The Rights Of Man

SPOT ON FROM MELANIE PHILLIPS AND SLUTWALKING

In case anyone missed this, please read Melanie Phillip's take on modern day feminism in the Daily Mail

DOUBLE DEFEAT FOR MEN ON RAPE ALLEGATIONS

One the areas that where the police and the Crown Prosecution Service have both been unequivocal has been prosecuting women who falsely accuse men of raping them.

For those falsely accused men it destroys them and families and also damages the cases of women who have been raped. These recent cases (Nicola Osborne and Jemima Knights) show how this remains the case and remember the government's own report (where it infamously u-turned on anonymity for rape defendants) said 8-10% of allegations were false and 61 women were convicted in 2010 for false allegations and 7 prosecutions failed.

Earlier this month the Crown Prosecution Service launched a consultation on false allegations of rape and domestic violence to ensure that women are not prosecuted when they retracted the allegation based on fear (the cause celebre is where a woman had her sentence for a false allegation rightly quashed).

While the press release and consultation make it clear that there is no intention to water down prosecutions for false accusations, you cannot help but feel this is a fig-leaf for more discrimination against men and boys (just like believers in the positive discrimination clauses of the Equality Act always state that it can mean more male primary school teachers).

It has been clear and clearly identified by the brilliant False Rape Society website who have identified the growing trend from the Guardian and organisations like Women Against Rape complaining about false rape prosecutions because they believe there is no such thing as a false allegation and that no women should ever be prosecuted for false rape allegations. Normally based on the doe-eyed naive view that all women-are-good-all-men-are-bad-no-smoke-without-fire world view attitude.

When do you ever hear organisations supporting raped women attack those women for making false accusations which damages the women these organisations rightly support?

The anti-male feminist tactics are clear on the rape issue. In their first victory when the government u-turned on the anonymity issue, they cited the evil rapist Warboys where because he had been named and pictured when accused, more women came forward. This time, they are using this case in the same way where a woman was being wrongly being prosecuted for a false allegation when there were clear reasons which the CPS should have taken into account. Because of their mistake, they let the whole anti-male feminists brigade to use it as an issue to continually beat them up on it.

The victims of this again will be those men and boys falsely accused of rape.

Firstly, there are strong enough rules and also the application of 'common-sense'  and the 'reasonable' test mean that if an allegation is retracted but there are extenuating circumstances like being bullied, then the CPS should be sensible enough not to prosecute. You do not need new rules, just people with brains.

Secondly, by putting pressure on the police and Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute and making it harder to do so, means they will be more reluctant to do so. It is more hassle, the political pressure from on high will mean some cases will now be dropped when they should not be. It is the same when the police automatically arrest the man in domestic abuse cases when both are making accusations (or of course they arrest the man anyway).

Thirdly, there will be less chance of justice for those men and boys who were accused. At least if there name was in the papers, those who had made a false allegations would have their reputations damaged as well and be prosecuted and on occasion jailed. There will be fewer examples of this now.

This will be a further victory for the anti-male feminists on this issue within six months.

First they succeed in stopping men accused of rape from remaining anonymous unless found guilty. Now they have succeeded in making it harder for women who make false allegations to be prosecuted.

The Government says it is consulting but it did so on the anonymity issue and did not take any notice of those wanting anonymity so it won't do now for those groups asking them not to water down existing law and procedures.

Posted by Skimmington

Postscript - The False Rape Society is absolutely brilliant on this subject and please read these posts:

FRS#1, FRS#2, FRS#3

 

ARTICLES ROUND-UP

Just an update on a few recent articles worth looking at:

Daily Mail - My wife hugged me and then stabbed me in the back (Penny Marshall) Please read comments section.

This is Leicestershire - Support for male victims of domestic abuse (Ciaran Fagan)

Daily Telegraph - Poor white boys score lower than chinese classmates (Tim Ross)

Daily Telegraph - Mother stunned after being accused of kerb-crawling (Chris Brooke) : Mother attacks police tactics mentioning what would happen if it was a man accused.

Evening Standard - Fathers at risk from legal aid cuts (Martin Bentham)

Daily Mail - The children who never see daddy (James Chapman): 369 comments in this section

Daily Mail - More rights for women has led to fewer jobs in the recession (Harry Phibbs)

Daily Mail - My dad is number one role model

Posted by Skimmington

 

 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROTECTION ORDERS AND THE CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE ON MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL ABUSE

One of the most distressing things when you are a group that continues to fail to get a fair deal is when the media and politics continue and purposely marginalise you. Often and this site has raised it, it is a form of discrimination by omission.

