Search

Email

Newsfeeds and Must reads

Archives

Categories

Minister for Men Manifesto

  • Minister_for_men_14

Other Sites

Helplines

Support Groups

Charity

Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Government 'Equalities' Office

Members of Parliament

Helpline Adverts

  • Poster__middle_age_man_bw
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Friday, 05 July 2013

ORWELLIAN GUARDIAN REPORTER KATIE ALLEN AND HER ANTI-MALE LIES

Regular reader 'Groan' pointed this article out that I had missed and the comments clearly show that even the Guardian's readers (see comments section) had spotted the man hatred in Katie Allen's piece that was pure Orwellian.

To sum it up:

The female headcount in local government has plunged by 253,600 to 1.43 million since the coalition came to power in 2010 (15%)

The number of men in local government jobs is down less than half that figure, by 104,700 to 452,300 (19%).

But Katie said women were worst affected.

Plus of course it shows that three in every four people in local government are women - no bias there then.

Just like all the other lies about the recession that have been proved to be wrong about women suffering the most in the recession (here,  here,  here and here). 

Posted by Skimmington

Posted at 18:15 in Current Affairs/Political, Employment | | Comments (5)

| | |

Thursday, 04 July 2013

NEW FIGURES REVEAL 98% OF PEOPLE WHO DIE AT WORK ARE MALE - WHY DOES NO ONE HEAR THAT?

New figures were issued today by the Health and Safety Executive that there were 148 fatalities at work in 2012/13, a welcome fall since 233 died in 2007/08, and the figures have continually fallen.

After interrogating the list of names and removing the members of the public (who shouldn't be in the list - obviously the beancounters at the HSE cannot sort their tables out) you are left with a list of 128, and only two (Zydre and Linda) are women. That's right folks, of the 128 people listed who died at work in 2012/13, 126 of the 128 were men.

There a number of wide ranging issues exposing the sexism and bias that men face daily in Britain.

As discussed before, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of victims were men, the Health and Safety Executive chose not to highlight that in their statistics or press release. They do not even acknowledge it anywhere at all. If the figures were the other way round, they would. So why do they choose do that? Is it because they don't think men matter?  Where is their equality impact assessment?Where is their diversity manager talking about it in the media? They chose not to so a clear case of discrimination by omission and institutional sexism.

Secondly, again there is silence from the political elite on the matter. Not just on the subject itself but also the number of men dying. Nothing from the Equalities Commission and nothing from the laughably named government equalities department.

Thirdly, and mentioned earlier this week, this is why there is a gender gap because of the danger premium associated with some of the work that men undertake. Labour, TUC, Fawcett etc want equal pay but where are their campaigns encouraging women to undertake this type of work?

Plus where are the prosecutions, the campaigns aimed at employers?

It shows that men who die at work are not of interest to those claim to believe in equality because they do not fit the 'only women matter' world of equality and diversity we live in - while men are dying at work. Collateral damage and the second sex. 

Posted by Skimmington 

Posted at 22:13 in Current Affairs/Political, Employment, Health | | Comments (4)

| | |

Saturday, 29 June 2013

SOME RECENT ADDITIONS TO THE O2/SYMANTEC "HATE" LIST

I'm continuously updating the list of men's human rights sites that O2/Symantec falsely declare to be "hateful" and people may have missed some of the newer additions. Below are the more recent entries into the hall of fame, I strongly recommend people browse some of them or even help promote their favourites so the censorship backfires.

I send out a notification email to all sites affected by this. As you can see there are a number of foreign language sites above, if anyone is fluent in Spanish I'd appreciate it if they could translate the document for me so we can reach a global audience with the campaign.

By the way, congratulations to J4M&B for successfully raising £1,000 to fund another candidate. No doubt they'd receive even mroe donations if O2/Symantec didn't try to stop people from accessing the site!

 

By John Kimble

Posted at 02:43 in Current Affairs/Political, False Accusations | | Comments (7)

| | |

Wednesday, 26 June 2013

An email to the Symantec board

Almost two weeks ago i sent out an email to the Symantec board outlining my research into the Rulespace filter and requesting they either fix it or explain themselves. It's a significant document as it's the first time anyone has really got their attention, as a result of it they have now at least promised to "look to updating our policies and processes around the way we categorize web content". Whilst this is rather vague and hasn't yet led to any improvements, it is certainly a significant change on the previous three months of standing by the "hate" classifications.

