The Rights Of Man

ACPO REPORT IGNORES MALE VICTIMS BUT IS IT THEIR FAULT?

What is so worryingly predictable (issues of common law aside) about the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) recommendations to the Home Office was the lack of mention about male victims of domestic violence.

The proposals (5th down and beware may slow your computer) formed the ACPO response to the violence against Women and Girls strategy, a long-running Government consultation that completely and purposely ignores male victims of domestic violence and rape because those people don't matter. New powers were asked for such as a 'right to know' about violent men when a woman takes a new partner and a new criminal offence based on a body of evidence rather than a specific crime.

 Of course, any new powers will have to be applied to both female and male perpetrators and whilst the response only referred to women, what was noticeable was the gender neutral quotes given by Chief Constable Brian Moore who is in charge of this area for ACPO. The Guardian, Telegraph, BBC, Daily Mail (with debate) and others in their usual 'balanced' way only spun it about being against male perpetrators but Brian Moore seemed careful to avoid gender stereotyping too much (he does just mention women in the Telegraph). The politicians were happy of course just to mention female victims.

One wonders though that if the Government had asked ACPO to look at this not under the guise of Violence Against Women and CHildren but just under violence against people ina domestic relationship, whether the report would have mentioned men or would have been gender neutral. The impression is that with glacial recognition that men can also be victims, it may be the case that it would have been. Perhaps I am being too optimistic...

Pity of course, the Equalities Commission have no shame in just talking about female victims.

HIDDEN TABOO OF MALE VICTIMS OF FORCED MARRIAGE REVEALED

By Adrian Ashby and The Editor

In new guidance produced by the UK Department of Children Schools and Families on the prevalence of forced marriage within Britain's Asian community has revealed that 20% of victims are male.

The figures (see page 26 of the guidance) show that during 2008 there were 1,325 known cases out of 7,750.

In many ways, this is a similar position to the one that male victims of domestic violence find themselves in. It is under-reported and nearly all of the information provided is aimed at female victims.The stereotype is that only females can be victims and men cannot be.

 Though the Forced Marriage Unit and the excellent Karma Nirvana charity help men, it is clear from the figures that nothing much is being done on the ground in local councils to help. 

This can be seen by the sample of four council's involved in the research which shows that a mere 4% of victims they report are male but the Forced Marriage Unit reported 14% and Karma Nirvana reported 43% (the guidance has produced an estimate of 20% taking into account these statistics). It shows that nationally based support systems show a higher prevalence than those on the ground, which means local council's once again are ignoring male victims in their community and are in breach of the Gender Equality Duty.

Almost a re- run of the process by which Erin Pizzey’s pioneering work setting up refuges  was subverted by an ideology which refuses to recognise the need for support for a substantial number of men. Once again a pioneering woman, Jasvindher Sanghera of Karma Nirvana, responding to real human problems, shows up the prejudice of those who should be supporting people in need in their communities.

Thee one difference though is that whereas in the case of male victims of domestic violence, the perpetrators are nearly always female, in forced marriages, because of the patriarchal nature of Asian communities, it is likely that the men being forced into marriage are being forced by other men (male family members) within their community.

 

So the usual stereotype that only women can be victims has been proved here, as in the case of domestic violence, to be wrong. When will this Government stop putting domestic violence and now forced marriages under the remit of Stopping Violence against Women and Children and instead place it under the remit of Stopping Violence Against Everyone.

 

HEROIC VICTORY IN MIDDLESBROUGH, HARTLEPOOL AND SOUTH TYNESIDE - BUT WHY DID THEY HAVE TO FIGHT

This week, 300 heroic men won a test case at an employment tribunal in the North Eastern councils they work (Middlesbrough, Hartlepool and SouthTyneside). This has implications for 12,000 men across the UK.

The case was based on the fact that men and women working for these three councils had previously taken a case against these councils where they were not given bonuses for similar graded jobs to jobs mainly carried out by men (such as gardeners and refuse collectors).

However, whilst these women were rightly awarded a financial settlement or received tribunal awards after winning their case, the three council's employing these men refused to make payments to the men or change their terms and conditions. Pure unadulterated discrimination.

That meant they continued to receive not only less than other men, but also less than the women.

The men then lodged sex discrimination cases in addition to their equal pay claims. The tribunal upheld this, but the council's scandalously appealed, and lost.

The situation is well set out in the BBC and Teesside Gazette.

