'Fathers for justice' storm'Loose women'.

Protesters from the 'Fathers for Justice' organisation stormed onto the Loose women set shouting "No kids no cash" forcing the programme to go off air for a couple of minutes.

They don't do themselves any favours do they?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/fathers4justice-storms-loose-women-studio-8197721

I have seen many a man driven to despair by women denying them access to their little ones even with a court order.

Women stop men seeing their children... so the men then stop giving the cash... then the women starts saying 'why should I let him see "my" child when he can't even pay for them!?'...

Syl wrote:Protesters from the 'Fathers for Justice' organisation stormed onto the Loose women set shouting "No kids no cash" forcing the programme to go off air for a couple of minutes.

They don't do themselves any favours do they?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/fathers4justice-storms-loose-women-studio-8197721

It should get 'stormed' more often. I hate that programme. A bunch of silly arse women clucking about shite.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:Protesters from the 'Fathers for Justice' organisation stormed onto the Loose women set shouting "No kids no cash" forcing the programme to go off air for a couple of minutes.

They don't do themselves any favours do they?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/fathers4justice-storms-loose-women-studio-8197721

It should get 'stormed' more often. I hate that programme.   A bunch of silly arse women clucking about shite.

It's everything I detest about daytime TV, that and This Morning; for the brain dead.
I hate all magazine shows - Oprah, Lorraine, The One Show.....

Good. That programme is a bunch of prattling women anyway, and Fathers for Justice is a worthwhile thing IMO.

Tommy Monk wrote:Women stop men seeing their children... so the men then stop giving the cash... then the women starts saying 'why should I let him see "my" child when he can't even pay for them!?'...

And in every case like that neither the mother OR the father are thinking about their childrens best interest are they?

'No kids no cash' is a horrible slogan...like I said the FFJ organisation do themselves no favours when they make public displays like this.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:Protesters from the 'Fathers for Justice' organisation stormed onto the Loose women set shouting "No kids no cash" forcing the programme to go off air for a couple of minutes.

They don't do themselves any favours do they?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/fathers4justice-storms-loose-women-studio-8197721

It should get 'stormed' more often. I hate that programme.   A bunch of silly arse women clucking about shite.

Lol....I used to watch it sometimes, I quite liked it.

They did and apparently still do talk about men as if they are thick though....it's not that unlike a group of women on a girls night out....is it all in fun or do men have a genuine grievance?
I somehow cant see a programme where men sit around talking about women ever being given air time.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Women stop men seeing their children... so the men then stop giving the cash... then the women starts saying 'why should I let him see "my" child when he can't even pay for them!?'...

And in every case like that neither the mother OR the father are thinking about their childrens best interest are they?

'No kids no cash' is a horrible slogan...like I said the FFJ organisation do themselves no favours when they make public displays like this.

The cause of problem is the woman being a twat... the man has only one lever to pull and that is the handing over of cash....

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

And in every case like that neither the mother OR the father are thinking about their childrens best interest are they?

'No kids no cash' is a horrible slogan...like I said the FFJ organisation do themselves no favours when they make public displays like this.

The cause of problem is the woman being a twat... the man has only one lever to pull and that is the handing over of cash....

They are both 'twats' if they are taking their own frustrations out on the kids.

The twat is the woman preventing access in the first place...

Tommy Monk wrote:The twat is the woman preventing access in the first place...

No one is saying when women act like that they are right...unless she or the courts have good reason every child should have his mum and his dad in their lives.
A man withdrawing child support does firstly his child no favours...all men should support the kids they father.....and he does himself no favours either because he will end up being hunted by the CSA who will possibly take more off him than the initial agreement.

When he just stops paying he is punishing the woman...but it's the child who suffers.

If the woman wasn't being an awkward twat in the first place then the money wouldn't be an issue...

Tommy Monk wrote:If the woman wasn't being an awkward twat in the first place then the money wouldn't be an issue...

And the man has the courts to turn to if access is denied him....in the meantime he should support his kids, it's not their fault the parents put themselves first.

And won't he then need to find money to bring legal action against the woman...?

Tommy Monk wrote:And won't he then need to find money to bring legal action against the woman...?

He may get legal aid, though if he hasn't paid for his childrens upkeep he may not need it.

