The Rights Of Man

PANORAMA SHOW ON FECKLESS DADS SHOW INSTITUTIONAL BIAS OF BRITAIN'S MEDIA ELITE

One of the enduring and underlying themes of documentaries about men is the fact that there always seems to be room for naysayers who want to undermine the concept of the show. Sometimes this can take away the overriding message or dampen its effect.

The site picked up on the negative comments from a Damian Carnell from Nottinghamshire Domestic Abuse Forum (in the BBC's excellent and well received Last Refuge  programme) whose sole remit seemed to be to try and make out that official statistics on male victims of domestic abuse were not as they seemed on paper. I felt his contribution had been shoe-horned into the programme and certainly on a documentary about female victims of domestic abuse, the BBC would not have someone on whose purpose was to undermine statistics on female victims.

Other documentaries scratch the surface in such a way as to not do the subject justice or skew things to such an extent that meaning or relevance can go missing. It can obviously skew meaning to the detriment of the subject matter and often this can be deliberate and add more weight to a stereotype. It's all so easy to do if you are a member of the the anti-male media, public sector and political establishment.

This is the case with the Panorama programme on Monday night called Britain's Missing Dads, which left viewers with the impression with the fact that men were feckless and the plight of single parent mothers was the sole fault of men and the benefits system (which mothers were happy to exploit). Even to the point where Frank Field berated fathers for being feckless and they used the worst possible case in the UK  (a man with endless children by endless mothers).

It was almost as if Panorama was trying to be the TV equivalent of the Daily Mail (better than the Guardian of course!).

The progamme did not cover the bias in the family courts, the ideological disdain for fathers by  CAFCASS, the CSA/CMEC or of course, the fact that some mothers do not want the father around especially if it means they cannot 'game' the benefits system. The latter two points were made out to be the sole fault of the father.

The man bashing agenda can be seen by the response from the Fatherhood Institute about the way their quotes had been taken out of context and their view that the programme just perpetuated stereotypes. It is an excellent response as is the response from the Men's Network.

The anger about the programme can really be felt by the comments left on the BBC website. Instead of looking at the issue in the round or concentrating on an issue where there is clear problem (the family courts for example), the BBC's Panorama chose the ideologically easy target - the feckless dad.

It is easier you see to concentrate your fire on men and fathers in this way because they are a not politcially correct victim group. It is far harder to produce a programme on the bias of the family courts denying children access and support from their fathers. All hell would break loose if the BBC told the truth about the family courts system.

Posted by Skimmington

PS There are lots of comments on the BBC's site but this one says it all in a nutshell (listed at 8.55pm). 

"Yet another program that only shows one side of the problem.What about showing the mothers that refuse to give fathers any access to children after a divorce, then spread rumours like, 'I think he may have been doing something to them', even when completely untrue.

 "I lost my career because my ex decided this was the best way to stop me having any access, and went from £25000 a year in 1990 to £9500 in 2010. I had difficulty paying bills, let alone maintenance, and as for contact I have recently found out she destroyed any letters I sent to my children or any they sent to me.

 "Is that the actions of a caring mother?

"How about another program showing the other side of the problems, not just the governments or mothers."

 

REVIEW OF RADIO 4 PLAY AND DOCUMENTARY ON MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE

As stated at the weekend, BBC Radio 4 ran two programmes today about male victims of domestic abuse.

The play called Believe Me was extremely moving and showed the slow burn of domestic abuse that many male and female victims face. And it was very clever in the set up so it was not obvious what was to happen but showed the gut wrenching nature not only of the abuse Tyrone suffered but also the scandal of false allegations and the pain that many men suffer because of them.

All too real for so many men.

I have to say congratulations to the playwright and Radio 4 for making the play although there was not much made in the BBC's pre-coverage about the false allegation issue which was absolutely central to this.

If domestic abuse against men is one Britain's last taboos then false allegations by female perpetrators of domestic abuse against men, is the last of the last taboos.

In terms of the documentary, the Last Refuge, threading the case studies through the documentary, especially the one used throughout, added real weight. As did the comments made by the Dyn Project who added real depth and knowledge to the subject. Even though the commentator from Dyn raised the issue of screening, he at least explained why and also raised the fact that there may be a need to screen females as well. I liked the point about reiterating that many men get arrested even though they are the victim - not often you hear that on national radio!

One of the commentators was bizarre though - the guy from the Nottingham Domestic Abuse Forum, who seemed more intent in trying to undermine the case for support and awareness of male victims. His research and assertions involved 14 (yes, 14) people, that his screening tool is well established (has anyone heard of it?) and the way he bizarrely tried to dumb down men by saying the figure is the 2000 Scottish Crime Survey were wrong (based on research of 22 people!!) and that male refuges were never full.

The person from Dyn then contradicted him as obviously did the explanation at the start of the programme from the Montgomery Centre which offers housing support for men.The question is why was he included if the show was about supporing male victims? However, it was perhaps useful in showing the type of misandry that male victims face from many in the domestic abuse establishment.

The show did not really reach any conclusions but having said all of that, it is better it was aired because again it is another example of the issue being raised and placed on the radar.

