Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Celtic Druid

Main / MRA Sloganeering Campaign
Nov 24, 2006, 07:38 PM
I'm sure most of you are aware of successful feminist contradictory sloganeering classics such as "no means no" and "there's no excuse for violence" (unless you're a female of course!).

In regard to the "no means no" feminist tenuous fervent stipulation as to what constitutes this - the inclusion of a sarcastic "unless you're a female" brings home to the average lay person the disparity in law that prevails so abundantly and pervasively to the detriment of men!

My point? Let's engineer some timeless classics which best express our grievances and frustrations as MRA's and men. These "expressions" will firstly best exemplify our position, and secondly more importantly will be understandable to the most non MRA!

Here's something to begin a productive and creative thread - " misandry is the new  misogyny."

It's not perfect. However it entices the inherent inquisitiveness of many to inquire -- what pray tell is misandry? We live in a world predominantly driven by pop culture, if we can breach it's vacuous wall's then an opportunity arises to implement the righteous voice of the men's movement to a degree not yet seen.
Posted at

Have any of you guys managed to get hold of the free Bull Busters video going around? It's called Violent Women and it is very powerful.

It is doing the rounds on the street. The other day I was aksed if I had seen it. When I said no, a guy ran home and made me a copy and brought it back to me. It is very powerful. It has the words, "Watch me. Copy me. Pass me on" written in felt tip pen on the CD. I have done just that. Anyone who would like a copy should mail me at [email protected] I will send it on. If you are outside of the UK you have to send me postage and packaging costs (sorry).

The video shows women beating men, each other and children and makes the point that we have been brainwashed to accept female violence as part of the attempt to feminise men. It says that there has been a media conspiracy to keep the evidence from the people.

It's excellent and very strong.
File Size: 8.8MB
File Length: 30minutes.
File Size: 65.00MB
File Length: 30minutes.
File Size: 300MB
File Length: 30minutes.

More content & links coming soon... Please be patient Content & links coming soon... Please be patient
I've poached this encouraging story from Angry Harry's site, I hope he doesn't mind. Gordon Brown "seems" to have a genuine understanding of boys/mens concerns, and will be a breath of fresh air compared to the Tony/Cherie Blair ideological freak show.

Given recent revelations which transpired regarding Mr Browns reluctance to commit to 'the war in Iraq' and whereby he only did so when threatened with the sack, leads me to conclude - coupled with the fact he recently has become a father, lends in my mind a leaning towards optimism than pessimism.

I'm not a labour supporter, I despise the party and their socialist vision of utopia. However, given a choice between him and Blair as leader, Brown wins hands down, as this severs Cherie Blairs despotic stranglehold on labour policy, which has so blighted mens rights in the UK.

We are failing a generation of boys admits Gordon Brown


A generation of boys is being "wasted" by serious failings in schools and society, Gordon Brown has warned.

The Chancellor said underachievement among boys had become an "acute problem" and said the rise of single parent families meant too many no longer had good male role models.

In an extraordinary speech ranging far beyond his traditional Treasury brief, Mr Brown also spoke in highly emotive terms about what he called the "soul of man".

Borrowing from the language of 17th century Protestant religious reformer Gerrard Winstanley, he spoke about a "moral sentiment that animates us as human beings" and would underpin a Government he led.

Attempting to open up clear dividing lines between him and Tory leader David Cameron, Mr Brown attacked the promotion of what he called "self-interested individualism against the encroaching power of civic institutions".

Aides said the Chancellor intended to take head on Mr Cameron's pledge to roll back the state and bring in voluntary organisations to help run public services.

Delivering the annual Donald Dewar memorial lecture in Glasgow, Mr Brown defended the role of the state in "serving the people and communities of the country".

Mr Brown highlighted the plight of Britain's six million carers, who he said wanted local and national government to do more - not less - to help them.

"Carers are not asking for government to get out of the way, to leave them alone," he said.

"Rightly, men and women who are carers want pensions and time off with respite care and an understanding of their financial positions," he said.

"Theirs is not a call for less action by our great national institutions, whether it be on the Health Service to our pensions service. They want us to do more and they are right."

On education, Mr Brown set out a powerful vision of how he intends to transform boys' prospects if he succeeds Mr Blair.

The Chancellor suggested the school curriculum should be tailored to meet the different needs of boys and girls and called for a "fathers' revolution" at home.

He said fathers must become "directly involved" in their children's learning and schooling and said more should be enabled to work "flexi-time" following the birth of a child.

"This is more important given the threefold increase in one-parent families over 30 years - and too often boys' loss of contact with male role models," Mr Brown insisted.

Mr Brown and Education Secretary Alan Johnson are to order a review of how teaching methods and the curriculum are tailored to boys' particular needs.

"Boys and girls appear to learn in different ways and at different paces," the Chancellor said.

"Boys get bored easily, tend to respond more to activity-based learning, flourish where there is access to computers and need clear targets.

"We must never accept the existence of a wasted generation of boys."

Girls now decisively outperform boys at all levels of the school system up to the sixth form.

The gender gap widens during primary school and by the age of 14, girls have opened up a massive lead in English and a slight advantage in maths and science.

This year, 80 per cent of girls passed national curriculum tests in English compared with just 65 per cent of boys.

Mr Brown said 61 per cent of girls went on to get five or more good GCSEs, against 51 per cent of boys.

Boys who struggled academically or came from backgrounds with low aspirations often went on to lead "wasted lives", the Chancellor said.

Shadow Education Secretary David Willetts said: 'Gordon Brown has belatedly come to realise that the gap between girls' and boys' achievement at school is a big problem, and he is quite right to focus on it.  

"His words are a refreshing change from those of Alan Johnson, who seems rather more complacent.

"The problem is not getting better, and if anything it has got worse over the last nine years. We need fresh ideas on how we tackle it, but sadly it seems Gordon Brown offers just more of the same."
Here's a video (04:20) comprising of a compilation of misandric depictions, gleaned from tv programming which we are all incessantly subject to, every single day 24/7.

I believe it was made by an Israeli MRA, who said "I Made this video for a Gender War evening in Tel Aviv. It shows the hatred of men in the popular culture: TV, Movies, commercials etc."

If your in a volatile mood, I wouldn't aggravate it by viewing this compilation of misandry. I hit the weights (real hard) after viewing such raw hate. Maybe I'll watch it before every workout session!

I'd like to hear any constructive ideas, regarding highlighting and combating this socially acceptable scourge which so blights the perceived intrinsic worth of men.

Also, for any feminist or mangina that denies misandry in the media, just provide them with this link and ask them to furnish you with equivalent depictions of women subject to such violence.
The suffragette's commited over 200 acts of treason, arson and violence in 1913-14 alone. This latest story revealed under the 'freedom of information act' further erodes the deluded myth that suffragette's only engaged in civil disobedience.

Yet the bad press by certain sections of the media regarding F4J, and the subsequent goverment, MI5 and media hatchet job on them reveals a sinister underworld, where a dangerous game of political chess is played for very high stakes.


Government feared suffragette plot to kill Asquith

Maev Kennedy
Friday September 29, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

In September 1909, two women seen honing their skills at a shooting range caused panic in the British government and fears of a plot to assassinate the prime minister, according to documents released today.
The government and police records, released by the National Archives in Kew, reveal that an informant had warned that the women were members of the suffragette movement - the "half-insane women" then picketing the House of Commons to demand votes for women - and that one of the two was planning to shoot Herbert Asquith, who was known for his implacable opposition to women's suffrage.

Scotland Yard dispatched an inspector to interview the source, and ministers debated a topic not unfamiliar to today's government: how far it was possible, prudent or politically acceptable to get rid of the Westminster pickets.
A report prepared for the Cabinet warned that it would be impossible to claim that the women, who had turned up every day for eight weeks, were causing an obstruction. Furthermore it would be equally tricky to reveal the true reason for official concern.

"The serious matter is that we should have to make known the facts leading us to believe that there is a conspiracy to murder the PM", said the report. "The prominence that would be given to this in the press would probably act on the minds of these half-insane women, and might suggest effectively the commission of the very act which we wish to prevent. Moreover, the removal of the pickets would be looked on by them as an act of violence and injustice; and would make them furious and more ready to commit such a crime."

The report advised that to remove the picketers would require that they be arrested. Police warned that "others would take their places, who would also have to be forcibly removed and arrested, and that there would be another of the old rows on a big scale".

Meanwhile police interviewed the informant, Mrs Moore, who was herself a member of the Women's Freedom League, but was also a friend of the prime minister's sister-in-law and opposed to "acts of violence".

She showed them a letter from a woman who "had had been practising with a revolver or pistol at either the miniature shooting range at 92 Tottenham Court Road or that at Villiers Street, Charing Cross". Mrs Moore refused to reveal the identity of the author, saying only that she was a fellow member of the league.

Mrs Moore said she knew "at least five women in the league who had given expression to their intentions to commit acts of violence ... she has been making efforts to restrain these women for some time past, and has used her power to have them removed from the carriage entrance to the House of Commons, fearing that something would happen to Mr Asquith".

Police proceeded to the shooting range at Tottenham Court Road, where the owner reported that two women who were said to be suffragettes had been seen practising with a Browning pistol.

The archive's documents include a handwritten note that adds that the two women were not seen at the range again.

The authorities finally decided to allow the Westminster protest to continue, but to redouble police precautions for the rest of the parliamentary session.

Women had to wait for the vote until 1918. Asquith, by then Earl of Oxford, died in 1928. The fate, and indeed identity, of the women with the Browning pistol remains unknown.

Useful links
National Archives

Other related links, with differing perspectives on the story.
I'd like to make people aware of the "caste system" that operates even within the supposedly caring "sisterhood" - which is reflected in tv/media programming.

