The Rights Of Man

POSITIVE ABOUT FATHER'S RIGHTS IN THE NATIONAL MEDIA SHOCKER

A week or so ago, this site reported on the comments made by Justice Wall, and the Observer followed it up with this fascinating and fair overview. Father's rights being seen positively and being reported fairly!

This is also on the back of the Family Justice Review which says that 'fathers and grandparents regulary tell us they do not feel well served under the current system'. Well over three decades and at last Governement is starting to catch up.

The articles are here and here.

Posted by Skimmington

 

JUSTICE WALL AND WILL THERE BE JUSTICE IN THE FAMILY COURTS?

 A week or so ago, the site raised the issue that the sudden interest in the figure highlighting that 40% of victims of domestic abuse were male was a surprise because it had been a fact for sometime.

The same could be said this week about the Lord Justice Nicholas Wall, President of the Family Division, who at last weekend's Families Need Fathers conferenne said in his very powerful and lucid speech that in family court proceedings:

"Far more often, the parties are fighting over again the battles of the relationship, and the children are both the battlefield and the ammunitiom. Often the mother, who finds herself caring for the children, is able to use her power over them to deny the father contact." (para 15).

He also went onto to say that "the more intelligent the parent, the more intractable the dispute." (para 33). Maybe it is the upper middle class women being fed the nonsense in this book the new middle class feminist bible all over the papers...

The speech also shed much light on the role of the courts, the lack of judicial continuity, shared parenting, human behaviour, the infamous payne vs payne case and the other problem that forces so many men back into court - the pathetic lack of enforcement of contact orders.

He said that the courts were not anti-men but I suppose he couldn't say otherwise, even though, CAFCASS clearly are (indociriated by the anti-male ideology) and many of the judges are. Why do Batman & Robin feel they have to get on the roof of Buckingham Place? 

After the Times covered the story, the coverage continued throughout the week and some of it enlightening about the attitudes of women.

In Harriet Sergeant's Daily Mail article about her divorce a female friend of hers said: 'Why aren't you using the children against him?' and then said 'I would'. Comments on the article are worth reading.

However, the issue is that this subject has been around for over 30 years and more, its why Families Needs Fathers was set up. The secrecy of the family courts has meant that some were forced to set groups like Fathers4Justice, Real Fathers4Justice and the like. Men have been driven to suicide and bankruptcy while others because of obstructive mothers and the supine courts that side with them have lost touch with their children (Mark Harris' seminal book is always worth sending to unbelievers).

Just like the issue on domestic violence, for some reason the issue is triggered when it has been fact for decades and fair play for Justice Wall for being lucid and speaking in such terms. The challenge is to keep the momentum going because with the Family Justice Review being undertaken and the Coalition's Government's pledge for shared parenting ther eis much to play for. A shared parenting bill has already been laid by some MP's.

Maybe, just maybe, this can move forward...

Posted by Skimmington

Media articles - Daily Mail (plus debate), Telegraph, Spectator (Melanie Phillips) and BBC

 

 

EQUAL TREATMENT BOOK - THE MOST ANTI-MALE ANTI-EQUALITY BOOK IN BRITISH JUDICIAL HISTORY?

The one thing those of us cling on to when fighting the battle against the war on men is that we are equal before the law.

Now we know that is not the case where all sorts of positive discrimination clauses kick in, the bias of CAFCASS and magistrates and judges of fathers in the family courts and how male victims of domestic abuse are still treated poorly. However, it is still something to cling on to.

Sometimes, the game is up and there is no escape from the unbridled anti-male society we live and this now goes right to the heart of the British Justice system.

As revealed by the Daily Mail (also read comments), the English and Welsh judiciary have produced guidance that discirmates against men. The guidance laughably called the Equal Treatment Bench Book sets out how judges should deal with those that come before them. It says:

 "Its aim is to inform, assist and guide, to generate thought and discussion and, ultimately, to enable all judges to deal confidently, sensitively and fairly with all those who appear before them."

It was published in April 2010 before the new Coalition Government took over. It has the fingerprints of Harman, Baird and Flint stamped all over it.

