British Dad Scales Palace

[Gini]

....to draw attention to inequities in child custody law. The media paid lots of
attention but only to speculate how the security breach happened. On CNN, the
anchor stated that she could see why he didn't "get custody." High profile
antics seem to have yielded little benefit for dads.

[JR]

Gini wrote:
<snip>
> High profile
> antics seem to have yielded little benefit for dads.
>

Sarcasm on:

You're right, these major cultural revolutions tend to happen overnight.
Gee wiz, they've climbed up a few buildings and thrown purple powder
at their Prime Minister, and yet nothing's changed at all! Those crazy
dad's ought to just give it up now so CNN can get back to reporting real
news.

Sarcasm off:

Father's rights are on the radar and on the political agenda in Britain
thanks to the men brave enough to undertake these "antics" (your words
carefully chosen to dismiss/denigrate?). Time will tell what "benefits"
their actions will yield.

JR

[Kenneth S.]

"Gini" > wrote in message
...
> ...to draw attention to inequities in child custody law. The media paid
lots of
> attention but only to speculate how the security breach happened. On CNN,
the
> anchor stated that she could see why he didn't "get custody." High profile
> antics seem to have yielded little benefit for dads.

.. . . . and on the news account that I heard on the radio, his group was
described as a PARENTS' rights group. It was only if you listened to the
end of the story that you discovered it was actually concerned about FATHERS
losing access to their children.

However, I don't agree that stunts like this will not achieve anything.
On the contrary, I think if they are kept up, they will achieve far more
than all kinds of carefully reasoned policy papers. In the early days of
the 20th century, the suffragette (early feminist) movement in Britain
achieved much through things like women chaining themselves to railings and
going on hunger strike in prison. There was even one woman who threw
herself in front of the King's horse at a major horse race, and was killed
as a result.

It's unfortunate, but the plain fact of the matter is that, if fathers
could organize a few decent riots, including burning some buildings, they'd
get far more results than they ever will from trying to put their point over
in more peaceful ways.

[Phil #3]

I don't think so Gini, last night a female friend of mine asked if I'd heard
about it, which gave me cause to explain the reason behind it. At least ONE
person better understands the situation because of it; I'd suspect maybe
thousands.
Phil


"Gini" > wrote in message
...
> ...to draw attention to inequities in child custody law. The media paid
> lots of
> attention but only to speculate how the security breach happened. On CNN,
> the
> anchor stated that she could see why he didn't "get custody." High profile
> antics seem to have yielded little benefit for dads.
>

[Phil #3]

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution
inevitable." John Kennedy
The Brits are, in a way, staging their own Boston Tea Party.
Phil #3

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gini" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ...to draw attention to inequities in child custody law. The media paid
> lots of
>> attention but only to speculate how the security breach happened. On CNN,
> the
>> anchor stated that she could see why he didn't "get custody." High
>> profile
>> antics seem to have yielded little benefit for dads.
>
> . . . . and on the news account that I heard on the radio, his group was
> described as a PARENTS' rights group. It was only if you listened to the
> end of the story that you discovered it was actually concerned about
> FATHERS
> losing access to their children.
>
> However, I don't agree that stunts like this will not achieve anything.
> On the contrary, I think if they are kept up, they will achieve far more
> than all kinds of carefully reasoned policy papers. In the early days of
> the 20th century, the suffragette (early feminist) movement in Britain
> achieved much through things like women chaining themselves to railings
> and
> going on hunger strike in prison. There was even one woman who threw
> herself in front of the King's horse at a major horse race, and was killed
> as a result.
>
> It's unfortunate, but the plain fact of the matter is that, if fathers
> could organize a few decent riots, including burning some buildings,
> they'd
> get far more results than they ever will from trying to put their point
> over
> in more peaceful ways.
>
>

[Gini]

In article >, Kenneth S. says...
>
>
>"Gini" > wrote in message
...
>> ...to draw attention to inequities in child custody law. The media paid
>lots of
>> attention but only to speculate how the security breach happened. On CNN,
>the
>> anchor stated that she could see why he didn't "get custody." High profile
>> antics seem to have yielded little benefit for dads.
>
>. . . . and on the news account that I heard on the radio, his group was
>described as a PARENTS' rights group. It was only if you listened to the
>end of the story that you discovered it was actually concerned about FATHERS
>losing access to their children.
>
> However, I don't agree that stunts like this will not achieve anything.
>On the contrary, I think if they are kept up, they will achieve far more
>than all kinds of carefully reasoned policy papers.
====
Perhaps. It was just discouraging in this case, that the media *totally* missed
the point. It seems to most that the queen is more important than the children.
Yes, perhaps if it goes on long enough, a light might go on somewhere.
====
====

[Gini]

