The Rights Of Man

STARMER AND CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE MISLEAD OVER FALSE ALLEGATIONS

When Kier Starmer, the woeful Director of Public Prosecutions dropped his bombshell two weeks ago that false allegations were very rare so are not worth the attention they get - it was deliberately misleading and showed that the establishment continues to be got at and is too scared to tackle the issue. The Crown Prosecution Service are all too happy to roll over because it involves men who are falsely accused.

 The report and research is deliberately misleading (it is not the first research as it claims - The Stern Review is clear that false allegations exist and could be 8-10% - see notes to editors about what the report says) because as the excellent False Allegations Support Organisation point out - hardly any cases ever get referred by the police to the CPS and the CPS themselves then block most of those from going to court.

By trying to downplay the effect that false allegations has, the CPS are of course both deliberately choosing to ignore the harm and hurt that it does to those men falsely accused but also to those who have been raped. When do you hear the CPS, the Guardian or anti-rape groups turning on those who make false accusations - they never do.

There is nothing wrong with the CPS wanted to put things into context but its messaging means it is harder for any man who has been falsely accused because the police and CPS will say "our own research says it is very rare so you must be guilty." This is made worse by the coalition government's backtracking on its pledge to give rape defendents anonymity unless found guilty.

On another note, those who have been following the Coronation Street story, will have been concerned on how the story was going to turn out as Tyrone's fiance who was beating him, then made a false accusation. Thankfully, as it want to court she admitted it was all false . This is a storyline that would have made Starmer cringe. Good.

Posted by Skimmington

Notes to editors

The Stern review says "We do know that the effect on those who are falsely accused can be severe. The public holds very strong views about sex offenders. Those who have been under suspicion, maybe for months, perhaps remanded in custody awaiting trial, are likely to suffer considerably from the allegation having been made. Even when they have been cleared and the allegation has been established as false, they may still face suspicion from those they know."

 

VICKIE PRYCE SUCEEDS IN PROMOTING MALE EQUALITY BY ENDING SEXIST MARITAL COERCION ACT

Does Justice Secretary Chris Grayling read this blog? He may do as he announced in The Sunday Times (behind a paywall but the Guardian cover it) that he will end the Marital Coercion Act on the basis of being 'out of tune with gender equality' and 'not in keeping with the modern world.' A point made in February.

It was always of the greatest hypocrisy that such a liberal and 'progressive' such as Vickie Pryce was to try and use a sexist law to try and get her off from going to jail. Inadvertently, by bringing this to everyone's attention and if Grayling pushes this through, she will have succeeed in progressing the cause of equality for men and boys.

As Groan pointed out in his comments on a previous piece (his and MaleMids32 have been added in the comments section so not to be lost - and thanks MaleMids for highlighting) what will the feminists say about this. More so, who will speak out against the change in Parliament or elsewhere when it goes through. Who will show themselves to be hypocrites and anti-equality?

Posted by Skimmington

 

From MaleMids32

Ha! Looks like pressure from J4mb might be having an effect already!

 Just today it was announced in the Sunday Times that Chris Grayling is planning all of a sudden to scrap the law of marital coercion, because it is 'out of tune with gender equality' and 'not in keeping
with the modern world.'

 Wow, since when have Tory politicians been concerned with striking off anti-male laws?

Is it not the case they know that if J4MB gets it act together, they will harness the 'UKIP' effect and knock out all those weak, Tory marginals up and down the country?

  Well they're gonna have to do more than that if they want to win back voters' trust before election time! :-D

 

From Groan

 Now here is a test. How will the radical feminists respond to an obviously discriminatory and paternalistic law being scrapped. Support for Chris Grayling?

As with the few other discriminatory laws that were mainly swept away in the seventies this is another example not of "patriarchy" but the now outdated impulse to protect the "weaker sex"

 My own mother widowed young and with two sons to support fell foul of two such laws in the 1960s ;one with regard to mortgages and the other bank loans. Both had been put on the statute books to spare women the genuine horrors of Debtors Gaols by making husbands responsible for debts. This was in the mid sixties and these Victorian statutes were swept away in the seventies. Clearly these old statutes created problems for my mother( and indeed for husbands with profligate wives) but they were emphatically not some plan to subjugate women and actual barely lasted a century. What is more many such laws had their genesis and support from women's organisations of the time!!!