Today, has been a classic example of how discrimination against men continues to be endemic in the uK. It is no surprise on the International Day of the Elimination of Violence against Women and Girls

This morning we were all greeted with the news that the Home Office has made £28 million available to end sexual and domestic violence against women and girls. Not a penny for male victims of sexual and domestic violence.No one is saying women and grils should not be supported who suffer in this way but many men do as well.

There is even a full blown strategy where conveniently the figures are highlighted showing that there are over 1 million women in England and Wales who are victims of domestic abuse and that 1 in 4 will be victim in their lifetime. Conveninetly the facts (as produced from the Home Office and collated by the ManKind Initiative) show that the male equivalent figures are 629,000 and 1 in 6.

The governement also announced (see bottom of press release) that they would pilot domestic violence protection orders in four areas. The quote greeeting everyone in the newspapers and in the media this morning from Home Secretary Theresa May was "Domestic violence is an appalling crime that sees two women per week die at the hands of her attackers." Wait a minute though, one man per fortnight also dies in this way but May does not mention that.

The whole issue of institutional discrimination against male victims of domestic abuse is of course exacerbated, albeit encouraged by a biased quote from the Home Secretary, by the media reporting. Once again, we have a gender neutral policy turned into one that is headlined and prefaced with the words 'wife-beater' or 'powers for police to ban men who abuse women' etc (see end for some examples).

But why instituntional discrimination in the way the orders are portayed by the government and the media?

It is because the orders apply to both male or female perpetrators of domestic abuse. Not only do they have to legally apply to all genders (though we know in a practical sense the police are only very likely to use them against male perpetrators and not female ones) but also because on BBC Radio 5 this morning, the presenter asked the Minister for Equalities, Lynne Featherstone, whether they applied to those who committed domestic violence against men. She said 'yes', but then used the usual caveat that most victims of domestic violence are women, thereby relegating male victims again to second class status.

But would you have known any of that by reading the govenment's annoucements or by reading any of the coverage? Of course not.

Today's announcement on the new money to tackle violence against women and girls (and nothing for men) as well as the deliberately inaccurate portrayal of the domestic violence control orders is another  classic example of the institutional discrimination by omission against men and male victims of domestic abuse.

This form of covert discrimination by omission is worse than overt discrimination because it is deliberately aimed at hiding the truth away. No wonder a government with a Minster for Women (and no Minster for Men) and numerous equalities ministers laugh in the face of men and the true meaning of equality.

Posted by Skimmington 

Examples of some of the worst of the media coverage - Daily Mail  , The Independent, The Guardian, ITN

COALITION'S COWARDICE WILL LEAD TO FALSELY ACCUSED MEN STILL LIVING WITH BLIGHTED REPUTATIONS

One of the great hopes that when the Coalition Government came together in May this year was this pledge in their agreement (page 24):

We will extend anonymity in rape cases to defendants

That is as black and white as you can possible get.

Over the ensuing months, following the onslaught by Harman, Flint and the rest (covered on the site), Crispin Blunt said that the "proposals did not stand on its merits."

The report that accompanied the U-turn states that there is insufficient empirical evidence in false accuasations to recommends a policy change. This is pretty weaselly considering that the report states the standard estimate is that 8-11% of rape allegations in England and Wales are false (see page 12), plus page 16 reports from research about the nature of false allegations.

This raises a number of issues, bar another U-turn in Government policy:

As raised here, there is an epidemic of false allegations, almost one per week is reported in the newapaper which is also covered by the the excellent False Rape Society which has rolling news on this issue and of cases of false allegation.

Each and every man accused of rape via a false allegation will continue to have their reputation stained (and stained forever because of the internet) with all the ensuing damage on the family, employment opportunities and psychology. Men have committed suicide becuase of this and some men have fled the country. Blunt thinks this is OK.

The second point which is most chilling is the fact that men have no hope of making sufficient gains in terms of equality (except for the review on Family Law and pensions!) because whenever a measure is put forward that brings equality for men, the Government buckle under the weight of the rantings and ravings from those who dislike men so much (Harman, Flint, Cooper, Fawcett Society, Equalities and Human Rights Commission etc).

We have already witnessed the laughable and dangerous antics of those who think equality only applies to women over the public sector cuts and pension changes. This u-turn sets an a very damaging presecdnet because it means they are terrified of the onslaught. The backbone of a jellyfish. 

Rather than stand firm on their manifesto commitment, equality in the British justice system and to prtuiect those falsely accused of rape, they buckled under the onslaught of the the nato-male Marxist feminists. They ran away like cowards under the cover of a report designed to give their u-turn some type of credibility to avioid being seen of being scared of the anti-male lobby.

