[Music]
Okay.
I need some
[Music]
Welcome to Sputnik orbiting the world
with me George Galloway
and me Gayatri.
200 children lose contact with their
fathers every day in secret courts in
this country where nearly 4 million
children are fatherless. One in three
children live without their father. 44
billion pounds is the cost of family
breakdown every year. 50% of children in
the UK will have seen their parents
divorce by the time they are 16. One in
three children will lose contact with
their father permanently. 70% of young
offenders come from lone parent
families. In many parts of the UK, the
majority of children are fatherless. In
London, Liverpool, Manchester,
Birmingham, and Leeds, over 50% of
children live in fatherless families.
Fathers for Justice have scaled the
battlements of even Buckingham Palace in
the early days in their Batman suits to
draw attention to the elephant in the
corner of the room, which the political
class and their media echo chamber hope
you won't notice. Children need fathers.
And if the father and mother have to
split up, then shared parenting is the
best solution. We are joined by the
happily enjoined married couple, Matt
and Nadine Okconor, who founded Fathers
for Justice 12 years ago this month and
who are the most redoutable campaigners
in the land. Welcome to both of you. Hi.
These statistics are simply astounding.
In these great cities of England, half
of the children are living in fatherless
families. And yet the justice system is
feeling them. Tell us.
Well, as you've rightly pointed out in
your introduction there, George, that
this is a major social catastrophe. It's
unfolding uh before us and yet our
political political class are doing
absolutely nothing about it to address
this problem. We live in a country where
it is easier to father somebody else's
children rather than your own. And what
we've been trying to do since I started
the campaign 12 years ago is to raise
awareness of this issue. We have tried
uh direct action, we have tried
political engagement, but what we found
is the people in parliament do not want
to speak to fathers for justice. They
would rather speak to the Taliban than
speak to us about this major social
issue.
Nadine, was it the sight of Matt in a
Batman suit that first attracted you to
him?
Uh, actually I can honestly say, George,
no. Um, but I was at a Fathers for
Justice meeting. Um, I'd been going
through the family courts and a
girlfriend of mine said, "You know, your
case sounds very similar to that of many
fathers. Why don't you go to Fathers of
Justice and and ask them some questions,
get some help and advice?" And I did. I
went along to a meeting and that's where
I met Matt. Nadine, the point that you
make uh implicitly is that this is a
problem affecting both men and women as
well as children. Uh the assumption is
in the justice system. I can tell you as
a legislator as the Americans put my job
uh that uh nobody's really listening.
I've been trying through motions on the
order paper and public meetings in the
parliament, as you well know, to
interest more parliamentarians in this.
Why are they so unmoved by these
astounding statistics and the 44 billion
pound price tag? You think that alone
would attract the politicians?
Well, you've kind of got the answer
there. It's not necessarily the price
tag, but it's the money that the family
court justice system also generates. I
mean I have a strong belief that while
it's costing a lot of money I think that
it's actually helping the economy in
this country at the moment and family
breakdown as a direct result will create
sort of two of everything. If you split
up you both can't take the freezer so
you have to get another freezer in the
new house. So everything gets
multiplied. So actually I think that it
generates a lot of money for this
country. The family law industry the
solicitors the barristers everybody is
making an awful lot of money out of this
and it's secret courts. This is
something you see on the face of it, you
would want these things to remain
private because you don't want to expose
children to schoolyard uh ridicule and
so on. But in secret courts, anything
can happen by definition.
It does. I mean, we've we've had several
cases going on in the in the in the
press at the moment where a father's
been in court for 12 years trying to get
contact with his his daughter. Now, I
mean, 12 years is nearly the child's
lifetime. I mean, it's completely
unacceptable. The statistics that you
talk about at the beginning, they're not
statistics that we should be proud of in
this country. It's absolutely disgusting
that we're still sitting here 12, 13
years after the start of our campaign
talking to you about this. You would
think that, as you say, nobody wants to
discuss their, you know, their dirty
linen in private that it is a private
matter. But the secrecy of the courts
does allow parents to pit themselves
against each other. It does allow the
industry to carry on and then there's no
accountability. Most important most
important thing here is is is that we
have an unelected
unaccountable unsackable judiciary
operating in complete secrecy that
refuses in the case of the father that's
been discussed recently who's been going
for the court for 12 years has 100 court
appearances. Not one of those court
orders has been enforced. They are not
worth the paper they're printed on. Yet
we will send mothers to prison for not
sending little Johnny to go to school.
