So what do you expect if you have something called an ‘Equality Minister’? She will impose gross injustice wherever she can in the interests of a coercive and preposterous ideology. Harriet Harman’s proposal that companies should positively discriminate in favour of women job candidates (ie discriminate against men) is yet another example of the way in which feminism got hijacked and turned from a campaign for fairness for women into an onslaught against men. Her proposal is not only totally unfair — job candidates should be appointed on grounds of merit, not chromosomes – but is based on the false premise that the gender pay gap proves that women are the victims of systematic discrimination in the workplace.

But this is simply untrue. Granted that there are indeed specific instances of discrimination against women, the generalised claim is false because it ignores the differences in behaviour between women and men at work. As academics such as Professor Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics have long argued, such iconic feminist causes as the ‘glass ceiling’ and the ‘gender pay gap’ are in very large measure the outcome of the choices made by women themselves.

Of course there are exceptions, but in general women have very different expectations from men about work. That’s because many women have another set of competing priorities – child rearing. As a result, they tend to want to work part-time. Even those who work full-time tend not to put in the same hours of overtime and so forth that men do because they are less interested in getting to the top of their profession — mainly because unlike men they don’t usually define themselves through work and have less interest in power and status and all those guy things. All these factors mean that even if they are doing the same jobs as men they are not doing it in the same way. So why should they expect to be paid the same?

In fact, women are not exactly going to the barricades over this issue. It’s only Harriet Harperson and the sisterhood who are agitating about this because it’s all part of their anti-man agenda. It’s an economic variation on what they did to rape law, whereby they forced through changes which loaded the legal dice against male defendants in rape cases because the conviction rate in such cases was said to be ‘too low’. But that presupposes that the men in such cases are all guilty and their female accusers never tell a lie – two propositions which have been proved over and over again to be wrong, quite apart from ditching the presumption of innocence which helps define a free society. Nevertheless the law was changed and pressure continues to be applied to make even more changes to get the rape conviction rate up. Because whether in the workplace or the bedroom, as we know, all men are guilty of the oppression of women.

It is a great mistake to write off Harriet Harman, as many do, on grounds of demonstrable stupidity. She is one of this administration’s great survivors. One of the reasons she has survived has been her ruthless use of the woman card against men who haven’t got the cojones to stand up against this gender bullying. Let’s hope that this time, with the business world up in arms, her latest wheeze is dismissed with the contumely it deserves.

This morning we see in the press yet one more plank in the Government’s campaign to vilify and demoralise boys. Psychologist Linda Papadopolous published her report on the sexualisation of youngsters. Commissioned by the Home office, the report finds what everyone already knows, that children are exposed to inappropriate sexual images. The sub-text to the report, however, is that girls are victims of sexual abuse and boys are to blame.

The facts of domestic abuse are studiously ignored as this band-wagon rolls on. The British Crime survey shows that young men, rather than young women, are the group most likely to experience domestic abuse. The recent NSPCC survey, published as part of this same campaign, concluded that while 25% of girls experienced violence in relationships, so did 18% of boys.

While the evidence points to domestic violence and domestic abuse being something which impacts on boys and girls in approximately equal numbers, all of the attention is given to girls as victims and boys as abusers. This is not true academic reporting, and the likes of NSPCC and Linda Papadopolous should be ashamed of their part in it. The fact that they were paid out of a programme called “violence against women and girls” gives a clue to the findings they were expected to come up with, and they dutifully wrote what the pay-master wanted. They would, after all, hope to get more work from this source, wouldn’t they?

The simple fact is that this campaign is nothing more than propapaganda, driven by a feminist core within Government, and it is crushing and oppressing the spirit of our young men and boys.

· African Caribbean men and women (for TV documentary)
· Young fathers, young mothers & midwives (for research project)
· Professionals working with young dads (research project)
· Men who have used psychological (counseling) services (research project)
· Men about to have their second child (research project)

BBC4 (TV): African Caribbean men and women

Testimony Films have already interviewed a number of fantastic dads who contacted them after our last e-shot to you about these TV documentaries. Now Testimony are looking for two final interviewees:
• African Caribbean men and women born mid-late 1940s and raised in the UK, who as teenagers rebelled against their (African Caribbean) father and his traditional views. What were the consequences? What was your relationship like with your father then – and what are your thoughts now?
• Black men who came to Britain in the late 1940s/50s and married white women. What were yours and your wife’s parents’ views on your marriage? Did they disapprove? If so how did you win them over? And what was it like being a father to mixed-heritage children in the 1950s?

