I am completely puzzled as to why the plods and their associated busybodies think it necessary to close bridges/roads etc because a man is on a gantry or a crane or whatever to protest at the laws iniquities that prevent him from seeing his children. Surely if it matters that much to him that he will go to those lengths to protest he is hardly likely to throw himself into the traffic without seeing his kids, is he? 
but as when it happened before xmas with spiderman on tower bridge i think it was any one listening to radio 2 i think it was or capital radio that it was said that why is it when a man is protesting that he has no rights towards seeing his kids and goes and does this that forces the police to closethat route there by making everyone else have to take alternative routes and adding extra time tot hat journey say that father x is in car stuck ina traffic jam heading to see his son on his only access night due to courts etc but then due to traffic jams caused he fails to turn up on time that is granted through courts therefore his rights to access have been breached all due to this one person fighting for his said rights but in turn making ti harder for others to keep promises etc
and as for why close routes its not a case of him jumping its a case of anything that he has with him could be dropped and at that height what damage could it cause and the risk of public build up etc ( crowds and such like )
This is a subject very close to my heart, this Xmas day last, I didn’t get to see my kids, Why, because their mother wanted a family day.
In the past, since the divorce, she has had them for the day up to about 1400-1500hrs, then they came to me, I was happy with that for the kids, coz they were happy.
I imagine there are some of you in the same or a similar boat as me, and some mothers as well.
I would ask ALL OF YOU, to think on, it could happen to you just as easily, I most sincerely hope it never does.
The divorce system in this country stinks to high heaven, we have seen cases where the father was excluded by a judge, because it upset mumsy.
This is simply abuse of the law by a manipulative “parent”.
OK, there will be cases where the non resident parent(NRP) should be excluded, because of violence/abuse, but in reality, recently there have been cases where the children have been forced to see violent/abusive NRPs.
Then, when you are at your lowest, having been divorced against your wishes and seperated from your children, along comes the Gestapo/CSA, who invariably make a complete screw-up of your assessment, always against you, and you could easily be out on the street. See www.nacsa.co.uk.
There was one case where there was implacable hostility from the mother and despite a court order giving the father contact with his 3 children, she denied the contact.
He took this to court 137 times, was falsely accused of harassment and went to jail twice, on one occasion going on hunger strike.
Eventually, he was sat at home one evening and received a call from his oldest and youngest children saying "We’re at the bus stop Dad, can you come and pick us up, we’ve had enough, we’ve walked out, "
He took them straight to a judge and got a interim custody order, the following day this judge looked his case over and cleaned his record off and wished him a good life with his kids.
Now, 137 times and jail twice, you may think this a bit obsessive, but if it had been him denying contact from the mother and she went to court this often, i doubt you would think so.
All he was doing was trying to get the judge to enforce the orders handed out, but the judge wouldn’t.
The above is just one case out of many, this is why www.fathers-4-justice.org has come into existance, to try and get judges to sort the system out. Sir Bob Geldof is a very vocal supporter.
I sincerely hope I haven’t broken any rules giving out website addys, and would apologise if I have, but I firmly believe this is such an important problem that could so easily affect any one of us, male or female.
Driving for a living did play a part in my divorce.
See this link: Here
Just a minor edit to bring the page width back to normal.
MH10, I can see your point, but if a father going to see his kids is stuck in a traffic jam, he has the option of using a phone to advise of the situation.
There was a belief that the reason the police closed off so much of London for this mans protest of the bridge was not just to avoid a possible messy scene, but also to highlight his plight.
Lets face it, if the police had not closed so much off, I don’t think the problem would have got so much media attention, remember there will be a lot of police officers in the same situation.
Can you imagine that, a police officer being told, by a court, he/she is not safe with their own child/ren, what message does that send out.
It was not the intention of David Chick to cause other fathers to miss seeing their kids, just to bring attention to what he and countless other parents are going through.