In article >, Phil #3 says...
>
>I don't think so Gini, last night a female friend of mine asked if I'd heard
>about it, which gave me cause to explain the reason behind it. At least ONE
>person better understands the situation because of it; I'd suspect maybe
>thousands.
>Phil
====
Hopefully.
====
====
>
>
>"Gini" > wrote in message
...
>> ...to draw attention to inequities in child custody law. The media paid
>> lots of
>> attention but only to speculate how the security breach happened. On CNN,
>> the
>> anchor stated that she could see why he didn't "get custody." High profile
>> antics seem to have yielded little benefit for dads.
>>
>
>

[Gini]

In article >, JR says...
>
>Gini wrote:
><snip>
> > High profile
>> antics seem to have yielded little benefit for dads.
>>
>
>Sarcasm on:
>
>You're right, these major cultural revolutions tend to happen overnight.
> Gee wiz, they've climbed up a few buildings and thrown purple powder
>at their Prime Minister, and yet nothing's changed at all! Those crazy
>dad's ought to just give it up now so CNN can get back to reporting real
>news.
>
>Sarcasm off:
>
>Father's rights are on the radar and on the political agenda in Britain
>thanks to the men brave enough to undertake these "antics" (your words
>carefully chosen to dismiss/denigrate?).
====
You're new here aren't you? My words were chosen totally by number of letters.
The quickest/shortest I could do to get the post up. My right hand is in a cast.
====
====
Time will tell what "benefits"
>their actions will yield.
>
>JR

[Chris]

"Gini" > wrote in message
...
> ...to draw attention to inequities in child custody law. The media paid
lots of
> attention but only to speculate how the security breach happened. On CNN,
the
> anchor stated that she could see why he didn't "get custody."

The only way that she could see why he didn't get custody is if she saw what
took place BEFORE he was refused custody. Remember, cause ALWAYS precedes
effect.

> High profile
> antics seem to have yielded little benefit for dads.
>

[Chris]

"Phil #3" > wrote in message
t...
> I don't think so Gini, last night a female friend of mine asked if I'd
heard
> about it, which gave me cause to explain the reason behind it. At least
ONE
> person better understands the situation because of it; I'd suspect maybe
> thousands.

My first reaction was to think that this guy was a loon. Then when I found
out what it was all about, I realized that this his sanity probably trumps
the best of anyone's in this forum! Hats off for his courage. Whether or not
it is instrumental in getting the British government to recognize fathers as
fathers is a different story.

> Phil
>
>
> "Gini" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ...to draw attention to inequities in child custody law. The media paid
> > lots of
> > attention but only to speculate how the security breach happened. On
CNN,
> > the
> > anchor stated that she could see why he didn't "get custody." High
profile
> > antics seem to have yielded little benefit for dads.
> >
>
>

[Kenneth S.]

"Chris" > wrote in message
news:YnP1d.278091$sh.152487@fed1read06...
>
> "Gini" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ...to draw attention to inequities in child custody law. The media paid
> lots of
> > attention but only to speculate how the security breach happened. On
CNN,
> the
> > anchor stated that she could see why he didn't "get custody."
>
> The only way that she could see why he didn't get custody is if she saw
what
> took place BEFORE he was refused custody. Remember, cause ALWAYS precedes
> effect.
>
> > High profile
> > antics seem to have yielded little benefit for dads.


I've now read several news stories about this event. It appears that
the tactic HAS been successful in calling attention to the grievances of
fathers in Britain. Even the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, addressed this
issue in his comments, if only to say that these were sensitive and
emotional issues and stunts like this were not the way to get them
addressed. And I haven't read any of the British media coverage, but in the
past the British media -- unlike the U.S. media, which simply parrots the
feminist perspective -- has been much more willing to give a sympathetic
hearing to fathers.

In the real world, if fathers are ever going to achieve reforms of the
current grossly inequitable and destructive system, it will only be as a
result of BOTH stunts and threatening behavior by extremists AND more
reasoned constructive efforts by moderates. It's the good cop-bad cop
tactics.

I hate to say this -- but in the current situation with politics being
largely driven by special interest groups, the extremists by themselves are
far more likely to get results than are the moderates by themselves. At all
events the moderates' hands are vastly strengthened by the extremists, since
the moderates can tell politicians: Who would you rather deal with -- those
extremists or moderates like us?

[Gini]

In article <YnP1d.278091$sh.152487@fed1read06>, Chris says...
>
>
>"Gini" > wrote in message
...
>> ...to draw attention to inequities in child custody law. The media paid
>lots of
>> attention but only to speculate how the security breach happened. On CNN,
>the
>> anchor stated that she could see why he didn't "get custody."
>
>The only way that she could see why he didn't get custody is if she saw what
>took place BEFORE he was refused custody. Remember, cause ALWAYS precedes
>effect.
====
But, he probably wasn't even *denied* custody. According to the occasional
British dad who appears here, they would make progress if they even got
"visitation" which they are not assured under current law.
====
====
>
>> High profile
>> antics seem to have yielded little benefit for dads.
>>
>
>