The Rights Of Man

POSITIVE ABOUT FATHER'S RIGHTS IN THE NATIONAL MEDIA SHOCKER

A week or so ago, this site reported on the comments made by Justice Wall, and the Observer followed it up with this fascinating and fair overview. Father's rights being seen positively and being reported fairly!

This is also on the back of the Family Justice Review which says that 'fathers and grandparents regulary tell us they do not feel well served under the current system'. Well over three decades and at last Governement is starting to catch up.

The articles are here and here.

Posted by Skimmington

 

IN THE NAME OF EQUALITY - SCRAP THE GOVERNMENT EQUALITIES OFFICE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE SPENDING REVIEW

Last week the BBC obtained a Government leak highlighting what Government department and quangos were for the chop in the coming Comprehensive Spending Review. In itself it is a fascinating list but it is worthwhile as ever to look a bit closer.

Page 11 shows that the Women's National Commission is to be abolished and its functions brought into the perversely named, Government Equalities Office (a body that costs UK taxpayers a whopping £69 million per year). Perversely, in that, it has no interest in the equal rights of men who make up 49% of the British population.

Set up in 1969 it says it provides a unique and independent voice working on women's equality with a specvial role to fulfil and an important remit with the UK's equality framework. As a non-departmental public body it is funded by the taxpayer (£661,000 - see last answer) but can speak freely. The home of their site shows arch-feminist Baroness Gould  plead with the Government not to scrap it.

That would be equality of course because there is no Men's National Commission being funded by the taxpayer and supported by a Government Department. It will go underground, the work will continue but not in the open.

However, the body's functions will be transferred remember so do not get out the bunting quite yet.

Another interesting aside is that the infamous women's rights anti-male charity, the Fawcett Society, has not issued one  missive or press release crying about the proposal. Why so, when if anyone suggests anything that could potentially have a negative effect on a woman, this August organisation is 'manning' the barricades and issuing press releases and missives all over the airwaves. Could it be that of the Women's National Commission is scrapped they can lay their hands on the title of being the UK's leading organisation giving voice to women. Of course it is, they have seen a vacuum and want to take the Commission's place. That's why there is silence. They cannot fool us!

On the same list obtained by the BBC, the fate of the other perversely named Equalities and Human Rights Commission has yet to be decided. Costing £60 million per year (2008/09), this organisation which combines the former Disabled, Race and Equal Opportunities Commissionsdoes nothing to support men. All of its campaigns on gender are about women (even on the recent Budget when it complained it would hit women - but no mention of how the recession in the private sector hit men the hardest) and is another public body guilty of sexual discrimination against by omission.

 Every gender issue is always about men having power over women and making their lives a misery. There is never a study onto boys education, the lack of monies for male cancers, suicide rates, domestic violence (they told the ManKind Initiative to bugger off) or even the family courts (the Ministry of Justice admit men and grandparents think their is a problem yet the Equalities Commission you nothing, not even a squeak).

It forgets men (and boys) exist even though it believes we are equal. We have run so many stories about their inadequacy they have their own content list and were slammed by a Select Committee earlier this year. It could have been a useful organisation but it does not care about men.

While it is welcome news that the WNC is going and would be great if the Equalities Commission went for a Burton, there remains the concern that there would still remain a Government Equlaities Office.

It says that it employs 100 people and that it 'takes a lead on issues relating to women, sexual orientation and transgender equalities matters.' Read it again.

The Governments's Equalities Office does not believe that equality covers men as well. To make matters worse, this is not something that has been investigated it is there proud as punch on the home page of their website (only one of the six people featured on its home page is a male).

The hypocrisy continues as it's board of ten only has three men, it employs 65% women and it has a gender pay gap of -7.7%. This is no typo, because women are paid on average 7.7% more than men in the department it is classed as a negative pay gap because to them all pay gaps are about men being paid more than women. Classic Orwell.

There is no point in closing the Women's National Commission and the Equailities and Human Rights Commission if the Government's Equalities Office is not scrapped either. It is as anti-male as the other two bodies and none have an interest in applying the concept of equality to men. 

Go on Osborne and the Coalition, if you truly believe in equality you will scarp all three. That would be equality in its truest sense. 

Posted by Skimmington

JUSTICE WALL AND WILL THERE BE JUSTICE IN THE FAMILY COURTS?

 A week or so ago, the site raised the issue that the sudden interest in the figure highlighting that 40% of victims of domestic abuse were male was a surprise because it had been a fact for sometime.

The same could be said this week about the Lord Justice Nicholas Wall, President of the Family Division, who at last weekend's Families Need Fathers conferenne said in his very powerful and lucid speech that in family court proceedings:

"Far more often, the parties are fighting over again the battles of the relationship, and the children are both the battlefield and the ammunitiom. Often the mother, who finds herself caring for the children, is able to use her power over them to deny the father contact." (para 15).

