FNF Friend of Foe?

**Timocrat** · 13th-September-2008

Dateline: UK, EU
By: Steve Bayliss
From: Ration Shed New Zealand
Via: The Honor Network

FNF Friend of Foe?

Priority News Exchange Program News Item (PNEP)

What follows in a news item which states that FNF (UK) leaked information to weaken a fathers’ case in a closed courtcase. When a man on the FNF board told of this fact he was confronted and told to be silent and then banned. Some have called for FNF members to confront their leadership and if not given satisfactory answers to leave the group. Below is what has transcribed to date:

September 13, 2008
Fiona Hamilton, London Correspondent

Britain’s leading fathers’ rights charity is in turmoil after it emerged that one of its senior figures used the organisation to influence a child custody hearing against a father, The Times has learnt.

Families Need Fathers (FNF) is to pay tens of thousands of pounds in damages and legal costs after one of its officials admitted writing a defamatory letter to a judge in an attempt to undermine the father’s custody case.

Steve Stephenson, FNF’s London branch organiser, admitted that he should not have made the “false and defamatory allegations”, which were vetted by the head office of the government-funded charity.

The case has highlighted the secrecy in which the family justice system is shrouded, because the father – who cannot be named for legal reasons – was unaware of the allegations against him for several months.

It was only when the father, a working professional in his fifties, requested correspondence from his file that it came to his attention and he refuted the allegations. Three court hearings had taken place in the meantime.

News of Mr Stephenson’s intervention, which was written on an FNF letterhead and incorrectly alleged that the court had been deceived by the father, ignited a fierce reaction. On an online forum for FNF members one wrote: “Does anyone know why he would represent something detrimental to children and against FNF’s main aim? Has he lost the plot?”

The charity receives a government grant of more than £300,000 a year and David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary, is one of its patrons. Bob Geldof is also a supporter.

Mr Stephenson wrote the letter in July last year. He was assisting the ex-wife in the hearing by acting as her “McKenzie Friend” – an aide for litigants without legal representation.

The father said: “FNF’s role in this matter is especially surprising because it is an organisation that campaigns against injustices in the family courts.”

Jon Davies, the chief executive officer of FNF, said that a mistake had been made and an apology made. He said new policies had beeen drawn up, and distributed to all staff and officers within FNF, to ensure that such actions were not repeated.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4743750.ece

Email from a member of the FNF forum:

Please can you cancel my subscription entirely, including the fnf help forum as i've already been expelled from fnf chat for titling headings 'CORRUPTION' please ruth, i don't want to be a part of FnF no more. Please can you forward this to the representing party please.

Kind Regards
Steve Bayliss

----- Original Message -----
From: JoetheToad@...
To: s_bayliss@...
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:21 PM
Subject: FNF Forum Subscription

Steve,
Your posts in recent weeks have become more and more derogatory of the work of FNF and the work of the volunteers or employees. You have made suggestions that these people have been bought off in some way which is deeply insulting, unfair and untrue.
I would not expect F4J to tolerate FNF members going onto their forums and criticising F4J’s integrity or motivation. The two organisations have different ways of working, but the motivation of the people has never been questioned by anyone in FNF. I think FNF have been exceptionally tolerant for months in allowing your posts and explaining again and again why FNF work in the way that we do.
I said in a post that I will not see the forums used to make unfounded allegations that demoralise the volunteers and workers within the charity.
Following Jon Davies' email, I again posted publicly on forum saying that the forums are not to be used in this way and explained why.
This has been the subject of discussion between the moderators of the forums who have agreed that due to the repeated allegations made in your posts, we feel there is no option now other than to revoke your subscription.
It is with deep regret that I have unsubscribed you from the forums.
Michael (Moderator)

Whether the allegations are real or not the FNF leadership must be answer for these reported actions. As a moderate father organization (or soft group) FNF shouldn’t be silencing or banning members who disagree with the leadership in helping to undermine fathers, when it is supposed to be an organization that purports to help fathers. If this is a smear campaign against FNF they need to open up what has happened and fire anyone that was responsible and not ban questioners and demand silence.

If these steps are not taken one can only surmise that the leadership of the FNF may be compromised as has been claimed by many former members. Moderates organizations must not distance themselves from radical organizations in the hope of getting special treatment by the establishment. Yet to covertly cooperation with the estblishment to destroy men says that the whole organization may be under the thumb of the government, despite the well meaning & ignorant members in the ranks of the FNF.

For more click:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rationshed/message/640

**haahoo** · 11th-July-2009

Fnf get a bad press sometimes from the so-called "radical" mens groups, but there are a few notable differences and similarities betweens fnf and groups such as whatever version of the now defunct f4j is currently pretending to be active..

Differences..

1. Fnf are able to communicate with the government directly as a group and be part of the legislative process.. The "radicals" are denied this.

2. Fnf do not condone lawbreaking in order to get their case across.. The "radicals" have this as their raison d'etre..

3. Fnf are a long established and stable group, organised and have a thriving base of members and branches and have regular meetings. They are easily accessible to fathers and can provide direct help to individuals.. The "radicals" are divided, unstable and completely splintered.. sad to say!

4. Fnf are a charitable group, not an activist group as such.. The "radicals" rely on private donations etc, which clearly are inadequate..

Similarities..

1. Neither group recommend the use of lawyers..

2. Both types of group have to comply with the law in their members cases..

3. Fnf have what looks like identical aims to the other groups..

4. The groups have been ineffective in getting their aims achieved.

Fact of the matter is, the only real differences between the "radical" groups and fnf is the different way of dealing with getting the government to address the issues..