I have just added a link to my previous post, interesting reading.
ps, thanks ATKI for allowing those website addys.
i see what you are saying but all i was doing was stating what i remembered what was said on radio at that time 
and this isnt a dig/jibe etc and all criticism is welcome after all we all come here to put our views across 
There was a belief that the reason the police closed off so much of London for this mans protest of the bridge was not just to avoid a possible messy scene, but also to highlight his plight.
Lets face it, if the police had not closed so much off, I don’t think the problem would have got so much media attention, remember there will be a lot of police officers in the same situation.
i totally agree with this and would not want to wish that on anyone
I agree thatthe judicial decisions in a lot of these cases are biased, and that the judgements which do grant access aren’t enforced propperly. Something needs to be done, but it needs to be done in parliament, not by someone hanging off a bridge.
The judgements are supposed to be in the best interest of the children, how can excluding one of the parents be in their interests unless that person is a threat to the them.
The system does seem to favour the mothers, even in this day and age when fathers do a lot more with the children than they used to. The mother seem to get control and then can use the phrase “it upsets the children” to exclude the father from access.
This can and does work both ways?.You often here of the father leaving to roost,because while they have been away all week she has been entertaining your best mate this makes little in the eyes of the court,injustice will still see them given cusdty of the kids no matter what she has done…We should remember that there are casses of the wife/girlfriend running of and leaving the kids with the father,ok this rare or is it?
One of the Men who were protesting, on the Tamar bridge, is a registered childminder, qualified to look after ANY child in this country, yet he is not allowed to see his own kid, crazy ain’t it.
Women talked about it and no one paid attention, so they demonstrated, sometimes quite physically, then they got the vote. This is the quote I was looking for:
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi
Men have been complaining for 30 years, no one has listened, so now they get noisy, and people don’t like it, Ken Livingstone likened David Chick to osama bin laden, I think that is a bit much. I hope he and his partner split up and then he can discover for himself about the realities of fatherhood and being excluded from his child.
I have a child with an ex… as many many people these days do. I have full sole and legal custody, due to circumstances that I won’t bore you with. But I allow my son’s father total and complete access, and do NOT understand women that do not. The legal papers state that he has 48 hours of continuous visitation every fortnight… and thats all that I’m legally obligated to provide… but my obligation goes much further than the courts dictate. I have a responsibility, as a mother, to encourage as much contact between my son and his father as I can. Regardless of what problem we may have had during the relationship, I obviously thought enough of him to have a child with him at some point, and the failure of the relationship does NOT give me the right to stand in the way of my childs relationship with his father. Some of these women need a wake up call!!!
Thank you Kate, you are an example of a real Mother, you and your ex divorced each other, your Son did not, and you are a positive advert for the way things should be. 
F4J now have a mothers section made up of Mothers like yourself, and another section made up of Grandparents who are also deprived of contact.
What about mothers who are fighting to stay in touch? Are they welcome too?
LucyR, of course you are WELCOME, the only reason they are called F4J is because the vast majority of non resident parents are male, F4J could have been called Parents 4 justice, but it wouldn’t have had the same impact.
It could also have been called Children 4 justice, which is what it really is all about.
In Canada, there is a young Man called Clayton Giles, try that name in your search engine.
Clayton produced this:
CHILDREN’S BILL OF RIGHTS
-The right to express love for both parents.
-The right not to be placed in the position of a message carrier.
-The right not to be asked to be the family spy.
-The right not to be told negative information about their parent or parent’s family.
-The right to remain connected to both parents’ families.
-The right not to be interrogated after a visit with the other parent.
-The right to express or not to express his or her own feelings.
-The right not to be exposed to conflict with the other parent.
-The right to a stable, safe environment.
-The right to remain a child and not a parental confidant.
-The right to be told about family changes, such as moving, or a visitation.
-The right to not feel responsible for their parents’ divorce.
-The right to be loved unconditionally
Sorry it’s a bit long on here, but the link I had would not work on here without being a paid up member of the NACSA website.
