Fathers target festival in fight for fairer parenting

[Rampent]

Because they aren't.

 

Can you back that up?

[clownaround]

Do you realise that every 27 days or so a Dad commits suicide after being denied access to his kids. This is all in the name of "the childs best interests"

 

Also dont forget its not just Dads that lose contact its all the paternel side of the family in a lot of cases. But i suppose that is ok cos it dosent affect you does it.

[DYKWIA]

But you showed your true colours when you came out with the following quote " To be totally honest, if i have to ruin the day of 100,000 people that have paid £££££'s to see my kids, then sorry people but prepare for a bad day !!! "

 

Ruining people's day will not get you access to your kids. Maybe a quick snippet on the evening news, which most people will have forgotten about come the Monday Morning rush hour. Not forgetting ******* off tens of 1000's of festival goers.

[Halibut]

Can you back that up?

 

Get with the program fatboy - I'm not making the claim - the OP is - it's for him to prove it, not for me to disprove it.

[Rampent]

But you showed your true colours when you came out with the following quote " To be totally honest, if i have to ruin the day of 100,000 people that have paid £££££'s to see my kids, then sorry people but prepare for a bad day !!! "

 

Ruining people's day will not get you access to your kids. Maybe a quick snippet on the evening news, which most people will have forgotten about come the Monday Morning rush hour. Not forgetting ******* off tens of 1000's of festival goers.

 

This is a emotive subject. Do you have a son or daughter? If you have, I hope you see them on a regular basis. Without the 'shackles' of corrupt courts etc.

[DYKWIA]

This is a emotive subject. Do you have a son or daughter? If you have, I hope you see them on a regular basis. Without the 'shackles' of corrupt courts etc.

 

But how would a random act of disruption at a music festival, which will get very little coverage and what coverage it does get will most likely show me in a bad light, suddenly gain me access to my kids.

 

And don't come out with all this it will highlight the cause because it won't as most people will have forgotten about it the next day.

[Rampent]

Get with the program fatboy - I'm not making the claim - the OP is - it's for him to prove it, not for me to disprove it.

 

Re quote you, without a insult on my size 'Because they aren't'.

 

I think you need to prove that post.

[Halibut]

Re quote you, without a insult on my size 'Because they aren't'.

 

I think you need to prove that post.

 

Absolutely not. What the OP said was self evidently false; it's for him to establish that he's right, not vice versa.

[dosxuk]

In a nut shell. Many MP's have zero morality.

 

Not exactly, but probably true for at least a handful of them. But most MP's change their views based on public feedback, it is, after all, what they're paid to do.

 

This cause is real. And we need to get the message out. I dispute you're claim that 'means he/they have another plan for getting the law changed which doesn't involve public or MP support'.

 

Here's what he said:

 

Indeed, those within the "bedlam" and those who hear of it are far more likely to think something along the lines of:

 

"what complete assholes, why did they try and spoil Glastonbury? What's Glastonbury and the people who go to it got to do with their problems? Perhaps people who act in such a manner are denied access to their kids for a reason"

 

than

 

"those totally rational protesters have a valid point I'm going to write to my MP about this demanding a change in the law".

 

May i refer you back to quote #46 that channel has been tried and failed.

 

Post #46 talks about getting MP's to change their minds through public support, and he then says that's been tried and failed, indicating to me that he/they don't see that as an avenue towards getting the law changed. I may have interpreted it wrongly, but he's not exactly clear about their aims, objectives and how they're going to get there.

 

How on earth is the public going to know about this cause? It is not popular due to the nature of the media. Have a story of some minor celeb? All over the front page. This movement has no real 'celebs', it's all word of mouth and growing. And many are extremely upset about the way they are treated by a corrupt system which denies access to their sons and daughters.

 

The media reports stories that the public are interested in. The general public don't get interested in a story unless the media report it. It's an infinite loop, however, both sides can influence what the other is doing.

 

What this means in relation to Glasto, is that if a group of people disrupt it (as has happened in the past), the majority of people directly affected will not be supportive of the action. That in turn means the media will report on that side of the story rather than the original cause of the disrupters. This is even more of a case at events which have a large media presence already - in this case, the BBC don't want their coverage of Glasto to become a target for protestors to get their message out, so, unless impossible, the message won't appear on screen, only the effects of the disruption.

 

If you want to get positive media coverage with stunts, do so where the majority of the people affected will turn round and go "you're right, we need to solve this" and support your campaign. This is not going to happen at Glasto.

 

Edit: Just for the record, I have been involved in the broadcast of events where groups of people have tried to get a protest message on screen. In all but one case they were spotted before they got in front of a live camera, and subsequently removed by security before they had a chance to unfurl their banners. The one case which did succeed was a certain Irish priest who knocked over a runner, who the only thing that anyone remembers of him is that is was mad. None of his message got to air, just his face.

[clownaround]

Not exactly, but probably true for at least a handful of them. But most MP's change their views based on public feedback, it is, after all, what they're paid to do.

 

 

 

Here's what he said:

 

 

 

Post #46 talks about getting MP's to change their minds through public support, and he then says that's been tried and failed, indicating to me that he/they don't see that as an avenue towards getting the law changed. I may have interpreted it wrongly, but he's not exactly clear about their aims, objectives and how they're going to get there.

 

 

 

The media reports stories that the public are interested in. The general public don't get interested in a story unless the media report it. It's an infinite loop, however, both sides can influence what the other is doing.

 

What this means in relation to Glasto, is that if a group of people disrupt it (as has happened in the past), the majority of people directly affected will not be supportive of the action. That in turn means the media will report on that side of the story rather than the original cause of the disrupters. This is even more of a case at events which have a large media presence already - in this case, the BBC don't want their coverage of Glasto to become a target for protestors to get their message out, so, unless impossible, the message won't appear on screen, only the effects of the disruption.

 

If you want to get positive media coverage with stunts, do so where the majority of the people affected will turn round and go "you're right, we need to solve this" and support your campaign. This is not going to happen at Glasto.

 

I dont know how to multi quote so i will do it like this, but to be honest i realy do agree with your last sentance. The problem is how to do this.