Ill Eagle 7, jan/feb00

ISSN 1466-9005


The Poodle-Man Archetype

"Learning to relate to father

"Bitter experiences as a child and a parent have taught Ed Straw, brother of the home secretary, how to build closer families.

"My father left home as the result of a court order when I was eight years old. I didn't see him again for 35 years. .... After he left, I behaved as though I didn't have a father. ....

"There were five children - Jack, Sue, me, Willie, Helen. My mum was a teacher and we lived in a council maisonette in Loughton, Essex. .... at that time there was a huge social stigma about not being a perfect nuclear family. .... Financially, things were tight, and periodically we ran out of money and went hungry. ....

"Jack was the eldest, and 10 when my father left. Almost immediately, he went away to boarding school. Willie, who is younger than me, and I also won state scholarships to this school. The education was good, but it specialised in turning out emotional cripples.

"I met my first wife at Manchester University; I was 23 when we got married. In those days that wasn't thought young, but actually I was very immature. I got a job, and became Mr Responsibility. We had three children, Dan, Adam, and Chloe, who are now 24, 22 and 18. I wanted the security of marriage, but I hadn't a clue how to run a long-term relationship.

"I craved intimacy, but I didn't know how to handle intimate relationships. ... I had to learn how to enjoy and to "do" intimate relationships. .... I had to learn .... to talk about apparent trivia. .... This comes naturally for most women, but I had to learn to talk trivia in male relationships with my sons, and my brothers.

".... In the late 1980s, I was facing a merger at work, amid a recession. I felt as though I was falling apart. I was 40, and having a mid-life crisis. My marriage broke up, I left home, and eventually I went to see a psychotherapist. ....

"He helped me with some of the male role model and fathering I hadn't had, to build a long-term resilience to run a long-term relationship, ....

"Of course, I have regrets about my first children. I had done what my father had done. I had walked out and left them. I felt a terrible loss and a huge sense of guilt and failure. ....

"I got [re]married shortly after my reunion with my father, and this re-relating in the family encouraged me to become chairman of Relate. ....

"Ed Straw is a government adviser on the family. He is a contributor to Family Business, published by Demos tomorrow. He was talking to Ann McFerran." Sunday Times, 6feb00, sect5 p8

The implications of this article are very serious. Please would readers send in their comments. - Ed

Radfem propaganda paid for by you

Amnesty announced by ManKind


Second copy sent to my MP Pollard and to Moxon, Home Office, 1feb00.

To Kerry Pollard MP

From Ivor Catt

Re your letter to me dated 18nov99 [see my website], please send me information as to the "staged disciplinary process" mentioned therein.

Our plan is to announce that after an amnesty to 1july00, civil servants who are associated with research reports which have been twisted to a political agenda, and research figures falsified, after 1july00, will be dismissed. That will give enough time for the introduction of a new era of honest research reporting by civil servants in government departments. We need to have full knowledge of your "staged disciplinary process" well before that date.

The initial announcement is by way of putting this document onto my website today. It will also be announced in the next issue of Ill Eagle, which I edit.

Yours sincerely,

Ivor Catt

cc Betty Moxon, Home Office

The Gvardian and Equal Opportvnities

The Gvardian should be congratulated for its commitment to Equal Opportvnities. However, their reforms may be incomplete.

I will give a personal cheque for £5 to the first reader who spots a male heterosexual journalist working for The Gvardian. (No formal proof required.) I plan to Name and Shame the deviant in a future edition of Ill Eagle. - Ed

Animal Farm

p7, The Sun, 28jan00

Sent in by Bill Tomlinson

"School mum jailed for sex with pupils.

".... Judge Hale said, 'If you had been a man acting in the same way toward young girls, the sentence would have been much greater."

"Love you to death

by Adam Craig,

Sunday Times, p5-11, 6feb00

"When I fell in love with my wife I told her that if she were ever unfaithful to me I'd whack her with a Chinese meat cleaver. She thought I was joking. I opened a drawer and showed it to her.

"'I [know of] 21 poisonous plants,' I added ominously, 'most of which are extremely difficult to detect.'

"Reader, she married me, and the meat cleaver has lain rusting in a drawer for the past 16 years."

[continued at end of page 2

Sexism in "Science"

"A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual coercion" by Thornhill and Palmer

MIT has accelerated its publication schedule because of strong media interest.

Note the disturbing attempt of the New York Academy of Science to profit from "sexism in science", so "substantiate" the notion that men are born rapists.

For more information see

"Bankrolling Gay Proselytism

The case for extending Section 28"

For the best report on this subject, 'phone 0191 281 5664 for their £2.50 post free, 44pp booklet with the above title.

Named and shamed

Leader, Daily Mail, 8feb00

"[We welcome] the decision of the judge at Newcastle Crown Court to reveal the identity of a woman who falsely accused a male colleague of rape

.... charges .... for three years have blighted the life and career of Martin Garfoot and his family. Yet this is but the latest in a succession of .... such accusations .... against innocent men. .... The award of £400,000 damages to Mr Garfoot will be little comfort to him ...."



BBC2 7.30pm 24jan00

George McAulay is Scottish Chairman of the UK Men's Movement and this week on Counterblast he's a man with a mission. Tired of being insulted and vilified for being male by feminist writers in the media, George says it's time for men to fight back.

"I hate feminists because they're phoneys, they're liars," George explains. "Feminism is not based on the notion of equality for women, it's based on a hatred of men and a hatred of their family. In a sane and well ordered world men and women between themselves resolve what is right and proper in their relations but feminism like Marxism seeks to impose a standard of behaviour on everyone."

According to George, shocking the public with his own extreme views is the only real way of raising an awareness of the problem. Feminists who engage in male bashing are allowed to get away with it because society is running scared. As a result, George has developed some strong opinions of his own and there are no holds barred. George sees a breakdown in society thanks to the hateful views of feminists like Valerie Solanas whose ideas are still being taught in Women's Studies at Universities throughout Britain.

"We allow these media witches to put their stuff in our papers day in, day out and you people buy it," he says. "I make people challenge the cosy assumptions that they're comfortable with."

George says while most people today are afraid to speak out against these scathing attacks on men because they worry about the disapproval of others or fear their career will suffer, he's ready to champion what's right in the battle of the sexes.

"It's this spiritual ability to struggle and face the unpalatable and the unacceptable within yourself which I think is men's strength, women's vanity is overwhelming. There's very few women who manage to go beyond the material in life and I think that women's vanity and materialism in modern society has become untempered."

George McAulay has been campaigning on pro-family issues and issues that affect men for the past eight years. He says the hate propaganda against men spread by feminists working in the media and advertising industry is sheer exploitation and an abuse of privilege. George believes that the slander and lies they propagate are causing the breakdown of the family, community and the traditional roles of men and women.

"When I say that a man should be the head of the family, in no way does it mean that women are demeaned or second class citizens or reduced to the trivial. They realise that man has a certain strength and consistency of emotion that makes him better suited for steering the ship of the family."

American anti-feminist author Rich Zubaty joins George to talk about the sort of privileges women enjoy today as they head into positions of power in society.

"Men have to register for military service in the States, women do not. I don't know how women can become congressmen and senators and CEOs of huge corporations and they're never required to somehow protect or defend the form of government that allows them these high privileges," Rich explains. "If we created a special class of men who were born into a privilege whereby they never had to fight in war, they were never expected to do hard physical labour, we would consider these men aristocrats and throwbacks to a couple of centuries ago. But the fact that women can be born into a class where they never have to fight in a war, never are expected to do physical labour is a type of aristocracy."

Rich believes female chauvinism is based entirely on the belief that men are the oppressors of women. He says this is not true today nor has it ever been the case despite the fact that the entire feminist agenda is built upon the notion. "Men have always been the ones to fight the wars, to mine the minerals, to drill the oil, to bring comfort and security into the lives of women.

Nineteen out of twenty people who die on the job are men. If nineteen out of twenty people who died on the job were women we'd have a federal investigation into this tragedy."

George's TV programme was very good. Write to me asking about availablity of a videotape. - Ed

Cannabis and Tobacco

".... They say .... that cannabis isn't addictive .... Yet it is addictive; moreover, cannabis is smoked with tobacco, is itself carcinogenic and, used with tobacco, causes cancer much faster than tobacco alone. ....

"Cannabis hits the immune system .... one joint every other day causes permanent brain damage .... cannabis stays in the blood for weeks ...."

- Melanie Phillips,

Sunday Times, 9jan00, p1 - 17

Please would a reader enlighten other Ill Eagle readers? Where is the scholarly information on whether tobacco and cannabis multiply, rather than add, their cancer-causing effects? Also, the other assertions. - Ed

Spain leaves Britain with £15m legal bill

by David Graves,

Telegraph, 17jan00, p9

".... £15million and could rise higher....

".... bill for the nine-strong team of solicitors and barristers [fighting extradition] has been estimated at up to £12,000 per day. ...."

As Irvine is reported to have said recently, legal costs are spiralling out of control. Journalists are incapable of looking rationally at a bunch of rogues, lawyers and judges (who, even in the Appeal Court, often turn out to be barristers serving as judges part time; roles could be reversed a week later!) are ripping off the country by grabbing millions of pounds in return for thinking about whether one old man should be given to Spain. I have found that the top judges are ignorant and sluggish of intellect, certainly compared with Dr. Michael Pelling, whom they struggle to ban from our courts. Apart from being venal, it does cost a lot of time (and therefore money) for these fellows to struggle through legal issues which contain some difficulty. We should be interested in this, because they fool about in the same way in the Family Courts. - Ed.

"Irvine 'asked if Maxwell inquiry should be cut'

by Rachel Sylvester,

Telegraph, 17jan00, p10

"Lord Irvine .... was concerned that millions of pounds of taxpayers' money were being poured into the inquiry with no sign of an imminent outcome. ....

"The Maxwell investigation .... included £1,677,000 in legal inspectors' fees and £7,097,000 in accountant inspectors' fees..... now risen to £10 million .... cost to the taxpayer ...."

"Flood of runaway children shatters poor homes myth

- Jenny Jarvie, Telegraph, 11nov99

"Still Running, [from 0171 8414400, £12,] the most important extensive inquiry into runaways ever published, found that more than 100,000 children a year in Britain spent a night or more away from home or care without permission. ....cuts across class boundaries ....

"More than 20% .... living in step-families had run away once, compared with 13% in lone parent families and 7% of those living with their natural parents. .... report .... surveyed 13,000 children ...."

[Shared parenting is missing. Jenny does not distinguish between single father and single mother families, but we know from other research that outcome from single father is much better than that for single mother. - Ed]

"Love you to death

[continued from page 1

".... I once sat on a jury in which we were asked to consider whether a jilted man had poured paint over his girlfriend's car. Not one of the male members of the jury could bring themselves to vote guilty .... he had already brought retribution so thoroughly upon himself. In court he was a pathetic wreck. ...."

[I have reversed Male and Female in the article, actually written by Amanda Craig. Violence and jury misconduct by women, in the original article, was PC. Comments please. - Ed]



The crisis in the family is many-faceted. I myself have been learning about it for more than ten years. Already, five years ago, I had written my book The Hook and the Sting, about the collapse of the legal system, which is available on my website,

I remember being invited to a secret day-long combined meeting of members of the Vexatious Litigants Society and the Litigants in Person Society at a secret address some five years ago. RG, one of the most expert in family law, who helped me most with my book by pointing out Lord Denning's role in destroying our legal system by introducing uncertainty, (see Portia's Speech,) sat nonplussed as court junkies traded specialist knowledge about arcane details of English law and judicial misconduct. He knew that judges, particularly judges in our secret courts, would ignore legal niceties which were not to their liking. The junkies thought they had judges on the run. However, it was obvious that if a litigant became too skilled, judges would say "It's my game, and I'm not playing with you any more." (This had happened to a third of those present.) The skilled court junkie would be forthwith banned from any civil or criminal court for ever. One of the junkies present had been banned ten minutes after winning ten million pounds in damages, from a company in which perhaps the judge held a large holding in shares, or in which his brother was Chief Executive. He never collected his ten million. Some junkies were even discussing the legal niceties of Vexatious Litigant legislation, and how it was getting more draconian!

The reason why there are less vexatious litigants, banned forever from our decaying courts, than one would expect, is that judges have many more tricks up their sleeves, for instance Mary Bell, to get rid of those who threaten to force judges to obey and enforce the law and to keep to their own court procedures, laid down in the rule book.

This brings me to what I believe is a valid rift running through the campaign to restore basic civil rights to divorced men and their children. Those like myself believe that the situation is bound deteriorate for a further fifteen years because of the stranglehold of radfems, with further increase in the suicide rate among young men and an unavoidable drift into civil disorder twenty times worse than the Poll Tax riots. They tend to be the same people, for obvious reasons, as those who put greater effort over a longer period into analysing all aspects of the crisis. They are confronted by the Young Turks, usually younger and with less experience of the crisis, who either believe that the crisis will be resolved within only a few years, or who cannot or will not study the subject thoroughly. The Young Turks want rapid, explosive action to exploit their dynamism, or perhaps to camouflage their lack of application (or even their stupidity), depending on how you look at them.

Their is a similar division, possibly the same division, between those who want to parade in public drama, carrying banners up and down Whitehall, and those like myself who lurk in the shadows, putting particular government officials under the hammer, trying to force them to do their jobs properly.

We lost twenty-five years because FNF was neither one thing nor the other. It was controlled by the Old Guard, who however would not do their homework, but who all the same blocked the Young Turks. I believe, however, that we will be able to recognise a valid difference of emphasis, and compromise, rather than confront and block, as happened in FNF. It should be possible to make a fuss in Whitehall but at the same time gain expertise, with some of us only doing one or other. After all, I am not totally certain that the situation will not begin to turn round within three years or so, and I respect some of those who think it will, even when I think their judgement is clouded by their desperate desire to see and to protect their own children.

ManKind and Ill Eagle can be reached at;

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


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

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

(4) Email :- ivorcatt@

Campaign for open justice update

New Development

Destruction by Civil Rules 1998 of Right to Trial in Open Court

The destruction by the CPR of the constitutional right to trial in open court (a right both of the parties and of the public) in certain categories of civil proceedings is an illegal by-product of Lord Woolf's Reforms which seems to have passed without notice by the legal profession. Didn't anybody think it strange that, for example, Landlord and Tenant possession cases for non-payment of rent should suddenly switch from public hearing in open court to private hearing in chambers in 26 April 1999? But that is a direct consequence of CPR Rule 39.2(3)(c) and Practice Direction 39PD Para.1.5(2). How could mere rules of court and practice directions abolish the Common Law rule that trials must take place in open court? The answer is, they couldn't, and the relevant rules and practice directions are ultra vires. Nothing in the primary legislation, the Civil Procedure Act 1997, permits abolition of the Common Law rule of trial in open court, a rule conclusively upheld by the House of Lords in Scott v. Scott [1911-13] AERep 1 HL.

The Practice Direction 39PD Para.1.5 sets out a whole list of categories of proceedings where trial in private is now the rule: arguably nearly all unlawful (e.g. besides Landlord and Tenant cases, Consumer Credit Act 1974, mortgage repossession, and Protection from Harassment Act 1997 cases). Incredibly this Practice Direction was made by three of the most senior Judges in the land: the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the Vice-Chancellor: see [1999] 1WLR 1124. Are these judges bent on destroying the constitutional security of trial in open court? - or were they merely half asleep when they nodded through a set of practice directions dreamed up by some civil servants in the Lord Chancellor's Department?

Judicial Review

Basic democratic rights must not be abolished without Parliamentary sanction. Having been refused access, as a member of the public, to Landlord and Tenant cases at Bow County Court by H.H. Judge Bradbury in November 1999, the writer's application for Leave to move for Judicial Review was duly filed in the High Court on 7 December 1999, case CO/4774/99- R v. Bow County Court ex parte Pelling. This application will be heard in open court at the Royal Courts of Justice on 26 January 2000. The legal consequence of a trial being unlawfully held in private is interesting: the whole proceedings become voidable at the option of any party: McPherson v. McPherson [1935] AERep 105 PC, [1936] AC 177. So every solicitor and counsel who has acted for a landlord or tenant who lost his case held in private is under a professional duty to advise the client that he can have the possession order etc. set aside and obtain a retrial in open court.

Latest Development

On 26 January 2000 leave was refused by Mr. Justice Keene who held that Section 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 - "The power to make Civil Procedure Rules is to be exercised with a view to securing that the civil justice system is accessible, fair and efficient" - had altered the Common Law position and empowered the making of rules authorising proceedings to be held in private which formerly had to be in open court. That included trials of landlord and tenant possession cases for non-payment of rent.

It is not clear how holding trials in secret courts makes justice more accessible, fair and efficient.

- Dr. M. J. Pelling, the first two items reprinted from Contact, East London FNF Branch Newsletter, dec99, no.3

"In the darkness of secrecy sinister interest, and evil in every shape, have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial." - Jeremy Bentham, 1748-1832, one of the most influential writers on jurisprudence.


Divorce: Why we women are to blame

- Vanessa Lloyd-Platt,

Mail, 9feb00, p22

Britain's leading female divorce lawyer argues that it is the aggression of her own sex that's responsible for soaring rates of marital failure.

A prestigious matrimonial lawyer, Vanessa Lloyd-Platt, has specialised in divorce for the past 20 years. The London-based solicitor now runs her own practice - Lloyd Platt & Co .... Her vast experience of marriage has led her recently to conclude that women are to blame for the high rates of divorce. Here Vanessa, a mother of two and married to accountant Daniel Lloyd Platt, sets out her controversial argument. It is something every wife - and girlfriend - should read.

Twenty years as a divorce lawyer have finally led me to the disturbing conclusion that in most cases it is women and women alone who are responsible for the dissatisfaction in so many relationships.

It grieves me to say it, and I do not do so lightly, but after seeing so many couples unhappy as a direct result of women's behaviour, I feel I must speak out.

After analysing thousands of divorce cases, a clear pattern has emerged. Men from all walks of life are saying that over the past 10-15 years, and especially the past five, women have changed beyond recognition.

From being soft, compliant and loving, they are now volatile, hard and distant. Many tell stories of how aggressive their women have become .... They mean the whole package. From hostile body language to repeated shouting matches, unfounded accusations, constant disagreement, criticism and unrealistic demands. Men are not just saying their wives are nags, they are saying they are character demolishers.

.... While some husbands have identified this aggressiveness in wives who do not work, in my experience it is working women who are mainly the problem. .... men did not even get as far as the doorstep before their wives started bombarding them with their problems. ....

It has been said that women believe themselves to be intellectually superior to men. .... then we have the capacity to recognise that men have different needs and are not going to change when it comes to relationships. We must recognise this problem and use our common sense to solve it.

[I fear that Ted Straw, p1, has had all his common sense stuffing knocked out of him. He is now a loose cannon with a lot of firepower. Men, take cover from a wrecker in sheep's clothing, and from Relate! -Ed]

Single Mother Households (SMH) are the most dangerous living arrangement to


From: Bill Wood


In Single Mother Households, 422 children are fatally abused each year. In Single Father Households, 25 children are fatally abused each year. In Dual Parent Families, 16 children are fatally abused each year. 430 children are killed by firearm accidents each year. Of 430 children killed by firearms, 322 are killed in Single Mother Households. Single Mother Households account for 70% of fatal child abuse and accidental firearm deaths.

Source: Donna Shalala, "National Child Abuse Prevention Month" and "Child Maltreatment 1994: Reports from the States to the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect". Patrick Fagan, Heritage Foundation, "THE CHILD ABUSE CRISIS: THE DISINTEGRATION OF MARRIAGE, FAMILY, AND THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY", Rick Thomas, "The Dirty Little Secret: Abuse in Foster Care"

The Heritage Foundation

report "The Child Abuse Crisis: The Disintegration of Marriage, Family, and the American Community," May 15, 1997 notes that: "[due to] ... the disintegration of family and community ... America's infants and young children, about 2,000 of whom -- 6 per day -- die each year," and provides the following estimate:

Total Children Killed Per Year 2,000

Killed by Mothers 1,100

Killed by Stepfathers 250

Killed by Live-In Boyfriends 513

Killed by Biological Fathers 137

his study demonstrates that the least dangerous place for a child is with the father by a margin of over 15 to 1 (2000 / 137 = 14.6). Directly or indirectly, the stepfathers and live-in boyfriends are associated with the mother's household and therefore a child is 15 times more likely to be killed while in the mother's care. Excluding stepfathers and live-in boyfriends, mothers are 8 times more likely to kill a child than the biological father (1100 / 137 = 8.0).

An epidemic of lies

- Dennis Austin, Backlash Magazine, August 1999

The use of false allegations in divorce is rapidly becoming an epidemic which is spreading throughout the world. According to the National Shared Parenting Association (Saskatchewan Chapter), in Canada a Children's Aid Society study showed that of 1200 complaints of abuse, 900 involved custody disputes. Of those 900 allegations, two thirds (600) were found to be false.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that there were more than 1,000,000 documented child abuse cases in 1990. In 1983, it found that 60% of perpetrators were women.

Setting up your own Website


Dear Sir, I was intrigued by the final item in Eagle 06, and could not resist the enclosure, which comes from The Complete Idiots Guide to Internet UK by Peter Kent, Alpha Books.

Actually, when working at the keyboard, a cat on the head is far too heavy. A hamster is much lighter, as well as being far quieter, e.g. a purring cat can be mistaken for a ringing telephone. When motoring, a simple alternative is to wear a coonskin (Davy Crockett) hat. It this is unavailable, avoid the temptation to try a parrot on the shoulder, especially a female one. They tend to bew backseat drivers, 'mind that bus, slow down for the crossroads' etc.

Yours sincerely,

Mr. E Watkins (546)


Ill Eagle 8, may00


Violence by "not noticing" next?

The ever-broadening definition of DV by the Home Office (HO) suggests we should organise a Competition among ManKind members for the next kind of behaviour or inaction which will be classified as DV. Ideas please? - Ed

Amongst a plethora of HO press releases comes GPADV (Gov't Policy Around Domestic Violence). (" dated 9dec99)

This seems to invent new categories of abuse perpetrated by men, including "financial-abuse". ishisThis is a wholly sloppy and ambiguous report which begins by citing the unsophisticated definition first used 7 years ago by the Home Affairs Select Cmttee (HASC). The same HASC that forbade the input of any men's group view point.

Overlooking for a moment the ritualistic mantra in GPADV where the HASC notes that "in most cases the abuser was male and the victim female", HASC also states that DV occurs "in all social groups and classes". While it may occur in all, it is more common in some.

However, the real delight comes at para 2.4 (page 2 in a 10 page release) which declares that DV can take many forms including: actual violence, threatened violence, intimidation and "physical violence accompanied by intimidation" plus "humiliation and deprivation which can include keeping a woman without money". Para 2.4 also lists as DV degradation, mental and verbal abuse, isolation, systemetic critisism and belittlment.

GADV states that he defination of DV was crystalised in april 1999 for use in all police forces, but that it is intended for "statistical purposes only". To counter this, GPADV suggets ".... Organisations are encouraged to make their own definitions according to local needs and circumstances."

Thus, once again it appears that the Home Office is out of control and countermanding Parliament.

[We are in an extremely dangerous situation. Melanie Phillips (20feb00) observes that "The government wants more men convicted and doesn't care how." - Sunday Times, sect.1 p7 - Ed ]

Britain backs peers on Section 28

David Hughes,

Daily Mail, 11feb00

Nearly two thirds of the country thinks peers were right to vote to save Section 28, a poll suggested yesterday. .... opposition to scrapping the law which bans gay propaganda in schools has been strenghtening fast .... among younger adults, .... a majority back the Lords. .... there was no 'Islington factor' to suggest more support for the gay lobby in London. To get involved in fighting the repeal of Section 28 contact George McAulay Tel 01419544994 (UKMM Scottish Chm.), your local Mosque, Baptist or Catholic church.

Feminist Arithmetic

Tom Utley, Daily Telegraph 09Feb00, writes movingly of his concerns for women victims of rape. He is concerned that Women Against Rape (WAR) is too hard line and seeks, not justice, but vengeance (which comes as a surprise to him). He notes that WAR estimate that only one rape in 200 is reported and convicted. But as only the unschooled are permitted to comment on social issues affecting men, is it any wonder if he blunders blindly ?

However, by Feb. 19th this musing out loud had become a torrent of indignation as both the Telegraph and The Sunday Times (19th and 20th respectively) poured scorn on Home Office's projected figures for rape. Thus we have at last toppled the subjects of both rape and of false allegations into the mainstream of public debate. The taboo is now broken. Meanwhile, WAR continues with its unarithmetic dogma. In 1997 there were 599 convictions for rape. If, as WAR states, only 1 in 200 rapes are reported, then there should be 120,000 reported rapes every year (200 x 599). The actual figure, unfortunately, is only 6,281. If, on the other hand WAR are referring to this latter figure for their 1 in 200 ratio, this means there are 1,200,000 rapes pa. Nearly all women will experience rape at sometime in their lives, and can be excused (to quote Margaret "Lady" Jay) for living in fear of rape. The logical outcome to WAR's figures gets worse. women's life expectancy averages close to 80 years, so they should expect to be raped 4 times in their lives. A natural progression will be the need for Govt to initiate an accelerated prison building programme. We can anticipate that every man will have raped at some time before he dies at least once - and for many men to have raped dozens of times. With a scenario where millions of men are about to be convicted, this must assume the highest priority if the present witch hunt is to be sustained. Seen in this light, homosexual men pose a more attractive alternative to women.

The BBC's report, however, came closer to the true situation (see when they quoted Ruth Hall as saying " .... only about 1 in 12 women report their rape to the police." She continued, "Men take for granted that they will be physically serviced and emotionally cared for by women. Rape is an extension of this expectation.". What all the commentaries and reports fail to include is the False Allegation factor - presently running at around 80% of all reported rapes (see HO report 196). Study 196 concedes that 1 in 5 men charged are victims of fabricated rape claims.

"First Frame" in their 16mar00 Ch4 documentary for Dispatches (based on Study 196) have failed to capitalise on a golden chance to further obscure using biased but 'official' figures. For what First Frame tried to prove was the opposite of 196 conclusions. Had we had editorial control we could have produced a more truthful, accurate and far more convincing analysis of Study 196. One that would have been as riveting as the appalling "collateral damage" caused to men by false accusations and highlighted in a programme two nights earlier on Ch5.

Silent Sisterhood !

Women in the UK are invariably more lightly sentenced when found guilty (HO 170). So why does the demand for equality fall silent ? Instead, we have the distasteful situation of "our Julie" and her band of short haired women friends pleading for dispensation in cases like that of Diana Butler who was the woman allegedly "degraded" by Roger Carlin, so she knifed him to death - and then walked free from the Court of Appeal. The fact that she had knifed her previous two partners including her ex-husband (Lady Jay, please note) was taken into oconsideraton in her acquittal.

Three weeks later we find Julie Bindel and her band of short haired women demanding the full savagery of the law for a man who murdered his wife afer yearsof provocation.

Feminists insist; "We are capable of working the same jobs for the same pay. We are as intelligent as men and we can make our own decisions". Why shouldn’t they be held as accountable as men ?



Female paedophiles

Sex crimes aren’t only committed by men. We know women rape (aka seduce) younger boys, sometimes with traumatic and lasting effects if the age gap is too great and the euphemistically termed "sex games" too explicit. But now comes a new dimension. According to a US source (Fathers Manifesto), female paedophiles kill 8 times as many children as male paedophiles (42 vs. 8). This means that male paedophiles account for 0.003% of female deaths each year.

'Women who abuse children: the awful truth'

by Jonathan Green, Elizabeth Udall

5 pp in Marie Claire, march00

"Female paedophiles are possibly society's darkest secrets. Reviled for crimes against nature or simply ignored as though their actions are unthinkable, very little is known about them and even less done to help them. Transition Place is a pioneering treatment centre for women child-abusers, but its patients have always been too wary to give interviews. Now, for the first time, they have chosen to speak out - to Marie Claire - and discuss their lives frankly with Jonathan Green.

"The Last Taboo"

"Female child-abusers such as Nancy .... and Ruth .... have largely been ignored by a society that refuses to believe that women sex offenders exist.

"Shelley molested her three-year-old son and a friend's baby; Michelle had oral sex with a twelve-year-old boy. Elsie had sex with her ten-year-old son and his thirteen-year-old friend.

"Some of the names in this article have been changed." [Why? Are these women more equal than others? I am afraid the article, in a women's magazine, is too upsetting for me to give you more. - Ed ]

"Spirits of the Age"

"Suffolk County Council has banned Mark Cook from his papier mâché evening class because he was the only man among two dozen women." - Sunday Telegraph 20feb00 p32, reporting from The Times


Father custody

From our Dutch collegues we learn of an intersteing speech by feminist professor, Dr. Henrietta Maassen van den Brink given on 12jan00 [euro-dads@]. at teh university of amtrdam

Dr. Henrietta Maassen states that, "To improve the negotiating position of women inside relationships children ought to be placed more under the custody of the father. It is best when both partners do not know in advance which partner will get custody.

"The majority of men have the same living standard 5 years after divorce. Women never reach their old living standard. Alimony does not compensate for this loss.

"The children are usually placed under the custody of the mother, thereby decreasing her chances of creating an income of her own . The care of the children is also an obstacle to finding a new partner.

"This unequal position has consequences for the position of men and women within the marriage. Women adapt to decrease the chaces of a divorce."

[ So if we introduced father custody in England, more women would sue for divorce! Does the fact that they get everything after divorce deter them? Should Maasen have mentioned the home? Obviously, the difference is that the Dutch all rent. - Ed ].

"Wasted lives of 1,500 young suicide victims

- Beezy Marsh,

Daily Mail, 2mar00, p37

".... the rising number of male suicides .... more kill themselves .... than die in road accidents.

"Nearly 500 aged 15 to 24 take their lives annually and the figure for the 25 to 34-year-olds is more than 1,000. ....'We need to look urgently at this tragic loss of life....'

".... the number of female suicides among 15 to 24-year-olds is around a fifth of that for men. In the 25 to 34 age group, it is a tenth of the male figure...."

Dr. Banks was speaking to a conference on men's health. The Daily Mail did not report the reasons for the epidemic, which we in ManKind know very well. - Ed

Adoption is the answer

Leader, Sunday Telegraph, 20feb00

".... From Leicester to Chester, from Cambridge to Lambeth, Islington and Hackney, there have been dozens of reports into the disgraceful abuse in care homes. ....

".... For at least two decades local authority officials and social work 'professionals' have operated policies that have harmed children. .... There was, for instance, a deliberate decision to promote the employment of homosexuals, on the basis that they were less likely to abuse the girls in their care - overlooking the fact that they were more likely to abuse the boys. That is exactly what happened. ....

"In Ealing, for instance, inspectors last year reported that just one child out of the 393 in care homes was adopted. Social workers placed a five-day-old baby in care - and then visited it just twice in the following year. No one drew up any plans at all for the long-term future of that child. It was simply abandoned. .... many councils still enforce a 'same race' adoption policy, in violation of .... guidelines. Many apply a policy of discriminating against the better-off, the better-educated, and the middle-aged [applying to adopt]. .... love is much less important than politically correct attitudes - which, along with abuse, is about all children get in care homes. ...."

Today, Valerie Riches of FYC 01865 351 966 told me that FYC had complained about the fact that the policy of The Children's Society, among others, was to preferably employ homosexuals. FYC's journal "Family Bulletin" Autumn 97, cites research which found the heavy preponderance of homosexuals among paedophiles - ".... 35% of paedophiles are homosexual whilst only 2% of adult men overall are homosexual.".

What Women Want

pub. Virago, 1996, p80

"Research into, and action on, male violence against women and children. Freedom from prejudice about women's roles. Recognition (and equal pay) at work. More women in decision making positions in society." - Sally Littlejohn, software writer.

Secret Courts

Maureen Freely writing in the The Observer 20feb00 about CWO- probation officers who masquerade in Britain's SECRET COURTS as experts in matters of child welfare: "By training, they are criminal probation officers. When they take on this specialised job, they receive no extra training in child development, and no guidelines about how to interpret such concepts as 'reasonable contact'. Most of the reports they write are based, therefore, on personal conjecture. ... In the 20 years since the Family Court Welfare Service was founded, there has not been a single follow-up study. The service has never checked its officers' reports for anything except spelling. Because court records are closed to the public, nobody else can check them either. ...

"When the nation wondered why it was that so many fathers left home and lost touch with their children within the year, and why it was that about 900 other fathers were driven to kidnap their children every year, they rarely asked how many of those absent and kidnapping parents had been barred by the Family Welfare Service from seeing their children."

The article went on to praise Oliver Cyriax.

Also see Oliver, "INPOWw's Campaign" on

"Women take lead in Welsh cabinet

Julia Hartley-Brewer,

Gvardian, 23feb00, p10

"The Welsh cabinet yesterday became the first executive body in the western world to boast a majority of women ministers.

"The appointment of a fifth woman in the nine-member cabinet was hailed as a milestone in equal opportvnities by the new Labour first secretary, Rhodri Morgan. ....

"This is a small step for the Welsh cabinet but it's a giant leap for Welsh womankind."

Although only partly Welsh, I would be proud if our Welsh Cabinet were the first to reach full equality, with nine women cabinet ministers; or perhaps six women and three gays. - Ed



My last Editorial identified two types of member of ManKind. It omitted a third group, the subject of something that I wrote two years ago. I will alter the quotation from Patricia Morgan, elsewhere in this issue, to describe this group, who could make up a major part of our membership.

Large numbers of unattached males who have never taken on the responsibilities of family life, or who have been ejected from families, now meet the classic conditions for membership of ManKind.

They are subjected to discrimination in; education, health, employment, law, military, pension, marriage/divorce.

The Cheltenham Group is linked with ManKind. In their 1998 booklet Marriage and Fatherhood : Important Information for Young Men, page 45, we read; "One simple piece of advice is not to get married, and not to become a father." These men, denied the traditional dynastic progression through life, are our hoped for third group of members.


The horrific Dispatches programme last week [apr98] is the last straw for me. In prime time on a major TV channel, poisonous lying and man-bashing was allowed to continue for an hour or so. Such propaganda against any other segment of society would have led to prosecution. However, the climate is so hostile that I expect there will be no protest.

Whether the allegations are true or not, the conclusion is the same.

First, the allegations. Attacks on women - wives, mistresses and others - by men are pandemic. In your street, at least three women are assaulted on a regular basis, and their bruises are then covered by clothing in order for the victms to hide the victim's embarrassment. The police are indifferent. However, the bones broken during these assaults by men cannot be covered up, and our hospitals are overcrowded with women with broken limbs. Pregnant women are attacked, hit in the womb, leading to miscarriage. The programme's researchers found that the extent of battering of women is far greater


than anybody had previously imagined.

Let us now look at the repercussions from this programme, and so many others nearly as extreme. First, let us assume that the programme's assertions are true. What should a young man do? The conclusions are obvious. No young man worth his salt should let himself become a member of a class (cohabiting men) who represent such a threat to society, and to other people. No man should associate with women, let alone cohabit or marry. Further, since men not only batter women but also sexually molest children, a young man should not father children. Further, since a father represents the greatest threat to a child, he should distance himself as far as possible from his children.

Now let us suppose that the allegations in the programme are false. I have to advise the young man that our courts always believe the false scenario, and act on it. Any woman can trade in her husband at any time, and expropriate his home, assets and children, all of which he will never see again. Again, no young man should become a member of such a vulnerable class.

Our past chairman John Campion summarised The Law Commission (1966) Reform of the Grounds of Divorce. The Field of Choice. Law Com No. 6. HMSO in this way; "The Law Commission feels .... that it is false allegations that provoke the hostility and that any attempts to defend himself or his children are the consequence of venting his anger in retaliation for such allegations. They find this 'paradoxical' since perjured evidence is merely a verbal device for obtaining the divorce."

We need to remember that in the past, divorce court officials more or less openly connived in the perjured story of the divorcing man spending a dirty night in Brighton in order to enable his wife to obtain a divorce. Thus, the divorce courts have a tradition of conniving in perjury, so the fact that judges today welcome perjury by wives is nothing new.

The idea that false allegations are an essential component in the smooth running of our secret family courts, and are merely a metaphor to validate the expropriation of fathers, is a crucial concept for those trying to understand the mechanics of our family courts, and the central role played by false allegations, and why perjury by mothers must not, and will not, be punished. It also explains why these courts are secret, and why they are more hostile to totally blameless divorcing fathers, who force court officials to connive in fabricating charges, which they do not enjoy doing. Even judges, barristers and solicitors, other things (i.e. their fees) being equal, prefer to be honest.

A barriater pointed out to me that if he used legal aid to defend a divorcing man against false allegations, he might never again get legal aid funding from a feminised Legal Aid Board, explains why your lawyers will betray you, and put on that blank look when you try to interest them in the horrendous, false allegations being made against you.

Today's young men live in a culture where control of the police, the judiciary and the media has fallen into the hands of a small group of dedicated, man-hating, family hating gender sectarians, who saturate the media with male bashing and family bashing propaganda. 'Ruler' Males (editorial, july/aug99) like Aitken, Fayed, Goldenballs and Maxwell are very happy to allow them to disempower the main body of respectable men, who are their traditional competition. Male supremacists have no fear of the feminazis. Thus, female supremacists are allowed, or even encouraged, by the dominant males, (who may have their own, probably illegal ways to control their own women,) to attack males in general.

- Ivor Catt, 22apr98

ManKind and Ill Eagle can be reached at;

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

(0207 413 9176


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

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

(4) Email :- ivorcatt@

Action Against False Allegations of Abuse

(See Male View oct/dec99, p32)

Statement by AAFAA

"AAFAA Conference - London -
Saturday 11th November 2000

"This will be an excellent chance for the people who have contacted AAFAA to meet. The Conference, provisionally titled Resisting the Inquisition, will be in the Small Hall of Friends House, Euston Road, London (opposite Euston Station) from 10.30 till 4.30. Speakers will be a campaigner, writer, criminologist, and ex-prisoner. Demand is already building up for tickets. Bookings can be made now by sending a £10.00 cheque or P.O. to our address, made payable to AAFAA, PO Box 84, Leeds LS5 3XZ, with a note to say that it is for the Conference."

My knowledge of AAFAA is based on some three hours on the phone with the national contact for AAFAA, Hilary Seddon, 01635 202433, and reading their excellent occasional newsletter. They do not have membership for fear of being taken over by paedophiles. We need views from ManKind members on how much False Allegations should figure in our range of interests. I myself argue that our secret family courts run on perjury. Our chairman, our Male View Editor and myself think it should play a significant part, but there may be opposing views. - Ed

I have the following details on other "false allegations" organisations;

British False Memory Society, Old Brewery, Bradford on Avon BA15 1NF, (01225 868682

N Wales child home scandal, Gwen Hurst, Oakleigh, Cross Lanes, Marchwiel, Wrexham LL13 0TH ( 01978 781220

Friends of Derek Brushett, Gale Saunders, Wellwood Rise, Wellwood Drive, Dinas Powys CF64 4TM ( 01222 513016

FACT, Harry Fearns, 122 Bleak Hill Rd., St. Helens WA10 6DR, (01744 20056 "On sat20nov99 a meeting took place in Liverpool to form an organisation to campaign for a review of the dangerous


developments of Police investigation adopted by Operation Care.... three hundred former and present care workers and teachers have been arrested ...."

