Murderous Lesbian Lovers Still Loose, Cops Say
In this week's "Bad Girls" episode, we'll tell you the story of Tina Loesch and Skye Hanson. Cops say Loesch and Hanson are lesbian lovers who met in prison and teamed up with a hit man to devise an elaborate scheme to knock off both of Loesch's parents.
Before the dirty deeds were done, police say Loesch took out a life insurance policy on her mother and made out with a hefty paycheck: more than $500,000. Now, AMW is teaming up with investigators to unveil the details of a diabolical plan that cops say left two people dead, and to put these bad girls behind bars for good.
AMW's Robert Brown was part of the crew who met with Brad Steckman, the hit man who police say played an integral role in murdering both of Loesch's parents.
While investigating the story, Robert learned that shortly after Loesch and Hanson declared their love for one another, Loesch's father, Gary, declared his disapproval for his daughter's gay lifestyle.
Three years later, Gary was shot to death during his morning newspaper route.
The case went unsolved for years. But in 2001, after Steckman was convicted of killing an 89-year-old woman during a robbery, cops say he confessed to helping the girls plan Gary's murder, as well as electrocuting Loesch's mother by dropping a television -- modified to deliver a lethal dose of electricity -- into her hot tub.
What's more, Brad says to ensure that she was dead, he and Loesch held Mrs. Loesch's head under water for several minutes.
"Loesch took out a life insurance policy on her mother," Robert said, "and the girls put together a plan to make her death look like an accident so they could make off with the money."
And cops say that if the hit man had not started snitching, these bad girls might have gotten away with it.
Robert added that the most disturbing part of talking with Steckman was listening to him casually describe the details of multiple premeditated murders.
"It didn't seem like taking the lives of at least three people was something out of the ordinary for him," Robert said.
Cops say Loesch and Hanson are two very dangerous ladies, and if they aren't caught, there's no telling what they might do next. Head over to AMW.com to get the gruesome details on the path of destruction that police say they've already left behind. While you're there, watch the exclusive interview with convicted killer Brad Steckman.
Then, Saturday night, tune in to help us turn these lesbian lovebirds into jailbirds once and for all.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
At the opposite, bottom end of the graph, well past the married stepfamilies, the divorced single parents and the co-habiting couples, was the never-married single mother, whose grim prospects included grinding poverty, little hope of a future marriage and children with behavioural problems that too often led to a life of crime and yet more unwed pregnancy
The debate among top American academics is over, the distinguished psychologist, one-time presidential appointee on the family and now a Senior Fellow at the Family Research Council in Washington, later told me in a telephone conversation. Though if any doubt remains about the importance of an intact family in a child's development, a study undertaken by Swedish social scientists and published by Acta Paediatrica in March buries it once and for all. Their systematic review of fathers' involvement with children from the time they are newborn to the time they are young adults spanned 24 papers from 16 different longitudinal studies from a variety of countries. It concludes that "father engagement reduces the frequency of behavioural problems in boys and psychological problems in young women; it also enhances cognitive development while decreasing criminality and economic disadvantage in low (socio-economic status) families."
If the United States more generally represents the traditional family and Sweden less-traditional families, the debate about the arrangement that best meets the needs of children would indeed appear to be over: kids need both mothers and fathers. But can the developments of the past half-century be reversed? In that time, the never-married single mother has been Canada's fastest-rising parenting demographic. And why did these developments occur in the first place?
There was a time when an unwed pregnancy meant a shotgun wedding. It wasn't the best start to a marriage, but it secured social and other obligations for the child from his parents. It also provided him with a sense of his genetic and social origins -- that is, a sense of his identity -- and clear role models upon which to build his future behaviour.
The existence of shotgun weddings didn't preclude what sociologists and Statistics Canada now call lone-parent or one-parent families. These have been an established feature of Canadian familyhood for some time and have included widows, the divorced or separated, as well as never-married mothers. In 1951, for instance, 13.9 per cent of families were lone parents, a figure not far removed from 2006 figures at 15.6 per cent, although, significantly, they fell to 8 per cent between 1951 and 1966.
The difference between then and now is the altered composition of the lone-parent cohort. In 1951, only 1.5 per cent of lone parents were never-married, whereas 30 per cent were divorced or separated and 66.5 per cent were widowed. By 2006, and despite the availability of birth control, abortion and adoption services, the proportion of never-married, at 29.5 per cent, and divorced or separated, at 49.5 per cent, had increased dramatically.
Conventional wisdom says poverty is the primary cause of never-married mothering, but increasingly evidence suggests both poverty and never-married mothering are symptoms of a deeper problem.
"Although there are many exceptions," writes Anne-Marie Ambert in a 2006 paper on one-parent families for The Vanier Institute of the Family, "over half of women who bear children alone not only create poverty ... but come from poverty."
The professor emeritus of sociology at York University adds that, in any case, "less than 50 years ago, the poor were not so likely to produce as many one-parent families as is now the case." And even today, the poor do not uniformly inhabit one-parent families, while the rich do produce one-parent families via divorce and occasionally through intentional single motherhood.