We will find motorists for going four
miles an hour over the speed limit, but
we will do nothing when it comes to
ensuring the rights of children to see
their fathers are protected. And there's
more legislation protecting dogs in this
country than there is the relationship,
the sacred bond between children and
their fathers. I've got three boys and I
want my children to be judged not on the
basis of their gender, but on the
content of their character. What sort of
society are we creating when children
when boys grow up in fatherless families
with all the consequences that flow from
that?
70% of young offenders.
Absolutely. The highest rate the highest
rate of young offending in Western
Europe.
Most children who are harmed are harmed
in domestic settings. Most children who
are harmed in domestic settings are
harmed by their mother's new boyfriend.
Yeah.
The mother's new boyfriend is never
vetted by anybody. He can be literally
anybody. He could have a long litter of
convictions of all kinds behind him, but
he can move in
to the mother's life and therefore your
children's life and no one will ever ask
him a single question, at least until
it's too late. Whilst the father has to
go through hoops to get a court order to
get contact with his child.
Contact, what a word. Terrible.
With your own child because you broke up
from your child's mother.
You have to apply for contact with your
own children.
You're worthy of it. That's
prove you're worthy of it.
The week before you were perfectly okay.
You're doing the school run. You're
doing dinner, taking them swimming,
everything. And then the day after that
you separate, you have to prove
because they always assume this of the
father's role. Yeah. if he's the one who
walks up.
Yeah. But they've also assumed there's
actually bought in a presumption where
every father poses a risk to his child
because every father is now risk
assessed regardless. You are risk
assessed when you go into the court
system. CF gas will risk assess you
using soft evidence which is allegations
and hard evidence which is anything
relating to police and police reports.
So you are assumed by this government,
by this country, by the state to be a
risk to your children even though days
or a week earlier you are safely at home
looking after them.
And that's where we come back to the
secret court thing because you say if
you make an allegation against somebody
on a criminal in a criminal court, you
have to prove that allegations true. You
have to provide the evidence. In a
family court, you have to provide no
evidence whatsoever. They can simply act
on your word.
It's like a Salem style witch hunt. I
point a finger at you.
You're guilty. You and I are married. We
split up. You don't want me to have any
role in the children's life. So you have
an incentive to say bad things about me.
Bad things which in a secret court will
be implicitly believed unless I can
really go the extra mile to disprove
them. Am I right?
Yeah. And and and what's the best way of
me punishing you? What's my motivation?
They want to punish you for whatever the
reason is is to deny you access to the
people you love and care about the most.
And that's the motivating factor. We
know full well that that men would do it
to women given the opportunity.
But the law itself is very cleverly
drafted. It doesn't discriminate in the
legislation, but was what it does do is
discriminate in the application of the
law. And the thing that makes a mockery
of it, as I've said already, is the fact
that the court orders
which are written are absolutely
worthless.
You can spend tens of thousands of
pounds,
as many, many, many people have done,
and you have got nothing to show for it
at the end of it. Well, I know some
people well who have spent tens of
thousands of pounds in court employing
barristers, winning the case, getting an
order and then as you said earlier, the
other parent simply refuses to implement
the order and nothing happens to them.
No.
How could that be?
Well, it's completely wrong. The judges
wash their hands of it. I mean, we've
seen this case recently of this this
father who spent 12 years going through
the court system, and the judges go,
"There's nothing we can do really. You
enforce the law. You send mothers to
prison over not sending kids to school.
You you give fines to to motorists for
going four miles an hour over the speed
limit. Um, you can simply transfer
residents from one parent to the other
if you're faced with a parent who is
recalcitrant, who is failing to uphold
that child's rights to see both
parents." And and what we do, what we
present as a team of Fathers and Justice
is, you know, it's not just about men
versus women.
We we're we're a team because we've been
through it. Both of us have been through
it. We've seen it from both sides. We've
seen how family law fails children
repeatedly. So for us, what we're trying
to do as a campaign gad is is is to get
men and women to come together and say,
"Hey, look, this is such a serious
social issue. We're failing our
children."
Well, that's the point. It's not that
fathers have a right to see their
children though in my view they do.