The section on gender equality is unbelievably biased, it is almost as though men do not exist and where they do, they are so superior to women that only women need support and men do not. In all my years beavering away in this area, there has never been a more nasty, one-sided, anti-male document produced by any part of the state than this.

There is no mention of the problems that boys have with education, suicide, unemployment, teh denial of equal/shared parenting etc. It is the most classic example of anti-male bias by omission.

It does not explicitly say that men should not be treated as second class citizens, but by hardly including men anywhere in the document and calling for special treatment for women, then by definition it is anti-male. Anti-male by omission.  

On the issue of sentencing (6-11 to 6-13)  it makes clear that women should be given special treatment and that judges should bear in mind the problems that female prisoners have. That's fine, but no mention of male prisoners. Women can be shown leniency because of the factors that affect them, but men cannot.

ON the issue of domestic abuse (6.1.7), men are relegated to a footnote - second class victims as the ManKind Initiative said in the Daily Mail. They laughable anti-male authors of this report even use one-sided statistics from End Violence Against Women when they do not even use the British Crime Survey figures produced from the Home Office (see ManKind document), another part of Government. They know no shame.

If men cannot now rely on equal justice, equal treatment and equal recognition from the judiciary then there is no hope for equality for men at all. This is the most anti-male biased document probably ever. 

Posted by Skimmington

MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE HIT THE HEADLINES - BUT IS IT GROUNDHOG DAY AGAIN?

Still left reeling from the fact yesterday the Observer (The Guardian's Sunday newspaper - see the comments section as well on the piece) had written a piece about why male victims of domestic abuse were not being given equal treatment, the BBC then ran an interview on their Breakfast show. I nearly choked on my corn flakes, has the world turned turtle? (one reader thought he was hallucinating when he read the story in the Observer of all places!)

There was also coverage in the Daily Mail (see comments on the article as well) on a damning report at the MInistry of Justice (more to be written this week) and Amen, the Irish male support service published their Annual Report which received coveragein that country about the 80% increase in calls they were receiving.

The key issues coming form the coverage are that there still seems to be some surprise at the level of domestic violence against men yet the figure quoted by Parity and then expounded upon by the ManKind Initiative have been the same for years. That 33-40% of domestic abuse victims are male and these are Home Office British Crime Survey figures. Why the sudden surprise?

The second point is that a lot of the coverage was based on the lack of refuges/safe houses and the overall lack of support for male victims. But this is almost like the Groundhog Day film, where the same story is played out time and again. This is because we hear this story in the news every six months or so, but what changes?

There continues to be a view that domestic abuse is a gendered issue, when it isn't. The radical anti-male feminist view still holds sway and do the policy makers in Government, on councils, in the CPS and in police forces change their minds or do they close their ears?

It seems the ears option is still holding sway but at least with this coverage, the issue is still having the spotlight shone on it and eventually equality for male victims may win it. It just may take too damned long when it should be taken as read while in the meantime thousand of men going on suffering.

Posted by Skimmington

Other articles - Daily Mail and Northern Echo

OFF WITH HIS HEAD AT THE TOWER OF LONDON: JUSTICE AT LAST

This week has been one where more stories come to light that debunk the continual and purposeful myths that only men are perpetrators of domestic abuse or stalking.

We have had the story in papers again about evil Tracie Andrews and also the awful ordeal that Dr Jan Falkowski had to endure and the ludicrously poor sentences the offenders received. There is now a National Stalking Helpline which it makes clear will support men and women which means men suffering from being stalked have a place of expertise to go and get help from.

The stigma of false allegations and the wreckage they cause has also been laid bare. Mark Sanders-Crook, a Beefeater at the Tower of London, was sacked last year (and here) because of bullying and harassment allegations made by a female Beefeater.

At the time, Mr Sanders-Crook said that he was sacked because "because I am a man, because of political correctness" and that he planned to appeal and launch a claim for unfair dismissal.

The Tower of London said that the complaints about him had been "investigated extremely thoroughly"So much so that this week it was announced that he has been cleared, given a formal apology  and awarded damages by the Tower of London for false dismissal (This is London, Guardian, Independent, The Sun and Telegraph .