My point is that if a woman has started denying the father access to their child/children... then he may have to stop giving her money to instead use it towards bringing legal action...

Tommy Monk wrote:My point is that if a woman has started denying the father access to their child/children... then he may have to stop giving her money to instead use it towards bringing legal action...

It wouldn't work like that though would it.
Like I said the CSA would become involved and he would be worse not better off financially.

Stopping paying for the kids is a mans way of getting back at the woman, like they chanted on loose women "No kids no cash"

These are fathers who are already being denied access to their children by awkward twat women...


These are men who want involvement in their childrens lives and are more than happy to pay towards their childrens upkeep and we'll being.

Tommy Monk wrote:These are fathers who are already being denied access to their children by awkward twat women...


These are men who want involvement in their childrens lives and are more than happy to pay towards their childrens upkeep and we'll being.

Women like that should be prosecuted....just as men will be if they refuse to pay child support.

But the women are getting away with it all over the place... while the men are getting striped up...

Tommy Monk wrote:But the women are getting away with it all over the place... while the men are getting striped up...

Courts have the childs interest at heart....kids cant be cut in half and mothers usually get custody because mothers are often in a better position to care for the kids.
It might not be fair but that's life.
Women who get custody and then (for no good reason)  deny the ex access are beneath contempt. The man can go back to court....sadly many don't, they use alternative methods which does no one any good....least of all the kids.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:But the women are getting away with it all over the place... while the men are getting striped up...

Courts have the childs interest at heart....kids cant be cut in half and mothers usually get custody because mothers are often in a better position to care for the kids.
It might not be fair but that's life.
Women who get custody and then (for no good reason)  deny the ex access are beneath contempt. The man can go back to court....sadly many don't, they use alternative methods which does no one any good....least of all the kids.

What makes you say that...?


And I agree that children can't be cut in half... but custody could be half and half...


Why do you think it is ok for the woman to get the house and the children and the man has to move into a bedsit or house share etc and then be expected to work all the hours just to hand over half his wages to her to spend on designer clothes/bags and holidays etc... and to then only get to see his children once or twice a month when she decides that she wants a night out on the lash...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:



Courts have the childs interest at heart....kids cant be cut in half and mothers usually get custody because mothers are often in a better position to care for the kids.
It might not be fair but that's life.
Women who get custody and then (for no good reason)  deny the ex access are beneath contempt. The man can go back to court....sadly many don't, they use alternative methods which does no one any good....least of all the kids.

What makes you say that...?


And I agree that children can't be cut in half... but custody could be half and half...


Why do you think it is ok for the woman to get the house and the children and the man has to move into a bedsit or house share etc and then be expected to work all the hours just to hand over half his wages to her to spend on designer clothes/bags and holidays etc... and to then only get to see his children once or twice a month when she decides that she wants a night out on the lash...!?

Of course the courts have a childs interest at heart.

Mothers usually get custody....courts don't like separating children from their mothers, women are more often better equipped to either give up work or arrange care round her worktimes. In the majority of marriages childcare falls on the woman more than the man....so why should it not if the partnership fails?

The family home would usually stay with whoever was granted custody.

The man doesn't have to hand over half his wages.....and if the woman can support herself he would be paying for the children not her.

You think single mothers spend the child support on designer bags and nights on the lash??
Do you have personal experience of this....because being brought up by a single mother I can assure you that's not where my mums pittance went.

The parent without custody is always granted regular access unless there is evidence that shows he/she is not fit....every weekend in the two cases I know personally.
Like I said the courts have the childs interest at heart....IF either parent balls this up they are selfish bastards, but sadly many parents of both sexes fit that bill.

While it is true that the mothers normally get custody... they are only in a better position to look after the children because they are also awarded the house and awarded payments from the father...


Why shouldn't the father be given custody and the house and the mother told to pay for it all?

Tommy Monk wrote:While it is true that the mothers normally get custody... they are only in a better position to look after the children because they are also awarded the house and awarded payments from the father...


Why shouldn't the father be given custody and the house and the mother told to pay for it all?

If she was in a position to do that (say she was the main breadwinner and her husband had done the bulk of  the childcare) I don't see why that shouldn't happen.