Yeah.
The real issue is that the child has the
right to see its father
and be with its father not in a contact
fleeting easily withdrawn
uh timed with the the mother standing at
the door uh with based on money. You
don't pay any maintenance. You don't see
the child. Sometimes it's it's a you
know it's a straight trade. You know,
fathers are simply cash points in most
cases
and spurbacks are cash points for sperm
backs. These aren't contact orders.
These are control orders. I mean, they
are control orders. They control you. I
mean, men are often accused of being
controlling. Well, I can tell you
there's nothing more controlling than
the court telling you when you can and
can't see your children or to have you
put in a contact center for two hours on
a Saturday to see your children. You
know, unless you've posed some kind of
serious risk to your children, no father
should be put in a contact center.
Contact, as you've said, is something we
used to have of aliens from outer space,
not of our own flesh and blood. Not
of our own. Last word to the mother of
fathers for justice. Nadine,
is it likely to get better anytime soon
or are we still on a downward spiral
with all this?
No, I don't see it getting better
anytime soon. I mean, we had all the
promises before the last election. Um,
Conservative Party were going to change
the law. we were going to hit the ground
running. They failed to implement those
promises. And at the moment, the
children and families bill that's going
through, I think, is just a fudge. It's
not going to address the real issue. I
think the problem is going to get worse.
And to be honest, I really don't see
this coming back on the proper political
agenda until 2020 because I don't think
anybody's going to raise it again before
then. So, I don't want to be here
campaigning. Matt doesn't want to be
here campaigning. We simply want the law
changed. Is it too much to ask for
equality in today's day and age?
Nadine and Matt Oconor, Fathers for
Justice. Thanks for joining us on the
Sputnik.
Thank you.
Coming up after the break is the only
lobby correspondent at Westminster
walking the corridors of power led by a
guide dog. Though blind, Sha Dilly can
see things more clearly than most of the
poodles to power applying their
journalistic trade in Parliament. We'll
be reviewing the political year with him
right after this break.
[Music]
Welcome back to Sputnik. It's year three
of the condemn coalition government. The
beast with two backs or at least two
heads, David Cameron and Nick Kle. There
has been no previous peaceime wholesale
coalition government in British history.
And according to the opinion polls, the
British people aren't enjoying the
novelty very much with the government
trailing badly and seemingly headed for
defeat. And yet the official opposition
don't seem to be filling people with
confidence either. On the two most
important polling questions, that of
leadership and the economy, the prime
minister still comes out ahead. So with
millions unemployed and a fourth
austerity winter, killing British
pensioners in record numbers, is it
possible that in the general election in
2015, the condemns could make a
comeback? Who better to ask than the
sage? That is Sha Dilly and his
wonderful dog Chip. Sean, welcome on
board the Sputnik. Let's begin with that
question. Year three, is the coalition
in good fatal? Do they look like a team
that might succeed at the next general
election?
They seem like a very bickering team.
Some have even called it in Westminster
the knitting circle of hate. But I think
we should actually be aware that in
politics, as you know, George, anything
can happen. Uh so the answer is yes.
they can return at the next election.
They are lower than a snake's belly in a
dirt track at the moment in terms of
opinion polls. But when you look at the
economy, the slight increase in the
fortunes of the United Kingdom, which
are still fairly bleak at the moment,
it's at least possible that they could,
as that election approaches, overcome
sort of arguments about student tuition
fees in the case of the smaller
coalition uh party, in fact, the minute
one of the Liberal Democrats, and of
course, the economic handling, the age
of austerity that would tighten uh any
belt so tight that your thighs would
surely split. Well, on that point of
split, uh, you say they're bickering
circle of hate,
and it's true that they appear to be
making, as Markx put it, a narcissism of
the small difference,
magnifying it to extraordinary
proportions. But there are real issues
under like Europe. You kept arising on
the Tories right making the European
Union issue a big one whilst the Liberal
Democrats couldn't be more in love with
the European Union if they tried. Is
that going to split them aunder?
