The Rights Of Man

EDUCATION ASIDE, BNP MANIFESTO OFFERS LITTLE IMPROVEMENT IN EQUALITY

Our fifth manifesto to review from an equality perspective is that of the British National Party.

By far the strongest aspect of the BNP manifesto in relation to equality is their education polices. They propose the reintroduction of sporting and academic competition and by reverting to a more traditional syllabus - policies which would perhaps start to close the gender education gap. There's a promise to rid schools of political correctness, which would at least rule out brainwashing kids with sexist messages about domestic violence.  There's also a promise to challenge gifted pupils, which is inline with Conservative policy. Finally, the strongest part of the policy concerns higher education with the party stating "politically correct degrees have also proliferated and while they may be of use to ‘equalities’ minded left-leaning councils, they are of little use to the productive economy". The BNP promise to withdraw subsidies for such degrees and even wish to see "ideological balance in university faculties" which would certainly put many of the bigoted women's studies professors under the microscope.

Another interesting aspect of the BNP manifesto is the fact they'll hold the media to account for publishing falsehoods and slandering people. This would be particularly useful with regards to the media coverage of dubious rape prosecutions or domestic violence allegations which prove to be false.  especially as such laws also promise a right of reply.

The BNP promises to close the council run diversity schemes, something likely to increase fairness. It would certainly be positive to see an end to the plethora of sexist "women-only schemes" such as ones relating to business especially as many are failing anyway. There's also a promise to close the Equality and Human Rights Commission. There's no doubt that this organisation has huge flaws at present, though I'd argue the BNP might be wrong here. Just because the organisation totally ignores large sections of the population doesn't mean they need shutting down. Why not just get rid of the worst staff and force the organisation to be fair, honest and non sexist in future? Either way it's at least a positive that the BNP have raised such concerns.

The BNP has some reasonable economic polices, they favoursfocusing on science, technology, engineering and manufacturing, sectors of the economy in decline under Labour. More jobs in such areas would help many of the real victims of the recession.

As with UKIP, the main downside of the BNP manifesto from the perspective of gender equality relates to crime and punishment. For example they seem to be rather fond of the government's DNA database stating "A person’s DNA is only added to that database when in police custody for a recordable offence", therefore suggesting they have little concern for false allegations and concepts such as innocent until proven guilty.

Whereas so many other manifestos have polices that are sexist towards men, the BNP actually take the opposite position and discriminate against women instead through their "married man's allowance". Don't' get me wrong , it's brilliant to encourage couples to stay together, but benefits need to be payable to husband and wife, rather than just one aprtner. Admittedly this isn't a sexist as some Conservative or Labour polices as the money ultimately will be shared between the two parties in most cases, but principles are important too, and despite the relative lack of harm, such a policy sends out completely the wrong message regarding fairness.

The BNP's response to family breakdown is actually very disappointing in other ways too. They seem to recognise some of the issues around the edges, for example noting on the section on economics that "a child may be better cared for at home than in a day-care centre". Similarly they note how the cost of legal services is too high and they do have policies to address the financial incentives for separation as discussed above. However, there's no mention of family law nor shared parenting. Such absences are  compounded by the length of the manifesto - it extends to some ninety pages, so it's not even as if they've been omitted just to keep things concise.

In conclusion we should certainly commend the BNP education polices. Some of their ideas for higher education in particular are hugely impressive and have a few decent ideas on local government issues and Quangos too. The party's offerings on the really key issues such as family breakdown really aren't at all impressive though, and if anything actually discriminate against women. I find this particularly disappointing given how the BNP supposedly prides itself on tackling the tough issues. The BNP is marketed as being different to the other parties and while there are glimpses of this, they're actually very similar to the likes of Labour, both in their ignorance of many issues and in their tendency to pick on particular groups.

John Kimble

TORIES TO DENY MEN NINE BILLION POUNDS IN PENSIONS

Part three of our review of manifestos for the election takes a look at the Conservative's offerings.

