Batman at the Buck House
Flyińg Ńuń 2°°4 +
about a man's rights to have access to his children, Of course Sky News are
featuring it continuously.
--
Heard melodies are sweet, but those Unheard melodies are sweeter
flyi...@tiscali.co.uk
FN 2같4 +, Mungo Brandybuck of Buckland
Foxy
> Anyone watching it. Yet another one has breached the security to
> protest about a man's rights to have access to his children, Of
> course Sky News are featuring it continuously.
Just heard on the radio FN
Jen
Jan Brown
news:2qltp2F...@uni-berlin.de...
> Anyone watching it. Yet another one has breached the security to
protest
> about a man's rights to have access to his children, Of course Sky
News are
> featuring it continuously.
> --
> Heard melodies are sweet, but those Unheard melodies are sweeter
> flyi...@tiscali.co.uk
I think they will lose any goodwill they might have had. I feel sorry
for the 5,000 people who couldn't get their flights on the London Eye
yesterday
Janet
Flyińg Ńuń 2°°4 +
Apparently the security services stopped Robin though. They trheatened to
shoot him as he climbed a ladder. So he backed down. They didn't even
arrest him. Makes you think doesn't it.
--
Heard melodies are sweet, but those Unheard melodies are sweeter
flyi...@tiscali.co.uk FN 2°°4 +, Mungo Brandybuck of Buckland
Flyińg Ńuń 2°°4 +
Maybe, but I bet they won't suffer as much as these new sooper dooper
recently revised and improved security service personnel who let a
Gloucestershire painter and decorator hoodwink them. Loads od egg on many
faces methinks. :-)
George Cox
>
> Anyone watching it. Yet another one has breached the security to protest
> about a man's rights to have access to his children, Of course Sky News are
> featuring it continuously.
Is it important? Oh _Sky_ News, so, no it isn't.
I very much doubt that there is such a thing as a man's (or anyone
else's) right to have access to his children. We do hear an excessive
amount about "rights" don't we? Makes me sick.
Dave Lear
news:4145FF20...@spambtinternet.com.invalid
> I very much doubt that there is such a thing as a man's (or
> anyone else's) right to have access to his children. We do
> hear an excessive amount about "rights" don't we? Makes
> me sick.
I tend to think that fathers should have just as much right to see their
children as mothers do, George. If you disagree, perhaps you'd care to
explain why? :-)
Ergo
"Dave Lear" <top....@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:2qmdosF...@uni-berlin.de...
I think he has gone Dave, In an earlier post 'Sorry' or something like that
he asked to be ignored.
George Cox
Do mothers have a right of access to their children? News to me.
George Cox
That wasn't from me.
Ergo
news:414610B2...@spambtinternet.com.invalid...
Oh Sorry. You're the only George Cox on here, or so I thought. So do you
want people to ignore you or not?
George Cox
news:ci53jq$2l9$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
just try to cause trouble. He just intercepts posts ½ way through and
confuses people. He may be a Spy!
George Cox
That's up to them.
George Cox
This isn't from me.
Ergo
Why don't you both bu**er off. Your confuzzling me now :(
Tyke
> protest about a man's rights to have access to his children, Of
> course Sky News are featuring it continuously.
Just seen it on Sky.
LOL
--
Tyke
Luck is when the paths of opportunity and preparation cross.
Dave Lear
> I think he has gone Dave, In an earlier post 'Sorry' or something like
> that he asked to be ignored.
You ignore him if you want, Ergo, but sometimes I find him funny.
Dave Lear
> That wasn't from me.
What wasn't?
Dave Lear
> Ergo, ignore him he is winding you up, I am the George Cox, and this
> prat is just try to cause trouble.
A person called George Cox being a prat and causing trouble. I thought you
were trying to persuade us that is wasn't you?
> He just intercepts posts ½ way through and confuses people. He may
> be a Spy!
He may not. It's called the intelligence community for a reason.
Dave Lear
> This isn't from me.
Oh, this is all so confusing. How can we tell which posts are from the
'actual' George Cox?
Dave Lear
> Do mothers have a right of access to their children? News to me.
I tend to think that a lot of things are news to you, George. :-)
Flyińg Ńuń 2°°4 +
> Flyińg Ńuń 2°°4 + wrote:
>> Anyone watching it. Yet another one has breached the security to
>> protest about a man's rights to have access to his children, Of
>> course Sky News are featuring it continuously.
>
> Just seen it on Sky.