Values, beliefs and morality are also factors, she says, beginning with an ethos of individualism that emphasizes rights rather than duties. This, coupled with an ideology of gratification, particularly sexual and psychological, meant procreation became increasingly separated from marriage even as women, often conspicuously unprepared for motherhood, were encouraged to keep and to bond with their newborns as a "right."
Add impoverishment, and such adolescents may feel they have little to lose and even something to gain by engaging in unprotected sex.
In 1999, similar views were expressed by Maggie Gallagher, an American author and president of the Institute of Marriage and Public Policy. "What has changed most in recent decades is not who gets pregnant, but who gets married," she wrote in The Age of Unwed Mothers. If a good marriage is unlikely and if marriage isn't an essential support to motherhood anyway, she argues, it is hardly surprising adolescent girls decide to become pregnant. "If it is not marriage that confers special meaning to the sexual act, then perhaps it is her giving the gift of unprotected sex, or making a baby."
British journalist Melanie Phillips agrees that the collapse of marriage is behind today's changing family fortunes, but she blames "gender" feminism as its primary cause. By viewing marriage as the principle instrument of oppression by males of females, she says, gender feminism marginalized men from their roles as husbands and fathers while its radical agenda has become the stuff of public policy. Meanwhile, fear of appearing judgmental about its consequences has led to moral paralysis on the subject.
Her book, The Sex-Change Society: Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male, argues that any explanation based on economics -- for instance, that a lack of jobs makes young men unmarriageable or that too much welfare makes it too easy for young women to be single mothers -- is only a small part of the puzzle. The missing piece is the change in girls' sexual behaviour and the collapse of social stigma. "The legalizing of abortion and the availability of contraception, along with the changes in social attitudes, brought about the end of 'shot-gun' marriages by which unmarried sexual incontinence had previously been regulated," Phillips says.
Fewer men wanted to marry women who, they felt, brought their pregnancy on themselves, while women who did want to marry and have children "found their bargaining position had been undermined since men could go elsewhere for sex without responsibility." And while men seek sexual favours, it is women who -- unless they are being coerced -- have the power of selection.
To be sure, mistakes are a factor -- but abortion and adoption services exist to address these. Coercion is also a factor in very disadvantaged groups, as is a hyper-sexualized media and celebrity culture that feeds peer pressure and promotes sexual activity.
If women were engaging in more-adventurous sexual behaviours, does that mean men were feckless cads? Not entirely, says Phillips. "All societies struggle with the problem of attaching men to their children," she writes. "This is almost always solved through marriage and legitimacy, which is very important in establishing paternal certainty, the most important precondition for paternal investment." Moreover, she says, family life socializes young men, who must get jobs and settle down. It also contributes to the development of kinship, the primary structure that supports individuals.
But now, "marriage has been weakened, divorce has got easier and no stigma is any longer attached to children born outside of wedlock. The result has been a snapping of the bonds that have tied men into family life."
In Canada, as elsewhere, liberalized divorce laws were adopted by the end of the 1960s. In Britain, says Phillips, they turned marriage into an institution of contempt and "just a piece of paper." Divorce produced "damaged children (who) grew up into embittered adults incapable of lasting attachments and deeply mistrustful of the institution whose failure had let them down so badly." The non-existent or low-commitment requirements of lone parenting or co-habitation became a better option than a perceived "bad" marriage while "no-fault" divorce laws that also gave women custody of the children and most of the family assets bestowed "the seal of social approval upon families constructed around the absence of the father."
In a recent blog item on The Spectator's website, Phillips discusses the murder of a 15-year-old and the life of her mother and others with several children by several men. An affluent, complacent and materialistic Britain has created an underclass, she writes, "where successive generations of women have never known what it is to be loved and cherished by both their parents ... How can such women know how to parent their own children?"
Similarly, and in the U.S., where 37 per cent of pregnancies are those of unwed, mostly black and Hispanic mothers, commentators describe a de facto caste system based on the marriage gap. In Canada, the proportion of Aboriginal single mother families is twice as high as other Canadian families.
Yet reasons for hope persist. According to "Crime, Drugs, Welfare -- And Other Good News," published in last December's edition of Commentary magazine, American college graduates are marrying and staying married for the sake of the children, while the number of Canadian fathers who have joint custody of theirs now rivals the never-married mother as Canada's fastest rising parenting demographic. Abortion and fertility rates among the young are declining.
Many lessons, too, are emerging from the trials and triumphs of the sexual revolution, among them that if feminism's biggest mistake was the marginalization of men, so, too, has it given women greater control of their sexuality. And that means tremendous power to re-order their lives, the lives of their families and to turn the situation around.
I get the impression Naomi Toy is a card carrying feminist not in touch with the totality of a man's feelings based on her fairly lop side reporting as follows:MJM
Dad's love not just DNA
- Submit comment: Submit comment
By Naomi Toy
November 14, 2008 12:00am
IT'S a special family bonding moment being played out in thousands of Australian homes.
