Discussion:
Mrs Hodge.... You're bloody nicked...!
(too old to reply)
Ancient One
2004-11-19 20:26:19 UTC
Permalink
10 out of 10 for style today for F4J!!!

Whilst not a great fan of some of their stunts as it creates backlash that
affected us at UIJ, I must admit it was pretty stunning to see that she was
"Citizen Arrested" by Batman.

Excellent PR but she will have her day on this, to lay hands on a minister,
falsely arrest her and cause loss of freedom by being handcuffed to a person
like today will have some hefty repercussions for F4J and the person
involved.

It will mean that any MP support that other groups may have had could be
endangered, I know earl Howe is a valiant anti MSBP campaigner, he would
have come to our conference except for the problems we had in the group

--
AO
Paul Nutteing
2004-11-19 23:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ancient One
10 out of 10 for style today for F4J!!!
Whilst not a great fan of some of their stunts as it creates backlash that
affected us at UIJ, I must admit it was pretty stunning to see that she was
"Citizen Arrested" by Batman.
Excellent PR but she will have her day on this, to lay hands on a minister,
falsely arrest her and cause loss of freedom by being handcuffed to a person
like today will have some hefty repercussions for F4J and the person
involved.
It will mean that any MP support that other groups may have had could be
endangered, I know earl Howe is a valiant anti MSBP campaigner, he would
have come to our conference except for the problems we had in the group
--
AO
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1355243,00.html
11.45am


Fathers' activist cuffs himself to Hodge

Press Association
Friday November 19, 2004

A Fathers 4 Justice activist today handcuffed himself to the children's
minister, Margaret Hodge, at a family law conference in Manchester.
The man attached himself to Ms Hodge at 10.11am and was arrested by police
officers at 10.50am. The minister, freed from the man, went ahead with her
speech as planned.

Fathers 4 Justice said Jolly Stanesby and Jason Hatch, who scaled Buckingham
Palace dressed as Batman earlier this year, had made "a citizens arrest".

It is believed a third man tried to join them on the stage but was wrestled
to the floor by lawyers sitting in the front row.

A Greater Manchester police spokesman said of the incident: "Police were
called to the Lowry hotel after a man is believed to have entered a meeting
being held in a function room and handcuffed himself to a government
minister.

"Officers arrived at the hotel and the minister, who was attending the
meeting, was freed from the handcuffs. She was unharmed and a man has been
arrested in connection with the incident. The man involved is believed to
have been representing Fathers 4 Justice."

The group, which campaigns for greater rights for fathers who have separated
from their partners, has won notoriety for its publicity-grabbing stunts.

Mrs Hodge had another run-in with Fathers 4 Justice a week ago. Police had
to hold back protesters when she arrived to deliver a speech near Bootle, in
Merseyside, last Friday.

In an interview with Monday's Independent she said: "Divorce and separation
is horrible for everybody, but the idea that the state can sort out
entrenched animosity and bitterness in a relationship, I think, is
stretching it a bit far."


In May, campaigners Ron Davis and Guy Harrison brought prime minister's
questions to a halt when Harrison hurled a condom filled with glitter and
flour at Tony Blair as Davis held a poster upside down and chanted slogans.
Davis was given a two-year conditional discharge while Harrison was fined
£600.

In February four protesters, including Hatch, dressed up as superheroes and
scaled the Clifton suspension bridge in Bristol, causing traffic chaos. They
were later found guilty of public order offences.

And in January Mr Stanesby climbed the gantry of the Tamar bridge, near
Plymouth. He was joined by Jayne Woodman, a human resources manager from
Swansea, who was the first woman to protest on behalf of the group. The
demonstration caused long tailbacks on both the Devon and Cornwall
approaches to the bridge when the pair blocked the carriageway with two
cars.
Paul Nutteing
2004-11-21 15:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ancient One
10 out of 10 for style today for F4J!!!
Whilst not a great fan of some of their stunts as it creates backlash that
affected us at UIJ, I must admit it was pretty stunning to see that she was
"Citizen Arrested" by Batman.
Excellent PR but she will have her day on this, to lay hands on a minister,
falsely arrest her and cause loss of freedom by being handcuffed to a person
like today will have some hefty repercussions for F4J and the person
involved.
It will mean that any MP support that other groups may have had could be
endangered, I know earl Howe is a valiant anti MSBP campaigner, he would
have come to our conference except for the problems we had in the group
--
AO
CSA comparison between England and Oz
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1355535,00.html
Part Quote
Absent fathers need not just be seen as walking wallets

