Clerk of the Home Affairs Select Committee                                                                 27/02/02

House of Commons




Dear Sir,

RE: Past Cases of Abuse in Children’s 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 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 of 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.

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 one of our Occasional Papers dealing with the aspect of child abuse compiled before the NSPCC’s survey.

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 liasing 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 Chancellor’s Dept and invited to submit a paper to the Rape Sentencing Panel on future policies surrounding the sentencing 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 pril if requested. 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".

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 panel’s 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 fiasco 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 to want to believe and 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,


Yours sincerely,


Robert Whiston.   Chairman, ManKind.







Submission by Ivor Catt, Editor, Ill Eagle. www.ivorcatt.com/97.htm


The Committee will focus their inquiry on the question of whether current investigation practices give rise to a risk of miscarriages of justice, particularly in cases where the alleged abuse occurred many years ago. The Committee will not investigate individual cases, but it will address the following issues:

1 Do police methods of 'trawling' for evidence involve

a disproportionate use of resources and produce unreliable evidence for prosecution?

Trawling, which results from pressure on police to convict, must end.

2 Is the Crown Prosecution Service drawing a sensible
line about which cases should be prosecuted?

The CPS has as a matter of policy to always prosecute in certain PC classes of cases. This is disastrous, and must end.

3 Is there a risk that the advertisement of prospective awards of compensation in child abuse cases encourages people to come forward with fabricated allegations?

This straight bribery of criminals to convict innocent people must end. In Germany, the removal of compensation for criminal injury led to a collapse of the number of cases.

4. Is there a weakness in the current law on "similar fact" evidence?

I do not understand this term.

5. Should there be a limit - in terms of number of years since the alleged offence took place - on prosecution of cases of child abuse?

A time limit must be introduced, preferably three years.



Risbridger was sent by AAFAA, a false allegations organisation, to speak at the October 2000 Conference 
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/conf/generalinfo.htm that I organised and chaired. In his talk, he said that false allegations usually arose during Family Court proceedings (e.g. Divorce). 
The family courts rely on, and encourage, false allegations in order to exacerbate adversariality and pave the way for entry by outside agencies into the family. More generally, this is called "The Child Protection Industry", and allies with the nationalisation of the family, which the family courts are promoting. Sloss, head of the Family Courts, although by now contrite ("My thinking has certainly evolved..." Sunday Times 17feb02), still commits to the nationalisation of the family. "I actually think parents are the last people who should be making decisions about their children when they're in the throes of divorce and separation...." - Sunday Times, 17feb02. The nationalisation of the family depends on the demonisation of fathers, and their incarceration in significant numbers.

We were invited to a Home Office conference on sexual offences in the family, where I found that none of the 50 invited people present had the concept of a false allegation. At that time, Melanie Phillips published in the Sunday Times that the Home Office was desperate to jail more men and did not care how.

It took me six months to force the 21mar00 admission out of Home Office officials that no one in Government had as part of their remit consideration of the alleged problem of false allegations, see http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/03072.htm 

One reason why I added the item from Ill Eagle, below (Appendix 1), is that at the Home Office 1999 Sexual Offences Review in Leicester, to which I was invited, those attending connived with Home Office officials in corrupting all key relevant words, not only DV, but also the definitions of Rape, Incest, etc. This corruption of terminology by Betty Moxon and her team in the Home Office as a result of radfem pressure, which can now be seen in their recently published documents, will have caused multiple miscarriages in the criminal courts. That was the purpose of their corruption of key terminology.


I am in correspondence with falsely convicted prisoners. I strongly oppose the practice in Britain of incarcerating innocent prisoners twice as long as the guilty. The idea that admission of guilt is the first step in reform must be rooted out. Far from being part of prisoner reform, it is in fact a system of bribery, or coercion, of prisoners by which police and lawyers cover up their errors. The procedures to which an innocent prisoner is subjected when he finally gives in and falsely confesses (as recently my policeman correspondent in Northern Ireland did) are appalling. They have to attend horrible training courses, always run by radfem ideologues, on how to not rape again. Bear in mind that to a radfem, all sexual intercourse in our patriarchal society is rape, so all the men they confront are guilty. These radfem bigots must be got out of our jails, where they will obviously like to congregate. In the first instance, research should go into the increase in the suicide rate among prisoners subjected to their training courses.


My book The Hook and the Sting, see my old website, http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/xk1hs1.htm

 goes in detail into the fact that there is no procedure in the English courts for pursuing perjury. As a result, the family courts are awash with perjury, but I do not know how bad the situation is in the criminal courts. I enclose (Appendix 2) the section about the courts’ support for perjury below. I pursued perjury in the courts and in the CID for two years, and ran into the sand.  So have many of my associates.


