Melanie,

Your article entitled "Loaded Justice" was right on target. It's nice to know that the main stream media, especially women, have seen through the feminist lies and are speaking up about the injustices that men face. The laws must change not just in the UK but all over the Western world. Keep up the great work.

Melanie

Thanks for your measured comments. We are watching Dave Chick with the hope that fathers and children will be noticed worldwide. The love from Dads and Papas should not be kept from our babies.

Jack in Michigan, USA

Melanie

Thanks for exposing the feminist bias that infiltrates our society today. As a father of 3 sons & a daughter I can only hope that we see "Spiderman" and, all the other brave fathers activists, being successful in bringing about a family law revolution that will ensure true equality and justice is practised in our Courts.
regards
skitt in Scotland

Melanie - This was a mind-boggling article. For, by following the hard left feminist agenda, the courts are not only discrimating against fathers, but against children. How awful to be brought up without a daddy! What a curse that must be for children whose fathers have died while they were still children. But to have your father taken from you, forbidden to have any contact with you although he is alive and well and wants to be a presence in your life, by the courts is so Kafka-esque that I do not see how these children can grow up to be balanced and normal individuals.

The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, was quoted as saying, "The idea that an individual can hold London to ransom is completely unacceptable. We would not put up with it if it was Osama bin Laden. I do not see why anyone would expect we would put up with it for this man." I believe the family justice system, in America as well as Great Britain, is completely unacceptable.
Fathers are being driven out of their children's lives and ordered to pay child support. And while the Government doles out money to enforce child support, it does nothing to enforce the child's right to see his dad.
This type of ransom has got to stop.

Your article, whilst attempting to present both sides of the picture, fails miserably.

Visitation orders are ignored for numerous reasons -- and generally the non-custodial parent has to shoulder more than 50% of the blame. Actions breed reactions, just as inaction can breed reactions. Over 60% of men, feeling hurt and rejected after divorce, will abandon their children in favor of a new "playmate" -- that quite often has children who have been abandoned by their biological father. Only after a period of abandonment will some try to reintegrate themselves into their former family -- and naturally will meet resistance.

On domestic violence -- you criticize the actions of the courts without knowing the psychological powers that an abuser has over the abused.

Before you start carrying the flag for mens rights, perhaps you should consider a more thorough research into the issues and what actually has caused the issues.

And yes -- I am qualified to discuss the matter with you and everyone else -- having dealt with divorce issues for the past 12 years -- chasing down the deadbeats both in the US and internationally that abandon their children financially and emotionally.

This is a very accurate description of the family court dynamics in the U.S.A. as well. I would like to add that not only is the judiciary morally bankrupt and anti-marriage, but behind this is the profit motive. The more fathers and children devastated by family law, the more money lawyers make. Even when the mother is a child molester, who comes from a family of child molesters, the courts, at least in Iowa, will nevertheless grant the mother her every wish while feigning concern for children. Thank you Melanie for this excellent article.

A brilliant article. I wish i could convey my words as well as you do. Another area that is alike which i believe needs some attention would be the women's refuge centres. Having had my child legally kidnapped by my former partner, they are openly and frequently abused by vindictive mothers who simply want to press their point: "i am a mother, i can do as i please and you can't stop me - the law is on my side".

May I leave a comment for "Doc"?
It's companies like yours that are the problem, old sock! You have a vested interest in the perpetuation of the injustices, because that's how you get your cash!
So your opinion really amounts to zilch!
My advice to you?
Get real!

Doc,

You may be qualified to discuss the issue, but you clearly are not qualified to discuss it well. It is not she who failed to argue her position. It is you who failed to dispute it. Instead of doing so in an orderly, reasoned way, you accused, blamed, and bashed, which are three actions one can find in any feminist diatribe.

How can you predict what 60 percent of men will do? Or did you intend to say that 60 percent of men abandon their children? If so, can you present a cite for this? In the typical case where an angry mother cuts her ex off from his children out of unabashed hatred, do you count this poor man as having abandoned his children?

By the way. No woman is ever to blame for her divorce. Just ask her.

Men tire of their malicious ex wives cutting them off from their children and then cynically using those children as human begging bowls. Do that to enough men, and the probability of a man reacting in an extreme way approaches one.

The only fault I can find with Ms. Phillips' article is that she calls this man's actions unacceptable. His actions are completely acceptable, admirable, and predictable. Men generally respond to adversity with _action_, rather than crying out for others to help them. This man wanted to expose the misandrist system, and he couldn't do it through any of the feminist-controlled media. And since they've not yet stationed a feminist at every crane to stop disgruntled men climbing them, he dressed up like his daughter's favorite superhero and carried out a feat of which I seriously doubt you are capable. Now articles about the family court system are flying out right and left, and his ex has been exposed as a junkie and a vindictive harpy.

So he not only exposed the system and his battle axe ex, but he selflessly helped other men in similar circumstances. It just doesn't get more manly than that.

Melanie

Thank you so much for your article that stands up for the family, men, women, and children and places the blame for this fiasco clearly where it should be: the feminists extremists. These people are on record as saying they want to destroy the family system as we know it. We all need to band together and stop this senseless and loveless effort.

Hugo got it right. Doc has a vested interest and is a part of the problem. Sit down doc.

Melanie-

Thank you for speaking out on the injustices many fathers and their children are forced to swallow. I am in
whole-hearted agreement with Greg (from above) - that Mr Chick's actions are "completely acceptable, admirable, and predictable". He has got people talking about an injustice that they were (up till now) ignoring. Maybe now something positive will happen. If not, expect more "Spidermen" as more fathers reject being unjustly torn away from their kids.

-Mike in Colorado

Doc, shut up, sit down, stay back! You're a part of the problem.
Melanie, thank you, thank you, thank you for speaking out on the injustices of fathers and children. Millions of caring, loving dads all over the western world have suffered. Their children have suffered, because of an evil 'Family court' system. Thank goodness Mr.Chick is doing a protest, more dads should join him and make a bigger statement. I hope this goes worldwide so as to bring real change to the present system. 'We love our children more than our life'

Melanie,

Thank you very much for your courageous article. It's very important for men and women to break the silence about how men are treated like second class citizens and being driven out of the family by sexist laws and judges.

Why not replace civil marriage with a Limited Company and shift the liability to the Chancery Courts and away from the Family Division ?

Today few members of society can pick and choose where they will be on any particular day. A massive and well-known/supported march such as the countryside march recently or the anti-war demonstrations can swing it but generally father's are required to be at work or do not have work and thus do not have the travelling money, as such large demonstrations are rarely feasible.

It also takes certain guts to publicly protest against the law itself and the judges, especially if you have an ongoing case with them.

As such, more and more people within the movement are looking to "stunts", photogenic, unusual and attention-grabbing actions that do not require large sums of cash or thousands of people together - however that the numbers of men, sometimes women, affected is vast is beyond dispute.

I am in fact relieved at what we're seeing, wacky humour and almost good-natured protest that's becoming effective at grabbing attention. Behind these actions is very real heartbreak, despair and rage, all too many men in these situations have added to the suicide statistics. In the US last year a lone "demonstrator" went to his local family court with a gun - to kill himself on the steps. Across the west we're seeing father's "implode", where driven beyond reason they not only kill themselves but the whole family. Yet such anguished actions are merely used as an excuse for even more punitive measures, even more talk of "male violence" (it could be said that part of a father's job description is to become dangerous if you mess with his children).

These protests are unacceptable? Believe me, the alternatives are much, much worse. Still a great article though, I know you're touchy about copyright so may I ask you leave the url intact so it may be linked?

Thank you.

AC
IMN

PS "Doc", I suggest you get hold of a copy of "Divorced Dads, shattering the myths" by Braver.