On 10aug99 Judge Jonathan Crabtree said that Police forces that have "fished" for allegations of sexual abuse in children's homes are in danger of garnering "false accusations, childhood fantasies and dreams". "They are not waiting for complaints. Instead they have asked children who used to live [in care] if they have any complaints to make ...."

It is these police trawling methods .... in most cases fuelled by the attraction of large compensation payments, that concern FACT. - Ed

Our chairman noticed that Professor Stinko also wrote about "trawling" for her evidence of domestic violence.


"The numbers of homosexuals living in stable relationships is too low to count, researchers [in the new Government General Household Survey (GHS)] said.

"The survey offered those living in same-sex couples the chance to declare themselves as such by the request: "May I just check, are you living with someone in the household as a coupls?' But out of 16,000 people interviewed, fewer than 50 said they were in a gay or lesbian partnership. The GHS results suggest that fewer than one in every 300 people lives in such a relationship. The figure contrasts heavily with claims made by gay lobby groups. Outrage says a fact that should be taught to schooolchildren is that there are five million gays and lesbians in Britain and one in ten people are mainly homosexual." - Daily Mail, 2mar00, p7.

My article in Male View jan/mar99 recommends the most reliable source for statistics on homosexuality, "making up barely 1% of the total sample of men." When we get to the real numbers, we are obviously seeing a fringe group of disturbed people. If only 1% of babies sucked their thumb, such action would attract concern for the little 'un. Homosexual practice is much more peculiar and unusual, and dangerous. Why does Vanity Blair pack his Cabinet with them? Does he have difficulty in controlling normal men ? - Ed

From a member

To the Attorney-General. You cannot keep the lid down on the kettle any more. The pressure is too great. Ivor Catt, Editor, Ill Eagle. [sent to the Attorney-General on 25feb00, with a copy of Melanie Phillips, Sunday Times 20feb00.]


Dear David, Prompted by the moves to name rape-hoax women, may I suggest that this be extended to include women who have made other types of false allegation, wasting tax-payers' money, court and other resources - and usually involving perjury - all of which is generally condoned (and even supported), and scarcely ever punished by, the courts?

I have a well-documented file on the allegations of sexual abuse made against me by my wife, starting 2 days after I was given custody of our 3 children by an insightful female judge (Pat Coles, QC). Over some 4 or 5 years, (1990-5), these allegations escalated to paedophilia.

Early on, Social Services eagerly called a Child Protection Conference - a great waste as they already had convincing evidence that the allegations were false and malicious.

In spite of collusion between 2 social workers and my wife, the Child Protection Conference eventually cleared me completely. This was due in part to the involvement of an honest, no-nonsense police-woman who had interviewed each of my children separately and became disgusted with my wife (and some of her colleagues in Social Services).

Nevertheless, in June 1991 an extremely prejudiced judge (Marian Norrie) saw fit to return the children to their mother after 12 months spent happily and successfully in my custody, and against the children's admitted wishes. Norrie did not comment on my wife's obvious malice.

I have evidence for all this, and more, and would be perfectly happy for you to publish the judges' names with that of my wife: Marjorie Mary Mortleman, nee Grieveson. Yours sincerely, John Mortleman.

Susan Hampshire in Radio Times

26feb00 p10

".... We're talking about harmony and millions of years of instincts, which won't change overnight. I can't think it's satisfying for a woman to be a ballbreaker, and it must be dreadful for the man. .... I worked when my son was small and although I had the most excellent and qualified nanny, I missed out on a tremendous amount. It's criminal how the media have made women think they're nobody unless they have a job. Why be ashamed of being a mum? Bringing up children should be glorified. It's far more difficult to be a mum than to do business conferences. If you're in an office everyone thanks you all the time, but you're taken for granted if you clean the house and bring up well mannered children to be happy citizens."

"Men in fear of attacks by women

- Carmarthen Journal, 16feb00

"Growing numbers of women are responsible for vicious attacks and fights in Carmarthenshire. Police figures reveal that men are also increasingly becoming the victims of domestic assaults. The number of arrests for violent attacks, fights and brawls among women has rocketed in recent years. .... women from their early teens to middle age are being arrested .... for assaults. 'There are more girls and women fighting now than before. Not long ago it would have been unheard of' .... men are suffering in silence .... Men may be ashamed to come forward...." - noticed by Dave Norris.


Have you noticed how in your public or college libraries the feminist, womens's issues books outnumber men's issue titles about 60 to 1? Yet there are plenty of excellent books stating our case. The fact is we are not using the system as well as the opposition. Libraries are required to buy a proportion of new titles each year, related to the population in their catchment area. They rely on requests from readers to make up this quota. Knowing this, the feminists get in there ordering while there is money in the kitty. We should be doing the same. Ill Eagle will provide lists on a regular basis which members are advised to read, and get on the shelves for the students and browsers. - William Coulson

The Gvardian and Equal Opportvnities

The Gvardian should be congratulated for its commitment to Equal Opportvnities. However, their reforms may be incomplete.

I will give a personal cheque for £5 to the first reader who spots a male heterosexual journalist working for The Gvardian. (No formal proof required.) I plan to Name and Shame the deviant in a future edition of Ill Eagle. - Ed

Last month, there were no takers. Does this prove that the Gvardian is sompletely eqval? Or would a claimant betray his bigotry by suggesting that the Gvardian illegally deviates from full equality of employment opportunity between women and gays? My offer, made in the last issue, is still open, but raised to £10. - Ed.

Also see Male View oct/dec99, p3.

When the gay rights campaigners go too far

- John Humphreys, Sunday Times, 20mar00, sect. 1, p19

[Even though a man, he is allowed to publish because he shows such ignorance. {See my website on HIV and the rest;} However, his commentary on excesses in the Gvuardian is useful. - Ed]

.... I despaired at what I read in The Guardian last week. .... a colleague of mine, Nigel Wrench. He is gay, HIV positive .... defending .... "barebacking". .... that means unprotected anal sex. It is increasingly common among some groups of gay men. Many gay men have written in the gay press attacking those who practise it even then they know themselves to be HIV-positive. .... "Barebacking can be warm, exciting and involving ...." .... since he was infected he has had unsafe sex "more times than I can remember, often with men whose names I could not tell you ...."


A vision that turned into a nightmare

Only now after some twenty-five years are we beginning to see some accurate figures about domestic violence. I was aware of this great fraud being perpetrated in the west by the women's movement greedy for money. Others, like Strauss, Gelles, Steinmetz in America and Senator Ann Cools in Canada, warned the general public of the danger of this evil movement. Millions of men and children have suffered. Family life has almost been destroyed as these women moved into positions of power in the justice system, in social services, in the media - anywhere where they could pervert the course of justice to their cause. Their cause had no substance in fact. Their aim was to collect and to squander hard earned taxpayers money to fund their devient and pathological abnormal behaviour. These women can only be described as the 'Terrorists In The Family.' The question is this? Do those of us who know the truth, sit back and allow further millions of funding to go into these women's hands? Or do we begin to indentify those women who have deliberately and knowingly lied and cheated, altered figures and statistics to justify their lies and lived off the money that should have been given to victims of domestic violence? I said twenty-five years ago and I still say: Of the first hundred women coming into the first battered women's refuge in the world in Chiswick, London 62 were as violent as the partner they left. I expect, once true figures can be correlated to find that figure reproduced as a true and accurate figure. What we all have to face is that domestic violence is a learned pattern of behaviour and when small children are exposed to physical and emotional violence, these are the strategies for survival they will bring into their adult life.

Women are as violent as men, and are more likely to use violence in personal relationships. The reason why their violence has been hidden is because it is hidden violence - behind the closed front door of the home. Women intimidate the family because of their strong central position in the family and are now able to blackmail men, thanks to the bias against men that has been prevalent in the last twenty-five years. For me, the effect on the children of this nightmare cannot be undone. But I do hope that somehow this whole lie can be exposed, justice can be seen to be done and those fathers that I have known who have been destroyed, lost their homes, their reputations, their jobs and their children, can somehow feel that all the suffering was not in vain? Will we see, this year, another tranche of money being poured into the hands of the women's movement so they can hold their endless conferences? Probably, unless a few good people are willing to take on the job of exposing them?

- Erin Pizzey; founder of the first domestic violence shelters, a vision that turned into a nightmare.

Millions of false allegations

In Armin A. Brott's article; A system out of control: The epidemic of false allegations of child abuse, he states, "In California, for example, the Victim/Witness program will pay directly to a licensed therapist up to $10,000 per child for counseling - as long as the child was alleged to have been abused. An additional $10,000 is available to counsel the child's mother. The only catch: to get their therapy paid for, the child victim and her mother must see a therapist from an approved list. Guess who directs the mother to a therapist who would be best for her and her child? CPS, of course."

These CPS workers often ask leading questions which can distort the children's memories. In their reports to the court, they often ignore evidence that would clear the accused, such as lie detector tests and outside therapist evaluations, and rely solely on the child's evaluations which have been skewed by the CPS and the therapists that they recommend. In a report disseminated by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN), Child Maltreatment 1995 Reports From the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System depicts more than three million reports of alleged child abuse and neglect in 1995, of which two million of those complaints were without foundation.

False allegations of abuse in divorce is an epidemic that is sweeping the world. Children are becoming heirs to hatred passed down to them from their parents and because this is all they know, they in turn foster this pain, hatred and deceptiveness in their own adult relationships. The children are crushed under the weight of the system and a parent that is only looking out for their own best interests.

News Release

" ...eighty percent of those polled said they had actually handled a case where they believed there was false accusation of abuse, as in disputes over custody of children, for instance." [News Release, from The Dilenschneider Group Inc., (representing the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers), Three First National Place, 70 West Madison Street, Chicago, IL 60602, 11/91.]


From the web pages of Umgngesrtts Frldrarnas Riksfrening (UFR) which provides its name in English as: Association for Equal Parenting.

Dated November 1999.

Dagens Nyheter (Swedish Newspaper) has written about a government analysis of the new joint custody law. Investigator Eva Elfver-Lindstrm has read all 475 judgments from the country's courts published during the first half of 1999 which have to do with cases where separated parents fought over custody. In 134 of theses cases the parents agreed to joint custody during the process. But in 73 cases the court ordered joint custody against the objection of one of the parents -- in most cases the mother.

"It is for the children that the father's position is being strengthened," says Eva Elfver-Lindstrm.

The judgments involve 784 children, 415 boys and 369 girls. IN 241 cases sole custody was awarded. In 133 cases the mother got sole custody against the wishes of the father. In 48 cases the father got sole custody against the wishes of the mother. In 50 cases the parents agreed that the mother should have sole custody. In 10 cases the parents agreed that the father should have sole custody. In 207 cases parents got joint custody. In 47 cases courts refused to go along with a parent's request for sole custody when the parents already had joint custody. In 15 cases the court ruled in favor of a parent's request for joint custody against the other's wish.

BBC. Monday, October 11, 1999 Published at 12:56 GMT 13:56 UK

"Lie detectors" used on sex offenders

In a little publicised move the Home Office have tested out Lie Detectors on sex offenders. This is the first "official trial" of its kind in the UK - something we have advocated to Govt as a first 'screen' to filter out malicious claims of rape against men (see ill eagle, April 1999). Regrettably, only alleged assailants, and not their accusers, were investigated by the lie detector (polygraph).

We believe the week long pilot study of the US-style polygraph machines, conducted by the West Midlands Probation Service, concluded in October 1999. The results have been released to other probation services and some are said to be interested in conducting further tests of their own.

The questioning was led by polygraph consultant and former US police officer, Dan Sosnowski. Lie detectors have been widely used in the US since the 1950s but are not accepted by all courts.

A spokesman for the West Midlands Probation Service said a number of techniques were used with sex offenders (suspects) and the lie detectors were being looked at as another option. Accepting that some offenders (accused) would be able to 'trick' the machine, he thought the evidence presented suggested a therapist was easier to trick.

Lie Detectors monitor breathing, heart rate and perspiration from sensors fixed to fingers, upper arms, stomach and waist. The idea is that people who are guilty, i.e. lie in response to a specific question react more vigorously (muscular tension) to relevant questions.

"One woman in five has been stalked. One woman in four suffers from violence in the home. More than half of rape victims have been attacked by a boyfriend, former "partner" or close friend. And .... 88.2% of statistics are made up on the spot." - Jenny Bristow, Telegraph, 28july98, p20


Abuses of Abuse

Mary D., Petitioner v. HONORABLE CLARENCE WATT JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PUTNAM COUNTY AND GEORGE D., RESPONDENTS, [190 W. Va. 34, ; 438 S.E. 2nd 521; 1992 W. Va. LEXIS 76]. In a candid dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Workman wrote: "We now have a system in which a female parent need only scream child abuse in a loud voice to keep the male parent from seeing a child. Indeed, sexual abuse these days seems to arouse all the hysteria that was associated with witchcraft in yesteryear. In fact, it has even spawned a witch-huntingesque cottage industry, to-wit badly trained, ideological rape trauma experts, rape counselors, bachelor level pseudo-psychologists, social activists, and other assorted species of Jacklegs. I am a firm believer that the best interests of the child are paramount, but that does not mean never allowing a father to see his children when the evidence preponderates on his behalf even though, like an accused witch, he cannot clear himself beyond any shadow of a doubt. Continuous yelling and screaming of an accusation does not make that accusation any more true."


Telling excerpts from The Booming Domestic Violence Industry, August 2, 1999, John McGuire, Massachusetts News

"The legislature has loosened the standard. Now the person seeking the order need only state he or she is "in fear" of the other person. It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under 209A, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house."

Long-term emotional damage to children's fathers -- surely not good for children -- often begins with a restraining order, she says.

"A man against whom a frivolous 209A has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating, and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect. They may indeed become verbally abusive. It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order."

This is a different era from the 1950s, she points out, and many fathers are very close to their children, and bond closely with them from an early age. "In this day and age, we have fathers who take an extremely active role in parenting -- sometimes more than the mother."

"I call them mother-dads," she says. In many restraining-order cases, she says, "These fathers are completely frustrated because they can't co-parent their child because of a restraining order. They have been raped of their parenting relationship with their child." While Friend and others see false restraining orders as enormously destructive, and permanently traumatizing, the $24 million domestic violence industry is built on the restraining order. Most of the activities that people get paid for in the domestic violence industry cannot start until a restraining order has been issued.


False charges whether they are Domestic Violence, Child Abuse, and Child Sexual Abuse cases in divorce and custody proceedings are widespread and rampant. Women are the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of those who employ false charges, add to these the trauma and emotional damage to children, women emerge as the most likely to abuse a child for their own personal gain.


In the Mary D., Petitioner (citation omitted) case noted above, we now have an industry that uses these charges and allegations (false or otherwise) to prey on families and children. Their entire goal to collect funding is to "find" (or manufacture if necessary) victims in larger and larger numbers to justify greater and greater levels of funding. - RW

Land of the Free imprisons most

- Guardian, 15feb00

Anger grows as US jails its two millionth inmate. The land of the free is now home to 25% of the world's prison population.

Vigils are being mounted .... to draw attention to the arrival of the two millionth inmate in American jails. The US comprises 5% of the global population yet it is responsible for 25% of the world's prisoners. It has a higher proportion of its citizens in jail than any other country in history, according to the November Coalition, an alliance of civil rights campaigners, justice policy workers and drug law reformers. ....

"Incarceration should be the last resort of a civilized society, not the first," said Michael Gelacak, a former vice-chairman of the US sentencing commission. "We have it backwards and it's time we realized that."

Nora Callahan said; "We are calling on state and federal governments to stop breaking up families and destroying our communities. Prison is not the solution to every social problem".

In New York City, the Prison Moratorium Project will focus on the fact that one in three black youths is either in custody or on parole. Kevin Pranis, of the project, said: "New York state is diverting millions of dollars from colleges and universities to pay for prisons we can't afford."

[According to Amneus, The Garbage Generation, pub. 1990, we are moving from patriarchy to a fatherless matriarchy, the new model being the black ghetto in the USA, the Caribbean community, or the American Indian. Such a culture, associated with the underclass, is discussed by Murray elsewhere in this issue. Whereas in the US a large proportion of black youths are in jail, we will have to imprison a large proportion of our white youth when we have adopted their fatherless culture. As an indicator of where we are heading, among West Indian children in Britain, 65% do not have their biological father living with them, and 68% of teenage girls are unmarried mothers - see The Unequal Struggle by A. Gibson, 1986, pub. Caribbean House, Bridport Place, London N1 5DS. Half of the muggings in London are by blacks. White youths will join them as we adopt their culture. - Ed]

Criminal justice is already a campaign issue in the presidential race. The Republican front-runner George W. Bush, governor of Texas, is a staunch supporter of both the death penalty and stiffer sentencing for drug offences.

Since he took over in Texas, the prison population there is up from 41,000 to 150,000, much of this as a result of locking up people for drug possession. This is one of the reasons that commentators have pressed Bush to be more open about his own alleged drug use in the past.

Second biggest employer

Of those held in federal rather than state prisons, 60% are drug offenders with no history of violence. Aminah Muhammad, who is organizing the Los Angeles vigil, said: "My husband is doing 23 years for just being present in a house where drugs were found, so my 10-year-old son doesn't have his father.

Lockdown America, a book by Christian Parenti, analyses the US criminal justice system. He notes the expansion of the private prison sector - dubbed by one investment

firm the "theme stock for the nineties" - which now runs more than 100 facilities in 27 states, holding more than 100,000 inmates.

A total of 18 private firms are involved in the running of local jails, private prisons and immigration detention centers. It is estimated that firms such as Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch write between $2-3 billion in prison constructions bonds every year. This has led some commentators to suggest that the United States is effectively creating a prison-industrial complex in much the same way as the military-industrial complex operates.

Critics of the system suggest that so much money is invested in incarceration that politicians would find it difficult to reverse the trends against the wishes of their financial backers and lobbyists.

In his study Christian Parenti suggests: "In many ways the


incarceration binge is simply the policy byproduct of rightwing electoral rhetoric."

The cost of building jails has averaged $7 billion per year for the last decade and the annual bill for incarcerating prisoners is up to $35 billion annually. The prison industry employs more than 523,000 people, making it the country's biggest employer after General Motors. Some 5% of the population growth in rural areas between 1980 and 1990 was as a result of prisoners being moved into new rural jails.

The national convention of the American Bar Association, held in Dallas, Texas last weekend, was told there was growing momentum for a moratorium on the death penalty. This follows the recent announcement by the Illinois governor, George Ryan, that the state will suspend executions pending an investigation into the number of death row inmates who turn out to have been wrongly convicted. There are 3,600 people awaiting execution in the US - 463 of them in Texas alone.


In 1985, the then Chief Justice Warren Burger said: "What business enterprise could conceivably succeed with the rate of recall of its products that we see in the 'products' of our prisons?"

Charles Murray

Charles Murray's Underclass was first published in the Sunday Times Magazine in November 1989. In America, where the growth of the underclass has accelerated, his theories about the disintegration of society have found acceptance even on the left of the political spectrum.

In 1989 Murray predicted that within a decade Britain's underclass would become proportionately as large as that of the U.S.

On 13feb00, sect. 5 p1, The Sunday Times published two pages where Murray updated his analysis.

".... the complexities of individuals do not trump statistical tendencies. My fundamental thesis is that large increases in the three indicators I used in 1989 - dropout from the labour force among young males, violent crime and births to unmarried women - will be associated with the growth of a class of violent, uncivilized people who, if they become sufficiently numerous, will fundamentally degrade the life of society. ....

"The short story is that the precentage of young working-aged males not in employment was dramatically higher in 1999 than it had been in 1989. Among males aged 18-24., the percentage not in employment went from 20.5% in 1989 to 31.2% in 1999, an increase of more than half. .... there is no obvious benign explanation for the large increases in young males out of employment between 1989 and 1999. .... The trend conforms exactly to what one would expect from a growing underclass.... Over the past two decades, larger and larger numbers of British children have not been socialised to norms of self-control .... larger numbers of British children are not being raised by two mature, married adults. .... most serious forms of child abuse are rarely inflicted by a married biological father."

Murray does not know that all government initiatives are to get young women into work, although for a decade their long term unemployment rate has been only one third of that for young men. When I noticed this statistic in radfem research (BT Forum factsheet 1, tel. 0800 800 926,) funded by the then Director of BT Forum, radfem Joanna Foster (using your telephone money, £2 millions p.a.!), and pointed it out, Foster and the female researcher Dr Liza Catan, then realising its significance, falsely stated that their statistics were false. (Catan to Catt, 9may97.) This must be unprecedentedly disgraceful, deeply anti-social chacanery in a democratic country. The truth of the 3 to 1 ratio for 12mos unemployed can be confirmed at govt no. 020 7533 6176 or 6094 - Ed

[Copy of draft sent to Dr Liza Catan on 27feb00, giving her the opportunity to comment. - Ed]

The back cover of the 1995 issue of Farewell to the Family?, by Patricia Morgan, 0171 799 3745, states; Large numbers of unattached and predatory males who have never taken on the responsibilities of family life, or who have been ejected from families, now meet the classic conditions for the creation of a 'warrior class'.


Wonderful women

Auberon Waugh,

Telegraph, 11mar00, p25

The latest Home Office brainwave is to "target" wife beaters. These loathsome people will be tried and imprisoned even if the wife refuses to complain and give evidence.

This must be seen as a great victory for the feminist sisterhood which is beginning to make itself felt in every aspect of our lives. How they must be patting themselves on the back! There is no suggestions that persistent husband-beaters should be similarly discouraged.

Almost everyone must know of at least one couple where the husband is reduced to a quivering wreck by the threat of physical violence from the wife. Yet in the ideology of the times, these people simply do not exist....


So what's feminism ever done for us?

- Heather Causnett,

Yorkshire Evening Press, 8mar00

.... I find it interesting to look back to the birth of feminism. As long ago as 1792, a book called A Vindication Of The Rights Of Women was written by Mary Wollstonecraft .... Then came a succession of women who changed our world - Florence Nightingale .... Emmeline Pankhurst .... Marie Stopes .... They have a lot to answer for, good and bad....

Much that was beneficial came of their efforts, .... but in the last couple of decades, the darker and more aggressive face of feminism has emerged from the shadows....

Children are used as pawns in bitter divorce actions, separated from their fathers, who are as often as not the innocent party but who can lose their homes, be forced to pay through the nose and possibly end up on the street. Nine out of ten homeless people are men - I wonder how many of those have lost their homes through the break-up of marriages?

.... career minded women .... have missed out on what matters most ....

I cannot honestly say that there is a single aspect of today's accepted feminist trend that has brought true happiness or lasting contentment to people of either sex, and certainly children suffer under most of its rule. ....

Are women winning rights at the expense of our menfolk?

- Ann Widdecombe,

The Universe, 7mar00

.... Positive discrimination [women shortlists] is, of course, just another way of saying discrimination against men. ....

Some figures suggest that a young man today has less than a 50 per cent chance of being actively involved in bringing his children to maturity and in inner cities that can fall to as low as twenty per cent. ....

The courts .... nearly always award custody to the mother in family break up and in informal partnerships the man has fewer rights still.

.... even if the woman is a multiple adulteress and has walked out on him she will still be likely to keep the children ....

.... Yet men appear to be sleepwalking through these mammoth changes. ....

I do not know if they are dazed by the speed with which it has happened or too complacent to notice but it is time they woke up and stirred themselves to a bit of protest.

Otherwise I predict that three or four elections hence the candidates will be falling over each other to convince the electorate that they provide the best policies to give equal rights to men.


Tory rekindles row over lone mothers

Emma Pearson,

Western Mail, 4mar00

Shadow Home Secretary Ann Widdecombe has incensed women's groups and community leaders by suggesting that single mothers are the root of teenage crime. .... she said the breakdown in traditional family lifestyles had led to children turning to crime because they had no male role models.

"One of the biggest problems is that there is a second or third generation who have never seen the pattern of a moderately successful lifestyle," she said. "They have never had a father or only had a succession of people they call uncle.

Indecent claims

-Leader, Telegraph, 19feb00

Everything about the new Home Office study which claims that each year between 118,000 and 295,000 women may be raped or sexually assaulted in England and Wales is deeply dishonest. First, the figures themselves: with that vast margin of possible error - 177,000, or more than 40 per cent - they clearly represent nothing but wild guesswork. Why, then, do the researchers pluck those precise-sounding numbers out of the air? Why 118,000, and not, say, 100,000? Why 295,0-00, and not 300,000? The answer can only be that, by avoiding round numbers, they hope to lend their findings a spurious scientific credibility. How they insult our intelligence.

Then there is the way in which they arrive at their figures. That, too, is dishonest. First they announce, without citing the evidence, that "it would be reasonably safe to assume" that the police fail to record a third of complaints reported to them by women who claim to have been attacked. They also assume, without evidence, that every complaint made to the police must be justified. Then they on to say that between 75 and 90 per cent of cases go unreported. So it is that, magically, they transform 25,300 recorded crimes into as many as 295,000, simply by multiplying the recorded figures by random numbers.

There is also something dishonest in the report's finding that men who display "patriarchal attitudes" are more likely to believe that wife-beating is "legitimate". The aim here is to subtly discredit the traditional idea of the husband as head of his household, by linking it in people's minds with violence. .... that is the seed that these Home Office researchers are clearly trying to implant in our minds.

It is absurd that public policy should be determined by this nonsense. Yet here is the Home Office, accepting every rubbishy word of it, and giving an extra £6 million of public money to women's groups on the strength of it. And here is Baroness Jay, the minister for women, solemnly declaring: "It is unacceptable that a quarter of women experience domestic violence at some stage in their lives and that many more are so scared of rape or sexual assault that they are frightened to leave their homes."

It is indeed unacceptable that women should live in fear of rape and sexual assault. But no wonder they are frightened, when the Government gives credence to an unscientific, scaremongering report such as this.


Ill Eagle 8, june00


A mother's wish

- Telegraph leader, 4apr00

.... the findings of a poll released today by Mother and Baby magazine .... that 81 per cent of the mothers with young children would prefer not to work - stands in direct contradiction to one of the Govt's most important assumptions. [govt] ministers have offered financial inducements to those willing to hand over .... care to professional child-minders. So the woman who devotes her time and energy to her own family has received no recognition from the Govt (which makes no attempt even to understand her motives and values .... [Would the mother, or the child-minder, be buying the magazine? So much for ill-defined statistics. - Ed]



Special offer

to new members

Free London theatre tickets for 2

To enter our Special Draw simply write to us at Suite 367, enclosing your name address and telephone number (full address on page 3).

Offer open to only ManKind members

who have joined after July 1st 1999

Closing date June 30th 2000.

Lawyer of the week

Deborah Harman

- Linda Tsang, Times, Law, 9may00

Deborah Harman acted for Roy Burnett, who was jailed for life in 1986 after a jury convicted him of rape. Last month the Court of Appeal quashed his conviction.... "I was recommended to Roy by a prison officer.... I was absolutely stunned to discover that every record of Roy's trial had been shredded five years after his conviction. .... Had the Metropolitan Police not kept a copy of the original police report and a copy of the photographs of the victim's injuries, there would not have been the slightest chance of proving his innocence.... .... I find it abhorrent that changes to the criminal law can be contemplated on the basis of statistical conclusions that not a high enough proportion of charges result in conviction. .... When I heard the words in Roy's case: 'The conviction must be quashed.' .... is the only time in my career that I have had to wipe away tears of relief at a court decision. ...."


Have case - will travel

Need a McKenzie Friend ?

Divorce - Custody - Advice

Contact: Ray Hemmingway Tel 01484-316489


ManKind A.G.M.

23sep00 12.30-4.30

Quality Hotel, Bentley, Walsall WS2 0BS, (01922 724444

At Jct. 10, M6.


Army bullies force desertions

- Jason Burke, Observer,

4june00. p1

"Desertions from the Army, often prompted by bullying and mistreatment, have reached record levels, prompting warnings of a crisis in the armed forces. .... higher than at any other time since the end of National Service. .... last year 1,998 cases of desertion and being absent without leave - one for every 48 soldiers. .... compares with .... one in 75 in 1996 .... at the time .... considered a historic high. .... many young soldiers decide to desert .... after mistreatment and bullying by their superiors or colleagues. .... more then 30 investigations under way into allegations of brutality.

At least 30 servicemen are separately taking the MoD to the High Court .... If their cases succeed, the MoD could be forced to pay out compensation totalling millions of pounds.

The absenteeism exacerbates an already serious manpower crisis. The Army is now understrength by at least 7,000 men...."

Recently, the plan to induct women into combat duties was again discussed.

I have just realised that since radfem dogma requires that exclusion always results from oppression, it was oppression that kept women from the pleasure of close combat with bayonets. This illustrates the total lack of strategy among radical feminists. The false dogma that women were historically disadvantaged required that trench warfare was a pleasure. Small wonder that 50% gullible women pioneering such rights in the U S Army suddenly reported pregnant when posted to the Gulf War.

As to bullying, I experienced sadism in the RAF in 1953 which was exactly the same as that experienced in the RAF in 1922 and written about by T E Lawrence in his book "The Mint", and also experienced within two years of Lawrence by my father, see my website

The crass ignorance of radical feminists means that they are inciting other, gullible women, into the front trenches. They do not know that the whole problem of whether, in order to win in battle, it is necessary to drill and to brutalise your troops, will be unknown to radical feminists, who view every compulsory activity by men as something that women would enjoy. For my part, my greatest nightmare, having been trained for it, is to be in a bayonet attack. This is one of the many, many ways in which women have been traditionally extremely favoured. - Ed

Lord Northbourne .... clearly thinks that the campaign for women's rights has gone far enough. He has tabled a question asking the government if it will appoint a minister for men. Will Baroness Jay .... answer it? ....

- Atticus, Sunday Times, 4june00, sect. 1 p19.

Fathers entitled to 'widowed mother's allowance'

Times, 10may00

Comment by Ed.

European Court of Human Rights judgement, 25apr00, struck out applications no. 36578/97 and 38890/97 when the UK authorities agreed to pay social security benefits in arrears to two male widowers as if they had been bereaved widows, pending new legislation.

The British government always fights a rearguard, against the interests of half of its voters, to avoid until the last possible moment giving equal rights to men. Yarwood was associated with forcing equality on fuel payments for old men. Why does our government always spend our money fighting expensive cases to avoid being forced to enact equality? This must be because our feminised government believes that some are more equal than others. As the shadow home secretary wrote, quoted on the last page of Ill Eagle 8, ".... men appear to be sleepwalking ...."


Just Potty

-Jasper Gerard, Mail, 21apr00, p37

" .... feminists at Stockholm University are campaigning to scrap the urinals on the grounds that their male-use-only design is intrinsically sexist. .... at least one Swedish primary school has already ditched the wall-fixed porcelain to acclimatise young male Swedes to the new order. Others are expected to follow. .... this men-to-pee-like-women project is beyond parody. .... one of the more imaginative examples of feminist paranoia .... of women's desire for absolute equality ...."


Dworkin's Vision - "Take No Prisoners" in the future 'Womanland'

- Linda Grant, Guardian,

Guardian Weekend, 13may00, p8.

".... The common view is that Dworkin began to write about porn because of her own traumatic marriage, in which being beaten and kicked wasn't an occasional incident, but the everyday....

"So now we come to what Andrea Dworkin wants and it is this: she wants women to have their own country. .... if you don't want to live in Womenland, so what? Not all Jews live in Israel, but it is there, a place of potential refuge if persecution comes to all. Furthermore, Dworkin says, as the Jews fought for Israel so women have the right to execute - that's right, execute - rapists and the state should not intervene. .... she was serious .... every act of penetrative sex is potentially an act of rape...."

In the article, Dworkin herself writes; ".... the beating and torture I experienced in marriage some 30 years ago; I finally got away ...."

Catherine A. MacKinnon cites Dworkin on rape, pp139, 190, 198, with approval in her 1989 book Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. [In a welter of scholastic gobbledygook, she seeks, and fails, to show that radfems can be scholarly.] In Mar99, Canadian Senator Anne C. Cools, available on my website, says; "Catherine MacKinnon, a gynocentric feminist, postulates that man-woman sexual relations are abhorrent because they violate women, and that in a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape. MacKinnon helped to craft sexual assault laws in Canada. This gender feminist ideology has driven much law in Canada, and consequently has driven much injustice. It has ravaged law, justice, many careers, and many human lives. .... It was buttressed by feminist terrorism and aggression ...." Cools is a friend of Erin Pizzey.

Dworkin is not large; she is extremely large, and perambulates with great difficulty.

Whereas in the Grant interview Dworkin argues for "Womanland", but also mentions that earlier she was a prostitute, in another very different Guardian 2june00 article Dworkin writes about being raped last year, aged 52; all of her! With the recent admission by Betty Frieden, the first radfem, that she made up allegations that her husband was violent, sense that radfems make up all the most horrible allegations in order to keep the writing commissions coming in.

Saving the boys from the gender benders

- Andrew Sullivan,

Sunday Times, 28may00, sect. 5 p7

Hell hath no fury like an American feminist. If you've ever met the professional variety, you will learn that soon enough. You will discover as well that any attempt at rational dialogue with such a person is enough to prompt a torrent of abuse that is now one of the mainstays of the American left. .... Boys are essentially being told that what comes naturally to them - rough-and-tumble play, confrontation, physicality, mischief - are psychological disorders. In one school, boys were disciplined for making guns out of their fingers and pretending to shoot one another. .... What is happening now in America is the slow crumbling of an ideological edifice that was constructed with perfectly good intentions on the basis of a lie. Too bad that several generations of boys and men have been the victims of that lie. And too bad that few people until now have had the courage and intellectual honesty to expose it.

What Women Want

Recognition of the unique qualities women can and do bring to society and industry. An end to barriers created by gender stereotyping and narrow-minded men. - Lucky, p180, in What Women Want, pub. Virago 1996.

Power to young people

In her 1998 book Fight for the Family (from 01865 552774), Lynette Burrows argues that the Children's Rights movement has been infiltrated by paedophiles. According to her, the public's reaction against a campaign to legitimise sexual intercourse between adults and children had to go underground. The argument used by childcare organisations to justify preferring to employ homosexuals, on the grounds that they are less likely to molest girls in their care, tends to confirm this.

A bizarre article by "One of our panel of columnists" Peter Tatchell in the magazine Community Care, 23mar00, tends to support the Burrows thesis. Here is part of it.

"By saying that under-16s are not allowed to consent to a sexual relationship, the unspoken message is that they have no sexual rights - which is the precise mind-set of the abusive adult. .... Denying under-16s the right to consent to sex, reinforces the idea that they have no right to make sexual choices. Isn't this what child sex abusers believe?" - "Peter Tatchell is a spokesperson for the gay rights group OutRage! ...."

Letter to the Editor

Dear Sir,

Have received and read through your 'Ill Eagle'; which I think is excellent.

Thank God there are people like yourself and ManKind that are doing something to loosen the strangle hold that feminism has over society.

From my experiences of life things have got gradually worse for men.

I think the problem has been exacerbated also by the increasing amount of single mothers who are bringing up sons mainly on their own, and this has lead to a lot of young men being brainwashed by their mothers into thinking that men are 'bad' and this had led to the majority of young men having low self esteem.

To my mind women have always had 'equal rights' to some degree, as over the ages there always have been some jobs that are better suited to womankind. There used to be a balance between men and women. Unfortunately over the last 50 years the women's movements have got hold and have gone over the top on 'equal rights' and the balance has swung grossly in their favour, so much so that the family unit, I will go as far as to say, has been destroyed ii this country and therefore causing a lot of the ills of society. Instead of the man being the head of the household, the woman coming a close second, and the children a close third; children come first with their mother a close second and the man, well, a long way adrift in third.

I would like to attend the AAFAA Conference in London on Sat. 11nov00 [Action against false allegations of abuse, tel. 01788 811912]

Keep up the good work.

Yours sincerely, P Bendell.

Working mothers warning

- David Brindle,

Guardian, 7apr00, p11

.... young children looked after by other people may be more prone to bad behaviour. .... hitting and disobeying .... But .... the higher the quality of day care, the fewer the problems. .... Professor Jay Belsky, of Birkbeck College, who will present the findings .... 1,300 children in the US .... and 125 first-born boys [in England].... Family environment was found to be the most important influence on a child's development.

[Following her pivotal 1995 book Farewell to the Family?, recently re-issued, from 0207 799 3745, in 1996 Patricia Morgan gave us Who Needs Parents?, same publisher. She carefully shows that child care when mum goes out to work, if it does not damage the child, is too expensive, except for high flying women like Harriet Harman and Mistress Blair. Gilder said the same in 1973. Pied Piper HH and the rest say; "Copy me. I don't damage my children," but you will. - Ed]

Single mothers are 70% more likely to die early than married mothers and are more prone to death by suicide, violent abuse or alcohol, says a survey in The Lancet today. The analysis, from Sweden, ... used a sample of more than 750,000 women.



The Hiatus

"When the Americans leave, then the civil was can begin." This is a quotation from a Vietnamese woman on the back cover of one of the key books published during the American phase in the Vietnamese war of liberation. The Americans used all their wealth and power, spending £4,000 per year per man, woman and Vietnamese child, to force the natives into conceding that they were trying lose their independence in a monolithic, world empire of godless communism, not trying to get rid of foreign domination. (It would have cost less to send every Vietnamese citizen to Harvard University.) Because the Vietnamese could not compromise over their independence, (there had been terrible famines with millions of deaths under French rule,) they were forced to break the American war machine, the most powerful in history, and also break the American economy. The U.S.A. went off the Gold Standard, and in ignominy left Indochina, leaving a wake of terrible, long term destruction.

My first two books, one available on my website, show clearly that in 1970 we had major social questions which needed to be addressed, and if possible, solved. The lasting achievement of radfems was to suppress analysis and therefore progress in resolving major social problems for a third of a century. Everything had to be viewed through the distorted lens of the dogma of female oppression. Today, anything said in pursuit of social reform is interpreted through this dogma, very much as Marxists in their day could not listen to, or respond to, social issues in a competent way. That is why Erin Pizzey's assertion that radfems are Marxists who have jumped ship, is so instructive. Their blindness and aggressiveness is so similar, as is the falsification of statistics and suppression of opposition. In her 1989 book Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, radfem Professor Catherine A. MacKinnon begins with an 80 page section; The Problem of Marxism and Fenminism.

