Protest

[amner]

Is the recent Batman stunt by Fathers 4 Justice a valid form of protest? Will the only thing that's changed here be security at the bloody palace?

[Eve]

I thought it was a very typical form of British protest. :lol:

Other countries they throw bombs at politicians, here someone throws water at John Prescot.

[Wavid]

I think that they certainly brought publicity to their cause - whether it was positive or not remains to be seen. At the end of the day, it's the Home Secretary that these chaps need to change his mind - and making him and his employees look stupid is hardly the best way to go about it.

As for their cause - I don't really know much about it. Presumably there must be a reason why these men are not being given the access they feel they need to their children. I am sure there are instances of injustice in this field just as there are in any other where their is a bueraucratic process to be followed.

[amner]

As for their cause - I don't really know much about it.

Ex-blimmin'-actly. We know they do high profile stuff though.

[Eve]

I think that they certainly brought publicity to their cause - whether it was positive or not remains to be seen. At the end of the day, it's the Home Secretary that these chaps need to change his mind - and making him and his employees look stupid is hardly the best way to go about it.


Well one thinks it wouldn't be too difficult to sneak past a blind nazi.

[amarie]

I think that they certainly brought publicity to their cause - whether it was positive or not remains to be seen. At the end of the day, it's the Home Secretary that these chaps need to change his mind - and making him and his employees look stupid is hardly the best way to go about it.


Well one thinks it wouldn't be too difficult to sneak past a blind nazi.

Crikey!

[Wavid]

[sigh]

[Colyngbourne]

Ditto, Wavid and Amarie.

I would have preferred if if there was some valid means of this group publicising what their case is. I don't doubt that there are some fathers who are unjustly denied fair access (or access at all) but all the furore needlessly stops people listening to their cause. Whatever my opinions on the royal family, I'd be a bit concerned that an intruder got that far so quickly into an establishment that is supposedly protected.

[Eve]

Well one thinks it wouldn't be too difficult to sneak past a blind nazi.
Crikey!

LOL.

You have to admit he isn't the most progressive of home secretaries.
There has been an active erosion of our civil liberties under this watch.


We have to appreciate that the media picks it's causes to promote on whim. Your average person on the street can't just decide to have a national debate about fathers rights or any other issue.
For right or wrong these stunts are using the media - of course it can then portray them at nutters, the government can use it as a stepping stone to something else, tut tut what if it was a terrorist - panic - we need new laws!!!

[amner]

You have to admit he isn't the most progressive of home secretaries.

Indeed. His visual acuity has perhaps less than nothing to do with it, however.

[amarie]

You have to admit he isn't the most progressive of home secretaries.

Indeed. His visual acuity has perhaps less than nothing to do with it, however.

Absolutley Amner. He may be blind but I find your way of expressing it quite distasteful.

[Eve]

You have to admit he isn't the most progressive of home secretaries.

Indeed. His visual acuity has perhaps less than nothing to do with it, however.

you never know. Don't trust any man who won't look you in the eye :wink:













No offence to the visually impaired intended. Just him.

[Eve]

You have to admit he isn't the most progressive of home secretaries.

Indeed. His visual acuity has perhaps less than nothing to do with it, however.

Absolutley Amner. He may be blind but I find your way of expressing it quite distasteful.
what is distasteful? that he is blind or that someone should remark on it?

[amarie]

You know exactly what I mean.

[Wavid]

I think it is the point that a disability is being used as an identifying adjective, and the inference that this disability has some influence on either his views or his ability to do his job.

[amner]

I'm not entirely sure why it's remark-worthy, really.

I'd have just stuck with 'nazi', personally, as surely the political cut and thrust is about positions held, not can't-be-helped disabilities, isn't it?

[Eve]

You know exactly what I mean.

Don't presume. No I didn't that's why I asked.

[John Self]

Quite. It is fair enough to mock Blunkett for being a knee-jerk reactionary who does everything by instinct whatever in-depth research may say; it's not fair enough to mock him for being blind ("Well one thinks it wouldn't be too difficult to sneak past a blind nazi").