Here we have another classic story in the pantheon of men being ruined by false allegations and accusations.

A trigger-happy politically-correct anti-male employer like the Tower of London who because of their warped sense of equality feel it is easier to just sack a man when accused in this way because it is the easiest option to take and everyone in society 'accepts' that all men harass women and it is therefore a no brainer and no one would be surprised by this action.

The fact of course that the person making the false allegations against Mr Sanders-Crooks, happened to be the first female Beefeater meant he just had to go. The Sistas would demand it, they smell the blood of a cornered man from 10 miles away.

What sticks in the throat and is worth coming back to is what was said by the Tower of London in November 2009 when he was sacked: "We expect our staff to demonstrate our commitment to diversity and maintaining a supportive working environment".

That does not apply at the Tower of London if a male employee is falsely accused.

Posted by Skimmington

EQUALITY FOR MEN VICTORY AS BRITISH AIRWAYS CLIMB DOWNS ON ITS SEXIST POLICY

As covered comprehensively on the site (and here and here) and rightly a cause celebre for anyone who believes that equality should also apply to men, British Airways had a policy which stopped a man from sitting next to a child unless he was their father. 

After suffering from this sexual discrimination (the policy did not apply to women) Mirko Fischer won a court case at Swindon County Court after he has was told by British Airways to move from his seat. It also forced British Airways to review its policies.

The Sunday Telegraph reports that British Airways has now changed its policy and dropped this discrimination.

This is a clear victory for male equality campaigners and shows what can be done as many have written and called BA to keep the pressure on. The policy probably would not have changed though without Mirko Fischer winning his court case so as well as male equality campaigners keeping the pressure up, sites like and others disseminating information there is a need for men to challenge issues through the courts.

This is glib as men are not backed by or supported by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission or has a vociferous and well funded group (including by the public sector) organisation like the anti-male Fawcett Society (though they will have been screwed by their pathetic and ridiculous challenge to the Governement's Budget).

Putting that aside the equality legisiation is therefore of men and women.

On other issue is something that has been seen before (the MFI advert was a classic example) is the fact British Airways does not show any sign of remorse that it operated a sexist policy. It hides behind jargonese but does not say sorry, that is shameful and speaks volumes.

Now it is just Qantas that has such a sexist policy. 

Posted by Skimmington

HOME OFFICE: FEMALE PAEDOPHILES DO NOT EXIST

Our newest writer on this blog yesterday drew my attention to this article at the BBC. The document discusses "Sarah's Law"  a new piece of legislation permitting parents to check the background of those people who have unsupervised access to their children just in case they are paedophiles. The piece gives five scenarios the scheme could cover, and there's a rather disturbing common theme throughout. I've since discovered that the five scenarios given actually appear in various different articles on the issue on different sites, therefore it's uncertain as to who is to blame exactly.

One of the characters we get to hear about is a male sports coach offering informal football training. It tells us that parents can find information about him due to "rumours about the man doing the rounds". Obviously checks based on rumours aren't especially desirable but the piece is well balanced and does warn of the danger off vigilantism.

We also read about an "odd-looking" neighbour. Again this potential paedophile is male as well as "shifty, reclusive" and "always rude", though at least the piece informs us that no check are likely to be performed on this particular character due to the lack of evidence of risk.

A second neighbour "playing with children" is another possible paedophile discussed. We hear how neighbours are suspicious about the "individual" and their intentions towards local children and one is given the impression we're finally at least seeing a gender neutral scenario or perhaps even a female sex offender discussed. However this all change in the final paragraph where it's revealed that the character in question is an offender though perhaps not thought to be a risk because "he is co-operating with monitoring arrangements".

The two remaining characters supposedly representing likely scenarios are both "new boyfriends" . It' essentially the same scenario twice, the only difference being the source of the concern. One is where a mother wants to know more about someone she is dating, whereas in the second case the relationship is more developed and the concern instead comes from the grandparents.