The failure of women to call a small minority of their kind, the radfems, to heel, will lead to the other lasting achievement of the radfems. Women continue to take short term advantage of a legal system which is controlled by radfems, expropriating men on a grand scale, cutting fathers off from their children, now leading to the jailing of men in ever greater numbers. This copies the U.S.A.'s attack on its black, fatherless youth, a significant, rising proportion of whom are now in jail, many on rape charges. Interestingly, most men in jail for rape are black. Thus, the radfem struggle to jail more men on rape charges is a racist attack by the sisterhood on the black brotherhood. In the same way as Gentiles failed to restrain Hitler, and all Germans finally paid a terrible price for it, so will generations of women pay for the indifference of this generation to the escalating crisis. The worldwide contempt for German Gentiles continued for two generations. The failure of women to check the excesses of radfem behaviour, including their distorted, corrupting dogma, leads to a growing contempt for women in general, so that the following article will be one of many. Thanks to their conniving with radfems, women are at the Last Chance Saloon in their quest to save parity of esteem, carefully constructed over centuries, now to be lost for a long time. One Melanie Phillips, one Erin Pizzey, one Senator Anne C. Cools and one Patricia Morgan cannot save the respect that women are losing.

A necessary part of the Dream which is love and marriage is respect for women. That is why the radfems are so corrosive.

ManKind and Ill Eagle can be reached at;

(1). Mankind, Suite 367, 2 Lansdowne Row, London W1X 8HL. (0207 413 9176


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

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

(4) Email :-

The Radical Feminist

With no effective rituals of initiation, and no real way to know when our slow progress toward adulthood has reached its goal, young men in our culture go around in circles. - Robert Bly, The Sibling Society, 1996, p44.

Recently, the question; "Why are the radical feminists so bitter and so destructive? What is driving them?" was posed to me again.

I have been reading Margaret Mead, Male and Female, 1950/64 and at the same time discussing Daniel Amneus, The Garbage Generation, 1990. While Amneus draws heavily on Mead to develop the idea that the weakest link into the family is that of the father, and that civilised society progresses by reinforcing that link, the present discussion is about something else.

Mead is valuable because she pre-dates the myth-making of radical feminism, and gives us some thinking untainted by it. She may have been "discredited" because she did not toe the later PC radical feminist line. However, for our purpose, even that question does not matter.

Mead cites two adult roles in a culture, the male and the female. Each role may have wide permissible variations, or it may be very restrictive. It is important to engineer a society where wide variation is allowed within each role. This is because a child, particularly a young man, may decide that he will fail to fulfil the required role. In that case he may take on the role of the female, and go off to weave mats with the women. Mead believes that virtually all homosexuality is a social construct, used by a child to evade his fear of failure to fulfil the appropriate adult role. This correlates with the observation that homosexuals are deeply disturbed people; the majority of members of Alcaholics Anonymous are homosexual, their suicide rate is very high, and so on. The massive bias in favour of promoting homosexual at the expense of heterosexual men to the Cabinet means we must give up the idea that discrimination against homosexuals leads to their alcoholism, suicide and so forth.

There is much concern in many cultures to ensure that a boy is properly inducted into the role of adult man. The aim of the initiation .... is imagined as a way to complete the development of the being from a neutral genderlessness to a state of genuine masculinity. - Robert Bly, The Sibling Society, 1996, p116. A number of activities are undertaken towards that end, some of which we would call rites of passage, something which is particularly lacking in our culture. Sport, possibly particularly team sport, probably served that purpose for most boys. It is instructive that the radical feminist opposes competition in sport, even team competition.

Only recently did I realise why a girl had less need of a rite of passage. Menstruation clearly tells her that now she is a woman. Such reassurance has to be artificially given to a boy by social construct(s).

Other events than rites of passage occur in tribal societies which serve the purpose of assuring a boy that he has made the difficult transition into manhood. These include all-male clubs and all-male ceremonial.

A study of radical feminists shows that they strongly attack each and every one of these cultural constructs, usually under cover of demands for equality. The question we have to ask ourselves is, "Why?"

Recently, in our society, the enormous fear of appearing to be feminine evinced by boys has been remarked upon.

My first experience of a radical feminist was when her then husband drove me and my wife to Marge Piercy's home to be guests for the night. A week later, I found that on arrival my wife, as well as myself, had immediately feared that we would be thrown out into a very cold midwinter Cape Cod night, miles from anywhere. This is the only time in my life that such a fear has come over me, when a house guest. I am sure that it was also the only time my wife ever had such a fear.

Six months later I went to a lecture by Piercy in London. There were 25 women present plus myself. She rapidly got involved in talking about rape.


If, as is generally asserted, rape is a power syndrome, not sexual, then the urge to rape will not be restricted to males. A decade ago I concluded that the urge to rape existed in many radical feminists. They were bitter because they lacked the equipment. They hated men who raped, and had contempt for men who, having the equipment, did not. That is the only way I can explain their tremendous frustration; their fixation on rape, which is a minor social problem, with quite as many male victims as female. Radical feminists show no concern for the major problem of rape of males in prisons. Part of this indifference is to rename it as a minor offence. (Similarly, more young men are mugged, not old ladies.)

(An interesting dislocation in PC is that, whereas we are esked to extoll buggery as just another orientation from normal sexual intercourse, in the case of attacks on men we are asked to dismiss forced buggery as

Now let us address the fact that radical feminists work to destroy all male rites of passage and all mechanisms for reassuring a boy of his newly found manhood.

The desire of radical feminists to rape is an extreme expression of their more general sexual confusion. Like the sensitive boy in the tribe, they fear that they will fail to fulfil their expected, female, adult role. They look with fondness and also with envy on another possible option for them, the role of man. This fear of alienation from the woman's role is fuelled if the radical feminist has been educated beyond the traditional woman's role. It is also fuelled by radical feminists' persistent denigration of a woman's traditional role.

Under cover of demands for equality of opportunity, radical feminists invade all aspects of male activity, even the least appropriate. A recent absurd example is that legislation in the USA now requires that the amount of government money spent on female soccer must equal that spent to encourage male soccer, although soccer has developed over a century as a sport tuned to the male physique, which women, with their different pelvises, are obviously unable to emulate. (The result is that the USA is near to top in the world female soccer stakes.) Further evidence that radical feminists are evincing the same confusion and fear as that evinced by the occasional boy in Mead's tribes, is that they make no effort whatsoever to induct boys or men into strictly female provinces. That is, androgyny, or equality, is a one-way road. There is no effort to encourage men into any of the many female provinces, for example the teaching of young children.

Generally, the attack on male virtues is by way of caricature. Male valour is vilified by calling it male violence. Every attack by radical feminists on an obviously anti-social activity is actually a coded attack on a very fine, somewhat similar male virtue. Thus does the radical feminist evince both a desire to enter the male sanctum, and also a desire to destroy the male sanctum.

It is instructive to look up the Shorter Oxford Dictionary which predates the perversion of our language by radical feminism.

Macho and machismo do not exist in 1975 vintage English, although radical feminists claim that we have to erase the macho culture of that time.

Virtue is the most important word. It has been totally changed from 1973 to rid it of male characteristics, all of which are now denigrated under the newly imported boo-word macho. Virtue then included; Physical strength, force or energy; The possession or display of manly qualities; manly excellence, manliness, valour. In women, it cites Chastity, sexual purity, these also now denigrated by radical feminists.

Chivalry, another word indicating a boy's chance to grow into man, is also now denigrated. It included; disinterested bravery, honour, and courtesy. All of these are under attack from radical feminism. The social analyst Lipschutz claims that when in power, chivalry is a necessary virtue. He says that the failure of powerful women to show chivalry to weak men is why our society is out of control, out of balance. He says that powerful women, far from showing chivalry to weak men, despise them.

"There was also a need to ensure that the curriculum included areas which would allow children to find ways of shining which were not to do with being macho - music, drama, dance." - Angela Phillips, the keynote speaker at the 16nov98 Home Office conference entitled Boys, young men and fathers, from which men's organisations were excluded. Here we see the attempt to destroy every rite of passage for the boy, including sport, in a Home Office conference supposedly about the problem of the growing alienation of boys. As a boy at school, I retreated from music, drama and dance, although now, as a confident adult, I sing in one of the best choirs in London. (At school, drama meant A Midsummer Night's Dream, a nightmare for boys. Dance was worse.). Even while in the conference where she is supposed to be discussing alienated boys, Phillips, invited by a radical feminist Home Office, tries to destroy mechanisms for boys to stay engaged through to manhood. Her ignorant crocodile tears are destructive.

Ivor Catt, 121 Westfields, St. Albans AL3 4JR 2aug99


In mar00 the County Organisers of ManKind sent a questionnaire to a random selection of 21 out of the 50 Chief Probation Officers throughout the country. We have now received a standard response from the Lead Officer of the Family Court Welfare Network (LOFCWN).

Steve Fitzgerald has taken up his offer of a meeting. In addition, SF has requested a more specific response to the question about "The NAPO Policy Document". This is a policy which in its entirety discriminates against men.

The Myth


1 Brooklands Avenue,

Cambridge CB2 2BB

Tel: 01223 712345


Mr S Fitzgerald,

National Organiser, ManKind (etc.)

Dear Mr. Fitzgerald, I write to you in my capacity as LOFCWN for the Association of Chief Officers of Probation (ACOP). Members of your organisation in different areas have been writing to local Chief Probation Officers (CPOs) seeking clarification of a number of points and issues. Essentially, they are presenting the same paper written by you to different CPOs. In the circumstances, it seems sensible that ACOP should make a response to you and your paper along with a request that you make that response as widely available as possible to your membership. I hope you are agreeable to this way of moving things forward.

Your paper clearly sets out the matters which concern you and I will reply within the headings you use.

1. Training: All Family Court Welfare Officers (FCWO), in common with Guardian ad Litem and Social Workers, hold a Diploma in Social Work (or its equivalent). Pre-qualification training includes study of child development, separation and loss, families in crisis, Law, assessment and report writing. Probation Officers are generally assigned to Family Court Welfare Service (FCWS) only after 2-3 years experience within Probation. During this time, they increase their knowledge and understanding of families, risk assessment and report writing - all of which are of central importance when they come to work as Court Welfare Officers (CWOs). When they are assigned to FCWS officers are sent for Induction Training, which is organised on a national basis. This training covers the key elements of the FCWO task. The training is supported by an induction manual produced nationally. Area Probation Services have arrangements for observation, induction and mentoring to ensure that new officers move into the work in a controlled and supported way. Area Probation Services are responsible for providing training necessary to ensure officers work to a satisfactory standard. Annual appraisal against a robust schedule of practice competences is the mechanism for testing that an officer's work is at the required level.

ACOP has produced two distinct learning packs:

(1) Working with Children.

(2) "Cornerstones" video trigger-training - working with diversity.

in order to support local training. We also run an annual practice conference at which research and developments in practice are discussed.

While we are not complacent, we know that this level of training compares favourably with that


provided for others operating in the Family Justice System.

2. Parental Alienation: FCWS is aware of several articles written on the subject of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). ACOP's view is that PAS represents one contribution amongst a wealth of research studies on the effects of separation and divorce, all of which must contribute to our understanding of the different ways children and families cope with disruption of their family life. It is dangerous, in our view, to promote one piece of research over all others.

3. Contact Guidelines: ACOP has good links with the Association of Family Court Welfare |Officers (AFCWO) and there is dialogue between the Associations. ACOP's understanding of the AFCWO "guidelines" is that they are merely a contribution to the debate on how best to arrange contact. They are not intended to be definitive or prescriptive. ACOP has its own guidance "Children and Contact - A Framework for Assessment". I enclose a copy for your information.

4. Equal Parenting: By "equal parenting" I understand you mean a set of arrangements made by parents so that children spend part of each week with each parent in their separate homes.

ACOP is absolutely clear that the Children Act 1989 guides us towards particularity, rather than generality, ie it is what is right for this particular child that determines the nature and extent of contact.

Accordingly, "equal parenting" will be right in some circumstances for some children and wrong for other children in different circumstances.

You may be interested to know that in parts of the United States of America the notion of the "nest" is gaining ground with some children. This is an arrangement whereby the children remain in one home and it is the parents who come to live in that home at different times during the week. These children appear to like being based so that possessions, friends etc are all in one place.

What is clear to us is that where parents are prepared to co-operate and keep the focus on the children's needs all sorts of imaginative solutions can be found to the issue of contact.

5. NAPO Document: All FCWOs are expected to carry out their duties in accordance with the law, national standards and any guidance which may be provided by Area Probation Services. Work which demonstrably failed to meet required standards would be dealt with robustly, regardless of whether it were authorised by a NAPO policy document or not.

6. Complaints Procedure Each Area Probation Service has a complaints procedure, approved and authorised by its Probation Committee. Any perceived shortcoming in a Service's procedure should be taken up with the Probation Service concerned.

6.2 Collection of Information / Quality Control The purposes of a welfare report are such as to make it necessary and desirable for the FCWO to make decisions about what to include or exclude from a report. Parties are at liberty to challenge a report and ask the court to order the CWO's attendance at the hearing to answer questions, if they wish.

It is not the purpose of quality control procedures to scrutinise in detail transactions between FCWO and parties.

6.3 Challenging a Report You are, no doubt, aware of the restrictions placed upon the uses to which a welfare report may be put and who can see it. The report is the property of the court and only available from the court, at which proceedings are to be heard. This means that statutorily the welfare report can only be made available after formal filing with the court.

ACOP does not accept your view that it is too late to challenge a report by the time it comes before the Judge, as this view discounts the very judicial process which is at the heart of proceedings. In our view, any lack of confidence you may have with the court process should be taken up with the Lord Chancellor's Department, not deflected into spurious discussion of challenging a report prior to its reaching court.

6.4 Content and Conduct Most complaints procedures seek to make a distinction between complaints against content, professional judgements, conclusions and recommendations reached in a report and complaints against the way in which a FCWO carried out his/her inquiries. The reasons for this is that, in our view, the Judge who hears all the evidence, and where necessary may question (and hear questioned) the FCWO in court, is best placed to decide what weight to give to the welfare report and the FCWOs verbal evidence. No complaints procedure can hope to re-visit issues which have been dealt with through due process of law.

Complaints procedures should, therefore, generally be seen to be able to deal with complaints which relate to FCWO conduct, but not able to deal with matters relating to report content.

All area services are required to have a complaints procedure in place and part of that procedure is their annual report which is available from area services.

I hope this is useful to you in furthering your understanding of the Probation Service's position on the key issues which you raise. I wonder if it would be worth meeting to have a more free-flowing discussion of issues of mutual interest?

"Probation Officers are generally assigned to Family Court Welfare Service (FCWS) only after 2-3 years experience within Probation." [This is why they always look for, or even assume, criminal tendencies in fathers. - Ed.]

6.2 ....Parties are at liberty to challenge a report and ask the court to order the CWO's attendance at the hearing to answer questions, if they wish. [Not true - Ed.]

The Reality

"Views" by probation officers who masquerade as experts in matters of child welfare are screened against scrutiny. It is treated as contempt of court for fathers to 'disclose' Probation Officer CWO Reports (containing the views, professional practice methodology and philosophy of poorly trained probation service staff). Since Family Court judges can sit on the committee of local probation areas (and thus are the 'employers' of CWOs who are failing) some English Family court judges (not excluding those at the Royal Courts of Justice, RCJ) have reasons to be concerned that the poor performance by their officers might leak to the general public. Failure by staff impacts children. England is habituated with doing things on the cheap, however given that some 70 000 CWO reports have impact on the lives of children it is worth considering the reports by the HM Inspectorate for probation which are in the public domain and which throw light on Probation Officer CWOs.

THE HM Inspectorate of Probation, Family Court Welfare Work, Report of a Thematic Inspection, Home Office 1997, page 104 is damning.

Reading either this or the 1991 report, we notice the number of occasions where service provision was described as 'varied', 'ranging between' or 'non-existent'. The geographical location of the parties and their children determined what provision was available for them.

The Inspection of welfare reports found an alarming level of welfare reports failing to address the Section 1(3) Children Act Welfare Checklist. (P49) The HM Inspector found that;

36% of the CWO reports failed to address the wishes and feelings of the child,

30% failed to address the child's physical needs,

50% failed to address the child's educational needs, and

46% of Welfare reports failed to address the range of powers available to the court."

In the light of the Home Office's own report, denial of cross examination constitutes an abuse of a fair hearing, and denies the voting public necessary information in a democratic society.

In Court of Appeal Lord Justice Thorpe made a decision in Re A that there was no right to cross-examine CWOs. [Refer back to the false statement by the LOFCWN]. Lord Justice Thorpe should know the facts which the Home Office considered important enough to make public. He made this decision knowing that once procedures get held behind the locked doors of Family Courts, fathers are denied the right to consult with competent professionals on methodological flaws by CWOs.

In my own case I had a solicitor acting for me who as former psychologist was shocked about the lack of training amongst CWOs and like other solicitors did not hesitate to express his concern about the poor quality of reports in cases


where he had acted for parents. But as member of the legal system he was not prepared to take up my invitation to publicly express his concerns. He did however, at my instruction, apply that in my case an independent child development expert be called upon to report prior to a Probation Officer CWO dealing with my children. The application at the RCJ was refused, and amazingly, my solicitor was even threatened with having to personally pay costs for wasting court time by bringing my application to court. Obviously, once a CWO did report, the attitude that the court then took was that a further report by a qualified independent expert was undesirable as "delay is not in the best interest of the child". So you can't have an expert, you are blocked by the myth that untrained Probation CWOs are good enough experts. Little wonder that courts ban scrutiny to prevent professionals from witnessing the world of decision making behind Family Court's closed doors.

However, buttressing the Family Courts was Lord Justice Thorpe's decision in relation to matters where the welfare of hundreds of thousands of children is in the hands of courts who do not want the electorate in a democratic society to sit in scrutiny over the workings of the organs of justice.

The Access to Justice Act 1999 does not contain any provision giving a right to cross-examine Court Welfare Officers, or for parents to appoint their own independent expert.

by Y. A. Name

The Greater Spotted Feminist (Femmus Mercenarius)

by ordinarythologist

Large numbers of this predatory bird are quite common throughout the British Isles. Some varieties are commoner than others. Its plumage often changes, and is sometimes false, e.g. false eyelashes, false hair colour, false suntan, false laugh then trying to ingratiate itself with a mate.

The Greater Spotted Feminist is very attracted to bright objects, such as money, large cars, jewellery, and consumer goods, and frequently picks them up and takes them away.

It is parasitic by nature, never paying for its food, drink or nest, and has cuckoo characteristics, both physical and mental. Once having persuaded a male to share his nest with it, the Greater Spotted Feminist frequently breeds with anything that is passing, before throwing its mate out of the nest entirely.

Although banished from the marital nest, the male is still expected to provide all the goodies the feminist demands, whether for his own offspring or that of other males.

The Greater Spotted Feminist has a monotonous cry of 'I want, I want' which remains the same throughout its usually long life, and never changes with the seasons. It is generally regarded as a foul pest, but unfortunately, stupid legislation means that it is a thoroughly protected species, which can do whatever it likes.

Bang 'em all up!

"Ms Betty Moxon heads the Sexual Offences Review Group.... [She] invited Robert Whiston and Ivor Catt from ManKind to attend her 10sep99 seminar in Leicester. ManKind member William Coulson also managed to fill in for a cancellation.

".... The Leicester seminar, attended by our chairman, and myself as editor of Ill Eagle, gives a great deal of food for thought and much to report, some of which I intend to do later.

"There were men there, but they were poodle-men. None of the 50 attendees had the concept of a false allegation." - Ill Eagle, sep99.

There followed extensive correspondence between your Ed, his MP, and the Home Office, see my website. My MP was a dead loss, so I ask readers to pursue the matter through their own MPs.

My two objectives were to get false allegations onto the political agenda, and also to develop a mechanism for restraining the flood of false reports and statistics emanating from the govt. See "Amnesty announced by ManKind", Ill Eagle jan00. Recently, Margaret Jay repeated the notorious "one woman in four is assaulted" fabricated by Stinko of Royal Holloway College, see Ill Eagle sep99. (Overheard muttering by the skunk who fabricated statistics, when the wind changed; "It's all coming back to me now.")

At last, after six months of obfuscation, during which I had to simplify my question into words of one and two syllables, I have received the admission that false allegations are not within the remit of anybody in government. ".... there is no specific policy consideration in government being given to the issue of false allegations, ...." - letter to Catt from -Tooke, Sex Offences Review Team, Home Office, 21mar00. If you find this unbelievable, phone M-Tooke tel. 0171 273 3875 or email her at

A few days after this admission, the case of Roy Burnett, falsely jailed for brutal rape for 15 years, hit the headlines.

As to the Amnesty for officials who have falsified reports; after six months of correspondence with my useless MP, who stated on 18nov99, see Ill Eagle jan00, that there was a "staged disciplinary process" for officials who fabricated statistics, I have at last received from -Tooke the first information on the process in an email from -Tooke to me, 13apr00; "The Home Office, in common with other Government Departments, has an internal discipline procedure. This can be instigated by a letter of complaint from a member of the public. .... - Su McLean-Tooke, Sex Offences Review Team, Home Office. I have a long way to go before being in a position to react quickly to the next piece of false, anti-social rubbish coming out of Govt. - Ed

Letter from your Editor to David Davis M.P., Chairman, Public Accounts Committee.

20apr00. Dear David Davis M.P., I note your comments on the Child Support Agency (CSA) in today's Evening Standard, p8, summarised below. Before the CSA was set up, its first chairman, Ros Hepplewhite, lectured to the FNF AGM. I immediately said that there was no possibility that she would pay any attention to the advice of its clients, divorced fathers, and that the CSA would self-destruct. I strongly urged men's organisations not to attack it. Her own father deserted his family when she was aged two, and the operation was set to be punitive. Up to and including today, the CSA and those who run it and periodically attempt to reform it, ignore the advice and expertise of divorced men. For this reason, the latest reforms are dead in the water.

A marker of continued failure will be the continually increasing suicide rate of young men and of divorced men.

The women in the Home Office have at last invited me and one other man to one or two of their inappropriate seminars. However, control of decision making in the whole field of family breakdown remains firmly in the hands of sexually dysfunctional women.

Recently, for the first time, my colleague was invited onto a relevant committee in the Lord Chancellor's Office, but one swallow does not make a spring. With him are at least three women with a long, documented track record of attacking the family as an institution.

Whereas the increasing suicides among men will cut no ice, the development which will force a change from the present bolshie attitude of those in power, will be increasing disorder in the streets, up to twenty times that over the Poll Tax. I predict that we will reach that stage in about fifteen years, as disempowered, unemployed, vilified young men finally react as predicted by Patricia Morgan in her 1995 book Farewell to the Family? [from 020 7799 3745]; "Large numbers of unattached and predatory males who have never taken on the responsibilities of family life, or who have been ejected from families, now meet the classic conditions for the creation of a 'warrior class'." They are waiting for a Fascist leader.

There is no substitute for taking divorcing and divorced men into the decision making and law-making process, wresting it from the radfems and their poodles like Boateng and Straw's brother. It will have to happen in the end, after many more lives have been lost. Why not now? In the absence of any power to influence decision making, divorcing men will finally retake power in the manner outlined on my website


under the general descriptor Retreat. This has already been tested, causing a judge to capitulate and make a court order as prescribed by the father, who, as is usual, of course, was about to lose all his assets and all contact with his children. However, the situation will deteriorate further before divorcing fathers face up to taking that course of action.

CSA must clear up 'polluting legacy of errors' say MPs

- David Shaw,

Evening Standard, 20apr00, p8

The CSA came under fresh fire today from a Commons watchdog demanding it clear up a "legacy of errors" which persists in blighting thousands of lives despite five years of reforms.

The damning criticism came from the Public Accounts Committee which found that the agency is continuing to make a catalogue of errors and pays out derisory compensation to those it wrongs.

The MPs say that having damaged hundreds of thousands of people at very stressful periods of their lives the agony goes on. They say that one in four new assessments is inaccurate, more than one in three payments from absent parents are for the wrong amounts, and four out of five maintenance account balances are incorrect. Committee chairman David Davis said today that after a number of changes to the system and several different chief executives, further improvements proposed for next year risk being undermined. He said: "Changes to the system proposed by the Government, combined with a new information technology system, offer a solution but to make the new arrangements work it is vital that the CSA clear out the legacy of errors to avoid polluting the new arrangements from day one."

The MPs criticise compensation payments, saying that cash paid for maladministration has quadrupled to more than £4.35 million. However, they say: "The bulk of this sum merely puts people in the position they would have been in had the agency not made an error. The committee questions whether these payments really do compensate individuals."

Today's report says: "It is important that the existing high levels of error in the agency's records are rectified quickly and are not allowed to contaminate the data on which the new arrangements will rely.... [on] staff turnover the report says: "The latter remains worryingly high. ...."

What now?

"It is true that what is happening to our young men is very worrying. It appears that as the traditional routes to adulthood no longer exist for them, many have removed themselves from any concept of parental responsibility.... They are being infantilised and there is a crisis in male identity. .... any discussion about the family which does not call for men to change ...."

- Sue Slipman, Director of the National Council for One Parent Families, in Would You Take One Home With You?, p68 of her chapter in Underclass: The Crisis Deepens, by Charles Murray, pub. I.E.A. 020 7799 3746, 1994. For £100,000 p.a., Slipman now presents the benign face of Lottery Camelot.

As the suicide rate among young men continues to escalate, will Sue continue to say that they must change, and leave it at that? When I heard her speak on 9may00, she stuck to her guns. According to her, the admitted crisis for young men was merely the price that had to be paid for the transition away from oppression of women. Similarly, Bolshevic Russia and post-revolution France justified their tyrrany by saying that it was only transitional. Sue Slipman's very plausible argument will collapse after fifteen more years, when the suicide rate among young men has gone through the roof. She speaks so convincingly that many must die to prove her wrong, before civil rights will begin to be restored to young men.

Straw at talks on Underclass

Jack Straw debated the emergence of Britain's underclass with Charles Murray, [Ill Eagle, mar00, p7] plus Melanie Phillips and Sue Slipman (of Camelot, previously rep. for single mothers,) on 9may00.

I was ashamed that our Home Secretary descended to crude mud-slinging against Charles Murray. Because of his attitude, we are in for many long, hot summers.

"There is no doubt that the intruders are members of Murray's underclass." True to Murray's model, Fred Barras, the burglar killed by Martin, never knew his father. - See Sunday Times, 23apr00, p12.

Liberal folly has turned farm killer into a martyr

- Melanie Phillips,

Sunday Times, 23apr00, p17

What maddens people is the injustice of it. It is the refusal to distinguish between right and wrong behaviour by making whole groups of people victims (women, asylum seekers, single parents) and defining other groups (white people, men, middle classes) as oppressors so that they can never be the victims of anyone in the designated classes. This leaves people feeling bitterly powerless and disenfranchised. ....

It is a dangerous sign when men such as Martin are turned into heroes of Middle Britain; and it has happened because middle Britain has turned into a term of abuse. People are under assault for committing the petit-bourgeois crime of aspiring to better themselves by working hard, protecting their families and themselves from harm, and espousing values of family life and elementary justice to do so.

Human Rights Act 1998

The Human Rights Act 1998 comes into effect on the 2 October this year. The Act incorporates in full the European Convention on Human Rights (ratified by the UK in March 1952) and the two protocols to the Convention also ratified by the UK, the First Protocol (November 1952) and the Sixth Protocol (May 1999).

Article 14 of the Convention protects against discrimination on any ground but only in respect of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and protocols. Article 14 has no force in itself, and thus does not protect against discrimination in other legislative areas outside the scope of the Convention and protocols, and thus of the Human Rights Act 1998, for instance in public health, social welfare, and public transport.

There is therefore no all-embracing fundamental right under the Human Rights Act 1998 not to be discriminated against. [In any case, no national or international convention, law or statute or case law gives a child the right of access to its parent. I have been saying this for more than ten years, the reaction from all parties, including all fathers cut off from their children, being one of total indifference. It's a strange world, full of strange people. - Ed

Matters relating to the family or family circumstances must rely on the protection afforded by Articles 8 and 12 of the main Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of the First Protocol, taken together with Article 14 prohibiting discrimination on any grounds.

Article 8 states that: "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

This Article thus allows a wide range of 'let-outs' for a government tempted to interfere with or frustrate this right. Nevertheless, any protection that is afforded must be without discrimination on any grounds. [The monstrous invention of the concept of their jurisdiction over 'indirect access' by our rascally judges some ten years ago will not be ended by this mealy-mouthed Article. Thus, mothers will continue to intercept letters from father to child and child to father with impunity, and with the support of our judiciary. There is money to be made by lawyers so long as this interception is not a criminal offence, and can be argued about. - Ed]

Article 12 of the Convention states that : "Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right".

This protection is more clear-cut and again must be without discrimination on any grounds.


[Years ago, I argued that Saudi Arabia, if it routinely cut off her children from a divorced mother, could sign up to all this stuff with impunity. I retain that view. ".... according to the national laws...." makes Article 12 useless. - Ed]

Article 1 of the First Protocol deals with property rights: "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."

The Article allows some let-outs "in the general interest" but generally protects the rights of persons to enjoy their possessions, taken together with Article 14, without discrimination on any grounds. The enforced transfer of property by the courts following family breakdown or repeated false allegations of domestic abuse might well be questioned under this Article. [I disagree. This Article is full of holes, and tends to confirm Lynnette Burrows' view (see The Fight for the Family, from (01865 556848) that the committees in Europe brewing up this stuff have been 'got at' by radfems, and the value of all this stuff negated. - Ed]

In recent years, the European Court of Human Rights has widened the scope of the meaning of 'possessions' to also include 'pecuniary interests', example benefits from a statutory contributory scheme. The previous lack of statutory survivors benefits for widowed fathers in the UK was successfully challenged in 1998 on this basis taken together with the prohibition of sex discrimination under Article 14, the Government accepting admissibility and subsequently equalising benefits for both widows and widowers under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999.

Article 2 of the First Protocol relates to the right to education. In particular: "the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions."

Taken together with Article 14, this implies that both parents have an equal right in this process including after family breakdown. [I disagree. I have urged that Jack Straw be asked to define the word 'parent', and, even more important, to define the word 'family'. Butler-Sloss, head of the Family Courts, has said that a pair of homosexual men should be regarded as parents just as much as are natural father and mother. Since there is no longer a valid definition of the word 'parent', it is impossible to transfer an asserted right for 'parents' to a single 'parent'. Interestingly, I believe we have also lost the concept 'in loco parentis'. For instance, Adrienne Burgess would not know what it used to mean. - Ed.]

Regrettably, and to some, scandalously, the most relevant protection relating to the family, Article 5 of the Seventh Protocol, is excluded from the Human Rights Act 1998 since the UK has neither signed nor ratified this protocol. This states that: "Spouses shall enjoy equality of rights between them, and in their relations with their children, during marriage and in the event of its dissolution. This Article shall not prevent States from taking such measures as are necessary in the interests of the children."

This Article still allows some let-outs for a government determined to subordinate parental rights 'in the interests of the children', but nevertheless should provide powerful protection against discrimination between parents both during a marriage and, more pertinently, after family breakdown and parental separation. [I disagree. It will be ignored, using the mantra "The interests of the children", in a secret court where the determination of such best interests was made in secret, by ignorant and prejudiced CWOs. My article "The Judgement of Solomon", on my website and in Male View Apr00, shows Sloss using this mantra to defy British legislation which makes shared parenting the preferred option. - Ed] The term 'spouses' presumably is confined to married persons, so the position of unmarried parents under this Article is unclear.

Finally, Article 13 of the Convention states that: "Everyone whose rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity." [Europe plays the ball back into our home court, where we were denied our rights! - Ed]

From the 2 October this year, such persons will presumably have the choice as to whether to proceed by bringing a case under the Human Rights Act 1998 in the UK courts or by taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The pros and cons of this have yet to be established. [I predict a Catch - 22. - Ed]

David Yarwood.

"Rape case men 'must prove their innocence'

- Matthew Hickley,

Daily Mail, 7apr00, p8

"Men in rape cases would have to prove their innocence under radical proposals for law reform.

"Legal experts say the change would reverse the sacrosanct principle that all defendants are innocent until proved guilty. ....

"Such a shift of the burden of proof could also bring British law into conflict with the European Convention of Human Rights....."

"There is no greater nightmare than being tortured for information you don't have. But that, in effect, is what we have been doing to Roy Burnett for 15 years.

"Being wrongly convicted of a crime he not only didn't commit, but probably never even happened is appalling enough But to spend many extra years inside because you refuse to admit your guilt is diabolical. .... his accuser eventually admitting she had made up a second rape story two years ago.

"This frightening miscarriage of justice .... warning to those who want to change the whole balance of British justice .... [in] Rape .... there are so many miscarriages of justice .... the original trial contained many inconsistencies ....

"Except that it was his accuser who was the nutter.... the unbalance woman .... Roy Burnett was easy meat ....Put him away. lads, he's a sexual nutter. Bang him up, good riddance...."

- Richard Stott,

News of the World, 9apr00, p7.

"The woman whose rape lies put Roy Burnett behind bars .... destroyed any chance he had of seeing his baby grow up. Now the boy .... is 18. Roy hasn't seen him since he was a three...."

- James Millbank,

News of the World, 9apr00, p6

After the Orkneys scandal, which finally resulted in a letter of apology from the local council (hurriedly given immunity by govt legislation) which had kidnapped the children in a pre-dawn raid, the clergyman who was supposed to have stood in the middle of a circle and selected and dragged in a child for molestation into the centre with a shepherd's crook, wrote to me that his church had betrayed him, as had the Quakers betrayed the victim Quaker families. Further, he wrote that such false charges of sexual abuse went right to the core of his being. - Ed

The Rape of Justice

"What isn't permissible is to have a law diminishing the rights of innocent persons accused of some types of offence only.

"What might happen, for instance, to a man accused of rape and robbery [or rape and assault]? Would he be allowed to ask questions on the robbery charge not permitted on the rape charge? Would the burden of proof on the two charges be entirely different?" [Could one alleged victim magically appear to turn into two?]

- John Mortimer Q.C.,

Daily Mail, 7apr00, p13.

ManKind Conference

The Oxford Street conference, organised many years ago by our ex-Chairman John Campion, made a major impact on me. There, I heard Daniel Amneus, author of The Garbage Generation, 1990, speak. I had been attracted to the conference to hear Patricia Morgan, Farewell to the Family?, 1995. Norman Dennis, Rising Crime and the Dismembered Family, 1993, also made a major impact on me. There I met Eugen for the first time, leading to a very fruitful collaboration.

I will be proud to be partly responsible for our conference, at Friends House, opposide Euston Station, London, on Saturday 28oct00, 0900 - 1630, if it approaches the quality achieved by John. The maximum number in the small hall is 230, so send off £10 now for your ticket (member or non-member), to ManKind, Suite 367, 2 Lansdowne Row, London W1X 8HL.


U.N. goes Radical feminist ?

Yet men appear to be sleepwalking through these mammoth changes - quoted from Anne Widdecombe, Ill Eagle 8, p8

From: ACFC Website <>

12 June 2000 13:17

"Thanks to John Hand for sending us the following."

Folks familiar with "genderspeak" in America, and how it translates into public policies that directly discriminate against fathers in the family via unsubstantiated allegations of abuse, and how all this builds an "attorney driven" country will find the below to be a somewhat shocking jolt towards a deeply radical feminist world. In one fell swoop it appears the U.N. went from fundamental protections against violence to a full array of radical feminist policy.

Note: Those of you who are not experienced at "gender speak" might not understand what is really being said between the lines. Remember this: what is being said here is exactly what is being said all across America by the same radical feminists. Their goals overseas are no different than they are here -- to talk women out of being mothers and wives and into divorce and the helplessness of the feminist welfare state. Prior U.N. conventions do have reasonable gender-neutral, and in some cases, woman-specific protections against abuse and violence. But as we know, this is not what they are after.

I have warned you this was coming, beginning when radical feminists took over the U.N. by storm beginning about 6 years ago. Now, here it is. We can only hope that the U.S. Congress will not be stupid enough to sign on to this should the U.N. be stupid enough to pass it.

Reference links and additional information can be found toward the end of this message.

Womens' Delegates Reach Agreement

by Edith M. Lederer,

Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Delegates from 180 countries reached agreement this morning on a new U.N. plan to accelerate progress toward women's equality after an all-night debate over abortion, sexual rights and other key issues.

''It was absolutely worth it,'' said U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Angela King, a special adviser on the advancement of women. ''I feel that all those millions of women who are looking at us are totally vindicated, and they have something to grasp to assist them for their battles for equality.''

The new document reaffirms the 150-page platform for action adopted at a landmark 1995 U.N. women's conference and moves forward with tougher measures to combat domestic violence and trafficking in women, and tackle the impact on women of HIV/AIDS and globalization.

But attempts to move beyond Beijing on the contentious issues of abortion failed -- and proposed references to sexual rights and sexual orientation were dropped from the final text by delegates meeting in committee.

The final text maintains language from Beijing on women's reproductive and sexual health.

''I'm very happy that the dire predictions that there would be a rollback of Beijing have proven false,'' King said. ''Instead for all the world to see, we have a very strong document which not only reaffirms Beijing and other relevant conferences on human rights and social development but also moves forward.''

The agreement was reached shortly after 5 a.m. and delegates were told to return two hours later to wrap up the conference. But when they arrived -- many not having slept -- U.N. officials informed them that the General Assembly session to formally approve the document by consensus was delayed further because translators needed more time.

During the night, several issues were resolved -- including a dispute between the United States and Cuba over the effect of U.S. sanctions against the communist island nation on Cuban women.

The final text calls on governments to set a target date of 2005 to eliminate the gender gap in primary and secondary education. It also moves ''substantially beyond Beijing in the roles men and boys can play to achieve gender equality,'' King said.

Delegates also agreed on strong planks calling for prosecution of all forms of domestic violence, now including marital rape. The traditional practices of forced marriage and honor killings are addressed for the first time in an international consensus document, with the draft text calling for laws to eradicate these human rights violations.

Many of the issues that stalled negotiations here also dominated the Beijing conference -- sexual rights, sexual orientation, abortion, sex education for adolescents and family values.

After a lengthy fight in Beijing, references to sexual orientation -- which the Vatican and several Islamic and Catholic countries vehemently oppose -- were dropped from the platform.

The term ''sexual rights'' was never included in the Beijing platform, though it does state that women have the right to ''decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality ... free of coercion, discrimination and violence.''

Conservative activists fear that sexual rights could be broadly interpreted as condoning homosexuality.

The battle lines for the current conference -- known as Beijing Plus Five -- mirrored those at Beijing: the Vatican and a handful of Islamic and Catholic countries against the West and hundreds of pro-Beijing women's rights activists.

Cuba and the United States, meanwhile, clashed for days over Havana's insistence on referring to the negative effect of U.S. sanctions, especially on women and girls.

King said the dispute was settled early today when both countries agreed to compromise language taken from a previous U.N. conference. It notes that ''in some countries, advancement of women is adversely affected by unilateral measures not in accordance with international law ... that create obstacles to trade relations among states.''