So good luck Mr. Grayling.

 

I wonder if this implies will spread to changing the legal definition of Rape. As in the USA where it is a crime men and women can commit. A bridge too far for this Parliament

NEWS UPDATE

Sorry everyone for letting things slip the past three weeks- its been hellish at work. Hopefully things are better now. Anyhow, here are some latest news and thanks to those who have supplied them:

Mike Buchanan: Compendium of recent media interviews and his article on Politics.co.uk - Some of the opposition to Mike's comments show the sexism that in endemic against men.

BBC News (Kent): Rochester nightclub's cleavage stunt condemned - Free entry for women to the nightclub again even if somewhat unsavoury

BBC News: Male identity crisis not due to feminism (Diane Abbott MP)

BBC News: Boys suffer poor body image say teachers (Katherine Sellgren)

BBC News: Helen Grant Minister to overhaul community sentencing to make them more female friendly - More inistitutional bias, can you imagine the government looking at more male-friendly sentencing? Fuller interview in Independent and you can see this in action for Vicky Pryce.

A Voice for Men: Spanish Feminist Establishment is shaking

Daily Telegraph: UCAS men are becoming the disadvantaged group (Tim Ross)

Guardian: False allegations are few and far between (Kier Starmer) - Pure mischievous bias from the laughable misandric Directory of Public Prosecutions. Full press release here. 

Daily Mail - Women lose out in pension revolution  - As Groan says "Typical; reporting by the DM. Leads off with 'poor women' headline yet the actual story is rather different as the women concerned will still be able to claim their pension earlier than men in this age cohort. A fact never explained by the DM. Of course they will also, on average, enjoy a longer life."

Huffington Post : Female Tory MP's tell Cameron to appoint more women 

Daily Mail - Butler Sloss apogises to F4J

 For other good sources of news - please add Helping Men and Fighting Feminism to your favourites amongst others.

Posted by Skimmington 

MARITAL COERCION - FOR WOMEN ONLY - ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF SEXISM AGAINST MEN

Without getting into the party politics of the issue - and of course making comments on the case itself as the trial is beginnig again, but why is marital coercion only available for wives, and not husbands. The law is "Marital Coercion pursuant to section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925."

It was a law I had never heard but then it came out that only wives can use it. The background to the law is covered here.

There is an argument to be had about whether the law should exist at all, but the fact that it does and is only for wife's is staggering in a society that claims to be about equality. What is also staggering, but never surprising, is that no one in the media has actually made the connection that this law is sexist.

Considering the level of domestic abuse/partner abuse against men which shows that one in three victims are male and 600,00 men are victims each year must mean marital coercion is an issue for husbands as well as wives.

If the law is to remain on the statute book, then it has to apply to husbands as well. Silence from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission as ever, I think there needs to be a complaint made to them.

Posted by Skimmington 

NEWS UPDATE

A few from the last week or so

BBC - What jobs are male and what are female (Mark Easton): An old one from last year that I had not seen before.

Fighting Feminism - An attack by the V Spot (Mike Buchanan)

Daily Mail - Bring on quotas for women says TUC chief (Anna Edwards)

Daily Herald - Scotland lacking in male primary school teachers (Andrew Denholm)

Evening Standard - Soho restuarant continues trend in women-only bars (Emer Martin). Unless this is a private members club then KC’z Bar general manager and entrepreneur, KC Gates, will be breach of equality laws. See pubs and clubs section here.

Daily Telegraph - Government failing female entrepresneurs (Emma Barnett): More pleas for special treatment and discrimination against men. This time from Labour MP Seema Malhotra.

Amazon - Review on The Highway Rat (Tony Iqeq)

A Voice for Men - Interview with Erin Pizzey  

Daily Mail  - Diane Abbott MP says feminism destroyed the family (Tim Shipman)

The Observer - UK's top firms more male-dominated than FTSE rivals, new data reveals (Simon Goodley)

Daily Mail - Bias in the justice system (Peter Lloyd)

Daily Mail - John Leslie says false allegations destroyed my life

Posted by Skimmington

2012 REVIEW OF MALE INEQUALlTY AND DISCRIMINATION IN THE UK

Thank you to everyone who has supported the site (despite the sometime intermittent service) and this year (the seventh year it has been going), the site had 83,000 page views and 160 published pieces.

