Well we won''t ever agree over CM, if you make a child pay for it, withholding CM because a parent makes contact hard just punishes the child, they are and always will be the innocents in my little old head.
As for what is extreme, it''s subjective, I''ve seen pictures of men on the high street mid day naked as a babe outside of a chain of shops that support a woman''s group, but that''s a whole other story, and well of track (my bad as they say in America).
Court is flawed, everyone knows it is, will it get better with continuos cuts?, no, but it what it is, you can make the best of a bad job or be swallowed in anger and misery, the law changes slightly slower than continents move, politicians don''t care, they are far to busy lieing to the great unwashed to gain votes, moats don''t clean themselves!, I seem to be off track again.
The fathers'' rights movement used to think - and parts of it still do - that its task was merely to publicise the bias within the family justice system - ''make the injustice visible'' - and change would inevitably follow. A 2003 editorial in the Independent, for example, said, ‘Bob Geldof is right… There are two injustices in particular that cry out to be remedied, one reinforcing the other. The first is the anti-father bias of the family courts; the other is their secrecy''. The leader writer warned, however, ‘If Mr Geldof is in error, it is in his implication that it is enough to recognise the injustices to put them right’.
With hindsight we can see that this approach didn''t work (and Geldof jumped ship before it started sinking): there has been considerable publicity - mainly between 2002 and 2006 - but there has been very little change, and the crumbs we will be thrown next year in the Children and Families Act will amount to nothing.
The fact is that as far as the workers in the system are concerned - the lawyers, judges, social workers, experts - the system is as it is meant to be and needs no change. Politicians don''t dare to touch this issue and only those with no political future, like John Hemming or George Galloway, will speak out. Just look at what happened to Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia whose sympathy for fathers has been used against him by his political opponents.
Is anger productive though?, does it help keep a clear head and work towards a goal?, I suppose it could be but not in court, not in law, raging against the machine will grind you down, a Chinese war lord wrote a couple of thousand years ago along the lines of go to battle and the war is lost, I can see the logic, rise above it work with what you have and play the long game, it''s not a sprint it''s a marathon, act in haste and repent at leasure.
I see it from both sides, women who choose to feed kids or keep them warm because the farther pays nothing for his own flesh and blood, men who live in their mothers spare room while paying for the ex to holiday three times a year, and they all have their own story ad to who did what to who and why they are right to do what they do, if the world is ever sunny full of flowers and perfect parents will both think of their children first, above all, regardless of who does what, it won''t ever be that way but then I''m an optimist.
I think being the birthday boy and the fact that I am always right I''ll have to settle it.
Yes UK family law is obscenely biased in the womans favour.FACT inarguable.It might be on the statute books that it''s all fair and not sexist but that is total and utter bollox in reality and any bloke that doesn''t realise that is in for a shocking reality check.
UK Law has one precedent and that''s that the father supports the ex family financially and it''s gonna make sure it extracts as much money as it can.
Ex wives are the same as wives they want the control on everything.They want you to pay for everything. Magnify that 100 times once it''s an ex wife.
No adult male has any control or say in his life once he has married and had kids.
The contract he has entered into is one sided and once signed he is royally fecked.
He is at the mercy of the wife not packing him in because if she ever does he loses 80% of anything he has ever earnt.
Women will nearly always get custody of the kids and thus bag the kids bag the money.
The only way a man can protect his own life is to definately not marry.
Because that''s the contract that fecks him as being treated as an individual financially.
That''s why when I see all the blokes on here getting married for the second or third time I think good luck mate because you''ve just volunteered to have the sword of damocles swinging over your head again you mug.
Just don''t ever get married again.
Don''t ever put them on the house deeds again.
No it ain''t fecking fair FACT.... but getting caught once is unlucky and naieve.
After that it''s your own fault.
Here endeth the lesson.
All the best
HIS ROYAL HAWAYNESS xx
I must be in the minority, always worked, paid into my pension etc. At the divorce had to pay my ex a shed load of money towards him sorting himself a new home etc for having our children over. What a joke, not seen our eldest for 6 years and youngest for 3 months. Exs are exs thank goodness for that whatever their sex we''re well rid, oh and my ex was a control freak too!