The child support agency's decline mirrors the rise of militant fathers

Adrienne Burgess
Saturday November 20, 2004
The Guardian

Yesterday, a furious father's rights campaigner handcuffed himself to
Margaret Hodge - a "citizen's arrest" he called it. Just three days earlier,
the head of the crisis-ridden Child Support Agency resigned, admitting that
over the past 20 months the agency charged with collecting child maintenance
has made payments to only one in eight single parents, most of them mothers.
It is fitting that both should happen in the same week: these two stories -
of the bungled bureaucratic attempt to make non-resident parents take
financial responsibility for their children, and of the rise of increasingly
militant fathers' rights groups - have been interwoven for more than a
decade.
When the CSA opened in 1993, no one was more surprised than the then
five-year-old Australian CSA. They'd known a British CSA was on the cards:
English officials had visited, and had returned to London with reams of
notes. What caused the Australians to rub their eyes was not the existence
but the design of the British CSA. It seemed the Brits had not only failed
to learn from the many positive elements of the Australian experience - they
had done the exact opposite.
<...>
End Quote

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

Valid email ***@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.
Ancient One
2004-11-21 19:16:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ancient One
Post by Ancient One
10 out of 10 for style today for F4J!!!
Whilst not a great fan of some of their stunts as it creates backlash that
affected us at UIJ, I must admit it was pretty stunning to see that she
was
Post by Ancient One
"Citizen Arrested" by Batman.
Excellent PR but she will have her day on this, to lay hands on a
minister,
Post by Ancient One
falsely arrest her and cause loss of freedom by being handcuffed to a
person
Post by Ancient One
like today will have some hefty repercussions for F4J and the person
involved.
It will mean that any MP support that other groups may have had could be
endangered, I know earl Howe is a valiant anti MSBP campaigner, he would
have come to our conference except for the problems we had in the group
--
AO
CSA comparison between England and Oz
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1355535,00.html
Part Quote
Absent fathers need not just be seen as walking wallets
The child support agency's decline mirrors the rise of militant fathers
Adrienne Burgess
Saturday November 20, 2004
The Guardian
Yesterday, a furious father's rights campaigner handcuffed himself to
Margaret Hodge - a "citizen's arrest" he called it. Just three days earlier,
the head of the crisis-ridden Child Support Agency resigned, admitting that
over the past 20 months the agency charged with collecting child maintenance
has made payments to only one in eight single parents, most of them mothers.
It is fitting that both should happen in the same week: these two stories -
of the bungled bureaucratic attempt to make non-resident parents take
financial responsibility for their children, and of the rise of increasingly
militant fathers' rights groups - have been interwoven for more than a
decade.
When the CSA opened in 1993, no one was more surprised than the then
English officials had visited, and had returned to London with reams of
notes. What caused the Australians to rub their eyes was not the existence
but the design of the British CSA. It seemed the Brits had not only failed
to learn from the many positive elements of the Australian experience - they
had done the exact opposite.
<...>
End Quote
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.
The CSA is a con anyway, those mothers that do get payments only get them if
they are not on ANY state incomes such as JSA or Incapacity Benefit,
otherwise it is taken poun d for pound off the benefit AND it moves
enforcement to the parent too, if the payee stops paying then the DWP tells
the parent to foce it into court etc, cold comfort for the kids that don't
eat for the few weeks it takes to get there!

AO
Greg Hanson
2004-11-23 05:14:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Nutteing
When the CSA opened in 1993, no one was more
surprised than the then five-year-old Australian
English officials had visited, and had returned
to London with reams of notes. What caused the
Australians to rub their eyes was not the
existence but the design of the British CSA.
It seemed the Brits had not only failed to learn
from the many positive elements of the
Australian experience - they had done the
exact opposite.
This situation where it really seems that only the
WORST elements get reproduced, is a lot like the
way the dysfunctional ""Child Protection""
agencies have spread.

In the USA a Federal "model" agency was set up and
even though it was not functional, it was used
as a pattern for each of the US states to mimick.
The Federal model was to be conformed to in order that
the states would get the Federal grant money to
operate the state copies.
The written standards as part of this model did
include several safeguards and avenues of redress
in case the agency ran amok, and the contract
the states entered into for the money said that the
states would lose their grant if they failed to
maintain vigorous safeguards to high standards.

Virtually none of the states met the standards
for checks, balances, avenues of redress, etc.
and Federal Judges have repeatedly found the
Child Protection agencies to be in flagrant
violation of our highest laws about CIVIL RIGHTS.

(For example, the entire Illinois Child Protection
system was declared to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL and
was put under a "consent decree" (court supervision)
only to discover that IL was ALREADY under one,
issued ten YEARS before, and promptly ignored.)

Despite these supposed safeguards, the funding for
these rogue agencies has continued, at times when
politicians complained, CPS agencies automatically
protected themselves using the PRETENSE that any
effort to correct CPS was a move
""In Favor of Child Abuse"". (Demagoguery)

This same cloak, along with the cloak that
secrecy was to protect the privacy of the child,
kept various large fiascos on the parts of these
agencies a secret.

However, these agencies seem to be so incredibly
inept that there has been a rising tide of
disasters where the "Child Protection" agencies
which have become an INDUSTRY, have not been able
to maintain their StatzPolezei like secrecy.

