Plan to avoid M25 on Friday if low on tacho-hours

[el_gordo_78]

Fathers 4 Justice activists today claimed they were plotting to bring the M25 to a standstill on Friday, in a protest which would cause massive disruption to tens of thousands of motorists.

The campaign group said the action would be among their biggest demonstrations and road experts have already warned it will coincide with one of the busiest days of the year on the route.

Matt O’Connor, leader of the fathers’ rights movement, said: “We have got people ready to go on Friday to shut the M25 down, and I mean shut it down.

“There will be gantries, banners and people dressed as Father Christmas right across the motorway.

“I’m also told that someone has got their hands on two tonnes of jam, which may be spread on the carriageway, but if it is used, it would be done safely.”

He refused to disclose exactly how the group planned to disrupt traffic, but urged people to stay away from the London Orbital all day from “first thing” on Friday.

The RAC have warned that if the protest goes ahead it will hit the usually high volume of traffic, and also those planning to head away for Christmas breaks.

A spokeswoman said motorists would be likely to face hours of queues if protesters managed to significantly slow down or halt vehicles.

“This Friday is going to be particularly busy because the schools break up for Christmas and lots of people have taken next week off work,” she said.

“It is going to be one of the busiest days of the year on the M25 and though I can’t see how the group could shut down the network, any disruption would cause massive problems and hours of delays.”

Department of Transport figures taken for last Friday showed a total of 131,000 vehicles using the northbound and southbound carriageways at an observation point between junctions 29 and 30.

==

=

=

=

now, in general I support their cause and actions, as I’ve outlined before.

The Jam idea is dangerous though. If it enters the environment by drains ans soil it can cause a lot of harm, and added to this the sliminess it’ll put into the road surface, it could quite literally prove lethal for any motorcyclists who go across a patch not treated very well by the clear-up teams, as it could if anyone has to brake hard on it.

I pray they’ll be providing hot drinks and blankets for people such as bikers who can’t sit inside a cab with a heater on… I doubt it though.
If they look after the people stuck in the traffic jam it could be a huge PR coup.
Unfortunately I think the logistics of the jam are well planned but the provision for the people it affects aren’t which will be the downfall of the plot in the media.

[denis_f]

what a load of plonkers

I totally support their cause but this is a stupid way of publicising it

[rocknrollrebel]

surely there is another way im all for fathers for justice i had problems with the courts ridiculous decisions in the past but surely there is a better way to make a point than this

[steve_24v]

rocknrollrebel:
surely there is another way im all for fathers for justice i had problems with the courts ridiculous decisions in the past but surely there is a better way to make a point than this

Well it does serve their purpose doesn’t it, a year or so back the public was not aware of their plight.

As someone who has been affected by the lack of rights for single and absent fathers I support them wholeheartedly…

[kw]

Bugger,I’m unloading in Bristol Friday morning and will be coming back that way.Better take some bread with me,does anyone know what flavour of jam?

[dratsabasti]

Please take the time to read this

rocknrollrebel:
surely there is another way im all for fathers for justice i had problems with the courts ridiculous decisions in the past but surely there is a better way to make a point than this

Not picking on what you have said, but it illustrates the ideal point I would wish to counter.
The suffragettes fought against the government, for justice and the vote, and they got it. There was even one case of a brave woman being killed under the hooves of a racehorse.
I hope and pray that F4J do not feel they have to go as far as this.

My point is contained in the following list of lunatic comments by Judges, I have removed Judges names deliberately.

As thousands of British parents and grandparents take to the streets protesting Britain’s secret family court, high-ranking judges have begun issuing a series of arrogant disclaimers (“We were just following orders”) and calculated misinformation (“It’s not so bad as all that”).
In The Telegraph of 3 July 2004, Mrs Justice Bbbbbbb - who, on countless occasions, has ordered minimal contact (2-3 hours per fortnight) for normal parents and their children - claims that the family court’s failures amount to little more than “what is in essence a small group of obdurate mothers.”
Under current practices, once a parent (usually the father) has been classified as “non-resident,” he can count on the following from British family justice:

1. Years of expensive litigation while seeking (and probably never receiving) an order for normal contact
2. Judges who rarely tell a mother it is wrong to prevent normal contact, or enforce contact orders
3. Judges who routinely enforce no-contact orders and almost-no-contact orders against fathers
4. Judges who criticize fathers that seek normal contact with their children for “loving their children too much” or for being “in need of therapy” or for “confusing their own needs with the needs of the child” etc
5. Judges who rubber-stamp reports prepared by CAFCASS, no matter how widely the deficiencies in CAFCASS are acknowledged
6. Judges who routinely minimize, or cancel, all contact between a father and his children for any reason, however trivial, that is put forward by the mother
   Mrs Justice Bbbbbbbb was involved in the recent dismantling of the Early Interventions Pilot - a project proposing that normal contact between parents and children should be established as soon as parents separate - unless a compelling reason exists otherwise.
   …
   A Typical District Court Judge [case in progress], in dealing with a normal father who for four years post-divorce had been enjoying almost daily contact with his child, as well as full weekends and holidays, has recently made the following orders:
   a) For almost no contact (at the mother’s request) until the full hearing - some six to nine months after the father’s initial application
   b) A full CAFCASS report on the risks inherent in any future contact between father and child - in the absence of any substantive charges made against the father
   Lord Justice Tyyyyyy, in a recent interview in Times Law, characterised the outrage of tens of thousands of families across Britain - most of whom have lost all meaningful contact with their children and grandchildren for no good reason - as “ignorance and disturbed emotion.”
   Mr Justice Mmmmmm failed to order, or enforce, any contact for what he termed a “wholly deserving father,” whose case was " far from unique," who had been cut off from all contact with his children since 2001. Mr Mmmmm went on to extol the virtues of the Early Interventions Pilot, which proposes that normal contact should be established immediately after separation, on the presumption that normal contact will be ordered (and enforced) by the first judge who hears the case. (Can you spot the problem? Mmmmmm can’t.)
   Lady Justice Bbbbb-Sssss informed a parent and grandparent that she could do little (if anything) to overturn a lower court decision restricting contact to unbearable levels, even in cases where the preceding judge may appear to have been grossly negligent in his duty.
   Judge Mmmmmmm reduced a father’s contact with his 4-year old son (who had been living with the father for the previous year) to 1 hours supervised contact per week on the grounds that the father might say something to turn the child against the mother.
   Mr Justice Wwwww, in a case where a father had been denied all contact with his 12-year-old son for five years, criticized the father in open court for continuing to conduct appeals on his child’s behalf.
   Lord Justice Wwwww, in hearing the appeal of an order allowing a mother and her female partner to move two young children to Australia without any defined contact for the father, stated that the Court of Appeal had no power to intervene in a case where the higher court felt it would have come to an opposite conclusion.
   Mr Justice Sssssss ordered that a ten year old boy spend the weekend with his mother despite the boy’s long-held claims that the mother had physically abused him, and had threatened to kill him claims which had not been disputed by the Court Welfare Officer assigned to the case. When the boy refused to leave his father, the judge told the child (in the hall outside court): 'If you don’t go with your Mum I’ll put you in a place where you can’t see your mother or your father how would you like that?"
   Lord Justice Wwwww warned a father who was seeking more than five hours contact with his four year old son per fortnight that he should write neither his MP, nor the media, regarding the state of Britain’s secret family court, for to do so might harm his case.
   Judge Gggggggg, responding to a father who sought improved contact with his daughter partly on the grounds that he wished to help her learn more about her Palestinian culture and language: “Spending time with a child is all about fun, going to McDonald’s, etc., not jamming her throat with Arabic text books and Holy Book.”
   District and High Court Judges: In a three year case extending over more than twenty hearings, none of the presiding judges have told a mother who has broken a contact order more than one hundred times either a) that contact is a good thing, or b) that breaking court orders is wrong.
   Dame Justice Hhhhhh: in a case where a father was appealing an earlier decision of only one hour contact per month, concluded that “this appeal is unmeritorious”.
   Judge Cccccccc: a) when a mother refused to obey an order for shared residence, he ordered the cessation of all contact between a father and his two sons in response to unsubstantiated charges of abuse; b) at a subsequent hearing 12 months later, when all charges of abuse had been dismissed by the investigating officer, he ordered 1 hour of contact between father and son per month.
   Mister Justice Ssssssss: ordered costs against a father who sought any summer holidays with his child.
   Mister Justice Jjjjjjjjj: ordered a father declared a vexatious litigant for seeking more than one overnight per fortnight with his 5-year old son. Upheld on appeal by Ttttttt
   Mr Justice Sssssss: “It is simply not on” for any parent to return a 3 1/2 year old child home as late as 6 pm on a Sunday.
   District Judge Kkkkkkkk-Bbbbbbb: A child of 3 “will have developed no Christmas associations with the father, and even if he has spent Christmases at the father’s home, he will not remember them. As such, he will not expect increased contact with his father over the holidays.”
   District Judge X (case pending): ordered the cessation of all contact between parent and child, with no review, “in order to try to move forward and restore the relationship.”
   Judge Sssssss: cancelled after 30 minutes a full hearing at which the father sought any summer holidays and rescheduled it for after the summer. Upheld on appeal.
