The Rights Of Man

BBC BROADCAST CANCELLED FOR "LEGAL REASONS"

Anyone hoping to watch Who Needs Fathers on BBC 2 last night would have been hugely disappointed to find themselves watching random repeats of the programme "Coast" instead. This blog has contacted the BBC and we were informed the episode was cancelled for "legal reasons".

It should be noted that it wasn't actually the final part the the series that was cancelled (that was shown last week), the far more significant part two is the episode in question. The programme was titled "The Right to be Dad" and followed three fathers attempting to keep in contact with their children. It seems a terrible shame that such an eagerly anticipated and much needed programme has been kept off the air. Lets hope it is still shown in the near future.

You can still catch episodes one and three of the series on Youtube and there's also an interesting video reviewing the series.

John Kimble

WHAT ABOUT MAKING GP'S AND THE NHS MORE MEN-FRIENDLY BEFORE BLAMING THEIR STIFF UPPER LIP

Research from Cancer Research UK (an organisation that bans men from its "Race for Life"!!!) and the National Cancer Intelligence Network proclaimed (Daily Mail) that their research showed that men are 70% more likely to die from cancer than women, the usual guff was trotted out that men better mend their ways and lose their stiff upper lip and see their doctor more often.

While accepting that men do smoke and drink more, and there is an issue about men 'just getting on with it' (BBC) so it's likely they will have a higher cancer rate unless that's changed, it is always too easy to just blame men and not look at ways the NHS and GP's should.

Is it that the producer interest (GP's/NHS) could do more to help their customers (men) who through their taxes pay their wages? 

The problem is (and it has been looked at before) is that GP's only tend to be open when men are at work.

More men are in full time work than women, more men work in jobs where there is no flexibility (manual work), more men spend time away from home working and men work longer hours than woman. It is easier for a woman to get to see a GP in the week during working hours than it is for a man.

Therefore, if the NHS/GP's and all those organisations that say men need to do more (except the excellent Men's Health Forum), well how about they do more. How about opening on Saturday's or later in the evening, how about meeting the needs of those who pay their wages and be more flexible.

If any of the parties are serious about men's health in this General Election then this should be a manifesto commitment.

Hattip - Groan

Posted by Skimmington

  

THE WOMEN IN PUBLIC LIFE AWARDS DESCEND INTO FARCE

Margaret Moran - MP of the year? How about Baroness Pola Uddin for Peer of the year?  No this isn't a satirical take on the Parliamentary expenses scandal, instead these were in fact genuine nominations for the 2009 Women in Public Life Awards. Launched in 2007, the event supposedly has the objective of "honouring the great women in public life" yet in reality it's the latest gender feminist inspired scheme to reward undeserving individuals based other gender rather than on actual merit.

There are numerous different categories, with gongs for politicians, civil servants, those in business and in the media. It really doesn't take too much examination of previous winners to see something might be amiss. For a start, there's not only the inclusion of the objectionable Polly Toynbee, but worse still, gender feminist Sandra Horley actually received two awards in one year! In case you aren't aware, Horley is a director of  domestic violence organisation Refuge (read this). She can supposedly spot male abusers just by looking at them, though naturally there's no mention off whether her magical abilities extend to identifying the 40% of abusers of the fairer sex.  Refuge of course refuses to help male domestic violence victims, though Horley is at least honest enough to admit the existence of financial incentives which motivate her organisation in constantly downplaying the number of male domestic violence victims. This ridiculous idea of male and female victims competing for funding goes to show the insanity of her view of domestic violence as a gender issue and anyone deliberately ignoring and belittling such a huge proportion of victims shouldn't be receiving awards for anything.

It wasn't until 2009 that the consequences of all this unfairness really came home to roost. Aside from the fact that another gender feminist won an award in the Fawcett Society's Katherine Rake, there were far more scandalous nominees too. Most significantly it emerged that one of only three allowable nominees for MP of the year was none other than Luton South MP Margaret Moran. Ms Moran, the product of a then illegal all women shortlist, was arguably THE face for the expenses scandal. Her ability to milk the system was incredibly impressive. Whilst other MPs were flipping properties and claiming for second homes, she was way ahead of the game and onto her third house!

