Please
wait for download
|
Continued from www.ivorcatt.com/02e.htm |
Ill
Eagle
Ill Eagle 19 Ill Eagle
19 .. June 2002 .... ISSN 1466-9005 |
|
Mom kills, dad kills: Two takes on tragedy - Doug Saunders, Globe and Mail,
2mar02, pA1 LOS ANGELES -- The case has all the
elements of a media sensation: five children dead of asphyxiation; a parent
charged with first-degree murder in their deaths; the other parent horrified
by the apparent act of homicidal depression that destroyed the family. But this is not the case of Andrea Yates,
the Texas mother on trial for the drowning of three of her five children last
year, and who could yet be charged in the deaths of the other two. Instead,
it is the case of Adair Garcia, 30, charged last week with murder in the
deaths of five of his six children, who died from inhaling the fumes from a
barbecue ignited while they slept. The Yates trial has become the biggest U.S.
media sensation of the year, its every detail splashed on front pages and
analyzed in lengthy TV discussions. The Garcia case has so far failed to make
the front page of any major newspaper, even in the family's home town of Los
Angeles, and has quickly disappeared from the news. There is only one obvious
difference between the two: Ms. Yates is a mother, Mr. Garcia is a father.
Popular opinion has shown one of its perverse turns. People are obsessed with
mothers who kill their children, while little interest is shown in fathers
who do the same. The distinction lies deep in human
psychology. When fathers kill their offspring, it is viewed as a serious
crime; when mothers do it, it is seen as a deep sickness, one that garners
both sympathy and profound horror. "Killings by aggrieved fathers are generally
done out of jealousy and anger, directed at hurting the ex-spouse or
ex-partner," said Jordan Steiker, a law professor at the University of
Texas. "Our society is very ambivalent in labeling women as murderers.
To make sense of a crime
through mental illness
is Ill19 p16 much more common with women, and especially
with mothers," she said in an interview yesterday. Mr. Garcia's case certainly fits this
pattern. Police initially thought that five of his six children had died in a
terrible accident. Mr. Garcia's mother-in-law, arriving to babysit on the
morning of Feb. 20, found seven bodies in a bungalow in Whittier, a
neighbourhood in south Los Angeles, and a smoldering barbecue in the living
room. Five children, ranging in age from 2 to 10, were dead after breathing
the fumes all night; a nine-year-old was unconscious, as was their father,
Mr. Garcia, found lying beside the barbecue. When the horrified mother,
Adriana Arreola, showed up on the scene and collapsed in grief, police began
to doubt the case was an accident. The marriage had been on the rocks; she
had moved out for a week, and Mr. Garcia had spoken ominously of depression
and revenge. He was soon charged with five counts of first-degree murder and
one count of attempted murder. He will be arraigned on March 19. It remains
to be seen whether the jury and sentencing judge will treat him differently
from Ms. Yates. Well-established precedent says he will be treated much more
harshly if he is convicted. Michelle Oberman, a law professor at DePaul
University in New Jersey, argues in her recent book Mothers Who Kill Their
Children that juries rarely assign murder convictions to mothers accused of
killing their own offspring, or request tough sentences such as the death
penalty. This, she speculates, is because these cases are almost always
matters of deep clinical depression, generating considerable sympathy rather
than rage. "Throughout common-law history, juries
and judges have tended to agree on one thing: When a mother kills her child,
it is generally different from other forms of homicide," Prof. Oberman
wrote in an opinion article on the Yates case this week. "Different
because these cases are not only about the horror of dead children, but also
about desperate and deeply troubled women." In Texas, the public is divided between
those who wish Ms. Yates would be given psychological treatment rather than a
criminal trial, and those who argue strenuously that she should be sentenced
to death. No such debate has arisen over Mr. Garcia.
Instead, the few Los Angeles citizens who have noticed the case have
expressed mystification. "How do you understand this?" asked Los
Angeles County Sheriff's Lieutenant Don Bear on the day of Mr. Garcia's
arrest. "There really is no way that you can understand this or why
someone would do something like this." The Los Angeles Times carried Lt. Bear's mystified remarks, along with all other coverage of the Garcia family tragedy, on page B4. Tax payers fund $95,000 Family Court case The Dominion, 26apr02 It has cost taxpayers more than $95,000 to
fund legal aid for New Zealand's most expensive Family Court case. [Peanuts
compared with the cases that an English taxpayer funds. - Ed] According to figures obtained by ACT NZ MP Muriel Newman, the
Legal Services Agency has paid $95,049 excluding GST for one case, which has
yet to be resolved. In reply to Parliamentary questions,
Justice Minister Phil Goff said it was possible the case's cost would climb
further. Mr Goff said in 2001 the agency had provided
funding for about 32,700 Family Court cases, up 100 on the previous year. According to the most recent figures
available, $39.2 million was paid to Family Court lawyers in legal aid in
1999/2000 and $33 million to lawyers for criminal cases. Further figures obtained by Ms Newman also
show that some people are waiting nearly a year for their cases to be heard
in the Family Court. As at April 16, families in Hastings, Levin
and Palmerston North had been waiting 44 weeks for their cases to be heard. In
Auckland a family had been waiting 40 weeks and in Papakura 36. Ms Newman said with $95,000 so far being
spent on one case, she felt the system was out of control. "I know from the work I've done in
this area (Family Court) that the system perpetuates so many appeals." Ms Newman said she knew of one case which
had started in the Family Court, passed through the High Court and Appeal
Court back to the Family Court, with it now back in the High Court again. "The system is using the taxpayer as a
cash cow to sort these things out. It is in urgent need of reform." The case delays were also having a
tremendous emotional impact on the families involved. Ms Newman said if the Family Court was
opened to the public and media it would help reduce the cost of cases. [Dr.
Michael Pelling fought to open our courts right through to the European
Court, and lost. - Ed] When family courts in Australia and America
were opened up, the volume of litigation dropped. .... .... see
www.ivorcatt.com/2040.htm [New Zealand pop. <4m. There is great
pressure from radfems for the UK to copy the disastrous NZ approach to family
courts. - Ed] http://www.stuff.co.nz/ http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/index/0,1008,1179916a11,FF.html In
the Los Angeles Daily Journal
and the San Francisco Daily Journal,
9may02. Jailed for not paying child support while in jail? by Glenn Sacks; Glennjsacks@cs.com
.... Williams was crushed when he recently
learned that he owes $12,000 in child support arrearages to reimburse the state
for the benefits paid to his wife and kids while he was in prison. The support arrearages, which he never
knew existed, will consume as much as half of Williams' modest salary,
virtually destroying the possibility of the new, stable life that the 42 year-old
East Palo Alto resident had dreamed of behind bars. Williams is one of tens of thousands of
California men and women who have been charged child support and interest
while they were incarcerated, and who struggle under staggering debt as they
attempt to reintegrate into society.
The debts drive many recently released prisoners out of their
children's lives and into the underground economy or illegal activity. Elena
Ackel, senior attorney for the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, says: "The wonder of the current system is
that everybody loses. The state tries to beat astronomical child support
arrearages--$20,000 or $30,000 in many cases--out of dead broke, unskilled,
and unemployed people who just got out of prison. Some of these people even
end up back in jail because they couldn't pay the child support which accrued
while they were in jail. Who benefits
from this?" .... Copyright
2001 - 2002. Glenn Sacks All Rights Reserved. Sacks' Home: http://www.glennjsacks.com/index.html Why should women win custody of the children? My
experience is still that women win and that sometimes the case against a
father is grotesquely unfair - Deborah Orr. Independent,
24apr02 My four-year-old son, the other day,
displayed to me yet again his sophisticated and ruthless talent for emotional
manipulation. During a protracted negotiation for something or other a chocolate frog, a viewing of his Scooby
Doo video, whatever he dropped his
voice, cuddled up to me and confided: "You are my favourite
parent." What can one do in the face of such a blatant invitation to collude with your child against his father? I had two choices. First, I could enter into the conspiracy, accept the accolade and keep the secret. Second, I could preserve a united parental front, and inform his father of this latest gem in the same way that all the others are breathlessly relayed. Ill19 p17 But while the first option seemed fraught
with difficulty, the second did not seem easy either. Maybe it would hurt my
husband, who is hardly less involved with the boy's parenting than I am, to
learn of his close-but-no-cigar status. After all, I wouldn't like to be told
such a thing myself. As I mused on my dilemma, an awful thought
occurred to me. Perhaps my son was even more devilishly manipulative than we
gave him credit for. Perhaps he had told his father the same thing. My mind
was made up. That evening I asked my partner if the magic words, "You
are my favourite parent," had ever caressed his ear. He shrugged
nonchalantly, and smirked dismissively: "Yeah. He tells me that all the
time." This revelation devastated me, and I
realised how much I had accepted my child's comment as a verbalisation of
something I already assumed to be true. Small children, after all, are
expected to be more emotionally enmeshed with their mothers, and usually are,
for all sorts of reasons. Now, it turned out, I'd spent only seconds as the
favourite parent, while my husband was awarded favourite parent moments
"all the time". Having enjoyed watching the stricken look
on my face, my husband then revealed that he was joking, and that actually
he'd never be told, "You are my favourite parent". He didn't seem
at all bothered by this. Our parental front was united, it seemed. We both
took it as read that children tend to maintain a small bias of affection
towards their mother no matter what, and that as long as our son was not
playing one of us off against the other, it was no big deal. Nevertheless, it seems to me that in these
days of parental disharmony, the existence of this normal childish attachment
is sometimes far too often used as a
violent weapon against fathers. I was amazed last week to read an article by
Dina Rabinovitch [see www.ivorcatt.com/2044.htm
] in the press that commented on a Family Court ruling that denied care and
control to the primary carer in a divorced couple simply because that primary
carer was the father, not the mother, of the family. Ms Rabinovitch hailed Lord Justice Mathew
Thorpe's decision as "a genuinely radical judgement" that stood
bravely against the politically correct orthodoxy of "shared
parenting" that rules the family courts and "in practice was about
bending over backwards to accommodate fathers' wishes". She went on to
make the astounding claim that "far from fathers being discriminated
against in the family law courts, they are actually using their financial
clout to deprive mothers of time with their children". This claim is astounding, not only because
anyone with the smallest interest in the subject of parental access knows
that miserable contact centres across the country are full of supervised men
not women trying to form a parental bond from an hour or two a week in a
shabby institutional room, but also because this particular case involved
a man who was a "house husband
and whose wife had been the wage earner. Because the details of family court cases
are rightly kept secret, [Both Lord Denning and I strongly oppose family courts
secrecy - Ed.] we do not know the ins and outs of the case. It is even
possible that the marriage broke down because the husband stubbornly insisted
on staying at home, while the wife felt she had no alternative but to work,
and eventually found the strain of missing her kids growing up intolerable.