He also went onto to say that "the more intelligent the parent, the more intractable the dispute." (para 33). Maybe it is the upper middle class women being fed the nonsense in this book the new middle class feminist bible all over the papers...

The speech also shed much light on the role of the courts, the lack of judicial continuity, shared parenting, human behaviour, the infamous payne vs payne case and the other problem that forces so many men back into court - the pathetic lack of enforcement of contact orders.

He said that the courts were not anti-men but I suppose he couldn't say otherwise, even though, CAFCASS clearly are (indociriated by the anti-male ideology) and many of the judges are. Why do Batman & Robin feel they have to get on the roof of Buckingham Place? 

After the Times covered the story, the coverage continued throughout the week and some of it enlightening about the attitudes of women.

In Harriet Sergeant's Daily Mail article about her divorce a female friend of hers said: 'Why aren't you using the children against him?' and then said 'I would'. Comments on the article are worth reading.

However, the issue is that this subject has been around for over 30 years and more, its why Families Needs Fathers was set up. The secrecy of the family courts has meant that some were forced to set groups like Fathers4Justice, Real Fathers4Justice and the like. Men have been driven to suicide and bankruptcy while others because of obstructive mothers and the supine courts that side with them have lost touch with their children (Mark Harris' seminal book is always worth sending to unbelievers).

Just like the issue on domestic violence, for some reason the issue is triggered when it has been fact for decades and fair play for Justice Wall for being lucid and speaking in such terms. The challenge is to keep the momentum going because with the Family Justice Review being undertaken and the Coalition's Government's pledge for shared parenting ther eis much to play for. A shared parenting bill has already been laid by some MP's.

Maybe, just maybe, this can move forward...

Posted by Skimmington

Media articles - Daily Mail (plus debate), Telegraph, Spectator (Melanie Phillips) and BBC

 

 

EQUAL TREATMENT BOOK - THE MOST ANTI-MALE ANTI-EQUALITY BOOK IN BRITISH JUDICIAL HISTORY?

The one thing those of us cling on to when fighting the battle against the war on men is that we are equal before the law.

Now we know that is not the case where all sorts of positive discrimination clauses kick in, the bias of CAFCASS and magistrates and judges of fathers in the family courts and how male victims of domestic abuse are still treated poorly. However, it is still something to cling on to.

Sometimes, the game is up and there is no escape from the unbridled anti-male society we live and this now goes right to the heart of the British Justice system.

As revealed by the Daily Mail (also read comments), the English and Welsh judiciary have produced guidance that discirmates against men. The guidance laughably called the Equal Treatment Bench Book sets out how judges should deal with those that come before them. It says:

 "Its aim is to inform, assist and guide, to generate thought and discussion and, ultimately, to enable all judges to deal confidently, sensitively and fairly with all those who appear before them."

It was published in April 2010 before the new Coalition Government took over. It has the fingerprints of Harman, Baird and Flint stamped all over it.

The section on gender equality is unbelievably biased, it is almost as though men do not exist and where they do, they are so superior to women that only women need support and men do not. In all my years beavering away in this area, there has never been a more nasty, one-sided, anti-male document produced by any part of the state than this.

There is no mention of the problems that boys have with education, suicide, unemployment, teh denial of equal/shared parenting etc. It is the most classic example of anti-male bias by omission.

It does not explicitly say that men should not be treated as second class citizens, but by hardly including men anywhere in the document and calling for special treatment for women, then by definition it is anti-male. Anti-male by omission.  

On the issue of sentencing (6-11 to 6-13)  it makes clear that women should be given special treatment and that judges should bear in mind the problems that female prisoners have. That's fine, but no mention of male prisoners. Women can be shown leniency because of the factors that affect them, but men cannot.

ON the issue of domestic abuse (6.1.7), men are relegated to a footnote - second class victims as the ManKind Initiative said in the Daily Mail. They laughable anti-male authors of this report even use one-sided statistics from End Violence Against Women when they do not even use the British Crime Survey figures produced from the Home Office (see ManKind document), another part of Government. They know no shame.

If men cannot now rely on equal justice, equal treatment and equal recognition from the judiciary then there is no hope for equality for men at all. This is the most anti-male biased document probably ever. 

Posted by Skimmington

LABOUR CONTINUES ITS ANTI-EQUALITY ATTACK ON MEN: MORE POLITICAL DISENFRANCHISEMENT

The Labour Party who brought in the invidious legislation to allow for gender discrimination which it has used time and time again to disenfranchise men from the British political system (through all women-shortlists) has announced this week that it has brought in quotas into the Shadow Cabinet.

This is of course anti-equality and has nothing to do with meritocracy or the best person for the job.

As the Daily Mail reported (and the Guardian of course) Labour Party MP's voted (remember this is not being imposed on high, the male MP's voted for this as well!!) to ensure that the Shadow Cabinet must have a minimum of 31.5% women. Not as many as the 50% that leading anti-male campaigner Harriet Harman wanted.  

