Philip Lewis wrote:
> http://www.angryharry.com/
> 
> Comments by AH
> 
> Fathers4Justice Storm Foreign Office Three costumed Fathers 4 Justice 
> protesters have scaled a Foreign Office balcony overlooking Downing Street. 
> [ 
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050228/wl_uk_afp/britainprotestfathers_050228153454
]
> 
> And it was only yesterday that AH was complaining to one of F4J's 
> international coordinators that the group was losing the headlines!
> 
> Yes indeed.
> 
> Even AH can be an absolute w##ker on occasion!
> 
> And, while on the subject of Fathers4Justice, AH has in the past received 
> emails suggesting that middle-aged men with pot bellies dressing up as 
> 'so-called superheroes' is more farcical than relevant to any of the 
> important issues that they might be addressing - or words to that effect.

The reason they have to do these apparently 
fairly silly things is because trying to reason 
with the system is a waste of time. I have been 
trying the sensible way for 28 years. Where has 
it got me? Obscurity - that is where it has got me.

D.

> And they are 100% flat wrong.
> 
> Firstly, this relatively small band of activists is now renowned throughout 
> the world - including China, Russia, the Pacific East, India, the whole of 
> Europe, the whole of North America, and also much of the Middle East.
> 
> Secondly, the same goes for the issues themselves; i.e. Fathers' Rights - 
> something which every man (whether having offspring or not) should be 
> extremely concerned about - unless, of course, they are incredibly stupid 
> and naive; and have failed to see what has been going on in front of their 
> noses in recent years
> 
> Thirdly, the idea behind the costumes is not to give the impression that the 
> activists themselves are actually like the characters in the comic books. 
> The activists are creating parodies, spoofs and zany cartoon comedy, for one 
> reason and one reason alone - to attract publicity.

Unfortunately, time after time we find that the 
establishment media are more intersted in 
addressing some issue that will condemn these 
men rather than the abject obscenity of the way 
men are being treated in the divorce courts. 
E.g. if you get on the parapet at Buck House you 
are lucky you were not shot(little mention of 
the real issue); if you scale a crane you are 
obsructing traffic and the life of the city, 
they find the most trivial laws to prosecute you 
with (little mention of the real issue); if you 
raid the house of commons they bang on about 
security(little mention of the real issue)! 
Recently, some dumbo called Dunnwoody said, on 
the Daily Politics "Men are not treated unfairly 
in the courts" Really! She obviously has never 
tried being a man.

If this was a women's issue we: men, would be 
told that as men we don't know what we are 
talking about and should butt out. But no one 
tells Dunnwoody to butt out!

The one disagreement that I have with all these 
groups is that they prey on the concept of 
fatherhood; they use the children as a device to 
legitemate their arguments. The same goes for 
DAD: Dads After Divorce, and FNF: Families Need 
Fathers.

In my view the issue is the monstrous injustice 
of the way the divorce courts operate *per se* 
irrespective of whether there are children 
involved or not.

D.



> And this they have done absolutely brilliantly.
> 
> And that is a scientific fact.
> 
> In 100 years time they will still be remembered in the history books.
> 
> Will you?
> 
> Nah.
> 
> 


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/7/05 8:04:55 AM ---