rotten fruit - it has everything to do with a coloured powder. If you stop and think what every member of the commons was thinking when they saw that dispersing infront of them then maybe you would see where I was coming from. Just becuase they are public figures, whatever your personal political views, does not mean that they should be exposed to such a terrifying event. And where does the word terrorist come from?

I can relate to how they would feel, and the feeling is very scary, but the point of terrorism is to deliberately induce terror, these people may have been misguided, but I do not think they intended to cause terror - perhaps they should have dyed some fruit purple instead (hindsight being 20/20).

Originally Posted by andygrif

<snip>
Like I said, this is nothing to do with the issue - the issue is a serious one - but the actions of this group are not. There are, I know, members of F4J that are there for the right reasons, support and so on - but the people fronting it are not.

Well, we agree on the issue, but only time will tell whether they have overdone the "stunts" (IMHO).

Originally Posted by andygrif

Really? I don't think you would - I think you would call them (like most rational people) irresponsible and misguided. Take this to next level then, what about an Iraqi firing a gun into the sky as a protest to the occupation of his country? Is that legitimate too? Or should he be shot?

I may well say those things, I have not said that the actions done here are not misguided, but merely that they have the right to protest (even if I do not necessarily agree with the methods).

As to the Iraqi issue, IMO yes it is a valid means of protest, I have been there and know a lot more about the customs and ways of the people than I did 2 years ago, If you look at the thread on the Iraqi killings, you will see that I state that this is a normal thing for them, so who am I (or anyone else) to stop them.

Originally Posted by andygrif

Well along the same lines as I said above, I don't really believe that this does help to further the promotion of the subject - it only serves to promote the group themselves - which I think is rather selfish towards the normal and hard-done by fathers who are also members of the group.

Again - for my 2c, only time will tell.

Originally Posted by andygrif

I see your point, but I would hazzard a guess that for every one person that is now supporting the organisation, there are many more that have dropped their support.

which would be unfortunate, but those dropping would already know that there are others like them, and who understand their situation.

Originally Posted by andygrif

I feel strongly about people launching mock-terrorist attacks on the foundation of our government. I feel strongly about any injustice on any individual anywhere in the world. I also feel strongly about freedom of speech and opinion - which is why I respect your viewpoint. Trouble is for expressing mine I seem to have been castigated by some. Shame the freedom they seem to want doesn't apply to others.

As I stated earlier - I do not see this as a "mock terrorist act", more as a misguided an not thouroghly thought out protest.

however, opinions are what makes us ourselves, and all viewpoints should be represented, even if you disagree with them

Originally Posted by andygrif

So if a father murdered someone (only once) it wouldn't be acceptable for me to judge them an unfit parent?

Again this is about scale - murder is pre-meditated and morally wrong - there can be no justification for it.
We are talking about a misguided, but well intentioned act that harmed no-one.

Originally Posted by andygrif

Absolutely, I complete agree with this. Trouble is that these two don't currently have wrangles over parental rights - so one has to ask what their motivation really is. It's the guys who are suffering I feel really sorry for, becuase these two have not helped them at all.

we do not know - but perhaps <hypothosis time> they have already lost out in this issue, and feel that the only thing left is to try to stop other people from going through the same pain </hypothosis>

Originally Posted by andygrif

ABSOLUTELY!!! As Johnny Roten said once...'It's our differences that make us valid' - I respect your point of view, hopefully as much as you respect mine!

Indeed I do...

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by zovat

As I stated earlier - I do not see this as a "mock terrorist act", more as a misguided an not thouroghly thought out protest.

<snip>

we do not know - but perhaps <hypothosis time> they have already lost out in this issue, and feel that the only thing left is to try to stop other people from going through the same pain </hypothosis>

Although we don't know for sure, I would this was something which at the time they thought was a good idea - without thinking through the consequences.

Yes, they may well have done, in fact I would expect them to have been on the receiving end of an injustice to be members of the group - so again whilst their actions (IMO) are moronic, their message (which has IMO been lost) was fine.

(p.s I'd have green repp'd you back, but apparently I need to spread my seeds around first!!)

Originally Posted by Russ D

It was brought to the attention to readers of 2 of the largest news sites in the UK - I'd call that successful.

I think you missed my point - whilst they might mention the group, they say nothing of what the group is about. The media will take it on themselves to make a mockery out of F4J, becuase they provide light news stories - but they never get across the serious story of what the group was set up for.