All back years of Ill Eagle

[Ill Eagle 1999 issues are at www.ivorcatt.com/99.htm ]

[Ill Eagle 2000 issues are at www.ivorcatt.com/00.htm ]

 

Ill Eagle 1, may99

ISSN 1466-9005

p1

The Poor To Stay Poorer

In his March budget, the Chancellor described the Married Man's Allowance as neither an allowance nor a benefit. He then stripped away the last symbolic vestige of marriage as a meaningful union. The subtext to his changes will prevent even more fathers from seeing their children and cuts directly across the green paper "Supporting Families" - page 2 col 1

 

Patricia Morgan speaks to Lords

Speaking to a Parliamentary Committee, Patricia Morgan slammed the Budget. "The Budget reinforces, with a vengeance, the massive discrimination against married couples. .... At any given income level, lone parents enjoy a higher living standard, because the benefit and tax regime ignores how many mouths the benefit must feed." - page 2 col 2

 

Domestic Violence is Beneficial - says Open University

Who'd be a feminist these days ? Feminists just recovering from Home Office Research Paper 191, showing that women were at least as violent as men, are "decked" again by another survey.

The Open University reveals that domestic violence is not the negative, nasty thing we all thought it was - especially from a women. According to their study, being violent is considered attractive and on a par with being assertive and aggressive. The reason given is that it "gets things done" - (no more backchat from inferiors, one supposes). "What the results of these studies tell us is that for women in ordinary, everyday life violence is mostly a matter of the mundane. As participants in this study made clear, ordinary women who behave violently seldom pose any serious threat at all. They can be nasty, stroppy, mean and manipulative, but hardly ever will they cause serious injury or act uncontrollably", said Ms Chappell. . (Daily Telegraph 9/4/99). Your views please to EOC, Women's Unit and Open University.

 

Australia's Violent Women

by Lynnette Haas

Unfortunately, much research into domestic violence (like the Australian Bureau of Statistics study several years ago) still only questions women and ignores men and their experiences completely, and so, unsurprisingly, conclude that only women experience such abuse and violence.

'Husband Abuse as Self-Defence', a paper presented by associate professor of sociology Sotirios Sarantakos (Charles Sturtat Univ.) to the International Congress of Sociology in Canada last year, details an ongoing study of 198 violent marriages in rural Australia, identified 64 abused husbands.

Through a series of intense interviews, conducted over many years, the wife, one of the couple's children over 16 and one of the wife's parents (usually the mother), Sarantakos investigated the claim that most female-male abuse is self-defence - that the male victim physically encourages the attack. He found otherwise.

He found that the vast majority of abusive wives admitted they did not hit their husband in self-defence. Nor did they 'feel threatened' by the husband even after they assaulted him and were not in need of protection from the husband.

However, many of the major domestic violence organisations are unconvinced by these findings. Research says it exists, and in significant numbers yet welfare groups, the frontline workers, say it doesn't !

Relationships Australia executive director Ian MacDonald accepts female-to-male abuse does occur, but sees it "at a minuscule rate, compared with male-to-female violence that's reported to us". He believes it's no more difficult for a man to report domestic violence than it is for a woman, though he concedes that the sceptical response of police can make men feel 'awkward'.

Queensland - large-scale research has been scant in Australia's Sunshine State. In 1988 the Queensland Domestic Violence Taskforce, researching male-female abuse, reported that 6.2% of domestic violence victims were male.

However, one Queensland organisation which fully supports the notion of female-male violence, the Waterford-based Men's Rights Agency, run by husband and wife team Reg and Sue Price, has been ridiculed as right-wing extremist for its stance on family issues.

While government money is available for abusive male programmes, there is nothing to help male victims. So, nationwide, this one self-funded organisation is the only one open which is sympathetic to abused men.

Sue Price says: "If a man comes to me with his children in tow, trying to escape his violent wife we have nowhere to send him".

Having helped men through various personal crises, Price is convinced many men will never report their violent wives.

Victoria - The Victorian Injury Surveillance System last year concluded that of 372 victims of "partner - inflicted violence" identified by several hospitals 76.1% were female and 23.9% were male. It further concluded: "The admission rate was 14.6% for male and 10.9% for females, suggesting that a greater proportion of males received more severe injuries".

Brisbane - Meeta Iyer, director of the Domestic Violence Research Centre at Brisbane's inner-city West End, says since July 1998 out of a total of 700 or 800 help calls only five calls from male victims seeking counselling or information. She believes those 5 calls represent the true overall incidence.

"While there is a lot of information out there that says men find it difficult to talk about domestic violence, I think it is the same (for women)," she says. "I believe (this figure) is indicative of true victims of domestic violence who are men."

But Peter, (who won't reveal his surname) of the Men's Domestic Violence Telephone Counselling Service emphasises that since its inception in 1996 the service has primarily fielded calls from men "who are perpetrators of domestic violence, with 20% of incoming calls from men who say they're the aggrieved spouse".

Peter says the difference between male-to-female and female-to-male violence is that most abused males do not fear their partner's attacks and seem to be part of a mutually violent relationship.

The landmark study by Strauss, Gelles and Steinmetz in the 1980's "Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family", revealed that 49% of spouses reporting domestic abuse, admitted they were both violent.

In the previous year 27% of men claimed they were the sole perpetrators of violent incidents compared to 24% of women.

In instances of so-called severe violence, 3.8% of wives were identified as victims, while 4.6% of husbands were victims.

[This supports the UK findings that men suffer more severe injury because women use weapons while men do not. -Ed ]

 

Croatia's Appeal

On 24.4.99, our London HQ received a request from Croatia for advice on how to set up their own organisation. "One of the last negative examples is the 'Family Law' which was written in co-operation between women's organisations and the Croatian Gov't with very little participation by men." - Ivan Kasanic

 

p2

 

The Poor To Stay Poorer - Official

The last symbolic vestige of marriage as a meaningful union was stripped away in the last budget.

However, we must thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for clarifying the use and abuse to which the Married Man's Allowance had become distorted over the last few decades. In his March budget address he described the Married Man's Allowance as neither an allowance not a benefit. Indeed, he went on to describe how it was routinely paid to married couples with children, married couples without children as well as couples with children but who weren't married. We must be grateful that a cabinet packed with an inordinate number of homosexuals, not that we are implying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is homosexual, should be the ones to clarify the situation.

The Chancellor outlined his vision of a regime where all credits and State benefits were paid to women and mothers - regardless of marital status - on a 'needs', not a 'contribution', basis. This, as we have said many times before, is the Road to Ruin. Already, at 1994 prices, single mothers alone cost the taxpayer over 18 BILLION a year - an amount equivalent to Britain's entire Defence Budget. !

In "Supporting Families", the Consultation Paper issued last year on funding families in the future, great play was made of married couples and the importance of stability and continuity for the healthy development of children.

However, at the first opportunity to endorse that view with real money, the Gov't has done nothing. Any increases are given across the board and not aimed or skewed toward married families. This contradicts the doctrines contained within "Supporting Families" and "Children First", as it is disproportionately unfair to married couples. Single mothers and unmarried couples already have extra allowances denied to married couples. A token of good faith would have been to equalise the situation. In the Budget, the Gov't also felt unable to disengage from universal Child Benefit payments in not tapering or cutting off the benefit to wealthier families. In effect "Cheryl and Tony Blairs" are siphoning off money from the poor. This meant that only a smaller increase to desperate families could be given. This cuts across the Gov't avowed intention to aim and channel benefits to the poorest in society and limit benefits to the better-off in the upper income bands.

We feel there may yet be more unplanned adverse side effects of the Chancellor changes. (See Atticus, below.) We foresee that changes in the CSA will cause an even greater incidence of fathers being prevented from seeing their children by wilfully obstructive mothers.

The Chancellor may yet rue the day he failed to return to a tax system that paid allowances to married couples via the man/husband. Since benefits became payable only to women, the taxpayer has seen the amount spent double and double and double again - from 1 billion a year in 1976 when paid to husbands to over 8 billion pa today, when far fewer children are being born than in '76, and benefit rates have remained almost static.

Atticus, Sunday Times, 14mar99, sect1 - p19;

"Gordon Brown did not realise he had blundered in his budget ... The small print .... removed tax relief from child maintenance payments by divorced fathers - the very people the government wants to encourage to 'do the right thing'."

Patricia Morgan slams Budget - speech at the House of Lords.

Patricia Morgan's address to the Lord's Committee for Family and Child Protection (March 10th) opened with an unequivocal broadside on the budget proposals. "The Budget reinforces, with a vengeance, the massive dis-crimination against married couples". She went on to detail how the Working Family Tax Credit actually penalises working married families who do not qualify for the CCTC (Child Care Tax Credit) in the way that lone parents do.

Like the Family Credit regime it replaces, no account is taken of the extra costs involved in actually staying at home to raise children. Instead, it gives extra credit to lone mothers to employ another person (possibly another lone mother) to care for her children.

Married couples, she also pointed out, were more penalised than single mothers through the Council Tax regulations. As the country moves toward more means-tested benefits, it is married couples who are hurt more. The withdrawal of benefits when households begin to enjoy incomes are set at the same for the lone mothers and married couples. The same applies to the 'savings' test criteria. In effect, this means disqualification at only half the savings level for married couples if a per capita basis is used.

Paradoxically, says Patricia Morgan, while the analysis of poverty takes into account the size of the household, the benefit and tax regime meant to alleviate poverty completely ignores how many mouths the standard benefit must feed. The evidence suggests that at any given income (wage) level, lone parents enjoy a higher living standard than do married couples. This is only to be expected, given one less adult to feed. Also, benefits are greater for lone parents than for marred couples.

It is therefore almost idiotic to base additional support solely on how many children "and their needs" there are in the family, and to totally ignore the plight of the parents or adults in a same sized household. It leaves married couples less well off, and their children actually poorer, and in greater need of financial help.

Although Society now places no value on mothers caring for their children at home, these women's husbands (i.e. the one income families) actually subsidise, by the taxes they pay, the costs involved in the creation and provision of Child Care facilities so that single mothers can enjoy a better lifestyle than the one income family.

 

The Performance & Innovation Unit

 

The Performance and Innovation Unit established last year by Gov't is charged with cutting across the boundaries of Whitehall depts and assist in joined-up government and sensible policy making. The PIU is keen to reach out beyond Whitehall and draw in the private sector. It is looking for volunteers for 6 - 9 month placements to work intensively on projects.

These include Developing Electronic Commerce in the UK; Active Ageing (improving the well-being of older people by helping them to remain active in paid and unpaid work); Central Gov't role at the regional and local level; Accountability and incentives for joined-up government (the reform of Whitehall's accountability and incentive systems to encourage joined up policy making and delivery); Objectives for rural economies (examining the key factors affecting performance of Gov't policies). The PIU is seeking secondees for this autumn. Tel. Lesley Bainsfair 0171-270-1527 or email PIU@cabinet-office-gov.uk

Suicide

Doctors get help to spot suicidal young men, by Marie Woolf, Political Correspondent, Independent on Sunday, 21mar99, p4.

".... GPs .... are often the first port of call for people contemplating suicide.

.... The Government is devising strategies for high-risk groups, such as drug users and young men. In 1997, 1,759 young men between the ages of 15 and 34 killed themselves compared to 412 women of the same age.

.... Suicide is linked to severe depression, and areas of Britain with high unemployment, drug use and low incomes will be targetted."

The Labour Market Supply Division of the Department for Education and Employment, tel. 0171 533 6176, confirmed that their "Claimant Count Data Base" figures for the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 showed three times as many males as females for age group 18-24 unemployed for more than 12 months.

Totally ignoring their own unemployment figures, all the Govt initiatives are to get young women into work, not young men.

________

Mankind National Conference

for members is on Saturday June 5 - see Page 2 of Male View.

Refreshments will be at 1.30-2pm, with the conference beginning at 2pm. It is expected to end about 5pm.

It will be informal, with plenty of time to meet the NEC in person to chat.

"The Tournament" pub, Old Brompton Rd., London SW5 9JU. Between Chelsea F.C. and Olympia. Earl's Court Tube Stn. 200 yds. Owner Alan Piper, (0171 370 2449.

unpaid work); Central Gov't role at the regional and local level; Accountability and incentives for joined-up government (the reform of Whitehall's accountability and incentive systems to encourage joined up policy making and delivery); Objectives for rural economies (examining the key factors affecting performance of Gov't policies). The PIU is seeking secondees for this autumn. Tel. Lesley Bainsfair 0171-270-1527 or email PIU@cabinet-office-gov.uk

p3

Editorial

The crisis Senator Anne Cools

refers to in her address to the

Canadian Senate (see page 4) identical in many countries - including England.

In this, the first issue of Mankind's new monthly newsletter, we see that feminist judges in the 'developed' world represent a Fifth Column. The illegality of the English family courts is duplicated around the world, giving rise, not only to the name of this newsletter, but to identically catastrophic social outcomes.

The ACFC (American Coalition for Fathers and Children) has concerns identical to ours. In this bulletin, the political scientist Prof. S. Baskerville, says the US family courts are 'out of control'.

It is significant that ManKind is moving toward an assertion of Men's human and civil rights at a time when the same evolution is occurring in the US. This leads us in two directions; first, the international nature of the problem, and second, the uniform pathological outcomes produced as shown in the social statistics from so many countries.

Our opponents now have to answer why the same crisis has developed simultaneously; why the numbers of male suicide is still escalating amongst the young; why we have the same ratio of false accusations and charges of violence and sexual abuse; and why we continue with secret and unaccountable courts which continually break the law.

What we need is a Sen. Anne Cools, not just for the UK, but for Australia, New Zealand, and all the counties of Europe.

You can play your part in this. Our Chairman (Robert Whiston) called for 'volunteers' to help with this heavy workload in any way they can. My contribution is to take on the task of Editing our Newsletter. Please help me in this by telling me if you have access to equivalent or sympathetic organisations both here and abroad. Newsworthy items, letters and other contributions will be appreciated. Contact me at:-

(1). Suite 367, 2, Lansdowne Row,

London W1X 8HL.

(2) www.ukmm.org.uk

(3) The Editor, Ill Eagle, 121

Westfields, St. Albans AL3

4JR, England.

(4) Email :- ivorcatt@

electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/

 

Lord Irvine found

guilty as charged

Oh, how I wish, but the sad truth is that his only crime was to express a personal opinion and show a preference in appointing his own confidential Adviser. Not an outrageous thought, given the sensitive nature of the work, but outrageous enough for 'a woman with an agenda' to bring an action - and win. To humble the nation's highest Law Administrator in a court action, drag in a Prime Minister, Tony Blair, (whom Lord Irvine consulted on how to make the best appointment) is surely to take on Gov't and win. Only a woman can do this.

At "Ill Eagle" we feel so sorry for Lord Irvine that we thought we might make him an 'Honorary Member', with a Citation to the effect that he too has now suffered at the hands of 'gender neutral' laws that were never intended to penalise men in this way.

 

Silent Women's Unit ?

ManKind's protest letter to the Women's Unit about its recent biased domestic violence report has been answered - but by the Home Office. The explanation given for refusing to meet a ManKind team is that the HO "has the lead responsibility for the Gov't's policy on domestic violence" and doesn't normally agree to such requests. The Home Office in their letter while accepting that DV is perpetrated by both men and women still contends that women are "more frightened" by DV, and therefore, (they reason,) the protection of women as victims must remain the priority.

Threats by men, they assert, also frighten women, who are more likely to be injured or seek medical help. Men are also less upset by threats. Their letter assures ManKind that "Gov't will develop policies to tackle domestic violence on a gender-neutral basis"

"The Beak" drawn by James Wood.

 

'Jungle Survival' 4 men

"The UK Men's Movement is campaigning to redress what it sees as discrimination against men in areas such as education and health". Robert Whiston, Chrm, is quoted (Sunday Times, 28/3/99) as saying, "We are seeing a return to Victorian times with women getting preferential treatment. Men are no longer feeling valued enough". According to Tom Robbins' article, the men's movement got underway with advent of Robert Bly's book in 1991. "Over the last 2 years there has been a ground swell of men's self help". Interviewed at length, the article cites the male suicide rate of 3.7 times that of women. Dr. Thapar-Bjorkert admits that the "women's movement went wrong somewhere. We were talking about gender relations but only ever discussed women".

U-Write ~~ Newsfrom the Regions.

 

Central London

Mankind took to the airwaves in a 1-hour 1-2-1 phone-in and interview on Talk Radio. Most of the callers understood the problems faced. Some asked for advice and guidance. Many were obvious casualties of the legal process, believing that when they went into court they would be given a fair hearing (like in the movies -Ed). Women also phoned. Many were sympathetic to the predicament men face. Some of course were hostile. The Station Interviewer pressed hard on some points, but the Mankind representative (NC member Edward Crabtree) dealt adequately with all topics and all 'spins'.

Lincolnshire

This dedicated and determined branch daily bombard TV and the Media. GMTV recently advised viewers to use Instamatic cameras to proves domestic violence injuries. But as the Branch pointed out Gay Phillips of GMTV, when a man offers them to a judge they're deemed "of no consequence" and thrown out as evidence. She says she's always keen to hear from viewers. [So write.]

Stoke.

Football legend and Stoke City manager Lou Macari's son has been found hanged. We can only imagine his grief and suffering. The word 'condolences' seems somehow inadequate. Lou has given much to the game and it is therefore all the more tragic that he will not now be able to pass on and share those wonderful moments with his son

Malta.

"Male-Order" the men's movement, in Malta's reports another year of increased activity. Not only have they achieved widespread TV and Radio coverage but "engaged" with politicians. Malta now has a Director of Women's Rights at the Prime Ministers Office (what nation doesn't these days ? - Ed). Male-Order also reports that domestic violence statistics take many turns in a country where divorce isn't really permitted. One husband was attacked by his knife-wielding wife Simple case of domestic violence- you might think.- wrong ! After the

attack she headed off for the cliffs and was later found drowned.

The 'official' statistics recorded this

as an instance of suicide not DV.

 

Sheffield.

Sheffield members report that their archdeacon has "rapped" as selfish parents who stop their children from parents (fathers) after divorce or separation. The Venerable Stephen Lowe, who is to become the next Bishop of Hulme (Manchester) has hit out at what he calls the selfishness of parents who somehow think they have priority over their children. He condemned those parents who 'act out their hatred' by actively preventing contact. He is concerned with the rising level of mental illness amongst the young and has called for urgent action for the homeless.

Leicester.

Members in Leicester succeeded, courtesy of the Leicester Mercury, in taking a sideswipe at those on the city council who fund and support domestic violence schemes. Prominently placed on the Readers Letter page they detailed the implications of the Home Office report into domestic violence against men as well as women (HO paper 191) together with key elements of the earlier screened C4 "Dispatches" programme.

In the past Leicester City Council has waved aside attempts to get domestic violence listed as both a male and female problem. No longer can they describe male victims as "a very small minority not meriting attention."

Somerset

County organisers have successfully pressed the CSA to improve communication for members. After discussions with CSA officials a dedicated "hotline" for ManKind members is in place.

Lie Detectors Needed

In order to keep custody of a child during divorce proceedings, French women are increasingly falsely accusing their former husbands of sexually abusing their children.

"I lived with that, the most heinous of accusations, for nearly one year," Philippe said. "She falsely charged that I'd molested and raped their little girl. You cannot imagine the devastation that brings on."

SOS-Papa (France) says it has counted more than 200 cases similar to Philippe's. The court is obliged to investigate once a charge is made. "We cannot know in advance that the accusation is false," one investigator said. Until the charges are disproved, fathers can be thrown into jail., unable to see their children for as long as a year.

 

p4

 

Fathers Movement

emerges in the US.

Deborah Mathis

WASHINGTON DC, DC

A surging US Men's Movement has spawned hundreds of organizations and conferences, much scholarship and countless Websites. As an indication of the movements growth, men will descend upon San Francisco for an International Fatherhood Conference 31/5 to 5/6/99 [see www.internationalfathers.com ] sponsored by the Ford Foundation, the U.S. Department of Labor, the State of California and other mainstream institutions.

Prof. Steve Baskerville, a political scientist, said, "It may take a while for the fatherhood movement to take off, but I think were making great strides."

Baskerville, of Howard University, says the movement is on two tracks: one, advocating mens rights, the other promoting preparedness and responsibility in fatherhood. The patrons behind these efforts for men who want to be better fathers include social service agencies, religious groups and corporations who sponsor workshops support groups

Like many of his colleagues and millions of men in the movement, Baskerville was jolted into action by his own divorce.

He now channels most of his anger into the Civil Rights arena, alleging that Family Courts automatically favour women in divorce and child custody cases. This, he contends, gives impetus to the movement.

"So many fathers are being hit by this, its an epidemic," Baskerville declares. "I think it is more than just gender bias. I think its a system of organised crime. It is legalised child-stealing for profit and power."

[I prefer to say that the English judges simply ignore the law. - Ed]

"The court ordered me to stay away from my children most of the time," Baskerville, 41, explains. "I was stripped of all custody rights and decision-making rights under pain of incarceration. I pay about 60 percent of my income to people who took my children. This is the kind of shake-down racket that "Family" courts have now become"

However, Washington, D.C. - based American Coalition for Fathers and Children, paint a bleaker picture of fatherless children than the self-described "growing, national Civil Rights movement."

"People [the general public] are unaware that fathers are having their children simply stolenby family courts," Baskerville says.

The US federal government inaugurated a nationwide database (Autumn 1998) to help states collect the $50 billion ordered in Child Support each year. States had been collecting less than one-fourth of the total owed by the 16 million parents required to pay. Most are men.

Baskerville says Virginias Child Support Enforcement Division is pursuing 428,000 fathers for payments. "This is absurd on the face of it," Baskerville said. "Half a million fathers are turned into criminals."

Still, Baskerville (hot property on the speakers circuit these days) believes the militant wing of the fatherhood movement will soon upstage the self-improvement wing.

"I think Ive struck a chord," Baskerville said, "and I think you have a new generation of fathers who are outraged at the way were being treated in the courts." He noted that the Virginia task force includes 15 women and eight men. "Some fathers are upset about that ratio," he said.

 

U.S. Statistics mirror UK experience

As many as 19.5 million American children live apart from their fathers. Four out of 10 do not live with their biological fathers.

Compiling statistics from state, federal and academic reports, the ACFC also says children without fathers at home are 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, nine times more likely to end up in a state institution and 20 times more likely to be imprisoned than others.

According to that organization, children from fatherless homes are five times more likely to commit suicide, 32 times more likely to run away, 20 times more likely to have behavioural disorders, 14 times more likely to commit rape and nine times more likely to drop out of high school.

Fourteen states and the District of Columbia now require family court judges to act on the presumption that joint custody is in the childs best interest. Mens rights groups say fathers are falsely accused of sexual or physical abuse or child support violations in order to deny them custody or visitation right.

 

Canadian Storm insexual assault case.

 

Anne C. Cools, Canada's Senator outspoken for men's rights, launched a searing attack on feminists in the Canadian Judiciary. Members of Canada's Senate (the Parliamentary upper chamber) were asked why the American feminist, Catherine MacKinnon, had been allowed to shape much of Canadian domestic and sexual assault laws.

"I speak of the Supreme Court of Canada judgement delivered on February 25, 1999 in the case of Regina v. Steve Brian Ewanchuk, in particular, Mdme. Justice Claire L'Heureux - Dub's concurring reasons for judgement and her stinging attack on Mr. Justice John W. McClung, and his subsequent distraught letter to a national paper.

She reminded members that Mr. Justice McClung, heard and passed sentence on an Alberta case involving a young woman's alleged "sexual harassment" complaints against a prospective employer.,

"The Supreme Court's Madame Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dub is a well-known feminist judge. The profound reaction of the legal community, lining up on Judge L'Heureux-Dub's side and ignoring the fact that her hurtful and thoroughly unnecessary words started the battle, is a striking example of how politics has taken over the issues surrounding sexual assault. It is clear that the feminist influence has amounted to intimidation, posing a potential danger to the independence of the judiciary. I deplore any attempt to use the Canadian Judicial Council as an agent of the women's movement, through the filing of complaints against judges whose remarks do not accord with the feminist world view. Feminists have entrenched their ideology in the Supreme Court of Canada and have put all contrary views beyond the pale...."

Mrs. Cools continued, "Honourable senators, these two justices, McClung and L'Heureux-Dub, have dominated news reports this week. Shortly after his first letter, Mr. Justice McClung apologized profoundly and generously to Madame Justice L'Heureux-Dub for his hasty letter. This apology was published on March 2 in the newspapers.

"Off with his head," shrieked many gender feminist headlines. "Complain to the Judicial Council," and "Remove him," shrieked others as feminists and their supporters mobilized citizens to Madame Justice L'Heureux-Dub's side. "The public has no appetite for gender feminist injustice and the public discussion is revealing this."

"Mr. Justice McClung is a scholar of the law, a great jurist, and a great luminary of the bench of Canada. He has upheld the law as an instrument of justice. He has upheld parliamentary institutions as the givers of the law and public policy, and has declined to join the current judicial activism and certain judges' unashamed and unabashed entry into politics. He is persona non grata with the judicial, charter, and feminist activists".

Opening the senate debate she asked, why MacKinnon's was permitted to influence Canadian jurisprudence, and what such a raw, gender feminist, ideological diatribe who sought to criminalize man-woman sexual relations had to do with the Supreme Court of Canada, or with an Alberta Superior Court judge".

She described MacKinnon, as "a gyno-centric feminist", who postulated in her 1989 book, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, "that man-woman sexual relations are abhorrent because they violate women, and that in a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape". MacKinnon helped craft sexual assault laws in Canada. "This gender feminist ideology has driven much law in Canada, and consequently has driven much injustice. It has ravaged law, justice, many careers, and many human lives. It resulted in positions, jobs, grants, and even appointments to the bench. It created a terrible silence as it inflicted obvious injustices on many. It was buttressed by feminist terrorism and aggression, ready to pursue to destruction anyone who gets in its way, while chanting its mantra that all evil and violence are men's, and that all goodness, virtue, and truth are women's. .

Judge L'Heureux-Dub was hell-bent on re-educating Judge McClung, bullying and coercing him into looking at everything from her point of view.

"Honourable senators, as members of Parliament, we have a special role in the superintendence of the behaviour of judges and a representative role in upholding the public interest in this. I believe that radical judicial activism is a serious threat to parliamentary sovereignty and judicial independence. ...[more available on my website electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/ - Ed]

 

****************************

There are problems with transferring Ill Eagle 2, june99

***************************

Ill Eagle 3, july/aig99

p1

 

Black TV boss 'hadn't suffered

enough' to adopt

- Sarah Toyne and Maurice Chittenden, Sunday Times, 18july99, sect. 1 p7.

"A black television executive and his white wife were turned down for adopting a child because social workers claimed they had not suffered enough racial abuse.

"The couple were stalled for more than two years by staff at a Labour council who also said their home was too tidy and that their existing child was too normal.

"Their case has been seized on by MPs who want to end the scandal which keeps 51,000 children in foster care at a cost of 2 billion a year when thousands of couples are prepared to offer them loving homes. The social security inspectorate is to investigate whether misguided political correctness among social workers is contributing to the problem. .... ....

"They say they were perceived as too middle class and were told that as all mixed-race and black children came from 'severely damaged' situations, they were all disruptive."

This report confirms the findings in Patricia Morgan's mar98 book "Adoption and the care of children", pub. I.E.A. tel. 0171 799 3745. Her most startling statistic is on p9; "The rate of trans-racial adoptions plummeted: there was a 40 per cent decrease between 1971 and 1972 alone." This shows how such activities can be heavily, and rapidly, influenced by fashion. We read of the same disgraceful factors as in the family courts. "The law is widely ignored..." (p12). The whole scene is driven by ignorance, bigotry and fashion, as are the family courts, with ignorant so-called experts playing the same destructive role; in this case social workers instead of court welfare officers. "Staff specialising in adoption are rare. The result is diminishing expertise, with decisions being made by people without relevant training or experience, so that social workers feel that they are 'left just to flap in the wind'." (p13) The prejudice against the normal family is repeated.

 

Prof. Betsy Stanko of Brunel University

Telephone Stanko on 01895 -203068 or 203085 for your free copy of her disgraceful Oct 98 booklet "Taking Stock", which is sexist propaganda masquerading as research. In view of Home Office Study No. 191, it discredits her. She will also send you the A4 leaflet "Violence Research Programme" (VRP) which tells you that the ESRC is giving her 3.5million of your taxpayer's money to fund so-called "research". Further leaflets outline each of the 20 programmes she funds, using Gov't money. This is our money, and is being used to mislead voters and legislators. The inevitable result will be rising suicide among young men for a further fifteen years, until the crisis forces itself upon their attention. To see why, take the opportunity to request her 1999 study "Counting the Cost".

See also next article.

The myths of domestic violence.

Home Office Research Study 191 on domestic violence, published in January this year, was based on self-reporting interviews with about 10,000 men and women as part of the 1996 British Crime Survey of England and Wales. It is thus by far the most comprehensive and reliable study of domestic violence carried out in this country, and as such should be viewed as having authority. [Compare with the 200 people in Hackney interviewed by Stanko leading to her report stating 25% of women being subjected to violence, headlined in the Express and elsewhere].

The Home Office study 191 found an almost equal and numerically very small culpability of 4% in couple relationships. In a 12-month period 4% of men and 4% of women reported being assaulted by their partner, although more women reported injury (in a ratio of two to one), and more women were chronic victims (in a ratio of three to one). Even in the longer term (over a life-time), 15% of men reported that they had been assaulted by a female partner compared to 23% of women by a male partner. It is at this point that the probability over a lifetime magically turns into the "1 in 4 women suffer domestic violence etc. Across the Atlantic, somewhat lower but still substantial proportions of male victims were reported in the latest 1998 National Violence against Women Survey. Despite this being aimed principally at women as victims, the Survey still found 835,000 male victims of domestic abuse, compared to 1.5 million women (physical or sexual abuse), a proportion of about 36% male victims. ....

The results of the study 191 are repeatedly being brushed aside. We reported in June that Jack Straw, Home Secretary, said; ".... domestic violence is men beating women". Another example of where survey is ignored is Consultation Paper on Contact between Children and Violent Parents (May99) published by the Children Act Sub-committee to the Advisory Board for Family Law.

For further information and booklets on domestic violence contact; Dewar Research, Constables, Windsor Rd., Ascot, SL5 7LF.

Fathers to face new threat to "contact".

New proposals to restrict still further the chances of fathers seeing their children after divorce have been published by the Lord Chancellor's Dept. Overall control is in the hands of the long titled "Children Act Sub-Committee of the Advisory Board on Family Law". The Advisory Board was set up after the Family Law Act 1996 to monitor its implementation but is also responsible for monitoring the Children Act 1989.

We immediately contacted the Chairman of the Children Act Sub-Committee and our Chairman writes; "I have received a reply from Mr Justice Wall [Chairman] welcoming our interest in Contact between children and violent parents (CBCAVP). Wall has indicated that he would be pleased to hear comments from both individual ManKind members and collectively.

The proposals suggest introducing New Zealand's 1993 method of allegations of violence by one parent to create a barrier for contact. In a country of only about 10,000 divorces there are 7,000 "protection orders". Enquires in New Zealand show that since its inception the legal aid bill has risen fro $20m to an expected $100m this year.

Among the many contributors to "Contact between children and violent parents" is a summary by a NZ judge on the merits and working of the regime. Responses from New Zealand men paint a more jaundiced picture. Other contributors to the CBCAVP include Brenda Hoggett, a.k.a. Mrs Justice Hale.

We are well placed to counter any untoward influences if we act now. The closing date is Nov 1st.

For your copy, telephone 0171- 210-0642 and ask for "A consultation paper on Contact between children and violent parents." The extent of its reforms and lack of safeguards for men will shock you. To convey your views and opinions please write to: Mr Justice Wall, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2. If you would like to participate in contributing to ManKind's official response (which has to be delivered by Nov 1st) contact our London Office at Suite 367

 

p2

 

Suicide Prevention Effort Launched in America

- by Laura Meckler, A.P.

"Suicide is the eighth leading cause of death in the United States, claiming about 30,000 lives in 1997, compared with 19,000 homicides". In Washington DC the surgeon general today declared suicide a serious public health threat for the first time, launching an effort to educate school counselors, parents and even hairdressers on how to spot signs of trouble.

"This is a national tragedy and a public health problem demanding national leadership,'' said Tipper Gore, the vice president's wife, an advocate for mental health issues. "Let's talk about the reality of suicide in our national life,'' she said, "Let's encourage all Americans to get the help they need.'' She joined Surgeon General David Satcher in releasing a "call to action.'' "We must act now,'' Satcher said in his report. In 1980 there were 20,489 male victims as opposed to 6,363 female victims. The numbers in 1996 were 24,980 male victims and 5,899 female victims. The number of annual male victims increased by 449 lower the time frame, that of the annual female victims decreased by 464 over the same interval. It seems that whatever is being done to decrease the risk of suicide for women is working extremely well, in spite of the large increases in the number of women in poverty due to the escalating divorce rate. However, what works well for women appears to have the opposite effect on men at ten times the numbers. As to the 19,000 annual victims of homicide, the vast majority of those too are male.

British men fear to touch children - Richard Reeves and Martin Bright, The Observer, 25july99, p6

"....based on interviews with 1,000 men.... Such is the obsession with, and fear of, paedophilia in the UK that advertisers are being warned off using images of men with children. .... ....

"Adrienne Burgess, ...., said the report confirmed the British 'obsession' with child abuse.

"'The impact of some feminist critiques in the early 1960s, which said all men were rapists, was greater here than elsewhere. .... which makes it seem abnormal when a man does touch a child, sometimes even his own. ....'"

 

Domestic Violence

Some of the best research into domestic violence is by Dr. Malcolm George, of Queen Mary College, London. His analysis of some of the grave problems we face and the flaws in modern research are detailed in "Beyond All Help ?" - avaialbel from Dewar Research (5.00).

"A Critique; Domestic Violence: a health care issue?", (Dewar Research) outlines the flaws in the BMA report of 1998 into domestic violence. Orders should be sent to; Dewar Research, Constables, Windsor Rd., Ascot SL5 7LF.

 

Understanding the sentencing of women

by Lindsay Jackall - Australia.

"The Home Office have just released British Research Study 170, which deals with the discrepancy betwen the sexes in jail and penal sanctions. It establishes beyond any doubt that women are treated significantly more leniently than men for the same crime.

"The difference, as you'd suspected, is that everyone, from the judge downwards tries their hardest to find "mitigating circumstances" [ie excuses] to let her off (this also extends to the Media). Judges interviewed this study also candidly admit to 'feelings' that women, especially mothers, should be treated more leniently. With mothers they feel that any punishment given to them will be suffered by the children but felt no such sympathy or connection for fathers with their children, who are

curiously 'blamed'. [this mindset hasn't changed since Hanging Judge Jeffereies - Ed].

Edited by Carol Hedderman and Loraine Gelsthorpe, it is availabel from the Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate London.

The full text can be downloaded at:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors170.pdf.

"Women are not as hard, aggressive or predatory as men. They are more sensitive of others' feelings. A woman who gets on to drink and drugs often does so because her relationship with a man has gone wrong. The male quest for conquest, sensation and change is more likely to cause unhappiness than the female quest for affection, children and a stable home life." - Judge James Pickles, "Straight from the Bench", pub. Dent 1987, p83.

 

Erin Pizzey Writes

- sent in by Ted Diggins.

"I'm appalled by the decision to attempt to ban 'violent fathers' from seeing their children. In 30 years working with violence-prone people, I've treated just as many violent women as I have men. Fathers have been a political football for the past 30 years.

"There is a politically motivated, million-pound industry, run by political extremists, who have dedicated their lives to destroying family life in this country. The first step on their agenda is to remove fathers from their children and the second is to encourage women to go out to work.

"The third part of the programme is that children should be raised by the state. Home Office research shows that both men and women can be equally violent. When will the judicial war against fathers come to a halt? By staying silent, men and women in this country are condemning thousands of children to a fatherless life. Children need both mothering and fathering to become healthy, happy, mature adults." - Erin Pizzey, Family SOS. - Letter in the Daily Mail, 30june99, p58, by Erin Pizzey. Sent to Ill Eagle by Ted Diggins.

When Erin tried to publish her research results, that 62 out of the first 100 women who came to her pioneering refuge in Chiswick were as violent as the men they had left, she and her co-researchers were censored. They received death threats and other threats which led to her having police protection. In the end, for safety, she left the country. After fifteen years in exile she has now returned, and lives at a secret address, where I visited her. Text books on the law credit Erin's book on her experience in founding the first women's refuge, Scream quietly or the neighbours will hear, as having been the main factor in causing the courts to embark on a policy of ousting fathers from their homes. This is why the later discovery by her researchers, that her women were as violent as their menfolk, had to be censored out. This had to be suppressed in order to save the anti-man policy in our courts, which has continued for twenty years, resulting in the collapse of marriage and remarriage rates and the escalation of suicide among young men. Erin says that the feminists hijacked the domestic violence industry, and all her funding, and drove her out. They used violent threats. - Ed.

Lynette Burrows' book re-launched

Following hard on the heels of her 1998 book "The Fight for the Family, which lifted the lid on the mrky world of child abusers Lynette Burrows has released an updated edition.

Available from FET, (Tel 01865 -556848) it develops the interrelation between apparently innocuos pressure groups and the undisclosed network's secret agenda, involving for instance anti-smacking, run by a few political (not to mention sexual) extremists.

Law complaints system to close for one year

Francis Gibb, Legal Correspondent, The Times, 23july99, p1.

".... The crisis has reached such a pitch that members of the public are being told that their current complaints - about high fees, mishandling of cases, bad advice and delays - may not be dealt with for another year.

"The effective closure of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors .... comes with some 25,000 complaints awaiting attention. .... complaints .... are rising by 300 every week."

With 80,000 solicitors in the country, this is far more than a backlog of three complaints per solicitor. Those solicitors working for large companies are unable to generate complaints from the public over their shoddy work.

Letter to Ill Eagle. ".... 25,000 complaints awaiting attention. ...." Whereas parliament set down that 'delay is not in the interest of children', nobody will be able to bring and resolve any complaint against incompetent, corrupt, drunk, deviant, or defrauding solicitors for a long time now. The self-regulating solicitors' body (by its failure to provide an effective complaints procedure) has closed its doors to anybody with information about solicitors whose conduct damages children.

"It thus comes as no surprise that Lord Woolf ruled it may be 'undesirable in the interests of justice' for a McKenzie Friend to witness the conduct of lawyers and judges in Britain's Secret Courts." - EH.

 

p3

 

Editorial

Part 2 of Masculinity has to go into this issue because Part 1 went in the last issue. The fact that Part 2 is so good crept up on me, and it is impracticable for it to split off from Part 1, and migrate to its rightful place, Male View.

Another growing insight is into the behaviour of male rulers. Two sources, L and G, have independently told me that men divide into three groups; the rulers (5% to 10%), the wheeler-dealers, and the grovellers. We have to concentrate on the rulers, to try to understand why they are nonchalant about the current attack on the civil rights of young men, and actually assist in the attack.

The story goes as follows, and I shall embellish it later when I gain fuller understanding of it.

An important sub-class of our male rulers resemble psychopaths more closely than they resemble normal men. Whereas the unintelligent psychopath ends up in jail, the intelligent psychopath becomes a ruler.

Their characteristics are as follows. They are risk takers. They are indifferent to the effect of their actions on others. They are driven by power. Part of their concept of power is sexual, to have access to numerous women. They have a contempt for women. Extreme examples are Maxwell, Aitken, Goldenballs and so on. However, most of our current male rulers, including senior judges, are also in this class. They do not suffer from divorce as normal men do. The destruction of men by feminists and their agents gets rid of the competition, and so they welcome it and even collaborate.

This explains the partly feigned incomprehension shown by our male rulers, including our judges, when presented with the tragic impact of their policies on fathers and their children. They see children are trophies, not as human beings. (A female judge will screw you for sexist reasons, while a male judge will screw you and your children for pathological reasons.) They have to fail to comprehend, or it would be more difficult for them to connive in, or even engineer, their destruction of men in order to reduce the competition they face for positions of power.

Women do have empathy, but only for other women. When feminists drive for equality, equality is not the result. Rather, we end up with 90% women and 10% men. The few remaining men take the top positions. The power feminists, having driven out nearly all the men, need the small number of remaining powerful men to rule above them. For them, power is an aphrodisiac, so like the male rulers, their motivation is not only power (or empowerment, as they describe it,) but also sexual. The surprising result of radical feminist policy is not only polyandry lower down (=  a woman taking control of her sexuality), but the harem higher up.

The powerful man was brought to power by vested interests including the feminist lobby. He knows that, once in power, he will have to pay their price, which is to assist them in legislating against men.

Whereas L bemoans the stupidity of men in not defending themselves, G says that our children's main enemy is not the feminists, but powerful men.

ManKind and Ill Eagle can be reached at;

(1). Suite 367, 2, Lansdowne Row,

London W1X 8HL.

(2) www.ukmm.org.uk

(3) The Editor, Ill Eagle, Ivor Catt,

121 Westfields, St. Albans AL3 4JR, England. ( 01727 864257

(4) Email :- ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/

Anti-dad ad makes me mad.

"The government's intention of screening a TV commercial to encourage children to report their violent fathers in cases of domestic violence .... is an outrageous and sinister development.

"To encourage children to report only one violent parent is highly sexist and pernicious, especially when there is now strong evidence to show that mutual combat is the norm in violent households. Not only does this approach deal with only half of the problem, it diminishes further the status of fathers, both in the eyes of children and society. It also negates the plight of those children who live with violent mothers.

"This advertisement uses public money to vilify men and to further confuse the emotions and loyalties of the unfortunate children of violent parents. Why is there no protest from children's charities?" - David Yarwood, letter in The Express, 28nov98

 

Why won't they just leave men alone?

"I am becoming more and more certain that there is a national commitment among the powers that be to diminish, demean and denigrate the male sex in its entirety. Every time I read a newspaper, be it national or local, ...., it seems there is yet another movement, or law passed or proposed, which hits men as hard as possible. .... men can .... be put in prison or fined huge sums if the fail to come up with maintenance. Why is it always believed that the man .... is actually the cause of the breakdown? Why can women act as badly as they like ....? Do women have no responsibility at all ....? .... there is just as much violence against men by their partners .... Women .... can .... be capricious, spiteful, and downright dangerous .... I feel that society has turned against men in a most devastating way .... - Heather Causnett, Yorkshire Evening Press, 6july99.

Boys' exam results plummet

The gulf between boys' and girls' exam results continues to widen .... 11 per cent more girls are obtaining five or more A-C grades. .... in some parts of the country boys' results have gone into freefall. .... Martin Bright, Observer, 20june99, p2.

GCSE girls are sprinting away from the boys

"The gap between boys and girls at GCSE has reached a record level, according to a new government analysis .... The gender gap had continued to widen throughout the school system. .... At GCSE, the gap has widened markedly since the start of the decade .... The gulf is most evident in the top grades, with one in 30 entries by boys awarded the coveted A* compared with almost one in 20 girls." - John O'Leary, The Times, 4aug99, p11.

No one spotted the problems looming in the fine print.

- Leader, The Guardian, 2july99.

Unpublished letter to The Guardian by Ill Eagle Ed; "Your first leader today about the CSA says; 'No one spotted the problem looming in the fine print.'

"I heard Ros Heppelwhite lecture to FNF AGM three months before she set up the CSA. (Her father deserted her family when she was two years old.) I told everyone that the CSA would self-destruct. FNF literature was full of prediction of disaster even before the CSA was set up, with reasons given. The Guardian refused to publish any material from Men's Organisations." Ten years later, Men's Organisations were again excluded from the consultation process leading to the current CSA 'reforms'.

"Will the Guardian now publish our current analysis, and predictions of future greater disaster and further escalation in the suicide rate among young men, to be caused by the 'reformed' CSA?" There was no reply, and the letter was not printed.

 

In The Sunday Telegraph, 18july99, p10, David Bamber reported;

"Solicitors 'admit to excessive charging'. .... NatWest bank's professions unit questioned more than 1,000 solicitors. .... only one per cent of solicitors took up the profession because they were interested in the law. One in 10 solicitors admitted they were in the profession purely because of the financial rewards."

Two barristers have told me I know more about the law than they do. I am shocked by the ignorance of lawyers, and their apathy except when it comes to taxing the case - jargon for their fees. - Ed

 

Absent Fathers

".... For too many children today, the answer to the question .... 'And when did you last see your father?' is 'Never'. This is the worst social problem of our time." - Daily Telegraph Leader, 27aug99.