Thanks to everyone who contributed either in submitting articles or in commenting upon them. I have also updated some of the groups on the left hand side of this page - please remember to send over any that are missing.

In terms of what progress has been made in male equality and ending male discrimination, this year can again be seen as two steps forward one step back. The gain has mainly due to the efforts of individuals and groups taking up the mantle of male equality through organising themselves and not relying on politicians or other groups to do it for them. As we know, institutional sexism remains rife in Britain, so the welcome realisation is that we cannot rely on those same institutions for help.

In terms of the positives on particular issues, there have been some.

Family Law reform is moving forward with the concept of shared parenting being the accepted direction of travel (Parliamentary Briefing and subsequent announcement). This was despite the Norgrove Report denigrating shared parenting - though the fact Norgrove remains Chair of the Family Justice Review Board is surely untenable.

Boys Education remains the truth that dare not say its name. While boys continue to lag behind girls, the public policy silence remains deafening, despite some starting to publicly recognise it as a concern. The one glimmer of light is that the government is to bring back O-Level type examinations (one of the first big topics this site set out) however this will not be until 2017 (in terms of first exams), so that means 30 years of destruction has befallen the education of boys by bringing in an examination system wholly unacceptable to the way boys learn. The problems facing boys was eloquently laid out in this report and can be seen feeding through into pay.

The re-introduction of O-levels though is more down to Gove's desire for rigour rather than an acceptance that the education establishment has got it wrong for three decades and left generations of boys behind.

Women rejecting discrimination and excuses - we know that modern-day radical feminists that dominate the BBC, the Guardian, the senior parts of the civil service/academia/publc sector, the media and politics (including their "White Knight's") are out of touch with the thoughts and needs of modern women. Especially those who actually like men and want their fathers, brothers, sons, husbands, boyfriends etc to succeed. Research at the beginning of the year showed this as did this report at the end of the year.

Three issues that were never 'seen' as affecting men have also started to be recognised - human trafficking, forced marriage/honour violence and circumcision (and here). The latter has really taken off with the German court verdict and the manslaughter of a baby in the North West.

Lastly, this was the year that male equality issues started to enter the mainstream. In addition, to the above issues and groups working within them, the 'movement' started to mature. We saw the fruits of sensible campaigning by father's groups, Mike Buchanan's work at the Campaign for Merit in Business challenging the status quo leading to Select Committee appearances and even campaigns against the NSPCC succeeding. We have also seen campaigns against Virgin in Australia.

The National Conference for Men and Boys continues to grow, as does International Men's Day in the UK and also the celebration of Fathers on Father's Day. This maturity can be seen against the growing desperation of anti-male feminist groups trying to keep their requests for discrimination against men and special treatment on the political agenda.

On the negative side, we saw the continuing clamour for quotas and the ending of meritocracy over boardoom appointments gathering pace, however, while the governmet refused to accept EU legislation, there remains the social stigmatisation of companies if they do not comply with an 'unofficial quota'. Some have given in.

Mike Buchanan's campaign for Merit in Business has stood up to the argument mainly I think from a biological determinist sense, while this site's approach is mainly that quotas etc are discriminatory in blocking men because of their gender not talent and are against the fundamental tenets of equality.

Other areas that continue to be ignored are the male suicide rate, men's health especially on continual delays on a national screening programme, male victims of domestic abuse, male homelessness, male unemployment and the general demonisation of men by society, the media and groups such as the Fawcett Society, the Guardian and the government. We still have mobile phone sites defaming men's rights websites. There is still no Minister for Men, the most visible expression of anti-male equality (15 years).

What I am hoping for 2013, is that the growing maturity of the male equality sector continues with new sensible groups being created (only where there is a gap) or men and women joining existing ones.

There needs to be the celebratory groups such as International Men's Day and Father's Day, conferences, campaigns on particular issues, practical goups (like CALM, FNF, ManKind Initiative, Centre for Separated Families etc) providing practical on the ground solutions and also probably a more political group (not necessarily  political party).