   District Judge Llllllll: ordered that a father be allowed only 2 weeks of holiday (out of a possible 13) per year: “You have the midweek contact (3 hrs per week) instead of this.”
   District Judge Hhhhhhh: dismissed a father’s application to phone his 7 yr old daughter on Christmas morning calling it “too disruptive she would be opening her Christmas presents.”
   Judge Mmmmmmmm, to a parent who had been unsuccessfully trying to see his child for 2 years: “This is a father who needs, in my judgment, to think long and hard about his whole approach to this question of contact and to ask himself sincerely whether in fact he seeks to promote it for his own interests dressed up as the child’s interests.”
   District Judge X (case pending): ordered that a father who had not been allowed to see his children for 4 months should have his case deferred for another 4 months pending investigation of an unsubstantiated 1972 domestic disagreement from a previous marriage.
   Mr Justice Ccccccc: in hearings spaced over 2 years 1) ordered end of Friday overnights on grounds that the child had to rest after school, and 2) ordered end of Saturday overnights on grounds that she had to rest all day Sunday before school on Monday.
   Deputy District Judge Ppppppp, in raising a father’s contact to 18 hours per month after 11/2 years of litigation: “What will never be helpful is for the father to see his contact in terms of mathematical division. Apparently he is running at a disadvantage of 999 to 1 … The court does not look at it in those terms.”
   District Judge Ttttttt, in reply to a father who had been cut off from all contact with his three children for six months: “And I see that you would like me to grant an Order that the mother file a statement to show good reason why there should not be normal contact. Well, I’m not going to do it!”
   Judge Cccccc ordered that a father, who lived within 300 yards of his son’s primary residence, should never answer the door when his son rang.
   Rt Hon Lord Justice Tttttt, in rejecting the appeal of a father who wanted to cross-examine a Court Welfare Officer (whose evidence prevented him from seeing his children), affirmed that “there is no right of cross examination of Court Welfare Officers.”
   Mr Justice Wwwwww, acting against what he called “the deep wishes and feelings of three intelligent, articulate children,” ordered the end of all direct contact with their father. Upheld on appeal by Bbbbb-Ssssss, LJ.
   Judge X (case pending): after repeat applications about serial breaches of a contact order since early 2001, ordered that the issue be reviewed in late 2002.
   Mr Justice Mmmmmm ordered the end of all direct contact between a father and his three children while noting that the mother “wished the children could have contact with the father. She said there was no need for all this litigation. The children should see the father.”
   Judge Sssss postponed a full hearing in order to obtain a Court Welfare Officer report on two parents who had brought no charges of misconduct against one another by stating: “Well, I think both parents have fallen over backwards to avoid causing the child any sort of harm, but a child always suffers when a marriage breaks down … You see, it is possible to kill with kindness by doing too much.”
   Mr Justice Ssssss reproved a father who had made one application to the court over two years of litigation, and sought more than twenty-six nights of contact with his child per year: “You feel better because you can put pressure, you can bring everybody to court.”
   Judge Ttttttt, in reply to a parent who sought to question a Court Welfare Officer’s report: “That confirms my suspicions. This is what members of the public do when they disagree with the recommendations. I believe that its totally wrong that members of the public can challenge Judges and Court Welfare Officers. Officers should not be subjected to it. There is a procedure outside the Court about making a complaint against the Judge. Members of the public should not have the right to make complaints.”
   Judge Aaaaaaaa, on refusing overnight contact for the third consecutive year: “The point that struck me most was that the very first question the father asked the mother was whether they might not get on better if she let him see the child.”
   Judge Lllllll dismissed a father’s request (after three years of litigation) for any overnight contact with his six year old on the grounds that “the child is growing up knowing his father, and that what we are talking about, i.e. overnight staying contact, is something quite different.”
   Judge Kkkkkkkk-Bbbbbbbb, known by the staff at First Avenue House for repeatedly bringing his dog to court, rebuked a litigant-in-person for not wearing a tie.
   Senior District Judge Aaaaaaa misinformed a complainant that “there is an unrestricted right of appeal” in contact cases. (There is, in fact, little if any right of appeal.) When this was brought to the attention of the President of the Family Division, her office replied that she “considered the matter closed.”
   Mr Justice Mmmmmm sentenced a father to four months in prison for giving his children Christmas presents (a bike, a camera and a walkman) during a scheduled contact meeting. Upheld on appeal by Tttttt LJ and Bbbbbb-Ssssss LJ.
   Judge Gggggg, after a father filed a complaint against him, ordered all contact between that father and his children stopped for three years. Overturned on appeal by Bbbbbb-Sssss LJ, who described the judge’s behaviour as “outrageous.”
   Judge Ppppppp rejected a father’s request for overnight contact with his 4-year-old, and ordered court costs against him, on the grounds that the child might require a special diet.
   Judge X (name withheld by litigant) told a father who sought more than 2 hours contact with his young child per fortnight that “it may well be that the father is being too possessive.”
   Judge Aaaaaaa warned a father who was arguing that costs should not be ordered against him because the mother was depriving their child of a father: “If you go on like this you stand in great danger of never having staying contact with your son.”
   Judge X (case pending) ordered that a father, who had waited seven months for a full hearing without seeing his children, be permitted for six months to write them no more than one card/letter every three weeks, without any direct contact.
   Judge Llllll ordered that an ordinary father be permitted to write his child once per fortnight on the condition that the letter’s contents be reviewed by an officer of the court.