By far the most concerning item in the manifesto is the Conservative policy on state pensions. At present men have to work five years longer than women to get a pennons despite the fact that they've put in more hours at work on average and thus contributed far more in taxes on average. On top of this, male life expectancy is rather poor in the UK (a fact which even the manifesto even touches on) and as a result your average woman can expect to receive some £81,000 in pension payments in her life, compared with £55,000 for a man.

Such is the unfairness of this situation we even have excellent groups such as PARITY campaigning for pension's equality and even Labour finally agreed to end this sexism one day far into the future. So what's the Conservative policy here? Are they going to equalise retirements ages as soon as possible and live up to their promise of "change"? Well actually, the manifesto promises change, but change that makes the problem even worse! They propose raising the retirement age to 66 in 2016, but only for men. Women will continue to be able to retire at 60 right up until 2020. Thus we'll have a six year difference in retirement ages instead of the present five and £49,000 paid to men compared to £81,000 for women. By my calculations the total sum the Tories will be denying men over the four years is a staggering nine billion pounds. Further still, David Cameron suggests the money is going directly to women so that they all get a full pension, I don't think I've ever seen a more sexist idea.

Obviously such a policy instantly rules anyone interested in equality out of voting for the Tories, which is perhaps a shame given that its proposals do contain a few positives. The first thing of note is the more incisive language used in the document. There's no sexist terminology anywhere to be found. For example the two party manifestos I've reviewed so far focus on the trafficking of women for sex, whereas Conservatives address "people trafficking" which is far more appropriate given forced labour is a massively larger problem. As most people know, the issue of women trafficked for purposes of prostitution has been blown out of all proportion by Labour.

The Conservative's plans in eduction also appear quite reasonable from an equality perspective. They recognise how broken and the current system is, not to mention how devalued qualifications have now become and appreciate the need to focus on core subjects such a maths and science. They also promise more challenging activities for especially gifted pupils, as well as help fro the least able. The Conservative perhaps don't' realise but this is in fact a gender, given that boys dominate both extremes of the intelligence spectrum. More significantly, they specifically mention the issue of false allegations against teachers and promise to protect staff.

Further help from the falsely accused can be found in the section on crime, with the Conservatives promising to remove innocent people from the government DNA database and instead replace them with convicted criminals. Other positives include numerous polices from helping those in the armed services, most notably policies helping them after leaving, and also support for married couples thus helping to remove the current financial incentives for divorcing. Finally there's a commitment to shared maternity leave, which is certainty preferable to Labour's 4 weeks for fathers and 52 for mothers.

However, overall the document is something of a disappointment. Whilst you fell the party has their heart in the right place, the generally feeling you get from the manifesto is that while the Conservatives mostly understand what's important, they really don't seem to quite have the right solutions yet and still seem out of touch. The polices on marriage are commendable for example, but you get the feeling the Conservatives just want to push the clock back to a different era. The party recognises more needs to be done in terms of contact after separation even recognising that we have " some of the worst rates of family breakdown in the world", yet there's no actual commitment to shared parenting. Yes they mention false accusations, but why restrict such polices to the teaching profession when the issue can ruin anyone's life regardless of their profession? The problem isn't schools in this instance, it's society as a whole and the lack of punishment and prosecution of the crime.

Similarly there are also concerns with the Conservative's "Big Society" theme. Concerns about government bureaucracy, waste and interference are sound, but the Conservative approach also brings concerns. For example they want to see charities proving public services, but in some areas that's already the case to some extent. Take domestic violence for example, do we really want to hand even more power to gender feminist organisations such as Women's Aid and Refuge so they can continue to deny help to male vicitms and pretend most of them are making it up?

In conclusion, it's a decent enough document for the most part, but the pensions policy is so horrific it essentially cancels everything else out. It shows us the traditional Conservative way of hurting men is still alive and well. Whereas the Labour party hates men due to it's gender feminist influence, Conservatives harm men through chivalry. The pensions policy shows they expect men to work even harder and longer than women for less reward. It sends out the message that men are an expendable resource to exploit, rather than people deserving of equal treatment and you have to fear that such an attitude will find it's way into other areas of policy. It's all very well coming up with decent education and civil liberties polices, but no one is going to take your seriously if your idea of pensions reform is to ring-fence women's income whilst his taking £9 billion from men to fund it.