Legal Aid

In 1996-7 the Legal Aid Board spent 392 million on matrimonial and divorce proceedings. The average cost to the legal aid board of ancillary relief proceedings connected to divorce was 1,759 and the average length of such proceedings was just over 2.5 years - Family Policy Studies Centre, Family Briefing Paper No. 10, June 1999.

 

p4

 

Masculinity - are men in crisis or not? Part 2 - concluding article.

by Robert Whiston

For Crick, "Virtu", that is to say what is proper to a man, has the following attributes; "Courage, fortitude, audacity, skill and civic spirit - in fact a whole classical and renaissance theory of man...." The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary includes "valour" as essential.

Renaissance writers asked; "Does a state have 'virtu' among its citizens or not? Are there, in a word, citizens ?" [Citizen here means a Plebeian, male or female, with 'virtu' -Ed]. If a State had too few of these citizens, then it is doomed to a tyrannical personal rule; but if many, then a Republic can flourish, and will prove - the by now familiar argument - the stronger form of state." Crick (1970) then cites the Arabs and the Israelis - the Israelis dominate because the Arabs lack citizens with Virtu.

Of all the attributes 'civic spirit' is the least expected - it is not manly, nor sex related - but at the same time it is seen by all writers as an essentially male-only trait. To make more sense of "Civic spirit", one has to read in the Middle English used in the King James's Bible and Shakespeare. In the context of 20th century English one might say "for the common good", but that is a lack-lustre translation.

To test whether civic spirit is an aberrant component more befitting the Classical and Renaissance age and associated value systems, enquiries were recently made in the US, asking for definitions of masculinity. The response from young men was interesting. Despite their country's lack of classical or renaissance history, their replies make interesting reading;

".. tell them that men are altruistic, honourable, just, and fair-minded. That's the difference between us and them..."

".....I think that if the truth be known, men are honourable, generous, and fair people. (E.g., how many rich women do you know who have married a man who had no career or significant income ? Now reverse the genders and do the same tally)".

".... I think that women, especially feminists (male ones too) are less honest and altruistic, being more interested in themselves than in others."

"...... in the political arena, women seem to do what's best for themselves first, then come others, and then maybe, way down the list, they'll do what's right for men, as long as it also benefits them, or at the very least, doesn't hurt them".

".. as for Amneus, I think that while his ideas are sound and valid, his methods will not work in current American society. Women run things here, despite what feminists say, and his methods are too alienating to women for them to work. You have to allow women to save face (pride is another big issue) and his methods don't do that. Feminists may have shamed men into co-operating, but I also think that men are basically really fair and just people; I don't feel that women will act like men in this regard, so a different approach is needed, one that allows for excuses, copping out, and saving face. Unsavoury though that might be, it's the only way to get any co-operation from the (female) powers that be".

The above comments could come from any man in any country in the Western world. They are universal and archetypal.

If that is true, then one immediately sees why Angela Philips (who gave a keynote speech to a Home Office seminar) is so dreadfully wrong and dangerous in her approach to 'Macho'. Her idea that school boys should "talk about the hidden agenda of educational failure" cuts across all natural laws of masculine cultural norms. Her recipe for "bolstering boy's self-esteem" is to ensure boys are able "to shine" through "music, drama and dance". This proposed remedy can only be damaging to the male psyche which instinctively pushes in the opposite direction. Young men aspiring to attain 'virtu' in the Classical, Renaissance and Modern age can-not identify with "music, drama and dance" [or nursery education, see Burgess,] as their primary outlet.

'Macho' is an essential element of male identity. Even in the negative scenario of U.S. city gangs it contains all the ingredients politicians need to hold a nation-state together; honour, defence of turf, duty and loyalty. Macho implies knowingly taking risks and accepting those risks. Risk-taking makes boys into men. Ms. Phillips tells us that we should shy away

 

 

from "macho attitudes" and reject "outmoded stereotypes of masculinity". But in the 1960's that Angela Phillips and other feminists refer to Macho was not a pejorative term. Spanish dictionaries show it in a positive and praiseworthy light. In contrast, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary of 1975 as well as the 1980 edition don't list macho or machismo.

Boys inevitably see themselves as young men, and younger men have always sought acceptance and approval by older men. Young men have thus always need a 'rite of passage' in some form. This is crucial if we are to attain a caring, balanced society.

Historically, jobs, apprenticeships and even wars served as rites of passage. The average age of our fighting 'men' (from Agincourt to D-Day to the Tet Offensive) has consistently been 19 years of age.

Today, with no wars and no jobs, what answers have the Social Engineers ? How are they going to 'create men' ?

For the past 15 years the situation has deteriorated and young men have been denied their basic human rights. Disenfranchised and de-constructed young men face the prospect of being created and moulded according to feminist dogma. New Gov't initiatives sees Society on the brink of launching itself into another 15 year term of social re-engineering. Engineering aimed at reducing lone mothers hood, teenage pregnancies and soaring young male suicides.

The question has to be asked as to whether after this second 15 years, we will have learnt enough about our mistakes to throw out the manuals and acknowledge human rights for both sexes, and return to men their confiscated Human Rights and Civil Liberties ?

Adrienne Burgess's reply:-

Dear Robert [Whiston],

I very much enjoyed your essay. I love the concept of 'virtu'.

Courage, fortitude, audacity and civic spirit ! Truly wonderful as a definition of positive masculinity. Oh, but can't I - a woman - be that too? My father (and mother) certainly brought me up with that spirit!

Masculinity I suppose means 'appertaining to a man'. But psychologists have always got themselves into a mess when they dub qualities 'masculine' or 'feminine' because they keep finding each of them in both sexes, and often mixed in the same person. For example, autonomy and expressiveness - or what the psychologists would have once called 'masculinity' and 'femininity' - are qualities which often coexist, in the most remarkable and valuable way, in the one human being - male or female. They are not polar opposites - you can be high in both or low in both. So cannot women, too, have 'virtu'?

I think your final question is where it is at - with no wars, and no traditionally 'masculine' jobs, what is to become of the male 'virtu'? The answer has to be, that new arenas have to be identified as suitable places for men to exercise courage, fortitude, audacity and civic spirit. This may include rediscovering areas where men's presence was once valued, but which today have become so identified with women that some men may feel their masculinity would be compromised if they were to enter them. For example, maybe it's time to recall that in the early days of nursery education, in the nineteenth century, almost all nursery school teachers were men..

[My italics - Ed.]

I hope you will be able to use your essay, or part of it, in ManKind. - AB

Editor comments. Column 2; music, drama, dance (my italics). This column; courage, fortitude, audacity and civic spirit followed by nursery education. With uncomprehending friends like Phillips and Burgess, what need do our young men have for enemies! The inability of women and their poodle-men - Boateng and the rest - having hijacked the scene, to grasp how to enable young males to flourish is here for all to see. Also, we all know that today, if a man really wants to go to jail, he should try teaching in a nursery. - Ed.

Reading List

With your help, Ill Eagle will develop a list of recommended books. Many thanks to Edward Crabtree for starting the list. - Ed.

 

p5

 

Railroading all men accused of Rape

"Speaking up for Justice" is an interdepartmental report published in June 1998 by the Home Office (250 pages).

The General Election manifesto of the Labour Party (pre May 1996) stated that "greater protection will be provided for victims in rape and serious sexual offences trials and for those subject to intimidation including witnesses". Tracking its progress, it is a rush to justice.

Almost fortuitously, in 1996 the Ralston Edwards case (we still do not know the plaintiff's name) too advantage of the freedom for a defendant, without legal representation, to cross-examine his accuser extensively. In 1997 a similar set of circumstances occurred in another rape case. In both cases it was pointed out that judges already have wide discretion to limit the defendant's time and line of examination if they feel it "inappropriate", and that the discretion can be exercised at any time.

The Home Secretary, Jack Straw, announced in June 1997 that he was setting up an "interdepartmental" working group. The "interdepartmental" tag gives the impression that bodies outside Gov't would be excluded. Apart from the Home office and related senior Whitehall dept, the Women Unit, Victim Support, Local Gov't Association (all associated with anti-male activities in other arenas) were included.

The interdepartmental working group first met on 1aug97, and met monthly thereafter. The working group, because the remit was so wide, considered it "very important to seek opinions and views on issues that needed to be addressed. from interested parties and individuals". A literature review was commissioned. This was complied by Robin Elliot (female) of the Home Office Statistical Directorate and covered UK and overseas developments. Its findings are mentioned as being in Annex A. However, Annex A cannot be found in the "Contents" list.

The "working group" wrote to 84 organisations, inviting them to submit written comments. Not one men's or fathers' group was approached. Thus a balanced picture was impossible.

The speed, if not the thoroughness, of the Report is exemplified by the fact that two conferences "to test out some of the ideas" were held in Oct and Nov 1997. Magistrates, the judiciary, the legal profession and a "wide range of non-governmental organisations" accepted invitations. The working group later reported that they found this dialogue most useful.

Again, men's and fathers' groups were not invited.

The organisations approached and who responded are set out in Annex B and are listed below:-

Rape Crisis Federation

Women's Aid Foundation

National Council for women

Child and Women Abuse studies (University of N. London).

Women Against Rape

Cleveland Rape and Sexual Counselling Service

Doncaster Rape and Sexual Abuse Counselling Centre

London Rape Crisis Centre

South Essex Rape Crisis Centre

Doncaster Rape Crisis

Milton Keynes Rape Crisis Centre

North Staffs Rape Crisis

South Cheshire Rape Crisis Centre

Tyneside Rape Crisis Centre

Leicester Rape Crisis Centre

First Net

British Assoc. of Women Police

Female Aggression

BBC 'Midlands Today' news programme reported the ordeal of a Halesowen girl who was kidnapped by two women. The girls was driven around town in the back of a car for several hours and subjected to verbal abuse, slaps and punches. Police are still searching for the assailants.

In the same programme, two women employed as care workers at the Sunfield Residential Home were found guilty at Worcs. Crown Court of a "catalogue of incidents of abuse and violence" dating from 19995-98. The prosecution alleged that the two had not only "kicked and punched patients", but shown spite toward them. BBC 20/7/99

Ottawa

According to a new Canadian study, women are just as violent to their spouses as men, and women are almost three times more likely to initiate violence in a relationship. The current study, which will appear again, in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science - says that while the need to stop violence against women is obvious, violence against men is being ignored.

"Our society seems to harbour an implicit acceptance of women's violence as relatively harmless," writes Marilyn Kwong, the Simon Fraser University researcher who led this study.

"Furthermore, the failure to acknowledge the possibility of women's violence ... jeopardises the credibility of all theory and research directed toward ending violence against women." But this "new" study of 705 Alberta men and women that reported how often males hit their spouses was conducted in 1987, not 1999. Until now, the full results have never been published.

Because it focussed on "how often males hit their spouses", at the time it was pounced on by feminist groups as evidence of an epidemic of violence against women.

The study shows that roughly 10.8% of men in the survey pushed, grabbed or threw objects at their spouses in the previous year, while 2.5% committed more severe acts, such as choking, kicking or using a weapon. By contrast, 12.4% of women committed acts of minor violence and 4.7% committed severe violence.

The original Alberta study was published in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science in 1989, and although the researchers asked women the same questions as men, their answers were never published until now [see infamous "Hackney" survey. - Ed]. Now it is to be republished in full by the same journal.

It didn't help society to understand when the researchers, Leslie Kennedy and Dutton, said at the time they were primarily interested in male-to-female violence. [Whether this is true or whether they feared harassment and reprisal by women's groups a la Straus ad Gelles is not revealed - Ed]

In the following year the 'Kennedy-Dutton study', as it became known, was cited extensively. In 1990, it forced Brian Mulroney (the former Canadian prime minister) to call a two-year, $10-million national inquiry into violence against women.

The inquiry's 460-page report made 494 recommendations aimed at changing attitudes in governments, police departments, courts, hospitals and churches. It also led to a torrent of lurid news features about battered women. (see Senator Cools. Ill Eagle, June 99)

Courts show teeth to wifely assassin

A wife who shot dead her husband as he slept in bed has been given a 'life' sentenced of 15 years. The jury rejected Mrs. Kim Galbraith's (30) claim that she had endured years of sexual abuse from her policeman husband and that she has been driven to the verge of insanity. She was found guilty of creeping upstairs, laying down next to her sleeping husband, and shooting him at point blank range through the back of the head with his own hunting rifle.

After she murdered her husband, she wrecked the house to make it look like the shooting was part of a break in. She told police 2 masked burglars broke in shoot her husband and then raped her.

Mr Galbraith's 2 year old daughter is being looked after not by his parents - but by the parents of his wife who is now in jail ! [In the UK all firearms have to be securely locked in a 1/4" thick steel cabinet at all times - Ed].

Women groups are outraged, and Dr Mairead Tagg (Glasgow psychologist) and member of Women's Aid said they planned to campaign of Mrs Galbraith's behalf.

- Daily Telegraph 5june99

A parody on fathers.

A young man asks his father if he loves him. No, Dad replies. Look, son. Like most fathers over the past 30 years, I didn't give a shit. I dumped you and your mom, ran off with my attractive Secretary, and only saw you because a court order said I had to. Sure, I was rich, but I paid child support late or not at all. ... Cant you take a hint?

From What women want

pub. Virago 1996

Meaningful equality. However, this is a hopeless dream while patriarchy is a male power and privilege which favours men's interests at every class level throughout society - Hazel, Sheffield, p30

 

p6

 

Marriage "is about more than just children"

Sourcehttp://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/Times/frontpage.html?105124

- Dominic Kennedy, The Times, June 1 1999

"MARRIAGE is good for childless couples and ministers should stop treating it as just a useful way to bring up children, say government advisers. In an attack on Labour's 'pro-family' agenda, a panel says that people should be encouraged to marry even if they have no desire to become parents.

"The annual report of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law, a body that advises on divorce policy, expresses concern that, to the Government, "the institution of marriage is seen predominantly within the context of the welfare of children". The board says: "Members consider that there are a number of positive socio-economic benefits to marriage and to stable relationships for couples who do not have children. These should not be overlooked." The focus of their attack is the Green Paper Supporting Families, which supports marriage on the ground that it "does provide a strong foundation for stability for the care of children".

"Following Labour's strategy of moving the emphasis of family values towards helping children rather than promoting marriage, the last Budget also used the theme supporting families, and abolished the married couple's allowance.

"The advisory board is chaired by Sir Thomas Boyd-Carpenter, the former Deputy Chief of Defence Staff. The members include Mr Justice Wall of the High Court Family Division".

Dear Mr. Justice Wall,

Children Act Sub-Committee of the Advisory Board on Family Law.

We have now had an opportunity to review "Contact Between Children and Violent Parents" and can detect several fundamental flaws.

We have also had time to begin collating experiences from New Zealand fathers as to how this legislation works in practice. The results to date are not encouraging.

Many judges in the UK depend on Court Welfare Officers (CWO) reports when 'sentencing' children in divorce cases. They assume the reports to be exercises in objectivity. This is not the case. CWO's are Probation Workers who have undergone either zero or three days of "training". As such they are not sufficiently qualified to pass opinion in such important matters. We use the word opinion advisedly as the core of the Probation Service, and Home Office branch responsible for it, is presently convulsed by internal reviews and external scrutiny.

Recently in the High Court a Chief Probation Officer conceded that his profession does not have professional standards, benchmarks or guidelines. Also conceded was the fact that no research is undertaken into outcomes of their opinions i.e. father custody .v. mother custody. In addition they have no library listing preferred and essential reading for officers. They have undertaken no investigation as to the efficacy of, for instance shared parenting and cannot state why they are implacably opposed to it.

The NAPO document defining equality (which is essential reading to understand the mind set of ACPO and CWO's) states that every effort should be made to ensure that mothers are given custody of children because women are "always oppressed" - even when it is obvious that they are not.

It is against this backdrop that we are alarmed to find the Sub-Committee adopting the ACPO definition of domestic violence.

Nowhere in NAPO or ACPO policy statements is there a hint that violent women will also be barred from seeing their children - or that women can be as violent (if not more so) than men.

Nowhere in recent newspapers stories or the Sub-Committee's paper is there a hint that violent women will also be barred from seeing their children. And nowhere in the New Zealand legislation is there a hint that violent women will also be barred from seeing their children.

In fact, the presumption in the consultation paper is that violence can only come from fathers.

We feel it is unhelpful and unworkable to adopt the ACPO definition of domestic violence. We feel it is a wrong to include emotional and psychological harm or 'perceived' threats. It would then, we feel, become a Blackmailer's Charter.

Our reasoning is that such a test is totally subjective and would immediately bring the whole procedure into disrepute - as has happened with Unreasonable Behaviour in the divorce courts. The upshot would be to further politicise the subject of family life to the advantage of anti-family activists.

Already responses from New Zealand fathers indicate that this antipathy and contempt for the law has taken hold.

Thus we firmly believe that the proposals will only drag down the law's reputation while failing to address the suppressed levels of violence perpetrated by women against men and children (see attached).

Yours sincerely,

Robert Whiston. Chairman, UKMM.

 

Parents are always in the wrong

"'He never hurt me. It was all blown out of proportion by the social services,' said 15-year-old Georgina Brundle, after her father had been arrested and held in a cell for six hours following her complaint of assault. .... Mr. Brundle explained that he had fears for his daughter's welfare when, after taking up with a black 25-year-old American serviceman at Lakenheath air base nearby, and starting to consort with undesirable friends among whom drugs were common, she had been absent for four days. ....

".... the welfare service .... took his daughter into 'care' while he was locked up in a police cell. Care meant returning her to unsuitable friends in .... a dosshouse, from which she emerged with a ring in her nose. She .... preferred to go back to her family.

".... the rules they have to apply were drawn up by mindless fanatics. Whatever a child says must be believed. .... they have sought to transfer some of the revulsion that attaches to a practising paedophile upon a parent who speaks roughly to his child. ...." - Auberon Waugh, Sunday Telegraph, 1aug99, p31.

The rape reform that makes all men guilty

- Melanie Phillips, Sunday Times, 4july99, sect. 1 p17. Within days, this article was on websites round the world.

"....There is overwhelming evidence that women initiate domestic violence at least as much as men. The Home Office itself has published research [jan99, study no. 191] showing that 4.2% of men and 4.2% of women said they had been assaulted by their current or former spouse or lover. Shouldn't the government be launching a drive against all violence, committed against men as well as women? ....

"The amount of violence in marriage is small (most violence takes place between cohabitants and lovers). ...."

Melanie's article is packed with important, well researched statistics. Ill Eagle can supply a copy in return for a s.a.e.

melaniephillips@msn.com

Police keep back vital video in rape trial

A judge at Nottingham Crown Court demanded to know why police had failed to reveal a video that conclusively proved a man's innocence.

The tape from a teenager's night club showed the 16 alleged rape victim happily walking out with the 18 year old man (who we shall not name!). She had claimed to police of him "dragging" her forcibly out of the club, and raping her. The young man's defence lawyer commented, "Another fascinating thing about this case was that the police 'decided she should phone the defendant' in an attempt to incriminate him - in fact it provided more evidence of innocence for the defence than the prosecution.

- Daily Telegraph 20/5/99.

A legal shambles

The present anti-father initiative will pile damage onto existing destruction. On the allied matter of ousters, the following quotes are historic.

In Richards v Richards [1983] 2 All E.R., p811, Judge Pennant, when evicting a husband from his home,

 

p7

 

said; "I think it is thoroughly unjust to turn out this father, but justice no longer seems to play a part in this branch of the law." (He felt he had to follow Samson v Samson.) On p818, Lord Scarman said; ".... [regarding ouster orders], The statutory provision is a hotch-potch of enactments of limited scope passed into law to meet specific situations or to strengthen the powers of specified courts. The sooner .... these powers .... are rationalised .... the better. .... ....The courts have .... sought to establish a common basis of principle in deciding whether or not to make an ouster order. They have signally failed."

Lord Scarman also addresses the problem that if fathers are ousted in large numbers, that might transgress the mantra; "The interests of the children come first." He is old fashioned enough to think that a child might need its father. Of course, we know that there is no problem really. The mantra is always interpreted as "The interests of the woman come first." The whole system comprehensively ignores the interests of children, and damages them in many ways. The reason why the myth that all men are violent is promoted so heavily is in order to get round the mantra "the interests of the children come first". It is clearly not in the best interests of a child to cut it off from its father. That is why all fathers have to be criminalised, to validate the expropriation of their homes and children in the face of the supposedly ruling mantra.

 

My son fell victim to playtime paranoia

- Anonymous, The Observer, 25july99, p6

"A fellow parent had spotted another boy from his class examining my [four year old] son's bottom. .... Such is the current climate .... the head teacher agreed to hold an enquiry. .... the mortified parents of the other boy were humiliated .... My son .... [said] .... that he had not been interfered with. Finally, the issue was dropped.

"Months later I am still angry over how unnecessary and upsetting the whole incident was."

Man overboard

"MAN O MAN (Saturday ITV) is a primitive and utterly degrading exhibition of human beings. I cannot believe men participate in this humiliating programme.

"Imagine the national outrage there would be if roles were reversed and ten women were chased, booed, inspected and pushed into swimming pools by a studio audience of critical but enthusiastic men in an attempt to find the most physically attractive." - Lucy Pollock, Radio Times 31july/ 6aug99, p122.

Scouts facing crisis over leaders'

social stigma

Scout groups are closing at the rate of four a week even though an estimated 80,000 boys are waiting to join .... A shortage of adult volunteers has created one of the worst membership crises within the history of the Scout Association. .... the decline will dismay officials at the Mental Health Foundation, .... lack of opportunities .... were behind the failure of young people to thrive emotionally. .... one in five teenagers suffers from psychological problems and one in 10 requires professional help ....

There is a stigma attached to being a volunteer, added Jo Tupper, a spokeswoman for the Scout Association. "If a man says I want to work with young boys, people jump to one conclusion. ...." - Linda Jackson, Sunday Telegraph, 25july99, p10.

Damn this demonising of we men

[Even a journalist or editor with fractured grammar should not be cut off from children. - Ed]

".... if I saw that crying child, I would not go to help. I would have to curb my instincts. ....

"It is 12 years since more than 200 children were seized from their parents in Cleveland by .... Higgs and .... Wyatt. .... The 4million .... Butler-Sloss inquiry cleared the parents ..... and criticised Higgs and Wyatt. .... But in 1997 the two doctors .... star guests at a conference called Cleveland .... continued to propound the discredited theories of mass abuse. [Stuart Bell, the local M.P., quit his front-bench post in order to deal with the Cleveland child abuse crisis. I strongly recommend his book When Salem came to the Boro, pub. Pan 1988 - Ed] .... What is the point of demonising men and their paternal instincts to the point where decent, well-meaning people are frightened to help their communities by teaching, or leading Scout troops, or coaching the local under-11 football team? .... if .... a little child has to remain frightened and alone because men don't dare help, then that is a victory not for good, but for evil." - David Thomas, Daily Mail, 27july99.

The best interests of the children

"That there would be one or several books about the Cleveland child abuse crisis was inevitable. That it should be about the families was less so. Those families .... might give evidence to the judicial enquiry .... this evidence would be held in private and the public would never know what .... [the parents] and their children had endured. The decision that the families' stories should be told in private was made in the best interests of the children, but it meant that the public would never understand the full extent of the crisis .... The comparison between the Cleveland crisis and the Salem witch-hunts stood out a mile. ...." - Stuart Bell M.P., When Salem came to the Boro, pub. PAN, 1988, p353.

Cleveland Boro settled one million pounds in damages on the victim families that they had attacked. Parliament then rushed through immunity legislation for councils and social workers so that the Orkney and Rochdale victim families only received a written apology from their local councils.

So much damage is being done in secret to our children in so many places, secrecy being in the best interests of incompetent and destructive officials, that I believe the time has come when each and every one of us must repudiate secrecy wherever it raises its ugly head - Ed.

".... in the darkness of secrecy all sorts of things can go wrong. .... in public you can see that the judge does behave himself .... it keeps everyone in order." - Lord Denning on radio in 1960.

In a disgraceful Appeal Court decision this July, Lord Woolf has decided that any judge can exclude any Mackenzie Friend (meaning the very able amateur lawyer Dr. Michael Pelling, who is too good for them) from any secret court without giving significant reason. Pelling, who knows the law, has been forcing ignorant and high-handed judges to obey the law, so he had to go. - Ed

Men's Health Prostate Cancer

Prostate Cancer, rarely mentioned and more rarely funded by Gov't, is, after lung cancer the biggest killer of men. Only breast cancer in women compares with the mortality of Prostrate Cancer.

For this reason all men should regularly visit their GP for a check up. Inflammation of the Prostate gland doesn't men you have cancer but it does gives doctors time to detect it and take correctives moves. An exploratory diagnoses by your GP takes only 3 minutes.

The prostate gland is positioned under the bladder and surrounds the urinary tract to the penis. When it becomes inflamed it pressures both the bladder and the tract. Secretions from the prostate keep the urinary tract moistened and healthy. The most common form of prostate irritation is the non-cancerous "benign prostate hyperplasia" (BHP)

The symptoms of BHP include; frequently getting up in the night to pass water; difficulty or delay in passing urine; urine trickling out after urination; a weakened urinary flow over the last 12 months; a "stinging or burning sensation" when urinating; a feeling that the bladder is not fully empty.

Any of the above symptoms means you should see your GP as soon as possible.

You should see your GP as a matter of URGENCY if you have any of the following symptoms; passing blood with your urine; a "stinging or burning sensation" when urinating; when your bladder is full you have to urinate immediately.

From What Women Want

pub. Virago 1996

To be taken seriously by male colleagues .... for contributions .... different in style. - Laura, Oxford, p35.

 

p8

 

After 20 years of domestic violence research, scientists can't avoid hard facts

Source: http://motherjones.com/mother_jones/MJ99/updike.html

by Nancy Updike May/June 1999

 

A surprising fact has turned up in the grimly familiar world of domestic violence: Women report using violence in their relationships more often than men. This is not a crack by some antifeminist cad; the information will soon be published by the Justice Department in a report summarizing the results of in-depth, face-to-face interviews with a representative sample of 860 men and women whom researchers have been following since birth. Conducted in New Zealand by Terrie Moffitt, a University of Wisconsin psychology professor, the study supports data published in 1980 indicating that wives hit their husbands at least as often as husbands hit their wives.

When the 1980 study was released, it was so controversial that some of the researchers received death threats. Advocates for battered women were outraged because the data seemed to suggest that the risk of injury from domestic violence is as high for men as it is for women, which isn't true. Whether or not women are violent themselves, they are much more likely to be severely injured or killed by domestic violence, so activists dismissed the findings as meaningless.

But Moffitt's research emerges in a very different context -- namely, that of a movement that is older, wiser, and ready to begin making sense of uncomfortable truths. Twenty years ago, "domestic violence" meant men hitting women. Period. That was the only way to understand it or to talk about it. But today, after decades of research and activism predicated on

that assumption, the number of women killed each year in domestic violence incidents remains distressingly high: a sobering 1,326 in 1996, compared with 1,600 two decades earlier. In light of the persistence of domestic violence, researchers are beginning to consider a broader range of data, including the possible significance of women's violence.

This willingness to pay attention to what was once considered reactionary nonsense signals a fundamental conceptual shift in how domestic violence is being studied.

Violence in the home has never been easy to research. Even the way we measure it reflects the kind of murky data that has plagued the field. For instance, one could argue that the number of fatalities resulting from domestic violence is not the best measure of the problem, as not all acts of brutality end in death. It is, however, one of the few reliable statistics in a field where concrete numbers are difficult to come by. Many nonlethal domestic violence incidents go unreported or are categorized as something else -- aggravated assault, simple assault -- when they are reported. But another reason we haven't been able to effectively measure domestic violence is that we don't understand it, and, because we don't understand it, we haven't been able to stop it. Money and ideology are at the heart of the problem.

For years, domestic violence research was underfunded and conducted piecemeal, sometimes by researchers with more zeal for the cause of battered women than training in research methodology. The results were often ideology-driven "statistics," such as the notorious (and false) claim that more men beat their wives on Super Bowl Sunday, which dramatized the cause of domestic violence victims but further confused an already intricate issue. In 1994, Congress asked the National Research Council, an independent Washington, D.C., think tank, to evaluate the state of knowledge about domestic abuse. The NRC report concluded that "this field of research is characterized by the absence of clear conceptual models, large-scale databases, longitudinal research, and reliable instrumentation."

Moffitt is part of a new wave of domestic violence researchers who are bringing expertise from other areas of study, and her work is symbolic of the way scientists are changing their conception of the roots of domestic violence.

"[She] is taking domestic violence out of its standard intellectual confines and putting it into a much larger context, that of violence in general," says Daniel Nagin, a crime researcher and the Theresa and H. John Heinz III Professor of Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University.

Moffitt is a developmental psychologist who has spent most of

her career studying juvenile delinquency, which was the original focus of her research. She started interviewing her subjects about violence in their relationships after 20 years of research into other, seemingly unrelated aspects of their lives: sex and drug-use habits, criminal activities, social networks and family ties, and signs of mental illness.

"I had looked at other studies of juvenile delinquency," Moffitt says, "and saw that people in their 20s were dropping out of street crime, and I wondered, 'Are all of these miraculous recoveries where they're just reforming and giving up crime? Or are they getting out of their parents' home and moving in with a girlfriend and finding victims who are more easily accessible?' So I decided we'd better not just ask them about street violence, but also about violence within the home, with a partner."

What she found was that the women in her study who were in violent relationships were more like their partners, in many ways, than they were like the other women in the study. Both the victims and the aggressors in violent relationships, Moffitt found, were more likely to be unemployed and less educated than couples in nonviolent relationships. Moffitt also found that "female perpetrators of partner violence differed from nonviolent women with respect to factors that could not be solely the result of being in a violent relationship." Her research disputes a long-held belief about the nature of domestic violence: If a woman hits, it's only in response to her partner's attacks.

The study suggests that some women may simply be prone to violence -- by nature or circumstance -- just as some men may be.

Moffitt's findings don't change the fact that women are much more at risk in domestic violence, but they do suggest new ways to search for the origins of violence in the home. And once we know which early experiences can lead to domestic violence, we can start to find ways to intervene before the problem begins.

Prevention is a controversial goal, however, because it often calls for changes in the behavior of the victim as well as the batterer, and for decades activists have been promoting the seemingly opposite view. And even though it is possible to talk about prevention without blaming victims or excusing abusers, the issue is a minefield of preconceived ideas about gender, violence, and relationships, and new approaches may seem too scary to contemplate.

In domestic violence research, it seems, the meaning of any

new data is predetermined by ideological agendas set a longtime ago, and the fear that new information can be misinterpreted can lead to a rejection of the information itself. In preparing this column, I called a well-known women's research organization and asked scientists there about new FBI statistics indicating a substantial recent increase in violent crime committed by girls ages 12 to 18. The media contact told me the organization had decided not to collect any information about those statistics and that it didn't think it was a fruitful area of research, because girls are still much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.

It's impossible to know yet whether such numbers are useful, whether they're a statistical blip or a trend, or whether the girls committing violent crimes now are more likely to end up in violent relationships. But to ignore them on principle -- as activists and researchers ignored the data about women's violence years ago -- is to give up on determining the roots of violence, which seem to be much more complicated than whether a person is born with a Y chromosome.

What's clear is that women's and girls' violence is not meaningless, either for researchers or for the women themselves. It turns out that teenage girls who commit violent crimes "are two times more likely than juvenile male offenders to become victims themselves in the course of the offending incident," according to an FBI report. I'd like to hear more about that, please, not less. Moffitt's findings about women's violence and the FBI statistics are invitations to further research -- not in spite of the fact that so many women are being beaten and killed every year, but because of it.

from What Women Want

pub. Virago 1996

Respect! A voice! Recognition! Position!

- F.A., p161

 

 

Ill Eagle 4, sep99

p1

Expedient in the interests of corrupt and incompetent judges and lawyers

In his biography of Lord Denning, p117, Edmund Heward wrote unmistakably about secret courts.

"Denning was a good friend of the Press, believing that the reporter was the watchdog of justice. .... Speaking in Adelaide in 1967 he criticised the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill, which prohibited full reporting of criminal proceedings in the Magistrates Courts. He said: 'Every court should be open to every subject of the Queen. I think it is one of the essentials of justice being done in the community. Every judge, in a sense, is on trial to see that he does his job properly.' Again he once said: 'Reporters are there, representing the public, to see that magistrates and judges behave themselves. Children's courts should also be open. .... proceedings should never be conducted behind closed doors.' This does not happen in the High Court, even today. Proceedings about the custody, care and control, access and maintenance of children are held in private. Ninety percent of High Court work is done privately, in chambers, by Masters and Registrars."

I had come across the mantra "expedient in the interests of the child" for some years. It was used to justify secrecy at many levels, resulting in widespread, multiple damage to our children. However, our corrupt, incompetent courts ran into difficulty when no children were present or involved. The crisis first arose when Michael Pelling tried to get the hearing held in public when lawyers' fees were to be determined ("Taxation" in brogue). He lost in the court of appeal, in a scurrilous judgement which defied reason and justice. So, more than five years ago, we already had the absurd situation when it was allegedly in the interests of the child that nobody should hear about how judge and barrister talked through how much taxpayers' Legal Aid money the one should award to the other. Further attacks on the proper, open conduct of a court appeared in "Consultation paper on Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 dated mar97. On p12 clause 43 it substitutes "expedient in the interests of justice" for "expedient in the interests of the child". Thus, in spite of the fact that they are all Denning men, our judges found it necessary to sidle deeper under the mantle of secrecy.

Now, The Times of wed18aug99 Law Report on Regina v Bow County Court, ex parte Pelling, reports Lord Woolf of all people increasing the depths of secrecy even further and betraying his June95 Interim Report "Access to Justice" (available on Warwick University's website). Whereas in june95 he was even more rabid than I am about the failure of our court system, chiefly complaining about cost, his irresponsible 18aug99 Judgement intentionally increases costs and also increases secrecy. The full report will come out later in FLR. Send s.a.e. to Ed for a copy. Richard Gregory, editor of FNF's Mackenzie, published a good article on the case in The Times, 17aug99, p21.

Fathers angry over child-access ruling

- Frances Gibb, The Times, 6aug99

"Divorced fathers seeking contact with their children are angry about a court ruling [by Thorpe july99] that says they have no right to question the court [welfare] officer [CWO] who recommends whether they can see their children. .... the court ruled that it is a matter for the discretion of the judge in the particular case and they are within their rights to refuse. ...."

This is an example of the way court secrecy and gagging orders limit the information available to those who publish on the crisis. Gibb does not know the half of it. CWOs are actually probation officers with only criminal training. Judges sense that the CWO is so vulnerable in her ignorance that a parent is not allowed to bring expert witnesses who are leaders in the field of child psychology and the like to interview a child involved, or to testify, either verbally or in writing. (Defending this immunity from scrutiny, one CWO said; "Research is not relevant. What is relevant is the distress of the child." Argument that the child might be upset by competent interviewing is used by ignorant CWOs to justify their exclusive access to children of divorce, and the exclusivity of their written and verbal testimony.) Judges do not know that CWOs are untrained, but suspect enough to fear the presence of child experts in their courts, or even expert written contribution, and so ban them. Judges dare not have their ignorant CWOs exposed, even in our secret family courts, for fear that the news might leak out. That is a measure of how insecure participants feel in the destructive mess which is our family courts. The other arm of their arrogance and fear and indifference to the public interest is Woolf's barring of experts in the law like Pelling, as discussed in this issue and the last issue of Ill Eagle. The court is denied both child expertise and legal expertise, and so inflicts maximum damage on its victims. Judges want no one present who has proper expertise on children or proper expertise in violations of the law or human rights. Such violations are pandemic, and proliferate in total secrecy and ignorance. - Ed

Before promotion to the Court of Appeal, Thorpe announced to a startled barrister that the crime of bigamy in the 1861 Violence against the Person Act was for the protection only of women., totally ignoring the wording of the act, which begins "Whosoever shall ...." In spite of this gaffe, he still got promoted to the Court of Appeal, but only after his arch rival Ward beat him to it. Our children are in the hands of third rate minds - Ed

 

(Ignorant Thorpe) x (ignorant CWOs) = chaos2

To The Rt. Hon. Justice Thorpe,

Civil Appeals Office,

Royal Courts of Justice WC2A 2LL

Dear Sir, I was in court on 29july99 [re A Minors] when you ruled that there was no right of cross-examination of a Court Welfare Officer [CWO]. You also said:

"The CWO is the most important limb of the inquisitorial process;

"They may not even be required to attend the Hearing, although they often do;

"It is very rare for the CWO even to be sworn-in;

"They are highly experienced people and the Family Courts rely on their findings."

What is the basis for your blind faith in people who posess no relevant professional qualification and have received no training whatsoever in how to conduct their so-called "inquisitorial" function? [As discussed in my book "The Hook and the Sting", available on my website,, I have also heard Thorpe say in court that the Family Courts are Inquisitorial. - Ed]

You appear to have very little knowledge of what actually happens in the lower courts, as opposed to what you think happens.

CWO's reports regularly contain substantive errors and omit vital information. When they are cross-examined, their statements are regularly shown to be untruthful, ill-informed and highly prejudiced against the non-resident mother or father. Judges regularly throw their reports out.

You suggest that it is perfectly safe for Courts to place greater reliance upon CWOs that on Expert Witnesses. Expert witnesses .... typically, would have undergone at least 5 years' training and must have passed rigorous examinations.

Why shield CWOs from cross-examination ....?

- Tony Coe, Equal Parenting Party, www.EqualParenting.org 0171 589 9003

 

p2

 

Judge is reprimanded for indecency incident

- Jo Butler, Western Mail, 10sep99, also 25aug99.

"A judge cautioned by police for gross indecency has been 'severely reprimanded' by the Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine."

This judge can operate in total secrecy in his court in Wrexham, with legal experts like Pelling and experts on children debarred from court, between his public sessions down the road in the public convenience, where he was caught getting up to no good with another man.

We should not have the likes of District Judge Hoffman free to make decisions on our children's future in secret without the advice of competent legal or child experts, as at present. This, rather than the point urged by Vernon Crouch, is what interests me the most. Vernon, in contrast, is concerned that other than a judge would have received a severe sentence, not merely a slap on the wrist from Irvine, who failed to fire him although he had the power to.

On the other hand, Set a thief to catch a thief. The Western Mail reported that it was this same judge who had the courage to break the cloak of secrecy and trigger Britain's biggest child abuse scandal, about children's homes in Clwyd. What a relief when variously oriented miscreants don't hang together! - Ed

Violent Labour Party Members?

Rachel McLean, 0171 802 1223, will send you a copy of the Govt's 30june99 document Living without Fear, provided you say, in a squeaky voice like mine, that you are a party member. Or you can ask The Women's Unit direct, 0171 273 8880. This document, outlines the 6million + 6.3m + 14m of govt and near-govt money available for schemes to combat violence, but only violence against women. Have so many labour men turned violent again because they feel New Labour (and their own wives) betrayed them? Why do they blame their wives? Were many labour wives secretly New Labour? - Ed

I should not really joke about it. Very like Home Office "Research" Study 196, from 0171 273 2084, whose authors, in spite of their Fig. 3.1, also fail to distinguish between a crime and an allegation, Living without Fear is an appalling, socially destructive document, evincing an anti-social attitude on every page. Incompetence begins early, with a less than 100% rise in reported rape in ten years on p2 contradicting a 165% rise on p4. "And seven out of ten women under 30 worry about being raped." No source. Ten out of ten citizens should worry about such vicious propaganda masquerading as research put out by The Women's Unit. It is signed by Jay, a marriage breaker, and Straw, who comes from a broken home. Other researchers convince me that there is now a torrent of ignorant, destructive, misleading propaganda published by the Home Office. The consequences will be dire. I hope each member of ManKind will phone for and read at least one. Or you might read the BMA's deeply flawed 1998 Domestic Violence: a health care issue from 0171 387 4499, now promoted by the Home Office, and also read a critical analysis of it, available for 2 from Dewar Research, Constables, Windsor Rd., Ascot SL5 7LF. - Ed

Balance of Probabilities

Carolyn Parrington, 45, is a rape victim with a difference. She has deliberately waived her anonymity and chosen a path that will bring her to the attention of many. The stated reason is that she "did this for women everywhere".

Appearing before the Court of Appeal, Ms Parrington (now remarried) won her 8 day long civil action against the man said to have raped her and was awarded 74,000.

Mr. Marriott, the man accused of raping her twice, was her employer from 1985. After her marriage broke up in 1992 she left the company in 1993. She suffered from depression and post traumatic stress disorder and then suffered a nervous breakdown in 1994.

The level of compensation awarded to victims of rape by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is 7,500. Unfortunately for the police, Miss Parrington, a mother of three, delayed going to the police which meant that vital scientific evidence was lost. Mr Marriott was found guilty and ordered to pay compensation "on the balance of probabilities" - not on the basis used in criminal cases of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Mr Marriott was ordered to pay costs and damages to Miss Parrington of 132,000, which included 11,155 for loss of earnings, 25,000 general damages and 30,000 aggravated damages plus interest. The Court of Appeal turned down Mr Marriotts appeal to reduce the damages and overturn the County Court verdict on the basis of facts and wrong findings. He maintained that it was "consensual sex" and occurred on several occasions. He was ordered to pay the costs estimated to be 95,000.

Thus, the rape victim can expect to gain/earn 7,500 + 132,000 = 139,500. And the victim of rape allegations (false or real) can look forward to the prospect of it costing him

132,000 + 95,000 = 227,000.

[Info. from Daily Telegraph Feb 20th 1999]

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme

"The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme provides payment to victims of crimes of violence. .... Payments can be made to victims of rape, sexual assault, .... sexual violence.

".... Among other things, the consultation paper specifically invited comment on whether .... awards for rape/child abuse should be increased ...." - Living without fear, 1999, p41, from Women's Unit.

Eddie Hampton

Eddie Hampton (real name) in Maidstone Prison, writes "I am in contact with an inmate in another prison in a similar situation and he passed on some statistics which makes interesting reading and may help you in any campaign you may mount. Since 1994 when corroborated evidence was removed from sexual offences, there has been a 68% increase in successful convictions and a 74.5% increase in allegations of sexual abuse. Since Germany removed compensation, except in extreme circumstances, there has been a 97% drop in allegations of sexual abuse. I think that tells a story." (Can anyone confirm these statistics? - Editors, Newsletter No. 2 of AAFAA, Action Against False Allegations of Abuse, PO Box 84, Leeds LS5 3XZ)

Perjury

I had a hearing before Circuit Judge Stockdale, the only reason for the hearing being my request that my allegation of perjury be investigated. He stated that the courts had no facilities for investigating perjury. A number of solicitors have told me that there is no procedure for pursuing perjury. I have come to the same conclusion after many hours of study of law books. [Aitken was a show trial.] In contrast, Appeal Court Judge Thorpe had the gall, on 16th May 1996, to say in a Pelling Appeal Court hearing that the family courts were inquisitorial; that the judge's primary duty was to establish the facts. They live in the surreal world where establishing the facts involves ignoring an assertion under oath that there has been lying under oath. - Ivor Catt, The Hook and the Sting, pub. Westfields Press 1996, p63, also on Website www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/

American men's activist in Europe

Date: 19 September 1999 09:01

Hi, I am an American mens and fathers rights activist travelling through England and Europe until the beginning of November trying to link up with other mens activists.

I am the author a book titled Surviving the Feminization of America; excerpts on my website:www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/5225/

Men throughout Europe, the Americas, Australia and New Zealand have the same issues: war, money, fathering, feminism. I believe that we can increase our impact and influence by cooperating across national boundaries.

BBC TV flew me from my home base in Montana to Glasgow, Scotland to tape a TV show on men and mens issues by arrangement with George McAulay of the U.K. Mens Movement. Since BBC paid for the plane ticket over here I borrowed what cash I could with the intention of visiting as many mens organizations in Europe as I can before I run out of money.

If you are interested in having me visit your group please reply to this email [via Ed.] I need places to sleep and an occasional meal to sustain myself on the road.

I will be in London the end of September and hopefully Paris the first week of October. From ۥ-/@ -

~
jj.....

.=6ztztztztfu[1]ztxX6y(^y^y^y^y^y^y^y^y[1]`y`y`y`y`y`y‑}4}%~y3


.~y~yd;**********************************

 

Ill Eagle 7, jan/feb00

ISSN 1466-9005

p1

The Poodle-Man Archetype

"Learning to relate ests is advising them. Conferences .... will be held .... to seek a wider range of views. These will help to develop proposals that will form the basis of a consultation paper to be issued towards the end of 1999.