Dad scoops up junior and gently pops the child on his knee. But it's not time for a story or a tickle.
No, daddy just needs to swab the inside of your cheek for a few skin cells, darling, so sit still before you run off and play.
All dad has to do now is part with $500 and he can find out if the child he's loved as his own flesh and blood all these years is actually his own. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it?
The advocates of DIY DNA testing think it should, judging by the benign name they've given the procedure - peace of mind paternity tests.
But just who is getting peace of mind? The fathers? The mothers? Maybe.
The children? Not likely.
Up to 6000 home-testing kits were sold last year and, while there is no breakdown about who is using these tests, recent studies suggest they are used at a time when parental relationships break down, leading to disputes over child support.
The Daily Telegraph revealed this week that child support payment orders to 860 children have been torn up since mid-2003 based on DNA paternity evidence.
Those figures suggest hundreds of children are being dealt a devastating post-divorce blow by being told their father is not who they believed to be.
Men's rights groups hail these tests as a solution to all problems about honesty. But money is also a motive - witness the celebrity example of Eddie Murphy and former Spice Girl Melanie Brown.
Brown named funnyman Murphy as the father of her daughter Angel, but he refused to acknowledge her until he had a paternity test.
Perhaps he had reason and every right to question whether he was in fact the father but the question of who was going to pay child support seemed to be as big an issue as who was the biological father.
And so it appears to be with the cases that don't make the headlines around the world. These tests are aimed at people who are in a vulnerable position and are used as ammunition by warring parties with children caught in the crossfire.
A testimonial on the website of one company which sells this service comes from a father who paid child support to his ex-wife for five years.
He did a private DNA test of his two children and discovered they weren't his, so he challenged the payments in court.
"The court dismissed child support and freed me of responsibility," he reports.
Just like that. One minute he's the father, the next he's not. Exit stage left, bye bye kiddies, have a nice life. No doubt he's saved himself thousands of dollars, but his children have paid the price.
Although "misattributed paternity" affects just 1 per cent of the population, spokeswoman for lobby group Men's Rights Agency Sue Price supports mandatory paternity testing at birth.
At the very least, she argues that paternity should be confirmed by a DNA test before any order is made by the Child Support Agency.
"Child support must be thoroughly convinced through the use of DNA tests that they've got the right father," Ms Price said.
"If they do a DNA test and they find out the child is not there's they then have a choice as to whether they are going to continue in the relationship, what they are going to say to the mother, can they survive what is going on."
Anne Hollonds, CEO of Relationships Australia NSW, contends that is possibly the worst time for children, who are often old enough to understand what's going on between their parents.
"For the sake of not having to pay, what you are doing is compromising some extremely important family relationships forever," Ms Hollonds said.
"It's done from the mindset that biology is the prime thing and of course we see lots of situations where biology isn't the prime thing such as step parenting . . . and adoption.
"Biology isn't the primary thing but people will try and use that to opting out of situations. I do worry about people being drawn in by the promotion of these technologies to people who are vulnerable and worried about being ripped off rather than recognising to themselves there will be losses.
"They might save a few dollars but they might lose everything.
"It's making a choice to put money first. What you wouldn't want to have is parents split up and for them to completely lose their father."
It's hard to argue against the fact that men have the right to know if they are the father of a child.
But there must also be times when a child has the right not to know anything other than that they are loved.
My comments were left as follows:
You don't understand the issue at all. Men are used frequently by mothers in divorce proceedings as whipping boys. Men have been historically marginalized on separation and divorce and frequently cannot even see their children. The new law on equal parenting in your country may help to change that. It isn't the case in most other countries, just yet. Love of the children, if the dad has been able to keep a relationship, won't stop but the fraud perpetrated by lying, cheating fraudulent women will. The children need not even know of this. The playing field is being leveled. A man who has formed a bond with a child won't stop the relationship, if he can control it, but he can rightfully stop being duped. This is in the best long term interest of the children as fewer women will get away with lying about who the father is and entrap an unsuspecting man who has been victimized. Having consensual sex with someone shouldn't turn into a life of payment for a child not his. Are you a card carrying feminist or do you not yet "get it."
Fathers 4 Justice campaigner jailed for Herne Hill MP home protest
Fathers' rights protester jailed
Thursday, November 13, 2008, 10:00
Jolly Stanesby, of Manor Close, Ivybridge, was jailed for two months after he and another Fathers 4 Justice protester, Mark Harris, scaled Miss Harman's semi-detached home in Herne Hill, south London, in June, dressed in comic book hero outfits.
Stanesby, who was found guilty of causing distress and alarm and refusing to obey a police officer, was also fined £250 and ordered to pay £500 costs.
Harris, of Elford Crescent, Plympton, was found guilty of causing distress and alarm, given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £500 in costs.
