On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:15:07 +0100, David J put finger to keyboard and
typed:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:30:08 +0100, "Steve Walker"
wrote:

Les. wrote:

I would respectfully suggest that if someone actually listened to
what these blokes have to say and even better, took action to create
a more level playing field, the problem would go away.

I agree - the present systemic discrimination against fathers will one day
seem as ridiculous as denying women the franchise.


However the Man (stuck in traffic) on the Clapham Omnibus is hardly
likely to warm to their cause - don't you think?

A bit of non-violent direct action worked for the suffragettes. If it
gets publicity for your cause, and is clearly seen to be
non-threatening, then generally it's beneficial.

Mark

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:05:04 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:15:07 +0100, David J put finger to keyboard and
typed:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:30:08 +0100, "Steve Walker"
wrote:

Les. wrote:

I would respectfully suggest that if someone actually listened to
what these blokes have to say and even better, took action to create
a more level playing field, the problem would go away.

I agree - the present systemic discrimination against fathers will one day
seem as ridiculous as denying women the franchise.


However the Man (stuck in traffic) on the Clapham Omnibus is hardly
likely to warm to their cause - don't you think?

A bit of non-violent direct action worked for the suffragettes.

Not that old canard again. The law would have changed anyway after
WW1 whatever the dear ladies got up to...


If it gets publicity for your cause, and is clearly seen to be
non-threatening, then generally it's beneficial.

Mark

Beneficial for who? Just a tiny minority who have an extremely
dubious cause, imho.

Sometimes in Life there are losers - they should learn to lose.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:05:04 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:15:07 +0100, David J put finger to keyboard and
typed:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:30:08 +0100, "Steve Walker"
wrote:

Les. wrote:

I would respectfully suggest that if someone actually listened to
what these blokes have to say and even better, took action to create
a more level playing field, the problem would go away.

I agree - the present systemic discrimination against fathers will one day
seem as ridiculous as denying women the franchise.


However the Man (stuck in traffic) on the Clapham Omnibus is hardly
likely to warm to their cause - don't you think?

A bit of non-violent direct action worked for the suffragettes. If it
gets publicity for your cause, and is clearly seen to be
non-threatening, then generally it's beneficial.

That's a myth. It would be more accurate to say that it set their
cause back at least ten years. The main effects were to alienate
sympathetic Liberal politicians by treating them as enemies, and to
convince a significant proportion of the public that women were unfit
to have the vote. It wasn't that non-violent, either; although they
avoided endangering life, they were quite prepared to assault people
and to cause extensive damage to property.

--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

In message , Steve Walker
writes
Les. wrote:

I would respectfully suggest that if someone actually listened to
what these blokes have to say and even better, took action to create
a more level playing field, the problem would go away.

I agree - the present systemic discrimination against fathers will one day
seem as ridiculous as denying women the franchise.

What specific changes would you like to see?
--
Richard Miller

In message , "
writes
Class Actions are not exclusive to the American courts. We have them
here too. Examples have included benzodiazapene cases, the MMR action
and some mining cases.

I don't know of the cases you refer to, but the only MMR action I'm
aware of was between a number of claimants and a set of drug companies.

In February Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll were making lots of noise
about starting a class action, but admitted that they were still
lobbying to get them allowed. As recently as 5th August the Civil
Justice Council published a paper asking the Lord Chancellor to allow
class actions on the grounds that they are more efficient than a series
of individual claims.


Different concept, I think. I believe you are referring to situations
like the football shirts case, where there was a rip-off of the public
going on, but each individual had only lost about £10-20. The company
benefited to the tune of millions, but no individual had lost enough to
justify a claim.

Where there are large numbers of claimants with potentially
cost-effective actions, they can be combined into a single multi-party
action, with registration deadlines for any affected claimant to sign up
to join, and settlements binding on all.
--
Richard Miller

In message , Steve Firth
writes
Richard Miller wrote:

In message , "
writes
Would a Class Action taken against F4J succeed in stopping such
selfish activities in the future. This is no longer a joke...

I'm not sure how an action in the US courts would do to anything to
prevent something in the UK.


Class Actions are not exclusive to the American courts. We have them
here too. Examples have included benzodiazapene cases, the MMR action
and some mining cases.

And IIRC Turner and Newall (asbestosis).


Thanks, yes, I had in mind that there may have been an asbestosis claim,
but I couldn't remember for certain.
--
Richard Miller

Richard Miller wrote:
In message , Steve Walker
writes
Les. wrote:

I would respectfully suggest that if someone actually listened to
what these blokes have to say and even better, took action to create
a more level playing field, the problem would go away.

I agree - the present systemic discrimination against fathers will
one day seem as ridiculous as denying women the franchise.

What specific changes would you like to see?

I don't have a list to hand, or an axe to grind, so I'll just offer the
issues I've noted from personal experience. Because my partner and I are
not married, I do not have any rights towards our children. For example I
cannot consent to their medical treatment, send in a passport application
for them, or enroll them in a school. It is assumed by the state that an
unwed mother is competent to make such decisions, but that an unwed father
is not. Utterly indefensible discrimination, in my view.

Richard Miller posted
In message , Steve Walker
writes
Les. wrote:

I would respectfully suggest that if someone actually listened to
what these blokes have to say and even better, took action to create
a more level playing field, the problem would go away.

I agree - the present systemic discrimination against fathers will one day
seem as ridiculous as denying women the franchise.

What specific changes would you like to see?

You know what the protests are about, Richard. It has been discussed
many times on this group. Fathers lose access to their children after a
split and the courts refuse to enforce access orders.

--
Les
"God will save her, fear you not, be you the men you've been.
Get you the sons your fathers got and God will save the Queen."

In message , Steve Walker
writes
Richard Miller wrote:

What specific changes would you like to see?

I don't have a list to hand, or an axe to grind, so I'll just offer the
issues I've noted from personal experience. Because my partner and I are
not married, I do not have any rights towards our children. For example I
cannot consent to their medical treatment, send in a passport application
for them, or enroll them in a school. It is assumed by the state that an
unwed mother is competent to make such decisions, but that an unwed father
is not. Utterly indefensible discrimination, in my view.

So long as you have jointly registered the birth, you do have those
rights. You can also get them by agreement with the mother or by order
of the Court.

http://www.thesite.org/sexandrelatio.../pregnancyandp
arenthood/birthfathersrights

The reason for the difference is that the father may not even be around
at the time of birth, let alone at the time any of these issues becomes
relevant. Allowing the birth father automatic rights would mean in
effect that a complete stranger could sweep into a teenager's life and
dictate what they can and can't do.

I'm not convinced that that is adequate justification for the
differences, but I can see why it was felt that some provision was
needed to protect against such a scenario.
--
Richard Miller

In message , Big Les Wade
writes
Richard Miller posted
In message , Steve Walker
writes
Les. wrote:

I would respectfully suggest that if someone actually listened to
what these blokes have to say and even better, took action to create
a more level playing field, the problem would go away.

I agree - the present systemic discrimination against fathers will one day
seem as ridiculous as denying women the franchise.

What specific changes would you like to see?

You know what the protests are about, Richard. It has been discussed
many times on this group. Fathers lose access to their children after a
split and the courts refuse to enforce access orders.


I also know that in the case of most of the F4J people, the Courts were
100% justified in their actions. And that in the vast majority of cases,
the claim that this happens is not true. It used to be true in too many
cases that orders were not enforced as well as they should be, but in
the last three or four years, attitudes have changed significantly. Of
course, that will not be apparent to anyone whose case was heard before
that. The activists will not see those changes, and will therefore carry
on complaining about things that are less of an issue.
--
Richard Miller