Here's what I wrote:

 

Dear Sir

My apologies for troubling you with this email, let me assure you you would not be receiving it were it not for the outrageous failings of your staff in the Rulespace team.

I am writing to you to let you know of some uncomfortable truths about your Rulespace product. This internet filter contains a fundamental flaw which has resulted in some astonishingly sexist and inappropriate site blocks. As a result of this flaw, the product denies assistance to male victims of domestic violence simply because they are male. It denies support to fathers who have suffered miscarriages of justice. It silences political parties who campaign for nothing more than gender equality. Incredibly, it even blocks sites advocating on behalf of victims of sexual abuse.

If this wasn't all bad enough, there's worse to come. In addition to the blocking, the Rulespace filter's classifications smear each and every one of the sites mentioned above as a "hate site". So, right now, according to Symantec, to assist any male who is being beaten and abused by his wife is "hate". To help a father have a meaningful relationship with his own children is "hate". And should you dare to advocate on behalf of young male victims of sexual abuse, then yes that's hate too. Below are several example links:

http://dvmen.co.uk

http://toysoldier.wordpress.com
 

http://www.menaregood.com
 

http://j4mb.wordpress.com/
 



in total there are more than 100 inappropriatly censored men's human rights sites, all wrongly classed as "hate" spanning a number of different countries. Your staff have repeatedly told me and the owners of the sites that they stand by the "hate" definitions for all these resources. They've made it quite clear that the ridiculous definitions are no mistake and they appear to be perfectly happy with this gender discrimination, thus everything outlined above appears to be entirely deliberate. To compound matters further still, the filter actually fails to block all the most extreme anti-male sites, such as "The Society of Cutting Up Men manifesto" and those promoting the castration of all males, so whilst almost every voice supporting equality for males is silence by the filter, no amount of male hatred gets even the most extreme radical feminist blocked. If you are serious about reforming Symantec and turning it around then the misandric nature of the Rulespace product is something that really needs urgent attention.

In case you aren't aware, the issues that concern the men's human rights community include equal access to healthcare, equality in the justice system and family courts, the genital mutilation of children and and sexism in the education system. I'm not any sort of renowned businessman, though I do know it's poor business practice to attack and demonise an entire civil rights community based upon their gender, particularly one which is experiencing such rapid growth and media recognition. Given the demographic profile of your typical Symantec user, then In your case it would appear to be corporate suicide to be targeting this particular human rights group. Symantec have blocked and defamed over 100 legitimate organisations, all of whom have blogs and websites and are thus able to expose what's going on. I've contacted every single site owner on the list so your customers are almost certain to hear about this. Right now a video on the issue is receiving a very impressive amount of traffic on Youtube and it has already had coverage in a number of IT news publications and by civil liberties groups. O2/Telefonica are already losing significant numbers of customers due to Symantec's misandry, so I expect they'll be forced to switch to one of your competitors before too long if you don't fix this problem, as will other corporations using Rulespace. Quite simply, this issue is only going to get bigger and is not going to go away.

I therefore urge you to please either unblock these 100+ wrongly classified sites and give a sincerely apology for smearing the owners of the sites in such an horrific fashion for so long. Some sort of donation to a few of the victims may also be in order to help begin the process of restoring your company's reputation amongst egalitarian minded groups. please note that the unblocking of these sites will not be sufficient in the long term, and the discriminatory nature of the filter algorithms needs fixing to prevent future problems as new men's equality sites are established.

I think the core problem with the product is some confusion over basic gender equality issues amongst your staff. Communications I've had from Symantec and O2 suggest that the filter bars any criticism of feminism, with the implication being that to criticise feminism is somehow sexist and discriminatory and analogous to criticising females. Whilst criticism of a particular gender is inappropriate, the complete converse applies with feminism which is an ideology no less deserving of critique than Marxism, Communism or Capitalism. Any such political movements should be subject to unlimited critique and scrutiny in any free and fair society, and should be held accountable for their actions. The majority of men's human rights sites actually seek to expose hateful radical feminist ideas (e.g those of Valerie Solanas), yet under the Rulespace system, reality gets turned on its head, the hate groups become the good guys, and those exposing such gender-based hatred are silenced for daring to do so.



