The Rights Of Man

SUPPORT THIS EVENT TO RAISE FUNDS AGAINST PROSTATE CANCER

The X Foundation is looking for men to help us drag the issue of prostate cancer into the spotlight by dressing up as a women for The Great Drag Race, a fabulously flamboyant 10.2km sponsored walk/run and afternoon jolly to be held in London Fields on Saturday the 19th of June. The distance represents one long stride for each of the 10,200 men lost to the disease each year, and all sponsorship money raised will go directly to Prostate Cancer Research Foundation and the Prostate Cancer Support Federation.

You can find out more by visiting the website (http://thegreatdragrace.org) or by watching this short clip from the accompanying documentary: http://thexfoundation.org/#/the-great-drag-race-movie/4540140466

Here are 7 things you should know:

1. Prostate cancer kills nearly as many men as breast cancer kills women, yet it receives a tenth of the funding and a fraction of the media coverage. It's time for men to do something about it - even if they have to dress up as women to get the same kind of attention!

2. Many of our chaps will be walking the 10.2km, so you don't need to start an intensive training regime.

3. All sponsorship money raised goes to straight to the charities and will be hugely appreciated, but the main aim in our first year is to persuade as many men as possible to dress up and come along. Just register now, pay the £10 entry fee, and you can take part.

4. It's going to be a lot of fun and you might get into the Guinness Book of World Records.

5. We need women too! Please consider putting your name down to be a steward or helper on the day.

6. You can join the official Facebook group here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=265283035499

7. If you still need convincing, we hope you'll watch this very short film about ten amazing men who'll be taking part: http://thexfoundation.org/#/the-great-drag-race-movie/4540140466.

Click here to sign up as an individual or team: http://thegreatdragrace.org

Please help us spread the word about The Great Drag Race. And, if you really can't make it on June 19th, why not consider making a small donation to our First Eleven: http://uk.virginmoneygiving.com/team/firsteleven

Warm regards

The X Foundation

The X Foundation is a social enterprise made up of like-minded individuals, who have chosen to combine their skills, talents, energy and ideas in order to raise funds and awareness for selected causes in highly original ways. You are receiving this message because you have previously communicated with The X Foundation, or because we share a common friend. If you would like to be removed from our mailing list, simply reply to this message, and type the word "scram" in the subject line.

TO THE 58 MPS AGAINST ANONYMITY FOR THOSE FALSELY ACCUSED OF RAPE (PART TWO)

Despite the points rasied in part one of this piece I do very much respect your democratic right to oppose legislation which would restore fairness in rape cases and I realise your actions might not be be exclusively borne out of misandry nor a lack of understanding of the arguments. There are indeed alternative solutions to such a pressing issue which we might want to try first and it's very easy to simply complain about such other person's proposals instead of solving the problem at hand. Therefore would you please let me know what alternative proposals you had in mind to protect the innocent victims of false rape allegations? Also could you please clarify whether you are against anonymity for anyone for all parities or only for the accused?

I expect some of you already have completed significant work to help the falsely accused throughout your careers and have ideas on solving the problem. I've taken the time to produce a set of proposals which I'm sure would provide a workable alternative to anonymity for those accused of rape and help to protect innocent men and women. Please indicate if and when you'd be willing to put these proposals forward in the House and what additional measures you feel would be necessary as an alternative or precursor to anonymity.

1. The establishment of a register of proven false rape accusers. First proposed by Judge David Bryant the register would help protect men men by enabling them to avoid contact with false accusers convicted of this offence. As with genuine rapists, false accusers are often serial offenders or target multiple victims.  An alternative would be to place false accusers on the sex offenders register as their crime is clearly a serious offence of a sexual nature.

2. Requiring malicious false accusers to serve the same sentence they attempted to inflict on their victims. At present false accusers generally receive little punishment if any at all. Even when given custodial sentence is given it tends to be suspended or usually amount to a derisory a few months, sentences which are now generally accepted as ineffective and no deterrent. Such a policy would help to send out a message that false accusation are extremely serious crimes thus reducing false allegations and also removing much of the stigma from victims.