Who knows? Not me, not Ms Rabinovitch. But what anyone can see is that in
this case there was not much likelihood that the plaintiff was using his
"financial clout" to deprive the mother of his children of time
with them. In this case, mum held all the aces, and won. My own experience is anecdotal, but is
still that women win on time and on money
and that sometimes the case against a father is grotesquely unfair and
damaging. While I've seen the disintegration of many relationships involving
children over the years, I've only once known a woman to lose a
care-and-control case. That was Julie Burchill. If Ms Burchill has not lived
her life as the exception that proves the rule, then young gunslingers have
never been hip. I have, however, witnessed a good friend
moving with her children to another country almost entirely to make things
hard for her ex, a man victimised by outrageous claims of sexual abuse
against his son by his former wife; several mothers handing over their
children to their fathers by thrusting them silently out of the door while
they hid behind it; and a woman signing an affidavit saying that her husband
should not be given access to his children because he was a terrorist
(totally fictitious and insane). I've seen men behaving outrageously too,
playing fast and loose with arrangements, failing to cough up financially,
referring to time spent with their own children as "babysitting",
or trying to buy their children's affection with a succession of treats
instead of really forming a relationship with them. Sometimes, men only
become good fathers after good mothers have made a huge effort to educate
them in the importance of their role, whether the parents are partners or
not. I've also seen both men and women managing
to set their differences to one side in order to maintain a functioning
relationship as parents, settling things between themselves, understanding
that however they feel about each other, their children remain genetically
half of each of them, and have a need to know and understand both parents
well. They manage to acknowledge each other's
importance to their children like adults, instead of infantilising themselves
by resorting to the Family Court. Theirs are usually the children least
affected by their parents' break-up. Lord Justice Thorpe ruled that upholding
the father's claim would be to "ignore the realities involving the
different functions of men and women". But the main function of men and women, when
they have had children together, is being parents. The very flesh and blood
of their children is testament to the equality of that function and its
interchangeability. To me, Lord Justice Thorpe's world view
appears not radical but reactionary, and may well extend to embrace the view
that women are too maternal to need much education, too unpredictable to hold
positions of responsibility in the big world, or too emotional to be trusted
with such matters as commenting in the newspapers on the rulings of judges. Any more knee-jerk arguments about how
mothers are really important, so somehow fathers can't be, and his views will
be looking uncomfortably common. If I ever find myself tempted to use my
"favourite parent" status to punish my husband, I'll remind myself
that this kind of behaviour plays well before the likes of Lord Justice
Mathew Thorpe. [Human Events, vol. 58, no. 16, 29 April 2002, p. 14.] A
case for fathers and co-parenting - Carey Linde, lawyer - Vancouver http://tsw.odyssey.on.ca/~balancebeam/dadless/case.htm
Madam Justice McLachlin of the Supreme
Court of Canada in Young vs Young 1993 (1) said that, in looking at what is
in the best interest of the child, a court should be concerned with
"maximizing contact between the child and each parent." The
standard dictionary definition of 'maximum' is: "the most," or
"the greatest quantity." Why does this high principle and standard
of "maximum contact" laid out by the Supreme Court of Canada get
eviscerated daily in the lower courts? How can "every other weekend and
Wed. afternoons" possibly be "maximum" time? Why is there such
an enormous gulf between the stated principles of the highest court in our
land and the practice in the lower courts? .... see www.ivorcatt.com/2045.htm Lover's
attack earns 6 years' jail New Zealand Herald, 11may02 A 33-year-old woman who set fire to a young
man who wanted to end their relationship was sentenced in the Auckland
District Court yesterday to six years' jail. The court heard that Vivian Eve Northover
planned the attack - which targeted the 19-year-old's face - for revenge and
left him alone, unable to see and burning in her Parnell apartment. .... She
wanted his face ruined. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=1844702&thesection=news&thesubsection=general Ill19 p18 Woman
who burned man found guilty New Zealand Herald, 9may02 A 28-year-old mother has been found guilty
of trying to murder her former lover by setting him alight in his car. Armajeet Kaur Singh wept in the dock as a
jury of eight men
and four women in the High Court at Hamilton found her guilty of attempted
murder and arson. The charges related to an incident last
June when Singh lured her former lover Swaran Singh (no relation) to the
outskirts of Hamilton and tried to kill him. .... As he sat in his car she doused him with a
bucket of petrol, set it alight and fled the scene. With his arms, face and
thighs on fire, Mr Singh jumped from his burning car into a nearby puddle. ....
He suffered burns to his face and legs, and
serious burns to his hands. .... http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=1844231&thesection=news&thesubsection=general
Stinko, who has now received more than 5 million pounds of your taxpayer's money, excludes DV by women at the start of all her "research", which led to the notorious figure that 1 in 4 women suffer DV. – Ed Parton
testifies Examination
of Witnesses (Questions 288 - 295) TUESDAY
8 MAY 2001 MR
JIM PARTON AND MR JOHN SHIRLEY Chairman 288. Can I welcome our witnesses from
Families Need Fathers. Would you introduce yourselves and say a bit about
your organisation? (Mr Parton) Yes. My name is Jim Parton, I
am the Chairman of Families Need Fathers. We have given evidence in other
Select Committees on the CSA and pension splitting in divorce. We have been
going for 27 years. We are often characterised as a pressure group, which we
do not like because we are not a pressure group. If only we could exert
pressure on certain institutions, we would like that. Really we are a
self-help group. We have got around 3,000 members. People come to us, married
fathers and unmarried fathers, who are having difficulties seeing their kids
and we give them "been there, done that" advice. We are not
professionals but most of us have either been through a divorce or— In my case
I was married and went through a divorce and John is unmarried. I will
probably do a lot less of the talking than John because John is the author of
our submission, which I hope you have all got copies of, which we wrote to
the Lord Chancellor's Department in 1998. 289. Can I say that we have got copies but,
unfortunately, they only arrived this morning so we have not had a chance to
read them. Mr Shirley, perhaps you could introduce yourself briefly and
summarise the key points of your concerns in relation to this legislation? (Mr Shirley) I am a single father of a nine
year old son. I share parental responsibility for him with his mother and
that was reached by agreement. I have not been married. I made something of a
study of the question of parental responsibility when my own case was
involved obviously. When the Lord Chancellor put out the consultation paper
two years ago I was chairing a group of our members who considered the
question for unmarried fathers. Obviously our concern in this Bill is principally
limited to clause 91. We welcome the clause as such, it is a considerable
step forward and it will sort a real difficulty out for a large number of
people. I suppose there are a number of concerns that we have about it. The
clause as it is at the moment still allows parental responsibility for
unmarried fathers to be revoked. That seems to us to be an anomaly. I suppose
our thinking on this issue starts from the point that in relation to the
welfare of a child it is no longer tenable to maintain any distinction
between married and unmarried parents in terms of their relationship with the
child. Obviously both parents of a married couple who have children have
automatic parental responsibility and that cannot be removed, that is a life
time obligation of that couple. Nor can the parental responsibility which is
at present given to unmarried mothers. It seems to us anomalous that it
should be revokable in the case of unmarried fathers. That is a slight
concern that we have about the clause as it is written. I would hope that you
might feel able to look at the issue slightly more boldly and to consider the
awarding of parental responsibility to all unmarried fathers with obvious
exceptions. I think the exceptions would be very few but the obvious sort would
be a convicted rapist, for example. In the vast majority of cases we feel
that the unmarried father does have a commitment to his child. There may be a
number of reasons why he does not sign the birth certificate, which is the
qualification that is put on it at the moment. We would like to see it
broadened out. We would like to push further on that. I think where the
father is not present at the birth registration, which again relates to the
qualification for here, we would like to see a duty placed on registrars to
put in place steps to see if it is possible to establish who the father is
because, of course, there are a number of reasons why a father would not sign
the birth certificate at the time. In so far as the clause goes, we welcome
it. I suppose I am just hoping that you might consider— (Mr Parton) Can I add just a brief anecdote
which was a case that came to me. He was a guy who was from Plymouth, an
unmarried father. The mother was an alcoholic and I think maybe she had
mental problems as well. She decided that she could not cope and she put
their twin girls up for adoption without telling him. He discovered rather
late in the process that this was going on, by which time the whole thing had
gathered its own momentum and it appeared there was no way of stopping it. He
was a perfectly decent, stable, ordinary kind of guy and he could have looked
after those children. He went to court to try to stop the process. I think by
that stage, as I say, it had gathered its own unstoppable momentum and people
did not want to back down. Because he was an unmarried father without
parental responsibility there was not even a legal duty on anybody to find
out that he existed but there should have been because there was a birth
parent who could have looked after the children had anyone taken the trouble
to find him. That is one of the reasons why we think PR is important. That is
a real life case. 290. Thank you for those comments. Can I
put to you a point I made earlier on which is the issue of whether this measure
has got the balance right between the welfare of the child and the rights of
the actual family. The issue of achieving this balance has challenged
numerous governments over the years. We have heard different views this
morning as to whether it has been achieved. Do you feel that it has? (Mr Parton) We would say that it has, yes. 291. It has? (Mr Parton) Yes. Schools, "Parents" and "Parental
Responsibility" Department for Education and Employment. Ref:
DfEE 0092/2000. For your copy, phone 0845 60 222 60 or email grainne.mcquillan@dfee.gov.uk
Schools are required by law to have a wide
range of dealings with pupils' parents. .... ....