John Kimble

THE RELIGION THAT IS THE LONDON FEMINIST NETWORK

Monday night saw the broadcast of an hour long BBC Four documentary on the extreme feminist group the London Feminist Network.

Being a BBC programme the best method they could come up with to tackle such a topic in a fair, balanced and neutral way was to ask Vanessa Engle to make the programme (and the whole series for that matter). Engle is of course a feminist herself, the Daily Telegraph notes she "was involved in the women’s movement while at Oxford studying languages in the 1980s; she protested outside porn shops, joined the Reclaim the Night march against male violence". These exact same protests are featured in the programme so she's effectively making a programme about herself. Presumably this will be followed by an investigation into the BNP presented by Nick Griffin and an IRA expose by Martin McGuiness? When the BBC cover Men's issues we invariably get exactly the opposite situation, with the like of Women's Aid supporter Fiona Bruce interrogating Father 4 Justice in an an incredibly hostile manner in breach of BBC rules.

Although the programme may have been conceived as 60 minutes of free prime time advertising for the London Feminist network, if you can stomach the misandry, constant pro feminist bias not to mention abysmal songs then you'll actually find it was quite enlightening in places.

The first signs of dissent from the militant feminist dogma in the programme came from a male, one of the girl's fathers. Whilst his wife rambles on, equating child pornography with lads mags and pretty much anything sexual, he's brave enough to put forward the entirely reasonable argument that there's actually nothing wrong with prostitution so long as both parties are happy and consenting to the transaction. Strangely, such an argument seems hugely radical, controversial and out of place at that point of the broadcast due to the extreme anti-male atmosphere of the organisation being discussed. I suppose it's a bit like going to church and pointing out the lack of evidence of the existence of God.

The programme was full of the usual nonsensical feminist cliches, with the group so keen to "end violence against women" and to "take back the night". Some went further, their only concern being the rather narrow subject of "men's violence against women". Given the rates of recorded domestic violence by lesbian females, never mind the countless male domestic violence victims out here, this is clearly not only sexist but extremely stupid too.

It was particularly ironic to feature a feminist group located in London complaining about violence against women as apparently such a huge issue so much more important than any other. If we look at the epidemic of teen violence in the city, there were 27 teens killed in 2008, with just one of those unfortunate people being female - 96.3% of victims were male. The previous year again again saw 27 victims, and there were a slightly more significant three female victims ton his occasion. However one should remember that feminists only count violence against women if it's perpetrated by a man, therefore under LFN logic a third of such victims are to be ignored do the the killers being of the wrong sex.

It's certainly true that our streets are rather dangerous places, but it's women who are the safest out on them, and men need to reclaim them far, far more than any other group. Yet there's further hypocrisy from LFN. Not only do they ignore all the evidence and pretend that it's only women need to reclaim the night, men are even barred from marching . They are neither allowed to reclaim the night from themselves nor are they even welcome in helping to achieve fundamentally flawed and sexist goal of reclaiming it just for women.

The ridiculousness of such a situation was beautifully illustrated in a bizarre discussion of how the LFN members could identify those awful men in order to prevent them from taking part. It was noted that they do indeed allow men who "identify as women", to participate, though only certain men are allowed to benefit from this loophole and the feminists had to use their judgement as to who qualified for such a privilege. The problem of actual women who looked like men also arose (unsurprising given the androgynous appearance of so many of the participants) with "caution" and "sensitivity" urged. In reality there is of course a very simple and elegant solution to all these complicated "problems", that being to simply stop being so incredibly sexist and discriminatory and let make everyone in society welcome instead! Surely you can't get any more sensitive than that?