We are still waiting though for the political elite and its officer class to take the plight of male victims seriously...

Posted by Skimmington

ARTICLES ROUND-UP

As is traditional, there have been a number of articles/stories that the site has not covered or linked through to over the past month or so. A list is set out below:

UK Poverty - Suicide statistics show 80% of young adult suicides are by young men

Daily Mail - Amber Portwood charged with domestic violence

Prince's Trust - Youth happiness

Oxford University - Men's weight

Porstmouth News- DV policy is a war on men

Daily Mail- Amanda Bradley jailed for false allegation

BBC News- Emma Bunden jailed for false allegation

BBC News- Merthyr 16 year old jailed for false allegation

Daily Mail - Judge Coleridge says women should have children taken away if they do not allow contact with father.

BBC News - 61 women sent to trial over false allegations

Posted by Skimmington

 

NO MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE EXIST IN WEST YORKSHIRE - ACCORDING TO LOCAL POLICE

A few posts ago, it was highlighted how the Coalition Government did not believe that any men suffer from domestic abuse over Christmas and whether there were any other sexist campaigns being organised (at taxpayers expense) by any other statutory body.

Normally, the campaigns will only highlight female victims but not male victimss. Sexual discrimination by omission especially when according to the government one in three victims of domestic abuse are men.

Well up popped this corker from West Yorkshire police. You get a poster all over the region and in GP surgeries etc asking for female victims to come forward plus posters for male perpertrators to come forward and stop and even a video for you to enjoy.

Even the list of organisations at the bottom of the web page do not even mention the Men's Advice Line or the ManKind Initiative (often at least one will be included so an organisation can say "we do care about men as well").

If you are a man (and your children) and are suffering from domestic abuse at Christmas in West Yorkshire - they police do not recognise you exist.

Such a blatant example of institutional sexism by West Yorkshire Police who fail to understand that equality means equality for all victims of domestic abuse.

Posted by Skimmington 

WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF CHRISTINE JAMES WAS A CHRISTOPHER?

Last week, a Lib Dem Councillor Christine James, who sits on Weymouth and Portland Borough was convicted for assaulting her husband, also a councillor, albeit a Conservative one.

She has said to the Dorset Echo she would not be resigning even though the report also in the paper says she was screaming like a Banshee as she rained bows down on her husband.

As set out clearly by Andy Blackwood from Weymouth, how can this councillor possibly remain elected.

What one of the many issues is that what would have been the reaction of her party (Lib Dems) if Christine was a Christopher. What would the council have said and what would the local refuges/women's groups etc have said.

They would have demanded his on a plate, but because it is a her, then there is a defining silence. That is the hypocrisy that men live under in the UK.

Move along...nothing happening here in Weymouth and Portland...

Posted by Skimmington

Other media coverage - Daily Mail

FAWCETT SOCIETY LOSE LAUGHABLE BUDGET CLAIM BUT DANGEROUS PRECEDENTS ARE SET

When of the clear cases of hypocrisy in the so-called Feminist movement in the last few years as been their lies about the unemployment during this recession.

First we had Harman and Co saying the recession had affecting women in the private sector more than men. This was nailed as an untruth by the Government's own Office of national Statistics (here and here).

Then when the effects of the recession and government over-spending became clear and the need for retrenchment ion the public sector had top be made, there were the squeals of horror that this effected women more than men, and therefore had to be stopped.

We have argued long and hard on the site about the hypocrisy of this and also that any cuts in a woman's job or in benefits effects men as well (here and here).

The Fawcett Society, Britain's leading McCarthyite 'every man is a potential woman-hater'  anti-male organisation, challenged the UK government in the courts about the government's Budget in July this year and the fact they had not carried out an assessment on its effects on women and also that it affected women more than men. They wanted a Judicial Review of the Budget but Judge Ouseley refused on Monday. There response is here.

However, it is not all good news.

Firstly, the government admitted it had not considered a gender assessment of the Budget. It did so for the Comprehensive Spending Review in October which now means this type of assessment is now entrenched as the 'normal' way of policy-making. The government should of course repeal the rule forcing it to make such assessments as this was introduced by Harman and Co in the last government.

Secondly, the Judge says the Equalities Commission should carry out such a review, which then extends their power and influence. The government has to scrap this body but will be scared to do so because of the strength of the oxymoron - the so called 'equalities' lobby.

Thirdly, it gives more credibility to the Fawcett Society when they deserve absolutely none. Few if any real normal women support this orgainsation  - only political activists do.  

Lastly, it sets a precedent for this sort of activity through the courts, so all government's will be wary of upsetting the women's lobby. No one cares about the male equality so when it comes to making policy decisions they will become even more anti-male because they would be afraid of upsetting women's groups so they overcompensate. This will be unconscious and back of the mind decision-making leading to discrimination which will damage men and boys.

The Fawcett Society have made progress which is bad news for men and boys, and for all those women who like sharing their lives with men and boys.

Posted by Skimmington

Media cioverage  - Catherine McKinnell in the Guardian (one of the most laughable articles ever published and please read the comments section as well) and Press Association.

 

 

WHAT WOULD CRISPIN BLUNT SAY IF THIS WAS HIS SON?