Definition of "Parent". …. all
natural parents, whether they are married or not; and any person who,
although not a natural parent, has parental responsibility for a child or
young person; and any person who, although not a natural parent, has care of
a child or young person..... Everyone who is a parent, as defined above,
has a right to participate in decisions about a child's education; .... staff
must treat all parents equally .... to receive information from the school
.... to participate in activities .... to be asked to give consent .... to be
told about meetings .... [Now for the wrecking clause. - Ed.] ....If, in extreme cases, the resident parent refuses to share information with the non-resident parent, the school can do nothing more. .... However, if the non-resident parent subsequently contacts the school and requests access to information, the school should provide it to the parent direct - after taking reasonable steps to satisfy itself that the individual is, in fact, the child's parent. .... Ill19 p19 ESRC
Gives ManKind the Bird Mr
Robert Whiston, Mankind etc. Dear
Mr Whiston, Letters
of 3 March and 19 December. Thank you for your last letter. I did in
fact acknowledge your 19 December letter on 7 January. We read carefully your critique of
Professor Stanko's work. From this we concluded that the material you sent us
was intended as a contribution to the literature in the area, rather than a
formal complaint to the Council. We recognised that you asked us to
reconsider the "direction and reliability of Professor Stanko's present
work". We reviewed the position and assured ourselves on those points.
The direction of the Violence Programme was established by Council and its
Boards in advance of, and quite independently of, Professor Stanko's
appointment as Director. The work which you discuss on your note also
preceded her appointment, and is only a part of the substantial body of work
she has contributed to the literature. As you will know, the article you cite
is entirely open about its limited scope and its methodology, and the reader
can be in no doubt about the care with which its tentative findings should be
treated. We took the view therefore that we had
looked carefully at your comments and taken them on board. We have had a
number of comments recently on Professor Stanko's work, all of which have
been carefully considered and noted. These include an emailed set of
exchanges involving Mr Ivor Catt, who has informed us he is associated with
your organisation. We are concerned that much of this is abusive and
threatening. We are bound to take account of the tone and content of this
correspondence and from it we conclude that it is not appropriate to continue
this exchange any further. Yours sincerely, Chris Caswill, Director of Research, Director of Research,
tel. 01793 413000 22mar02 [I think Caswill would be happier in bed with Parton of FNF - Ed] R Whiston advises Lord Chancellor's Department Our Chairman to the Shadow Home Secretary
Our
Chairman to M. Oliver Letwin, MP 18mar02, shadow Home Secretary, House of
Commons, London SW1A.0AA Dear
Mr. Letwin, Thank you for your letter of support dated
Feb 5th. Your congratulations and good wishes upon our gaining charitable
status is much appreciated. It may surprise you to know that it was the
considered view of the Charity Commissioners that, and I quote, ". it is
not illegal to discriminate against men". Had their team of barristers
read the relevant statute and accepted that it is unlawful to discriminate
against men, then charitable status would have been secured in 1999 rather
than 3 years later. We know that a similar woman's organisation was granted
charitable status within 8 months of applying. It may also come as a surprise to you that
there can be so many invisible obstacles to full and true equality. The
invisibility of men in social policy formulation and the subsequent double
standards applied against them is manifest principally in two ways. One is
the denial, at all levels, of funding for men's causes, e.g. prostrate
cancer. The second is that men's and fathers groups are not represented on
any Whitehall committees, unless they are from gender or ethnic minorities.
This, therefore, presents half the population with major problems. We enclose
a list of double standards that could be corrected by a stroke of a pen
(Enclosure 1). The governments own advisory document to Whitehall departments
"Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment", Nov 1998, is completely
ignored by both Whitehall and ministers. We are never notified, as is
obligatory, of any of the impacts that will affect men. Since 1996 ManKind has taken every
opportunity to influence policy in the realms of civil rights for men and
fathers. This can only be beneficial to traditional family life. We therefore
very much welcome your recent statements on this subject but we do wonder why
a sexual minority of the population (2%) should command the degree of
attention denied 48% of the population ? I believe you may have already been
in touch with our National Organiser, Steve Fitzgerald, regarding our family
policy documents. From 1997 to the present day we have
provided the statistical backbone to many reports by different organisations.
Of particular note are the Lords and Commons booklet "Family
Matters" 1998 (ISBN 0 9533429 0 5) and "The Cost of Family
Breakdown", 2000, (ISBN 0 9533429 1 3). We have provided background
briefings for Dispatches and Panorama and, on a more regular basis, countless
popular programmes such as "Kilroy", "Esther" and
"Saturday Night Live". Some years ago ManKind compiled a series of
Occasional Papers relating to the impact on children and subsequently on
society of fatherlessness. Only now is our work and predictions being
acknowledged and accepted in the mainstream media. We enclose an example of
one such paper. Politically, we believe your approach of putting the emphasis
more on fatherhood is much more sophisticated compared with simply turning
the spotlight on single mothers (Enclosure 2). For over 5 years we have
maintained that the true cost to the State of single mothers is in the region
of 11 -19 billion pa and we have noted that the Govt has successively revised
its estimates upwards from 1 billion to 5 billion and then 11 billion. We do
not have the comparable resource available to Govt but we believe the true
figure to now be in the region of 28 billion (Enclosure 3). Feminism and the left wing and share the
same Achilles heel. They have no concept of wealth creation. All they grasp
is wealth redistribution. The great engine of wealth creation is the married
man (see George Gilder and Amneus). Marriage creates wealth for both the
family and the State. For that simple reason wages can never be equalised
until marriage is eliminated. Even Patricia Hewitt in her IPPR pamphlet
writing days had to admit defeat and concede that married men earned more
money than single men or women (1.0 : 1.7 ratio). She was at a loss, perhaps
for ideological reasons, to explain why. Separately, Gilder and Amneus give
the explanation using US Govt income statistics which are far more detailed
than ours. A nations GDP will only expand when marriage is reinstated as the
preferred option for heterosexual co-existence. Divorce cannot create wealth.
It can only redistribute what has so far been accumulated. No political party seems to have taken on
board the fact that in every age group there are 300% more men unemployed
than women (Enclosure 4). Would this situation be allowed to sand if the
sexes were reversed ? And with this fall in male employment the state has
increasingly found it self paying more benefits to women who qualify not by
contributions paid but on the newer "needs" basis. Thus, with a
falling birth rate the Treasury is having to double and then treble its
expenditure. (Enclosure 4). In our opinion, the Law Commission should
be scrapped. Throughout its entire existence, it has been bent on the
destruction of marriage. In 1996 we were asked to make representations to the
Law Commission, which at the time was considering the adoption of the Home
Sharers Act. This piece of proposed legislation (again, like the CSA and
Family Law Act 1996) was a wholly imported product and would have
fundamentally altered a thousand years of English law. This, and marriage,
are not purely academic points of principle. They have immediate and
practical implications that should concern us all. New Zealand, from where we
take much of our innovative social legislation, has been forced to sell-off
its naval frigates and all of its Air Force is up for sale. Given the burden
to the New Zealand tax payer we predicted this some time ago but we were
nonetheless surprised by its abrupt arrival and comprehensiveness. Economies far lager than New Zealand's or the UK's face similar dilemmas. In the US, as the following article demonstrates, budgetary choices will soon have to Ill19 p20 be made as the realisation dawns that
expenditure on social policies dwarfs the tax dollars spent on the Armed
Forces. 'The Cost of Child Abuse Laws', by Donna
DeVane-Hicks, themestream, Dec 17, 2000. With a budget higher than the National
Defense budget, tax payers footing the bill for public defenders, District
Attorney salaries, judges salaries, police investigations and jury pay; the
Child Abuse Protection Act is not an easily affordable way to deal with the
problem of child abuse in this country. These are not the only costs involved
either. Each family falsely accused of child abuse continues to run up the
cost. For families who can not afford an attorney, the taxpayers foot the
bill. For those families who hire their own attorney to defend them the cost
can run 100,000.00 or more. Just recently a case in point was in the news.
You probably heard of the case of Peggy McMartin Buckey and her son Ray
Buckey who in 1983 became the focus of emotions run wild by the public and
law enforcement communities. .. This case alone cost the taxpayers, that's
you and me folks, 13 million dollars. The political emphasis in recent decades
has been towards single mothers at the expense of men and fathers. With over
1.5 million divorced men no political party has represented or wooed this
sector. Given that floating voters can be crucial in some constituencies we
pose the question whether due consideration has been given to men as voters ?
