Edcase

Well, they decided today to handcuff themselves to the severn bridge, causing huge delays when the Welsh police decided to close the new crossing completely and limit the old crossing to ONE LANE!

Worse still, there was an horrific accident when someone smashed into the back of the traffic queue at speed, completely ripped the rear offside wheel off one of the cars. I missed being in the accident by about 500 metres, the passenger looked unconscious as I passed.

I understand the 'message' these guys are trying to get across, but they've made a lot of people very angry today and possibly caused at least one innocent loss of life.

Had it been me or my family involved in the accident, they'd be getting a different kind of justice.

SiDHEaD

They can't really be blamed for the accident. Only the person who piled into the back of the queues can!!!

Freak

The accident wasnt their fault!
Blame the police for total total overkill by shutting the M4!... not like they are going to fall onto the carriageway if they are handcuffed is it........

Plenty of tailbacks on every motorway every single day- plenty of factors cause accidents too.

damian666

They are modern suffragettes.

I agree totally with what they are doing, and would quite happily get involved.

Damian

Poor Guy

ditto

GarethE

iTrader: (1)

EC I understand your anger, but as SiDHEaD says the person responsible for the accident was driving the car that smash into the others "at speed".

As you have seen the other post relating to this you will know I was photographing the incident for the press. The situation with the bridge closure had been going on for some 4-5 hours before the accident and traffic had been heavy and slow moving all afternoon, and apart for another shunt involving 2-3 vehicles, no other serious incidents.

I suspect it was another case of a driver not paying attention to warning signs and reading the road and traffic conditions.

Hope those involved in the accident are okay and not seriously injured. I'm not condoning what the protesters have done, although I understand why they did it, but they can't be blamed for someone elses failure to assess traffic conditions

Brit_in_Japan

I wonder how many fathers had their weekend with their children disrupted or ruined because of that protest. Just a thought...

damian666

I'm sure a lot of people thought Emily Davison ruined a good day at the races!

Brit_in_Japan

I think F4J have a very legitimate grievance. Stunts which are humourous and draw attention to their cause are just fine, but there must be a line drawn somewhere, not least where it starts to upset lots of otherwise sympathetic people who are inconveinced greatly by their stunts. They are in real danger of hurting their own cause.

As for Emily Davison, it appears her death appears more profound now than it was at the time:-

"Once she had recovered her health, Emily Davison began making plans to commit an act that would give the movement maximum publicity. In June, 1913, at the most important race of the year, the Derby, Emily ran out on the course and attempted to grab the bridle of Anmer, a horse owned by King George V. The horse hit Emily and the impact fractured her skull and she died without regaining consciousness.

Although many suffragettes endangered their lives by hunger strikes, Emily Davison was the only one who deliberately risked death. However, her actions did not have the desired impact on the general public. They appeared to be more concerned with the health of the horse and jockey and Davison was condemned as a mentally ill fanatic."

Edcase

Emily Davison is a different situation altogether.

As for them not causing the accident, come on people, its very simple. If they hadn't pulled this stunt, the police wouldn't have closed the bridge (which was to do with the safety of people passing under, in case they tried being martyrs and throwing themselves off BTW - oh, not to mention the queen visiting) and so there wouldn't have been tailbacks at a nasty intersection, and so there wouldn't have been the accident! I'm quite shocked at the replies to this thread!!

As I said, I totally understand their message, I just think its backfired spectacularly and possibly fatally today.

Dream Weaver

You could say that about any car accident though.

Whenever there is an accident, a driver is usually to blame, simple fact. If the guy who caused the crash stayed at home, then it wouldnt have happened, if the Police didnt shut the bridge it wouldnt have happened, etc etc.

Edcase

Did I say that wasn't the case?

That is patently not the point I am making.

In *this* case, *they* were the root cause. End of story. Cause and effect. Chaos / butterfly theory. Whatever. If they hadn't done what they did, that *specific* accident wouldn't have happened.

We are not talking about *any* accident in this instance. Having witnessed firsthand three generations of my girlfriend's family lose their daughter/sister/auntie, and the grief it caused, to then witness firsthand the next day the immediate aftermath of this accident, it made me very angry.

Accident by its very description is something that was not purposeful, regardless of who gets the 'blame'.

The fathers for justice people did not climb that gantry by accident. The police had little choice but to close the bridge as can you imagine the media headlines if one of them had thrown themselves off and caused a major pile up??? - "Why didn't they close the Bridge!!!"

Peanuts

iTrader: (15)

no, daft **** travelling too fast not looking at the road was entire cause/effect/judge/jury/executioner FFS.

they indirectly put a downer on your day, deal with it but dont blame anybody for the accident except the person who was driving

Wish

iTrader: (2)

F4J - Great Cause !

