The Rights Of Man

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.

NETMUMS SURVEY SHOW THE EMPRESS HAS NO CLOTHES

Returning to a Netmums survey I highlighted in October (half way down), there was a number of areas that showed how young women were rejecting the term feminism and women of all ages now saw that radical feminism was divisive and anti-male.

This was why in October the survey was met with such hatred from anti-male radical feminists because it shows the "empress has no clothes" and does not speak for mainstream women (this is my favourite response). They feel vulnerable because it undermines their ability to garner cheques for writing in The Guardian, running organisations such as the Fawcett Society and Equality and Human Rights Commission and a myriad of other public sector jobs. No more lecture fees on 'gender studies' courses.

The four key statistics in the survey were:

• Younger women are least likely to embrace the term. 25% of women aged 45 to 50 described themselves as a 'Feminist'. But just 9% of those aged 25 to 29 identified with it and only 8% of women aged 20 to 24.

• 39% criticised old-fashion Feminism for being too divisive, claiming they 'don't want to be equal - women are different to men and we should celebrate the differences.'

• Almost a third (28%) think traditional radical Feminism is 'too aggressive' towards men while a quarter (24%) no longer view it as a positive label for women. One in five describe Feminism as 'old fashioned' and simply 'not relevant' to their generation.

• In subsequent questions, 17% even claim Feminism has gone too far, oppressing men and 'losing sight of the natural roles of men and women

This can be seen by the female-led backlash to the infamous Daily Mail article from Esther Walker.

It shows the rejection by mainstream women of radical feminists because they are starting to see that it is driven by a hatred of men and also the conseqneces of it in their own lives. Female graduates see their boyfriend counterparts are still unemployed, mothers see their sons falling behind at school and wives see their husbands blocked from senior positions in companies because of activities of quota campaigners such as the 30% Club. 

The anti-male radical feminists whose existience depends on capturing the media, infesting the universities and public sector, and haranguing politicians do not speak for women. Modern women have said "not in my name".

 Posted by Skimmington

MY CANCER RESEARCH UK RACE FOR LIFE "SWANSONG" by JOHN TAYLOR

It will be eleven (11) years in August 2012, since my eldest daughter, aged 41, mother of two daughters and one son, sadly died from cancer. In the circumstances I am now in the winding down zone... But, before I wind down, to the back seat, I would like to state some important historical facts and wish all concerned "My Very Best Wishes" in striving for the justifiable victory over CRUK's blatantly discriminatory Race for Life :

(1) Photographic evidence is available (View this photo) re CRUK'S Chairman, Michael Pragnell, CEO Harpal Kumar: Executive Fund Raising & Marketing Support Director, Richard Taylor on 14th July; also the Chairman's PA and  Jo Stephens on 16th July - receiving my emails. In the same photo Richard Taylor is also shown as receiving emails on 8th and 13th June 12. I have had no response whatever...I
have attached a copy of the print screen photo.

(2) Likewise applies to my Recorded Delivery letters of 21 May 2012, to TESCO's CEO & R.C Taylor
Esq., Executive Director, Fund Raising and Supporter Marketing, Cancer Research UK. ( Download CRUK TESCO RECORDED DELIVERY LETTER)...

(3) The history goes back to my first letter published http://bit.ly/JR2tIb  on 23rd May 2002.

(4) Some of the other published articles can be read via the previous link http://bit.ly/JR2tIb by
searching for John Taylor Race for Life...(top right of the page)...

(5) That stated in Wikipedia  http://bit.ly/de82Ja Re  is mentioned, because I am referred to in  Reference 3. It was from Wikipedia ( before most of the important history was edited out)
that I saw the link  Cancer Chat and joined the campaign there... Alas, "Is race for life sexist" was recently closed but can be followed "offline"

(6) I saw a link to "Rights of Man" from Cancer Chat... 

(7) Credit must be given to www.parity-uk.org. I stress, had I not been among the ranks of the "Long term unemployed - early retired" - in  the 1980s and saw an advert: CESPA - "Campaign for equal state pension ages at 60" I would not have been a member of Parity's National Executive  and would not be commenting now. I would not have had the "equality experience".

(8) The Hon Secretary, David Yarwood, deserves my commendation and grateful thanks. See the History of CESPA PARITY - David has been Hon Secretary since The inaugural meeting of CESPA - now PARITY, was held on 29 August 1986 in Committee Room 1 of Manchester Town Hall. Have a read. Had that Inaugural Meeting not taken place Parity would not exist... 