Probably not. I think the biggest issue
for Europe is the Conservatives
themselves. Whilst you combine the Euro
files and the Euro skeptics of the
Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, at
least the Liberal Democrats can use the
excuse we have different views. the
Conservatives theoretically should be
taking collective responsibility. So
there's a a huge cloud hanging over
their head. Indeed, as the uh as as the
matters progressed through the House of
Commons over the last year, we've seen a
conservative backbencher, a chap called
James Wharton, uh laying a private
members bill, trying to not only uh
well, I would say not not not so much
undermine what the prime minister is
doing in terms of having a referendum in
or out, but certainly undermining the
timing, embarrassing number 10 and
saying that referendum should happen
now, not
Michael Dobs, author of course on House
of Cards, he's introducing a referendum
bill into the Lord. So, uh, there's a
europobic,
you'd call it skeptic, I would say.
You would probably call it xenophobic,
George.
Indeed, rabbid xenophobic, europhobic
wing of the Conservative Party. They're
not letting David Cameron off the hook
on.
Well, see, one of the things as well,
you mentioned the UK independence party.
I would always suggest that the UK
independence party is just Nigel Farage.
Very charismatic politician. And
Aristotle said it's a mark of education
to be able to entertain a view without
necessarily holding it oneself. So no
matter where you stand on the political
sphere and actually George politically
you're like this in the United Kingdom
people can support the oratory
regardless of where they stand
politically. Certainly when I
interviewed Nigel Farra for my own show
the hear here show earlier in the year
it was just fascinating that he he more
or less has an answer to everything.
Now, you would say that that's true of
every politician, but David Cameron, the
conservatives recognize that they're
dealing with someone who's making an
argument which is incredibly seductive
to uh some might argue the less informed
in society and then some might call
people whether they're wellinformed or
not. It's it's millions of people. What
about the economy? Um as Bill Clinton
famously said, it's the economy
economy stupid. Um uh there there is a
slight increase in product in growth in
the British economy. There is an
increase big one in some parts of one
city London in the housing market.
U but most of the country and most of
the people in the country are still
shivering in an austerity winter.
This is it. I'm going to come on to that
very serious matter um and and flipping
aside the flippency which I will do very
quickly saying that George Osborne's
argument uh that we may be lying in the
political gutter but we're at least
looking at the pavement probably isn't
any comfort to those who are at the
moment literally freezing cold because
of the gas and electricity prices huge
huge huge uh impact on the average man
and child in the streets. So we talk
about a recovering economy. You tell
that to the people whose standard of
life is going down. You tell that to all
the increased people who are visiting.
Here in the UK, we have food banks for
people in extreme poverty. A bridging
step theoretically who need to turn
effectively to charity to feed their
children and their
and yet and yet however low the condemn
coalition are in the polls, nobody much
is in love with the opposition. Well,
how could
neither its leader nor its shadow
chancellor
but I I think the problem is this
actually in fairness to uh the leader
and the shadow chancellor that's Ed
Milliband and Ed Bulls uh who enjoy the
traditional relationship between a
leader and their treasury spokesman
they hate each other you mean?
Yeah, exactly. Well, I mean, um, I think
David Cameron has joked in the past that
he and Ed Milliband having in common
their hatred of of of Ed Bulls, but I
think in fairness to them, it's very
hard if you are the opposition to be
taken at all seriously in the media
because you are reacting. Uh, all
parties do this. Labor particularly hot
on whatever announcement they'll stick a
naysaying statement out. So, you know,
they might say, "Oh, yes, it's fine for
the home secretary to say this, but they
need to get their house in order with
the hope of being quoted in the press."
Thing is though, here in the United
Kingdom domestically, as indeed is
internationally the case around the
world, is as we run into the 2015
election and I would suggest from next
year's party political conferences,
suddenly they're going to have and enjoy
a much bigger platform and that's where
they're going to start making the
impact.
Now, you pay uh more attention than I do
as a member of the House of Commons uh
to who's up, who's down. Give me some
rising figures if you would in the
conservatives and in the labor.
Well, I mean I tell you very very um
relevant at the moment at the time of
recording. Don't know so much as raising
in the conservatives but in politics
generally. Zack Goldmith of course we
saw him on
he's amazing. Very good. Yes. Well, the
thing is, of course, he he came in um
under this kind of era of new
conservatism uh with the green economy
and there there was, you know, some
might remember me saying at the time um
in terms of various shows that you, you
know, once upon a time, you vote red,
you get blue. If you vote blue, you get
green. If you vote yellow, you're just
being stupid. Whereas now, it's you
know, if you vote blue or you vote
yellow, you'll probably get a strange
haze of gray. Um I think at the moment
Zach Goldsmith's a rising star because
he's saying that he may even cause a
bi-election in his constituency. Um you
and I probably disagree on this because
uh the position that Grant Shap the
Conservative Party chairman is in. I
know that in the past you've interviewed
him and gather that he's taken common
sense lines. I think he's being
restricted in that somewhat because uh
at the moment obviously he's the
Conservative.