What F4J believe in is:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Mahatma Gandhi

[driveroneuk]

Unfortunately I think the logistics of the jam are well planned but the provision for the people it affects aren’t which will be the downfall of the plot in the media.

Fomcl

Can’t see how the jam will do any enviromental harm if it goes down drains etc. as its entirely water based, thefor water soluble & totally biodegradeable.

[el_gordo_78]

coularants, preservatives and the sucrose could have an effect on the immediate water if it hits a stream - if flushed down into a field the above could easily congeal and affect grazing or future crop.

the main concern for me is the crystalisation under washing-off, of the sucrose which when dried and cold in the night air expands and would reduce surface grip. I know this from an overturned tanker full or orange concentrate fresh from sunny holland that went over a couple of years back, near Hull - just a day or so before I was coming back from an overseas race meeting. That night was brass monkeys, and I came off on the roundabout where the spillage had been - and the police car that came down almost straight afterward skidded to a stop just feet from my bike. The surface was stupidly greasy, and the cops called the brigade who did some more rinsing but reckoned it’d need a week’s rain and sand-spreading to be safe - all from the sucrose.

I’ve no opposition to the standstill, and they’re giving fair warning to avoid the area - its the jam bit that darkens the horizon for this protest in my own opinion.

[jammymutt]

I wonder if Mr Blunkett will be joining them now he has some spare time on his hands.

[rocknrollrebel]

steve_24v:

rocknrollrebel:
surely there is another way im all for fathers for justice i had problems with the courts ridiculous decisions in the past but surely there is a better way to make a point than this

Well it does serve their purpose doesn’t it, a year or so back the public was not aware of their plight.