Several organizations issued a joint statement registering disappointment with the final document but reaffirming their commitment to work for implementation of the Beijing platform.

''We regret that there was not enough political will on the part of some governments and the U.N. system to agree on a stronger document with more concrete benchmarks, numerical goals, time-bound targets, indicators, and resources aimed at implementing the Beijing platform,'' said the statement, which was issued by the Center for Women's Global Leadership at Rutgers University and the Women's Environment and Development Organization.

UN Women's Meeting Nears Agreement

by Edith M. Lederer

Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- U.N. delegates meeting in a special session were deadlocked late Friday over abortion and other key issues contained in a plan to accelerate progress toward women's equality.

The General Assembly negotiators working into the night did agree on several other issues. If a final agreement is reached, the plan would provide tougher measures to combat AIDS, trafficking of women and domestic violence.

But with a midnight Friday deadline looming, representatives from more than 180 nations were still meeting behind closed doors, trying to reach consensus on many of the same issues that dominated the landmark 1995 U.N. women's conference in Beijing.

Senior U.N. officials said they were not expecting the final document to go much beyond the Beijing platform for action on sexual and reproductive matters. And it was unclear whether there would be consensus on a final document.

After a lengthy fight in Beijing, references to sexual orientation -- which the Vatican and conservative Islamic and Catholic countries vehemently oppose -- were dropped. The term ''sexual rights'' was never included though the platform does state that women have the right to ''decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality ... free of coercion, discrimination and violence.''


The United States also remained at odds with Cuba over a plank on the detrimental effects of sanctions on women, which delegates said Iraq also supports. Washington maintains embargoes against both Cuba and Iraq.

A U.S. official said the language the Cuban delegation wants in the document is not relevant to the issues facing women. ''Furthermore, it is language Washington can't live with, and is an attempt by Cuba to dictate policies on another country,'' the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The chief of the Cuban delegation, Vilma Espin, said the United States was preventing the conference from telling the truth about the deaths of women and children caused by its economic embargo against Cuba. [Women and children? The men are all so violent they grab all all the food! - Ed]

Many Western nations have been at odds with the Vatican and a handful of Islamic and Catholic countries -- including Libya, Algeria, Iran, Sudan and Nicaragua -- over parts of the agenda.

The Vatican and a number of conservative countries object to the Beijing platform's reference to nontraditional families, which they view as an implied blessing of homosexual unions, single parents and couples living together out of wedlock. And a coalition of anti-abortion and religious activists have blamed rich Western nations for pushing ''radical language'' on abortion, sexual rights and homosexual rights.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright voiced concern Thursday that the final document might retreat from the ambitious 150-page platform adopted in Beijing.

But even before the final text was complete, U.N. officials and delegates were saying there would be no rollback of the Beijing agreement.

''There is no evidence in the text that seems likely to be adopted that there is any backward movement on any of the Beijing language, and in certain areas we are very heartened to see a strengthening of the Beijing language,'' said U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Angela King, a special adviser on the advancement of women.

She cited tougher action to address the trafficking of women and girls, the impact of AIDS on women including AIDS education programs for women, calls on governments to set target dates to eradicate illiteracy and ensure education for all girls and education programs to enable men to engage in safe, responsible sex.

Negotiators have also agreed on strong planks calling for prosecution of all forms of domestic violence, now including marital rape, and for the first time in an international consensus document, the traditional practices of forced marriage and so-called honor killings are addressed. The draft text calls for laws to eradicate these human rights violations.


This is the latest markup of the outcome document. It's current as 8 June 2000, 3:00 a.m.

Ad hoc committee of the whole of the special session of the General Assembly entitled "Women 2000: gender equality, development and peace for the twenty-first century"

Status of negotiations as at 8 June 2000, 3:00 a.m.

Proposed outcome document: Further actions and initiatives to implement the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action


The following links have to do with the ratification of CEDAW by the U.S.

Ratify the Women's Rights Treaty

US Women Connect

Amnesty INternational


The following link provides links to what the U.S. has done to ensure compliance with the commitments it made during Beijing '95. There is a strong correlation between the information provided here and the social policies the U.S. pursued since Beijing '95. As an added note, it would probably be benecial to not forget the role the White House (especially H. Clinton) played in achieving these goals.

[The stories that Hilary is bisexual, and that she recently had a ten year affair until her lover shot himself, seems relevant when we consider her level of loyalty and support for the family. We should look at Jay in the same way. So many of these people in high places are exorcising their private personal problems through us. It is reminiscent of I, Claudius. - Ed]

This is the DAW site monitoring Beijing+5.

Mother laments -"I miss them" ....

- Jan Disley, Mirror, 19apr00, p1

The Mirror headlined the anguish of a mother after her two children had been murdered by their father. "I miss them so much it's not fair. I miss them coming running round the corner.... I loved them to bits...." Heartrendingly, Claire Fairless spoke out as it was revealed that her estranged husband Frank then hanged himself. Clair spoke to the Miror as it was revealed that her former husband, Frank. was due to face two separate cherges of rape and assault. He had no previous convictions for violence.

The Guardian, came closer to the truth when it chimed in with "Child killer faced rape charge. .... Frank Fairless was also due to stand trial on separate charges of assaulting his wife, Claire, 31, and her father, James Forrington, last Christmas. ...." ( Martin Wainwright, 19apr00, p10,)

.... and here's what really happened ...

Initially, it was reportedf that Frank Fairless, who built his dream house for his wife and two sons, naming the house Oliverchris after his sons' names, was cut off from them for six months after his wife left with them. Then on the first night when he was allowed to keep them overnight, he killed them and himself. He was fearful of losing them forever.

Two days later, 19apr00, p5, Maurice Weaver reported in the Telegraph that Frank was on a rape charge "involving a woman in North Lincolnshire".

I telephoned Weaver, and he told me that local correspondents believed the woman making the rape charge was Frank's wife. This could totally alter the picture, from a no-good husband to a deeply destructive wife. [See how destructive is secrecy for alleged rape victim but not for alleged perpetrator.] However, the world will forever believe that Frank raped another woman. Thus is information manipulated in the battle of the sexes. Why did a male journalist connive in such terrible man-bashing? Write to him and ask him, at 49 Manor Rd., Solihull B91 2BL. I have sent him a draft on 22apr00, inviting him to comment in Ill Eagle. He did not reply.

Mum kills sons to get revenge on dad

- Any Lines, Mirror, 29mar00, p15

A mum murdered her two little boys after losing a custody battle to their dad. ....

Smith, 31, strangled Cody, five, and three-year-old Tristan .... after opening their Christmas presents.

Three days earlier a court had given her ex-husband Brit custody of the youngsters.

Smith .... admitted murdering the boys but told a court in Dallas, Texas, she was suffering from a severe mental illness at the time. .... given two .... life sentences.

A bit of a mystery to the sisters

Profile: Germaine Greer

- Sunday Times, 30apr00, p17

.... Germaine Greer was allegedly tied up and beaten in her remote rural home last week .... the alleged perpetrator of the assault was not some monstrous, muscle-bound male thug, but a 19-year-old female student who had become obseessed with the women's movement's most controversial icon. .... she lives the domestic life of a recluse at her Essex home, surrounded by catds and geese. Idolised by a generation of feminists for her seminal book, The Female Eunuch, she has savaged her sisters as often as she has turned her considerable intellectual fireposer on men. .... her string of lovers has included martin Amis, Julian Barnes,


Jonathan Aitken, Warren Beatty (whom she ... found "disappoonting"). .... she once published a photograph of her own genitalia in the pornographic magazine Suck .... .... Greer took "stupid risks" with contraception in her young, promiscuouis days .... irreparable damage was done to her fallopian tubes. .... she came to want a child, giving birth was no longer possible. Her infertility - together with childhood abuse, rape and the menopause - is something that, naturally, Greer has chosen to tell the sorld about.

Now 61, she was born in Melbourne, Aust., to a wastrel father and a mother who was heavy on slapping-about discipline and light on learning. Greer has called her father "a lounge lizard, a line-shooter, a larikin, a jerk" and her mother " a woman who has done nothing but lie on beaches for 70 years". .... By the age of 18 she was at Melbourne University, where she was well known for carrying round a bag of coloured condoms and emplopying earthy language to describe her sexploits. In Melbourne she was raped "by just the sort of boy my mother would have liked me to marry". She .... became part of a bohemian, free-love set known as "The Push", "a fratrenity of desperates, drop-outs gamblers and poets manqués". .... Cl;ive James .... describes her striding "like a Homeric goddess through the doors of the university cafateria" to take his virginity. He escaped and hid behind a gum tree.

.... Greer arrived at Newnham College, Cambridge in 1964 to do a doctorate on Shakespeare's comedies. ....

Sexually, she was not impressed by Britain. "The Poms all try to look like Michael Caine, but it's a con. .... They're either queer or kinky. You know what the last Pom [I went to bed with] said to me? 'Let's pretend you're dead.'" .... she married Paul du Feu, a building worker with an English degree. They stayed married for three weeks, after which du Feu posed naked for Cosmopolitan.

Greer went on to teach at Warwick University, but found fame with The Female Eunuch in 1970. [I started re-reading it recently, and was horrified that it showed her culpability for what happened around the world thereafter. I could only read about 20 pages. Melanie Phillips, when reviewing a more recent Greer book, recounts how, when intervied by Greer with a view to her becoming a student at Warwick, Greer said; "Come now, you want to come to University to sleep around", or some such. She complained back at school, and an apology was extracted from the University. - Ed.] The book, which went on to argue that marriage could be seen as a form of slavery, sold 1m copies. .... She and James Hughes-Onslow began a relationship that lasted 18 months, during which she tried desperately for a child. It was thought that earlier damage to her fallopian tubes - caused by an IUD - could be rectified, but no pregnancy ensued.

"Germaine began to suspect this might be my fault and sent me to Harley Street .... Perhaps unconvinced by the positive results of these tests, she later embarked on a relationship with an Eton contemporary of mine, William Shawcross." .... Germaine went ballistic when a journalist Suzanne Moore commented on an inaccurate report that Greer had had a hysterectomy at 25. Moore was described as having "hair bird's-nested all over the place, f***-me shoes s#and three inches of fat cleavage". .... a similar fate awaited .... Christine Wallace .... She was called "flesh-eating bacterium" abd told she would be "kneecapped".

But Greer was beginning to change her tune. In Sex and Destiny in 1984, she had argued that western society was anti-children, anti-family and sex-obsessed. Two years later she said: "I'm beginning to think that sex is really disgusting and that we should have nothing to do with it." .... her deliciously stroppy performances on BBC2's self-congratulatory arts programme, The Late Review. .... Not long ago she was banned from driving after speeding iin a bid to save her goslings from being eaten by foxes. She has often remarked that she could have bought a Picasso with the money she has spent trying to conceive ....

$2m plot

- Sarah Boseley,

Guardian, 7apr00, p1

Philip Morris, the world's largest cigarette manufacturer, mounted a [successful] $2m .... campaign to .... undermine a scientific study on the dangers of passive smoking, targeting researchers, the media and government....

The tobacco industry is accused in The Lancet of attempting to subvert the normal scientific process. .... the journal warns .... against putting too much trust in companies intent on profit. "Tobacco is not the only aspect of medicine open to twisted corporate communications strategies. All policy-makers must be vigilant to the possibility of research that is being manipulated by corporate bodies...." [See the case of AIDS on my website - Ed]

.... the Institute of Health Policy Studies of California charges that scientists in the pay of the tobacco companies attempted to infiltrate the biggest European study on the effect of passive smoking and .... it was successful in a strategy to get the study's findings discounted.

[Philip Morris spent more than the cost of the feared study in fraudulently discrediting it. - Ed]

Law website forced offline

A website set up by Kamlesh Bahl, the former Law Society vice-president, has been shut down by the internet service provider Freenetline after a complaint that it contained defamatory statements.

Mr Bahl .... resigned after findings by an independent inquiry that she bullied five members of staff....

- Guardian, 7apr00, p6

Lawyer fiddled legal aid to pay for lovers

Paul Stokes, Telegraph, 26/5/00,p3

A solicitor defrauded the legal aid board of £170,000 to finance a lavish way of life that included paying for two mistresses .... large houses, expensive cars, and his tangled love life..... he was acquitted of sijmilar charges against the legal aid board in 1995. .... Following his acquittal, the legal aid board trusted him ....

To the Editor, Ill Eagle

The law stipulates that the rights of a child take precedence whenever there is conflict between its rights and those of its parents.

There is a waiting list of would-be adoptive parents willing to offer excellent homes to new-born babies.

On our sink estates, young girls frequently give birth to illegitimate babies they haven't a prayer of being able to look after properly.

If our judges took the slightest notice of the law which they are sworn to uphold, they would take these babies from their mothers and give them to the would-be adoptive parents.

In so doing they would save much grief in the future. It is no co-incidence that the word bastard has for centuries been used as a term of abuse rather than in its dictionary meaning.

Regards, Bill Tomlinson

Crimes against children drop

- Lucy Adams, Sunday Times, sect. 1 p5, 11june00

The streets are safer for children than ever before. .... The myth of lurking danger behind every street conrner has so alarmed the children's charity Play Scotland that .... it set out to convince parents that they are damaging children by being .... overprotective. .... they lost an average of one hour's play time every day. .... "Abductions have not increased in more than 60 years .... Unsupervised play time is essential for the development of relationships and independence."

In 1991, almost 380 children died in road accidents in the UK. By 1998, this had dtopped to 206. Between 1988 and 1999 the number of children murdered between the ages of five and 16 decreased from four per million to three. The number murdered under the age of five dropped from 12 per million to nine.

The number of offenders in England and Wales found guilty of gross indecency with a child dropped from 334 in 1988 to 264 in 1998. ...."

Third of young Scots 'carry weapons'

- Sarah Boseley and Gerald Seenan,

Guardian, 7apr00, p7

Around a third of 11- to 16-year-old boys and 8% of girls in Scotland have carried weapons


ranging from flick knives to replica pistols and knuckle-dusters, according to a survey carried out in schools .... 3,000 subjects. [but] Even in schools in the most deprived areas, Ray Murphey, education officer for north Lanarkshire where much of the research was carried out, said .... it would be extremely unusual for a school to have more than one incident involving a weapon in a year .... almost never more than a stick.

[These apparently contradictory findings tend to support the thesis by our Scottish chairman George McAuley, linking gun control with feminism, see my website, that the weapon is a status symbol increasingly needed by young men as their masculinity comes under increased attack from the radfems.

Also note the back cover of Patricia Morgan's 1995 book following family breakdown; "Large numbers of unattached and predatory males who have never taken on the responsibilities of family life, or who have been ejected from families, now meet the classic conditions for the creation of a 'warrior class'. - Ed]

Who's your daddy?

- Lois Rogers,

Sunday Times, 11june00, sect. 1 p 6

[A full page on DNA testing and its social implications.] .... John Burn, professor of clinical genetics at Newcastle University, set up North Gene to provide private paternity testing at £450 per family. ....

Gnome kidnappers strip French gardens

Anti-capitalist groups target symbol of middle class

- William Langley,

Sunday Telegraph, 21may00, p28

A wave of garden gnome kidnapopings has forced police to issue a general security alert to anxious suburban homeowners. Hundreds of gnomes have been snatched in a series of raids that have been carefully executed by at least two shadowy groups.

An exhibition of more than 2,000 gnomes .... in Paris was broken into .... and several dozen stolen. .... The Garden Gnome Liberation Front claimed responsibility. "This odious exhibitiion must be closed immediately," it said, "Or we will strike again." .... a senior police office declared that "no gnome can now be considered safe".

"The people behind this, by targetting gnomes, are attacking the wider values that gnome-owners hold dear," said Prof. Boumard..... "I have known people who talk to their gnomes every day, who even put them to bed. They are treated almost as members of the family."

Ill Eagle 10, aug00



- Telegraph leader, 4apr00

Perfectly reasonable friends of mine repeat the assertion that in the past, women were oppressed. Following my comment in June, that presumably part of patriarchal oppression was to deny to women the pleasure of close combat with bayonets, I would like to add further evidence of this "oppression" from the past, taken from the book Titanic. An Illustrated History, by Don Lynch and Ken Marschall, 1992.

The percentage of men saved from the sinking was 20%. The percentage of women and children saved was 70%. In every class of passenger; first class, second class, third class, and crew, the % of women saved was vastly greater than the % of men saved.

Having been conned for decades into feeling sympathy for German women after the losses in the Great War, I recently asked an 80 year old woman friend of mine; "Would you rather be single or dead?" She replied, "Single."

We must begin to react when we hear the cliché; "In the past, women were oppressed." Women have always been highly favoured.

School mum jailed for sex with pupils

- Bill Tomlinson, Sun, 28jan00, p7

Judge Hale said; "If you had been a man acting in the same way towards young girls the sentence would have been much greater."

Judges to lose luxury lodgings

- Jack Grimston, Sunday Times, 30july00, sect. 1, p11

Extravagant perks enjoyed by English and Welsh judges are facing the axe. .... Lord Irvine .... is expected to close many of them. Last year they cost £5m .... to maintain .... The most expensive was Carr Manor in Leeds, a grade II listed Victorian gothic house with 10 bedrooms. It cost £402,000 to maintain in 1998 .... The most uneconomic was in Flintshire, where the 1970s penthouse flat overlooking the Clwyd hills was occupied for only five weeks in 1998. Each judge who stayed cost more than £1,800 per night .... The judiciary is likely to fight moves to downgrade accommodation .... Irvine .... was heavily criticised when he spent £650,000 of public money redecorating his official residence ....

Battle on for more women MPs

Tony Blair is being pressed to include a promise of new laws to allow the party to draw up all-women shortlists. Ministers are saying that without immediate action, the number of the party's women MPs is likely to fall, making 1997 merely a blip.

- Times, 24jan00

But opponents of the move point out that the large number of women Labour MPs swept into parliament at the last election .... have actually been a bit of a flop - Observer, 6aug00, p28


Not really. The whole field of family law is scandalously destructive and incompetent and expensive. This scandal is only one of so many. Actually, every aspect of the secret family court system is in a scandalous, destructive state.

In the last month, the govt's ONS (Office of National Statistics) asked the Lord Chancellor's Department (LCD) for information on outcome for custody after divorce; what percentage of children went to the mother, and so on. The LCD replied that they had no information. Thus, nobody knows how often child custody is given to the mother. Nobody has bothered to look into the numbers. You and I know that in disputed cases, it is 98% to the mother, but nobody else knows; the courts and their decisions are secret "in the best interests of the children"!!! You can throw away your court order giving access. It is not worth the paper it is written on. Twice, the High Court decreed that it would not enforce an order for access against a defiant mother.

My website has some relevant Canadian/USA research at

The Squirt

Dr. Anthony Clare wrote a book and a series of Sunday Times articles on men in crisis. He also gave a series of talks on the radio, to which George McAuley (who did well) and Adrienne Burgess contributed. Adrienne is the High Priest of Androgyny, which Clare also promoted.

I came to realise that, like the radfems, Clare is imposing his own personal problems on us. Only the likes of him will have access to the media for a long time, until the crisis has deepened. I was struck by Clare's remark; ".... women envying men their penises and their phallic strength." Another contributor even said that a man's admiration of valour was homosexual! These whimps seek to confuse (1) sexual perversion with (2) our admiration of valour, and (3) sexual prowess. I tend to conclude that we are listening to generally inadequate men, bent on decrying both valour and sexual prowess. Obviously, a radfem dominated media will use such Quislings to 'represent' men.

Women lead the porn revolution

- Tracy McVeigh, Observer, 6aug00, p12

.... More than 50% of websites in the booming online pornography business are now owned and operated by women - and the number is steadily rising.

The new 'scarlet-collar' worker is typically a 25- to 35-year-old former prostitute or lap dancer with young children and a desire to better her income ....

A psychologist has described the webmistress phenomenon as 'neo-feminism'. 'Women whose lives were once controlled by male pimps, porn film-makers and publishers are moving up the food chain,' said Dr Kimberlianne Podlas. .... Podlas talked to the owners of 71 heterosexual websites. She believes cyberporn may have to be re-evaluated by feminists.

'It may, in fact, combat negative imagery and increase women's power,' she said. .... '[we may] very soon see men barely represented in this industry....'

Another American born star, Annie Sprinkle, said she believed feminism was now pro-porn....


A woman went to a solicitor and wanted a divorce. The lawyer got out his note pad and proceeded to ask some questions.

"Do you have any grounds?"

"Oh, yes,: she replied. "About three quarters of an acre."

The lawyer paused for a moment and then proceeded. "Do you have a grudge?"

"No," the woman said, "but we do have a lovely carport."

The lawyer paused again and then asked, "Does he beat you up?"

"No. I get up before he does every morning," she replied.

"Does he beat the children up?" asked the frustrated litigator.

"Only when there are no cartoons on tv." she yawned.

That was too much for the lawyer, so he blurted, "Lady, why do you want to divorce your husband?"

"It's because," she exclaimed, "that man can't carry on an intelligent conversation."


Fathers, but no relations

What happens to men denied access to their children ....

- Sophie Petit-Zeman,

Times, 25july00

.... a study at London's Birkbeck College into relations between fathers and their children after separation.

....James Heyes, a volunteer with Depression Alliance. He has seen his son once since 1986, when his wife left, taking the 18-month-old son with her. .... sadness that his own parents were being denied a relationship with their grandson....

Many agree that one of the key issues is not only fathers' rights to see their children, but the rights of children to have access to both parents....

[From Ill Eagle 9, June00, p7; In any case, no national or international convention, law or statute or case law gives a child the right of access to its parent. I have been saying this for more than ten years, the reaction from all parties, including all fathers cut off from their children, being one of total indifference. It's a strange world, full of strange people. - Ed]

For information about the Birkbeck College survey, contact Helen Barrett, 020 7631 6296;

Zero-tolerance for others

Anne Widdecombe, Shadow Home Secretary, a fierce advocate of zero-tolerance policing, caught driving at 50mph in a 40mph zone, received an automatic £40 fine and three penalty points. She did not criticise the real Home Secretary, who went more than twice as fast, but was not fined.

Better to be real, not just a shadow.

See Times, 5aug00

Mother killed son, 6

A mother who threw her six-year-old son from the 14th floor was jailed for five years. Campbell woke her two sons because of a fire. The boy was hear to say "Mum, don't do that" before he was thrown from the balcony. Campbell, who had alcohol and drugs problems, was said to be laughing See Times, 5aug00

Leave the Holocaust out of it

Homosexual activists who are demanding a social revolution run the risk of provoking a backlash

- Daniel Johnson, Telegraph, 12feb00, p24

Matthew Parris is one of the most influential and successful journalists in Britain today. .... Matthew is no longer interested in toleration for homosexuals.: he wants "homophobia" .... no longer to be tolerated. This is a crucial distinction. .... ever since, a century ago, support for homosexual reform began to spread through Europe and America, the purpose of this form of emancipation, like that of other minorities, has been seen as the achievement of toleration and self-acceptance. .... That aim was achieved, in most Western countries, buy the 1970s. Like feminism, however, the "gay rights" movement was radicalised.

Under the influence of Michael Foucault, a homosexual French philosopher, all sexuality has come to be seen in terms of power. He encouraged homosexual campaigners to demand not only the end of discriminatory laws, but a "new way of life", which would not merely release homosexuals from their "ghetto", but extend it to embrace the whole of society in a hedonistic utopia. The corollaries of this "social triumph of the sexual will" would be the relativisation of marriage, the instrumentalism of children, and the proscription of any politically incorrect morality (such as the Judaeo-Christian one) that discourages homosexuality.

.... If Peter Tatchell's Outrage! achieves its demands for the legalisation of homosexual intercourse in public places - lavatories, pubs, parks, saunas - then others, especially parents with children, will no longer dare to go there. Abolishing the offence of "outraging public decency", removing the last privileges of marriage: these are not requests for toleration, but demands for a social revolution for the benefit of perhaps two per cent of the population.

Surely Matthew Parris, who is so much subtler and shrewder than Peter Tatchell, can see where this is leading .... A period of silence is needed to avoid a backlash ....

Why should gays have the right to public sex?

- Melanie Phillips, Sunday Times, 30july00, sect. 1 p21

.... Section 28 remains on the statute book for the time being, thanks to the moral courage of Baroness Young and the other members of the House of Lords who braved personal vilification to defeat the govt's proposal for repeal.

The Home Office review of sexual; offences which was published last week .... [with] its proposal to do away with the offence of gross indecency means that homosexuals would be able to have sex in public lavatories. ....

.... Equality is one thing; but legitimising cruising and cottaging isn't equality. Heterosexuals just do not behave like this. The core premise of the Home Office review is false. But then the gay rights agenda, despite its rhetoric, isn't about equality at all. It's about browbeating society into declaring as equal a type of behaviour that is both different from heterosexual activity and profoundly antisocial. Ant it justifies this by the most weaselly arguments. .... The police, utterly cowed by the terror of being denounced for prejudice, have long abandoned our open spaces. .... All public sex is an affront to human dignity. .... those who endorse such behaviour are pushing something quite vile and pernicious, with damage that is potentially incalculable.

[Unfortunately, I think Melanie over-reacted to advance leaks on the report. I quote the Home Office report, Setting the Boundaries, july00, p144; "Proposed offence - Sexual activity in public: to undertake any sexual activity in a public place (including public toilets) which was likely to cause fear, alarm and distress to another. Proposed maximum penalty, 6 months. - Ed]


See when the ignorant Portsmouth demonstrators learn that 35% of paedophiles are homosexual! You ain't seen nothin yet. Wait for the marches on our rather gay Cabinet. Let us analyse the present PC madness. The Man on the Clapham Omnibus knows that to avoid the charge of bigotry he must adulate buggery and other perversions that his betters say he should welcome as a necessary feature of a more liberal society. On the other hand, his betters (excluding Tatchell) tell him that paedophilia is a perversion. If he is ever told that, although less than 2% of the male population are buggers [note 1], 35% of paedophiles are drawn from that 2% [note 2] - he will smell a rat. He is most afraid of his children being buggered.

The leaderless demonstrations in Portsmouth are a forerunner of the big backlash resulting from an Establishment which promotes contradictory, ludicrous and unsustainable propaganda. - Ed

Note 1. K Wellings et al., Sexual Behaviour in Britain, Penguin, 1994, p183.

Note 2. Dr T Stammers (quoting K Freund), FYC bulletin Autumn 97, from

Speaking Invitation to Quaker Leaders

.... Try to understand new growing points in social and economic life. Seek to understand the causes of injustice, social unrest and fear.
Are you working to bring about a just and compassionate society which allows everyone to develop their capacities and fosters the desire to serve?
- Clause 1.02.33, Quaker Faith and Practice, 1999

.... Seek to discover the causes of social unrest, injustice and fear; try to discern the new growing-points in social and economic life .... - Clause 23.01, QFP99. This is the Book of Discipline for Quakers.

To Helen Rowlands, Clerk, Yearly Meeting; Roger Sturge, Clerk of Meeting for Sufferings, Friends House. [These are the most senior officials in Britain Yearly Meeting ].

ManKind would like to invite you to give a twenty minute lecture, followed by twenty minutes of questions, at the ManKind Conference at Friends House, 28oct00.

The purpose of your lecture will be to explain why the problem of family breakdown and the crisis for young men is outlawed from the Quaker Universe of Discourse.

For evil to triumph, it is only necessary for good men to do nothing

Ivor Catt.



Pity the Judge

A circuit judge telephoned me and proceeded to 'cry on my shoulder' for an hour.

After ten years in the Family Courts, he was brought close to a nervous breakdown. Then, three years ago, just in time, he transferred to the criminal courts.

The key items from his astonishing story were as follows;

The family courts should not be held in secret. They are beyond reform. The system is a shambles from top to bottom. The Court Welfare Officers (CWO) should be open to cross-examination. The CWOs are ignorant and do not investigate their cases. He got some CWOs removed, but the problem continued. You will not begin to instigate reform because Civil Servants will scupper your attempts, burying them in minutiae. [CAFCASS please note.] He agonised over the damage being inflicted on children by the family courts, which is obviously what brought him close to breakdown.

His story is remarkably similar to my analysis in my book The Hook and the Sting, on my website

In particular, I urge you to address his assertion that the system is beyond reform, as I say in my book. Also, I believe that in its death throes, it will become more dangerous and destructive. Oliver Cyriax has caused a total revamp of the CWO 'system', via CAFCASS, but I think that does not go to the heart of a venal, corrupt, incompetent, deeply destructive and arrogant system.

My view is that the judge did not solve his problem, only ameliorate it, by jumping out of the Family Court frying pan into the Criminal Court fire. I am willing to concede that the criminal courts are less anti-social. However, in my view, the complete judicial system is beyond reform, not just the family courts. Twice, just before coming to power, I heard Vanity Blair say on TV; "The Criminal Justice system is on the point of collapse." - Ed

Labour always blamed crime on unemployment. So how come, with record numbers back in work, crime is soaring?

- Simon Heffer, Daily Mail, 14july00

You do not need a long memory to recall why, according to Labour politicians, crime rose so steeply under the last Conservative Govt.

It was, they said, because of high unemployment - and because that was the Govt's fault, they added, then so too was the 'resulting' rise in offending.

Many doubted this. In the depression of the Thirties, as Norman Tebbit so pungently reminded us [and as did Norman Dennis], people were far worse off - and yet crime was at a historic low. ....

The Prime Minister and his colleagues are proud of the million new jobs created since 1997. Unemployment has not been lower since the mid-seventies. Crime, however, continues to rise inexorably. ....

This is a shocking indictment of the Govt's failure to tackle a problem it claimed to have spotted so clearly in opposition. Our mounting prosperity finally proves that economic factors do not have the bearing on crime Labour politicians used to imagine....

Research into the underclass by the American sociologist Charles Murray and others agrees on one point in particular: that children growing up without a father or other long-term adult male role model in their home are more likely to under achieve at school, make bad relationships that harm their children and end up in jail. ....

The Govt, however, has chosen to do nothing to encourage the role of fathers, or to provide incentives for stable, married life.

The breakdown of families has contributed incalculably to the breakdown of a stable, ordered society. It is one of the greatest causes of crime, yet the Govt still encourages it.

.... It refuses to believe that children, and boys in particular, are likely to turn out better if they grow up with a father.

The impressive unemployment figures should prompt Labour politicians to .... ask: if it wasn't poverty that caused crime, what was it? .... only the Govt has the power to influence social policy in a way to do this.

It might mean encouraging marriage, discouraging single parenthood .... [we have] the highest crime figures on record and the highest prison population in our history. The waste, misery, suffering and victimisation they entail hardly bear thinking about. ....

SMFs are wealthier, but still breed more criminals

Try to put yourself into the mindset of the anti-family radfem. She, and poodle-men like Martin Bright, must believe that, since poverty (not fatherlessness) is the cause of crime, then criminals must come from the lowest tenth of society in terms of income.

We know that criminality concentrates in children from Single Mother Families (SMF).

"Compared to children living with both biological parents in similar socioeconomic circumstances .... Overall, children of never-married mothers have behavioural problems that score nearly three times higher than children raised in comparable intact families." - Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House Committee on Ways and Means .... June 29, 1999

Thus, according to radfems, SMFs must be poor, their poverty causing their children to go off the rails.

Not so. Reading the back cover of the 1995 edition of Patricia Morgan's book Farewell to the Family? from; At any given level of earnings, the lone parent will derive a higher income than a married man with the same number of children. As a result of the Child Care Allowance introduced in October 1994, a lone parent with two small children can work for 20 hours at £4.00 per hour and end up with a net income of £163.99 after rent and tax. A married father of two small children working for 40 hours at the same hourly rate would take home £130.95.

Thus, SMFs are wealthier than the poorest married couple families.

Now let us look at the critical point in society, where criminality is supposed to be bred; the poorest tenth. Only a small proportion of children in the poorest tenth are in SMFs. In 1995/6, in the bottom 10% of the income distribution, 2½ times as many individuals (42%) were in two parent families compared with those in SMFs (17%). (Source: Dept. of Social Security, Households Below Average Income 1979-1995/6.)

Thus, in the face of economic pressure on all those poor married couples with children to produce criminal and otherwise antisocial children, they fail to do so. These criminals come from the more wealthy ranks of SMF households.

One source says that eight out of every nine rapists comes from a SMF.

I would emphasise that although the pool of the very poor contains only 17% of individuals from SMFs, they breed far more criminals and rapists than they should statistically. Or else, wealthy SMFs breed criminals. We have to conclude that father absence is much more destructive than we would have imagined.

ManKind and Ill Eagle can be reached at;

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

(0207 413 9176


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

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


Charles Hanson, wife murderer.

From Charles Hanson

HM Prison, Kingston, Milton Rd.,

Portsmouth PO3 6AS 22june00

Dear Mr. Catt, I have acquired the 'Taking Stock' booklet by Stanko and the Home Office Research Study No. 191 on Domestic Violence. It really does stretch the imagination that the general public is misled by the women M.P.s who are now campaigning to prevent (so-called) violent husbands/ partners from having contact with their children. I am a life sentence prisoner convicted of domestic murder. I was exhausted at the time trying to get help, whereas my wife made all kinds of weird and wonderful allegations against me including one that I had made a threat to kill her. I was charged, held in custody and eventually acquitted unanimously by a jury.

It didn't stop there. The aggravations went on even after we divorced. In the end I stabbed her to death. I had reached the end of my tether. No one, even the police, would listen to me; I couldn't afford solicitors' fees to stop her, yet she continued to make allegations and WAS listened to, especially by social workers.

This prison, the only all lifer prison in Europe, contains mostly domestic murderers like myself. There is a clear history of frustration, anger, confusion and injustice at the way some of us were demonised by social workers, divorce courts, at child custody - access hearings, how some of us lost everything including our self esteem before we committed the ultimate act.

I have recently come across a reference book on psychology written by a Canadian woman psychologist and she referred to a Canadian Government hearing which sought to criminalise those instances where women in child custody/access hearings make bogus allegations of violence and abuse. It is estimated that about 40% of claims are bogus. The details are:- 1998 Joint Committee of the Senate and Parliament; 'For the Sake of the Children'; Report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access; December 1998; Canadian Publication Services Ottawa. I have written to the Canadian Embassy for details on how to acquire the report.

I believe that this topic is deserving of wider coverage within the context of domestic violence, for it is here that so many men become victims not only of the wife/ex-wife/partner but [also] of the system that generates inequality. Perhaps you could let me know what you think. Yours sincerely, Charles Hanson.

24july00. Kingston Prison (as before) Dear Ivor, Thank you for your recent letter ....

Kingston Prison was always a domestic lifers prison although a few non-domestic lifers are now creeping in. We domestics are never viewed very favourably by the politically correct psychologists, probation officers etc.

We are expected to undergo Offending Behaviour courses and there are specific ones for us, - Relationships, Anger Management, Spouse Homicide, Thinking Skills to name a few.

It matters not that my son from an earlier marriage was having a sexual relationship with my wife, having lost control and stabbed her I am treated like I should have just accepted it and entered therapy implying that there was something wrong with me to have objected, I am now deemed a danger to women by politically correct women probation officers and their ilk. The fact that I had been married 3 times suggests that there is something wrong with me. Who but these liberals made divorce so easy? Who but these want to see the breakdown of family and traditional values and then condemn those like me for being forced to go along with them?

Of course, I regret taking the life of the woman I loved. I can never forget it, and I will be haunted by it for the rest of my life. Life for me and for her parents will never be the same, and I don't need reminders of it. However, the politically correct will not let me forget it. I have to attend dubious courses, where I have serial bereavements.

I do not have the defences usually and only available to women; for example, PMT, abuse, provocation, the effects of HRT and Prozac. I am expected to cope, and indeed tolerate, what women would get sympathy for. As a domestic lifer I don't have the equivalent of feminist campaigns to free me. I am left with the thought that the male species are indeed the stronger. It is what by implication the feminists seem to perpetuate by holding men like me culpable. The same, however, is not true of the Sarah Thorntons of the world.

Wherever and whenever you want to quote me, please feel free to do so.

I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely, Charles Hanson.

P.S. I don't believe that the Home Office or the Prison Service maintain records of wife killers, or as the PC term now applies, 'Partners'. I could be wrong, however. CH

27july00 Dear Charles,

Thank you for the lengthy telephone discussion between yourself, myself and my colleague. You represent a major resource. Generally, men's organisations and individual male experts are excluded from the consultation process leading to future government policy and legislation (except for the occasional poodle-man, perhaps salaried by a charity: Baroness Young told the last FYC AGM that every children's charity was now anti-family). However, some of my colleagues have acted on the fringes of government quangos and the like for some time, and read vast numbers of their silly reports. This puts us in a position to make a general judgement that the level of competence, knowledge and understanding in government departments and among the relevant ministers like Straw, Boateng and Jay, is minimal. A major reason for this is that, apart from ignoring any contribution by men with expertise, all their discussions and would-be factual reporting is filtered through PC dogma. The result is that they are constitutionally unable to establish the facts. They are remarkably ignorant. I am referring to Home Office, Lord Chancellor's Dept., and other relevant departments.

I believe that, unfunded, my colleagues and I should be able to assemble an infrastructure of facts which will rise head and shoulders above the rubbish that our salaried servants wallow in. (If we were funded, Equal Opportunities policy would force us to employ some radfems, who would proceed to falsify our information bank, making it no better than that of the Home Office or the Women's Unit).

My colleagues and I are convinced that the situation will deteriorate for a further fifteen years. (At the FYC AGM, Baroness Young said it took us thirty years to get into this mess, and it would take thirty years to get out of it.) The marker of the continual deterioration with be the ever increasing suicide rate of young men. That will not prompt reform in a culture which is so hostile to young men. What will force reform, however, will be the lapse into public disorder something like twenty times worse than the Poll Tax riots, in about twenty years from now. Thus, we have plenty of time in which to establish our infrastructure of facts and understanding, to be made available in a decade or two when deep crisis has been reached.

I quote from the back cover of the original edition of Patricia Morgan, 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'.

When my adult son experienced the rampant perjury in our secret family courts, encouraged by judges, he said to me that we would have to lie too. (I told Circuit Judge Stockdale that the courts welcomed perjury.) Similarly, one or two of the men who want to reform the family courts argue by email that we need to lie in order to counter the lies from radfems. I am in total disagreement. Our strength will be in our ability to be rigorous about our facts. Thus, when you give us information, please bear in mind that we want it to be able, some time in the future, to survive vigorous examination for its truth.

Although they are not central to our interests, radfems have forced the centre of interest to be violence and also sexual abuse. (For instance, both of these false allegations have been made against me in perjured affidavits that Stockdale said the courts had no way to investigate.) Since radfems wallow in these subjects, we have to establish factual information in their chosen fields. .... ....

