Talk:Fathers 4 Justice/Pre 2006

message: A disturbing tendency, which Matt O'Connor warned about right at the start of his campaign, and has mentioned in interviews since, is that he cannot guarantee that there won't be other groups who won't be so restrained as F4J officially is. F4J, I gather, operates a principle of subsidiarity whereby local cells are fairly automonous in their initiatives. Matt O'Connor mentioned this week that he would throw out anyone who brought his organisation into disrepute. But if he throws out too many, and they remain organised using the infrastructure already in place, then O'Connor's prediction about 'other groups' might come true, effectively at his own instigation. There was a report about an F4J action which included pouring petrol over someone's car, which could have been lethal. This is evidence of the thing getting out of control, which is disturbing. Matt Stan 10:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A disturbing tendency

message: 24/11/04 - still disputed, still anodyne.
I raised a neutrality concern about this article about six months ago. I'm concerned, on revisiting it today, to see that it still reads much like a PR sheet for the group - not too surprising given the input to it by Matthew Stannard, who I understand to be the Company Secretary of the organisation . 
Fathers 4 justice is a great orginization, which is growing in america. http://www.fathers4justice.us
:If there is a concern about neutrality then anyone can change the article! If there is a concern about neutrality then it would be helpful to indicate specifically what the concern is. If there are balancing views that should be getting expressed, then why aren't they? For readers' information I am no longer the Company Secretary of FNF, though I am still a trustee of that charity. I am not a member of F4J, and FNF is not associated in any way with F4J. I have reported (mainly from the Press) matters of interest to me in the field of promoting changes to family law and procedures in the UK, which  includes information about F4J gleaned from news articles. If I have been biased in the expression of my views then I would welcome any correction. The background, which raised my interest in F4J was an interview I did on Radio 5 Live some while ago in which I discussed the F4J campaign on-air with Matt O'Connor. My views have always been to rigorously oppose any violence. This is what I told Matt O'Connor. Therefore I am interested in monitoring whether their policies are actually being carried out. Matt Stan 10:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, it was Harrison, of F4J, whom the BBC quoted as saying that he hoped their demonstration had made the world a safer place. Matt Stan 13:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I was of two minds about the violent nature of the fun powder plot. At one level, the terror generated by MPs' supposition that the purple powder might have contained sarin or somesuch, can be thought of as violent, in the same way that a bank robber with a dummy gun is. At another level, the tradition of throwing harmless objects (like eggs) at politicians, is well-established and generally not considered violent. I wrote at the time it can be argued that an assault on the person of the PM, and the fear induced in the chamber by this action, is of a violent nature. My actual view, on balance, is that this was an act of violence, and I would not personally have taken such action. Matt Stan 10:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I am not aware of having edited anything out. I am not sure that an encyclopedia is the place to express people's feelings about an organisation, particularly if not backed up by facts. I aim to engender an understanding of what the fathers rights' movement is about, which includes describing the views of its member organisations. There is the good dogma of NPOV in wikipedia, which I aim to comply with. It is perhaps frustrating for people who evidently disagree with giving F4J publicity, which I suppose it can be argued wikipedia does. But that's just freedom of information, which is always an uphill struggle! Matt Stan 10:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The neutrality of this article continues to be disputed.

message: I notice that an anon (62...) has recently some chunks of criticism of F4J, presumably thinking this is ok in the name of balance. However, as a bystander who doesn't really give a toss one way or the other, they read a bit like mud-slinging.
In particular, were the attacks outside caught sanctioned by F4J or was it some individual acting alone? Seems unlikely that a physical attack would get the endorsement of a pressure group.
Also characterizing the flour bomb attack as physical violence seems to be an attempt to characterize the event in the worst light. Physical violence means harm, I don't think that was what was intended. It would be good to have feedback on this before toning down the changes. Pcb21| Pete 14:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon additions of mid-August 2004

message: A recent addition to the article from Matthew:
:Since June 2004, women supporters too have adopted similar disguises and joined in the protests, indicating that the cause that F4J represents is not an exclusively male preoccupation.
Or it could suggest that even women feel the urge to don fancy dress so as to appear on TV.
Paul Beardsell 19:30, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The motivation of the superhero. 

message: I changed the end of the article to reflect the truth that contact centres use is only considered when one parent demands it. In a private family law case there are generally only two sides. If the father wants to be with his children at his home and doesn't want to use a contact centre then the only way that it would be ordered that he did so is if the other side, i.e. his ex, demanded it. There is no other possibility. Matt Stan 20:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who demands the use of contact centres 

message: The only violence that I have heard about in relation to F4J operations was during the handcuffing of Margaret Hodge, when a group of men, probably lawyers, laid into one of the F4J activists, who was trying to get up on the stage. An eyewitness account said they laid into him with some zest.
The comment in the first paragraph - begging to differ about the non-violence of F4J - by not being specific, seems to be an attempt to create innuendo rather than be factual. It is certainly the case, I am sure, that some of the people who are the brunt of F4J's actions feel violated, as is the intention of their actions, which are a response to the violation that activists feel they themselves have suffered. That isn't the same as being on the receiving end of violence. Perhaps these solicitors, politicians, judges and CAFCASS staff have been harmed by the violation they feel. Who knows?
What will be interesting and of some concern is if people affected by F4J's actions feel so irritated by the disruption caused that they, like the lawyers at the Margaret Hodge conference, erupt into violence themselves. Imagine mass outbreaks of road rage as F4J blocks a major motorway during the peak Christmas period. If such occurs will F4J members be arraigned for provoking violence in 'normal' 'law-abiding' subjects of the realm? This remains to be seen. Matt Stan 00:36, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Begging to differ 

message: The civil disobedience movement of Gandhi did include business closure and gheraos ( i.e forcefully surrounding the offending official and making him stay ) . So comparison of Matt O'Connors is apt. Road closure ( Also known as Chakka Jam ) and disturbing peace near british officials home were definitely part of the gandhi's movement's. The idea of non-violent protest  is that without physically harming you make the authorities uncomfertable and distressed. The movement of Matt O'connors is definitely no more violent then Gandhi's is if looked from realistic perspective. Gandhi burned the law books Can we expect F4J to burn the useless contact orders.
In terms of violence, I;ll hazard that there will be two things that F4J gets remembered for:
1) the first occurrence of a policeman pointing a gun at an unarmed man and threatening to shoot him if he didn't climb down a ladder.
2) the first incidence of a group of lawyers setting on a man and beating him up in front of an audience.
Signs of the times?
Matt Stan 19:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The civil disobedience movements of Gandhi did include business closure etc