Call it anally contrived contradictory supremacist notions that some women perceive other women as less than them. God, the irony. But very interesting and more so telling!

It goes like this (from my perspective), in order of descending importance.

1. White middle class feminist lesbians.

2. White middle class feminist women.

3. White middle class women.

4. White working class feminist lesbians.

5. White working class feminist women.

6. White working class women.

7. Black middle class feminist lesbians.

8. Black middle class feminist women.

9. Black middle class women.

10. Black working class feminist lesbians.

11. Black working class feminist women.

12. Black working class women.

13. Women of third world countries who seek to marry western men.

My rough draft, which can be added to or amended accordingly. A side note of reference, most US cop shows (for an example) always show a young pretty "white" female as the predominant victim.

Yet empirical studies show black women are 5-6 times more likely to become a victim of violence than a white women. The makers of these shows even discrimanate amongst ethnic divides of sisterhood.

Who represents the working class black woman devoid of an ideology, is her worth as a human being less because of this? Sexism, chauvinism and supremacist notions persist even amongst the sisterhood.

It sounds like an freudian extension of the playground, whereby girls at school were divided into groups of perceived worth - as dictated by a self-serving media, education system and big (intrusive) goverment and reinforced by women's hatred of one another, dependant on their sexual value and marketable worth!

It would seem Cherie Blair suffers from the same affliction as Hillary clinton, that is, the inability to restrain themselves from lashing out at the opposite sex. Both women, one the wife of an ex-president, the other the wife of a serving prime minister. Both driven by a radical feminist ideology, and both staunch supporters of draconian laws - regarding domestic violence perpetrated against women by men. Both ironically, have a history of violence against males. Hillary clinton famously was witnessed by a number of whitehouse staff, and secret service punching the president on several occasions. Apparently on one such incident, resulted in the president sporting a black eye.

Now we have an incident, whereby a young lad of 17 is hit around the back of his head by Cherie Blair (the exact part of the body hit varies according to the witness) at a public sporting event. To which it seems slap-happy Cherie had attended, in order to boost her public profile (is that possible). His crime? Gesturing a "pair of rabbit ears" with his hands behind her back. Mrs Blair noticed this and meted out retribution in true Marxist fashion.

It seems the mother of the boy, has downplayed the whole affair with defensive quips such as "Mrs Blair has been the victim of 'bizzare' political correctness." Apparently she made her son apologise TO HER later on! Maybe she's a step-mother? Bizzare. The police and child protective services were called in, after a complaint was made. I watched several news items, which concurred with the same hypocritical bile spewed by the newspapers - that this whole fiasco was an over-exaggeration.

It's poetically ironic, that Cherie Blair, a human rights lawyer and promoter of 'childrens rights'-  finds herself subject to the same investigative rigours that she expects of others. Yet cannot, it seem pay the penalty any other mere minion would be subject to, given the same circumstance. The penalty for the rest of us mere mortals is £2,500 or/and up to five years in jail. The media has predictably been supportive of something they tout as a playful chastisement of a mischievous schoolboy, which was perfectly reasonable and measured - an attitude akin to that of Dickens era. Undoubtedly this sordidly embarrasing affair, will be swept under the carpet with one foul swoop of new labours political brush.

Here's the story.

Police probe Cherie 'attack' on teenager
by DENNIS RICE and ANDREW WILKS, The Mail on Sunday

Cherie Blair has been investigated by police over allegations that she cuffed a cheeky teenager.

Detectives were called in by a child protection unit after claims the Prime Minister's wife - who also sits as a Crown Court judge - aimed a slap at 17-year-old Miles Gandolfi, who was competing in a national school sports event she was visiting.

Comment: Cherie Booth QC... hoisted by her own legal petard

The teenager was being pictured with Mrs Blair and attempted to make a "rabbit-ears" gesture behind her head.

Mrs Blair light-heartedly remonstrated - and her hand appeared to connect with Miles's back. He was not hurt and both he and witnesses regarded the swipe as obviously playful.

They carried on with the School Games, but when officials from the Child Protection in Sport Unit who were at the event heard of the incident, they complained to police.

Six plainclothes detectives were despatched to the event in Glasgow. Miles, one of Britain's foremost young fencing stars, was interviewed by child welfare workers and then by two of the detectives.

Keith Smith, president of the British Fencing Association, was also asked to give a statement to police.

Ironically, the Child Protection in Sport officials were attending the event at the Scotstoun Leisure Centre in Glasgow only because of rules laid down five years ago by the Labour Government.

Human rights

Last night Miles's mother Catherine told The Mail on Sunday that Mrs Blair had been a victim of "bizarre", political correctness. She said: "It's totally been dealt with as far as we're concerned and the matter is closed.

"Miles made a statement to the police in Glasgow. I have absolutely no idea why it all blew up. It just seems totally bizarre. We couldn't believe it when the police got involved.

"I don't know who complained. I don't think the police really wanted to be there, but if someone makes a complaint they have to investigate it. It was just a pat on the back."

The incident is sure to focus fresh attention on human rights legislation ushered in by Tony Blair's Government.

A growing number of teachers and child-care workers have found themselves under police investigation after being accused of apparently trivial "crimes", and it is an irony that Mrs Blair joined them - especially as she is a leading QC specialising in human rights law.


Miles, from Orpington, Kent, who was captaining the England under-17 epee fencing team, had asked to be pictured with Mrs Blair when she attended the games last Saturday. She agreed - only to find that the youngster put his arm around her and raised two "rabbit-ears" fingers behind her head.

Mrs Blair caught his hand movement out of the corner of her eye and appeared to try to slap him while saying: "Cheeky boy."

Mrs Gandolfi confirmed that Miles, who has been fencing since the age of seven, had been "larking about" and later apologised to Mrs Blair.


"It wasn't an assault or anything like that. It was just a bit of fun on his part - it was all very light-hearted. She's had teenage boys so she knows what they're like. It was all very good-natured.

"The children were being cheeky and trying to take this picture but it didn't come off and everyone had a laugh about it. Mrs Blair said, 'It's a good job I've got a sense of humour' to him.

"At the time Miles had just had his picture taken with Kelly Holmes which was very exciting for him. He was on a bit of a high, which is maybe why he was being silly. All I can say about the picture is that it was a failure."

Miles was still competing at the games on the Sunday afternoon when he was approached by one of the coaches and told that police were looking for him.

The youngster initially thought he was being accused of an offence - until he was told that the complaint was actually against Mrs Blair.

Silly gesture

The schoolboy and his father Peter were escorted from the hall to a side room, sat down on plastic chairs and were told to wait.

Moments later two officials from the Child Protection in Sport Unit entered and explained that once a complaint was received, they were required to inform police, adding that there were two detectives waiting outside.

The CID officers were ushered in to see father and son and spent half an hour taking a statement from Miles.

Mrs Gandolfi said later that her son was so "shaken up" that it affected his performance in the competition.

Keith Smith, of the British Fencing Association, who is also a teacher, said yesterday: "I saw the whole thing from beginning to end and saw absolutely nothing wrong in Mrs Blair's behaviour. I was escorting her around and she had just seen a fantastic display by the children in the main hall, alongside the likes of Kelly Holmes and Steve Redgrave.

"She was on her way out of the hall to see one of the outside events when Miles, who had not been one of the competitors assigned to greet her, asked if he could be photographed with her. Mrs Blair gracefully agreed and a friend of Miles's took a number of photos.

"Miles put his arm around Mrs Blair's shoulder and then attempted this rather silly gesture of putting his fingers behind her head and Mrs Blair clocked it straightaway.


"She did this playful cuff towards his head and said something like, 'Cheeky boy.'

"It was to my mind a brilliant way to diffuse an embarrassing episode and ensured that it did not detract from a wonderful event.

"Miles was spoken to about his behaviour and we considered it had been put to bed. Miles and his mother have since told me that they did not complain, but this did not stop there being a full-scale investigation.

"Perhaps the officials felt they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't.

"I saw two Scottish police officers that afternoon. They told me that a complaint had been made about Mrs Blair and said they would be contacting me in due course if things were being taken any further."

Last night at spokesman for the Youth Sport Trust, which organised the event, would say only that all matters concerning child welfare were confidential.

Regulations to establish the Child Protection in Sport Unit were drawn up in 2001. Under the rules, no sporting organisation will receive funding unless they have trained child welfare officers present at an event.


A Downing Street spokesman said: "Strathclyde Police undertook an investigation including taking statements from a number of people who were present.

"Those included the 17-year-old boy involved and Mrs Blair's protection officer, who was with her at all times, who said that nothing occurred between Mrs Blair and the youngster.

"We understand that no further action is planned."

At lunchtime yesterday, police confirmed they had launched an investigation and then appeared to contradict Downing Street by saying that it was still ongoing.

A spokeswoman said: "An incident has been reported to Strathclyde Police by organisers of UK School Games. Strathclyde Police are currently carrying out inquiries into this matter."

She refused to say if there were plans to interview Mrs Blair. However, at 5.30pm police unexpectedly released an "updated" statement in which they said the matter was now closed.

It said: "Following further has now been established that no incident took place. Police inquiries into the matter are now complete."

When asked why their story had changed, the Strathclyde Police spokeswoman said the case had been concluded in the six hours between statements.

And when asked if any political pressure had been applied by Downing Street, the spokeswoman replied that it was not a matter she could comment on.


It was unclear why Mrs Blair had not offered to give a statement, instead leaving it to her Scotland Yard protection officer to act as a witness in her place.

Had Mrs Blair been prosecuted for assault, it could have been punishable by a maximum £2,500 fine and up to five years in jail.

In a statement, the NSPCC, which has close ties with the Child Protection in Sport Unit, said: "At the UK School Games on Saturday, September 9, a matter was brought to the attention of those responsible for the welfare arrangements at the games.