The two men mounted the protest which eventually led to Miss Harman and her husband Jack Dromey having to temporarily leave the premises.
The hearing was held at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court in London.
During an earlier court hearing Labour Party treasurer Jack Dromey – Mrs Harman's husband – said he had been woken by loud noises.
He said: "There was heavy thumping just above me which led me to conclude to my horror that somebody was trying to break into our home. Our home was invaded – that was a matter of alarm and continuing distress.
"It's an experience we would never wish to go through again."
A spokesman for the Fathers 4 Justice protest group, which disbanded in September, said members would be staging further protests on the minister's roof and at Gordon Brown's home within the week in protest at the sentences.
Stanesby has a long history of protesting for the group. In 2003 he spent several nights on a crane on the construction site of a court building in Exeter, spent Christmas on Tower Bridge in London dressed as Father Christmas, and weeks later brought the Tamar Bridge to a standstill when he spent a week up a gantry of the A38.
In May 2004 he protested on the roof of Plymouth Crown Court dressed as a superhero, then in November handcuffed himself to minister Margaret Hodge. In 2006 he masterminded the storming of the live National Lottery TV show, spent two nights on a judge's roof and started 2007 by climbing Stonehenge dressed as Fred Flintstone.
Last year he was arrested at gunpoint by a SWAT team after climbing the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, USA.
Update November 14/09
Ivybridge protester jailed
Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 14:02
Fellow protestor Mark Harris, of Elford Crescent in Plympton, was given a conditional discharge.
Members of the group, which had disbanded in September of this year, said they would be staging further protests on the Minister's roof and at the Prime Minister's home in Kirkaldy & Cowdenbeath within the week to protest at what they described as a 'politically conceived show trial.'
Spokesman Mark Harris said: "I am shocked that Mr Stanesby has been imprisoned and know that fellow campaigners will be taking his place on Miss Harman's roof within days if not hours. The court has made a serious error in committing him to prison and in doing so incited angry dads to take further direct action."
The pair climbed on to the roof of a house in Herne Hill on June 9 this year and unfurled a banner reading ‘A father is for life, not just conception’
Stanesby, of Manor Close, Ivybridge, has a long history of protesting for F4J.
In 2003 he spent nights up a crane on the construction site of a new court building in Exeter, spent Christmas on Tower Bridge in London dressed as Father Christmas, then weeks later brought the Tamar Bridge to a standstill when he spent a week up a gantry across the A38. In February he protested at the Blackwall Tunnel in London.
In May 2004 he protested on the roof of Plymouth Crown Court dressed as a superhero then in November handcuffed himself to minister Margaret Hodge.
In 2006 he masterminded the storming of the live National Lottery TV show, spent two nights on a judge's roof and started 2007 by climbing Stonehenge dressed as Fred Flinstone.
In August 2007 he was arrested at gunpoint by a SWAT team after climbing the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, USA.
Comments on the Herald Web Site from several countries as of November 14/08 GMT
- Nev said: "Can you blame this chap's ex-wife for keeping the kids away from him - he's a bit of a nutter if you ask me. ____________________________ So Nev you think a man (or woman) who loves their children so much they are prepared to give up their freedom to let them know they want to stay in their lives. You have an interesting view of the world. I must be bonkers too because I'm quite prepared to do the same thing. Interesting what love can do or have you forgotten.Mike Murphy, Sault Ste. Marie, ON CanadaReport abusecommented on 14-Nov-2008 14:08
- Can you blame this chap's ex-wife for keeping the kids away from him - he's a bit of a nutter if you ask me.Nev, Whitechapel (living in Plymouth)Report abusecommented on 14-Nov-2008 12:58
- Jolly has won over the hearts and minds of people around the Globe. That is something they can never erase. I am putting a FREE JOLLY sign on my front lawn and hope all of our members here in Canada do the same. United in Purpose and Spirit, Kris Titus, National Coordinator, F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada.Kris Titus, CanadaReport abusecommented on 14-Nov-2008 12:33
- Jolly!...if only more of us humans had your courage and fortitude to stand for what is right and just. We have become a babysat society. Darrell in Edmonton ,Alberta.darrell, Alberta ,Canada.Report abusecommented on 14-Nov-2008 06:26
- Jolly, thanks for bringing light to a terrible actions which the governments & courts are doing to our children! It is a total disgrace of your Country to sentence you to jail. I am hoping that your actions will unite Fathers around the world to act. Be safe, be strong, thanks again for making the stand.RBBarnier, Chatham, Ontario, CanadaReport abusecommented on 14-Nov-2008 03:12
- I am shocked by the atrocity that has been commited by our judicial system. Here is clearly all the evidenece we need of a just man fighting an unjust system! I admire Jolly for his endless work for F4J, speaking out on the behalf of the forgotten voices of fathers. I myself come from a 'broken home' and have read through some of the notes from court hearings and was astounded at the biased opinion towards the mother, regardless of the father's interest or most importantly a child's needs. What a democracy we live in? pa!! Currently my step father is now going through the same process with his children, 40% of his earnings are taken, which leaves him in dire financial difficulties and still no contact with his children. The government should concentrate on correcting the system not those fighting for a neccessary and much needed change.The only real crime committed here lies in the idle hands of those with the power to change this unlawful, unjust constitution. FREE JOLLY!!!GK, PlymouthReport abusecommented on 14-Nov-2008 00:54