Generally speaking, each divorced man has children and those children have
grandparents. No political party has yet majored on giving a greater say to
these disenfranchised voters (1.5m men + 2m children + 2m grandparents) Today, the values of family life have been
sidelined in mainstream politics, yet we know from ONS and other reliable
research that 90% of women desperately want to marry and have children. The
problem at the moment is that many men, because of the divorce laws, see
women as economic grenades and relationship liabilities. Gays, desperate to
be integrated into the mainstream culture, are therefore, in seeking civil
marriages, joining something that is on its way out. The nonsense that is the CSA continues. The
UK is adopting methods that have been shown in other countries to be
self-defeating. For instance, in Ontario, Canada, debtors' prisons are back
in fashion. There a man who admits he's in arrears in his support payments to
his first family has had his driver's license revoked causing a serious
reduction in his income. The problem is that he's re-married with three other
children to support. If he goes to jail its the taxpayers who will have to
support his new family indefinitely on welfare. http://www.canada.com/search/site/story.asp?id=49D8B196-DA13-4D25-95B6-F0D2DAADA88C
We have worked with religions that espouse traditional
married family life. From our experience working with the Muslim community
they feel let down by Labour politicians and by the social policies which
they see as ungodly e.g. our divorce laws and Sect 28. Again, although a
minority, the Muslims are pivotal in several key Labour constituencies, e.g.
Jack Straw. The statements made by Sir John Stevens,
the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police would not be necessary if
traditional married family life were the norm. The overwhelming majority of
young offenders come from fatherless homes. This is also true of DV
perpetrators and rapists. Alternative lifestyles have brought only crime to
the streets and forced more money to be spent on new police initiatives
rather than better pay and recruitment. In the US the crime level of any city is
directly related to the ratio of divorce and of single mothers. In the UK we
ought to take the same hard look and plan ahead. I have conveyed as briefly as possible the
breadth and depth of our work and trust you will be able to utilise our
expertise in the near future. I enclose a single sheet summary of our
activities (Enclosure 5). I apologies for the unintended length of this
letter. I have written far more than I intended but there is much that needs
to be said, and yet, in this letter it has to remain unsaid until another
occasion. I hope you will forgive me. Yours
sincerely, Robert Whiston, Chairman 18mar02 ManKind
on the Move How the Police Complaints Procedure fits
into ManKind's DV helpline strategy. The Police Complaints procedure was
initiated when the "Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984" was
enacted. It has since been slightly amended in the more recent Police Act,
1996. The essence of the procedure is that a
member of the public has a "right" to make a complaint against a
police officer. If a person wishes to complain the Chief Constable of the
force involved MUST record the complaint and have it investigated. In
practice this means a two stage process - an 'informal' one which, if deemed
unsatisfactory by the complainant, can move to a formal investigation. The procedure is put in motion by an
individual making a complaint. This
is best done in writing and sent to the Chief Constable of the relevant
force, but could be done by writing to the most senior station officer at the
Police station involved. All that needs to be done at this early stage is a
very brief outline of the complaint
and the request to have the complaint recorded and investigated. Making an oral complaint at a Police
Station is a waste of time; nothing will happen - it must be in writing Usually what happens is the complaint is
recorded and then he/she is invited
to discuss the complaint in an informal interview with senior officer of the
Police station. This is to try and
arrive at an informal resolution. It
is at this point that most pressure will be felt by the complainant to
retract their claim. However, at this interview the complainant has the right
to insist that the matter is investigated 'formally'. Formal investigation will occur through the
police internal discipline and complaints unit. Once the complaint goes formal all relevant documents, e.g note
books etc should be secured by the investigating team. They should interview the complainant and
take a statement. They should also interview any witnesses he/she nominates
and take statements from them. The procedure absorbs a lot of police time and involves
redirection of scarce resources. Consequently, a force cannot 'afford' to have
too many on-going complaint investigations. It should all end in a formal report back
to the Chief Constable and the CPS to decide on whether there are criminal or
disciplinary matters or not. Very
often the investigating officers may try before the report stage to settle
the matter informally if there is some substance to the complaint. If
this is rejected and a report is made then all documentation from the
complaint, except for the final report, would be available to the complainant
in any legal action, e.g. in family law case. In cases where police have not investigated properly the
complaint may force them to do that and so produce some evidence which
otherwise would not be available. The overwhelming majority of complaints do
not find against the police, but making a complaint can be a means of bring
issues to the attention of the Force. ManKind now has a specialist service for members to assist them in formulating complaints against the police for wrongful arrest, harassment and /or prosecution. Contact you local organiser for more details. U
R a victim of skilful propaganda Dear
Mr. Rich, In regard to the recent Newsnight programme
and your reply :- " ..... That is also why we did not look at the issue
of false accusations. In all the
cases we cited, the father had either been convicted of violence in a
criminal trial, or found to have been guilty of violence to the satisfaction
of a judge. " Why are you not aware that of the 131,000
allegations made, over 82% were found to be false at first instance and even
more upon later investigation. By portraying the very rare cases in your
programme you broke the first rule of a skilful programme maker and that is
not to become a victim of skilful propaganda. Mankind
has dealt with these people in other arenas and their statistics just don't
stand up. They tried to pervert the CAFCASS advisory team in 2000 and 2001
but never once were they able to Ill19 p21 substantiate their wild claims made about
endemic violence and abuse. By focusing on a very few unusual cases
you have, as a man, done your own chances of seeing your own children (when
eventually you divorce) immeasurable harm. Whom will you turn to then ? Whom will you blame ? I very much wish you would allow a right
of reply to rebut the insidious message my licence fee has helped provided. Yours sincerely, Robert Whiston, Chairman,
ManKind, 30mar02 Kids spill the beans Halton Women's Shelter exposing children to violence and
abuse - Ontario Citizen's Free Press, 22mar02 Young children forced to watch graphic
video showing man beating up a woman as part of children's indoctrination
process! Burlington, Ontario - A young girl who
recently managed to gain her freedom from the Halton Women's Shelter in
Burlington, Ontario, has disclosed some bone-chilling information about just
what goes on behind the closed doors of that facility, something which those
operating the shelter would not like the community to know about. One of the troubling things that this
child revealed was that she and the other children in the shelter were made
to watch a video in which a man was graphically shown beating up on a woman. This video was part of a children's
program at the shelter and all children who came to the women's shelter were
forced to attend shortly after their arrival. The young girl said she and her siblings
did not like watching the violent video and that watching it made them feel
very upset and uncomfortable. .... .... .... http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez032702.asp
Women Who Lie The empress with no clothes: women's studies - Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review, 27mar02 Maybe you have a daughter who has
decided to major in "women's studies" in college. Or it's your
neighbor's kid, your roommate, whoever. You might figure it's a fairly benign
discipline - "the study of women's contributions to and involvement in
culture, politics, and literature throughout history," as one woman told
me when I asked for a quick definition. But enter the world of women's studies
and you'll find a whole different reality. Its goal is to "transform
knowledge." And there's nothing harmless about it. In a study published by the Independent
Women's Forum, Lying in a Room of One's Own: How Women's Studies Textbooks
Miseducate Students, Christine Stolba, a senior fellow with IWF, peeks into
the classrooms - and primary texts - of the revolution. Stolba's treatment is
not a worst-of list of outrages. It's something far more disturbing. Stolba analyzes five core women's
studies textbooks. You might expect that the texts of women's studies
professionals might be a little more inventive - even, say, more reasonable -
than the average feminist's talking points. Think again. After all, where
else would they get the talking points? The wage gap. The glass ceiling.
Ailing women's health. Poor grade-school girls ignored in the classroom. You
name it, it's probably there. There's not one serious look at the extant body
of work that debunks most of their reigning mythology. In other words, it's
an entire discipline with its facts fundamentally wrong. You might think it would be considered a
good thing for women to be independent thinkers, especially among the
college-educated sisters. Nah. As Stolba tells NRO, "What surprised me
the most about the textbooks was the nearly universal absence of points of
view (and often facts) that might undermine the theme that women remain
victims of patriarchal societies." Here's a sampling of from one of the
texts, as Stolba documents in her study: * Margaret L. Andersen's Thinking About
Women: Sociological Perspectives on Sex and Gender begins by warning readers
that, although many people "conclude that women now have it made,"
in fact "women college graduates who worked full time earned, on
average, 70 percent of what men college graduates earned"; and
"despite three decades of policy change to address gender inequality at
work, women and minorities are still substantially blocked from senior
management positions in most U.S. companies." Later, Andersen calls it a
"social myth" that women are achieving economic parity with men. * Women's Realities, Women Choices
offers a similar assessment: "If we work for pay, we tend to work in
gender segregated sectors of the economy. and to receive less wages than men
in comparable jobs." The textbook further notes that "women earn
less and have fewer opportunities for choice and advancement than men. In
1890, a woman earned 46 cents for every dollar a man earned. A century later,
we still earn only 69 cents." Though it's nothing new for feminists to
downplay the role of women's familial choices in consideration of their
career realities, these texts fail to note the prominent female critics of
their claims. June O'Neill, recent head of the Congressional Budget Office,
is only one of many who have long since debunked the "wage gap"
whining. Nor do the women's studies cadres care that "equal pay for
equal work" is the law of the land, thanks to the Equal Pay Act of 1963. But then, of course - as Stolba notes -
"equal pay for equal work" is not good enough. They want
"comparable worth," that is, "centralized wage-setting based
on categories of comparable skill levels." One wonders how these
scholars propose to engage in a successful public-policy debate when they are
incapable even of recognizing that they have legitimate opponents, with data
and arguments of their own. Wonder what the next generation of
professional feminists are learning about men? In a section decrying the
supposed lack of funding for women's health (you guessed it, filled with junk
facts), one of the textbooks weasels out of acknowledging the disparities
suffered by men, instead noting what's really sick: masculinity itself. Mortality differences between men and
women are determined by men's greater risk of death by accident. [but this
is] itself a function of men's engagement in risky behavior, violent activity,
and alcohol consumption. Men - those damn uncontrollable drunk
brutes! There are students getting degrees in this stuff. All the subjective
drama and lies that are fit to print go into making up some of these women's
studies textbooks. How's this for an intro to coursework, from Thinking About
Women: * Perhaps at school you see that most of
the professors are men... or perhaps you notice that women are concentrated
in the lowest-level jobs and are sometimes treated as if they were not even
there. It may occur to you one night as you are walking through city streets
that the bright lights shining in the night skyline represent the thousands
of women - many of them African-American, Latina, or Asian American - who
clean the corporate suites and offices for organizations that are dominated
by White men. And there's lots more drama where that
came from. Try describing women in America today as slaves. From Issues in
Feminism, another one of the texts: * An even more perfected form of slavery
was one in which the slaves were unaware of their condition, unaware that
they were controlled, believing instead that they had freely chosen their
life and situation. The control of women by patriarchy is effected in just
such a way, by mastery of beliefs and attitudes through the management of all the agencies of belief formation.