"As is required, the matter was referred to the public authorities and investigated accordingly. No action was taken as a result. The NSPCC itself did not receive a complaint nor did it investigate one."

Yesterday parents of other children taking part in the first ever UK School Games were divided on the controversy involving Mrs Blair.

One, who asked not to be named, said: "Exactly what do the police expect to achieve by this? It is political correctness gone stark raving mad. A case of New Labour turning on its own - poor woman."

But Stephen Mepstead, whose son Marcus was competing in the foil event, said: "What was Mrs Blair doing there in the first place?

"It was about the kids who could be part of the 2012 Olympic Games. It was a sporting event, not a political event. She was marching around with her entourage like she wanted to be noticed.

"Well she was, wasn't she? Just not how she would have liked."

Under the guidelines surrounding the formation of the Child Protection in Sports Unit, any adult who supervises under-18s in a sporting activity must undergo a criminal-record check and attend a three-hour child protection workshop.

But critics say the rules threaten the development of young sporting talent. Last year Roy Case, of the English Golf Union, said many of the guidelines were "excessive and impractical".

This is not Mrs Blair's first brush with the law. In 2000, she was fined £10 for travelling on a train without a ticket. The Thameslink inspector who caught her was sacked but later won a case for unfair dismissal.

Arena Magazine Talks To...Matt O'Connor - June 2006

The Interview 10.03.06

From sex-wars superhero to political pariah - controversial campaigner Matt O'Connor finally breaks his silence. In his first major interview since disbanding his controversial pressure group, Matt O'Connor tells us about his marriage, his mistakes, and why he's not proud of what his organisation achieved.

Words by Mark Alexander. Styling by Rossana Buttrazzi. Spiderman Costume by Angels The Costumers. Photography by Peter Rad. New York-based photographer Peter Rad was responsible for this month's portrait of Fathers 4 Justice founder Matt O'Connor (page 116). His filmic shoots have appeared in Life and The New York Times, as well as the campaign that pushed Channel 4's Shameless.

Fool's justice? O'Connor: caped crusader or misguided egotist? We rummage through his dirty laundry to find out.

If Matt O'Connor's story was turned into a Hollywood script, things would have started the same, but ended very differently. For here is a textbook tale of a little man with a big rage who aimed his fury - in defence of his own children and of loving parents nationwide - right at the cold centre of the Establishment's heart. His armoury included a bunch of ordinary men dressed as superheroes and his enemy was injustice and all of its grey servants: the judges, the government and the Royal Family itself. He was the David that took on Goliath. And lost.

In theory Matt O'Connor should be a national folk hero. The members of his organisation, Fathers 4 Justice (F4J), risked their lives to bring the world's attention to how our legal system is scandalously biased against men, and that tormented dads and their kids are routinely run through its blades - and shredded. And all because of some dismally anachronistic attitudes and assumptions about gender and parenthood.

But, in reality, F4J were heroes only to other broken fathers. To a watching nation they were, at best, an overweight gaggle of irksome berks and, at worst, a gang of dangerously misogynistic radicals who couldn't escape the murky pall of the accusations that wafted over them. They were wife-beaters, racists, drug-takers and thieves, chuntered the rumours. And, so the irresistible logic ran, they were not to be trusted around kids.

O'Connor, now 39, was raised in Kent. His father a Catholic headmaster, and mother, a history and English teacher, were politically minded and closely associated with the Isle of Thanet Labour Party. O'Connor loathed school. Burdened with a stammer he was introverted and, in his words, suffered deeply from a "malevolent unhappiness". Eager to spend as much time away from from Dane Court Grammar as he could, he joined the striking miners.

By 18, O'Connor had started to gain his now-legendary confidence at Canterbury College of Art, where he was later turfed out for spending "more time in the sack than in the classroom". He kept his expulsion hidden from his mother by launching a successful career in marketing, but in 1990, his father died unexpectedly. Then, four years later, her got married and although the partnership lasted only six years, it started a chain of events that would culminate in his organisation being accused of plotting to kidnap the prime minister's son and, ultimately, to a Miramax film deal that may yet turn his tale's unsatisfactory ending into a happy, Hollywood one.

How did you meet your wife?
She agreed to go out with me for a bet. We had very similar personalities. We hit it off.

And what, eventually, went wrong?
I rushed into it. Typical head-first O'Connor type of tactic. The first few years were great, and then we had two kids. I was a diabolical husband. I was working in the City. There was a degree of hellraising and that didn't configure with supporting a partner with young children.

Did you have affairs?
Oh fuck yes.

How many?
Hovering around the Mick Jagger mark.

Presumably that was the basis of the divorce?
Totally. It was a difficult divorce for both of us. I was to blame for the breakdown of the marriage and I think she was responsible for making the divorce worse than it perhaps needed to be.

What access did you get to the boys?
They stuck me in a contact centre to see them. You just feel like, "Hang on, what have I done, apart from being a shit husband?" I was literally criminalised and treated like a pariah. And that was baptism of fire, when I started to feel very passionately about the equal parenting movement.

In 2001, the couple agreed an out-of-court settlement that would give O'Connor access to his children. But it wasn't just his marriage that had fallen apart. Matt's partner in the marketing company he'd founded had died and, as a result, the company was failing. He was living in a camper van, planning to invest what remained of his cash into a restaurant project. It was in this low state that, in autumn 2002, he founded Fathers 4 Justice.

How did you make the leap from disillusioned divorcee to political activist?
I watched a Granada Tonight TV programme in 2002. I saw Bob Geldof talking about the family courts. I had nearly lost my children so I thought if I don't do this restaurant, I'll set up a campaign. We didn't have enough covers, so I decided to do F4J. My accountant thought I was bonkers.

It seems like quite a sideways leap.
Well, I'd had a hell of a couple of years going through court system. And the whole time, underneath the surface, I was seething with anger. Until you've been through the court system, nothing can prepare you for how much you'll get shafted. The last time I was in court I had a stand-up row with the judge and said to him, "I'll put you out of a fucking job." It's an anger that's still burning in me today.

What was the worst case of injustice you heard?
A boy wanted to live with his father but the judge wouldn't have it, so he sent a tipstaff (court official) to the house, but the boy refused to come out of his bedroom. The tipstaff spent two hours smashing down his door to remove this child who was absolutely traumatised. They forced him to live with his mum but he ran away and wound up in a home. Eventually, about a year later, he was reunited with his father. Those sort of things are bordering on evil.

What exactly is it about the present legal position that you think is unfair?
You have no right to see your children. What you have is a right, if you are separated, to apply to see your children. Then you go into a court system that is completely secret, where judges operate with unfettered discretion. The government proclaims to be acting in the child's best interest, which is the most wicked deceit. I think politicians are scum. Solicitors and barristers are the fungus beneath the scum.

In societal terms, what do you think are the differences between the way people view mothers and fathers?
There is a presumption that mums are Madonnas and dads are demonised. I find it astonishing that so many people and groups say kids are better off with Mum. Hang on a minute, Mum might go out and bring back the next Ian Huntley, the next Ian Brady. No one bats an eyelid about who Mum brings home, yet Dad, the biological father, is forced to leap through burning hoops. Utter madness.

How much did you invest in F4J?
At the beginning I put in £50,000.

There seemed to be a lull before you actually hit the headlines. What happened?
When you are building something up from scratch, it takes time to build momentum. The first thing we did that led to arrests was (in February 2003) painting a CAFCASS (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service) office door in Ipswich. We had to wait 20 minutes for the police to turn up. I was fucking freezing. I had to ring them about three times. I even stuck my hand in the paint so I could get caught purple-handed.

Why were you so desperate to get arrested?
I wanted to demonstrate to the others that you could get arrested and survive. I wanted to get people into law-breaking, to overcome the fear factor that societies use. The fear of being arrested, going on trial and spending time in jail. If you don't have that fear then what is to stop you?

My strategy was civil disobedience and rattling the cages of the three major British institutions: the government, the Church of England and the constitutional thing - the Queen. I was trying to create something where we'd be iconic, and that's where I came up with the superheroes idea; this kind of Pythonesque, absurd notion of middle-aged men dressed in tights. We weren't supposed to take ourselves seriously.

Wasn't there a danger people would assume you were all mental and therefore unfit to raise kids?
Yeah, but we had fuck-all money. We couldn't afford to run a nice touchy-feely advertising campaign. All we had was a ladder and a van.

What was the high point for you?
The powder bombing (of Tony Blair) in Parliament. We used condoms for the bombs because children sometimes are the result of split condoms. We had the idea of filling them with purple powder. The guys would tie it underneath their belts and have it hanging down where their bollocks are. Basically, they'd look like they had oversized bollocks. There's no way a security guard at the Houses of Parliament was going to give them a squeeze. I was listening to Simon Mayo on Fine Live's Prime Minister's Questions. I'd given it no chance of success really. I think it was about 12.19pm when Simon said, "Something's being thrown at the chamber of the House of Commons. It's purple powder." I was hugging and kissing the bloke in the car beside me so much I nearly bashed the Mini in a bloody cornfield.

After high-profile demonstrations on the London Eye, Buckingham Palace, Tower Bridge and the Foreign Office, Fathers 4 Justice was beginning to see unstoppable. But with the success came ruptures within the organisation, resulting in a purge in June 2005 and investigation by ITV1's Tonight programme. Rumours and accusations at the time included O'Connor making enormous profits, of him sleeping with several female activists and of various members being wife-beating, drug takers and racists.

Did F4J membership reach 12,000?

How many paid the £30 membership fee?
I don't know, but it wasn't 12,000.

What sort of proportion was it?
I don't know, 50-60 per cent at least.

There were accusations over how the subscription fees were used...
I'm not going into that. All I'll say is that we were running a campaign with banners going out and expensive legal actions. We ran it as a not for profit company and people can see income and expenditure at Companies House, simple as that.

