The Editor,

The Friend, Drayton House,

30 Gordon St., London WC1H 0BQ

Dear Deborah Padfield,

I appreciate that a Quaker should attempt to be positive, and to heal wounds. However, from my point of view that is very difficult. I am by now deeply cynical about the construction which will (rather than might) be put on any action by me. The problems have gone on and festered for a very long time.

If you are familiar with my analysis, communicated at length to you over a long period of time, and have even partial agreement with me as to the various aspects of the problems within the Society of Friends, then where is the evidence? I can list numerous distinct subjects where the evidence of what has been published in THE FRIEND (and all other Quaker journals) screams out loud and clear; that the problems and contrary views do not exist, or exist only among bigots.

Where is the documentary evidence of recognition that there is a counter-argument to the thesis which is becoming dogma, that science is in the process of uniting with religion?

Have you received no copy on AIDS which attempted to shift the Society of Friends away from the Establishment Party Line ( = a Quaker should wear a condom every day and two on Sundays, and get everyone to spend as much as possible on prescribed drugs, and adulate homosexual practices), which Establishment line perfectly serves the interests of Burroughs Wellcome next door to Friends House? Certainly, I sent you none, being convinced before the event that you would maintain a PC position on AIDS, and reject anything from me or anyone else which did not aid the profits of Wellcome and/or the celebration of homosexual practices. I am convinced that you hold to the formula that discussion of homosexual lifestyle is prima facie evidence of homophobia, which it is your duty to suppress. In this one, I win, because AIDS will not break out into the community at large. However, rather than win in an unrecorded local skirmish, I would dearly have loved to be able to save lives through more open communication. It was so important to inform on the extremely toxic nature of AZT as soon as possible, to limit the deaths from AZT. There are other items of information which, if THE FRIEND were known to be co-operative, could cause THE FRIEND to help to save lives.

Have you received no copy which tried to put the argument in favour of respect for heterosexual men and for family? Was there no acceptable copy received by you which tried to counter the man-bashing and family-bashing by Janzen and others, which you published? Do you know that every time the idea of violent or sexually molesting or raping men is promoted in THE FRIEND, more children lose all contact with their innocent fathers? Did you allow the image of fathers to be attacked so persistently because you received no counter-arguing copy, that a father was a good thing for his children? Certainly I sent you no copy, being convinced that you had amply demonstrated (through Janzen and your leader about the threat posed by men) that your heart was hardened against children having access to their fathers. I note in particular that when I pointed out to you (enclosed collage dated 9/12feb95) that the natural antidote to the vicious Janzen (encl., THE FRIEND 3dec93) propaganda was Patricia Morgan's scholarly writing, you made no response. You could have commissioned her to answer Janzen. Did you try to? I here again quote from the back cover of Patricia Morgan's book, "Farewell to the Family?"; - "Large numbers of unattached and predatory males who have never taken on the responsibilities of family life, or who have been ejected from families, now meet the classic conditions for the creation of a 'warrior class'." I cannot imagine something more mainstream Quaker business, yet you presumably did nothing. Even if Morgan is wrong, since she is heavily published in the broadsheets, she should have been addressed by the Editor of THE FRIEND.

The book review on p23 (encl.) of New Humanist (issue previous to May95) demonstrates that man-bashing is playing with fire. I quote; ".... it is unthinkingly assumed that allowing any child to be in the unsupervised presence of a male may expose it to the danger of sexual abuse, while any woman leaving her home is likely to be assaulted in the street." The overall thrust of THE FRIEND while in your care strongly asserts that that is Quaker belief. Have you made any attempt to redress this? Where is the evidence?

If you have merely drifted into the role of promoting Right Thinking, and now really want to get things right, then we have a lot of talking to do. However, you would have to demonstrate that the talking will not be around the idea that I have browbeaten you into accepting copy from me, because I am not willing to co-operate on those terms.

Yours sincerely,

Ivor Catt Member, St. Albans PM

cc Patricia Morgan, author "Farewell the Family?",

c/o IEA Health and Welfare Unit,

2 Lord North St.,