Thanks once again Melanie for your wonderful article, although I agree with people on their attitude towards "Spiderman" - I only feel ashamed not to have done this first as I have been in his position for longer!
I am grateful to "Doc" for his/her comments which shows neutral readers just what kind of stupidity we are up against. I say this because no person has ever asked me how my problems not seeing my child arose, and every person I know who has been divorced has suffered similar problems to greater or lesser degree. The florist from Coronation Street is lovely compared to my ex wife who thinks that her four children are superb weapons. Three deadbeat dads? One (myself) fighting to see his daughter in court (for the third year) one who has never met his daughter (never told) and another who had his life ruined and gave up(this is not deadbeat) this is called staying alive. I myself spent time in Hospital with stress, and its no coincidence that more men kill themselves than women, and that most divorced men think about it or try it! Without people like Melanie (a female to boot!) I would totally despair. Keep on trying men!!!!

I am a father of five children. The first two are from my wifes previous marriage. We have adopted them. So, as you see, there is a father out there who no longer has rights to his two children. This happened in 1999. (we live in the UK).
My wife had spent seven years with her once husband and put up with sexual/physical abuse, drunkeness (often), mental abuse, very little money for living, no help in the home for welfare/house work. Sounds grim! She admits there were some happy moments, why did she tolerate it for so long? she thought he might change!!!
Sadly he didn't, she then took charge of herself, thought of the welfare of herself and her children, and filed for divorce.
The father had access to the children once a week. It had to be under supervision, because during the divorce he was intimidating, threatening and abusive to the mother.

I came into her life and found a beautiful woman looking drab, dressed down, low esteem and very wary of men. We eventually got married and I took on her two children. Contact was continuing with the father which clearly was not working. The children would come home from visiting him with sentances you would never expect from a five and three year old to say. Very hurtful and directed towards me and I can honestly say they were false accusations.

My wife decided that the children should no longer be used as a weapon to get back at her. She ceased access against the courts decision and was prepared to accept imprisonment for her wrong doing. Eventually the father relinquished responsibility and gave us permission some time later to adopt. There is obviously more to this story but these were the main points.

The father re-married and took on her children. We have promised the children that they will be free to search out their real father when they are sixteen and finshed their education, but not before. We want them to mature before they do such a thing. They agreed. We will not break this promise.

Why do I add this to this column? Because there are genuine cases out there where fathers do not deserve to have access to their children. They have their own interests at heart and the children become pawns in the parental battle. This does not discount mothers for it happens both ways. Women should not be treated any higher than men in these circumstances, they too can be the abusive selfish ones and be denied access to their children. The courts should have no bias and judge every case at face value.

I would like to point out that family life is precious. Marriage is more important today than it has ever been. It is a long term commitment between a man and a woman equally sharing the joys and burdens with which it brings. There should be no easy opt-outs, only when all else has been tryed.

The children are the real victims. To enter marriage and have children demands commitment, sacrifice, giving etc.. from BOTH mother and father. If only this was easy, it's not, but I can re-asure you it is worth it. My mother and father were an excellent example of seeing through all their difficult times and staying married. Because of this, a presidence has been set with their six children, five of which are married with children with no divorces.

Example, an excellent teacher.

Hello Melanie,
I think it is about time that the legal system took into account what really goes on when a relationship breaks down and there are children involved. My daughter in law is a prime example of a vindictive woman who has broken her marriage vows, resulting in a late abortion and leaving a very decent and loving man (my son) taking their three children with her. However, she has no sense of shame or conscience and is hellbent on trying to ruin what is left of his relationship with his children whom he loves so much. But not only is she doing this to him but to us too.She constantly changes arrangements for access and goes out her way to ruin any treats we (as grandparents) plan for the children. I dread the thought of them being interrogated by her when they return to her as I know it is so psychologically damaging to them (I am a Psychotherapist). Why doesn't someone ask the grandparents what is really going on? We count even less than our sons and yet our loss is just as great. These children are our future and they need us too!!

Melanie:

I agree with the tone of your article. Anyone who denies the systematic abuse of fathers in child custody chooses to remain ignorant of a mountain of legitimate research on the subject and on the subject of what effect fatherlessness has on children's social development. The government has certainly substituted anti-male, anti-father feminism for common sense when it allows even a discussion of this manslaughter law.

Doc has his hands in the cookie jar. His vested interest in seeing children separated from their fathers precludes him from being taken very seriously.

James misses the point. If his wife left him and refused to let him see HIS kids then maybe he would begin to widen his perspective. No one denies that there are bad fathers and bad mothers. The issue is the systematic bias against fathers in family court.

Yes James does miss the point, everybody knows some men are bad, as are some women, but why when men actually do something do we get people like James stating the obvious. We are talking about men who will go to any lengths to see their children because they love them as much as their mothers do. The whole point James is that no-one whether male or female uses children as a weapon. It just happens that this is usually a woman at the moment, but this is not exclusive, but please do what most of this country will not let happen, and let us have our say without sidetracking!

Melanie Phillips common sense approach cuts through the smog of an anti-father society like fresh air.

Whilst I understand her concerns at militant dads, I think it is worth reminding everyone to what extent women had to go to to get equal rights/suffrage.
The womens movement took seventy years to get the vote.

In order to draw attention to their plight they smashed windows, planted fire bombs burning properties, they threw themselves under horses at racecourse meetings went on hunger strikes. It was violent civil disobedience of the highest order. And it took seventy years just to get the vote.

There is real irony in all of this, as feminists cite mens violent behaviour as 'the reason' why Mothers should be primary parent in a childs life.

Picketing Judges houses, climbing up cranes, disrupting courts I feel is perfectly reasonable behaviour.

Lets just hope that the situation gets resolved a lot quicker than seventy years. Otherwise we could just see a similar acceleration of civil disobedience to that of the Suffragettes.

Melanie,
I agree with Terence. I was reading this and going to add the same thing. Many Feminzai writers wax eloquently about the fierce determination of women Suffergettes and how they were "forced" to resort to violence to get their rights, but then when a man does the same actions he is painted in a different light. I think that bombs and threats are wrong, but we need an even handed approach to reporting it that the mainstream press singularly ignores.
I was falsely accused of rape and that was got me into the men's movement. I realized that my battle would be one of the last won, so I took up the banner of father's rights because of the many injustices I see. Women in the U.S., where I am from, are regularly excused for violent behavior. If there is a man anywhere near the case, HE is to blame, and the media report this like it is a real reason and rarely point out the trend that encourages women to lie to reduce their culpability.
Father's in the US are treated like human sperm banks with wallet instead of human beings with a loving interest in their childs welfare. Even when there is paternity fraud there are no repercussions to the woman. When visitation is denied, no repercussions. When Domestic Violence is committed by a woman her children are often still given to her, divorce attorneys often TELL women to file DV charges (even for "glares" or "arguements") and even if by some miracle the man PROVES his innocence the woman is allowed to keep custody of the child, and fathers are vilified in the mother's home and the courts don't consider THAT abuse but if a man speaks ill TO his wife he can have a restraining order applied against him. I could go on, but I think I make my point.
I am from the first generation (born in the '60's) of sons (and daughters) who were from broken families and I know that my father not being ALLOWED into my life caused me no end of pain as I took it as a lack of acceptance on his part. Years later when I got to know him, we found an instant bond. I love my mother very much, but she should have faced repercussions for her actions. This equality thing is full time. Feminazis just want to have rights and privlages (that women are better parents, DV laws that favor women, no selective service for females, affirmative action etc) but when the responsibility plate comes around they say: "none for me, I am on a diet from that".
Women who are doing evil in the name of "best interests of the child" are not fit to be parents.
Peace
Steven
Gender Guerilla Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite Text

Melanie Phillips's "Loaded Justice" article is right on the money.

