'Fathers for justice' storm'Loose women'.

First topic message reminder :

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

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

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.

That shouldn't be related to them having access actually. Women shouldn't withhold access because of money. It's a child's right to see both parents.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

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.

How do you actually force people to follow court orders though, it can be tricky.

Jail the dad for not paying and he would lose his income and probably find it hard to find a job to ever support his kids... so that's why the CSA steps in, they deduct the money from the wage before he gets it...that's IF he can be traced and IF has a job.
Jail a mother who wont give the dad proper access... she probably has a million excuses, plus separating children from their mother in this way would be a very extreme action for the courts to take.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

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

That shouldn't be related to them having access actually. Women shouldn't withhold access because of money. It's a child's right to see both parents.

Tommy is the one who keeps insisting that women withhold access because of money.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

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.

How do you actually force people to follow court orders though, it can be tricky.

Jail the dad for not paying and  he would lose his income and probably find it hard to find a job to ever support his kids... so that's why the CSA steps in, they deduct the money from the wage before he gets it...that's IF he can be traced and IF  has a job.
Jail a mother who wont give the dad proper access... she probably has a million excuses, plus  separating children from their mother in this way  would be a very extreme action for the courts to take.

You force them by punishing them if they don't, and that includes punishing women who refuse to let their children see their fathers. Give them fair warning of what will happen if they don't comply - and give them once chance only.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

How do you actually force people to follow court orders though, it can be tricky.

Jail the dad for not paying and  he would lose his income and probably find it hard to find a job to ever support his kids... so that's why the CSA steps in, they deduct the money from the wage before he gets it...that's IF he can be traced and IF  has a job.
Jail a mother who wont give the dad proper access... she probably has a million excuses, plus  separating children from their mother in this way  would be a very extreme action for the courts to take.

You force them by punishing them if they don't, and that includes punishing women who refuse to let their children see their fathers. Give them fair warning of what will happen if they don't comply - and give them once chance only.

Punishing them how, would you jail parents who don't follow court orders?

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You force them by punishing them if they don't, and that includes punishing women who refuse to let their children see their fathers. Give them fair warning of what will happen if they don't comply - and give them once chance only.

Punishing them how, would you jail parents who don't follow court orders?

Yes, just do it. If nobody ever does that, parents will just run rings around the courts. Maybe if they knew the penalties for doing so, they'll think twice. They could be fined of course, or be given community service - that will make them think very carefully before they mess about.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

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.

The fathers in OP are desperate to be involved but denied access by awkward selfish women... and they are paying too otherwise they couldn't threaten to withhold money...

Jailing and fining imo would do more harm than good.
The kids could end up in care or going without essentials if money was taken out of an already low budget.

Community service would be a better option, not sure how well it would work though.

Syl wrote:Jailing and fining imo would do more harm than good.
The kids could end up in foster care or going without essentials if money was taken out of an already low budget.

Community service would be a better option, not sure how well it would work though.

Well then they shouldn't be with the parent who's messing about in the first place. If a woman is prepared to go to prison rather than let her children see their father, she's not a very good mother.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That shouldn't be related to them having access actually. Women shouldn't withhold access because of money. It's a child's right to see both parents.

Tommy is the one who keeps insisting that women withhold access because of money.

Women prevent access for a number of dreamed up awkward reasons...


It was you who was saying money shouldn't be a reason for not seeing children... and that works both ways!

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

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.

How do you actually force people to follow court orders though, it can be tricky.

Jail the dad for not paying and  he would lose his income and probably find it hard to find a job to ever support his kids... so that's why the CSA steps in, they deduct the money from the wage before he gets it...that's IF he can be traced and IF  has a job.
Jail a mother who wont give the dad proper access... she probably has a million excuses, plus  separating children from their mother in this way  would be a very extreme action for the courts to take.

These fathers are wanting to be involved and are paying...


Why do you think separating a mother from children is any worse than how a father feels by being separated from children and denied access for no good reason!?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:Jailing and fining imo would do more harm than good.
The kids could end up in foster care or going without essentials if money was taken out of an already low budget.