- Once again, big government tries to shut down the right to protest human rights violations. Big government wants his money, but they refuse to allow him to have his child. Can it be only a matter of time before fathers come to the stark realization that they have no rights? Will it then be time to start the violence and riots that have been long overdue? When people fear their government, its tyranny. When government fears its people, there is freedom. It is interesting that the U.K. and the EC have banned guns. I wonder how many are stored away for the day that the revolution starts? They're trying to do the same here in America, and they know, they know, they know that American men won't stand for it much longer. U.S. Men in general, and fathers, specifically, are coming to the realization that government no longer works for them and that the US Constitution is a "dead letter". Once the fullness of this is realized, all bets are off, and you will see a civil war here in the states--sooner, rather than later, with the current economic climate and new administration ready to take office.Bruce Eden Civil Rights Director Dads Against Di, Wayne, New Jersey, United States of AmericaReport abusecommented on 14-Nov-2008 00:37
- You have my utmost respect and support. You have stood where other men have run. You have marched onward, where other men hid in their rabbit holes. You have spoken out when other men have stayed silent. You have not abandoned your children when other men would give up in the face of the lawyers and corrupt judges. To me, you are a man of honor and courage in a wasteland of cowardice and avarice. You have my respect and I do not grant it lightly. May God Bless and Keep You.
Stan RainsStanley Rains, Corpus Christi, TexasReport abusecommented on 13-Nov-2008 21:15
- Jolly and Mark good work keep it up! Just shows you that two people the same crime and one gets two months the other nothing shows you that its completley bonkers i am glad this will give F4J some good coverage and why are drug dealers robbers muggers and scum going scot free whilst a protester gets 2 months. Yes this was a private home but it goes with the job! Its not like they painted anything same as the environmentalist protesters who did criminal damage and walked away scot free not paying a penny. FREE JOLLYJohn, St JudesReport abusecommented on 13-Nov-2008 19:50
- Hey Jolly! You continue to do a great job of bringing attention to the unjust system that is eating its men alive. Knowing you, I would bet that the entire prison staff will be on our side by the time you leave. You are indeed a hero to me. Thank you for all you do. It dawned on me this morning that an old fairy tale comes close to describing our present day family courts. Can't you hear the family courts chanting this: Fe Fi Fo Fum I smell the blood of an Englishman, Be he live or be he dead, I'll grind his bones to make my bread. This giant needs to take a fall.Tom Golden, Washington DCReport abusecommented on 13-Nov-2008 17:25
- I hope Jolly has some snout.Ms_Anthrope, MannameadReport abusecommented on 13-Nov-2008 15:48
- The appalling Judge Daphne Wickham who did this lives at 222, Bromley Road, Shortlands, Bromley, Kent, BR2 0AB. I've heard a protest is planned there very soon, all welcome.Mark, PlymptonReport abusecommented on 13-Nov-2008 13:36
- I was the other protester in court. This sentence was a policitially motivated act simply because of who we protested against, (the very despicable Harriet Harman) nothing more. The authorities have been after Jolly for years and this was their opportunity to get him. They only let me off with nothing (conditional discharge) because the charge I faced carried no custodial sentence, even though we both refused to come down from Harman's roof throughout the day. This sort of abuse by the authorities is what happens routinely in family courts, simply loading the justice system to suit whatever outcome is desired. In Family Courts the judiciary don't ever want to have to enforce contact orders for fathers to see their children against the mother, so if the mother does not want the Dad to see their child, the judges load the outcome so it is deemed not in the best interests of the kid for the Dad to have contact. Corruption of the process, simple as that. I saw it during my ten year 133 family court appearances to see my daughters and saw it yesterday in the City of Westminster Magistrates. I've heard a 'FREE JOLLY' campaign is starting up across the UK, you may well see that slogan appearing on buildings, bridges, etc in the very near future. Mark Harris, author, Family Court Hell.Mark Harris, PlymptonReport abusecommented on 13-Nov-2008 12:44
- I wouldn't be suprised if there were worldwide protests over this sentence. Jolly has been all over the world to shine light on sytstems that push fathers out of their own children's lives.Brian Holladay, Cleveland OhioReport abusecommented on 13-Nov-2008 12:23
- Will mother England never learn? She deprived the Colonies of their God given rights, and suffered a terrible war of revolution. Now both countries are waging a War Against Fathers. Is another revolution in the offing? Will it be necessary? Listen to Jolly Stanesby. Separating fathers from their children hurts the CHILDREN. Your War Against Fathers is CHILD ABUSE. It's the judges who ought to be locked up. Children need BOTH parents. Not Mom and a checque book.Paul M. Clements, South Carolina, USAReport abusecommented on 13-Nov-2008 10:31
- dont get on the roofv in the nick mate cos it very colde this time of yeer.Eberneezer, PLmouthReport abusecommented on 13-Nov-2008 09:44