Another telling exchange came in an interview with a older member of the group, who discussed her reasons for being an activist. She stated that she had been motivated to join the group as a result of the police' repines to a friend of her daughter being "gang raped".  Watching the piece, alarm bells immediately start to ring as she stumbles through the facts rather uncertainly, eventually informing us the supposed "victim" actually received a caution for falsely alleging rape (albeit one she managed to later overturn using a lawyer). Obviously I don't know the facts of the case other than what this rather biased party tell us. However, given that the accused actually had video evidence of consent (not to mention the feminist's ramblings about a woman's supposed lack of choices when in such a situation), I'd say it sounds absolutely like a case of regretting sex after the event and thus a clear false rape allegation. The police are incredibly reluctant to charge someone with making a false rape claim and insist on massive amounts of proof in most cases. The main travesty that I can see here is that a mere caution is vastly insufficient punishment for such a serious crime. Those falsely alleging rape should either be let off if there isn't sufficient proof, or tried in a court of law and face a jail sentence where their guilt can be proven. A caution really isn't appropriate under any circumstances, and if the police were "vile" to anyone as she alleges, then it was surely to the victims of the false accusations. Further still, to use what appears to be a false rape case (and one with multiple victims at that) to be your sole reason for being an activist really is quite strange at best and certainly isn't going to make any useful contribution to ones "sanity" as she believes.

Such a lack of concern with the facts isn't unique to the older activists either. A younger feminist called Laurie, one of the "leading lights of the organisation", later discusses the despair she feels when reading items in the news, specifically citing the case of a man who branded his wife with an iron who only received a two month jail sentence for the offence. She then informs us that this could be "a made up story" and "even though she might have made it up it's probably true". Don't get me wrong - I'm sure that in a population of 60 million people such a story would almost certainly occur eventually, just as monkeys randomly hitting typewriter keys may eventually produce passages from Shakespeare. However it's rather bizarre to see someone so committed to such a cause have such a lack of concern for knowledge and the facts to such an extent they are reduced to fabricating imaginary abuses of women in order to make their point. I'm sure myself and other readers here could list at least 20 key MRA related injustices that have been in the news (or not in a few cases) which are important to the MRA movement. There wouldn't be any need for exaggeration let alone total fabrication of stories just because they might have happened somewhere or may well do so in the future. The exchange against shows us the unique culture of LFN, where facts really don't matter in the slightest - you just have to be a believer.

Anger and the hatred of men are recurring themes throughout the broadcast. Men are not only banned from the marches, not to mention the organisation itself, but the group even meets at a women only bar! In fact men were notably absent from vast swathes of the programme. Now I do realise that extreme gender feminist groups tend to feature vastly disproportionate numbers of lesbians compared to the population as a whole, but such a figure can't be more than 50%. Where were the male partners of the heterosexual feminists? It's clear that a display of such hatred and contempt for the opposite sex isn't the best technique to use in the search for a partner (unless perhaps one is seeking a self-loathing man). Presumably most of the woman were therefore single as a result of their activities, perhaps the feminist equivalent of a celibate catholic priest.

It wasn't just men who were invisible during the programme either. Almost all the feminists seem rather privileged, educated, middles class and white. I don't necessarily have any major issue with this usually, but remember we're talking about an organisation who subscribe absolutely to the exact sort of nonsense we hear coming out of the EHRC on a daily basis. Further still, given that London is about the most ethnically diverse city on the planet it seems incredible that not a single ethnic minority was to be seen anywhere in the organisation, particularly given that so many feminists issues have a vastly greater impact on such people (with many absolutely exclusive to immigrant communities). Presumably such ethnic minorities are fully aware of the stupidity and tremendous harm caused by excluding members based on their appearance and inherent characteristics and thus find a group practising such discrimination to be wholly unattractive as a result?

The most intersecting segment of the programme involved a discussion with two rather more level headed young feminists who had attended the LFN conference. They concluded the group wasn't for them as they didn't share the same extreme views on banning pornography and outlawing prostitution. One might of thought that such differences shouldn't really matter so much as they're still feminists, right? Well that's not the case at all - you see, as these two women point out, if you want to join the LFN you have to agree with everything they say hook, line and sinker, it's all or nothing as far as they're concerned. It's not just those horrible men that aren't welcome at LFN, other equally contemptible enemies  include actual concepts such as debate, opinion, and dissent.

