Botched judge threat probe downs Fathers 4 Justice website

Perceived Unfairness?

The biggest problem with the Family court system is that there is a lack of perceiving altogether. You would think any democracy would be opposed to secret trials where judgmenets can't be scrutinised and where all participants are under gagging orders, but you would be wrong.

There is something rotten in the state of Britain.

If it's all for the good of the children, then why is there no openness to ensure that is best for the children actually happens? As it stands now the only thing that the gagging orders protect are the scrutiny of the judgements themselves.

http://fathers-4-justice.org/f4j//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=39

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_and_Family_Court_Advisory_and_Support_Service

Droid from the future, because we don't live in the 20th century anymore.

Plenty of Incompetence to go arourd

OK, so MoJ are incapable of performing their job. I'm not sure that's really news, but whatever.

If we expand that a bit, seems the High Court is also utterly UNQUALIFIED to wield the power the "guys with guns" have granted them. Their should be (gosh I wish I had a quarter for every time that is said) some form of actual punishment against the HUMAN BEINGS who willfully performed the attack against an innocent citizen. Making every football fan in the country cough up 10 quid doesn't effect "the government" AT ALL. In fact if they screw up big enough, and lose enough civil lawsuits.... guess what.... THEY get to RAISE TAXES to cover the expense.

How about we fire EVERYONE involved in this sorry affair? Then at the minimum THEY won't do it again. And who knows maybe their ex-coworkers will exercise at least the tiniest bit of common sense before lashing out with the destructive might the government.

Mad Mad Mad

"I shall not make windows into men's soles" Now we are guilty untill proven inocent. Could the last person to leave the contry tern off all the lights

@ (AC) Mad Mad Mad

> "I shall not make windows into men's soles"

Wow. Hopefully that was not a typo or spell-check correction, because that philosophically is gold, my friend.

Pure. Gold.

Another F4J spurious rumour....

Beautiful. I recall the 'Fathers 4 Justice plot to kidnap baby Leo Blair' story had no foundation in truth either, but was gleefully accepted by the red-tops and plod as gospel truth.

It seems anyone that's pissed off the government is subject to a lower standard of proof of criminal intent than, say, ooh, anyone who's *in* the government.

@Terry 9

I also wish I had a quarter for every fool who doesn't know the difference between "their" and "there".

It's worse than that

How on earth was the injunction to take down the F4J website going to do anything? This is the internet, the information could have been posted in any one of thousands of places. Words cannot express the sheer level of incompetence shown by the civil service or the courts here.

YES FATHER

They are vindictive, this was the government flexing its muscles and shutting down something that was causing them annoyance.

We live in a Police state where Gordon says "these new laws will only be used against terrorists"

then he uses the new anti-terror laws against Icelandic banks !

We are all next don't argue with the government, I mean FATHER or in his wisdom he will shut us down.................

matt 49 @13:26

surely you meant to end your'e comment

mwah hah hah ha!

see what i did their?

"A 10-year-old could have done it"

Yes, but that doesn't mean a government IT expert could have done it!

Terrorists Go Home!

We dont need you. We are fucking everything up ourselves.

@ Richard Porter

Good call, drawing comparisons between 10 year olds and Govt IT staff is deeply offensive to 10 yeald olds

Why use a UK website?

If I was going to do something that stupid^Wdrastic then I'd put it on a web host in another country where it would be much harder for them to take it down without a lot of fuss first.

Google will censor its searches on receipt of legal paperwork, but they do let you know it's been done and try to provide a link to the takedown notice.

If judges have nothing to hide

they have nothing to fear.

or something

"F4J" website down?

What, as in the ex-US Navy Phantom jet fighter/bomber? I knew our Government was reluctant to discuss military acquisitions but that's a bit harsh!

Oh wait, it's just someone being too bloody lazy to tyoe "Fathers For Justice". Didn't you lot learn with the Y2K issue that shortening stuff is a Bad Idea?

@AC 14:33 - dont you geddit?

"If I was going to do something that stupid^Wdrastic then I'd put it on a web host in another country where it would be much harder for them to take it down without a lot of fuss first"

-- dont you understand AC? It wasnt Fathers4Justice

They dont need a web host in another country because they are innocent!

Grammar Police!

"@Grease Monkey / #

By Anonymous Coward Posted Monday 27th July 2009 14:51 GMT

>> also wish I had a quarter for every fool who doesn't know the difference between "their" and "there".

Indeed.

The same goes for Terry 9's use of "effect" instead of "affect"."

Not to mention things like "would of", "could of", "should of", etc., instead of "would have", "could have", "should have", etc..

Pete 2 Posted Monday 27th July 2009 13:54 GMT

Time to off-shore those websites.

Luckily british law only extends as far as the seaside, so maybe people should give serious thought to siting their websites on servers in countries were there is still at least the semblance of freedom.