This test case, was a landmark victory for these men not just because of the decision but also because of what the Judge and lawyers said about it on the BBC:-

 Mr Justice Underhill said: "It would be surprising and unsatisfactory if the [Equal Pay] Act offered no remedy to men in a situation like the present. The case where men and women do the same job but receive different rates of pay is the paradigm of the kind of situation which the Act was intended to prevent, how would it seem if the roles were reversed and the 'piggyback' claimants were not men but women?"

Lawyers involved, from the Cloister Chambers, have described it as a landmark ruling which will have a bearing on many other cases, and could cost councils hundreds of millions of pounds.

After the ruling, Yvette Genn, a barrister who specialises in equal pay law with the chambers Cloisters, said: “This is an important decision as it demonstrates that equal pay laws can be applied not only by women who compare themselves with men, but also by men who are comparing themselves with better paid men.

“Even though women historically have received lower pay than their male counterparts, it is too often forgotten that the law applies equally to men as it does to women.”

It crucially shows that equalities legislation can be used by men and with decent legal teams they can win. The Judge alludes to the hypocrisy of discrimination against men because he is basically saying if it was the other way round, then there would be no dispute and that he would not have to make a decision as it would unlikely to have to go to court for a settlement to be reached. A sound judge.

The key issue though is why did the councils not pay up in the first place when the women won their case and why did the three council's could automatically assume that it was OK for them to pay just the women concerned and not automatically extend it to these 300 men.

They did so, because firstly they felt they could get away with it but importantly because they felt these men did not matter because they were men. These three councils clearly do not believe in equality and it is shameful that public authorities feel that it is right and proper to discriminate against them.

What about the male councillors on these local authorities, what did they do about this, did they think it was OK that male workers working for them were discriminated against?

These men are heroes whilst the male councillors and male senior executives who appealed this decision have behaved disgracefully, they are traitors.

Other Media Coverage - The Times, Personnel Today, People Management, Daily Mail

LEYTON MAN ATTACKS LACK OF HELP FOR MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

This week's Waltham Forest Guardian features an article on David Hyatt who said that not enough was being done to help male victims.

He spoke about the two of the main problems - he was too embarrassed to report it and when in a separate incident, his then ex-partner attacked him on a bus, the police arrested him. The latter is of no surprise.

An all too common experience but that at least are becoming publicised more.

FEMALE VIOLENCE FIGURES UNDERMINE MYTH THAT ONLY MEN ARE VIOLENT

The terribly sad story last week of model Danielle Lloyd being attacked by two women at a nightclub  brings into light the latest British Crime Survey figures that also emerged that showed that one in four violent attacks involve women. Women alone amounted to 13% whilst violence perpetrated by men and women together was 11%.

The key issues show that this worrying rise can no longer be swept under the carpet and the blame for violence can no longer be construed as being solely perpetrated by men. There are of course no known female perpetrator programmes so this will also need to be looked at and the question why not? raised.

As argued on this site, some of this violence will also be occurring in domestic relationships so the myth that domestic violence only affects female as victims will also be laid be rest.

In addition, there is no word from the Minister for Women, The Fawcett Society or others about this trend. Is it because they don't want to face the facts?

Media coverage - Telegraph

WHITSUN COVERAGE ROUND-UP

The past two weeks have been busy in terms of anti-male issues or debunking anti-male myths. Listed below is the some of the coverage.

The Times (Sue Palmer) - Who's to blame for the lost boys?

The Sunday Times (India Knight) - Having it all is a myth, girls

Daily Telegraph (David Green) - The Gender Pay Gap Does Not Exist

Daily Mail (Petronella Wyatt) - Man Flu? It we women who are the sickly sex

BBC - Fathers Cool on Parental Leave

FALSE RAPE VICTIM TO GET DAMAGES

A man who was falsely accused of rape is to be awarded damages through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. This is a first.

The poor chap who lost everything and the woman who was accused (Kirsty Palmer) got 10 months won a tribunal so he get compensation. This is a small victory and nowhere near makes up for his trauma. The Fawcett Society, going by their report (see Monday), obviously don't think she should go to prison.

The story was covered by the BBC, Daily Mail and Mirror.

Another false rape stories recently was in Sunderland. It shows that a tiny minority of women are prepared to use this against unsuspecting men without any regard to the consequences. It damages honest men and poor women who have been raped.

A new angle in Canada where a cabbie is suing four women who falsely accused him. Fortunately he had a video in the car which proved his innocence else he'd probably still be in jail.

FAWCETT SOCIETY DO NOT BELIEVE IN EQUAL AND BLIND JUSTICE

Sometimes one never knows how to start a post and a good example of this is in reviewing this weeks tirade by the pro-women anti-male Fawcett Society over their report Engendering Justice where they accuse the whole British justice system of being institutionally sexist.