To return the point. Fathers 4 Justice are a bunch of pricks. Did you see the guy dressed as Robin who didn't make it up the wall? No wonder his kids don't want to see him! Nor will those of Batman himself through sheer embarrassment ("Da-a-a-aaad!").

However. I have represented fathers and mothers in family cases in the past and just as there are some fathers who are irresponsible idiots who put their children second to their social life and make little effort to respect the routines which are all important for sustained contact, so there are mothers who take out their animus against their ex-partner by refusing to honour obligations (imposed by the court or otherwise) to let the dad see the kids. The difficulty is what do you do when this happens? The logical end for anyone (in this case the mother) refusing to comply with a court order is for committal to prison for contempt of court. However the Children Act 1989 (or Children Order 1995 in NI), which governs this area of the law, makes it clear that the interests of the child are paramount. And it is a rare case where the interests of the child would be served by locking up mum - however badly she behaves towards dad.

[Eve]

I think it is the point that a disability is being used as an identifying adjective, and the inference that this disability has some influence on either his views or his ability to do his job.

not really and I find it amazing that anyone would get upset about it. It would have been the same kind of if he were ginger or wore big glasses. In fact I could have said bearded nazi. Would people have been upset about that?

[John Self]

You are wrong Eve! Stop digging.

[Colyngbourne]

Well, it would be anti-beardist, wouldn't it? :wink: It's one of the few things I presently like about the current Home Secretary. There are too few beards about, when men get told to shave them off. My father-in-law has a particularly nice beard.

[Eve]

Quite. It is fair enough to mock Blunkett for being a knee-jerk reactionary who does everything by instinct whatever in-depth research may say; it's not fair enough to mock him for being blind

I mock him because he's evil. :twisted:

Let's see if we can construct the chain of events.


This was posted "I think that they certainly brought publicity to their cause - whether it was positive or not remains to be seen. At the end of the day, it's the Home Secretary that these chaps need to change his mind - and making him and his employees look stupid is hardly the best way to go about it."

The only way it could make the HS look stupid is if he were actually there on watch - hence sneak past him.

Honestly.

Did anyone see in the papers how you are not supposed to use the word 'nitpick' anymore because of it's historical usage, how slaves were checked. :roll:

[Wavid]

Didn't one Labour MP get asked to shave his beard off? It was the chap who stood for London Mayor, who was Health Secretary at the time. But I can't remember his name...

...got it (I think): Frank Dobson.

[Eve]

You are wrong Eve! Stop digging.
No I'm not. If people take things the wrong way I am entitled to put my case. If they then insist on bringing in the pc police for a politcal dig I don't much care. Further more nur nur nur nur nur.

[Wavid]

The only way it could make the HS look stupid is if he were actually there on watch - hence sneak past him.

But this simply isn't true, is it? The Home Secretary has ultimate responsibility for the Police force and the security of the Royal family. It was he who had to attend Parliament last night to defend the actions of the Police.

Likewise, when that chap made it into ER's boudoir in 1983, or whenever it was, the HS at the time offered his resignation.

[Eve]

The only way it could make the HS look stupid is if he were actually there on watch - hence sneak past him.

But this simply isn't true, is it? The Home Secretary has ultimate responsibility for the Police force and the security of the Royal family. It was he who had to attend Parliament last night to defend the actions of the Police.


OMG stop being so serious!! why is everyone so uptight?

Didn't anyone find it amusing to see Batman and Robin scaling the Palace walls :?

[Wavid]

Eve

Read what it says at the top of the screen. The Home of Informed Debate on the Web. We are serious on this board. That's the whole point of it.

What you might consider being uptight and PC is in fact just people trying to get along with each other within the generally accepted boundaries of this website.

There was never any need to bring David Blunkett's blindness into the debate, not for PC reasons, but because it simply wasn't relevant. If you meant it as a joke, then I am afraid the joke wasn't funny enough to get away with it.

You must think I am the most awful curmudgeon - but I have never had to slap anyone down before on this website, in the year and a half it has been running, and I don't like doing it. Please just follow the general way of doing things here, and then, however much people disagree, we can all get along as before.