Moran's indiscretions are so numerous it's quite frankly hard to list them all. In 2005 there were controversies surrounding her using thousands of pounds of taxpayer funds to send unsolicited letters to constituents just before the election. As well as her second and third home expense claims, there's the issue of milage claims amounting to some 26,028 miles, even though she lives 32 miles form Parliament. Moran has supposedly been too ill to attend the Commons for the best part of a year now, yet Channel 4 caught her touting for lobbying work in a sting operation with Moran claiming to have access to a "girl's gang" of MPs who could help a fictions company. She's barred from standing for Labour at the next election, and as a result of the latest lobbying scandal she's even suspended form the Labour party itself! As of April 2nd Moran still hadn't repaid the monies she owes from the expenses scandal.

There are also various controversies surrounding the company "eQuality Networks" with Moran writing lobbing for work on behalf of the company without disclosing her interests in it. She allegedly made interns work for the company instead of doing Parliamentary work, and the organisation falsely claimed to be a registered charity. In fact it was an eQuality Network's employee who nominated Moran for the Women in Public Life Award, hilariously describing her as a "forward thinking, modern day suffragette".

The disgrace that is Moran's nomination has been noted elsewhere (though not in the mainstream media), but if one digs deeper it's clear that the candidates of such an incredibly low moral standing were equally welcome as nominees to Peer of the Year too. As a result, of the three nominations for the very best female Peer, one was reserved for Baroness Polla Uddin. Her alleged expense fraud make every single one of the 300+ accused MPs appear saintly by comparison. Uddin boasts about how long she's lived in East London (staying in tax payer subsidised accommodation) and is seen there daily, yet she's been claiming all the while that her main home in in Maidstone, benefiting to the tune of £180,000 as a result. Uddin even  claimed 179 days allowances for 2007/08 which was a greater number of days than the Lords had actually sat! Is someone who milks every last possibly penny from the taxpayer and refuses to cooperate with police investigations really one of the "the great women in public life"? Quite frankly I think you'd struggle to find anyone in the Lords more despicable, and there's certainly no shortage of competition.

Fortunately Moran and Uddin didn't quite manage to win the awards, but some of the actual winners are clearly undeserving of the award. MP of the year Award went to Brent South's Dawn Butler. While her expense claims aren't as impressive as Moran or Uddin, she's hardly the most transparent or competent MP out there. For example last year she famously published a letter of commendation on her website supposedly from Barrack Obama. Strangely the document was riddled with mistakes and written on House of Commons notepaper. It later emerged that it was a creation of one of Butler's members of staff, with Obama merely signing the document.  Any "MP of the Year" should at least be able to turn up to meetings, and if she's really as talented as "Obama" suggests then she'd be able to complete most basic aspects of her job requirements too. Worse still, Butler seems to enjoy playing  the race card regardless of the evidence and she's even linked to the expenses scandal now due a campaign to smear her main opponent through a fictions expense related complaint.

I don't doubt that some of the awards must at least have undoubtedly gone to reasonably worthy recipients, but segregating awards on gender and then also not actually bothering to award any to men is not only sexist but actually highly demeaning to the truly worthy recipients. It hugely diminishes a person's achievements in exactly the same way all women shortlists tarnish the few decent female MPs elected via such a method. Winners are stigmatised with being elected/nominated solely based their gender, when in reality some could have actually achieved selection on merit. Further still, it's actually incredibly dishonest to tittle an award "MP of the Year" or "Peer of the Year" when every single male politician is ineligible for such an award, especially as the title then gets quoted in the media as if they're somehow the best person in Parliament.

The fact is that the very best politicians and people in public life really aren't as interested in awards as your average above nominee. Truly outstanding politicians are so busy doing fantastic working and dealing with their constituents concerns during every spare moment. As a result they don't have time to go around lobbying for votes for such awards and anyone worthy of a decent award would never dream of doing such a shameful thing anyway.