Coming from a loudmouth feminist talk-show host, this wouldn't be a big deal.
It can even be expected from the typical "national organization of
women" type lobbyist now guaranteed a seat at virtually every
negotiation table in Washington. But this is the foundation of a serious
academic discipline? It is now. Ill19 p22 Stolba found many more myths - and
downright lies - while educating herself about the science of womenhood: concerning
homosexuality, domestic violence, daughters and fathers (dad = a
"foreign male element" who comes between you and fellow sister
mom), and more. And, unless the realities of motherhood
manage to change them, as has happened with some of their foremothers, this
could very well be an endless cycle. Talk about a cycle of violence - against
reality. According to Stolba, when it comes to our most important
institutions - marriage and motherhood - the former is viewed "with
unwarranted suspicion and the latter as a burden to be overcome." These women's studies textbooks ignore a body of work that has
highlighted the ways women benefit from marriage - physically as well as
mentally. But then, these books are also written by women who clearly must
simply hate the concept. Yet another example of Stolba's findings, from
Women's Realities, Women's Choices: * The institutions of marriage and the
role of "wife" are intimately connected with the subordination of
women in society in general. It is the constraints on women to engage freely
in various social activities, whether in sexual intercourse, economic
exchanges, politics, or war, that make us "dependent " on men, that
oblige us to become "wives." "Remember that revolutions often
wind up devouring their own children," Stolba warns. Seeing what the
children of this revolution believe and what they're feeding their
ideological daughters, perhaps that might be best. NRO Home: http://www.nationalreview.com/
Related articles/websites: Independent
Women's Forum [IWF] http://www.iwf.org/ IWF Releases Review of Women's Studies
Textbooks [20 Mar 02] Just in Time for Women's History Month,
IWF has released a review of Women's Studies textbooks by Christine Stolba
that reveals questionable scholarship, ideological bias, and sins of
omission. "The 'knowledge' transmitted by Women's Studies textbooks is
often factually and interpretively at odds with reality," concludes
Lying in a Room of One's Own: How Women's Studies Textbooks Miseducate
Students. (click here for details and to download a free copy) http://www.iwf.org/news/020320a.shtml
How feminism is now alienating women from science. http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/fem/KOERTGE.html by Noretta
Koertge – Skeptical Inquirer/Upstream, Mar/Apr 95 http://www.glennjsacks.com/hate_my_father.htm Hate My Father? No
Ma'am! By
Glenn Sacks The university professor began the first
class of the semester by announcing that she was an "anti-imperialist,
anti-heterosexist Marxist-feminist." She read us the famous quote from
Robin Morgan, the leading feminist and former editor of Ms. Magazine, who
said "kill your fathers, not your mothers." Seeing the students' shocked faces, she
added "Kill is too strong. Hate
your fathers, not your mothers."
I guess she was a moderate. One of the male students in the class,
obviously feeling chastised, said the defense I've heard young men say
hundreds of times--"don't blame us for what happened to women in the
past--blame our fathers and grandfathers." I've ruminated darkly over those words
many times, and when thinking of my father and grandfather, I can't help but
be struck by the special burdens they shouldered as men, because they were
men, and how these special burdens have now become a blank space in our
history. Hate my grandfather? My grandfather was
a milkman. A young immigrant who
enlisted to fight in World War I out of gratitude to the country which had
allowed him to escape Russian Czarist tyranny. A man who, wounded in the decisive Battle of the Argonne Forest
in 1918, received the Purple Heart and the French Croix de Guerre. A tender father who stayed up half the
night stroking the fevered brow of his sickly youngest daughter--a
"daddy's girl"-- before going to work at three in the morning. A
man who put his safety and even his life on the line during the violent union
strikes and battles of the 1930s, because he believed that workers have the
right to decent wages and living conditions. Hate my father? The man who worked six
days a week for 25 years yet somehow always had time to spend with me? Who
never once let me down? Who worked 12 hour days when my sister and I were
young so he could ensure that we would be provided for? Who recalls sadly as
he looks at his little granddaughter that he doesn't even remember what we
looked like at that age, because he was rarely able to be home? The successful feminist re-writing of
the pre-feminist past as a virtual dark ages where men lived like nobles and
women were their serfs is at the core of the "hate your father"
idea. Tens of millions of (male) blue
collar workers--who put their bodies on the line in the coal mines and steel
mills so their wives and children could live in safety and comfort--have been
turned into oppressors. Their wives and children, for whom these men
sacrificed so much, have been turned into their victims. Edited out of our history are the
tragedies of millions of American men who were killed or maimed on what early
trade unionists called the "battlefield of labor." The miners who died in cave-ins,
explosions, or of black lung disease.
The sailors and fisherman who died at sea. The oil refinery workers
killed in explosions. The factory workers killed in industrial accidents. The
construction workers who died carving train tracks and then highways through
majestic mountain cliffs or the scorching desert. The construction workers who died building our bridges, dams,
high rises, stadiums and apartments. .... The only credit left for men is the
military, and even this has been partially hijacked. We now speak of "the men and women
who fought and died in our wars" as if even one percent of our military casualties
were ever suffered by women, or as if women were ever conscripted the way men
were. .... PAS New
article by Gardner on
Parental Alienation Syndrome, see www.ivorcatt.com/2807.htm
Parental
Alienation Syndrome is primarily driven by the courts. In countries where
parents cannot afford to pay lawyers, there is very little PAS. As the Czech
Republic becomes more wealthy, PAS will increase. Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome This is the next step after Gardner, by
Turket, in the process of getting to the core of Family Court pathology. A
mother continues to attack the father long after she could profit from it.
These mothers are not abnormal. The mother gains willing allies who attack
the father on her behalf. The next step after Turket will be to research into
whether the secret family court complex can come within this class of allies
identified by Turket. I suspect that they do. I thought it was the female Praying Mantis which, after
insemination, eats the male. In order to get this right, I searched Google,
and the first hit, http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~abrams/mantis.html gave me; ".... Mantises are famous in
many cultures. In some cultures, they are considered holy. .... .... The mantis is also famous for its almost
human mating habits -- when the male and female are done mating, the female
eats the male..." - Ed The childless radfem's lament Wanting
children a couple once sat For a
course on how to begat. When the
doctor expounded, They stood
up dumbfounded, And said
they could never do that. - G. W. Hanney Ill19 p23 The crying game - Liam Fay, Sunday Times, 9dec01 [Irish Edition] There's an oft-quoted old saying which holds that the cemeteries
are full of indispensable men. This warning about how we can exaggerate our
own importance to the point where we work ourselves into early graves has
never felt more apposite, especially in an over-stressed society like ours. However, as with most seemingly wise adages, the opposite is
closer to the truth. In Ireland at least, the cemeteries are actually full of
men who've convinced themselves they are thoroughly dispensable, if not
disposable. Big Boys Don't Cry (Tuesday, RTE1), this week's True Lives
offering, was an overdue examination by Irish television of the growing
epidemic of young male suicides. In all the case studies presented, through
interviews with bereaved families and survivors of suicide attempts, the
crucial factor for those who choose death emerged as an overwhelming feeling
of worthlessness. Their rush towards the emergency exit is hastened by the
conviction that nobody will notice they've left. Deftly directed by Gerry Hoban, the documentary was at its
strongest in the personal testimonies. The faces of the grieving parents
seemed to have been frozen in shock since the moment they heard the dreadful
news. Years after the event, their voices still ache with guilt about the
belated discovery that their apparently happy sons were, in fact, people for
whom life had become so miserable that complaining would've only increased
the agony.