The basic premise is that too many women are being sent to prison and the reason for this is that the legal system is run as an old boys club because there are so few women working within it.

To be fair, they do raise worrying statistics about the level of self-harming amongst females in prison and of course, they are certain issues like this that show the prison system should improve.

However, the subtext behind all of it is that they want women to be treated more leniently than men for crimes they commit. The reason this is said is that nowhere in the report does it say that male criminals receive lighter sentences than women for the same crime.

In fact, it can be said that the opposite is true as a very early post on this site showed. Also far more community sentences are handed out to women than men in Crown courts (12,575 - men : 30,617 women) which suggests that with a prison population of 40,911 men : 3,123 women at face value judges are more likely to pass a community sentence than they would for a man. Though of course, the actual severity of the cases would need to be looked at and more men committing worse crimes (overall) than women.

The Fawcett Society have closed ears when it comes to increasing female violence (link).

The issue of childcare and child support is raised, however, this shows the inconsistency of organisations such as the Fawcett Society. On the one hand they do all they can to denigrate the family and proclaim that men are not needed (full stop) but then complain that women do not have people to look after the kids when they go to court or in prison. If they did not denigrate men so much then perhaps they might pause to think that perhaps the father could help.

Lastly, on the issue of the lack of women in senior positions in the legal system, they, like all proponents of the gender employment war, do not ask the simple questions. They don't ask whether women want a career in the senior ranks nor do they look at the progress being made. For example, there has been percentage increases in the number of police officers at every level since they did their previous research (First Report 03/04) and also a big increase in the number of High Court Judges (10% now: 5.7% in 03/04). In fact, the number of female applicants for QC positions have a success rate of 55% against a male success rate of 40%.

These things take time, but of course, the Fawcett Society does not do time (even though 63% of people signing up to the Law Society are now women) and with the disaster of the Equality Bill soon to be upon us they will be leveraging this to ensure that female candidates leapfrog male candidates for every position going. The legal system will be another target for the pro-women/anti-male witch-hunt.

In conclusion, the British justice system is supposedly blind (hence the blindfolded scales of justice) and that both men and women are treated the same whether plaintiffs or defendants. What the Fawcett Society are really saying is that they want to blind to slip whenever a women is accused of a crime and for the eyes to tip them the wink.

PS read this hysterical rant in the Guardian at your peril (you have been warned!) and she is slaughtered in the comments section.

PSPS Here is an example of the type of justice the Fawcett Society is talking about.

WIDESPREAD COVERAGE OF MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Last week marked another landmark period of coverage on male victims following the burst of coverage earlier on this year (see March/Feb here).

Ian McNicholl came forward and reported the traumatic situation he found himself in which led to his ex-girlfirend being sent to prison for a lenient seven years.

The coverage was broken on the front page of Britain's biggest selling daily newspaper The Sun (1, 2, 3) and also featured an interview on BBC Look North. The case was also covered by This is Grimsby and the Yorkshire Post.

In addition, the Sunday Express had a large feature and there were features in Scotland's Herald newspaper (1, 2).

Lastly, and apologies for missing this, but Liz Lynne MEP also had an article in the Birmingham Post.

What this shows is that the media are still starting to take this issue seriously and see it as an area where equality is not present. If it newsworthy enough to be on the front page of The Sun then there is enough evidence to show that the Government can no longer with any credibility claim that it 'the vast majority of cases are against women'.

FAMILY COURTS - WHEN OPEN DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN OPEN

There has been much debate (link, link) about whether the landmark change in allowing accredited journalists into the UK's family law courts will make much difference.

The reason for the concern has been about the fact that judges can still stop journalists from reporting what they see and hear and also from attending in the first place.

Some of the outrageous judgements made by judges on custody issues and the enforcement of custody orders means that they themselves can still hide behind many of their absurd views. This also helps to protect the inept and bias against fathers by Cafcass and Social Services.

Another concern is that because of the savage cutbacks in the local media, apart from any very serious cases, there are not enough reporters to cover the courts. Many a journalist cut their teeth as a court reporter for a local paper but these newspapers can no longer keep such posts going and nearly all such positions have gone. It means that apart from this week and perhaps in an outrageous/serious case, the interest in this issue by local papers will wane.

At least there is some transparency but it is doubtful there will be a change in attitude on custodial/parenting issues when the judges who make the rules up as they go along still have the power to hide and be unaccountable. There will still be no justice.

Coverage from the the Times, who won awards for opening up the secret family courts is here (1, 2, 3. Other coverage includes (Press Gazette, Families Need Fathers, Daily Mail, Daily Mail 2, BBC, Guardian, Independent)