In conclusion, the programme shows exactly how not to conduct oneself as an activist. It revealed feminism at it's very worst, not as a movement concerned with equality, humanity or compassion, but instead showed us feminism the religion. The London Feminist Network were just as angry, bigoted, emotional, devoid of logic and reason as almost any religious institution or cult. We had women as the chosen ones, with men and sex as the devil. Unbelievers we not welcome whatsoever, with debate limited to how best to exclude men. Just as with so many religions they were keen to interfere with and control the lives of women happily going about their lives, whether it be fashion models happily raking in a fortunes for magazine shoots, or the many women happily reliving gullible men of handfuls of money at strip clubs. Fortunately the only real difference here compared to other religions was the size of the congregation, which I'm pleased to say was tiny in this case. Lets just hope it stays that way for many more years to come for the sake of both men and women and society as a whole.

By John Kimble

BBC BANS MEN FROM PROGRAMME AUDIENCE

Yesterday evening the publicly funded BBC took the unprecedented step of banning men from the audience of BBC's Question Time programme as a way of "celebrating" International Women's Week (I always though it was Women's Day, but obviously there wasn't enough time to fit in all the misandry). The only men present were the host and two people on the panel, the Sun's Kelvin McKensie and the BBC's own Monty Don. Other panelists included the rather reasonable Jo Swinson of the Lib Dems, Conservative Justine Greening, and the Labour's quite hideous Carloine Flint.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the programme were not so much the topics discussed, but the unstated parallel that could be drawn throughout almost every single one of them. We had the Jamie Bulgar case discussed as well as the fact a man had been falsely accused of being his killer on Facebook (he has been forced into hiding and currently fears for his life). Later there was an intense discussion on the death of troops in Afghanistan due poor quality equipment being provided by the government, as well as the countless horrific injuries caused to survivors. We had mentions of the children horrifically tortured in Edlington there was an extensive discussion of the case of David Askew, a man with learning difficulties who died yesterday having being bullied over many years. 

So what's the parallel between every single noteworthy discussion of the week? Well rather ironically in this era of so much supposed "violence against women" and oppression and the resulting need for women only this and that, almost every single victim of every issue discussed throughout the entire hour was male. With just one exception every UK soldier killed in Afghanistan has been male. Similarly all the domestic vicitms of violence and murder discussed were male too, and we even had the key MRA issue of false allegations given a mention on top of all that!

Clearly it's hardly surprising that so many vicitms of violence were men given the vastly greater threat of violence they their daily lives compared to women and the resulting lower life expectancy. This was however a BBC programme we're taking about and it at least shows they perhaps can't control the questions the generally public want to ask to the same extent they censor so much other output. Also it was very refreshing to see that so many decent women in the audience aren't as misandric and self-obsessed as so many of their "elected" female sisters in Parliament, and so many clearly realise and are hugely concerned about the plight of men subconsciously at the very least.

The incredibly ironic theme of male victims continued right until the end of the programme, with a discussion of all women shortlists, and a quite magnificent older women in the audience (and others) condemning them as passionately and eloquently as anything you'll see on this blog.

One of the only two notable pieces of misandry we saw on the programme in fact came from a man in Monty Don, who suggested he'd be happy to see an all female parliament with no men in it at all as it couldn't' be any worse than the current lot (though it would seem he was playing to the crowd as much as giving a genuine opinion). This of course illustrates the idiocy of banning particular groups from an audience or any institution for that matter. It was clear the pressure of the all women audience not only influenced Don's answers, but also stifled McKensie at times too (albeit to a far lesser extent).

Thus there are useful lessons for us to take from the programme. Could Don have asked for a Parliament that excluded ethnic minorities and got such a round of applause? His conduct illustrates just how misandry works in practice with sexist comments about men encouraged and going unchallenged.  The make up of the event very much reflected the balance of genders one finds at the average primary school - where you have the odd token male teacher and token male parent against a sea of females. Further still, whatever anti male indiscretions occur in such an environment aren't subject to the scrutiny nor of millions watching at home on tv either and the resulting moderation of one's behaviour.