Ms Betty Moxon heads the Sexual Offences Review Group. On 2aug99 David Yarwood wrote to her objecting to the absence of men's groups from the list. Betty Moxon invited Robert Whiston and Ivor Catt from ManKind to attend her 10sep99 seminar in Leicester. ManKind member William Coulson also managed to fill in for a cancellation.

The UKMM report that after much effort by our Chairman, the Home Office have begun to dialogue and invite us to inter-departmental seminars. The Leicester seminar, attended by our chairman, and myself as editor of Ill Eagle, gives a great deal of food for thought and much to report, some of which I intend to do later.

There were men there, but they were poodle-men. None of the 50 attendees had the concept of a false allegation.

I completely missed the reason why those present wanted to excise charges of incest and replace them with charges of statutory rape, claiming that the stigma of incest was so much worse! Only next day did I realise that a statutory rape charge was better because it exonerated the offending female. Those present, including the poodle-men, only wanted to avoid attaching stigma to a female. (The 1993 Sexual Offences Act changed the law so that boys under the age of 14 could be charged with rape.)

They toyed with the idea of charging a step-father with incest. However, this foundered on the problem of who was a step-father. I remembered that when Jack Straw came to speak to the Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group last year, I urged our Chairman, who was on the committee, to get Straw to define parent. Robert replied that he planned first to get him to define family, which however he failed to do. [Straw clothed in Teflon is very slippery. Remember when he ran away abroad and left Boateng holding baby?] The PC destruction of meaning of the word family undermined much of the discussion in Leicester. It meant that those at Leicester could not "get" the step-father on incest, since we have also lost the definition of step-father. This is the way in which the failure of radical feminists to work out the details of their Brave New World means that their machinations unravel.

From the Seminar Programme; "Would an offence of abuse of trust be a better way to catch looser family arrangements?" The discussion drifted towards the idea that one who was dependent on another could be sexually abused by him, whether or not there was consent. I countered by saying that that meant that a sixteen-year-old who married her mother's lover could not lawfully have sexual intercourse unless she went out to work! The institution of marriage was a real irritant in the discussions.

The marriage of my parents in 1932, when two became one flesh, which involved sexual intercourse and dependency and much else, did not exist within the conceptual framework of those present. They lived in a transactional world of thought (which is also a weakness in Amneus), implicit in the word empowerment, so their proposals for future legislation were bound to founder.

The next seminar we've been asked to attend is in Oct at the Home Office itself.

ManKind and Ill Eagle can be reached at;

(1). Mankind, Suite 367, 2 Lansdowne Row, London W1X 8HL.

(2) www.ukmm.org.uk

(3) The Editor, Ill Eagle, Ivor Catt,

121 Westfields, St. Albans AL3 4JR, England. ( 01727 864257

(4) Email :- ivorcatt@

electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/

 

Reading List

I visited the I.E.A. last week, and agreed their price to you for two excellent books which members of ManKind should not only read, but own. 2.60 each post free, tel. 0171 799 3745 with credit card no. I myself have read all Morgan's and all Dennis's IEA books twice. I view them as primary sources for members of ManKind. - Ed

Patricia Morgan, Farewell to the Family? jan95, new edn. june99, 240pp.

Norman Dennis, Families without Fatherhood, sep92.

Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say

-by Warren Farrell

A Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam Book; $24.95 US/$34.95 Canada; October 4, 1999

Contacts: Lori Fuller, Tarcher/Putnam/Penguin: 818.783.5016; fax: 818.783.5678

Dr. Warren Farrell: 760.753.5000; fax: 760.753.2436

Domestic Violence. After examining over 50 domestic violence studies, Dr. Farrell discovered that each revealed one of two things: either men and women batter each other about equally, or women batter men more. See Chapter 6 (and the Appendix).

Man-Bashing. Dr. Farrell discovers why we are so angry at men, how it is affecting our sons, and what we can do about it before we create another fatherless generation. See Chapter 4.

Dr. Warren Farrell is one of the most original thinkers of our time.

-Nancy Friday

Warren Farrell has given us a gift by writing Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say. He points us to the only way to end the battle of the sexes in the 21st Century. -Karen DeCrow, Attorney; Former President, National Organization for Women (NOW)

[Farrell's The Myth of Male Power pub. Fourth Estate 1993 was the best researched book of its time. He will soon have a website. - Ed]

It's a wise father that knows his own son

It's a wise son that knows his own father.

"Twenty percent of the times that the husband requests a blood test for paternity in a divorce, it turns out that the husband is not the biological father. (Then the judge orders him to pay child support anyway) This has been published in the LA Times and the New York Times." - email 20sep99

Answer to a request from a father wishing to check the DNA of his son. http://www.affiliatedgenetics.com/ in Utah. It appears test kit can be ordered by credit card over the phone (currency converted by credit card company) and the swabs sent back to the USA for testing. Apparently there is no kit that does it all at home.

DNA Testing Services Paternity Screen. A highly confidential, low cost alternative to traditional paternity testing. This test is used to obtain paternity answers when legal admissibility is not required. This screening test is used for personal information or can preview the results of a traditional paternity test at a much lower cost.

Cost: $325.00 plus $5.00 shipping and handling.

A kit containing cheek swabs, packaging and return postage is mailed the same day the order is received. Cheek swabs are used to collect the DNA samples. (Additional $5.00 for orders outside of the United States.)

How to order a test or for more information Call: 1-801-298-3366 Fax: 1-801-298-3352 Email: btanner@burgoyne.com

Order tests with VISA/MC or send check/money order to: Affiliated Genetics, Inc. P.O. Box 870247 Woods Cross, Utah 84087-0247

Affiliated Genetics, Inc. was founded in 1994 by Kenneth Ward, M.D.. Dr. Ward is an Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University of Utah School of Medicine. In addition to his training in Obstetrics and Perinatology, Dr. Ward is board certified in medical genetics and molecular genetics. He is the laboratory director of Affiliated Genetics and also directs the DNA Diagnostic Laboratory at the University of Utah.

This information given by Ill Eagle without prejudice.- Ed

 

p4

 

 

Stanko

Much of our work is investigative. It has to be. Newspapers today have largely become mere conduits for 'official briefings'. With notable exceptions, they and by-line journalists; pawns in a political game of bluff reduced to testing the water for Govt policy manoeuvrings that will hit us a few months down the line. Scouring the Internet we downloaded on June 30th information from the Cabinet Office re. domestic violence ( www.open.gov.uk 'Organisational Index' choose 'Cabinet Office' choose 'What's New' - 30.6.99 Press Release).

This reported the joint Ministerial launch by the Home Office (HO) and the Women's Unit - but it appeared to omit certain key statistics, namely HO study 191. However, it did quote a study by 'Stanko et al', which claimed that 1/. Domestic Violence costs 278 million pounds in London alone and 2/. Govt sources or 'official' Govt figures showed that 1 in 4 women suffer domestic violence. All the national newspapers picked up and quoted these 'official' Govt figures.

Having debunked the 1 in 4 figure in the summer of 1998 (See last issue) we promptly made enquires at the Home Office. They were evasive as to the veracity of the "official figures", stating they hadn't come from them. They did however direct us to "Stanko et al" as Prof. Stanko at Brunel.

Prof. Stanko replied by email; "I will forward you a copy of the report 'counting the costs'. As for the figures used by the Cabinet Office [in "Press Release" above], there is no citation for that figure in the report. I suggest you contact the Women's Unit directly as I only received my copy of the document this week. I did not write it". But Counting the Costs is written by Prof. Stanko together with 3 other female authors, and it does cite the "1 in 4" totem. It is published by Crime Concern and funded by the Children Society and Hackney Safer Cities.

The so-called "survey", of only 107 postal respondees to agencies and 129 women in GP's surgeries, is loose, lightweight and limited, but still manages to stretch to 70 pages. By the time the reader gets to page 9 it is blatantly apparent that this is a document based on speculation, estimates and assumptions. From the beginning, is piles estimate upon estimate, guess upon guess, making magical intellectual leaps between them to arrive where the dogma says they should be, i.e. p 16. Domestic violence is defined throughout the paper as only women (and sometimes children) as victims.

Our understanding, from the Home Office, is that domestic violence is not actually a criminal offence, but the report states that it is (p 17).

Of the 107 postal surveys sent out to public service providers, only 49 were returned with some information on them, 23 resulted in no response at all and 29 were not completed. Those "key agencies" targeted also produced only 32 vague data on "the global cost" of their operations, 7 provided unit costs and with regard to number of clients only 10 knew the exact number or could estimate the ratio of domestic violence to clients (whatever that means).

"Key agencies" were defined as the police, solicitors, housing dept. Women's Aid, Social Services, GP's, health visitors.

The report is fond of using the word "trawl" to imply a thorough examination e.g. its trawl through local authority and agency files.

Unfortunately for the researchers, many key agencies replied that domestic violence "was not a primary presenting problem" and few incorporated it into their daily practice monitoring framework (p 8). Indeed, at page 44 they concede "that some case studies" may not be thought to "represent true domestic violence".

This inflammatory report is based on Hackney. Hackney is not typical of England. 46% of its population subsists on Income Support (State Benefits). The average income of the rest of London is 66% greater than that of Hackney. Over 65% of housing in Hackney is "social housing". In the past it has been the stomping ground of villains like Jack the Ripper and multifarious gangsters e.g. the Kray Twins. The area is a melting pot of over 10 nationalities multiplied by as many cultures.

The survey reveals that except for Women's Aid and the Domestic Violence Housing Service, none of the public service providers (Social Services, Police, etc) could estimate the cost of domestic violence. Nor could they estimate the prevalence of clients that "present" themselves for help.

In 1996 the police introduced CRIS (Crime Report Information System) which has a mechanism for highlighting particular crimes e.g. domestic violence. But because of "teething troubles" and the fact that they were "acutely aware" that police figures would be "conservative", the Stanko team had to estimate again. The team also realised they had no way of knowing or even estimating the cost in educational terms of domestic violence, but they nonetheless were soon able "to generate local estimates".

Citing the 1993 Home Affairs Select Committee on domestic violence, which concludes that domestic violence was common and the Assoc. of Chief police Officers evidence that domestic violence is "not based on either reliable or accurate data", the report continues to assert that it is grossly under-recorded. However, they concede that while nearly a third of domestic violence incidents resulted in victims seeking medical support, only 3% actually sought hospital attention. This would seem to underscore the proposition that seeking medical care, if not for police purposes, is purely an emotional prop.

At page 13 of Counting the Costs we read of earlier surveys into this field. Beginning with estimates from the British Crime Survey (1996) it moves on to Mooney's 1994 survey in Islington (less than 500) which found that 37% of women reported some form of domestic violence and 1 in 4 reported being injured from domestic violence in their lifetime - which is a meaningless statistic.

Painter's survey of 1,000 women; one in eight said they had been raped while married.

McGibbon et al survey (1989) (less than 500) in Hammersmith showed that of 281 respondees 39% had experience verbal or physical abuse by a partner.

Dominy and Radford (1996) - a survey of less than 500 - found that they had to add in a significant number of women who had suffered domestic violence where the women themselves (15%) did not view it as such. Of the above, only Mooney's was randomly distributed.

All research, the report concludes, shows that its findings that 1 in 4 experience some form of domestic violence in their life time and between 1 in 8 and 1 in 10 in the current year, "echoed" the work of other researchers and Women's Aid.

Significantly, Stanko et al. state; "Perhaps more disconcerting is the number of women who continue to maintain their silence about their experiences, or those who, when they spoke to someone, were not heard". This is difficult to credit, given the setting and antics of "Eastenders".

One 70 year old who responded to the GP questionnaire said " .. In old age sexual violence becomes mental cruelty. Weak shits remain weak shits".

It would be more accurate and trebly difficult (if not ideologically impossible) for 'Stanko et al" to come to the same conclusion about men who suffer domestic violence.

Of dubious interest is the assertion that domestic violence is a feature in 1 in 3 instances of separation or divorce (Hester 1996). It will take more research to find out whether that is true of only cohabitees, or of married couples that separate and divorce. Actually, as we all know, allegations of violence during divorce proceedings, which cannot be countered in our courts, are merely a mechanism to validate the confiscation of a husband's home and children.

 

Majorities unwelcome

- Decca Aitkenhead,

The Guardian, 30aug99, p13

".... In the main, most men's clubs are comfortable social enclaves, existing for exactly the same reason as gay clubs, and they would be distorted by women members in just the same way.

"The energy burnt up by women's movements over the right to have a drink in this or that room is one of the greatest wastes of time imaginable. ...."

Note that this assertion could not be published by a man. - Ed

 

 

Ill Eagle 5, oct99

p1

Will only good fathers get their pocket money?

 

On Oct 9, 17:19, Brian [who?] wrote:

"Subject: Employers to pay men's wages into their wives' bank accounts.

What a good job no man in his right mind would get married again. If you were in any doubt that we have the feminist party in power........"

On 4 Oct 1999 23:35:04 in alt.mens-rights Blake Thoresby <thoresby@nym.alias.net> wrote:

"The British Minister for Women has announced plans to compel employers to pay men's wages into their wives' bank accounts. Baroness Jay said that the new rules, which will come into force in April, will reduce poverty in the family by ensuring that family income is not wasted. She said that wives will have sole discretion over whether or not they receive their husband's wages directly. This is in line with the current regulations which allow wives to decide which partner is paid Child Benefit.

Men's rights groups have expressed concern and say they are particularly worried about separated men who will have to ask their estranged wives for enough money to live on.

Legal experts say that the new Family Income regulations will also be applied to unmarried couples with children who live, or have lived, together."

Hail to ".... the gender warriors behind the Women's Unit .... The Women's Unit speaks not for ordinary women but privileged feminists." - Melanie Phillips, Sunday Times 10oct99, p21.

[The British Minister for Women is reported to have broken up at least one marriage when she ran amuck in Washington DC. Did her husband, the famous economist, fail to finance her travel from tryst to tryst?

I begin to wonder why I bother to read and analyse the vicious, anti-social rubbish, for instance Living Without Fear, signed by (fly-by-night) Jay and (Man of) Straw, put out by her Women's Unit. Tel. 0171 273 8880 for your copy. We now see that Jay is totally out of touch, a loose cannon, Leader of the House of Lords, at the heart of government. Vanity Blair dare not touch her, since he is surrounded by power feminists; Cheri, Coote, Hewett, Harman, and other obscure orientations who also benefit from the demeaning of normal men. As with our judges, he doesn't want to lose his salary and children, or end up homeless - Ed.]

 

Kennedy's Mea Culpa

In his keynote speech to the Liberal Party Conference, Kennedy said that he, along with members of all parties, was to blame for not studying the details of the CSA when its inauguration was being rushed through Parliament. This confession was not mentioned in the analyses of his speech, or in evening news, or in The Times next day. - Ed

 

Is the gun or the Single Mother Home more lethal?

For more than half a year after Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris shot fellow students in Littleton, Colorado, the media successfully and completely concealed the fact that Klebold is yet another product of an SMH (single-mother household). Nobody ever had the impression from the media for this entire time that both of these children were nothing but ordinary children from ordinary families. Dylan Klebold was "ordinary" only by a fact beyond his control, but not of his mother's, that almost 100% of mass murderers, assassins, and school shooters were born to or grew up in SMHs, where they are 8 times more likely to become murderers than children who grow up with their biological fathers.

www.angelfire.com/yt/eharrisdklebold/images/dylan5.jpg

 

A woman's world

Domineering middle-class "feminists" have always been detrimental to ordinary people (Melanie Phillips, Comment, 10oct99, p20). A notorious early example was their hijacking of the suffrage movement, turning it into a violent organisation which lost sympathy for the cause.

The current contrary motion of the sexes, women going into the workforce while men go into the dole queues, merely reflects their respective starting points. Men have left secure skilled work, woman have left the home, but both have left secure positions to move downhill to the labour pool.

Survey after survey of young women (18-24) reports most of them saying their favoured lifestyle when they reach 30 would be looking after their children full-time, supported by a husband with a secure, reasonably paid job. This after 30 years of feminist propaganda.

Along with their colleagues producing fiscal policies which penalise proper parenthood, the gender warriors are promoting greater exploitation dressed up as "choice" and "liberation".

- William Coulson,

Sunday Times, 17oct99, p20.

 

Sex Offences Review

(See Editorial, sep99.)

Ms Betty Moxon heads the Sexual Offences Review Group. ....[She] invited Robert Whiston and Ivor Catt from ManKind to attend her 10sep99 seminar in Leicester....

There were men there, but they were poodle-men. None of the 50 attendees had the concept of a false allegation. The other men listed were; Judge Francis Allen; Chris Atkinson, NSPCC; Simon Bass, Churches' Child Protection Advisory Service; Richard Beckett, Consultant Psychiatrist; David Congdon, MENCAP; Dr Simon Court, Designated Doctor Child Protection; Gerry Egan, DoHealth; Marcus Eldridge, NSPCC; David Johnson, Social Services; Peter Lewis, Chief Crown Prosecutor Lincolnshire; Miles McColl, Stip. Magistrate; Malcolm Ross, Chief Supt. Gloucs. Constabulary; Imam Abduljalil Sajid JP, Chairman Muslim Council of Britain Social Policy.... ; Robert Street, Home Office Research & Stats. Female members included Gill Keep, Childline.

The poodle-men invited to give 'balance' were in a minority. This is perhaps why, if anything, they out-shone the female majority in demonising their own gender. Although senior professionals, they behaved as if they believed the propaganda [all men are potential rapists etc.] and did not know the true statistics. This made the women present believe that they were not part of a prejudiced subculture. What about instituting a Roll of Honour for leading Poodle-Men?

".... there are critical men around the generally female, sexual abuse lobby, who as politically correct opportunists say nothing about the demonisation of men as pathological abusers. .... Up front are children's organisations such as the NSPCC, Childline and Kidscape. Less known are ones like Ritual Abuse Information Network Support, ChildWatch, the Beacon Foundation and the British Association for the Study and Prevention of Child Abuse...."

- Newsletter 2 of AAFAA, Action Against False Allegations of Abuse, Summer-Autumn 1999, 01635 202433.

[General terms; Poodle-man; Quisling; Uncle Tom; Castrato; Male feminist. This links with my Eagle 3 Editorial - Ed]

 

p2

 

 

Our Secretary and the UN

Barry Worrall is at barryw@hisown.demon.co.uk

More details on our website www.ukmm.org.uk

UN submission under the '1503' procedure.

This UN submission concerns the definition of 'marriage' in the UK and the degrading treatment of unimpeachable men in divorce

HISTORY

28 April 99 : we make initial submission to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights about violations of Articles 7 (degrading treatment in divorce) & 23 (right to marry and to found a family) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). We make this submission under the '1503' procedure which allows a submission about a 'consistent pattern of violations' of human rights law. The submission is supported by a copy of The Emperor's New Clothes, which is available under our www publications pages.

25 June 99 : UN requests 7 further copies of submission document and our report The Emperor's New Clothes. These sent.

30 July 99 : UN inform us that they are referring the submission to the UK government.

SYNOPSIS OF SUBMISSION

For those men in an on-going marriage there are no benefits or protections. Further, men who are innocent of any matrimonial offence are being divorced using fabricated grounds and are having their lives seriously damaged, so having done no substantive wrong, they are treated in a degrading manner which violates Article 7 of ICCPR. On average marriage is therefore damaging to men.

At the heart of our submission is that what is referred to as 'marriage' in the UK is actually more damaging on average than not marrying. Article 23 of ICCPR guarantees the right to marry. What is referred to as 'marriage' in the UK is not compatible with the act 'to marry' in Article 23 of ICCPR. Men may not 'marry' in the UK in terms consistent with Article 23 of ICCPR i.e. in any meaningful sense. READ THE SUBMISSION on the www

Dear Mr. Worrall, [Secretary, ManKind,] This is to acknowledge the receipt of your communication referred to above.

In accordance with a procedure set out in the enclosed resolutions, a copy of your communication will be sent to the authorities of the country concerned and a summary of it will be confidentially submitted to the Commission on Human Rights and the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Yours sincerely, Hamid Gaham, Officer-in-Charge, Support Services Branch, United Nations High Commission for Human Rights. 30 July 1999.

States must pay compensation for obstructing access

Source - Barry Worrall.

In the European Court for Human Rights (ECHR) [it has a good website] the case of "Elsholtz v Germany (No. 25735/94) concerning complaints about refusal of access to his son and about alleged unfairness of the proceedings concerned" should be of interest to all dads. This case follows others originating in Sweden and Finland

(see Hokkanen v. Finland on

www.ukmm.org.uk/camp/hokkanen) where States have been ordered to change their ways (re Fathers and access/visitation) and pay compensation. UKMM members need to study the Hokkanen case, on the web, or send one pound in stamps to Ed for a copy.

[In Finland, as in England, the mantra "best interests of the child", used to ignore the law and to deny a child's civil rights, exerted its baleful influence. Where Finland got caught was that initially they asserted that a father had rights, but later the State frustrated them. This happens in virtually every divorce case in England. English judges make the same mistake. Although English judges do their best to make a father appear feckless, all the same they initially admit a father's rights by making an order for access. Later they refuse to enforce the order. The Hokkanen case makes a precedent leading to a class action by English fathers against the UK govt. Even at 10,000 each, this would work out to tens of billions of pounds. The Appeal Court decisions not to enforce court orders re access will be ruled out by the European Court. Pelling agrees with me that the reason why, when a father appeals to a court to enforce a court order for access, the courts makes a new order giving less access, may be in order to reduce the compensation payable by our Govt. However, it is more likely that our ignorant judges do not know the Finnish case. We have a dilemma. How does a father show that he kept trying, without giving the govt the chance to claim that the best interests of the child had called for ever less access, so as to diminish its Hokkanen liability? - Ed]

Mr Hokkanen in Finland had been cut off by deliberate obstruction to contact with his daughter. His wife had died, and his daughter looked after by his wife's parents - his daughter's grandparents. They had obstructed contact over a 3 year period, despite repeated applications to court. Mr Hokkanen applied under Article 8 of the European Convention (respect for family life and no interference by authority in that). He obtained 100,000 Finish marks - about 11,000 compensation.

 

[A good summary would be the partly dissenting judgement, p19, see below, which presumably called for a higher fine to be imposed on the Fiinnish Govt. - Ed]

"PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYER, JOINED BY JUDGES RUSSO AND JUNGWIERT

(Translation)

"In our opinion, there has been a breach of the applicant's right to respect for his family life both as regards custody and as regards access, and in respect of the latter since 21 October 1993 as well as before then.

"Over many years the Finnish authorities were faced with and tolerated the prolongation of a situation which they had on many occasions noted to be unlawful and which they were accordingly under a duty to bring to an end. (No distinction needs to be made between the various authorities which intervened in the case; they all engage the respondent State's responsibility.) On each occasion they yielded in the face of the grandparents' persistent obstination and thus enabled them to create a fait accompli which the authorities eventually resigned themselves to endorsing as regards both custody and access.

"Having thus brought upon themselves this capitulation on both fronts, they may well have thought that matters had got to such a point that it was no longer in the child's interests to go on trying to remedy the situation.

"The fact remains nevertheless that ultimately the authorities deprived the applicant of the exercise of rights which naturally vested in him as father, although they had previously recognised on numerous occasions that he should not be denied them. (See, in particular, as regards access, paragraphs 10, 12, 25 and 29, and as regards custody, paragraphs 14, 16, 18, 22, 24 and 27 of this judgement.)

"Far from stopping the infringement of these rights, they thus permanently put a seal on it." [This maps directly onto behaviour by the English courts. - Ed]

"Trusted babysitter, 12,

'killed infant in her care'

- wrote Paul Kelso, The Guardian, 29sep99, p5"

Hot from a day studying political correctness at the Home Office conference in Leicester, I read this article as a clear demonstration of the massive move away from the old culture, where children came first, to our current radical feminist culture, where the mature woman comes first, and children and men take the hindmost.

A 26 year old mother left her baby in the care of a 12 year old girl, who was ".... trustworthy and mature for her age." The mother now claims the girl killed her baby. The girl is on a murder charge.

25 years ago the baby would have had a father to protect it. Failing that, the mother would have been on a criminal charge for leaving her baby in the care of a 12 year old child. Today, that is not possible, because by definition a mother is blameless. A girl child can be relied on to be responsible, as compared with a boy child, who can be relied on to rape and kill.

Nobody criticised the actions of the mother. - Ed

 

p3

 

Editorial

For many years I have rated Norman Dennis a major player in the problem of family breakdown. He did primary research when he compared two nearby estates, and found that crime and other social breakdown occurred in the estate which lacked fathers, and not in the estate which merely suffered poverty. However, generally, in deference to feminist control of the media, I have only cited female experts, and so drew much less attention to Dennis and Amneus than to Barbara Amiel, Patricia Morgan and Melanie Phillips.

The importance of the dialogue which follows is that even though Norman Dennis was writing for the pro-family Institute of Economic Affairs, IEA, generally regarded as the premier right wing (which they deny) think-tank, he still avoided laying any blame on women for fear that he would not get published.

Melanie now closes the loop

".... girls cast aside the constraints which deep down they may still feel are in their own best interests." - Melanie Phillips, Sunday Times, 17oct99

To Norman Dennis. The following letter was sent to you (N.D.) on 30apr98. I held this back because the tone was unpleasant and explosive. However, I feel I should send it off [to you] rather than delay ever longer for the time when I shall write a more diplomatic note. I certainly felt very strongly at the time. Ivor

 

21feb98

Norman Dennis,

Emeritus Professor,

Dept. of Religious Studies,

University of Newcastle o Tyne.

Dear Norman Dennis,

I heard you lecture at a seminar organised by John Campion in Oxford Street, London, some years ago. The event was important for me. I had just read an article by Patricia Morgan, which caused me to attend. Also, Amneus spoke. The other key event was a five minute talk by a Hausa tribesman from Nigeria, who spoke of the impact of English divorce laws on his people living in England. (The significance of what he said is totally missing from your writings.) [Hausa fathers knew they would all lose home and children. Every father was getting together what money he could, and escaping back to Nigeria. - Ed]

I identified you, Morgan and Amneus as three of the four most important contributors to the analysis of the growing crisis. The other one is Melanie Phillips.

....

I have just re-read your 1993 Families without fatherhood, and then re-read your 1993 Rising Crime ...., followed by my reading your jan97 The Invention of Permanent Poverty for the first time.

The most horrifying part is the last para. of "The Invention....," where your myopia stands out most starkly, although it pervades all your books; your belief that a woman is not responsible for her actions, and men want to escape responsibility. Nowhere in your writings is mention of a woman's responsibility. It is incredible that you, who reiterate astonishment at the Sociology Establishment's refusal to see what is staring in their faces, (re poverty cf. crime), do much the same thing yourself.

p171 Penultimate para; ....men's sexual liberation.

Final para; .... the frustrations of fathers without families.

I am forced to conclude that the male chauvinism shown in your books links up with the chauvinism of the New Victorians, the radical feminists, in assuming, or even asserting, that a woman is not responsible for her actions. [We now know that it was not chauvinism, but his fear of censorship. - Ed]

Do you have the concept of a man being driven out of his home? Where in all your writings is the evidence?

Robert Whiston told me a year ago that you had switched, and now comprehended a woman's responsibility as a major factor in the crisis. However, I am told by someone else that within the last two months in a lecture you still showed the old chauvinist attitude, that only a man is responsible for his actions. Do you not know that the vast majority of divorces are started by women? Do you not know the suicide statistics among young men, their increase, and the comparison with that of young women? Why do these happy, free, liberated, libertine young men increasingly commit suicide? Do you not know the relative long term unemployment statistics for young people, male and female? You really should, if you feel you have the right to so roundly charge the Rowntree axis with ignorance, where you are correct. I see no evidence of knowledge of these things in your books; only the reiteration of the young male, eager to be promiscuous and evade responsibility for his children, given the chance. The woman is an object, not a sentient being. Try to find cases where she figures in your books. This is terribly shallow, for one who has done the amount of careful research that you have done. Your writings show no evidence of any knowledge about how the family courts are operating. This information is readily available, from me if necessary. [Now see my website - Ed] This has major impact on your findings, and your myopia certainly taints and blunts your findings. This is serious, because you are one of the four major players in the debate. Your selective ignorance does much more damage than that of the average man.

Yours sincerely, Ivor Catt

The reply

by phone

may 98 cc Norman Dennis ....

5.5.98 Today I received a phone call from Norman Dennis. This was my first communication from him. My rambling comments below are because I thought I should put something in writing, but since there is obviously much goodwill between us, I do not have to be too careful or accurate. So I will not hold back further copies until he okays what follows. He said a number of things. Although he said he was willing to be quoted, and I replied that I had no intention of so doing, I have since decided to do a very approximate quote of some of what he said. We spoke for perhaps 15 minutes.

1. The key point was that he thought he was remiss (he definitely did a 'mea culpa' more than once. That clears the air;) in giving only part of the story (In Families without Fatherhood and Rising Crime and the Dismembered Family) in the early 90's. (He thought my letter was fair.) His reason was in my view valid; that his main message was poverty and crime. I have sympathy with him in his objective at the time; to show that family breakdown, not poverty, caused crime. I agree that this issue is some way from the issue of blame for family breakdown, and that to some degree he was entitled to discuss the one (which he did very well indeed, and attracted me to him) while evading, or at least de-emphasising, the other. We should remember that the more damaging excesses of the feminazis occurred later than his time of writing, and it was not certain that they would become so very anti-social. (It is over-simplistic to say that he placed no blame on women in order to ensure publication, but there is more than a tinge of that in what he said.)

2. His second message is that he is very much in agreement with John Campion and with Ivor Catt, and that differences of opinion are only very minor. He talked about women wanting to have their cake and eat it. I think he also emphasised the plight of today's young man.

3. He said he was now into studying the drug industry, and was not fully up to date on our concerns. However, I said that, being aged 68, he was even more valuable than I was (age 62) in that he knew the perceptions and mores of the 1950's and 1960's, which younger people do not. For instance, he agreed with me that in 1960 the concept of a 'career' which led to an income large enough to support only one or two people, did not exist. This is not known by the younger E or Adrienne. (In 1960, activity which only supported one or two people was not caller a 'career'.) (I am coming across many other conceptual blocks. For instance, E and Adrienne do not seem to understand the tripartite (or even more multiple) nature of marriage in 1960, in particular the separation of civil from religious marriage, and that in 1960 everyone understood the distinctions. Dennis is very much needed, even if he does no more research, because he knows the past. He was there, and active in sociological study.

By coming in to the fold, I feel he plays a very important role in the ongoing saga. It is very significant that he discerns very little difference between his view and those of myself and John Campion.

 

p4

 

My message to Adrienne Burgess is that she really needs to draw on him, for instance to clarify her understanding of the nature of marriage in 1960.

ND's possible suggestion that criticism of women would hazard his chances of getting published reinforces the assertion of Janet Daley that men are debarred from communicating on this subject; this assertion even reiterated by Polly Toynbee in the Guardian, 6may98. It's reached a pretty pass when even a female chauvinist sow like PT suggests that men are not allowed centre stage; although grudgingly stated in her case. [Of all people, PT was the only one allowed to attack the CSA in her recent three part TV analysis Can't Pay, Won't Pay - Ed.] I think the suppression of scholarly comment by men will ensure that the crisis will go far deeper, only to be ended when men are allowed to join the discussion.

I have recently realised that even the best woman, Melanie Phillips, will need the input of male scholarship and understanding before she can fully master the crisis, which is complex and difficult. (FNF punkah-wallahs will remain on the fringe, playing their silly personality games.) Ivor Catt 5.5.98

Reply by letter

12may98 From N Dennis to IC

Dear Ivor, Thank you for your very fair and clear account of the discussion we had the other day.

As it seems that you are anxious in case you misinterpreted or misheard what I said on any point, I'm writing rather than telephoning to say that you have reproduced my opinions as I expressed them to you.

I greatly appreciate your courtesy. Best wishes, Yours sincerely,

[signed] Norman Dennis.

"Women Behaving disgracefully

Women, not men, are driving a collapse in moral values that is undermining the family and ultimately themselves, says Melanie Phillips" - Sunday Times, sect.5, p6, 17oct99. Also 24oct99. A full page by Melanie on her new book, The Sex Change Society, 12 from 0870 165 8585.

Deadlier than the male

"Women are at least as violent as men, but the evidence is everywhere being dismissed or ignored" - Melanie Phillips, Sunday Times, 24oct99, sect. 5, p10.

A Time to Honour Bravery

We have to honour the bravery of Canadian Senator Anne C. Cools [see my website - Ed], Erin Pizzey, who insisted to me that most child abusers are women, and now Melanie Phillips, who says that it is the disgraceful behaviour of women that is destroying society. Such assertions are made by the brave, and in doing so they suffer great pain. Their adversaries are vicious. Erin had to have police protection, and fled the country. She now lives at a secret address. - Ed

 

Deadbeat dads

- Helen Wilkinson,

The Independent, 1july99

".... plans .... to criminalise fathers .... delinquent in paying child support ....

"The proposals .... have a distinctly American flavour. .... the infringements of personal liberty .... by many American states are quite shocking .... perpetuating vicious cycles of exclusion.

".... The federal government now recognises that unemployed, non-resident fathers, as well as single parent mums, have specific needs .... if they are .... to fulfil their parental obligations."

Not so the British govt. E has researched the way in which, in Britain, access to back to work, parent sickness and other child-directed benefits intended by parliament for any parent are illegally (according to European law) witheld from a divorced father through the administratively convenient (according to Harriet Harman) mechanism of funnelling them through a single Child Benefit Book, always kept by the mother. Michael Pelling is actively pursuing this case thru to Europe. - Ed.

Boys lost in fatherless homes

Charles Moore,

Nova Scotia. 2sep99.

More than 40 per cent of children now spend a large proportion of their childhood in single-parent homes, compared with just five per cent of kids who lived only with their mothers in 1960.

70% of institutionalized juvenile offenders in the U.S. come from fatherless homes, and children from broken families are twice as likely to drop out of school.

Little girls doubtless miss absent fathers profoundly, but the burden of growing up fatherless weighs heaviest on the male child. Most girls get ample exposure to female role-models and have little difficulty developing a clear idea of what women do.

Fatherless boys get only sporadic glimpses of what men do, and thus receive few clues as to what they're supposed to become. As he grows, the fatherless boy-child desperately attempts to tap into the collective male identity, usually taking his cues from likewise father-hungry peers and pop-cultural influences.

Not that the entertainment media is much help. A National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) study released in March found only 15 prime-time shows (less than 15 per cent of 102 shows on the major U.S. networks) with fathers as regular, central characters. Only four of those portrayed functional fatherhood.

As U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan observed: "A community that allows a large number of young men (and women) to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, . . . that community asks for, and gets, chaos."

Less than 30 per cent of juveniles imprisoned for violent offences grew up with both parents.

Until about 100 years ago, fathers were unquestioned familial child-rearing authorities. Most men worked at home or close to home, and participated hands-on in their children's' upbringing. Educators of boys were also nearly always male, and the social environment boys inhabited was predominantly masculine.

In traditional cultures, boys spend lots of time with their fathers and other adult male role-models, developing into manhood surrounded by masculine energy. In the West, the Industrial Revolution destroyed normal family and community dynamics, removing fathers from the home.

Carl Jung observed that sons develop their image of absent or emotionally distant fathers through the mother's often aggrieved and resentful eyes, and learn to view their own masculinity through the jaundiced lens of her hostility. This results in wounded images of both father and self.

Today the problem is amplified. The notion that children are corrupted by exposure to masculine values is gaining increasingly wider acceptance.

In modern child-rearing theory and "progressive" education, supposedly "female values" of compassion, nurturing, forgiveness, rebirth and renewal are emphasized positively, while supposedly masculine qualities of strength, protection, justice, judgment and punishment are disparaged.

"The old traditionally male values of constancy, gravitas, restraint, heroism, dignity and honour are seen as belonging to a past world," writes British feminist author Fay Weldon. "Perhaps they do. Perhaps it is no bad thing."

It is a very bad thing. Boys who grow up in a predominantly feminine environment risk low self-esteem, excessive and unhealthy dependence on females, and emotional immaturity.

[Angela Philips's .... recipe for "bolstering boy's self-esteem" is to ensure boys are able "to shine" through "music, drama and dance". This proposed remedy can only be damaging to the male psyche which instinctively pushes in the opposite direction. - Ill Eagle 3, p4. - Ed]

Only men can confer a sense of soul-union with other men. Only men can understand and truly empathize with the particular fears, anger, sadness, and sometimes despair that are part and parcel of being male.

Children need men as a constant in their lives. Both girls and boys need fathers who understand and affirm an essentially male approach to parenting, and who can teach them that family life is something in which men can and should participate. .... ....

p5

Comments and suggestions are welcome.

E-mail: wcr@supernet.ab.ca

 

 

 

 

USA's Privatised CSA out of control

Ginger Thompson, President, West Virginia Alliance for Two Parents; Remarks to Joint Domestic Relations Subcommittee Sept. 12, 1999

As we are hearing today, the system is tragically broken and does not work for anyone - those who are paying support or those who are receiving it. That means the ones who are really suffering are the children .... it is meant to help.

In addition to the problems with child support enforcement, there is an underlying problem in West Virginia's child support system - the very philosophy and methodology upon which support is set and collected.

West Virginia uses the Williams formula, also called the Income Shares Formula, upon which to base its child support guidelines. It's named for Dr. Robert Williams, a self-appointed child support guru who has built a multi-million dollar business out of developing child support formulas as well as collecting child support. Various versions of Dr. Williams' guidelines are used in 31 states.

The most astounding aspect of Dr. Williams' involvement in West Virginia's child support system is his blatant conflict of interest. Dr. Williams is the president of Policy Studies Inc., based in Denver, Colorado. Policy Studies' subsidiary, Privatization Partnerships Inc., is the private child support collection agency that does business in West Virginia.

As a consultant to federal and state governments, Dr. Williams has been able to create a market from which he and his company can profit. He has influenced policy as a consultant to the federal government's child support enforcement agency and used his inside knowledge to develop a consulting business and collection agency.

In 1996, Williams' company had the greatest number of child support enforcement contracts of any of the private companies that provide such services. Reimbursement to his company for child support enforcement ranges from 10 to 32 percent of what his company collects, according to the General Accounting Office. He and his company have cost the taxpayers billions of dollars, without really improving the lives of the children who are supposed to be helped by child support enforcement.

It is not to Policy Studies' benefit to track down the true deadbeats; but to instead concentrate their efforts on the cases that are easy to collect. [In England, Polly Toynbee's 3 part TV series Can't pay Won't pay said our CSA very soon gave up on difficult fathers, and instead, increased the claims against fathers who were already paying, in order to meet the CSA's cash targets. - Ed.] It also makes them less willing to correct errors. It is to Dr. Williams' benefit to design a child support formula that calls for high amounts of support which easily create arrearages. After all, the more collected, the more profits for his business. ....

Dr. Williams' income shares formula has come under intense scrutiny of late. The spring issue of the Family Law Quarterly, published by the American Bar Association, included two articles very critical of current child support policy. Several analysts have studied Williams' formula and have published reports which illustrate its flawed methodology. ....

[Things could get worse here. Wait until Blair hears about privatising the CSA in the USA! The problem is being thoroughly aired in emails from ACFC - Ed.]

Researchers scuffle over domestic violence

by Karen S. Peterson,

USA TODAY, 27july99

Who hits first, the man or the woman? The latest in a list of government-funded studies comes up with a controversial answer. Women hit men at least as often as men hit women, says research funded in part by the Justice Department.

That finding, reported this month, is ratcheting up one of the biggest debates in the field of domestic violence.

Two camps with different agendas are once again glaring at each other, each backed by prestigious but contradictory studies. And the tension will increase today when smaller-scale research is released, showing that girls in middle school are just as aggressive as boys with their partners.

The debate

In one tent are those who stress the greater damage men do when they hit women, regardless of who hits first.

In another are those who say women, especially younger women, hit first about as often as men. And they also must be held accountable, even if they do little physical harm.

"Neither side is motivated to understand the other. Rather, each seeks to impose its perspective because they believe (their) preferred definition is vital to advancing their moral agenda and professional objectives," says pioneering researcher Murray Straus in the chapter he contributes to the new Violence in Intimate Relationships (Sage, $29.95).

Small-scale studies are being presented this month at two conferences on domestic violence. They also show that women - especially young women - may be willing to participate in a literal battle between the sexes.

In a study of 872 students in five Philadelphia middle schools, about 65% of against a favored member of the opposite sex, researcher Michele Cascardi will tell the International Family Violence Research Conference today at the University of New Hampshire in Durham.

Cascardi emphasizes that contact basically means pushing and shoving and is considered "no big deal" by the kids - although it concerns those who worry that such behavior could escalate later. Her team is testing a school-based prevention program to heighten awareness among sixth- through eighth-graders

Arresting research

Other researchers have found girls to be physically aggressive, Cascardi says. Sociologists speculate that such behavior often is seen as more acceptable from girls today.

Research presented this month at the Penn School of Social Work's Conference on Intimate Violence concerned the behavior of women. More are being arrested for assaulting their male partners, a result not expected by advocates who support laws to protect women from domestic violence, says Sue Osthoff of the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women.

Osthoff says that as more jurisdictions require police officers to make an arrest when answering a call about domestic violence, more women - who may have struck men in self-defense - are being arrested. Her information is anecdotal: Nobody monitors such statistics at a national level.

But landmark researcher Richard Gelles of the Penn School of Social Work says his research shows that women hit men just as men hit women, and it is not surprising that more women are being arrested. "When you set out the nets for tuna, you are going to pull some dolphins in," he says. "And advocates for women will have to wrestle with that."

The Justice Department study does not exonerate women. That project, which lasted 21 years, found that 27% of young women and 34% of young men had been physically abused by a partner, and 37% of women and 22% of men said they had perpetrated the violence.

Nobody - advocates for women or for men, researchers, concerned social scientists - suggests that the results of most physical abuse are the same for men and women.

"This is not an equal playing field," Gelles says. Virtually all the scientific studies show that women are much more apt to be hurt. And they are much more likely to be killed by a domestic partner.

"There are now about 500 male victims a year and in excess of 1,200 females," Gelles says.

For such reasons, advocates for battered women are reluctant to read newspaper headlines saying women and men hit each other at about the same rates.

 

p6

The day after USA TODAY reported on the Justice Department study, Juley Fulcher of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence called to say, in part, "It is hurtful to people to be able to claim that (domestic violence) is going both ways, that nobody is really to blame."

The public, she says, often only reads headlines and doesn't evaluate the study involved. Battered women, she says, "are much less likely to get assistance if there are people saying this is a two-way street. We hear callous remarks like 'Let them beat each other up.' ... We don't want to give the public an excuse to turn their backs on domestic violence, the way we did 10 or 20 years ago."

The Justice Department study was co-authored by psychology professor Terrie Moffitt, now on sabbatical from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The research was done with 1,037 young New Zealand adults, 52% of them men and 48% women.

The study didn't include "who started each incident or if some of the acts were in self-defense, but it is clear that in most cases of partner violence in this age group, the parties are involved in mutual violence," Moffitt's report says.

Straus and Gelles say the Moffitt study is sound: Their research shows that women and men attack their partners at similar rates.

Patricia Tjaden also applauds the study, but her research produced a different result: Women are three times more likely to be assaulted in some way over a lifetime by a male partner than the reverse, and they are seven to 14 times more likely to be beaten, choked or threatened with a gun. Her research for the nonprofit Center for Policy Research was sponsored by two government agencies.

Unanswered questions

Why the discrepancies in such heavy-duty studies?

"That is the million-dollar question," Tjaden says. "After 20 years of research in this area, we are now left pondering the most basic questions. How prevalent is partner violence, and is there parity between the sexes?"

Tjaden says that when researchers ask only about being victimized, they get more men as batterers. If researchers ask about being victimized and victimizing others, they get more equality between the sexes. A lot of scholars agree, she says, that "women are just more likely to admit stuff than men are" and will confess to hitting a partner while a man won't. It also is more socially acceptable for a woman to fess up than it is for a man.

Straus says domestic-violence studies are a minefield. The quarrels start over definitions. Some define abuse broadly and include emotional mistreatment. Some include pushing and shoving, [Incredibly and disgracefully, London's Home Office 1999 Research Study 196, A question of evidence? Investigating and prosecuting rape in the 1990s, includes pushing as a form of violence, see p19. - Ed.] while others stick to physical assaults that are intended to cause injury. And some ask about a lifetime pattern of abuse, while others focus on the past 12 months.