3. False accusers to fully refund the taxpayer all funds lost by investigating their false and malicious claims. Recent cases show false rape cases cost the taxpayer as much as £300,000 each.
In an era of large deficits and cuts, surely reclaiming such monies measure would not only provide a disincentive for inventing rape cases but also reduce the need for reducing services elsewhere? Alternatively, such money could be redirected into protecting and assisting genuine rape victims and catching actual rapists.

4. Requiring the media to give greater prominence to news of rape acquittal compared to reports on mere allegations. At present the media loses interest in rape cases once an acquittal occurs as highlighted in the Stern Review meaning victims of false claims are never able to clear their names.
An additional possible proposal might also stop the media (not to mention MPs) from using loaded terminology such as "victims" nor "rapist" until after a guilty verdict is established and the case has been provedd.

5. The removal of anonymity from false rape accusers when the balance of probabilities show their claims to be false. Some false accusers are able to retains and hide behind  anonymity, even if their claims would appear to have caused the death of their victims.

6. Compensation to be paid to victim of false rape allegations. Such a solution would not only help victims to try to return to normal life but also emphasise their status as victims of a quite horrific crime. Any such settlement also would help remove any stigma associated with the offence.

7. A full overhaul of the way false rape data is collected and presented.  False rapes cases should surely be categorised completely differently to actual rapes in crime surveys rather than muddled together, thus preventing gender feminists from using false rape claims as evidence of a lack of success in prosecuting genuine rapes. Such dishonest behaviour by the rape lobby is likely to put of genuine rape victims from coming forward as was the case with the exaggeration of low conviction rates.


Many thanks for your interest in the serious issue of false rape allegations and for taking the time to read this document. I look forward to your response.



John Kimble

TO THE 58 MPS AGAINST ANONYMITY FOR THOSE FALSELY ACCUSED OF RAPE (PART ONE)

Dear Madams/Sirs

I note with interest you all took the time to sign Early Day Motion 105 opposing anonymity for those accused of rape. Incredibly for some of you (such as certain sponsors) it's the only Early Day Motion motion you've actually supported so far during this Parliament, so it's clear some of you feel very strongly about such issues.

There are also a number of incredibly serious flaws with the motion you have signed up for which were highlighted by the excellent False Rape Society. A revised version of their points with cited examples is enclosed below and I hope you perhaps reconsider your position upon reading them: 

I. The Motion Is Unconscionable Because It Fails To Acknowledge The Damage Of False Rape Claims To Innocent Men
The motion is unconscionable because it fails to acknowledge the harm to innocent men accused of false rape claims. It fails to recognise that rape is perhaps the most loathsome offence in the entire criminal law canon; that in some cultures, rape is regarded as more offensive than murder; and that rape is universally considered worthy of the most severe societal censure and condemnation.  Worse, because of the nature of a rape claim, where the only physical evidence of an alleged criminal act is often precisely the same physical evidence of an act of love, a false rape accusation is almost impossible to disprove.  Even when falsely accused men are cleared of rape charges, they often spend the remainder of their lives tainted as the possible perpetrators of the most loathsome crime known to mankind.

False accusations of rape have severely stigmatised more human beings than false accusations of any other crime. The public scorn from false rape claims has caused innocent men and boys to be killed and to kill themselves; to be beaten, and to be looked upon with suspicion long after they are cleared of wrongdoing. They lose not only their good names but often their jobs, their homes or businesses, and their relationships and marriages. It is often impossible for the falsely accused to ever obtain gainful employment once the lie hits the news: for the rest of his life, a falsely accused man will have prospective employers Googling his name and discovering the horrid accusation even foxing victims to obtain new identities and flee the country.

II. The Motion Is Premised On A Bias That Rape Accusers Are Rape Victims

The motion manifests a disturbing and telling bias that presumes a defendant is guilty of rape based solely on an accusation.  This is evident by its failure even to acknowledge the reality of false rape claims, and in its express language. Specifically, it asserts that the Government's proposal "sends a message to juries and rape victims that the victim is not to be believed."  (Emphasis supplied.)

By branding an accuser a "victim," the motion impliedly asserts that a rape accusation is true based solely on the allegation, before a scrap of evidence is admitted at trial, much less an adjudication of guilt is handed down.  Such a description is grossly unfair to the presumptively innocent who are accused of such crimes since, by necessity, they must be guilty of rape if their accusers are, in fact, "victims." This description also trivialises rape by including among its victims women who might only be false accusers.