The fact is that the laws and the judges give liniency to women. A lot of this we owe to the stacks of new laws directed against men which is thanks to lobbying efforts of the feminist. Also, over the past 40 years we've had millions of children brought up with out their farthers. These children have been brain-washed with the typical pro-feminism BS that "all female is good, all men is bad". The've even brainwashed the little boys of this. They've watched their mothers lie and minipulate the court system to destroy their fathers.
Outside of the courtsystem, there are those special considerations that we give women when they have their period. We are forced to give woman a free week every month to be violent, overemotional, irrestional. Hell, we just as well they just go to another planet on that week. This behavour would never be accepted from a man.

The message that the Law sends is that women don't have to be acountable for their actions. They can blame their crimes on the nearest man or blame it on their father (which the mom excluded from their lives). The can blame itthat women are automatically victims and need special treatment. The laws and judges will be leinient no matter what.

Larry Trout

There's still a place in this world for you, you poor poor men.

Women want to be a lot of things traditionally considered masculine: doctors, rock stars,body builders, presidents of the United States.

But there are plenty of masculine things women have, so far,shown no desire to be: pipe smokers,first-rate spin-casters,wise old drunks, quiet.

And there is one thing women can never take away from men.

Men die sooner.

If feminists hadn't existed, we would still be in the dark ages : no right of vote, no right of say, no choice.

To Anastasia,
you have it wrong my dear, the men at the top are part of this system, they have no problem with these wars against the courts, for they are above the law. You will never make President of the United States as you are being kept where you are safe, that is thinking you have power over the common man. But that is the only power you have, the power you are allowed to have. You are quite happy with that power and that is all they will allow you to have bar a few exceptions mainly in the UK, but don't fool yourself just because you stick together don't think you are ahead and don't think we don't know who is keeping us back! we are fully aware that men are keeping men back not women!
As I said women stick together and will never be quiet, we all know that!
The funniest part of your comment is the part about pipe smoking and men die sooner! They are linked very closely, and are the biggest reason why things are changing toward men dieing later rather than sooner! Look at the statistics if you don't believe me! Try to change those to suggest what you wish rather than know to be true! This is why men are sticking up for our rights somewhat slowly and belatedly.
If a woman can burn her self to death for the right to vote, then I can tell you our children who were all given their failings by the women who tried(their best!)to look after them, will be doing the same very soon. Things have swung round too far, and if people like you really believed in the cause of the women's vote then I'm surprised you stay blind to this worthy and important cause! Or are you a hypocrite! Do you just like to be on the winning side whether true to your inner self or not? Good luck with your conscience! If like many "mothers" who seem to be somewhat lacking in that department! But then Fred West's children loved their father right to the end (for some literally!)End of mini soap box! Dan

Melanie - Great article! I particularly liked your comment that "her [Dame Hale's] appointment [as a Law Lord] epitomises the moral vacuum in our judiciary and wider establishment" - speaking of which, Dame Hale has been nominated to become the next Chancellor of Bristol University.
University Court will meet, at the Wills Building, top of Park Street, Bristol, to discuss her appointment, on the morning of Dec 12th. As a Member of Court, I shall intoduce a motion deploring the nomination and speak against the appointment.
I shall be grateful for support from any quarter in this endeavour (placards, klaxons, articles, letters-of-protest to the University and the Bristol papers - anything)
Steve

To Larry Trout

Mr. Trout you sure went to another planet and stayed there. Are you accountable, Mr Trout? Are you accountable when batering both your first and second WIVES? Or maybe when you push one into having a second semester partial birth-abortion? Or maybe when you feel tempted in selling out Social Secutity numbers in order to make some unlawfull profit?....
You gotta work hard on your anger problems right now to maybe some day understand the real meaning for the word ACCOUNTABILITY.

Great, lets have a personal battle on such an important issue! Thanks for making it a joke guys! Or aren't men important as if I needed to ask! Who cares about Mr Trout as a single person? we're talking about millions of men across the world not Lisie vs Mr Trout! We all know there are bad apples on both sides, we are talking about unfair trends are we not? Please treat men's issues as you would like women's issues to be treated then you can look in the mirror and feel good!

Those are some pretty specific allegations, lisie. One may even go as far as to call them libelous.

What brings out so much hatred that you would accuse Mr. Trout of these things?

Never mind. We know the answer. Like any self-disrespecting feminist, you expect any man to immediately lower his head to women and say "yes dear." No other response is acceptable.

Well get used to it, little lady. Get used to people like him, me, and the crane climber. We will no longer be badgered into submission by the perpetually bellowing mouths of feminists.

As for you, Anesthesia, compare your parting line to a quote from a _real_ writer.

"If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts."

-Camille Paglia, _Sex, Art, and American Culture_

Guys, guys, guys!
Hold it right there!
Listen to Dan P: this is a Man's Rights Issue - not some little squabble between or among SNAGs and that other lot -what's their name? - them "feminists"!
Give the ladies room to shout and then - well, do what I do: ignore them, smile - and move on.
Who cares what they think?

Wow and here I thought that our feminazi orientated family court was a product of the our very liberal New Zealand environment.

We have a family court that does all of these things and what's worse in secret. To add insult to injury you can be prosecuted and jailed if you publically say anything about it as one of our MP's is finding out right now.

Helen Clarke our righteous leader has done nothing in 4 yrs to address this.

This goes against all sense of honour and respect NZ is held for it's tolerance and fair play it is held in around the world.

But then our politicions (120 out of a nation of 4 million) from the prime minister down are a bunch of fraudsters, liars, thieves and drunks and that's just in the cabinet.
Don't let me regale you with the peccadillos of the opposition just read our papers online.

We are a nation of hypocrites and liars and it's nice to find some other people just like us.
Maybe we are what we are because you are, as we were birthed out of you as it were.

what do you think?

Anastasia and Lisie,
you need to know a few facts about changes in public opinion in the UK, and probably most western countries:
younger men (under the age of 30) have become more conservative in their views.
Most of them think that divorce on demand and abortion are wrong. They have woken up to the fact that liberal laws on these issues have allowed children to be separated from their fathers, and for mothers to have the power of life and death over children. No parent should have the power of life and death over their child, nor the power to bar contact with the other parent. If either of you are under 30, you need to understand this. Women under 30, by contrast mostly favour liberal laws on divorce and abortion. This means that a huge number of marriages will fail, as there will be too many couples who disagree on such fundamental issues as the status of parents and children. You need to get it into your heads that this is why so few people are now single and not getting married; men are on a marriage strike because the law doesn't make for equality and equal responsibility.
Ever wondered why so many young men are 'lacking in commitment' ? Because they've cracked the fact that the legal system is against them, and they are, quite reasonably, frightened of being left high and dry and lose contact with their children. This is especially true if they are not very high earners (most young men are not very high earners), as women tend to prefer to marry men who are, and are less likely to divorce men who are. The problem is that the law gives all rights to mothers and none to fathers, so it gives out the signal to men that all women actually agree with the law. Some of us don't, but it doesn't seem to get through. Get your act together and stop letting other women down!

Mike
What do I think?
Well, for one, the All Blacks shouldn't win the Rugby World Cup - that should go to the Wallabies - Australia. That's where I come from.
Secondly, why complain here, on Melanie's innocent blog?
But for a few strays, only likeminded people read or post here. Nothing is going to happen until you do something.
It's with all this complaining as with the bloody weather: everybody talks about it, no one does anything about it.
Vote the good-for-nothing bastards out! You had your chance with Helen C - more than once, I believe - and what happened? Nothing!
Go to it, man - organize!
That should give an entirely new twist to "working at home"
Go Wallabies!

