General Chat

In that case, CAT, you are absolutely correct.

Interesting about "families need fathers". Had not even heard of them. I wonder how many have. Yet we all know something about Fathers 4 Justice :-(

John, when I said you were generalising about something you knew nothing about I was talking about residency/access and your statements about mothers/grandmothers.

Say what you like about F4J, I have no respect for them whatsoever. It would be 'familiesneedfathers' that I would recommend to anyone for support and advice. IMO, F4J are nothing more than a bunch of attention seeking feckwits.

When have Fathers4Justice NOT broken the law. That is how they have pursued their cause to try to increase public awareness of their plight.

It is a matter of whether you think it is a serious breach of the law. I think they miscalculated this time. I know a little about it, but not much I admit. Not the fount of all knowledge that other posters claim to be:-)

I also thought I covered myself by writing mothers MIGHT destroy a painting. I doubt the modus operandi of aggrieved mothers would differ that greatly from these fathers.

Oh, FFS, John, can you make any more stupid statements about something you know nothing about. Then to make it worse by generalising beggars belief.

This man chose to vandalise a painting. There are many things he could do, the thing he chose to do was to break the law. Says more about him than it does about his 'cause'.

Depends on the case John, not all fathers are kept away
from their children and I feel for the fathers that are and of course
children should have both parents in an ideal world. But your
statement that we might destroy paintings is imo stupid. Oh and
I can assure you women do go out to work to support their children
because what is sometimes given from the father is not enough.

Emma

If a child is taken away from a mother and she has little access, the mother and grandmother usually fight for custody of the child, Emma. Or am I wrong?

My only evidence for that is a couple of recent cases highlighted in papers. And if I have got wrong end of stick, I do apologise to mothers and grandmothers of course.

As you await for an apology on another thread ,on
behalf of women, mothers and grandmothers I wait
for one here, my beggar's belief was on your statement.

Emma

I think they lose a lot of sympathy when they pull these stunts. I know they don't hurt anybody, but there must be a way of protesting that gains public support.

Remember Swampy tying himself to a tree for weeks? It did delay the uprooting of those trees (near Newbury, I think). And gave many of us a giggle.

But finding it hard to chuckle at destroying a work of art. :-(

Beggars belief

Imagine boot on other foot though, Kay. If judges started ruling in favour of men having the children and mothers going out to work to pay for their upkeep. And having very limited or even no access.

Quite a few paintings might be damaged then. Women (mothers and maternal grandmothers) can be quite angry when roused.

What else is he capable of in a fit of temper when things arent going his way,,,,,,,,what a fine example he is sending out to his children,that its justifiable to destroy someone elses property when things arent in your favour........any further actions for access this will not be favoured by the liasion judge.....silly man.

most of the trouble is caused by divorced parents that decide the kids will make a good weopon
its a pity the judges cant spot it and find against the partner doing it

It pushes their cause back on the front page. But they have become niggly and irritating and no one reads their posts any more.

Seriously though, the politically correct movement over the last 30 years has done a lot of good. But estranged fathers have had an awful deal. It has been assumed they are still the bread winners (is that pc) and it has been assumed that the children should remain with their mothers (is that pc).

And courts are full of do-gooder social worker types who side with mothers. No wonder these Fathers for Justice irritate us by ruining the 3,052nd public portrait of the Queen. Nearly as bad as the Rolf Harris one anyway.

The man is a first class Richard and has done Fathers4Justice absolutely no favours at all.

He should be made to pay for the restoration and learn that his frustration is better served through balance than petulance.

This is terrible. After this destruction of a major portrait, Is there any way I can get hold of a likeness of our queer old - I mean Dear Old Queen:-S :-S

I would love to know what she looks like.

One can empathise with his plight but......

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/407261/Fathers4Justice-name-dad-Tim-Haries-as-the-man-who-defaced-painting-of-the-Queen

:-(