The growing desperation of anti-male feminist groups like the Fawcett Society will be called into question mainly by women who are rejecting their hatred of the men they share their lives with.

This is what I would like to see so that come this time next year - we are starting to see equality for men, and the barriers that prevent them enjoying equality being further dismantled.

Posted by Skimmington

PS Forgot about this article

 

 

WHAT THE POLICE COMMISSIONER CANDIDATES KNOW ABOUT GENDER ISSUES

About 4 weeks ago with all the US Election fever, I got interested in the whole issue
of communicating with candidates to determine their sympathies on gender
issues. Posting this on AVfM, I was fortunate that SeaforthCJ was foolish
enough to get excited about the idea as well. Had we known how much effort it
was going to take, I suspect we might have faltered, but that is the nature of
activism!

For those of you who don’t know anything about the PCC elections, this is the short
definition of the role, as outlined on the home office website

Police and crime commissioners' role

Police and crime commissioners (PCCs) will ensure the policing needs of their communities are met as effectively as possible, bringing communities closer to the police, building confidence in the system and restoring trust. More about the role of the PCC.

PCCs will make and influence key decisions that will impact on how your local area looks and feels - from CCTV, street lighting and graffiti to tackling gangs and drug-dealing.

Their job is to listen to the public and then respond to their needs, bringing more of a
public voice to policing and giving the public a name and a face to complain to
if they aren't satisfied.

 SeaforthCJ  happens to have computer talents and managed to get an email address for around 150 of the candidates through some clever programming and we did searching for an additional 40 manually, 6 of these remained elusive but were mostly candidates associated with far-right organisations.

We sent a standard letter as follows via these emails or via the contact forms on
websites:

 Dear Sir or Madam,

 We are approaching you as a candidate for the
office of Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) in your local constabulary area.

Below is a series of questions, which we would appreciate you responding to.  These questions are being asked on behalf of a number of activist groups in England who are committed to gender equality and your responses will help inform those who read in our online communities as
to who they feel will best represent their concerns  

• How will you oversee the Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) process
  to ensure gender neutrality is upheld in its administration and decision making
  processes?

•  What training will you require the force you serve to undertake to increase their knowledge of gender reciprocity in domestic violence?

 

•  Your role will involve working with partner agencies on crime reduction. How will you ensure that there is representation on men’s issues in your meetings?

•  If you became aware of perception bias towards a belief that women should receive lesser punishment for the same crime, how would you address this issue?

 

•  How would you respond if you discovered that there had been persistent refusal in your force to investigate allegations of female-on-male sexual assault?  

We appreciate the time you are taking to respond to these questions, and would be happy to provide you with information on any issues raised by our questions. We will also send a link to any articles we publish on our online forums in relation to responses we obtain from the PCC,
should you respond to our questions.

 Yours faithfully

 Aimee McGee and      
John C Forth

I would say we were pretty transparent in our approach. This meant I had to laugh on
reading two of the responses.

One sent emails wanting to know more about us…and then sent manifesto details which were
of no relevance to the questions. Clearly when the candidate for Essex joined
the English Democrats, he had all independent thought switched off.  The Kent candidate for UKIP needs  to learn to edit forwarded emails. His campaign manager saying “strange for you piers.. ahhh the life of a PPC !!!!” above his response gave us a good laugh, and gave him a thumbs down even though he said he would consult with us to learn more on the issues.

This gets us down to the serious stuff. We have had a shocking lack of responses from most candidates. Now bearing in mind that we may have become spam, and there will be a lot of email traffic, it does not bode well that two polite, well-spoken individuals get less than a 13% response rate less than 1 week out from the election. Worse still, I’m still waiting to receive my first response
from ANY of the candidates in Cambridgeshire (curses, means I might have to do my own research!). At least SeaforthCJ got two responses in the Merseyside.

 We had two responses from men who clearly “get” that there are issues around men’s issues in relation to policing and crime. Mr Calderwood an Independent running in the Devon and Cornwall area is clearly a smart cookie. We wish him good fortune.