Media coverage - Daily Mirror, Independent, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Guardian

Posted by Skimmington

EQUALITY FOR MEN VICTORY AS BRITISH AIRWAYS CLIMB DOWNS ON ITS SEXIST POLICY

As covered comprehensively on the site (and here and here) and rightly a cause celebre for anyone who believes that equality should also apply to men, British Airways had a policy which stopped a man from sitting next to a child unless he was their father. 

After suffering from this sexual discrimination (the policy did not apply to women) Mirko Fischer won a court case at Swindon County Court after he has was told by British Airways to move from his seat. It also forced British Airways to review its policies.

The Sunday Telegraph reports that British Airways has now changed its policy and dropped this discrimination.

This is a clear victory for male equality campaigners and shows what can be done as many have written and called BA to keep the pressure on. The policy probably would not have changed though without Mirko Fischer winning his court case so as well as male equality campaigners keeping the pressure up, sites like and others disseminating information there is a need for men to challenge issues through the courts.

This is glib as men are not backed by or supported by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission or has a vociferous and well funded group (including by the public sector) organisation like the anti-male Fawcett Society (though they will have been screwed by their pathetic and ridiculous challenge to the Governement's Budget).

Putting that aside the equality legisiation is therefore of men and women.

On other issue is something that has been seen before (the MFI advert was a classic example) is the fact British Airways does not show any sign of remorse that it operated a sexist policy. It hides behind jargonese but does not say sorry, that is shameful and speaks volumes.

Now it is just Qantas that has such a sexist policy. 

Posted by Skimmington

HOME OFFICE: FEMALE PAEDOPHILES DO NOT EXIST

Our newest writer on this blog yesterday drew my attention to this article at the BBC. The document discusses "Sarah's Law"  a new piece of legislation permitting parents to check the background of those people who have unsupervised access to their children just in case they are paedophiles. The piece gives five scenarios the scheme could cover, and there's a rather disturbing common theme throughout. I've since discovered that the five scenarios given actually appear in various different articles on the issue on different sites, therefore it's uncertain as to who is to blame exactly.

One of the characters we get to hear about is a male sports coach offering informal football training. It tells us that parents can find information about him due to "rumours about the man doing the rounds". Obviously checks based on rumours aren't especially desirable but the piece is well balanced and does warn of the danger off vigilantism.

We also read about an "odd-looking" neighbour. Again this potential paedophile is male as well as "shifty, reclusive" and "always rude", though at least the piece informs us that no check are likely to be performed on this particular character due to the lack of evidence of risk.

A second neighbour "playing with children" is another possible paedophile discussed. We hear how neighbours are suspicious about the "individual" and their intentions towards local children and one is given the impression we're finally at least seeing a gender neutral scenario or perhaps even a female sex offender discussed. However this all change in the final paragraph where it's revealed that the character in question is an offender though perhaps not thought to be a risk because "he is co-operating with monitoring arrangements".

The two remaining characters supposedly representing likely scenarios are both "new boyfriends" . It' essentially the same scenario twice, the only difference being the source of the concern. One is where a mother wants to know more about someone she is dating, whereas in the second case the relationship is more developed and the concern instead comes from the grandparents.

In total we've got five possible paedophiles (or even actual paedophiles in some cases), every single one of them is a man. The scenarios manage to be perfectly gender neutral in terms of the possible victims of these sex offenders so why demonise all men in this way?

Last year the BBC produced an article asking "are there women paedophiles?" . It comes to the conclusion that there are indeed plenty of female paedophiles though notes how they often go undetected. It states that "society's different attitude to women offenders is reflected in the language of the media reporting it" and the writer goes on to say that "that victims suffered a peculiar sense of isolation and stigma because this form of abuse was not so widely recognised."

To be honest I couldn't' have put it much better myself. By ignoring female paedophiles whoever came up with these five scenarios is not only unfairly stigmatising men, but it's making it easier for female child abusers and mean their victims feel less able to come forward. Despite the lack of effort in detecting such abusers and the reluctance in victims coming forward, research still puts the percentage of female paedophiles at up to 20%. Therefore we should certainly have seen one female abuser featured for the sake of accuracy yet we didn't even see a single gender neutral scenario thus thoroughly reinforcing the myth that only men sexually abuse children.