III. The Proposal Does Not Send A Message That The Rape Accuser Isn't To Be Believed.
The assertion that the government's proposal "sends a message to juries and rape victims that the victim [sic] is not to be believed" is factually erroneous.  The proposal sends no such message any more than anonymity for rape accusers sends a message that rape accusers are to be believed over the men and boys they accuse. 

The message conveyed by anonymity for rape defendants is that the harm of publicly identifying innocent men who are falsely accused is severe and unconscionable, not that women are liars.  It is a gross stereotype to insist that the general public is so obtuse that it will make such generalisations about rape accusers and rape defendants.
 
IV. Granting Anonymity Will Not Unduly Inhibit The Prosecution of Serial Rapists
The assertion that the government's proposal "could inhibit the effective prosecution of serial rapists" is a snare and a delusion.  The proposal does not prevent the naming of serial rapists, it would simply forbid publicly naming men who have only been accused but not convicted of rape.  A suspect would be identified if he is convicted.

Moreover, anonymity will not inhibit the prosecution of serial rapists. The vast majority of rapes are committed between acquaintances where the identity of the perpetrator is not at issue.  The number of cases where rape victims might be helped to identify their rapist by seeing a man's picture on the television news is minuscule.

It is well to note that many accused rapists are already afforded anonymity by the UK news media: teen boys and certain men whose identities cannot be revealed without necessarily revealing the accuser's identity. It can scarcely be denied that some teen boys and some men whose identities are already shielded must also be serial rapists.  Nevertheless, the identities of accused males who fall within these two classes are shielded because, as a matter of public policy, the benefits of shielding their identities is deemed to outweigh publicising them.  That is so despite any inhibition of the effective prosecution of serial rapists.

Would anonymity for men accused of rape hinder police investigations any more than anonymity for rape accusers hinders police (not to mention innocent men) from learning that a rape accuser has made false rape allegations in the past? The question scarcely survives its statement. Yet, society grants anonymity for women who accuse men and boys of rape because such anonymity is thought to serve other useful purposes, just as anonymity for men would serve important purposes, even if police might prefer to have them publicly named.  The interests of law enforcement should never trump the interests of innocent men in not having their good names destroyed by rape lies.

V. The Proposal Will Not Reverse the Progress Made For Rape Victims, It Will Benefit Rape Victims
There is no basis whatsoever to believe that women will not come forward if the men they accuse are not publicly named.  The one has nothing to do with the other. For example, there is no basis to believe that fewer women come forward when their rapists are teen males whose identities will not be made public, or when their rapists are men whose identities can't be revealed because such revelation would necessarily identify the women. 

Moreover, justice for rape victims does not depend on the public shaming and humiliation of the presumptively innocent, much less the public shaming and humiliation of countless innocent men who are snared by false rape claims.

In fact, it is likely that more women would "come forward" if the men they accused were anonymous. When a woman accuses a male acquaintance of rape and he is publicly identified, it often isn't difficult to infer who the accuser is. It is reasonable to assume that most rape victims would prefer not to have their identities revealed by inference when they accuse an intimate acquaintance of rape. Additionally, any reduction in false allegations form the legislation with strength the position of genuine rape victims

VI.  More Research Would Not Be Helpful
Various studies have been conducted on false rape claims, and every single one that was not conducted by interested and biased persons have revealed that false rape claims are a serious problem. But as discussed in the next section, the exact percentage of false claims is neither known nor knowable, and no further studies will ever pinpoint that percentage with exactitude.

The majority of persons backing the motion opposing anonymity belong to the party that has been in power for the past thirteen years. In all that time, that party was content to not examine the issue it now claims requires more study, for reasons patently political. 

Further studies will shed no light on any issue of material importance.  Publicly naming men accused of rape causes serious problems for countless men who turn out to have been falsely accused.  No further studies will either lessen or justify their pain.

VII. The Motion Ignores That False Rape Claims Are A Significant Problem
The motion ignores the fact that the overriding evidence suggests that false rape claims are a significant problem, and that the victims of false claims are not rarities. No one knows for certain the percentage of false rape claims. A leading feminist legal scholar recently acknowledged: ". . . the statistics on false rape accusation widely vary and 'as a scientific matter, the frequency of false rape complaints to police or other legal authorities remains unknown.'" A. Gruber, Rape, Feminism, and the War on Crime, 84 Wash. L. Rev. 581, 595-600 (November 2009) (citation omitted). 