In total we've got five possible paedophiles (or even actual paedophiles in some cases), every single one of them is a man. The scenarios manage to be perfectly gender neutral in terms of the possible victims of these sex offenders so why demonise all men in this way?

Last year the BBC produced an article asking "are there women paedophiles?" . It comes to the conclusion that there are indeed plenty of female paedophiles though notes how they often go undetected. It states that "society's different attitude to women offenders is reflected in the language of the media reporting it" and the writer goes on to say that "that victims suffered a peculiar sense of isolation and stigma because this form of abuse was not so widely recognised."

To be honest I couldn't' have put it much better myself. By ignoring female paedophiles whoever came up with these five scenarios is not only unfairly stigmatising men, but it's making it easier for female child abusers and mean their victims feel less able to come forward. Despite the lack of effort in detecting such abusers and the reluctance in victims coming forward, research still puts the percentage of female paedophiles at up to 20%. Therefore we should certainly have seen one female abuser featured for the sake of accuracy yet we didn't even see a single gender neutral scenario thus thoroughly reinforcing the myth that only men sexually abuse children.

The misandry doesn't stop at pretending there aren't' any female paedophiles either. There is vast dishonesty in the identify of the parties concerned about potential paedophiles too.  Every single scenario in the piece either features a parent who's gender is undisclosed worried about a random neighbour/coach, or a mother/grandparent worried about a boyfriend. Nothing wrong with that you might think, but lets consider the reality of the situation and the options open to the parties involved.

If a mother is so worried about a potential new partner that he might be a paedophile then it's pretty obvious there isn't any level of trust in the relationship and she's surely going to find someone else rather than instigate a police investigation? On the other hand a father cannot put a stop to his ex wife's new relationship and he actually faces far more barriers in terms of contact with the child than almost any other male on the planet. Therefore fathers are the one's mostly likely to make use of Sarah's law, and they'd be quite right to do so given that one of the most dangerous environment for a child is with their mother and her latest boyfriend.

Some readers may well be sceptical of the above assertions, but they're not just random likely suggestions based on probabilities - the actual evidence from the four Sarah's Law trials  shows these fathers to be the main users of Sarah's Law, with mothers not even mentioned as one of the smaller groups making requests.

So the question is who exactly is responsible for such dishonest writing? The earliest trace of the article I can find is actually a BBC piece from 2008 by Dominic Casciani, I've contacted him and he informs me the piece was based upon Home Office publicity material and this really is very worrying indeed. It's not the BBC pretending that there are no female paedophiles, they're merely giving coverage to the sexist lies manufactured at the Home Office.

How can we possibly protect victims of female paedophiles if we refuse to acknowledge their existence? Lets hope the new coalition government put an end to such sexism and starts protecting all children rather than just those with the "correct" type of abuser.

by John Kimble

RAPE ANONYMITY: ANOTHER FOUR DESTROYED MEN

This site commented some time ago before the issue of giving anonymity was raised by the Coalition Government that there seemed to be an epidemic of false accusations of rape against men. An issue that can be seen by the constant stories that keep flowing of women being prosecuted for it.

Another one today, this time Leyla Ibrahim was sent to prison for three years for it even going to the trouble of ripping her own clothes (she'll serve 18 months at most).

Now I know that Caroline Flint MP, Harriet Harman MP, Fiona MacTaggart MP, Maria Eagle MP, Louise Bagshawe MP, the Fawcett Society, Women's Aid and all those others who do not believe in equality of justice won't read it or care but this line is simply devastating from the BBC report :

'One man described his ordeal in detention as "torture" while another attempted self harm, the court heard.'  Four men in total were questioned.

Wrose, the Daily Mail reported:

"Another said he was 'devastated' by the harrowing experience and had been unable to eat or sleep, with one suspect complaining: 'We were treated like s*** and not a stint of an apology.'

"A senior police source said the four were still 'really struggling', adding: 'One of them has even had to move out of the area."

Part of the reason they were devastated in such a way is not just is not just because they were accused, it is because they would be named and that the mud would stick forever and their lives ruined.

To those who do not believe the law should be changed, these men are just collateral damage. And in a brilliant article by the False Rape Society, there is a clear reason why. It is supposedly payback time.