One wonders what wonderful figures will be used this year in order to "highlight the achievements of outstanding women role models amongst us"? Given last year's farce, can I be so bold as to nominate Jacqui Smith for her services to pay per view porn, and Ann Keen (one half of "Mr and Mrs Expenses") for services to airport construction, Other contenders Should include Barbara Follett who managed more in wrongful expense claims than anyone else in Parliament and perhaps Patriccia Hewitt who's seems to be trying to single handily reduce the supposed gender pay gaps through her lobbying activities.

Alternatively we could just stop having sexist awards ceremonies and start to recognise the best people in society regards of how many X chromosomes they have.

by John Kimble

LABOUR'S ALL-WOMEN SHORTLISTS BANNING MEN FROM STANDING FOR THEIR 'FAIR' PARTY AT 2010 GENERAL ELECTION

For the 2010 General Election called on Tuesday, Labour have banned men from standing as their candidates in 59 58 seats (full list below) by using all-women shortlists. This site is apolitical but no man should vote Labour in any of these seats because they have been sexually discriminated against.

If you believe in equality of opportunity then you cannot support all women-shortlists and as argued extensively before (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) on this site, the use of these by Labour for their candidate selection has disenfranchised men from the political process.

It is against the British Constitution (albeit these shortlists are legal), stops people (Labour males) from being allowed to take part equally as women in the democratic political process and furthermore means those women selected in this way will only ever be seen as second class candidates (or MP's if they win) because they did not win their nomination fairly.

It is even worse if you are a Labour man who has served your local community (as a councillor etc) but cannot even be considered by them to represent your community in Parliament.

All women-shortlists fall foul of politically correct victim politics, where people do not have individual identities because their identity is solely governed by the 'group' category they fall in. So men are banned no matter how good or what talent or commitment they have in representing people in their community in Parliament.

How can Labour go into the election claiming they want a create a fair society when they ban half the population from being their candidates solely because of their gender?  

The seats where Labour have selected their candidates from all women-shortlists (please tell the site if there are any missed) and banned men from being a Labour candidate are:-

• Airdrie
• Ashfield
• Birmingham Ladywood
• Blackpool North & Cleveleys
• Brighton Pavilion
• Bolton West
• Burnley
• Burton
• Bury North
• Camborne & Redruth
• Cardiff Central
• Clywd South
• Colne Valley
• Dudley South
• Durham North West
• Ealing Southall
• East Dunbartonshire
• East Lothian
• Edinburgh East
• Erewash
• Erith & Thamesmead
• Glasgow East
• Gravesham
• Hackney South
• Halesowen & Rowley Regis
• Hemel Hempstead
• High Peak
• Hornsey & Wood Green
• Houghton & Sunderland South
• Ilford North
• Keighley
• Kenilworth & Southam
• KIlmarnock & Loudoun
• Leeds North West
• Leeds West
• Makerfield
• Manchester Withington
• Newcastle Central 
• Nottingham South
• North Tyneside
• Nuneaton
• Reading East
• Rochester & Strood
• Scarborough & Whitby
• Selby & Ainsty
• Stretford & Urmston
• Sunderland Central
• Vale of Glamorgan
• Walsall South
• Walthamstow
• Warrington South
• Washington & Sunderland West
• Wavertree
• Wellingborough
• West Ham
• Wigan
• Wirral West
• Wolverhampton South East
• The Wrekin

No man voting in any of these seats should vote Labour - you have been discriminated against because of your gender, you are a non-person to them.

CORRECTION - As pointed out correctly by the Wirral Herald (thank you Wirral Herald for correcting this) Wirral West has a male candidate. Apologies but the local Labour Party did want an all-women shortlist but were over-ruled!

WHO NEEDS THE FAMILY COURTS?

Wednesday evening saw the broadcast of the first instalment of the BBC's "Who Needs Fathers" series. The programme featured two contrasting separated couples - one, Alex Bronckaerts and Juliette Thomas locked in a bitter dispute in the Family Courts, and the other, Chris Cooke and Angela Anderson trying their very best to avoid such an institution.

The contrasts between the couples were huge - Alex and Juliette were very well off to put it mildly, whereas Chris and Angela (well mainly Chris to be honest) was struggling to make ends meet. Similarly, the first couple barely communicated (aside form the occasional abusive text by Juliette), whereas Chris and Angela discussed things civilly on almost every time. Rather than eventful occasions, the transfer of their two children between the their homes were relatively insignificant an amicable events, with each parent reminding the children to say their goodbyes or to "give your mother a kiss". Juliette's conduct couldn't have been more different, constantly trying to deny Alex access to their four children and the tensions and uncertainly she caused clearly created significant distress.