But it is erroneous to assert that only a tiny percentage of rape claims are false because no one can make that assertion with any degree of certainty.  The prevalence of false rape claims is neither known nor knowable. Here is why: for every rape claim reported, only a relatively small percentage can be definitively called "rape." This is beyond dispute.  Approximately fifteen percent end in conviction and of those we know that some innocent men and boys are convicted. We also know that some claims reported (the numbers vary depending on the study) are outright false. But in between the claims we are reasonably certain were actual rapes, and the ones we are reasonably certain were false claims, is a vast grey area consisting of a group of claims that cannot properly be classified as "rapes" -- because we just don't know. That's the nature of a rape claim. The claims in this vast grey middle area often suffer from evidentiary infirmities. For example, for some such claims, while the claimant herself might think a rape occurred, her outward manifestations of assent did not match her subjective disinclination to engage in sex, so it wasn't rape.

Regardless of what the actual number might be, every impartial, objective study ever conducted on the subject shows false rape claims are a serious problem. As reported by "False Rape Allegations" by Eugene Kanin, Archives of Sexual Behavior Feb 1994 v23 n1 p81 (12), Professor Kanin’s major study of a mid-size Midwestern U.S. city over the course of nine years found that 41 percent of all rape claims were false. Kanin also studied the police records of two unnamed large state universities, and found that in three years, 50 percent of the 64 rapes reported to campus police were determined to be false (without the use of polygraphs). In addition, a landmark Air Force study in 1985 studied 556 rape allegations. It found that 27% of the accusers recanted, and an independent evaluation revealed a false accusation rate of 60%. McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64. See also, "Until Proven Innocent," the widely praised (praised even by the New York Times, which the book skewers -- as well as almost every other major U.S. news source) and painstaking study of the Duke Lacrosse non-rape case. Authors Stuart Taylor and Professor K.C. Johnson explain that the exact number of false claims is elusive but "[t]he standard assertion by feminists that only 2 percent" or sexual assault claims "are false, which traces to Susan Brownmiller's 1975 book 'Against Our Will,' is without empirical foundation and belied by a wealth of empirical data. These data suggest that at least 9 percent and probably closer to half" of all sexual assault claims "are false . . . ." (Page 374.)

ATTACK ON LACK OF FEMALE CABINET MEMBERS IS ANTI-MALE AND ANTI-MERITOCRATIC

The coalition of anti-male feminists that were brought together under the previous anti-male Labour Government were completely embedded into Britain's body politics including the media, government, and the public sector.

It allowed them free rein to not only berate men at every turn but also bring in a whole host of measures that undermined and discriminated against men. Men were just ignored. On top of this by creating this polictial framework it allowed the anti-male feminists to continually plead for special treatment above and beyond any concept of equality of treatment.

Their reaction to the measure outline by the Coalition Government on the equality of treatment for people accused of rape (covered here) but also in the hoo-hah about the lack of female representation in the Cabinet are sure signs of how they work. The larger the tears, the more about equality a measure is likely to be. 

The issue on the gender make-up of the Cabinet has witnessed some of the most pathetic special pleading I would say has ever been seen in British politics. The special pleading from the Fawcett Society is truly woeful and demeaning to all women this anti-male organisation allegedly represents (see here - 1, 2)

The new Cabinet is made up of 19 men and 4 women, a ratio of 4 to 1 (there are 138 women MP's up from 129, out of 647 in total - a ratio of surprise surprise 4 to 1, this despite all the action to stop men from being candidates but mainly driven by Labour not winning seats in their all women short-lists).

The slew of complaints that British politics is still too male has been unceasing from the anti-male feminists but they fail to answer the question anyone who truly believes in equality and meritocracy would ask:

Are there any women who should be in the Coalition's Cabinet on merit and are not?

When this question was asked on Radio 5 Live last week by the presenter to a gaggle of anti-male feminists, they could not answer. Honestly. There was just silence but that silence spoke volumes.

All those who complain about the lack of women in the Cabinet do so based on sexism, special pleading and special treatment.