(9) My first published article in York Press, was on 23rd May 2002  Way back then, a participating resident of York, who started the previous year's Race For Life in York after winning an Evening Press
competition, said she would support my battle. She said: "It was a fantastic day and the atmosphere was great, but I wouldn't object to men taking part. I don't really see why it is women only. "I wouldn't mind men taking part, the more the merrier and we could raise more money" http://bit.ly/hinwDg.

(10)  My next major success was reported in this article http://bit.ly/KFxtYm on 16th February 2006 re when CRUK launched the defunct 5k Run for Moore series. You will see reference to help from the Equal Opportunity Commission. In my opinion, Race for Life was in breach of Article 29 of the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act, which stated that it was illegal "to discriminate in the provision of goods, facilities and services".  CRUK were providing the goods, facilities and services, to female participants in Race for Life and still are!!! But Run for Moore is now defunct - because, CRUK state that men
requested longer more challenging events...

(11) Alas, then the Fund Raising Standards Board came down in favour of CRUK's Race for Life being females only. I lost http://bit.ly/9OKGNJ 

(12) The views of "little boys" make interesting reading - re "Little Legs for Life" in this video -
little boys are stating they wanted to participate in Race for Life http://bit.ly/LSJM6Z 

(13) Now  the rules have been changed changed so boys under 11 can participate. Claire Parker must be applauded  - but what happens when those young boys are turned 14? http://bit.ly/L5mpRG.

(14) I stress, there is a petition which,  I trust, everyone will sign and spread the message - to allow all the family to participate http://bit.ly/JhYG3F  "Race for Life - Say Yes to Males & Families racing together"...

(15)  In my opinion, I doubt very much that Race for Life would be considered  lawful under the Equality Act had I not sent an "open email to CRUK's  CEO Harpal Kumar, on 1st March 2010 and stated:

(16) The Law: Article 14 of the Human Rights Act - gives one the right not to
be discriminated against...

(17) Section 29 of The Sex Discrimination Act - states it is illegal to discriminate in the provision of 'goods and services'.

(18) Cancer Research UK are, in my opinion, in breach of both. The Equality Bill, expected to take effect shortly will / should also embody Article 14 and Section 29 -  putting CRUK in breach of the law.

(19) Anyone can read my message sent to Harpal Kumar - in Cancer Chat: Is Race for Life Sexist... Comment 187.

(20) Now, have a look at The Equality Bill - note that stated in : http://bit.ly/Qu2MGc 

(21) Note the reference in 610: It also allows single-sex activities for the purpose of promoting or supporting a charity (such as women-only fun-runs) 

(22) Note the last statement to 611 : Race for Life, a women-only event which raises money for Cancer Research UK, is lawful.

(23) It appears to me that CRUK petitioned the former Labour Government Equality Minister very hard.

(24) There are thousands fewer participants now in Race for Life - despite the desperate efforts by CRUK with a Gloria Hunningford DVD on Facebook? http://bit.ly/iR6WsA

(25) Further, on BBC Breakfast news, CRUK's Natasha Hill was interviewed on 15th May 2011, stressing they were struggling to find participants and expected them to be down by 10% compared with 2010. Cancer Research UK struggles to find race participants http://bbc.in/iBCa1W

(26) In this link you will find that 64,000 fewer participated in Race for Life, as stated in CRUK's Annual Report, for year ending March 2011 http://bit.ly/vNHaFS;

(27) ????? How did CRUK invite boys under 11 to participate in Race for Life this year? Will they be allowed next year? When will "all the family" ???

(28) CRUK could / should follow the example of e.g The London Marathon, Great
North Run etc etc etc...

My very best wishes to one and all taking the campaign forward towards
the hoped for justifiable victory....

John Taylor...

 

PS: Can The Equality Bill be amended - by communications by one and all to their MPs?