Expenses plus participation fee (£100) are paid. Contact: Pete Vance or Lizi Cosslett or both on 0117 925 8589. Or write to Testimony Films, 12 Great George Street, Bristol BS1 5RH.

Brook/Royal College of Midwives:

The limited literature suggests that young fathers are often excluded from ante-natal and post-natal care by the professionals involved. Brook (in partnership with the Royal College of Midwives) is conducting a research project to identify what really goes on between midwives and young fathers, in order to inform the production of new training materials and information sheets. The researchers are looking to interview the following:

• Young men (21 years and under) who have become fathers in the last year
• Young couples who have become parents in the last year (young fathers 21 years and under);
• Specialist midwives who work only with young parents
• Generic midwives who see young parents as part of their daily work

All interviews (by phone or in person) will last about an hour and will be recorded. Complete confidentiality is guaranteed, with the usual exceptions of information that raises concerns about safety. To register interest in taking part, please contact Trefor Lloyd, tel: 0207 732 9409 / 0778 878 1759.

University of London: Professionals working with young dads

The Thomas Coram Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London wants to find out about what fatherhood means to young men, what factors help and hinder their involvement in bringing up their children, and how services might better support them. Three study sites across England will be chosen in liaison with practitioners who have provided services to young fathers (and fathers to be), to identify 54 young men in total. The researchers want to interview the young men, a ‘significant other’ (who has supported them in their fathering role) nominated by each young man; and key professionals. (Confidential) interviews will last about an hour.

If you think your site could be one of the three chosen, contact Elaine Chase or Ian Warwick at the Thomas Coram Research Unit.

City University (London): Men who have used psychological (counselling) services

A chartered psychologist/PhD student is exploring men’s experiences of therapeutic psychological interventions within the NHS, the voluntary sector and private practice (including business and sports coaching) in order to better understand how future services may be adapted to meet men’s needs. The first phase of the project requires male participants (aged 18+) to take part in individual 40 minute confidential face to face interviews. For ethical reasons, the participants need to be recruited through a healthcare professional, who would have to be willing to refer them. Formal request and information letters are available. Contact Andrew White.

University of Surrey: Men about to have their second child

A psychology student is carrying out a study into identity change in fathers after having their second child. She is looking for fathers whose partners will be around 4/5 months pregnant with their second child in March 2010. Fathers must be co-habiting with their partner in the UK with a gap of less than 5 years between their two children. You would need to be available for two telephone conversations, one in March/April and the second in October/November 2010. Contact Jessica on: 0785 441 1781/0148 352 7777 or by either of her two email addresses: jl00068@surrey.ac.uk or jessica@maternityunlimited.co.uk.

The case-law governing “leave to remove” as it is called is a 2001 case, Payne v Payne. Here is the key principle which it established:

“refusing the primary carer’s reasonable proposals for the relocation of her family life is likely to impact detrimentally on the welfare of her dependent children. Therefore her application to relocate will be granted unless the court concludes that it is incompatible with the welfare of the children.”

Intentionally or not, this case created a default position that relocation applications should be granted, unless the non-resident parent can persuade the court otherwise.

However, research has shown the damage which can be inflicted on children who are removed to another country, not only away from the other parent, but from their extended family and familiar surroundings at a time of turmoil following parental separation, and in the last week, Lord Justice Wall invited legal challenges to the received wisdom of favouring the relocating parent:

“There has been considerable criticism of Payne v Payne in certain quarters, and there is a perfectly respectable argument for the proposition that it places too great an emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the relocating parent, and ignores or relegates the harm done of children by a permanent breach of the relationship which children have with the left behind parent.”

This may the best news in a decade on this subject.

This disturbing consequence of parental alienation has come to light in recent research by the Australian Institute of Criminology.

The Institute found that “Almost three in every four offenders had either no contact or minimal contact with at least one biological parent” (Australian Institute of Criminology Intrafamilial adolescent Sex Offenders: Psychological Profile and Treatment, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, no. 375, June 2009. p.2).

It has remained fixed at £9.24 an hour for 15 years and has not increased with inflation. Now, the Jackson Review of Costs in Civil Proceedings has recommended that the rate should increase to £20 per hour.

The final report was published by the Ministry of Justice on 15th january 2010. It runs to some 600 pages, but if you want to read just the 3-page section on Litigants in person, it starts at p 142.

The Scottish Crime and Justice Survey 2008-09 published its results on 15th December 2009. Scotland’s chief statistician reveals that in the last 12 months as many men as women were victims of partner abuse, and perpetrators of abuse were also in almost equal proportions (48% men, 45% women).