[Eve]

Wavid. I understand you points. Fair enough but when people post - what I consider sly- 'you know what I mean' posts - when I'm trying to establish why people are having a go, you can not blame me for wanting to defend what I considered to be an outright over reaction.

If you want to stick to factual debate then everyone should be encouraged to do so.

As for political side swiping I'll stick with Lenny Bruce, Bill Hicks and my Mark Thomas.

Nicked for good measure on the D.B is a racist note, who is going to tell him his dog is black?

edited to add - Nothing I've posted was meant as a personal attack on anyone, it's just the way I draw in discussions, I can appreciate if people consider it aggressive.

[Wavid]

Right, let's draw a line (to use a Blairism) under all that lot, and start again with the last relevant post, which was John's I believe, and we can start again:

Fathers 4 Justice are a bunch of pricks. Did you see the guy dressed as Robin who didn't make it up the wall? No wonder his kids don't want to see him! Nor will those of Batman himself through sheer embarrassment ("Da-a-a-aaad!").

However. I have represented fathers and mothers in family cases in the past and just as there are some fathers who are irresponsible idiots who put their children second to their social life and make little effort to respect the routines which are all important for sustained contact, so there are mothers who take out their animus against their ex-partner by refusing to honour obligations (imposed by the court or otherwise) to let the dad see the kids. The difficulty is what do you do when this happens? The logical end for anyone (in this case the mother) refusing to comply with a court order is for committal to prison for contempt of court. However the Children Act 1989 (or Children Order 1995 in NI), which governs this area of the law, makes it clear that the interests of the child are paramount. And it is a rare case where the interests of the child would be served by locking up mum - however badly she behaves towards dad.

[rick green]

Could someone kindly post a link to photos? This sounds too wacky to miss.

[Wavid]

Ok, Rick, here you go:

http://www.palimpsest.org.uk/images/ladder.jpg

The protesters climb the wall...

http://www.palimpsest.org.uk/images/batman.jpg

Here's Batman!

http://www.palimpsest.org.uk/images/robin.jpg

Robin was caught halfway up...

http://www.palimpsest.org.uk/images/batmanandpolice.jpg

Batman was eventually talked down, but not after the Police had provided him with some refreshments.

[bakunin_the_cat]

John's better at this kind of thing but try here:

http://channels.aolsvc.co.uk/news/

I found it interesting on the news that nobody wanted to give the debate any publicity. Nobody spoke to FFJ or looked at whether fathers are being unfairly denied access. The only thing they reported was the 'dreadful security lapse', though this is a pretty big exaggeration. The policemen realized that it was a stunt and decided not to shoot him. That said if I wanted to blow up the Queen a Bananaman costume would come in pretty useful.

'Oh it's just some father protesting.'

Ten minutes later.

Boom.

'I see officer, a tall man with red underpants over blue tights and a yellow mask and cape.'

Ditch the costume somewhere and they're looking for a tall man.

[John Self]

I think it's quite right that the 'debate'* shouldn't be given publicity on the foot of stunts like this, or the one in the Commons earlier in the year (which Fathers 4 Justice are now calling 'the fun powder plot' - not bad). There are other organisations like Families Need Fathers who are doing less obtrusive work with the government and courts behind the scenes and that it where the change will come from.

It's amusing though that Batman chose the old-style Adam West costume (complete with flabby physique) whereas Robin went for the Chris O'Donnell muscle-suit version. Hard to say which is more camp, though I wonder if "Who's the gayer dad?" was the effect intended.

*and what does it mean when people call for a "national debate" about topics anyway? The right for tabloids to shriek their prejudices in six-inch high headlines, it too often seems.

[rick green]

Holy masked mummers Batman! I get the feeling that the political question is of secondary importance. The main thing is dressing up and getting out of line. Like Mardi Gras or something. And if it involves cops & TV, so much the better! Thanks for the photos.