PPS: Can a legal opinion be obtained to ascertain whether or not the Equality Bill reference to Race for Life is in breach of Article 14 of The Human Rights Act?

http://bit.ly/N6FZ2e

PPPS: This also serves as a comment John Kimble's article "Ten things everyone should know about Cancer Research UK's sexism"

 

 

CANCER RESEARCH UK FINALLY ADMITS RACE FOR LIFE IS OFFENSIVE (BUT CENSORS ANYONE POINTING IT OUT)

It's now over three weeks since I published my Cancer Research UK sexism investigation and, despite the record interest it generated, as far as I'm aware the organisation has failed to respond to a single point made. Therefore I'm now forced to reveal the next instalment of my investigation into the activities of CRUK. In the following article we examine the goings on over at their "cancer chat" forums and examine the problems in having an almost exclusively feminist female staff handling what is principally a male condition. A number of interesting developments have occurred, with the organisation and its staff repeatedly misleading users of the site and practicing their usual sexist double standards.

1. Criticism of CRUK is banned
While CRUK staff were previously quite tolerant of discussion and debate on their forums, anyone now criticising CRUK's sexism on their forums is immediately banned form the site without so much as a warning. This is a real shame as a useful debate on their sexist Race for Life event took place in the past and it was interesting to see how those touched by cancer largely detested the event and how former supporters came round to our point of view. Of particular note is that CRUK banned users for posting about a hypothetical version of Race for Life where instead of banning males, the charity instead barred ethnic minorities. Despite this point clearly being made as a vehicle for condemning CRUK's activities, with entirely decent language and tone and clearly not a serious suggestion, the posts was deleted for being "offensive". CRUK representatives thus admit this concept of a discriminatory and divisive type of fundraising event is wrong, therefore putting them in the rather precarious position of admitting the very concept of it's Race for Life event is offensive too, so many congratulations and thanks to them and particularly moderator Renata Sims for finally coming clean. (note - for balance I should state that once alerted to the fact that they effectively condemned their own event CRUK sought to "clarify" their position claiming that it was the tone of the language they were opposed to. Given their track record of misleading users of the site I'll let people draw their own conclusions about this issue).

2. Discussion of Race for Life is banned  (except it isn't if you say nice things)
When closing down discussions on Race for Life, CRUK's attempted justification was "they cause offence to members of this community". The issue is a clearly a hot potato and it would be understandable were CRUK to close down every conversation on the topic of Race for Life. However, this isn't what has occurred and people, including the management of the site, still openly show support for the sexist event, only dissenting voices are silenced. Most significantly of all, the clear consensus of the long discussion regarding Race for Life was that the event was sexist. So above all else, it is clearly those supporting the event who are the ones causing by far the most offence to users of the site. Site moderators also suggest people make contact with other staff/departments to discuss their concerns and that the forums are not an appropriate place for such material. However, all our questions go unanswered and our emails ignored, so once again their comments are incorrect and people have no other method of communicating their concerns to CRUK than the forums.

3. Critics of Race for Life openly subject to abuse
Contrary to CRUK's pretence of being concerned about the community and the site being "a safe and welcoming place", the fact is that genuinely offensive personal attacks are left in place, just as long as they are directed at critics of CRUK. Examples of this include one poster suggesting a man critical of the sexism should go back to his own country, while another labels the discussion as "hilarious" and boring and also makes personal attacks calling people "cry babies" also telling them to "man up". It is clear that those on the end of these sexist and xenophobic abuses, not to mention other site users, found these episodes distressing  and the last personal attack is of immense significance in the context of cancer, the "man up" attitude is at the heart of the problem which stops people taking men's health seriously. The posts have sicne been reported to the site's management but they are still left in place, presumably due to the fact they were written by Race for Life supporters. The fact that innocent criticism of Race for Life is censored, whilst at the same time as this content being left alone says it all. CRUK have no concern for its own site rules and would much rather censor a healthy and civil discussion than deal with any real personal attacks and abuses. The very same sub forum where Race for Life comments are censored also contains numerous offensive jokes aimed at men, the very first in the thread concerning a man trapped in a relationship with a violent wife, with "jokes" concerning fatal domestic violence against men a recurring theme.

4. Obsession with female cancers
On a site where every single past and present staff member is females is unsurprising to find a highly feminised environment, but they don't' even attempt balance. I've examined the posts of all CRUK staff on the forums and the site has a handy "tags" feature for the most common terms they use. Of the four current staff members every single one had repeatedly used terms for a least one form of cancer associated with females whilst not one was tagged with any form of male specific cancer whatsoever despite there being a similar number of sufferers. Even relatively rare female cancers get far more mentions than prostate cancer, one of the most common cancers there is.

