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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Performance 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

".... 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.

________

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.

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

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/

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.

"The Beak" drawn by James Wood.

U-Write ~~ Newsfrom the Regions.

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'.

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

"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.

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."

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.

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.

WASHINGTON DC, DC

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.

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.

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

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

- 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.

See also next article.

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.

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.

- 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.

"....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. ....'"

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.

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.

- 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.

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.

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.

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,

(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

"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.

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.

"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;

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

".... 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.

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.

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;

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.

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

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

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

"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.

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 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?"

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

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".

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,

"'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.

- 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

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.

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,

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.

- 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 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.

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.

[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.

"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

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.

pub. Virago 1996

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

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.

pub. Virago 1996

Respect! A voice! Recognition! Position!

- F.A., p161

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.

- 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. ...."

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

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."

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

- 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

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

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]

"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 (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)

Date: 19 September 1999 09:01

Hi, I am an America