The results of this survey are irrefutable. With a sample size of 16,000, this is the largest study of its kind ever conducted in Scotland, and there is another key reason why its results are so reliable: it investigated more deeply than is normally the case. As Scottish journalist, John Forsyth put it:

“The research has to be commended for its rigour. When asked whether they had been subject to domestic abuse since the age of 16, only 3% of men and 14% of women said yes. However, when asked to report specific conduct by a partner that falls within the definition of partner abuse, the number for men rose 5 times to 15% and for women by half to 20.9%. This is hardly surprising given the tens of millions that has been spent by successive Scottish administrations on campaigns, support services and organisations targeted at women, encouraging them to recognise and report domestic abuse. In the same period precisely nothing has been spent on efforts to encourage men to recognise and report domestic abuse.”

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
16,000 interviewees were asked about their experience of physical or psychological partner abuse both since the age of 16 and within the preceding 12 months. The findings included:

• 18% of adults who had had at least one partner since the age of 16 reported having experienced at least one form of partner abuse. The figure for women was 20.9% and for men 15.3%.

• However, in the most recent 12 months the figure for both men and women was 5%.

• The data for the last 12 months showed that young men aged 16-24 experienced physical and/or psychological abuse more often than young women and more often than any other demographic group.

• For persons experiencing partner abuse in the last 12 months, 48% of the perpetrators were male and 45% were female.

• Police came to know about 35% of incidents of partner abuse reported by women in the preceding 12 months but only 8% of incidents in which a man was on the receiving end. 40% of men told no-one compared to 21% of women.

Our thanks to Australian Senior Researcher, Greg Andreson, for bringing this to our attention.

The personalities involved seemed to have a really good grip on the problems with our current system. I particularly remember Theresa May, Tim Loughton and Dominic Grieve all appeared to understand the issues.

As a previous long-term Labour voter I was fully prepared to vote Conservative for the first time ever. This wasn’t even so much to do with the policies they were promoting, but simply with the fact that their heads and hearts seemed to be in the right place and they came across as being very determined to see that something was going to be done on their watch.

Of course, Labour won another term at the last election so we have had another five years of spin, dishonesty and policy making ruled by political correctness rather than facts or evidence-based analysis.

Like many people in the equal parenting movement, I had been hoping that the Tories would re-institute their previous sensible (and really quite radical) line on family law issues for this general election.

Sadly, I think we are going to be disappointed again. I get the feeling that the political apparatchik in the party have declared family law to be a hot potato they dare not touch for fear of threatening the women’s vote. On the contrary, David Cameron seems interested only in finding opportunities to promote women as victims where ever he can. They seem terrified of tackling any issue which might be portrayed as being negatively disposed towards women in any way whatsoever.

The worse part is that they are probably right!

What a scrunched-up, politically correct and un-brave society we have become. No wonder this country is in such a mess, with the two main parties being so terrified of being different from each other that all they are prepared to think about is how to appeal to – and swing voting patterns – in marginal seats.

Even so, I must admit the Tories still offer the only [small] hope of ridding us of this Labour government under whom – I’m convinced – there will be absolutely no changes for the better in family law now or in the future.

A British Airways Policy which presupposes that only men are paedophiles. Don’t they read the papers?

An earlier post on this site reported I had won a Judicial Review of the Magistrate’s decision to refuse to issue a summons. The Magistrate’s decision was quashed and the matter was referred back to the Magistrates for reconsideration.

The 15th January hearing was to reconsider it, and unfortunately it was again refused, this time for a different reason.

I take a number of positives from it, however. At this hearing the court did not dispute that I had a right to bring a private prosecution without first complaining to the Police and, more importantly, the court accepted that if my ex-wife damaged my bonds with my children that could constitute criminal harassment. The court held that in my case, the evidential base for the alleged harassment was not sufficiently strong, and it was dismissed for that reason.

I am not too disappointed. It has not been a wasted exercise. It has opened the door for others to use this route.

It means that anyone who can provide firm evidence, to a criminal standard, of incidents which have damaged your bonds with your children, harassment law is a possible route to seek redress, and I would be happy to assist anyone who wants to try it.

There must be at least 2 incidents during a 3 month window in the preceding 6 months. The incidents don’t have to be breach of a contact order. They could be alienating you from your children, or wilfully using the power of the residence order to belittle and control you. Remember, in criminal proceedings, it is no longer the so-called welfare of the child principal which trumps everything, and allows the other parent to destroy you with impunity. This is criminal law, outside of the Children Act, and different rules apply.

You have to be able to prove 2 things to the highest standard of proof, i.e. beyond reasonable doubt:
1/ that the other parent did these acts which you allege, and
2/ that he/she did them knowing that they would cause you distress.

If this applies to you, get in touch.

Ray