I read Melanie's piece on Mr Howard on a Jewish World Review commentary I get weekly with a bunch of others to get different views and find out where people are thinking.

One is Deborah Coddington of the www.act.org.nz party who shares some viewpoints with Melanie.

Our press are essentially lapdogs to "die Furher" here in Helensville.
You must listen to the breakfast host Mike Hosking nearly croon, it's sickening. talk about yes prime minister.

The only exception seems to be a bunch of christians who produce a monthly mag called www.investigatemagazine.com which even allowing for the faith stuff is very good.
We read stuff there the papers have to be dragged towards to see it in print.

The social change that is being orchestrated here step by step is awesome in scope but the average Kiwi is blind, stupid or apathetic.

At just 41% of the vote the rule of law and natural justice is about to go out with the 2nd wave of justices on our new supreme pizza, I mean court, set up by a unelected MP.

As for my writng on this site, why not? This is a global village and I am interested in what people are thinking.
I live in NZ that doesn't mean I should be like a Kiwi kept in the dark, only come out at night, afraid of my shadow and eat crawly things under the earth!

I've had a troll over this site and this woman makes common sense in much of what she says.
I don't agree with everything but it certainly is worth using as a jumping off point for further coversation no matter your persuasion.

You're right about NZ, get involved and I am engaged actively compared to many here.
So many are either fighting to build a life or don't want to lose what they've got to bother.

The real sadness is the lack of basic integrity throughout the Labour caucus. As inherently, they have done more good that bad for the average people.

That's not so say the others are ok it's swings and roundabouts very often in the long run.

This isn't so now though , decisions are being made which should be (in the spirit of the MMP system we voted for) tested by referendum. They alter the social fabric of society to a much greater degree than before and undermine the family and individual choice.

As an aside if a certain painting the PM signed but didn't paint, hadn't been burnt (so destroying the chain of evidence), our PM would have been prosecuted and out of parliament.

So we also see the judiciary and police becoming more political than 6 yrs ago when I got here.
Classic is a Nat MP is being investigated for driving a tracter up the steps but a Green Staffer isn't for running around naked in parliament's grounds for the press.

As the Labour deputy Leader said in parliament after they'd got in "we won and you lost"!

One law for you and another for us.
best Mike

I read a quote from Ken Livingstone regarding Mr Chick's protest up a crane at Tower bridge. This is an exert.....He added that Mr Chick, was "amply demonstrating why some men should not have access to their own children".

"He is a man who is putting his own life at risk, police officers at risk, other Londoners who may be passing along the road at risk," he said.

I think that his remarks were thoughtless and insensitive to the thousands of fathers who are in Mr Chick's position and the tens of thousands of children who are denied contact with their fathers by a biased legal system. Mr Chick is a man that has been pushed to the limit and has decided to take this drastic action not to endanger anyone, least of all himself, but to make the pain and cruelty caused to both children and parents alike via the unjust faltering family legal system visible.

When people can see such devastatingly acute injustice and are made powerless by the law itself, they resort to acts of civil disobedience.

I am a rational and law abiding citizen and yet I can only thank Mr chick for bringing the disgraceful human rights abuse of fathers and their children to the media.

I hope that Mr Livingstone is never in a situation whereby he is separated from his children for no good reason.

If Mr Livingstone had taken the time to understand Mr Chick's situation he would see that Mr Chick was not being denied access by the courts. To the contrary he has a court order to have regular contact with his daughter.

However Mr Chick is being denied access by his daughters mother . She is being assisted by the courts because the courts simply will not enforce their own court order. He is protesting because his daughters mother refuses to obey the court order and the courts will take no steps to enforce their own court orders!He has not seen his daughter since February this year!Is it any wonder that he is willing to risk his life to see his child? No mother would be denied access to their child like this so why is Mr Chick?

If Ken were to take the time to look into the issues ,he would see that Mr Chick's story is repeated up and down the country every day.

Mr Chick has demonstrated his passion like any good father to remain involved with his child.

Mr Livingstone could not have judged the situation more badly and his comments were crass and hurtful. He has demonstrated his complete ignorance of a situation that no doubt is affecting many hundreds if not thousands of his own constituents and will continue to do so until more people like Mr Chick step up .

Mr Livingstone, could be a catalyst for change and prevent more stories like Mr Chicks if he would just look at the problems facing fathers nationwide when it comes to a marriage/relationship break up.There are fathers that are now on medication to deal with the depression caused by the lack of contact with their children. And unfortunately in some cases fathers that have taken their own lives because they could not see their children. There are many thousands of children who cannot understand why daddy doesn't come and see them anymore. They grow up with no father figure or numerous "fathers" depending on mums appetite.

The pain is great. . I have no doubt in my mind that matters will escalate as fathers get more desperate for justice in terms of being treated as an equal parent.

Please don't let Mr Chick's extreme action distract you from the problem. Everyone deserves justice Mr Livingstone .....even fathers.

The slanderous attack on Mr Trout by "lisie" should be ignored, it's a common technique from the anti-fathers rights femi-nazi type.

I know it's hard to believe it, that's why they do it, but these people will and do throw utterly false accusations in the hope that some mud will stick and thus undermine the credibility of the speaker. It's a truly revolting habit, I have this image of them literally defacting into their own hands and throwing it, little realisng just how disgusting they look doing it or how smelly it leaves them.

There's a Yahoo group full of her type, along with a site by someone calling herself "Liz" (I doubt the same person). It's good that she's posted though, for it simply makes an example of the screwy mentality we have to deal with - this is the "equality" of real feminists folks.

I have met both sides of the arguement, the battered wife and the dispossed father.
It is the same with the family court here,secretive and unfair.
The labour claim to represent everyone but do nothing.
I am suprised that there hasn't been any "rage killing" over this.
I saw yesterday somewhere in the world, they want to change the law so that beaten wives can kill their spouce and not be responsible for it.

I'm on the side of the victim in all cases but not at the expense of the child knowing both parents.
Mike NZ

sorry last post should have read Not knowing both parents...

I think that part of the problem which men face is that family law has evolved around the adversarial system in this country. It is not about parent's rights. It is about children's rights. The parents have obligations, not rights. The present system while encouraging the parents to adopt a conciliatory approach is nonetheless a contest. The predictable result is that both parties become entrenched and often very unreasonable, drawing the children into their dispute in the process. The casualty is usually the non-resident parent's contact with the children (9 times out of 10, the father).
The whole system needs to be overhauled. Parents must be made to realise and accept from the outset of any 'dispute' about their children that their 'rights' are subordinate to the welfare of their children and it is encumbent on them to seek a resolution, not a court. Much more positive action is required at the start of proceedings to re-inforce the notion that parents are under a duty to deliver.