[Eve]

Holy masked mummers Batman! I get the feeling that the political question is of secondary importance. The main thing is dressing up and getting out of line. Like Mardi Gras or something. And if it involves cops & TV, so much the better! Thanks for the photos.

see how amusing this looks? :lol:

in general I think the british police judge situations rather well, not always, I've seen plenty of provocative policing over the years but nothing compared with abroad. We seem to do the 'ello 'ello what's going on 'ere then? diffusion pretty well.

As I mentioned before it is people attempting to use the media for their cause. Greenpeace have done it, hell let's get historical the suffragettes used it. It raises the profile of an issue. How those changes come about is a more complex issue and a different debate I feel.

[bakunin_the_cat]

And what's this news about creating a new offence called 'Royal Trespass'?
Is that like a Royal Flush or a Royale with cheese?

I find trespass a difficult law to agree with at the best of times, but why do the Queen and her misbegotten clan of inbreds and halfwits need special laws? Isn't it bad enough the amount of police resources and money (I know John, but I've actually got a job now, so I can say my taxes) that it takes to protect them all, without having one law for them and another for everybody else?

[gil]

Most people have no idea how closed family court proceedings are.

This kind of thing (http://www.fathercare.org/expert.htm) is the basic cause of the Father protest stuff.

While not all the judgements are bad, the lack of visibility is a very bad thing. It is better, in my opinion, that a few cases be screwed up by over-publication than that any injustice is done behind closed doors without recourse to scrutiny or appeal.

[John Self]

The site linked by gil says, among other things:

Family Courts have granted themselves the dictator's freedom to operate behind closed doors while making decisions which claim to be done in our name. ... The Courts forbid the press from identifying anyone who has been processed in these secret courts. When once a person was human he becomes the letter A, B or X,Y,Z, initialised into oblivion irrespective of his complaints or wishes.

Bollocks. "These secret courts" - Family Proceedings courts are not secret - they sit regularly on the same days every week and their lists of cases are as available to the public as any lists. However each case is heard in camera, ie with nobody present other than the parties involved in the case and their legal representatives. And who would want it any other way when there are children involved, who are the subject matter of the case but had no desire to be in court? When cases are appealed and reach higher courts and are reported on like any other precedent-setting cases, the parties are referred to by letters ("initialised into oblivion (!)") to protect the identity of the children. If the author of this page - full of swivel-eyed strident language anyway which sets one against him from the start ("dictators ... corruption ... rip-off") - thinks children should publicised when the subject of court cases involving their parents' wishes for them then he deserves whatever 'injustice' he suffered which caused him to set up this site.

And here's an interesting piece on the originator of this topic:

Protesting 'stops Batman seeing baby daughter'

Sandra Laville
Wednesday September 15, 2004
The Guardian

He risked his life, his liberty and his reputation to perch for five hours on a ledge at Buckingham Palace dressed as Batman. It was all, he said, to highlight the injustice of not being allowed proper contact with his two young children from a previous marriage.

As Jason Hatch walked out of a police cell yesterday it was surprising, then, to find his current girlfriend complaining that his commitment to protesting for fathers' rights meant he had little time for their seven-month-old daughter - the youngest of his four children by three different women.

Gemma Polson, 27, suggested the strain on her relationship with Mr Hatch from his activities was so great that the couple had separated.

"We're not together anymore. It was all going too far," she said. "Fathers4Justice has taken over his life. He was seeing hardly anything of our daughter which was a bit rich when the whole point of his campaign was to allow dads to see more of their children. I'd just rather he saw more of Amelia."

Ms Polson said she knew nothing of his plan to scale Buckingham Palace, which was plotted at a country hotel last Saturday night by leading members of the group. "He had told me he was going to give it all up, but then he goes and does that."

But she indicated that the couple's separation was not final.

"We are still friends," she said. "I spoke to him on the phone this morning, he was in hospital being treated. I'm waiting for a call from him right now. He's just been released from the police station."

She said she did not want to comment further until she had considered offers to sell her story to a national newspaper. She added, however, that she was no longer living at the home the couple shared in Cheltenham. The modern semi-detached house is just a few hundred yards away from where two of Mr Hatch's children - the subject of his protests - live with their mother Victoria Jones.

