I should have read the story closer. Seems talking was all they did; there's no evidence that there was any definite intent:
Police sources have told the BBC they knew of suggestions of a plot to kidnap Tony Blair's five-year-old son Leo.
The Sun said police believed a fringe section of campaign group Fathers 4 Justice discussed the idea but did not have the ability to do it...
[BBC correspondent] Ben Ando said police had been investigating extreme groups linked to Fathers 4 Justice for some time.
"The plan only got as far as what they [police] called the chattering stage," he said.
"No real reconnaissance was carried out, no actual kidnap attempt was made, no-one has been arrested, and the police are not convinced those at the centre of the alleged plan had the capability to carry it out."
Men's advocate (and a bit of a loon) Angry Harry has his own take on the incident:
Thus far, this alleged 'plot' to kidnap Tony Blair's son - which is also on the very front page of the Sun today - seems to be nothing more than the police having come across some inane chatter on the internet - which probably went something like this.
"Blair's government has really fu##ed up my family. I bet he wouldn't like to see his own son taken away from him."
"Wow, Zingbat. That's a good idea. Why don't we kidnap Blair's son? That would teach him. And it would bring about some publicity too!"
"Yo, KingKong24156, that really would be a great idea. What other ideas do you have? I think that we should also all dress up like King Tutankhamun and build a huge pyramid in Hyde Park."
LOL!
But, thus far, this is what really seems to have gone on. And, from this, we have a conspiracy to kidnap Blair's son.
I can sympathize with these guys to a certian extent, if talking was all they're doing. Child abduction, you understand, is illegal – for men. For women, there's government assistance available.
Okay, that's an exaggeration. There's plenty of legal bias to go around, as my Lovely and Brilliant Wife has pointed out to me, on the many occasions that I've gotten bitter over a dad's plight. There are a lot of situations where a man has the upper hand, and especially in some states over others. But the fact is, it's a lot easier in general for a woman to restrict a man's parenting rights than it is for a man to get those rights back. There's an unwritten assumption in the public mind that men whose wives or girlfriends leave them are abusers (or at least jerks); it's the smoke-fire connection. I ran into this one three years ago, when I found out the hard way that there was effectively no legal recourse for parental abduction. It was technically illegal, but nothing was going to be done about it. (Of course, you can imagine what would have happened to a man who did the same.) All a father can do is wait to find out what parental rights (and how much of his paycheck) a vindictive woman wants him to have. When it comes to child custody, men and women are equal de jure but not de facto.
Things are a lot worse in the UK than they are here, I'm given to understand. In Britain, when a couple with children separates, Mama's word becomes law. If you think I was angry and frustrated (and you'd be right), imagine what a man with not even de jure legal standing goes through. He's basically a checkbook with a name. And the name is just as likely to be "Sperm Donor" as "Daddy."
In that situation, I suspect I'd find myself daydreaming about making a politician feel the same thing I did. I might even talk to a group of equally-screwed-over dads about my anger. Which is what this appears to have been. Meanwhile, the feminist goon squads (those same uterofascists who brought you abortion-on-demand and the Vagina Monolgues) gain a huge victory: Fathers 4 Justice is disbanding, and it will be a long time before any British father dares speak out too loudly again.
Congratulations, ladies.
No comments:
Post a Comment