“the detail of the information with your question is very impressive and I hope other candidates will study it as so many are not experienced  in the  field  and will not know much of the nuts and bolts of police investigation of domestic violence. I know from the debates, discussions and questions and answers that many candidates share and believe in the myths you highlight about female sentences etc”

In Lincolnshire, Mr Hardwick another independent candidate did some research on the MARAC process and his response speaks for itself. We hope this is the start of a red-pill journey for him and wish him good luck in his campaign.

“First, let me say that I was surprised to find no reference to gender neutrality in MARAC arrangements in this area. Maybe I didn't look hard enough, but if it is the case that gender neutrality has been either ignored or side-lined then this is a matter of some concern that, should
I become PCC, will be addressed….<SNIP>… I would regard it as my duty to ensure that partner agencies and the police were suitably trained”

 There was a middle range of responses, all assuring us of their gender neutrality, but to credit some of them, they have in previous roles been proactive in looking at issues around gender.  Both Mr Ellis
(Staffordshire - Conservative) and Mr Williams (Surrey - Independent) fell into this category.

Mr Longmore of West Mercia another independent candidate actually raised these issues on the hustings and said “There is certainly an issue within West Mercia where male victims of domestic violence and sexual assault are not  getting the support services required”

Two female candidates have replied to date Ms Jones (Merseyside – UKIP) stated she felt that the equality agenda had gone too far. Ms Robinson (Cumbria – Independent) felt we raised important points. Other notable mentions in this category of polite non-response stating their gender neutrality include: Mr Smith (Devon and Cornwall – Independent), Mr Alam (Cleveland – Independent), Mr
Hogg (Devon and Cornwall – Conservative), Mr Goodall (Hampshire – Lib Dem)

 Mr Reid (Mersyside – Independent) has a background in the law but his quote following suggests that he potentially has a gynocentric bias towards female offenders.

“I reject gender discrimination in sentencing - however I accept there are sometimes good reasons for women to be treated differently. Sometimes, rarely, they are treated more harshly than a man might be - in both serious and minor offences. We need an open debate about all of these
issues, not one reflecting only particular perspectives.”

 Mr Chisnall (Sussex –Independent) was aware of the Men’s Network in Brighton but demonstrated he completely missed the point of concern about sentencing disparity

“ If you wish to win hearts and minds I would suggest you concede that women are disproportionately not present amongst many groups in our society. I would find your argument more persuasive if you were arguing for more women police officers, more women in the judiciary and
more women in the PCP, rather than more women in prison!”

It is clear that some people are following party political lines and not committing to anything in their campaigning, so they were not willing to put anything that could be viewed as controversial in their responses to us.  In this category there was Mr Howson (Thames Valley – Lib Dem), and Mr Williams (Devon and Cornwall – Labour). Even Mr Smith (Essex – UKIP) appears to have a party line he is concerned about “I have some understanding of the issues which you have put to me but I do not believe a PCC should commit to such campaigns.”

 Overall, we only had one candidate say anything that I felt like writing back and giving him a bit of a grilling on what he was saying Mr Rhodes (Cumbria – Conservative) quoted the following

“ I am of course aware of the problems associated with women offenders. The fact that 37% of women in custody attempt suicide is something that we all have to be aware of. It is no more or less
important than the fact that the figure for men is 26% = except that as a proportion of prisoners it is singularly higher.”

Quite simply I would love to go back to him and ask the following question – how many of those who attempt suicide in prison actually succeed? If it reflects the population statistics, the higher rate of attempts by women will be diminished dramatically by the actual deaths of the men.

So where does this leave us on the matter of who to vote for on the 15^th November 2012?

1)     Vote. Even if you deface your paper. Political representation matters.

 2)     For most areas, you are on your own – but if you have independent candidates, I strongly suggest you contact them yourself and ask questions - as you can see we got the best and most thoughtful responses from Independent candidates. I will be doing this in Cambridgeshire.

 3)     Let’s all shift to Devon and Cornwall – five of eight candidates responded. I ‘m
pleased to see this level of engagement.

I think more importantly than anything else is the follow-up from this article. I am keen to hear from English and Welsh MRAs who would be willing to be “out” and willing to provide information and advice to incoming PCCs on Men’s Issues in relation to policing. Several of the candidates who responded asked for local contacts if they were elected, and I would hope we can find people in the
MRM who are willing to act in this capacity.

