User talk:Tonibella

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

lots of issues | leave me a message 00:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Request for help
''Hello Kelly, I've a question to ask. I see that you in the past have flagged up POV concerns about fathers rights, and that there is a user who consistently denies that the page is POV. I've decided to have a go at the page, as I know a little about the issues, and try to make it more neutral in tone and more comprehensive in terms of content, and to do a bit of clean-up. How do you recommend dealing with the user in question, and would you be able to keep a watching brief on what's going on over there as I try to clean up the page? If this isn't how Wikipedia works, then sorry - I've not been around long. Thanks. Tonibella 21:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)''
 * I'm afraid that my personal bias rules would preclude me from getting involved in that particular trainwreck of an article. The last time I dealt with that article I ended up taking a month-long Wikibreak because of the stress that article creates.  The issue is one about which I have too much personal investment, and I've found that editing articles on topics I have personal investment in creates too much wikistress.  I rant enough at my girlfriend over stuff on Wikipedia; she doesn't need me getting even more into a tizzy.


 * I wish you luck with that article; it definitely needs work, but I'm simply not the person to do it. I'll ask around with some of my friends if any of them care to help out, though.  Kelly Martin 22:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all I'd like to commend you for your efforts to deal with this article, for it is truly biased, and it is shocking that it is not even tagged NPOV. It is rather difficult for me to give you general advice on how to deal with the user who denies that it is POV, other than to simply tell him or her (most likely him) that it presents an interpretation of the issues involved from the perspective of Father's Rights activists. I would also note that this article often fails to note that this is essentially a UK thing. At any rate, I'll keep an eye on the article as you make changes to it, and feel free to call on me for help when the inevitable argument "It's not POV!" arrises. I should note that as I'm presently in Paris scraping by teaching English lessons, I may take a few days to respond. Good luck -- this is work that desperately needs to be done! --Zantastik talk  10:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Elzoog 09:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC) Hello Tonibella

I think you are doing a great job on the father's rights article. I would suggest the following:

1) Move the current father's rights article to something like Father's Rights (UK) since it is mostly talking about the UK manifestation of it anyway. This way it won't be important that criticisms of the father's rights movement be on that page because they can reside on the father's rights main page.

2) I would either delete or add a further edit to the part about there being "no anti-father's bias in the courts" because the argument you present for it is pretty weak. Imagine what would happen if you encountered the following from the Catholic church in the 16th century.

"There is no evidence that we are biased against Galileo, or others who believe in the alledged theory that the Earth revolves around the sun. We are only admiting to the status quo that indeed, most people believe that it is the sun that revolves around the Earth. In fact, just a year ago, we had a council in Padua to determine if there was a bias on our part we have determined that there is no bias.  Since most people believe that the sun revolves around the Earth, and it's only a few people like Galileo who believe otherwise, we feel that the burden of proof is on Galileo, not on us."

3) I would add that there was a study done of "dead beat dads" and they found that 80% of them weren't paying child support because they COULD NOT pay it. Although it may be true that IN GENERAL, the man earns more than the woman, this is not true in ALL cases. In fact, there is a friend of mine who is married, and his wife makes A LOT more than he does.  The fact that the courts apply a "one size fits all" approach and ALWAYS makes the man pay child support is, I think, a good critique of the current court system.

Although these sorts of cases might be rare, if the mother is a crack addict and a prostitute and the father is a generally respected businessman, I think the FATHER should get custody. If the courts judged based on the MERITS of the individuals involved (and not what sex they happen to be) then at least the father's rights movement wouldn't have much of a case for saying that the courts are sexist.

www.resolution.co.uk
I've recently been through the system in the uk courts for 3 years. See www.resolution.co.uk code of conduct and compare to my experiences. lots of solicitors on this site flagrantly ignore the code of conduct - people need to complain.

basically when you get your first solicitors letter from the ex for minor incident (ie a text message for instance and you are often antagonised into your first minor incident) the women are fully trained and prepared for a process called 'doing your ex's head in' basically they have to use every technique available so that you respond for a second time (ie go to there house or send a text) to achieve this they will tell your friends your a danger to your kids(best done on sat night when your out with friends) dress your kids in old clothes and parade them past you etc... if you apologise to them your told  how sensitive your kids are – months later you find out that they can say your kids are scared of you etc.. with no evidence so you have to write with no letters back for months (your kids conveniently love to get your letters but don’t want to write back because they’ve been programmed to hate you )

if you have bought a child up for years from a baby her solicitor will not only stop you going to the school but also tell the school not to recognise you as dad (i bought my son up from one month old). your ex's solicitor wont mention shes been machiavellian and wrote to the childs school - you find out when you casll the school - her solicitor knows this will cause maximum hurt and possibitly for response from you - completely ignoring resolution guidelines. your children are trained not to call you dad and every attempt is made to make 'contact' boring.

you complain about hyprocrisy to caffcass when your accused of unreliability/drink problem(2 texts is a drink problem) as she can live with a drug addict and schools don't comment on reliability - there gagged. i picked my kids up for 3 days a week without fail.

by the time you hire a barrister and got a court hearing years have gone by – my one hearing took 6months to get to court. Your child tells cafcass its wrecked his life but then you are subjected to human bear baiting outside the court in the corridors ( a practice used all the time often men being put in a room why the ex throws abuse through a door or they say in earshot how there going to call your exs new boyfriend personally that the case is being dragged out)

when you first meet cafcass the ex is alloqwed to go on and on until something hits anerve and then you respond despite being concillatory they will say in the report there is animosity between them BOTH.

At cafcass if you admit occasionally letting your ex down when she has as well the man is branded unreliable and no mention of her reliability.

It’s a secretive system – resolution website www.resolution.co.uk is what  solicitors have done to desperately look like there above reproach – but they wont say they agree with video surveillance or condemn human bear baiting.

You basically start off as a generally cool dad who is reduced to a shell, humiliated and mocked, everything is twisted against you, I was unable to mention the emotional damage of reducing my childs time from 3 days to 2 hrs over a minor incident. My son now has behaviour problems and my daughter is scared of me because my ex has trained her because she knows it will delay things for months.

You must mention unwritten techniques to destroy fathers attempts at getting a democratic hearing – you have no proof so I cant complain to resolution – photographic /video equipment isn’t allowed in court.

there are bad dads out there but a lot of cases are about lifestyle change, getting the new boyfriend to be new dad, they get csa even if no contact arranged, the kids are conned into beleiving it was dads fault etc.. no wonder theres delays queues at court i would be straight down there if i was a mum - dont forget to cry at first hearing - the judge will delay everything and be really angry at cafcass ('he must be a bad dad' - the logic goes - no evidence needed)

Remember men - the two hour 'offer' (its none negotiable your solicitor will force you to accept it even if you believe its unfair - rosa parkes would be furious) will not mention you being written out of your kids life unless you have parental rights and then thats meaningless without 'contact'ordered.

oh yes and dont forget she can block contact at a drop of a hat - ie your 10 min late but you can't even if your delivering the kids to an enviroment your concerned about - unless theres an extreme danger - your like a visiting uncle with no rights. oh yes and forget xmas/holidays etc - this will be weaved into the cafcass report - your kids saying how they wanted to go on holiday etc..... basically a cafcass report is a revenge sheet used by the ex to rub salt in the wounds of losing your kids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANSTEYMAGGS (talk • contribs) 12:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)