The most ill informed and sexist comment of the night came at the very end of the programme, with an audience member praising the fact men had been barred from taking part and suggesting that men could never organise their own International Men's Day as women have done. In reality there has in fact been an International Men's day for a number of years now, it's just that all the politicians we see week in week out on Question Time refuse to acknowledge and celebrate the event and the BBC are just as ignorant or dismissive of the event. If only we'd had some way for one of the many men behind International Men's Day to inform such ignorant parties of the existence of the event and it's importance? Maybe some sort of weekly nationally broadcast discussion forum, watched by millions where broadcasters, politicians and the members of the public of both sexes all come together and pool their knowledge and ideas in order to to be able to have an informed discussion of such issues?

I suppose given that gender segregation is so much on the increase these days this won't be the last time we see such misandry on the BBC. Kelvin McKensie at least stated he hoped not to see the sexist format return for anther 30 years. At the current rate the women on such a 2040 edition of Question Time will unfortunately be just as ignorant about International Men's Day as those taking part this evening.

WANT TO RUIN A MAN'S LIFE? THAT'LL BE £80 PLEASE

You often hear about false rape allegations in the news these days (unless you only read the Guardian of course). The police are now, quite rightly, starting to take action in the more extreme cases, though perhaps an even more heinous crime is that of making false paedophilia allegations.

Just as with false rape allegations, many in our society unfortunately take the stance that there's "no smoke without fire" and ultimately the false allegations tend to stick, regardless of how ridiculous, unfounded or malicious they happen to be. Therefore, as with false rape allegations, the victims of these crimes at at serious risk of attack, can lose their jobs, and ultimately face financial and psychological ruin. Further still, as we're talking about the awful crime of alleged sexual abuse of children here, the stigma and potential dangers for victims are about as severe as you can get.

Te latest victim of such a crime is Luck Chatfield, who was falsely labelled a paedophile by his neighbour, Sally Pepper, after committing the heinous offence of complaining about her loud music (she has numerous complaints about anti-social behaviour against here so it's unlikely that his action was unjustified). As a result of the false and malicious allegations he's been abused in the street, had items thrown at his house, installed a panic alarm and been forced out of his job! In total Chatfield has lost £1,500 in earnings, yet has two disabled children and a disabled wife to provide for. The stress of the situation must be intolerable.

So what's appropriate punishment for putting this man's life in real danger and causing him and his family so much hardship and distress? Maybe four years in jail? (actually make that two seeing as she gets female sentencing discount). Surely he's at least entitled to reimbursement of the lost monies too? Thirdly, wouldn't it be reasonable to place the perpetrator almost certainly needs to be on a false accusers register or maybe the sex offenders register as this is effectively a sexual offence? People need to be warned about such incredibly dangerous people so they can avoid them as much as possible.

Unfortunately none of the above occurred. Not even a token jail sentence, not a penny reimbursed, and no system to warn others of the dangers. The only consequence for the perpetrator was an £80 fixed penalty notice. That's right, we value this man's career, safety and general well-being as the same price of a train ticket. False paedophilia allegations are no more serious than dropping a cigarette butt, writing a graffiti tag, dog fouling, failing to pay your road tax on time, or fly posting. Further still, the Home Office rather ironically cite "playing loud music" as their example of a crime likely to result in the £80 fixed penalty notice.

In other words, her alleged offence of playing loud music is no different to that of attempting to ruin a man's life by spreading false allegations that he enjoys raping young children. Neither offence is any different to the other!

So, what's the perpetrator's view on all this? Is Ms Pepper at least full of remorse and regret? Does she realise just how much damage she's caused to this man life and that of his vulnerable family? Has the punishment acted at least as a deterrent? Well, perhaps not according to the BBC who state "she say she did not regret what she did".

I wonder why?

DOES THE MOON REALLY EXIST?

"Does the moon really exist?" That's the question the quite brilliant Ali G put to Buzz Aldrin during this comedy interview. Now I'm all for challenging conventions and asking unfashionable questions, but clearly questioning the existence of the moon is ridiculous. People holding such a view would either be stupid, or immature and would not be taken at all seriously.

