I do geniunely plan to read the docs and report back. But I’ve got to prioritise work for actual clients first and fit the blog in around it.

I have only browsed the first few pages so far but I’ve already identified your point about needing to properly reference claims – on first read there seem to be several gaps in the stats / evidence you might expect to see supporting the claims. But I’ll bear in mind the fact that the FJOT is designed to rectify this flaw.

Anyway, back to work.

More seriously, read the documents, and then we can have a proper debate about the issues involved. I for one would be interested to read the comments of someone who works in the industry; I too try to be open-minded. With any luck others will join in as well.

Familoo, I agree with your argument, but it was not my decision; I shall pass your comments on. The Blueprint was intended as a manifesto; the Family Justice on Trial document (let’s call it FJOT) was designed to update the Blueprint (which was written some years ago) and to provide verifiable evidence for some of the claims it makes, which are not referenced in the original document. My hope was that it would provide members with the facts they need when talking to MPs, interviewers or the public. It is rather too long to expect non-members to read it for themselves, and MPs, in particular, seem to have short attention spans.

We have also provided separate reports on CAFCASS, the CSA, and forced adoption, and I intend to start work on the links between gang membership and fatherlessness.

I don’t think i’ve said anything to land me in hot water but you two aren’t likely to be persuaded.

If you two want to chit chat or discuss things between yourselves maybe you can go post on your own blogs, hmm?

But in the meantime, and for what its worth:

I don’t see the logic of making people pay to see your core documents – aren’t they at the heart of your campaign? I assume that they legitimise your position in a way that no amount of spiderman antics can, because they set out the arguments behind the direct action? Judging from blog4justice’s posts (http://www.blog-4-justice.org/blog.php?itemid=107 )that certainly seems to be a view shared by at least one of F4J’s erstwhile supporters.

I know you need to fundraise, but if the only people who read the documents are those who are prepared to join up without first hearing your arguments in full, a) whats the point of the documents and b) isn’t that a rather restricted membership?

If F4J is confident in the strength of its arguments it ought to follow (surely) that wider dissemination of those arguments would encourage a far broader and more numerous membership who were prepared to support them? You’d actually persuade people to join who might not necessarily perceive themselves to have been wronged – but people who simply agree with your arguments and think you deserve support.

As for a debate, we certainly have no fear of this, and welcome a wider public debate, which is certainly overdue, but we also have to raise money for campaigning, and took the decision, somewhat reluctantly, to provide these documents as part of the membership package.