Thank you Melanie,

Your article hit the nail on the head from what I have experienced first hand in the UK Family Law courts. It takes extreme stunts to get the plight of fathers highlighted, and if it weren’t for Spiderman up a crane, or Batman & Robin on the Royal Courts of Justice, and tanks & parades through London, this travesty of law would have never made the news.
How can it be fair that a perfectly good father can be excluded from his children’s lives just because a hostile mother wishes to hurt him as part of an acrimonious separation? It is not the selfish & damaging actions of the mother that need to be condemned, it is the fact that the UK Legal System actually facilitates her actions. The very system that is supposed to help families in crisis is compounding the problem on a massive scale. The mother could even be applauded (if you are a bit twisted) as she is using the system and its flaws to inflict as much pain and damage to the father as she so desires, but is ignorant of the damage this will cause to the children.
The courts need to stop pussy footing around these ruthless mothers, who portray as a victim, but are in fact devious and malicious in their pursuits. Once it is seen that the courts no longer tolerate the deplorable acts of false allegations, and denigration of father to child, the better. It would be a sudden wake up call for those who have managed to ride this ticket for far too long. I hope you keep digging away at this subject, it is very topical, very real, and a factor that is running deep scars though our society. Fathers need to take back their share of parenthood for the good of the children. I understand that we have not heard the last of these fathers; whose numbers are growing daily (according to fathers-4-justice) who want to highlight the need for a full and thorough overhaul of the judiciary.
On the point that women who have suffered Domestic Violence can get away with manslaughter even if they use premeditation to kill their abusive partner, well I am shocked beyond words. Whatever next, men sentenced for rape without trial or evidence, just based on the hearsay word of a reporting victim, a bit like the 1997 Harassment Act. The world is going mad! DaveT (Northwest UK)

I remember some years ago seeing a TV interview of parents in Northern Ireland whose children had just been killed in an IRA bomb blast. In their grief and anger they publicly denounced the bombers in no uncertain terms. The interviewer asked if they were not afraid to be so outspoken against such ruthless killers who were known to take reprisals against any kind of criticism or opposition. “Not at all” came the reply. “They have taken our children away; what worse thing can they possibly do to us? Killing us cannot be any worse.”

They were right. Taking your children away is the worst thing that can be inflicted on you.

Now I ask what possible crime can justify a court taking a child away from its parent. Murder? Child abuse? Systematic domestic violence? Maybe so, but then I ask what crime Mr.Chick has committed to justify his sentence of being deprived of contact with his daughter. The answer is manifestly none. Not just none of the above; but no crime of any description at all. Before his protest he had not been charged with any offence, had faced no trial, and had no conviction, to justify his punishment. But he was and is suffering an indefinite sentence of deprivation, which it seems the courts are unwilling or unable to stop.

I know the analogy with the Irish parents is not exact. Their children were killed, while Mr.Chick’s daughter is thankfully alive, and he can still harbour hopes of establishing close contact with her again in future. But his sense of deprivation will be similar right now, his pain very real, and no respite in sight. Why should he have that inflicted on him? And what of his daughter, whose memory of her father will fade with every passing day?

Ex-partners or spouses who use children in this despicable way are the ones whose fitness to be parents should be questioned. Equally courts which inflict punishments of this magnitude on the innocent, as if prising parents and children apart were some kind of routine procedure of no consequence. These are real people, for God’s sake.

Ken Livingstone? Just the sort of crass comment I would expect from the man. And I would more readily question his fitness to be mayor of a great city like London than Mr. Chick’s fitness to be a father. I know who I think is the more human and sincere of the two.

I also wonder if Melanie Phillips now has any second thoughts about the use of that word “inexcusable”? I have seen lots of behaviour by various parties around this case, and if I were to rank them on a scale of inexcusability, Mr. Chick’s would be way down the list. For inexcusability, Melanie, try looking at the mother of Chick’s daughter, the asinine police chief who ordered roads to be closed with no evidence that Spiderman was going to do anything other than sit up his crane out of harm’s way (although that inadvertently achieved the welcome result of drawing huge publicity to his stand – so there is such a thing as poetic justice), Ken Livingstone’s unthinking comments, the courts that allowed this appalling situation to develop and continue to do so, the politicians that preside over these glaring injustices and stubbornly refuse to remedy them, the public-funded agencies that encourage spiteful exes to find spurious reasons to block access…big enough list yet?

Do any of these people seriously think the problems of their creation are just going to fade away? Spiderman may be down, but he is not out.

The thing that really encourages me is the amazing publicity this has generated. At long last, there is real front-line public awareness of what has been happening behind closed doors and away from the public eye. I have read any number of articles and letters to the press about the issue, and none have been hostile to Spiderman’s stand. Injustice and cruelty as bad as this is too glaring to be ignored, and nobody of right mind can defend it.

Your article was the best I've read on this subject. Whilst recognising the difficulties that the closure of the roads caused, I would ask people to consider the wider implications - what use is any law if it is not enforced? Despite what some might say of Spiderman, his child has been given the right by the court to see him - a right that her mother consistently denies to her. Don't shoot the messenger - spiderman has exhausted all the correct channels and they haven't (and don't) worked. I would also ask people to question their attitudes to 'direct action' - do women want to forgo their right to vote because it was won partly by disruptive direct action? Do people want the return of the Poll Tax which was widely opposed by those breaking the law by refusing to pay and thus caused a rethink? More recently, how many supported the petrol protests of a year or so ago? Don't condemn Spiderman's direct action simply because it doesn't affect you. One day you may experience the uselessness of the current laws, and if the law isn't changed, so might your son and your grandchildren because the current situation doesn't just hit a dad, it hits his parents too.

Thank you so much for this article. I have been trying through the courts since january to have contact with my 18 month old son, I have seen him 7 times at a contact centre as this is all his mother has agreed to!! To date my costs have been in the region of 2,000 pounds, my son`s mother is receiving legal aid to try to stop me having access. I cannot afford to continue indefinately, legal aid, it appears can! We have some serious problems in this country!!! A fatherless society approaches!!! God help us all!!!!!!!!!!

Thankyou Melanie for continuing to highlight the utter bias in the uk family courts.
It seems that dads have no rights,only responsibilities.

Children will only truely benefit when both parents are treated equally (there will always be reasons for small exceptions) in family law.

Women cannot be held entirely to blame - if men had the same powers - they would act in exactly the same way - what need changing is the institutionalised bias in the family courts against men.

Carl,I doubt very much if we would see the same level of implaccable hostility from men.

I agree with Paul, generally speaking men have something called principles and personal values.

Pareto "good people do not need laws to tell them how to behave, bad people will find a way around laws"

The actions of the vindictive mother are a form of bullying, check out the site bullyonline.co.uk to prove the common character traits, better still write in to get a section added about our problems (the site focuses mainly on workplace bullying much the issues are much the same - abuse of power)

The bullies need exposing, well done David Chick

correction the site is www.bullyonline.org

I'm a father who hasn't seen his son for a year...and he's only 20 months old.

I am also a victim of parental alienation.

What we have to remember is that we now KNOW we are strong in numbers. Momentum is on our side. The more victims of injustice there are, the more power we will wield. The feminazi glory days are over. Men with any sense won't marry or have kids (I'm sure thats significant to the declining birth rate in feminist-influenced countries, and not only abortion) until laws are changed. Sadly I was oblivious to the potential dangers. Had I known them, I would never consider becoming a father under the current system. Women have the family courts eating out of their hand - woman as eternal victim, man as eternal oppresser/perpetrator of violent acts - Feminist myths.

ANYWAY, we are strong in numbers and growing daily (100 children lose access to their fathers on a DAILY basis in the UK) - as bad as the scale of human suffering is, it gives us a critical mass and a strong voice.

I am appalled at the way that Mr. Chick has been treated. His home has been raided and his computer searched for "subversive" material.

His only crime is to love and care for his child.

I have been treated similarly by police. I made a formal complaint and the response was to impound my computer and not return it for six months - broken, with no compensation.

My page, www.readerbank.com - click on the Molotov Cocktail Bombings link, tells you a small part of my experience.

Yes, we are strong in numbers ... let us fight together for the rights of our children to have a normal family life.

I am now determined to fight back. Chris.stedman@readerbank.com

Andrew,you have my sympathy. Being a man (especially one who works) in todays Britain is to be a target! Many many men are the victim of abuse from women!! We have been voiceless for far too long, at least now we have a voice and are gathering speed.

