In April 2013, a dispute arose between Fathers4Justice, Matt & Nadine O’Connor and Adrian Yalland which resulted in legal actions on all sides. The parties have now agreed to seek to resolve the matters amicably, and as such the dispute has been resolved.

The following is a rebuttal of today’s Independent article about Matt & Nadine O’Connor and Fathers4Justice.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fathers-4-justice-in-court-accused-of-neglecting-their-campaigns-in-favour-of-increasingly-personal-attacks-9786179.html

Picture: Caroline Nokes MP and a victims bite mark at an incident at the O’Connor’s home on 20/2/14.

STATEMENT BY MATT & NADINE O’CONNOR

* The Independent Newspaper is singularly confused. Fathers4Justice are not in Court accused of anything. Caroline Nokes MP is in Court accused of a variety of offences including harassment, assault, trespass.

* Today’s Independent article is libelous, defamatory and wholly inaccurate and seeks to demonise both the Fathers4Justice campaign and the O’Connor family who are themselves victims of a 7-month long campaign of political intimidation at their home and does not contain any right to reply from the O’Connor’s or Fathers4Justice.

* The Independent have not sought to establish the facts of the private, civil action, which concerns the safety and protection of the O’Connor family and their children and is unrelated to Fathers4Justice other than through the fact that Mr O’Connor is the founder of the organisation and Mrs O’Connor the campaign director.

* The article is a blatant attempt to prejudice the High Court before today’s hearing which is a matter relating to the O’Connor’s private family life, a 7-month long campaign of violent harassment (including physical attacks, anonymous hate mail, threats, death threats, and criminal damage) and involves the targeting of their 8-year-old son and his school on social media.

* The O’Connor’s 8-year-old son is also a claimant.

* Accordingly, The Independent should be aware of the requirements of s39 of the Children’s and Young Person’s Act 1933 and the ethical code the media must work under. One of the defendants is also in receipt of a Police Harassment Notice regarding the targeting of the O’Connor’s son on 4/7.14 and Police have filed a Children & Young Persons report about the safety of their son after the attack on 20th February.

* We ask that the media respect the privacy of the family and sensitivity surrounding the welfare of their children.

* The Independent has not attempted to verify any of their claims with the Police.

* The O’Connor’s have taken civil action as a last resort to protect their family.

* The matters are for the High Court to rule on, not for The Independent to prejudge the courts action.

* The Independent article deliberately muddles unsubstantiated, unrelated issues around Fathers4Justice with the rights of a child and their parents to be safe within their family home.

* The article rehashes old allegations about Fathers4Justice which are designed to smear the campaign and prejudice the outcome of today’s hearing and constitutes ‘trial by media’.

* The article is entirely one-sided and prejudicial, siding entirely with the defendants and contains no balance whatsoever.

* The article was written by Emily Dugan, Social Affairs Editor at The Independent who has previously written derogatory articles about Fathers4Justice.

Ms Dugan has effectively copied and pasted a statement made by one of the defendants in a civil action brought by the O’Connor’s in the High Court today. She has used this as the basis for her article.

* Ms Dugan has used a list of email addresses to contact the O’Connor’s which can only have been supplied by one of the defendants. One of the emails is for a Nadine Taylor, an independent 3rd party who just happens to share the same maiden name as Nadine O’Connor. Mrs Taylor, the owner of that email address, has also been subject to harassment by one of the defendants.

* The O’Connor’s have chosen to make no comment to any media outlet including the Mail on Sunday who first published details of the pending court case as it is not related to Fathers4Justice which Ms Dugan wrongly suggests in her biased article.

* The civil action emanated from an incident at the O’Connor’s family home on 20th February 2014, which Caroline Nokes MP was involved in and was witnessed by their child. Hampshire Police subsequently upheld a complaint by the O’Connor’s that the involvement of the MP influenced the investigation.

* The O’Connor’s have since called on Hampshire Police to reopen the case and arrest the MP under the Joint Enterprise Law.

* As a result of the defendants actions, the O’Connor’s have been forced to remove their son from his school and move their family away from the area.

* There is an ongoing criminal investigation by Hampshire Constabulary into these matters and ongoing harassment of the family that continues to this day.

* There is a formal complaint lodged with the Independent Police Complaints Commission about the conduct of Hampshire Constabulary in relation to a cover up surrounding the involvement of an MP in the violent attack on their home.

* A complaint about the article has been made to the editor of The Independent, the Independent Press Standards Organisation and the article referred to their libel lawyers.

* The sole focus of the family is the safety and well being of their family who have been targeted by the defendants.

You can respond to The Independent article by contacting the author Emily Dugan here: E.Dugan@independent.co.uk

https://twitter.com/emilydugan

And to Amol Rajan, Editor, Independent

a.rajan@independent.co.uk

https://twitter.com/amolrajan

RESPONSE TO ALL THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE INDEPENDENT

The following our responses by Fathers4Justice and Matt & Nadine O’Connor to specific allegations put to them by Emily Dugan of The Independent.

