The Rights Of Man

CLARE'S LAW MUST BE CLARE AND CLIVE'S LAW

The papers this morning (Telegraph and Daily Mail) are previewing the launch of  the "Clare's Law" which will allow women to ask the police if their boyfriend/partner has been convicted for being violent. It is being launched on Monday and Home Secretary Theresa May is considering the issue.

Robert Buckland MP makes the point though  ''We're all in favour of curbing violence against women but we have to be certain this will not lead to fishing expeditions by women demanding confidential information about potential boyfriends without proper justification. You cannot have a carte blanche system where people can simply turn up at a police station, give the name of a boyfriend or potential boyfriend, and expect the police to open up all the files on him.''

As well as creating some sort of stasi state, the whole undertone behind the law is all men are likely to be guilty of violence so we better make sure we check up on him. This is the way it is being presented in the newspapers - all men are potential women-beaters. 

The other point and this is really for the media's ear - will "Clare's Law" by "Clare and Clive's Law"?

The media must keep asking those running the campaign whether a man can equally check up on his girlfriend/female partner to check she has a hidden violent past. With 88,000 women a year being arrested for violence - men have a right to know if women have a right to know.  That's called equality.

Posted by Skimmington

 

NEWS UPDATE

A few for the weekend

Express FM - James William's excellent Men's Matters is back on

Equalities and Human Rights Commission - Strategic Plan consultation: one week left to tell them to stop ignoring men

BBC 1 Newsbeat - More men suffering from anoxeria

Daily Mail - Manoxeria on the rise

Men's Network - Community Leaders wanted:  the Men's Network are great

Men's Network - First Men and Boys summit: please attend

London Evening Standard - Stop our schools from failing teenage boys (Tony Little)

Erin PIzzey - Book now on sale

Posted by Skimmington

HIGH COURT FIGHT FOR PENSION EQUALITY ON WIDOWERS PENSIONS: RESULT DUE

Yesterday, the site highlighted an under the radar issue and another one has been found, this time on Iain Cockburn who has taken the government to the High Court over the discrimination he claims to have suffered because his widower's pension is less than it would have been if the genders had been reversed.

This could be another landmark decision in the world of pensions which coupled with retirement age differences has been the clearest example of the instututional and set sponsored discrimination against men (campaign history).

While the government has admitted the law is discriminatory because it means that widowed partners of female NHS staff receive a smaller pension than partners of male NHS staff, they may still not drop anything because it would cost £4 billion to rectify across all public sector pensions.

This is an issue not raised anywhere before (I think - please tell me if so).

We wait to see the result but if the government do not bring in parity immediately if the case is won, then what more proof do we need of the discrimination against men that is endemic in Britain.

How can a government state it believes in equality and then let this discrimination remain.

Posted by Skimmington

Media coverage (for what there has been!) - GP online 1, GP online 2, Pulse, Metro

WHAT IF TRACEY WAS TREVOR? WHAT WOULD BE THE JAIL SENTENCE THEN?

About 25 men per year (21 in 09/10) are killed at the hands of their partners and while a different year Tracey van Dungey’s ex-partner was one of those poor souls (BBC, Independent). Six years later, another man lost his life after she stabbed him at a party.

Only six years later - how could this be?

Well, its because the good old British Justice system applies different standards to men and women convicted of the same crime- the result of long running campaigns by Marxist feminists who do not believe women should go to prison. Their campaign nevers lets up and Tracey is one of their 'success' stories.

Tracey had served 42 months for kicking and punching her then partner Kevin Qui to death in 2004. Under four years and then later kills another man.

Two issues:

If Tracey was called Trevor and victims were women not men can you imagine the backlash in the papers, the lobbying, the endless use of the story as a way to campaign for tougher sentences for men who kill women by the Equalities Commission, the Fawcett Society, the Guardian and other campaigners. "42 months and then allowed to kill again" they'd say.

And to be honest they would be right. However, as Tracey is a Tracey the tragedy of her original pitiful  sentence goes unnoticed.

Secondly it shows how institutionally bankrupt and infested with differing standards the judiciary and probation service has become.

How can anyone who kills someone in this way be let out after less than four years unless there was something else at play. That something else has to be, whether explicit or implicit, whether front or back of mind - she is a woman therefore she does not need to stay behind bars as long as a man committing the same crime would.

This shows how how sexism and double standards has infested the institutions of Britain and some campaigners want more of it.

Posted by Skimmington 

NEWS UPDATE

Having been away for a little while means a few articles and news pieces to update everyone on if they have missed them.

The Guardian - Equalities Minister issues warning over unfair impact of cuts on women (Polly Curtis): Lynne Featherstone is a dangerous laughing stock in the same mould as Harman. A bad as anti-male tyrant as you can get. Awful.