I have to say that having a seven month old baby and being pregnant by an absent father that does not care one bit about his son that each case should be decided on its own merits.

My ex partner walked out on me six weeks ago, he has not contacted me since, I have had cause to speak to his ex wife whom he has a six year old son with who has told me that he had been married before her, he had been convicted of manslaughter, he currently has an outstanding sexual harassment charge against him, he meets women on the internet, he is violent some thing which I have had to suffer from him when he didnt get his own way and that he has no patience with children.

He believes that he can swan in and out of their lives as and when he has a break with his latest flame. Now I am finding it very hard not to become cynical when it comes to my son's father but I AM starting to believe that my son will do better off without the liar...however despite me practically begging him to have something to do with his son he has decided at the moment that he is not interested...

So struggling on 260.00 a month and dealing with all the other problems that come with motherhood is IT RIGHT that when his father decides that he wishes to have something to do with his son for half an hour IS IT RIGHT that I just stand back and say THERE YOU GO meet him, and then leave him again....

I AM SORRY GUYS BUT some men are the exception to the rules... each case should be dealt with differently...

Aly, totally agree, therein lies the problem and the issue, cases are rarely dealt with differently.

Dear Melanie

That was a wonderfull peice. Thanks very much.

Yes Aly you are dead right, so how come Mr Chick has been treated worse than your "partner" deserves to be treated? Is it right that whether you were treated badly or not it remains in your power as a woman to either let him see your children or not! Chances are, like friends of mine, if he is abusive he will actually get positive help to see the child! But people like myself and Mr Chick who have fought in court for worthless court orders are, it seems actively discouraged from seeing our children for danger of "upsetting" the "mother". Believe me Aly, you seem to have worked yourself into a frenzy worrying about your partner when every man posting here knows only too well if you do not wish him to be in your children's life then he cannot stop you! As Paul said all cases should be different, I believe that if you can prove what he is then good luck to you, but why, when I can prove what my ex wife is doing am I(and others) still begging the court to inforce it's previous decisions! Its time female carers were made to be mothers or just ship out and let the fathers take care of the kids they love so much!

Aly, so what?
You made a bad choice - if we are to believe you - which I find hard to do, as your story runs the gamut of the traditional complaints of inadequate women - it's all his fault.
Millions of men are making bad choices with women every day.
Let's hear it for them and get off the line.
You're clogging up the space

As perverse as it may sound I beleive you well writen article missed a fundimental point in that fathers today are fighting a war on a patriarchal justice system that continues to believe in the cereal packet family. The fight of F4J is not so far removed from the fight of the feminists of yesteryear. We fight a justice system that maintains 'old values' where it is a mothers duty to bring up the family whilst the father is at work. Yes this is nowhere more marked than in the many court cases where fathers try to win the right to see their children. Emphasis must be made of the words ‘try to win the right’. Why should a father try? Does he not have an automatic right? Is he not as biologically close to his children as the mother is?

We then move to the second item I beleive missing, the clinical name for 'flakey excuses', that of Parental Alienation Syndrome, a provable phenomenon in many custody cases. A syndrome closely allied to brain washing, manipulation and in fact mental abuse. I would not be foolhardy enough to believe this is a mother only syndrome but during bitter divorce cases, when combined with a patriachal justice system, appears to be predominately the domain of the mother in what is normally an attempt by a father to gain fair & reasonable access to his children. This is nothing more than surreptitious manipulation of the hearts and minds of what should be defined as vulnerable children, particularly during the stressful period of divorce.

Further to Aly’s posting: your point is taken and yes I am sure we all understand your bad experience and that there are selfish, feckless and couldn’t-care-less fathers out there. But with all respect, that is not the issue in Melanie’s article, nor in Spiderman’s protest, nor in the numerous postings we are seeing here.

We are well aware of the bad fathers – how could we fail to be when we are constantly reminded of them. But the issue here is that fathers who are NOT selfish, feckless or abusive, who have been convicted of no crime, are routinely separated from their children and kept apart from them in defiance of court orders, as if there were no difference between them and the bad cases. It is the injustice of inflicting that punishment on innocent dads and their children that is the point that needs to be emphasised. So please do not try to blow a smokescreen across this vital issue!

I agree that every case is different, so all the more reason to move away from the damaging presumptions, stereotypes and prejudices that plague the system.

Just as a quick one - to those who responded... I think I should point out firstly that as a MOTHER who loves her baby and it being her first child who I am so proud of I wish I could speak to my ex partner regardless of the person he is because firstly I want to share the important things with him like when Alfie got his first tooth through but this man DOES NOT WANT TO LISTEN unless it suits him so I do not want to deprive my son of his father as I am very much live and let live.. but what I am saying is that some fathers can be very plausible in their pursuit for seeing their children and sometimes exceptions to all rules certain fathers should not deserve the rights to mess around with a child's mind.. those fathers out there that are desperate with their fight to see their children .. I wish them the greatest of luck as long as they are wanting whats best for the child and not what is best for them..

From my own experiences sometimes it is more damaging for a child to be rejected every now and then through life than it is for them to have a Dad..

I think the main thing is that EACH case is looked at differently as I stated above..so to Hugo I do not care you believe me or not.. .you are insignificant. Cheers

Aly how about when a child is told it is rejected when the father couldn't feel more opposite? Surely you and most normal people would say this "mother" doesn't deserve to be "with care" but not so in the courts, who openly say they have the best interests of the child! All I can say is that I would never let any Judge or anyone to do with the courts any where near my daughter, as she is way too precious!

Aly, darling, I love you, too - but, as Winston Churchill is supposed to have said "there are so many lies about, some of them might even be true" - well, the lying habits of women have been well exposed and are well documented! One cannot blame men for tarring all women with the same brush!
If I were the judge and you were in my court, I'd want more evidence - and hear the other side, too. For, who knows, maybe you're just an unpleasnt woman to be with? The Nag from Hell? But then, maybe not.
Until that happens - well, you are and will remain in the "maybe yes, maybe no" basket.
More importantly, though, if you can't see the difference between a man exercising his right - for whatever reason -not to visit his child and a man who is prevented - for whatever reason - from visiting his child - well, what can I say?!
If Clara Harris, who murdered the father most foul and viciously and who is now in gaol, can have visiting rights, but men can routinely have taken those rights taken away on the say-so of the likes of you - well, than the world needs to sit back and take a hard look at itself. Which is what the argument is all about.
If you really wanted to do something useful - you'd dress up like Spiderwoman, hire a crane, sit on Tower Bridge atop of it, refuse to come down until 1) your man comes and sees his child and 2) demand that your Parliament - which is supposed to represent fathers, too, pass a law which strips Courts and women of the power to deny fathers the right to see and visit their children.
You might be surprised to find out who'd support you then - or who'd oppose you and call you names!
It would certainly "out" the bastards of either or any sex!
Until then - go home and play with your dolls.
In the mean time, for Heaven's sake, get off the line - you're clogging up the system.

Dear Hugo - the man with so much to say.. lets not make this our personal debate hey.. why dont you read my response very carefully and you will see that I will never have the pleasure of having to involve the Courts in the decision so far as Alfie my son and my unborn child are concerned because WHAT I AM saying is that the father of my children does not care... in fact so much so that he really does not want anything to do with his son albeit that I have tried to encourage him having contact.. get my point so when in a few years time when things arent going so great for him and he wants to suddenly become the father that he has never tried to be prior to that do I then just say "come along meet your son and emotional play with his mind and then when you are back into your womanising ways and want to drift off again that's fine." so Hugo if I was given the chance to barricade the father of my child then I probably would because at the end of the day the man is a plausible liar, he certainly pulled the wool over my eyes... men and woman alike lie for whatever reason but as stated "live and let live" at the end of the day my theory has always been "WHAT goes around comes around".. as for get off the line I am entitled to say what I wish just like you are... now I return the comment.... HUGO GO... why dont you get off the line.. as I said in my life you are insignificant... cheerio..