Perhaps the only thing the couples had in common was the awful impact the separation had on the fathers. Alex's suffering was clear for all to see, with this wife's attempts at stopping him take his kids on holiday leaving him in tears. Chris' suffering was more financial and physical - paying for both his own mortgage and that of his ex forced him to take a weekend job, have lodgers move in, and ultimately resulted in him living out of just one small room. (Of course Alex obviously suffered vast finally losses too thorough fidgeting such a long legal battle to see his kids, though one got the impression he could afford it).

By far the biggest contrast in the programme was between the two mothers. Although we saw occasional moments of anger and thoughts of denying contact from Angela, these were merely momentary lapses and entirely understandable in the circumstances. They were clearly heat of the moment events and once she had given an issue any thought her concern for the children won over. Despite the problems they faced or any differences of opinion, the couple  always reached a compromise and an agreement on every issue which was genuinely in the best interests of the children.

Juliette on the other hand, was very much from the gender feminist school of thought when it comes to parenting. We got to hear various anti-male or anti-father statements from her, such as "who needs a man". The similarities with Harmanesque philosophy didn't end there, with her claiming to suffer verbal abuse from the children's father whereas in reality we see her sending out quite awful text messages insulting him with absolutely no provocation whatsoever. The programme also quite brilliantly highlights her dishonesty, for example in a discussion on her refusing to allow the children go on holiday with their father she denies that the father had attempted to collect them one morning. Unfortunately for her the BBC filmed most of the event in question, with a third party former court employee even witnessing the event!

The broadcast was especially effective in highlighting some of the tactics employed by custodial parents in making life so miserable for their ex-partners. There's emotional abuse such as the huge worry and uncertainly the father goes through every time he hopes to see his children and there's also the economic damage such as from cancelled holiday bookings. Perhaps the most effective tactic was where Juliette disrupted and ruined what little time Alex had with his four boys. She did this quite simply by just denying contact with one child each time rather than all four. The boys were used to always being together, so separating them this way caused anxiety and confusion, what should have been happy occasions we ruined by the uncertainly of when or if their brother would be joining them not to mention the endless waiting and travelling.

For purposes of balance and fairness we should note that unlike Alex, Juliette actually had no warning such a programme was being made - she was only actively participating in the broadcast from a quarter of the way through. This means that unlike other participants, she's wasn't aware that the consequences of her despicable behaviour were being caught on camera, thus we only really saw her true side and no one else's. That said, once agreeing to be filmed, Juliette carried on in exactly the same vein as previously, blatantly and deliberately denying court ordered contact on camera as if the children were her personal possessions,. Perhaps the only change the presence of the cameras caused was to put a stop to the abusive text messages.

The programme left me wondering how the family courts might have reflected on some of the content of the programme. For example one wonders if they'd view Chris' tiny home as an appropriate place for children and would have denied him contact if they'd been involved? Further still, a determined and malicious mother could presumably cite the fact he had lodgers as a further factor for denying contact. If someone such as Chris had been unfortunate enough to have been in a relationship with Juliette the consequences don't bear thinking about.

Fortunately Juliette's opponent in the Family Court's was Alex and not Chris, and despite her best efforts  he finally got to see his children for one third of the year, albeit after another 13 months of fighting (and goodness knows how much expense). This for me shows perhaps the biggest weakness of the programme, Alex and Juliette are so far removed from your typical couple in terms of wealth and resources. Not all fathers can afford the endless legal fees and it would have been nice to see your average father go through the system too to show even more realism. The fact it even takes someone as wealthy and well connected as Alex such an incredibly long time to achieve some sort of success certainly illustrates just how unfit for purpose the family courts really are and perhaps that was the point.

As I stated before broadcast, it's clear this programme has come ten years too late at best and it's a disgrace that a public broadcaster such as the BBC hasn't addressed such key issue sooner given the awful impact malicious parents are having on children and society as a whole. However, it truly was an excellent production, and on the evidence of part one, maybe it was almost worth the wait.

