|
Response
to the following email; -----
Original Message ----- From:
<mkmensaid@tiscali.co.uk> To:
<euro-dads@yahoogroups.com> Sent:
Monday, March 22, 2004 12:24 PM Subject:
[euro-dads&mums] Dr Smart study puts children at risk. This
women is a menace to society and she is clearly putting children at risk with
her meaningless study ….Who in their right mind gave this women a job? |
The coming
sabotage, by the Leeds women and others, of attempts to reform the family
courts, and the consequences |
|
Leeds women. http://www.ivorcatt.com/2316.htm
The political Establishment, controlled by radfem propaganda, is anxious to retain unclarity over the divorce process. This unclarity avoids accountability for the judges etc. involved.
The effect of a divorce will become apparent five, ten or more years later. If statistical results were assembled on, for instance, the amount of truancy or running away from home in the case of children who were allowed contact with their divorced fathers compared with those who were not, we would begin to gather evidence very soon, in five years. We would also gather statistical comparison of the outcome for children under one judge compared with another, under one CWO compared with another, and so on. Five years is a very short time compared with the decades that the current scandalous situation has persisted. We know that the outcome for children cut off from their fathers is much worse - three times worse. Truancy, teenage pregnancy, criminality are three times worse. All that remained was for these stark statistics to be generated by an accredited government supported or government recognised research programme. All officials vested in the present system have carried out a rearguard to prevent such research from being done. This obfuscation has been buttressed by government funding for falsification of results on DV research etc. by, for instance, Stinko of RHC, and in Leeds.
I spent years promoting the idea of "Outcome". This means the state of the child whose parents divorce five or ten years after the divorce. This carried with it the threat of judges and Court Welfare Officers being made accountable for the first time. In the past, there has been no work done to gather statistics on the state of children some years after the divorce.
Generally, all salaried personnel involved (helped by some rogue men’s groups) insisted on not understanding my meaning of "outcome", and insisted on replacing my meaning for such considerations as whether a child was upset about the way a Court Welfare Officer interviewed the child during the divorce process. However, in the end, they were forced to admit that they understood, and the Lord Chancellor's Department agreed institute research on outcome. When it came to choice of those to do the research, the research group was chosen to be composed of 11 women and one man. However, worse happened in that five of the women were drawn from the dreadful Leeds stable. Two years ago, on http://www.ivorcatt.com/2204.htm , wrote; "The first two books (Laski and Leeds) contrast in an interesting way. Leeds has captured the Lord Chancellor’s Department’s Family Courts Outcomes Committee; see p1 of Ill Eagle 20. They are committed to falsifying statistics. Ivor 2sep02" http://www.ivorcatt.com/2203.htm gives more information on
the dreadful Leeds women. Also see http://www.ivorcatt.com/2201.htm “In 1979, Leeds Revolutionary Feminists published Political Lesbianism: The Case Against Heterosexuality." We have not done a breakdown of the Leeds women, but
we know that they represent the vanguard of the attack on the family and on
fatherhood. The web pages here cited give some chilling information on Leeds
women, the way they are linked together, and the sexist scandal associated
with them – the insistence that two Newcastle nurses sexually abused
children, leading to hundreds of thousands of pounds of damages to the
nurses. Robert Whiston finally won the battle to get the LCD
to support the gathering of statistical information on outcome. The LCD then
made him a member of an irrelevant committee, and refused to put him, or any
one else representing excluded fathers, on the committee looking into
outcome. Robert Whiston will be able to tell us what he knows
about Carol Smart. The name is familiar. When the Lord Chancellor's Department gave the
job of researching into outcome to the Leeds women, we lost ten further years
in the process, or campaign, to reform the family courts and so we lost
another generation of maimed children. The Leeds women were bound to falsify
their research results. Their radfem ideology makes it incubment on them to
falsity their results, as Stinko did with her notorious 1 in 4 figure
lambasted by Melanie Phillips in her nov99 book. Their corruption of
statistical research is intrinsic to their assertion that after getting the
votes in from an opinion poll, the researcher should (not just may) go back
and interview those who answered in order to “enhance, or clarify,” their
vote. This is the key to their technique for corrupting research results.
Further, they argue for lengthy investigation of a small cohort rather than
trying to maximise the size of the cohort used in the poll. Apart from virulent radfems, who want to suppress
outcome stats, all the salaried bureaucracies administering the current
attack on children and their divorcing fathers are anxious to delay the
determination of outcome until beyond their individual retirement. They will
continue to introduce delay, like giving work to the Leeds women, until the
crisis really boils over in the streets and there are many more deaths than
so far. Ivor Catt
23mar04
----- Original Message ----- From: <mkmensaid@tiscali.co.uk> To: <euro-dads@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:24 PM Subject: [euro-dads&mums] Dr Smart study puts children at risk. > This women is a menace to society and she is clearly
putting children at |
|