Best wishes, Ivor 27july00


[While some time ago I wrote to Lord Ackner (see my website for letter) that an inevitable result of lawyers and judges covering up for errors in court procedures and other legal incompetence in our shambolic courts would be a drift into corruption, Hanson leads me to conclude that false allegations of a crime, so often welcomed by our court system, can cause the very crime falsely alleged. - Ed]

An Expert Agenda

Extract from forthcoming book by Kristin Lloyd Scott

Here's an extract I've just written about feminism in my book which you can if you wish include in your ill eagle if it helps your issues. The book is titled 'An Expert Agenda'.

'Feminism was a tricky subject not least because I was a woman and was therefore expected to offer full support. It seemed to be divided into two kinds of women. One sought equality and approval, the other, control and revenge.

I belonged to neither category. While I offered support to the first, I frequently came into conflict with the latter and their extreme views, which they paraded behind the veil of children's rights. When I looked closely at the roots of many child rights organisations, I found that feminists were plotting their way ahead using children's issues to indiscriminately attack the male population.

Many of these women were behind the mythical thinking that child abuse was rampant, in a direct attempt to discredit and oppose men, upon whom they apportioned blame and guilt. Frequently, they were lesbians. Hiding behind children's rights, lesbians sought approval and acceptance for their alternative lifestyle. I regularly told them to find their own bandwagon, instead of using children. As a parent, and as someone who had listened firsthand to their scheming and propaganda, I found their views wholly offensive. I made no reservation in telling them so.

These women seemed to ignore the fact that men are still the wealth creators, and still the main providers. If anybody ever wonders why child poverty has increased so consistently in recent years, they only need to take a look at how many incentives there are for men to stay around. Extreme feminists promote the view that all men are potential paedophiles and rapists and that they cannot be trusted with women and children. Because of this view, men cannot in law defend themselves against an allegation of abuse. If they are accused of being an offender, they are ousted out of the family home whether they are guilty or innocent, while in custody battles fathers who are generally the losers.

The decent man's ego has been trampled over and crushed into the ground. Why on earth would any man want to get married, or stand by his children these days If he does, where is the praise for the good guys?

I feel that women who publicly sue their employers for millions of pounds for alleged sexual harassment do not win any moral victory for the cause of women. They further an underlying current of male resentment and mistrust. Before much longer, this may erupt into a step back into the past, and men will no longer feel inclined to tolerate the presence of women. That is why only lip service is being paid to the politically correct fashion of allowing women into the top professions, and it is why the world is still, as it always has been, predominantly ruled by men.

To attack and alienate the male ego is to stick a knife into the heart of society. To say that all men are abusers, the view commonly held by many extreme feminists, is to create a false reality which ultimately could lead to woman losing what is now a war between the sexes.

To bring down men is to bring down the wealth and opportunity systems, not to mention pensions, benefits and other financial security measures. Where will our children, and indeed where will women, be then?

As a woman, concerned with equality in every sense of the word, discriminating, scheming, alienating and excluding the man, is not the way to get the best deal. My aunt used to have a saying, 'know when to take the cake out of the oven. When it is burnt, no one can eat it'.

No doubt, after this book is published, I will be inundated by letters from irate feminists. Save yourselves the time and paper, because I will get double the amount from relieved and reassured men. (c) Kristin Lloyd Scott

Kristin will speak at our conference on 28oct00

PM fights IVF for singles

- Mark Metherell and Judith Whelan, Sydney Morning Herald, 2aug00

The Prime Minister will attempt to change the law which allows single women and lesbians to use fertility treatment, after declaring yesterday that a child's right to a mother and a father was "paramount".

Mr Howard said the Government would amend the Sex Discrimination Act to prevent its use against State laws that prohibit fertility treatment for single women and lesbians.


The leader of the Democrats, Senator Lees, said the Prime Minister was "all too keen" to overturn women's rights ....

He said there was "overwhelming" Cabinet support for the move. Cabinet's view was that the Sex Discrimination Act was never intended to deny the rights of States to legislate on an issue involving "the right of children in our society to have the reasonable expectation, other things being equal, of the affection and care of both a mother and a father".

Domestic violence explodes

Police find the problem 'mind-blowing' as attacks double in parts of Britain

- Martin Bright,

Observer, July 16, 2000

An epidemic of domestic violence is sweeping Britain's homes, fuelling the disintegration of family life and the sharpest rise in crime for almost two decades.

Exclusive figures obtained by The Observer [they followed their nose] reveal that reported violence within the home has doubled in some parts of the country in a year.


'The scale of this problem is mind-blowing,' said John Godsave, of the Racial and Violent Crimes Task Force. 'We have to make domestic violence as socially unacceptable as smoking and drink-driving.'

The findings horrified groups working for women. [Lesbian] Julie Bindel, of pressure group Women for Justice ....

Professor Elizabeth Stanko of Royal Holloway College, London, who carried out the research, said: 'The focus of the politicians is wrong. It has taken years of work to get women to come forward and if they do you expect crime levels to rise.'

The Met will this month publish minimum standards for domestic, racial and homophobic crime. They have also extended their definition of domestic violence to include threatening behaviour, violence or 'psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional' abuse between adults who are or were partners or family.

[I have mentioned 'financial abuse' in Ill Eagle 8. Bright fell for Stinko's phoney statistics (Stinko, Dim told me, was "highly regarded"!), which get ever more hysterical. We then gave him a rough time, and later, in an article on paedophiles, he showed more competence, by citing false allegations. Can we say; "Once a poodle-man, always a poodle-man?" No. Poodle-men are yellow. - Ed]

Anti-male bias increasingly pervades our culture

- John Leo, Jewish World Review,


A famous television newswoman told this joke last month at a fund-raising dinner for a women's college: A woman needed a brain transplant. Her doctor said two brains were available, a woman's brain for $500 and a man's brain for $5,000. Why the big price difference? Answer: The woman's brain has been used.

Most in the audience laughed, but one man stood up and booed. What's wrong? asked a woman at his table. The man said, "Just substitute woman, black or Jew for 'man' in that joke, and tell me how it sounds."

At about the same time, American Greeting Cards launched an ad campaign in Newsweek, Life and


other magazines. One ad featured a "Thelma and Louise" greeting card, pasted into the magazines, that said on the front: "Men are always whining about how we are suffocating them." The punch line inside the card was this: "Personally, I think if you can hear them whining, you're not pressing hard enough on the pillow." [I have read suggestions that these offensive cards be defaced in the shop, perhaps with a dab of oil or grease. -Ed]

The newswoman, who is a friend, seemed shocked when I phoned and raised questions about her joke. "The poor, sensitive white male," she said. A spokesman for the greeting card company saw nothing wrong with a humorous card about a woman killing a man. He faxed a statement saying the card had been pretested successfully, and besides, "We've heard no protests from consumers who are buying and using this card." But would American Greetings print a card with the sexes reversed, so the humor came from men joking about suffocating a woman? No, said the spokesman, because 85 percent to 90 percent of cards are bought by women. There is no market for a reverse card. ....

"There used to be a certain level of good-natured teasing between the sexes," says Christina Sommers, author of "Who Stole Feminism?" "Now even the most innocent remark about women will get you in trouble, but there's no limit at all to what you can say about men."

Men's rights groups phone me a lot, and I tell them my general position on these matters: The last thing we need in America is yet another victim group, this one made up seriously aggrieved males. But these groups do have an unmissable point about double standards. On the "Today" show last November, Katie Couric suddenly deviated from perkiness and asked a jilted bride, "Have you considered castration as an option?" Nobody seemed to object. Fred Hayward, a men's rights organizer, says: "Imagine the reaction if Matt Lauer had asked a jilted groom, 'Wouldn't you just like to rip her uterus out?'"

The double standard is rooted in identity politics and fashionable theories about victimization: Men as a group are oppressors; jokes that oppressors use to degrade the oppressed must be taken seriously and suppressed. Jokes by the oppressed against oppressors, however, are liberating and progressive. So while sexual harassment doctrine cracks down on the most harmless jokes about women, very hostile humor about men keeps expanding with almost no objections.

Until recently, for example, the 3M company put out post-it notes with the printed message: "Men have only two faults: everything they say and everything they do." Anti-male greeting cards are increasingly graphic, with some of the most hostile coming from Hallmark Cards' Shoebox Division. (Sample: "Men are scum ... Excuse me. For a second there I was feeling generous.") JWR columnist Cathy Young sees a rising tide of male-bashing, including "All Men Are Bastards" and "Men We Love to Hate" calendars, and a resentful "It's-always-his-fault" attitude pervading women's magazines.

Commercial attempts to increase the amount of sexual antagonism in America are never a good idea. And if you keep attacking men as a group, they will eventually start acting as a group, something we should fervently avoid. But the worst impact of all the male-bashing is on the young.

Barbara Wilder-Smith, a teacher and researcher in the Boston area, was recently quoted in several newspapers on how deeply anti-male attitudes have affected the schools. When she made "Boys Are Good" T-shirts for boys in her class, all 10 of the female student teachers under her supervision objected to the message. (One, she said, was wearing a button saying "So many men, so little intelligence.") "My son can't even wear the shirt out in his back yard," she said. "People see it and object strongly and shout things." On the other hand, she says, nobody objects when the girls wear shirts that say "Girls Rule" or when they taunt the boys with a chant that goes, "Boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider; girls go to college to get more knowledge." Worse, she says, many adolescent boys object to the "Boys Are Good" shirts too, because they have come to accept the cultural message that something is seriously wrong with being a male.

"The time is ripe for people to think about the unspoken anti-male 'ism' in our colleges and schools," she says. And in the rest of the popular culture as well.

When rules don't count Double standards are no accident; they arise from a theory

John Leo, Jewish World Review, 1aug00

I made a mistake of sorts in my recent column on double standards: I ran out of space before I could bring up the name of Herbert Marcuse. If a National Museum of Double Standards is ever built, we should name it for Marcuse and put a huge statue of him on the roof. Maybe he should be shown holding up two fingers, one for each standard.

Marcuse was a fashionable radical intellectual of the 1960s who believed that tolerance and free speech mostly serve the interests of the powerful. So he called frankly for "intolerance against movements from the right, and toleration of movements from the left." To restore the balance between oppressors and oppressed, he argued, indoctrination of students and "deeply pervasive" censorship of oppressors would be necessary, starting in college.

By the late 1980s, many of the double standards Marcuse called for were in place. Marcuse's candor was missing, of course, but everyone on campus understood that speakers, student newspapers, and professors on the right could (or should) be treated differently from those on the left. The officially oppressed knew that they were not subject to the standards and rules set for other students.

Marcuse's thinking influenced a generation of radical scholars who in turn deeply influenced the colleges and the law schools. They include Mari Matsuda, Richard Delgado, and the dread Catharine MacKinnon, who more or less invented hostile-environment theory and sexual harassment doctrine all by herself. Matsuda, who calls for censorship and speech restrictions for the powerful, sits on the National Advisory Council of the American Civil Liberties Union - one indication of how respectable double standards have come to be among the chattering classes.

Double standards are all around us now: Endless restrictions on abortion protesters that would never be applied to other demonstrators. The belief that all-black college dorms are progressive but all-white ones are racist. Explanations that the killing of whales is a universal social horror, except when conducted by the oppressed (American Indians).

A quarter century of feminist yawning over feminist Mary Daly's ban on males in her Boston College classes, though a male professor who tried to bar females would have been hammered into submission in one day.

A reader sent in his favorite double standard: For the left, it's wrong to try to change homosexuals' behavior-their choice or orientation must be respected and left alone. But this no-change policy does not apply to boys in general. It's OK to view their boisterous behavior as a social problem to be solved.

We have reached the point where the public understands and resents the flood of double standards but hasn't found a way to speak out. Bryant Gumbel's recent adventure with naughty words, for instance, passed without much comment. After interviewing a man from the Family Research Council on the CBS Early Show, Gumbel mouthed the words, "What a - - - - ing idiot!" A prominent TV executive, not known as a conservative, told me: "Can you imagine if a conservative had done that on national TV? He would have been fired in two minutes."

Another example is the new movie Chuck and Buck, a sympathetic portrait of a creepy homosexual stalking a heterosexual male. New Yorker film critic David Denby wrote: "If the movie were about a hetero man pursuing a woman . . . wouldn't it be seen as an obnoxious brief for harassment?" Of course.

Hate-crime legislation is the classic example of the double-standard mind-set, offering different punishments for similar crimes committed against oppressors and oppressed. Yes, the laws are written so that the oppressed can get extra jail time too, but that rarely happens. Clarence Page, the columnist, recently wrote that foot-dragging by police and the news media on antiwhite violence is endangering hate-crime laws. Maybe so. But police, prosecutors,


and the press downplay minority hate crimes because they understand what the law is meant to accomplish-benefiting members of minorities, not putting more of them in jail.

A lot of readers chided me after my recent column for picking examples only on the left. Fair enough. Many conservatives who say they believe in family unification opposed the return of Elián González to his father. And states-rights conservatives are forever calling for federal laws that override states rights. Hypocrisy can be found everywhere on the political spectrum. But the left has a special problem: It has a Marcusian philosophy of double standards hovering over its social programs and the judgments of its people in the news media.

Double standards, inevitably, erode honesty. The Marcusians at colleges can't say to parents, "Thanks for the $20,000. By the way, we've politicized the university, and we're going to indoctrinate your children and treat whites as oppressors." The program has to be cloaked in concern about hate speech and diversity. Intolerance poses as tolerance, and the double-entry bookkeeping leads to deception. It's all a house of cards, bound to collapse sooner or later. Sooner would be better.

Dads stage protest outside judge's East Devon home

by John Goodwin

Midweek Herald, 19july00, p10

A Group of West Country parents, some from East Devon, descended on Marsh Green in a bid to air their grievances about access to their children with Britain's top Family Court judge. Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss lives in the village and her home was targeted as the latest stage in a campaign to give parents fairer treatment at the hands of the legal system when it comes to deciding access to children after relationships break up. Dame Elizabeth was not at home so the campaigners delivered letters and left their banners draped at the entrance to her property, Higher Marsh Farm. Though the protest was not exclusively populated by fathers, members of Dads Against Discrimination, were prominent in it. In June they had 30 members in a peaceful demonstration outside Exeter Crown Court which coincided with similar protests outside other courts in other cities to raise the profile of the case as Father's Day approached. Planned next is a visit to Downing Street on October 2, designated as Human Rights Day. Mark Harris, who coordinated the Marsh-Green protest, said: "Britain has signed up to the European Convention which is supposed to uphold the family, yet our country's Family Court seems to undermine this with its decisions. We want the Government to sort out the Family Court." Among fathers in the Marsh Green protest, attended by 45 people, were two East Devon men. One, who wants his anonymity respected, said he had found himself in a catch 22 situation when he took the decision to give up his job so he would be able to devote full time care to his two daughters following the break- up of his relationship. However when the court decided who should have custody of the children it decided on the mother, on the basis that he did not have the financial means. He claimed that the court had cast doubt on the evidence submitted by the mother in her case for custody, but had still awarded her a residence order. He went to the Court of Appeal in London and presented his own case, but threw his bundle of documents across the courtroom in frustration when the judge told him "to chill out". He even made a complaint of perjury which he alleged was found to have grounds by the police, but not proceeded with. Claiming the thrust of the law should be directed at the best of interests of children involved in such cases, he said that in practice it seemed to be the interests of the mother that were best served. He is hoping to fight on in a civil action if he can engage a lawyer on a no-win, no fee basis. Another East Devon man, the father of a boy, is trying to get open-ended access to see his child. Currently he is allowed to see him only at his Tuesday night swimming session in Liskeard, involving a 160-mile round trip, and to make one telephone call a week. He said: "This was the first protest I have been to. Some of the fathers there are in a worse situation than I am." Mr. Harris said: "We seek dialogue and attention, no changes to the law, but better implementation of the Children Act of 1989. This assumed shared residence orders would become the norm, but in reality they are rarely made. Contact orders of just six or 12 times a year are becoming commonplace, if any orders at all can be obtained. This is unjust, unfair, damaging to children and adults - and expensive. In my own case, which has gone on for more than six years, a judge recently agreed with me that the total cost to the taxpayer is about £300,000. There have been in excess of 110 hearings. "There should be a presumption to frequent contact, unless proven compelling grounds for anything other materialise ".


Article number two...

Judge targeted by DAD campaigners


A Plympton man behind a campaign to help fathers get more access to their children organised a demonstration outside the house of Britain's top family judge. Mark Harris, 41, [of ManKind] from Elford Crescent, set up Dads Against Discrimination in April to help fathers who are denied access to their children after separating from or divorcing their partners. The group campaigned outside Plymouth Crown Court in April and May, and in June held a demonstration which spread as far as Exeter, Taunton, Bristol and Birmingham. After feeling previous protests had been ignored, DADs demonstrated outside the home of Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the president of the Family Division of the Courts, in Marsh Green, East Devon. Forty-five people attended Saturday's march, which began in the village centre, before making its way up to the high court judge's house. The judge was not at home so letters of protest were delivered through her door and placards left in her garden. Mr Harris hopes the action will persuade Dame Butler-Sloss to implement an order of shared residency as introduced by the Children's Act in 1989. The rule works on the basis that the children of separated parents should be able to spend as much time as possible with both after a relationship breakdown. Mr Harris believes that if Dame Butler-Sloss implements the ruling, her influence will force lesser courts to follow suit. 'She ignored our court protests in April, May and June, we are hoping now it has been a bit closer to home she'll pay it more attention. If she doesn't we'll come back,' said Mr Harris. Mr Harris started the group as a result of his own experiences. He has been in a wrangle with his ex-wife for six years and after two court hearings and an overall cost of £300,000 has just six days a year access to his children.

The DADS movement is continuing to grow and new members include women who have had similar experiences after separation. One of them is London-based author Penny Cross who wrote the novel Lost Children in 1997, which recounts her own battle with the courts to win visiting rights to her children. The group has also gained the support of the Equal Parenting Party, whose members joined them on the march. The EPP, a single issue political party, was set up last July to fight to increase access rights for the non-resident parent after a split. The next joint DADs and EPP gathering takes place in London on October 2 when Britain signs the Bill of Human Rights which is hoped will improve access rights for fathers and non-resident parents.

Charles Colson Commentary

on BreakPoint Radio #000726


The Cleveland Avenue School in Atlanta has all the amenities you would expect a new school to have: computer equipment, an up-to-date library, and modern classrooms. It has everything except a playground.

No, it wasn't an oversight. It was designed that way, in order to make little boys behave more like little girls. And it's part of a trend.

In 1998, Atlanta eliminated recess in its elementary schools. Other cities, like Philadelphia, retained something called recess, but it bears little resemblance to the unstructured play time most of us enjoyed as kids.

Why? As Christina Hoff Sommers says in her new book, The War Against Boys, educators today are intolerant of boys acting like boys -- moving, making noise, and engaging in raucous play. This intolerance goes beyond the need for order and discipline. The rule is "no running and no jumping," and boys who engage in normal active play are frequently punished or sent home.

When boys aren't being punished for being boys, they are being medicated to accomplish the same result. It is revealing that 95 percent of the kids on Ritalin today -- a drug used to treat hyperactivity -- are boys. [The important figure to find out is, what fraction of the multiple classroom killers in the USA were on Ritalin. While nearly all assassins, e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald, come from SMFs, a small proportion of the classroom multiple killers do not. Possibly, in their case, the cause is not the traditional one, lack of a father, but Ritalin. See p9, Doping Kids - Ed] As Michael Gurian, the author of The Good Son, puts it: "If Huck [Finn] and Tom [Sawyer] were in today's schools, they would be labeled ADD, having attention deficit disorder, and drugged."

Behind this campaign against what Sommers calls "youthful male exuberance" is, in her words, "misguided feminism." Many feminists insist that it is maleness itself -- defined by characteristics like aggressiveness, competitive-ness, and assertiveness -- that causes violence.

This view has found its most receptive audience in education, which is dominated, to a greater extent than other professions, by women. The result is a commitment to what Dr. Sommers calls feminizing boys: monitoring and policing characteristically male behavior, and getting boys to participate in "characteristically feminine activities."

As a result, our sons think there's something wrong with being a boy. As Dan Kindlon, a child psychologist, puts it, our sons feel like a "thorn among roses" and a "frowned-upon presence" in our schools.

This war that's being waged on sons isn't only cruel; it's culturally disastrous. When Christians say that God made us male and female, it isn't only about sex. It's an acknowledgement that the attributes of both sexes were intended to complement each other, and achieve results that neither sex, acting on their own, could achieve.

While she isn't a Christian, Camille Paglia, a feminist author, understands this. She has written that masculinity is " ... the most creative cultural force in history." "Men," she adds, "created the world we live in and the luxuries we enjoy."

To be more precise, it is the masculine role as provider and protector, as restrained by clear standards of right and wrong, that has produced the civilization we know.

But our schools are failing our sons today by not encouraging them in this role.

We need to help our neighbors understand that a generation of boys who are taught that there's something intrinsically wrong with being male will not be able to act as the kind of responsible and creative force that Paglia describes. And our sons won't be the only ones paying the price.

If we really understand what's really at stake in society's "war against boys," we'd realize that a little "male exuberance" on the playground is a small price to pay.

You can get a copy of Christina Hoff Sommers The War Against Boys at BreakPoint Online:

Family friendly firms face staff backlash

- Steve Doughty,

Daily Mail, 28july00

Firms which give working mothers extra time off to look after their children risk a backlash from other staff .... Resentment is building among childless colleagues - especially women - who believe they should also have the chance to stay at home.

Many are unhappy at being left to do the work of staff who desert the office to spend time with their families.

The mistrust and dislike of the way working mothers are seen to take advantage means some bosses are reluctant to employ parents.

The unrest over fashionable 'family-friendly' policies emerged in a survey of nearly 2,000 executives by the magazine Management Today. ....

The report also found that women are far more willing than men to sacrifice earnings for more time of their own - 45% against 27%.

More than a third of women managers said that if they had more time they would spend it to enjoy themselves rather than with their families.

A 1997 Panorama programme said that up to 35% of paedophiles are women. An interesting result of some other research is that the long term damage from female paedophiles appears to be considerably greater than damage from male paedophiles.


Observer campaign: families at war

- Dina Rabinovitch,

Observer, 2, 9, 16 july00

see (also see /02058.htm)

Oliver Cyriax (whom she mentions) tells me that Dina set out to write articles about how the family courts were unfair to women! After learning from him, but seemingly having already written some of the usual "violent man" - bashing stuff, she switched to a comprehensive indictment of the corruption, confusion, and destructiveness of the family courts. She interviewed Thorpe and Hale, and others.

On 16 July Dina wrote; "Only yesterday a delegation from 'non-resident parents' groups marched on the home of Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, president of the Family Division, demanding better treatment." (See photograph.)

Dina quotes Oliver Cyriax; "The Lord Chancellor's opposition to elementary training for the key agency CAFCAs [is understandable]. Guidelines suggesting how to do the job right would categorise most previous Children Act decisions as hopelessly wrong."

It is extraordinary that FNF seem to have removed the magnificent article by Oliver Cyriax from their website. Was I wrong to praise it?

Fathers and sons

- Daniel Johnson

Telegraph, 22july00

.... Young teenage mothers, ...., are usually provided with a more or less functioning support system. They receive housing benefits from the state, families rally round, Gordon Brown rides to the rescue .... there is no longer anything "illegitimate" about the unmarried mother or her children.

Nor is there any real incentive to say "no". .... their desires are just as strong as boys'. ....

How different it is for the young fathers. Society and government are united in condemnation of their fecklessness, but silent about their paternal feelings. There is no message from those around them about how these might be harnessed for the common good. .... Is it any surprise that most of the troubles of which we complain derive from young men? We seek to deny them the only status to which they can aspire that would infallibly distract them from the egotistical pursuit of self-gratification. To deprive them of the prospect of progeny, the obligation to provide and care for a wife and child, is to keep them in a state of perpetual adolescence. .... The hooligans of whom we are so terrified are not bogeys, but babies.

In a couple of generations, we have reverted to the pre-patriarchal social order, something like the prehistoric matriarchy imagined by 19th-century writers. The task we face is nothing less than the reinvention of marriage. We have bequeathed our teenagers a more primitive notion of love and its purposes than that of Adam and Eve. A fatherless society is a lawless society. ....

Our young are growing up cut off from the past, without a moral compass to guide them through the tempest of their own sexuality. Nothing is more urgent than to provide such a guide for the perplexities of puberty. To identify the problem is to point towards the solution. A political party that took a pro-family agenda seriously, however, would be more revolutionary than anybody has so far dared to contemplate.

Which Blair project?

Richard Ingrams,

Observer, 13aug00, p28

Pictures of a bewigged Cherie Blair .... freely made available .... will also ensure maximum publicity for Mrs Blair's new Matrix Chambers, especially set up to cater for the new Human Rights legislation .... Mr Blair introducing legislation that his wife will then profit from in a professional capacity.

This has the making of a major scandal that could finally sink Mr Blair.... can only be avoided by his wife temporarily giving up her legal career and perhaps devoting more time to her family, who .... could all benefit from a bit of TLC.

But there is a fat chance of that happening .... Mrs Blair has made it clear that her career takes precedence over everything else. If things go wrong ....

Doomed youth

Leader, Observer, 13aug00

.... Jack Straw's and Paul Boateng's achievement as Home Office Ministers is to make Howard appear a model of good sense. .... Boys are exposed to bullying and rape by being house in wings with hardened, adult criminals. The Criminal Justice Act supposedly outlawed this repellent response to overcrowding, but a succession of gesture politicians in the Home Office has ignored its provisions. .... The result is that 80% of Feltham graduates re-offend within two years....

Locking up under-18s 'must stop'

- Martin Bright,

Observer, 13aug00, p8

.... Since 1995, at least 26 people have committed suicide in young offenders' institutions, more than twice the number in the previous five years. Last year alone eight young people killed themselves. .... 'There are simply too many kids ii the system, so they end up being stockpiled in prisons. The number of children in secure units has risen from 200 to 400 over the last year. More children will die if this continues.'

Doping Kids

By Kelly Patricia O'Meara

Though shocked by bizarre shootings in schools, few Americans have noticed how many shooters were among the 6 million kids now on psychotropic drugs.

Just three weeks after Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold went on their April 20 killing spree at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., President Clinton hosted a White House conference on youth violence. The president declared it a strategy session to seek "the best ideas from people who can really make a difference: parents and young people, teachers and religious leaders, law enforcement, gun manufacturers, representatives of the entertainment industry and those of us here in government."

. . . . There was, however, complete silence from the president when it came to including representatives from the mental-health community, whom many believe can provide important insight about the possible connection between the otherwise seemingly senseless acts of violence being committed by school-age children and prescription psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin,

Luvox and Prozac.

. . . . There are nearly 6 million children in the United States between the ages of 6 and 18 taking mind-altering drugs prescribed for alleged mental illnesses that increasing numbers of mental-health professionals are questioning.

. . . . Although the list of school-age children who have gone on violent rampages is growing at a disturbing rate -- and the shootings at Columbine became a national wake-up call -- few in the mental-health community have been willing to talk about the possibility that the heavily prescribed drugs and violence may be linked. Those who try to investigate quickly learn that virtually all data concerning violence and psychotropic drugs are protected by the confidentiality provided minors. But in the highly publicized shootings this spring, information has been made available to the public.

a.. April 16: Shawn Cooper, a 15-year-old sophomore at Notus Junior-Senior High School in Notus, Idaho, was taking Ritalin, the most commonly prescribed stimulant, for bipolar disorder when he fired two shotgun rounds, narrowly missing students and school staff.

b.. April 20: Harris, an 18-year-old senior at Columbine High School, killed a dozen students and a teacher before taking his own life. Prior to the shooting rampage, he had been under the influence of Luvox, one of the new selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, or SSRI, antidepressants approved in 1997 by the Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, for children up to the age of 17 for treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder, or OCD.

c.. May 20: T.J. Solomon, a 15-year-old at Heritage High School in Conyers, Ga., was being treated with Ritalin for depression when he opened fire on and wounded six classmates.

. . . . Two other high-profile cases from last year show a similar pattern:


a.. May 21, 1998: Kip Kinkel, a 15-year-old at Thurston High School in Springfield, Ore., murdered his parents and then proceeded to school where he opened fire on students in the cafeteria, killing two and wounding 22. Kinkel had been prescribed both Ritalin and Prozac. Although widely used among adults, Prozac has not been approved by the FDA for pediatric use.

b.. March 24, 1998: Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, opened fire on their classmates at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Ark. Johnson had been receiving psychiatric counseling and, although information about the psychotropic drugs that may have been prescribed for him has not been made public, his attorney, Val Price, responded when asked about it: "I think that is confidential information, and I don't want to reveal that."

. . . . A great deal has been written about all of these cases. There have, however, been no indications that all of these children watched the same TV programs or listened to the same music. Nor has it been established that they all used illegal drugs, suffered from alcohol abuse or had common difficulties with their families or peers. They did not share identical home lives, dress alike or participate in similar extracurricular activities. But all of the above were labeled as suffering from a mental illness and were being treated with psychotropic drugs that for years have been known to cause serious adverse effects when given to children.

. . . . At the top of the list of so-called "mental illnesses" among children is attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, which is diagnosed when a child meets six of the 18 criteria described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM-IV, published by the American Psychiatric Association, or APA.

. . . . ADHD was determined by a vote of APA psychiatrists to be a "mental" illness and added to the DSM-IIIR in 1987. By definition, children with ADHD exhibit behaviors such as not paying attention in school, not listening when spoken to directly, failing to follow directions, losing things, being easily distracted and forgetful, fidgeting with hands or feet, talking excessively, blurting out answers or having difficulty awaiting turn. The most common ADHD remedy among pediatricians and representatives of the mental-health community is, as noted, Ritalin.

. . . . First approved by the FDA in 1955, Ritalin (methylphenidate) had become widely used for behavioral control by the mid-1960s. It is produced by the Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, or DEA, the United States buys and uses 90 percent of the world's Ritalin. A U.N. agency known as the International Narcotics Control Board, or INCB, reported in 1995 that "10 to 12 percent of all boys between the ages of 6 and 14 in the U.S. have been diagnosed as having ADD [attention-deficit disorder, now referred to as ADHD] and are being treated with methylphenidate."

. . . . But opponents are concerned about evidence they say confirms a close relationship between use of prescribed psychotropic drugs and subsequent use of illegal drugs, including cocaine and heroin. While the United States has spent more than $70 billion on the war on drugs, says Bruce Wiseman, president of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, a California-based organization that investigates violations of human rights by mental-health practitioners, "if you think the Colombian drug cartel is the biggest drug dealer in the world, think again. It's your neighborhood psychiatrist ... putting our kids on the highest level of addictive drugs."

. . . . This complaint is not new and there is a lengthy list of government agencies connecting the prescribed psychotropic drugs to use of illegal substances.

. . . . Twenty-eight years ago the World Health Organization, or WHO, concluded that Ritalin was pharmacologically similar to cocaine in its pattern of abuse and cited Ritalin as a Schedule II drug -- the most addictive in medical usage. The Department of Justice followed the WHO by citing Ritalin in Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act as having a very high potential for abuse. As a Schedule II drug, Ritalin joins morphine, opium, cocaine and the heroin substitute methadone.

. . . . According to a report in the 1995 Archives of General Psychiatry, "Cocaine is one of the most reinforcing and addicting of the abused drugs and has pharmacological actions that are very similar to those of Ritalin." In the same year the DEA also made the Ritalin/cocaine connection, saying, "It is clear that Ritalin substitutes for cocaine and d-amphetamine in a number of behavioral paradigms," expressing concern that "one in every 30 Americans between 5 and 19 years old has a prescription for the drug."

. . . . Despite decades of warnings about the potential for abuse of Ritalin, experts continue to argue that the benefits far outweigh the consequences. Yet the INCB has reported that "Methylphenidate's [Ritalin] pharmacological effects are essentially the same as those of amphetamine and metham-phetamine. The abuse of methylphenidate [Ritalin] can lead to tolerance and severe psychological dependence. Psychotic episodes [and] violent and bizarre behavior have been reported."

. . . . These are, in fact, some of the same symptoms exhibited by Eric Harris.

. . . . David Fassler, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and chairman of the APA group on Children, Adolescents and Their Families, says he is unaware of any research to suggest a correlation between the recent cases of violent behavior in school-age children and the widespread prescription of psychotropic drugs. Fassler argues that the number of school-age children suffering from mental illnesses such as depression is "more than earlier believed and it is important that there be a comprehensive evaluation by a mental-health clinician trained in this area." He stresses that "treatment should be multimodal -- not left to medications alone."

. . . . Mike Faenza, president and chief executive officer of the National Mental Health Association, the country's oldest and largest mental-health group, notes that "there is little known about how the drugs affect brain function." Faenza adds that "we do know that a hell of a lot of kids commit suicide because they aren't getting the help they need. It's irresponsible not to give them the help just because we don't know what causes the mental illness."

. . . . Opponents are quick to capitalize on this admission. "There is no such thing as ADHD," declares Wiseman. "It's not a deficiency of 'speed' that makes a kid act out. If you look at the criteria listed in the DSM-IV for ADHD, you'll see that they are taking normal childhood behavior and literally voting it a mental illness. This is a pseudoscience, entirely subjective. Unlike medical conditions that are proved scientifically, with these mental illnesses the only way you know you're better is if the psychiatrist says you're better. That's not science."

. . . . Pediatric neurologist Fred Baughman not only agrees that there is no such illness as ADHD, but says: "This is a contrived epidemic, where all 5 million to 6 million children on these drugs are normal. The country's been led to believe that all painful emotions are a mental illness and the leadership of the APA knows very well that they are representing it as a

disease when there is no scientific data to confirm any mental illness."

. . . . Peter Breggin, a psychiatrist and director of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology and author of Talking Back to Prozac, Toxic Psychiatry and Talking Back to Ritalin, for years has waged a war with the APA about what he regards as its cavalier diagnoses of mental illnesses. "Psychiatry has never been driven by science. They have no biological or genetic basis for these illnesses and the National Institutes of Mental Health are totally committed to the pharmacological line." He is concerned that "there is a great deal of scientific evidence that stimulants cause brain damage with long-term use, yet there is no evidence that these mental illnesses, such as ADHD, exist."

. . . . Breggin points out that the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, admitted as much at their 1998 Consensus Development Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Thirty-one individuals were selected by NIH to make scientific presentations to the panel on ADHD and its treatment.


The panel made the following observations and conclusions: "We don't have an independent, valid test for ADHD; there are no data to indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction; existing studies come to conflicting conclusions as to whether use of psychostimulants increases or de-creases the risk of abuse, and finally after years of clinical research and experience with ADHD, our knowledge about the cause or causes of ADHD remains speculative."

. . . . If so, there is little evidence to support a scientific basis for classifying ADHD as a mental illness. On the other hand, there is an abundance of evidence that stimulants such as Ritalin can produce symptoms such as mania, insomnia, hallucinations, hyperactivity, impulsivity and inattention. And the DEA's list of potential adverse effects of Ritalin includes psychosis, depression, dizziness, insomnia, nervousness, irritability and attacks of Tourette's or other tic syndromes.

. . . . While Ritalin is the drug of choice for treating ADHD, other mental illnesses such as depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder, or OCD, from which Columbine shooter Harris suffered, are being treated with new SSRI antidepressants. Harris' autopsy revealed that he had used Luvox (Fluvoxomine), an SSRI, prior to the shooting spree. And days earlier he had been rejected by the Marine Corps because he was taking the psychotropic drug.

. . . . Luvox, a cousin of Prozac, has been approved by the FDA for pediatric use, although research shows that a small percentage of patients experience adverse effects such as mania, bouts of irritability, aggression and hostility. But many physicians still prescribe it to children.

. . . . More disturbing to those who believe sufficient evidence exists that prescription psychotropic drugs may play a role in the violence being carried out by school-age children is the response of physicians to the issue. Rather than erring on the side of caution by reducing the number of kids on mind-altering drugs, physicians instead are prescribing psychotropic drugs even to infants and toddlers. The warning label states that "Ritalin should not be used in children under 6 years, since safety and efficacy for this age group has not been established" and "sufficient data on safety and efficacy of long-term use of Ritalin in children are not yet available."

. . . . A report in the July 1998 issue of the Clinical Psychiatric News revealed that in Michigan's Medicaid program, 223 children 3 years old or younger were diagnosed with ADHD as of December 1996. Amazingly, 57 percent of these children, many of whom are not yet capable of putting together a complete sentence, were treated with one or more psychotropic drugs including Ritalin, Prozac, Dexedrine, Aventyl and Syban. Thirty-three percent were medicated with two or more of these drugs.

. . . . But it is Ritalin that is being prescribed to 6 million American children. Children's Hospital in Washington has been running television advertisements expressing concern. According to its spokeswoman, Lynn Cantwell, the ads were part of a series covering many medical issues. "We wanted to advocate that children get a comprehensive evaluation because we are finding that children were coming in who were taking Ritalin who actually did not have ADHD."

. . . . Wiseman has suggested that the only way to gain control of the situation is to expose widespread "fraudulent diagnoses" of psychiatrists. "Without the diagnoses, you can't get the drugs," he says. Baughman's answer isn't too far from Wiseman's. He says, "A big-time class-action lawsuit needs to be filed."

ManKind Conference

The Oxford Street conference, organised many years ago by our ex-Chairman John Campion, made a major impact on me. There, I heard Daniel Amneus, author of The Garbage Generation, 1990, speak. I had been attracted to the conference to hear Patricia Morgan, Farewell to the Family?, 1995. Norman Dennis, Rising Crime and the Dismembered Family, 1993, also made a major impact on me. There I met Eugen for the first time, leading to a very fruitful collaboration.

I will be proud to be partly responsible for our conference, at Friends House, opposite Euston Station, London, on Saturday 28oct00, 0900 - 1630, if it approaches the quality achieved by John. The maximum number in the small hall is 230, so send off £10 now for your ticket (£20 for non-member), to ManKind, Suite 367, 2 Lansdowne Row, London W1X 8HL.

ManKind A.G.M.

23sep00 12.30-4.30

Quality Hotel, Bentley, Walsall WS2 0BS, (01922 724444

At Jct. 10, M6.


There was an old Scot called McTavish

Who attempted an anthropoid ravish,

The object of rape

Was the wrong sex of ape

And the anthropoid ravished McTavish.



Ill Eagle 11, oct00


ManKind October 2000 Conference

The age of violent young males. Causes and remedies.

The list of speakers at our conference is truly awesome. They represent most of the leading experts in the world. It is at Friends House, opposite Euston Station, London, on Saturday 28oct00, 0930 - 1630. The maximum number in the small hall is 230, so send off £10 now for your ticket (£20 for non-member), to ManKind, Suite 367, 2 Lansdowne Row, London W1X 8HL. However, I have now booked two further rooms. Details are at or from

List of speakers;

Prof. Norman Dennis. His key book is "Rising Crime and the Dismembered Family", pub. I.E.A. 1993, from tel 020 71 799 3745 Melanie Phillips wrote on Dennis on Waterhouse, Sunday Times, 24sep00. See Catt's website.

