The Rights Of Man

EQUALITIES COMMISSION MAKES CASE FOR INCREASING SUPPORT FOR INCREASING PATERNITY LEAVE

The UK's Equalities and Human Rights Commission made the case this week for increasing paternity leave for men, though it has catches (link). It is part of their campaign to de-genderise parental care.

It has not been reviewed fully so welcome any thoughts or comments.

It does seem somewhat patronising describing for instance 'By supporting men to be good fathers' as if they are not good fathers already, just because some continue to work through a child's first year.

At least there is some recognition of the value of fathers, now that is a radical change!

CAFCASS IN THE MIDLANDS FAILING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES - HOW MUCH HURT HAS BEEN CAUSED?

The secretive and unaccountable Cafcass (or Kafkass)in Birmingham and the Black Country has been given an inadequate rating by Ofsted . It was given the lowest score: Grade 4 

The Birmingham and Black Country report itself says "The overall effectiveness of the service provided is inadequate. Crucially, some key services are not currently delivered to minimum standards. Performance is weak in meeting some statutory functions."

Cafcass in the East Midlands failed in 2008 (link) and Birmingham and the Black Country report is here (link).

What both reports don't cover and is the human misery caused by these incompetent so-called 'public servants'. The families torn apart, the children who don't get to see their fathers (and in rare cases mothers) anymore and the general heartache of dealing with a secret state that does not care for the people they are entrusted (and paid well for) to look after and do their best for.

This is a true scandal and thousands of children and fathers in the Midlands are suffering because of it.

CMEC - WHERE IS THE EQUAL JUSTICE ON CONTACT ORDERS?

The new CSA - The Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (link) announced proposals this week that would mean parents who were not paying for the upkeep of their children would be able to have their driving licences and passports taken away without the CMEC having to go to court. The issues on this are numerous.

Firstly, the use of the court system offers an independent legislative check and stops state officials believing they have unaccountable powers to harm UK citizens. It is fundamental to all the debates on ID cards, CCTV, using terrorist powers to spy on people going about their business etc etc. It is about the state controlling people and not people controlling the state, It is absolutely fundamental to the concept of liberty this once proud freedom loving country used as its foundation. Under this Government, it is no more.

The day-to-day incompetence of civil servants, bureaucrats and officials is legion so why does anyone think this organisation will be any different and more efficianet, transparent and fair than the awful CSA. An organisation that drove many men to commit suicide and why organisations like CSA Hell were set up.

Media Coverage

One of the issues constantly remarked here is the way that a story that is presented in a gender-neutral way is then twisted into gender stereotyping male bashing.

The story put out by the DWP was gender neutral - it said parents. But these newspapers just blamed it on fathers -  Daily Mail, Daily Mail 'Deadbeat Dads', Scotsman, Telegraph, ITV. As if there are no absent mothers!

The most remarkable anti-male article seen for a long while was the anti-male feminist par excellence Polly Toynbee. She is literally overflowing with her hatred of men, it's almost as if she cannot control her rage, she says "The truth is that marriages often break down when women escape from bad role models - the ones who become the won't-pay fathers." No wonder she recived some 739 comments on her post. She has form on this issue.

Where is the fair deal?

Ultimately though, whilst the draconian powers have been ramped up, nothing changes.

The same inhumane admin cock ups as the CSA, refusing to answer letters or check up whether those claiming are telling the truth will continue?

Where is the justice when a mother walks out on the father to shack up with a new man leaving the rejected man to still pick up the tab?

Worse and this is the real injustice. If parents (lets say a father) are going to lose their passports and driving licences then the parent (lets say a mother) with custody who refuses to abide by contact orders, should then lose her passport and driving licence. This would be one remedy the Family Courts could use rather than the usual spineless inaction.

In a world of joined-up Government and fairness, this would be the case. However, we live in a Britain where the state dislikes men and has no interest in fairness towards them.

WHY DOES THE TELEGRAPH PERSIST IN PUBLISHING GILL HORNBY's RANTS?

The Daily Telegraph used to be the bastion of freedom loving Conservatives and also a bastion of the family  - supporting both mothers and fathers.

However, it has recently started to publish a columnist called Gill Hornby who produces some of the most spiteful anti-male copy ever seen in a national newspaper.

In June this year, she said in The Telegraph (link) that Father's Day was the worst thing Richard Nixon ever did. To quote her "But the most worrying thing is that there is a new generation of impressionable young minds who might somehow get the Days of Fathers and Mothers confused. They may even, given the strength of the commercial message, judge them as equal."

This week, she ranted (link) that we "shouldn't attack the 'problem' of single mothers and start considering that of absent fathers. Because they have chosen to have no sense of obligation towards their offspring, we as a society seem to have no expectations of them. We don't even call them "single parents" - though they may be single, and are definitely parents - because they chose to do no parenting whatsoever. They are simply called 'men'".

Of course, there will be some men who abandon their children, as there are many mothers who do the same. However, there are hundreds of thousands of men, who if divorced/split from the mother of their children pay maintenance. In addition, of course, there are thousands who are denied access/contact to their children (despite paying maintenance) because the mothers use the Family Court system to stop them.

To say these men have "no sense of obligation towards their offspring "shows Ms Hornby just wants to use her column to, in a juvenile fashion, attack men. She has no idea what she is on about.

It is astounding that the Daily Telegraph is publishing such nonsense.

WILL NEW CONTACT ORDER PUNISHMENTS ACTUALLY BE WORTH THE PAPER?

Today, could be a red letter day for all those men who find that their lawful contact with their children is being stopped by recalcitrant ex-wife.