I've also examined other online activities of the these staff members on sites such as Twitter and the theme of ignoring men continues there too. For example, Sarah Broughton, the manager of the site follows various female associated cancer causes on Twitter and female patients yet no males other than one child. She also has interest in other events which discriminate against men, such as the Orange prize for fiction and not only raises money for breast cancer but for ovarian cancer too (the later event taking place in the CRUK office). Her Facebook accout includes "likes" for numerous cancer casues and charities, with appproximately 20 pertaining to female associated cancers or patients and a fair few gender netural casues also "liked". About the closest she comes to supporting a male cancer charity is the "real men wear pink" breast cancer campign. Just to really rub it in she also lists on of her favourite TV shows as the hideously sexist "Loose Women" programme! Other site staff Tweeted comments warning people against saying "I'm not a feminist" and mocking the sexual prowess of young male pop stars. Predictably, most staff appear to use the misandrist Guardian newspaper as their sole news source with one even providing an interview for the paper.

5. CRUK are misleading users of the site
If we again examine CRUK's statement attempting to justify comments on their forums they claim "the moderators and nurses are not directly involved with Race for Life or any other fundraising activity". This statement is a complete fabrication. Having uncovered the identities of the moderators I've found a number of them have participated in the event, usually on multiple occasions and they even have Race for Life pictures plastered all over their Facebook profiles. Further investigation shows some of these pictures to be highly prominent publicity photos, used to publicise the event and to advertise Race for Life merchandise. Quite incredibly, one person modelling said clothing is the manager of the cancer chat site!. Thus far from being uninvolved in the event, the manager of the forums is actually arguably the face of Race for Life.

Having pointed out these facts to CRUK management, there appears to have been quite a cover up, with the organisation hastily attempting to remove all the images in question from their website. However, they've missed one so you can still see the proof for yourselves (for now).  No apology has been forthcoming from CRUK for lying to users of the site, something which would have been particularly appropriate given that the forum rules state users should not post "any material or links to any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate"

6. Race for Life breaches' CRUK's forum rules
One problem with engaging in borderline illegal and discriminatory activities is that even if you mange to get away with it, you're still breaching fundamental principles and basic sound practices. We've previously proved CRUK management break their own site rules, but in a wider sense the very concept of Race for Life is against the rules too. The section of the rules on "respect for others" states: "Do not post nor privately message any material which may be discriminatory or cause offence on the grounds of an individual's sex, race, religion or belief, ethnic or national origin, sexual orientation, age, marital status, disability or working status." Even if you don't find the event offensive (something which is a matter of opinion), Race for Life is quite clearly both a sexist and certainly a discriminatory event and therefore posts promoting or endorsing it are in breach of the forum rules. As mentioned previously, the majority of site users find the event to be offensive anyway, thus giving yet further cause to remove all such material.

CRUK have again turned reality on its head. As well as there being no good justification for barring Race for Life criticism from CRUK's forums, the opposite is required because anyone endorsing and supporting the event is clearly in breach of CRUK's own terms and conditions (including the manager of the site!). To get themsleves out of this mess CRUK either need to ban/censor all discussion supportive of Race for Life, or they can manipulate their site rules so that material that is sexist against men is no longer banned. A far more sensible solution would be to open up Race for Life to all participants, therefore avoiding all these stupid problems all of CRUK's own creation. Whichever option they chose, it's clear the only truly unacceptable position is the present one.

by John Kimble

EQUALITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION'S ASSESSMENT OF SPENDING REVIEW 2010 PROVES THEY BELIEVE EQUALITY DOES NOT INCLUDE MEN

We have all known it, but this time it is proven beyond doubt - the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (ECHR) does not believe equality means equality for men as well as for women.

Here is the proof.

Due to political pressure from a number of groups especially the Fawcett Society, the ECHR carried out a formal equality assessment of the government’s 2010 Spending Review. It says in its statement:

"Public bodies, such as HM Treasury, were legally obliged at the time of the Spending Review to demonstrate that they had fully considered the potential effects of their decisions on women, ethnic minorities and disabled people, and that any decisions with an effect on these groups could be justified."

That is not true.

Public bodies have to consider men and women when making their decisions. That is the law under the Equality Act.

Such is the knee-jerk sexism and nati0-male feeling at the Equalities and Human Rights Commission that they forget who the law applies to and feel they have no qualms about forgetting that men exist.

A classic case of sexism by ommission and institutional sexism.

This is why, although in theory the Equalities and Human Rights Commission should stand up for men and women - we know it institutionally opposes men. This is why it should be abolished because it is part of the anti-male institutional apparatus.