Studies tend to fall into two broad categories, Straus says. Those based on actual crime statistics usually show low overall rates of assault, but more by men than women. When an arrest is made, the injury is more apt to be serious and is still more apt to be inflicted by a man.

Also, context matters. When victims are asked in terms of crime, they may not think a slap or kick is serious and won't report it, he says.

But what Straus calls "family conflict" studies focus on a broader definition. They include assaults that don't result in injury. Routinely, he says, "family-conflict studies have found about equal rates of assault by the male and female partner."

The two types of studies, he says, focus on "different groups of people and reflect different aspects of domestic assault." Women's groups tend to focus on crime studies that document battered women, he says, but crime studies might not reflect the population at large.

Both types of studies are valid and needed, Straus says. "Society would lose if either side gives up their perspective."

Which particular study catches the public's eye truly matters, experts say: The statistics influence policy decisions, such as the funding of women's shelters.

Tense confrontations

The confrontation over findings can get ugly. Straus says one of his colleagues received a bomb threat when she found women to be partners in violence. [In England, Erin Pizzey had to have police protection. - Ed.] Some of his graduate students have been told they will never get a job if they work with him, he says, and he and other peers have been booed from speakers' podiums. Virtually all of the studies have critics. The family-conflict methodology pioneered by Gelles and Straus is "irresponsible and totally flawed," says

Joan Zorza, editor of the Domestic Violence Report. The method, she says, intentionally sees violence as part of a family system and therefore tends to find "men and women equally violent."

Tjaden is convinced that "women are the primary victims of intimate-partner violence." But, she says, "I regard myself as a researcher and scientist, not an advocate." Scientists, she says, "don't poke fingers at each other and say, 'My numbers are right, and yours are wrong.'

"It may be we are measuring two different things," she says. "That is where future research has to go."

Letters

 

Mr. David Rudnick wrote an article in The Times this week about making punishment fit the crime, (15th or 16th Sept.), and drew attention to the case at Southwark Crown Court of Lee Tate who admitted the manslaughter of a prize winning researcher, Mr Seung Lee, of Clare College, Cambridge in an unprovoked attack whilst Mr. Seung was taking a stroll with his wife, sister and two friends. The judge sentenced him to 2 years in prison. Later that month at Manchester Crown Court, M/s Carla Hunter admitted running over and killing Gina Armitage, another motorist, after a road rage incident. She deliberately drove her Mercedes car backwards, then forwards over the victim's prostrate body after running her down! An initial manslaughter charge was dropped! Hunter was given a year's imprisonment for dangerous driving. Do you think a Mr. Hunter would have had a manslaughter charge dropped or would it have been made one of murder? And even if against all expectations the manslaughter charge had been dropped would it have only been a year's jail? Contrast that with the man who got six weeks jail for common assault for smacking a female student's bottom in exhuberance when he was in a celebratory mood which was reported the next day in the Times.

....

I find Ill-Eagle interesting, illuminating and a good index to the UL's prejudice and discrimination against men and hope you can long continue it.

- Jim Tye, Abergavenny

 

.... I suggest that you print the address of Mankind in Ill-Eagle....

PS Congratulations on the excellent job that you are all doing. I am sure that many men are very grateful to you. -Wynne Hobey, Bath

INPOW

The Family Court Welfare Service & The Family Division: A Question of Abuse, available from INPOWw, 4 Cardcross St., London W6 0DR

I am concerned that this beautifully written piece by Oliver Cyriax on the Court Welfare Officer scandal languishes unnoticed in a corner of our UKMM website, www.ukmm.org.uk/camp/inpoww.htm Oliver has worked long and hard on this matter, and his conclusions are devastating. - Ed

The nation's health

- Daily Mail Comment, p12, 24sep99

".... men suffering from prostate cancer stand no better chance of survival than if they lived in achingly-poor Estonia or Slovenia .... The Govt spends 100 times as much on breast cancer as on cancer of the prostate .... the attitude towards prostate cancer in this country remaiins a scandal that needs to be addressed with considerable urgency."

Victory for men on winter fuel may cost 20m

- Martin Fletcher, The Times 24sep99, p17

Civil Rights organisation Liberty helped Mr Taylor, a member of Parity, tel. 01344 621167, which campaigns for equal rights for men and women, to take his case for entitlement to a winter fuel

p7

payment between the ages of 60 and 65, which women receiving a state pension are entitled to, to the European Court. He is now 90% certain to get the law changed. Help the Aged said; "20,000 people die of cold-related illnesses every year."

David Lindsay of Parity also has his eyes on unfairness over bus passes, and eventually on the state pension age. I would inform him that a recent European Court decision said that if someone failed to make a claim because his own country's laws unlawfully said he would fail, then he could not be penalised for failing to make the claim. "(5) Until the directive has been properly transposed into national law, a member state cannot rely on an individual's failure to pursue proceedings to assert his or her community rights, even after these have been declared by a ruling of the Court of Justice, as a reason for refusal to pay benefits in compliance with the principle of equal treatment. This is because the effect of continuing to retain provisions of national law which deny such benefits is to make it difficult or impossible for individuals to ascertain the full extent of their rights, and thus to infringe the principle of legal certainty which is also fundamental in community law: judgment of 25 July 1991 in case C-208/90 Emmot v. Minister for Social Welfare [1991] ECR 4269". This means that Lindsay should think in terms of a class action over the state pension which will make retrospective claims for men between age 60 and 65. It is important to bring this country's government to its knees for ignoring European legislation which enforces equal rights for men as well as women. This Govt has only obeyed the European laws when they favoured women, and consistently, selectively, ignored those same laws when it came to parity for men. Our Govt has behaved thus because it is riddled with radical feminists. The backlog of Govt liability to men will make the 1 billion litigation by women against the MoD over inequality look like chicken feed. These bigoted feminists in Govt who have denied equal rights to men should be sacked for bringing our Govt to its knees by ignoring European injunctions when they benefit men.

I did not embark on this exercise; vindictive women did. Other women failed to restrain them. This means that women have to lose the historic broadband discrimination in their favour, which virtually everyone is brainwashed into not noticing, although it is obvious. In the age of chivalry, which extended well beyond 1960, when Greer was falsely claiming victimhood for women soon after wholesale male slaughter in war, no man ever published a complaint at being conscripted and then dying for his country; dying for his unconscripted womenfolk, who sat at home knitting socks for the soldiers in the trenches. We were all brainwashed into feeling pity for the German women who would never marry because of the first world war's losses, rather than for the dead young men. Recently, I asked my friend Mary; "Would you rather be single or dead?" She replied; "Single."

"Women and children first into the lifeboats," although women, with an extra layer of fat, survive longer in the sea. Because other women failed to restrain the bigots like Jay, we have to look more objectively at issues of equality. Heads the woman wins, tails the man loses, will only cause deepening social disaster, for women as well as for men, and particularly for children, as we are now seeing.

Did a poodle-man Martin Fletcher choose the mealy-mouthed heading, or was it his feminist editor? - Ed

A vicious incubus in Govt; one of many

".... In honeyed words, Jay tried to repair the damage [done by the Women's Unit's ignorance]. 'Society is indebted to mums who play a crucial role,' she said. .... Tell that to Gordon Brown, the chancellor, who is deliberately penalising those mothers who stay at home. Tell it to the gender wareriors behind the Women's Unit.... The Women's Unit .... speaks not for ordinary women but for privileged feminists .... delivers .... self-serving and dishonest rhetoric ...." - Melanie Phillips, Sunday Times, 10oct99, sect. 1, p10.

Phone 0171 273 8880 and ask for your free copy of "Living Without Fear", a vicious anti-social propaganda document published with your (tax) money. Also ask for the Voices, the magazine that Melanie is attacking.

 

Divorced dads ready to wage a revolution

- Kathleen Parker,

The Orlando Sentinel, 10oct99.

WASHINGTON - Dr. Ned Holstein, physician and president of the Massachusetts-based Fathers and Families, is projecting numbers, graphs and percentages on the screen. He uses words such as strategy, constituency and, yes, even revolution.

No longer a glossary word in history books, the R-word is being revived by divorced fathers who, impatient with lawyers, legislators and judges, are ready to bloody their white flags.

One cannot exaggerate the extent of anger, pain and frustration among the hundreds of thousands - maybe millions - of men who now constitute what is loosely known as the Fatherhood Movement. I've met many of them, talked to them, listened.

These doctors, lawyers, psychologists, lobbyists and laborers are not an insignificant body. Many are well-educated; more are getting organized; all are motivated by a degree of anger that is potentially volatile and should not be ignored. They've reached the boiling point, they say, and they've exhausted the system.

Holstein's presentation was one of many at the recent Children's Rights Council's annual meeting in Alexandria, Va. The CRC is one of the oldest, better organized of the 500 or so "fathers" groups in the United States that deal with issues of divorce and family. I qualify "fathers" because, though most groups focus on men's issues, many of their members are women who also believe that children need, want and deserve fathers.

I attended the CRC meeting as an invited (unpaid) speaker and listened to Holstein's presentation with a mixture of concern and sadness but, more important, of apprehension. I believe in the sincerity of these men, in their desire to be a part of their children's lives, in their sense that they've been mistreated by courts that award children like chattel to mothers and treat fathers as mere financial providers.

Concern and sadness are reasonable responses to that understanding and to the fact that 82 percent of children from divorced families have little more than a visitation relationship with their fathers. According to the 1989 Census, 37.9 percent of divorced fathers have no access to their children.

Granted, not all these disenfranchised dads are model citizens. Some really are bad guys who don't care about their kids, beat up their wives or shirk duty and responsibility. But experience and the preponderance of research do not support the widespread belief that most men are deadbeat, abusive and neglectful, nor the public policies that treat all men accordingly.

Were mothers routinely robbed of their children, barred from their homes and jailed for failing to pay extortionate sums, we would see blood in the streets. And, curiously, sympathy from the grandstands.

Men get no such sympathy, and that's where the apprehension comes in. When people are pushed to their limit, when they feel mistreated, unheard and unseen; when they feel that they've been robbed of the only things that matter - things tend to get ugly.

"You can only torture people for so long," said Stuart Miller, senior legislative analyst for the American Fathers Coalition. "You can't steal something as important as someone's children and money and property and think you can walk away without any repercussions."

Miller predicts that Holstein's theories of social change will seem like a dream compared with the nightmares simmering in someone's living room in every town or city, in every state, every night of the week. Violence is inevitable, he said, as evidenced by the American courthouse decor these days. Call it police-baroque. Only the Berlin Wall had more barricades, metal detectors and armed guards.

"Why would the government be so afraid of the people?" asked Miller. "Is it because the people are bad actors or because the government is acting bad?"

Good question. The answer is, we're all acting badly within a system that treats divorcing couples as enemies, courtrooms as war zones, judges as arbiters of issues more emotional and psychological than legal, and children as hostages to be traded for dollars.

The divorce system is counterintuitive and morally bankrupt, and needs reinventing before talk of revolution becomes action. What the organized fathers' groups want isn't wrong or mean-spirited but right and fair to

p8

children. Who among us can blame a man, wrongfully denied his own child, for shouting out that he was framed?

E-mail: kparker@kparker.com

 

A Practice Note of 26 June 1978

An independent investigation by the Law Society concerned at the proliferation of ex parte (secret) injunctions reported as follows;

"An ex parte application should not be made, or granted, unless there is a real immediate danger of serious injury or irreparable damage. A recent examination of ex parte applications shows that nearly 50 per cent were unmeritorious, being made days, or even weeks, after the last incident of which complaint was made. This wastes time, causes needless expense, usually to the legal aid fund, and is unjust to respondents ...." - B Bassingham & C Harmer, Law & Practice in Matrimonial Causes, 4th edn., pub. Butterworths 1985, p332.

[1978] 2 All ER 919, [1978] 1 WLR 925

The situation has greatly deteriorated since that report. I am a long term Quaker, and I was ousted in a ten minute secret court hearing without my knowledge by perjured affidavit falsely charging violence, which my wife took to the court. So were most of the divorced men I know. - Ed

East Midlands Branch of ManKind

William Coulson, 0116 264 0351, tells me that they are formally starting the East Midlands Branch.

 

Against the Grain

The comment line is atg@courttv.com. Please write. They are very interested in the subject.

Against The Grain.

Fred Graham talks on US TV with with Howard University Professor Stephen Baskerville about the rights of divorced fathers.

AGAINST THE GRAIN 10/15/99

FRED: Welcome back to AGAINST THE GRAIN, a contrarian look at the law. This week we have Howard University Professor Stephen Baskerville who says that divorced fathers paying child support have fewer rights than common criminals. Now, Professor Baskerville, why do you say that?

BASKERVILLE: Well, it's more than just divorced fathers paying child support, its any father. What we are seeing in this country is the criminalization of fatherhood and by that I mean that any father at any time can be turned into a criminal not because of what he's done but because of what the government has done. Throughout this country, fathers who are accused of no wrongdoing, fathers who have not agreed to a divorce or given grounds for a divorce are being hauled into family courts, they are being stripped of custody of their children, all rights taken away to make decisions about their children.

FRED: Because their wives are suing them.

BASKERVILLE: At the simple request of their spouse, that's right. They are ordered to sat away from their children most of the time, they are ordered to begin making child support payments, they are ordered to pay the fees of lawyers they have not hired, for services they have not requested and if they object or refuse or fail to abide by these orders, they can be ncarcerated without trial, without charge and without an attorney.

FRED: Anyway, this just sounds so Dickensonian.

BASKERVILLE: It is astounding, the reason it is happening is because we have created in this country a very dangerous machine, it's a machine that thrives and grows by taking as many children as possible away from their fathers.

FRED: What is the machine?

BASKERVILLE: The machine is the divorce industry, it consists of bureaucratic police, social workers and many other people who have all one thing in common and that is having as many children as possible taken away from their fathers.

FRED: Now, some people would say, this has grown up because of the problem of the "deadbeat dad" that doesn't pay child support.

BASKERVILLE: Yes, the American public has been subject to a massive propaganda campaign by discoverment that is designed to vilify fathers. The "deadbeat dad", I don't want to say doesn't exist, but it has been the subject of this huge propaganda campaign. Most fathers, most divorced fathers, in fact do pay child support, over 90% when they have visitation rights with their children, but the larger issue here is not why fathers are paying child support, the issue is why they are being made to pay child support in the first place. Child support guidelines are, in fact, are devised by the very people who enforce and apply them. They are made not by legislatures often, but by courts and by child support enforcement agencies.

FRED: Now, we read about men's rights groups, this sort of thing, why haven't they been able to level the scales of justice?

BASKERVILLE: Well, there's a huge interest here, there's a huge special interest as I say who have a vested interest in perpetuating this regime, this regime of what amounts to forced divorce, of forcing divorce upon fathers and their children and then plundering the fathers for everything they have. Child support orders which can be as much as two-thirds or more of their income. Legal fees that are in the thousands and tens of thousands of dollars against fathers who have not hired these lawyers and who have not even sought their services.

FRED: Well, do you see any way that this can be rectified, the political process, litigation?

BASKERVILLE: What needs to be done is two things. First, we need to arrive at a consensus in this country that no child should ever be taken away from a parent who has done nothing wrong at then very least, a parent who has not agreed to divorce and custody. Secondly, we need drastic reform of the family court systems. These courts operate in secrecy with very little oversight. One family court judge says that family court judges, the power is almost unlimited, and this is true, unlimited power is unaccountable power and it is now out of control. These judges and these courts need to be investigated where necessary, they need to be prosecuted and it needs to be made clear to them they have no right and no power to take children away from parents who have done nothing wrong.

FRED: Professor Stephen Baskerville, very interesting. Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts with us.

BASKERVILLE: Thank you.

Send e-mail to Fred at atg@courttv.com.

 

 

 

President's Report

By the President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children

email 7oct99 acfclist@usa.net

Reprinted with permission.

There is good news and bad news for families as this is written. The good news is that the importance of fathers in their children's lives is increasingly acceptable to discuss publicly, after so many years of suppression. The harmful effects on children of father absence that we have been talking about for years, are becoming increasingly a matter of public common knowledge.

The bad news is that most of government and the family court system is still lost in the dark ages of family policy. Although now forced to pay lip service to the importance of fathers, most of the solutions to the crisis of families proposed by politicians, bureaucrats, and their legions of fellow-traveler consultants and "experts", amount to thinly veiled attempts to simply continue or intensify the same empire building bureaucratic mentality that has already destroyed half of the families in America.

It is truly astounding to sit in hearings in Congress and watch the parade of witnesses pandering to the status quo with rosy colored reports of "progress" in this, and "progress" in that, while Rome continues to burn around us. Most witnesses are professional-looking young women fresh from women's studies college programs spouting the same fantasyland rhetoric about women and children as eternally helpless victims, and the need to "force fathers to be more responsible." It is amazing that advocates who appear so concerned with their "self-esteem", talk about themselves as if they were wallflower victims in a Gothic novel, waiting for Prince Charming (read Big Brother government), to come rescue them from their helplessness. No self-respecting real woman would ever talk this way, and it is even more amazing that this kind of victimology rhetoric is taken so seriously in the halls of Congress.

If thirty years of such policies have only made the situation of millions of families unbelievably bad, it is hard to see how even more draconian child support collection,

p9

and "streamlined" procedures for throwing fathers out of their homes and their children's lives without due process of law on often frivolous restraining order charges, will help fathers remain part of their children's lives, but this is a mystery that I leave to the reader to ponder.

Older professional-looking women on the Committees appear to sagely consider this testimony, while plotting to squeeze more money out of the Federal Treasury for their political constituency. Most of the men on these Committees look like scared rabbits, who when they dare to speak, usually utter no more than mealy-mouthed obeisance to the blatantly obvious "power structure." The few legitimate representatives of the fatherhood movement who are allowed to speak at all, are almost totally ignored. How these people expect to solve the crisis of fatherhood without listening to fatherhood representatives, is a mystery that I also leave to the reader to ponder.

Based on his experience with the spectacle of ancient Athens, Aristotle believed that democracy inevitably leads to tyranny. All too aware of this tendency of democracy, the Founding Fathers instituted a Constitution to try to prevent this in America. The current power structure has almost completely forgotten the Constitution, and until supporters of the fatherhood movement get organized, the feeding frenzy of pigs at the trough of Federal dollars will undoubtedly continue, despite its obvious devastating effects on American families. Fathers will not achieve equality in the home that women have achieved in the workplace, until this power structure learns to exercise power responsibly, and they are a very long way from that. Instead of all this talk about the need to make fathers more responsible, many of these people should look in a mirror, and pull the plank out of their own eye.

WHAT ACFC IS DOING

ACFC believes that the best way to deal with the fantasyland of Federal and state family policy, is to continue its mission of public education through the media that are willing to deal with reality, and to continue our grassroots organizing. Until public attitudes shift decisively, and until the fatherhood movement is represented by organizations with larger membership, little progress should be expected. Once these goals are achieved, we believe that the politicians will follow like the herd of sheep that they are. This is simply the reality of politics.

ACFC has been consistently in the media representing our members with the word that children need both parents. This doesn't happen by accident but only by hard work, dedication and persistence. ACFC puts out frequent press releases to get our message out to the media, and then works with media who call with requests for information in an effort to educate the public on our issues and to help create positive change for our children and families.

These efforts have resulted in the following media stories. The June 21st, 1999 issue of Time magazine mentioned ACFC in a story about "Deadbolted-Dads" and their access and visitation problems. "Deadbolted Dads" was also the topic of the Montel Williams show where we appeared talking about fathers who are locked out of their children's lives with no way to get back in. ACFC was quoted on the front page of the New Orleans Times Picayune newspaper objecting to a new law that passed 36-0 in the Senate, and 99-0 in the House, that allows fathers behind in child support to be publicly shamed by putting their names, addresses, and birthdates on a web-site and on television. As a result of the newspaper article featuring our quote, ACFC Executive Director, Dianna Thompson, appeared on a large Louisiana radio station debating the state of Louisiana's Child Support Enforcement Director. The following day she appeared on a large radio network debating the sponsor of the new law.

Earlier she had appeared on national television on FOX News Now to discuss the National Child Support Registry that recently went into effect nationwide. CNN listed ACFC as a reference for the story they did on the Massachusetts gender bias lawsuit. More recently, the October issue of Redbook lists ACFC as a fatherhood resource. Our legal spokesperson, Attorney Jeffery Leving appeared on the Leeza Gibbons show objecting to custodial parent move-always. Stuart Miller represented ACFC on MSNBC, a national cable television network talking about fatherhood issues. A Fathers Day article written by Dianna Thompson and Stuart Miller ran in a Virginia newspaper and was picked up on the Knight Ridder news wire.

ACFC has written numerous letters to legislators and policy makers on behalf of our affiliate organizations who are out there working hard on supporting or opposing legislation that will affect our members. ACFC was a speaker in Los Angeles before 31 judges and commissioners for LA County discussing Access and Visitation Denial.

As a result of these media efforts, ACFC is now recognized as the place the media turn to for the fatherhood perspective on national issues. These efforts have had significant impact on the changing climate of public opinion about our issues. And ACFC has grown rapidly in the past two years, now with 92 chapters and affiliate groups across the country. There is much more work to be done, but as a result of this coordinated plan, fatherhood issues finally have a voice on the national stage.

MannKind and Ill Eagle can be reached at;

(1). Mankind, Suite 367, 2 Lansdowne Row, London W1X 8HL.

(2) www.ukmm.org.uk

(3) The Editor, Ill Eagle, Ivor Catt,

121 Westfields, St. Albans AL3 4JR, England. ( 01727 864257

(4) Email :- ivorcatt@

electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/

JP fell asleep

"A man's conviction .... for .... road rage has been quashed after a magistrate fell asleep in his trial ...."

- The Guardian, 29sep99, p10

 

Ill Eagle 6, nov/dec99

p1

 

Primary problems

From Ted Diggins,

a letter to the Daily Mail, 20oct99

"Further to the lack of male primary school teachers, I know of several men who have been unsuccessful in getting accepted on teacher-training courses.

"At the age of 40, my husband decided that he would fulfil his dream of becoming a primary school teacher. He did an access course and was given an outstanding achievement award. While not studying, he helped at our young son's infant school, where the head gave him an excellent reference.

"However, the college didn't seem so keen. Throughout his interview he found it impossible to make eye-contact with the female interviewers and he felt like the invisible man.

"Not surprisingly, he was turned down. When he asked why, he was told that he should read the Times Educational Supplement and get more classroom experience.

"Meanwhile, we know of a single mother who has been accepted on this year's course.

"She told us she hadn't set foot in a classroom since leaving school and admitted she didn't understand many of the questions put to her at interview."

- Frances Daly, Broadstairs, Kent.

"No woman should be authorised to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice precisely because, if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." The first feminist, Simone de Beauvior, quoted by Melanie Phillips in her 1999 book..

 

Educating boys

".... at the age of seven, .... 60% of boys and 71% of girls reached the expected level in reading. .... at 14, 54% of boys and 72% of girls reached the expected level.

"In English, the difference was greatest among 14-year-olds in working class Islington, where 63% of girls and only 30% of boys reached the expected level, and in middle class Wokingham, .... 88% and 61% ....

".... the worst performing authorities all being in white working class and multi-racial inner city areas.

"Overall, the proportions who passed [GCSE at A to C in] English, maths, science and a modern language - the foundation of a decent education - were 34% of girls and a mere 24% of boys. Those are the figures that really matter .... "

John Clare, Education Editor,

Daily Telegraph, 7 and 27oct99

No mention of the disappearing male teacher

Some years ago in Islington, where boys' performance is now worst in the country, the then Head of Education in the Borough (who has now moved on to greater glory with New Labour) decreed that boys must all sit at the back of the room in key subjects, so as to reduce the disadvantage of girls. Now they are performing so terribly, have boys been allowed back nearer the teacher? - Ed

 

Sex Equality for Older Men

PARITY defeats UK Govt over fuel payment discrimination - p4.

"single-sex classes to help boys ....

Rachel Sylvester

Daily Telegraph, 25oct99

"Mixed state schools are to be encouraged to hold single-sex lessons to improve the educational standards achieved by boys.

"Ministers are concerned that they are falling far behind ....

"The drive to improve boys' performance is to be made a priority during this school year, following recent GCSE results showing they are falling ever further behind girls."

Rachel did not mention the problem of the disappearing male school teacher, or of the disappearing father. We know that both correlate closely with school failure for boys. - Ed

 

"Parents 'want more men' in childcare

Alexander Frean,

Times, 6nov99, p5

".... many children .... in single-parent families, spent their early years almost exclusively in the company of women ....

".... Many [parents] .... saw men as good role models for boys .... Single mothers thought male workers were especially beneficial for their children ....

"Some [parents] did accept, however, that a policy which only allowed female staff to change nappies could be helpful ...."

So the witch-craze prejudice continues, even in appeals for more male adult contact for children. - Ed

Men in the Nursery,

pub. Institute of Education.

"Lone parents to rent a gran

- Jack Grimston,

Sunday Times, 14nov99, sect. 1 p4

".... Children without grandmothers will soon be able to have publicly funded substitutes under a government-backed scheme to be announced tomorrow. Mothers with small children who do not have close relatives to help out can apply for 'community grandmothers'.

"'It will be like recreating an extended family,' said the Department for Education and Employment. 'When a person is feeling low, they have someone to turn to.' ....

"Barry Wirrall, director of the Cheltenham Group [and ManKind's Secretary from the Worral] ...., said it was 'absolutely outrageous' to spend government money on the programme. 'Good fathers are more important than surrogate grandmothers. It is ridiculous. Three million children, a third of the total, are in single-parent families, and divorce settlements systematically separate fathers from their children.'

"The community grandmother project .... will be announced tomorrow by David Blunkett ....

"The programme aims .... reducing low-weight babies ...."

[Single Mother Home children (SMH) are much lighter than children living with both father and mother. - Ed]

[I remember that my case was typical when the state connived in my wife's defiance of my contact order. However, this created a problem of care for her. I found that I was welcome to care for the children of another family, who in turn were illegally cut off from their own father. By caring for another's children, I did not threaten the New Order. Quite the reverse. I helped to fill the void. ('.... It would be far more effective to undermine the social and legal need and support for the marriage contract. .... simply extend legal recognition to different types of household and relationships, and .... end such privileges as the unjustified married man's tax allowance. .... the right of all women, whether married or single, to give legitimacy to their children." - Carol Smart, The Ties That Bind, RKP 1984.) Biological fathers' access to their own children threatens to undermine the radical feminist's ideal of the SMH or Gay/Lesbian family unit as the norm. Substitutes for the father - an old women or even, as a last resort, other men - have to be found, preferably with govt funding, as in Blunkett's community grandmother project. The primary objective of radical feminists is, not to have mothers bring up their children alone, which would be tedious for them. The primary objective is to

p2

cut children off from their own fathers. However, in doing so, the child loses half its grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins, which then have to be replaced by Blunkett's project. The view that today's gender racists cannot possibly hold such totally mad ideas is not valid. Hitler, another racist, seriously promoted even madder ideas. - Ed]

Homelessness and Single Parenting

-Janet Daly, Daily Telegraph 16nov99, p28

".... these two problems - homelessness and single parenting - are not unconnected. The most recent statistics show that while only seven per cent of children living with their natrual parents ever run away from home (even briefly), around twice that number from single parent families do so, and fully three times as many abscond from families where there is a step-parent. .... where there is real abuse or serious conflict with a legal step-parent or a mother's boyfriend. So the problem of family breakdown, which has been encouraged by the state's own benefit system, feeds into the problem of rough sleeping ...."

"UK guilty of child neglect

Clare Dyer,

Guardian, 6nov99, p2

Five children were subjected to 'torture or inhuman or degrading treatment' .... for more than four years, the European Commission on human rights has ruled. .... Britain had violated srticle 3 of the European Convention on human rights by failing to protect the children ....

"The three sisters and two brothers .... were subjected to extreme physical and emotional neglect.

".... Their father twice asked the council to take them into care ....

"But .... only .... after their mother threatened to batter them unless they were taken away .... described .... as .... horrific."

The Guardian's PC reporter is careful to avoid telling us whether the father had been ousted. After all, she had to get past her poodle-man editor! - Ed

Fear of flirting

- Jenny McCartney,

Sunday Telegraph, 31oct99, p37

"An Australian 'communication expert' called Allan Pease attracted widespread attention last week when he told British men that they do not touch other people enough.

....

"Most men are aware that tactile gestures - especially those directed towards women and children - can be woefully misinterpreted. The fear of complaints and litigation is now entrenched ....

"It is even more dangerous for a man to touch any child not his own. Hysteria about paedophiles is rampant.... The Scouts have a shortage of volunteer leaders.... Male trainees for primary-school teaching are reportedly deeply anxious....

"Touch is a language that children learn to speak and understand from an early age. But if friends, teachers, and even relatives are increasingly wary of touching children in an affectionate way, how can children learn that language? America and Britain have mingled a weird sex-obsession with puritanism, in a style unthinkable in Spain or Italy, and ended up by viewing touching as equivalent to sex.

....

"If Mr. Pease is really worried about why [British] men aren't tactile at work, perhaps he ought to look at what is stopping them."

The real betrayal of our lost children

- Lynda Lee-Potter,

Daily Mail, 20oct99, p13

" .... on Channel 4 .... The lives of runaways in London, Nottinghamۥ-/@ -

~jj.....

.=6ztztztztfu[1]ztxX6y(^y^y^y^y^y^y^y^y[1]`y`y`y`y`y`y‑}4}%~y3


.~y~yd;**********************************

 

Ill Eagle 7, jan/feb00

ISSN 1466-9005

p1

The Poodle-Man Archetype

"Learning to relate to speak the truth, which is that most runaways on our streets are the sons and daughters of women who are constantly pregnant by different men. One can scarcely call them fathers, because they have neither love nor care for their offspring.

"We have created a welfare system where irresponsible women know that they can continue to conceive and state money will always be available.

"It's an evil, not a compassionate, system because it's the offspring who suffer. However, any suggestion that we have to do something to change things is greeted with derision.

"Frequently I'm condemned as a columnist who attacks single mothers, when my concern is for the children. It's surely madness to say any woman has the right to have as many babies as she wants by uncaring men and expect the state to support her.

"We've helped to create a twilight world for vulnerable adolescents and 50,000 of them run away from intolerable homes every year.

....

"Any sensible government ought to give every financial incentive possible to couples to get married.

....

"Has Tony Blair got the courage* he will undeniably need? A year after he became Prime Minister we discussed the problem. He explained it would take time.

"I'd say time is running out."

[* On 24oct99 p14, the Sunday Times reported that Feminazi Baroness Jay is a trustee of Tony Blair's scandal-ridden "blind trust". If he fired her, as he has to do to save the family, she might leak scandal just as Robinson is now doing. Saving the family might be incompatible with Vanity Blair saving himself. - Ed]

"Full rights to fathers outside marriage

- Marie Woolf, Telegraph, 8dec99

"Unmarried fathers are to be given full parental rights over their children's upbringing ....

"Ministers hope the move will encourage unmarried fathers to take a greater day-to=-day interest ....

"'This is one more threat to .... marriage,' said Julian Brazier, Chair of Conservative Family Campaign.

".... couples who are married have an 81% chance of staying together after 10 years but [cohabitors] .... have only a 15% chance, unless they marry later."

"Rape claim student jailed for wasting police time

-Sean O'Neill,

Daily Telegraph, 30oct99, p3

"A university student .... in an elaborate attempt to claim that she had been raped was jailed for two months yesterday. ....

".... officers had been diverted from other major inquiries including a genuine rape case, the manslaughter of a baby and the investigation into the murder .... of 14-year-old Kate Bushell. ...."

"Mistakes found in half of CSA cases

- Jon Hibbs, Political Correspondent,

Daily Telegraph, 29oct99

"Mistakes are being made in more than half of maintenance assessments handled by the Child Support Agency ....

"The annual report of the independent Chief Child Support officer .... blames [many] factors including .... a drive to clear 324,000 cases from the backlog and an unexpected rise in cases.

"The DSS said the caseload would continue to rise for another two or three years .... [to] about a million cases a year."

"Inquiry team to monitor the CPS

by Rachel Sylvester,

Daily Telegraph 16nov99, pp1-2

".... Ministers have decided to appoint a new chief inspector of the CPS {Crown Prosecution Service], because they fear that incompetence is leading to the conviction of innocent people while criminals escape prison. ...."

 

p3

Editorial

The Sex-Change Society. Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male - Melanie Phillips, pub. Social Market Foundation nov99. 12 from Sunday Times tel. 0870 165 8585.

Previous watersheds known to me were;

Daniel Amneus, The Garbage Generation, pub. Primrose Press 1990

Neil Lyndon, No More Sex War, pub. Sinclair-Stevenson 1992

Warren Farrell, The Myth of Male Power, pub. Fourth Estate 1993

Patricia Morgan, Farewell to the Family?, pub. IEA 1995

Of these, Amneus and Morgan still have to be read.

(I missed David Thomas, George Gilder and some others.)

Now comes Melanie with a comprehensive and understanding analysis of the crisis through which the family is going. She clearly shows that the new androgyny wave in the Home Office and elsewhere under Adrienne Burgess - "men must change" - will only compound the crisis and further increase the suicide rate among young men. The gender racists who control government will only allow androgynysts to have power and influence during the next decade or two. Only after that, with the crisis much more severe than today, will the complex analysis developed by Melanie, our chairman Robert Whiston and others be allowed to influence government social policy. Melanie's book alone will be a very good primer for someone wanting to get up and running quickly. Most of it will not be known to most members of ManKind.

 

ManKind and Ill Eagle can be reached at 0171 413 9176;

(1). ManKind, Suite 367, 2 Lansdowne Row, London W1X 8HL.

(2) www.ukmm.org.uk

(3) The Editor, Ill Eagle, Ivor Catt,

121 Westfields, St. Albans AL3 4JR, England. ( 01727 864257

(4) Email :- ivorcatt@

electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/

"Irvine seeks to cut 'fat cat' barrister fees

- Marie Woolf,

Telegraph, 7dec99, p2

".... paid too much out of public funds compared to other professions. .... the 1.6 billion legal aid budget. .... the Lord Chancellor .... saying that rates payable to lawyers for legal aid work 'are at a level that is not sustainable'"

Bleak House

Before it collapsed, the Russian empire appeared impregnable to most people. Similarly our legal industry.

There are many indications of iminent collapse of our legal industry. However, it may teeter on for further decades, and continue to inflict massive damage on our country.

Some years ago the woman in Lancashire running the organisation for litigants in personal injury cases told me that the average time a case took was seven years. Usually the claimant dies first. The damages awarded are usually slightly more than the claimant's costs. The whole thing is highly cynical.

When Dickens wrote Bleak House, the average time for a case to get through Chancery was eight years. Chancery was shut down shortly afterwards.

When the legal industry targetted my friends the Adsheads, aiming to steal their large, valuable Derbyshire hotel, I remember Eva Adshead saying to me, after nearly a decade in court, that the legal industry was "just another business". (See The Hook and the Sting, on my website. - Ed.) I find this exactly echoes Dickens' view. He had long experience as a reporter in Chancery.

The legal industry today is very similar to that Dickens described;

"The one principle of English law is, to make business for itself. There is no other principle distinctly, certainly, and consistently maintained through all its narrow turnings. Viewed by this light it becomes a coherent scheme, and not the monstrous maze that laity are apt to think it. Let them but once clearly perceive that its grand principle is to make business for itself as their expense, and surely they will cease to grumble. - p503

"Lawyers have twisted it into such a state of bedevilment that the original merits of the case have long disappeared from the face of the earth. It's about a Will, and trusts under a Will - or it was, once. It's about nothing but Costs, now. We are always appearing, and disappearing, and swearing, and interrogating, and filing, and cross-filing, and arguing, and sealing, and motioning, and referring, and reporting, and revolving about the Lord Chancellor and all his satellites, and equitably waltzing ourselves off to dusty death, about Costs. That's the great question. All the rest, by some extraordinary means, has melted away." - p87.

In the family court, the interests of your children, and the disposition of your home and salary, just melt away. - Ed

 

Jail threat for access row woman

by Richard Savill,

Daily Telegraph 2sep99

"A mother was told by a court yesterday that she could face jail if she continued to refuse to give her former husband access to their eight-year-old son.

"The warning coincided with concern, expressed by the London-based charity, Families Need Fathers, that "institutionally biased family courts" do not help fathers, most of whom want to see their children and are not absent by choice.

"At Glasgow sheriff court, Andrea Brennan, 35, a trainee nurse, was held in a cell for four hours after she admitted more than a dozen counts of contempt of court.

"She had failed to allow her husband John Duffy, 41, to pick up their son, John, from school once a week and from a police station handover point as agreed at the court.

Sheriff Kevin Drummond, QC, ordered Brennan, of Glasgow, to be held in the cells while he considered what action to take. When she was brought back into court her lawyer said she promised to comply with the order.

"Sheriff Drummond deferred sentence until Oct 29 and warned Brennan she would go to jail if she broke her promise.

"Last night, Jim Parton, chairman of Families Need Fathers, said: 'Courts regularly send fathers down for contempt of court and they are not small sentences. The only woman I know who got sent down spent 11 days in jail. Women should be treated equally to men and court orders should be upheld. At the moment they are a joke.'"

This report is misleading. Twice, the Appeal court in London decreed that court orders re access would not be enforced against a defiant mother. "The interests of the child are paramount" was used to justify this decision. It was asserted by breathtakingly anti-social judges, one of them a woman, that a defiant mother, if forced to allow access, might take vengeance on the child, so she must not be thwarted by a court order.

In The Independent, 12jan94, magistrate Jasmine Salisbury said "Parents seeking legitimate contact, and the courts they resort to, are engaged in a charade." A court order re access is not worth the paper it is writteen on. See The Hook and the Sting, p19, on my website - Ed www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk

 

"Are you too fussy to fall in love?

Kate Saunders,

Sunday Express, 31oct99, p45

" .... Earlier this month, govt statisticians predicted an explosion of singles. .... The blokes, .... even more terrified of commitment."

 

"Help us beat the cancer no one mentions

Daily Mail Campaign p1, 2nov99

"The Daily Mail today launches a 1million fundraising campaign to crack Britain's 'forgotten disease', prostate cancer. .... this woefully neglected .... disease.

"Though prostate cancer kills 10,000 men every year .... just 47,000 a year is currently spent researching it. Yet 18 million goes on scientific projects looking as Aids, which kills 400 a year. .... [See my website for the AIDS scandal - Ed]

".... Prostate cancer is now the most common cancer in men, the death toll has doubled over the last 20 years and the figure is still climbing. .... Experts predict that .... One man in ten will be affected. ....

"There are 150 organisations across the UK promoting awareness of breast cancer and raising funds for research. Yet just one exists solely to raise the profile of prostate cancer - the Prostate Cancer Charity. ....

 

p4

 

"[p47/49] .... we spend almost 100 times as much on breast cancer as we do on studying and treating cancer of the prostate. .... Breast cancer research receives funding of about 4.3 millions a year .... [deaths were about equal.]

"There is a gross and unfair imbalance between expenditure on breast cancer research and treatment, and research into treatment of prostate cancer. So why has this quite appalling disparity developed? Part of the answer must be the power of feminist groups and women's organisations, ...."

Daily Mail 2nov99 p49 said that in 1996, 30,000 died from prostate cancer, 35,000 died from breast cancer and less than 5,000 from cervical cancer.

"Doctor chosen to lead cancer care service shake-up

by Robert Shrimsley,

Daily Telegraph, 25oct99

"A Cancer 'tsar' to oversee all NHS treatment and to improve the service given to patients is to be appointed today by Alan Milburn, the Health Secretary.

"Professor Michael Richards, .... Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospital .... Mr. Milburn was given the health brief to improve public perceptions of Government action ....

"Professor Richards's first job will be to set national standards for treatment and he will focus particular attention on breast and ovarian cancer. ....

"Mr Milburn .... said: 'Cancer care should not depend on where you live. The standard of care is too patchy.'"

Mr. Milburn believes cancer care should be universally available, but not for men. Prostate cancer was not mentioned. - Ed

Is Robert Shrimsley a poodle-man, or is he just holding onto his job?- Ed

"Three women....

-Jacqui Thornton, Sunday Telegraph, 14nov99, p25

"Britain's record on cancer care puts us 'in the Third World' .... condemnation of Britain's record on cancer care. .... the Government .... was forced to hang its head."

The whole page was devoted to shortcomings in care of breast cancer. No cancer which only a man might catch was mentioned. - Ed

".... the health service is structured around the health of women, spending eight times as much on them as on men. This proportion cannot be explained solely by provision for pregnancy and child-birth." Melanie Phillips, The Sex-Change Society, 1999, p12, tel. 020 7222 0310 for a copy.

"Operation offers hope for prostate patients

- Alsling Irwin, Telegraph, 14dec99

"A surgeon used a tiny piece of nerve from a patient's foot to fix an important nerve near the prostate .... slived apart in the cancer operation.

"If it works, [it] will rescue the patient from incontinence and erectile dysfunction, which often follows [prostate] sirgery."

Office of National Statistics

reported by David Norris,

Daily Mail, 6nov99, p39

Employment of mothers in a relationship rose in the 1990-97 period from 61% to 68%, but the number of single mothers taking a job increased from just 41% to 44%.

Of today's 1.7m lone mothers, 0.6m have never been married.

"The Conservative Family Campaign has estimated that a child born outside marriage has only a 15% chance of its parents being together by the time it is ten."

Fathers are 'too proud' to seek aid

David Taylor,

Sunday Express, 31oct99

"Millions of fathers are desperate for support for their family problems but are too proud to seek help ....

"A national freephone helpline launched in the summer with 1 million of Government backoing .... just one in five of its callers are men. .... anonymously .... fathers admit they do want help and support when the everyday trials of family life become too much. ....

"The charity, formed following the merger of Parentline and the National Stepfamily Association, will also raise concerns that services provided by charities and councils to help families are shutting fathers out."

"Call Parentline on 0808 8002222"

"It's Many Happy Returns to the M1

Leo McKinstry,

Daily Mail, 2nov99, p13.

".... the great motorway which celebrates its 40th birthday today.

".... Once a funeral cortege of two hearses .... one carrying a coffin, were (sic) stopped for speeding.

"'If the police hadn't stopped us, we might have made it to the funeral on time,' said one of the undertakers."

Is it technically possible to be late for your own funeral? What about missing your own birth? - Ed.

Sex Equality for Older Men

On the 16 December in Luxembourg, the European Court of Justice helped to redress one of several statutory sex inequalities existing against older men in the UK when it ruled that the present procedure for granting winter fuel payments based on state pension age was an unlawful sex discrimination, since the ages are unequal for men and women.

Despite its previous bland assertions when challenged that the discrimination was not in breach of European law, the Government promptly accepted the ruling and agreed that payments in future would be made to all those households with anyone of age 60 or over residing with them, so ending the present discrimination against men (and their families) aged between 60 and 65 in entitlement to winter fuel payments. The Government also accepted that they were obliged to backdate payments to 1997 when the scheme was introduced. The Government now has to introduce measures to identify all men between the ages of 60 and 65, not on income support or other qualifying benefit, who have been previously discriminated against.

The case is a victory for PARITY, a small voluntary organisation campaigning for equal rights in law for men and women, and for the applicant, John Taylor, an executive committee member of PARITY, now aged 64. Mr. Taylor and his wife were denied benefit because his retirement income was just above income support level and his wife had no state pension in her own right.

PARITY achieved a similar success in October 1995 when the European Court ruled that older men and women should qualify for free NHS medical prescriptions at the same age, the ages previously being also biased on the different state pension ages for men and women. The Government equalised the entitlement age at 60 the next day.

New legislation enacted in November (but yet to come into effect) providing for equal survivors benefits for widowers can also be attributed to PARITY, which, in collaboration with Liberty and Child Poverty Action Group, successfully challenged in the European Court of Human Rights the previous discrimination against widowers, the Government admitting that a case challenging such discrimination was admissible under the Convention.

The present inequality in the entitlement of older persons to bus-passes, again because it is based on state pension age, is the next target for PARITY. PARITY already has a case challenging this discrimination before the European Court of Human Rights, but because of the huge backlog in cases before this Cۥ-/@ -

~jj.....