Posted by Skimmington

Note: Try not to get too angry when you read Barbara Ellen's comments (2nd story) on the anonymity issue in the Guardian.

UPDATE ON THE BRITISH AIRWAYS AND ITS SEXIST POLICY

The site commented last week on hero Mirko Fischer and it was gladdening to see that Libby Purves, columnist for the Times agree (no link available as The Times now has a paywall) explaining how it demeaned men everywhere. As did Rosie Murray-West in the Telegraph.

A reader wrote to British Airways last week stating that they would hear from his solicitor if they tried to move him in the same way they tried with Mr Fischer. He has asked that the reply is published which proves that British Airways are having to review it but also shows the contorted and convoluted way they try and defend the undefendable.

 British Airways

I am sorry you are dissatisfied with our seating policy for unaccompanied minors.  We carry tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors every year and take great pride in the service that we provide to them and their parents.  We have offered this service on all flights for many years for children aged between five and 11 years old, who are travelling alone.

Parents look to us to ensure the welfare of their children when they are travelling unaccompanied, who can be as young as 5 years old.  Given that some of these flights last up to 13 hours and are overnight, we take the responsibility of caring for these children, whose safety and security has been entrusted to us, extremely seriously.

There is a specific seating department, which oversees the booking and places the child in an appropriate seat.  To minimise risk to the child, whenever possible we do not seat unaccompanied minors beside adult male passengers.  On some services, this will be in a specially created Unaccompanied Minors zone within a short distance of the cabin crew in the galley. 

This procedure is not meant to cause offence to our male passengers, nor is it meant to imply that all men are a danger to children.  It is there as a precaution in the best interests of the welfare of our young passengers flying alone and will also protect male passengers from being the subject of false accusations.  However following recent court action taken by one of our passengers, this policy is currently under review.

Please be assured customer feedback such as yours is important to us.  We do hope that despite your current sentiments, you will give us an early opportunity to better serve you next time you travel with us.

Best regards

British Airways Customer Relations

Posted by Skimmington

 

GOVERNMENT MUST NOT BACKSLIDE OVER RAPE ANONYMITY

Ever since the Coalition Government announced its policy of giving rape defendants anonymity unless found guilty, they have been hounded and hounded by the anti-male feminists who do not want the Government to bring in this provision. Even to the point where hilariously Caroline Flint MP said this measure was the enemy of justice, even though the measure is the friend of equality. Also listen to her interview on the Today programme.

Against this onslaught, the Government is in danger of being faced down by the enemies of equality and men. A flavour of the backtracking can be seen in Parliament on 15th June where the Secretary of State for Justice, Kenneth Clarke MP, backslides and says nothing is certain. This follows David Cameron's backsliding as well as Clegg's, even though this is essentially a Lib Dem proposal. Clarke's backsliding was covered by the BBC and Daily Mail.

All this flies in the face of the continual damage down to innocent men covered in length here and the constant flow of stories about false accusers (Bernadette Core and here) and even the repercussions of the awful ordeal that Warren Blackwell went through where the police, brainwashed by the anti-male politically correct mafia , prosecuted him and ended up sending him to prison (Daily Mail and BBC) despite the evedience. Maybe Caroline Flint ought to listen to him.

Still others are doing their bit. The ManKind Initiative have written to the Government asking them to stand firm as has Thomas Byrne who also has set up a Facebook Group (if there are others that have written please tell the site).

Since the Coalition Government put forward this policy, the anti-male groups have gone into overdrive and the Coalition has been left floundering and is at risk of losing its nerve. Even the Independent reported they were looking at extending the anonymity issue but this has been met with the usual onslaught.

If the Coalition Government truly believes in equality, it has to face down the opponents on this issue.

If it does not, then the signal is that men will end up with the same rough deal dished out for 13 years by the Labour Government. It will mean that every time they put forward an measure that gives equality to men and women, they will cave in by being shouted down by the anti-male Marxist Feminists like Flint, Harman, the Fawcett Society and everyone else in that camp.

Posted by Skimmington