The analytical part of the film was less impressive. Big Boys Don't
Cry was fat-bellied with raw data and half-baked theories, the abundance of
which only served to underline how unmediated much of the information about
suicide remains. While it's known, for instance, that 15% of those suffering from
a major depression will kill themselves, it's impossible to predict which 15
per cent. The risk factors are really no more than a list of the
characteristics of people who have taken their own lives. Given the primitive state of the research, there was an
unnerving consensus among the experts and academics. They came across like
lawyers who'd cobbled together a verdict while the jury was still out. This
explains why the burgeoning suicide debate in this country is already choking
with claptrap and platitudes. There was, for example, unanimous
agreement among the contributing professionals that men must become more like
women, a clumsy, shorthand way of saying men should talk more frankly to each
other about emotional concerns. While the advice is no doubt sound, its
wording is deeply suspect, and lends credence to the view that male suicide
has become another weapon of choice in the ongoing grudge match between
ideological feminism and its equally ideological opponents. Telling individuals who already feel
inadequate and overburdened by life that their best bet is to defy evolution
and generations of conditioning is, at best, unreasonable. As a philosophy,
it's even more crude than Thatcherism's on-yer-bike; it's on-yer-girls'-bike.
Rather than urging suicidal young men to become more like women, it might be
a tad smarter to suggest they become more like young men who don't commit
suicide. Unmarried couples more likely to split after birth of child - Telegraph,
11feb02 Cohabiting couples are far less likely than married couples to remain
together after the birth of a child, according to a report released today. Research by the Centre for Policy
Studies shows that more than half of cohabiting couples split up within five
years of the birth of a child, while only a quarter of those who marry after
the birth of a child have separated within five years, and only eight per
cent of married couples have parted. The report, Broken Hearts, Family
Decline and the Consequences for Society, has been released to coincide with
National Marriage Week and aims to draw the Government's attention to the
disintegration of the family in Britain. Jill Kirby, a consultant to the social
affairs unit at Conservative Central Office and the author of the report,
said: "Unless we are prepared to recognise that the family is under
siege and that marriage is under threat we can have no hope of reversing the
trend and improving the lives of the children who are afflicted." The research also shows that children in
two-parent families are far less likely to run away before the age of 16 and
far less likely to suffer a mental disorder. More than 15 per cent of children from
single parent families suffer some form of mental disorder - more than double
the total from two-parent families - and 23 per cent of children with
stepparents run away before the age of 16. In her report, Ms Kirby points out that
35 per cent of children live in poverty and 23 per cent of all British
children live in families receiving social assistance. She calls on the
Government to adapt its policies to favour of the family. "The nurture of children should be
a primary objective of every civilised society," she says. "The
perverse consequence of our fiscal, social and welfare policies has been to
institutionalise child neglect. It is time for a new approach." The report claims that while 30 years
ago it was exceptional for children to be born and raised outside the married
family, it has now become commonplace. Then, more than two-thirds of British
women in their late 20s were married and had children; now it is less than a
third. She says: "The losers and the
dispossessed are the children who are growing up outside the protection of
the married family." .... .... Canada: Deliberate policy to drive parents apart Women more violent Irish
Sunday Independent, 24mar02 This article from the Irish Sunday
Independent 24 March 2002 may cast more
light on the situation of women under stress lashing out. "Women in troubled marriages more
violent than men -10 per cent of young couples in crisis" http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=718035&issue_id=7105
A disturbing portrait of marriage in
Ireland reveals shocking levels of violence in the home, with women nearly
twice as likely as men to assault their partners. The revelation that women are more
likely to use physical force in marriages which have received counselling is
just one of the provocative findings of the Government-commissioned study.
.... .... The 150-page report, Distressed Relationships Does Counselling
Help?, found that, at a "conservative estimate", at least 10 per
cent of all couples aged 30 to 40 have troubled marriages. www.ivorcatt.com/2057htm http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=295883
Forget 2.4 children ? now it's down to 1.64 -
Lorna Duckworth Health Correspondent, Independent,
17may02 The nuclear family has shrunk in size
from 2.4 children to just 1.64 as women give birth to fewer babies than at
any time since records began in 1924. The average number of births per woman
in England and Wales reached 2.4 in 1970, when the stereotype of the typical
family was established. But that figure has steadily declined because of the
trend towards postponing childbirth and an increase in the number of
childless women. By 2000, the fertility rate had dropped to 1.66 children per
woman. But provisional figures released by the Office of National Statistics
yesterday show a further 0.02 fall in 2001 to the "lowest level of
fertility" since 1924, when the rate was 2.27. Ill19 p24 Before the
Second World War, the average number of children born to women fluctuated
between 2.00 and 1.75. But the post-war baby boom caused a surge to 2.68 in
1947, rising to a peak of 2.93 in 1964. At that time, only 10 per cent of
women remained childless but that has now doubled to nearer 20 per cent. Other
statistics showed that the number of babies born in 2001 was the lowest for
24 years at 594,634 births, 1.6 per cent less than the 604,441 births in
2000. The number
of births outside marriage continued its upward trend, with 40 per cent of
children born out of wedlock compared with 30 per cent in 1990. [As the
information leaks out as to how vulnerable a father now is, women will more
and more only be able to get impregnated (and so get their own council flat)
by wide boys who then do a runner.
This recent development is pronounced in Hackney, and is described by
Melanie Phillips.. - Ed] [For years
now, Robert, Ivor and Eugen have been predicting that the suicide rate for
young men would continue to increase for a further fifteen years, as the
message continues to leak out more and more through our heavily censored
courts and media. More and
more, young men come to realise that they have no future. Also, we said that
the birth rate would continue to fall during that period. For two years we
have strongly urged young men not to; marry, cohabit, or father children
until twenty years from now, when the growing crisis will have to have been
resolved. The social
contract between a father and the state has been comprehensively torn up by
the state. A young man who makes any of the above three mistakes loses all
his most basic civil rights, and becomes a helot. He is fair game for
ruthless attack by a large number of state institutions. It is irresponsible for a young men to
fuel the crisis by marrying, cohabiting or fathering a child at the present
time, because the resulting damage extends far beyond himself. - Ed] CSA Facts and
figures from Child Support Agency annual returns. Table
G2.06, May 1999. There are
864,000 parents with care. 409,000
non residents (fathers ) are in some form of employment 415,100
non residents (fathers ) pay zero amounts per week. Of these
216,800 claims Income Support and 307,000 claim other benefits. 409,000
are in some form of employment but only 91,500 and 18,100
are claiming some form of Job Seeker's Allowance. 28,500 are
claiming Incapacity Benefit the average
amount paid by way of CSA payments is 19.99 per week. the
average for those in jobs is 38.23 per week. the
average interim assessment for CSA is 89.77 (the suicide factor). Age
profile is given at Figure G2.03 page 276. Gender of
Non- Resident-Parents male
812,100 (94%) female
51,900 (6%) Also see www.ivorcatt.com/2909.htm Man's fatherhood claim goes to retrial Guardian, 22mar02 An academic in his mid-sixties yesterday
won the right to a re-trial in his battle to be declared the father of
four-year-old twins. He is seeking an order that the two girls should undergo
DNA tests despite the refusal of their mother, who has been married since
1975 to another man. Judge Elystan Morgan refused the request
at Caernarfon county court, ruling that if the academic proved to be the
father, it would break up a "happy marriage". Lord Justice Thorpe, one of three judges
who heard the appeal last month, said yesterday in a reserved judgment that
there should be a balance between establishing scientific fact against the
risk of "perpetuating a state of uncertainty that breeds gossip and
rumour". [What rubbish. - Ed] .... He allowed the academic's, appeal and
sent the case to the high court for re-trial. Lord Justice Thorpe said: "My
profoundest misgiving stems from the judge's confident conclusion that to
grant the application would be to destroy the twins' family. ...." But see www.ivorcatt/2910.htm Baroness Kennedy, although a barrister,
chaired a commisssion which made the irresponsible recommendation that a
secret DNA test by a father should be made into a criminal offence. The first
responsibility of a senior lawyer is to recommend against legislation which
is unenforceable, as this would be. The propoosal is of course viciously
anti-fatherhood, as single parent Kennedy always is. A close crony of Vanity
Blair, she is the irresponsible chairman of the British Council, half of
whose Ł400 million budget comes from you, the taxpayer. - Ed The main recommendations include new
protections for individuals: - a.. It should be a criminal offence to
test someone's DNA or access their genetic information without their
knowledge or consent for non-medical purposes, except as allowed by law -
forensic uses. - It is interesting to note that the
whole structure of this view, as represented by the Human Genetics Commission
(HGC), consists of disregard for family autonomy - that is the ability of the
responsible adults in the family - both parents, to have access to
information about and make decisions about their children's DNA (before the
age of their children's majority). Instead, the children's rights are being
treated as independent of their parents, to be interpreted by the HGC, the
government. The parents are NOT being regarded as competent authorities
within their own family in relation to their own children. The existence of this attitude is more
than demonstrated by the distortion - say of the words in continuation of the
report, on a subject such as genetics, which lies full square within the
sphere of relatedness, descendance, individual identity as defined by one's
GENES, into a subject where people are talked of systematically as
individuals, but the shared individuality and identity of their FAMILIES is
not referred to. - Julian Fitzgerald 80 to 90 per cent of births in Jamaica
are outside marriage and this affects the partners' level of commitment to
each other. There is not a high level of stability in the family unit any
more. Jamaica is the ultimate gun culture, with a very high murder rate.
However, those who die are men, so that's O.K then. [This is the elysium
sought by radfems and the Guardian/Observer. - Ed] NSPCC cheats public again To: Ed -
Daily Mail letters@dailymail.co.uk
Subject:
NPCC cheats publc again Date: 16
March 2002 13:00 Dear Sir, Never let it be said that the
truth should come between the NSPCC and its voracious appetite to raise masses of money. Their
current TV advert features - yet again - a man knocking 7 bells out of a
young child. Not only is the advert a travesty but a fraud and the NSPCC
knows it is. The truth is that a child is far more
likely to be physically attacked and abused by a woman, usually its mother.
