[Flipside]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040519/325/etzqj.html

hehehe Well, apart from the obvious security concerns, can I just say that Fathers rights in the UK has been terrible for years, i.e. they have none. Even if his partner is unfaithful in the relationship, which leads to a break up, it is still the mother who gains custody of the child in a massive number of cases. And often the father is denied access with Social Services refusing to do a thing about it.

Edit : Oh yes, and get the ad on the right

[an0n]

I always wondered why they'd WANT the kids.

Mind, they still have to pay for it even if they ignore it, which is stupid.

They should calculate what the kid costs to feed and clothe, then half it and tell the parents that whatever percentage of that amount they agree the father will pay is the same percentage of the week that the father can spend with the kid.

Simple.

[Flipside]

Yep, but that would involve common sense, something pitifully short in supply in our law services

[karajorma]

Originally posted by an0n
They should calculate what the kid costs to feed and clothe, then half it and tell the parents that whatever percentage of that amount they agree the father will pay is the same percentage of the week that the father can spend with the kid.

Simple.

Very anti-darwinian of you though.

Child support payments are about the only thing keeping these morons from having child after child with any woman stupid enough to sleep with them without using protection. By the time they've had 2 or 3 kids and are seeing half their pay check going down the drain they think twice about passing their idiotic genes on any more.

Remove that and the country would be up to its ears in the children of these idiots and Trisha would be on 24 hours a day to deal with all their paternity tests.

[an0n]

That's why I said "amount they agree".

But as an alternate perspective to your argument, maybe the little whores would think twice about ****ing without a condom if they thought that in a year they could be living with their parents, looking after a kid and having to spend their days cleaning crap out of little kids pants.

[mikhael]

Fathers' rights arent' much better here, dude.

[Rictor]

Divorce rate is hovering just under 50% in the States.

Thats just.....

[Reez]

Well i guess the morale of this story is

Enjoy your lover
With a pack of rubbers

[karajorma]

Originally posted by an0n
That's why I said "amount they agree".

You miss my point. The morons who have the most children don't actually care about their kids. They just care about getting some that night. They'd quite happily agree to pay 0% and have 0% visitation if they thought they could get away with it.

Originally posted by an0n
But as an alternate perspective to your argument, maybe the little whores would think twice about ****ing without a condom if they thought that in a year they could be living with their parents, looking after a kid and having to spend their days cleaning crap out of little kids pants.

I'm not just blaming the fathers. The women are equally stupid to sleep with these men and not use protection. But at the moment they do have to clean the crap out of their kids nappies all the time and it doesn't stop them UNTIL they have had a child. After the first few they stop.  

Child support is the same deterant for the father. It doesn't have any effect on them until they've had a couple of kids but it does have an effect. Remove this effect with your suggestion and we'd be dealing with even more of these stupid *****es having having children they can't support.

[beatspete]

karajorma, I dont think thats a very good assesment of the nature of all single fathers.  I agree there will always be teh stoopids, but you can't band all fathers together under one label.  If every one was like that, there wouldn't be groups like Fathers 4 Justice.

Anyway, I was watching this on TV live when it happened, quite funny.  John Prescot looked like he was going to get up and punch the protesters (again).


What do you mean, "why was i watching the house of commons live on bbc 2?" Doesn't everyone?.

[an0n]

Okay, simpler solution: If you're not licensed to have and raise children, the mother, father and child are all taken out back and beaten to death with a condom full of marbles.

Capital punishment is too effective a means of 'educating' to outlaw.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by beatspete
karajorma, I dont think thats a very good assesment of the nature of all single fathers.  I agree there will always be teh stoopids, but you can't band all fathers together under one label.  If every one was like that, there wouldn't be groups like Fathers 4 Justice.[/size]

I wasn't saying it was. There are plenty of fathers who were married or in committed relationships which broke up and now find they can't visit their children.