Erin Pizzey. Founded the first refuge for battered women, in Chiswick. Her key book is "Prone to Violence", reached via Catt's website

Mary Cleary. AMEN (Ireland) Founded the first refuge for battered men (where I have stayed - Ivor Catt)

Dr. Patricia Morgan Researcher, writer and broadcaster. Her key book is "Farewell to the Family?", pub. I.E.A. 1995/99, from tel. 020 71 799 3745

Prof. Stephen Baskerville (USA). Lecturer in law, Howard University. Writer and broadcaster in the U.S.A.

Dr. Malcolm George Researcher in University College, London. Specialises in violence and in brain research. More details.

Dr. Aidan Rankin (LSE). Co-Editor, "New European".

Lynette Burrows. Writer and broadcaster. Her key book is "The Fight for the Family", 1998/99, from (Broadcaster)

Eugen Hockenjos, Researcher. His key article "A good man is hard to find" in The Guardian 20mar96 ; "How will Tommy learn to care if he has no access to male role models?"

Oliver Cyriax (INPOWw). Spent ten years working towards reform of the Court Welfare Service.

John Waters (Irish Times) Writer and Broadcaster. Probably a videotape of his stunning speech at the second International Conference organised by Mary Cleary.

Charles Hanson. A taped message from the prisoner who was enmeshed in the family courts for years, and reacted by murdering his wife.

Josephine Morris - Rape Barrister Concerned about possible wrong convictions.

George Williamson (AAFAA) Broadcaster. Supplied by the False Allegation organisation, tel 01788 911912.


The delights of close combat with bayonets, in which I received training denied to oppressed women, were highlighted on the front page two issues past, followed by the statistics on male deaths in the Titanic disaster. Again, an oppressive, patriarchal society prevented the death of many women. Now we follow with the suppressed concept gendercide.

From: Stephen Baskerville <>

To: ACFC <>

Subject: "Gendercide and Genocide" (major article)

Date: 03 September 2000 04:45

This article, "Gendercide and Genocide" by Adam Jones, Executive Director of Gendercide Watch, is from the June 2000 issue of the Journal of Genocide Research. Not for the squeamish.

A few highlights:

"Gendercide, at least when it targets males, has attracted virtually no attention at the level of scholarship or public policy. As such, it can be classed as one of the great 'taboo' subjects of the contemporary age."

"Non-combatant men have been and continue to be the most frequent targets of mass killing and genocidal slaughter, as well as a host of lesser atrocities and abuses."

The Stalinist purges were "perhaps the worst gender-specific slaughter in human history."

"Crucially, the most vulnerable and consistently targeted population group, through time and around the world today, is non-combatant men of a 'battle age,' roughly 15 to 55 years old. . . . The 'non-combatant' distinction is also vital. Unlike their armed brethren, these men have no means of defending themselves, and can be detained and exterminated by the thousands or millions. "

"Perhaps the most concentrated mass killing of any kind -- targeted male prisoners-of-war barely half a century ago. . . . Daniel Goldhagen gives a figure of '2.8 million young, healthy Soviet POWs' killed by the Germans, 'mainly by starvation ... in less than eight months of 1941-42." Most were noncombatants.

Break-up of families costs £30bn each year

- Philip Johnson,

Telegraph, 14sep00

Family breakdown is costing Britain £30 billion a year in extra welfare payments, poorer health, lower productivity and higher crime.

The financial consequences of the dramatic increase in divorce over the past 30 years are detailed in a study commissioned by a parliamentary group. It suggests that previous cost estimates ranging from £4 billion to £10 billion have been too low.

The report, The Cost of Family Breakdown, from the Family Matters organisation, says the social consequences of the British "family crisis" are enormous.

"The whole of society is affected," the report adds. "It impairs the health of the nation, reduces educational achievement of children, increases the crime rate, places a burden on the economy and a strain on social relationships." ....

Two in five marriages end in divorce and one child in four will experience family break-up before they are 16.

The impact on children is probably understated since the rate of relationship breakdown is even higher among cohabiting couples.

"We challenge those who are indifferent to, or even contemptuous of 'family values' to acknowledge the massive financial and social costs which society is paying." .... ManKind worked with the report's author David Lindsay.

Blair rubbishes our courts

On 1sep00, The Independent reported that Blair "promised to deliver a courts system for the 21st century". He "declared the justice system anarchic". He made a "strongly worded attack on the state of the courts, police and probation services." He said "I think we have effectively got a 19th century justice system in a 21st century world".

- reported by Peter Mahaffrey in a eurodads email, 4sep00.


After 40 years of feminism and with girls excelling at exams, myths about gender persist, researchers say

Parents still say boys have the brains

- Jonathan Thompson,

Independent on Sunday, 1oct00

.... Brushing aside a mountain of evidence to the contrary, parents still believe their sons to be more intelligent than their daughters, according to Professor Adrian Furnham of University College, London. Men consistently rate themselves as brighter than women, and judge their offspring accordingly.

"Fathers differentiate more than mothers do," he said, "but there is still a pattern. Mothers still think that their daughters are not as bright as their sons.


"... women's overall intelligence is under-rated because of their comparative weakness in mathematical subjects. People still consider intelligence to be mathematical and spatial," says Furnham ....

[This last statement, by a man who presumably did badly at maths, correlates closely with my statement in Male View, oct98, p10; "As far as I can tell, these feminizations, or de-mathemati-cisations, of maths in England are occurring with no public discussion or debate." I telephoned Professor Furnham, 020 7679 5395, and raised the possibility that boys were now underperforming because young men were in crisis, but they and their parents thought their intelligence was higher than was shown by their demoralised test results. He replied that the 18 year old male students that he dealt with did not feel they were in crisis. Thus, we can expect him to think that test achievement will correlate with ability. What will he say as the test performance of young men continues to decline, and their suicides continue to increase? Here we see an accidental Poodle-Man, a victim of radfem censorship. (Via a draft copy of this article and a copy of my oct98 article, I am also asking Furnham to comment on the other point, that maths is being feminised to suit girls.) - Ed.]

Footnote. Rex Harvey obviously describes Furnham in Male View, oct00, p3, para 2. - Ed

Wife rape

Dear Mr. Whiston,

I have been given the name of your organisation [ManKind] by a friend of mine ....

My case is unusual. I am the first man in this part of Britain to be convicted of raping his wife. ....

I was living [with] .... my wife for ten years. In August 1998 I came home after a night out; had an argument with my wife, made friends again, kissed her, she smiled and responded, and we ended up having sex. At court I was found guilty of rape, as she claimed to have not consented to having sex with me. It had taken until last January for the case to get to court. During this time my wife joined Rape Crisis and I was charged with a further 4 counts of rape over the period of our ten years together. I was found not guilty of the previous 4 counts, guilty of the last one, and given a seven-year sentence. I have a clean record before this happening and I have lost everything. We also have an eight-year-old daughter, and I have not seen her since August 1998. Also, I have been put on the sex offenders' register for life.

My solicitors wanted me to appeal my case, but also said that I could be retried on the not guilty counts. As I was in shock, I did not appeal my case. I was found guilty by a 10-2 majority.

I know I did not rape my wife. Also, this sentence is unfair, because a similar case in the south where a married man broke into his own house and raped his wife got 3 years, but I got 7. The judge in my case said he had given me seven years because I put my wife on the stand, yet I was found not guilty on the four earlier counts of rape. Also, I find going on the sex offenders' register for life very harsh. It will affect my human and civil rights for life.

If there is anything you can do for me, please let me know. I can let you have full details of my case through my solicitors.

Yours faithfully,

BJ Number A7138

Her Majesty's Prison O aug00

17sep00 Dear Ivor,

.... fine .... put my case on your website .... keep my name out of it .... my case has been referred to the Criminal Case Review Commission ....


The Case for Marriage They Don't Want You to Hear

October 5, 2000

Maybe you can't judge a book by its cover, but boy, you can sure tell a lot from its critics.

"The Case for Marriage" (Doubleday) by Waite and Gallagher is a new book I co-authored with University of Chicago Prof. Linda Waite whose research on the advantages of marriage over other lifestyles is turning heads and raising scholarly eyebrows: Should we embrace all family forms equally? Do husbands really oppress their wives and hog all the marital goodies? Is it really true that the single life offers more rewards for women than the average, ho-hum marriage?

Well, no, no and no actually. Not if you look at the evidence. Here's the scientific case for marriage in a nutshell: marriage changes men and women's lives in powerful ways that other sorts of relationships, such as cohabitation, do not. Marriage is not just another lifestyle, but a productive, wealth-creating institution that (like education) builds human and social capital and (like education) therefore deserves public support. Linda Waite and I call for innovative new public and community efforts to strengthen marriage, and reduce divorce.

Divorce, these days, is too-often framed as the gateway to happiness for adults, which they must (or must not) sacrifice for their kids sake. But for some time now I've wondered whether fewer divorces would require such awful sacrifice from adults. "Divorce and be happy - or stay married and miserable for the kids' sake" is the way most Americans now frame the question. Framed that way, just a third of Americans, now believe people should stay married for the children's sake.

But what about the other possible outcomes? For example, you could divorce and be miserable, right? If divorce is such a great way to fulfil yourself, why is it that just 18 percent of divorced persons say they are "very happy"? Why are married women much, much happier than divorced, never married or even cohabiting women?

Then again, there's that other pesky possibility: stay married and get happier. In the Case for Marriage we looked at what happens to bad marriages that don't end. The turnarounds were shocking: Five years later, 77 percent of very unhappily couples that stayed married now called their marriage either "very happy" or "quite happy." A bad marriage is not a hard fact. It's a judgement by one person at one moment in time about a future that can change. Just as good marriages go bad, bad marriage "go good" and they are more likely to do so in a society that strongly prefers staying married to divorce.

This is pretty interesting stuff, right? As is the news that says, marriage reduces domestic violence, or that 3 out of ten middle-aged guys who aren't married will likely die prematurely as a result, to list just two examples of new data. So it's pretty curious to me that the first two reviews out of the box by the alleged cultural elite, one by Nation editor Katha Pollit in Slate and one by Margaret Talbot in the October 1 Sunday New York Times are not only negative but actually dismiss The Case for Marriage as "old news" about a debate nobody cares about. (If you doubt me, you can read them at

Curious too such prestigious editors assigned The Case for Marriage to writers who have published articles condemning me and anybody else who wants to reduce divorce. Curious most especially that Pollit calls The Case for Marriage a "clip job" and Talbot implies (either ignorantly or out of malice) that Linda Waite is just some second-rate ideologue instead of a top family scholar. Finally, curiouser and curiouser isn't it, that two such keen intellects cannot seem to locate a marriage debate in America just a few weeks after Time magazine put "Who Needs a Husband?" on the front cover?

All of which makes me wonder: What exactly is it about this new case for marriage the divorce advocates don't want you to hear?



There was a young girl of Australia,

Who went to a dance as a dahlia;

When the petals unfurled,

It revealed to the world

That the dress, as a dress, was a failure.



The Donkey and the Carrot

The scene. A blameless father who has recently been threatened with a divorce action. After talking with such as myself for less than ten minutes, he knows that he will manage his own case better. He knows he is blameless, and that, whether or not he bears ill will towards his wife, he will steadfastly put the interests of his children first. He will not be mean or grasping or incompetent, as I must have been, and the courts will soon see this, and treat him and his children well. His eyes, not his speech, convey these last points to me. As agents of the state, judges and lawyers will do what they can to help him to safeguard his children's future. After all, they regularly say; The interests of the child come first. The Walrus and the Carpenter is merely a rather juvenile poem in a book for children, and can have no bearing on serious matters like his divorce. Most lawyers do not eat oysters, and would certainly not dream of eating such an upright Englishman as he.

'O Oysters, come and walk with us!'

The Walrus did beseech.

A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,

Along the briny beach:

We cannot do with more than four,

To give a hand to each.'

The eldest Oyster looked at him,

But never a word he said:

The eldest Oyster winked his eye,

And shook his heavy head -

Meaning to say he did not choose

To leave the oyster-bed.

But four young Oysters hurried up.

All eager for a treat:

Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,

Their shoes were clean and neat -


'The time has come,' the Walrus said,

'To talk of many things:

Of shoes - and ships - and sealing wax -

Of cabbagee - and kings -

And why the sea is boiling hot -

And whether pigs have wings.'


'Now, if you're ready, Oysters dear,

We can begin to feed.'

'But not on us!' the oysters cried, Turning a little blue.

'After such kindness, that would be

A dismal thing to do!'

'The night is fine,' the Walrus said.

'Do you admire the view?'

Our divorcing Sir Galahad goes into denial when faced with an alternative scenario. The court system is collapsing. His own lawyers connive with the judge to keep up appearances. They all know that the father must lose everything, while at the same time the lawyers must maximise their fees. As one women barrister said to her (father) client; You must fight. You'll lose, but you must fight.

Divorcing men are in denial, want their day, year or decade in court, and want the drama. They do not notice that their idea of fighting means funnelling the maximum amount of money, their own and the taxpayers', to lawyers and judges. Many judges are failing lawyers doing the job of judge part time to supplement their fees. This is why they string cases along

Should such an upright Englishman despise the donkey who strives for the carrot? What is the difference?

If the donkey stopped striving, he might even earn a carrot!

The successful Retreat strategy, where a father who truly cares for his children takes on the court system, telling it that he will not fund the parentectomy, is available on my website The proper role of a father is not to ape radfems in victimhood and self image building, but to go to the core of the problem and fight for his children. In spite of Retreat's first success, I find that all other divorcing men prefer their day in court, the creeping loss of their children and their assets, and the imagined glamour of victimhood.

Why does the divorcing father play it straight, like the donkey, when he knows that it almost always leads to loss of children and assets?

Retreat will be outlined at our conference on 28oct00.


I have found massive censorship by the lucrative AIDS Industry

My research into pandemic censorship in my own fields, for instance electromagnetic theory, led me to study censorship in other disciplines, finally lighting on AIDS, where censorship has had the most serious repercussions. I then studied the politics of the AIDS Industry for more than ten years, and signed up to the list of scientists demanding a rethink of AIDS fundamentals.

Mr. Mbeki took over Mandela's mantle as President of South Africa. One night, unable to sleep, he surfed the www, and stumbled on suppressed information, which can be reached via Nobel Prizewinner Mullis or Warman on my website

With 10% of his country adjudged HIV+, and with Glaxo-Wellcome, whose HQ is next door to our 28oct00 conference in London, charging $11,000 per patient per year for their lethal AZT 'medicine', he already knew that his country had a major problem.

Mbeki read that false positive diagnoses by both the fashionable HIV tests were likely in a country like South Africa, the real culprit being malnutrition, tuberculosis, malaria, or other. In any case, the test was too expensive, so that in Africa, diagnosis was usually made without the test.

That sleepless night, Mbeki's discovery that a major group of scientists worldwide disagreed with all the generally held facts, which I will call 'factoids', underlying the AIDS industry, brought him up sharp. It cannot have helped him to get to sleep. He knew immediately that he might have the solution to the financial crisis faced by SA as a result of extortionate AZT prices, but he could not have imagined the scale, power and commitment of the forces ranged on the side of the $4 billion p.a. AIDS Industry.

In 1994, Warman, after writing; History may well prove the HIV/AIDS phenomenon to be the greatest public scandal of the late 1980s and early 1990s, listed the major disputed facts as follows;

- who discovered HIV?

- the role of HIV in causing AIDS

- the origin of HIV

- the definition of AIDS and geographical variation in the way it manifests itself

- the reliability of the test for HIV

- the efficacy of AZT in treating and preventing AIDS

Although there is minor disagreement between the suppressed dissidents, every expert whom I respect agrees that AIDS will not break out of the ghetto, and also that it is not sexually transmitted by normal copulation. They all agree that the main threat to life is the treatment for AIDS, making it an iatrogenic disease (one caused by the doctor's treatment). To check this, go to Woolworths, and for £2, buy Medicines. A Comprehensive Guide, pub. Bloomsbury 1995, which lists the side effects of every prescribed drug. You will find that the side-effects of AZT, DDC and DDI, the drugs fed to those who have been diagnosed HIV+, are identical with the symptons of AIDS. Thus, it is not those who are ill, but rather those who are unfortunate enough to be diagnosed HIV+, who are doomed, unless they refuse the drug treatment. Refusal has proved very difficult for new-born babies of mothers diagnosed HIV+. Babies are particularly vulnerable to these lethal drugs, so that some parents have escaped from Britain in the face of court orders forcing them to drug their babies.

The first crack in the monolith which is the AIDS Industry appeared when Andrew Neil, Editor of the Sunday Times, supported research by his reporter Neville Hodgkinson's, and paid for him to travel the world to interview all the key players in the drama, for instance Dr. Eleni Eleopulos in Perth, Australia.

Today, the best book on the tragedy remains Neville Hodgkinson, AIDS The Failure of Contemporary Science, pub. Fourth Estate 1994. When Murdoch fired Neil, Neil claims because he was jealous of Neil's success, the new editor and his staff reverted to Establishment AIDS theory, behaving as if Hodgkinson and his reports had never existed. In the following ten years, prior comment on AIDS in The Sunday Times has been ignored by The Sunday Times, including letters asking today's Editor why he ignores his paper's past..


Mbeki has formed an international committee which includes key AIDS dissidents, for instance Duesberg and the man described as a hero by Andrew Neil, Professor Stewart. Mbeki poses a major threat to a worldwide AIDS Industry, dominated by a highly corrupt WHO, the NIH and by Wellcome. I feel that the Industry and its credulous running-dogs will succeed in isolating and destroying Mbeki. They are describing him as arrogant, racist, another Mugabe, deranged, a tyrant, an enemy of the people, and so on. (Sunday Times 27aug00 sect5 p3, Telegraph 16sep00 p19, Times 11july00 p14). None of the reports ever gives access to the dissident websites or to any other dissidents or their websites. The Industry has to destroy Mbeki. There is so much money at stake, and also so many reputations and "research" funding. The AIDS Industry will continue to rumble along, killing its victims with poisonous drugs. However, you can help a little by warning HIV+ victims to look at these websites, and to learn about the threat that the prescribed drugs pose to their lives.

AIDS and Apartheid

- Tim Butcher,

Telegraph, 21sep00, p22

South Africa's Anglican Church said yesterday that government inaction on Aids ranked as a crime against humanity comparable to apartheid.

The statement from the head of the Church .... heightened the government's isolation over Aids. .... ".... a crime against humanity," it said.

The trade unions and some political parties have also attacked the government's stand, heightening a sense of crisis over the issue.

President Thabo Mbeki and the Health Minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, claim that poverty and other diseases as well as HIV cause Aids. ....

Mr Mbeki maintained his position yesterday, insisting that doubts about the true causes of Aids had been raised by "very eminent scientists".

"There are other things that result in the collapse of the immune system," he said.

.... Mr Mbeki says more research is needed into the toxicity of the drugs offered by Western firms, though they are used elsewhere.

He faced further attack on the subject yesterday when the South African Human Rights Commission said it was considering suing the government over its refusal to provide drugs to counter the development of HIV into Aids....

Mr Mbeki's stance on Aids is increasingly isolating him internationally and domestically....

ManKind and Ill Eagle can be reached at;

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

(0207 413 9176


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

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

(4) Email :- ivorcatt@

Child's the right of access to its parent

From Ill Eagle 9, June00, p7

There is therefore no all-embracing fundamental right under the Human Rights Act 1998 not to be discriminated against. [In any case, no national or international convention, law or statute or case law gives a child the right of access to its parent. I have been saying this for more than ten years, the reaction from all parties, including all fathers cut off from their children, being one of total indifference. It's a strange world, full of strange people. - Ed]

From: Walter H. Schneider <>

22sep00 Dear Ivor, You asked in your letter to Poyser (Poysner?): "Where in International Law or Statute or Declaration or in National Case Law or Statute is a child's right of access to its parent enshrined?" [, the responsible civil servant, answered with a mass of gobbledygook, and since then has refused to communicate. - Ed]

To my knowledge it is not enshrined in any laws anywhere, *but once upon a time it was!* Canadian Senator Anne C. Cools (Liberal) did some research of case law to determine where and when the doctrine "In the best interest of the child" originated." She reported on her findings at the Calgary Workshop on Family Conflict (Peter Lougheed Centre, 1998 09 26). Senator Cools presented an analysis of the doctrine "In the best interest of the child." She had found that the first time the term had been mentioned in any legislation was in a 19th Century ruling, in a hearing by the Lord Chancellor in Britain -- the highest Court in the U.K., responsible for questions of judiciary equitability and ethics -- in which it became established that children have the right to both of their parents and that the King will be the protector of that right. She then recounted a trail of decisions during which that premise became modified repeatedly until it has come to mean today that children are the property of, and an adjunct to, their mothers, with most of those changes having taken place during the last three decades. She concluded by asking how it was possible to come from the beginnings of a doctrine with such noble intentions to where we are now.

I'm sorry for not being able to tell you the case reference of the hearing in the Court of the Lord Chancellor. I don't take short hand, and the organizers of the work shop did not deliver on the promise to make available the tapes that were made at the workshop. However, you may be able to do something with the lead. It is doubtful that the Court of the Lord Chancellor heard all that many cases during the 19th century. If Senator Cools found the case then it should be possible to find it again.

I tried to obtain a transcript of Senator Cools' presentation or a copy of Senator Anne C. Cools' notes pertaining to her speech, but her office told me that because the speech was not delivered in the Senate they could not make either available.

My notes on the Workshop on Family conflict are accessible at>.

--Walter Schneider

From: Catt To: Schneider <> 1oct00

Walter, The correct spelling is Poisoner. Not the only one among our civil servants, anxious to inflict maximum damage on the children of divorce. .... If you go to my website, you will find that I have already put up speeches by Anne Cools. It is clear that there is a very small number of socially responsible individuals in the world, including Anne Cools, Erin Pizzey and Melanie, who bother to do the study and research, and bravely speak and write the truth. (No coincidence really that Cools and Pizzey toured Canada together, and right now are together in the Caribbean at a conference.) They are up against the dead weight of anti-social layabouts, many, for instance Baroness Jay and Boateng, with socially destructive ideologies (except Jay's intelligence limits the scale and subtlety of her dogma. I notice even the London Daily Guardian does not fully stomach her. "Jay's bid for country credibility backfires", Guardian, 26sep00, p8. She is even too anti-social for the Guardian, who on 25sep00 published a "party manifesto" of their own to parallel those of Labour and Tory. It was totally radfem, except that on 26sep00 pointed out that it did not adulate buggery enough to satisfy them.).

I have been trawling for the information in your email (below) for 10 or 15 years. So I am very grateful to you. How wonderful that the magnificent Canadian Senator Anne C Cools did the research.

On another matter, the massive response by the world's top experts when invited to speak at the 28oct00 London conference that I am organising, is awesome. Seven out of the world's top eight experts/contributors (by my judgement) will be speaking. Only Melanie Phillips is not speaking. See Tonight, Norman Dennis wrote that he felt honoured to be invited, and would come to speak. Ivor Catt 1oct00

From: Walter H. Schneider <>

Date: 03 October 2000 15:30

Ivor, Stephen Galvin pointed out that there is quite a bit more information about the history of the doctrine "In the best interest of the child.".


Stephen wrote:


"The father is the person entitled by law to the custody of the child. If he abused that right to the detriment of the child, the court will protect that child. But there is no pretence that the child has been injured for want of nurture in any other respect. Then he, having a legal right to the custody of the child, and not having abused that right, is entitled to have it restored to him."

Lord Ellenborough, C J. Rex v De Manneville (1804) 5 East, 102 Eng Rep 1054 quoted in Joakimidis, J. Back to the Best Interests of the Child, Child Support Action Group Adelaide 1994 p.13.

Joakimidis goes on to recount the history of the 'tender years' doctrine which progressively eroded the presumption of the father being the natural caregiver for the child.


---End quote---

The question now is whether that can be made the basis of a legal challenge. Is it that the law was subsequently broken repeatedly, or was that decision rightfully overturned?

If fundamental and "inalienable" rights mean anything, then it shouldn't be possible for the law to make a 180 degree turn, even if it took almost 200 year to complete it.

More must be done than to merely ask: "How did we get from there to where we are now?"


From: ROGER ELDRIDGE <> on 06 October 2000 07:04

How homosexuals have targeted the Boy Scouts of America from

Rape of a sacred trust

How pedophiles have targeted the Boy Scouts of America

Editor's note: The following report is excerpted from an in-depth exploration of pedophilia, homosexuality and the Boy Scouts of America in the October edition of WND's sister publication, the monthly WorldNet Magazine. Readers may subscribe to WorldNet at WND's online store.

By David M. Bresnahan 2000,, Inc.

"You shouldn't have done it. It ruined our lives," cried one of several boys from the back row of a Medina, Ohio, courtroom last week. Michael Maggy, 35, a former Boy Scout leader, had just pleaded guilty to rape and sexual battery, and the poignant comments from his victims were brought home by a sentence of life in prison issued by Medina County Common Pleas Judge Christopher J. Collier. "I know what I have done to you, "Maggy said to his scout victims, as reported in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "I can't apologize enough." Confessing that he too had been sexually molested as a boy, Maggy said he had lacked the courage to seek help. "I did not get counseling or even talk about it. Look where it got me," he said.

Crafting 'gay' children.

Many homosexuals are attracted to young boys, they fantasize about young boys, they frequent websites about young boys, they cruise the streets for young boys, and they volunteer as Boy Scout leaders in an attempt to have sex with young boys, according to a world-renowned researcher and author. Dr. Judith Reisman, formerly a research professor at American University, veteran pornography researcher and expert witness before the attorney general's commission on pornography, is the author of "Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences."

Having extensively researched the homosexual lifestyle, Reisman and other experts have reached some disturbing conclusions. Contrary to the popular view that there is little crossover between homosexuality and pedophilia, she says homosexuals are anxious to recruit young boys -- a practice that is becoming easier thanks to sex education and "diversity programs" in schools that teach children to consider homosexuality as both acceptable and normal.

In one of the major cultural battlefronts of the year, the Boy Scouts of America has taken the legal challenges to it before the Supreme Court and won the right to deny avowed homosexuals entrance as adult leaders. Nevertheless, ever since the BSA's founding early last century, it has been plagued with a constant undercurrent of pedophile scout leaders preying on the vulnerable, trusting boys they "lead."

Greg Shields, Boy Scouts of America's national spokesman, says homosexuals cannot serve as examples to young boys because they do not live by the Scout Oath to be "morally straight." Although painfully aware of the problems BSA has had over the years of men preying on boys, Shields takes a somewhat corporate and elusive line in separating the organization's homosexual policy from its child sexual abuse policy.

"Unfortunately, child molestation can come from anyone. We are teaching boys character values. Everyone knows where we stand on this. We have never accepted homosexuals as leaders and we never will," said Shields. But Reisman says what 90 years of police blotter statistics prove -- that young boys are in real danger of sexual molestation, and that the BSA has sound reasons to ban homosexuals.

Reisman conducted two recent scientific studies that challenge the popular mantra of homosexual activists who insist that: 1) they are "born that way," 2) homosexuals make up 10 percent of the population, and 3) youths should be able to have sex at an early age.

"Crafting 'Gay' Children: An Inquiry into the Abuse of Vulnerable Youth Via Establishment Media and the School Room" and "Partner Solicitation Language as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation," are continuations of the work Reisman began with her study, "Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences." (Regarding her book, Charles E. Rice, professor of law at Notre Dame Law School, notes, "Dr. Reisman's study supports the conclusion that Alfred Kinsey's research was contrived, ideologically driven and misleading. Any judge, legislator or other public official who gives credence to that research is guilty of malpractice and dereliction of duty.")

Since the Supreme Court's June 28 decision in favor of the Boy Scouts, activist attacks on the 90-year-old organization have increased dramatically. Homosexual political organizations have gone into overdrive, lobbying and threatening corporate sponsors to discontinue their support; President Clinton has been urged to step down as honorary President of BSA; a few members of Congress even tried -- unsuccessfully -- to revoke the organization's honorary charter. And Clinton even signed an executive order, which was followed in lockstep by a Justice Department memo designed to evict the Boy Scouts from federal lands and facilities -- on the grounds that the organization illegally discriminates against homosexuals.

All this, in spite of the Supreme Court's favorable decision three months earlier. Although homosexual activists claim they are no more likely to sexually molest children than heterosexuals are, Reisman says research proves the opposite. "They're claiming that homosexuals are not looking to have sex with boys, yet you have this massive number of boys out there prostituting themselves. And how do you have all these Internet sites if they're not looking for boys? This is not heterosexual. By definition, when you're having sex with someone of your own sex, that's homosexual," Reisman said.

Based on data from a study of non-incarcerated child sex offenders, Gene G. Abel, M.D., has found that homosexuals "sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring five times greater than the molestation of girls." A professor of psychiatry who has taught at several medical schools, including Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Abel is currently affiliated with Emory University School of Medicine and Morehouse School of Medicine.

He has been a research scientist in the field of sexual violence for 25 years, and the National Institute of Mental Health has awarded him funding for six long-term studies to investigate sexual violence and to design new ways to stop it. Specifically, Abel's report provides data to show that, on average, 150.2 boys are molested per homosexual pedophile offender, whereas only 19.8 girls are molested per heterosexual pedophile offender.

Incredibly, homosexual offenders admitted between 23.4 and 281.7.


acts of molesting boys. Reisman's research in "Crafting 'Gay' Children" determined that the total population of homosexual men in America was no more than 2 million in 1991. During the same year, "U.S. Population, Statistical Abstracts" show that 6-8 million boys under age 18 were sexually abused.

Meanwhile, the population of heterosexual men in the U.S. was approximately 86--88 million in 1991, and an estimated eight million girls were sexually abused that year. Based on the government's own statistics -- the "Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1992, Data on Boys and Girls," published by the U.S. Commerce Department -- Reisman cited the following for that year: Of 86 - 88 million heterosexual men, 9 percent of them victimized 8 million girls under age 18, which constitutes 25 percent of all girls. An uncertain percentage of the estimated 2 million homosexual men victimized 6-8 million boys, under age 18, amounting to 17 - 24 percent of all boys.

Therefore, considered in the aggregate, 3 to 4 boys are sexually molested per homosexual adult male. Only .09 girls are sexually molested per heterosexual adult male, which is to say that, on average, 1 in 11 heterosexual males victimizes a girl under 18. Within the child protection establishment, sexual abuse is defined simply as an adult having sex with a juvenile under age 18 -- whether "consensual" or not.

When dealing with children, "consensual" is not the legitimizing criterion it is for adults. Indeed, almost invariably, sexual predators defend their "loving" physical relationships with children as being "consensual," when in reality the seduction and manipulation of children -- resulting in their "consent" -- is both an art form and the stock in trade of pedophiles.

The Simon and Schuster book "Homosexualities," by Alan Bell, reports that 25 percent of homosexual men admit to having had sex with boys who are 16 or under. Further corroborating this well-hidden homosexual proclivity for targeting younger males are the following findings published in the Journal of the American Medical Association: 50 percent of male AIDS victims reported having sex with an adult male by the age of 16. 20 percent of male AIDS victims had sex with an adult male by age 10.

"The Advocate," a popular homosexual newsmagazine, conducted a survey of its readers. Of the 2,500 responses obtained, 21 percent admitted that an adult man committed a sexual act with them by the time they were 15. 'The ideal situation' Boy Scout camping trips provide a perfect setting for homosexuals to pursue their forbidden desires, according to Reisman, who added that any organization that provides opportunities for homosexuals to spend time with young boys will become a magnet for homosexual child molesters.

In fact, Justice Ignazio Ruvolo of the First District Court of Appeals in San Francisco recently ruled that the Boy Scouts of America should be held responsible for a Southern California scout's sexual molestation at the hands of a pedophile scout leader. Why? In making his case that the Scouting organization -- despite a comprehensive national program to prevent sexual abuse -- should have done even more to protect kids from pedophiles, the judge said, "It should be reasonably foreseeable to the Scouts that a child participating in Scouting might fall prey to a sexual predator."

Attorney Charles A. Bonner, representing the victim who had been molested back in 1991 by his assistant scoutmaster, Jorge Paz, was even more direct. He said BSA national leaders know that "the organization attracts pedophiles like a magnet attracts metal." Of all the various youth groups today, "the Boy Scouts provide the ideal situation" for men to find young boys to molest, according to Reisman. The BSA does all it can to protect boys from child molesters, says Shields.

Every "Boy Scout Manual" comes with an insert about child abuse placed in the front. Troops have a video to show to boys, entitled, "A Time to Tell," which teaches boys to recognize attempts to sexually molest them, to resist the attempt and report the offender. The BSA has strict rules designed to prevent child abuse of all kinds, said Shields. Rules include "Two-Deep Leadership," which requires a minimum of two adults to be present with boys at all times. Another basic rule is that adults may not be in the same tent as boys (except their own children). Shields told WorldNet that when the rules are followed, there are no problems. "Each incident (of abuse) took place when the leaders were not trained or the rules weren't followed," he said.

Despite the BSA training and rules, the incidents of reported child molestation have been on the rise. The scouting organization attributes the increase to greater awareness because of the training given to boys and to a record number of boys in the program -- about 5 million. BSA statistics and various media reports over the past 20 years show a near-tripling of sexual abuse cases -- from about 70 cases a year then to about 200 annually now. Reisman expressed concern that the BSA rules may not go far enough.

The ideal situation, she said, is for fathers to go on camping trips with their sons. Fathers should stay in tents with their own sons, and boys who are not related to them should not sleep in their tent. She recognized, however, that not all boys have a father to go with them. She also advised that young, single men should never be permitted to camp with boys, but that it would be ideal, rather, if leaders are married and have children participating in the program.

The 'helping hand'

In Gilbert Herdt's book, "Gay and Lesbian Youth," Douglas Feldman, a medical anthropologist and a member of the homosexual activist community, is quoted as saying, "These kids are our future and we must invest in them." Feldman states that teen-agers are "very susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases," and that sexually abused boys "have about a 1 in 4 chance of developing AIDS in approximately five years." Herdt speaks of adult male homosexuals as "coaches" and "guides" who should help young boys overcome their heterosexual "victim" status by "coming out" into homosexuality. Reisman blames the nation's public schools and lawmakers for granting various protections to such "coaches" and "guides" within the nation's schools.

"They teach confused children about tolerance, sexual diversity and such. They like to tell young boys that 'at least one in 10 of you are gay.' Anyone who objects is immediately labeled homophobic," she said. In his study, "The Role of Adult Advisors" (as quoted from Herdt's "Gay Culture in America"), homosexual advocate Frederick Lynch says, "What has not been brought out fully in some other coming-out studies is the role of the guide, teacher or 'helping hand' in either the signification state, the coming-out stage or both ... the often benign and helpful role that older, more experienced homosexual men play with regard to younger (males)." Reisman is concerned that educators have embraced the homosexual agenda and now encourage boys to have sex with each other at an early age.

One of the places such experimentation could easily take place is in a tent during a Boy Scout camping trip, she said. Boys who have been told that experimentation is acceptable may also be willing to accept the advances of an adult male or older boy, she added. "They tell these impressionable kids that if they feel different, confused, strange, or if they are questioning, that they may be gay," she said. "What child isn't confused at that age, anyway? These kids don't know what to think, and then they're told it's OK to experiment to find out."

Project 10

School programs like "Project 10" -- a nationally used public school curriculum which has been a prototype for other similar programs -- teaches students that 1 out of every 10 children is a homosexual. Without question, claims Reisman, such programs serve as a catalyst for the seduction and homosexual recruitment of young people.

She adamantly disputes the 1 in 10 claim, as do many other researchers. But she goes much further: Reisman blames the press for not exposing what she says is the core deception, one that began with "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" by Alfred Kinsey in 1948. The text given to teens in the "Project 10" program is "One Teenager in 10." Reisman found that 38 percent of the short stories used in the text describe sexual activity between children and adults. One story begins: "I have been a lesbian since I was 12. I had.


known my dance teacher for three years before she brought me out." The claims made in the 1948 Kinsey report --principally the claim that 1 in 10 people are homosexual -- have been used ever since both to legitimize homosexuality and to justify what increasingly amounts to open near-recruitment in the nation's schools.

The recent, widely publicized event at Tufts University in which youths as young as 14 were taught the finer points of "fisting" and other homosexual practices -- by Massachusetts state employees -- is typical. That particular event was "outed" and its participants rebuked only because a "mole" critical of the program attended it and taped the entire event, subsequently making the tape available to the news media. The media, however, never bothered to check Kinsey's methods or his data, says Reisman. And the burgeoning homosexual-rights movement, flexing its newfound muscle, used the Kinsey report as a battering ram to knock down society's traditional condemnation of homosexual behavior. "They simply continued, with the support of the media, to repeat and to desensitize [the public] over and over and over again, until finally, at a certain point, people believed what they were being told," said Reisman.

"Middle America never applied [the Kinsey report] to themselves, but their kids did. The kids believed it, and the kids believe it about their parents. "It happened in the '60s when the kids talked about their parents being a bunch of hypocrites, because allegedly their parents engaged in all these sexual peccadilloes. See, the children went to college and their professors told them, and of course, the professors were engaged in such sexual peccadilloes. So Mom and Dad got smeared with the same brush. The American public came to believe Kinsey because all the authorities were saying this was true. It took on a life of its own once it got underway," said Reisman.

The homosexual activist movement's strategy, she says, is classic -- basically, that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will end up believing it. Repeat often enough that an apple is an orange,and sooner or later people will not only believe that an apple is an orange, but will argue the point and help persuade others to the same viewpoint. "It took 50 years," Reisman concluded, "but here we are."

The preceding has been excerpted from WorldNet Magazine's October cover story. In the balance of this exclusive in-depth report: how pedophiles operate; how victims of pedophiles become victimizers; the Internet's hundreds of pedophile websites featuring boys in Scout uniforms; and the astonishing criminal fraud perpetrated by sex "pioneer" Alfred Kinsey.Readers may subscribe to WorldNet Magazine at WND's online store.

David M. Bresnahan is an investigative journalist for

(Below is an easy to see example of how anti-family feminists operate as censors in the media and suppresors of everything that might show their ideology to be groundless and noxious. Roger Eldridge, Co. Roscommon, Ireland,

Article from Daily Telegraph Sept 30th 2000 (re-written by Robert Whiston).

Annual breast screening is a "waste of resources"

-Robert Whiston

For the second time in two years cancer specialists are saying that the estimated £35m spent on breast screening women (in the UK) aged between 50 and 62 is a waste of money.

Arguments have long raged over whether the normal interval between screening for women of every 3 years is too long or should be annually. Now, the second European Breast Cancer Conference in Brussels has heard from Prof. roger Blamey that a study shows evidence to the contrary.

Prof. Blamey, of City Hospital, Nottingham, gave details to the conference of a study in England and Wales of a "normal" screening programme covering 76,000 women. Although smaller cancers were found in the annual screening there was no significant difference in outcomes or types of cancer.