- it should be the fathers that abandone their children and dont support them through life that should be sent down. what the hell is the matter with the system! free jolly and keep up the good work f4j you have alot of people behind you, keep fightingabi, plymouthReport abusecommented on 13-Nov-2008 09:31
- I am on my childs birth certificate i pay CSA, to the sum where my son has more disposable income than i do as i give him my full 40% disposable income but his mother has decided that i do not require access to my child. Appart from going to court which i cant afford there is nothing i can do i have no rights. Hopefully in 20 years time we will look back and think how crazy we were and this is the modern suffragettes movent. I know F4J do crazy things but nothing more crazy than this man sentance as pointed before in this post car. People get less for muggings or gbh than this so it does show what twisted view the government has you can be assaulted at work by a busker and they dont want to prosecute but sit on someones roof and your off down. Crazy mixed up UK.John, ST JudesReport abusecommented on 13-Nov-2008 09:30
- Britain better be glad the gentlemen's movement is still comprised of gentlemen. Britain would be wise to recognize what happened when stodgy old men failed to recognize the women's suffrage movement. Between 1913 and 1914, over 1000 suffragettes were imprisoned for damaging public property. Emmeline Pankurst was imprisoned for setting fire to the exchequers office. Parental rights are at least as fundamental and immutable as voting rights. In the interests of resolving this problem peacefully, before some men get fed up, I hope every man worth his salt gets on top of Harman's house, and those of her feminist buddies, and stay there until policies are changed.David R. Usher, St. Louis MOReport abusecommented on 13-Nov-2008 09:02
- Keep up the good work team - We who mean business to give our Kids Equal doses of Mum, Dad and all 4 Grands must stand strong - In jail if it be - Stand until those who have made the Family Laws and Social Policies that damage our Families and those who administer them are silenced and jailed for their crimes - I admire you english blokes - You lead and encourage the Family Orientated Folk of the World by your actions - Stay StrongJimBWarrior, North Shore City, New ZealandReport abusecommented on 13-Nov-2008 08:45
- Jolly, in Canada and the United States along with countless other countries, you are a real Hero and we all thank you. All Mothers globally should be thanking you as well because their Sons and Grandsons are next..! Divorce courts are purposely, atrociously, maliciously and recklessly run for one reason only, and that is to make countless lawyers, judges and those in related agencies, incredibly rich. Anti-Male Bias is rampant. This ensures that our acrimonious divorces last forever because of the deliberately engineered hostility. As for accountability, what's that? We have "Judges Judging Judges" and "Lawyers Judging Lawyers".. So many "experts" in the media, who write about these catastrophic problems are either clueless or they are deliberately hiding the truth just for their own personal gain. We have tried almost everything, demonstrated peacefully around the World, we have spoken face-to-face with Prime Ministers and literally hundreds of MPs and we have been constantly lied to. It's outrageous the way in which we have been treated. MY ADVICE TO ALL SINGLE MEN, WHETHER YOUNG OR OLD, IS: "DON'T GET MARRIED, DON'T HAVE CHILDREN AND DON'T LIVE WITH ANYBODY...!"TERRY LEAR, TORONTO, CANADAReport abusecommented on 13-Nov-2008 06:16
- Jolly, in Canada and the United States, along with countless other countries, you are a real hero and we all thank you. All Mothers globally should be thanking you as well because their Sons and Grandsons are next..! Divorce courts are purposely, atrociously, maliciously and recklessly run for one reason only, and that is to make countless lawyers, judges and those in related agencies, incredibly rich. Anti-Male Bias is rampant. This ensures that our acrimonious divorces last forever because of the deliberately engineered hostility. As for accountability, what's that? We have "Judges Judging Judges" and "Lawyers Judging Lawyers".. So many "experts" in the media, who write about these catastrophic problems are either clueless or they are deliberately hiding the truth just for their own personal gain. We have tried almost everything, demonstrated peacefully around the World, we have spoken face-to-face with Prime Ministers and literally hundreds of MPs and we have been constantly lied to. It's outrageous the way in which we have been treated. MY ADVICE TO ALL SINGLE MEN, WHETHER YOUNG OR OLD, IS: "DON'T GET MARRIED, DON'T HAVE CHILDREN AND DON'T LIVE WITH ANYBODY...!"TERRY LEAR, TORONTO, CANADAReport abusecommented on 13-Nov-2008 06:14
- It is not fair what is happining to fathers in both our countries. The sentence handed down to Jolly is harsh and severe considering what more serous crimes people get away with scott free. It is even more harsh what fathers like Jolly, myself, and many other go through at the hands of a blatently unfair system. Jolly did what he had to do to bring public attention to the real state of Fatherhood. Those who are not in the "system" have no idea what they are in for when they do go there. Jolly is a hero and as many heroes do, he has sacrificed his freedom so other would see. Thank you Jolly!Keith Oakes, Nova Scotia, CanadaReport abusecommented on 13-Nov-2008 03:39
- If the collective international public knew how bad this system treated Fathers they would be stunned and horrified. I am constantly amazed that people are not out in the streets in open revolt. In another time men went to war over these things Wat price the kidnapping of our children by the legal sysytem and our servitude and subjugation by the state. The legal state of affairs we live in today is nothing more than a disgusting tyranny in the same mould as the recent Soviet state and the sentencing of Jolly is proof of that fact. Men and particular Fathers in the so-called Western Democracies have no rights. And thats all there is to it. Good men0some good men-are fighting this tyranny and Jolly is one of those. He is one of my personal heroes.Jeremy Swanson, Ottawa CanadaReport abusecommented on 13-Nov-2008 01:45
