The Rights Of Man

HYPOCRISY IN WEYMOUTH

This week, Councillor Christine James (a campaigner for female victims of domestic abuse) from Weymouth and Portland Council was convicted of physically attacking her husband (also a councillor though he is Conservative and she is a Lib Dem). The report in the Dorset Echo says she she rained punches down on him. 

She received a sentence of an 18 month conditional discharge (basically the judge convicts someone but passes no sentence unless a similar incident occurs) and had to pay £200 in costs. She also refuses to resign from the council.

Now if this was a male councillor there is no way such a weak and pathetic sentence would have been passed. There would have been a campaign of vilification by local women's groups (the local Women's Aid group especially), he would have been disowned by his political group on the council and the council itself would have condemned him. Yet, because the councillor is female nothing of the sort happens and the council itself says it is a 'domestic' and therefore none of its business!  

As an elected member of the community and someone who is meant to lead by example and having broken the law, the councillor has to resign. A male councillor would have come under such pressure he would have no choice, but not a word from the Lib Dems on this council. Eeveryone available would be lining up to condemn him.

As ever, double standards are shown to be norm when it comes to male and female victims or perpertrators of doemstic abuse. Silence and sweep under the carpet, keep moving, there is nothing to see here...

Posted by Skimmington 

Other Media Coverage - Dorset Echo#2, Daily Mail

 

 

 

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

CELEBRATE ON FRIDAY - IT'S INTERNATIONAL MEN'S DAY

Sorry there has not been any recent posts lately things cropped up which meant normal service was interrupted but will be resumed again now.

Anyhow, November is the most significant month for men in the UK and around the world. November is of course Movember, a campaign that gathers momentum and credibility each year.

On the 11th, it was Armistice day and the following Sunday was of course Remembrance Sunday when so many men (and women of course) gave their lives to our country.

And then on Friday, it is International Men's Day (now in its 12th year)  which this year has the theme of "Our Children, Our Future"

Britain's participation is being led by The Men's Network (run by Glenn Poole and Ben Dew), based in Brighton the4y are the UK's national coordinator for International Men's Day who have organised a conference on Friday morning, a Tash Dash on Saturday and a whole hots of other activities. They have an excellent Facebook site which also mentions support in Hartlepool. Is there anywhere else in the UK?

With the success and the impetus given by the Men's Network and the steady but very slow growth in awareness of issues facing Britain's Men and Boys, this year's events should act as a springboard for 2011.

Posted by Skimmington

 

YVETTE COOPER' S COMPREHENSIVE RANT FORGETS THE MEN WHO SUFFERED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR CUTS

A few months ago Yvette Cooper, one of Labour anti-male emissaries, launched an amazingly economically illiterate rant against the Budget and here we go again as she is big news in the Guardian, who of course slavishly lap it all up.

This time Yvette Cooper says that the Comprehensive Spending Review is the "biggest reversal of women's opportunites and economic independence since WW1' . There was also an article in the Guardian about the Fawcett Society's campaign to sue the Government!

Without having to repeat so much before but firstly where were the politicians defending and speaking out for men who were the big losers in the recession and redundancies affecting the private sector. They were nowhere to be found.

In fact, a great point about the anti-male hypocrisy of politicians and others who speak out about how the budget and Comprehensive Spending Review was made in the Guardian article about the Fawcett Society.

In the comments section, someone said why so-called equality campaigners are not complaining against the decision to stop a grant to Sheffield Forgemasters even though that will cost men's jobs. Nothing from Cooper, Flint or Harman. 

Secondly, job cuts that affect  women also affect the men in their lives as they do not live in isolation.

And this undermines Yvette Cooper. She says using House of Commons research that women are hit harder from the cuts because 70% of tax credits are paid to mothers as is 94% of child benefit. Of course, if the mother has a son - he suffers as well. And of course if the  mother has a partner/husband sharing her life then he suffers as well. Just because the mother receives the money, doesn't mean he doesn'nt suffer as well. 

The fact that this stuff gets airtime without being questioned shows how the media just print it without a challenge or thought. Yvette Cooper's claims are laughable, they do not stack up and shows the feminst seperatist movement in all its red-clawed hatred of men all dressed up in the name of equality.

Posted by Skimmington

 

EQUALISATION OF STATE PENSION AGES AFTER 70 YEARS OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN IS STILL ATTACKED

Amongst the voluminous coverage, announcements and suchlike from yesterday's Comprehensive Spending Review  (CSR) was the announcement that the state pension age for men and women would be equalised at 66 from 2020, rather than 66 for men from 2016 (as previously suggested by the Coalition Government in Opposition and in power) and 66 for women in 2020 as had been suggested in June's Budget. Equalisation at 65 will take place in November 2018.

This was an increase from the last Government's plans to make the state pension age 66 in 2024 and 65 for both genders in 2020 (are you still following?).

It was due to the sterling work of Parity that we have equalisation at all otherwise the five year sexist gap would still be with us in the future rather than just today.

There are a number of important issues here.

Firstly, this site raised the issue that the move (as did Parity again) would be sexist against men and it looks as though the Government has also realised that if it went ahead it would be subject to legal challenge by increasing the gap between men and women's retirement age from five years to six. Sites like this help raise these issues because anyone researching it would have read the post.