>
> LOL
There are serious implications though. The police commissioner ( well I
think that's who it was) announced that if he had been a terrorist they
would have shot him) But had that belt he was wearing have been
containing explosives and he was holding one of those deadman detonators in
his hand - wouldn't they have been too late, and very dead.
--
Heard melodies are sweet, but those Unheard melodies are sweeter
flyi...@tiscali.co.uk FN 2°°4 +, Mungo Brandybuck of Buckland
Ali
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:57:06 +0100, Jan Brown wrote:
>>
>> I think they will lose any goodwill they might have had. I feel sorry
>> for the 5,000 people who couldn't get their flights on the London Eye
>> yesterday
>
> I think you're right. I can't remember what they did a little while
> ago but it was something that would have lost them a lot of support.
>
> I agree that children do need to have their father around even if he
> and the children's mother aren't together for whatever reason *but*
> when the father tries to sour the children's relationship with their
> mother with lies and distortions, or when the father interferes with
> the children; then IMO the children are better off without the father.
How about when it's the mother doing the lying?
>
> This seems to be a case of "he protesteth too much". I'd like to know
> *why* these men can't see their children. Is it just a cussed mother
> denying access?? Were the parents actually married to each other??
> Is there some other reason why the father doesn't have access??
>
> Courts can actually jail the mother if she's denying access
> unreasonably and there's a court order in place giving access to the
> father.
But do they?
Not according to reports in my local paper.
--
Ali
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/my.web.pages/ You really don't want to go there.
UPS/.talk August stats: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/my.web.pages/stats
Mike Clayton
<top....@lineone.net> writes
They are usually rather nasty :-)
--
Mike Clayton <Take out the plug to email me>
"To right the wrong is always right"
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mike_clayton/
George Cox
The fake ones have come from C...@TheAsylum.com. Whether they will
continue to, who knows?
George Cox
If the mother and father of a young child are in front of a judge
seeking access, the judge may deny it to one or both of the parents if
he deems that to be in the best interests of the child. If the child is
older he may choose not to see either parent, and neither parents nor
judge can do anything about it.
Flyińg Ńuń 2°°4 +
I was under the impression that impersonation was the best form of flattery.
You should feel pleased George. :-)
--
Heard melodies are sweet, but those Unheard melodies are sweeter
flyi...@tiscali.co.uk FN 2같4 +, Mungo Brandybuck of Buckland
Dave Lear
> > Oh, this is all so confusing. How can we tell which posts are from
> > the 'actual' George Cox?
>
> The fake ones have come from C...@TheAsylum.com. Whether they
> will continue to, who knows?
You mean someone's posting silly things as 'George Cox' to try and get a
rise out of people? That suggests that 'George Cox' is posting like a troll.
Well, rest assured no-one would think the real George Cox would be trolling
news:uk.people.silversurfers so I think you can rest easy in here, George.
--
</tongue in cheek>
Dave Lear
> If the mother and father of a young child are in front of a
> judge seeking access, the judge may deny it to one or both
> of the parents if he deems that to be in the best interests of
> the child.
The point that "Fathers For Justice" are trying to make, though, is that
it's way more likely for the mother to get custody and the father to get
(restricted) visitation rights. Women have fought for sexual equality for
years but as this is sexual discrimination against men they don't care about
equalising it.
George Cox
Why don't people stay married? Don't their marriage vows mean anything
to them? And it's not just common people who get divorced either; the
upper echelons, whom one might hope would be a good example, do it as
much as anyone else.
GC
r@y
That's because they're all common, George. Education and money make no
difference, we're all the same. Common as muck, you included. Although
you may be more common than others.
--
to email me please go here
http://www.dream-weaver.com/email.html
iChat AV datasmog7
Ergo
news:1gk4l3w.1nrpkhi17yozjeN%data...@hotmail.com...
<snip>
>> Why don't people stay married? Don't their marriage vows mean anything
>> to them? And it's not just common people who get divorced either; the
>> upper echelons, whom one might hope would be a good example, do it as
>> much as anyone else.
I see nothing wrong with divorce, (that's what I tell the current Mrs E.).
Let the children decide who they want to live with, give them a little
guidence and it is up to them if they want to see their parents. My first
wife, hmph! a real pain sometimes, and as for her mother, looking at her I
should have known better. We had 25 happy years, then we got married! I
think it is 30 years this year, boy I must like suffering.
> That's because they're all common, George. Education and money make no
> difference, we're all the same. Common as muck, you included. Although
> you may be more common than others.
George common? I certainly hope not!! I miserable bu**ers like him were
common, it doesn't give us much hope does it?