.=6ztztztztfu[1]ztxX6y(^y^y^y^y^y^y^y^y[1]`y`y`y`y`y`y‑}4}%~y3


.~y~yd;**********************************

 

Ill Eagle 7, jan/feb00

ISSN 1466-9005

p1

The Poodle-Man Archetype

"Learning to relate vid Yarwood, at 'Constables', Windsor Road, Ascot SL5 7LF.

 

p5

 

Abuse of rights is on our doorstep

Today is International Human Rights Day, and it is worth pausing to reflect that too often we have thought of human rights abuses as being outrages which happen overseas. But in Britain, too, we have witnessed inhumanity and a drop in the standards we must expect from a civilised world. Violence and sexual abuse against women and children in the home is now recognised as a human rights violation.

While many are aware of the British Council's cultural and educational activities, few know of its extensive and innovative work in good governance, especially in the emerging democracies. The Council is well placed to link organisations working in human rights and children's rights. This network strengthens organisations, supports key individuals, initiates projects and disseminates information.

The international community is taking human rights more seriously and the change in the Zeitgeist is tangible. Last year, by voting for an international Criminal Court, 120 countries expressed their desire to see human rights abusers brought to justice. In the UK, we have the landmark Pinochet decision and the new Human Rights Act.

Just as democratic rights was the dominant idea at the start of this century, human rights will carry us into the next with optimism.

- Baroness Helena Kennedy

of the Shaws QC,

Chair, The British Council,

Spring Gardens, SW1.

Letters, Evening Standard, 10dec99, p28

I have requested information as to what is the purpose of the British Council. We are in deep water here - Ed

"Law Society officer could face more claims of bullying

- Frances Gibb, Times, 21dec99, p4

"Between 15 and 20 allegations of bullying or harassment have been made against Kemlesh Bahl, the vice-president of the Law Society. .... [but] four black organisations pledged their support for Ms Bahl, who is facing an official inquiry. .... due to examine two allegations pf harassment .... One involves a senior official at the Law Society and the other a former Law Society employee. .... In a separate move, a former senior employee of the Equal Opportunities Commission .... also accused Ms Bahl of intimidation when she was chairman of the Commission - before [joining the] Law Society ....

Ms Bahl is due to become the first woman and the first black President of the 250-year-old society in July."

Conundrum

Your item on the Prime Minister's paternity leave failed to point out that MPs, unlike the rest of us, get paid if they take it. Therefore Tony Blair is entitled to claim almost 1,000 per week for the first three weeks after his child is born. We would encourage Mr Blair to take as much leave as he can fit into his busy schedule - a few days, at least, of bonding with his new child (and support for his wife) are essential, and the country is unlikely to grind to a halt in his absence. The real question is, will he have the gall to take the money?

Richard Gregory, Editor of Mackenzie, FNF, letter in the Evening Standard, 10dec99, p28

Spot the message(s) - Ed

 

The Truth behind Domestic Violence

Summary of a talk given to members of ManKind in Taunton by the specialist on domestic violence, Erin Pizzey. Det. Sergeant Steve Mackay and Inspector Mike Vince were present. None of the other Domestic Violence units in Somerset who were invited, attended.

Origins of her refuge - she joined a women's collective in the hope of joining that she thought would be a young mother's community centre. It turned out to be a feminist cell where she was informed that men were the enemy and all mothers were oppressed. Her protectations at this were met by being described as a revisionist and being thrown out. At this point they had no agenda and no funding.

The Chiswick Refuge - she started this as a community centre but it repidly turned into a refuge as battered women came seeking help. It was not long before the following facotrs emerged:

<>Most of the violent men were those with criminal records.

<>Of the first 100 women, 38 were genuine cases and 62 of the women were as violent if not more violent than their husbands - the real victims were the men. In one instance when she asked a woman why her husband had blacked her eye, she replied "because I stabbed him, but you are not supposed to ask that."

<>The Feminist movement had found their cause and a means of fund raising and despite Erin's protestations that it was a two-way affair, nobody listened to her.

<>The real victims were the children because neither men nor women were treated for their violent behaviour and children stemming from such a relationship often repeated the violence whether they were male or female.

<>Men's violence was usually reactive, whereas women's was premeditated.

Gender issue - DV has now become a gender issue rather than a people issue and whilst society if comfortable with men being violent and being locked up, it has difficulty in accepting that women are equally violent.

Mediation should be the order of the day with Courts being used to rubber stamp the ensuing solution rather than deal with it, as many of the Government Agencies (Probation Service and Social Services) were politically mnotivated and would invariably rule in favour of the mother regardless of the safety of the children.

Home Office Guidelines to the Police - the current guidlines (1990) continuously describe the man as the perpetrator and the woman as the victim. In 1996 the British Crime Survey stated that 4.2% of both men and women suffered from Domestic Violence, however, the guidelines remain unchanged. Erin stated that the Police were in the middle of a political battle and as such it was easier to take a man down to the station than a woman. In response, the policemen present zassured everyone that in the event of a man being injured, that they would arrest the woman. They did acknowledge that whilst they could refer a woman to a refuge, there was nothing that they could offer a man. This would probably explain why they had recently received only 4 DV calls from men and 67 from women.

Local Complaints - we entered into the experiences of our groups.

<>Bristol - a member was threatened with a cricket bat by his ex-wife who then proceeded to break his window in. He had a witness plus his daughter who was sat the other side of the glass.When the PC and WPC arrived they refused to believe him, accusing him of doing it himself as his wife had a witness who saw him do it. The witness turned out to be non-existent. To add insult to injury the PC said that she was entitled to do it as it was still her house and the WPC said that they would not dream of arresting a pregnant woman (she was 4 months pregnant). It required an official complaint to get them moving.

<>Yeovil - meanwhile in Yeovil, a man who was legitimately trying to see his children had an argument with his wife in the street. One call from her prompted an immediate caution from the police. Later, he had the cheek to put his foot in the door when he was trying to collect the children and another call for help prompted yet another caution. She then cancelled a weekend pick-up from the school but told the children he would be there. In order to avoid problems he visited her place of work to try and understand her intentions and left promptluy when asked. On our advice he went to pick his children up (despite her telling him not to) asking the police to accompany him in case of trouble. They were too busy - on arriving at school the mother was not there - she had put him in a catch 22 situation. Turn up and risk confrontation, don't turn up and risk no-one being there for the children. You do not have to ask - the police gave him another caution for going to her place of work.

<>Taunton - meanwhile a man in Taunton who still occupied the house allowed his ex-wife to visit the house to pick up some items. She requested a police escort and was given one. Later the situation was reversed and he requested a police escort and was denied one as they were too busy. On reaching his house she had locked the garage

 

p6

holding his posessions and would not unlock it. He used minimal force to open it and one call from his ex-wife reesulted in three squad cars arriving to bundle him away.

.... on asking the policemen present for their advice, .... They made it clear to all those present that men would have to start complaining if they did not receive fair treatment and that in the case of domestic violence, although they could offer nothing, men should still inform the police.

Erin concluded that she felt that the meeting had been very positive, which no whinging and sensed that the group was actively trying to solve probmems. She was especially pleased to see the police present and had great respect for them.

Erin Pizzey was thanked for her contribution along with Inspector Mike Vince and Detective Sergeant Steve Mackay for attending our meeting.

ManKind nationwide

West Midlands (plus Staffs, Shrops, Worcs., Hereford) 01922 442442

East Midlands (Derby, Notts, Leics, Warwicks, Northants) 0116 264031

Northern England (Cumbria, Northumberland, Durham, Tyne & Wear) 01912 274330

Eastern England (Lincs, Rutland, Cambs, Norfolk, Suffold) 01522 526028

South-East (Berks, Hants, IOW, Surrey, Sussex, Kent) 01483 767314

London 0181 9488797

South-West (Somerset, Devon, Bristol, Cornwall, Dorset, Wilts, Glos) 01643 863352

North-West, North-East and Home Counties - we need organisers. Tel 01643 862289

Conference on 7/8jan00. All Regional Organisers will be meeting at our regional HQ in the south-west to plan our campaigns for the year 2000. Subjects include Probation Service; DV; Men's Health; Lord Woolf's initiative on rights of both parents to see their children.

It is vital that you become involved with your appropriate group - Stephen Fitzgerald (National Organiser - ManKind)

July 22, 1999

 

To: Her Majesty the Queen

Buckingham Palace

London, England SW1A 1AA

 

Your Majesty

Before I begin my letter of concern, let me say, "Long live the Queen", "Long live the Queen Mother," and "Long live the Royal Family."

I am an 84-year-old veteran of the Second World War who served in the war effort as a member of the British Royal Marines on duty in Great Britain. In recognition of my service during the bombing of London I received a citation from the Lord Mayor of London. After the war in 1955, I moved to Canada where I currently reside.

As a defender of democracy and freedom for Great Britain and a loyal supporter of the Monarchy, I am asking for your Majesty's help in my last, yet most difficult battle of my life. I am turning to you for help, your Majesty, for although I am an old solder who is strong in spirit and mind, I must admit that I am too old in body to fight alone in battle any longer. My comrades who served with me to defend England and to fight for democracy and freedom are no longer here on this earth to help me during my time of need. Like a wounded solder, I am turning to my most Noble Leader for help and reassurance in my final battle.

The help that I so humbly ask for is not for myself but for the many children and their families who lives are being torn asunder by a Family Justice System in Canada that has no mercy on children or their parents, especially good loving fathers. Many of the fathers being destroyed today by Canada's Family Justice System are the sons and grandsons of the many brave men who fought and died for Great Britain and its allies during the war. Many of the fathers who died did so for the cause of Democracy, Freedom and a desire to give their descendants a better way of life. Yet, if my comrades were alive today, they would be utterly shattered by what they would see is being done by the Justice System to their children and grandchildren today. None of us who were part of the war effort would have imagined the sons and grandsons of those who fought in the war to be victims of injustices of a system of government they defended.

During the war, I defended the cause of freedom and democracy, but in this, my last battle, I fight for the cause of justice for children and families. It is a fight that many of the fallen comrades of Great Britain would gladly fight alongside of me if they were alive today.

I have enclosed with this letter a package of materials being produced by many ordinary, hard working Canadians. These materials expose only some of the injustices being perpetrated against children and families by lawyers and a powerful legal system supposedly in the name of Justice. Unfortunately, those entrusted by the people for the administration of Justice in Canada have allowed the family justice system to deteriorate to a point where it is a disgrace to all those who believe in Justice and Freedom. Many of those who administer the laws and many of those who misuse the laws are literally ripping families apart under the shady veil of the law.

I have learned that some members of the Royal Family are Honorary Members of the Law Society of Upper Canada. I find it unfortunate that the reputation and good names of members of the Royal family are being used to bring credibility to a lawyer's organization whose reputation has come into such disrepute and whose members are adversely affecting the lives of many children and families. I believe that these injustices would be of great concern to members of the Royal Family whose names are being associated with these lawyers. I believe that members of the Royal family are unaware of the actions of some of those who they are associated with at the Law Society. It may be very likely that my letter will be one of the first to bring this situation into the open. I am sure that other people, like myself, will be scrutinizing the conduct of Law Society members and looking as well at what those who lend their names to these organizations do to maintain the respectability of the organizations to which they are a part.

 

I understand that it may not be desirable for the Royal Family to interfere with the internal affairs of Canada but the interests of children should have no boundaries. The children of Canada need your help, your Majesty. You, and only you, can do something for the children of Canada that no other person can do.

The injustices being waged against children and their families by the bureaucrats and members of the Law Society cannot be fought with the weapons of war but only with the weapons of words from those with wisdom and respect. The influence of Your Majesty and members of the Royal Family can correct injustice in a way that no government can do. If there were ever a time for your Majesty and the Royal Family to direct its wisdom and influence in a meaningful way towards a good and honourable cause, then this would be a time to do so. I humbly request that the Royal Family speak out and to set right the course of justice for children. Many lawyers and others within the legal system are literally destroying children and families while they claim support from the Royal Family for their organizations. I am sure, Your Majesty, The Royal Family never intended the principles of laws to be used in this manner.

I humbly request Your Majesty, that should you be so kind as to write a letter as a token of your concern, voicing the peoples concern to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Rt. Honourable Mr. Chretien, which I hope he will circulate in the right areas, that much will be achieved in correcting the injustices. This would be greatly appreciated by many, many families, and myself affected by the judicial situation.

Your Majesty, should you accede to my request, you will make many, many Canadian families happy to know that their most Noble Queen greatly cares for her subjects.

Your loyal subject Maurice Conway (d.o.b. Dec. 26, 1914)

 

From 'The Thoughts of Chairman Greer'

"There is no race on earth more barbaric than we, no race on earth more misognyistic."

- Germaine Greer,

Evening Standard, 10dec99, p31.

 

Email received by Ivor Catt on 16nov99

Butler-Sloss's attack on the family, see next article, is echoed in Canada. The timing is not coincidental. - Ed

 

p7

".... Recently, Madame Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dube delivered the keynote speech at the law school of Queen's University. According to the Kingston Whig-Standard, in her address, the Supreme Court Justice said it's time for the law to look beyond traditional relationships of men and women, and start extending equality to partners of all types who live together. The failure to do so may be doing violence to the fabric of our society, she said.

" 'Legal scholars say the issue will be the next frontier in Canada's courts,' says the Whig-Standard, reporting on a conference of academics, lawyers and government officials. The conference was co-sponsored by the university and the Law Commission of Canada, a radical body created in the Trudeau years; it was formerly headed by Antonio Lamer, who later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a position in which he was able to push ideas which his Law Commission had been unable to sell to elected legislators.

" 'Why does the law distinguish between partnerships?" L'Heureux-Dube asked in her speech at Queen's. "Why must it value some relationships and reject others?'"

Children are the Gays' gravy train

The courts have now ruled that homosexual couples are a family. Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss publicises the view that the secret Family Court system thinks that homosexuals should be allowed complete their family by adopting children. The following are some figures which compare state help to gay couples with state help to heterosexual couples.

Case One:

Two gays have a child (6-yr.) living with them. Suppose they are unemployed, and they draw unemployment benefۥ-/@ -

~jj.....

.=6ztztztztfu[1]ztxX6y(^y^y^y^y^y^y^y^y[1]`y`y`y`y`y`y‑}4}%~y3


.~y~yd;**********************************

 

Ill Eagle 7, jan/feb00

ISSN 1466-9005

p1

The Poodle-Man Archetype

"Learning to relate 24.90

TOTAL PROVIDED BY STATE FOR NON-HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE 105.55

In other words: New Labour (heavily dominated by lawyers) gives unemployed homosexuals an extra 22.15 per week.

Case Two:

Two gays or lesbians have a child (6 yr.) living with them. Suppose one of them works and earns 220 and the other is unemployed to look after the child.

The one who does not work is able to claim Income Support (51.40) plus money for the child (24.90). On top the one who looks after the child would be able to claim housing benefit (up to 100 pw).

Heterosexual men and women who are married or living together as husband and wife are treated as a couple. When one of them works and earns 220 the other gets NOTHING as income support, NOTHING EXTRA for the child NOTHING extra for the housing.

Thus the TOTAL PROVIDED BY STATE FOR HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE 176.30 cf nothing for heterosexual couple.

Conclusion: New Labour Government (more than a quarter of which is homosexual or lawyer or both) offers homosexuals an extra 176.30 per week (8,996 p.a.) as an incentive to "complete their family" when one of them works. Chris Smith has to get hold of a child a.s.a.p.

Gay, and sad

The Lewisham social services appear to have taken leave of their senses. Dismayed that a two-year-old boy has been sharing a room with an older boy, they have planned his removal from his foster parents, the one home that he has known all his life, and will be handing him to a homosexual couple with the aim of adoption. There is no suggestion that the boy had been maltreated. From what we know, he was well attached to his foster mother, father and siblings. It was simply enough that he was sharing a room, however innocently, with an older boy. When The Daily Telegraph contacted Lewisham for its comments, its immediate reaction was to threaten an injunction. Repeated assurances to its legal department that the paper had no intention whatsoever of identifying the boy or his foster family fell on deaf ears. By 8pm it was attempting to persuade Mr Justice Wall to prevent publication of the story.

Whether or not the social services are justified in presuming that sexual abuse is rife in foster homes, this is not alleged in this case, and it is surely peculiar that they should seek a homosexual couple for remedy. Only married couples are allowed to adopt. There is no provision under English law for cohabiting men to adopt jointly. When it occurs, it is surreptitious. Only one of the men is listed as the official parent, so that the adoption can be falsely categorised as a single-father case. The courts are now acquiescing in this ruse. Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss,. President of the High Court's Family Division, appeared to endorse it last month when she praised the "increasing number of cases where a child is cared for by parents of the same sex". The law has been stretched beyond the intent of Parliament by judicial activists with an ideological agenda.

Indeed, the law hardly seems to count when it conflicts with homosexual activists' demands for further privileges. London health authorities are violating Section 28 of the Local Government Act by offering a guide to the etiquette of "cruising and cottaging" - encouraging homosexual acts with strangers in public lavatories. The Prison Service is being stymied in its efforts to enforce its ban on homosexual activity because a judge has ruled that prison officers must provide condoms to gay prisoners.

One might be forgiven for thinking that the law treats homosexuality as a "normal" and "valid" alternative to heterosexuality. It does not. The 1967 Sexual Offences Act, which offered a defence for the practice, none the less did not legalise it. For the militant homosexual groups, however, tolerance is not enough. They demand active approval and insist on debilitating the institution of marriage in their fury to break down all barriers. What is reprehensible is that so much of Labour's governing class is willing to play along. - Editorial, 13nov99

[One thing to notice is the linking of homosexuals with attack on the family with Labour govt. This points to an alliance between homosexuals and anti-family radical feminists, both of whom are heavily represented in Vanity Blair's Cabinet.]

Secret in the interests of whom?

"Charles Moore, the editor of The Daily Telegraph, said: 'We welcome the judge's refusal to impose an injunction on us and do not understand Lewisham council's attempts to obstruct a proper resolution of the issue. While we absolutely agree with, and insist on, the need to handle stories of this nature sensitively, it is imperative that local authorities and others [judges? - Ed] should not be able to avoid public scrutiny by sheltering behind laws designed to protect children.'" - 13nov99, p7

Butler-Sloss defies the law

The Judgement of Solomon

[1994] 1 FLR 669

A v A (MINORS) (SHARED RESIDENCE ORDER)

Court of Appeal

Butler-Sloss LJ and Connel J

3 February 1994

The above Judgement is on the Internet.

This judgement demonstrates that, using the mantra "The interests of the child comes first", our judges will ignore legislation, including the Children Act 1989, and any further legislation on family matters passed during the next fifteen years. Once the Silly-Sloss's verbiage is stripped away, it is a clear declaration of defiance of Parliament, and a declaration of the supremacy of judges, to do with our children as the ignorant whim takes them. For full analysis, see my article in a future issue of Male View, or send me 1 in stamps for a copy of both judgement and article, or see my website - Ed

Homosexuality and Suicide

The Daily Telegraph of 7dec99, p8, includes an assertion by junior

p8

environment minister Lord Whitty that Section 28 of the Local Government Act, preventing councils from promoting homosexuality, was "pernicious" and harmful to children. .... One young homosexual in five would harm themselves or attempt suicide, Lord Whitty told peers.

Whitty has got it back to front. He needs to be told that adult homosexuals attempt suicide six times more often than normal men [Male View, jan99, p20]. This in spite of the fact that their chance of promotion, for instance into the cabinet, is far greater.

Here we have the ultimately confused, dangerous minister. Homosexuals are deeply disturbed people. 30% of members of alcoholics anonymous are homosexual. Their expectation of life is terrifyingly low, 30 years less. The idea that encouraging young men into that lifestyle will save lives is the ultimate absurdity.

 

Britain's institutions acquiesce in face of Gay lobby

Some of our respected national organisations are frighteningly ambivalent towards Politically Correct positions when tackling the issue of homosexuality and children.

They include; The General Council of the British Medical Council; the Health Education Authority; The Royal College of Psychiatrists.

 

Gay Rights and the Family

- Melanie Phillips, Sunday Times, sect. 1 p13, 26dec99

".... the gay rights campaign aims not to protect homosexuals but to destroy the traditional family."

Parentectomy

email recd 4nov99

To All;

.... I think that the bonehead label isn't very useful either. In my opinion, what we are dealing with is people who are afflicted with PTSD, (post-traumatic stress disorder).

Having your children taken away from you is more than merely traumatic, it may be the most traumatic event one could ever experience. Here are three of the many reasons why this is so........

1) The situation represents "ambiguous loss", so one is not in any way free to mourn, as in a death of a child situation. (Some author has written a brilliant book on ambiguous loss). It's sort of like the type of loss where you keep on losing and get no resolution.

2) This type of loss is personal, yet the victim appears visibly intact, so the social empathy received is far less than proportional to the extent the injuries deserve. If one were to lose a limb, for example, one's social experience would include an invaluable empathy component which would facilitate personal healing. In the case of child seizure, empathy is not only appallingly inadequate but many people even suggest to the victim that HE IS NOT INJURED, or that the injury is minimal. This "anti-empathy" is a very large part of why the PTSD from this type of trauma becomes so severe, catapulting its victims into near insanity.

3) This injury is sanctioned by and often administered by the government itself. This places the injury in the same class as any other government-sanctioned violence at any time in human history. Most individuals, from a very young age, possess at least some notion that the function of government is to assist them somehow or offer them some form of protection. When it is demonstrated that the opposite is the case, it turns one's perceptual apparatus upside down, especially in cases where the victim was formerly some sort of an ardent or active supporter of government.

I applaud the strength of individuals who have suffered child-seizure trauma and continue to wake up each morning and face a new day. It is a testimony to the courage, strength, resilience and abundant inner resources of multitudes of victims, mostly men, and some women, that there are not daily a great many homicide sprees and suicides in response to the stress caused by child-seizure trauma. This situation is a psychological time-bomb, my friends, and hyperbolic talk is the least of our worries. Strength and patience to us all..............Allan.

 

Punished for being a man

Daily Telegraph, 13nov99, p5 and p15.

1. p5 [3 months for harassment plus 21 months for being a man. - Ed]

"A barrister obsessed with a woman lawyer was jailed for two years for defying court orders to stop harassing her.

".... the pair met at the Bar and embarked on an affair ....

"When she [ended] the affair .... Webster could not accept it. .... He warned her .... he would ruin her career .... He sent her letters .... He called her on the telephone. .... He .... attempted suicide ...." - p5

2. p15 "A jealous policewoman who .... [tracked] down her love rival, and then threatened .... to stab her and to .... plant drugs on her .... was jailed .... for three months.

"The .... magistrate added: 'I have found little evidence of remorse ....'"

 

Those who sow the wind and reap the whirlwind

Scurrilous stories are circulating about Esther Ranzen's and Desmond Wilcox's daughters. It is being suggested that one's m.e. and the other's bulimia was caused by family sexual abuse.

These rumours are probably the work of one of Ranzen's rivals in the sexual abuse lobby.

It looks as though the monster Esther helped to create is now threatening her own family.

- reported by AAFAA, 01635 202433

Children Sold Short - again ?

Some of the prestigious children's charities that tacitly support lowering the age of consent for homosexuality.

1/. NSPCC

2/. Barbados

3/. Save the Children.

Puffs from the BMA

The General Council of the British Medical Assoc. is quoted as stating that: "There is no convincing medical reason against reducing the age of consent for male homosexuals to 16 and to do so may yield positive health benefits".

We can see that reducing the age of consent from 18 to 16 will have little or no effect on the shortened life span (to 42 years) of the average homosexual. But we are at a loss to explain what positive health benefits it could possibly yield. All suggestions to the Editor, please.

Male driving worsens to confirm that only women should drive

"Crash Driver 'had cat on head'

"A driver had a cat sitting on his head when he crashed after failing to stop at a roundabout, a court heard yesterday. A woman driving behind David Levy said she saw a black cat sitting on his bald head when the accident happened ... 'I thought the cat was a toy, but then I saw it sit on his head.'

"Levy, 65, appealing against a careless driving conviction, .... denied that one was on his head. His appeal was rejected." - Daily Telegraph, 13nov99, p2.

[No one should lie about use of a cat. Although they get lost more often, women drivers never use a cat guide. - Ed]

 

 

 

 

 

**********************************

 

Ill Eagle 7, jan/feb00

ISSN 1466-9005

p1

The Poodle-Man Archetype

"Learning to relate to father

"Bitter experiences as a child and a parent have taught Ed Straw, brother of the home secretary, how to build closer families.

"My father left home as the result of a court order when I was eight years old. I didn't see him again for 35 years. .... After he left, I behaved as though I didn't have a father. ....

"There were five children - Jack, Sue, me, Willie, Helen. My mum was a teacher and we lived in a council maisonette in Loughton, Essex. .... at that time there was a huge social stigma about not being a perfect nuclear family. .... Financially, things were tight, and periodically we ran out of money and went hungry. ....

"Jack was the eldest, and 10 when my father left. Almost immediately, he went away to boarding school. Willie, who is younger than me, and I also won state scholarships to this school. The education was good, but it specialised in turning out emotional cripples.

"I met my first wife at Manchester University; I was 23 when we got married. In those days that wasn't thought young, but actually I was very immature. I got a job, and became Mr Responsibility. We had three children, Dan, Adam, and Chloe, who are now 24, 22 and 18. I wanted the security of marriage, but I hadn't a clue how to run a long-term relationship.

"I craved intimacy, but I didn't know how to handle intimate relationships. ... I had to learn how to enjoy and to "do" intimate relationships. .... I had to learn .... to talk about apparent trivia. .... This comes naturally for most women, but I had to learn to talk trivia in male relationships with my sons, and my brothers.

".... In the late 1980s, I was facing a merger at work, amid a recession. I felt as though I was falling apart. I was 40, and having a mid-life crisis. My marriage broke up, I left home, and eventually I went to see a psychotherapist. ....

"He helped me with some of the male role model and fathering I hadn't had, to build a long-term resilience to run a long-term relationship, ....

"Of course, I have regrets about my first children. I had done what my father had done. I had walked out and left them. I felt a terrible loss and a huge sense of guilt and failure. ....

"I got [re]married shortly after my reunion with my father, and this re-relating in the family encouraged me to become chairman of Relate. ....

"Ed Straw is a government adviser on the family. He is a contributor to Family Business, published by Demos tomorrow. He was talking to Ann McFerran." Sunday Times, 6feb00, sect5 p8

The implications of this article are very serious. Please would readers send in their comments. - Ed

 

Radfem propaganda paid for by you

Amnesty announced by ManKind

13dec99

Second copy sent to my MP Pollard and to Moxon, Home Office, 1feb00.

To Kerry Pollard MP

From Ivor Catt

Re your letter to me dated 18nov99 [see my website], please send me information as to the "staged disciplinary process" mentioned therein.

Our plan is to announce that after an amnesty to 1july00, civil servants who are associated with research reports which have been twisted to a political agenda, and research figures falsified, after 1july00, will be dismissed. That will give enough time for the introduction of a new era of honest research reporting by civil servants in government departments. We need to have full knowledge of your "staged disciplinary process" well before that date.

The initial announcement is by way of putting this document onto my website today. It will also be announced in the next issue of Ill Eagle, which I edit.

Yours sincerely,

Ivor Catt

cc Betty Moxon, Home Office

 

The Gvardian and Equal Opportvnities

The Gvardian should be congratulated for its commitment to Equal Opportvnities. However, their reforms may be incomplete.

I will give a personal cheque for 5 to the first reader who spots a male heterosexual journalist working for The Gvardian. (No formal proof required.) I plan to Name and Shame the deviant in a future edition of Ill Eagle. - Ed

 

Animal Farm

p7, The Sun, 28jan00

Sent in by Bill Tomlinson

"School mum jailed for sex with pupils.

".... Judge Hale said, 'If you had been a man acting in the same way toward young girls, the sentence would have been much greater."

 

"Love you to death

by Adam Craig,

Sunday Times, p5-11, 6feb00

"When I fell in love with my wife I told her that if she were ever unfaithful to me I'd whack her with a Chinese meat cleaver. She thought I was joking. I opened a drawer and showed it to her.

"'I [know of] 21 poisonous plants,' I added ominously, 'most of which are extremely difficult to detect.'

"Reader, she married me, and the meat cleaver has lain rusting in a drawer for the past 16 years."

[continued at end of page 2

 

Sexism in "Science"

"A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual coercion" by Thornhill and Palmer

MIT has accelerated its publication schedule because of strong media interest.

Note the disturbing attempt of the New York Academy of Science to profit from "sexism in science", so "substantiate" the notion that men are born rapists.

For more information see www.nyas.org/

 

"Bankrolling Gay Proselytism

The case for extending Section 28"

For the best report on this subject, 'phone 0191 281 5664 for their 2.50 post free, 44pp booklet with the above title.

 

Named and shamed

Leader, Daily Mail, 8feb00

"[We welcome] the decision of the judge at Newcastle Crown Court to reveal the identity of a woman who falsely accused a male colleague of rape

.... charges .... for three years have blighted the life and career of Martin Garfoot and his family. Yet this is but the latest in a succession of .... such accusations .... against innocent men. .... The award of 400,000 damages to Mr Garfoot will be little comfort to him ...."

 

p2

 

Counterblast

BBC2 7.30pm 24jan00

http://www.bbc.co.uk/knowledge/home/index.shtml

 

George McAulay is Scottish Chairman of the UK Men's Movement and this week on Counterblast he's a man with a mission. Tired of being insulted and vilified for being male by feminist writers in the media, George says it's time for men to fight back.

"I hate feminists because they're phoneys, they're liars," George explains. "Feminism is not based on the notion of equality for women, it's based on a hatred of men and a hatred of their family. In a sane and well ordered world men and women between themselves resolve what is right and proper in their relations but feminism like Marxism seeks to impose a standard of behaviour on everyone."

According to George, shocking the public with his own extreme views is the only real way of raising an awareness of the problem. Feminists who engage in male bashing are allowed to get away with it because society is running scared. As a result, George has developed some strong opinions of his own and there are no holds barred. George sees a breakdown in society thanks to the hateful views of feminists like Valerie Solanas whose ideas are still being taught in Women's Studies at Universities throughout Britain.

"We allow these media witches to put their stuff in our papers day in, day out and you people buy it," he says. "I make people challenge the cosy assumptions that they're comfortable with."

George says while most people today are afraid to speak out against these scathing attacks on men because they worry about the disapproval of others or fear their career will suffer, he's ready to champion what's right in the battle of the sexes.

"It's this spiritual ability to struggle and face the unpalatable and the unacceptable within yourself which I think is men's strength, women's vanity is overwhelming. There's very few women who manage to go beyond the material in life and I think that women's vanity and materialism in modern society has become untempered."

George McAulay has been campaigning on pro-family issues and issues that affect men for the past eight years. He says the hate propaganda against men spread by feminists working in the media and advertising industry is sheer exploitation and an abuse of privilege. George believes that the slander and lies they propagate are causing the breakdown of the family, community and the traditional roles of men and women.

"When I say that a man should be the head of the family, in no way does it mean that women are demeaned or second class citizens or reduced to the trivial. They realise that man has a certain strength and consistency of emotion that makes him better suited for steering the ship of the family."

American anti-feminist author Rich Zubaty joins George to talk about the sort of privileges women enjoy today as they head into positions of power in society.

"Men have to register for military service in the States, women do not. I don't know how women can become congressmen and senators and CEOs of huge corporations and they're never required to somehow protect or defend the form of government that allows them these high privileges," Rich explains. "If we created a special class of men who were born into a privilege whereby they never had to fight in war, they were never expected to do hard physical labour, we would consider these men aristocrats and throwbacks to a couple of centuries ago. But the fact that women can be born into a class where they never have to fight in a war, never are expected to do physical labour is a type of aristocracy."

Rich believes female chauvinism is based entirely on the belief that men are the oppressors of women. He says this is not true today nor has it ever been the case despite the fact that the entire feminist agenda is built upon the notion. "Men have always been the ones to fight the wars, to mine the minerals, to drill the oil, to bring comfort and security into the lives of women.

Nineteen out of twenty people who die on the job are men. If nineteen out of twenty people who died on the job were women we'd have a federal investigation into this tragedy."

George's TV programme was very good. Write to me asking about availablity of a videotape. - Ed

 

Cannabis and Tobacco

".... They say .... that cannabis isn't addictive .... Yet it is addictive; moreover, cannabis is smoked with tobacco, is itself carcinogenic and, used with tobacco, causes cancer much faster than tobacco alone. ....

"Cannabis hits the immune system .... one joint every other day causes permanent brain damage .... cannabis stays in the blood for weeks ...."

- Melanie Phillips,

Sunday Times, 9jan00, p1 - 17

Please would a reader enlighten other Ill Eagle readers? Where is the scholarly information on whether tobacco and cannabis multiply, rather than add, their cancer-causing effects? Also, the other assertions. - Ed

 

Spain leaves Britain with 15m legal bill

by David Graves,

Telegraph, 17jan00, p9

".... 15million and could rise higher....

".... bill for the nine-strong team of solicitors and barristers [fighting extradition] has been estimated at up to 12,000 per day. ...."

As Irvine is reported to have said recently, legal costs are spiralling out of control. Journalists are incapable of looking rationally at a bunch of rogues, lawyers and judges (who, even in the Appeal Court, often turn out to be barristers serving as judges part time; roles could be reversed a week later!) are ripping off the country by grabbing millions of pounds in return for thinking about whether one old man should be given to Spain. I have found that the top judges are ignorant and sluggish of intellect, certainly compared with Dr. Michael Pelling, whom they struggle to ban from our courts. Apart from being venal, it does cost a lot of time (and therefore money) for these fellows to struggle through legal issues which contain some difficulty. We should be interested in this, because they fool about in the same way in the Family Courts. - Ed.

 

"Irvine 'asked if Maxwell inquiry should be cut'

by Rachel Sylvester,

Telegraph, 17jan00, p10

"Lord Irvine .... was concerned that millions of pounds of taxpayers' money were being poured into the inquiry with no sign of an imminent outcome. ....

"The Maxwell investigation .... included 1,677,000 in legal inspectors' fees and 7,097,000 in accountant inspectors' fees..... now risen to 10 million .... cost to the taxpayer ...."

 

"Flood of runaway children shatters poor homes myth

- Jenny Jarvie, Telegraph, 11nov99

"Still Running, [from 0171 8414400, 12,] the most important extensive inquiry into runaways ever published, found that more than 100,000 children a year in Britain spent a night or more away from home or care without permission. ....cuts across class boundaries ....

"More than 20% .... living in step-families had run away once, compared with 13% in lone parent families and 7% of those living with their natural parents. .... report .... surveyed 13,000 children ...."

[Shared parenting is missing. Jenny does not distinguish between single father and single mother families, but we know from other research that outcome from single father is much better than that for single mother. - Ed]

 

"Love you to death

[continued from page 1

".... I once sat on a jury in which we were asked to consider whether a jilted man had poured paint over his girlfriend's car. Not one of the male members of the jury could bring themselves to vote guilty .... he had already brought retribution so thoroughly upon himself. In court he was a pathetic wreck. ...."

[I have reversed Male and Female in the article, actually written by Amanda Craig. Violence and jury misconduct by women, in the original article, was PC. Comments please. - Ed]

 

p3

Editorial

The crisis in the family is many-faceted. I myself have been learning about it for more than ten years. Already, five years ago, I had written my book The Hook and the Sting, about the collapse of the legal system, which is available on my website,

www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/

I remember being invited to a secret day-long combined meeting of members of the Vexatious Litigants Society and the Litigants in Person Society at a secret address some five years ago. RG, one of the most expert in family law, who helped me most with my book by pointing out Lord Denning's role in destroying our legal system by introducing uncertainty, (see Portia's Speech,) sat nonplussed as court junkies traded specialist knowledge about arcane details of English law and judicial misconduct. He knew that judges, particularly judges in our secret courts, would ignore legal niceties which were not to their liking. The junkies thought they had judges on the run. However, it was obvious that if a litigant became too skilled, judges would say "It's my game, and I'm not playing with you any more." (This had happened to a third of those present.) The skilled court junkie would be forthwith banned from any civil or criminal court for ever. One of the junkies present had been banned ten minutes after winning ten million pounds in damages, from a company in which perhaps the judge held a large holding in shares, or in which his brother was Chief Executive. He never collected his ten million. Some junkies were even discussing the legal niceties of Vexatious Litigant legislation, and how it was getting more draconian!

The reason why there are less vexatious litigants, banned forever from our decaying courts, than one would expect, is that judges have many more tricks up their sleeves, for instance Mary Bell, to get rid of those who threaten to force judges to obey and enforce the law and to keep to their own court procedures, laid down in the rule book.

This brings me to what I believe is a valid rift running through the campaign to restore basic civil rights to divorced men and their children. Those like myself believe that the situation is bound deteriorate for a further fifteen years because of the stranglehold of radfems, with further increase in the suicide rate among young men and an unavoidable drift into civil disorder twenty times worse than the Poll Tax riots. They tend to be the same people, for obvious reasons, as those who put greater effort over a longer period into analysing all aspects of the crisis. They are confronted by the Young Turks, usually younger and with less experience of the crisis, who either believe that the crisis will be resolved within only a few years, or who cannot or will not study the subject thoroughly. The Young Turks want rapid, explosive action to exploit their dynamism, or perhaps to camouflage their lack of application (or even their stupidity), depending on how you look at them.

Their is a similar division, possibly the same division, between those who want to parade in public drama, carrying banners up and down Whitehall, and those like myself who lurk in the shadows, putting particular government officials under the hammer, trying to force them to do their jobs properly.

We lost twenty-five years because FNF was neither one thing nor the other. It was controlled by the Old Guard, who however would not do their homework, but who all the same blocked the Young Turks. I believe, however, that we will be able to recognise a valid difference of emphasis, and compromise, rather than confront and block, as happened in FNF. It should be possible to make a fuss in Whitehall but at the same time gain expertise, with some of us only doing one or other. After all, I am not totally certain that the situation will not begin to turn round within three years or so, and I respect some of those who think it will, even when I think their judgement is clouded by their desperate desire to see and to protect their own children.

ManKind and Ill Eagle can be reached at;

(1). Mankind, Suite 367, 2 Lansdowne Row, London W1X 8HL.

(2) www.ukmm.org.uk

(3) The Editor, Ill Eagle, Ivor Catt,

121 Westfields, St. Albans AL3 4JR, England. ( 01727 864257

(4) Email :- ivorcatt@

electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/

Campaign for open justice update

New Development

Destruction by Civil Rules 1998 of Right to Trial in Open Court

The destruction by the CPR of the constitutional right to trial in open court (a right both of the parties and of the public) in certain categories of civil proceedings is an illegal by-product of Lord Woolf's Reforms which seems to have passed without notice by the legal profession. Didn't anybody think it strange that, for example, Landlord and Tenant possession cases for non-payment of rent should suddenly switch from public hearing in open court to private hearing in chambers in 26 April 1999? But that is a direct consequence of CPR Rule 39.2(3)(c) and Practice Direction 39PD Para.1.5(2). How could mere rules of court and practice directions abolish the Common Law rule that trials must take place in open court? The answer is, they couldn't, and the relevant rules and practice directions are ultra vires. Nothing in the primary legislation, the Civil Procedure Act 1997, permits abolition of the Common Law rule of trial in open court, a rule conclusively upheld by the House of Lords in Scott v. Scott [1911-13] AERep 1 HL.

The Practice Direction 39PD Para.1.5 sets out a whole list of categories of proceedings where trial in private is now the rule: arguably nearly all unlawful (e.g. besides Landlord and Tenant cases, Consumer Credit Act 1974, mortgage repossession, and Protection from Harassment Act 1997 cases). Incredibly this Practice Direction was made by three of the most senior Judges in the land: the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the Vice-Chancellor: see [1999] 1WLR 1124. Are these judges bent on destroying the constitutional security of trial in open court? - or were they merely half asleep when they nodded through a set of practice directions dreamed up by some civil servants in the Lord Chancellor's Department?

Judicial Review

Basic democratic rights must not be abolished without Parliamentary sanction. Having been refused access, as a member of the public, to Landlord and Tenant cases at Bow County Court by H.H. Judge Bradbury in November 1999, the writer's application for Leave to move for Judicial Review was duly filed in the High Court on 7 December 1999, case CO/4774/99- R v. Bow County Court ex parte Pelling. This application will be heard in open court at the Royal Courts of Justice on 26 January 2000. The legal consequence of a trial being unlawfully held in private is interesting: the whole proceedings become voidable at the option of any party: McPherson v. McPherson [1935] AERep 105 PC, [1936] AC 177. So every solicitor and counsel who has acted for a landlord or tenant who lost his case held in private is under a professional duty to advise the client that he can have the possession order etc. set aside and obtain a retrial in open court.

Latest Development

On 26 January 2000 leave was refused by Mr. Justice Keene who held that Section 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 - "The power to make Civil Procedure Rules is to be exercised with a view to securing that the civil justice system is accessible, fair and efficient" - had altered the Common Law position and empowered the making of rules authorising proceedings to be held in private which formerly had to be in open court. That included trials of landlord and tenant possession cases for non-payment of rent.

It is not clear how holding trials in secret courts makes justice more accessible, fair and efficient.

- Dr. M. J. Pelling, the first two items reprinted from Contact, East London FNF Branch Newsletter, dec99, no.3

"In the darkness of secrecy sinister interest, and evil in every shape, have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial." - Jeremy Bentham, 1748-1832, one of the most influential writers on jurisprudence.

 

p4

Divorce: Why we women are to blame

- Vanessa Lloyd-Platt,

Mail, 9feb00, p22

Britain's leading female divorce lawyer argues that it is the aggression of her own sex that's responsible for soaring rates of marital failure.

A prestigious matrimonial lawyer, Vanessa Lloyd-Platt, has specialised in divorce for the past 20 years. The London-based solicitor now runs her own practice - Lloyd Platt & Co .... Her vast experience of marriage has led her recently to conclude that women are to blame for the high rates of divorce. Here Vanessa, a mother of two and married to accountant Daniel Lloyd Platt, sets out her controversial argument. It is something every wife - and girlfriend - should read.

Twenty years as a divorce lawyer have finally led me to the disturbing conclusion that in most cases it is women and women alone who are responsible for the dissatisfaction in so many relationships.

It grieves me to say it, and I do not do so lightly, but after seeing so many couples unhappy as a direct result of women's behaviour, I feel I must speak out.

After analysing thousands of divorce cases, a clear pattern has emerged. Men from all walks of life are saying that over the past 10-15 years, and especially the past five, women have changed beyond recognition.

From being soft, compliant and loving, they are now volatile, hard and distant. Many tell stories of how aggressive their women have become .... They mean the whole package. From hostile body language to repeated shouting matches, unfounded accusations, constant disagreement, criticism and unrealistic demands. Men are not just saying their wives are nags, they are saying they are character demolishers.

.... While some husbands have identified this aggressiveness in wives who do not work, in my experience it is working women who are mainly the problem. .... men did not even get as far as the doorstep before their wives started bombarding them with their problems. ....

It has been said that women believe themselves to be intellectually superior to men. .... then we have the capacity to recognise that men have different needs and are not going to change when it comes to relationships. We must recognise this problem and use our common sense to solve it.

[I fear that Ted Straw, p1, has had all his common sense stuffing knocked out of him. He is now a loose cannon with a lot of firepower. Men, take cover from a wrecker in sheep's clothing, and from Relate! -Ed]

Single Mother Households (SMH) are the most dangerous living arrangement to

Children

From: Bill Wood

<bill-wood2@worldnet.att.net>

In Single Mother Households, 422 children are fatally abused each year. In Single Father Households, 25 children are fatally abused each year. In Dual Parent Families, 16 children are fatally abused each year. 430 children are killed by firearm accidents each year. Of 430 children killed by firearms, 322 are killed in Single Mother Households. Single Mother Households account for 70% of fatal child abuse and accidental firearm deaths.

Source: Donna Shalala, "National Child Abuse Prevention Month" and "Child Maltreatment 1994: Reports from the States to the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect". Patrick Fagan, Heritage Foundation, "THE CHILD ABUSE CRISIS: THE DISINTEGRATION OF MARRIAGE, FAMILY, AND THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY", Rick Thomas, "The Dirty Little Secret: Abuse in Foster Care"

The Heritage Foundation

report "The Child Abuse Crisis: The Disintegration of Marriage, Family, and the American Community," May 15, 1997 notes that: "[due to] ... the disintegration of family and community ... America's infants and young children, about 2,000 of whom -- 6 per day -- die each year," and provides the following estimate:

Total Children Killed Per Year 2,000

Killed by Mothers 1,100

Killed by Stepfathers 250

Killed by Live-In Boyfriends 513

Killed by Biological Fathers 137

www.fathermag.com/news/1778-Heritage01.shtml

his study demonstrates that the least dangerous place for a child is with the father by a margin of over 15 to 1 (2000 / 137 = 14.6). Directly or indirectly, the stepfathers and live-in boyfriends are associated with the mother's household and therefore a child is 15 times more likely to be killed while in the mother's care. Excluding stepfathers and live-in boyfriends, mothers are 8 times more likely to kill a child than the biological father (1100 / 137 = 8.0).

