BBC Online reports Newbury hunger strike but since "It's only about money" that means it doesn't count

BBC Online have deigned to report John Brown's hunger strike. Since they report it as "over money" it doesn't count in any way. It doesn't matter if he's destitute. It doesn't matter if a gross injustice has been perpetrated. It doesn't matter how devastated he is. It doesn't matter if he might die. For the BBC it's just a father trying not to pay Child Support...

From BBC Father's hunger strike over money

A Fathers 4 Justice campaigner is threatening to step up a hunger strike if the Child Support Agency does not back down in a row over back payments. John Brown, of Newbury, Berkshire, says he has survived on just two glasses of wine and soya milk for eight weeks in protest at a demand for £22,000.

He is to begin a water-only fast if officials do not back down at a meeting organised by his MP David Rendel.

The 56-year-old has not seen his 17-year-old daughter for four years.

Mr Brown, a former advertising photographer, split from his partner in 1996.

But he says the CSA has massively overestimated his income with its demand for seven years' of child support payments.

Mr Brown told BBC News Online: "I haven't been able to work at all because of what is going on.

"The fight with the CSA has left me utterly destroyed, because it is almost impossible to pick up the strings of a formerly successful career.

"I want my hunger strike to send out the message that the judicial system surrounding children is destructive rather than constructive."

Mike Ellis, a local Fathers 4 Justice organiser, told BBC News Online: "While we don't encourage drastic acts, we can't let one of our members down by ignoring them in a difficult situation."

Mr Ellis was accompanying Mr Brown to the meeting, organised by Newbury MP David Rendel at his constituency office on Friday at 1400 BST.

On Monday Fathers 4 Justice campaigner Jason Hatch scaled the balcony at Buckingham Palace, dressed as Batman.

Mr Hatch, from Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, was arrested with a fellow member and must answer bail in December.

A spokeswoman from the CSA said: "I am afraid I cannot comment on individual cases."

Comments

[mother]

The press and public are being mislead.

1.'Mr. Brown is destitute' FALSE
Mr. Brown has the funds to pay child support arrears in full now if he chose to.
2.'a gross injustice has been perpetrated' FALSE & TRUE
Mr. Brown has benefited from depriving his daughter. Mr. Brown has not suffered a gross injustice, his daughter has.
3.'massively overestimated his income' FALSE
The CSA have not estimated Mr. Brown's income. They have used information supplied by him or the Revenue.
4. 'I haven't been able to work at all' FALSE
Mr. Brown has worked.

This is a row about money between a man who refuses to pay child support and the CSA.It is not an access dispute, after all Mr. Brown chose not to see his daughter long ago. It is difficult to see why Fathers 4 Justice has chosen to interfere in the justice Mr. Brown's daughter is entitled to. Fathers 4 Injustice seems to be a more accurate description.

[mother]

The press and public are being mislead.

1.'Mr. Brown is destitute' FALSE
Mr. Brown has the funds to pay child support arrears in full now if he chose to.
2.'a gross injustice has been perpetrated' FALSE & TRUE
Mr. Brown has benefited from depriving his daughter. Mr. Brown has not suffered a gross injustice, his daughter has.
3.'massively overestimated his income' FALSE
The CSA have not estimated Mr. Brown's income. They have used information supplied by him or the Revenue.
4. 'I haven't been able to work at all' FALSE
Mr. Brown has worked.

This is a row about money between a man who refuses to pay child support and the CSA.It is not an access dispute, after all Mr. Brown chose not to see his daughter long ago. It is difficult to see why Fathers 4 Justice has chosen to interfere in the justice Mr. Brown's daughter is entitled to. Fathers 4 Injustice seems to be a more accurate description.

[Clive]

No surprise there then! The whole process just makes me extremely cynical. We all run the risk of being accused of putting money before our kids, it's a shame the system is so unbalanced at ALL levels.

I have just been refused travel expenses by the CSA, because I have overnight access to my children. My wife's maintenance was reduced to £403 per month due to my "shared care". It costs £54 / month petrol for me to pick up my children from her £250,000+ house (with her Jag parked outside), as she refuses to do any travelling to facilitate my seeing my children, this being despite tha fact that she moved the children out of the immediate area, for the benefit of her new partner. So we have a system where, if I had to travel twice the distance, my "shared care" rebate would be wiped out. Where's the logic in that?

Also I have my children an extra 4-5 weeks a year during holidays - having paid a solicitor around £3000 to secure better school holiday access. Due to the half the half-ass CSA rules, I pay my ex-wife over £400, for the privilege of having my kids during this school holiday time. The system also takes no account of the fact that she's a highly paid professional, who who uses the maintenance to subsidise going on holiday 3-4 times a year. I am lucky if I can afford one holiday a year!

Don't you just love living in the UK?

I give up!