One group, fnf, plays the state's game and loses..

The other groups, play the state's game and lose too, but also have a chance of a jail sentance and much criticism..

There is no TRUE "radical" fathers group, it is a myth that this was represented by groups such as f4j..

To ask if fnf are friend or foe is largely hair splitting, they are "friends", for the majority of fathers, as much friends as any other group, and far more friends than any "fathers rights" law firm that simply PRETENDS to be your friend while they empty your pocket and lead you through as many hoops as they can find!

**julie** · 11th-July-2009

Good on you!, Haahoo. It is better to try and fail than it is to not try at all.

**Percy** · 11th-July-2009

This is most unfortunate.

Mr Stevenson had no business taking it upon himself to speak for an organisation without the consent of that organisation to his message.

Such an organisation needs a communication Policy that 'bounds' the type of messages that an Individual can send out. At the very least all correspondence should be vetted by at least one peer before release.

And he had no business interfering in a Family Court case, especially in secret and against the father that his organisation purports to support.

No wonder the shit has hit the fan!

**julie** · 11th-July-2009

Quote from Percy

Such an organisation needs a communication Policy that 'bounds' the type of messages that an Individual can send out.

Do you mean ... like the all the women's collectives where someone says how it is but lots of groups within the collective disagree?

No wonder the shit has hit the fan!

And so it should.

**Percy** · 11th-July-2009

Do you mean ... like the all the women's collectives where someone says how it is but lots of groups within the collective disagree?

No. I mean that clear Leadership should be exercised without Hubris.

**haahoo** · 11th-July-2009

This case from last year is about an individual who deliberately went against a father in order to support a MOTHER..

Too often we see mothers seeking the services of FATHERS groups, I think that is a problem..

They get prefferential treatment wherever they go, not least in fathers groups!

It is strange, but mothers have their valid beefs about the system too..

It is pretty easy to see the answer to it, but for some reason most folk still consider the issues to be primarily gender a against gender b, not, parents against the state shit-stirrers!

**julie** · 11th-July-2009

Quote from haahoo

This case from last year is about an individual who deliberately went against a father in order to support a MOTHER..

Was it the right thing to do or was it some sort of attraction or chivalry thing?

Too often we see mothers seeking the services of FATHERS groups, I think that is a problem..

It is not a problem for the father's gruops in NZ. They just go for shared parenting or stop children from being abducted by mum or dad plus they also follow the laws. I think they just know more than most lawyers and it is for free.

They get prefferential treatment wherever they go, not least in fathers groups!

Sorry to be picky but this is just one guy. Not all father's groups should go down for this.

BTW, some women's groups do this sort of thing too.

**julie** · 11th-July-2009

Quote from Percy

No. I mean that clear Leadership should be exercised without Hubris.

I gotcha now. Thanks for saying.

**haahoo** · 11th-July-2009

Quote from julie

Was it the right thing to do or was it some sort of attraction or chivalry thing?

I think it was the usual thing, "you suck mine, and I will lick yours!"..

Work it out!

It is not a problem for the father's gruops in NZ. They just go for shared parenting or stop children from being abducted by mum or dad plus they also follow the laws. I think they just know more than most lawyers and it is for free.

Yes, most lawyers are behind the times, most fathers groups are bang up to date, plus, fathers groups don't have a vested interest in dragging cases out and making a big meal of it all.. (But I DO have serious reservations about the "proffessional Mackenzie friends" that make a fat income off helping dads..)..

You have to remember this basic starting point when it comes to women who need the help of the fathers groups..

THEY MUST HAVE REALLY FUCKED UP TO HAVE LOST CUSTODY OF THEIR KIDS IN TODAYS PRO-MOTHER WORLD!!!

Sorry to be picky but this is just one guy. Not all father's groups should go down for this.

It is just ONE EXAMPLE. Similar kinds of attitudes can be seen in other groups..

One of the problems is women often do very much of the work etc in the fathers groups, so they in many ways have the power to influence..

I have to say, I cant really blame them for expecting preferrential treatment if they are holding the mens dicks up for them!!

BTW, some women's groups do this sort of thing too.

I am not surprised to hear this, it is what I would expect.. It is not too hard for one gender to get the sympathy from at least a few critical members of the other!!

**julie** · 11th-July-2009

Haahoo, there's no point arguing with you whether father's groups are shite or not. Each to their own.

**Daveyone** · 13th-July-2009

My experience of FNF is having the late Ian Mackay act for me as McKenzie friend when the cash ran out and he was great until his untimley death he is the first person to speak on this;

another piece of irony was when he told me the ex-husband of my CAFCASS reporter was one of his members (She was going to be impartial wasn't she?)

**haahoo** · 13th-July-2009

Quote from julie

Haahoo, there's no point arguing with you whether father's groups are shite or not. Each to their own.

Its not a question of arguing whether they are shite or not, its about putting the facts on the table and letting them speak for themselves..

The main fact I see repeated in the fathers groups in the same (or even more obvious and paradoxical) way is the unequal treatment of women, in that they are regarded as SUPERIOR to male members, as if women have some special fucking knowledge, power, right or whatever to dictate to men in matters of their families.. (as reflects the general pussywhipped nature of many men who end up in the fucking shit!)..

Its a problem, because many men dont agree to the "femistandard" of child rearing as being the best, or only way!

Some folk believe that fathers have the BEST and most balanced outlook and without doutbt are much more likely to NOT exclude the other parent, and prefer an equal parenting solution, which usually gives the mother more time anyway!