Community service would be a better option, not sure how well it would work though.

Well then they shouldn't be with the parent who's messing about in the first place. If a woman is prepared to go to prison rather than let her children see their father, she's not a very good mother.

And custody should be handed to the father!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well then they shouldn't be with the parent who's messing about in the first place. If a woman is prepared to go to prison rather than let her children see their father, she's not a very good mother.

And custody should be handed to the father!

Exactly.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

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

The fathers in OP are desperate to be involved but denied access by awkward selfish women... and they are paying too otherwise they couldn't threaten to withhold money...

No kids no cash sounds like they are already withholding money, which is why some members from Fathers for Justice end up in trouble... withholding money is breaking the court order.....if Rags had her way they would most likely be in jail.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


And custody should be handed to the father!

Exactly.

You are both presuming the father is in a position to have his kids full time. Many are not....seeing the kids on a weekend (or whatever the access order is) is very different to having the kids 24/7.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

How do you actually force people to follow court orders though, it can be tricky.

Jail the dad for not paying and  he would lose his income and probably find it hard to find a job to ever support his kids... so that's why the CSA steps in, they deduct the money from the wage before he gets it...that's IF he can be traced and IF  has a job.
Jail a mother who wont give the dad proper access... she probably has a million excuses, plus  separating children from their mother in this way  would be a very extreme action for the courts to take.

These fathers are wanting to be involved and are paying...


Why do you think separating a mother from children is any worse than how a father feels by being separated from children and denied access for no good reason!?

We are going round in circles now. I have given my reasons...and the courts grant access to the mother more because they are in a better position to look after the kids and because the courts feel it's more beneficial for a child to live full time with the mother than the father....if you don't like that start a petition or join fathers for justice.....do something about it.
In divorce there will ALWAYS be a loser where kids are involved.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Exactly.

You are both presuming the father is in a position to have his kids full time. Many are not....seeing the kids on a weekend (or whatever the access order is) is very different to having the kids 24/7.

Obviously I'm assuming that they actually want custody.

No... it sounds like they are making a threat of withholding money because they are being wrongly denied access...


If they are being denied access and the courts aren't doing the job of enforcing their right to see children... then what else can they do...!?


Keeping hold of money and putting it into a separate bank account will be a last resort!


If custody was awarded 50/50 and paying was also 50/50 then that would be fair and equal!!!


Are you against equality...!?

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Exactly.

You are both presuming the father is in a position to have his kids full time. Many are not....seeing the kids on a weekend (or whatever the access order is) is very different to having the kids 24/7.

Father could have kids full time and mother forced to work full time and pay for it all... and get a few hours access every fortnight...


Instead of the other way round!


Why not?


Why do you think it is ok to have it one way and not the other!?

Tommy Monk wrote:No... it sounds like they are making a threat of withholding money because they are being wrongly denied access...


If they are being denied access and the courts aren't doing the job of enforcing their right to see children... then what else can they do...!?


Keeping hold of money and putting it into a separate bank account will be a last resort!


If custody was awarded 50/50 and paying was also 50/50 then that would be fair and equal!!!


Are you against equality...!?

Nope.....I am against withholding money for the child to get back at the ex.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:


You are both presuming the father is in a position to have his kids full time. Many are not....seeing the kids on a weekend (or whatever the access order is) is very different to having the kids 24/7.

Father could have kids full time and mother forced to work full time and pay for it all... and get a few hours access every fortnight...


Instead of the other way round!


Why not?


Why do you think it is ok to have it one way and not the other!?

For a start women are not equal in the work place...(you mentioned equality so think about it) men are generally the main bread winners and women are generally the ones who give up work or reduce hours to have/rear the children.

Did you give up work to bring up your children? (if you have any) Could you have coped being a single parent?
It's all very well demanding fathers should have full custody or even share 50/50, realistically it wouldn't work.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


These fathers are wanting to be involved and are paying...


Why do you think separating a mother from children is any worse than how a father feels by being separated from children and denied access for no good reason!?