The Times
May 15, 2004
Spider-Man cleared after police tactics are revealed
By Steve Bird
A BITTER father who dressed up as Spider-Man and scaled a 150ft crane in a six-day protest was cleared yesterday of causing a public nuisance.
The protest led to police closing streets and paralysing a huge part of London’s road transport network.
Traffic tailed back up to ten miles in the City and East London after David Chick, 36, staged his protest at a building site near Tower Bridge last October.
The former window cleaner began the demonstration, which halted building work on a £45 million office block, after being refused access to his four-year-old daughter.
Officers claimed that they feared for his mental state and believed he posed a risk to pedestrians and motorists if he fell or jumped from the crane.
But Southwark Crown Court was told that senior officers knew Mr Chick was not mentally disturbed and that it was possible to reopen roads. The case hinged on excerpts from police logs where senior officers clearly stated that the road closures were a “bargaining tool” and any future prosecution against Mr Chick would be “weakened” if routes were opened.
As the not-guilty verdict was announced, the father of one grinned while the public gallery, containing mainly men wearing Fathers4Justice T-shirts, cheered and applauded.
Revelling in the verdict and subsequent media attention, Mr Chick, who lives with his mother in Burgess Hill, West Sussex, emerged from court and pulled on a Spider-Man mask. He also put on a variety of T-shirts, one which read “Police spin version exposed”. Another declared: “Family law fails children and dads”.
Asked whether he would ever stage another protest, he replied: “Watch this space.”
Last October, under cover of darkness, Mr Chick went to the 175,000sq ft Taylor Woodrow building site at St Katharine’s Way. Carrying eight litres of water, a package of food, a butter knife, a toothbrush, toothpaste and his grandfather’s pocket knife he clambered 150ft up the crane and prepared to stage his longest protest yet.
He put on the Spider-Man suit, chosen because it was his daughter’s favourite comic book hero and because it gave added insulation, and unfurled a number of banners.
In court he was portrayed as a “maverick” who knowingly brought the City to a near-complete standstill. Nearby businesses claimed they experienced a huge downturn in profits because motorists were being rerouted and people were arriving late for work.
The court was told how trained police negotiators scaled the crane and tried but failed to coax Mr Chick down.
Tapes played to the court showed that Mr Chick had repeatedly said he was not a danger to motorists or pedestrians and the road closures were unnecessary.
A handwritten log by Superintendent Tom Henley stated: “Climber does not like road closures so should be used as bargaining tool against you and your cause.” He later added: “My decision . . . leave the roads closed.”
Another police record stated that Tower Bridge “could be reopened if required”, but that its continued closure “could help in negotiations”.
On the fifth day another officer wrote in the log that Mr Chick was “not in any crisis, not swearing, angry nor mentally ill, and did not want to hurt anyone”. Later that day and 24 hours before Mr Chick abandoned his protest, police opened the roads.
A police spokesman yesterday said the “health and safety of officers were of overriding concern” when it was decided to close the roads.
The nine-day trial was told that Mr Chick and his former partner, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had a daughter during a three-year relationship. But ten months after she was born they separated.
He claimed that despite a court order allowing him to visit his daughter for two hours every week, the child’s mother was reluctant to allow him access and eventually refused altogether.
Mr Chick insisted that he had exhausted all legal options before embarking on a series of crane-top protests to draw attention to his plight.
In August 2000, he climbed a crane in Victoria, Central London, before scaling another in Guildford, Surrey.
Reply from Mrs runaroundtel: This thread completely and utterly astounds me… 100 years ago or so, women were chaining themselves to the railings of prominent places, and dying under the hooves of race horses, simply to highlight the fact that they had no rights to vote! Imagine how any of you would feel, not being able to vote in view of your gender. (forced feeding in prisons, total social rejection, illegal incarceration for the purposes of social control)Women had no rights to property under divorce procedings, and they had no rights whatsoever to parental control (children went to the father) Once divorced, a woman could expect little more than short shrift. Women and children were little more than chattals. It was a man’s world, and quite frankly, it still is. In my view, a handful of men causing a rumpus in the houses of Parliament, or climbing up a crane in silly costumes, is a very long way from the suffragettes, and it irks me immensely that a handful of men get the publicity that they do, for a couple of silly stunts, simply because their wives have full custody of the kids! I will agree that family law is largely dependent on the capability of the lawyer and spending power, none the less… a group of indignant men, with their noses out of joint, will NOT entice me to any sympathy!