Perhaps, we should complain about to the Commission about its own sexism in this statement - which is in fact a breach of the very same Equalities Act that it is supposed to police.

Posted by Skimmington 

WHY DID SEXIST CANCER RESEARCH IGNORE PROTESTS FROM MEN BUT ACCEPTS PROTESTS FROM WOMEN

The wonderful news that Cancer Research UK has changed its rules to allow boys 11 and under take part in its Race for Life is a real victory for Claire Parker and a big thank you for her campaigning in making it happen (Derbyshire Times, Civil Society , Look North and previous coverage - Derbyshire Times).

There are a number of points to make.

The most significant issue is that John Taylor has been campaigning to allow men take part in the Race for Life for a decade. This was in response to his daughter who sadly died from cancer. Complaints to the organisation, complaint to Advertising Standards Authority and others such as the Fundraising Standards Board have gone unheeded. Even the sexist Equalities and Human Rights Commission ensured the Equality Act was modified allow it.

So nothing changes and then Claire launches her complaint and succeeds. Great. But what it does say is that Cancer Research and others were comfortable about dismissing the protests of a man but when it comes to a woman complaining about men (and boys) being banned they give in. What it shows is that not only that Cancer Research have been found to be guilty of sexism in terms of banning men (and still are sexist for banning men and boys aged over 11) they have also been found guilty of sexism because they ignored John Taylor's protests based solely on the fact that he is a man. If Claire Parker was Clive Parker, Cancer Research would not have crumbled.

Other points are of course is there is still the ban on men (and boys over 11) from taking part and Claire has already said she wants that overturned.

The advertising of course, which is everywhere and helped by Tesco's sponsorship, does not mention that men are banned. No mention on the home page of the website. If Cancer Research are comfortable that men are banned why not say it openly - why try and hide it - is it because they do not want to be so obvious about their sexism?

The comments made by Cancer Research UK about why they originally said to Claire that her son could not run was because women felt uncomfortable with young boys running with them is beyond laughable - it is like women do not have sons, brothers, husbands/boyfriends and fathers. Race organisers had told Claire that Connor couldn’t take part in the female-only event as some women felt “uncomfortable” when boys were allowed to join in the race last year. At the time, Claire blasted the “disgusting and discriminatory” move. The fact that Cancer Research UK felt OK to say women found it uncomfortable shows how easy it is to make such misandric lies up and think you can get away with it.

The last point is really that you would expect lots of media coverage on this considering it is a national event. Where is the coverage in the Guardian - or even on Mumsnet?

All in all, well done to Claire and also to John Taylor for a partial victory but we need complete victory because all we want is equality.

Posted by Skimmington 

VERY FEW WOMEN BELIEVE THEY ARE BEING DENIED PROMOTIONS - NEAR PARITY WITH MEN WHICH WON'T LAST LONG

Just before Christmas, one of our regular readers ('Groan') kindly pointed out the findings of the 2009-10 Citizenship Survey which had been sneaked out in the week before Christmas. Produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government, the 123 page report was entitled "Race, Religion and Equalities."

Paragraph 5.57 states "one per cent of people who had looked for work cited gender as a reason for being discriminated against when refused a job; and two per cent of employees cited gender as a factor in being discriminated against regarding a promotion.

"Males and females were equally likely to cite gender as a reason for discrimination in relation to being refused a job (in both cases 1%), while female employees were slightly more likely than male employees to cite gender as a reason for discrimination regarding promotion (2% of females compared with 1% of males)"

The key statitistics from this show three things.

Promotion - boardroom discrimination

Firstly, the anti-male Marxists feminists who bitterly complain against discrimination against women from the gender pay gap to promotion to boards and such like are out of step with what women actually think. Only 2% of women believe they are denied a promotion (1% men) because of their gender and 1% refused for a job because of their gender. 

Organisations like the 30% Club, Fawcett Society, Lynne Featherstone MP, and all the others are wrong when they say it is a disgrace that women are being discriminated against because women themselves do not believe so.

This organisations live in a fantasy world of male hatred where white fat upper middle class men are keeping the 'sisters' in the kitchen and on the shop floor. Women disagree with the 30% Club, Featherstone and everyone else who says it is a scandal.

These groups do not speak for women, they speak for female privilige for (upper) middle class women at the expense of men.