An epidemic of lies

- Dennis Austin, Backlash Magazine, August 1999

The use of false allegations in divorce is rapidly becoming an epidemic which is spreading throughout the world. According to the National Shared Parenting Association (Saskatchewan Chapter), in Canada a Children's Aid Society study showed that of 1200 complaints of abuse, 900 involved custody disputes. Of those 900 allegations, two thirds (600) were found to be false.

 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that there were more than 1,000,000 documented child abuse cases in 1990. In 1983, it found that 60% of perpetrators were women.

 

Setting up your own Website

25jan2000

Dear Sir, I was intrigued by the final item in Eagle 06, and could not resist the enclosure, which comes from The Complete Idiots Guide to Internet UK by Peter Kent, Alpha Books.

Actually, when working at the keyboard, a cat on the head is far too heavy. A hamster is much lighter, as well as being far quieter, e.g. a purring cat can be mistaken for a ringing telephone. When motoring, a simple alternative is to wear a coonskin (Davy Crockett) hat. It this is unavailable, avoid the temptation to try a parrot on the shoulder, especially a female one. They tend to bew backseat drivers, 'mind that bus, slow down for the crossroads' etc.

Yours sincerely,

Mr. E Watkins (546)

 

 

Ill Eagle 8, may00

 

p1

 

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 Cmttee (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, systemetic critisism and belittlment.

GADV states that he defination of DV was crystalised in april 1999 for use in all police forces, but that it is intended for "statistical purposes only". To counter this, GPADV suggets ".... 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 ]

 

Britain backs peers on Section 28

David Hughes,

Daily Mail, 11feb00

Nearly two thirds of the country thinks peers were right to vote to save Section 28, a poll suggested yesterday. .... opposition to scrapping the law which bans gay propaganda in schools has been strenghtening fast .... among younger adults, .... a majority back the Lords. .... there was no 'Islington factor' to suggest more support for the gay lobby in London. To get involved in fighting the repeal of Section 28 contact George McAulay Tel 01419544994 (UKMM Scottish Chm.), your local Mosque, Baptist or Catholic church.

Feminist Arithmetic

Tom Utley, Daily Telegraph 09Feb00, writes movingly of his concerns for women victims of rape. He is concerned that Women Against Rape (WAR) is too hard line and seeks, not justice, but vengeance (which comes as a surprise to him). He notes that WAR estimate that only one rape in 200 is reported and convicted. But as only the unschooled are permitted to comment on social issues affecting men, is it any wonder if he blunders blindly ?

However, by Feb. 19th this musing out loud had become a torrent of indignation as both the Telegraph and The Sunday Times (19th and 20th respectively) poured scorn on Home Office's projected figures for rape. Thus we have at last toppled the subjects of both rape and of false allegations into the mainstream of public debate. The taboo is now broken. Meanwhile, WAR continues with its unarithmetic dogma. In 1997 there were 599 convictions for rape. If, as WAR states, only 1 in 200 rapes are reported, then there should be 120,000 reported rapes every year (200 x 599). The actual figure, unfortunately, is only 6,281. If, on the other hand WAR are referring to this latter figure for their 1 in 200 ratio, this means there are 1,200,000 rapes pa. Nearly all women will experience rape at sometime in their lives, and can be excused (to quote Margaret "Lady" Jay) for living in fear of rape. The logical outcome to WAR's figures gets worse. women's life expectancy averages close to 80 years, so they should expect to be raped 4 times in their lives. A natural progression will be the need for Govt to initiate an accelerated prison building programme. We can anticipate that every man will have raped at some time before he dies at least once - and for many men to have raped dozens of times. With a scenario where millions of men are about to be convicted, this must assume the highest priority if the present witch hunt is to be sustained. Seen in this light, homosexual men pose a more attractive alternative to women.

 

The BBC's report, however, came closer to the true situation (see http:news2.thls.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid%5F63500/63512.stm) when they quoted Ruth Hall as saying " .... only about 1 in 12 women report their rape to the police." She continued, "Men take for granted that they will be physically serviced and emotionally cared for by women. Rape is an extension of this expectation.". What all the commentaries and reports fail to include is the False Allegation factor - presently running at around 80% of all reported rapes (see HO report 196). Study 196 concedes that 1 in 5 men charged are victims of fabricated rape claims.

"First Frame" in their 16mar00 Ch4 documentary for Dispatches (based on Study 196) have failed to capitalise on a golden chance to further obscure using biased but 'official' figures. For what First Frame tried to prove was the opposite of 196 conclusions. Had we had editorial control we could have produced a more truthful, accurate and far more convincing analysis of Study 196. One that would have been as riveting as the appalling "collateral damage" caused to men by false accusations and highlighted in a programme two nights earlier on Ch5.

 

Silent Sisterhood !

Women in the UK are invariably more lightly sentenced when found guilty (HO 170). So why does the demand for equality fall silent ? Instead, we have the distasteful situation of "our Julie" and her band of short haired women friends pleading for dispensation in cases like that of Diana Butler who was the woman allegedly "degraded" by Roger Carlin, so she knifed him to death - and then walked free from the Court of Appeal. The fact that she had knifed her previous two partners including her ex-husband (Lady Jay, please note) was taken into oconsideraton in her acquittal.

Three weeks later we find Julie Bindel and her band of short haired women demanding the full savagery of the law for a man who murdered his wife afer yearsof provocation.

Feminists insist; "We are capable of working the same jobs for the same pay. We are as intelligent as men and we can make our own decisions". Why shouldnt they be held as accountable as men ?

 

p2

 

 

Female paedophiles

Sex crimes arent only committed by men. We know women rape (aka seduce) younger boys, sometimes with traumatic and lasting effects if the age gap is too great and the euphemistically termed "sex games" too explicit. But now comes a new dimension. According to a US source (Fathers Manifesto), female paedophiles kill 8 times as many children as male paedophiles (42 vs. 8). This means that male paedophiles account for 0.003% of female deaths each year.

'Women who abuse children: the awful truth'

by Jonathan Green, Elizabeth Udall

5 pp in Marie Claire, march00

"Female paedophiles are possibly society's darkest secrets. Reviled for crimes against nature or simply ignored as though their actions are unthinkable, very little is known about them and even less done to help them. Transition Place is a pioneering treatment centre for women child-abusers, but its patients have always been too wary to give interviews. Now, for the first time, they have chosen to speak out - to Marie Claire - and discuss their lives frankly with Jonathan Green.

"The Last Taboo"

"Female child-abusers such as Nancy .... and Ruth .... have largely been ignored by a society that refuses to believe that women sex offenders exist.

"Shelley molested her three-year-old son and a friend's baby; Michelle had oral sex with a twelve-year-old boy. Elsie had sex with her ten-year-old son and his thirteen-year-old friend.

"Some of the names in this article have been changed." [Why? Are these women more equal than others? I am afraid the article, in a women's magazine, is too upsetting for me to give you more. - Ed ]

 

"Spirits of the Age"

"Suffolk County Council has banned Mark Cook from his papier mch evening class because he was the only man among two dozen women." - Sunday Telegraph 20feb00 p32, reporting from The Times

.

Father custody

From our Dutch collegues we learn of an intersteing speech by feminist professor, Dr. Henrietta Maassen van den Brink given on 12jan00 [euro-dads@ eGroups.com]. at teh university of amtrdam

Dr. Henrietta Maassen states that, "To improve the negotiating position of women inside relationships children ought to be placed more under the custody of the father. It is best when both partners do not know in advance which partner will get custody.

"The majority of men have the same living standard 5 years after divorce. Women never reach their old living standard. Alimony does not compensate for this loss.

"The children are usually placed under the custody of the mother, thereby decreasing her chances of creating an income of her own . The care of the children is also an obstacle to finding a new partner.

"This unequal position has consequences for the position of men and women within the marriage. Women adapt to decrease the chaces of a divorce."

[ So if we introduced father custody in England, more women would sue for divorce! Does the fact that they get everything after divorce deter them? Should Maasen have mentioned the home? Obviously, the difference is that the Dutch all rent. - Ed ].

"Wasted lives of 1,500 young suicide victims

- Beezy Marsh,

Daily Mail, 2mar00, p37

".... the rising number of male suicides .... more kill themselves .... than die in road accidents.

"Nearly 500 aged 15 to 24 take their lives annually and the figure for the 25 to 34-year-olds is more than 1,000. ....'We need to look urgently at this tragic loss of life....'

".... the number of female suicides among 15 to 24-year-olds is around a fifth of that for men. In the 25 to 34 age group, it is a tenth of the male figure...."

Dr. Banks was speaking to a conference on men's health. The Daily Mail did not report the reasons for the epidemic, which we in ManKind know very well. - Ed

Adoption is the answer

Leader, Sunday Telegraph, 20feb00

".... From Leicester to Chester, from Cambridge to Lambeth, Islington and Hackney, there have been dozens of reports into the disgraceful abuse in care homes. ....

".... For at least two decades local authority officials and social work 'professionals' have operated policies that have harmed children. .... There was, for instance, a deliberate decision to promote the employment of homosexuals, on the basis that they were less likely to abuse the girls in their care - overlooking the fact that they were more likely to abuse the boys. That is exactly what happened. ....

"In Ealing, for instance, inspectors last year reported that just one child out of the 393 in care homes was adopted. Social workers placed a five-day-old baby in care - and then visited it just twice in the following year. No one drew up any plans at all for the long-term future of that child. It was simply abandoned. .... many councils still enforce a 'same race' adoption policy, in violation of .... guidelines. Many apply a policy of discriminating against the better-off, the better-educated, and the middle-aged [applying to adopt]. .... love is much less important than politically correct attitudes - which, along with abuse, is about all children get in care homes. ...."

Today, Valerie Riches of FYC 01865 351 966 told me that FYC had complained about the fact that the policy of The Children's Society, among others, was to preferably employ homosexuals. FYC's journal "Family Bulletin" Autumn 97, cites research which found the heavy preponderance of homosexuals among paedophiles - ".... 35% of paedophiles are homosexual whilst only 2% of adult men overall are homosexual.".

What Women Want

pub. Virago, 1996, p80

"Research into, and action on, male violence against women and children. Freedom from prejudice about women's roles. Recognition (and equal pay) at work. More women in decision making positions in society." - Sally Littlejohn, software writer.

Secret Courts

Maureen Freely writing in the The Observer 20feb00 about CWO- probation officers who masquerade in Britain's SECRET COURTS as experts in matters of child welfare: "By training, they are criminal probation officers. When they take on this specialised job, they receive no extra training in child development, and no guidelines about how to interpret such concepts as 'reasonable contact'. Most of the reports they write are based, therefore, on personal conjecture. ... In the 20 years since the Family Court Welfare Service was founded, there has not been a single follow-up study. The service has never checked its officers' reports for anything except spelling. Because court records are closed to the public, nobody else can check them either. ...

"When the nation wondered why it was that so many fathers left home and lost touch with their children within the year, and why it was that about 900 other fathers were driven to kidnap their children every year, they rarely asked how many of those absent and kidnapping parents had been barred by the Family Welfare Service from seeing their children."

The article went on to praise Oliver Cyriax.

Also see Oliver, "INPOWw's Campaign" on www.ukmm.org.uk/

"Women take lead in Welsh cabinet

Julia Hartley-Brewer,

Gvardian, 23feb00, p10

"The Welsh cabinet yesterday became the first executive body in the western world to boast a majority of women ministers.

"The appointment of a fifth woman in the nine-member cabinet was hailed as a milestone in equal opportvnities by the new Labour first secretary, Rhodri Morgan. ....

"This is a small step for the Welsh cabinet but it's a giant leap for Welsh womankind."

Although only partly Welsh, I would be proud if our Welsh Cabinet were the first to reach full equality, with nine women cabinet ministers; or perhaps six women and three gays. - Ed

 

p3

 

Editorial

My last Editorial identified two types of member of ManKind. It omitted a third group, the subject of something that I wrote two years ago. I will alter the quotation from Patricia Morgan, elsewhere in this issue, to describe this group, who could make up a major part of our membership.

 

Large numbers of unattached males who have never taken on the responsibilities of family life, or who have been ejected from families, now meet the classic conditions for membership of ManKind.

 

They are subjected to discrimination in; education, health, employment, law, military, pension, marriage/divorce.

The Cheltenham Group is linked with ManKind. In their 1998 booklet Marriage and Fatherhood : Important Information for Young Men, page 45, we read; "One simple piece of advice is not to get married, and not to become a father." These men, denied the traditional dynastic progression through life, are our hoped for third group of members.

Dispatched

The horrific Dispatches programme last week [apr98] is the last straw for me. In prime time on a major TV channel, poisonous lying and man-bashing was allowed to continue for an hour or so. Such propaganda against any other segment of society would have led to prosecution. However, the climate is so hostile that I expect there will be no protest.

Whether the allegations are true or not, the conclusion is the same.

First, the allegations. Attacks on women - wives, mistresses and others - by men are pandemic. In your street, at least three women are assaulted on a regular basis, and their bruises are then covered by clothing in order for the victms to hide the victim's embarrassment. The police are indifferent. However, the bones broken during these assaults by men cannot be covered up, and our hospitals are overcrowded with women with broken limbs. Pregnant women are attacked, hit in the womb, leading to miscarriage. The programme's researchers found that the extent of battering of women is far greater

 

 

than anybody had previously imagined.

Let us now look at the repercussions from this programme, and so many others nearly as extreme. First, let us assume that the programme's assertions are true. What should a young man do? The conclusions are obvious. No young man worth his salt should let himself become a member of a class (cohabiting men) who represent such a threat to society, and to other people. No man should associate with women, let alone cohabit or marry. Further, since men not only batter women but also sexually molest children, a young man should not father children. Further, since a father represents the greatest threat to a child, he should distance himself as far as possible from his children.

Now let us suppose that the allegations in the programme are false. I have to advise the young man that our courts always believe the false scenario, and act on it. Any woman can trade in her husband at any time, and expropriate his home, assets and children, all of which he will never see again. Again, no young man should become a member of such a vulnerable class.

Our past chairman John Campion summarised The Law Commission (1966) Reform of the Grounds of Divorce. The Field of Choice. Law Com No. 6. HMSO in this way; "The Law Commission feels .... that it is false allegations that provoke the hostility and that any attempts to defend himself or his children are the consequence of venting his anger in retaliation for such allegations. They find this 'paradoxical' since perjured evidence is merely a verbal device for obtaining the divorce."

We need to remember that in the past, divorce court officials more or less openly connived in the perjured story of the divorcing man spending a dirty night in Brighton in order to enable his wife to obtain a divorce. Thus, the divorce courts have a tradition of conniving in perjury, so the fact that judges today welcome perjury by wives is nothing new.

The idea that false allegations are an essential component in the smooth running of our secret family courts, and are merely a metaphor to validate the expropriation of fathers, is a crucial concept for those trying to understand the mechanics of our family courts, and the central role played by false allegations, and why perjury by mothers must not, and will not, be punished. It also explains why these courts are secret, and why they are more hostile to totally blameless divorcing fathers, who force court officials to connive in fabricating charges, which they do not enjoy doing. Even judges, barristers and solicitors, other things (i.e. their fees) being equal, prefer to be honest.

A barriater pointed out to me that if he used legal aid to defend a divorcing man against false allegations, he might never again get legal aid funding from a feminised Legal Aid Board, explains why your lawyers will betray you, and put on that blank look when you try to interest them in the horrendous, false allegations being made against you.

Today's young men live in a culture where control of the police, the judiciary and the media has fallen into the hands of a small group of dedicated, man-hating, family hating gender sectarians, who saturate the media with male bashing and family bashing propaganda. 'Ruler' Males (editorial, july/aug99) like Aitken, Fayed, Goldenballs and Maxwell are very happy to allow them to disempower the main body of respectable men, who are their traditional competition. Male supremacists have no fear of the feminazis. Thus, female supremacists are allowed, or even encouraged, by the dominant males, (who may have their own, probably illegal ways to control their own women,) to attack males in general.

- Ivor Catt, 22apr98

ManKind and Ill Eagle can be reached at;

(1). Mankind, Suite 367, 2 Lansdowne Row, London W1X 8HL.

(0207 413 9176

(2) www.mankind.org.uk

www.ukmm.org.uk

(3) The Editor, Ill Eagle, Ivor Catt,

121 Westfields, St. Albans AL3 4JR, England. ( 01727 864257

(4) Email :- ivorcatt@

electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/

Action Against False Allegations of Abuse

(See Male View oct/dec99, p32)

Statement by AAFAA

"AAFAA Conference - London -
Saturday 11th November 2000

"This will be an excellent chance for the people who have contacted AAFAA to meet. The Conference, provisionally titled Resisting the Inquisition, will be in the Small Hall of Friends House, Euston Road, London (opposite Euston Station) from 10.30 till 4.30. Speakers will be a campaigner, writer, criminologist, and ex-prisoner. Demand is already building up for tickets. Bookings can be made now by sending a 10.00 cheque or P.O. to our address, made payable to AAFAA, PO Box 84, Leeds LS5 3XZ, with a note to say that it is for the Conference."

My knowledge of AAFAA is based on some three hours on the phone with the national contact for AAFAA, Hilary Seddon, 01635 202433, and reading their excellent occasional newsletter. They do not have membership for fear of being taken over by paedophiles. We need views from ManKind members on how much False Allegations should figure in our range of interests. I myself argue that our secret family courts run on perjury. Our chairman, our Male View Editor and myself think it should play a significant part, but there may be opposing views. - Ed

I have the following details on other "false allegations" organisations;

British False Memory Society, Old Brewery, Bradford on Avon BA15 1NF, (01225 868682 www.bfms.org.uk bfms@compuserve.com

N Wales child home scandal, Gwen Hurst, Oakleigh, Cross Lanes, Marchwiel, Wrexham LL13 0TH ( 01978 781220

www.besst.org.uk

Friends of Derek Brushett, Gale Saunders, Wellwood Rise, Wellwood Drive, Dinas Powys CF64 4TM ( 01222 513016

FACT, Harry Fearns, 122 Bleak Hill Rd., St. Helens WA10 6DR, (01744 20056 "On sat20nov99 a meeting took place in Liverpool to form an organisation to campaign for a review of the dangerous

p4

developments of Police investigation adopted by Operation Care.... three hundred former and present care workers and teachers have been arrested ...."

On 10aug99 Judge Jonathan Crabtree said that Police forces that have "fished" for allegations of sexual abuse in children's homes are in danger of garnering "false accusations, childhood fantasies and dreams". "They are not waiting for complaints. Instead they have asked children who used to live [in care] if they have any complaints to make ...."

It is these police trawling methods .... in most cases fuelled by the attraction of large compensation payments, that concern FACT. - Ed

Our chairman noticed that Professor Stinko also wrote about "trawling" for her evidence of domestic violence.

"Homosexuality

"The numbers of homosexuals living in stable relationships is too low to count, researchers [in the new Government General Household Survey (GHS)] said.

"The survey offered those living in same-sex couples the chance to declare themselves as such by the request: "May I just check, are you living with someone in the household as a coupls?' But out of 16,000 people interviewed, fewer than 50 said they were in a gay or lesbian partnership. The GHS results suggest that fewer than one in every 300 people lives in such a relationship. The figure contrasts heavily with claims made by gay lobby groups. Outrage says a fact that should be taught to schooolchildren is that there are five million gays and lesbians in Britain and one in ten people are mainly homosexual." - Daily Mail, 2mar00, p7.

My article in Male View jan/mar99 recommends the most reliable source for statistics on homosexuality, "making up barely 1% of the total sample of men." When we get to the real numbers, we are obviously seeing a fringe group of disturbed people. If only 1% of babies sucked their thumb, such action would attract concern for the little 'un. Homosexual practice is much more peculiar and unusual, and dangerous. Why does Vanity Blair pack his Cabinet with them? Does he have difficulty in controlling normal men ? - Ed

From a member

To the Attorney-General. You cannot keep the lid down on the kettle any more. The pressure is too great. Ivor Catt, Editor, Ill Eagle. [sent to the Attorney-General on 25feb00, with a copy of Melanie Phillips, Sunday Times 20feb00.]

 

23feb00

Dear David, Prompted by the moves to name rape-hoax women, may I suggest that this be extended to include women who have made other types of false allegation, wasting tax-payers' money, court and other resources - and usually involving perjury - all of which is generally condoned (and even supported), and scarcely ever punished by, the courts?

 

I have a well-documented file on the allegations of sexual abuse made against me by my wife, starting 2 days after I was given custody of our 3 children by an insightful female judge (Pat Coles, QC). Over some 4 or 5 years, (1990-5), these allegations escalated to paedophilia.

 

Early on, Social Services eagerly called a Child Protection Conference - a great waste as they already had convincing evidence that the allegations were false and malicious.

 

In spite of collusion between 2 social workers and my wife, the Child Protection Conference eventually cleared me completely. This was due in part to the involvement of an honest, no-nonsense police-woman who had interviewed each of my children separately and became disgusted with my wife (and some of her colleagues in Social Services).

 

Nevertheless, in June 1991 an extremely prejudiced judge (Marian Norrie) saw fit to return the children to their mother after 12 months spent happily and successfully in my custody, and against the children's admitted wishes. Norrie did not comment on my wife's obvious malice.

 

I have evidence for all this, and more, and would be perfectly happy for you to publish the judges' names with that of my wife: Marjorie Mary Mortleman, nee Grieveson. Yours sincerely, John Mortleman.

Susan Hampshire in Radio Times

26feb00 p10

".... We're talking about harmony and millions of years of instincts, which won't change overnight. I can't think it's satisfying for a woman to be a ballbreaker, and it must be dreadful for the man. .... I worked when my son was small and although I had the most excellent and qualified nanny, I missed out on a tremendous amount. It's criminal how the media have made women think they're nobody unless they have a job. Why be ashamed of being a mum? Bringing up children should be glorified. It's far more difficult to be a mum than to do business conferences. If you're in an office everyone thanks you all the time, but you're taken for granted if you clean the house and bring up well mannered children to be happy citizens."

"Men in fear of attacks by women

- Carmarthen Journal, 16feb00

"Growing numbers of women are responsible for vicious attacks and fights in Carmarthenshire. Police figures reveal that men are also increasingly becoming the victims of domestic assaults. The number of arrests for violent attacks, fights and brawls among women has rocketed in recent years. .... women from their early teens to middle age are being arrested .... for assaults. 'There are more girls and women fighting now than before. Not long ago it would have been unheard of' .... men are suffering in silence .... Men may be ashamed to come forward...." - noticed by Dave Norris.

Booklists

Have you noticed how in your public or college libraries the feminist, womens's issues books outnumber men's issue titles about 60 to 1? Yet there are plenty of excellent books stating our case. The fact is we are not using the system as well as the opposition. Libraries are required to buy a proportion of new titles each year, related to the population in their catchment area. They rely on requests from readers to make up this quota. Knowing this, the feminists get in there ordering while there is money in the kitty. We should be doing the same. Ill Eagle will provide lists on a regular basis which members are advised to read, and get on the shelves for the students and browsers. - William Coulson

The Gvardian and Equal Opportvnities

The Gvardian should be congratulated for its commitment to Equal Opportvnities. However, their reforms may be incomplete.

I will give a personal cheque for 5 to the first reader who spots a male heterosexual journalist working for The Gvardian. (No formal proof required.) I plan to Name and Shame the deviant in a future edition of Ill Eagle. - Ed

Last month, there were no takers. Does this prove that the Gvardian is sompletely eqval? Or would a claimant betray his bigotry by suggesting that the Gvardian illegally deviates from full equality of employment opportunity between women and gays? My offer, made in the last issue, is still open, but raised to 10. - Ed.

Also see Male View oct/dec99, p3.

When the gay rights campaigners go too far

- John Humphreys, Sunday Times, 20mar00, sect. 1, p19

[Even though a man, he is allowed to publish because he shows such ignorance. {See my website on HIV and the rest;

www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/} However, his commentary on excesses in the Gvuardian is useful. - Ed]

.... I despaired at what I read in The Guardian last week. .... a colleague of mine, Nigel Wrench. He is gay, HIV positive .... defending .... "barebacking". .... that means unprotected anal sex. It is increasingly common among some groups of gay men. Many gay men have written in the gay press attacking those who practise it even then they know themselves to be HIV-positive. .... "Barebacking can be warm, exciting and involving ...." .... since he was infected he has had unsafe sex "more times than I can remember, often with men whose names I could not tell you ...."

 

p5

A vision that turned into a nightmare

Only now after some twenty-five years are we beginning to see some accurate figures about domestic violence. I was aware of this great fraud being perpetrated in the west by the women's movement greedy for money. Others, like Strauss, Gelles, Steinmetz in America and Senator Ann Cools in Canada, warned the general public of the danger of this evil movement. Millions of men and children have suffered. Family life has almost been destroyed as these women moved into positions of power in the justice system, in social services, in the media - anywhere where they could pervert the course of justice to their cause. Their cause had no substance in fact. Their aim was to collect and to squander hard earned taxpayers money to fund their devient and pathological abnormal behaviour. These women can only be described as the 'Terrorists In The Family.' The question is this? Do those of us who know the truth, sit back and allow further millions of funding to go into these women's hands? Or do we begin to indentify those women who have deliberately and knowingly lied and cheated, altered figures and statistics to justify their lies and lived off the money that should have been given to victims of domestic violence? I said twenty-five years ago and I still say: Of the first hundred women coming into the first battered women's refuge in the world in Chiswick, London 62 were as violent as the partner they left. I expect, once true figures can be correlated to find that figure reproduced as a true and accurate figure. What we all have to face is that domestic violence is a learned pattern of behaviour and when small children are exposed to physical and emotional violence, these are the strategies for survival they will bring into their adult life.

Women are as violent as men, and are more likely to use violence in personal relationships. The reason why their violence has been hidden is because it is hidden violence - behind the closed front door of the home. Women intimidate the family because of their strong central position in the family and are now able to blackmail men, thanks to the bias against men that has been prevalent in the last twenty-five years. For me, the effect on the children of this nightmare cannot be undone. But I do hope that somehow this whole lie can be exposed, justice can be seen to be done and those fathers that I have known who have been destroyed, lost their homes, their reputations, their jobs and their children, can somehow feel that all the suffering was not in vain? Will we see, this year, another tranche of money being poured into the hands of the women's movement so they can hold their endless conferences? Probably, unless a few good people are willing to take on the job of exposing them?

- Erin Pizzey; founder of the first domestic violence shelters, a vision that turned into a nightmare.

Millions of false allegations

In Armin A. Brott's article; A system out of control: The epidemic of false allegations of child abuse, he states, "In California, for example, the Victim/Witness program will pay directly to a licensed therapist up to $10,000 per child for counseling - as long as the child was alleged to have been abused. An additional $10,000 is available to counsel the child's mother. The only catch: to get their therapy paid for, the child victim and her mother must see a therapist from an approved list. Guess who directs the mother to a therapist who would be best for her and her child? CPS, of course."

These CPS workers often ask leading questions which can distort the children's memories. In their reports to the court, they often ignore evidence that would clear the accused, such as lie detector tests and outside therapist evaluations, and rely solely on the child's evaluations which have been skewed by the CPS and the therapists that they recommend. In a report disseminated by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN), Child Maltreatment 1995 Reports From the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System depicts more than three million reports of alleged child abuse and neglect in 1995, of which two million of those complaints were without foundation.

False allegations of abuse in divorce is an epidemic that is sweeping the world. Children are becoming heirs to hatred passed down to them from their parents and because this is all they know, they in turn foster this pain, hatred and deceptiveness in their own adult relationships. The children are crushed under the weight of the system and a parent that is only looking out for their own best interests.

News Release

" ...eighty percent of those polled said they had actually handled a case where they believed there was false accusation of abuse, as in disputes over custody of children, for instance." [News Release, from The Dilenschneider Group Inc., (representing the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers), Three First National Place, 70 West Madison Street, Chicago, IL 60602, 11/91.]

Sweden

From the web pages of Umgngesrtts Frldrarnas Riksfrening (UFR) which provides its name in English as: Association for Equal Parenting. www.ufr.org

Dated November 1999.

Dagens Nyheter (Swedish Newspaper) has written about a government analysis of the new joint custody law. Investigator Eva Elfver-Lindstrm has read all 475 judgments from the country's courts published during the first half of 1999 which have to do with cases where separated parents fought over custody. In 134 of theses cases the parents agreed to joint custody during the process. But in 73 cases the court ordered joint custody against the objection of one of the parents -- in most cases the mother.

"It is for the children that the father's position is being strengthened," says Eva Elfver-Lindstrm.

The judgments involve 784 children, 415 boys and 369 girls. IN 241 cases sole custody was awarded. In 133 cases the mother got sole custody against the wishes of the father. In 48 cases the father got sole custody against the wishes of the mother. In 50 cases the parents agreed that the mother should have sole custody. In 10 cases the parents agreed that the father should have sole custody. In 207 cases parents got joint custody. In 47 cases courts refused to go along with a parent's request for sole custody when the parents already had joint custody. In 15 cases the court ruled in favor of a parent's request for joint custody against the other's wish.

BBC. Monday, October 11, 1999 Published at 12:56 GMT 13:56 UK

"Lie detectors" used on sex offenders

In a little publicised move the Home Office have tested out Lie Detectors on sex offenders. This is the first "official trial" of its kind in the UK - something we have advocated to Govt as a first 'screen' to filter out malicious claims of rape against men (see ill eagle, April 1999). Regrettably, only alleged assailants, and not their accusers, were investigated by the lie detector (polygraph).

We believe the week long pilot study of the US-style polygraph machines, conducted by the West Midlands Probation Service, concluded in October 1999. The results have been released to other probation services and some are said to be interested in conducting further tests of their own.

The questioning was led by polygraph consultant and former US police officer, Dan Sosnowski. Lie detectors have been widely used in the US since the 1950s but are not accepted by all courts.

A spokesman for the West Midlands Probation Service said a number of techniques were used with sex offenders (suspects) and the lie detectors were being looked at as another option. Accepting that some offenders (accused) would be able to 'trick' the machine, he thought the evidence presented suggested a therapist was easier to trick.

Lie Detectors monitor breathing, heart rate and perspiration from sensors fixed to fingers, upper arms, stomach and waist. The idea is that people who are guilty, i.e. lie in response to a specific question react more vigorously (muscular tension) to relevant questions.

"One woman in five has been stalked. One woman in four suffers from violence in the home. More than half of rape victims have been attacked by a boyfriend, former "partner" or close friend. And .... 88.2% of statistics are made up on the spot." - Jenny Bristow, Telegraph, 28july98, p20

 

p6

Abuses of Abuse

Mary D., Petitioner v. HONORABLE CLARENCE WATT JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PUTNAM COUNTY AND GEORGE D., RESPONDENTS, [190 W. Va. 34, ; 438 S.E. 2nd 521; 1992 W. Va. LEXIS 76]. In a candid dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Workman wrote: "We now have a system in which a female parent need only scream child abuse in a loud voice to keep the male parent from seeing a child. Indeed, sexual abuse these days seems to arouse all the hysteria that was associated with witchcraft in yesteryear. In fact, it has even spawned a witch-huntingesque cottage industry, to-wit badly trained, ideological rape trauma experts, rape counselors, bachelor level pseudo-psychologists, social activists, and other assorted species of Jacklegs. I am a firm believer that the best interests of the child are paramount, but that does not mean never allowing a father to see his children when the evidence preponderates on his behalf even though, like an accused witch, he cannot clear himself beyond any shadow of a doubt. Continuous yelling and screaming of an accusation does not make that accusation any more true."

-------------------------------------------

Telling excerpts from The Booming Domestic Violence Industry, August 2, 1999, John McGuire, Massachusetts News

"The legislature has loosened the standard. Now the person seeking the order need only state he or she is "in fear" of the other person. It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under 209A, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house."

Long-term emotional damage to children's fathers -- surely not good for children -- often begins with a restraining order, she says.

 

"A man against whom a frivolous 209A has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating, and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect. They may indeed become verbally abusive. It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order."

 

This is a different era from the 1950s, she points out, and many fathers are very close to their children, and bond closely with them from an early age. "In this day and age, we have fathers who take an extremely active role in parenting -- sometimes more than the mother."

 

"I call them mother-dads," she says. In many restraining-order cases, she says, "These fathers are completely frustrated because they can't co-parent their child because of a restraining order. They have been raped of their parenting relationship with their child." While Friend and others see false restraining orders as enormously destructive, and permanently traumatizing, the $24 million domestic violence industry is built on the restraining order. Most of the activities that people get paid for in the domestic violence industry cannot start until a restraining order has been issued.

 

 

False charges whether they are Domestic Violence, Child Abuse, and Child Sexual Abuse cases in divorce and custody proceedings are widespread and rampant. Women are the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of those who employ false charges, add to these the trauma and emotional damage to children, women emerge as the most likely to abuse a child for their own personal gain.

____________________________

 

In the Mary D., Petitioner (citation omitted) case noted above, we now have an industry that uses these charges and allegations (false or otherwise) to prey on families and children. Their entire goal to collect funding is to "find" (or manufacture if necessary) victims in larger and larger numbers to justify greater and greater levels of funding. - RW

 

Land of the Free imprisons most

- Guardian, 15feb00

Anger grows as US jails its two millionth inmate. The land of the free is now home to 25% of the world's prison population.

Vigils are being mounted .... to draw attention to the arrival of the two millionth inmate in American jails. The US comprises 5% of the global population yet it is responsible for 25% of the world's prisoners. It has a higher proportion of its citizens in jail than any other country in history, according to the November Coalition, an alliance of civil rights campaigners, justice policy workers and drug law reformers. ....

"Incarceration should be the last resort of a civilized society, not the first," said Michael Gelacak, a former vice-chairman of the US sentencing commission. "We have it backwards and it's time we realized that."

Nora Callahan said; "We are calling on state and federal governments to stop breaking up families and destroying our communities. Prison is not the solution to every social problem".

In New York City, the Prison Moratorium Project will focus on the fact that one in three black youths is either in custody or on parole. Kevin Pranis, of the project, said: "New York state is diverting millions of dollars from colleges and universities to pay for prisons we can't afford."

[According to Amneus, The Garbage Generation, pub. 1990, we are moving from patriarchy to a fatherless matriarchy, the new model being the black ghetto in the USA, the Caribbean community, or the American Indian. Such a culture, associated with the underclass, is discussed by Murray elsewhere in this issue. Whereas in the US a large proportion of black youths are in jail, we will have to imprison a large proportion of our white youth when we have adopted their fatherless culture. As an indicator of where we are heading, among West Indian children in Britain, 65% do not have their biological father living with them, and 68% of teenage girls are unmarried mothers - see The Unequal Struggle by A. Gibson, 1986, pub. Caribbean House, Bridport Place, London N1 5DS. Half of the muggings in London are by blacks. White youths will join them as we adopt their culture. - Ed]

Criminal justice is already a campaign issue in the presidential race. The Republican front-runner George W. Bush, governor of Texas, is a staunch supporter of both the death penalty and stiffer sentencing for drug offences.

Since he took over in Texas, the prison population there is up from 41,000 to 150,000, much of this as a result of locking up people for drug possession. This is one of the reasons that commentators have pressed Bush to be more open about his own alleged drug use in the past.

Second biggest employer

Of those held in federal rather than state prisons, 60% are drug offenders with no history of violence. Aminah Muhammad, who is organizing the Los Angeles vigil, said: "My husband is doing 23 years for just being present in a house where drugs were found, so my 10-year-old son doesn't have his father.

Lockdown America, a book by Christian Parenti, analyses the US criminal justice system. He notes the expansion of the private prison sector - dubbed by one investment

firm the "theme stock for the nineties" - which now runs more than 100 facilities in 27 states, holding more than 100,000 inmates.

A total of 18 private firms are involved in the running of local jails, private prisons and immigration detention centers. It is estimated that firms such as Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch write between $2-3 billion in prison constructions bonds every year. This has led some commentators to suggest that the United States is effectively creating a prison-industrial complex in much the same way as the military-industrial complex operates.

Critics of the system suggest that so much money is invested in incarceration that politicians would find it difficult to reverse the trends against the wishes of their financial backers and lobbyists.

In his study Christian Parenti suggests: "In many ways the

p7

incarceration binge is simply the policy byproduct of rightwing electoral rhetoric."

The cost of building jails has averaged $7 billion per year for the last decade and the annual bill for incarcerating prisoners is up to $35 billion annually. The prison industry employs more than 523,000 people, making it the country's biggest employer after General Motors. Some 5% of the population growth in rural areas between 1980 and 1990 was as a result of prisoners being moved into new rural jails.

The national convention of the American Bar Association, held in Dallas, Texas last weekend, was told there was growing momentum for a moratorium on the death penalty. This follows the recent announcement by the Illinois governor, George Ryan, that the state will suspend executions pending an investigation into the number of death row inmates who turn out to have been wrongly convicted. There are 3,600 people awaiting execution in the US - 463 of them in Texas alone.

....

In 1985, the then Chief Justice Warren Burger said: "What business enterprise could conceivably succeed with the rate of recall of its products that we see in the 'products' of our prisons?"

 

Charles Murray

Charles Murray's Underclass was first published in the Sunday Times Magazine in November 1989. In America, where the growth of the underclass has accelerated, his theories about the disintegration of society have found acceptance even on the left of the political spectrum.

In 1989 Murray predicted that within a decade Britain's underclass would become proportionately as large as that of the U.S.

On 13feb00, sect. 5 p1, The Sunday Times published two pages where Murray updated his analysis.

".... the complexities of individuals do not trump statistical tendencies. My fundamental thesis is that large increases in the three indicators I used in 1989 - dropout from the labour force among young males, violent crime and births to unmarried women - will be associated with the growth of a class of violent, uncivilized people who, if they become sufficiently numerous, will fundamentally degrade the life of society. ....

"The short story is that the precentage of young working-aged males not in employment was dramatically higher in 1999 than it had been in 1989. Among males aged 18-24., the percentage not in employment went from 20.5% in 1989 to 31.2% in 1999, an increase of more than half. .... there is no obvious benign explanation for the large increases in young males out of employment between 1989 and 1999. .... The trend conforms exactly to what one would expect from a growing underclass.... Over the past two decades, larger and larger numbers of British children have not been socialised to norms of self-control .... larger numbers of British children are not being raised by two mature, married adults. .... most serious forms of child abuse are rarely inflicted by a married biological father."

Murray does not know that all government initiatives are to get young women into work, although for a decade their long term unemployment rate has been only one third of that for young men. When I noticed this statistic in radfem research (BT Forum factsheet 1, tel. 0800 800 926,) funded by the then Director of BT Forum, radfem Joanna Foster (using your telephone money, 2 millions p.a.!), and pointed it out, Foster and the female researcher Dr Liza Catan, then realising its significance, falsely stated that their statistics were false. (Catan to Catt, 9may97.) This must be unprecedentedly disgraceful, deeply anti-social chacanery in a democratic country. The truth of the 3 to 1 ratio for 12mos unemployed can be confirmed at govt no. 020 7533 6176 or 6094 - Ed

[Copy of draft sent to Dr Liza Catan on 27feb00, giving her the opportunity to comment. - Ed]

The back cover of the 1995 issue of Farewell to the Family?, by Patricia Morgan, 0171 799 3745, states; Large numbers of unattached and predatory males who have never taken on the responsibilities of family life, or who have been ejected from families, now meet the classic conditions for the creation of a 'warrior class'.

 

 

Wonderful women

Auberon Waugh,

Telegraph, 11mar00, p25

The latest Home Office brainwave is to "target" wife beaters. These loathsome people will be tried and imprisoned even if the wife refuses to complain and give evidence.

This must be seen as a great victory for the feminist sisterhood which is beginning to make itself felt in every aspect of our lives. How they must be patting themselves on the back! There is no suggestions that persistent husband-beaters should be similarly discouraged.

Almost everyone must know of at least one couple where the husband is reduced to a quivering wreck by the threat of physical violence from the wife. Yet in the ideology of the times, these people simply do not exist....

 

p8

So what's feminism ever done for us?

- Heather Causnett,

Yorkshire Evening Press, 8mar00

.... I find it interesting to look back to the birth of feminism. As long ago as 1792, a book called A Vindication Of The Rights Of Women was written by Mary Wollstonecraft .... Then came a succession of women who changed our world - Florence Nightingale .... Emmeline Pankhurst .... Marie Stopes .... They have a lot to answer for, good and bad....

Much that was beneficial came of their efforts, .... but in the last couple of decades, the darker and more aggressive face of feminism has emerged from the shadows....

Children are used as pawns in bitter divorce actions, separated from their fathers, who are as often as not the innocent party but who can lose their homes, be forced to pay through the nose and possibly end up on the street. Nine out of ten homeless people are men - I wonder how many of those have lost their homes through the break-up of marriages?

.... career minded women .... have missed out on what matters most ....

I cannot honestly say that there is a single aspect of today's accepted feminist trend that has brought true happiness or lasting contentment to people of either sex, and certainly children suffer under most of its rule. ....

 

Are women winning rights at the expense of our menfolk?

- Ann Widdecombe,

The Universe, 7mar00

.... Positive discrimination [women shortlists] is, of course, just another way of saying discrimination against men. ....

Some figures suggest that a young man today has less than a 50 per cent chance of being actively involved in bringing his children to maturity and in inner cities that can fall to as low as twenty per cent. ....

The courts .... nearly always award custody to the mother in family break up and in informal partnerships the man has fewer rights still.

.... even if the woman is a multiple adulteress and has walked out on him she will still be likely to keep the children ....

.... Yet men appear to be sleepwalking through these mammoth changes. ....

I do not know if they are dazed by the speed with which it has happened or too complacent to notice but it is time they woke up and stirred themselves to a bit of protest.

Otherwise I predict that three or four elections hence the candidates will be falling over each other to convince the electorate that they provide the best policies to give equal rights to men.

 

 

Tory rekindles row over lone mothers

Emma Pearson,

Western Mail, 4mar00

Shadow Home Secretary Ann Widdecombe has incensed women's groups and community leaders by suggesting that single mothers are the root of teenage crime. .... she said the breakdown in traditional family lifestyles had led to children turning to crime because they had no male role models.

"One of the biggest problems is that there is a second or third generation who have never seen the pattern of a moderately successful lifestyle," she said. "They have never had a father or only had a succession of people they call uncle.

 

Indecent claims

-Leader, Telegraph, 19feb00

Everything about the new Home Office study which claims that each year between 118,000 and 295,000 women may be raped or sexually assaulted in England and Wales is deeply dishonest. First, the figures themselves: with that vast margin of possible error - 177,000, or more than 40 per cent - they clearly represent nothing but wild guesswork. Why, then, do the researchers pluck those precise-sounding numbers out of the air? Why 118,000, and not, say, 100,000? Why 295,0-00, and not 300,000? The answer can only be that, by avoiding round numbers, they hope to lend their findings a spurious scientific credibility. How they insult our intelligence.

Then there is the way in which they arrive at their figures. That, too, is dishonest. First they announce, without citing the evidence, that "it would be reasonably safe to assume" that the police fail to record a third of complaints reported to them by women who claim to have been attacked. They also assume, without evidence, that every complaint made to the police must be justified. Then they on to say that between 75 and 90 per cent of cases go unreported. So it is that, magically, they transform 25,300 recorded crimes into as many as 295,000, simply by multiplying the recorded figures by random numbers.

There is also something dishonest in the report's finding that men who display "patriarchal attitudes" are more likely to believe that wife-beating is "legitimate". The aim here is to subtly discredit the traditional idea of the husband as head of his household, by linking it in people's minds with violence. .... that is the seed that these Home Office researchers are clearly trying to implant in our minds.

It is absurd that public policy should be determined by this nonsense. Yet here is the Home Office, accepting every rubbishy word of it, and giving an extra 6 million of public money to women's groups on the strength of it. And here is Baroness Jay, the minister for women, solemnly declaring: "It is unacceptable that a quarter of women experience domestic violence at some stage in their lives and that many more are so scared of rape or sexual assault that they are frightened to leave their homes."