Ms Jones took refuge with her mother from the intense publicity in the aftermath of Mr Hatch's protest. A notice posted on the door of her mother's house yesterday stated the family were "law-abiding citizens".

Mr Hatch's father, Roger Tunnicliff, said his son only wanted to be a good father to the two children, who are aged four and six.

"It affects me too. I'm missing out on seeing my two grandchildren. When I see Vicky in the street, she won't speak to me. It's very hard. She tells me she is not allowed to speak to me."

Mr Hatch was released on bail yesterday and immediately returned to Buckingham Palace, telling reporters that "I would do anything, even die, to get to see my children".

He refused, however, to discuss his seven-month old baby, on the grounds that the subject was a private matter.

The mentality of Batman is revealed in his last comment.

[Wavid]

I read elsewhere that Hatch changed his surname to protect the identity of his children whilst he went about his antics...

...and the The Guardian quote his father and of course what is presumably his real surname!

[gil]

I am not carrying a banner for any pressure group, but I am of the opinion that ALL court proceedings should be held in public unless there is a very compelling reason for any specific one to be in camera.

I admit to total ignorance of the Family Court procedure. All I see is enough of a rumble of discontent from people who feel badly served by them to make me suspicious.

Are all the participants anonymous? Are the judgements also secret? If so, then I think justice is serving terrorists better than families.

[Eve]

hmm maybe. If I was innocent and in the dock I'm not sure I would want the cameras. Have people seen these court TV shows in the US? Not saying our legal system is any better or worse. Terrible.

[Wavid]

I'm not sure anyone was suggesting that Family Court hearings be televised, Eve!

[Eve]

I'm not sure anyone was suggesting that Family Court hearings be televised, Eve!


Wavid

gil wrote

"but I am of the opinion that ALL court proceedings should be held in public unless there is a very compelling reason for any specific one to be in camera. "

[Wavid]

The italics meant latin.

in camera: from the Latin: "In chamber"; a hearing held in judge's chambers or in a court with all spectators excluded.

[Eve]

"ALL court proceedings to be held in public."

no italics meaning ALL court proceedings to be held in public.
You did get that bit?

[Wavid]

Well, yes, but there is a difference between a hearing being in public and it being televised!

[Eve]

The only difference is in the number of viewers.

[John Self]

All courts with the exception of family courts and a very few exceptional criminal trials are held in open court or, if you prefer, 'in public'. This means that anyone can come in and watch the proceedings, which is how we get news reports in the local press for magistrates' courts, or in the nationals about exceptional compensation claims, or on TV about high-profile criminal trials etc. None is televised however, and of course there is all the difference in the world between the two. It is the difference between being open to the public (but a small number, limited literally to the number of seats in the public gallery of the court) and being publicised. (No Latin intended by the italics :wink: )

[Eve]

Of course but it's a matter of grey. The principle to me is the same.

[Wavid]

This is becoming unbearable.

edit: most of the content of this post deleted, because, in the end, I just couldn't be bothered.

[sound of line being drawn, again.]

[gil]

All courts with the exception of family courts and a very few exceptional criminal trials are held in open court
Does that mean that all Family Court proceedings are in camera, and all litigants alphabetised? If so, that forms a basis for accusations of Star Chamber behaviour.

Is there an appeal procedure? Can a disappointed litigant take his appeal to a higher court? If not, that sounds iffy too.

I know it's nice to protect the children, but, let's face it, the children of bank robbers, paedophiles and drunk drivers have their parents' dirty linen brought out in open court. What's so sacred about divorce and custody matters?

[bakunin_the_cat]

No offence intended, Eve, but are you always so confrontational? despite what some people say Wavid isn't actually the Antichrist, though he can be a bit of an anarchist. :)

Anyway, I think most people in this country would accept that apart from cases where it's useful to protect children or in the national security interest courts should be open to the public to ensure that the justice process is transparent. This is not the same as it being televised (and for the record you're the one who brought cameras up), as this does tend to lead to these big Ami showtrials with the viewing public the ultimate jury. This is only one step away from the audience literally phoning in, Bigbrother-like to decide the verdict and sentence.