What they want is a political system (they have done their best to get it with all women shortlists, 'A-lists' and quotas) where gender is more important than ability. Where those who go into politics to represent us are not chosen because of their capabilities but on whether they are a man or a woman. Where too many men is seen as sexist but not of course if the boot was on the other foot.

This inherent sexism is completely anti-equality. Britain needs the best people in its Cabinet, irrelevant of gender. If there was a 100% female Cabinet, so what, so long as they were there on merit.  But merit is a dirty word that the Fawcett Society, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, Harman, Flint, The Guardian, The TImes (see why below) and many others want to see abolished.   

Media Articles- A pathetic and well and truly lambasted (see the article's Comments section) Katharine Viner in her Guardian is Free column but with a great antidote by Michael White in The Guardian, The Times and The Daily Telegraph.

Posted by Skimmington

WHITSUN ROUND-UP OF MALE DISCRIMINATION ARTICLES

As is traditional for the site on a bank holiday, listed below are some of the newspaper articles on issues not covered (yet) on the web-site over the past six month but worth reading:-

False Accusations

Daily Mail - Businessmen to sue BA for treating men like perverts 

The Times - Naming rape suspects ruins lives(article by the wonderful Minette Marrin) 

Scottish TV - Charity Worker tried to frame ex-boyfriend

Belfast Telegraph - Face of a rape liar

Exeter Express - I've been torn apart by false rape claim

Daily Mail - Man falsely accused hangs himself

Daily Mail - Harman's unreliable statistics scare off rape victims - review by Baroness Stern

Daily Mail - Young woman who cried rape walks free

Daily Mail - Jurors in tears

Daily Telegraph - Facebook faker jailer

Domestic Abuse

Daily Mail - I was a husband-beater Depression

Daily Mail - Men suffer depression in silence - research by Mind

Daily Mail - Violence by women soars to 250 arrest per day

Daily Mirror - Male victims explains why he feared for his life

This is Cheshire - Increase in male victims

This is Wales - De Gwynedd domestic abuse service to include males

Boys' Education

Wales Online - Lost generation feared as boys reject education

The Independent - The number of men applying to be teachers soars

Fathers

Daily Telegraph - The role of the father has been downgraded (Ruth Deech)

National Literacy Trust - Boys struggle to find interesting books

Employment

Daily Mail - Man sacked because law firm feared sacking maternity leave colleague

New or updated web-sites

The ManKind Initiative

Erin Pizzey

Posted by Skimmington

COALITION GOVERNMENT - WHAT IT MEANS FOR MALE EQUALITY AND THE ENDING OF MALE DISCRIMINATION

Just before polling day on 6th May, this site concluded that the Liberal Democrats had the most man-friendly policies and now they are in a coalition with the Conservatives, their influence can be seen as there is much that is man-friendly in the Coalition Government's plans which were agreed after their negotiations.

In fact, and it seemed to have been hidden away as it received no publicity, the Liberal Democrats had actually produced a short manifesto for men during the election campaign. Nick Clegg said "Men are often a forgotten group in political debates."

While there are many good things in the Coalition Governments plans, there are also some areas of great concern especially on pensions and the fact that there remains a Minister for Women but not one for men.

The good things

(1) Anonymity for rape defendants (unless proven guilty).

John has covered the opposition to this in his last post and it has also been well covered in the media as anti-male organisations such as the Fawcett Society stir up their hatred of men.

This issue is totemic because it is clear that the Coalition Government are aware of the inequality in British Law where the defendant is named and the victim (rightly) is not. The law may not have been changed though if it was not for the epidemic of false accusations (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 , 6   and 7 plus more here). It is those women who are to blame for this and it is those women who should be attacked by The Fawcett Society, the Women Against Rape Group and those who signed the Early Day Motion.

The Coalition Government must hold its nerve against the onslaught from the anti-male marxist feminists who don't believe in equality, justice and do not care about those innocent men who have had their names and reputations dragged through the mud.

This though is ground-breaking.

(2) Anonymity to teachers accused by pupils and take other measures to protect against false accusations.

This is another area similar to the rape issue and again, because the false allegations are normally against men, this is hugely significant and to be supported. It is also backed crucially by a whole swathe of organisations including the teaching unions.

There is a case though for it to be extended to those in the medical professions as doctors (and indeed dentists as shown in this case) are also at great risk of false allegations.