Did you refuse many ill-advised schemes?
Yeah, lots of things. I personally refused to sanction the door-stepping of the mothers who denied fathers access to their children. I constantly, constantly, constantly fought a battle on that front.

Things started to go wrong last year. What was your life like at the time?
My life was fucking hell, it was purgatory, It was my penance for being a shit father and a shit husband. I hated my life last year, I absolutely detested it. Unlike Amnesty International or Greenpeace, with F4J you were working with damaged goods, people on the edge who couldn't see straight and were generally wacking the guy beside them. It was fun for the first year, and it turned into a Frankenstein fathers thing.

There were rumours that you were sleeping with members of F4J. Were you?
Fuck no. the only woman I met in F4J was my girlfriend, who I now have a baby boy with.

There were also reports about fathers being violent towards their wives...
We tried to tighten up the rules, but we couldn't afford to go to the Criminal Records Bureau and shell out a tenner a time to get people checked and vetted. I made numerous mistakes; it should never have been a big organisation. I should've kept it tight, almost like a small agency. Anybody associated with it was an opportunity for the media to pick on that guy's character and smear the entire organisation. That was a fundamental design flaw.

How did you feel about working with fathers like that?
If the guy had done the crime and done the time, was a loving father and there were no issues between him and his ex-wife, then who's to say that he could never see his kids again? We rooted out as many people as we could, but it was an issue.

Did some fathers see F4J simply as an outlet for their anger?
There was a lot of damaged pride and egos. The question is, were they like that before they went into the family law system? When you're not going through a living bereavement of not seeing your kids it fucks you up. The problem is nobody gives a shit about fathers. And the worst thing is, other dads haven't realised that it could happen to them.

What was the biggest problem internally?
A lot of people became adrenalin addicts. They got hooked on dressing up like superheroes. But after Batman at Buckingham Palace, the campaign had reached its sell-by date. There was a danger of us becoming a public irritant. But we had all sorts of problems at the end of 2004, and I take responsibility for not acting decisively.

Problems like...
People were stealing money at local level. New members were joining and people were pocketing the cash for membership fees. We made it internet based when we found out. At that time a substantial amount of infiltration happened from the police, probably Special Branch.

What evidence do you have of this?
All I can say is that we had members in Scotland Yard and I got fed information.

When did you realise F4J was out of control?
There was a problem in November 2004 at a co-ordinators conference and it should have been dealt with in a certain way and it wasn't. I don't want to go into specifics, but it should have been dealt with very, very harshly.

What was that?
I'm not going into the ins and outs of it. There were issues and we didn't act. I actually regret that because I think we could have sorted out a lot of problems there and then.

Was your leadership being questioned?
My leadership was questioned from day one.

Hero or zero? O'Connor, never one for armchair politics, has launched a new pressure group called Agents for Change.

On January 18 2006, O'Connor announced that Fathers 4 Justice was to disband. Earlier that day, the press had reported that his organisation planned to kidnap Tony Blair's five-year-old son Leo. O'Connor denied any knowledge of the plot.

What's your theory about the kidnap plot?
It's a beautiful example of the Labour spin machine. There was absolutely no way that story could have appeared without Tony or Cherie Blair's approval. When it came to bringing down F4J it seems they were happy to use their little five-year old boy on the front page of The Sun.

Did the plot against Leo Blair exist, tough?
I would imagine there was a conversation. Somebody from Special Branch would have recorded it and someone would have leaked it to The Sun. The paper would have gone to the Downing Street press spokesman. The story would have gone to the Blairs, and they would have said yae or nae.

Why do you think the Blairs gave it the go ahead?
Put it this way, if it was my child and I was in Tony Blair's position, I wouldn't want the fucking story appearing because I wouldn't want to give anybody ideas. So one has to question why it was done. All I can say is that it was a beautiful piece of PR work. What better story to finish off F4J than to say to these fathers, who are supposed to care about their kids, were going to kidnap a five-year-old boy? How evil, how dastardly. We probably had more publicity out of that than anything else we'd ever done. I thought, this has reached the end of its natural life. We need to move on to the next stage, raise the level of debate. It was important for us to go out in a blaze of glory rather than on a damp squib.

So that was your blaze?
It was a fucking blaze alright. The day the Leo Blair thing broke, I'd had a gutful. I had done Channel 4 News at Winchester Cathedral and had my six-week-old baby in the pram with two mobiles going. This woman lurched towards me and grabbed me by the hand. She was from Sky News. I was fatigued, I'd expired. I had nothing left to give. I'd been up for 48 hours and I thought, I'm not getting into a slagging match with a journalist, I'm out of here. I walked back up the street and I just told my girlfriend to keep walking. I said "Fuck off, leave me alone, the party's over."

Do you know who was behind the plot?
You hear names. I wasn't there so I don't know and I'm not prepared to speculate.

What, ultimately, did you get out of F4J?
I learned a lot and met some amazing people. I don't think I was necessarily the right person for it. I wasn't mentally strong enough and perhaps not the most sensible person. But equally, if I'd been a sensible person I wouldn't have started it in the first place.

You said you regretted starting the campaign, do you still feel that way?
I don't think I can be proud of anything, not until we actually achieve something tangible.

Where do you go from here?
I'm going to carry on quietly campaigning for equal parenting and I'm off down the political path.

What will you be campaigning for?
Agents for Change (O'Connor's latest pressure group) will have a series if campaign capsules under a broad libertarian agenda. If anybody thinks I'll be packing up and going home, they can forget it. It if all goes to plan, this will make F4J look like the Boys Brigade. It will be the same kind of irreverent, mocking, subversive antics, but a more grown-up version.

And there's the film...
We've got a really good British team who did Calendar girls. I hope it'll be gritty. I don't want it to be some spit-and-polished airbrush thing. It's important that people understand we were deeply flawed as individuals but those flaws didn't prevent us from being great dads.

You seem more excited about the campaigning, though.
I'm chomping, but I'm under orders from the women in my life not to do anything quickly. I'm going to take time out and spend more time with my boys.
Main / Female UK MP Promotes Groin Kicking
Jun 01, 2006, 06:00 PM
On the BBC's programme 'question time' tonight 1st june (here in the UK) a political platform comprising of a selective panel of assorted politicians and a token celebrity personality - who engage in a number of topical pertinent current issues posed by a probing studio audience.

In the panel, a well known (feminist) female labour MP Diane Abbott when discussing John Prescott (deputy prime minister) and reffering to his recent well publicized affair with his secretary. Ms Abbott pompously quipped with much abandon "Mr Prescott should have been kicked in the groin."

I watched disbelievingly how, not only she said that so nonchalantly in such an openly public forum. But furthermore no one opposed such a blatantly misandric statement. In fact the slight intial void was filled with titters of laughter and the undeniably familiar emasculated strained and somewhat contorted falsified half-smiles.

I've stated before and I will do again. There is no greater expression of hatred or contempt for the opposite sex, than to openly laugh/joke or actually undertake in acts of sexual assault or mutilation of the opposite gender.

Another interesting point to add regarding mr Prescott, "the Blair babes" (predominantly feminists drawn from undemocratic short-lists) have relentlessly attacked mr Prescott an unflinching obdient servant to the gynocentric agenda of these ideological lunatics.

They claimed he was 'detrimental' to the female voters. Yet this selective morality was never applied to various female MP's who engaged in extra-martial affairs previous to this scandal. No call's for their resignations because it was detrimental to male voters.

Sounds almost ludicrous - just the mere suggestion. Yet we as men allow this hypocritical contradiction (amongst a myriad of many) to seep into our unconsciousness and formulate our own slavery!

It's so ironic how these female labour feminists are so 'consumed' with their misandric driven ideology, they can't resist even attacking their own deputy prime minister without seeing the bigger picture.

As for Diane Abbot MP, write an e-mail to her, the labour party, the BBC and all the relevant complaint depts - as to her condoning and inciting sexual violence against men. The woman is a complete sexist female chauvinist female supremacist pig of the highest order!!! Let her know that.
Over the past decade or more, the men's movement has been an ever fluctuating, ever evolving organism seeking a stable beachead to launch a vibrant ongoing campaign to instill awareness in the general public (most importantly) the gross gender disparity that exists. This for the most has been partially successful with inroads by Fathers for Justice, dispelled (in part) recently by nefarious collusionary elements of goverment, the media - in particular the Sun newspaper and special branch.

Historically with any movement the general populace ultimately decide on the fall or rise of any organised struggle, like it or not. For any one that has studied history, Greek and Roman politicians for instance surreptitiously sought to by fair means or foul engage the gullible masses with carefully orchestrated acts of political sabotage and indoctrinating their citizens with propaganda.

More than a thousand years on nothing has changed, merely the more efficient means of delivering the lies and sadly a ready unquestioning population who assimilate whatever their fed! A sad enditement unfortunately, yet the truth abounds in the inability in people to question anything. To break beyond the restrictive confinements that self-serving goverment imposes on us all from birth.

And for those of us that do not capitulate and surrender to the status quo, habitually riding the hamster wheel of ignorance - our lives are by definition innately more of a struggle by not pandering to the feminist and politically correctoid infested society.

We if you like have broken out of the "fematrix." Let me quote this as an example of my point.


I can see it in your eyes. You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees, because he is expecting to wake up.

Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know, you can't explain. But you feel it. You've felt it your entire life. That there's something _wrong_ with the world.

You don't know what it is, but it's a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to us. Do you _know_ what I'm talking about?

The FeMatrix is everywhere. It's all around us, even in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you pay your taxes.

The FeMatrix is the world that has been pulled over your eyes, to blind you from the truth.

The truth is that you are a slave. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison...for your mind....Unfortunately, no one can be..._told_ what the FeMatrix have to see it for yourself.


