British Dad Scales Palace

....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 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

"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.

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.

"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.

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.
====
====

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.

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

"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.

"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.