(3) A comprehensive review of family law in order to increase the use of mediation when couples do break up, and to look at how best to provide greater access rights to non-resident parents and grandparents and encourage shared parenting from the earliest stages of pregnancy – including the promotion of a system of flexible parental leave.

This is hugely significant because probably the biggest and long-standing injustice against men to have been used in the past two decades or so has been the deliberate denial of access to their children by  (some) mothers and the legal establishment (many family court judges) and of course Cafcass who have all acted in cahoots. It's why we ended up with Fathers4Justice and Families Need Fathers who have supported estranged fathers up and down the UK.

The review is greatly needed and should not only enshrine the concept of shared parenting when and if custody disputes come to court but also that there is actual enforcement of contact orders. Families Need Fathers are very supportive.

The not-so-good things

(1) Minster for Women but no Minister for Men

When Blair became Prime Minister in 1997 he introduced the extremely invidious position of a Minister for Women without having a reciprocal Minister for Men. It meant that for every single day that that Government was in place it discriminated against men.

Sadly, the Coalition Government has gone down the same path and as well as being Home Secretary, Theresa May is also the Minister for Women. There is no Minister for Men.

(2) Discrimination over Pension Age

Currently legislation shows that the state pension ages for men and women will be equalised in 2020 at 65 and then gradually increase together over time including both rising to 66 in 2026 (Covered by John here).

The Conservatives when in Opposition proposed that the state pension age should be moved forward to 66 for men with no change for women except for that planned (move from 60 to 65 for women in 2020 and then to 66 in 2026). The Conservatives were questioned on this at the time and it was clear that they had forgotten to think about women (it was Ok for men to see if their retirement age of 66 brought before by ten years - men are expendable of course).

The details in the proposed Pension and Savings Bill are still sketchy (until it is published) but the Government has said that the first move, to 66, "will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women", which obviously shows some backtracking.

After the battle led by organisation like Parity for the equalisation of pension ages and other benefits, if the state pension ages are not equalised by 2020 then this will be certainly be discriminatory. How the detail will be worked out before then will also be significant. We will be watching.

(3) Gender equality in the boardroom

The Coalition Government has said they will promote more gender equality in the boardroom. Much will depends on how this is done.

The anti-male feminist wants quotas and to use discrimination to stop men from getting into the boardroom by ensuring that places are set aside for women, irrelevant if they are the best candidate for the job.

If a Labour Government had become re-elected then this would have eventually been legislated for as it is in Norway and elsewhere (link). How the Coalition Government go about this will be crucial but even by promoting it, it will put companies under 'social' pressure to do so.

There has been some talk also that the Coalition Government will not implement the parts of the Equality Act that it disagreed with. These were on the gender pay audits for all firms with over 250 employees and also the (laughably named) ' positive action' clauses that allowed employers to discriminate against employees or potential employees (mainly men) when it came to recruitment. Let us hope they do not implement these parts.

(4) The Missing Pieces

There were a number of issues that were missing but if they can brave it out against the anti-male feminist on the false accusations issue, then perhaps they will introduce them later.

This includes issues around support men's health (especially ensuring GP surgeries have man friendly opening hours) and boys education for example.

Conclusion

While there will be dismay that there is not more for bringing about male equality and ending male discrimination in the UK, the moves on false accusations and shared parenting are real landmarks. Certainly if a Labour Government had been re-elected men would have been done for and certainly none of these proposals would have been put forward.

This site will be monitoring and commenting on the Coalition Government as it trundles along but so far it is good start, but it could and can do better. 

Posted by Skimmington

THE 53 SEXIST MPS OPPOSING CIVIL LIBERTIES AND JUSTICE

On 26 May an Early Day Motion was introduced into Parliament by Fiona MacTaggart MP opposing the proposal to give anonymity to those accused of rape. Interestingly, the motion was put forward at almost exactly the same time as the case of Olumide Fadayomi, a victim of a serial accuser. Mr Fadayomi almost committed suicide over the issue whereas the previous victim fared even worse and the incident ultimately resulted in his death.