Daily Telegraph - How pension changes will make women better off and men worse off (Ian Cowie)

Bristol University - Women experiencing domestic violence want their GPs to raise the issue with them: Glad to see Bristol University - a hotbed of anti-male feminists (Professor Marianne Hester)forget to ask the same question about men experiencing domestic violence.

The Australian - Feminists exposed by rush to judgement (Emma-Kate Symons)

BBC Derby - Woman jailed for revenge rape claim.

Bolton News - Teenager jailed for fale rape claim

One East Midlands - Women now eligible for European Social Funding: More exclusion of men

The Guardian - At last, the government stumps up for UN Women (Jane Martinson): More exclusion of men. 

ConservativeHome - Why we must end the gender gap on teh state pension age (Harriett Baldwin MP)

Daily Mail - It's fathers Cameron is demonising (Peter Hitchens): see end of article.

Posted by Skimmington

 

EQUALITIES ACT ATTACKED BY DOMINIC RAAB MP

This site and its readers have long been saying that the Equalities Act (especially clauses 158 and 159) are the most anti-male pieces of legislation ever to be passed into British law. Not only because of the discrimination they promote directly but also because of the indirect social pressure which leads to anti-male sexist organisations like the 30% club.

Dominic Raab MP wades in with his view on how wrong it is but the most telling point in his article are points out in the Independent from a young Asian woman, Kat Akingbade - who was told that a key factor on her getting a job was because she was a Asian woman, not because she was the best. The fact she was the best is of no matter to her - it is what people believe.

Positive Action and Positive Discrimination = bad news for all men and talented women and = good news for untalented women who want to play the gender (and sometimes the race) card.

Posted by Skimmington

 

MEN CAN USE FALSE ALLEGATIONS CRITERIA BUT WHY SO MANY WOMEN'S GROUPS ARE SILENT?

The Crown Prosecution Service this week announced the results of its review on prosecuting those who retract allegations of rape and domestic abuse (covered on the site here). The CPS decided that the law in this area needed to be clearer because of a case in Swansea where a woman was sent to prison for retracting an allegation, even though she was forced to retract it.

The problem with a case like this is the failure of the CPS and police to understand why this woman was placed in this position which therefore opens up the floodgates for the anti-male feminists to bring in new laws and rules in favour of women. They never miss a trick.

However, given the epidemic of prosecutions in the papers each week (61 women prosecuted for false allegations last year), the CPS have also recognised this remains a problem. This has been helped by some male Conservative MP's raising the problem in Parliament before the government's infamous u-turn on defendant anonymity, the numbers of clear cut cases where women have been sent to prison and the pressure from organisations like Parity, Men's Aid and of course the False Allegations Support Organisation (respondents listed here).

Whilst the premise for the CPS policy remains on protecting women who retract allegations and making it easier for them to do so (thereby it can be said encouraging them to make false allegations), there is now a clear test in the guidance for prosecuting false allegations which will help organisations helping men, men themselves and the police/prosecutors. Not just rape but also domestic abuse/violence.

These are in section 26 of the guidance which says:

Applying the public interest factors set out in the Code, prosecutors should bear in mind that a prosecution for perverting the course of justice is more likely to be required where -  

• a false complaint was motivated by malice
• a false complaint was sustained over a period of time (particularly where there were opportunities to retract)
• the suspect in the original allegation was charged and remanded in custody
• the suspect in the original allegation was tried, convicted and/or sentenced
• the person who made the original allegation has previous convictions or out-of-court disposals relevant to this offence, or a history of making demonstrably false complaints
• the suspect in the original allegation was in a vulnerable position or had been taken advantage of
• the suspect in the original allegation has sustained significant damage to his or her reputation.

By stating it so clearly, this actually gives men and organisations supporting the falsely accused clearer power to challenge those making false allegations and put pressure on the police and CPS who refuse to prosecute.

One last point is on the silence of female groups involved in providing support to women who are raped or are victims of domestic violence. Whenever there is a story of women going to prison for a false allegation, you never hear a peep from Refuge/Women's Aid/Fawcett Society etc, even though that person making the false allegation is damaging those women who have been raped.

The only conclusion is that anti-male Marxist feminsists can never bring themselves to criticise a woman no matter how awful she has been. Their ideology dictates it so and shows that beneath the bonnett, no matter what has happened it is men=bad, women=good.

Posted by Skimmington 

Media coverage - Guardian

WHY DOES NO ONE SAY THE OBVIOUS - THE 30% CLUB IS SEXIST

Sorry everyone it has been a while, been away working.