If you are not able to unblock the sites and insist on continuing to describe them as "hateful" then please answer the following questions:

1. What exactly is hateful about helping male victims of domestic violence? Does Symantec subscribe to the extreme radical feminist theories domestic violence in which the millions of abused men somehow cannot be victims and therefore do not deserve help? Where is there one single word on sites such as dvmen.co.uk

 
that is the slightest bit "hateful"?

2. Is it also Symantec corporate policy to deny assistance and support to any male employees who are domestic violence? (1 in 6 male employees) or do you only do this to your customers?

3. Does Symantec oppose the right of children to have a loving relationship with both parents following a divorce? If not why are you so vehemently opposed to so many of the leading egalitarian organisations campaigning for such things?

4. The Rulespace team regards as "hate" a site dedicated to advocating on behalf of abused boys, won't people come to the conclusion that Symantec protects child rapists?

5. Is it Symantec's corporate policy to interfere in the democratic process by silencing the voice of opposition political parties?

6. Give the almost blanket ban on sites advocating equality for males, would it be fair to say that Symantec opposes human rights for half the population of the planet including a majority of its own customers/users?



I do appreciate that Symantec took over Rulesapce in 2010 and therefore this is an inherited problem rather than one created directly by Symantec employees. However, there has been ample time to address this scandal and the reaction thus far to people's concerns has been completely unacceptable and appearing to condone misandry.

Many thanks for taking the time to read this email, I enclose the complete list of wrongly blocked/classified sites below.

Regards

John Kimble

 

Posted at 07:00 in Current Affairs/Political, Domestic Violence, Sexual Offences | | Comments (4)

| | |

Tuesday, 25 June 2013

GRANT THORNTON AND ITS SEXISM IN CARE QUALITY COMISSION SCANDAL

When consultants Grant Thornton published its report into the Care Quality Commission  scandal where it buried its report about its findings on the appalling problems at a hospital in Barrow-in-Furness, one of the bizarre episodes is around the naming of those involved.

When the report appeared, the names of the three female protagonists were redacted (concealed).

The names given were Mr E, Mr F and Mr G. Despite the fact that one was Cynthia Bower, another Jill Finney and another is an unnamed woman.

So why not state that these were Ms E, Ms F or Ms G?

Is it because if anything bad happens, Grant Thornton's default setting is that it must be a man or it thinks society's default setting is that it is a man) and would Grant Thornton choose a Ms J, K  or L, if the protagonists were men. I very much doubt it.

By Grant Thornton choosing male 'addresses' for women, it shows a high level of level of cynicism about men and that if there is a scandal it must be down to men. In other words, a form of covert sexism and a negative stereotype about men.

It is a supporter of International Women's Day so we look forward to their support of International Men's Day.

Posted by Skimmington 

 

 

Posted at 11:04 in Current Affairs/Political | | Comments (0)

| | |

THE EXTREMISTS FEMINIST SITES THAT O2/SYMANTEC DEEM SUITABLE FOR UNDER 18'S

We've already throughly examined the types of men's equality sites O2 and Symantec pretend are hateful. They vary from those helping victims of domestic violence, to political parties and even ones highlighting the plight of male victims of rape and abuse. So what about feminist sites? are they censored too? Well the good news is that things are improving and since I started this campaign, some radical feminist sites have finally gained the "hate" classification such as the one run by Cathy Brennan. The only problem is that it appears to only be transphobic feminist sites that get automatically blocked at present, so really O2 and Symantec are still as ani-male as ever and radical feminists can continue calling for men and boys to be attacked and abused, just as long as they remember to keep their transphobia in check.

To see how bad the situaiton is lets take a look at some of the examples of anti-male groups and topics that O2/Symantec still deem suitable for under 18's (note - I will not be linking to such vile material so you'll have to Google the sites if you want to see them).

Femen - Violent feminist extremists who assault and seek to murder the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. A Femen logo shows a woman with a bloody sickle in one hand and a severed scrotum in the other and they also use the term "sextremism" to describe their work. Rulespace classes their site as "blogging" and in total I found all three Femen related sites were unblocked.

