Wednesday, July 09, 2008

They're at it again...

Two Fathers 4 Justice protesters are again protesting on the roof of Labour Party deputy leader Harriet Harman's home. Sorry, but I don't agree with this, no matter what the cause. Such repeated protests say to me: "we'll continue to harass you at your home until we get our way". Hopefully, such blackmail bullying will be detrimental to their cause, although I have my doubts - we do, after all, live in a society where he who shouts loudest gets his own way.
Posted by John Bolch at 8:43 am
Labels:

10 comments:

  1. Hm, aren't F4J potentially a proscribed group under terrorism legislation? The way they are carrying on, they will have far worse people to deal with than Harriet Harman, me thinks. We live in desperate times.....

    ReplyDelete

  2. Well, they're certainly terrorising Ms Harman...

    ReplyDelete

  3. Are they getting very wet?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nick Langford9 July 2008 20:40

    How a pair of damp Welshmen could be mistaken for terrorists, even by a lawyer, is beyond me. As for 'blackmail bullying'... Is blackmail even an adjective? (Oh dear, you're going to call me a pedant again - still, it's better than being called a terrorist.)

    Whether such activities are 'detrimental' depends a bit on what you mean. They achieve publicity at very low cost, increase memberships - which have rocketed this year - and that means more membership fees. Will it contribute to the change we want? Probably not, certainly in the short term, but I don't think anything will under this government; consider their response to the more conventional efforts by Paul Coleridge or Mr Justice Ryder. Will Harriet Harperson stop being a sexist bigot who imagines that we live in a patriarchal hegemony and that fathers should be excised from their families? Again, probably not, but you can but try.

    ReplyDelete

  6. This is my blog and I'll use words any way I choose! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nick Langford11 July 2008 09:19

    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." ;-}

    Speaking of which, I hear that the lycra-clad duo have descended (I'd want my money back on that vaunted survival course) and have been charged with harassment. Doesn't that require that a course of conduct be established? Or will the government pass retrospective legislation on corporate harassment? (Perhaps it already has) I suppose being on the roof doesn't constitute being inside the dwelling...

    ReplyDelete

  8. I'm no criminal lawyer, but I know if two people repeatedly spent time on my roof, I'd want them charged with harassment.

    ReplyDelete

  9. Santa - watch out!

    John, in my view there's not much wrong with the law (Chilren Act) it's the way it's interpreted by the Courts that is the problem. Whilst I don't agree with F4J (inasmuch as mothers can suffer when non-resident in just the same way as fathers do) I can only applaud them for bringing the problems to the public attention.
    A rebuttable presumption of shared residence could be easily achieved with a few HoLords decisions - and the publicity these guys generate cannot do any harm in that respect.

    Cheers

    STH

    ReplyDelete

  10. Yes, Santa should be done for harassment too! :-)

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)