- This system is not a joke, it is corruption that would embarrass Mugabe! The outcome of the current system is large numbers of dysfunctional young people are attracting the attention of the judicial system (for which they are paid). Creditable research shows repeatedly that children fare far better with a significant relationship with both parents after separation. The family law industry has to continue this way to ensure that lawyers, judges, social workers and the like all have a job in the future, and that the judicial industry can grow. Forget the welfare of interests of the children, their needs are irrelevant, save to ensure that they grow up in such a toxic environment that they will go off the rails and into the waiting (and expensive) arms of the judicial industry. Spent 7 years trying to protect our child from my ex, but a history of her fraud, maternal violence towards our child (documented by school referral and professional witnesses in addition to our child's reports) was deemed a reason to consider prosecuting the father for child abuse, an injustice that would be in keeping with the current level of corruption. This also explains the high penalty for a political and harmless protest, Family law industry corruption rules.... The judicial industry ignores the copious research showing children fare far better with both parents, father deprivation being 5 times more damaging than poverty, regular contact with father in jail is better than no contact, but the focus is purely financial (forget the child's best interests, they are irrelevant!). The mantra is safety of the child, but copious research shows that women are slightly more abusive in intimate relationships that men (eg www plus csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm total sample size of the creditable research exceeds 237000 people, real research, not unfounded insupportable opinion), were the child's best interests considered, then there would be slightly more single fathers than single mothers. One international and long standing researcher into family breakdown indicated that most mothers barring their children's contact with the other parent are showing the symptoms of Borderline Personality Disorder (my ex about 80% fits all the web descriptions I have seen, enough to consider disorder applies to her condition), check out the web descriptions, this is the environment the family law industry considers to be in the best interests of the child. The solution is to enforce shared parenting, with the same level of sanction applied to those that the CSA focus on (not the absent dads who have done a runner, their original target, but the dads who want to play a part in their children's lives and so went through the courts to try to maintain that position, CSA fails on their original target!) for failing to fulfil parental, not financial obligations. Currently the system is set up to discourage shared parenting, the single mother has a financial incentive to cut the dad out of children's lives, clear demonstration of the family law industry corruption, this is the opposite of the best interests of the child. In high conflict cases, the flash point is handover, 3rd parties such as parent's of child's friends solves that problem. This corruption must come to an end, starting with the secrecy that allows these people to do what they wish without review or consideration of outcomes of previous decisions.cutOffDad, NWReport abusecommented on 13-Nov-2008 00:39
- Sorry, Rachel, people aren¿t reacting any more ¿ they¿ve sussed you.COLIN, TorpointReport abusecommented on 13-Nov-2008 00:30
- This country is slowly becoming a FEMINIST DYSTOPIA, the county of HEREFORD is allready a feminist strong hold. I fully support F4J you helped me sometime back.Four months will be over in 2,Spread the word in prison, i'm sure we could get some more activists!!Steve, FEMINIZED HEREFORDReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 22:37
- Fathers 4 Justice 5 (2 months of stoppage time being played).PJ, PlymptonReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 21:37
- Fathers 4 Justice 5 (after extra-time).PJ, PlymptonReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 21:34
- Suzannah, I think you might be right, my boss says the same thing! You did say things needed livening up today. Well, I'm trying!RobRoy, The Delta QuadrantReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 18:51
- All credit to them for maintaining their non violent but effective protests.Rupert, HartleyReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 18:06
- I agree with his protests. He was forced into carrying them out due to the fact the government is one sided towards mothers. Good on him.!Jo, PlymouthReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 17:50
- The law of the land says that theft carries a maximum of 7 years in jail. Last week, a lad from Plympton admitted to breaking in to 100 cars and got six months. This guy gets two for trying to stand up for whats right! The judicial system is up the spout.taxpayer.com, PlymouthReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 16:55
- Robroy, you're incorrigible!Suzannah, PlymouthReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 16:29
- Suzannah, I totally agree with you about bringing kids up in the right way. My two nieces, 11 & 14, are great. We all met up in Crete and had a thoroughly enjoyable time, good conversation in the restaurants etc. Its the noisy, messy and expensive years leading up to that stage that I can't be doing with. I think a good training aid is a Mosquito fitted to the side of the cot, with the threat of turning it on if they don't stop crying and whingeing.RobRoy, The Delta QuadrantReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 16:17