Femithiests - An extremist group who want to see a "new era of feminism". Their "solution" is the castration of all males via "International Castration Day". where "males of all ages will be brought to the public squares of their cities nude, to stand together in a circle, as they await castration by a woman known as "The Castrator", who will be a woman chosen from the public much like a juror. Girls of all ages will attend, lining the streets to cheer and applaud the males as they join the rest of civilized society." Three femithiest sites are currently classed as "hosting" or "blogging" though Symantec have partially blocked one domain following the mention I gave the group in the recent ISP Review article. 

Ending male violence blog - A prominent header to every page states the need for a "decontamination" of the earth and how this will be accompanied by a drastic reduction in the number of males. Classed as "news". Comments state: "Its a pity men are not raped more frequently by women"

SCUM Manifesto - A hate site paying tribute to Valerie Solanas and describing her as "my personal hero" is not blocked and classed as "non-profit". For those who aren't' aware of her, Solanas is the author the the SCUM Manifesto, arguably the most famous example of feminist hate speech. "SCUM" stands for "Society for Cutting Up Men", and it seeks to "destroy the male sex.", furthermore, Solanas also tried to murder men so she wasn't simply all talk. Some quotes: "Every man, deep down, knows he's a worthless piece of shit.", "To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo", "He [the male] is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes, and is far worse off than the apes because, unlike the apes, he is capable of a large array of negative feelings". "The male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples."

I hate men - I decided to Google this term and found a site with this actual title. As expected, O2/Symantec do not consider it "hate". The message couldn't be clearer yet the Rulespace system is so useless and misandrist that it stills fails to pick up on it.

Andrea Dworkin - The official website of Andrea Dworkin, a radical feminist openly hostile to men, is not blocked. She referred to women's sons as " the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman". and regarded men as "biologically inferior" and stated that to eliminate male violence one needs to eliminate the male species/race. The site is currently classed as "wedding". An additional unblocked Dworkin fan site has a "non profit" classification.

Brown Power - A Tumblr site which states "kill all men", "death to whites" "unless ur brown then get outta town".

My Misandry - "A tumblr website by misandrists for misandrists. It is a place for misandrists to feel free, express themselves and to meet other like-minded people" The statement on the first page reads "HELL YEAH KILL ALL MEN FUCK THOSE GUYS AND THEIR RAPE ORGANS", in fact a quick glance at Tumblr shows the whole place to be arguably the biggest hotbed of misandry on the internet. Perhaps there's sufficient grounds to block the whole thing as hate until the admins get their act together?

Sally Miller Gearhart - Famously said "the proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race". I'm not aware of any men's site suggest the female population be reduced to parity with men nevermind forcing them to become a tiny minority. Gearhart sells her books via her website so therefore benefits financially from O2/Symantec's failure to block her work.

SCUM Conference - in 2011 a group of radical feminists organised a "SCUM Conference" in Perth, Australia. One of the advertised objectives of this event was to "destroy the male sex". Neither of the blogs of the two feminist organisers/promoters of the event are blocked.

Die White Cis male - another Tumbler site, doesn't really need any more explanation does it?


Hopefully, as with previous examples I've highlighted, O2/Symantec will take action to block the above sites but that's not really the point. It's not my job to fix the Rulespace filter and police feminist hate. If O2/Symantec put 1% of the effort into targeting feminist extremism as they do in denying access to legitimate men's human rights sites then no doubt at least some of the above would have the correct hate classification automatically.

More on this issue later this week.

by John Kimble

Posted at 06:15 in Current Affairs/Political, Domestic Violence | | Comments (4)

| | |

Thursday, 20 June 2013

WHY ARE BROADWAY'S FIGURES ABOUT LONDON'S HOMELESS MEN HIDDEN? SEXISM, THAT'S WHY

A common type of discrimination is not just the overt discrimination but covert discrimination, effectively discrimination by omisson - where figures relating to men are ignored or not given equal status as figures affecting females.

 Another way of seeing this in action is to reverse the genders (The Lyndon Concept, named after the concept Neil Lyndon first set out) and then see what the prominence would be with the media, politicians, opinion formers, pressure groups etc. What would be the outcry if it was a 'Neil' Lawson who was at the end of domestic abuse at the hands of a 'Charlotte' Saatchi for instance.