So that's Goldmith and Shaps in the Tory
party. Any Labour figures catching your
eye? Chukamana star was rising earlier
in the year and it seemed to be kind of
falling down a bit. Rachel Reeves has
had some very interesting coverage. The
uh the Labour spokesperson of course uh
being attacked by the Newsight editor
unwittingly in a Twitter art, a little
Twitter mistake by saying that she was
boring snoring Rachel Reef. So I'd say
that despite the Newsight attack on her,
she's probably rising there. The Liberal
Democrats, they are all playing the
violins, I'm afraid, on the Titanic. And
unfortunately, of course, the Titanic is
dead and gone. The trouble for the
Liberal Democrats, of course, is their
new Titanic seems to be being steered by
the captain of the Conquer Concordia,
Captain Chatino, at the moment,
headed for the rocks. Well, that's a
bold prediction. Sean Dilly, as always,
thanks for coming on board the Sputnik.
Well, now it's your turn in our social
media roundup coming in through our
portal, RT_SP Sputnik. Gatri, what's
rattling the pipes?
Well, this week I tweeted the stats
about Fathers for Justice that you
mentioned in your intro earlier. Uh, the
shocking stats, including the one that
one in three children lose contact with
their fathers permanently, which is just
shocking. Stunning.
Nuts. Swan replies to that. One in
three. I am in total shock. What has
gone wrong? That can't be a worldwide
syndrome.
Well, of course, the Muslim world, it's
virtually unknown for children to be
separated from their fathers. Many parts
of the world, this phenomenon simply
doesn't exist. Wouldn't even be
recognized. I would think it's uh as
Matt put it, a first world syndrome.
It's a syndrome in the United States, in
Britain, and in mainland Europe,
of which Britain is at
Britain's undoubtedly one of the worst.
No doubt that the great cities of
England have half of their children
without fathers.
What amazing interview we have.
No wonder we have antisocial behavior
and crime uh rampant
because 70% of the young offenders come
from fatherless.
It's amazing. And now this is a comment
that um was the overall sentiment
throughout Twitter and I hope this
sentiment will change after they've seen
the interview because Scott Marray says
how any father can choose to walk away
from their own children is beyond me and
disgusting.
Well, of course there are many fathers
who do walk away from their children but
there are far more fathers who are being
pushed away uh from their children by
the system that we have.
Then I asked about the political year
2013. what the heroes and villain
what the people's heroes and villains
are.
Mark Hebite responds, "Sorry, but at the
moment I feel all politicians are
villains who deliberately lie to us,
lost trust and belief."
Thanks, mate.
James H. Hotman mentions as a political
hero Putin and the villain John McCain
because he's such a prized pillock. for
Putin. He gives us two reasons, Syria
and Snowden, and that he has that Putin
has had a magnificent political spell
this year.
Well, I I think there has never been a
more obvious politician of the year than
President Putin in this year.
He has played a blinder over Snowden,
over Syria, uh, and now over this
provocation that John McCain has
mounted. he and the European social
democrats and Christian democrats in on
the streets of Kiev. So definitely
President Putin has to be the political
man of the year.
Shoko says that the highlight is the
wicked witch is no more to which evil
McBad adds that Mandela one a hero the
other a villain one going to heaven the
other to hell.
No prizes for guessing which is going in
either direction
indeed. And then the last tweet comes
from Patrick or Sullivan who says, "Come
on, George. Please tell us what's in the
suitcase."
Patrick, I couldn't possibly tell you
because if I told you, I'd then have to
kill you.
Well, okay. Well, that's tweets for this
year.
Ah, this year. That means there's no
time left to do anything other than wish
you and yours a very happy new year. But
do please keep tweeting us on r_putnik.
That's it for me guyatri wishing you a
very blessed new year. And from me
George Galloway it's been marvelous.
[Music]