Please use our dedicated email address to get in touch if you feel you could fulfil this role: [email protected] 

If we get any more interesting responses, I will do my best to update this post on the 14^th November, as long as life doesn’t get in the way of good activism.

Posted by Aimee McGee

SANDRA CLINCH CASE SHOWS WHY EQUALITY DOES NOT COUNT IN THE COURTS

The conviction of Sandra Clinch for manslaughter last week for killing her husband highlights the lack of justice for men in the courts.

Firstly, nine years for this hideous domestic violece crime that ended the life of her husband is a joke - as is the fact she was not convicted of murder. Reverse the genders, and it would have been 19 years and murder. Women's Aid et all would have been jumping up and down about it otherwise.

The fact she "stabbed a previous partner with a carving knife and assaulted your children
on a regular basis" is beyond comprehension and the BBC have outlined her violent history with a spot-on comment from Esteem and the comments in the Daily Mail sum it up. Nine years when she has this history - sickening. His brother was rightly not happy.

Posted by Skimmington

 

HEAD OF BBC RESIGNS FOR ROLE IN SPREADING FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS

I'm sure i don't have to inform our UK readers of today's huge news story, but for the benefit of our readers elsewhere and the wider men's rights community it's worth repeating and putting into a men's rights context. To summarise the situation, last week the BBC's Newsnight programme smeared an honourable and elderly former Conservative politician with a false allegation of rape. Not just any rape, but that of the most vulnerable boys in a care home. Although the BBC didn't name the gentleman in question, they gave plenty of hints and effectively directed the audience to investigate online. Thanks to several high profile left-wing Twitter users, the name of the entirely innocent party soon quickly became identified as Lord MacAlpine with the "information" reaching a wide audience.

In the last couple of days it became clear that the BBC's story was false and based on mistaken identity. The shoddiness in the BBC's journalism has become plain for all to see, culminating tin the resignation of George Entwistle, the BBC's Director General, who whilst somehow unaware of the content of the programme, bears ultimate responsibility as Editor in chief. Furthermore, given the fact the other parities were far more involved in what occurred, more resignations or sackings appear certain to follow.

I can't recall a major news story in the UK having such a major men's rights angle in some considerable time and I certainly don't remember such a resignation before over a men's rights issue. In fact, the wider story is saturated with content that is key to our movement and everything we stand for. Not only have we seen a witch hunt of innocent men on multiple channels on the television, there's also the issue of a failure in investigate the abuse of vulnerable young boys, many of them almost certainly in such a position due to family breakdown and poor parenting. If anyone doubted the seriousness of false rape allegations and society's appetite for them, not to mention the need for anonymity for the accused then this case surely proves them wrong once a for all.

Although what has transpired here may at first appear depressing, the plus side is that major heads have rolled for once and false rape accusations taken seriously. Furthermore, there's the delightful prospect of Lord MacAlpine rendering those involved in the saga much less wealthy and hopefully unemployable too. Perhaps the only regret here is that your average man on the street suffering such horrific smears will never receive any sort of justice, let alone the most welcome outcome starting to transpire on this particular occasion.

by John Kimble

WILL MEN HAVE TO FIGHT THEIR BATTLE FOR EQUAL PAY IN BIRMINGHAM

The landmark victory for female workers in Birmingham has played out against a backdrop of the usual radical feminist  man-hating.

 If you read the headlines and the way the story has been represented you would have thought
all of the men at the council got bonuses, whilst women did not. This is not true of course because it was about the roles not the gender.

Some women in the roles that qualified for bonuses would have got them, and any men in the non-bonus roles would not. But it has all been about women which is similar to previous portrayals. Will this men in a similar state as these men were in and will have to fight the courts for their equality!

 Any man undertaking the roles that the women won the claim for should also now sue but because of the publicity I bet many will feel the judgement does not apply to them when it does. And actually if you read between the lines of what the BBC said, it says 'mainly women' but then other media just say all women.

 As the solicitors who won the case, Leigh Day and Co,  have said they have 1,000 cases ready to go - let's see how many of them are men, have they tried to find male claimants or just woman and are they trying not to. Answers are needed.

Posted by Skimmington

Other coverage - Guardian (Chris Benson), BBC and Daily Mail