Today's homelessness report (summary and full report) called Street to Home by the Combined Homelessness and Information Network in London (led by Broadway) is a classic example.

The press release states that "6,437 people were seen sleeping  on the streets of the Capital between April 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013. This  compares to 5,678 the previous year". So what is the gender breakdown?

Er...well it mentions that 786 female (12%) were female, but does not mention that 88% were male - nine out of ten.

Now all homelessness is awful and no man or women should be homeless - it's what we pay our taxes for to make sure that doesn't happen to anyone. But how in the name of equality can a report's press release fail to mention that 88% of homeless people are men (the overwhelming majority) and even worse not mention men at all. It is why it is not mentioned in the Evening Standard report. This is why people do not realise the plight that so many men face on our streets because they are not told about it.

Using the Lyndon Concept can you imagine the headlines if the genders were reversed. It would not dominate the news it would be the main hook on the press release. But because it is men - it does not even get a mention.

Why did Broadway choose to highlight the female figure and not the male figure? Why did they think it was OK? Why did they feel that the number of female homeless was far more important to raise than the number of men even though men are more than seven times as likely to be sleeping rough on the streets of London than a woman.

The only rational and logical conclusion is sexism. Insidious, anti-male, anti-equality, institutional  cultural misandry.

The thought process was that men are not as important than women, that no one is interested in men and the plight of homeless men. Men according to Broadway are the disposable sex and only 12% of homeless people are worth mentioning, and that is because of they are not men.

Shame on Broadway for their sexism.

Posted by Skimmington

PS Glen Poole's excellent Telegraph article set out some aspects

Posted at 23:57 in Current Affairs/Political, Health, Women-only | | Comments (4)

| | |

Wednesday, 19 June 2013

O2 AND SYMANTEC - EQUALITY FOR MEN IS MORE HATEFUL THAN STORMFRONT

Most of my posts this year have concerned the O2 and Symantec censorship scandal, some readers may becoming bored of the issue by now but I make no apologies for them in fact they'll keep coming until the censorship stops. To be honest, I've probably been rather two soft on these companies in the past and things are going to step up a gear from now onwards.

I keep learning more about the Rulespace filter by the day and I made a quite astonishing discovery recently. O2 and Symantec have two possible ways of blocking a site, it can either be classed as a "hate site" or be placed in the "hate" category, either way it gets censored and access is restricted.

Take a racist site such as Stormfront, O2's url checker shows us that it is in the "hate" category. The same goes for a site such as the National Coalition for Men, one of the oldest men's organisations in existence. However, in addition to it's place in the "hate" category, it also receives a "hate site" classification, something not found for Stormfront.org. So Stormfront is blocked once, yet a perfectly legitimate organisation such as NCFM.org is blocked twice over just for good measure, just to make sure it never gets seen.

A quick glance at Stormfront's forums soon reveals racistand derogatroy comments about Africans and Jews, whereas the top article on NCFM.org concerned the need to defend the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Despite this, O2 and Symantec are clearly saying a respected non profit organisation advocating for men's human rights and gender equality is worse than Stormfront, and more deserving of censorship and a "hate" classification. The Rulespace filter system is so misandrist or so flawed that it favours proud racists over  men's human rights advocates.

The list of sites deemed worse than Stormfront by these companies even includes dvmen.org, a site for male victims of domesitc violence in Colerado run by the Equal Justice Foundation. Also apparantly worse than Stormfront is mensdefence.org, the site of author and pioneering men's equality advocate Richard F Doyle.

Please remember to cancel your O2 contract if you haven't done so already and uninstall your Symantec software, in both cases there are quite a few cheaper and better alternatives out there anyway. Also don' forget to give the reason for your cancellation.

by John Kimble

Posted at 01:19 in Current Affairs/Political, Domestic Violence | | Comments (4)

| | |

Tuesday, 18 June 2013

CAMDEN COUNCIL'S HISTORY OF SUPPORTING EXTREMISM AND HATE

Last weekend saw disagraceful scenes in London whereby The Camden Centre, a taxpayer owned venue, hosted the misandrist and transphobibic RadFem 2013 conference.

Other venues saw sense and banned such extremists from their premises, but Camden decided that the hatred of men is perfectly fine although did at least claim to have forced the organisers to ammend their sexist entrance policies. One only has to glance as some of the Twitter comments of the attendees/organisers and see images of their "activism" to see just how extreme and hateful this event really is.