Well thats just given me a great idea that hopefully will earn me 1000's of quid

Buy myself a suitable large ship, stuff it full of servers while taking care to use the sea as somewhere to dump the waste heat, couple it into a nice fat internet cable , then sit in international waters and host away.

Then, after I've earned many millions, I can buy myself a government(the british one seems quite cheap at the moment) and build an on shore site.

Ps nice to see our civil service is just as incompetant as it was in my day

@Grease Monkey

Theirs no satisfying some people.

speek your branes

@Gavin14 - you shagger, I've just spent the last hour laughing at

http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/2009/07/16/massive-rhys/#comments

Hilarious.

Taking websites down

Noting with interest the comments by matt49 and Pete2 regarding the issue of being able to take down any website with a faked email, this is not the case. Fathers 4 Justice is a men's-help site; i.e. a feminist's nemesis. Since Western governments in general pander to the feminists it's not hard to see why this site was taken down on so little evidence. Try sending a fake email pretending to be from a feminist website threatening to reveal judges' names and see what happens. Won't be much, I'll bet.

Grammar police

How come amanfrommars never gets told off?

Yawn

"Since Western governments in general pander to the feminists it's not hard to see why this site was taken down on so little evidence."

Here's the thing. If you want government (or anyone else) to listen to your concerns, you have to get up off your arse, go outside, and start shouting. Women became rather good at that. 2000 years of abuse will do that to a gender. Men seem to think that whingeing from an armchair will accomplish something. It doesn't work for the football, and it doesn't work in real life.

I know that some of it isn't that fair to some modern men. But I'm going to advance the notion that if you're the sort of chap who willfully removes the 2000 years of abuse from the equation, you're probably the sort of chap who deserves the rough end of the "the feminists" agenda.

And by the way, there is no "the feminists". There are more schools and currents within feminism than there are linux distros.

it wouldnt happen to a pro female site

Having been through the mill of the family court system I actually found the mothers for justice boards a really useful source of ammunition for defeating the mad ex wife.

Having seen the naming and shaming of judges on those boards and the publication of court officials details etc alongside calls for direct action which would breach both public order and terrorism legislation you have to wonder how a site like F4J can be taken down so easily when we have pro women sites that carry on with impunity.

The simple answer is that we have a feminist appeasing agenda where the law is written to allow them to break the law. Or, worse, it allows them to get away with breaking the law with no fear of retribution.

My sympathy is with the judges who have to make decisions based on the rubbish that social workers spout and I was fortunate to have a string of judges both male and female who could see through the pro feminist sh**e and actually make the right decision for my child.

Its also interesting that none of the major news channels carried the story yesterday or today.

Paris, my idea of what a true feminist should be.

@ John Dee

1. I have been actively campaigning for men's rights in my country (Australia) for the past 15 years, including participation in rallies, support for Men's Rights Australia, Fathers Australia and similar organisations as well as writing to politicians. So don't call me an armchair commentator, OK?

2. There is no 2000 years of abuse. There is maybe a million years of men do this, women do that. That is not abuse. That is biology. Now we have the means to change it. That doesn't mean any feminist or anyone else has the right to punish me for how my great-great-granfather might treated women or not. In fact, he was probably a lot more chivalrous and respectful of women than I am.

3. Yes, they are "the feminists". FEMinism is about rights for women. FEMinism is NOT about rights for men. Whether they call themselves radical feminists, liberal feminists, post-modern feminists, or New Age Reformed Episcopal Born-again Free-thinking feminists, that is what they believe in. Rights for women are their agenda. Rights for men are not. End of story.

And the Bee stings...

I did not say feminism equates to misandry. Not caring about men's rights is not the same as actively opposing them. I agree that only the "radical" feminists actively oppose men having any rights at all; that is misandry. But I have never seen any group self-labelling as feminist actively supporting any measure that would ensure equal treatment of men in fields where women have dominance. Example: a few years ago, the government here started a campaign to get more male teachers in schools, because there is an overwhelming preponderance of female teachers. The campaign was shot down, not just by radicals, but even your "moderates" - even the so-called "Equal Opportunity Commission" opposed it as being "discriminatory". Only Men's Rights Australia (which incidentally has more than a few female members) and a few egalitarian politicians spoke out on TV in favour of the campaign, but no group self-labelling as 'feminist' gave any support at all; they either opposed it or stayed silent. But a similar campaign to get more women into IT received overwhelming support from all those quarters.

Ms. Bee, I understand the point you're trying to make, but I put it to you that if you really support equal rights for both genders, you would be egalitarian, not feminist. Nobody can convince me that a movement whose name explicitly correlates to 'feminine' has anything to do with either men or true equality, however persuasive the trickery employed. The action (or lack of it) by any feminist group in regard to true equality for both genders speaks for itself. If you can point me to any feminist group actively supporting equal rights for men as well as women I will review my position on this, but not until then.