Look at mothers in Supermarkets on and Saturday in England. Look at the
number of prosecutions brought. Up to 85% of all child abuse and neglect is
perpetrated by women - not men. ManKind is a men's civil rights charity
and we have been in correspondence with the NSPCC since July 1997 pointing
out that their own research (and research world wide) shows that children are
far safer with fathers than with mothers. Let me quote you from their own website;
" Myth: most physical abuse is carried out by men, especially fathers.
Fact: violent acts towards children are more likely to be meted out by
mothers than fathers (49% of the sample experienced this from mothers and 40% from fathers). Isn't it time this organisation was
honest with the public and lived up to their own website's headline of "NSPCC SHATTERS CHILD
ABUSE MYTHS". In my opinion, the only thing the NSPCC presently
shatters (for a few shekels) is
trust, Ill19 p25 accuracy
and honesty. Society at large and the NSPCC in particular can no longer be in
"denial" if they are to improve the lot of children everywhere. Yours
sincerely, Robert Whiston, Chairman, ManKind UN discriminates against males -
The Mens Center GENEVA, SWITZERLAND-The
United Nations and its Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of
Human Rights were criticized yesterday by two human rights organizations for
discrimination against males in the enforcement of human rights. Speaking on
behalf of the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource
Centers and Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, J. Steven Svoboda, Esq., a
Harvard-educated human rights lawyer, noted that while a panoply of
protections for women and girls has been instituted including aggressive
programs to stop female genital mutilation (FGM), male circumcision has never
even been studied by any United Nations body including the Sub-Commission. Svoboda
demanded that the Sub-Commission explain why Sub-Commissioner Mrs. Halima
Embarek Warzazi, previously its Special Rapporteur on Traditional Practices
Affecting Women and Children, was now barred from considering traditional
practices' effects on male children. Svoboda
commented that everywhere that FGM occurs, male circumcision also takes
place, adding that male circumcision occurs six times for every time FGM
occurs. "Some day," Svoboda told the United Nations, "we will
come to understand the misguided nature of our attempts to explain why any
violation of female genitals is criminal while a comparable, serious,
extremely painful, and disfiguring alteration of male genitals is
permissible. .... www.ivorcatt.com/2061.htm Keep out of Wimmins' Business METROPOLITAN
POLICE SERVICE Racial
& Violent Crime Task Force (DCC4)
Room 935 New
Scotland Yard Broadway LONDON
SW1H OBG Telephone:
020 7230 4374 Facsimile:
020 7230 4319 Dear Mr
Whiston RE:
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FORUM: 23RD FEBRUARY 2001 Thank you for your letter dated Friday
31st August 2001. 1 must, however, apologise for not responding sooner, but
unfortunately it appears that your letter was not in fact received in our
directorate until 16th October. It may be helpful if I can deal with the
issues raised by you in that letter chronologically. Firstly, I can inform you that to date
we have not made an approach to any other men's Organisation as regards to
representation on the Domestic Violence Working Group. We are, however,
willing to receive any publications from such organisations that may be of
assistance in helping us to formulate future policy and strategy. I would
like to point out that the group is not and never has been single sex in its
format and is inclusive in its approach to issues of domestic violence. In
line with the definition laid down by the Association of Chief Police
Officers, the Metropolitan Police Service works to the following definition
of domestic violence: `Any incident of threatening behaviour, violence
or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between
adults who are or who have been intimate partners or family members,
regardless of gender'. I can only reiterate the view expressed by John
Sutherland that in light of the total non constructive approach to domestic
violence shown by you on 23rd February, we do not feel it appropriate for
ManKind to have representation on the group. Assuring you of the Metropolitan Police
Service's continuing commitment to a fully inclusive approach to domestic
violence. Yours sincerely, Kevin Shapland [aged
about 25. - Ed] It appears to be essentially a feminist
review of the book [below], with a few good points allowed to get past the
blatant bias. - Robert Whiston. However, the terrifying thing is that in
a comprehensive book on the vituperation against men and its impact on boys,
the review completely ignores the attack on fathers in the family courts in
every relevant country. Either the authors omitted the key subject, or the
reviewer suppressed it. - Ed Crunch time - The new movement against men - A new leash on
Life -
Miriam Cosic, Australian Magazine,
4may02, p1 The latest
wave of billboard advertising, and popular culture in general, is reversing
the roles of sexist aggressor and victim. Is it a case of feminist revenge,
and do men really care? .... .... When the
book was published in Canada late last year, it predictably ignited a storm
of controversy. It is the outcome of years of research and rumination by the
authors, who were increasingly unnerved by the depictions of men they saw
around them - in movies, on television, in print, even on greeting cards. .... .... Unlike the
usual men's rights suspects - the angry, white, largely under-educated males
who fight family law and gun law reform and who seem psychologically
incapable of accepting women as their social and, especially, legal equals -
Young and Nathanson have two useful trump cards to play against their
critics. She is a woman; he is a gay man. No backward-looking defenders of
the patriarchy, these. Young, who
is professor of the history of religion at McGill University in Montreal,
came to realise that men were the new victims via her lifelong work on women
and religion, which had made her hyper-aware of gender as a political issue.
Nathanson is a writer and editor who had been Young's graduate student. Both
authors are opposed to bias against women - the androcentric view - but they
claim that the gynocentric view, equally discriminatory, has overtaken it in
both virulence and scale. Don't tell
them this new nastiness may be an inevitable, and temporary, swing of the
pendulum of social change which, after millennia of discrimination against
women, should come to rest at some real approximation of equality and respect
between the sexes. "It's understandable to swing to gynocentrism, but
the problem with this is, do we endorse it? Do we say it's morally
legitimate?' Young asks. "And I think here Paul and I have a fairly
strong moral argument that goes through the book. Two wrongs do not make a
right. Androcentrism was wrong, and gynocentrism is wrong." In the
United States, glamour academics such as Camille Paglia have used the media
astutely to push a new pro-man agenda. Men who switched sides have been given
shorter shrift. The once high-profile US commentator Warren Farrell claims he
was cold-shouldered by the mainstream media, and suffered a concomitant loss
of income and lifestyle, when he stopped talking feminism and started talking
about the disadvantages of men. [Neil Lyndon was shut out of all the media in
England for a decade for publishing "No More Sex War" in 1992. -
Ed] "When we care as much about saving males as saving whales, we will
also save ourselves," he writes. "When we seek to find boys' inner
world, we will give a gift to our sons in the 21st century that we gave to
our daughters in the 20th century." In
Australia, Fairfax newspaper columnist Bettina Arndt is the highest profile
apostate. She regularly feeds feminine outrage by chronicling the
frustrations of post-feminist men and boys who are marginalised in their
fathering roles and failing at school. She is hotly debated by other female
writers, who take the now-conventional feminist viewpoint: that women are
only slowly overcoming the effects of systemic prejudice, that men still have
the upper hand economically and politically, and therefore only women's
rights have to be promoted. ... .... www.ivorcatt.com/2063.htm Ill19 p26 ManKind Submission on Children's Homes Abuse Clerk of
the Home Affairs Select Committee 27/02/02 House of
Commons London SW1.0AA Dear Sir, RE: Past Cases of Abuse in Childrens
Homes We welcome the decision to conduct an inquiry
into the miscarriages of justice involving child abuse and the conduct of
investigations. We will be pleased to be called to give oral evidence in
April 2002. ManKind is a men's Civil Rights charity.