And on that point, a keen-eyed reader highlighted the launch of the 30% Club, a sexist organisation that promotes gender selection and therefore gender discrimination in the membership of the boards of UK companies. Its site says that a better balance positively influences decision making - a sexist notion that says having too many men (and also too many women you presume) negatively influences decision-making.

The idea is to ensure that all UK boards of the FTSE-100 have a membership of at least 30% women. This is by definition sexist as selection to be a board member is based on gender and not ability.

And before, the usual suspects rant on about dinosaur views - it is never a problem if a board was made of 100% women so long as they were the best people for the job.

The outcome on the ground of this is that it will mean actual discrimination against men. As argued many times before (here), it means some men will not be able to be considered to go onto a board because it may mean the magic 30% figure ratio will be broken. Even though that man may be the best and most talented candidate if a spot becomes available.

On the reverse, many talented women will be viewed suspiciously and tokenly as being just there to make the 30% figure even though they may be a great board members. And of course, some women may be placed on a board who really are not good enough but again the numbers need to add. Dear 30% Club - this will negatively effect decision-making!

The point this site never loses sight of is that if a man cannot get onto the board becuase of gender quotas then his wife/girlfriend and any daughters are also being discriminated against by proxy, all done in their name.

Lastly, it is not just about the membership. What will also be happening underneath the board level is the whole continuation of schemes such as talent spotting for women, mentoring, specialist senior management training and the like for women only. Thereby leaving men in their peer group at below board level at a disadvantage. That is, they will be sexually discriminated against.

A parallel in some ways can also be drawn with the current News of the World saga. In that for years the behaviour of the paper has been tolerated and people been too scared to take it on. The whole anti-male set up in the UK is similar - no politicians or business leadwers are prepared to take it on. This can be seen in this subject where it is so blatantly sexist against men and breaks the British tradition of meritocracy and equality but no one is prepared to challenge it (except Stuart Rose).

Posted by Skimmington

Media coverage: Guardian (of course),

NEWS UPDATE

There have been debates and articles on the pensions, fathers and chivalry so here is a list of some others over the past few days:

Daily Mail - It's not just absent fathers, Mr Cameron (Melanie Phillips)

Daily Mail - Female law student jailed on false rape allegation

Daily Mail - I will rage if a man opens the door for me (Liz Jones)

The Guardian - Don't pigeonhole us feminists (Helen Mott)

Daily Mail - A generation betrayed (James Salmon) - No mention of generations of men betrayed on pensions

The Guardian - This doublethink on absent fathers will hurt mothers (Polly Toynbee)

Daily Mail - Women head of pension poverty (Tony Hazell) - Ros Altmann hits back at complaining men

John Kimble pointed out this recent article in the Guardian against circumscision

Posted by Skimmington

 

CRIES FROM ANTI-EQUALITY PENSION CAMPAIGNERS FALL ON DEAF EARS

So the coalition government looks like it will be standing up to the protests about bringing forward the gender equalisation of the state pension age to Nov 2018 from 2020. Good for them if they stand firm.

Just to recap, the old Labour Government wanted to equalise the state pension age to 65 in 2020, with an increase to 66 for both genders in 2026. Because the UK has run out of money the coalition government brought forward the 65 equalisation date to November 2018 and 66 in 2020. See the Chancellor's decision.

Since that decision the usual panopoly of women's groups, special interest groups and 'equality' groups have come out of the woodwork (dominating and today's headlines) decrying the decision.

Two interconnected thoughts.

One used throughout this site's commentary on the issue has been the fact that no one including AGE UK, SAGA or the oxymoronically named 'equality' groups, has said "isn't it great that 70 years of sexual discrimination against men is ending" - this after men were told to retire later than women in 1948.

The other is how men are sidelined and not even thought to deserve a voice or comment.

One of the arguments made about the unfairness to women is the fact they little time to prepare for this change in the bringing forward of retirement dates. This also applies to men in terms of moving the state pension age forward to 66 in 2020. No one mentions this - not even groups like Saga or AGE UK but they have a membership made up of thousands of men.

There is now a glaring lack of a loud coherent umbrella voice speaking up for male equality. Yesterday, some came out on the anti-father rant by Cameron but we shouldn't have to rely on Erin Pizzey. Today, there is no one speaking up for men on both how it effects them and also on the 70 years of discrimination issue. Often the only place this is expressed is in the comments section.

We need to organise guys but in a sensible umbrella balanced way and not in anti-feminist ranty way where the Palace is stormed and we succumb to the medium term downfall of many men's organisations which is a combination of ego, watsed time spent attacking feminism and people wanting to use organisations for their own ends.

The time is now nigh.

Posted by Skimmington