With only a 2.5% variation, the conference heard that the "clear findings" were that the benefits of annual screening compared with triennial screening could not be justified on cost or survival rate terms. They were almost equal.

In March 1999, as we reported in Ill Eagle, cancer specialist and founder of the Breast Screening Programme, Prof. Michael Baum, said "it is now redundant" and "no longer represents an effective use of money" (Evening Standard 1/3/99).

In a letter (dated 29/6/99) Baroness Hayman of the Dept of Health confirmed to us that there were 2 Beast Screening Programmes (BSP) for women. The one for women in the 50-64 age groups cost £35m pa.

The NHS funded Cervical Cancer Screening Programme (CCSP) checks 4 million women aged 20 - 64 pa. The CCSP costs an estimated £132m pa. and treats 3,900 case pa and prevents 800 deaths pa (again all official estimates not from the Dept but from the National Audit Office). Translated this means the screening cost of checking each of the 4m women is £33 each.

Or put another way the cost of treating the 3,900 cases found is a whopping £33,864 per woman / pa. Compare that with the derisory £4m recently gifted" by Gov't for prostate cancer (£4m divided by 10,000 deaths = £400 for each dead man who could have been treated or survived).

The Separation Organisation

A new website

( is soon to be launched to provide support for people going through separation and divorce. This site is different because it is not controlled by a law firm. The Separation Organisation was founded by John Foley as a place where people could get useful help and advice without being drawn into the adversarial legal route. John has spent many years mentoring distressed men and women who have been affected by family breakdown. Members of the site will be able to discuss their experiences and share information online. There is also a database evaluating family lawyers. "Some lawyers might be uncomfortable" admits John, "but the voice of the user must be heard in this age of consumer information", he says.

Killer who refused parole dies

- Oliver Wright,

Times, 10oct00, p10

A convicted murderer who refused parole for 12 years in an attempt to clear his name died yesterday, six weeks after his case was referred to the Court of Appeal.

Harold Williams, 68, who had spent 23 years in prison for murder of his former lover, died in hospital in Burton upon Trent after a stroke at the weekend.

Hid fight to clear his name was supported by David Hallam, a former Hereford MEP .... the Criminal Cases Review Commission .... said yesterday that there was nothing to stop Williams being declared innocent posthumously.

[I wrote in The Hook and the Sting on that those who refuse to admit guilt serve their full term, whereas the guilty get parole after half their sentence. This has relevance to the family courts, where false allegations are known to be merely a technical device to validate the expropriation of fathers and husbands. Lawyers who connive to expropriate fathers prefer to pretend that they are expropriating villains. It is important to keep a watertight separation between the family and the criminal courts. - Ed]

ManKind October 2000 Conference

For over thirty years, the social policies of successive British governments have failed to stem the tide of decay and disintegration.

We have never been richer; never more fully employed; never more able to enjoy the good things in life. Yet why are we still so apprehensive ?

The received wisdom is that men are inherently violent. But are such men born violent, or has our society made them so? Go to the centre of an English town on a Saturday night; the picture you will see is one of drunkenness, aggression and violence. The perpetrators are nearly always young men.

"The Age of Violent Young Men" is a conference that aims to discover and answer these questions.



October 2, 2000, saw the implentation of the Human Rights Act in Britain. Now we will se what scalliwags like Sloss get up to.


[Norman Dennis's talk to our conference, see my website - Ed.]




Come to our 28oct00 conference to hear the rest of Norman's talk. He made a great impression on me seven years ago when he spoke to the previous ManKind conference. Aged 69, Norman, a Reader at Newcastle University, lived and researched in the age long before radfem propaganda and fraudulent "research" corrupted our knowledge base. He is our route back to healthier times. - Ivor Catt, Editor.


Ill Eagle 12, dec00


Sex under Sixteen?

Family Youth Concern's autumn issue of Family Bulletin discusses their largest research project, a detailed and comprehensive study of the attitudes towards sexual relationships of over 2,000 young people aged 13-15. Sex Under 16? is priced at £15.00, obtainable from or 020 74015480. They also tall us that The Sex and Relationships Guidance is obtainable free from DfEE Publications, 0845 6022 260.

Gay Adoption

- Ben Summerskill,

Observer, 1oct00, p1

Children's charities are targetting gay and lesbian couples as adoptive parents in a bid to solve Britain's crisis of children in care. .... a spokesman for the Catholic Media Office said: 'The only ideal to which we should aspire is a family uinit consisting of a man and a woman.' ....

A cruel prejudice

Blair must fight for gay adoption

- Leader, Observer, 1oct00, p28

In Channel 4 .... a cross-section of .... twentysomethings turned on one of their number as he trotted out the claim that homosexuality was connected with paedophilia. [See Ill Eagle 8, p4; 10, p2; 11, p5.] It should serve as a stark warning for Conservatives that anti-gay intolerance may no longer wash with electors under 30.


- From Ill Eagle 10, p2

See when the ignorant Portsmouth demonstrators learn that 35% of paedophiles are homosexual! You ain't seen nothin yet. Wait for the marches on our rather gay Cabinet. Let us analyse the present PC madness. The Man on the Clapham Omnibus knows that to avoid the charge of bigotry he must adulate buggery and other perversions that his betters say he should welcome as a necessary feature of a more liberal society. On the other hand, his betters (excluding Tatchell) tell him that paedophilia is a perversion. If he is ever told that, although less than 2% of the male population are buggers [note 1], 35% of paedophiles are drawn from that 2% [note 2] - he will smell a rat. He is most afraid of his children being buggered.

The leaderless demonstrations in Portsmouth are a forerunner of the big backlash resulting from an Establishment which promotes contradictory, ludicrous and unsustainable propaganda. - Ed

Note 1. K Wellings et al., Sexual Behaviour in Britain, Penguin, 1994, p183.

Note 2. Dr T Stammers (quoting K Freund), FYC bulletin Autumn 97, from

- From Ill Eagle 10, p2

Mankind 'helpline '

Male victims of

Domestic Violence


01775- 840501

for free, immediate

and confidential advice.

The Gvardian and Equal Opportvnities

The Gvardian should be congratulated for its commitment to Equal Opportvnities. However, their reforms may be incomplete.

I will give a personal cheque for £5 to the first reader who spots a male heterosexual journalist working for The Gvardian. (No formal proof required.) I plan to Name and Shame the deviant in a future edition of Ill Eagle. - Ed

Last month, there were no takers. Does this prove that the Gvardian is completely eqval? Or would a claimant betray his bigotry by suggesting that the Gvardian illegally deviates from full equality of employment opportunity between women and gays? My offer, made in the last issue, is still open, but raised to £10. - Ed. [Now, nov00, raised again, to £15.]

From Ill Eagle 8, p4. There is one Gvardian/Observer stable. Also see Male View oct/dec99, p3.

When the gay rights campaigners go too far

- John Humphreys, Sunday Times, 20mar00, sect. 1, p19

[Even though a man, he is allowed to publish because he shows such ignorance. {See Ill Eagle 11 p2 and my website on HIV and the rest;} However, his commentary on excesses in the Gvuardian is useful. - Ed]

.... I despaired at what I read in The Guardian last week. .... a colleague of mine, Nigel Wrench. He is gay, HIV positive .... defending .... "barebacking". .... that means unprotected anal sex. It is increasingly common among some groups of gay men. Many gay men have written in the gay press attacking those who practise it even when they know themselves to be HIV-positive. .... "Barebacking can be warm, exciting and involving ...." .... since he was infected he has had unsafe sex "more times than I can remember, often with men whose names I could not tell you ...."

[Homophobes work for the Sunday Times. Gays work for the Guardian/Observer. - Ed]


To Elizabeth Fowler, Censor-in-Chief, St. Albans Quaker P. Meeting, 33 Camp View Road, St. Albans AL1 5LN.

cc Convener of Elders.

Dear Elizabeth, Our conference, "The Age of Violent Young Men; Causes and Remedies", at Friends House, 28oct00, went very well. (Details on You are welcome to buy the set of five audiotapes for £10, so as to hear our speaker Patricia Morgan, whose book you blocked from our St. Albans Meeting Library. The letter of invitation to speak, (published in Ill Eagle 10,) so that they could explain why the conference subject is banned from the Quaker Universe of Discourse, was declined by Quaker leaders Rowlands, Sturge, and many others.

A further opportunity to explain the Reconstructed Quaker's position will occur at our next conference at Friends House, in the Main Hall, on 26may01. The subject of the conference will be "Censorship". I shall be very grateful if you accept my invitation to speak. It is important that, for balance, the censor's point of view be aired.

Invitations will be sent to leading Quakers at Friends House, but I feel that you should also be invited to speak. The content of your 25 minute talk will be of your choosing, but you may like to familiarise yourself with the interests of ManKind, see our website

Ivor Catt

Why little boys are not sex offenders

- Dea Birkett,

Guardian, G2, 21nov00, p5

Yesterday the NSPCC published a report which should horrify every adult .... You should be afraid. You should be very afraid. But the fear should not be of our children, or those of our next-door neighbour, .... We should be afraid that childhood has become the latest landscape to be invaded by often misrepresented statistics .... let's not try and make cheap points for our own ends and not the well-being of damaged children ....

Depression Alliance

Working for people with depression. 020 7633 0559


The truth will come out

- Stephen Wright and Alison Boshoff,

Mail, 28nov00, p5

.... Mick Hucknall was cleared of a rape allegation yesterday, only a day after he was accused .... a friend of Tony Blair who has donated £50,000 to the Labour Party, [he] is the third music personality to be arrested by Surrey police in a month.

Paul Weller was interviewed following an allegation of rape but a week later police said they had dropped the case.

The former leader of the Jam called for a change in the law after being cleared. ....

Last week millionaire record producer Jonathan King was arrested and charged with child sex offences.

He will face court at Staines on Thursday.

Access Protest

Mark Harris is a ManKind member.

The following article (picture, p12) is from the Sunday Independent newspaper dated November 19th. 2000, phone number (01752 209155) e-mail:

These protests are organised by Mark Harris, who is a father in a million, together with a lot of background work by other members of DADS; finding the appropriate addresses.

These protests are having an effect as the judiciary have admitted that they are uncomfortable with them. The pressure needs to be kept up by progressing these protests around the country, allowing people who cannot afford to travel to the South West to ' have a go ' at a protest in their area.

Anson in the 'Y' fronts is painted purple from head to toe for the occasion.

Mark is willing to offer advice and help in organising these events around the country. regards, Dave

Article follows:-

Access Protest

ESTRANGED dads protesting for the right to see their children paraded outside a Somerset hotel owned by a controversial High Court judge yesterday.

The protesters claim that judge Mrs. Justice Bracewell, former chairman of the Children Act Advisory Committee, has undermined their right to have access to their children.

Among the ranks assembled outside the Lynch Country Hotel, at Behind Berry, near Somerton, were members of pressure group Dads Against Discrimination.

Its chairman Mark Harris from Plymouth, said; 'It has gone very well'.

Around forty people from all over the South West and further afield turned up.

We knocked on the door and handed a bundle of letters to a man who answered the door on behalf of Mrs. Justice Bracewell. A lot of people passing in cars showed support by tooting and putting their thumbs up.

Mr. Harris said that there would be another fathers' rights protest in Bristol city centre under the Sails, on December 22nd. starting at twelve noon.

Mailing list for those who believe that children need both parents;

To Post a message, send it to:

To Subscribe, send a blank message to:

"[U.S.] Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice Executive

Office for Weed and Seed January 5-7, 1998


Economic Shifts That Will Impact Crime Control and Community Revitalization

Cicero Wilson

As we approach the year 2000, the United States is nearing the end of a prolonged period of prison construction. The growth of violent crime and sentencing reforms in the 1980s and 1990s have led to record numbers of incarcerated adults and juveniles. ....

Trend Four: There is an Increase in the Number of Fatherless Children, Who Are More Prone to Delinquency and Other Social Pathologies As the incidence of father absence grows, community disintegration and crime, especially youth crime, will continue to grow. Between 1960 and 1990, the percentage of children living apart from their biological fathers increased from 17 to 36 percent. By the year 2000, half of the Nation's children may not have their fathers at home. While the heroic efforts of single women to raise their children alone are laudable, the economic and social requirements for raising healthy and productive children are hard to achieve by poor single parents alone. Reengaging fathers in the economic and social life of their children is an important but overlooked aspect of addressing poverty, community revitalization, and crime. Many of our problems in crime control and community revitalization are strongly related to father absence. For example: --Sixty-three percent of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. --Ninety percent of all homeless and runaway youths are from fatherless homes. --Eighty-five percent of children who exhibit behavioral disorders are from fatherless homes. --Seventy-one percent of high school dropouts are from fatherless homes. --Seventy percent of youths in State institutions are from fatherless homes. --Seventy-five percent of adolescent patients in substance abuse centers are from fatherless homes. --Eighty-five percent of rapists motivated by displaced anger are from fatherless homes. Without fathers as social and economic role models, many boys try to establish their manhood through sexually predatory behavior, aggressiveness, or violence. These behaviors interfere with schooling, the development of work experience, and self-discipline. Many poor children who live apart from their fathers are prone to becoming court involved. Once these children become court involved, their records of arrest and conviction often block access to employment and training opportunities. Criminal histories often lock these young persons into the underground or illegal economies. Behaviors related to father absence that directly contribute to the growth of welfare and the difficulties in creating jobs in communities include: --Sexually predatory behavior that results in out-of-wedlock births. (Most teen mothers are impregnated by older men, not teen boys.) --Domestic violence that occurs as a result of arguments over enforcement of child support payments. --Welfare pimping, which is the practice of men collecting part of the welfare check from girlfriends or the mothers of their out-of-wedlock children. Some pimps collect from five or six mothers on welfare per month. Innovative father engagement programs have had an impact on child rearing, family economic stability, and gang involvement. Unless community revitalization and crime reduction programs begin to address the need for father engagement programs and services, the cycle of poverty and crime could continue virtually unabated.



Father's Manifesto, CaliforniaUSA

Subject: Re: Daily Mail

Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000

Hello, Robert,

I have been following your excellent posts. You are right on target, so we surely hope that you pursue this to the very end (Re: Daily Mail).

Many things have happened since our last email. While our rape data hasn't been published in the mainstream media, the word has really rotten around. We all greatly appreciate the excellent research you provided in that area. We wouldn't understand half the problem without it.

We understand much more about how powerful the mainstream media is and why it pursues its anti-Christian agenda. This is as shocking to the senses as the rape and incarceration data, so your level head might discover if and how we went wrong.

We have been had Robert, big time. These were such simple facts to verify but nobody ever bothered to do that simple thing for so long. It's really embarrassing.

I really look forward to your feedback.

Sincerely, John Knight.

A slow-footed stockman called Beales

Slipped up with a bull at his heels;

When trying to rise

He got quite a surprise,

Learning something of what a cow feels.

Cyril Mountjoy



Beyond Dull Care: An informal guide to the Residential Care of Children

by Ben Vincent

Home Office Advisory Council in Child Care No. 1, H.M.S.O. 1968

"[Ben Vincent] writes with a unique experience of, and insight into, the topic with which he deals." - Preface

p94 "Touch-hunger in under-fives must be fed by soothing cuddles and exciting romps and kisses and butterfly-kisses. I remember the anger of a foster-mother who told me once, 'Do you know, Mr. Vincent, they hadn't even taught my little Barney how to kiss when I got him from St. Theresa's.'

"But touch-hunger is terribly hard to cope with in older children .... Touch-hungry girls will just have to do without the baby treatment they want until they are engaged or married. A man who is conscious of a potentially homosexual situation must also keep his hands off .... but most can jolly along a touch-hungry lad of 10 - 14 wiithout the slightest harm, .... only in public .... Do not let the fear .... cause you to deny adolescents the comfort of putting an arm around you .... But gaily, promiscuously and in public."

A deep chasm, built by sexually dysfunctional radical feminists, exploiting their virtually total control of the media for decades, separates us from the attitude shown above by my late mentor Ben Vincent in the 1960's. I hope some member of ManKind will further investigate the writings in this HMSO series. We have to rediscover the ambience of those days, before all was comprehensively poisoned by radfems with their corrupted attitude to life in general as well as family relationships in particular. A copy of Ben Vincent's book is in the library of Friends House, London, opposite Euston Station.

Quarter of men accused are black

- John Steele,

Telegraph, 25oct00, p1

More than a quarter of people accused of crimes in London, ranging from mugging to burglary and fraud, are black, according to new police figures. ....

The black population of the capital is thought to be no more than 10%.

.... these figures, compiled by Scotland Yard .... show for the first time that black people are accused of all common offences in disproportionate numbers. ....

London's overall non-white population, of which black people are only a part, is now put at 26%.

[In Ashton Gibson's 1986 book, The Unequal Struggle, pub. Centre for Caribbean Studies, p83, 65% of West Indian children did not have their biological father living with them as part of the household. In contrast, almost all the Asian children who completed the 26% above, who persistently failed to commit crime, lived with their fathers. - Ed]

SMFs are wealthier, but still breed more criminals

Try to put yourself into the mindset of the anti-family radfem. She, and poodle-men like Martin Bright, must believe that, since poverty (not fatherlessness) is the cause of crime, then criminals must come from the lowest tenth of society in terms of income.

We know that criminality concentrates in children from Single Mother Families (SMF).

The above two paragraphs, showing that SMFs, not poverty, causes crime, came from Ill Eagle 10, aug00, p3. Elsewhere, I have written that the initiative to increase the conviction rate for rape, which in ten years has fallen from 15% to 8% , is a racist attack by the white sisterhood against the black brotherhood. This is because perhaps half of the prisoners in U.S. jails are black. Couple this with the fact, drawn from Betty Moxon of the Home Office as if drawing her teeth, that no one in government has as part of their remit the alleged problem of false allegations (see my website ) Add that police will find it much more easy to frame the child of a SMF, which lacks family support, into jail.

I now present another interesting statistical package. It is somewhat suppressed (although see previous article) that half of the muggers in London are black. Even though suppressed, the statistic which is even more suppressed is that criminals are nurtured by single mothers, and a very heavy proportion of blacks are the product of single mother families. Thus, the true statistic will be that the vast majority of muggers come from SMFs. It is racist propaganda to suppress this fact, and so give credence to the less suppressed fact that the majority of muggers are black. They are not black; they are brought up by single mothers. Here is a good instance where PC suppression is racist. I challenge Stinko to do this research with the millions of govt money she receives (for her vrp) to research into violence. However, she disapproves of objective research, which is called "patriarchal" in the 1988 book she wrote a chapter for. "Feminist research" would not be able to cope with the subtle points outlined above.

For the help of a sluggish radfem intellect, I will end by saying that it is unlikely that a black who was brought up by both parents would become a mugger. Thus, he would mug, not because of his colour, but because of his upbringing. I do hope Boateng is bright enough to understand the point I am making. He is moving our way. At present, he thinks that a father should have supervised contact with his children. We have to hope that he moves further, towards a full comprehension of the role of a father in bringing up his children to be law-abiding. Surely, not by supervised contact for two hours under the watchful eye of a radfem social worker!

Social Workers

John Hutton M.P., of the Dept. of Health, responsible for Social Care policy, has expressed concern over the low standard of qualification required to practice as a Social Worker, moreover that 80% of those engaged in the caring industry had no qualifications whatsoever.

Concern was also expressed at the low status of social work, but what is remarkable is that the recognised qualification in the U.K. for social workers, the Diploma in Social Care Work, is not recognised by the European Union.

Until recently, this diploma was also the recognised qualification for Probation Officers, but it has been replaced by the Diploman in Probation Studies - old wine in new bottles. Entry qualifications into the Probation Service never did demand undergraduate qualifi-cations. Indeed, for those under the age of 25, the basic requirement was 5 GCSEs with 'on the job' training and study. For those over the age of 25, no GCSEs were required, let alone any formal qualifications. Acceptance was based on an interview, the criteria being life experiences and ideology.

For sure, those who subscribe to Political Correctness are in, while those who hold strong family values are regarded as being eccentric, and are most definitely out.

The 'on the job' training and study leading to the Diploma in Aocial Work clearly demonstrates how unqualified such people are, given that other countries in Europe regard the diploma as insignificant.

Yet it is these people who make decisions about other people's lives; reports on defendants in criminal proceedings, reports on prisoners to the Parole Board, and most significantly, reports in Family Court Proceedings.

You do not find too many Conservative voters in either Social Work or Probation, and most certainly never in the Court Welfare Service. Like psychologists, the Probation Service is self-regulating and self-serving. It would be easier to fly to the moon than to have a complaint against any Probation Officer of Court Welfare Officer upheld.


There has always been uneasiness, certainly among lawyers, about complaints against the police being investigated by other police officers, yet this is precisely how the probation and Court Welfare Services operate. Many decisions made by them can often have far longer far-reaching consequences than any complaint against a police officer.

As a convicted wife killer, if a prison Probation Officer tells me that I have a problem with women, it must be taken as fact. To challenge the assertion amounts to being bombarded with psychobabble. The world that springs to mind is 'denial'. If I attempt to explain the circumstances leading up to the murder, I am accused of rationalizing the offence. I can then expect to be 'prescribed' a dose of courses in Thinking Skills and Social Skills programmes. Failure to undertake them can result in the prolongement of my sentence and at least unfavourable transfers and a reduction in privileges.

What is noteworthy is that in my years as a litigant in Court Welfare proceedings within prison as a life sentence prisoner, the welfare and probation officers have always been women, without exception. All psychologists have likewise been women. It is interesting that the most recent 'A' Level results in Sociology and Psychology show the subjects to be dominated by young women.

The courses in prison that I referred to have, for me at least, so far been tutored by females. It is all seen as a type of therapy by self-assumed therapists. I put a new slant on the word therapist - THE - RAPIST.

People who believe that they know what is best for others are denying other people's truths. Whenever our own truth is invalidated, we experience the greatest fear we can ever know, the annihilation of ourselves. Power is the right to have your definition of reality prevail over all other people's definition of reality, even where you know that your argument is flawed, or where facts prove the contrary.

The radfems have clearly learnt from this, and, within their politically correct industry, they have many supporters and sympathizers in the Court Welfare and Probation Service, services that seem to rely less on academic achievements and qualifications and more on radfem and politically correct agendas.

Charles Hanson, nov00

Shelter in a storm

Donna Laframboise,

Jeff Vinnick, National Post


[Solid evidence, previously pointed out in Ill Eagle 5, oct99, that radfems, and now the rest of society, are too deeply disturbed to properly consider the needs of children. - Ed]

Sandra Cliffe thought she was doing her job as a women's shelter worker when she reported a suspected child abuser. Her co-workers disagreed

Sandra Cliffe recently quit her job at Yew Transition House: "I've been treated like a skunk at a picnic."

A year ago this week, Sandra Cliffe, an employee of a British Columbia women's shelter, followed her conscience. She contacted child protection authorities with concerns that a nine-year-old girl staying at Yew Transition House was being emotionally neglected and abused by her mother.

On medical leave since then, Cliffe recently submitted her resignation. "I've been treated like a skunk at a picnic," she says, "even though, by law, if I believe a child is being abused I'm obligated to report it."

The shelter, which receives nearly $300,000 a year from the British Columbia government, distributes flyers describing itself as a "safe place for women and children." Among the list of services provided by the shelter, according to these flyers, is "support and advocacy for children."

But Cliffe, who worked 20 hours a week at Yew House for more than four years, says this is little more than lip service. Because many of her co-workers were hardline feminists, she says, a child's needs took a back seat.

This isn't the only time the quality of care children receive in women's shelters has been in the news. In 1997, five-week-old Jordan Heikamp died of starvation despite the fact that his mother, Renee, was then a resident of Anduhyaun, a Toronto shelter.

In the B.C. case, a woman, who by law cannot be named in order to protect the privacy of her child, arrived at Yew House in Sechelt, a community on the Sunshine Coast, on Oct. 9, 1998. She gave the shelter fake names for her and her daughter.

Cliffe says the pair turned up after another shelter, Nanaimo's Haven House, called to see if Yew House had any openings. She says shelter staff learned that the woman and her daughter had stayed at Haven House for an extended period, and before that had been housed by Rape Relief, a Vancouver agency.

Unlike the women-support workers who were the majority of her colleagues, Cliffe's job as a child-support worker was to observe, interact with and counsel children who have witnessed or experienced abuse. As the mother of a son the same age as the woman's daughter, Cliffe says her concerns developed early.

"We made cookies one day. We got out the cookbook, and I said, 'Here's the recipe right here,' and I ran my finger down it. She couldn't read the word 'egg.' "

Indeed, the girl had never been to school. Although her mother claimed to be home-schooling her, a child protection social worker would later tell a B.C. judge, "The child is unable to read and write." The social worker reported that the child had rarely seen a doctor, had been compelled to adopt four different aliases since leaving California and was highly anxious. "If she feels she gives out too much information, she freezes and stops talking."

Despite the fact that Yew House has a 30-day maximum-stay policy, the woman -- who claimed her daughter had been sexually abused by her former husband -- remained in residence well into December, 1998. Cliffe's written statement to child protection authorities notes that, during those two months, the woman prohibited staff from even taking her daughter for a walk.

The girl has "no independence, no voice," reads the report. Her mother "has denied her child the opportunity and means to develop at an age appropriate level ... She has demonstrated to me a defensive, hostile attitude when confronted with [the girl's] unmet needs. I have never witnessed her hug, touch or have any physical contact or display any outward affection towards her child."

Cliffe says she discussed her concerns with her supervisor and repeatedly raised them at weekly staff meetings. It was during these discussions, she says, that she learned the woman was on the run from the law after kidnapping her child in California. (An Orange County arrest warrant was issued in 1994.)

Yew House did not return calls from the National Post. When asked why the shelter would assist a fugitive, Cliffe replies: "They are staunch feminists who believe what a woman says with no questions asked. So this woman says one sentence -- she claims the father was sexually abusing this child -- and they believe it."

The RCMP's Missing Children's Registry later said there was no basis to the sex abuse allegation, adding this was the second occasion on which the woman had kidnapped her daughter in the midst of an acrimonious custody battle.

The woman has also had her problems with Canadian Immigration. Arrested in March, 1998, following the expiration of her visitor's visa, a warrant was issued for her arrest when she failed to show up for a hearing. After coming to the attention of authorities last December, she applied for refugee status, forfeited a $4,000 bond, and went AWOL once again. At the moment, she is the subject of yet another immigration warrant.

By early December of last year, Cliffe says she had seen enough at the shelter. Even if the child had been molested, she says, there was no excuse for how she was being treated.

Many of Cliffe's co-workers held a different view. When she told them she was going to alert child protection authorities, the shelter convened an emergency staff meeting on the morning of Dec. 14 in an attempt to dissuade Cliffe from making the call she placed that afternoon.

"They got me in on Monday morning and spent three and a half hours taking the skin off my bones." According to Cliffe, they shouted, banged on the table, swore


at her and declared their intention to help the woman escape.

"I was asked, 'How dare you pass judgment on this woman? This woman is saying she's educating this child. Who are you to put your middle-class values on her?'

"They were saying: 'If you make this child protection report you're going to send this woman to jail and you're going to send this child back to be sexually abused. Who in the f--- do you think you are?' "

Cliffe left the meeting (which occurred off-site), returned to the shelter and made her report. "I phoned Child Protection and I was sobbing at that point," she remembers. When three of her co-workers arrived back at the shelter, she felt it was best to leave.

"I didn't feel safe. My knees were knocking. I felt physically unsafe after what they did to me.

"They were all sitting by the door. When I walked through them, my boss said to me: 'What have you done?' I did my job. I don't feel I did anything that any one of them shouldn't have done."

When the authorities arrived at the shelter shortly afterward, the woman and her daughter were indeed gone. At that point, the RCMP became involved, catching up with the pair at a bus station. Immediately taken into foster care, the girl was returned to California soon afterward.

Despite having told the shelter she had no ID and therefore needed help cashing money orders, nine fake IDs were found in the woman's possession.

Cliffe says that although the woman was sent $10,000 (US) by a relative during her Yew House stay, she wrote letters to local churches asking for financial help so she could flee to New Zealand. Cliffe says a number of churches wrote cheques for hundreds of dollars to Yew House, which then turned the money over to the woman.

"She got around 12 or 15 hundred bucks from the churches in this community."

Despite the fact that it distributes millions to the province's 85 women's shelters each year, the B.C. Ministry of Women's Equality remains untroubled by the behaviour of the Yew House staff in this instance.

Although this woman is hardly the first on the run from the law to seek refuge in a women's shelter, the province has no explicit policy on this matter. Terry Harrison, a women's ministry spokeswoman, says, "That kind of level of detail is not the kind of thing you would see in policies or protocols." Shelters are merely told to obey all the laws of the land, she says.

The ministry says it does not need to conduct its own investigation -- it has never interviewed Cliffe regarding her experiences. Even the fact that the employees of Yew House refused to talk to the RCMP leaves the women's ministry unconcerned.

"That is not something that's our responsibility," says Harrison. "That's between the police and Yew House."

Corporal Danny Willis of the Sechelt RCMP detachment says that while a decision was made during the past month not to pursue charges, he says this doesn't mean Yew House's behaviour is acceptable.

"Charges aren't always the best way to deal with some [matters]," he says. The fact that a group of people were involved (thus making it more difficult to determine individual responsibility), in addition to the dollars required to fly U.S. authorities up for a court case, influenced the decision. "It was probably more to the cost factor than anything else that it was not carried through," he says.

A criminal prosecution shouldn't be necessary, says Willis, for the women's ministry "to recognize that there was a problem with what happened and it needs to be corrected."

As a taxpayer, never mind a police officer, he says, he expects the women's ministry to be "stepping in and saying, 'Whoa, there's a problem here. We're going to have to review [Yew House's] contract and decide whether we're going to renew it.' "

Cliffe says that, after placing the fateful call, it became impossible for her to return to Yew House. "I loved my job, and I was good at my job. But the bottom line is I can't work for such an organization. These women are educated in abuse issues. How come no other transition house did anything to help this child?"

Cliffe says she doesn't want to be viewed as a victim. But a year later, her family is struggling financially while everything's apparently business as usual at Yew House.

"I teach my children to stand up and tell the truth," says Cliffe. "But they're going without because I haven't had an income.

"What message is this sending? You stand up and be honest and you'll be punished?"

Lies of revenge put husband in a prison cell

- Frances O'Shea,

The Australian, 10feb00

When Christine Campbell thought her de facto husband was sleeping with her sister, she decided on revenge.

The mother-of-two, 20, called police saying Troy Hall, 19, had beaten her at their home.

She repeated the story after police charged Hall with assault, showing bruises she alleged he inflicted by kicking her in the head and attempting to choke her in their inner-Newcastle flat.

Hall went before Newcastle Court on January 18 and pleaded not guilty to the charge, but he was convicted and sentenced to two months' jail.

Justice, it appeared, had been done that is until Ms Campbell confessed to police on Monday that she had made the whole thing up.

Hall, who had already spent almost three weeks behind bars, was released immediately after she made a retraction.

Her de facto's conviction on the assault charge was quashed.

But Campbell has now been charged with public mischief and will appear in Newcastle Local Court on February 28.

According to a statement tendered to the court, Campbell admitted she had told the lie as revenge for Hall sleeping with her sister.

Campbell said bruising she had shown police at the time had actually been sustained in a fight with her sister and not Hall.

"I thought he had slept with my sister but after Troy was sent to jail I found out that wasn't true," she told police.

She told police that after she made up with her sister, she had a change of heart.

Police had been called to the couple's Darby St unit on October 20 last year after a report of an assault.

Campbell told the officers they had argued about Hall sleeping with her sister and he then assaulted her. She said after the assault Hall left the flat.

Police found him several blocks away at a park and eventually charged him with the assault.

Hall did not appear at his first court appearance but telephoned the court to say he had problems.

On the next appearance, the magistrate convicted him of the assault.

Hall arrived at court the following day and was sentenced to two months' jail.

He then lodged an appeal against the sentence and was brought to Newcastle court on Monday to apply for bail pending the appeal. While he was in the court cells, Campbell admitted her lie to police.

"I know now what I did was very wrong," Campbell told police.

She said she had thought Hall would only get an AVO and did not think he would go to jail.

Campbell has been with Hall for the past four years. She said her former partner was now living with his mother on the central coast.

She said although they were separated she still hoped for a reconciliation.

"Troy still had another five weeks to go," she said.

"He said he was scared in jail and was so glad to get out. I just want it all behind me now."

A public mischief conviction can carry a hefty fine or a jail sentence.


Cools on False Accusations in Canada

[My editorial in the next issue of Ill Eagle will explain how I see the Cools speech as finally sorting out the jigsaw. Clue: "adversarial or inquisitorial" - Ed]

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

2nd Session, 36th Parliament,

Volume 138, Issue 29

Thursday, February 17, 2000

The Honourable Rose-Marie Losier-Cool, Speaker pro tempore


Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cools, seconded by the Honourable Senator Milne, for the second reading of Bill S-9, to amend the Criminal Code (abuse of process).-(Honourable Senator Cools).

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators know that I have studied a terrible and pernicious heart of darkness that has developed in our court system, being the use of false accusations in civil justice. This is the mischief of litigating parties, usually mothers, suddenly within the context of divorce and within child custody proceedings falsely accusing the other party, usually fathers, of the sexual abuse of their own children.

These false allegations are often made with the overt or covert complicity of their lawyers. They are a lethal weapon in the business of parental alienation.

They are a tool for achieving sole custody of children and creating fatherlessness.

Bill S-9 addresses the serious social and legal problems surrounding the employment of false accusations by parties and their counsel as an instrument to defeat adversaries in court proceedings. It would enact the principle that such willful use of false accusations in civil justice is an abuse of process. Bill S-9 would amend the Criminal Code, Part IV, entitled "Offences Against the Administration of Law and Justice," being sections 118 to 149. Particularly, Bill S-9 will amend that subset of these sections entitled "Misleading Justice" by adding two new sections, 135 and 135.1. Bill S-9 will make the willful use of false accusations in judicial proceedings an offence against the administration of justice, an offence of misleading justice, and will augment the other related sections, including perjury and the obstruction of justice.

Honourable senators, Bill S-9 had been Bill S-4 in 1996 and then Bill S-12 in 1998. Both bills passed second reading here unanimously and were referred to Senate committees for study, where they were when Parliament was dissolved in 1997 and prorogued in 1999. I spoke to Bill S-4 twice, on March 26 and on October 28, 1996. I spoke to Bill S-12 on March 26, 1998. In addition, on July 13, 1995, I also spoke on these false accusations in my inquiry on the Ontario Civil Justice Review and again on November 23, 1995, in my inquiry on the Hill v. Church of Scientology Supreme Court of Canada decision.

In addition, the 1998 Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Child Custody and Access heard of countless cases of false accusations of child sexual abuse against parents and grandparents in civil justice in divorce and custody cases.

Honourable senators, on May 20, 1998, a witness, psychologist Dr. Brian Hindmarch, appeared before the special joint committee. Speaking of false accusations of child sex abuse against good fathers, Dr. Hindmarch said at page 26:57 of the committee proceedings:

In the majority of the cases where an allegation of sexual abuse arises in the context of an open custody assessment, you have a father who has never had any history of sexual aberration...and has never been in trouble with the law or anything else. In the context of an acrimonious custody battle, he is then accused of sometimes the most heinous and rarest, from a psychopathological perspective, of sexual abuse allegations.

In his written submission of March 10, 1998, to the committee, to which he referred in his May 20 testimony, Dr. Hindmarch wrote at page 2:

Suffice it to say that while one must err on the side of caution when assessing such allegations in the context of custody/access disputes, research has shown that the vast majority of these allegations prove ultimately to be false.

Parents continue to raise what are often the most preposterous of sexual abuse allegations against their ex-spouses, in sworn Affidavits and with the full support of their solicitors...However, there should be some means by which more common sense and sensitivity could be injected into these situations by lawyers.... In order to "win", there is a propensity to enshrine on paper and for the public record, issues and allegations which, when read later, no doubt are psychologically traumatic to the children involved. The bland acceptance of such inflammatory material by lawyers is unacceptable. A heightened level of sensitivity...attention to the principle of the child's best interests...should be stressed in the legal profession.

In his testimony, Dr. Hindmarch went directly to the important question of lawyers' involvement in false accusations within divorce and child custody proceedings. He told the committee at page 26:53:

Lawyers often will allow or encourage sometimes the most inflammatory of allegations to be included in affidavits.

Honourable senators, Bill S-9 addresses the role of lawyers in the use and advancement of false allegations in civil justice by creating three new offences in the Criminal Code. It would make it an offence for counsel, that is lawyers, in judicial proceedings: first, to make public statements outside the tribunal that are known by that counsel to be false or that counsel has failed to take reasonable measures to ascertain were false; second, to institute or prosecute proceedings known by that counsel to be brought primarily for the purpose of intimidating or injuring another person; or, third, to wilfully deceive or to knowingly participate in deceiving the tribunal or court or wilfully presenting or knowingly relying on false, deceptive, exaggerated or inflammatory documents, whether or not under oath.

Bill S-9 will cover those unsworn court documents that lawyers call pleadings. Pleadings include statements of claim, statements of defence, notices of motion, et cetera, and are court documents which though vital to court proceedings are not, as are affidavits, sworn under oath and therefore are not subject to perjury provisions, being section 131 of the Criminal Code and the related offence against justice. The integrity of such documents, pleadings, have relied on solicitors' and courts' privileges and lawyers' honour, and consequently they have not been buttressed by Criminal Code prohibition. The process has relied on confidence that lawyers, as officers of the court, have a duty to truth and integrity and on confidence that lawyers on their honour alone would not use court proceedings for unjust or dishonorable purpose. Bill S-9 focuses on this and lawyers' role in developing court documents, court defence and court strategy in cases of false accusations within judicial proceedings.

Honourable senators, Bill S-9 creates no new standard for lawyers or imposes no new burdens. It supports the ancient standard of honour, integrity and ethics in the conduct of court proceedings by creating a criminal offence. Bill S-9 will defend the ancient standard of lawyers' honour as described in the lawyers' "Rules of Professional Conduct." The perjury provisions of the Criminal Code are insufficient and inadequate because many of these false allegations are not made under oath but are made in pleadings which, as civil justice proceedings, are privileged and are shielded. Given that these false accusations are mostly made in civil proceedings, such as divorce and child custody, they are submitted to a lower standard or burden of proof than if they were made in criminal proceedings. Interestingly, most, though not all, of these false allegations in custody cases have diligently, even strategically, avoided criminal process to avoid the higher standard of proof.

Honourable senators, previously in speeches here I had discussed the 1995 Civil Justice Review of Ontario, co-chaired by Justice Blair. The Civil Justice Review's first report had a chapter entitled "Focus on Family Law," which raised the question of lawyers. Justice Blair said, at page 272: Concern and frustration were expressed about the number of allegations made in affidavits that


were not capable of being substantiated in any way.

(1440) He continued: Lawyers were criticized for their drafting of lengthy, damaging, and sometimes unsupportable affidavit material. Justice Blair's report concluded that the civil justice system in Ontario "is in a crisis situation."