We have been aware for some years of hidden and institutional discrimination
against men in the realms of legislation, policy and the law. Even in the setting up of the charity we
faced 3 years of prevarication by the Charity Commissioners who maintained
that it was not illegal to discriminate against men and so opposed our
application for charitable status. We have been appalled by mainstream
civil rights groups which readily and willingly identify discrimination
against minority interests overseas but at the same time remain doggedly
immune to the discrimination faced by 50% of the population here in England. The objective of ManKind is to promote
true equality between the sexes. In our work we are aware of the injustices
endured by Second Wives and among our members we have both single and married
women. We first become involved in miscarriages
of justice when our members began increasingly to report their experiences in
the divorce courts where, because of their secret nature, allegations could
be freely made without supporting evidence. It soon became apparent that to secure
success, in terms of custody of children and ownership of the marital home, a
mere hint of physical violence or sexual abuse would win the day. When ManKind explored this phenomenon we
found that allegations of physical, emotional and sexual abuse are levelled
at one of the parties, usually the father, in order to secure custody or
eliminate any future contact with the child. This regrettable trend in
divorce custody cases is to be found in most western countries with similar
adversarial rules. As a men's and fathers civil rights
organisation we are concerned that both in England and in counties overseas,
the overwhelming majority of these allegations later turn out to be
completely fictitious. We were further concerned to learn that
fictitious allegations were being made in other walks of life and with a
similar lack of recourse for the wrongly accused. Our investigations revealed that far
from the father constituting a menace to the family it was his presence that
provided a bulwark against abuse. This data, sourced in part from papers in
the NSPCC library, was most unpopular for some years. It was not until the
NSPCC (whom we had also been pressing) conducted their poll of abused
children, in Nov 2000, that the notion of fathers as protectors of children
began to be accepted. We enclose two of our Occasional Papers dealing with
the aspect of child abuse compiled before the NSPCC survey. Of equal concern to us are the 160,000
child protection referral cases (as at 1995) where 82% had no foundation and
where only 3,000 children entered "care homes". As part of the advisory group for the
newly created CAFCASS we delivered data and resource material, in 2000,
indicating a total absence of training and appreciation of children's views
by judges and courtroom workers. One judge was paraphrased by one researcher
as assessing the information before him on a gut instinct basis. In the course of pressuring various
government departments we eventually came to the notice of the Home Office
who in 1999 invited us to participate in their Sexual Offences Review. Our investigations for this project
opened new vistas and took us to data sources overseas. We were astonished by
the results. We examined primarily data from UK, Canada, New Zealand and the
US. We found that, according to the FBI, 33%
of men imprisoned for rape were found to have DNA that did not match the
crime scene. That gave us so much cause for concern that we alerted the Home
Office to its potential incidence in this country. We also found that
allegations of domestic violence were also freely made in court but very few
allegations were found to have any substance. We then discovered that the Home Office
would not countenance the concept of false allegations and our minority
report, "When Justice Collides With Science", was returned to us
within a few days of its submission to the civil servant with overall
responsibility for the Review. Naturally, this type of data collection
led us into adjacent fields and other spheres of expertise. We were soon
liaising with other organisations that shared concerns with regard the manner
in which matters were dealt with and how inquiries were conducted. Later in 2001, we were contacted by the
Lord Chancellors Dept and invited to submit a paper to the Rape Sentencing
Panel on future policies surrounding the sentencing of those convicted of
rape. During the compilation of our minority
report to the Home Office we amassed data with particular relevance to rape
sentencing policy and outcomes in the US and Europe. In particular, the role
and reliance on DNA, the avoidance of mis-trial and the prevention of wasting
precious police resources. On the latter point, we have made several concrete
proposals to reduce police time and manpower wastage without sacrificing
efficiency or justice. We enclose a summary of our minority report "When
Justice Collides With Science", and will be pleased to provide the full
edition together with our response to the Rape Sentencing Panel ("To
Kill a Mocking Bird") in April if requested. In both reports we found institutional
ignorance on a massive scale both at the political and Whitehall level. For
instance, from our inquiries, the Home Office appears to keep no records of
serial rapists and their definition for stranger rapes compared with
acquaintance rapes is quite arbitrary. We also underlined the role of
compensation incentives, the culture it provokes and drew the panels
attention to the experience of Germany and New Zealand. We expressed our anxiety at the issues surrounding
the devastating post-trial / enquiry outcomes (e.g. suicide, employability)
for those wrongly accused of a sexual offence and we questioned whether
anonymity should not be extended to the accused. We suggest that the
post-event fallout of the Cleveland or Orkneys fiascos devastates communities
in a similar manner to the disruption experienced by individuals accused of a
sexual offence. We understand that the relevant teaching and social work
trade unions are keenly aware of the problem. Throughout our inquires there has been
an underlying trend by institutions to want to believe coupled with an
appetite to convict. Whether this is simply over-enthusiasm or a stampede to
convict, only the committee can tell. It is certainly our belief that there are
not adequate safeguards at present and that such a grave shortcoming should
be addressed as a matter of urgency. ManKind can bring another dimension to
the subject under review. We feel we can speak with authority about the
serious and distressing nature of sex abuse allegations and of the systemic
failure of the authorities involved to take remedial steps. The injustices experienced by both men
and women due to the dominance of pro-feminist policies and ideologies are
immeasurable and in most instances hidden from view. We believe that many men and women who
have been accused of sexual offences are victims of an incredulous majority.
This incredulity will continue for as long as the topic is effectively
suppressed and for as long as funding is diverted away from unbiased and
objective research. Only with sufficient research funding can sensible
policies be formulated. The general public has little or no idea
of the impact of allegations. That perception is slowly changing Ill19 p27 and the
attention the select committee will draw to the issue can only help. We can
confirm that our delegation will comprise of the Chairman, Mr N Hamilton, a
police surgeon with specialist experience, members of our research team and
ManKind members who have been subject to false sexual offence allegations. Yours
sincerely, Robert
Whiston. Chairman,
ManKind. Enc 1. "Life Chances and Expectancies -
mortality, morbidity and delinquency" 2. "Child Murder and Child
Abuse by family type" 3. Summary, "When Justice Collides
With Science" Any men?
Full text at www.ivorcatt.com/2028.htm
MINUTES
FROM THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CO-ORDINATORS MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 12 FEBRUARY
AT THE ASSOCIATION OF LONDON GOVERNMENT Chaired by
Hilary McCollom PRESENT Carly Shaw
Bexley Community Safety Partnerships Martin
Whitfield London Borough of Hackney Annette
Rauf DOMESTIC VIOLENCE co-ordinator Barking and Dagenham Jill
Maddison London Borough of Croydon Marilyn
Henderson London Borough of Greenwich Carol
Johnston London Borough of Hackney Pattie
Friend London Borough of Harrow Karen
McKinnon London Borough of Havering Gina
Harris London Borough of Islington Juliette
Taylor London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Susan Crisp
London Borough of Southward Pauline
Martin London Borough of Tower Hamlets Philippa
Chipping London Borough of Tower Hamlets Mee Cheuk
London Borough of Waltham Forest Beryl
Foster Standing Together Cynthia
Morris Westminster Domestic Violence Forum OFFICERS Hilary
McCollom Association of London Government Liz Wallis
Association of London Government Nadia
Charlton Association of London Government Rachel
McEvilly Association of London Government Toni
Webster Association of London Government 1.
Introduction/Apologies for Absence The Chair
welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies
for absence were received from: Bromley;
City Corporation; Haringey; Kingston Upon Thames; Lambeth; Lewisham 2. Role
and future work of the network Co-ordinators
broke into two discussion groups to identify what was wanted from the
network. The following points emerged: a.. It
would be beneficial to find out and compare what boroughs are doing towards
domestic violence issues e.g: - how much commitment boroughs have a.. what
resources each borough has available b.. what
services are delivered c.. which
boroughs have core funding d.. what
protocols do boroughs have e.. which
boroughs already implement minimum standards a.. A need
to look at the role of the domestic violence Co-ordinators, where they
existed, to compare and contrast with other boroughs to ensure good practice
across the boroughs. b.. To
compare which ‘borough strategies’ domestic violence fits into in the
different areas. c.. To
share best practice. d.. To
identify and share information on the availability of new/existing funding. e.. To
improve the working relationship between boroughs around issues such as
training and implementation of standards. f..
Examine the barriers within and across boroughs affecting the delivery of
services e.g in cases of referrals etc which makes it very difficult when
speaking with other boroughs. ACTION: a.. Issues
identified will be incorporated into future agendas and addressed over the
coming year b.. All
boroughs to identify for the next meeting: what funding is available for
posts/domestic violence services, where posts are located, what borough
strategies domestic violence is included in. 3. GLA/ALG
London Domestic Violence Strategy/recommended Minimum Standards for Borough
Services The group
then discussed the GLA/ALG London Domestic Violence Strategy and Minimum
Standards. The following points emerged: a..
Acceptance that there will be difficulties with the implementation of Minimum
Standards in some boroughs. b.. New
ways of working need to be found to assist boroughs with the implementation
of the Minimum Standards within the existing system. c..
Agreement that the proceeding meetings will address each of the identified
areas with the priority being given in the next three meetings to Housing,
Social Services and Education. a.. That
relevant speakers with particular expertise are invited to provide additional
information on subjects under discussion and to promote the sharing of best
practice. b.. Work
on the co-ordination of the domestic violence Forum is within the remit of
the GLA. This issue can be revisited at a future meeting. ACTION: a.. The
ALG will work with domestic violence co-ordinators in order to assist
boroughs with the implementation of Minimum Standards. b.. Eleri
Butler (National Domestic Violence Co-ordinator, Supporting People DTLR) to
be invited to the next meeting to provide an update on the impact of
Supporting People on the provision of domestic violence services. 5. ALG
work on domestic violence Work
currently being undertaken by the ALG around domestic violence issues was
highlighted. This included: a.. The
formation of the new domestic violence Co-ordinators meeting. b.. A
Total Review of funding within the ‘Women’s Sector’. A consultation document
is to be published next week outlining the 3 main areas to be considered for
future funding. c..
Implementation of domestic violence strategy with GLA. d..
Investigation of funding research. 6. Any
other business a.. An
invitation was made to anyone interested in chairing the next meeting. b.. A
request was made to forward any views on how future meetings should be
run/agenda items etc. c.. Data sharing
as a cross cutting issue was highlighted and recommended to be on future
agenda’s. d.. A
suggestion was made to hold a meeting on the issue of perpetrators. If any
borough has a Perpetrator Programme please contact Jill Maddison at Croydon. ACTION a.. The
ALG will put together an email contact list to provide a network to share
information. b.. The
ALG will set up a section on its web site where all future minutes, papers
etc can be located. 6. Future
meetings a.. It was
decided that there would be regular meetings on every 3rd Tuesday of every
other month. The following dates are for 2002: 16 April; 18 June; 20 August;
15 October; 17 December Any men?
Full text at www.ivorcatt.com/2028.htm Continued at www.ivorcatt.com/02g.htm [Ill Eagle 1999 issues are at www.ivorcatt.com/99.htm ] [Most past Ill Eagle issues are at www.ivorcatt.com/98.htm ] [Ill Eagle 2001 issues are at www.ivorcatt.com/01.htm ] [Ill Eagle 2002 issues
are at www.ivorcatt.com/02.htm ] |