As someone who has been affected by the lack of rights for single and absent fathers I support them wholeheartedly…

like i sed i support them too… i havent seen my kids for 4 years but i dont see that donning a batman suit and pouring jam over the m25 and generally doing whatever else they are gonna do to blockade the m25 is gonna help me or them see their children to me it will just start to cause bad feeling and maybe any support that has been gained over the last year or so could well be lost … its not the judges in the courts thats gonna change things its joe public telling the judges they need to change things so the more support from the public the more chance there is of anything happening… ■■■■■■■ the public off isnt the way to gain support

[truckyboy]

I didnt have much sympathy for this group of morons in the first place…and if they bring motorways to a standstill then they will have even less…i always like to give support where it is due and base situations on my own experience…i too have been divorced when my children were young…and attended the divorce hearing where the judge asked about children in the marriage and the arrangements that had been made…it was agreed by both parties that joint custody would be acceptable…now if a parent is refused access then there is a reason…either bullying…abuse of one or other…children in danger etc…i doubt if access is denied just because the other party has a new wife or girlfriend…the childrens safety and wellbeing always comes first…i have found talking to many people on the subject that it is done as a spitefull revenge…maybe over maintenance or lack of it…maybe the partner walked out and re-appeared 6 months later demanding to see the kids after leaving the family in the ■■■■ with bills and rent to pay. and then showing up thinking its his/her right…like i say if the separation is amicable…then access to the children is always given by either party in the childrens interest…maybe i can be proved wrong…
have a nice day

[coffeeholic]

I would say as far as most kids are concerned if a parent dresses up and makes an arse of themselves the kid would deny even knowing them never mind wanting to see them. I know when I was young if my father had done something like that I’d have left home from embarrassment and told people I was an orphan. You know how embarrassing it can be when parents dance at weddings, this is worse than even that horrendous ordeal.

[mart]

Playing devils advocate to a point here.

Whilst I agree completely that pouring jam all over the carriage way isnt going to achieve anything except leave them open to critisim from pretty much everyone, whats the difference between Fathers for justice causing traffic disruptions on major roads and truck drivers using rolling road blocks and the like during the fuel dispute?

[el_gordo_78]

like I say, personally I have no objection to them doing the main event. its the needless spillage that is concerning me.

truckboy - recently on TV they featured some couples who had gone through the ordeals of family court during the divorce.

one case was discovered the lawyers were playing off against each other for brownie points to get a total ‘victory’ on their chalk-board, and when the couple spoke directly discovered half of what was alleged the partner supposed to have alleged it didn’t even know. they dropped the lawyers and told the court to keep their noses out and sorted things themselves in the end.
other cases where the court appointed child psychologists recommendations were totally ignored and full custody to the mother was given (and against the parents wishes too) was featured.

90% of cases go to full custody for th mother with restricted rights for the father, and as mentioned above, there is yet to be a single instance of a mother being punished for breaking a visitation order, despite it going on regular as clockwork.

the courts don’t rule in favour of the best interests most of the time but in favour of what they see fit in their own little world of morals.

[sweetleaf]

Good for them.Maybe others should try something similar instead of moaning to eachother about their problems.I will leave it up to you to decide who. cheers and happy new year. Joe.

[hitch]

of course the way to protest is silently in the privacy of your own home that way no one will be disturbed when you say enough is enough and commit SUICIDE as 70people have over issues like this

WELL DONE F4J

[jb]

did they do it? i was oop north

[Lucy]

Speaking as someone who is going through the hell of trying to obtain a Contact Order as we speak, I fully support anything which gets this issue into the public arena for debate. Yes, it’s extreme; yes, there are people involved in F4J who don’t do themselves or the cause any favours. But the injustice in the current system cannot be allowed to continue.

I haven’t seen more daughter for nearly 4 months. I will not be allowed to see or speak to her over Christmas. It’s heartbreaking.

Truckyboy. You’re very wrong. And once my case finally gets sorted and I am free to talk about the facts, I will take great pleasure in proving it.

[ladytrucker679]

Lucy:
Speaking as someone who is going through the hell of trying to obtain a Contact Order as we speak, I fully support anything which gets this issue into the public arena for debate. Yes, it’s extreme; yes, there are people involved in F4J who don’t do themselves or the cause any favours. But the injustice in the current system cannot be allowed to continue.

I haven’t seen more daughter for nearly 4 months. I will not be allowed to see or speak to her over Christmas. It’s heartbreaking.

Truckyboy. You’re very wrong. And once my case finally gets sorted and I am free to talk about the facts, I will take great pleasure in proving it.

I am so sorry to hear that you won’t get to see your daughter this christmas Lucy this year is going to be bitter sweet for you what with your first christmas with your new husband ect. I hope the new year brings a end to your access problems.

[jb]

JB:
did they do it? i was oop north

bump