I also think children when they reach a certain age should have a say in where they want to live....and if it's practical and in their best interest that should happen also.

Normally imho woman nurturing a baby has innate maternal instincs and is better for said baby.

Major wrote:Normally imho woman nurturing a baby has innate maternal instincs and is better for said baby.

I agree... mother looking after and protecting baby, with father looking after and protecting mother and baby is best... and the normal and natural way of things...


But what about after baby stage...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Major wrote:Normally imho woman nurturing a baby has innate maternal instincs and is better for said baby.

I agree... mother looking after and protecting baby, with father looking after and protecting mother and baby is best... and the normal and natural way of things...


But what about after baby stage...?

What about he bonding that occurs ...that doesn't just disappear after the baby stage has passed.
The parent who has nurtured the child will be the parent the child feels closest too...and more often that parent is the mother.

Tommy Monk wrote:But the women are getting away with it all over the place... while the men are getting striped up...

There are lots of men getting away with not paying and not showing up.

What about the bonding with father that occurs...!?


It's not just the mother who nurtures and bonds with a baby you know!


Part of the problem is when the mother tries to take sole ownership of child and tries to take complete control over child and everything else!!!




Eddie... this is about fathers who desperately want to be involved and desperately try to be involved and who are happy to pay towards childs needs and upbringing... but are denied access by the controlling women...

Tommy Monk wrote:What about the bonding with father that occurs...!?


It's not just the mother who nurtures and bonds with a baby you know!


Part of the problem is when the mother tries to take sole ownership of child and tries to take complete control over child and everything else!!!




Eddie... this is about fathers who desperately want to be involved and desperately try to be involved and who are happy to pay towards childs needs and upbringing... but are denied access by the controlling women...

Tommy....you made it about fathers who desperately want to be involved and are happy to pay, actually it was about men who stormed a TV studio shouting "No kids no cash"....you nor I have no idea whether those men were responsible parents or not.

Why would a father who didn't want to be involved and wasn't paying be making a protest about being prevented from seeing child and be in a position to stop paying...?



Only a father who wanted to be involved and was being prevented from doing so would be protesting about it...


And only a father who was paying towards childs needs and upbringing would be able to talk about withholding money!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Why would a father who didn't want to be involved and wasn't paying be making a protest about being prevented from seeing child and be in a position to stop paying...?



Only a father who wanted to be involved and was being prevented from doing so would be protesting about it...


And only a father who was paying towards childs needs and upbringing would be able to talk about withholding money!!!

I'm sure many have genuine grievances about the way they have been treated, but there are also fathers who have no intention of paying for the kids they have fathered, they can easily jump on the bandwagon and claim they don't pay because they don't see their children often enough.

There are also loads of women who say they are restricting access because father isn't paying enough... or arent jumping through enough hoops or bending over enough in other ways...



If it's so wrong to restrict payment for non access... then isn't it just as wrong to restrict access for non payment...!?



And I repeat... only a father who wants to be involved and pays will be complaining about being prevented access and be in a position to restrict paying!

Tommy Monk wrote:

There are also loads of women who say they are restricting access because father isn't paying enough... or arent jumping through enough hoops or bending over enough in other ways...



If it's so wrong to restrict payment for non access... then isn't it just as wrong to restrict access for non payment...!?



And I repeat... only a father who wants to be involved and pays will be complaining about being prevented access and be in a position to restrict paying!

"Loads of women who say they are restricting access because father isn't paying enough"....not sure where you have gotten that info from but I doubt it's validity. The court decides how much the man will pay if the separation has been done legally. If he doesn't pay the CSA will get involved......it's not up to the mother how much he will pay.

Of course it's just as wrong to restrict access....I have said so all along, it's using the child as a bloody bargaining tool either way.

And I repeat.....some men who have never had any intention of supporting their kids will just as likely jump on the bandwagon, it would give them a further excuse not to pay for the children they have fathered.....not that some men need that.

I meant paying 'often' enough... there are women who say the man has missed a payment or two so immediately restrict access...


If it's so wrong to restrict payment for non access... then isn't it just as wrong to restrict access for non payment...!?


Maybe custody should be split 50/50 and both expected to pay 50/50 too...