Hi Aly, unfortunately you have just given the game away with your last comment! "so when in a few years time when things arent going so great for him and he wants to suddenly become the father that he has never tried to be prior to that do I then just say come along meet your son and emotional play with his mind and then when you are back into your womanising ways and want to drift off again that's fine" uhoh you are the same as all the rest and you deserve what you get! Three cheers to Hugo for sussing you out and boos to me for trusting your honour! So now you admit you are as vindictive as all the rest. No doubt you cause him so much pain he can't bare to meet you to see the child, - all of us men know what that is like, but some have higher thresholds than others. Try letting him have the option of cutting you out of the equation. But of course you wouldn't do that for the child you love so much! you really are beginning to sound like my ex-wife, convincing yourself you have the childs best interests at heart - that means not your interests in case you didn't realise! Disgraceful! Psycho-Nutter!

Thanks, Dan - but I learned very young never to trust a woman - especially not in matters of money. Well, never to trust a woman, really (Thanks, Dad!)
And outing her was not such a huge problem; the moment she mentioned money ("struggling on 260 per month") - her game was up.
As I said elsewhere - for a man, children are his life's achievement. For a woman - women in general, really - they are sources of income.
Just go to
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7919419%5E2,00.html
and
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/printpage/0,5481,7917848,00.html.
There are many more examples of similar disgraceful scams: paternity frauds, false allegations, you name it - nothing is so vile as to be beneath a woman in her pursuit of money!
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Aly, darling!
And, anyway, I can't stand women trying to muscle in on men's turf. Not until they play the game of Rugby at the same level as the All Whites and the Wallabies!!
Go Wallabies! That would make them equal, sort of.
Oh, and Aly, my dear, you think I have so much to say?
Honey, you ain't heard nothing yet!

Dear All

I have been sussed by a pair of idiots that do not seem to believe that a woman should have her own opinion... it seems that men like you are merely there to corrupt their children for their own benefit.. money is an object in this society babies and children need to have what they need to have.. Pathetically I now side with your ex wife it seems that you cant see for your own little world.. well I am sorry to disappoint you both but having been up all night with a baby that is in fact teething and has been for the past two weeks something that precious absent fathers seem to miss out on I am tired... tired of you poor hard done by fathers who perhaps maybe should have put a bit more effort into their children rather than leaving it down to a Court to decide..and probably walking out on a family for a bit of the other. Perhaps if men didnt think in their trousers society would be a better place.

Sadly you are the bitter twisted two that seem to think that sitting on a website slagging off woman makes you a better person.. look at your own lives you are no better than the rest of them... and incidentally I did trust men until I met such an evil person probably someone you two would be proud of... Goodbye I have a child to bring up singlehandly but you wont know what that is like and personally I hope your cases fail...

AND DAN .. if you think that it is acceptable for a man not to see his child for a couple of years dont you think that paints a picture of the unhealthy future the child has ...

Sorry if I did think the bloke deserved a chance .. I certainly don't now.. you have put me off.. are you related...

A father to me is not someone who bails out at the first opportunity and a father is not a proper father if he thinks that half an hour a month having an ego boost is right..

I NOW raise my hats to all those step-fathers out there that have seriously succeeded where the real proper fathers have sadly failed.

I have too much to say on this point..but will rest my case on that last point for fear of sounding as whingy as the two clowns above.

Aly, read what you have written and you will realise you are in the wrong, you have too much bitterness when in the real world of men, of which the article was actually about? da hello?, in the real world of men, we have everything you have but sadly no child to love and to be loved by. Perhaps you think your child is a pain and that the rough(teething) are not balanced with the smooth(first steps etc). You seem to forget the child in this argument and concentrate on the nasty bits like I quote you "and probably walking out on a family for a bit of the other." What is this obsession with sex? I left my ex wife because of her extremely unreasonable behaviour - the day I left she came at me with an iron bar then rang and said she would kill herself unless I came back! And for you Aly I went back to try four times before I gave up. The only mistake I made was not taking my baby with me as I was the carer but she told me she would kill me if I did, and I believed her and still do! But as you said Aly you side with my ex wife!That says something about you! If you sounded more bothered about your child than yourself then Hugo and myself would not tire of you so quickly and in fact would be a great sense of support, as I do not dislike all women, in fact Melanie Phillips type of women are an inspiration to everybody as she (a woman) is willing to stand up for what she(and many others)believe in and it mostly makes very good sense! Your bloke doesn't deserve a chance and you don't either - your child deserves all the chances. He will be living long after you are gone and its up to you to guide him! Something us lucky men can't do. I might be lucky anyway, as I am trying to get my ex wife to take my part of the house(£70,000) in return for my daughter - problem is she wants more! Wish me luck! Dan

Dan I wish you luck because unlike you I am not quick to judge you and decide that you are a liar or whatever.. I believe that all will work out well in the end for you and the best man will win as the saying goes..

Now I may be sounding tempermental but to be honest it is quite hard to get across points in emails etc but I think it is disgusting that you along with Hugo can without knowing me think I am a money grabber just because I am surviving on 260 a month because to be honest I am surviving on that amount because I chose to as I do not wish to hound the father of my child for money at the end of the day I have told you that he doesnt want anything to do with his child and therefore as that is his wish after much heart rendering I have allowed that to be so.. but again it has been nothing but slaughtering of the sexes clearly showing that we both think differently nothing more and nothing less...

If your ex wife can put 70,000 on her child's head then that is someone that needs to re-check her priorities but if it works for you.. I am happy..

You to have had a violent partner and I am not going to say I disbelieve that but I have suffered to - whilst pregnant in the West Ham Shop being headbutted... I kept where I was for the sake of my child but it lead to more and more unreasonable behaviour...etc etc but everyone has a story hey.

NOW my point as I pointed out in the beginning was to just say that some fathers dont actually appreciate what they have ...and that they are also as women capable of being able to pull the wool over others eyes.. but that was all...

SO I wish you luck ... whatever your circumstances you are fighting for what is your just cause JUST like I.

I would like to point out to you that had Melanie Phillips been against your plight she would hit the rubbish pile just as quick basically we all want to hear what we all want to hear ...

SIMPLE equal rights, and a free world ok..

Dan,
Forget about the likes of Aly - there's nothing new there. We've heard it all before. It's the old ploy: when you can't defeat by argument, you attack the man - "ad hominem" it's called.
Play the ball, Aly, honey - not the man! That's what my reference to Rugby - the game they play in Heaven - was all about! Tough but fair - and played by the rules! Red Card to you, Aly, darling! Foul! Boo! Off, Off, Off!
But about Melanie - which is why we're all here. Let's dip our lids - or cock our hats or whatever and give due where due is due!
In the debate of Men's Rights - which is a matter of "Civil Rights", really - it is immaterial that she is a woman. Indeed, she was one of the first to sound the alarm - with her "Sex Change Society" and she'll probably admit that she copped a lot of flack from the feminists for that (Again: attack ad hominem - or should that be ad feminam?). The Truth is always hurtful to liars. When reading her, it is the arguments that matter, the documentation, the adherence to the strict rules of scholarship. Nowhere does she come out and sound off "I'm a woman, hear me roar." Nowhere is the "I'm a Victim and hear me I suffer" mantra. (For women may indeed have suffered much - but never in silence! We can all attest to that!)
The same is true for the other Great Women of the movememnt - Esther Vilar, Camille Paglia, Erin Pizzey, Tammy Bruce, Cathy Young, Christine Hoff-Somers, Jan Brown, Wendy McElroy, Louise Malenfant, Trudy Schuett, Bettina Arndt - the list goes on and on. It is NOT a "sex" issue - it's a "Rights" - a "Civil Rights", a "Human Rights" issue.
So, let's get back to the argument.
As I said before and above - Let's give the ladies (and I use that word advisedly!) room to shout - and let's move on. Leave the Jezebels to themselves!
We're men and there's work to be done. So, what are we waiting for?
Let's do it!
Aux Barricades, mes amis! Aux Barricades!
And all hail to Melanie Phillips and all the other women like her! One like her is worth a thousand thousand Alys!
Go Melanie! Go, go, go!
(It'll still be the Wallabies, though - they'll massacre the Brits - mark my words!!)