Good luck to each and everyone of them. I hope more join and they become stronger.

Mark Miwurdz

I can't help thinking that F4J are going to start alienating a lot of people sympathetic to their cause with stunts like this.

For the record, I'm 100% behind them in redressing what appears to be a very unfair situation but when you start to p1ss off chunks of the population wholesale, you do begin to wonder how much damage they're doing to their own worthwhile cause.

Cheers
Kav

Edcase

Sorry Peanuts, but that's utter bullsh1t.

How do you even know what happened to cause the accident?

It was at a very difficult spot at the crest of a hill, where several lanes merge, and there were flashing signs everywhere telling people the bridge was closed and to take diversions, and people were lane swapping to try and get off the motorway etc etc.

That wouldn't have happened if the bridge wasnt closed, which wouldn't have happened if they hadn't cuffed themselves above the motorway with a huge banner. It really is that simple, and I really cannot believe you or anybody else is trying to argue otherwise!!!!

Again, I will state for the hard of hearing, I'm not saying the cause is wrong, but they need to think more carefully about their actions. And another thing, this post is nothing to do with the inconvenience it caused me, and everything to do with an innocent child getting seriously injured, so less of the 'deal with it' crap!

Peanuts

iTrader: (15)

*****flashing signs everywhere *****

says it all, how people react afterwards is their own fault.
in a court of law the driver of the car that hit anyone else is at fault.
the fact they caused so much damage despite the flashing signs everywhere just backs up the theory that s/he was concentrating on their mobile or cheese sandwich.

**** driver entirely at fault.
pay attention to the road in front and you will be forewarned of impending peril.

all IMHO of course

Edcase

See, I understand and agree with what you are saying, and of course the incident itself was the driver(s) 'faults', but the root cause of the scenario that led to the accident happening was the F4J campaigners. That's the point I'm making, you are making a slightly different point

Wish

iTrader: (2)

Maybe the M40 wasnt the best place to target, but its got us talking about it.

Buckingham Palace was a truly great stunt, and they where lucky not to get shot for it!

Tiggs

hope you arent a "cameras cause drivers to crash" person?

Edcase

I don't subscribe to all publicity is good publicity.

Oh and as its my thread I bag the corner

blueone

The suffragents are fighting for all fathers to be treated with equality in the eyes of the law. The people behind the fathers rights movement have for over thirty years been using the apropriate lobbying procedures to no effect. If the suffragettes had not taken direct action such as the F4J campaingers are currently doing then women would still not have the vote.
Remember that the campaigners are not just fighting for their own paternal rights and obligations to be recognised, they are fighting for all parents regardless of gender to be granted automatic equality under the law when there is a breakdown of the family unit, unless reasons can be shown as to why this should not happen.
The reason that the royals are being targetted is that the countless travestys of mainly fathers being deniend their rights and parental obligations takes place in secret behind the closed doors of the family courts which has the Queen as its figurehead.
If people want to look at cause and effect. How far do you trace it back? You could go back to the whole reason that the demonstration was taking place in the first place and blame this on the legislators rather than a group of Dads who just want to have the opportunity to play an integral part in the rearing of their children.
For to long men have been singled out and lambasted as feckless child abandoners when the reality couldn't be futher from the truth. A lot of men today are treated as cashcows to be exploited for their labour by what would seem to be the creation of a Matriacal society which is intent on creating a new social order of the individual family and no longer the family which is composed of a group.
By the very terminolgy of 'absent parent' which is used in the family courts to describe the parent who does not live with the children full time, it conveys the message of deciding to leave or wanting nothing to do with their children. It defines this person as being missing when in a lot of cases the term used should be 'denied parent' as they and the child(ren) have been denied the right to be a parent or to have both parents meet their needs.

Peanuts

iTrader: (15)

nope, Im a "safe driving gets you home ok touch wood" kind of person

Edcase

Blueone, it seems you missed the part in practically every post about people, myself included, understanding the cause, so you really do not need to try and explain it again!

I don't believe a single person on this thread has questioned the cause.

The point of the post was that the action taken in this instance has caused a lot of people a lot of unnecessary stress and anger, and possibly the death or serious injury of a child, which is not going to help what has so far been a pretty successful series of 'actions' by the F4J campaigners.

As for taking back the cause and effect example further than the campaigners climbing the bridge, I'm not even going to comment!!!!

blueone

Edcase I think it comes down to either individual responsibility or societal responsibility. Which ever process you decide is correct, does not end at the F4J campaingers in this instance.