What is my point you might ask? Well firstly even though F4J is in a reorganization period (not disbanded) we have learned how feminist lackey sympathizer Tony Blair and various insidious elements conspired to bring about the demise of a ever growing powerful element of the mens movement, which it seems the powers that be felt they were gathering too much power - and had to be cut down to size.

This is a temporary setback, but most importantly it shows firstly that too much power should not be accrued to any individual within the movement. This leaves us vulnerable and susceptible to strategic attacks by govermental chess masters of the political game.

As I alluded to in a previous post I see a more succesful mens infrastructure being - If any Mens movement has a rigid inflexible infrastructure it will fail. It has to be organised like "cells" so that if one cell dies - so to speak it doesn't effect the whole overwhelmingly. These cells would hail from regional areas with autonomy from a central control.

MRAs must continue to adapt to the fight or capitulate and ultimately die a death.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Official Statement From Alleged Blair Kidnap Plotter
I, Martin Matthews, would like to make a few things clear about the Sun newspaper article about kidnapping Leo Blair.

1. At no time did anyone ever suggest anything of the sort.

2. The following people were present, Artur - a 58-year-old father who is 'T -Total,' Dyian, A photography teacher who also did not drink as he later went to work, Gary, Jolly, Graham, Eddie, and two women.

3. After speaking with the Daily Mail, Sun and Daily Mirror, I feel it necessary to point the following:-

On the 18th of December 2005, I was feeling unwell and only had two glasses of Coke in the pub. I do not have the slightest idea from where these roomers of a kidnapping came from. I have noted in the tabloids that Jolly Sainsbury and Graham Manson are quoted as saying, that I may have suggested this as a joke. However, after speaking with Jolly and Graham it must be made clear that they have been miss-quoted.

4. I found yesterday exhausting, as I had made it clear to the tabloids exactly what the position was. However, I find that in today's papers have reported that a conversation had taken place with fact or evidence to support this.

5. Late last night and early this morning I was approached by a 3rd party offering me £10,000 from the Sun Newspaper to lie and admit that the kidnapping plot was a Matt O'Conner idea and that he had asked me to look into it for the group.

6. I would like to thank Matt O'Conner for everything he has done for us and suggest that he should be included in the next honours list.

7. I did meet with Police Officers in Epsom on the 27th of December 2005. However, I find it particularly strange that if I did in fact suggest or take part in any kidnap plot on the 18th last, the police have not ever questioned me about this. In fact when I telephoned the Police Officer who spoke to me on the 27th last, about the Sun Newspaper article, and asked him directly who was involved he could not give me any information.

8. I am of the opinion that the entire saga is a complete fabrication by someone in power and ask most loudly that proof or evidence should be made available for public scrutiny.

9. As I am not a politician and have no experience with such matters all I can say is the only Party to benefit from this saga would be the Labour Party, by taking the heat of Ruth Kelly and off the front page of the newspapers.

Martin Matthews


It was only a few months ago sun editor Rebekah Wade, was arrested for assaulting her actor husband Ross Kemp. Once again the fervent feminist is embroiled in yet another headline story of her own making, whereby it seems as editor the likely paper-trail will lead back to her - hopefully.

Ms Wade should have lost her position as editor of the sun when she attacked her husband, instead of receiving a rapturous standing ovation when she returned to the sun office. Mr O'Connor at this stage must press the authorities to engage in a official investigation into the activities of the sun newspaper, to which it seem's a myriad of crimes have been commited.

Also Matt O'Connor does not have the sole power to disband F4J. He has access to his children now and has made a worthy contribution to F4J. However, just because by his own admission he is tired and fed up, does not change the pain and suffering of thousands of fathers seperated from their children.

The title "fathers for justice" is ubiquitous and no one person can claim sole ownership of it. For me I believe any man separated from his child/ren automatically entitles you to it. The name has been adopted by a growing number of countries, who haven't engaged in a business franchise transaction with F4J UK to secure use of the name - is proof in point. Like any good "uprising" having a sole central command is not good sound strategy.

The movement will continue unabated with great gusto, of that I can assure you!

Below is an extract regarding Ms Wade and her true feelings about men in general.

Christina Odone in the Observer ...
Rebekah's rough side ...

I did, however, get a hint that appearances were deceptive a few days later when I was in a car on my way to a TV studio. The driver told me he often ferried Wade and some friends on regular, women-only nights out on the town. What had shocked the man behind the wheel was the barrage of four-letter words and anti-men jokes that reached him from the back seat. He couldn't understand the male-bashing; these were good-looking, high-earning women who had men at their feet. In Wade's case, it would seem, this is precisely how she likes them.
I shall be attending a F4J demo with much trepidation as the stakes for doing so becomes increasingly higher. As a F4J member I have found the state's reaction akin to me being a terrorist.

Monitoring my phone and taking away my rubbish replaced with exact numbers of bin-bags, so as not too raise awareness of their nefarious actions. This personally witnessed three times and filmed twice.

It has been made known by the powers that be, that there is a shoot to kill policy regarding infringements by "peoples" unidentified in areas of security. This in essence is excusatory despotism by big goverment regarding anyone who questions the status quo.

That said I don't react well to threat's suttle or otherwise. And has only made me more determined to be present and lend my support and ensure the voice of the father is heard. Also like the bedlam demo I shall endeavour to post the photos.

Yep its time to dust down those Santa suits, ready those beards and get
ready for our third annual Christmas demo 'D-ADVENT'.







Those nice men at the Met have been a bit twitchy recently ever since Guy
'Fawkes' Harrison scaled the Palace of Westminster but loads else has been
going on. We believe we are under the closest ever surveillance which means
that somebody somewhere has to be worried which can only be a good thing.

*The Conservatives tried getting a legal presumption to contact in the House
of Lords but were not supported by the Lib Dems. The Child Contact bill gets
its next reading in the Commons.

*Matt did a stint on the Jeremy Vine show about the CSA last week and also
gave a lecture to students in Southampton University about the Fathers 4
Justice movement. He'll also be speaking soon at Exeter University.

*Obviously the CSA is in perpetual meltdown. Lets help them out by finishing
it off on 9th December.

*The Granada hatchet seems to have done a little damage, but a lot less than
could have been expected. Most people seemed to read between the lines and
the programme only got around 2.35 million viewers on the Friday which meant
that at least 6 million switched over after Corry Street.

*For a full update on all developments visit our updated web site and we
look forward to seeing you on 9th December fighting for your right to see
your kids.

Main / My e-mail Read on Sky News Here in UK
Nov 30, 2005, 05:09 AM
I sent in a short e-mail regarding the "pension crisis" here in the UK this morning to Sky news (the premier satellite channel here in the UK and viewed worldwide) A panel of four people, three women and one man chewed over the questions posed by the e-mails.

This is the e-mail I sent and was suprised it was read out.

The solution to the "pension crisis" is quite clear. Raise the retirement age for women from 60 to 65 the same as men, true equality right? At present men live 7.5 years less than women, yet have to work 5 years longer.

This entitles women to 12.5 years longer access to state benefits and pensions. Are men expected to further subsidise womens life expectancy at the detriment of their own, by raising the retirement age to 67.

( This is where they edited out the remainder) This state mandated inequality and indentured slavery born of a chivalrous era, has to be brought kicking and screaming into the 21st century and gender parity restored.


The main female pensions expert looked astonished and bleated "ok, oh dear I can understand this guy seems to be rather angry. (ah, the he's angry tactic - lame) But effectively we've already done that you know, from 2010 the womens state pension age is going up to 65 and by 2020 it will be the same as for men."

Then she proceeds to tell a blatantly horrendous lie as she red-faced and stuttering proclaims " And the life expectancy has changed, women only live about 2 or 3 years longer than men now." The female news presenter quips in response "thats depressed me even more now." Next scene cuts to the news.

Thirty minutes later, the pensions minister live from westminster discussing the pension review - confirms the 7 year disparity in life expectancy between males and females. As to 2010 being the year when parity is restored regarding equal retirement age, apparently this date is not set in stone and by all accounts will change.

Ah yes activism, it takes all forms and yes it doesn't necessarily have to entail clambering up tall buildings dressed as a super-hero. All kinds of activism and "spreading the word" has a collective effect.
Main / North American MRAs are Impotent
Nov 15, 2005, 10:30 PM
You know what I'm sick of? This perpetual sanctimonious illusion that somehow all the bravado expressed here amounts to something. Most of you guys seem to be locked into a falsehood that somehow your individual rantings will change the male reality - wrong!

Most of you talk and do nothing else. Sorry I do like you guys, however this must not stifle a truthful logical evaluation of your inability to even begin to effect change. We Brit's cannot do it all. However eventually if you cannot commence various aspects of civil disobedience, then the Brits and F4J will show you the way regardless of personal cost!

Ultimately talk is cheap and "real" activism is king. There are some incredibly intelligent men and women who inhabit this space. However subscribing to jostling for a "insular" space whereby everybody reinforces and confirms your actions regardless is an utopian short-term measure within a narcissistic ego-fueled bubble.

Whats my point, haven't you figured it! More "ACTIVISM" and less talk. Organise together and make things happen. There's enough intelligence here to send man to the far reaches of the universe, yet you guy's stumble on the most basic aspects and elements regarding making your righteous voice heard. Time to  break out of the frightened submissive subservient "assumed and learned" role and retain your BALL'S as Men.
On monday November 7th ITV (a UK tv channel) aired a one-sided "hatchet job" on F4J and it's members. Like so much of the media here in the UK - ITV is heavily influenced (or is that infested) by feminist dogma, and the amateurish one-sided reporting reflects this.