We are going round in circles now. I have given my reasons...and the courts grant access to the mother more because they are in a better position to look after the kids and because the courts feel it's more beneficial for a child to live full time with the mother than the father....if you don't like that start a petition or join fathers for justice.....do something about it.
In divorce there will ALWAYS be a loser where kids are involved.

1. Arguments start going round in circles when one person has had all their points dismissed by powerful counter arguments... and they then just start repeating old failed arguments again...

2. The person awarded the house and kids and financial support from the other will be in a better position to look after kids... the father would be in this better position if given these awards... the woman better over man idea is an outdated concept... if a mother was so important to a child then why are some adoptive children denied this hugely important mother figure when they are given away to a couple of homosexual men!?

3. If custody and financial support costs were awarded as completely 50/50 split... then this would be the fairest and most equal way of doing things...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

We are going round in circles now. I have given my reasons...and the courts grant access to the mother more because they are in a better position to look after the kids and because the courts feel it's more beneficial for a child to live full time with the mother than the father....if you don't like that start a petition or join fathers for justice.....do something about it.
In divorce there will ALWAYS be a loser where kids are involved.

1. Arguments start going round in circles when one person has had all their points dismissed by powerful counter arguments... and they then just start repeating old failed arguments again...

2. The person awarded the house and kids and financial support from the other will be in a better position to look after kids... the father would be in this better position if given these awards... the woman better over man idea is an outdated concept... if a mother was so important to a child then why are some adoptive children denied this hugely important mother figure when they are given away to a couple of homosexual men!?

3. If custody and financial support costs were awarded as completely 50/50 split... then this would be the fairest and most equal way of doing things...

1..Arguments go round in circles when one person keeps repeating the same old questions...and .that would be you in this debate.

2..When women have the same pay ratio and opportunities in the workplace as men your argument may be more topical, till that time it isn't.....and if you doubt that look up statistics re men and women in the workplace....then look at statistics re who does the bulk of minimum wage jobs.
Couples who adopt are chosen because of the love and care they can give....nowadays they are not chosen because of their sex or status...and tbh that's a different subject altogether.

3..It isn't the fairest way for the child, and the child is the most important person to be considered.....something you keep forgetting in your insistence to keep on making the father the victim.

1. You are repeating your discredited arguments.

2. You are making a claim about workplace and earnings... you need to back this up yourself with evidence and argument as to why it is in any way relevant to fathers being denied access to their children... I know plenty of couples where the woman is earning more than the man...

And about the couples adopting issue... I see you are back peddling away from the huge importance of a mother for a child all of a sudden...!!!



3. Of course it is right and fair and in the best interests of a child to have equally as much access to the mother and father as possible!!!

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Father could have kids full time and mother forced to work full time and pay for it all... and get a few hours access every fortnight...


Instead of the other way round!


Why not?


Why do you think it is ok to have it one way and not the other!?

For a start women are not equal in the work place...(you mentioned equality so think about it) men are generally the main bread winners and women are generally the ones who give up work or reduce hours  to have/rear the children.

Did you give up work to bring up your children? (if you have any) Could you have coped being a single parent?
It's all very well demanding fathers should have full custody or even share 50/50, realistically it wouldn't work.

This is 2016 Syl. There's no reason why a woman needs to rely on a "breadwinner" these days. Why can't a man look after children full time?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

For a start women are not equal in the work place...(you mentioned equality so think about it) men are generally the main bread winners and women are generally the ones who give up work or reduce hours  to have/rear the children.

Did you give up work to bring up your children? (if you have any) Could you have coped being a single parent?
It's all very well demanding fathers should have full custody or even share 50/50, realistically it wouldn't work.

This is 2016 Syl. There's no reason why a woman needs to rely on a "breadwinner" these days. Why can't a man look after children full time?

http://www.poverty.org.uk/51/index.shtml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-business/10513636/Gender-pay-gap-widens-with-women-earning-an-average-of-5000-less-reports-ONS.html

It may be 2016 but women are still not equal in the workplace.
More women work part time and more women earn the minimum wage or less.

