British Dad Scales Palace

"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?

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.