Update - International readers can now watch the programme on Youtube.

John Kimble

SHAMEFUL SILENCE ON GENDER EDUCATION GAP

Figures released by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills today showed that 51% of girls now enter higher education compared to 40% of boys. A gender education gap of 11%.

There is not a peep from the Government, the Conservatives or any other party about the gender education gap. Nothing from the laughably entitled 'Equalities' and Human Rights Commission.

Nothing, just silence.

Far more girls are entering the professions and boys are continually behind at all levels of education, nothing either is said on that

Compare it to the constant hullabaloo (and myth making) over the gender pay gap (12% for full time workers) even though it has been proven that the pay gap is due mainly to many women taking time out of the workplace to bring up a family.

No proper research, no proper thought as to why this gender education gap is happening and no policies that could help to boost boys education (rightly of course not to the detriment of girls' education) are ever expounded.

Can you imagine, if the genders were reversed and that far fewer girls were entering university than boys,  - we would never hear the end of it. But because it is boys, the figures just float by without comment. It shows inherently and culturally how much boys and men don't matter to the establishment in this country, they are the disposable sex -a culture explained very well by Conservative MP Paul Goodman yesterday.

It really is a tragedy that politicians and the establishment pay no attention to this matter when attention would be paid if the genders were switched. No explanation is ever given as to why this is the case.

It is sexism by silence. 

Posted by Skimmington

WHO NEEDS FATHERS? DISCUSSION

As mentioned on Monday, BBC 2 have broadcast the first in a series of three called Who Needs Fathers tonight at 9pm.

If anyone wishes to discuss the content, they can do so in the comments section.

NOTICE: MRA COMEDY WRITING GROUP

While the site often covers news and articles, it is always happy to put notices up as well such as this:-

MRA Comedy Writing Group in London Seeks Collaborators

If you're a pro-equality MRA (male or female), and able to attend a weekly brainstorming meeting in Central London on a Tuesday Evening for two hours, we would like to hear from you - our mission: To manufacture the ultimate MRA stand up comedian.

A lot of comedians appear to be MRAs at heart, but can usually only manage about two jokes on the subject before moving to safer ground. For a standup to deliver solely MRA material for several minutes will be a challenge - but we have a unique plan to get the most out of the group dynamic, to produce material far beyond the sum of our parts. You may be good with concepts and set-ups, or you may be good with language, or you may be good with punch-lines. Whatever you have to offer, we would like to hear from you.

If interested, email with a little bit about yourself - and please have a go at completing in your own way, the following sayings:-

Behind every great man... ? A woman needs a man like a... ? Boys will be... ?

No woman... ? It's a man's... ? Hell hath no fury... ?

Contact: mrastandup-at-hotmail.com

WHO NEEDS FATHERS? ON BBC2

Juts giving everyone a heads up that BBC 2 are running a series of three programmes starting on Wesneday (31st March) at 9pm called Who Needs Fathers?

The first episode look at the family courts and was discussed in the Daily Telegraph yesterday.

On Wednesday, the site will put up a post so we can a discussion following the programme. 

Posted by Skimmington

LISTEN TO MEN'S MATTERS ON EXPRESS FM

For some time now, James Williams has been broadcasting a show called Men's Matters on Express FM (scroll down from this link).

For some reason or other this show has never received the attention or credit that John deserves. It is probably the only such radio show in the UK broadcast on mainstream radio.

The latest edition includes:

• In-depth information and discussion on prostate cancer,
• an extract about the spread of misandry (hatred of men),
• talks about prison from feminist, Antonia Bunce and UKMM leader George McAuley; and,
• for something different, the virtues of chess from a couple of Portsmouth guys who love the game.

Anyone who is a mens rights campaigner and wants to appear should contact James on [email protected].

He has also said that he does not get paid "to make a one our pre-recorded show can take about 6 hours of work. To show your support, phone the station on 023 92 77 99 22 during office hours and say so. The more calls, the more prominence men’s issues get."

Enjoy listening and support John in his great work.

Posted by Skimmington