Neil Hamilton gave an excellent speech at the 2001 conference that I chaired. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/2001.htm

He is not going to let the matter slip, and will continue to research into the bureaucratic procedures leading to and buttressing false allegations and false imprisonment. He said he would keep in touch with another speaker at my conference who had been falsely imprisoned for two years on a rape charge. Already, Neil Hamilton’s knowledge of key areas needed by the Home Affairs Select Committee is first rate, and the Committee needs his oral testimony in April.


Ivor Catt.    Editor, Ill Eagle.   27feb02




Appendix 1

Ill Eagle is at www.ivorcatt.com/98.htm

Ill Eagle 8, may00


Violence  by  "not noticing"  next?

The ever-broadening definition of DV by the Home Office (HO) suggests we should organise a Competition among ManKind members for the next kind of behaviour or inaction which will be classified as DV. Ideas please? - Ed

Amongst a plethora of HO press releases comes GPADV (Gov't Policy Around Domestic Violence). (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/cpd/cpsu/domviol98/htm" dated 9dec99)

This seems to invent new categories of abuse perpetrated by men, including "financial-abuse".    ishisThis is a wholly sloppy and ambiguous report which begins by citing the unsophisticated definition first used 7 years ago by the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC). The same HASC that forbade the input of any men's group view point.

Overlooking for a moment the ritualistic mantra in GPADV where the HASC notes that "in  most cases  the abuser was male and the victim female", HASC  also states that DV occurs "in all social groups and classes". While it may occur in all, it is more common in some.

However, the real delight comes at para 2.4 (page 2 in a 10 page release) which declares that DV can take many forms including: actual violence, threatened violence, intimidation and "physical violence accompanied by intimidation" plus "humiliation and deprivation which can include keeping a woman  without money".  Para 2.4 also lists as DV degradation, mental and verbal abuse,  isolation, systematic criticism and belittlement.

GADV states that he definition of DV was crystallised in April 1999 for use in all police forces, but that it is intended for "statistical purposes only". To counter this, GPADV suggests ".... Organisations are encouraged to make their own definitions according to local needs and circumstances."

Thus, once again it appears that the Home Office is out of control and countermanding Parliament.

[We are in an extremely dangerous situation. Melanie Phillips (20feb00) observes that "The government wants more men convicted and doesn't care how." - Sunday Times, sect.1 p7 - Ed ]





Appendix 2

The Hook and the Sting.

The courts’ support for perjury.


…. Lawyers have none of them bothered to think through the traumatic effect on a victim when presented with either perjury, forgery or bribery of witnesses, and then finds that police and lawyers are indifferent to his predicament and insist on ignoring his protestations. This gross misbehaviour occurs in our courts in most divorce cases. One good reason why courts have to be secret is to hide this misconduct. We have to give it to Lord Denning that he emphasises the need for open courts to prevent judges from misbehaving.

My letters on the subject were published in "The Friend", the Quaker journal, on 14th July 1995 and 15th September 1995;

Affirming, as a Quaker.

The discussion about taking the oath (23 and 30 June) misses the point. The point is that our courts are awash with perjury because there is no procedure for having allegations of perjury investigated.

Circuit Judge Stockdale said, when I had a hearing specifically to ask for my allegations of perjury to be investigated, that the court had no such procedure, that it was a matter for the CID. Thereafter, after two years pursuing the CID, the CID said it was a matter for the courts.

It is easy to prove that there is no procedure for dealing with perjury. Nobody will write in, in answer to my letter, outlining the procedure. Two solicitors have told me that there is no procedure for pursuing perjury. Lord Mackay apologised to me for other failings of the creaking court system. However, he made no comment on this point. It disappears in the crack between court and CID. In these circumstances, discussion of the oath is academic, and reinforces a spurious appearance of normalcy, bypassing the three inquiries - Nolan, Scott, Woolf, particularly Woolf.

The reason why the legal profession welcomes perjury is that it exacerbates an adversarial situation and increases costs. Costs, not law or justice, is the object of the tortuous exercise.

Affirming, as a Quaker.

On 14 July you published my letter saying that '.... our courts are awash with perjury because there is no procedure for having allegations of perjury investigated .... It is easy to prove that there is no procedure for dealing with perjury. Nobody will write in, in answer to my letter, outlining the procedure.' Nobody has written in. This makes the legal profession an anti-social group, happy to continue to trade in lies. In particular, the damage inflicted on millions of children of divorce by these irresponsible people is devastating.

Leading divorce barrister Ray Tooth, earning £250,000 p.a., tries to distance himself from the stench of perjury. Dominic Egan, in "Legal Business Magazine", jan/feb94, profiles Tooth's views on ".... how the [divorce] situation might be improved. .... First, he would like to see prosecutions for perjury against the parties who seem to think nothing of lying on oath, both in court and on affidavit." Tooth cannot enjoy his massive gains if they continue to be made out of fantasy, not fact, law and justice. Also, he is a very good lawyer. Perjury is a great leveller, since it pits one standard, false stereotype against another. Tooth believes he would do better if he could get involved in real cases with real people, which do not occur in our family courts.