However, questioning such obvious and demonstrably true phenomena is actually a far from alien concept to many gender feminists too. For example, when discussing the possibility of setting up a false rape claim register in 1999, our female namesake group "Rights of Women" told the BBC: "given that the law is already so weighted against women, we should be looking at protecting them rather than targeting the few, if any, women who make false allegations". In other words, false rape claims are incredibly rare and there's a very good chance that they quite simply do not exist at all!

Think about that for a second. False rape claims are the perfect weapon for any women looking to gain revenge on a male and ruin his life. Yet despite this weapon being in every single woman's hands, somehow they're all so saintly that not a single one would ever be tempted to use it. Women are good, men are bad, and no exceptions either! False allegations happily exist for other crimes, how can any sane person possibly suggest they don't exist for rape, a crime which is a classic case of one person's word against another. As so many cases have shown, no evidence is even required, and we've got a government so friendly towards false rape accusers they want to make their activities even easier by lowering the burden of proof.

Spreading such falsehoods is bad enough given all of the above, but the flip-side of her statement regarding the saintliness of woman is to deny the existence of any victims of false rape accusations too. False rape claims are such a disgusting and serious crime in term of the impact they have. They ruin the victims' careers, relationships, self-esteem and reputations, even resulting in fleeing the country or committing suicide. In other words they're just as heinous an offence as rape itself. What then, if someone had instead being sick enough deny the existence of victims of rape instead of those of false rape? Such views wouldn't be tolerated if they came form a random individual, yet here we have a government funded charity happily belittling all these false rape victims with any consequences or comment whatsoever.

There is of course an alternative possibility; perhaps Rights of Women do indeed accept that these victims exist, they just don't believe their side of the story. I.e. all supposed victims of false rape accusations are in fact liars and they are guilty as hell of rape regardless of what the evidence shows. Whichever is the position, it's equally abhorrent.

These tactics of denying the most basic of facts are very popular with gender feminists, perhaps even an intrinsic part of their movement. In order to stifle debate and draw attention away from their agenda and the damage they've caused, they attempt to refute the most fundamental of truths and attempt to turn reality on its head. For example, those such as Catherine Comins willing to admit that false rapes do in indeed occur, instead take the position that the falsely accused somehow gain from the experience. She helpfully lists describes how they can go through "a process of self-exploration" and lists hypothetical questions they might end up asking themselves about their relationships with women and whether they could have committed the crime had the circumstance been different. No matter the realities of the situation of course - I suppose it's something to pass the time whilst rotting in prison if nothing else.

For the benefit of those at Rights of Women, false rape accusers do indeed exist (and the moon does too for that matter). Further still, they're not just used in stereotypical high-stakes situations such as gaining revenge over an slightly unpleasant ex-partner or getting the upper hand in a custody dispute or divorce, they're actually used for increasingly trivial reasons these days.

Just this week a man was falsely accused of rape for to despicable act of bumping into a woman's car. Another was similarly accused as a result of being stabbed in the leg! Financial gain is often a motive too - some women see them as a method of gaining taxpayer payouts via the victims compensation scheme. Alternatively, some many false accuser are rather less ambitious, willing to use the weapon in lieu of paying a taxi fare.

it's worth remembering that these are only the cases we know about - they just the ones that actually made it all the way to court. Is your average taxi driver honestly going to stand up to a false accuser and risk a lengthy court case, possible violence and even their career? Surely in the vast majority of cases where women threaten them with false rape they simply take in on the chin and move onto the next fare?

It's pretty obvious that from being absolutely non existent, the problem false rape claims is more akin to an epidemic not incomparable to the problem of rape itself. Luckily public opinion is slowly changing and today's news show even many women now recognise the extent of the problem of false rape claims despite the government and police constantly sweeping them under the carpet. Lets hope hope more judges are brave enough to speak out so we can finally establish a register of false accusers so men can be afforded the same protection offered to women against sex offences.

WILL 2010 BE THE YEAR OF EQUALITY FOR BRITISH MEN?

As a new year starts, it is worth reviewing the events of the past year and look forward to 2010 to see what hope there is for male equality in 2010.