Tommy Monk wrote:I meant paying 'often' enough... there are women who say the man has missed a payment or two so immediately restrict access...


If it's so wrong to restrict payment for non access... then isn't it just as wrong to restrict access for non payment...!?


Maybe custody should be split 50/50 and both expected to pay 50/50 too...

Maybe some women do use money as a bargaining tool....it's just as wrong as when the men do it.
The courts decide what will be paid....it's not up to either parent. Sadly if either one uses money to get their way they are taking it out on the child.

I don't think a 50/50 split would be in the interest of a child, it's not practical and children need a permanent base...they are not luggage to be carted about between 2 houses.

They could easily feel at home in both parents places...

It is not right to give so much access to one parent with the other only getting your see their child for a few hours every other weekend.


And parents can decide between them on financial arrangements... courts and csa don't necessarily need to be involved.

Tommy Monk wrote:They could easily feel at home in both parents places...

It is not right to give so much access to one parent with the other only getting your see their child for a few hours every other weekend.


And parents can decide between them on financial arrangements... courts and csa don't necessarily need to be involved.

I agree. If the parents live near each other, it could work.

Another thing a woman likes doing is to move miles away just to add difficulty to father seeing child...


Quite right Raggs... the child could spend a few weeks at mums then a few weeks at dad's.. still going to same school and seeing same friends etc...

Tommy Monk wrote:Another thing a woman likes doing is to move miles away just to add difficulty to father seeing child...


Quite right Raggs... the child could spend a few weeks at mums then a few weeks at dad's..  still going to same school and seeing same friends etc...

I agree. I don't think children find it that difficult to adapt - they'd probably enjoy it.

As long as they were plugged into the Internet... I doubt they would be fussed too much about being anywhere!

Tommy Monk wrote:As long as they were plugged into the Internet... I doubt they would be fussed too much about being anywhere!

True Tommy!

Tommy Monk wrote:They could easily feel at home in both parents places...

It is not right to give so much access to one parent with the other only getting your see their child for a few hours every other weekend.


And parents can decide between them on financial arrangements... courts and csa don't necessarily need to be involved.

Kids need a base and a routine, splitting them 50/50 is a bad idea imo.

Tommy, if parents were civilised enough to decide on the financial arrangements there would be no need for Fathers for justice, family courts or the CSA....some parents are because they value their childs happiness even though they don't want to stay together....others don't, and they are the ones we were talking about.

Yes... the women who take over total control and prevent the fathers from having access...

Tommy Monk wrote:Yes... the women who take over total control and prevent the fathers from having access...

You just see the woman at fault never the man....I'm not sure why you find it so hard to believe that often when a marriage/partnership breaks down and children are involved BOTH parents can and do use the kids to score points.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:They could easily feel at home in both parents places...

It is not right to give so much access to one parent with the other only getting your see their child for a few hours every other weekend.


And parents can decide between them on financial arrangements... courts and csa don't necessarily need to be involved.

Kids need a base and a routine, splitting them 50/50 is a bad idea imo.

Tommy, if parents were civilised enough to decide on the  financial arrangements there would be no need for Fathers for justice, family courts or the CSA....some parents are because they value their childs happiness even though they don't want to stay together....others don't, and they are the ones we were talking about.

Well many of them are not civilised enough, and they're not going to be on their own. Splitting custody would mean that women can't hold their children hostage and stop them spending time with their fathers. Children are very adaptable IMO, and joint custody would work where the parents live near each other and agree about routines, etc. If they won't agree, maybe a judge could force them to agree without going round in circles and defying the courts.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Yes... the women who take over total control and prevent the fathers from having access...

You just see the woman at fault never the man....I'm not sure why you find it so hard to believe that often when a marriage/partnership breaks down and children are involved BOTH parents can and do use the kids to score points.

I mostly hear about problems relating to women denying access to the father actually. It's disgusting that they can do that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

You just see the woman at fault never the man....I'm not sure why you find it so hard to believe that often when a marriage/partnership breaks down and children are involved BOTH parents can and do use the kids to score points.

I mostly hear about problems relating to women denying access to the father actually. It's disgusting that they can do that.

I hear a lot more about fathers who don't pay for their offspring..and some have kids all over the show.