On the harassment of Caroline Nokes

A private detective told The Independent that Nadine O’Connor called him up at the start of this year to enquire about surveillance costs and vehicle tracking of a Tory MP which the investigator took to be Caroline Nokes. He recalls: “She was ranting immediately and asking if we had any affiliation with the Tory party. She started talking about surveillance costs and vehicle tracking.”He decided not to take her on as a client because he had reservations about tracking an MP and thought she sounded difficult. RESPONSE: about gathering information about the violent attack on their home on 20th February 2014, after Hants Police confirmed Caroline Nokes MP was involved. Evidence collected is being used in the ongoing civil case against the MP. An internal investigation by Hants Police upheld a complaint by the O’Connor’s that the MP influenced the investigation.

Mr and Mrs O’Connor openly declared “war” on Nokes on Twitter in April 2013 and became increasingly fixated with them. They continued to send such vindictive Tweets that Twitter closed their accounts. RESPONSE: Caroline Nokes MP broke her election promise to Fathers4Justice regarding Shared Parenting in 2013 and Fathers4Justice challenged her about this. The @F4JOfficial account was temporarily suspended. At no time have Hants Police spoken to, arrested or issued a PIN notice to the O’Connor’s about harassing or being ‘fixated’ with the MP. A primary concern of Fathers4Justice is ensuring MPs adhere to their election promises.

Caroline Nokes MP claims that ‘his followers sent death threats, saying they would burn her house down…her security consultant claims she was being watched. RESPONSE: Yet another unfounded and defamatory comment about Fathers4Justice supporters. As far as F4J is concerned not a single person has been arrested or charged with any such offence.

Matt O’Connor tweeted that Nokes should “be charged with child abuse”. He also tweeted at 10.23 in the evening that “she can run but she can’t hide” and that Fathers 4 Justice were in Romsey looking for her. RESPONSE: Its unclear where these comments are from and no evidence been provided to us, however, Fathers4Justice regards contact denial as child abuse. Unlike the MP, we have never been to her home or targeted her family.

F4J supporters, incited into fury by the O’Connors made violent threats on Twitter to Nokes. Three of these have become police matters and have crime reference numbers but Nokes has so far decided not to press charges. RESPONSE: We have no knowledge of these matters. Fathers4Justice is committed to peaceful, non-violent direct action. It would also be a matter for the Police and CPS to bring charges, not Ms Nokes.

Nokes says the harassment has included slander and she is considering her own legal action. RESPONSE: We would welcome the opportunity to have the evidence tested in a court of law.

It is understood the police have told Nokes they regard the O’Connors as a “fixated threat” and a credible threat to her and her daughter’s safety. Following advice from a security consultant, she had several thousand pounds worth of security improvements done at her home. RESPONSE: Another spurious claim with no evidence to support it. We have challenged Hants Police about this claim. In all dealings with Hants Police, this allegation has never been leveled at the O’Connor’s or Fathers4Justice. The reality is that it is the MP who brought a person to attack our home on 20th February 2014, influenced a Police investigation and set about covering up her involvement in the attack.

A private security consultant employed by Caroline Nokes says there is evidence of surveillance having taken place outside her house. He also says he believes her car has been tracked. Nokes strongly believes that Fathers 4 Justice is behind this and has been frightened for her safety. RESPONSE: Impossible for us to comment apart from to say that at no time have Fathers4Justice targeted the MPs home. A fact which Hants Police will confirm.

Former member Mr Trigg said: “Matt O’Connor was planning to put activists on the roof of Caroline Nokes and had her private address watched for several weeks.” RESPONSE: We have no record of a Mr Trigg but can confirm, as Hants Police will, that at no stage have Fathers4Justice or the O’Connor’s ever been interviewed or charged with any such conduct by Hants Police.

After a Tory activist put a leaflet through the O’Connors’ door, Matt O’Connor went outside and after ranting and raving at a police officer until he was arrested. It is alleged this was a publicity stunt and that it was Nadine O’Connor who called police in the first place. RESPONSE: A Tory leaflet was delivered at around the same time the O’Connor’s received anonymous hate mail threatening to have social services remove their 8-yr-old son. Both mentioned Caroline Nokes MP and both were reported to Hants Police. With regard to Matt O’Connor’s arrest, the matter has still to be heard in court. Fathers4Justice believe this was an unlawful, violent, politically motivated arrest. It is patently absurd to say this was a publicity stunt given the targeting of his family.

Before coming into office, and as the O’Connors’ local Conservative candidate (when they lived at a former address), Nokes assisted the O’Connors in their lobbying efforts, including setting up ministerial meetings for them in 2010.

The row first started after F4J were not allowed to give oral evidence to a consultation on the Children and Families Bill. They were invited instead to give a written submission, which they failed to do. RESPONSE: This is incorrect. The MP supported a bill that did not contain a single one of the promises she and the Conservative Party made to Fathers4Justice in 2010. In particular, it did not include their specific promise to introduce a presumption of shared parenting. It was impossible for Fathers4Justice to make a submission on a bill that was a sham.