Aside from the insensitive timing, lets examine the content of the motion to show exactly why it is so fundamentally flawed, illogical and offensive:

1. "The Government's proposal to grant anonymity to defendants in rape cases sends a message to juries and rape victims that the victim is not to be believed"

Complete nonsense. The process of naming those accused of rape in the newspapers before their trial actually undermines the concept of innocent until proven guilty. It enables false accusers to effectively gain a conviction in their communities merely by publicising the accusation and through the concept of "no smoke without fire". Naming those accused of rape is a big incentive for making false allegations as it is the best way to ruin the victim's life. By granting anonymity we take away such power from false accusers, thus encouraging less of them to come forward. Therefore any laws discouraging false accusations actually strengthens the cases of genuine rape victims and means they are more likely to be believed, not less.

2. "fears that this could inhibit the effective prosecution of serial rapists"

A very dishonest statement. Anyone guilty of rape is still going to have their name and picture plastered all over the newspapers once they're found guilty. Further victims can come forward at that stage just as easily.

3. "is further concerned that this will reverse the progress made on the prosecution of rape cases noted in the independent Stern Review"

I'm not exactly sure what to make of this statement. If the MPs are honestly suggesting our justice system and all the progress we've made somehow relies on a trial by media and ruining the lives of innocent men is an inevitable byproduct of achieving justice for others then either they're stupid or we've got the most hopeless justice system on the planet. As stated in point one the proposal will reduce the number of false allegations out there, thus meaning a increase conversion rate of allegations into convictions.

4. "is further concerned that the Government has put forward the proposal without any research, evidence or examination of these issues; and calls on the Government to withdraw its proposal."

This last point is the most valid aspect of the motion. There is something of a lack of research on this issues, yet you'll notice that the vast majority of this listed below who signed the motion are member of the Labour Party and have therefore been in power for the last 13 years. These politicians had all that time to conduct this research yet they've refused to even discuss the issue of innocent people having their lives completely ruined by false accusers. In fact it's worse than this, the Labour government created and nurtured a hysterical gender feminist climate in which the issue became almost completely taboo, so it's little wonder we're lacking in decent research on the issue. This is quite clearly a problem of their own making so it's quite pathetic to bring up such a point now.

Although such research would be most welcome here we don't exactly need it to pass such a law anyway. It's blatantly obvious that naming the accused in a criminal case whilst their accusers hides under the blanket of anonymity is totally unfair and unjust. The statistics would be very interesting, but ultimately it really doesn't matter whether the law is going to help to protect 800 or 8,000 innocent people every year. People are dying as a result of false rape allegations and have others have their lives completely ruined or are forced out of the country. Delaying the proposal will inevitably cost innocent people their careers, their marriages, their sanity and even their lives. Further research should surely only be a pre-requisite if a proposal wished to create an unfair one-sided situation where only one party was granted anonymity such as is the case at present?

The only legitimate argument against the law would be that it isn't appropriate to conduct criminal matters in secret and that anonymity shouldn't be granted to anyone in court cases and so the law would be making a bad situation even worse. I don't necessary share such a position and believe both parties should have anonymity but we should perhaps bear this last argument in mind when considering the last of names below as there may well be one or two who subscribe to this more rational position rather than the specific content of the motion itself.

In summary, almost the entire motion is poorly argued, illiberal, dishonest and ultimately quite dangerous. Those who created it talk about how "the victim is not to be believed" but such a position is a fundamental part of our justice system. If we suddenly automatically believe every single word of every defendant then why even bother with what would be a show-trial? it would be cheaper and no different to lock up the "rapist" as soon as  their accuser demanded it if factors such as evidence and giving a believable testimony are no longer of any relevance. People are innocent until proven guilty in this country and any jury should have a healthy scepticism of any testimony in court, regardless of whether given by the accused or the accuser and regardless of race or gender.

It's obvious that both men and women lie. Just look at Ms Fiona MacTarggart herself for example. She's known for being rather economical with the truth even on gender issues stating that "something like 80% of women in prostitution are controlled by their drug dealer, their pimp, or their trafficker." When challenged by the BBC on her claim she still insisted it "came from an official Government publication into prostitution and the sex trade". In reality the Home Office themselves state they have "neither made nor cited this calculation." and BBC research into the issue actually came to the conclusion "it is impossible to find that number in any research done on this subject" Should we somehow just believe this nonsense because MacTaggart is female?