Not to dissimilar to the insidious tactics of the makers of the PBS film in the US, ITV tried to tar all F4J members seeking custody as being violent and abusive with little concern for their children. Part two of this wholly inaccurate propaganda piece airs on friday 11th November 8.00pm, where ITV seeks to alienate not only fathers from their children but also the public support it has gained. This obviously is a great threat to the powers that be.

Below is a list of pertinent and important points regarding the programme in question.


You can vote at <>
from 8.30pm 7th November 2005.

The results will be published on Monday 14th November 2005.  

1.     F4J will be making a formal complaint to ITV and to the broadcasting
complaints commission Ofcom about the programme, its accuracy, balance and
impartiality as soon as it is broadcast.

2.     F4J will be asking the Police to investigate an assault filmed by ITV
involving an individual with mental health problems, and their involvement
in it.

3.     ITV has repeatedly refused to allow F4J an opportunity to view the
material in advance of broadcast despite making preview tapes available to
the media.

4.     This has severely impeded our investigation and our ability to
respond to the allegations.

5.     F4J will update this statement once the programme has been broadcast.

6.     ITV repeatedly denied F4J an opportunity a right to reply to the
allegations in either a live interview or pre recorded interview broadcast
Œas liveı on the network.

7.     F4J operates strict Terms & Conditions of membership which can be
viewed under our joining page at
<>  Under the heading ŒOffensive Behaviourı
it clearly states ³The use of an threatening or intimidating behaviour
against individuals is strictly forbidden as is the use of bad language,
personal attacks, sexist, racist or offensive behaviour that could bring F4J
into disrepute.²

8.     We treat any allegations extremely seriously, however of the EIGHT
individuals ITV say are subject to allegations after a 14 month undercover
investigation, just TWO are members to F4J, an organisation of 12,000
mothers, fathers and grandparents. F4J can categorically state:

·      THREE had previously been expelled for breaching our Terms &
Conditions of membership.

·      ONE was expelled as a result of the information supplied by ITV.

·      ONE person had never been a member.

·      ONE personıs membership had lapsed.

·      TWO people featured are members.

9.     In June 2005 F4J expelled 30 militant infiltrators. We understand
that in the programme ITV fail to differentiate between Fathers 4 Justice
and a number of militant copycat splinter groups who we have no control over
and who have pirated our name and intellectual property. This is well
documented and was recently highlighted in the Guardian article of 29th
October 2005.

10.  ITV cancelled planned interviews with individuals and organisations who
had positive comments to make about F4J including the Court Welfare Service,

11. F4J was started in 2002 after the ITV Tonight programme broadcast an
interview with Sir Bob Geldof highlighting the crisis in family law.

12.  Around 10 years ago ITVıs World in Action (which was replaced by the
Tonight programme) ran a similarly unbalanced programme on established help
group Families Need Fathers.

13.  ITV have identified some serious issues. There is a ŒSiberia of the
brokenı - thousands of fathers damaged and distressed after being denied
access to their children, who are fuelled by years of anger and resentment
and who feel damaged, disaffected, disenfranchised and marginalised by the
family courts.

14.  Most of these fathers have spent thousands securing legally binding
Court Orders to see their children which are never enforced. The frustration
at the injustice of this and being denied access to their children can
manifest itself in many negative ways. F4J works to channel this negative
anger into a positive force for change.

15.  Many of these fathers have lost their children and their homes. Many
are forced into living in bed-sits, into poverty and onto benefits.

16.  No government help exists for these fathers despite millions being
poured into various Womenıs help groups. F4J is the only lifeline for these

17.  F4J works with the Police when there is a serious threat to either
people or property. In early November F4J worked with the Police about
threats to firebomb the offices of the Court Welfare Service, Cafcass. In
the run up to the General Election, F4J passed information onto the Police
about a man denied access to his children who had threatened to commit
suicide in front of the Prime Minister.

18.  F4J is committed to a campaign of non-violent direct action, civil
disobedience and disruption. For security reasons F4J does not comment on
operational activities but often deploys theatricality, deception and
distraction to confuse the authorities and identify undercover police and
reporters. For example, last Christmas it was reported that the group were
to dump two tonnes of jam on the M25. This was a false piece of information
designed to inconvenience the authorities and identify infiltrators.

19.  Contact denial is the abuse of a childıs right to enjoy a meaningful
loving relationship with both parents. F4J believes that contact denial is
detrimental to the emotional well-being and development of children and
should be made socially unacceptable.

20.  F4J is committed to shaping the future of family law. Our vision is
outlined in our Blueprint for Family Law in the 21st Century which is
available from <>

21.  Next year F4J will launch the Fathers 4 Justice Foundation, a charity
to help young offenders from fatherless families.

22.  F4J are campaigning for a 3 point reform of family law including 1) A
presumption to contact. 2) A presumption of shared parenting. 3) Mandatory

23.  F4J wants a serious debate about the crisis in family law and the
damaging impact this is having on children, fathers and mothers.

24.  Are Fathers 4 Justice Heroes or Villains? You decide at
Hi guys, I attended the bedlam demo on fri 21st October and have about 160 high quality pictures taken (100mb). If anyone is interested PM/e-mail me and I'll be happy to send them to you.

For those that have slower downloads I'll compile a collection of the best pics - say 40 pics (25 mb) or 20pics (12.5mb).

The day was a complete success, there were hundreds of F4J members and grandfathers, grandmothers, wives, girlfriends, aunties, uncles etc. We set off from green park midday through piccadilly circus, shaftesbury avenue, haymarket, trafalgar square, along the strand and onto the law courts to demonstrate further where the security was the tightest.

The response we got from the public and onlookers on route was unanimously positive and they lined the route taking pictures with their camera phones and tourist's with their always ready cameras. There was a lot of banter and humour between F4J members and the police, which helps ensure they don't see us as the enemy. I feel on a high today after a good nights sleep and ready to recommence battle.  :lol:
Main / Are you empathetic towards other men
Oct 19, 2005, 09:32 PM
Are you empathetic towards other men

I feel my empathy towards my fellow male has been something that has been suppressed and scorn poured upon since a child, with contrary views further demeaned by self-serving gynocentric accusations of homosexuality and misogyny in order to realign the males stupidity via classic "shame and guilt tactics".

Machismo is a selective trait which women decide upon it's merits and interpretation dependant on it's beneficial outcomes. Expressing masculine tendancies is natural, however when this "expression" excludes Men's empathy for one another it becomes a tool for -- divide and conquer -- for manipulative females.

History has proved this assertion and I claim that this destructive function in women is innate and cannot solely be laid at the feet of a modern concept of inherent selfishness. Maybe as much a evolutionary survival instinct to engineer male vs male, which ultimately ensures men are focused like dogs fighting over a bone.

Without the necessary insight to realise this is folly - introspection isn't first on the average male's priorities or awareness. So rather than extend our hand of recognition regarding another man's suffering and pain, we revert to form and make comedy of it. That's ok to a degree but discounting all the pain's of our fellow Male's merely seeks to reinforce the perception that we are unfeeling and incapable of empathy.
Is empathy gender specific and is it innate?

Many events throughout my life have reinforced my view that women are only empathetic towards other women, nothing or no one can assuage me from this view after what I have witnessed and endured in my lifes somewhat tedious journey as a Male running the gauntlet of feminism.

As Men our first tentative steps are for the most under the assumed unquestioned "safe" guidance of our mothers as children who without any kind of stewardship or egalitarian filter have taught - or is it indoctrinate their sons? learned self-serving perceptions which have soley benefited generations of women who have passed on this chauvinistic assumption that Women are more valued than Men.

Empathy is often marketed pompously by feminists and in turn women who parrot how women are much more capable of empathy then men. However when the evidence is evaluated devoid of politics and personal agendas, undoubtedly we see that Men not only do not receive empathy from Women regardless of the situation they receive contempt and derision.

I uphold my view that women raise their sons consciously or subconsciously to be slaves and servants to women, mothers always fanatically indoctrinate their sons how girls are "sugar and spice an all things nice" and you shouldn't hit girls also if you are hit by a girl BE A MAN and suck it up you big baby/whiner. This selfish sexist and chauvinistic mentality only but serves to ensure (in part) that empathy remains gender specific.

Girls are not taught that perpetrating violence against boys is wrong, this validates societal perceptions that whatever despicable crimes women commit including killing children it still evokes empathy from many women and men without even factoring in the feminists and manginas.

Empathy has reached such insane proportions that child protective agencies worldwide are more interested in protecting the physically abusive and murdering mother - than the child/ren they have abused or murdered such is the influence of the gynocentric feminism and the viewers of oprah and its insidious ilk ensure this one-sided notion of empathy prevails seemingly unabated.
Main / Redefining Rape
Sep 17, 2005, 07:31 PM
Redefining Rape
By Lucas Spiegel

The way we define a given word, and more specifically, who does the defining, has an enormous impact on how we think about that word and what it represents. It also dictates the nature of our relationship to the thing or concept the word symbolizes. This could not be more true for the word rape.

The legal definition of rape (in Oregon) is sexual intercourse where "forcible compulsion" is involved. This is pretty basic, right? Someone uses force to have sex with someone else; this more or less mirrors most people's definition.

So what's wrong with this definition? First of all, the definition of sex is limited exclusively to "the insertion of the erect penis into the vagina" (Webster). By this definition gay and lesbian sex do not even exist, period. It takes a complex, multi-dimensional, and primarily subjective experience, and reduces it to a two-part mechanistic exchange. Then, if the element of "forcible compulsion" is introduced, it becomes rape.

In contrast, lets look at the definition of sexual assault taught by Sexual Assault Support Services. "Sexual assault happens when one person abuses their power by acting in a sexual way by crossing another person's boundaries without their permission." This fills in a lot of the gaps left by the legal definition. Rape happens when there is a power imbalance. Rape happens when boundaries are crossed. And rape happens without consent. This is not to say that these are the only criteria, only that they fill gaps left by the legal definition.