Honourable senators, I had also described the 1996 Manitoba Civil Justice Review Task Force, chaired by Manitoba MLA David Newman. The Civil Justice Review Task Force Report's Chapter "Court of Queen's Bench Family Division" addressed also false accusations of child sexual abuse in civil justice. The report said, at page 20: The Task Force heard horror stories about the traumatic impact on the accused person, on the immediate family and children affected by malicious false allegations designed to achieve sole custody, prohibit or restrict visiting privileges, and to punish the other parent.

The report added, at page 20: When false allegations are discovered, strong and effective sanctions are necessary to discourage such conduct .... Lawyers, of course, must never assist in making false allegations and should be on guard against becoming the tool or dupe of an unscrupulous client.

The role of lawyers is raised yet again. That last statement, honourable senators, also warns that judges and courts should also be on guard against becoming the tool or dupe of unscrupulous counsel.

Honourable senators, this heart of darkness, this inhuman, aggressive hurling of false accusations of child abuse, the "weapon of choice" during child custody proceedings, is diabolical. It is the Devil's own work. For those, mostly fathers, broken by false accusations of child sexual abuse of their own children, it is ungodly. For a parent to be accused falsely of something so terrible is soul-destroying. Such false accusations have been used routinely in recent years since about 1987 by one parent, usually a mother, to injure and damage the other parent, usually a father, for the purposes of destroying the other parent and destroying their relationship with the child. They have been directed to obtaining sole custody of the child by imposing insuperable and inhuman burdens on the other parent. These burdens are emotional, legal, and financial. This phenomenon is the most recently identified form of child abuse and child maltreatment. It is also a new form of civil molestation and civil harassment, as the courts and legal process are enlisted as instruments of injury, malice and deceit during civil litigation. The enormous financial burden borne by those personally affected and by the public treasury and taxpayer is overwhelming. The emotional and psychological consequences to the affected children is incalculable and unspeakable, and such child abuse shames us all.

Honourable senators, I have brought many cases of false allegations of child abuse in divorce and custody to the attention of the Senate. I have applied the highest test. That highest test for me is a finding or a confirmation by a judge in a court that the allegations are false or groundless. I bring to the Senate cases where findings have been made by judges. There are numerous cases that have never been adjudicated, but these cases that I bring today have been. However, I add that all false accusations in civil justice are pernicious, even if the impugned cannot financially or emotionally sustain the adjudication, and the issue is compelling senators' investigation. I have already cited several of these judgments and quoted the judges in my several speeches here. I shall enumerate those 10 judgements that I have already quoted. They are as follows.

From British Columbia, I have quoted three judgements: by Justice Rowles, 1990,

in P.(G.L.) v. P.(J.M.), B.C. Supreme Court; by Justices McEachern, Legg,

Hollinrake, 1992, in Lin v. Lin, B.C. Court of Appeal; by Justice Preston, 1992,

in the case Metzner v. Metzner, B.C. Supreme Court.

From Manitoba, I have quoted two judgements, being: by Justice Carr, 1992, in

Plesh v. Plesh, Court of Queen's Bench (Family Division); and by Justice Jewers,

1997, in Margaret Pott v. Winnipeg Child & Family Services & James Pott, Court

of Queen's Bench.

From Ontario, I have quoted four judgements, they being: by Judge Dunn, 1987, in

Children's Aid Society of Durham Region v. Dorian Baxter and Sharon Baxter,

Provincial Court (Family Division) of Ontario; by Justice Somers, 1994, in the

Dorian Baxter case, B(D) and B(R) and B(M) v. Children's Aid Society of Durham

Region and Marion Van den Boomen, Ontario Court of Justice (General Division);

by Justice Wallace, 1996, in the Wayne Allen case, Allen v. Grenier, Ontario

Court (General Division) Family Court; by Judge Dunn, 1998, in the Barbosa case,

L.B. v. R.D., Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division).

Finally, from Saskatchewan, I have quoted one judgement, by Justice Dickson,

1994, in Paterson v. Paterson, Court of Queen's Bench. This case had included

false child sexual abuse allegations against the father arising from the

mother's false memory. All 10 judgements were adjudicated by judges - some

excellent judges. In all 10 judgements, false accusations were made by mothers

against fathers, eight involving false accusations of child sexual abuse and two

involving false accusations of child physical abuse. I shall now repeat my

previous quotations from three of these judges, being Justices Somers, Carr, and


Honourable senators, first: Ontario's Justice Somers in the case of Reverend

Dorian Baxter, an Anglican minister. His wife falsely accused him of sexually

abusing their two daughters. The Children's Aid Society believed and supported

her. Reverend Baxter was exonerated and awarded custody of the girls. After 10

years and hundreds of thousands of dollars, he was successful in his suit

against the Children's Aid Society and their worker Marion Van Den Boomen. In

that 1994 judgement in favour of Reverend Baxter, Justice Somers stated: can certainly understand the frustration the father must have felt in

this case attempting to deal with allegations against him which were untrue and

which he regarded as utterly repugnant, and with a bureaucracy that treated him

with ill concealed I have said I do believe that much of the

damage sustained by the Plaintiff was as a result of the machinations of his

former wife...

About the testimony from an experienced child abuse professional, Justice Somers


Ms. Chisholm indicated that the experience has been for some time that sexual

assault allegations made by a mother against a father in custody disputes are

very prevalent nowadays and indeed have become what she called "the weapon of


Honourable senators, my second repeat quotation is from Manitoba's Justice Carr

in Thomas Plesh v. Wendy Ellen Plesh. Justice Carr stated:

It is patently obvious from the evidence and the manner in which it was given

that the mother...set out to punish the husband....The only ways she knew of

were to deprive him of property (she took all of the furniture) and their son.

Her motivation was revenge, pure and simple.

Justice Carr continued:

...she cried child abuse and continues to make the allegation to this date. In

so doing she has nearly destroyed her husband and his relationship with their

child. I conclude that she never believed that their son had been abused, not

when she reported the abuse and not now....and there was not then and is not now

a shred of evidence to suggest it!

Honourable senators, my third repeat quotation is from B.C.'s Justice Preston's

judgement in Martha Metzner v.Dr. Louis Metzner, a case of false allegations by

a mother against a father, not of child sexual abuse but of child physical

abuse. Justice Preston stated:

Mrs. Metzner was interviewed by Sergeant Armstrong of the West Vancouver Police

Department on January 8, 1990. The officer's notes indicate that she told him

that there was no history of abuse and that Dr. Metzner had never hit her or the

children. His notes also contain the entry "Martha said lawyer told her that

this would be enough to get him out of the house because he wouldn't leave."

Justice Preston's words raise yet again the role of lawyers in these matters.

Honourable senators, I have 39 more judgements in adjudicated cases of false

allegations of child abuse, mostly child sexual abuse and a few of physical

abuse, that I shall place before the Senate today. I shall list them as before;

by province, judge, year, and by judgement. They are as follows:

From Alberta, one judgement, being by Justice Nash, 1997, in Spurgeon v.

Spurgeon, Court of Queen's Bench.

From British Columbia, 15 judgements: by Justice Finch, 1987, in Rodgers v.

Rodgers, B.C. Supreme Court; by Justices McEachern, Taylor and Wood, 1990, in

Bartesko v. Bartesko, B.C. Court of Appeal; by Justice van der Hoop, 1991, inLin

v. Lin, B.C. Supreme Court; by Justice Coultas, 1991, in M.(H.B.) v. B.(J.E.),

B.C. Supreme Court; by Justice Coultas, 1992, in Kobylanski v. Kobylanski, B.C.

Supreme Court; by Justice Newbury, 1993, 1995, 1996, three judgements in C(G.E.)

v. C(M.B.A.), B.C. Supreme Court; by Justice Edwards, 1995, in C.(R.M.) v.

C.(J.R.), B.C. Supreme Court; by Justice Shabbits, 1995, 1996, two judgements in

Dawson v. Stalker, Supreme Court of B.C.; by Justice Cooper, 1996, in Hillstead

v. Hillstead, Supreme Court; by Master Powers, 1996, in Huyghue v. Huyghue, B.C.

Supreme Court; by Justice Sigurdson, 1996, in James v. Turner, B.C. Supreme

Court; by Justice Melnick, 1996, in Scheffer v. Scheffer, B.C. Supreme Court.

From Manitoba, three judgements: by Justice Carr, 1998, in Colquhoun v.

Colquhoun, Court of Queen's Bench Family Division; by Justice Guertin-Riley,

1998, in McKenzie v. McKenzie, Court of Queen's Bench; by Justice Allen, 1999,

in the Antonovich case, Winnipeg Child & Family Services v. L.M.T. & A.A.A.,

Court of Queen's Bench.

From Nova Scotia, one judgement by Judge Legere, 1997, in W.A.H. v. S.M.L., Nova

Scotia Family Court.

From Ontario, 14 judgements: - the hotbeds seem to be Ontario and British

Columbia - by Justice Thompson, 1987, in Demeester v. Demeester, Supreme Court

of Ontario; by Justice Fitzgerald, 1990 in Scott v. Scott, Ontario Supreme

Court; by Justices Tarnopolsky, Finlayson, Abella, 1992, in M.(B.P.) v.

M.(B.L.D.E.), Ontario Court of Appeal; by Judge Webster, 1993, in W.(K.M.) v.

W.(D.D.) , Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division); by Justice Webber,

1994, in R. v. Robert A. Clark, Ontario Court of Justice (General Division); by

Judge Magda, 1995, in A.N. v. A.R., Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial

Division); by Justice Wallace, 1995, in Jenkins v. Farrauto , Unified Family

Court; by Justice Killeen, 1995, in Lindsay v. Lindsay, Ontario Court of Justice

(General Division); by Justices Austin, Laskin, Moldaver, 1996, in the Baxter

case, B(D) and B(R) and B(M) v. Children's Aid Society of Durham Region and

Marion Van den Boomen, Court of Appeal of Ontario; by Justice Aston, 1996, in

B.(B.J.A.) v. R.(K.J.), Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) (Family

Court); by Justice Wilson, 1996, in M.K. v. P.M., Ontario Court of Justice

(General Division); by Justice Czurtin, 1997, in the Wayne Allen case, Allen v.

Grenier, Ontario Court (General Division) Family Court; by Justice Fitzgerald,

1997, in R. v. Viinalass, Ontario Court of Justice; by Justice Bellamy, 1999, in

Jepp v. Brandon, Ontario Superior Court.

From Quebec, two judgements: by Justice Gomery, 1991, in Stuart-Mill v. Cher,


Quebec Superior Court; by Justice Marx, 1996, in M.B. v. Y.M., Quebec Superior


And finally, from Saskatchewan, three judgements: by Justice Dielschneider,

1991, Philipowich v. Philipowich, Court of Queen's Bench; by Justices Cameron,

Wakeling, Lane, 1992, in the Philipowich case again, P.(K.L.) v. P.(P.M.),

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal; by Justice Hunter, 1999, in Miket v. Miket, Court

of Queen's Bench Family Law Division.


Honourable senators, that is a mouthful to speak and that is a large number of cases. Of these 39 judgments, all are in the context of divorce, separation and custody proceedings; 31 deal with false child sexual abuse, eight deal with false child physical abuse and most are by mothers against fathers. Honourable senators, that may have been a mouthful, but what I have cited here is nearly 50 cases of judgments where a judge has said these allegations are false. I think it a shame, a tragedy and a crisis.

Honourable senators, I shall now quote judgments in four of these last 39 cases just listed. In the Alberta case of Leslie James Spurgeon v. Barbara Leah Spurgeon, the father was falsely accused by the mother. This is a classic case of access denial, parental alienation, and false accusations of child sexual abuse against the father. About a letter from mother to father, Justice Nash said, at paragraph 21:

Those paragraphs, in my view, illustrate what is often referred to as an example of parental alienation. The girls are 10 and 12 years old. By involving them in the on-going conflict between their parents, Mrs. Spurgeon is involving them as her allies in the position that she had taken regarding access.

Madam Justice Nash continued, at paragraph 22: Another concern that I have is the apprehension of bias on the part of the Department who investigated the allegations of sexual assault. Mr. Spurgeon was cleared by the polygraph which, I appreciate, is not admissible in a Court of law. There was no medical evidence supporting these allegations. These judgments often mention the role of the child welfare protection agencies.

Honourable Senators, next is Justice Coultas of British Columbia in George Juris Kobylanski v. Lorrie Kathleen Kobylanski, a case of a mother falsely accusing a father repeatedly. The mother abducted the child and fled the province with the child to a women's shelter in Yellowknife, N.W.T. Women's shelters is also a recurring theme. Justice Coultas said at page 4: Mrs. Kobylanski deposes that she left the Province because Stephanie had disclosed that her father sexually abused her. Allegations of the father's sexual abuse are not new. In my March 4th Reasons I recited the history of these earlier allegations. They were first made just prior to a Hearing to enforce an order for overnight access, and, as a consequence, overnight access was denied Mr. Kobylanski.

Justice Coultas added, at page 5: Although I did not make a specific finding that the Petitioner had invented these allegations, I thought it highly probable that she did so...

Justice Coultas continued, at page 12: In spite of her deviousness and irresponsibility I continue to think that it is in the child's best interest to be, for the moment, with her mother, for the child is bonded primarily with the mother. I do not believe that Mr. Kobylanski has ever abused his child sexually. He has fought tenaciously for access rights because he believes that he can be a good influence in the child's life.

Honourable senators, next is Justice Newbury in the case of Gary Christopherson being C.(G.E.) v. C(M.B.D.) in British Columbia. This was a case of a mother's false accusations of child sexual abuse against the father, a custody change from mother to the father, and then, finally, the mother and new mate kidnapped the children to Europe. This is three separate judgments by the same Justice Newbury, being March 19, 1993, August 15, 1995, and January 4, 1996. On March 19, 1993, Justice Newbury said, at paragraph 95: ...I find that there is no real risk that Mr. C. has abused or will abuse E. or K. in the future. The case against him can only be described as flimsy at best and while it may not be a deliberate fabrication, it is the product of Ms. D.'s hostility and suspicion.

In the second judgment, two years later on August 15, 1995, Justice Newbury said, at paragraph 50: In my earlier judgment, I concluded that there was no `real risk' that Mr. C. had abused or would abuse E. or K in the future. I reach the same conclusion again concerning the latest allegation, but with even greater confidence.

In the third judgment, a year later, on January 4, 1996, about the mother's contempt of court, the integrity of the court and the children's best interests, Justice Newbury said, at paragraph 13: ...the results of those acts of contempt have taken their course - the custody of the children has been changed. This is not to imply that the custody of Ellen and Kirsten was changed in order to punish Ms. Durville's conduct. From the parties' points of view, however, little would now be served by exacting a penalty against Ms. Durville for these acts. Accordingly, although I conclude that Ms. Durville's conduct does constitute contempt of court, I decline to impose any penalty on the basis that remedial action is now unnecessary, and punishment would be ineffectual at this late date. As of last fall, Mr. Christopherson did not know the whereabouts of his children. [Even though a judicial order gave my daughter half her time with me; when she and her mother disappeared, the CWO wrote to me that he was not allowed to reveal their whereabouts! - Ed] Even though he has custody, even though there is a court order against either parent removing the girls from the province without the other's consent, Ms Durville kidnapped them to Europe. He has not seen them for two years, is impoverished emotionally and financially, and can only afford a bicycle to commute to work....

[For the rest, go to

where it resides temporarily, or to the Editor's website

and search for Anne C Cools.- Ed.]

.... I turn now to the question of lawyers' involvement in the advancement of these false allegations. I have laid before honourable senators almost 50 judicial findings that the allegations were false. There is a crisis in civil justice and in the practice at bar. That these particular false allegations seemingly arise in the context of separation and divorce and within civil justice proceedings of child custody points to lawyers. Today in civil justice, almost all documents, even sworn affidavits, are written and prepared by lawyers. Lawyers are both practitioners at the bar and also officers of the court. As officers of the court, they are entrusted with privileges whose very purpose is the protection of truth and the securing of justice. These are ancient and important privileges. Their maintenance, protection and proper use should be the goal and duty of every lawyer. The heart of the problem in this civil justice crisis is the misuse of these privileges that are entrusted to lawyers as officers of the court. These privileges, both the absolute and the qualified privileges, shelter lawyers from criminal and civil liability, even personal responsibility, for unsworn statements made within court documents and court proceedings which are false. These privileges originate in Her Majesty's Royal Prerogative as the dispenser of justice and guardian of subjects and are bestowed upon solicitor-barristers when they are admitted as Officers of Her Majesty's Court. Officers of the court hold these privileges in trust from Her Majesty as the Fount of Justice. Privileges are conditional grants from the sovereign to protect the sovereign's interest in justice and her subjects' right to the sovereign's justice. These privileges are part of the sovereign's protection for the processes of discovering truth and securing justice itself. Her Majesty's privileges cannot be enlisted to defeat truth or justice or to deceive her courts. ....

[Now Cools plays politics. We know that most lawyers are behaving criminally, conniving in false accusations in the family courts, in all these countries - UK, USA, Canada, Australia. Cools knows this, but for political reasons pretends that it is a small criminal minority. This gives her a better chance to carry the other Senators. - Ed] Undoubtedly, the majority of lawyers - and I have many friends who are - are honest and ethical professionals. As always, it is the small minority, the deviants, who abuse process and who need sanctions. The Criminal Code is all about the deviant minority, not about the honest majority [!!- Ed]. Parliament has a duty to protect the children who are the subject of these ugly and inhuman proceedings, and to ensure that sharp practice is discouraged. Parliament must use the Criminal


Code to limit the misleading of justice by codifying the deceit of the courts by some of its officers and declare that the deceit of the court can form no part of any duty by any solicitor to any client.

Parliament must enact that such activity is an offence against the administration of justice.


At present, the full text is at or go to my website

Kathy McCann, 16nov00

pp Prime Minister,

10 Downing St.,


Dear Kathy McCann,

Research competence.

Betsy Stanko was in receipt of £3,500,000 of ESRC funding for her "Violence Research Project", now at Royal Holloway College. (Search for "Betsy Stanko" on the www.)

From an aberrant cohort of 200, Stanko generated the bogus "one in four women are attacked in the home", recently repeated by Baroness Jay, Leader of the House of Lords.

Stanko may be in receipt of some of the recent £6,000,000 research funding recently announced by Boateng.

We have begun to research Stanko's background, and find that she herself cites ideological reasons why she will not do objective research. The implications for the family as an institution, since she is so heavily supported by government, and quoted by government, are devastating.

E. A. Stanko (Betsy Stanko), Fear of Crime and the Myth of the Safe Home, a chapter in Kersti Yllo and Michele Bograd; Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse, pub. Sage, 1988, p83;

The Task Force, however, uncritically clings to the notion that the traditional family unit is the 'fundamental unit upon which society is built', rather than a unit that in many ways contributes to violence within the family.

Stanko will never separate out violence between married spouses and the much greater incidence of violence between cohabiting couples (and of course very much greater between gay and lesbian couples). This is because the target for her attack is the (relatively very peaceful) traditional family. The above book even states that it does not intend to make the distinction, calling all cohabiting couples "wife and husband", see p12 and p19;.

p12 Wife abuse is defined in this volume as the use of physical force by a man against his intimate cohabiting partner. .... As feminists, we believe that the social institutions of marriage and family are special contexts that may promote, maintain, and even support men's use of physical force against women. For ease of exposition, the term 'wife abuse' will be used throughout the volume, although the intimate partners may not be legally married.

p19 .... Husband-to-wife violence is thus conceived, not as an aberrant phenomenon, but as a fundamental dimension in most normally functioning families.

It is deeply scurrilous and anti-social to first confuse marriage with cohabiting (a much more violent status), and then assert that Husband-to-wife violence is thus conceived, not as an aberrant phenomenon, but as a fundamental dimension in most normally functioning families.

In the first instance, will Stanko repudiate the Introduction to her book?

Best Wishes,

Ivor Catt

cc Principal, Royal Holloway College;

cc Stanko, vrp;

cc Kerry Pollard, MP for St. Albans.

cc Paul Boateng.


Dear Mr Catt

Professor Stanko's research is approved by highly respected independent authorities and the College and the University will not enter into any further correspondence on this matter.

Professor Drummond Bone


Royal Holloway, University of London [Egham, Surrey.]


To: Bone D

Please give me the names of "highly respected independent authorities".

This is the first correspondence I have had from "the College and the University". This problem will not go away. The fate of children of divorce and children of SMF's is too important, and the crisis is going to deepen. The marker is the suicide rate of young men. We have started our investigation of Stanko, studying one of her books. As a result, I today wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, Boasteng, yourself, Stanko, and my MP, and posted it (copy below) before I received my first ever communication from you, the head of the college where the Stanko "research" is now going on.

You will find that you are backing a bronco, not a horse.

Ivor Catt 16nov00

From Ill Eagle 9 June 2000 p6;

Bang 'em all up!

"Ms Betty Moxon heads the Sexual Offences Review Group.... [She] invited Robert Whiston and Ivor Catt from ManKind to attend her 10sep99 seminar in Leicester. ManKind member William Coulson also managed to fill in for a cancellation. ....

"There were men there, but they were poodle-men. None of the 50 attendees had the concept of a false allegation." - Ill Eagle, sep99.

There followed extensive correspondence between your Ed, his MP, and the Home Office, see my website. My MP was a dead loss, so I ask readers to pursue the matter through their own MPs.

My two objectives were to get false allegations onto the political agenda, and also to develop a mechanism for restraining the flood of false reports and statistics emanating from the govt. .... I have received the admission that false allegations are not within the remit of anybody in government. ".... there is no specific policy consideration in government being given to the issue of false allegations, ...." - letter to Catt from -Tooke, Sex Offences Review Team, Home Office, 21mar00. If you find this unbelievable, phone M-Tooke tel. 0171 273 3875 or email her at

A few days after this admission, the case of Roy Burnett, falsely jailed for brutal rape for 15 years, hit the headlines.

Husband and Father behaviour continues to deteriorate

[Stinko's research techniques, as described in her chapter in the book "Feminist Perspectives ...." detailed above, show us the frightening trend in the behaviour of husbands and fathers, and the grave risks now run by all wives. - Ed]

A postman who killed his wife .... was jailed for eight years .... Judge Martin Stephens .... told Frisby: "With two children in the house, you meticulously dismembered her body, distributed the parts arond the country and baked her head in the oven." He buried the head on a golf course in Sidcup ....

- Sue Clough,

Telegraph, 17nov00, p12

Blair abandons pretence on family values for 'inclusive' approach

- Rachel Sylvester,

Telegraph, 16nov00, p10

.... Tony Blair has been forced to step in to break up a fight between ministers who want the Govt to promote marriage and those who think cohabiting couples and single parents have equal validity.

The Prime Minister used his casting vote to oppose support for the institution. Ministers tell me that all references to marriage as the "best model" for family life have been removed from a forthcoming Govt paper on the subject after the intervention of No. 10.

The ministerial committee has been locked in conflict for months as it tried to agree the wording of the crucial pre-election statement in this Middle England touchstone issue.

The men - Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, who chairs the groups, and Paul Boateng, his junior minister - have said that the paper should single out marriage as the ideal context for raising children. They want the Govt to take a strong stand.


The women - Baroness Jay, the leader of the Lords, Margaret Hodge, the education minister, Baroness Hollis, the social security minister, and Patricia Hewett, at the Dept. of Trade and Industry - have advocated a more "inclusive" approach. They think that children from broken homes or single parent families will feel inferior if the Govt promotes a particular structure. They also said Cabinet ministers, many of whom are either divorced or homosexual, [see "Statistics as the Sword of Truth", Male View jan99 p19, or ] could leave themselves open to a "back to basics" style campaign if they preached a lifestyle that they had not followed themselves. .... The positions have been deeply entrenched and the discussions passionate. Neither side has been willing to compromise. At one point an early draft .... including the commitment to marriage, was leaked to the Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee who duly duffed it up. It was a clear attempt by the sisterhood to get the pro-marriage rhetoric watered down.

The final version will be a compromise, similar to the fudge of the 1998 green paper Supporting Families .... Now it seems that the Prime Minister has realised that he can no longer get away with trying to imply that ministers think marriage is the "best" way.

[On 2dec00, in The Telegraph, p10, Rachel Sylvester added divorced Tessa Jowell, minister for employment and women (friend of Margaret Jay. ".... we're very close....") to the throng of women close to Blair who want the govt to assert no preference for marriage. To add to the muddle, Jowell "thinks some groups of men - those over 50 and working class boys - are now more disadvantaged than their female peers." How much time, and how many suicides, will it take before these dreadful women to sort themselves out? - Ed]

Return of a heretic

- Neil Lyndon,

Sunday Times, News Review, p1

[Neil Lyndon's world came crashing down after he wrote a pioneering article in The Sunday Times attacking feminism. He was treated as a pariah, and his young son was taken away from him. .... ]

I was amongst the highest-paid .... feature writers in British journalism. .... [After the article] I became a pariah, a professional and social outcast. My income plummeted from many thousands of pounds a month to hundreds. .... A group of women who worked for The Sunday Times Magazine wrote a round-robin to the magazine's then editor, Philip Clarke, asking him not to publish my essay and warning that it would leave "an indelible stain" on the magazine's reputation. .... Clarke stoutly told them to mind their own business.

[Neil followed with the first book of its kind; No more sex war; The failures of feminism, pub. Sinclair-Stevenson 1992, just before the weightier book by Warren Farrell, The Myth of Male Power, pub. Fourth Estate, first published in 1993 in the U.S.A.]

The anti-marriage fanatics won't see why children fail

- Melanie Phillips,

Sunday Times, 19nov00, p19

Round three, and not yet out. Behind the scenes in Whitehall, a battle has been raging over marriage. In the nuptial corner are Jack Straw, Paul Boateng and David Blunkett. Opposing them is the feminist hard core made up of Baroness jay, Harriet Harman and sundry women junior ministers.

They've been slugging it out for months over whether a white paper should say that marriage is the best option for raising children. Now the prime minister, stepping in to break up the fight, has sided with the sisterhood. ....

How amazing that these women are going to such lengths to prevent the m-word from even being mentioned in policy. .... The argument for promoting marriage is extraordinarily tenacious. And that's because it's based on solid evidence which won't go away.

The simple fact increasingly troubling govt is the enormous and escalating cost to the country of family disintegration. It's adding billions of pounds to the pressures on housing, social security, healthcare, the criminal justice system. And it is storing up even more costs; increasingly solitary lifestyles and the reluctance to form permanent relationships will destroy the networks of kinship which caused generations to look after not just their children but their elderly parents, too. .... Only 36% of children born to cohabiting parents are still looked after by both parents - even if they eventually marry - by the time the children are 16, compared with 70% of children born to married couples. ....

Marriage is a unique institution in which the state has a stake, because if marriages fail the state has to pick up the pieces. Value-neutral family policy means expecting the taxpayer to foot the bill for behaviour that may be ignorant or unwise, such as elective lone parenthood or cohabitation. ....

Marriage is the best way says minister as he goes off-message

- Steve Doughty,

Daily Mail, 15sep00

A senior Minister yesterday broke ranks and called for the state to teach people about the benefits of marriage.

.... Paul Boateng veered away from the Govt line that all kinds of families are equally good by insisting that marriage is a better way of life than cohabitation or single parenthood. .... which .... appeared to put him directly at odds with his boss Jack Straw. ....


Boateng used the marriage issue to distance himself from Vanity Blair when Blair went into freefall.

I read Melanie after I had put Rachel Sylvester into Ill Eagle. Melanie virtually proves that Rachel was not just flying a kite. The Cabinet is split, with Boateng on the side of the angels! The split follows gender lines, with the many Cabinet Gays not present, but surely supporting the viragos.

I have been proved wrong when I predicted, after the last General Election, that the Blare Babes would split down the middle, depending on whether they had sons or not. However, a different split has occurred, on the same issue. MG tells me that this is payback time; radfems got Blair into power, and he has to let them continue their attack on the family.

Since the Tories do not understand the issues, and the intentions of Stinko and the rest, they would give little respite. I expect the situation to deteriorate anyway. The more the family is attacked by Hewett and the rest, with the help of the Cabinet Gays, speeding the crisis, the less will be the total damage over the years.

In the News Section, Sunday Times, 19nov00, p4, Melanie Phillips attacks the "research" of Stinko;

.... Stanko's research does not stand up to scrutiny. It lends support instead to a propaganda offensive that demonises men and minimises or conceals the fact that women can be equally if not more violent, a distortion that has cost many men their homes and their children.

The darkest secret of child sexual abuse

Far from posing a threat, traditional families offer children a sanctuary from abuse. The real danger is found in broken homes, says

Melanie Phillips, Sunday Times, Sect. 4, 26nov00, p8

It is a commons perception that there is an epidemic of sexual abuse of children within the family. Reports of the press of last week's findings by the NSPCC conveyed the same message. .... Yet the facts are rather different, demonstrated not least by the NSPCC's own report .... Accused in the past of inflating figures for its own ends, the charity was taken aback by the way its statistics were distorted by the media. .... child sexual abuse takes place within only 4% of families. A mere 1% of children are abused by a parent. The remaining 3% are abused by other relatives, with brothers or stepbrothers by far the largest category. .... Within families they found much more physical violence, suffered by about a quarter of the sample. Yet another significant fact was that most of this occurred at the hands not of the fathers but of the mothers.

So the NSPCC's research destroyed some potent myths about child abuse. But the stereotype of sexual abuse hidden within the family has become deeply embedded in the public consciousness.

The impression is given by many commentators that the traditional family is a dangerous place for a child to be.


This view was on display on Newsnight. Forget strange paedophiles., said the programme: child sexual abuse was rampant within the family and was perpetrated mainly by parents.

Yet the programme did not acknowledge the NSPCC's finding that child sexual abuse within families was, in fact, extremely rare. .... failing to acknowledge that its own harrowing examplke featured a fractured family and a stepfather.

There was no discussion of the role of family disintegration in child sex abuse. Yet this is the really explosive secret: that sexual abuse occurs mainly in families that have broken or reconstituted and that marriage is actulaly the best protector for children. ....

.... concern about child sexual abuse has been used to attack married families, ignoring the fact that both sexual and physical abuse occur much more frequently where the biological parents are no longer together. .... children are no less than 20 to 33 times safer when they live with their biological parents than when they live in any other type of household. ....

[Last Ill Eagle reported that Melanie reported that our 28oct00 Conference speaker Norman Dennis, in his analysis of the Macpherson Report (from, found;. " …. no officer to be racist; no evidence that the policies of the Metropolitan police were racist; no racist conduct by officers; indeed, it rejected the claim that the police investigation into the murder had failed because of racism." [Melanie's full text is at] [Long may her remarkable commentaries continue, trying to stem the tide of anti-social, destructive lies and misrepresentation by Stinko, Jay and the rest. - Ed.]

Dr. Bill Thompson, criminologist, speaking at the AAFAA conference at Friends House, London, 11nov00. (The same room as our 28oct00 conference.)

Having spent over a decade as an 'expert' in our 'best in the world' legal system, I have no confidence in the way allegations - especially those concerning sexual assaults - are handled.

While I try to undertake my obligations seriously and offer opinion without 'fear or favour', I despair at the way, from initial allegations to Appeals, the same mistakes, which can be traced to the obsession 'to get a result', are made time and time again.

The majority of these can be traced to a refusal to review an investigation process which is based upon unproven assumptions and consists of simplistic and reductive reasoning,

This approach is encouraged by the fact that the police (and social services) are not concerned with uncovering the truth, but gathering 'evidence' that will secure a prosecution. Evidence to the contrary, and ambiguities within what 'evidence' they collected, are NOT seen as a reason for reviewing ALL the evidence; so much as creating barriers to a successful prosecution.

The concept of a false allegation is rarely rather than systematically considered; and those who gain a 'not guilty' verdict are considered to have 'got away with it' rather than been innocent all along,

When this approach is wedded to political agendas - such as the 'believe the children' movement - 'miscarriages of justice' will multiply. And that is what is happening in the case of child sexual assault allegations.

We are told 'we have to take all allegations seriously', though this is selective: when the Orkney children were badgered to name people and included the Prime Minister - no one rushed round to 10 Downing Street. Yet ordinary people are arrested, BEFORE any background inquires are made.

The need to ask how likely are these events to have occurred before arresting people would have saved hundreds of ruined lives in the case of the Satanic Panic.

This does not happen because in the case of sexual assault - guilt is presumed, and evidence to the contrary is not investigated with the same rigour and to the same depth as 'evidence' for the prosecution.

And this applies as equally in the more bizarre allegations as in the 'run of the mill' allegations.

The government ignores such attitudes and appears to care less about training to develop a critical approach. Courses I have offered to Investigators on error avoidance - which I thought was in the best interest of justice - have been inexplicably cancelled.

Thanks to the simplistic training served up at 'child abuse awareness programmes' - the scientific basis of which is often dubious -investigators share erroneous assumptions that inform and motivate their investigations.

As a result, the interview techniques used on children continue to replicate many of the mistakes officially denounced in Cleveland, Roachdale and Orkney.

Amongst the many problems, supposedly ended by the Memorandum of Good Practice, I still find

* no record of the context of the original revelations/disclosure - which frequently lies not upon what a child said - but an interpretation

* In multiple cases, the interview technique used is the same irrespective of the age/mental development/vocabulary of the child

* The child rarely determines the pace of the interview

* adult accusers are often present.

* The MOGP is broken again and again - especially the instruction NOT to refer to the offence/ask for a repetition of a previous account is constantly broken.

* I rarely see any attempt to secure a free narrative account; interviewers speak twice/three times as much as the children

* In cases where the child offers NO indications of assault, let alone any details, interviewer invariably proceeds to probing.

* Most interviewers could not tell an open-suggestive question from a closed-objective question - the training is so pitiful.

* Silence/reticence - which would appear in cases where nothing untoward has happened - are seen as the child having been sworn to secrecy or being too traumatized to tell.

* Unruly or sullen behaviour is inevitably seen as confirmation of a damaged child, rather than a possible indication that the child does not want to cooperate with the interviewers because they don't want to frame someone.

Many of these problems could be solved by checking the origin of the allegation again.

However, the MOGP actually encourages bad practice. For example when MOGP explains that a child's silence could be caused by guilt at not having told earlier, the MOGP's failure to record alternative explanations, helps ensure that this suggestion is interpreted as a green light to probe silent children - when there may be nothing to tell.

But the biggest problem is what are known as 'validity indicators';

Originally designed as a review tool, post interview, to assess the viability of what the child had said; interviewers seek to elicit, and in many cases, even model the answers that will look like indicators to a court. It should be clear that when a claim like - 'he put his thing right inside me', is simply stated and the child can not provide ONE SINGLE detail about the mechanics of sex, even from a child's perspective - something must be wrong.

Yet, legal aid defences rarely explore the interviews for such discrepancies, or bother to cross examine the interviewers and hear their justifications for what are - despite all assurances to the contrary - very leading interviews. Likewise, medical 'evidence' still used in the UK to infer assaults have taken place, despite being long since been disproven by American controlled studies, is not challenged.

These defence failings are then compounded by the UK Appeal procedure, which refuses to consider such questions because they could have been at the trial. Yet, when so much is at stake, the failure to have interviews and medical evidence reviewed before a strategy is adopted is shoddy practice, especially because the fallacies promoted in 'abuse awareness' over the last 30 years means that, otherwise, it is difficult to get a fair trial any where.

[For the terrible case of Ray Shuttleworth, still in jail, graphically illustrating police misconduct outlined by Bill Thompson, see The Observer, 26nov00, p18, or Panorama, 26nov00.]


Hillary Seddon of AAFAA agreed to a joint conference next year. I have booked the Main Hall, Friends House, for our Censorship Conference on sat26may01. - Ed

ManKind October 2000 Conference

The age of violent young males. Causes and remedies.

The awesome list of speakers at our conference came up to expectations, making an historic event. You can order the five audiotapes from me, Editor of Ill Eagle, for £10. The videotape, which can also be ordered, will come later. The speakers represented most of the leading experts in the world. It was at Friends House, opposite Euston Station, London, on Saturday 28oct00. Details, including some of the speeches, remain at and at

The penalty for pleading innocence

- Auberon Waugh,

Sunday Telegraph, 3dec00, p41

.... Nobody can doubt that many innocent people have ended up in prison. .... Downing is not in prison for having murdered a 32-year-old secretary 27 years ago. Whether he is innocent or guilty of that charge, he completed his punishment for it 10 years ago. For the last 10 years he has been kept in prison for the crime of refusing to admit that he was guilty. .... The reason he has stayed in prison these last 10 years is that by refusing to admit his guilt he throws a terrible doubt on the entire legal system of the country. ....

ManKind takes on "Les Chiennes de Garde"

At midday on Dec 2nd the "World Service" of the BBC "Newshour" carried a short debate between Robert Whiston, Chairman of ManKind, and Isabelle Alonzo, a French feminist and author.

Her complaint was that men, personified by the Deputy Prime Minster, John Prescott, (UK) unfairly abused women every day of the week by shouting at them, not being courteous and treating them differently from the way they treated other men.

She cited the French women Minister at her recent negotiation in the Hague, Dominique Voynet, as victim, and Prescott as "chauvinist pig" (Prescott quoted Voynet as confessing she was "too tired" and had "cold feet" about the global warming deal).

After pleading for special treatment and preferential treatment by Isabelle Alonzo, Whiston gave her short shrift by reminding her that minister Dominique Voynet, who may have only been promoted by affirmative action, can't expect to be shielded if she wants to be equal to a man ("... now that she's playing with the big boys in Europe .... ").


























Judge's rooms

are raided by fraud police

- Chris Hastings,

Sunday Telegraph, 3dec00, p9

A judge's chambers have been raided by fraud squad detectives investigating his alleged links to a corrupt solicitor. .... police are examining the raltionship between Raymond Tynas, a district judge in
Cheshire, and Robert Holmes, a wealthy solicitor who was jailed earlier this year for swindling clients. ....

Mr Tynas, who lives in the village of Bollington in Cheshire, specialises in family law cases, which are often held in private. .... [always in private, so that corruption is made easier.




























However, this only mildly echoes the case brought to me by A.G., with details of a 'magic circle' of most senior family court judges, barristers and solicitors, who conspire to maximise acrimony in wealthy divorce cases so as to get the family home sold as a source of massive fees, some to be forwarded to the judge through a secret bank account. - Ed]

Plans for 'no fault' divorce scrapped

- Martin Bentham,

Sunday Telegraph, 3dec00, p5

The Government is to abandon plans for "no fault" divorces because of evidence showing that the move would not reduce acrimony between many separating couples. .... Pilot studies, in which couples have undergone mediation, are believed to have shown little or no reduction in acrimony or signs that divorce will not end in bitter court battles. ....



Access Protest See picture below. These protests are organised by Mark Harris, who is a ManKind member. The picture is from the Sunday Independent newspaper dated November 19th. 2000