As their local MP – and as someone with an interest in family law – Nokes had previously spoken to the O’Connors about their thoughts on parental access. She also sat on the committee which drew up the Children and Families Bill, and says she asked the O’Connors five times to send her the amendments they wanted to the bill but instead they trolled her on Twitter. RESPONSE: See Above. At no time has Caroline Nokes been ‘trolled’ on Twitter. The MP has been held to account using normal, robust, democratic debate. On no occasion have the O’Connor’s or Fathers4Justice been issued a PIN notice, arrested, interviewed or charged by Police about these baseless allegations.

On what’s happened to Fathers4Justice

The group is now so marginalised that the only politicians who will deal with them are George Galloway – who recently tabled an EDM on their behalf – and Ukip, who met with Nadine recently. RESPONSE: Another factually incorrect and misleading statement. Fathers4Justice has never had more support. We have met with George Galloway MP and Nigel Farage. 104 MPs from ALL political parties signed our EDM 210 supporting Shared Parenting this year and UKIP have just announced their support for a legal presumption of 50/50 Shared Parenting. A YouGov Poll in 2012 said 84% of the public support shared parenting.

The organisation has never been made into a charity and its only shareholders are Matt and Nadine O’Connor. It has a turnover of more than £20,000 and they are accused of pocketing the money and doing little to further the cause of estranged dads. RESPONSE: Fathers4Justice is a limited company and files accounts at Companies House which anyone can view. Unlike other groups and charities, F4J refuses to take any government money and the campaign is funded by supporters, without which, it would not exist. Matt O’Connor has also invested large amounts of his personal money to fund the campaign over the years.

F4J grossly exaggerates its members – the number of paid members is now fewer than 200 but their website claims 40,000 sympathisers by double counting people who follow them via Twitter, Facebook, email etc. RESPONSE: We have no idea how the paper has arrived at these figures or who your source is but this is clearly incorrect. We can confirm that Fathers4Justice has 40,000+ registered supporters and is the 3rd highest supported campaign group in the UK behind Greenpeace and Amnesty according to a Lord Ashcroft Poll for the Conservative Party in 2011.

The fathers’ rights movement regards them as an embarrassment – organisations such as Families Need Fathers won’t have anything to do with them.

Family organisations, such as the single parent charity Gingerbread and the parenting forum Mumsnet have been targeted by F4J in smear campaigns and blocked their phone lines with nuisance calls. RESPONSE: We don’t comment on other campaign groups and believe our campaign speaks for itself. Ref Gingerbread and Mumsnet, our views on organisations that support contact denial and are anti-shared parenting and promote misandry are well known.

A website ‘naming and shaming’ so-called “contact deniers” is a cause of concern for those working in the family courts who say it could put children and mothers at risk. It also often flagrantly ignores court orders insisting on the anonymity of mothers to protect the identity of children. RESPONSE: Fathers4Justice campaigns for ‘open justice’ and hence accountability and transparency in all proceedings. The ‘naming and shaming’ of individuals is based on a policy used by the government and the Police.

A splinter group, New Fathers4Justice was formed in 2008 from those who fell out with the O’Connors. They say the couple have a habit of encouraging illegal actions then distancing themselves from activists before court hearings and then smearing them. They also say they are fed up with the group being sidetracked by personal vendettas RESPONSE: There are many copycat groups all over the world. It is our policy not to comment on them. It is not reasonable to expect us to support those who attack Fathers4Justice and the campaign.

Former F4J member, Paul Manning, who posted a picture of his grandson on the Hay Wain, has become disillusioned with how O’Connor jettisoned him after the protest, despite encouraging it. He wrote recently: “Surely it is obvious to anyone with a pea for a brain that Matt O has lost the plot and purposely aims wide of the target that he originally planned on hitting. I believe that target had something to do with parental rights…The Matt O’Connor show is a huge joke to most of us now, because we see that what really matters to us and takes precedence to us is Dads seeing their kids.” RESPONSE: It is always sad when personal attacks are made. We believe our energies should be invested in changing the laws for fathers, not attacking each other. Clearly, there will always be differences of opinion and we don’t comment on personal attacks. It is worth stating that without Matt O’Connor there would be no Fathers4Justice and we would have no political support. The growing political consensus for Shared Parenting as a result of campaigning by Fathers4Justice speaks for itself.

Former F4J member, Paul Trigg, said: “I know that he got people within the organisation to do the work for him. He often offered cash which was never paid. Rather than employing anyone he got his contacts within the organisation to do that sort of thing.” RESPONSE: We have no record of a Paul Trigg or any knowledge about this claim.

Another former member said: The group claims to represent over 40,000 people but have less than 175 signed up to their membership scheme. At least 6 fathers who paid the £30 yearly membership fee expecting help have received nothing in return and lodged complaints. RESPONSE: Again, another false allegation. It is impossible to comment on unfounded allegations without any evidence or a source for this information. Suffice to say F4J does not operate a “membership” it simply offers a help and advice forum which costs £30 for 12 months. The organisation has “registered supporters” which total over 40,000.