Equality Act

We know the Conservative Government had initial reservations about sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act (2010) which allows employers to discriminate against people when it comes to training, filling jobs and promotions, however, they ended up putting it into law on 1 April 2011.

It means that while 1% of men and 2% of women claim they are being denied a promotion because of their gender, I would expect this to be reversed over the next five years and that there be a clear gap emerging and perhaps 5% of men claiming they are being denied a promotion because of their gender.

This will not only affect those men themselves but will also affect their wives/girlfriends, daughters, mothers etc, so this discriminations affects women as much as it does the individual man.

Sample Size

Following on from the above, the numbers of 1% and 2% are very small and could be classed as insignificant. Perhaps a lot of that is down to the fact there still remains broadly a gender split in the work roles that men and women undertake. Without wanting to be too broadbrush about it but it is hard for a male car mechanic to say he is being denied a promotion because he is a man when there are so few female mechanics. Likewise, a female primary school teacher may not be able to say she has been denied a promotion when there are so few male primary school teachers.

It means that while the figure on paper looks small, it's signifcance should not be under-estimated.

In conclusion, this report undermines those anti-male Marxist feminists who with every breath they take say that women are discriminated in the workplace, when women themselves say they are not. Secondly, the Equality Act 2010, will I predict, see a gap created where more men feel discrimated than women in work.

It is shame this report was buried but it is essential research nonetheless (thank you to 'Groan' for highlighting it).

Posted by Skimmington 

THE GLASS CEILING DELUSION (new extract) by MIKE BUCHANAN

Mike, who was featured this week, has kindly sent over another extract of the above book.

Download Excerpt from THE GLASS CEILING DELUSION

In summary from Mike - ‘The Equality Act (2010): the triumph of Harriet Harman’. The gender-related aspects of the Act are appallingly biased against men, yet attracted minimal coverage even in papers such as The Daily Telegraph and The Economist. It’s a perfect example of how militant feminists work ‘under the radar’ to pursue their agendas, never with a democratic mandate. You’ll never see details of feminist agendas appear in party manifestos; at best their intentions will be obliquely hidden behind seemingly innocuous terms such as ‘fairness’ and ‘diversity’. What it always amounts to is ‘jobs for the girls’. 

Posted by Skimmington

LAST FEW DAYS - EQUALITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION CONSULTATION

A few kindly readers have pointed out that phase two of the ECHR's consultation finishes on their strategic plan (2012-2015) on Monday. The supporting information is worth going through.

As everyone will have their own views, personally one area they need to concentrate on is their policing of the public sector equality duty because there lies the best opportunity for men to get equality in this day and age.  As well as the policing they should be promoting that fact to a wider audience so men know about it.

They should spend less time on campaigning (as that always means campaigning against men) and get on with the job of ensuring equality also means equality for men too.

Posted by Skimmington

THE ENDING OF BLIND AND EQUAL JUSTICE FOR MEN CONTINUES

In today's anti-male Britain, we have laws and organisations wanting to end equality of opportunity for men and women.

We have all three political parties colluding to discriminate and make it harder for a man than a women to be a politician, a range of organisations and politicians doing the same for boardrooms and the same for stopping men and women from being paid depending on their contribution to a company (gender pay gap).

We also now that with the destruction of equality in education - boys are falling way behind girls at school and no one gives a hoot.

Justice though is meant to be blind as we have pointed out before some groups like the Women's Justice Taskforce do not want women to go to prison but are not bothered about how many men go there. They are happy and popping the champagne corks when people like Maria Topp get a suspended sentence. 

At the other end of the scale, with far more women becoming solicitors and barristers than men, we will soon have more female judges  etc. Not a problem if they are there on merit and are not men-haters.

But yesterday someone called Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury actually waded in and said he wanted to sexually discriminate against men by making it harder for them to be judges yet making it easier for women to be judges. Merit is not up for discussion and does not count. Just like the political world and just like now in the boardroom.

He wants to use the anti-male Section 159 of the Equalities Act, probably the most pernicious anti-male piece on the statute books, to promote women over men.

So at one end we have no equality in prison sentences and now there is a call for no equality in those making the decisions to send people to prison. From every direction, equality of men is disappearing from Britain's justice system.

Posted by Skimmington  

Media coverage (quite a lot on this so some of the main ones) - Press Association, Daily Mail (Donal Blaney), Daily Mail, Daily Mail (Quentin Letts)