But caring and bringing up children full time isn't all about money.
Like it or not women are considered by society (and more importantly by the courts who decide) to be the better nurturers when parents split.
Someone has to be the loser, like I said kids cant be cut in half and divided equally, and unless it's shown that the mother is NOT suitable to have custody, more often than not it will be granted to her.

The so called gender pay gap is misleading waffle...

And has no bearing on whether a father can see or have custody of his child or not.

Tommy Monk[b] wrote:The so called gender pay gap is misleading waffle...

[/b]And has no bearing on whether a father can see or have custody of his child or not.

Really.....produce genuine statistics that say so, you cant because it's simply not true.

Who does most of the menial part time jobs in any shop, school, hospital, organisation you care to mention??
Look around at the people you know.....in a 2 parent family who earns the most??
If you say on average the woman earns more or equal to the man I simply don't believe you.

It certainly has no bearing on whether a father can see his child though....and no one has said any different.

The person most qualified and doing a more important job normally earns the most...


It's called a meritocracy!


There is no reason why custody and costs can't be 50/50.


Both parents equally sharing the responsibility and workload of looking after child.

Tommy Monk wrote:

The person most qualified and doing a more important job normally earns the most...


It's called a meritocracy!


There is no reason why custody and costs can't be 50/50.


Both parents equally sharing the responsibility and workload of looking after child.

You have made all those points several times throughout the thread....it's beginning to feel like groundhog day now.

And you have not given any legitimate reason otherwise...

Tommy Monk wrote:And you have not given any legitimate reason otherwise...

Throughout the thread I have answered every obstacle you have thrown in....you are just repeating yourself....and repeatedly calling women "twats" is hardly an intelligent response or a valid contribution to the thread.

Did you find any statistics that prove the pay gap between men and women is "misleading waffle?"

You have made spurious arguments throughout thread that have all been conclusively demolished.


What do you think the 'gender pay gap' actually shows?

Tommy Monk wrote:

You have made spurious arguments throughout thread that have all been conclusively demolished.


What do you think the 'gender pay gap' actually shows?

Show genuine links disproving the links I have shown re pay and we can discuss it.

Tommy, the only thing you have demolished is your own argument by constantly repeating yourself, ignoring facts, and countering reasonable responses by pretending you are winning the debate.

In your dreams...


Now...


What do you think the 'gender pay gap' actually shows?

Tommy Monk wrote:In your dreams...


Now...


What do you think the 'gender pay gap' actually shows?

It was you who first mentioned equality.....the pay gap (which you still have not produced anything that supports your theory that it is 'misleading waffle' btw) was mentioned in response to that.

What do you think the 'gender pay gap' actually shows?

Tommy Monk wrote:What do you think the 'gender pay gap' actually shows?

It shows men earn more than women.
It also shows that equality is a double edged sword.
Men may be favoured when it comes to pay.......women may be favoured when it comes to custody of children.

The thread started off highlighting that some fathers refuse to pay for their children if access is denied them.
You agree with that I don't, there is absolutely nothing you have said that proves that withdrawing child support is beneficial to the child......it's revenge on the mother pure and simple.

Men are in full time employment more...


People get the same pay scale for same job regardless of male or female.


That is why it is misleading waffle.


If the fathers were not being denied access then they wouldn't be threatening to withdraw payments...

https://www.unison.org.uk/get-help/knowledge/pay/equal-pay/


http://www.theguardian.com/careers/careers-blog/graduate-gender-pay-gap-university-subject

http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/2013/11/equal-pay/

I will await a valid  contribution from you that proves you actually know what you are talking about....

The ons figures in your earlier link are a direct average of earnings for men compared to women... this does not take into account of type of job done, hours worked etc... just a blunt average...


When a job is advertised, the pay rate is advertised with it... it is the same pay rate for whoever gets the job...


But is a complete red herring on this thread.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:In your dreams...


Now...


What do you think the 'gender pay gap' actually shows?

It was you who first mentioned equality.....the pay gap (which you still have not produced anything that supports your theory that it is 'misleading waffle' btw)  was mentioned in response to that.

There's not just a pay gap issue but an ageist issue. if you're a woman of say, 55, going for a job against a 33 year old, guess who gets the job?

The better looking one...?