It is indeed unacceptable that women should live in fear of rape and sexual assault. But no wonder they are frightened, when the Government gives credence to an unscientific, scaremongering report such as this.

 

 

Ill Eagle 8, june00

p1

A mother's wish

- Telegraph leader, 4apr00

.... the findings of a poll released today by Mother and Baby magazine .... that 81 per cent of the mothers with young children would prefer not to work - stands in direct contradiction to one of the Govt's most important assumptions. [govt] ministers have offered financial inducements to those willing to hand over .... care to professional child-minders. So the woman who devotes her time and energy to her own family has received no recognition from the Govt (which makes no attempt even to understand her motives and values .... [Would the mother, or the child-minder, be buying the magazine? So much for ill-defined statistics. - Ed]

 

Reward

yourself

Special offer

to new members

Free London theatre tickets for 2

 

To enter our Special Draw simply write to us at Suite 367, enclosing your name address and telephone number (full address on page 3).

 

Offer open to only ManKind members

who have joined after July 1st 1999

Closing date June 30th 2000.

 

Lawyer of the week

Deborah Harman

- Linda Tsang, Times, Law, 9may00

Deborah Harman acted for Roy Burnett, who was jailed for life in 1986 after a jury convicted him of rape. Last month the Court of Appeal quashed his conviction.... "I was recommended to Roy by a prison officer.... I was absolutely stunned to discover that every record of Roy's trial had been shredded five years after his conviction. .... Had the Metropolitan Police not kept a copy of the original police report and a copy of the photographs of the victim's injuries, there would not have been the slightest chance of proving his innocence.... .... I find it abhorrent that changes to the criminal law can be contemplated on the basis of statistical conclusions that not a high enough proportion of charges result in conviction. .... When I heard the words in Roy's case: 'The conviction must be quashed.' .... is the only time in my career that I have had to wipe away tears of relief at a court decision. ...."

Advertisement

 

Have case - will travel

Need a McKenzie Friend ?

 

Divorce - Custody - Advice

 

Contact: Ray Hemmingway Tel 01484-316489

 

 

ManKind A.G.M.

23sep00 12.30-4.30

Quality Hotel, Bentley, Walsall WS2 0BS, (01922 724444

At Jct. 10, M6.

 

 

Army bullies force desertions

- Jason Burke, Observer,

4june00. p1

"Desertions from the Army, often prompted by bullying and mistreatment, have reached record levels, prompting warnings of a crisis in the armed forces. .... higher than at any other time since the end of National Service. .... last year 1,998 cases of desertion and being absent without leave - one for every 48 soldiers. .... compares with .... one in 75 in 1996 .... at the time .... considered a historic high. .... many young soldiers decide to desert .... after mistreatment and bullying by their superiors or colleagues. .... more then 30 investigations under way into allegations of brutality.

At least 30 servicemen are separately taking the MoD to the High Court .... If their cases succeed, the MoD could be forced to pay out compensation totalling millions of pounds.

The absenteeism exacerbates an already serious manpower crisis. The Army is now understrength by at least 7,000 men...."

Recently, the plan to induct women into combat duties was again discussed.

I have just realised that since radfem dogma requires that exclusion always results from oppression, it was oppression that kept women from the pleasure of close combat with bayonets. This illustrates the total lack of strategy among radical feminists. The false dogma that women were historically disadvantaged required that trench warfare was a pleasure. Small wonder that 50% gullible women pioneering such rights in the U S Army suddenly reported pregnant when posted to the Gulf War.

As to bullying, I experienced sadism in the RAF in 1953 which was exactly the same as that experienced in the RAF in 1922 and written about by T E Lawrence in his book "The Mint", and also experienced within two years of Lawrence by my father, see my website www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/

The crass ignorance of radical feminists means that they are inciting other, gullible women, into the front trenches. They do not know that the whole problem of whether, in order to win in battle, it is necessary to drill and to brutalise your troops, will be unknown to radical feminists, who view every compulsory activity by men as something that women would enjoy. For my part, my greatest nightmare, having been trained for it, is to be in a bayonet attack. This is one of the many, many ways in which women have been traditionally extremely favoured. - Ed

 

Lord Northbourne .... clearly thinks that the campaign for women's rights has gone far enough. He has tabled a question asking the government if it will appoint a minister for men. Will Baroness Jay .... answer it? ....

- Atticus, Sunday Times, 4june00, sect. 1 p19.

 

Fathers entitled to 'widowed mother's allowance'

Times, 10may00

Comment by Ed.

European Court of Human Rights judgement, 25apr00, struck out applications no. 36578/97 and 38890/97 when the UK authorities agreed to pay social security benefits in arrears to two male widowers as if they had been bereaved widows, pending new legislation.

The British government always fights a rearguard, against the interests of half of its voters, to avoid until the last possible moment giving equal rights to men. Yarwood was associated with forcing equality on fuel payments for old men. Why does our government always spend our money fighting expensive cases to avoid being forced to enact equality? This must be because our feminised government believes that some are more equal than others. As the shadow home secretary wrote, quoted on the last page of Ill Eagle 8, ".... men appear to be sleepwalking ...."

 

p2

 

Just Potty

-Jasper Gerard, Mail, 21apr00, p37

" .... feminists at Stockholm University are campaigning to scrap the urinals on the grounds that their male-use-only design is intrinsically sexist. .... at least one Swedish primary school has already ditched the wall-fixed porcelain to acclimatise young male Swedes to the new order. Others are expected to follow. .... this men-to-pee-like-women project is beyond parody. .... one of the more imaginative examples of feminist paranoia .... of women's desire for absolute equality ...."

 

 

Dworkin's Vision - "Take No Prisoners" in the future 'Womanland'

- Linda Grant, Guardian,

Guardian Weekend, 13may00, p8.

".... The common view is that Dworkin began to write about porn because of her own traumatic marriage, in which being beaten and kicked wasn't an occasional incident, but the everyday....

"So now we come to what Andrea Dworkin wants and it is this: she wants women to have their own country. .... if you don't want to live in Womenland, so what? Not all Jews live in Israel, but it is there, a place of potential refuge if persecution comes to all. Furthermore, Dworkin says, as the Jews fought for Israel so women have the right to execute - that's right, execute - rapists and the state should not intervene. .... she was serious .... every act of penetrative sex is potentially an act of rape...."

In the article, Dworkin herself writes; ".... the beating and torture I experienced in marriage some 30 years ago; I finally got away ...."

Catherine A. MacKinnon cites Dworkin on rape, pp139, 190, 198, with approval in her 1989 book Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. [In a welter of scholastic gobbledygook, she seeks, and fails, to show that radfems can be scholarly.] In Mar99, Canadian Senator Anne C. Cools, available on my website, says; "Catherine MacKinnon, a gynocentric feminist, postulates that man-woman sexual relations are abhorrent because they violate women, and that in a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape. MacKinnon helped to craft sexual assault laws in Canada. This gender feminist ideology has driven much law in Canada, and consequently has driven much injustice. It has ravaged law, justice, many careers, and many human lives. .... It was buttressed by feminist terrorism and aggression ...." Cools is a friend of Erin Pizzey.

Dworkin is not large; she is extremely large, and perambulates with great difficulty.

Whereas in the Grant interview Dworkin argues for "Womanland", but also mentions that earlier she was a prostitute, in another very different Guardian 2june00 article Dworkin writes about being raped last year, aged 52; all of her! With the recent admission by Betty Frieden, the first radfem, that she made up allegations that her husband was violent, sense that radfems make up all the most horrible allegations in order to keep the writing commissions coming in.

Saving the boys from the gender benders

- Andrew Sullivan,

Sunday Times, 28may00, sect. 5 p7

Hell hath no fury like an American feminist. If you've ever met the professional variety, you will learn that soon enough. You will discover as well that any attempt at rational dialogue with such a person is enough to prompt a torrent of abuse that is now one of the mainstays of the American left. .... Boys are essentially being told that what comes naturally to them - rough-and-tumble play, confrontation, physicality, mischief - are psychological disorders. In one school, boys were disciplined for making guns out of their fingers and pretending to shoot one another. .... What is happening now in America is the slow crumbling of an ideological edifice that was constructed with perfectly good intentions on the basis of a lie. Too bad that several generations of boys and men have been the victims of that lie. And too bad that few people until now have had the courage and intellectual honesty to expose it.

 

What Women Want

Recognition of the unique qualities women can and do bring to society and industry. An end to barriers created by gender stereotyping and narrow-minded men. - Lucky, p180, in What Women Want, pub. Virago 1996.

 

Power to young people

In her 1998 book Fight for the Family (from 01865 552774), Lynette Burrows argues that the Children's Rights movement has been infiltrated by paedophiles. According to her, the public's reaction against a campaign to legitimise sexual intercourse between adults and children had to go underground. The argument used by childcare organisations to justify preferring to employ homosexuals, on the grounds that they are less likely to molest girls in their care, tends to confirm this.

A bizarre article by "One of our panel of columnists" Peter Tatchell in the magazine Community Care, 23mar00, tends to support the Burrows thesis. Here is part of it.

"By saying that under-16s are not allowed to consent to a sexual relationship, the unspoken message is that they have no sexual rights - which is the precise mind-set of the abusive adult. .... Denying under-16s the right to consent to sex, reinforces the idea that they have no right to make sexual choices. Isn't this what child sex abusers believe?" - "Peter Tatchell is a spokesperson for the gay rights group OutRage! ...."

 

Letter to the Editor

Dear Sir,

Have received and read through your 'Ill Eagle'; which I think is excellent.

Thank God there are people like yourself and ManKind that are doing something to loosen the strangle hold that feminism has over society.

From my experiences of life things have got gradually worse for men.

I think the problem has been exacerbated also by the increasing amount of single mothers who are bringing up sons mainly on their own, and this has lead to a lot of young men being brainwashed by their mothers into thinking that men are 'bad' and this had led to the majority of young men having low self esteem.

To my mind women have always had 'equal rights' to some degree, as over the ages there always have been some jobs that are better suited to womankind. There used to be a balance between men and women. Unfortunately over the last 50 years the women's movements have got hold and have gone over the top on 'equal rights' and the balance has swung grossly in their favour, so much so that the family unit, I will go as far as to say, has been destroyed ii this country and therefore causing a lot of the ills of society. Instead of the man being the head of the household, the woman coming a close second, and the children a close third; children come first with their mother a close second and the man, well, a long way adrift in third.

I would like to attend the AAFAA Conference in London on Sat. 11nov00 [Action against false allegations of abuse, tel. 01788 811912]

Keep up the good work.

Yours sincerely, P Bendell.

 

Working mothers warning

- David Brindle,

Guardian, 7apr00, p11

.... young children looked after by other people may be more prone to bad behaviour. .... hitting and disobeying .... But .... the higher the quality of day care, the fewer the problems. .... Professor Jay Belsky, of Birkbeck College, who will present the findings .... 1,300 children in the US .... and 125 first-born boys [in England].... Family environment was found to be the most important influence on a child's development.

[Following her pivotal 1995 book Farewell to the Family?, recently re-issued, from 0207 799 3745, in 1996 Patricia Morgan gave us Who Needs Parents?, same publisher. She carefully shows that child care when mum goes out to work, if it does not damage the child, is too expensive, except for high flying women like Harriet Harman and Mistress Blair. Gilder said the same in 1973. Pied Piper HH and the rest say; "Copy me. I don't damage my children," but you will. - Ed]

Single mothers are 70% more likely to die early than married mothers and are more prone to death by suicide, violent abuse or alcohol, says a survey in The Lancet today. The analysis, from Sweden, ... used a sample of more than 750,000 women.

 

p3

Editorial

 

The Hiatus

"When the Americans leave, then the civil was can begin." This is a quotation from a Vietnamese woman on the back cover of one of the key books published during the American phase in the Vietnamese war of liberation. The Americans used all their wealth and power, spending 4,000 per year per man, woman and Vietnamese child, to force the natives into conceding that they were trying lose their independence in a monolithic, world empire of godless communism, not trying to get rid of foreign domination. (It would have cost less to send every Vietnamese citizen to Harvard University.) Because the Vietnamese could not compromise over their independence, (there had been terrible famines with millions of deaths under French rule,) they were forced to break the American war machine, the most powerful in history, and also break the American economy. The U.S.A. went off the Gold Standard, and in ignominy left Indochina, leaving a wake of terrible, long term destruction.

My first two books, one available on my website, www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/ show clearly that in 1970 we had major social questions which needed to be addressed, and if possible, solved. The lasting achievement of radfems was to suppress analysis and therefore progress in resolving major social problems for a third of a century. Everything had to be viewed through the distorted lens of the dogma of female oppression. Today, anything said in pursuit of social reform is interpreted through this dogma, very much as Marxists in their day could not listen to, or respond to, social issues in a competent way. That is why Erin Pizzey's assertion that radfems are Marxists who have jumped ship, is so instructive. Their blindness and aggressiveness is so similar, as is the falsification of statistics and suppression of opposition. In her 1989 book Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, radfem Professor Catherine A. MacKinnon begins with an 80 page section; The Problem of Marxism and Fenminism.

The failure of women to call a small minority of their kind, the radfems, to heel, will lead to the other lasting achievement of the radfems. Women continue to take short term advantage of a legal system which is controlled by radfems, expropriating men on a grand scale, cutting fathers off from their children, now leading to the jailing of men in ever greater numbers. This copies the U.S.A.'s attack on its black, fatherless youth, a significant, rising proportion of whom are now in jail, many on rape charges. Interestingly, most men in jail for rape are black. Thus, the radfem struggle to jail more men on rape charges is a racist attack by the sisterhood on the black brotherhood. In the same way as Gentiles failed to restrain Hitler, and all Germans finally paid a terrible price for it, so will generations of women pay for the indifference of this generation to the escalating crisis. The worldwide contempt for German Gentiles continued for two generations. The failure of women to check the excesses of radfem behaviour, including their distorted, corrupting dogma, leads to a growing contempt for women in general, so that the following article will be one of many. Thanks to their conniving with radfems, women are at the Last Chance Saloon in their quest to save parity of esteem, carefully constructed over centuries, now to be lost for a long time. One Melanie Phillips, one Erin Pizzey, one Senator Anne C. Cools and one Patricia Morgan cannot save the respect that women are losing.

A necessary part of the Dream which is love and marriage is respect for women. That is why the radfems are so corrosive.

 

ManKind and Ill Eagle can be reached at;

(1). Mankind, Suite 367, 2 Lansdowne Row, London W1X 8HL. (0207 413 9176

(2) www.mankind.org.uk

www.ukmm.org.uk

(3) The Editor, Ill Eagle, Ivor Catt,

121 Westfields, St. Albans AL3 4JR, England. ( 01727 864257

(4) Email :- ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/

 

The Radical Feminist

 

With no effective rituals of initiation, and no real way to know when our slow progress toward adulthood has reached its goal, young men in our culture go around in circles. - Robert Bly, The Sibling Society, 1996, p44.

 

Recently, the question; "Why are the radical feminists so bitter and so destructive? What is driving them?" was posed to me again.

I have been reading Margaret Mead, Male and Female, 1950/64 and at the same time discussing Daniel Amneus, The Garbage Generation, 1990. While Amneus draws heavily on Mead to develop the idea that the weakest link into the family is that of the father, and that civilised society progresses by reinforcing that link, the present discussion is about something else.

Mead is valuable because she pre-dates the myth-making of radical feminism, and gives us some thinking untainted by it. She may have been "discredited" because she did not toe the later PC radical feminist line. However, for our purpose, even that question does not matter.

Mead cites two adult roles in a culture, the male and the female. Each role may have wide permissible variations, or it may be very restrictive. It is important to engineer a society where wide variation is allowed within each role. This is because a child, particularly a young man, may decide that he will fail to fulfil the required role. In that case he may take on the role of the female, and go off to weave mats with the women. Mead believes that virtually all homosexuality is a social construct, used by a child to evade his fear of failure to fulfil the appropriate adult role. This correlates with the observation that homosexuals are deeply disturbed people; the majority of members of Alcaholics Anonymous are homosexual, their suicide rate is very high, and so on. The massive bias in favour of promoting homosexual at the expense of heterosexual men to the Cabinet means we must give up the idea that discrimination against homosexuals leads to their alcoholism, suicide and so forth.

There is much concern in many cultures to ensure that a boy is properly inducted into the role of adult man. The aim of the initiation .... is imagined as a way to complete the development of the being from a neutral genderlessness to a state of genuine masculinity. - Robert Bly, The Sibling Society, 1996, p116. A number of activities are undertaken towards that end, some of which we would call rites of passage, something which is particularly lacking in our culture. Sport, possibly particularly team sport, probably served that purpose for most boys. It is instructive that the radical feminist opposes competition in sport, even team competition.

Only recently did I realise why a girl had less need of a rite of passage. Menstruation clearly tells her that now she is a woman. Such reassurance has to be artificially given to a boy by social construct(s).

Other events than rites of passage occur in tribal societies which serve the purpose of assuring a boy that he has made the difficult transition into manhood. These include all-male clubs and all-male ceremonial.

A study of radical feminists shows that they strongly attack each and every one of these cultural constructs, usually under cover of demands for equality. The question we have to ask ourselves is, "Why?"

Recently, in our society, the enormous fear of appearing to be feminine evinced by boys has been remarked upon.

My first experience of a radical feminist was when her then husband drove me and my wife to Marge Piercy's home to be guests for the night. A week later, I found that on arrival my wife, as well as myself, had immediately feared that we would be thrown out into a very cold midwinter Cape Cod night, miles from anywhere. This is the only time in my life that such a fear has come over me, when a house guest. I am sure that it was also the only time my wife ever had such a fear.

Six months later I went to a lecture by Piercy in London. There were 25 women present plus myself. She rapidly got involved in talking about rape.

p4

If, as is generally asserted, rape is a power syndrome, not sexual, then the urge to rape will not be restricted to males. A decade ago I concluded that the urge to rape existed in many radical feminists. They were bitter because they lacked the equipment. They hated men who raped, and had contempt for men who, having the equipment, did not. That is the only way I can explain their tremendous frustration; their fixation on rape, which is a minor social problem, with quite as many male victims as female. Radical feminists show no concern for the major problem of rape of males in prisons. Part of this indifference is to rename it as a minor offence. (Similarly, more young men are mugged, not old ladies.)

(An interesting dislocation in PC is that, whereas we are esked to extoll buggery as just another orientation from normal sexual intercourse, in the case of attacks on men we are asked to dismiss forced buggery as

Now let us address the fact that radical feminists work to destroy all male rites of passage and all mechanisms for reassuring a boy of his newly found manhood.

The desire of radical feminists to rape is an extreme expression of their more general sexual confusion. Like the sensitive boy in the tribe, they fear that they will fail to fulfil their expected, female, adult role. They look with fondness and also with envy on another possible option for them, the role of man. This fear of alienation from the woman's role is fuelled if the radical feminist has been educated beyond the traditional woman's role. It is also fuelled by radical feminists' persistent denigration of a woman's traditional role.

Under cover of demands for equality of opportunity, radical feminists invade all aspects of male activity, even the least appropriate. A recent absurd example is that legislation in the USA now requires that the amount of government money spent on female soccer must equal that spent to encourage male soccer, although soccer has developed over a century as a sport tuned to the male physique, which women, with their different pelvises, are obviously unable to emulate. (The result is that the USA is near to top in the world female soccer stakes.) Further evidence that radical feminists are evincing the same confusion and fear as that evinced by the occasional boy in Mead's tribes, is that they make no effort whatsoever to induct boys or men into strictly female provinces. That is, androgyny, or equality, is a one-way road. There is no effort to encourage men into any of the many female provinces, for example the teaching of young children.

Generally, the attack on male virtues is by way of caricature. Male valour is vilified by calling it male violence. Every attack by radical feminists on an obviously anti-social activity is actually a coded attack on a very fine, somewhat similar male virtue. Thus does the radical feminist evince both a desire to enter the male sanctum, and also a desire to destroy the male sanctum.

It is instructive to look up the Shorter Oxford Dictionary which predates the perversion of our language by radical feminism.

Macho and machismo do not exist in 1975 vintage English, although radical feminists claim that we have to erase the macho culture of that time.

Virtue is the most important word. It has been totally changed from 1973 to rid it of male characteristics, all of which are now denigrated under the newly imported boo-word macho. Virtue then included; Physical strength, force or energy; The possession or display of manly qualities; manly excellence, manliness, valour. In women, it cites Chastity, sexual purity, these also now denigrated by radical feminists.

Chivalry, another word indicating a boy's chance to grow into man, is also now denigrated. It included; disinterested bravery, honour, and courtesy. All of these are under attack from radical feminism. The social analyst Lipschutz claims that when in power, chivalry is a necessary virtue. He says that the failure of powerful women to show chivalry to weak men is why our society is out of control, out of balance. He says that powerful women, far from showing chivalry to weak men, despise them.

"There was also a need to ensure that the curriculum included areas which would allow children to find ways of shining which were not to do with being macho - music, drama, dance." - Angela Phillips, the keynote speaker at the 16nov98 Home Office conference entitled Boys, young men and fathers, from which men's organisations were excluded. Here we see the attempt to destroy every rite of passage for the boy, including sport, in a Home Office conference supposedly about the problem of the growing alienation of boys. As a boy at school, I retreated from music, drama and dance, although now, as a confident adult, I sing in one of the best choirs in London. (At school, drama meant A Midsummer Night's Dream, a nightmare for boys. Dance was worse.). Even while in the conference where she is supposed to be discussing alienated boys, Phillips, invited by a radical feminist Home Office, tries to destroy mechanisms for boys to stay engaged through to manhood. Her ignorant crocodile tears are destructive.

Ivor Catt, 121 Westfields, St. Albans AL3 4JR 2aug99

 

Probation

In mar00 the County Organisers of ManKind sent a questionnaire to a random selection of 21 out of the 50 Chief Probation Officers throughout the country. We have now received a standard response from the Lead Officer of the Family Court Welfare Network (LOFCWN).

Steve Fitzgerald has taken up his offer of a meeting. In addition, SF has requested a more specific response to the question about "The NAPO Policy Document". This is a policy which in its entirety discriminates against men.

 

The Myth

ASSOCIATION OF CHIEF OFFICERS OF Probation

1 Brooklands Avenue,

Cambridge CB2 2BB

Tel: 01223 712345

5apr00

Mr S Fitzgerald,

National Organiser, ManKind (etc.)

Dear Mr. Fitzgerald, I write to you in my capacity as LOFCWN for the Association of Chief Officers of Probation (ACOP). Members of your organisation in different areas have been writing to local Chief Probation Officers (CPOs) seeking clarification of a number of points and issues. Essentially, they are presenting the same paper written by you to different CPOs. In the circumstances, it seems sensible that ACOP should make a response to you and your paper along with a request that you make that response as widely available as possible to your membership. I hope you are agreeable to this way of moving things forward.

Your paper clearly sets out the matters which concern you and I will reply within the headings you use.

1. Training: All Family Court Welfare Officers (FCWO), in common with Guardian ad Litem and Social Workers, hold a Diploma in Social Work (or its equivalent). Pre-qualification training includes study of child development, separation and loss, families in crisis, Law, assessment and report writing. Probation Officers are generally assigned to Family Court Welfare Service (FCWS) only after 2-3 years experience within Probation. During this time, they increase their knowledge and understanding of families, risk assessment and report writing - all of which are of central importance when they come to work as Court Welfare Officers (CWOs). When they are assigned to FCWS officers are sent for Induction Training, which is organised on a national basis. This training covers the key elements of the FCWO task. The training is supported by an induction manual produced nationally. Area Probation Services have arrangements for observation, induction and mentoring to ensure that new officers move into the work in a controlled and supported way. Area Probation Services are responsible for providing training necessary to ensure officers work to a satisfactory standard. Annual appraisal against a robust schedule of practice competences is the mechanism for testing that an officer's work is at the required level.

ACOP has produced two distinct learning packs:

(1) Working with Children.

(2) "Cornerstones" video trigger-training - working with diversity.

in order to support local training. We also run an annual practice conference at which research and developments in practice are discussed.

While we are not complacent, we know that this level of training compares favourably with that

p5

provided for others operating in the Family Justice System.

2. Parental Alienation: FCWS is aware of several articles written on the subject of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). ACOP's view is that PAS represents one contribution amongst a wealth of research studies on the effects of separation and divorce, all of which must contribute to our understanding of the different ways children and families cope with disruption of their family life. It is dangerous, in our view, to promote one piece of research over all others.

3. Contact Guidelines: ACOP has good links with the Association of Family Court Welfare |Officers (AFCWO) and there is dialogue between the Associations. ACOP's understanding of the AFCWO "guidelines" is that they are merely a contribution to the debate on how best to arrange contact. They are not intended to be definitive or prescriptive. ACOP has its own guidance "Children and Contact - A Framework for Assessment". I enclose a copy for your information.

4. Equal Parenting: By "equal parenting" I understand you mean a set of arrangements made by parents so that children spend part of each week with each parent in their separate homes.

ACOP is absolutely clear that the Children Act 1989 guides us towards particularity, rather than generality, ie it is what is right for this particular child that determines the nature and extent of contact.

Accordingly, "equal parenting" will be right in some circumstances for some children and wrong for other children in different circumstances.

You may be interested to know that in parts of the United States of America the notion of the "nest" is gaining ground with some children. This is an arrangement whereby the children remain in one home and it is the parents who come to live in that home at different times during the week. These children appear to like being based so that possessions, friends etc are all in one place.

What is clear to us is that where parents are prepared to co-operate and keep the focus on the children's needs all sorts of imaginative solutions can be found to the issue of contact.

5. NAPO Document: All FCWOs are expected to carry out their duties in accordance with the law, national standards and any guidance which may be provided by Area Probation Services. Work which demonstrably failed to meet required standards would be dealt with robustly, regardless of whether it were authorised by a NAPO policy document or not.

6. Complaints Procedure Each Area Probation Service has a complaints procedure, approved and authorised by its Probation Committee. Any perceived shortcoming in a Service's procedure should be taken up with the Probation Service concerned.

6.2 Collection of Information / Quality Control The purposes of a welfare report are such as to make it necessary and desirable for the FCWO to make decisions about what to include or exclude from a report. Parties are at liberty to challenge a report and ask the court to order the CWO's attendance at the hearing to answer questions, if they wish.

It is not the purpose of quality control procedures to scrutinise in detail transactions between FCWO and parties.

6.3 Challenging a Report You are, no doubt, aware of the restrictions placed upon the uses to which a welfare report may be put and who can see it. The report is the property of the court and only available from the court, at which proceedings are to be heard. This means that statutorily the welfare report can only be made available after formal filing with the court.

ACOP does not accept your view that it is too late to challenge a report by the time it comes before the Judge, as this view discounts the very judicial process which is at the heart of proceedings. In our view, any lack of confidence you may have with the court process should be taken up with the Lord Chancellor's Department, not deflected into spurious discussion of challenging a report prior to its reaching court.

6.4 Content and Conduct Most complaints procedures seek to make a distinction between complaints against content, professional judgements, conclusions and recommendations reached in a report and complaints against the way in which a FCWO carried out his/her inquiries. The reasons for this is that, in our view, the Judge who hears all the evidence, and where necessary may question (and hear questioned) the FCWO in court, is best placed to decide what weight to give to the welfare report and the FCWOs verbal evidence. No complaints procedure can hope to re-visit issues which have been dealt with through due process of law.

Complaints procedures should, therefore, generally be seen to be able to deal with complaints which relate to FCWO conduct, but not able to deal with matters relating to report content.

All area services are required to have a complaints procedure in place and part of that procedure is their annual report which is available from area services.

I hope this is useful to you in furthering your understanding of the Probation Service's position on the key issues which you raise. I wonder if it would be worth meeting to have a more free-flowing discussion of issues of mutual interest?

"Probation Officers are generally assigned to Family Court Welfare Service (FCWS) only after 2-3 years experience within Probation." [This is why they always look for, or even assume, criminal tendencies in fathers. - Ed.]

6.2 ....Parties are at liberty to challenge a report and ask the court to order the CWO's attendance at the hearing to answer questions, if they wish. [Not true - Ed.]

The Reality

"Views" by probation officers who masquerade as experts in matters of child welfare are screened against scrutiny. It is treated as contempt of court for fathers to 'disclose' Probation Officer CWO Reports (containing the views, professional practice methodology and philosophy of poorly trained probation service staff). Since Family Court judges can sit on the committee of local probation areas (and thus are the 'employers' of CWOs who are failing) some English Family court judges (not excluding those at the Royal Courts of Justice, RCJ) have reasons to be concerned that the poor performance by their officers might leak to the general public. Failure by staff impacts children. England is habituated with doing things on the cheap, however given that some 70 000 CWO reports have impact on the lives of children it is worth considering the reports by the HM Inspectorate for probation which are in the public domain and which throw light on Probation Officer CWOs.

THE HM Inspectorate of Probation, Family Court Welfare Work, Report of a Thematic Inspection, Home Office 1997, page 104 is damning.

Reading either this or the 1991 report, we notice the number of occasions where service provision was described as 'varied', 'ranging between' or 'non-existent'. The geographical location of the parties and their children determined what provision was available for them.

The Inspection of welfare reports found an alarming level of welfare reports failing to address the Section 1(3) Children Act Welfare Checklist. (P49) The HM Inspector found that;

36% of the CWO reports failed to address the wishes and feelings of the child,

30% failed to address the child's physical needs,

50% failed to address the child's educational needs, and

46% of Welfare reports failed to address the range of powers available to the court."

In the light of the Home Office's own report, denial of cross examination constitutes an abuse of a fair hearing, and denies the voting public necessary information in a democratic society.

In Court of Appeal Lord Justice Thorpe made a decision in Re A that there was no right to cross-examine CWOs. [Refer back to the false statement by the LOFCWN]. Lord Justice Thorpe should know the facts which the Home Office considered important enough to make public. He made this decision knowing that once procedures get held behind the locked doors of Family Courts, fathers are denied the right to consult with competent professionals on methodological flaws by CWOs.

In my own case I had a solicitor acting for me who as former psychologist was shocked about the lack of training amongst CWOs and like other solicitors did not hesitate to express his concern about the poor quality of reports in cases

 

p6

 

where he had acted for parents. But as member of the legal system he was not prepared to take up my invitation to publicly express his concerns. He did however, at my instruction, apply that in my case an independent child development expert be called upon to report prior to a Probation Officer CWO dealing with my children. The application at the RCJ was refused, and amazingly, my solicitor was even threatened with having to personally pay costs for wasting court time by bringing my application to court. Obviously, once a CWO did report, the attitude that the court then took was that a further report by a qualified independent expert was undesirable as "delay is not in the best interest of the child". So you can't have an expert, you are blocked by the myth that untrained Probation CWOs are good enough experts. Little wonder that courts ban scrutiny to prevent professionals from witnessing the world of decision making behind Family Court's closed doors.

However, buttressing the Family Courts was Lord Justice Thorpe's decision in relation to matters where the welfare of hundreds of thousands of children is in the hands of courts who do not want the electorate in a democratic society to sit in scrutiny over the workings of the organs of justice.

The Access to Justice Act 1999 does not contain any provision giving a right to cross-examine Court Welfare Officers, or for parents to appoint their own independent expert.

by Y. A. Name

The Greater Spotted Feminist (Femmus Mercenarius)

by ordinarythologist

Large numbers of this predatory bird are quite common throughout the British Isles. Some varieties are commoner than others. Its plumage often changes, and is sometimes false, e.g. false eyelashes, false hair colour, false suntan, false laugh then trying to ingratiate itself with a mate.

The Greater Spotted Feminist is very attracted to bright objects, such as money, large cars, jewellery, and consumer goods, and frequently picks them up and takes them away.

It is parasitic by nature, never paying for its food, drink or nest, and has cuckoo characteristics, both physical and mental. Once having persuaded a male to share his nest with it, the Greater Spotted Feminist frequently breeds with anything that is passing, before throwing its mate out of the nest entirely.

Although banished from the marital nest, the male is still expected to provide all the goodies the feminist demands, whether for his own offspring or that of other males.

The Greater Spotted Feminist has a monotonous cry of 'I want, I want' which remains the same throughout its usually long life, and never changes with the seasons. It is generally regarded as a foul pest, but unfortunately, stupid legislation means that it is a thoroughly protected species, which can do whatever it likes.

Bang 'em all up!

"Ms Betty Moxon heads the Sexual Offences Review Group.... [She] invited Robert Whiston and Ivor Catt from ManKind to attend her 10sep99 seminar in Leicester. ManKind member William Coulson also managed to fill in for a cancellation.

".... The Leicester seminar, attended by our chairman, and myself as editor of Ill Eagle, gives a great deal of food for thought and much to report, some of which I intend to do later.

"There were men there, but they were poodle-men. None of the 50 attendees had the concept of a false allegation." - Ill Eagle, sep99.

There followed extensive correspondence between your Ed, his MP, and the Home Office, see my website. My MP was a dead loss, so I ask readers to pursue the matter through their own MPs.

My two objectives were to get false allegations onto the political agenda, and also to develop a mechanism for restraining the flood of false reports and statistics emanating from the govt. See "Amnesty announced by ManKind", Ill Eagle jan00. Recently, Margaret Jay repeated the notorious "one woman in four is assaulted" fabricated by Stinko of Royal Holloway College, see Ill Eagle sep99. (Overheard muttering by the skunk who fabricated statistics, when the wind changed; "It's all coming back to me now.")

At last, after six months of obfuscation, during which I had to simplify my question into words of one and two syllables, I have received the admission that false allegations are not within the remit of anybody in government. ".... there is no specific policy consideration in government being given to the issue of false allegations, ...." - letter to Catt from -Tooke, Sex Offences Review Team, Home Office, 21mar00. If you find this unbelievable, phone M-Tooke tel. 0171 273 3875 or email her at sex_offences_review.ho@gtnet.gov.uk

A few days after this admission, the case of Roy Burnett, falsely jailed for brutal rape for 15 years, hit the headlines.

As to the Amnesty for officials who have falsified reports; after six months of correspondence with my useless MP, who stated on 18nov99, see Ill Eagle jan00, that there was a "staged disciplinary process" for officials who fabricated statistics, I have at last received from -Tooke the first information on the process in an email from -Tooke to me, 13apr00; "The Home Office, in common with other Government Departments, has an internal discipline procedure. This can be instigated by a letter of complaint from a member of the public. .... - Su McLean-Tooke, Sex Offences Review Team, Home Office. I have a long way to go before being in a position to react quickly to the next piece of false, anti-social rubbish coming out of Govt. - Ed

Letter from your Editor to David Davis M.P., Chairman, Public Accounts Committee.

20apr00. Dear David Davis M.P., I note your comments on the Child Support Agency (CSA) in today's Evening Standard, p8, summarised below. Before the CSA was set up, its first chairman, Ros Hepplewhite, lectured to the FNF AGM. I immediately said that there was no possibility that she would pay any attention to the advice of its clients, divorced fathers, and that the CSA would self-destruct. I strongly urged men's organisations not to attack it. Her own father deserted his family when she was aged two, and the operation was set to be punitive. Up to and including today, the CSA and those who run it and periodically attempt to reform it, ignore the advice and expertise of divorced men. For this reason, the latest reforms are dead in the water.

A marker of continued failure will be the continually increasing suicide rate of young men and of divorced men.

The women in the Home Office have at last invited me and one other man to one or two of their inappropriate seminars. However, control of decision making in the whole field of family breakdown remains firmly in the hands of sexually dysfunctional women.

Recently, for the first time, my colleague was invited onto a relevant committee in the Lord Chancellor's Office, but one swallow does not make a spring. With him are at least three women with a long, documented track record of attacking the family as an institution.

Whereas the increasing suicides among men will cut no ice, the development which will force a change from the present bolshie attitude of those in power, will be increasing disorder in the streets, up to twenty times that over the Poll Tax. I predict that we will reach that stage in about fifteen years, as disempowered, unemployed, vilified young men finally react as predicted by Patricia Morgan in her 1995 book Farewell to the Family? [from 020 7799 3745]; "Large numbers of unattached and predatory males who have never taken on the responsibilities of family life, or who have been ejected from families, now meet the classic conditions for the creation of a 'warrior class'." They are waiting for a Fascist leader.

There is no substitute for taking divorcing and divorced men into the decision making and law-making process, wresting it from the radfems and their poodles like Boateng and Straw's brother. It will have to happen in the end, after many more lives have been lost. Why not now? In the absence of any power to influence decision making, divorcing men will finally retake power in the manner outlined on my website electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/

p7

under the general descriptor Retreat. This has already been tested, causing a judge to capitulate and make a court order as prescribed by the father, who, as is usual, of course, was about to lose all his assets and all contact with his children. However, the situation will deteriorate further before divorcing fathers face up to taking that course of action.

 

CSA must clear up 'polluting legacy of errors' say MPs

- David Shaw,

Evening Standard, 20apr00, p8

The CSA came under fresh fire today from a Commons watchdog demanding it clear up a "legacy of errors" which persists in blighting thousands of lives despite five years of reforms.

The damning criticism came from the Public Accounts Committee which found that the agency is continuing to make a catalogue of errors and pays out derisory compensation to those it wrongs.

The MPs say that having damaged hundreds of thousands of people at very stressful periods of their lives the agony goes on. They say that one in four new assessments is inaccurate, more than one in three payments from absent parents are for the wrong amounts, and four out of five maintenance account balances are incorrect. Committee chairman David Davis said today that after a number of changes to the system and several different chief executives, further improvements proposed for next year risk being undermined. He said: "Changes to the system proposed by the Government, combined with a new information technology system, offer a solution but to make the new arrangements work it is vital that the CSA clear out the legacy of errors to avoid polluting the new arrangements from day one."

The MPs criticise compensation payments, saying that cash paid for maladministration has quadrupled to more than 4.35 million. However, they say: "The bulk of this sum merely puts people in the position they would have been in had the agency not made an error. The committee questions whether these payments really do compensate individuals."

Today's report says: "It is important that the existing high levels of error in the agency's records are rectified quickly and are not allowed to contaminate the data on which the new arrangements will rely.... [on] staff turnover the report says: "The latter remains worryingly high. ...."

What now?

"It is true that what is happening to our young men is very worrying. It appears that as the traditional routes to adulthood no longer exist for them, many have removed themselves from any concept of parental responsibility.... They are being infantilised and there is a crisis in male identity. .... any discussion about the family which does not call for men to change ...."

- Sue Slipman, Director of the National Council for One Parent Families, in Would You Take One Home With You?, p68 of her chapter in Underclass: The Crisis Deepens, by Charles Murray, pub. I.E.A. 020 7799 3746, 1994. For 100,000 p.a., Slipman now presents the benign face of Lottery Camelot.

As the suicide rate among young men continues to escalate, will Sue continue to say that they must change, and leave it at that? When I heard her speak on 9may00, she stuck to her guns. According to her, the admitted crisis for young men was merely the price that had to be paid for the transition away from oppression of women. Similarly, Bolshevic Russia and post-revolution France justified their tyrrany by saying that it was only transitional. Sue Slipman's very plausible argument will collapse after fifteen more years, when the suicide rate among young men has gone through the roof. She speaks so convincingly that many must die to prove her wrong, before civil rights will begin to be restored to young men.

Straw at talks on Underclass

Jack Straw debated the emergence of Britain's underclass with Charles Murray, [Ill Eagle, mar00, p7] plus Melanie Phillips and Sue Slipman (of Camelot, previously rep. for single mothers,) on 9may00.

I was ashamed that our Home Secretary descended to crude mud-slinging against Charles Murray. Because of his attitude, we are in for many long, hot summers.

"There is no doubt that the intruders are members of Murray's underclass." True to Murray's model, Fred Barras, the burglar killed by Martin, never knew his father. - See Sunday Times, 23apr00, p12.

Liberal folly has turned farm killer into a martyr

- Melanie Phillips,

Sunday Times, 23apr00, p17

What maddens people is the injustice of it. It is the refusal to distinguish between right and wrong behaviour by making whole groups of people victims (women, asylum seekers, single parents) and defining other groups (white people, men, middle classes) as oppressors so that they can never be the victims of anyone in the designated classes. This leaves people feeling bitterly powerless and disenfranchised. ....

It is a dangerous sign when men such as Martin are turned into heroes of Middle Britain; and it has happened because middle Britain has turned into a term of abuse. People are under assault for committing the petit-bourgeois crime of aspiring to better themselves by working hard, protecting their families and themselves from harm, and espousing values of family life and elementary justice to do so.

Human Rights Act 1998

The Human Rights Act 1998 comes into effect on the 2 October this year. The Act incorporates in full the European Convention on Human Rights (ratified by the UK in March 1952) and the two protocols to the Convention also ratified by the UK, the First Protocol (November 1952) and the Sixth Protocol (May 1999).

Article 14 of the Convention protects against discrimination on any ground but only in respect of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and protocols. Article 14 has no force in itself, and thus does not protect against discrimination in other legislative areas outside the scope of the Convention and protocols, and thus of the Human Rights Act 1998, for instance in public health, social welfare, and public transport.

There is therefore no all-embracing fundamental right under the Human Rights Act 1998 not to be discriminated against. [In any case, no national or international convention, law or statute or case law gives a child the right of access to its parent. I have been saying this for more than ten years, the reaction from all parties, including all fathers cut off from their children, being one of total indifference. It's a strange world, full of strange people. - Ed

Matters relating to the family or family circumstances must rely on the protection afforded by Articles 8 and 12 of the main Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of the First Protocol, taken together with Article 14 prohibiting discrimination on any grounds.

Article 8 states that: "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

This Article thus allows a wide range of 'let-outs' for a government tempted to interfere with or frustrate this right. Nevertheless, any protection that is afforded must be without discrimination on any grounds. [The monstrous invention of the concept of their jurisdiction over 'indirect access' by our rascally judges some ten years ago will not be ended by this mealy-mouthed Article. Thus, mothers will continue to intercept letters from father to child and child to father with impunity, and with the support of our judiciary. There is money to be made by lawyers so long as this interception is not a criminal offence, and can be argued about. - Ed]

Article 12 of the Convention states that : "Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right".

This protection is more clear-cut and again must be without discrimination on any grounds.

p8

[Years ago, I argued that Saudi Arabia, if it routinely cut off her children from a divorced mother, could sign up to all this stuff with impunity. I retain that view. ".... according to the national laws...." makes Article 12 useless. - Ed]

Article 1 of the First Protocol deals with property rights: "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."

The Article allows some let-outs "in the general interest" but generally protects the rights of persons to enjoy their possessions, taken together with Article 14, without discrimination on any grounds. The enforced transfer of property by the courts following family breakdown or repeated false allegations of domestic abuse might well be questioned under this Article. [I disagree. This Article is full of holes, and tends to confirm Lynnette Burrows' view (see The Fight for the Family, from (01865 556848) that the committees in Europe brewing up this stuff have been 'got at' by radfems, and the value of all this stuff negated. - Ed]

In recent years, the European Court of Human Rights has widened the scope of the meaning of 'possessions' to also include 'pecuniary interests', example benefits from a statutory contributory scheme. The previous lack of statutory survivors benefits for widowed fathers in the UK was successfully challenged in 1998 on this basis taken together with the prohibition of sex discrimination under Article 14, the Government accepting admissibility and subsequently equalising benefits for both widows and widowers under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999.

Article 2 of the First Protocol relates to the right to education. In particular: "the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions."

Taken together with Article 14, this implies that both parents have an equal right in this process including after family breakdown. [I disagree. I have urged that Jack Straw be asked to define the word 'parent', and, even more important, to define the word 'family'. Butler-Sloss, head of the Family Courts, has said that a pair of homosexual men should be regarded as parents just as much as are natural father and mother. Since there is no longer a valid definition of the word 'parent', it is impossible to transfer an asserted right for 'parents' to a single 'parent'. Interestingly, I believe we have also lost the concept 'in loco parentis'. For instance, Adrienne Burgess would not know what it used to mean. - Ed.]

Regrettably, and to some, scandalously, the most relevant protection relating to the family, Article 5 of the Seventh Protocol, is excluded from the Human Rights Act 1998 since the UK has neither signed nor ratified this protocol. This states that: "Spouses shall enjoy equality of rights between them, and in their relations with their children, during marriage and in the event of its dissolution. This Article shall not prevent States from taking such measures as are necessary in the interests of the children."