Indignant men with their noses out of joint? Do you know how many fathers go years without seeing their children? And what some women will do to keep the kids away from their fathers just to spite them? It happened to Pat… and the damage that its caused the relationships with his children has been irreparable. These men have probably exhausted every other avenue they could before resulting to these actions. This isn’t about being a little annoyed with their exwives… you need to look deeper than that.
Granted… in most ways this IS still a man’s world. But is that really the point? We can’t keep justifying the wrongs of today based on reciprocation for wrongs done in the past. Stick to the present and to what matters today. It isn’t about the stunts those men have pulled… it’s about the reasons they pulled them. Don’t lose focus of that. It isn’t a men’s rights issue, and it isn’t a woman’s rights issue… its a CHILD’S RIGHTS issue. The point here is that kids need BOTH parents, and to deny them that right simply because of divorce is wrong. There are so many fathers who find it too easy to walk away from their children after a divorce. The men who want to live up to their responsibilities to their children should not have to ask permission, nor should they have to resort to such displays. It has nothing to do with what he may or may not have done correctly as a husband, it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with how much child support or alimony he pays… or the manner in which women were treated 100 years ago… those are all just excuses these women use to justify their failure as a responsible parent. I’m a bit sick of women that have no consideration for the men who father their children. It only shows that they have little consideration for their children as well. Having children with someone is a lifelong committment… and these women, at some point, thought enough of these men to have had children with them. Parenthood lasts a lifetime, even if a marriage goes off quicker than an egg timer. They need to swallow their pride, lose the ego they get from having so much power over these situations, and do whats right. The custodial parent, regardless of whether thats the mother or the father, has a responsibility, not just to allow contact and visitation, but to instigate, encourage, and assist in it. Not living up to that responsibility should be grounds for losing custody. And unless we’re talking about abusive situations, whats to argue about?
Kate, Thank you.
From a friend on another website:
If you back someone into a corner, then take away their civil rights,rob them of their families,savings,health and homes as this goverment and its predecessors has done, then people will do desperate things.
I think these men deserve our support in their fight against the institutions trying to block what should be every persons basic right to see and have meaningful relations with their loved ones.
Now from me:
All I can ask, those people who disagree so much with the actions of F4J, think of this, you try doing without your kids, not being able to see them, not being able to contact them, and you have done nothing wrong to them, yet your wife doesn’t want you to see them and she abuses the law and legal aid to stop you seeing them, the common reason is that she is scared of you.
The CSA actually do connect contact with money, albeit indirectly. Lets say you do have staying contact with your kids, lets say two weekends out of three, your ex discovers that if she reduces staying contact to one weekend out of three, she gets more child support, bingo, your contact is chopped.
This is exactly what the CSAct says, if you have the children two or more nights a week, 104 nights a year(52 under new system), then you can apply for a cut in child support. Now should the ex discover this, what do you think will happen, your contact will be reduced to just below the threshold. Great ain’t it.
Dratsabasti… you’re welcome!!! Money should NOT be an issue when it comes to visitation. I understand that it is, because in some cases, its the only way women get the child support that is owed… but thats another situation all together. The type of men that aren’t paying their child support are not the types climbing buildings and bridges in order to fight for the right to see their children.