So if rape is essentially coercive sex, then we need to examine the extent to which sex is a subjective experience. Contrary to Webster, sex is not limited exclusively to penile/vaginal penetration, or to any kind of penetration for that matter. Some folks have a hard time with this idea, and think that the word sex would be demeaned if it was not reserved to describe acts of sexual penetration. Ask any lesbian if she is incapable of having "sex" without a substitute phallus. This should make it clear how hetero-centric and patriarchal the "penetration definition" is. And if you still insist that sex isn't sex without penetration, then you are just proving that different people have different definitions of what level of intimacy and/or physical acts constitute what is called "sex". The point is not even to expand the number of situations we describe as sex, per se, but rather to point out that sex can only be defined by the person having the experience.

The idea of boundaries is also a very subjective concept A person gets to determine her or his boundaries, and furthermore, those boundaries can change from person to person, and from minute to minute. And the only way to tell that a person's boundaries have been crossed, is that they feel like they've been crossed.

Consent is much more complex than "yes" or "no". One cannot deny consent if, for instance, there are explicit or implicit threats against her or him. One cannot give meaningful consent if she or he is not fully informed. And consent looses even more meaning when it's given by someone taught from birth to be submissive and to give consent (or at least not deny it) even against her own needs and wants. (Especially when giving consent to someone raised to be domineering, demand what he wants and not take "no" for an answer.)

So, if sex is subjective, and boundaries are subjective, then rape is also subjective. It happens when someone feels violated. The standard definition, not coincidentally, standardized by the same patriarchs who have traditionally considered rape a crime against the man who "owns" the victim, takes this subjective experience, holds it up against mechanistic criteria: penis, vagina, force, resistance, and in the eyes of the law, effectively proves that the victim doesn't feel the way she or he feels.

This means that one cannot prove or disprove that a given experience constitutes rape. Furthermore, this means that when we assert that one must prove they were raped to be believed, it only serves to undermine that person's ability to define her or his own experience, further traumatizes the rape survivor, and promotes the continuation of an unsafe environment where abusers, "innocent until proven guilty," can get away with anything.

So how do these definitions affect the way we deal with rape on a societal level? To put this into perspective, consider these statistics which concern our rape culture (from I Never Called It Rape: The Ms. Report).

1 in 4 women surveyed were victims of rape or attempted rape
84% of those raped knew their attacker
Only 27% of women whose sexual assault met the legal definition of rape thought of themselves as rape victims
2,971 college men reported that they had committed 187 rapes, 157 attempted rapes, 327 episodes of sexual coercion, 854 incidents of unwanted contact.
84 % of the men who committed rape said that what they did was definitely not rape.
41 % of the raped women said they expect to be raped again.

About 16% of rapes are reported. Of those, about 62% lead to an arrest.
98% of the victims of rape never see their attacker caught, tried, or imprisoned.
Over half of all rape trials are either dismissed before trial or result in an acquittal.
The very least that we can do is believe wimmin (and men, and children) when they say they've been raped. No, we don't need to know "what happened", and no we don't need to know what the rapist thought he (or she) was doing. We don't need to prove or disprove anything. If someone feels violated, they were violated!

One of the main concerns raised over these ideas was that automatically believing people who say they were raped is too dangerous, because they might be lying. It was even said that the security of the community (from infiltrators/saboteurs) would be compromised by always trusting those who allege abuse. (Of course with no mention of the current "security" of those being raped and abused in our community.) This threat, hypothetically, is legitimate, but no more likely (especially considering that currently, we don't believe survivors) than it is that those who oppose our community's ideals could use rape as a method of systematically intimidating, silencing, dividing and destroying us, individually and communally. And you could also say of this scenario, that yes, we are already doing it to ourselves.

If we "automatically" believe people when they say they were raped, one thing can be guaranteed: that no one who goes through the atrocity of being sexually violated will ever be made to endure even further pain, fear, shame or trauma because of an unsupportive, disbelieving community. This was my primary intention behind the first editorial: to say that if someone claims to feel violated, without being made to justify their emotions, they should be given the emotional and physical support they need to cope with their experience.

As a community, we can do so much to support survivors when they've been violated, counteract the effects of our rape culture, and promote a truly safe environment, without even broaching the topic of what to do with or to alleged abusers - so much that we are not doing.

Many people criticize wimmin for using violent or confrontational tactics against abusers (at least if there's no "proof" of the claims). They might consider the "Dead Men Don't Rape" mentality to be misandrist (man-hating), and divisive. But until we all - men and wimmin alike - are working to end sexual violence, we can't pretend that survivors have many other options. It is the responsibility of us all - especially men - to take action to foster a sexual assault-free environment, and when we don't, it is our "fault" that people must resort to violence and confrontation in their own self defense.

I don't claim to have all of the answers (or any of the answers in a definitive sense), but I do have hope for the future. I hope that someday we can deal with abuse and interpersonal violence in ways that address everyone's needs (when possible). At this point, we don't even come close to having the wisdom, the relational and emotional skills, or the infrastructure to deal with these problems in an effective and functional way - especially without dependence on institutional agencies (i.e., police, hospitals, Services for Children and Families, Cahoots, etc.). But before we can even begin to pursue these solutions, we must all be on the same page. This doesn't mean that we all have to agree on everything, and I certainly hope that we don't! It does mean that we have to be willing to give up the power we wield when we assume the authority to define the experiences of others. It means that we are going to have to deconstruct the ways in which we oppress others and have privilege, and give up that power. It means that we are going to have to take responsibility for our (collective and personal) emotional dysfunction, despite the abusive culture which bred said dysfunction, and commit to a path of healing. Only then can we start to build a genuine community based on mutual aid, cooperation and compassion. The longer we take the easy way out of our problems, intellectualizing, depersonalizing, and shirking responsibility, the longer those who have no choice but to deal with violence and abuse (primarily wimmin) will be forced to surrender, or take dangerous, violent measures to insure their continued (and relative) safety.

(Note: I've used "he/she" because anyone can rape or be raped. But FYI, perpetrators are about 95% male and victims are about 90% female.)

One step in the right direction that everyone can take is to go through a free volunteer training provided by Sexual Assault Support Services (SASS). Obviously volunteering for SASS is a great step with which to follow the training, but it also provides tools for support friends, family, and community members who are survivors of sexual abuse/assault. To ask questions, or sign up for the next training call SASS at 484-9791. To learn more about SASS see give them a call, or visit their website at


So what's wrong with this definition? First of all, the definition of sex is limited exclusively to "the insertion of the erect penis into the vagina" (Webster). By this definition gay and lesbian sex do not even exist, period. It takes a complex, multi-dimensional, and primarily subjective experience, and reduces it to a two-part mechanistic exchange. Then, if the element of "forcible compulsion" is introduced, it becomes rape.

All things being - equal - shouldn't the defintion of sex also include "the engulfment of the penis by the vagina." The writer makes reference to the deemed invalidity of gay and lesbian sex because its definition does not include them in Webster! He states "if the element of "forcible compulsion" is introduced, it becomes rape." Again how and who defines forced irrationality.

In contrast, lets look at the definition of sexual assault taught by Sexual Assault Support Services. "Sexual assault happens when one person abuses their power by acting in a sexual way by crossing another person's boundaries without their permission." This fills in a lot of the gaps left by the legal definition. Rape happens when there is a power imbalance. Rape happens when boundaries are crossed. And rape happens without consent. This is not to say that these are the only criteria, only that they fill gaps left by the legal definition.

Isn't that - sexual assault - INDOCTRINATED - by Assault Support Services. They state "Sexual assault happens when one person abuses their power by acting in a sexual way by crossing another person's boundaries without their permission." Who defines the abuse and what is it? If a man and woman are engaged in sexual activity ultimately they (he) acts in a sexual way by virtue of the engagement and how many men or women want to sit down to a table to define mutual consent before engaging in sex (kinda spoils the natural mood).

So if rape is essentially coercive sex, then we need to examine the extent to which sex is a subjective experience.

By this definition that rape is "essentially coercive sex" most men who have sweet talked, complimented and persisted in their pursuits of women are then by definition guilty of rape even though ironically women insist on this "chase" by the man to court their attention.

Ask any lesbian if she is incapable of having "sex" without a substitute phallus. This should make it clear how hetero-centric and patriarchal the "penetration definition" is.

What a ridiculous statement, just as if I had said "Ask any Man if he is incapable of having "sex" without a substitute vagina. This should make it clear how gyno-centric and matriarchal the "engulfment definition" is.

The idea of boundaries is also a very subjective concept A person gets to determine her or his boundaries, and furthermore, those boundaries can change from person to person, and from minute to minute. And the only way to tell that a person's boundaries have been crossed, is that they feel like they've been crossed.

This sounds more like a description of selective schizophrenic subjectivism - scary.

Consent is much more complex than "yes" or "no". One cannot deny consent if, for instance, there are explicit or implicit threats against her or him.

Again, almost anything can be construed as " explicit or implicit threats against her or him." aligned with the ever-present threat of "feeling uncomfortable."

One cannot give meaningful consent if she or he is not fully informed.

Then don't seek to engage with retards or someone who has had a lobotomy, otherwise what constitutes "not fully informed."

And consent looses even more meaning when it's given by someone taught from birth to be submissive and to give consent (or at least not deny it) even against her own needs and wants. (Especially when giving consent to someone raised to be domineering, demand what he wants and not take "no" for an answer.)

Ah "when it's given by someone taught from birth to be submissive and to give consent " read=women (victims again) against her own needs and wants! I think in the whole sphere of dating and sex the societally accepted ethos is that mens percieved role totally panders to HER OWN NEEDS AND WANTS, this is the problem moron - not the opposite!

So, if sex is subjective, and boundaries are subjective, then rape is also subjective. It happens when someone feels violated.