EDIT: If this seems out of sequence I started this before Gil but then had to answer the phone.

[Eve]

No offence intended, Eve, but are you always so confrontational? despite what some people say Wavid isn't actually the Antichrist, though he can be a bit of an anarchist. :)



none taken :wink: The funny thing is I actually agree with what Wavid was saying. I merely picked up a point raised by someone else and drew it out.


Anyway, I think most people in this country would accept that apart from cases where it's useful to protect children or in the national security interest courts should be open to the public to ensure that the justice process is transparent. This is not the same as it being televised (and for the record you're the one who brought cameras up), as this does tend to lead to these big Ami showtrials with the viewing public the ultimate jury. This is only one step away from the audience literally phoning in, Bigbrother-like to decide the verdict and sentence.

EDIT: If this seems out of sequence I started this before Gil but then had to answer the phone.

I know I brought it up. :)
I am saying it is just the issue of scale that is different. We already have trial by media. People discuss the case whether in a public gallery, live on tv or via tabloid or tv. What could be more transparent than having a case shown to the nation rahter than a reporters spin? :wink: As it is now we have local and national press reporting on cases and making it enertainment, example, on the same day a local man who is well involved with sports gets sentenced for a drink driving offence three men were convicted of murder. Which one do you think got the front page?

On the whole, my dealings with the press have not shown them in the best light.

[John Self]

Does that mean that all Family Court proceedings are in camera, and all litigants alphabetised? If so, that forms a basis for accusations of Star Chamber behaviour.

Yes, all Family Court proceedings are held in camera. Even lawyers unconnected to the case being heard are excluded from the court. However I believe litigants are only alphabetised if the case is reported, so in family law casebooks there will be references to, say, the case of Re: H (a minor) or whatever. It's worth pointing out perhaps that these family courts deal only with two types of case: private applications (where a parent or indeed grandparent wants a contact order, residence order, parental responsibility order, prohibited steps order or specific issue order in relation to the child(ren) of the family) and public applications (where the local authority is seeking to have children put under protection and/or taken off the parents etc.). They only deal with cases involving children. Maybe I am too close to it but I really don't see the objection to having these cases which are centred on children - the point being, as I mentioned earlier, that they are the subject of the case but had no say in the court case being brought - held in private.

I may be misinterpreting the accusation but I don't think the Star Chamber suggestion holds water if by that you mean the use of a court as a political tool of the powers-that-be. The family courts do not start proceedings of their own motion and all parties have their own legal representation.

Is there an appeal procedure? Can a disappointed litigant take his appeal to a higher court? If not, that sounds iffy too.

Yes the aggrieved party can appeal as of right to the Family Care Centre and thereafter, on a point of law, to the High Court or Court of Appeal (as in any civil proceedings).

I know it's nice to protect the children, but, let's face it, the children of bank robbers, paedophiles and drunk drivers have their parents' dirty linen brought out in open court. What's so sacred about divorce and custody matters?

Well very few divorces are actually heard at all, in the sense of being contested - almost all are undefended, and in fact I've never been involved in or even known of one that has been contested. The adult matters, like divorce and ancillary relief (financial settlement after divorce) are not restricted in the same way anyway - they are held in camera but the names of the parties are public and the outcomes can be reported. The difference is that with those cases - as with the examples you mention - it's the parents who are the subject of the case. With the custody (or residence as it's now known) battles etc, the children are the subject of the case, ref my comments above.

[gil]

Thanks, John, that's a lot clearer to me now.

[bradyguido]

Funny quote from TV news yesterday (unfortunately I forgot to note the mans name) but he said something like "We will carry on hunting...and excersice our rights, this is supposed to be a democracy!"

Obviously only when the decision of the democracy suits you sir!

Maybe I will only abide by the laws [i]I agree with from now on too.

Honestly, some people really do think they are above the law don't they? ( I wish I had got his name).

[NottyImp]

But there is also an honourable tradition of defying unjust laws (many millions did with the Poll Tax, for example. Mind you, look what we got instead.). Not that I personally consider this to be such a case, I should add.