Of course they should be allowed to see their children. I never said they couldn't.  I tend to feel very sorry for them because it's mainly blatant sexism that prevents them from seeing their kids. Unless the mother is a drug abuser or criminal the father has bugger all chance of getting full custody regarless of how good a parent he is.

All of my comments were directed at the morons who hop from bed to bed having children with woman after woman and leaving the taxpayer to pick up the bills for their children. I've got nothing against bed-hopping. Just using a condom and stop ruining it for the rest of us

[Mr Carrot]

The whole thing with fathers 4 justice is that they are prevented from seeing their kids for NO reason except the ex-wives being bitter or wanting revenge.

Its incredably rare for a father to win anything even approaching a decent settlement or enforcement of visiting rights because the Labour government is obsessed with pandering to single mothers.

[01010]

Originally posted by Mr Carrot
The whole thing with fathers 4 justice is that they are prevented from seeing their kids for NO reason except the ex-wives being bitter or wanting revenge.

Its incredably rare for a father to win anything even approaching a decent settlement or enforcement of visiting rights because the Labour government is obsessed with pandering to single mothers.

It's not just the Labour government. Fathers have always had the short end of the stick.

[Flipside]

Also, it has been proved than many of these mothers attempt to brainwash their children into hating their fathers, often saying it was the father who ended the relationship, when in truth it was them. Not in all cases, obviously, but it annoys me that people are allowed to turn children against their own parents with lies, even if the person doing the lying is the other parent.

For the Social Services to condone such an act is actually flicking the bird at everything that Social Services was created to provide.

[Reez]

Originally posted by 01010


It's not just the Labour government. Fathers have always had the short end of the stick.

Well, we boys don't exactly carry a bowling ball in our stomach for 9 months that shoot it out of our crotches do we? Bit graphic, but I'm guessing that while maybe father's dont deserve the short end of the stick, mothers certainly deserve a whole lot more of it.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Mr Carrot
The whole thing with fathers 4 justice is that they are prevented from seeing their kids for NO reason except the ex-wives being bitter or wanting revenge.

Exactly. I agree with that all 100%.

The saddest thing is that telling lies about the father is damaging to the child. Pity it can't be used as an excuse to give the father custody.

Originally posted by Reez
Well, we boys don't exactly carry a bowling ball in our stomach for 9 months that shoot it out of our crotches do we? Bit graphic, but I'm guessing that while maybe father's dont deserve the short end of the stick, mothers certainly deserve a whole lot more of it.

That's no excuse though. Sure the mother has to carry the child but that's just basic biology. If you're going to use that as an excuse for being bad to fathers you might as well just remove maternity benifits etc and say that since women choose to have children they don't have the right to expect their job to be waiting for them when they get back.

[01010]

Originally posted by Reez


Well, we boys don't exactly carry a bowling ball in our stomach for 9 months that shoot it out of our crotches do we? Bit graphic, but I'm guessing that while maybe father's dont deserve the short end of the stick, mothers certainly deserve a whole lot more of it.

I don't see how the biology of it fits into the social element, just because a mother gives birth doesn't automatically make her a good parent.

Personally I think parents that split should be assessed with the child and the better parent should have the majority of the custody. I know it's not that clean cut the majority of the time but it's a start.

[adwight]

Originally posted by 01010


I don't see how the biology of it fits into the social element, just because a mother gives birth doesn't automatically make her a good parent.

Personally I think parents that split should be assessed with the child and the better parent should have the majority of the custody. I know it's not that clean cut the majority of the time but it's a start.

I think it should be up to the child to decide who they wish to go with.  If they're too young for that decision, then do what you said.

[Flipside]

Of course, King Solomon figured this one out years ago

The system we have now IS capable of working, the problem is not the rules, it is the fact that the rules are ignored. Frankly, I would consider withholding a child from a parent who has a legal right to see them to be kidnapping a minor. The thought of having that on their criminal record would put them off pretty soon.