Coming to a country near you!

People from developing countries, here for an
education in Social Work have even had their
tickets for attendance of INDUSTRY conventions
PAID FOR by various government agencies, probably
seen as some sort of AID to developing countries.

People studying and opposing the abuses by these
agencies here have been horrified to discover
that Child Protection agencies in dozens of
countries around the globe have been mimicking
the SAME BROKEN MODEL, abusing families in
strikingly similar ways to the way the states do.

I don't know if it is because the agency people
inherently SEEK TOTALITARIAN POWER, or because they
are all brainwashed by the same myopic textbooks,
but Child Protection casewreckers seem to think
so alike as to evoke experiences with talking to
CULT MEMBERS.

Is it just the nature of BUREAUCRACY that these
people act like the characters reminiscent of
Franz Kafka's "The Trial" ("The Process" in Deutsch),
George Orwell's 1984, THX-1138 or "Brazil"?
Ancient One
2004-11-23 20:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Hanson
Post by Paul Nutteing
When the CSA opened in 1993, no one was more
surprised than the then five-year-old Australian
English officials had visited, and had returned
to London with reams of notes. What caused the
Australians to rub their eyes was not the
existence but the design of the British CSA.
It seemed the Brits had not only failed to learn
from the many positive elements of the
Australian experience - they had done the
exact opposite.
This situation where it really seems that only the
WORST elements get reproduced, is a lot like the
way the dysfunctional ""Child Protection""
agencies have spread.
In the USA a Federal "model" agency was set up and
even though it was not functional, it was used
as a pattern for each of the US states to mimick.
The Federal model was to be conformed to in order that
the states would get the Federal grant money to
operate the state copies.
The written standards as part of this model did
include several safeguards and avenues of redress
in case the agency ran amok, and the contract
the states entered into for the money said that the
states would lose their grant if they failed to
maintain vigorous safeguards to high standards.
Virtually none of the states met the standards
for checks, balances, avenues of redress, etc.
and Federal Judges have repeatedly found the
Child Protection agencies to be in flagrant
violation of our highest laws about CIVIL RIGHTS.
(For example, the entire Illinois Child Protection
system was declared to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL and
was put under a "consent decree" (court supervision)
only to discover that IL was ALREADY under one,
issued ten YEARS before, and promptly ignored.)
Despite these supposed safeguards, the funding for
these rogue agencies has continued, at times when
politicians complained, CPS agencies automatically
protected themselves using the PRETENSE that any
effort to correct CPS was a move
""In Favor of Child Abuse"". (Demagoguery)
This same cloak, along with the cloak that
secrecy was to protect the privacy of the child,
kept various large fiascos on the parts of these
agencies a secret.
However, these agencies seem to be so incredibly
inept that there has been a rising tide of
disasters where the "Child Protection" agencies
which have become an INDUSTRY, have not been able
to maintain their StatzPolezei like secrecy.
Coming to a country near you!
People from developing countries, here for an
education in Social Work have even had their
tickets for attendance of INDUSTRY conventions
PAID FOR by various government agencies, probably
seen as some sort of AID to developing countries.
People studying and opposing the abuses by these
agencies here have been horrified to discover
that Child Protection agencies in dozens of
countries around the globe have been mimicking
the SAME BROKEN MODEL, abusing families in
strikingly similar ways to the way the states do.
I don't know if it is because the agency people
inherently SEEK TOTALITARIAN POWER, or because they
are all brainwashed by the same myopic textbooks,
but Child Protection casewreckers seem to think
so alike as to evoke experiences with talking to
CULT MEMBERS.
Is it just the nature of BUREAUCRACY that these
people act like the characters reminiscent of
Franz Kafka's "The Trial" ("The Process" in Deutsch),
George Orwell's 1984, THX-1138 or "Brazil"?
Dr Bill Thompson told me recently told me it is the same situation in all
anglo-saxon UK law based countries, whether its the UK, the US (the US did
much to hide its links to us but their law is very similar), Oz, NZ....!

The countries where social work is successful is when they move a worker
into the family, theres no hint of removal, she/he is there to help, support
and assist the family on a 24 hour basis if need be, only then do there real
needs to remove show themselves and the error rate on this system of working
is very low compared to the 85% error rate here in the UK

But EU countries like Germany have worked out that CP is an area they can
destoy people's rights on hence the non-complicance with Strasbourg
recently, they have been ordered to return a child, there has been proven
beynd a doubt the child was never abused or at risk yet the German
Government said "nein" and it would be interesting to see how the ECHR tries
to enforce it.

I do believe that currently Britain is suspended from the ECHR convention
due to another matter, this was done under those dodgy powers parliament
gave itself, my cofounder was waiting for his hearing in December but it is
unlikely now he will get it this year.

AO
Unity Injustice

Loading...