As Labour MP's vote on who should be in the Shadow Cabinet, it will end up creating a similar situation to the one that the Conservatives used for selecting their European Election candidates. Where there could be (as in five in nine cases in the Conservative case) women being promoted into the Shadow Cabinet even though they received fewer votes than a male.

This of course is sexist, anti-democratic and anti equality.

Where politicians lead of course, others follow.

There continues to be pressure on boardrooms to be more gender equal (always in favour of women), the continue myths and lies spread over pay (the gender pay gap) and of course the Equality Act which will allow employers to discriminate against men when choosing candidates for selection (though I have read that this section of the Act has not been implemented by the Coalition as the Conservatives had opposed it and now in Government have chosen not to implement it - will be checking)

This therefore is just the tip of the iceberg and we can now wait with bated breath for quotas to be brought in across the UK. This will require legislative changes (political parties can discriminate because of the Sex Discrimination Election Act 2002).

The message, throughout all of this, is your skill, talent and expertise does not matter - it is your gender that counts and as long as it is not male.

Posted by Skimmington 

MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE HIT THE HEADLINES - BUT IS IT GROUNDHOG DAY AGAIN?

Still left reeling from the fact yesterday the Observer (The Guardian's Sunday newspaper - see the comments section as well on the piece) had written a piece about why male victims of domestic abuse were not being given equal treatment, the BBC then ran an interview on their Breakfast show. I nearly choked on my corn flakes, has the world turned turtle? (one reader thought he was hallucinating when he read the story in the Observer of all places!)

There was also coverage in the Daily Mail (see comments on the article as well) on a damning report at the MInistry of Justice (more to be written this week) and Amen, the Irish male support service published their Annual Report which received coveragein that country about the 80% increase in calls they were receiving.

The key issues coming form the coverage are that there still seems to be some surprise at the level of domestic violence against men yet the figure quoted by Parity and then expounded upon by the ManKind Initiative have been the same for years. That 33-40% of domestic abuse victims are male and these are Home Office British Crime Survey figures. Why the sudden surprise?

The second point is that a lot of the coverage was based on the lack of refuges/safe houses and the overall lack of support for male victims. But this is almost like the Groundhog Day film, where the same story is played out time and again. This is because we hear this story in the news every six months or so, but what changes?

There continues to be a view that domestic abuse is a gendered issue, when it isn't. The radical anti-male feminist view still holds sway and do the policy makers in Government, on councils, in the CPS and in police forces change their minds or do they close their ears?

It seems the ears option is still holding sway but at least with this coverage, the issue is still having the spotlight shone on it and eventually equality for male victims may win it. It just may take too damned long when it should be taken as read while in the meantime thousand of men going on suffering.

Posted by Skimmington

Other articles - Daily Mail and Northern Echo

OFF WITH HIS HEAD AT THE TOWER OF LONDON: JUSTICE AT LAST

This week has been one where more stories come to light that debunk the continual and purposeful myths that only men are perpetrators of domestic abuse or stalking.

We have had the story in papers again about evil Tracie Andrews and also the awful ordeal that Dr Jan Falkowski had to endure and the ludicrously poor sentences the offenders received. There is now a National Stalking Helpline which it makes clear will support men and women which means men suffering from being stalked have a place of expertise to go and get help from.

The stigma of false allegations and the wreckage they cause has also been laid bare. Mark Sanders-Crook, a Beefeater at the Tower of London, was sacked last year (and here) because of bullying and harassment allegations made by a female Beefeater.

At the time, Mr Sanders-Crook said that he was sacked because "because I am a man, because of political correctness" and that he planned to appeal and launch a claim for unfair dismissal.

The Tower of London said that the complaints about him had been "investigated extremely thoroughly"So much so that this week it was announced that he has been cleared, given a formal apology  and awarded damages by the Tower of London for false dismissal (This is London, Guardian, Independent, The Sun and Telegraph .

Here we have another classic story in the pantheon of men being ruined by false allegations and accusations.

A trigger-happy politically-correct anti-male employer like the Tower of London who because of their warped sense of equality feel it is easier to just sack a man when accused in this way because it is the easiest option to take and everyone in society 'accepts' that all men harass women and it is therefore a no brainer and no one would be surprised by this action.

The fact of course that the person making the false allegations against Mr Sanders-Crooks, happened to be the first female Beefeater meant he just had to go. The Sistas would demand it, they smell the blood of a cornered man from 10 miles away.

What sticks in the throat and is worth coming back to is what was said by the Tower of London in November 2009 when he was sacked: "We expect our staff to demonstrate our commitment to diversity and maintaining a supportive working environment".

That does not apply at the Tower of London if a male employee is falsely accused.

Posted by Skimmington