Secondly, when a move like this which has greater implications for women than men, draws all the anti-male sexists out of the woodwork.

Anti-male in that they never complained about the blatant discrimination that has meant men have a retirement age five years shorter than women (even though men lives are shorter) for decades and they never publicly complained when it was mooted that male retirement age should be brought forward to 66 in 2016 without any commensurate change to a women's retirement age.

Step forward our friend Ceri Goddard at the Fawcett Society for a particularly frenzied rant about this and also other issues raised the CSR. The recession, of which the budget cuts are a symptom, decimated male employment in the private sector but not a peep from Goddard about that even though it would have affected wives, partners, daughters etc. A theme we have picked up before.  Honestly, if you were a man in Fawcett Towers when George Osborne was speaking yesterday you'd have to run to the hills!

Others came out of the woodwork as well, who glibly 'accepted' that previous plans were more harmful to men as this statement by the Saga Group shows. 

Dr Ros Altmann, the director general then astoundingly has the nerve to let fly by stating that "Women ar bearing the brunt of the changes. Pension policy always seems to be made by men for men. Women are being sent a simple message - keep on working. That's what the Government's announcement means."

Since 1948, state pension has been paid to women at 60 and men at 65, it is only in 2018 that this injustice against men will be rectified, some 70 years later. And Altmann says pension policy is always against women. Unbelievable. I wonder what the male members of Saga think of her 'balanced' statement.

A good look at this and other issues about the effect on the genders was produced by Mark Easton of the BBC.

Psoted by Skimmington

Update - Read this inexplicable and laughable rant in the Daily Mail and then read the comments section. Many men are pointing the that women wanted equality - now theyhave got!!

MEN'S HEALTH FORUM CALLS FOR EQUALITY IN HEALTH

The Men's Health Forum this month responded to Government's White paper on Equity and Excellence.

It makes the case clearly that the NHS can no longer fail to take into account the needs of men and if it does it is in breach of the Government's equalities legislation. The paper also brings up the issue on making GP surgeries have men-friendly opening hours.

As in yesterday's post, supporters of men and male equality seem to have gained renewed confidence in putting the case forward that equality also includes men. The previous government either ignored them or had the subliminal axeman waiting to cut their budgets (if they received government funding) if they attacked the government.

 Also a regular reader pointed out that the NHS in the North West are conducting a survey about why men do not go into nursing. It is featured on the Men's Health Forum website. Please fill it in.

Posted by Skimmington

 

CONSERVATIVES FAIL TO IMPLEMENT MOST PERNICIOUS ANTI-MALE PARTS OF EQUALITIES ACT

This week saw the implementation of the Equalities Act which essentially merges all of the myriad pieces of equalities legalisation in the UK (including the Sexual Discrimination Act) plus add a few more issues. This was a Labour Government Act of Parliament, not a Coalition Government one.

Two of the most pernicious anti-male parts of the Act were that companies with more than 250 employees would have to publish the gap between average pay for male and female employees, and, companies would be allowed to 'positively' discriminate against employees or potential employees if one group was supposedly under-represented.

Gender Pay Gap

The gender pay gap issue is one of the most Orwellian examples of the misuse of statistics in the Western World as oft explained on the site as the statistics are spun to suggest women get paid less than men for doing the same job. That is a lie and people like Ceri Goddard, Chief Executive of our friends at the Fawcett Society (misleadingly described by the BBC as an organisation campaigning for gender equality) who said that "rowing back on the requirement for big business to take action on any differences between the pay of men and women employees is tantamount to endorising the shocking pay gap". The BBC published this but had no one telling her she is talking nonsense. However, the Government has said it will force companies to implement this in 2013.

The problem is the gender pay gap is another weapon for people like Goddard, Harman and all the anti-male people who infest our country who just want to attack men and beat us up. The gender pay gap is a myth.

'Positive' Discrimination

The Labour Government had brought in clauses to the Equalities Act that would allow companies to discriminate in favour of someone's protected group (race, gender, disability etc)  were under-represented at that company. For example, a company with more male employees could give a job to a female if a man and a woman applying were equally qualified. The Conservatives, when in opposition, opposed the wide ranging definition and to be honest opposed the whole concept. This has been well covered on the site.

It was confirmed by the BBC that this had not been implemented and was not going to be the now Conservative/Liberal Democrat Government.

That is really good news as the intention behind the Act was always to give more employment opportunities to women at the cost of opportunities to men, even though more men are unemployed.

Opportunities

It is not all doom and gloom though. There remains opportunities for men who are dicriminated against. All public authorities currently have to comply with the gender equality duty to ensure that their services meet the needs of both men and women. This is wrapped up now into a Single Equality Duty (comes into force in April 2011). Whenever a man is not being served by his council, police force, Government, NHS or any other statutory body on the basis of him being a man, that body is breaking the Act.

Summary

It is good news overall that the Coalition Government has put the brakes on the most offending pieces of legalisation but it is worth keeping a keen eye on it. In fact, it would have been better if parts the Act had been repealed because if a Labour Government ever got elected again, they would bring the clauses in the Act straight back in (it would literally be at a stroke of a pen). I can hear Harman making a note in her diary right now.

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

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