|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:31 PM December 3rd, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
"I still hope this may be possible as I have not seen (A) since August.
Mr. Secretary, you need some help from superheros.
Call up Fathers-4-Justice! Listen to what they say! Fix the problems!
Asked if he regarded Mr Blunkett's legal battle as a purely personal matter, the spokesman replied: "Correct."
Right. And pull your head out of your arse and notice what millions of men are going through.
You better get moving, because it is personal. And you're a member of the responsible government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:39 AM December 5th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
My biggest fear is that everything goes smoothly with no problems. Then we get the 'What's your problem with family courts - they work fine' scenario.
just a thought...
west (in somwhat cynical mood)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:58 PM December 5th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
There's something ironic and enjoyable about watching a Cabinet Minister finding out first hand what millions of other fathers go through in order to see their children.
Not true enjoyment - just a sense of satisfaction that perhaps things may change if one of those in power experiences first hand what other fathers have.
However, like the above poster, I would not be surprised if Blunkett gets everything he wants and we're told that that is the "norm", and the system works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banning a Father's Right to Equal Paternity Knowledge by Scott on Wednesday May 22,
Blunkett the Hypocrite is Home Secretary, and as such is responsible for much of the Law in GB, and just 18 months ago was seeking to prosecute men who sought DNA Testing - see above item in the archive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:55 PM December 4th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I hope Blunkett sees the light, quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It may not surprise some of you to know that Mrs Quinn/Fortier (the woman in this case) is American and was a secretary to one of the founding editors of Cosmopolitan. I'm sure she learnt a lot about her "right" to be right and control her life.
Unfortunately, the courts have not agreed with her to date. She tried to get this court date overturned and adjourned until April next year claiming the stress would unduly affect her pregnancy. The judge disagreed and stated she was fully able to instruct her lawyers and "to take a good part in these proceedings until days, if not hours, before the hearing". .
You hear about these tactics, but it's nice to have them outed in this case. She was claiming the court date was too stressful, but made strenuous efforts up to the date to have it adjourned.
She is one of these females who seems to be outraged that she cannot just say that the child is not Blunkett's and be believed.
She has now "let slip" that Blunkett, in his role as Home Secretary, fast-tracked her nanny's Visa Application into Britain. Blunkett's job is now on the line as a result of this and an inquiry has been set up to investigate. Rightly or wrongly, he helped her get a childminder for her/their child. It suited her fine then. Now that he's demanding paternity rights, she suddenly reveals information to not only damage and maybe end his career, she's offering to give evidence to the inquiry.
The message is very clear - drop your demands for access/paternity testing or I will ruin your career with the knowledge I have.
We hear lots about vengeful, spiteful ex's, and devious legal tactics to prejudice the decision against the man. We have a classic case here, but unfortunately for Ms Quinn, her attempts are being reported and played out in the media here in the UK.
I hope she's finally learning that simply being female does not entitle her to get her own way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:51 PM December 5th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
The message is very clear - drop your demands for access/paternity testing or I will ruin your career with the knowledge I have.
A typical tactic for depriving men of a meaningful relationship with their children. That's why a strong presumption of joint custody needs to be put in place. Otherwise, men have to be crazy to continue to serve as sperm donors and emotional punching bags.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:49 PM December 5th, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Astonishing. A judge with enough courage to say "bullshit" to the old pregnancy excuse. If she gets herself stressed out enough to hurt her children, I hope she's prosecuted for child abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