The misandry doesn't stop at pretending there aren't' any female paedophiles either. There is vast dishonesty in the identify of the parties concerned about potential paedophiles too.  Every single scenario in the piece either features a parent who's gender is undisclosed worried about a random neighbour/coach, or a mother/grandparent worried about a boyfriend. Nothing wrong with that you might think, but lets consider the reality of the situation and the options open to the parties involved.

If a mother is so worried about a potential new partner that he might be a paedophile then it's pretty obvious there isn't any level of trust in the relationship and she's surely going to find someone else rather than instigate a police investigation? On the other hand a father cannot put a stop to his ex wife's new relationship and he actually faces far more barriers in terms of contact with the child than almost any other male on the planet. Therefore fathers are the one's mostly likely to make use of Sarah's law, and they'd be quite right to do so given that one of the most dangerous environment for a child is with their mother and her latest boyfriend.

Some readers may well be sceptical of the above assertions, but they're not just random likely suggestions based on probabilities - the actual evidence from the four Sarah's Law trials  shows these fathers to be the main users of Sarah's Law, with mothers not even mentioned as one of the smaller groups making requests.

So the question is who exactly is responsible for such dishonest writing? The earliest trace of the article I can find is actually a BBC piece from 2008 by Dominic Casciani, I've contacted him and he informs me the piece was based upon Home Office publicity material and this really is very worrying indeed. It's not the BBC pretending that there are no female paedophiles, they're merely giving coverage to the sexist lies manufactured at the Home Office.

How can we possibly protect victims of female paedophiles if we refuse to acknowledge their existence? Lets hope the new coalition government put an end to such sexism and starts protecting all children rather than just those with the "correct" type of abuser.

by John Kimble

RAPE ANONYMITY U-TURN CONFIRMED

Just as we feared, the Coalition Government has chickened out of giving equal justice to rape defendents.

Howled down by Marxist feminists, it has run away scared leaving men who are falsely accused of rape to be torn to shreds by the media and have their lives ruined.

Can Caroline Flint, Yvette Cooper, Harriet Harman, Fiona Mactaggart, the Fawcett Society, Women's Aid and all the others look Grant Bowers in the eye and say that he is just collateral damage and its just hard luck.

His interview on BBC 1 Newsbeat is a reminder of the damage this defeat for equality will continue to have for generations to come.   

Coverage - BBC, The Guardian.

COALITION GOVERNMENT LOOK LIKE CHICKENING OUT OVER RAPE ANONYMITY

Just as many on this site worried about, the Sunday Telegraph reports that there will be no legislation on anonymity up and until charge (which is worthless anyway) let alone until conviction. They are looking at some sort of fudge involving a "Gentlemen's agreement" for newspapers and bloggers not to report names until charge. Pathetic.

Looks like they have chosen to cower in the corner against the onslaught of the Marxist feminists who want men to be secondbest and not equal. Instead of standing up for equal justice, they have run away. This was the first skirmish between the Government and the Marxist feminists and the Marxist feminists have won.

Their victorymeans there is little hope for male equality in the UK, not just because of the decision but because the Coalition Government bottled it. They are chicken.

Posted by Skimmington

RAPE ANONYMITY: ANOTHER FOUR DESTROYED MEN

This site commented some time ago before the issue of giving anonymity was raised by the Coalition Government that there seemed to be an epidemic of false accusations of rape against men. An issue that can be seen by the constant stories that keep flowing of women being prosecuted for it.

Another one today, this time Leyla Ibrahim was sent to prison for three years for it even going to the trouble of ripping her own clothes (she'll serve 18 months at most).

Now I know that Caroline Flint MP, Harriet Harman MP, Fiona MacTaggart MP, Maria Eagle MP, Louise Bagshawe MP, the Fawcett Society, Women's Aid and all those others who do not believe in equality of justice won't read it or care but this line is simply devastating from the BBC report :

'One man described his ordeal in detention as "torture" while another attempted self harm, the court heard.'  Four men in total were questioned.

Wrose, the Daily Mail reported:

"Another said he was 'devastated' by the harrowing experience and had been unable to eat or sleep, with one suspect complaining: 'We were treated like s*** and not a stint of an apology.'

"A senior police source said the four were still 'really struggling', adding: 'One of them has even had to move out of the area."

Part of the reason they were devastated in such a way is not just is not just because they were accused, it is because they would be named and that the mud would stick forever and their lives ruined.

To those who do not believe the law should be changed, these men are just collateral damage. And in a brilliant article by the False Rape Society, there is a clear reason why. It is supposedly payback time.

Posted by Skimmington

Note: Try not to get too angry when you read Barbara Ellen's comments (2nd story) on the anonymity issue in the Guardian.