Of course there are alternative solutions to reducing the issue of false rape allegations which would reduce any need for anonymity. For example, malicious accusers should serve the same sentence they attempt to inflict not heir victims, should repay the cost of any investigations to the police and should placed on the sex offenders register to ensure the safety of possible future victims. Perhaps some of those listed below are enthusiastic supporters of such proposals though I'm not aware of any of them trying to introduce such legislation or even mentioning such solutions. I certainly can't imagine Ms MacTaggart doing so. Therefore until such evidence comes to light, here are the names of what should be considered the 53 worst MPs in Parliament. People who detest civil liberties to such an extent the believe false accusers should be able to hide behind a blanket of anonymity not afforded to their victims, who couldn't care less about the devastating impact of false accusations and believe in guilty until proven innocent:

Mactaggart, Fiona
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Griffith, Nia
Phillipson, Bridget
Green, Kate
Blears, Hazel
Hodge, Margaret
Jones, Helen
Lazarowicz, Mark
McDonagh, Siobhain
McKechin, Ann
Miller, Andrew
Osborne, Sandra
Coffey, Ann
Curran, Margaret
Eagle, Angela
Efford, Clive
Flint, Caroline
Abbott, Diane
Begg, Anne
Twigg, Stephen
Walley, Joan
Winterton, Rosie
Hodgson, Sharon
Clark, Katy
Cooper, Rosie
Engel, Natascha
Johnson, Diana R
Keeley, Barbara
McCarthy, Kerry
Seabeck, Alison
Glindon, Mary
Alexander, Heidi
Greenwood, Lilian
Berger, Luciana
Hilling, Julie
Jones, Graham
Creasy, Stella
Onwurah, Chinyelu
Reynolds, Jonathan
Umunna, Chuka
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
McKinnell, Catherine
Fovargue, Yvonne
Ali, Rushanara
Skinner, Dennis
Hopkins, Kelvin
Glass, Pat
Vaz, Valerie
Kendall, Liz
Edwards, Jonathan
Mearns, Ian

by John Kimble

SITE REACHES 100,000 PAGE VIEWS

Sorry the site has been a bit quiet recently, both John and I are quite busy people so always looking for other writers, anyhow, many of our regular readers will be pleased to know that we have now had over 100,000 page views since the site was started in 2007.

CONSERVATIVE MP SAYS DENYING MEN NINE BILLION IN PENSIONS NOT DISCRIMINATION

Although the media have been painfully silent in examining the Conservative policy of increasing the pension's gap, they haven't failed completely. Credit for tackling key election issues goes to 5 Live's Stephen Nolan, who as well as looking making a certain deputy leader look rather foolish, also raised the problem of pension's discrimination with Jeremy Hunt of the Conservatives.

Strangely, Hunt had little knowledge of his own party's  policy to raise the state pension age for men to 66 whilst still letting women retire at 60. Despite this, Hunt still defended the policy, informing Nolan he was "absolutely sure we’re not discriminating against men but I don’t know the details".

Fortunately we do know the details of the Conservative policy on this site and we've even conducted the relevant financial calculations. In all, the Conservatives are going to take nine billion pounds away from men aged 65-66 and use the money to fund women's pensions. This will enable women to continue to retire far earlier men, despite the fact women also enjoy significantly longer life expectancies and have generally paid less into national insurance. Quite frankly about the only person who you'd expect to deny claims of sexism here is Harriet Harman herself.

In all fairness I suppose such discrimination isn't likely to have too much impact on men such as Mr Hunt given his £4.1 million wealth, though I'm sure even he'd appreciate he could buy nine hundred billion 1p phone calls with the money he's happy to deny men.

MEN'S RIGHTS ACTIVISM OPPORTUNITY IN LONDON

A pro-equality MRA in London is bringing a damages claim against an elite university's Gender department, for discriminating against him, and men in general, during a taught degree. The case already has the support of a lawyer and barrister, but requires funding. 

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to join us, at an awareness-raising stall, which will be appearing on campuses around Central London.

Broadsheet newspapers have expressed an interest in covering the story, so we can expect the campaign to be high profile.

Interaction with the public will give MRA volunteers a great opportunity to perfect their stand up, debating and persuasion skills, across a full range of men's rights issues.

If interested in volunteering, contact [email protected] for more details.

This case is rock solid, so now is the time to make our move.