Firstly the definition of rape should not adhere to feminisms ubiquitous subjective ideological definition as to what deems violation, as by feminists own admission - the mere presence of men makes them feel "violated," thereby every Man is guilty by default.

The standard definition, not coincidentally, standardized by the same patriarchs who have traditionally considered rape a crime against the man who "owns" the victim, takes this subjective experience, holds it up against mechanistic criteria: penis, vagina, force, resistance, and in the eyes of the law, effectively proves that the victim doesn't feel the way she or he feels.

Its those evil patriarchs again, although if you look at the main beneficiarys throughout history its always been an unofficial matriarchy under the facade of patriarchy.

This means that one cannot prove or disprove that a given experience constitutes rape. Furthermore, this means that when we assert that one must prove they were raped to be believed, it only serves to undermine that person's ability to define her or his own experience, further traumatizes the rape survivor, and promotes the continuation of an unsafe environment where abusers, "innocent until proven guilty," can get away with anything.

Ok let's let all accusations of rape stand just on the word of the accuser (even though the majority of claims prove to be false) because it might undermine them in some way. Nevermind the negative life-changing effects a false accusation of rape has on a man that is if he hasn't commited suicide. Isn't that -- alleged abusers -- "innocent until proven guilty," however the politically correctoid machinations of todays court system is skewed towards "guilty until proven innocent."

1 in 4 women surveyed were victims of rape or attempted rape.

I have just taken one example of the - from I Never Called It Rape: The Ms. Report - to prove how preposterous and insane such biased non-empirical ideological driven stats are. If we use the 1 in 4 claim and for instance apply that to America as a demographic example, given the US has say 260 million people = 130 million women. Therefore 32.5 million women in America have been victims of rape or attempted according to Ms . Report, how absolutely absurd and fallacious these claims are only a moron or a feminist would believe this propaganda.

The very least that we can do is believe wimmin (and men, and children) when they say they've been raped. No, we don't need to know "what happened", and no we don't need to know what the rapist thought he (or she) was doing. We don't need to prove or disprove anything. If someone feels violated, they were violated!

Why does this mangina keep referring to women as wimmin, he sounds like a converted MRA to feminism or doesn't realise the sarcastic negative connotation's it implies. This guy is so inconsistent he contradicts himself from sentence to sentence, I feel he seeks to impose a omnipresent feminist definition of what is deemed to be rape whilst pandering to his matriarchal masters.

If we "automatically" believe people when they say they were raped, one thing can be guaranteed: that no one who goes through the atrocity of being sexually violated will ever be made to endure even further pain, fear, shame or trauma because of an unsupportive, disbelieving community.

Ah, for the greater good dichotomy - believe all rape allegations because then no genuine rape victim will ever suffer again - BULLSHIT. Firstly rape will continue regardless unabated, most rape allegations are false for a whole myriad of reasons from revenge to financial. The Men who are falsely accused face a life sentence regardless as to whether they are proved innocent and ultimately - mud sticks. However the disinsentive for females to not engage in spiteful vindictive actions hold no legal or moral restrictions to do otherwise, so is it of any suprise this "free reign" has been adopted by women and added to their ever expanding armory.

Many people criticize wimmin for using violent or confrontational tactics against abusers (at least if there's no "proof" of the claims). They might consider the "Dead Men Don't Rape" mentality to be misandrist (man-hating), and divisive.

How about "Dead Women Don't Falsely Accuse Rape."

It is the responsibility of us all - especially men - to take action to foster a sexual assault-free environment, and when we don't, it is our "fault" that people must resort to violence and confrontation in their own self defense.

It's not specifically the responsibility of men to foster "a sexual assault-free environment" this is a shared responsibility aligned with not adhering to definitions laid down by the self-serving machinations of an ideology who seeks to destroy marriage and cause a permanent rift between the sexes. Such a position is unsustainable and only reinforces disharmony between the sexes. Do we have to reach a "social critical mass" before we conclude albeit somewhat belatedly that feminism has been a cause for bad or head it off at the pass and limit it's inevitable conclusions - time for damage limitation people!
Men's magazine GQ has crowned Charlotte Church their Woman of the Year during the magazine's Men of the Year awards in London's Royal Opera House. Editor Dylan Jones had this to say to The Sun:

"Charlotte Church is our Woman of the Year simply because she is larger than life.

"She is a great singer, a tabloid giant, and enjoys life to the full.

"She might not be to everyone's taste, but the fact that she doesn't care about that makes her even more wonderful."

I'm not entirely sure of this, but I think that Dylan Jones began by calling Church fat, ended by calling her unappealing, and stuck something in the middle about how, you know, she sings good and all.

So you know what I think it is? I think the editors at GQ saw those pictures of Church slutting it up on the beach and thought, "Hey, what the hell, let's give her an A for effort!" For this reason, dear readers, I vow that I shall conoodle with every closeted gay man on every beach from here to Orange County, and then surely I too will be crowned woman of the year. And nothing, not my penis nor my considerably flawed logic, can stand in my way.

Can you believe the sickening pompous affrontery of this woman to accept this accolade - ironically from a mens magazine. Which after reading the next story will leave you in bewilderment and astonishment as to the contradictory hypocrisy that peremeates within the socially bound perceptions regarding inter-gender violence.

Charlotte Church attacks former boyfriend

Charlotte Church attacked her former boyfriend after he revealed intimate details of their relationship to a British newspaper. .
The opera babe reportedly punched ex-lover Kyle Johnson after she spotted him in a Cardiff restaurant in the early hours of Sunday morning before fleeing the venue in tears. .
A source said: "She came in the restaurant with some friends at 3am. .
"When she saw Kyle there she went beserk. She kept saying 'I can't believe you'd do that,' and called him every name under the sun. There was a hell of a commotion - then she punched him." .
The 'Voice of an Angel' star dumped hotel trainee Kyle on Valentine's Day after a string of rows forced her to re-evaluate their year-long relationship. .
But insiders say the 20-year-old singer, who has been linked with a string of new men since the split, is furious that she has been so publicly betrayed by Kyle after he spilled their raunchy bedroom secrets. .
Unemployed Kyle claimed the couple had romped in every room of her £350,000 bay-side pad and even discussed marriage and children after she whisked him off on a lavish £18,000 holiday last year.
Her mother, Maria said: "Charlotte feels bitterly betrayed. What Kyle told the paper was their intimate life and should stay private. He was seduced by the money.
"Charlotte is ashamed that their most personal times have been splashed across the pages for everyone to read. "She never wants to see him again."

Charlotte Church Punches Ex After Slut Slur

CHARLOTTE CHURCH violently punched her jilted lover KYLE JOHNSON when he called her a "little slut" in a crowded Cardiff, Wales, restaurant.
The sexy opera singer had initially protected Johnson from news of her blossoming relationship with Welsh rugby star GAVIN HENSON, because she didn't want to hurt her former boyfriend.
However, Johnson didn't offer the same level of consideration to Church - and decided to sell explosive details of their romance to a British newspaper.
And Church confesses allegations she hit out in fury when she came face-to-face with Johnson earlier this year (FEB05) are entirely true - and she insists he got what he deserved.
She says, "It was pure passion and it was a pretty good right hook. I was just saying to him, 'I expected more of you,' and he was trying to rile me up, and then he called me a 'little slut' and that's when I hit him and stormed out of the restaurant with my friend NAOMI.
"She said, 'I can't believe you just did that,' and neither could I."

Charlotte Church Sobriety Checklist
By Chip Hilton
Jun 26, 2005, 06:25

CARDIFF - Charlotte Church, Wales' answer to Courtney Love, earned $27 million as a child prodigy singing operatic and classical tunes. Since getting her hands on that money when she turned eighteen last year, Church has spent roughly half of it on booze. The Voice of an Angel singer has been a fixture at clubs--a fixture that often wobbles, crashes into tables, and shouts obscenities for no apparent reason.

"In an average night out on the lash, I can sink 'em," Church told Heat magazine proudly. "I usually tune up at home with a Cheeky Vimto--a port-and-vodka combination. Then I hit the clubs. I down ten double vodkas before calling it a night. By then I'm pretty trashed."

Church also confided that she doesn't like alcohol and only drinks "to get pissed and dance like a crazy woman."

Reporters who have seen Church out on the lash marvel at her capacity for drink. They also marvel at her antics, which become more newsworthy the more vodka she consumes. One veteran reporter for The Sun who has seen Church in her cups more times than he can count, put together the following sobriety checklist for his colleagues' amusement. The numbers refer to the number of double vodkas Church has downed.

1 - nips into ladies room, removes bra, splashes water on her top, then returns to the dance floor

2 - while dancing with a drink in one hand, pulls her top down with the other

3 - sings her new single, "Crazy Chick," gets some of the words wrong, replaces others with vulgarities

4 - falls while trying to climb onto a table to dance, breaks several glasses, lies on floor laughing hysterically

5 - buys a round for the entire bar, can't find wallet, calls the bartender a sheep shagger after he rings for manager

6 - attempts to give lap dance to stranger, belches loudly during attempt

7 - sees ex-boyfriend on dance floor, punches him in the face

8 - after trying unsuccessfully to stand, crawls across pub floor barking like a dog

9 - gets into bitch fight with ex-boyfriend outside her flat, insults policemen who arrive to quell disturbance

10 - inside flat takes nude photo with cell phone and tries to e-mail photo to current boyfriend, sends photo to The Sun by mistake

In other news, two of the four Channel 4 employees who squirted Tom Cruise with water at the "War of the Worlds" premier in London last week have met with mysterious accidents.

Well chaps you know the drill reverse the genders and then see how deserved the perceived vindictive "revenge" is. What male celebrity would and indeed should receive such an accolade indulging in such vile disgusting behaviour.