Statement by Chairman: Joseph A Egan
In setting out to design this web site, we wanted to set out the values, policies and rules which the web site and its content would observe.
This is particularly relevant, since the themes of the site are to draw awareness, both to the Institutional Discrimination against Fathers across the EU, through cultural and political policies and also to highlight and challenge a range of abuses which are perpetrated against all citizens and Fathers in particular, within the courts system.
Our intention is to use examples drawn from our own experiences, as Fathers, as lay litigants, (representing yourself in the court system) and end users of the Family courts system and other statutory services over more than two decades. We hope to give Parents who use our site, an insight into the endless layer of marginalisation of Fathers, some of which may be deliberate and many, which we are sure, just happen because Fatherhood and men’s perspective on Family,
IS JUST NOT VALUED OR LISTENED TO.
We will endeavour to back up what we say with traceable evidence, much of this traceable evidence is and will be in the form of facsimile images of original documents, (in order to retain / ensure anonymity and through the use of redactions where necessary) and other media examples where available.
In the interest of authenticity and out of necessity, individuals will be named, exposed and identified. We intend to make every effort we can to ensure the accuracy and veracity of anything we present as fact. We reserve our human right to express our personal opinion and right to freedom of speech when interpreting any situation and we hope to clearly distinguish between facts and opinion throughout the site. Where we name or identify individuals, (such as social workers, solicitors, judges, clinical psychologists, etc. ) and make allegations in respect of their misbehaviour, we will offer them the right of reply, hopefully, IN A FAIRER MANNER AND WITH GREATER TRANSPARENCY THAN HAS BEEN GRANTED TO US IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES.
In the event where we are in error in fact on this site and we then are made aware of same, naturally we will endeavour to immediately correct the error, to then bring the correction and apology to the attention of site visitors, (parents going through relationship breakdown and experiencing the court system). Hopefully, with more visibility than many other media sources do in similar situations. In this, we are guided by the tenet that:
“ONCE WE REALISE THAT IMPERFECT UNDERSTANDING IS THE HUMAN CONDITION, THERE IS NO SHAME IN BEING WRONG, ONLY IN FAILING TO CORRECT OUR MISTAKES”.
We have had dealings with many civil servants, statutory officials and various professionals and their representative bodies for over two decades. Our belief is that a civil servant, should be first of all, CIVIL and courteous to members of the public and secondly they should serve the member of the public in the role for which they are paid. One may (and should) reflect on their career in performing their job and always be able to say:
“OUR JOB WAS A JOB WHICH HAD TO BE DONE, BUT ONE DID NOT HAVE TO TAKE PLEASURE IN DOING IT”.
In respect of the judiciary, in whom enormous power is entrusted, (which rests with and is only legitimised by the People), we expect, as a given, that the greatest honour expressed in court, will be by those same judges, towards the honourable role and position they have the fortune to occupy.
In making a judgement, NO JUDGE HAS THE RIGHT TO:
- De-humanise or
- Disrespect any person in front of them.
This remains true whether a person be legally represented by a solicitor or barrister, whether they be lay litigants, (representing themselves) or plaintiffs, defendants, applicants, respondents, or witnesses.
On this site we can and will tell you our own story; our own experiences of what we have seen and heard. We invite you to share your experiences with us so that society may be made aware of what is really happening in the courts system. So that your story may be heard. Since setting up Parental Equality, back in 1992, we have listened to thousands of men and women recount their stories, or we have received emailed summaries of their stories to email@example.com . In some cases they have presented us with incontrovertible evidence, some of which has been recorded via audio or video. We expect as the site develops that our FATHER’S STORIES page will grow on the site, (Fathers will be called Joe and Mothers will be called Mary). We have already had some sent to us and we will invite and encourage our site visitors, (parents going through relationship breakdown and experiencing the court system), to send in their accounts of what happened to them.
Using the values and rules set out on our site values page, we intend to present the material as sent to us without putting a spin on the contents. In order to respect due process, however, we will as a rule, replace names and other details which clearly unambiguously identify a person or persons, where there is no accompanying appropriate evidence to back it up.
One of our hopes for this site is that it stimulates debate, argument, (in its useful and intended sense), some space for understandable and valid ventilation, reflection, clarification and a deepening of understanding by both men and women into how we can develop models of working, living, loving and understanding each other as Parents. Our intention is to go POST PC and to seek sense making solutions for future relationships.
SOME GUIDING THOUGHTS:-
The road to equality is only half travelled if it is travelled by one gender.
“SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE IS SAUCE FOR THE GANDER”.
“TAGANN AGUS T-UACHTAR CHUN TOSAIGH”.
We came across this very reasonable definition of the difference between Professionalism and Amateurism, which if applied when dealing with solicitors, barristers, psychiatrists, social workers, judges, etc., would cause a radical shift in the experience of customer satisfaction:-
“AMATEURS PRACTICE AS LONG AS IT TAKES TO GET IT RIGHT.
PROFESSIONALS, ON THE OTHER HAND, PRACTICE CONTINUALLY TO ENSURE THAT THEY DON’T GET IT WRONG”.
The two rules of natural justice, which are immemorial, supersede all positive law, just make real common sense and ensure fair play for all are:-
“Nemo Judex in causa sua”,
(No one can be a judge in their own court).
“Audi alteram partem”,
(the other side must be heard).
“Good law makes good sense,
Bad law makes nonsense”.
“It takes very little fact to change a law.
No amount of law can change a fact”.
“The reasonable man adapts to the world;
the unreasonable man expects the world to adapt to him; therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man”.
A Garda Superintendent gave the following, as a sound basis for reliable evidence:-
“A Garda, (in fact any witness), can only give evidence of that which is within his/her material knowledge”.
We suggest that this outlook serves well when considering relationship breakups and the ensuing emotional mudslinging and allegations.
If someone makes an allegation and it is proved, (after due process), to be true then the guilty party should be punished appropriately. If the allegations are found to be false, then a punishment should accrue to the person who made the false allegation at least to the degree which would act as a deterrent against the making of false allegations.
Please enjoy our site.