Last month we reported another Coalition Government U-turn on ensuring rape defendants were to be treated equally before the law to plaintiffs and remain anonymous unless proven guilty.

Arch-coward Crispin Blunt MP, the minister in charge of the policy, alongside his Conservative and Lib Dem colleagues bottled the decision because of the campaign by anti-male feminists.

The outcome of this awful decision was seen this week in the Daily Mail. Here the man who was innocent is photographed but the woman who went to prison accusing of him of rape remains anonymous.

His name gets dragged through the mud and is now permanently in the media, even though he was innocent .

If this was your son Crispin Blunt, what would you say?   

Posted by Skimmington

HYPOCRISY IN WEYMOUTH

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Skimmington 

Other Media Coverage - Dorset Echo#2, Daily Mail

 

 

 

BRITISH JUSTICE SYSTEM DOES NOT SUPPORT MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE WHILST THE GRASSROOTS DO

The last few months month has seen further progress in ensuring there are more services for male victims of domestic abuse, however, the justice establishment (and part of the media) still do not take their plight seriously or treat them as equals.

A new charity has been set in Scotland called Abused Men in Scotland who run a helpline (great coverage in BBC, The Sun, Scotsman amongst others) plus new services in Boston (Lincolnshire) and  Leicestershire mean that men are able to get more support. There are national charities like the ManKind Initiative out there who provide central support.

On top of this, there is some very good research from the excellent Men's Advisory Project in Northern Ireland who looked at the experiences of male victims they had supported. They like others (Abused Men in Scotland and the ManKind Initiative) do not subscribe to the nonsense anti-male view that domestic abuse is a crime against a gender. Those that believe it is a gendered crime purposely do not want male victims to be supported. 

However, while progress is made on that front the judiciary remain in a contemptible state of denial. Not helped by the stereotyping by the media.

We have already commented on the Equal Treatment Bench Book, a book that is clearly unequal.

Then a week or so ago, we had Judge Millford calling Dennis Long, a man who snapped after 30 years of domestic abuse and killed his wife, 'weak'. This was then picked up by the media who ran with the story that he was hen-pecked - when he had been hot repeatedly with an ornamental poker! There is an article on the ManKind Initiative website outlining the issue and is very well worth a read.

Judge Sir Nicholas Wall President of the Family Division gave a speech to Resolution, the family law legal service. The first part of the speech (from 8 onwards) looks at domestic abuse and he unbelievably says:

 "In my experience, physical domestic abuse is largely a male problem. There are, of course, women who physically abuse their partners and their children, but they are, in my experience, the minority. This is not a politically correct opinion. The politically correct view is that domestic violence affects both sexes and is perpetrated by both. So, of course, it is, but male violence is, in my experience, more common. Moreover, in my experience, men are notoriously unwilling to admit to being the perpetrators of domestic abuse. Furthermore, it seems to me that if men embrace the comfortable doctrine that domestic abuse affects people of both genders, that is but a short step away from doing nothing about it."

This is unbelievable and chimes with the establishment view. Justice Wall has not got a clue how offensive his comments are to those male victims who suffer in silence. To say that it is politically correct view is Orwellian double speak, when the Government's own figures show one in three victims are male and that new services are springing up all the time because there is a need.

How will men feel comfortable in coming forward if these are the views of judges and of course if you are a male victim who comes before Justice Wall, he has already placed it on record that he thinks you are a liar.

While grassroots services are springing up all the time, the judiciary are holding progress back. They do  not believe in equal justice when they think some victims (female) are more equal than other victims (male).

Posted by Skimmington

 

WOULD THE RADMACHER JUDGEMENT HAVE BEEN THE SAME IF SHE HAD BEEN A MAN?

Divorce and family rights has been in the news this week with the move to compulsory mediation, however, it was strikingly the pre-nuptial agreement issue that brought the issue of gender discrimination to the fore in my mind.

This week the Supreme Court upheld that the prenuptial agreement between heiress Katrin Radmacher and her ex-husband Nicolas Granatino stood.

While Radmacher was being hailed as a feminist (see end of article) icon because it will benefit women, there was interesting commentary on Wednesday's Today Programme (07.51) from Andrew Newbury, who said that courts were less sympathetic towards men in a diovorce situation.

And you have to remember the John Cleese case which was clearly anti-male to get a gist of what he was saying. Baroness Deech set out the unfairness against men.

The issue that is concerning is the fact that whether the Supreme Court would have come to the same decision if it was a woman trying to tear up a pre-nuptial arrangement in the same situation.

In the Independent article it is highlighted that Lord Phillips of the Supreme Court said that pre-nuptials could be torn up, while Baroness Hale suggested that this law 'change' would be unfair against the poorly partner - 'invariably, but not always, a "she'". This is a get out clause being put forward by Philips.

I have grave doubts they would have come to the same conclusion therefore if the genders in this case had been reversed.

In addition, and this blog like so many others will be now on high alert for any hint of sexism in the application of pre-nuptial agreements. If a woman in the same situation as Granatino is treated more favourably than he was, then it will prove sexism is rife in the British Court system.

Posted by Skimmington