2009 was a mixed bag. We had the awfulness of the Equalities Bill trundling through Parliament allowing men to be discriminated in the workplace and the recession taking its toll in increasing male unemployment (and the associated depression), particularly damaging for young men who cannot get on the job ladder and hampered by their lack of academic achievement at all levels compared to women. The Coalition on Men and Boys produced an awful paper that basically said that men are bad and are to blame for everything that affects them.

We had the continuing and wilful ignorance of male issues from the Labour Government and its acolytes at the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. In fact, both organisations did all they could spin the myths that women were more affected by the recession, that the Gender Pay Gap was leading to more discrimination against women and the refusal to accept that men are also affected by domestic violence.

On the other hand, there has been a greater awareness of the issues affecting men. The Men's Health Forum continue their good work (with others in the prostate cancer field), Families Need Fathers have opened up new centres with a growing recognition of the bias of the family courts and the ManKind Initiative speaking with more authority on the plight of male victims of domestic violence. The NPSCC also produced some authoritative work showing that abuse at home affected boys as well as girls highlighting that mothers were as involved in this than just fathers.

We also have seen what I would call an epidemic in the numbers of women falsely accusing men of rape, a concern for the men accused as well as those poor women who are attacked.  

But does 2010 bring any hope?

The only answer that can be offered is that it may do and this is dependent in large measure to the result of the General Election.

The odds are that it looks like a hung Parliament or a small Conservative majority. Whatever happens, as long as Labour, the most anti-male Government in the history of the United Kingdom, are turfed out then that has to be something positive. In addition, this will tend to allow a change in the mindset of the civil service and other public servants to one based on genuine equality not on Labour's and the Equalities Commission's Animal Farm meaning of Equality ("everyone is equal but some are more equal than otehrs") .

We can hope that the recession ends and that men (and women) can find themselves back in work. We can hope that family law reforms such as a presumption fo share parenting come to fruition and that the needs of men in education, health and domestic violence find themselves higher up the political agenda. The need for a Minister for Men (if there is to be the continuation of a Minister for Women) should be at the very least the first step (this site will be updating its manifesto this month).

We really do need some politicians especially female politicians (they are mothers, sisters and wives to men) taking the lead on this. With so many new politicians coming into Parliament whoever wins, let us hope so.

There is a risk of course that David Cameron as part of his touchy feely positioning continues to only concentrate on the needs of women and not on men. He has not made a good start with the threat of using All-Women short lists.

Whatever happens, groups wanting genuine equality for men will continue to fight and express their views, we hope that in 2010, politicians and public servants actually make the changes necessary. We just have to keep going and hope that the plight of British Men starts to receive the recognition needed. Now that would be EQUALITY.

FALSE RAPE ACCUSATIONS IN SCOTLAND

I know the theme of the site has recently had a Scottish flavour but news is news wherever the source.

One of the key trends in 2009 has been what I can say is an epidemic of false rape accusations.

In Scotland, this poor poor chap spent 2 and a half years behind bars for the crime but has now been freed and then in Moray this lady gets community service.

THE POWER OF THE FALSE ACCUSATION AGAIN

The Daily Mail reported recently this sad tale of Lancastrian Bryan Davies who had a heart attack because he was falsely accused of paedophilia. Even the police went to the trouble of sending leaflets to neighbours to say it was not true.

Once again, the power of the false allegation has reared its ugly head and during 2009 it is one trendthat is clearly increasing. These claims are made whether paedophilia and rape, damaging those falsely accused and also damaging those who are genuine victims.

There needs to be tougher sentences and someone such as the Fawcett Society (if they wanted to make a real difference to those poor women who are raped) and others should be speaking out publicly about it. Silence is all we hear.

STORIES ROUND-UP

Sorry been busy but here are some recent stories worth cathcing up on:-

Times - Domestic violence against men rises 167% in Scotland

Daily Mail (the great Amanda Platell) - Women Bosses

Real Clear Politics (Cathy Young) - Tiger Woods, gender and domestic violence

Daily Mail - Love cheat texts and false allegations

Scotsman - Children should know men can be domestic violence victims too

Guardian - French Government gender equality plan

Salisbury Journal - More false alleagtions

Buxton Advertiser - Women only shortlist