If your words are wrong Hugo I'll mark 'em all right!

Dan,
If I am wrong - I promise: I'll drink - it I can find an outlet that stocks English beer - a warm British beer as punishment - which, here, in Australia, comes close to what the Yanks would call "cruel and unusal punishment"!
It's bad for the Constitution, I can tell you that - warm beer is!
Tonight's the night! (OK, tomorrow morning, your time!)
Go Wallabies!

You can hardly threaten a father that doesn't give a damn. When you remove all hope
it's time for war. That people could naively think what they're doing to promote the alienation of Fathers can produce anything other than this don't understand people fighting and if nessessary dying for their rights.
And to promote Adultery, kidnapping, perjury and assault by mothers by not penalizing them only inflames that that is already inflammed in addition to those intent on political self interest.I now understand what happened to civilizations like the Incas, The Egyptians, Romans, etc. the women succeeded in alienating and driving men out of their respective societies and they collapsed-check the declining birthrate!!

OK, Danny Boy, we can't win them all!
But, my word - what a game - right up to the finish, the very last seconds!
I'll try for the beer - but otherwise, humble pie will have to do!
(Waltzing Mathilda, Waltzing Mathilda, you'll come a-waltzing, Mathilda ..... now for 2007!

As we can all see now Hugo is but a lazy Auzzie who sits on his arse all day writing a load of crap hoping that some sucker will read it..

Well Hugo quite clearly you have mental health problems and no children to bring up.. cheerio.

AND DAN guess what HUGO was wrong ENGLAND won...so guess he could be wrong about other things hey.

Aly, click on my name and you will see what the pain of not seeing your son is about.

You married the wrong man, that much is clear. I married the wrong woman, that much is clear to me too. However, we should be allowed to make such mistakes without the Family Courts punishing us further by denying us access to our child (by not enforcing orders). I am not a criminal, never committed a crime (not even points on my driving licence!), have always worked, yet I can't see my son or even get news about him. For a year I paid maintenance to my son's mother in the hope she would see sense. Tell me Aly, are fathers like me bad? Do you tar all of us with the same feminazi brush?

Andrew - I have signed the petition as I think you to have been reading what I was saying wrong.. MY situation is this.. I am not stopping my ex partner from seeing his son.. he has said he wants nothing to do with him. He has a six year old son also with his ex wife whom he has only seen for five days this year and said "He will have to deal with it when he is older I don't care about him either". So my problem is completely different.. I was saying that when this man comes back into our lives in a few years time am I expected to just say that is fine.. you see I have an argument it is not fine... Dad's dont do that.

Anyway good luck with your plight also.

Aly, thanks for signing the petition....much appreciated.

Nobody here is saying that there aren't awful men out there who neglect their families. This is a point that's been laboured over the years by feminism. We know about these guys, and I take your point regarding your husband only visiting his family when it suits his own whims (trusting your word on this), and I say diretly - it's terrible that there are men like this - however, this thread is about totally and utterly innocent men denied access to their children, only because their ex-wives hold a grudge against them.

I'll leave you with one fact:-

A male divorcee is TEN TIMES more likely to commit suicide than a female divorcee.

Why would that be?

Aly, honey - it's a game!
OK, maybe the better team won - but we all know: the good guys never win! :)
Anyway - we came close - very close!
Lighten up!

Not bad grovelling Hugo! you lot even had the referee in your pockets and you still couldn't do it! Forward passes? At last Aly you seem to be talking more sense, but if he is that bad then i'm afraid you will have to deal with the situation. Some women have to look after children on their own because the father is dead, but they soldier on regardless, perhaps thats your thing in life! If I was in your position I would say nothing good or nothing bad about the man, just that he need not matter if he is not interested, just what I have to do when I sometimes get to see my daughter besides the court order that means nothing like everybody else on here. That is ignore the partners bad points and point out the good points or say nothing "for the good of the child" They are not stupid, and will make up their own minds sooner or later, Woe betide my ex when my daughter realises what she has done, and I have kept all my proof, even that she is willing to "sell me" her daughter for everything I have! And I would pay it if it didn't mean nothing to the lovely courts! Good luck to all men with the terrible courts and regime!

Wear the crown with pride, Danny-boy!

And Aly, darling - I'm disappointed in you. You could at least have said "fat" arse.
By the way - Aussie is spelled with "ss", not "zz".
Anyway, you're playing the man again!
And about "suckers reading crap" - well, I never!
Keep your eye on the ball, sweetie!

I'm off to do so some Sunday sailing.
Catch you later - maybe.

How are my two cherubs... see we are almost friends..

Look Hugo whatever.. disrespectful of me to spell Auzzie wrong especially as I enjoyed being a Pomme in your Country for a couple of years..enjoying my carefree days as one of the "Atherton's balmy Army" incidentally Sydney was a drawn and Adelaide was a win for us..
Although I have to admit most of the Tour was won by yourselves.

Anyway been busy today as I am getting to grips with the fact that it is time to move on from my trying to get the father of my child to see or even enquire after his kid and start re-living again...

And so Dan your "he need not matter if he is not interested" has come at a great time for me because it sort of sums up my feelings.. after sleepless nights (not just because of Alfie's teething) I have given up the ghost and will reassess the situation when the gigolo remembers that he has a gorgeous kid out there..eventually!!! Hopefully for Alfie's sake.

As it goes I am writing a book called "The world is full of tommy tankers" so hopefully one day.. hey guys..

Hope you're sailing went ok Hugo and your fat arse didnt sink the boat

Oh and guys whilst there click on Andrew's name and do him a favour and sign the Petition....

Thanks Aly..... :-)

Unusual ideas can make enemies.

Inertia is not limited to matter.

Note to all readers. I have had interactions with "DOC" before. He is the consumate predatory male feminists refer too. Predatory, one-sided and evil. The fact that is his CHOICE to commit acts of financial violence and abuse upon non-custodial parents should tell "us" men's rights types all we need to know about him.

His personal email address USED to be DocCollec@aol.com

Anyone that is interested can email me and i will share the contents of my conversation with "DOC".

DOC YOU ARE An ENEMY of you own country and you should be prosecuted for TREASON against the constituion right along the the Democratic and Republicans Socialists of America!
Just my well informed opinion.

Dziendobry,
nie rozumiecie nic co pisze, ale to nie jest istotne. Wiekszosc rzeczy znajdujacych sie na tym forum nie jest istotne. Istotne jest natomiast to, ze moge wyrazic swoje uczucia na temat feministek. Chuj wam w dupe feministki.

An oppressive government is more to be feared than a tiger

Just wanted to give a little positive feedback to 'Jim' for exposing 'Doc'.

This issue of father's rights would be solved with more exposure to the truth.

Professor Bates

Just wanted to give a little positive feedback to 'Jim' for exposing 'Doc'.

This issue of father's rights would be solved with more exposure to the truth.

Professor Bates