As reported here (Telegraph):-

"Mothers...will be hit with tough punishments for breaking contact orders handed down by family courts. They can be sentenced to up to 100 hours of unpaid work in the community for breaking the orders, with the penalty doubling to 200 hours and a fine if they fail to abide by the punishment.

In addition, parents can be forced to attend therapy sessions and parenting lessons in the terms of the contact orders.

The new rules come into effect from Monday in provisions of the Children and Adoption Act 2006 that aim to strengthen the power of the authorities to deal with parents who block contact."

The biggest single cause for groups such as (Real) Fathers For Justice et al has been that the judges and courts have simply refused to enforce the contact orders that have been handed down. Aided and abetted by weak enforcement, CAFCASS officers who nearly always side with the mother, a legion of mothers have been successful in stopping their children from seeing their father.

The isue here though, is that whilst these will help, it is likely that onlyy in the most extreme cases will they be used. This is because the 'special pleaders' of the family law industry (lawyers, social services, CAFCASS etc) will tell judges looking to punish mothers that it will do more damage to the children. It means they will be used sparingly and will not be the norm so the likelihood is that recalcitrant mothers will continue to get away with it.

For evidence, the quote in the Telegraph article, says:-  

But others claim the new sanctions will criminalise mothers and fathers unnecessarily, and point out that single parents will struggle to find the time to attend courses as well as meeting the costs, which could reach £2,500.

Of course, if all mothers actually abided by the contact orders, then none would fall foul of the new punishments, would they!!

ANTI-MALE SOCIETY AFFECTS ADOPTION OF BOYS

When a society turns against a certain group the consequences can be far-reaching.

A good example of this, is a report (link) from the British Association for Adoption and Fostering (link) that shows that despite their help-line receiving as many calls from parents asking for help in dealing with boys and girls in their care, people would prefer to adopt a girl than a boy.

The research from the charity shows that this is due to the negative perception of boys and over half (53%) of the people replying to their survey felt that the media portrayed boys in an overly negative way.

David Holmes, chief executive of BAAF, said: "Too often anti-social behaviour, violence, crime and gangs are associated in our minds when we think about boys.

"We all need to remember that boys are children and young people first. The findings of this research concerns us as we are worried that some prospective adopters might be put off adopting boys because of negative perceptions.

"In reality there is little evidence to show that boys really are more difficult. We would urge people to remember that boys need adopting too."

The effect of the war on men shows that there is no corner of British society that is not affected and boys are potentially being left in care homes or shunted around solely because of their gender. A terrible terrible outcome.

The report was covered by the BBC (link)

FAMILY COURT CAMPAIGN STARTS TO BEAR FRUIT

For years, the Kafkaesque family court system, has been getting away with gross injustices against fathers (mainly),their children and others. Social Services, CAFCASS and judges have basically been able to do what they like, as if they are above the law. This is all because of the secrecy of the courts.

Many groups such as Families Need Fathers, Fathers 4 Justice, John Hemming MP, Grandparents Apart and others have chosen different means to raise the issue, but they have lacked the full scale backing of a media group to open up the debate on open courts.

In the summer, The Times (link), took up the gauntlet, and their campaign, backed by others is now starting to bear fruit (link, link, link, link, link). The Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, plans to announce changes to create more transparency and even Sir Mark Potter, President of the Family Division agrees.

Unsurprisingly, it is the vested interests of the social services department et al ho are not in agreement.

They don't want their attempts to 'play God' exposed.

SIGN THE PETITION ON RAPE ANONYMITY FOR MEN

This site has been long concerned about the terrible double standards that can blight the lives of innocent men.

A new Government e-petition has been published (link) and everyone is urged to sign it.

The petition states :- We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Assign equal anonymous rights to both rape victim and accused until verdict is given.

It is by no coincidence that the past week or so has seen three cases come to the fore where the men were falsely accused of rape.

Gemma Capon (link) blighted the life of one man and got a sick joke of a sentence - Instead of a six-month maximum jail term, Capon was given a 12-week suspended sentence and ordered to pay £95 costs.

Erin Casson (link) got 12 months.

This anonymous girl (link) got a 12 month referral order

Signing the petition, may go some way to stop the names of the male victims being tarnished in the future.

JUDGES CONDEMN EAST SUSSEX COUNCIL OVER ADOPTIONS

It is a bit of an old story but probably the nastiest of this year.

In May,two senior judges strongly criticised East Sussex local authority for forcing through an adoption of a baby girl against the wishes of her father.

The story covered in The Times (link) highlighted how the council adopted "by means more foul than fair" in a case where a father who was unaware that he had a daughter until the council contacted him, wanted to take custody. This was because the mother had abandoned the child and she was placed into care.

When he contacted the council they then ignored him on purpose and he ended up losing his attempt at custody because the child had now been adopted. The judges condemned the council for its disgraceful conduct and that the council deliberately set out to prevent the father's case being heard.

In response, and despite the judges damning verdict , the councils' weasly response was "We are pleased the court confirmed that we were legally entitled to do what we did."

What the social services department of East Sussex did is frankly disgusting and it shows how some people in local authorities are hellbent on ignoring fathers, even to the point of subterfuge.

Supposedly the state is there to serve the people but clearly here, they were not interested at all. No-one will have lost their jobs at the council for this terrible terrible behaviour.

I just hope the people involved can sleep at night, though I suspect they don't care one way or other.

CSA FIGURES REVEAL FALSE PATERNITY CLAIMS BY MOTHERS

The Guardian featured an article (link) outlining that one in every five paternity tests, conducted because of disputes over CSA payments, have shown that the men at the centre of the disputes are not the fathers of the children. This is despite the claims made by mothers that they are.

Of course, the authorities do absolutely nothing to prosecute those mothers who make these false claims.

I don't hear any word from Harriet Harman, Vera Baird or Angela Eagle on this issue, do you?