- Dave`s story is a typical example of how the system fails the people it is supposed to protect. Similar thing happened to my children and me. There is nothing you can do about it, nothing works legally or otherwise. Obviously highlighting the problem from a politicians rooftop is far to close to home for the Government who will more or less guarantee a custodial sentence to try and discourage others from doing the same. British Jusitce isn`t it just Great.Rhetorician, PlymouthReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 15:58
- Jolly Good!Me!, PymouthReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 15:50
- Jolly is certainly a lively character, I wonder if his offspring are as lively as him, if so, you'd think the mother would willingly offload them onto him. Robroy, kids are not always bad news and a liability, they give a lot back to you, that is if you bring them up in the right way.Suzannah, PlymouthReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 15:48
- I'm not a parent but I have some support for F4J, although I don't always support some of their stunts. However this sentence is a political one because they climbed onto Harperson's roof. I suppose she's got enhanced security there now - at our expense of course.William J, plymouthReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 15:30
- Do feel sorry for you RobRoy as you sound like a descent person who has made a descent dessions, and we need more kids in this world like that. Actually then don't feel sorry for you, feels sorry for the country cause i bet your not the only person. what we dont need is no hoper kids, the no hoppers them self keeping bring in to the world. Need a liceance to marry, need a licence to drive a car, need a licence for a gun, even need a licence for a dog!!!! but any old skank can knock at as many kids as they want that we have to pay for that terrorise are streets. you notice all the above licences are thinks that can harm others, sorry to say these peoples kids can do more than that now!Kevin, PlymouthReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 15:18
- This is a joke, the system is a joke. When my parents divorced my real mother took my dad to the cleaners and won everything including monthly substantial payments. After just over a year of living with my so called parent, I had been awarded to by the courts, in which she went on holidays leaving me home alone, brought a massive house we did not need, miles away from friends and family which she regularly never stayed at I was taken away from her. It took 6 months before i could live with my dad (for the record no history valance, no bad history at all on his records) who could afford only a share home with two bedrooms so we had to build one in the loft for me, which we lived in happily for many years till I was 16. For the first two and half years after I moved in, the courts still forced him to pay money to her when we had nothing? it makes me sick to think what the courts did to my childhood and if they just had been fair or had commonsense all this would have been avoided. How can I join Farther 4 justice? I have no kids of my own thoughDave, PlymouthReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 15:12
- Lee - no, not lonely, far from it. I deliberately chose not to have children, or continue a relationship with anyone that really wanted to have them - there's no point, someone would end up unhappy, most likely all of us. And I only have to spend my money on me, and whoever I'm with at the time, instead of having to put it aside for an unborn baby, that I may not get on with, or even like, when it gets older.RobRoy, The Delta QuadrantReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 15:12
- At least he's stopped taking his clothes off like he did during the weather forecast on ITVs This Morning programme. I think he did it at Wimbledon too.Rachel, FordReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 14:55
- Instead of criminalising these men its about time the Government took notice of why they are protesting and actually did something about it. Family law in this country is in a hell of a state it is biased towards women and serves only to make pots of money for solicitors who profit vastly from making the whole process as acrimonious as possible. Mothers are not always the best people to leave children with after a divorce. The whole system should and ought to be made easier and fairer for both the parents and the children who are seldom given a choice in these affairs.Rhetorician, PlymouthReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 14:55
- This is a sickening verdict.All because he has annoyed someone at the top?this has been a peaceful protest right from the begining,with know harm or violence to anyone,except peaceful protest for what is a fathers right for equality.this country is going down hill.this is called injustice and always has been against fathers.breakdown britain.the judge should take a look at him self in the mirror.disgusting verdict.fight on fathers 4 justice!!!lee, plymouthReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 14:46
- Two months for a civil rights protest is extreme. All these men want to do is be a parent and are being prevented from doing so by the very government that now puts him in jail. Preventing a loving dad from being a parent is the crime!Mike Murphy, Sault Ste. Marie, ONReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 14:44
- I have no sympathy. Statistically, more marriages/relationships end earlier than envisaged, and acrimoniously. People have known this for a long time. If you don't have children you won't have all this hassle in later years. And you won't get bled dry of your cash in perpetuity. Use appropriate protection and you will avoid all this malarkey.RobRoy, The Delta QuadrantReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 14:43
- I wonder if his children will visit him?Ms_Anthrope, MannameadReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 14:38
- While he is inside, please may i have his overtime?Dockie, @ back of portacabinReport abusecommented on 12-Nov-2008 14:28