Fine for fathers' rights rooftop protest dropped

**Celtic Druid** · 23rd-June-2011

As with much of the news in the media the reality is quite different than what is portrayed.

This is Plymouth | Fine for fathers' rights rooftop protest dropped

A VETERAN campaigner for fathers' rights will no longer have to pay an £850 fine imposed for a rooftop protest at the home of a former Labour minister.

Jolly Stanesby, from Ivybridge, was ordered before Plymouth magistrates for non-payment of the fine imposed in November 2008.

He was also sentenced to two months in prison.

Stanesby, aged 45, of Manor Close, camped out on the roof of the London home of Harriet Harman, then deputy Labour leader and Minister for Women and Equality.

Plymouth magistrates gave Stanesby one day in custody in lieu of non-payment.

But because he had attended court the sentence was deemed served.

Jolly said after the case: "It was an interesting day, with a court fine thrown out for a day in custody, and then they said for coming to court they will consider that as being in custody for a day.

"My £850 fine is dropped, and now the case is over and justice has been done."

Now compare that with what one of the commenters relayed (before it's possibly deleted) what Stanesby had to say about it all.

“I spent 3 days on judge tyzacks roof he threatened me with a loaded shotgun, that case was dropped , obviously they wanted that kept quiet. I spent 2 days on h harmens roof for that I went to prison.

In prison the government sent 2 anti-terroism officers in who said if they sorted out what I had been fighting in the family courts for 8 years, the right to be able to parent my daughter equally with the mother would I stop campaigning for father4justice, 8 months later it was all sorted.

The courts are corrupt I was tormented for 8 years just because I wanted to be a responsible parent and be a father to my own daughter.

I believe the only reason this fine has been scrapped is because I threatened the government that I should never have been fined because the family courts got it wrong for so many years and if it wasnt sorted i would resume back to campaigning.

Even sharing the upbringing of my daughter equally with the mother, the government will not split child benefit and child tax credits it goes to the mother. The system is wrong and discriminatory.

The family courts are corrupt, they do not work in the best interest of the child, they make money out of peoples misery and in the majority of cases they should not be allowed anywhere near the children or their families. Jolly Stanesby”

**johnkimble1** · 25th-June-2011

Jolly now gets to see his daughter I believe.

This puts him in a much stronger position in court as it proves he was right all along. Also it allows him to use any arguments previously only available to the mother - i.e. the damage any punishment will have on his child. A genuine case of someone taking on the system and winning, though I hate to think what he went through to get this far.

It's good to see this story reported (though shame it wasn't more widespread).

Many newspapers only ever reported the charges against Fathers Rights protesters, never mentioning when they are cleared (worst cases of this I've seen are in the Birmingham press).

**Richard** · 25th-June-2011

So, lets get this right - a man fights within the law, the courts for 8 years - effect is zero. He jumps on a ministers roof, makes a stink so loud that even the anti terorist squad are embarressed and offer him a deal which the court then simply rubber stamps.

Its hard not to ome to the conclusion that political action, lawful rebellion, or if necessary politcial violence is necessary to achieve our rights. This just seems to prove to achieve our ends, we have to challange the system rather than work within in.

**Percy** · 25th-June-2011

Its hard not to ome to the conclusion that political action, lawful rebellion, or if necessary politcial violence is necessary to achieve our rights. This just seems to prove to achieve our ends, we have to challange the system rather than work within in.

Many will agree with you.

If someone is violent enough for a political aim in Britain not only will there be no charges laid but like Martin McGuiness, a multi-murderer, they just might get a Cabinet position.

**Richard** · 25th-June-2011

I often wonder about the role of political violence - what would have happend if say Hitler or Himmler would have been assinated before 1939, or what would have happened is Chruchill has bit the dust before 1939 and Chamberlain stayed in power.

Maybe indeed "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"?

**Celtic Druid** · 26th-June-2011

Whilst it's fantastic for Jolly Stanesby that he's struck the most irregular of deals to secure a right to see his daughter, it leaves a void for leader which affects far more ostracized fathers needing direction.

Is there an understudy who is a born leader to take up the reigns where Jolly signed off? Or will the government achieve a damaging blow whilst F4J members scramble to achieve a modicum of order and purpose?

**johnkimble1** · 26th-June-2011

I don't think he's really struck a deal, it's more of a sort of victorious stalemate.

Yes the government are scarred stiff of him and therefore are treating him very fairly. On the other hand if he was to go on a rooftop he'd probably face losing custody again. There are both carrots and sticks at play making anything than the present (very pleasant) situation basically impossible.