Relationships do not end well… otherwise they wouldn’t end. My ex and I had a long, stormy, and abusive relationship. I suffered abuse, was beat, controlled, manipulated, threatened… you name it. BUT,… he loves his son and even though it took time, we are now able to get past it all and raise him together. Fear is no excuse… and unless he’s been abusive to the child, its just more crap these women throw. I WAS afraid, but it didn’t stop me from doing what is right, because there’s always someone that can act as a mediator and provide transportation for the child. The court order gave me full legal custody, he has him every other weekend. This was because of the continued abuse after we split. I honor the court order, but it doesn’t stop there. I basically allow him contact whenever he wants, so long as we don’t have standing plans. We flip weekends, he takes him for dinner during the week, keeps him extra nights when he wants, calls him at any time… basically my view on it is that he gets his legal visitation, and anything above and beyond that is negotiable. The limits are set as a guideline… they should be the minimum… not the maximum. We’re now able to work together, and my son gets the last word as to where he wants to spend the weekend. Fathers day falls on MY weekend this year… guess where my son will be■■? Right where he should be… with his DAD.
From Mrs runaroundtel: I take my hat off to you Kate (I hope that it is alright to call you that) I mean it quite sincerely when I say that you have obviously a great deal of courage and inner strength in order to go through that kind of hell, and still allow your ex partner to see your kids. I can’t say that I could do the same thing, but you’re clearly very grounded and have inner peace. Unfortunately, the reality is, that many women do not have your courage, and they have been so badly damaged by their ex spouses, that, yes they do use children as a bargaining tool, and whether it is right or wrong they often use this tool to gain some power once they have left an abusive relationship. Children never prosper or thrive in an environment where they see their parents at loggerheads constantly. In many cases the ex spouse is so abusive that it is without doubt in the best interests of children to not have contact with an absent parent. All of this considered, a man in a spider man suit at the top of a crane, does not invoke sympathy from me. He may have been a great dad, but a bad husband, I don’t know, but he had clearly been through the mill of the family courts, many times over to get to the stage where he did this, and they deemed him unworthy of access rights. What does that suggest? Either he had the baddest lawyer in the world representing him, or…■■? You tell me please. In conclusion, I will add this. You Kate have said the most important thing here. Children come first! You overcame the most horrible background, and you let your kids see their dad… many women would not do so. Eating humble/brave pie tastes divine only if you can negotiate and move on!
I didn’t eat humble pie… I was forced into a position where I had to file for sole custody… there were too many threats and I wasn’t able to deal with him. The thing is, once I got that power away from him, its amazing how accomodating he was ready to be. It’s HAVING the power and the control, not abusing it, that can make the difference. I realize that there are abusive situations in the world, and those are the exceptions. But I have also come to realize that there are many women who would prefer their husbands just disappear once the divorce is over… its easier for them to get on with their lives, introduce new men to their children… I’ve seen it over and over. Pat wasn’t abusive at all… his 1st wife left him after having several affairs, and took the children out the country while he was at work… .he went months without seeing them, and had no control or power over this. THESE are the situations I’m referring to. And the heartache and desperation that can cause is only imaginable. If my kids were taken from me, and I thought climbing up a crane in wonder woman costume was going to get me the legal attention I deserved, I’d do it too. Pat was not in the wrong in his case, and yet he still lost in court, multiple times. His children are grown now, and they remember what their mother did to them, and how it affected them… the relationships he has with them are still difficult sometimes. Fact is that the courts in the UK and the US favor women simply for being women. Don’t get me wrong… I’m still a firm believer that mothers should have custody of their children. No one has the instincts and nurturing abilities that a mother has for her children. There is no bond like it. I’m not suggesting they hand the fathers custody, I’m saying 2 or 4 days a month is NOT enough, and how many women don’t honor that anyway■■? A friend of ours is going through the same thing now. He hasn’t seen his small children in 17 months… he wasn’t accused of abuse in the divorce. She had an affair, and told him that it would be easier if he just let her new boyfriend be their Dad from now on. THESE are the cases we’re talking about. As I said before, abusive situations are the exception… but the abuse has to be directed toward, or acted out in front of the children in order to justify taking the visitation away.