Ill Eagle 1999

All past years of Ill Eagle are combined at www.ivorcatt.com/98.htm

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

[Ill Eagle 2001 issues are at www.ivorcatt.com/01.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 10^th) 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 movement’s 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 we’re making great strides."

Baskerville, of Howard University, says the movement is on two tracks: one, advocating men’s 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, it’s an epidemic," Baskerville declares. "I think it is more than just gender bias. I think it’s 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 stolen…by 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 Virginia’s 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 speaker’s circuit these days) believes the militant wing of the fatherhood movement will soon upstage the self-improvement wing.

"I think I’ve struck a chord," Baskerville said, "and I think you have a new generation of fathers who are outraged at the way we’re 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 child’s best interest. Men’s 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 - Dubé'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-Dubé is a well-known feminist judge. The profound reaction of the legal community, lining up on Judge L'Heureux-Dubé'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-Dubé, have dominated news reports this week. Shortly after his first letter, Mr. Justice McClung apologized profoundly and generously to Madame Justice L'Heureux-Dubé 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-Dubé'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-Dubé 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. ... Can’t 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 Marriott’s 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 Û¥-/@ -€Ç

~‰·âjâj.....

.àî=Œ6ztztztztfàuþ[1]ztÞxX6y(^y^y^y^y^y^y^y^y[1]`y`y`y`y`y`y‑±}4å}%~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 ½ 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, NottinghamÛ¥-/@ -€Ç

~‰·âjâj.....

.àî=Œ6ztztztztfàuþ[1]ztÞxX6y(^y^y^y^y^y^y^y^y[1]`y`y`y`y`y`y‑±}4å}%~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 CÛ¥-/@ -€Ç

~‰·âjâj.....

.àî=Œ6ztztztztfàuþ[1]ztÞxX6y(^y^y^y^y^y^y^y^y[1]`y`y`y`y`y`y‑±}4å}%~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 benefÛ¥-/@ -€Ç

~‰·âjâj.....

.àî=Œ6ztztztztfàuþ[1]ztÞxX6y(^y^y^y^y^y^y^y^y[1]`y`y`y`y`y`y‑±}4å}%~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]