Having taxpayers legitimise such a vile group by allowing it to use their facilities it's clearly completely inappropriate and led me to think what a worry precedent it had set, therefore meaning all manner of a hate groups would be allowed to assemble in such facilities. Just as I was about to compose a complaint email highlighting such a point, a search on Google rather threw a spanner in the works. You see this isn't the first time Camden council has supported extremists in such a way, and just last year the very same council also allowed a Islamic group sympathetic to Osama Bin laden to hold lectures at a council funded venue.

The Jewish Chronicle reports that at one Ministry of Dawah event there was discussion on how Israel would be “wiped off the earth” by Allah, which of course sounds remarkably similar to the Radfem attitudes to men and transgender people. Still, if nothing else, we certainly can't accuse Camden council of lacking consistency, presumably they'll be welcoming the Stalin appreciation society next year, followed by the Klu Klux Klan in 2015.

by John Kimble

 

Update: Seems that even my sarcastic Stalin remarks were actaully rather closer to the truth than I'd hoped too.

Posted at 06:10 in Current Affairs/Political, Equalities Commission / Equalities Dept / Fawcett, Equality Act/Equality Duty, Women-only | | Comments (0)

| | |

Friday, 14 June 2013

THE SEXIST DOUBLE STANDARDS OF THE O2 / SYMANTEC FILTER

Since March this year I've been updating the ever expanding list of men's human rights sites wrongly blocked by Symantec and O2 and categorised as "hate". The list currently stands at some 108 domains and grows by the week as more sites are tested.

It's worth considering that human rights sites aren't the only ones that suffer from over blocking, for example the excellent Biassed BBC blog was blocked as a hate site last year, and I've discovered that feminist site The F-Word was at least blocked to audiences under 18 last year, therefore suggesting it was either classed as hate or perhaps pornography. It's not the most misandrist feminist blog going, but the editor, Jess McCabe, does express some extreme and very sexist views at times, such as how it is "horrendous that women are getting charged at all" for ruining mens lives with false rape allegations. She genuinely believes that women who commit such heinous crimes should go completely unpunished, so it's fair to say that, whilst not deserving of a "hate" classification, it would ceritnaly be easier to make a case for The F-Word Blog to recieve one than most of the men's equality sites on the list.

Such a block represents an interesting case study as it enables us compare the treatment of feminist sites with those campaigning for men's human rights. The block of The F-Word appears to have originally come to light on Twitter with O2 soon acknowledging the issue and The Index on Censorship also mentioning the case It's unclear as to exactly how long it took for the site to be reclassified, but the site was unblocked at some point and placed in the "Entertainment and music" category.


The above events took place at exactly the same time we started noticing the censorship of men's human rights sites and the Index on Censorship article mentioned above also highlighted how such sites were blocked. Seeing as my list of blocked men's sites has expanded significantly of late I decided to try raising the issue again and managed to finally find the direct contact detials for the Symantec Rulespace team responsible for classifying these sites. Their response to my reuqest for them to review the 108 site was that they stood by the "hate" classification in each and every single case bar one. Only one classification is a mistake so we now have it direct from those reponsible that sites such as http://www.dvmen.co.uk constitutes "hate".

After my preicous contact with O2, eight sites were reclassified by Symantec, so if you have an incorrectly blocked men's human rights site, even if you write article after article, and get the attention of the tech media and civil liberties group, and have multiple parties requesting a stop to the censorship, then at best there's a 7% chance of success. On the other hand, feminists have a 100% success rate in appealing their blocks and all they have to do is send a quick tweet to achieve such a level of success. This is yet more clear evidence of sexism, not just in terms of what sites are blocked but even in trying to overturn such blocks.


To see a fully up to date list of wrongly blocked site, see the following:
http://therightsofman.typepad.co.uk/the_rights_of_man/2013/02/the-48-mens-human-rights-sites-feminists-seek-to-censor.html

Many thanks to the increasing number of bloggers who have been helping publicise this issue, more to come shortly.

By John Kimble

Posted at 08:52 in Current Affairs/Political, False Accusations, Justice System, Sexual Offences, Women-only | | Comments (18)

| | |

« | »