This Article still allows some let-outs for a government determined to subordinate parental rights 'in the interests of the children', but nevertheless should provide powerful protection against discrimination between parents both during a marriage and, more pertinently, after family breakdown and parental separation. [I disagree. It will be ignored, using the mantra "The interests of the children", in a secret court where the determination of such best interests was made in secret, by ignorant and prejudiced CWOs. My article "The Judgement of Solomon", on my website and in Male View Apr00, shows Sloss using this mantra to defy British legislation which makes shared parenting the preferred option. - Ed] The term 'spouses' presumably is confined to married persons, so the position of unmarried parents under this Article is unclear.

Finally, Article 13 of the Convention states that: "Everyone whose rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity." [Europe plays the ball back into our home court, where we were denied our rights! - Ed]

From the 2 October this year, such persons will presumably have the choice as to whether to proceed by bringing a case under the Human Rights Act 1998 in the UK courts or by taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The pros and cons of this have yet to be established. [I predict a Catch - 22. - Ed]

David Yarwood.

 

"Rape case men 'must prove their innocence'

- Matthew Hickley,

Daily Mail, 7apr00, p8

"Men in rape cases would have to prove their innocence under radical proposals for law reform.

"Legal experts say the change would reverse the sacrosanct principle that all defendants are innocent until proved guilty. ....

"Such a shift of the burden of proof could also bring British law into conflict with the European Convention of Human Rights....."

"There is no greater nightmare than being tortured for information you don't have. But that, in effect, is what we have been doing to Roy Burnett for 15 years.

"Being wrongly convicted of a crime he not only didn't commit, but probably never even happened is appalling enough But to spend many extra years inside because you refuse to admit your guilt is diabolical. .... his accuser eventually admitting she had made up a second rape story two years ago.

"This frightening miscarriage of justice .... warning to those who want to change the whole balance of British justice .... [in] Rape .... there are so many miscarriages of justice .... the original trial contained many inconsistencies ....

"Except that it was his accuser who was the nutter.... the unbalance woman .... Roy Burnett was easy meat ....Put him away. lads, he's a sexual nutter. Bang him up, good riddance...."

- Richard Stott,

News of the World, 9apr00, p7.

"The woman whose rape lies put Roy Burnett behind bars .... destroyed any chance he had of seeing his baby grow up. Now the boy .... is 18. Roy hasn't seen him since he was a three...."

- James Millbank,

News of the World, 9apr00, p6

After the Orkneys scandal, which finally resulted in a letter of apology from the local council (hurriedly given immunity by govt legislation) which had kidnapped the children in a pre-dawn raid, the clergyman who was supposed to have stood in the middle of a circle and selected and dragged in a child for molestation into the centre with a shepherd's crook, wrote to me that his church had betrayed him, as had the Quakers betrayed the victim Quaker families. Further, he wrote that such false charges of sexual abuse went right to the core of his being. - Ed

 

The Rape of Justice

"What isn't permissible is to have a law diminishing the rights of innocent persons accused of some types of offence only.

"What might happen, for instance, to a man accused of rape and robbery [or rape and assault]? Would he be allowed to ask questions on the robbery charge not permitted on the rape charge? Would the burden of proof on the two charges be entirely different?" [Could one alleged victim magically appear to turn into two?]

- John Mortimer Q.C.,

Daily Mail, 7apr00, p13.

ManKind Conference

The Oxford Street conference, organised many years ago by our ex-Chairman John Campion, made a major impact on me. There, I heard Daniel Amneus, author of The Garbage Generation, 1990, speak. I had been attracted to the conference to hear Patricia Morgan, Farewell to the Family?, 1995. Norman Dennis, Rising Crime and the Dismembered Family, 1993, also made a major impact on me. There I met Eugen for the first time, leading to a very fruitful collaboration.

I will be proud to be partly responsible for our conference, at Friends House, opposide Euston Station, London, on Saturday 28oct00, 0900 - 1630, if it approaches the quality achieved by John. The maximum number in the small hall is 230, so send off 10 now for your ticket (member or non-member), to ManKind, Suite 367, 2 Lansdowne Row, London W1X 8HL.

p9

U.N. goes Radical feminist ?

Yet men appear to be sleepwalking through these mammoth changes - quoted from Anne Widdecombe, Ill Eagle 8, p8

From: ACFC Website <acfclist@usa.net>

12 June 2000 13:17

"Thanks to John Hand for sending us the following."

Folks familiar with "genderspeak" in America, and how it translates into public policies that directly discriminate against fathers in the family via unsubstantiated allegations of abuse, and how all this builds an "attorney driven" country will find the below to be a somewhat shocking jolt towards a deeply radical feminist world. In one fell swoop it appears the U.N. went from fundamental protections against violence to a full array of radical feminist policy.

Note: Those of you who are not experienced at "gender speak" might not understand what is really being said between the lines. Remember this: what is being said here is exactly what is being said all across America by the same radical feminists. Their goals overseas are no different than they are here -- to talk women out of being mothers and wives and into divorce and the helplessness of the feminist welfare state. Prior U.N. conventions do have reasonable gender-neutral, and in some cases, woman-specific protections against abuse and violence. But as we know, this is not what they are after.

I have warned you this was coming, beginning when radical feminists took over the U.N. by storm beginning about 6 years ago. Now, here it is. We can only hope that the U.S. Congress will not be stupid enough to sign on to this should the U.N. be stupid enough to pass it.

Reference links and additional information can be found toward the end of this message.

Womens' Delegates Reach Agreement

by Edith M. Lederer,

Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Delegates from 180 countries reached agreement this morning on a new U.N. plan to accelerate progress toward women's equality after an all-night debate over abortion, sexual rights and other key issues.

''It was absolutely worth it,'' said U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Angela King, a special adviser on the advancement of women. ''I feel that all those millions of women who are looking at us are totally vindicated, and they have something to grasp to assist them for their battles for equality.''

The new document reaffirms the 150-page platform for action adopted at a landmark 1995 U.N. women's conference and moves forward with tougher measures to combat domestic violence and trafficking in women, and tackle the impact on women of HIV/AIDS and globalization.

But attempts to move beyond Beijing on the contentious issues of abortion failed -- and proposed references to sexual rights and sexual orientation were dropped from the final text by delegates meeting in committee.

The final text maintains language from Beijing on women's reproductive and sexual health.

''I'm very happy that the dire predictions that there would be a rollback of Beijing have proven false,'' King said. ''Instead for all the world to see, we have a very strong document which not only reaffirms Beijing and other relevant conferences on human rights and social development but also moves forward.''

The agreement was reached shortly after 5 a.m. and delegates were told to return two hours later to wrap up the conference. But when they arrived -- many not having slept -- U.N. officials informed them that the General Assembly session to formally approve the document by consensus was delayed further because translators needed more time.

During the night, several issues were resolved -- including a dispute between the United States and Cuba over the effect of U.S. sanctions against the communist island nation on Cuban women.

The final text calls on governments to set a target date of 2005 to eliminate the gender gap in primary and secondary education. It also moves ''substantially beyond Beijing in the roles men and boys can play to achieve gender equality,'' King said.

Delegates also agreed on strong planks calling for prosecution of all forms of domestic violence, now including marital rape. The traditional practices of forced marriage and honor killings are addressed for the first time in an international consensus document, with the draft text calling for laws to eradicate these human rights violations.

Many of the issues that stalled negotiations here also dominated the Beijing conference -- sexual rights, sexual orientation, abortion, sex education for adolescents and family values.

After a lengthy fight in Beijing, references to sexual orientation -- which the Vatican and several Islamic and Catholic countries vehemently oppose -- were dropped from the platform.

The term ''sexual rights'' was never included in the Beijing platform, though it does state that women have the right to ''decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality ... free of coercion, discrimination and violence.''

Conservative activists fear that sexual rights could be broadly interpreted as condoning homosexuality.

The battle lines for the current conference -- known as Beijing Plus Five -- mirrored those at Beijing: the Vatican and a handful of Islamic and Catholic countries against the West and hundreds of pro-Beijing women's rights activists.

Cuba and the United States, meanwhile, clashed for days over Havana's insistence on referring to the negative effect of U.S. sanctions, especially on women and girls.

King said the dispute was settled early today when both countries agreed to compromise language taken from a previous U.N. conference. It notes that ''in some countries, advancement of women is adversely affected by unilateral measures not in accordance with international law ... that create obstacles to trade relations among states.''

Several organizations issued a joint statement registering disappointment with the final document but reaffirming their commitment to work for implementation of the Beijing platform.

''We regret that there was not enough political will on the part of some governments and the U.N. system to agree on a stronger document with more concrete benchmarks, numerical goals, time-bound targets, indicators, and resources aimed at implementing the Beijing platform,'' said the statement, which was issued by the Center for Women's Global Leadership at Rutgers University and the Women's Environment and Development Organization.

UN Women's Meeting Nears Agreement

by Edith M. Lederer

Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- U.N. delegates meeting in a special session were deadlocked late Friday over abortion and other key issues contained in a plan to accelerate progress toward women's equality.

The General Assembly negotiators working into the night did agree on several other issues. If a final agreement is reached, the plan would provide tougher measures to combat AIDS, trafficking of women and domestic violence.

But with a midnight Friday deadline looming, representatives from more than 180 nations were still meeting behind closed doors, trying to reach consensus on many of the same issues that dominated the landmark 1995 U.N. women's conference in Beijing.

Senior U.N. officials said they were not expecting the final document to go much beyond the Beijing platform for action on sexual and reproductive matters. And it was unclear whether there would be consensus on a final document.

After a lengthy fight in Beijing, references to sexual orientation -- which the Vatican and conservative Islamic and Catholic countries vehemently oppose -- were dropped. The term ''sexual rights'' was never included though the platform does state that women have the right to ''decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality ... free of coercion, discrimination and violence.''

 

p10

The United States also remained at odds with Cuba over a plank on the detrimental effects of sanctions on women, which delegates said Iraq also supports. Washington maintains embargoes against both Cuba and Iraq.

A U.S. official said the language the Cuban delegation wants in the document is not relevant to the issues facing women. ''Furthermore, it is language Washington can't live with, and is an attempt by Cuba to dictate policies on another country,'' the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The chief of the Cuban delegation, Vilma Espin, said the United States was preventing the conference from telling the truth about the deaths of women and children caused by its economic embargo against Cuba. [Women and children? The men are all so violent they grab all all the food! - Ed]

Many Western nations have been at odds with the Vatican and a handful of Islamic and Catholic countries -- including Libya, Algeria, Iran, Sudan and Nicaragua -- over parts of the agenda.

The Vatican and a number of conservative countries object to the Beijing platform's reference to nontraditional families, which they view as an implied blessing of homosexual unions, single parents and couples living together out of wedlock. And a coalition of anti-abortion and religious activists have blamed rich Western nations for pushing ''radical language'' on abortion, sexual rights and homosexual rights.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright voiced concern Thursday that the final document might retreat from the ambitious 150-page platform adopted in Beijing.

But even before the final text was complete, U.N. officials and delegates were saying there would be no rollback of the Beijing agreement.

''There is no evidence in the text that seems likely to be adopted that there is any backward movement on any of the Beijing language, and in certain areas we are very heartened to see a strengthening of the Beijing language,'' said U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Angela King, a special adviser on the advancement of women.

She cited tougher action to address the trafficking of women and girls, the impact of AIDS on women including AIDS education programs for women, calls on governments to set target dates to eradicate illiteracy and ensure education for all girls and education programs to enable men to engage in safe, responsible sex.

Negotiators have also agreed on strong planks calling for prosecution of all forms of domestic violence, now including marital rape, and for the first time in an international consensus document, the traditional practices of forced marriage and so-called honor killings are addressed. The draft text calls for laws to eradicate these human rights violations.

----

This is the latest markup of the outcome document. It's current as 8 June 2000, 3:00 a.m.

Ad hoc committee of the whole of the special session of the General Assembly entitled "Women 2000: gender equality, development and peace for the twenty-first century"

Status of negotiations as at 8 June 2000, 3:00 a.m.

Proposed outcome document: Further actions and initiatives to implement the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/followup/infocon.pdf

----

The following links have to do with the ratification of CEDAW by the U.S.

Ratify the Women's Rights Treaty

US Women Connect

http://www.uswc.org/action.html

Amnesty INternational

http://www.amnestyusa.org/commit/

----

The following link provides links to what the U.S. has done to ensure compliance with the commitments it made during Beijing '95. There is a strong correlation between the information provided here and the social policies the U.S. pursued since Beijing '95. As an added note, it would probably be benecial to not forget the role the White House (especially H. Clinton) played in achieving these goals.

http://secretary.state.gov/www/picw/2000commitment/index.html

[The stories that Hilary is bisexual, and that she recently had a ten year affair until her lover shot himself, seems relevant when we consider her level of loyalty and support for the family. We should look at Jay in the same way. So many of these people in high places are exorcising their private personal problems through us. It is reminiscent of I, Claudius. - Ed]

This is the DAW site monitoring Beijing+5.

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/followup/beijing+5.htm

Mother laments -"I miss them" ....

- Jan Disley, Mirror, 19apr00, p1

The Mirror headlined the anguish of a mother after her two children had been murdered by their father. "I miss them so much it's not fair. I miss them coming running round the corner.... I loved them to bits...." Heartrendingly, Claire Fairless spoke out as it was revealed that her estranged husband Frank then hanged himself. Clair spoke to the Miror as it was revealed that her former husband, Frank. was due to face two separate cherges of rape and assault. He had no previous convictions for violence.

The Guardian, came closer to the truth when it chimed in with "Child killer faced rape charge. .... Frank Fairless was also due to stand trial on separate charges of assaulting his wife, Claire, 31, and her father, James Forrington, last Christmas. ...." ( Martin Wainwright, 19apr00, p10,)

.... and here's what really happened ...

Initially, it was reportedf that Frank Fairless, who built his dream house for his wife and two sons, naming the house Oliverchris after his sons' names, was cut off from them for six months after his wife left with them. Then on the first night when he was allowed to keep them overnight, he killed them and himself. He was fearful of losing them forever.

Two days later, 19apr00, p5, Maurice Weaver reported in the Telegraph that Frank was on a rape charge "involving a woman in North Lincolnshire".

I telephoned Weaver, and he told me that local correspondents believed the woman making the rape charge was Frank's wife. This could totally alter the picture, from a no-good husband to a deeply destructive wife. [See how destructive is secrecy for alleged rape victim but not for alleged perpetrator.] However, the world will forever believe that Frank raped another woman. Thus is information manipulated in the battle of the sexes. Why did a male journalist connive in such terrible man-bashing? Write to him and ask him, at 49 Manor Rd., Solihull B91 2BL. I have sent him a draft on 22apr00, inviting him to comment in Ill Eagle. He did not reply.

Mum kills sons to get revenge on dad

- Any Lines, Mirror, 29mar00, p15

A mum murdered her two little boys after losing a custody battle to their dad. ....

Smith, 31, strangled Cody, five, and three-year-old Tristan .... after opening their Christmas presents.

Three days earlier a court had given her ex-husband Brit custody of the youngsters.

Smith .... admitted murdering the boys but told a court in Dallas, Texas, she was suffering from a severe mental illness at the time. .... given two .... life sentences.

A bit of a mystery to the sisters

Profile: Germaine Greer

- Sunday Times, 30apr00, p17

.... Germaine Greer was allegedly tied up and beaten in her remote rural home last week .... the alleged perpetrator of the assault was not some monstrous, muscle-bound male thug, but a 19-year-old female student who had become obseessed with the women's movement's most controversial icon. .... she lives the domestic life of a recluse at her Essex home, surrounded by catds and geese. Idolised by a generation of feminists for her seminal book, The Female Eunuch, she has savaged her sisters as often as she has turned her considerable intellectual fireposer on men. .... her string of lovers has included martin Amis, Julian Barnes,

p11

Jonathan Aitken, Warren Beatty (whom she ... found "disappoonting"). .... she once published a photograph of her own genitalia in the pornographic magazine Suck .... .... Greer took "stupid risks" with contraception in her young, promiscuouis days .... irreparable damage was done to her fallopian tubes. .... she came to want a child, giving birth was no longer possible. Her infertility - together with childhood abuse, rape and the menopause - is something that, naturally, Greer has chosen to tell the sorld about.

Now 61, she was born in Melbourne, Aust., to a wastrel father and a mother who was heavy on slapping-about discipline and light on learning. Greer has called her father "a lounge lizard, a line-shooter, a larikin, a jerk" and her mother " a woman who has done nothing but lie on beaches for 70 years". .... By the age of 18 she was at Melbourne University, where she was well known for carrying round a bag of coloured condoms and emplopying earthy language to describe her sexploits. In Melbourne she was raped "by just the sort of boy my mother would have liked me to marry". She .... became part of a bohemian, free-love set known as "The Push", "a fratrenity of desperates, drop-outs gamblers and poets manqus". .... Cl;ive James .... describes her striding "like a Homeric goddess through the doors of the university cafateria" to take his virginity. He escaped and hid behind a gum tree.

.... Greer arrived at Newnham College, Cambridge in 1964 to do a doctorate on Shakespeare's comedies. ....

Sexually, she was not impressed by Britain. "The Poms all try to look like Michael Caine, but it's a con. .... They're either queer or kinky. You know what the last Pom [I went to bed with] said to me? 'Let's pretend you're dead.'" .... she married Paul du Feu, a building worker with an English degree. They stayed married for three weeks, after which du Feu posed naked for Cosmopolitan.

Greer went on to teach at Warwick University, but found fame with The Female Eunuch in 1970. [I started re-reading it recently, and was horrified that it showed her culpability for what happened around the world thereafter. I could only read about 20 pages. Melanie Phillips, when reviewing a more recent Greer book, recounts how, when intervied by Greer with a view to her becoming a student at Warwick, Greer said; "Come now, you want to come to University to sleep around", or some such. She complained back at school, and an apology was extracted from the University. - Ed.] The book, which went on to argue that marriage could be seen as a form of slavery, sold 1m copies. .... She and James Hughes-Onslow began a relationship that lasted 18 months, during which she tried desperately for a child. It was thought that earlier damage to her fallopian tubes - caused by an IUD - could be rectified, but no pregnancy ensued.

"Germaine began to suspect this might be my fault and sent me to Harley Street .... Perhaps unconvinced by the positive results of these tests, she later embarked on a relationship with an Eton contemporary of mine, William Shawcross." .... Germaine went ballistic when a journalist Suzanne Moore commented on an inaccurate report that Greer had had a hysterectomy at 25. Moore was described as having "hair bird's-nested all over the place, f***-me shoes s#and three inches of fat cleavage". .... a similar fate awaited .... Christine Wallace .... She was called "flesh-eating bacterium" abd told she would be "kneecapped".

But Greer was beginning to change her tune. In Sex and Destiny in 1984, she had argued that western society was anti-children, anti-family and sex-obsessed. Two years later she said: "I'm beginning to think that sex is really disgusting and that we should have nothing to do with it." .... her deliciously stroppy performances on BBC2's self-congratulatory arts programme, The Late Review. .... Not long ago she was banned from driving after speeding iin a bid to save her goslings from being eaten by foxes. She has often remarked that she could have bought a Picasso with the money she has spent trying to conceive ....

$2m plot

- Sarah Boseley,

Guardian, 7apr00, p1

Philip Morris, the world's largest cigarette manufacturer, mounted a [successful] $2m .... campaign to .... undermine a scientific study on the dangers of passive smoking, targeting researchers, the media and government....

The tobacco industry is accused in The Lancet of attempting to subvert the normal scientific process. .... the journal warns .... against putting too much trust in companies intent on profit. "Tobacco is not the only aspect of medicine open to twisted corporate communications strategies. All policy-makers must be vigilant to the possibility of research that is being manipulated by corporate bodies...." [See the case of AIDS on my website www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk - Ed]

.... the Institute of Health Policy Studies of California charges that scientists in the pay of the tobacco companies attempted to infiltrate the biggest European study on the effect of passive smoking and .... it was successful in a strategy to get the study's findings discounted.

[Philip Morris spent more than the cost of the feared study in fraudulently discrediting it. - Ed]

Law website forced offline

A website set up by Kamlesh Bahl, the former Law Society vice-president, has been shut down by the internet service provider Freenetline after a complaint that it contained defamatory statements.

Mr Bahl .... resigned after findings by an independent inquiry that she bullied five members of staff....

- Guardian, 7apr00, p6

Lawyer fiddled legal aid to pay for lovers

Paul Stokes, Telegraph, 26/5/00,p3

A solicitor defrauded the legal aid board of 170,000 to finance a lavish way of life that included paying for two mistresses .... large houses, expensive cars, and his tangled love life..... he was acquitted of sijmilar charges against the legal aid board in 1995. .... Following his acquittal, the legal aid board trusted him ....

To the Editor, Ill Eagle

The law stipulates that the rights of a child take precedence whenever there is conflict between its rights and those of its parents.

There is a waiting list of would-be adoptive parents willing to offer excellent homes to new-born babies.

On our sink estates, young girls frequently give birth to illegitimate babies they haven't a prayer of being able to look after properly.

If our judges took the slightest notice of the law which they are sworn to uphold, they would take these babies from their mothers and give them to the would-be adoptive parents.

In so doing they would save much grief in the future. It is no co-incidence that the word bastard has for centuries been used as a term of abuse rather than in its dictionary meaning.

Regards, Bill Tomlinson

Crimes against children drop

- Lucy Adams, Sunday Times, sect. 1 p5, 11june00

The streets are safer for children than ever before. .... The myth of lurking danger behind every street conrner has so alarmed the children's charity Play Scotland that .... it set out to convince parents that they are damaging children by being .... overprotective. .... they lost an average of one hour's play time every day. .... "Abductions have not increased in more than 60 years .... Unsupervised play time is essential for the development of relationships and independence."

In 1991, almost 380 children died in road accidents in the UK. By 1998, this had dtopped to 206. Between 1988 and 1999 the number of children murdered between the ages of five and 16 decreased from four per million to three. The number murdered under the age of five dropped from 12 per million to nine.

The number of offenders in England and Wales found guilty of gross indecency with a child dropped from 334 in 1988 to 264 in 1998. ...."

Third of young Scots 'carry weapons'

- Sarah Boseley and Gerald Seenan,

Guardian, 7apr00, p7

Around a third of 11- to 16-year-old boys and 8% of girls in Scotland have carried weapons

p12

ranging from flick knives to replica pistols and knuckle-dusters, according to a survey carried out in schools .... 3,000 subjects. [but] Even in schools in the most deprived areas, Ray Murphey, education officer for north Lanarkshire where much of the research was carried out, said .... it would be extremely unusual for a school to have more than one incident involving a weapon in a year .... almost never more than a stick.

[These apparently contradictory findings tend to support the thesis by our Scottish chairman George McAuley, linking gun control with feminism, see my website, that the weapon is a status symbol increasingly needed by young men as their masculinity comes under increased attack from the radfems.

Also note the back cover of Patricia Morgan's 1995 book following family breakdown; "Large numbers of unattached and predatory males who have never taken on the responsibilities of family life, or who have been ejected from families, now meet the classic conditions for the creation of a 'warrior class'. - Ed]

Who's your daddy?

- Lois Rogers,

Sunday Times, 11june00, sect. 1 p 6

[A full page on DNA testing and its social implications.] .... John Burn, professor of clinical genetics at Newcastle University, set up North Gene to provide private paternity testing at 450 per family. ....

Gnome kidnappers strip French gardens

Anti-capitalist groups target symbol of middle class

- William Langley,

Sunday Telegraph, 21may00, p28

A wave of garden gnome kidnapopings has forced police to issue a general security alert to anxious suburban homeowners. Hundreds of gnomes have been snatched in a series of raids that have been carefully executed by at least two shadowy groups.

An exhibition of more than 2,000 gnomes .... in Paris was broken into .... and several dozen stolen. .... The Garden Gnome Liberation Front claimed responsibility. "This odious exhibitiion must be closed immediately," it said, "Or we will strike again." .... a senior police office declared that "no gnome can now be considered safe".

"The people behind this, by targetting gnomes, are attacking the wider values that gnome-owners hold dear," said Prof. Boumard..... "I have known people who talk to their gnomes every day, who even put them to bed. They are treated almost as members of the family."

 

Ill Eagle 10, aug00

p1

Titanic

- Telegraph leader, 4apr00

Perfectly reasonable friends of mine repeat the assertion that in the past, women were oppressed. Following my comment in June, that presumably part of patriarchal oppression was to deny to women the pleasure of close combat with bayonets, I would like to add further evidence of this "oppression" from the past, taken from the book Titanic. An Illustrated History, by Don Lynch and Ken Marschall, 1992.

The percentage of men saved from the sinking was 20%. The percentage of women and children saved was 70%. In every class of passenger; first class, second class, third class, and crew, the % of women saved was vastly greater than the % of men saved.

Having been conned for decades into feeling sympathy for German women after the losses in the Great War, I recently asked an 80 year old woman friend of mine; "Would you rather be single or dead?" She replied, "Single."

We must begin to react when we hear the clich; "In the past, women were oppressed." Women have always been highly favoured.

School mum jailed for sex with pupils

- Bill Tomlinson, Sun, 28jan00, p7

Judge Hale said; "If you had been a man acting in the same way towards young girls the sentence would have been much greater."

Judges to lose luxury lodgings

- Jack Grimston, Sunday Times, 30july00, sect. 1, p11

Extravagant perks enjoyed by English and Welsh judges are facing the axe. .... Lord Irvine .... is expected to close many of them. Last year they cost 5m .... to maintain .... The most expensive was Carr Manor in Leeds, a grade II listed Victorian gothic house with 10 bedrooms. It cost 402,000 to maintain in 1998 .... The most uneconomic was in Flintshire, where the 1970s penthouse flat overlooking the Clwyd hills was occupied for only five weeks in 1998. Each judge who stayed cost more than 1,800 per night .... The judiciary is likely to fight moves to downgrade accommodation .... Irvine .... was heavily criticised when he spent 650,000 of public money redecorating his official residence ....

 

Battle on for more women MPs

Tony Blair is being pressed to include a promise of new laws to allow the party to draw up all-women shortlists. Ministers are saying that without immediate action, the number of the party's women MPs is likely to fall, making 1997 merely a blip.

- Times, 24jan00

But opponents of the move point out that the large number of women Labour MPs swept into parliament at the last election .... have actually been a bit of a flop - Observer, 6aug00, p28

Scandal

Not really. The whole field of family law is scandalously destructive and incompetent and expensive. This scandal is only one of so many. Actually, every aspect of the secret family court system is in a scandalous, destructive state.

In the last month, the govt's ONS (Office of National Statistics) asked the Lord Chancellor's Department (LCD) for information on outcome for custody after divorce; what percentage of children went to the mother, and so on. The LCD replied that they had no information. Thus, nobody knows how often child custody is given to the mother. Nobody has bothered to look into the numbers. You and I know that in disputed cases, it is 98% to the mother, but nobody else knows; the courts and their decisions are secret "in the best interests of the children"!!! You can throw away your court order giving access. It is not worth the paper it is written on. Twice, the High Court decreed that it would not enforce an order for access against a defiant mother.

My website has some relevant Canadian/USA research at www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/08094.htm

 

The Squirt

Dr. Anthony Clare wrote a book and a series of Sunday Times articles on men in crisis. He also gave a series of talks on the radio, to which George McAuley (who did well) and Adrienne Burgess contributed. Adrienne is the High Priest of Androgyny, which Clare also promoted.

I came to realise that, like the radfems, Clare is imposing his own personal problems on us. Only the likes of him will have access to the media for a long time, until the crisis has deepened. I was struck by Clare's remark; ".... women envying men their penises and their phallic strength." Another contributor even said that a man's admiration of valour was homosexual! These whimps seek to confuse (1) sexual perversion with (2) our admiration of valour, and (3) sexual prowess. I tend to conclude that we are listening to generally inadequate men, bent on decrying both valour and sexual prowess. Obviously, a radfem dominated media will use such Quislings to 'represent' men.

 

Women lead the porn revolution

- Tracy McVeigh, Observer, 6aug00, p12

.... More than 50% of websites in the booming online pornography business are now owned and operated by women - and the number is steadily rising.

The new 'scarlet-collar' worker is typically a 25- to 35-year-old former prostitute or lap dancer with young children and a desire to better her income ....

A psychologist has described the webmistress phenomenon as 'neo-feminism'. 'Women whose lives were once controlled by male pimps, porn film-makers and publishers are moving up the food chain,' said Dr Kimberlianne Podlas. .... Podlas talked to the owners of 71 heterosexual websites. She believes cyberporn may have to be re-evaluated by feminists.

'It may, in fact, combat negative imagery and increase women's power,' she said. .... '[we may] very soon see men barely represented in this industry....'

Another American born star, Annie Sprinkle, said she believed feminism was now pro-porn....

____________________________

A woman went to a solicitor and wanted a divorce. The lawyer got out his note pad and proceeded to ask some questions.

"Do you have any grounds?"

"Oh, yes,: she replied. "About three quarters of an acre."

The lawyer paused for a moment and then proceeded. "Do you have a grudge?"

"No," the woman said, "but we do have a lovely carport."

The lawyer paused again and then asked, "Does he beat you up?"

"No. I get up before he does every morning," she replied.

"Does he beat the children up?" asked the frustrated litigator.

"Only when there are no cartoons on tv." she yawned.

That was too much for the lawyer, so he blurted, "Lady, why do you want to divorce your husband?"

"It's because," she exclaimed, "that man can't carry on an intelligent conversation."

 

p2

 

Fathers, but no relations

What happens to men denied access to their children ....

- Sophie Petit-Zeman,

Times, 25july00

.... a study at London's Birkbeck College into relations between fathers and their children after separation.

....James Heyes, a volunteer with Depression Alliance. He has seen his son once since 1986, when his wife left, taking the 18-month-old son with her. .... sadness that his own parents were being denied a relationship with their grandson....

Many agree that one of the key issues is not only fathers' rights to see their children, but the rights of children to have access to both parents....

[From Ill Eagle 9, June00, p7; In any case, no national or international convention, law or statute or case law gives a child the right of access to its parent. I have been saying this for more than ten years, the reaction from all parties, including all fathers cut off from their children, being one of total indifference. It's a strange world, full of strange people. - Ed]

For information about the Birkbeck College survey, contact Helen Barrett, 020 7631 6296; h.barrett@bbk.ac.uk

Zero-tolerance for others

Anne Widdecombe, Shadow Home Secretary, a fierce advocate of zero-tolerance policing, caught driving at 50mph in a 40mph zone, received an automatic 40 fine and three penalty points. She did not criticise the real Home Secretary, who went more than twice as fast, but was not fined.

Better to be real, not just a shadow.

See Times, 5aug00

Mother killed son, 6

A mother who threw her six-year-old son from the 14th floor was jailed for five years. Campbell woke her two sons because of a fire. The boy was hear to say "Mum, don't do that" before he was thrown from the balcony. Campbell, who had alcohol and drugs problems, was said to be laughing See Times, 5aug00

Leave the Holocaust out of it

Homosexual activists who are demanding a social revolution run the risk of provoking a backlash

- Daniel Johnson, Telegraph, 12feb00, p24

Matthew Parris is one of the most influential and successful journalists in Britain today. .... Matthew is no longer interested in toleration for homosexuals.: he wants "homophobia" .... no longer to be tolerated. This is a crucial distinction. .... ever since, a century ago, support for homosexual reform began to spread through Europe and America, the purpose of this form of emancipation, like that of other minorities, has been seen as the achievement of toleration and self-acceptance. .... That aim was achieved, in most Western countries, buy the 1970s. Like feminism, however, the "gay rights" movement was radicalised.

Under the influence of Michael Foucault, a homosexual French philosopher, all sexuality has come to be seen in terms of power. He encouraged homosexual campaigners to demand not only the end of discriminatory laws, but a "new way of life", which would not merely release homosexuals from their "ghetto", but extend it to embrace the whole of society in a hedonistic utopia. The corollaries of this "social triumph of the sexual will" would be the relativisation of marriage, the instrumentalism of children, and the proscription of any politically incorrect morality (such as the Judaeo-Christian one) that discourages homosexuality.

.... If Peter Tatchell's Outrage! achieves its demands for the legalisation of homosexual intercourse in public places - lavatories, pubs, parks, saunas - then others, especially parents with children, will no longer dare to go there. Abolishing the offence of "outraging public decency", removing the last privileges of marriage: these are not requests for toleration, but demands for a social revolution for the benefit of perhaps two per cent of the population.

Surely Matthew Parris, who is so much subtler and shrewder than Peter Tatchell, can see where this is leading .... A period of silence is needed to avoid a backlash ....

Why should gays have the right to public sex?

- Melanie Phillips, Sunday Times, 30july00, sect. 1 p21

.... Section 28 remains on the statute book for the time being, thanks to the moral courage of Baroness Young and the other members of the House of Lords who braved personal vilification to defeat the govt's proposal for repeal.

The Home Office review of sexual; offences which was published last week .... [with] its proposal to do away with the offence of gross indecency means that homosexuals would be able to have sex in public lavatories. ....

.... Equality is one thing; but legitimising cruising and cottaging isn't equality. Heterosexuals just do not behave like this. The core premise of the Home Office review is false. But then the gay rights agenda, despite its rhetoric, isn't about equality at all. It's about browbeating society into declaring as equal a type of behaviour that is both different from heterosexual activity and profoundly antisocial. Ant it justifies this by the most weaselly arguments. .... The police, utterly cowed by the terror of being denounced for prejudice, have long abandoned our open spaces. .... All public sex is an affront to human dignity. .... those who endorse such behaviour are pushing something quite vile and pernicious, with damage that is potentially incalculable.

[Unfortunately, I think Melanie over-reacted to advance leaks on the report. I quote the Home Office report, Setting the Boundaries, july00, p144; "Proposed offence - Sexual activity in public: to undertake any sexual activity in a public place (including public toilets) which was likely to cause fear, alarm and distress to another. Proposed maximum penalty, 6 months. - Ed]

Comment

See when the ignorant Portsmouth demonstrators learn that 35% of paedophiles are homosexual! You ain't seen nothin yet. Wait for the marches on our rather gay Cabinet. Let us analyse the present PC madness. The Man on the Clapham Omnibus knows that to avoid the charge of bigotry he must adulate buggery and other perversions that his betters say he should welcome as a necessary feature of a more liberal society. On the other hand, his betters (excluding Tatchell) tell him that paedophilia is a perversion. If he is ever told that, although less than 2% of the male population are buggers [note 1], 35% of paedophiles are drawn from that 2% [note 2] - he will smell a rat. He is most afraid of his children being buggered.

The leaderless demonstrations in Portsmouth are a forerunner of the big backlash resulting from an Establishment which promotes contradictory, ludicrous and unsustainable propaganda. - Ed

Note 1. K Wellings et al., Sexual Behaviour in Britain, Penguin, 1994, p183.

Note 2. Dr T Stammers (quoting K Freund), FYC bulletin Autumn 97, from fameduc@apol.com

Speaking Invitation to Quaker Leaders

.... Try to understand new growing points in social and economic life. Seek to understand the causes of injustice, social unrest and fear.
Are you working to bring about a just and compassionate society which allows everyone to develop their capacities and fosters the desire to serve?
- Clause 1.02.33, Quaker Faith and Practice, 1999

.... Seek to discover the causes of social unrest, injustice and fear; try to discern the new growing-points in social and economic life .... - Clause 23.01, QFP99. This is the Book of Discipline for Quakers.

To Helen Rowlands, Clerk, Yearly Meeting; Roger Sturge, Clerk of Meeting for Sufferings, Friends House. [These are the most senior officials in Britain Yearly Meeting ].

ManKind would like to invite you to give a twenty minute lecture, followed by twenty minutes of questions, at the ManKind Conference at Friends House, 28oct00.

The purpose of your lecture will be to explain why the problem of family breakdown and the crisis for young men is outlawed from the Quaker Universe of Discourse.

For evil to triumph, it is only necessary for good men to do nothing

Ivor Catt. www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/te26quag.htm www.quaker.org.uk

 

p3

Editorial

 

Pity the Judge

A circuit judge telephoned me and proceeded to 'cry on my shoulder' for an hour.

After ten years in the Family Courts, he was brought close to a nervous breakdown. Then, three years ago, just in time, he transferred to the criminal courts.

The key items from his astonishing story were as follows;

The family courts should not be held in secret. They are beyond reform. The system is a shambles from top to bottom. The Court Welfare Officers (CWO) should be open to cross-examination. The CWOs are ignorant and do not investigate their cases. He got some CWOs removed, but the problem continued. You will not begin to instigate reform because Civil Servants will scupper your attempts, burying them in minutiae. [CAFCASS please note.] He agonised over the damage being inflicted on children by the family courts, which is obviously what brought him close to breakdown.

 

His story is remarkably similar to my analysis in my book The Hook and the Sting, on my website www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/

 

In particular, I urge you to address his assertion that the system is beyond reform, as I say in my book. Also, I believe that in its death throes, it will become more dangerous and destructive. Oliver Cyriax has caused a total revamp of the CWO 'system', via CAFCASS, but I think that does not go to the heart of a venal, corrupt, incompetent, deeply destructive and arrogant system.

 

My view is that the judge did not solve his problem, only ameliorate it, by jumping out of the Family Court frying pan into the Criminal Court fire. I am willing to concede that the criminal courts are less anti-social. However, in my view, the complete judicial system is beyond reform, not just the family courts. Twice, just before coming to power, I heard Vanity Blair say on TV; "The Criminal Justice system is on the point of collapse." - Ed

 

Labour always blamed crime on unemployment. So how come, with record numbers back in work, crime is soaring?

- Simon Heffer, Daily Mail, 14july00

You do not need a long memory to recall why, according to Labour politicians, crime rose so steeply under the last Conservative Govt.

It was, they said, because of high unemployment - and because that was the Govt's fault, they added, then so too was the 'resulting' rise in offending.

Many doubted this. In the depression of the Thirties, as Norman Tebbit so pungently reminded us [and as did Norman Dennis], people were far worse off - and yet crime was at a historic low. ....

The Prime Minister and his colleagues are proud of the million new jobs created since 1997. Unemployment has not been lower since the mid-seventies. Crime, however, continues to rise inexorably. ....

This is a shocking indictment of the Govt's failure to tackle a problem it claimed to have spotted so clearly in opposition. Our mounting prosperity finally proves that economic factors do not have the bearing on crime Labour politicians used to imagine....

Research into the underclass by the American sociologist Charles Murray and others agrees on one point in particular: that children growing up without a father or other long-term adult male role model in their home are more likely to under achieve at school, make bad relationships that harm their children and end up in jail. ....

The Govt, however, has chosen to do nothing to encourage the role of fathers, or to provide incentives for stable, married life.

The breakdown of families has contributed incalculably to the breakdown of a stable, ordered society. It is one of the greatest causes of crime, yet the Govt still encourages it.

.... It refuses to believe that children, and boys in particular, are likely to turn out better if they grow up with a father.

The impressive unemployment figures should prompt Labour politicians to .... ask: if it wasn't poverty that caused crime, what was it? .... only the Govt has the power to influence social policy in a way to do this.

It might mean encouraging marriage, discouraging single parenthood .... [we have] the highest crime figures on record and the highest prison population in our history. The waste, misery, suffering and victimisation they entail hardly bear thinking about. ....

SMFs are wealthier, but still breed more criminals

Try to put yourself into the mindset of the anti-family radfem. She, and poodle-men like Martin Bright, must believe that, since poverty (not fatherlessness) is the cause of crime, then criminals must come from the lowest tenth of society in terms of income.

We know that criminality concentrates in children from Single Mother Families (SMF).

"Compared to children living with both biological parents in similar socioeconomic circumstances .... Overall, children of never-married mothers have behavioural problems that score nearly three times higher than children raised in comparable intact families." - Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House Committee on Ways and Means .... June 29, 1999 www.house.gov/ways_means/humres/106cong/6-29-99/6-29rect.htm

Thus, according to radfems, SMFs must be poor, their poverty causing their children to go off the rails.

Not so. Reading the back cover of the 1995 edition of Patricia Morgan's book Farewell to the Family? from hwu@iea.org.uk; At any given level of earnings, the lone parent will derive a higher income than a married man with the same number of children. As a result of the Child Care Allowance introduced in October 1994, a lone parent with two small children can work for 20 hours at 4.00 per hour and end up with a net income of 163.99 after rent and tax. A married father of two small children working for 40 hours at the same hourly rate would take home 130.95.

Thus, SMFs are wealthier than the poorest married couple families.

Now let us look at the critical point in society, where criminality is supposed to be bred; the poorest tenth. Only a small proportion of children in the poorest tenth are in SMFs. In 1995/6, in the bottom 10% of the income distribution, 2 times as many individuals (42%) were in two parent families compared with those in SMFs (17%). (Source: Dept. of Social Security, Households Below Average Income 1979-1995/6.)

Thus, in the face of economic pressure on all those poor married couples with children to produce criminal and otherwise antisocial children, they fail to do so. These criminals come from the more wealthy ranks of SMF households.

One source says that eight out of every nine rapists comes from a SMF.

I would emphasise that although the pool of the very poor contains only 17% of individuals from SMFs, they breed far more criminals and rapists than they should statistically. Or else, wealthy SMFs breed criminals. We have to conclude that father absence is much more destructive than we would have imagined.

ManKind and Ill Eagle can be reached at;

(1). ManKind, Suite 367, 2 Lansdowne Row, London W1X 8HL.

(0207 413 9176

(2) www.mankind.org.uk

www.ukmm.org.uk

(3) The Editor, Ill Eagle, Ivor Catt,

121 Westfields, St. Albans AL3 4JR, England. ( 01727 864257

 

p4

Charles Hanson, wife murderer.

From Charles Hanson

HM Prison, Kingston, Milton Rd.,

Portsmouth PO3 6AS 22june00

Dear Mr. Catt, I have acquired the 'Taking Stock' booklet by Stanko and the Home Office Research Study No. 191 on Domestic Violence. It really does stretch the imagination that the general public is misled by the women M.P.s who are now campaigning to prevent (so-called) violent husbands/ partners from having contact with their children. I am a life sentence prisoner convicted of domestic murder. I was exhausted at the time trying to get help, whereas my wife made all kinds of weird and wonderful allegations against me including one that I had made a threat to kill her. I was charged, held in custody and eventually acquitted unanimously by a jury.

It didn't stop there. The aggravations went on even after we divorced. In the end I stabbed her to death. I had reached the end of my tether. No one, even the police, would listen to me; I couldn't afford solicitors' fees to stop her, yet she continued to make allegations and WAS listened to, especially by social workers.

This prison, the only all lifer prison in Europe, contains mostly domestic murderers like myself. There is a clear history of frustration, anger, confusion and injustice at the way some of us were demonised by social workers, divorce courts, at child custody - access hearings, how some of us lost everything including our self esteem before we committed the ultimate act.

I have recently come across a reference book on psychology written by a Canadian woman psychologist and she referred to a Canadian Government hearing which sought to criminalise those instances where women in child custody/access hearings make bogus allegations of violence and abuse. It is estimated that about 40% of claims are bogus. The details are:- 1998 Joint Committee of the Senate and Parliament; 'For the Sake of the Children'; Report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access; December 1998; Canadian Publication Services Ottawa. I have written to the Canadian Embassy for details on how to acquire the report.

I believe that this topic is deserving of wider coverage within the context of domestic violence, for it is here that so many men become victims not only of the wife/ex-wife/partner but [also] of the system that generates inequality. Perhaps you could let me know what you think. Yours sincerely, Charles Hanson.

24july00. Kingston Prison (as before) Dear Ivor, Thank you for your recent letter ....

Kingston Prison was always a domestic lifers prison although a few non-domestic lifers are now creeping in. We domestics are never viewed very favourably by the politically correct psychologists, probation officers etc.

We are expected to undergo Offending Behaviour courses and there are specific ones for us, - Relationships, Anger Management, Spouse Homicide, Thinking Skills to name a few.

It matters not that my son from an earlier marriage was having a sexual relationship with my wife, having lost control and stabbed her I am treated like I should have just accepted it and entered therapy implying that there was something wrong with me to have objected, I am now deemed a danger to women by politically correct women probation officers and their ilk. The fact that I had been married 3 times suggests that there is something wrong with me. Who but these liberals made divorce so easy? Who but these want to see the breakdown of family and traditional values and then condemn those like me for being forced to go along with them?

Of course, I regret taking the life of the woman I loved. I can never forget it, and I will be haunted by it for the rest of my life. Life for me and for her parents will never be the same, and I don't need reminders of it. However, the politically correct will not let me forget it. I have to attend dubious courses, where I have serial bereavements.

I do not have the defences usually and only available to women; for example, PMT, abuse, provocation, the effects of HRT and Prozac. I am expected to