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.
What is it about the western idea of what a good male is supposed to be that makes leading western males so inimical and at pains to incriminate and subjugate other males ?
David Cameron in paralell with so many other western leaders and decision makers seems to consider males alone to be naturally burdened with the responsibility of civilisation. And consequently that females have no part to play themeselves in the development and maintenance of a civilised community of human beings.
Take victimisation by rape for instance. The whole of western male leadership considers victimisation by rape not only to be an issue of sole concern to women when perpetrated by men alone, they also feel that its punihment is to take a form that only penalises male offences against female victims. This, a double insult to men and boys !
Even a stupid person will need obvious answers to the following: What about female perpetrators of rape against female victims ? What about female perpetrators of rape against male victims ? What about male perpetrators of rape against male victims ?
Are we to assume that the above set of perpetrators do not exist or are so insignificant to our worthless and craven political classes that their victims can just as conveniently be ignored ?
David Cameron, remember, on assumption of leadreship of the British Conservative party, himself as a male, immediately declared that all and only female shortlists will be instituited for future leadership positions and openings within the Conservative party! In other words, the opportunities and life chances that he has had advantage of as male, are not suitable for other males, but going forwards are to be accorded to females only. And alegedly every western man worth his salt should understand and agree with this nonsense. An idea which troglodites and third world savages will never appreciate or be able to implement.
Mind you this sort of treacherous imbecilery from David Cameron is endemic and pervasive amongst western males and leadership. They demonstrate an extra generousity, charity and altruism to women. Only trouble is, they do it with other mens prospects, progeny and property but not their own !
From The Times
November 2, 2007
Judge accused of child abuse 'let off by police'
A chief constable is being investigated over his force's dismissal of child abuse allegations against a judge.
The police watchdog stepped in after claims that the officer allowed his professional relationship with the circuit judge to prejudice the force's actions. The complainant, the judge's estranged wife, alleged that he gave a child a sexually transmitted disease, viewed child pornography websites and misused transcripts from child abuse cases that he had presided over. There were also allegations of mortgage fraud and domestic violence.
Documents sent to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and seen by The Times said that the force concluded that there was insufficent evidence to even interview the judge and decided not to analyse his computer. The force refused to accept a further complaint from the accuser that the working relationship between the judge and the officer, who worked on a criminal justice panel together, had biased its approach.
The IPCC has now ordered an investigation into the alleged bias. The Times also understands that the case is being investigated by the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman, Sir John Brigstocke, who became involved after the allegations about the judge were reported to the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA). The accuser expected it to bar the judge from presiding over child abuse cases. When it did not, the ombudsman was brought in.
A letter to Sir John, also seen by The Times, claims that the DCA also failed to "address an allegation against [the judge] of unhealthy misuse of transcripts relating to child sexual abuse cases". The complainant alleged that the judge had taken the transcripts home for his own sexual gratification and that police were given a video that showed the judge masturbating.
The case has raised questions about the IPCC's complaints procedure. When the complainant first contacted the watchdog with her complaints about the police investigation, it told her to submit the complaint in two parts: one about the alleged bias, and one about the perceived failure to follow proper investigatory procedures, such as seizing computers. She did not resubmit the second part, relating to the police investigation, until 28 days after the police force rejected her complaints. The IPCC ruled it to be out of time and therefore could not investigate it.
Its ruling says that the "allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards children, domestic violence and mortgage fraud" did not constitute "special circumstances" allowing it to extend the 28-day period. The force will not be required to reinvestigate the claims against the judge.
The chief executive of the police force authority said: "The IPCC has instructed us to record the complaint but in doing so we need to obtain further information."
Asked about the allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards children, the judge said: "It is not a subject I would wish to comment upon in any circumstances."
A mother who poured a kettle of boilling water over her five-year-old son to get back at his father who had left her has been jailed for 10 years.[/size]
The victim, now aged 17, suffered burns to more than 20% of his body.
He told Cardiff Crown Court his mother called him to the kitchen and said "I'm sorry I've got to do this".
The 36-year-old woman insisted the incident was an accident and admitted lying at the time because she feared her son would be taken into care.
The judge at Cardiff Crown Court told the 36-year-old, who cannot be named, that she had "failed her first and greatest responsibility as a parent".
Judge Phillip Richards added the mother had become "the danger" to her son.
"The first and greatest responsibility of a parent is to protect his or her child from danger," he said.
"You not only failed to do that but you became the danger and you caused your son horrific injuries."
The victim had told the court that he was still full of rage over his mother's actions and wanted to make her pay.
He said he did not tell anybody about the incident until the autumn of 2004, because she had told him she would kill herself if he did.
The teenager said that on the day he was injured his mother had told him his father did not want to see him and did not love him.
"She called me out the kitchen and said 'Sorry I've got to do this' and tips the kettle over my chest," he told the court.
"She said, 'now your effing father will come and see you'."
Before sentencing, Judge Richards was told that the mother, from Cardiff, had been before the court on five previous occasion for a total of 13 offences involving dishonesty.
He told her: "There is no punishment that I can impose which will be as dreadful as the punishment you gave to your young son.
"You built up a resentment for your position as being left as a single parent.
"Your son's father did not turn up that day as intended and over the course of the day your resentment drove you to behave in a way in a way no mother should.
"You entirely lost your patience with your son and carried out this appalling act of pouring boiling water over him.
"You punished your child for wrongs you believed have been done to you by your former partner."
The mother claimed she had boiled the kettle to pour on an ants' nest at her kitchen door and had spilled the water after bumping into him.
She told the court she would never hurt her son to get back at his father.
But the jury rejected the explanation and delivered a unanimous guilty verdict of grievous bodily harm with intent in July.
After the verdict, an impact statement was read out in court by prosecuting barrister Michael Mather-Lees.
It explained how the incident had affected the victim's life and how he had even contemplated suicide.
"I can't even begin to explain the pain I felt when this happened to me as a young innocent child," the statement said.
"My memories are of the burning feeling, the pain on a scale of 10 was 10.
"The pain was constant, all day, every day sitting there, crying because of the pain, it would never go away.
"I have memories of my mother telling me she would kill herself if I ever told the truth and this made me feel scared that if she did kill herself it would be my fault.
"My mother made me feel like a bad person. She would batter me and I would be too scared to say," it added.
The teenager also described how unwilling he was to was to show his body and wore clothes to hide his scars.
"I got my burns for nothing. I don't deserve to have these scars - I have been punished for nothing - because one woman never loved her son," he said.
E. Jane Dickson
The evolved male will refer to his female colleagues as "women", not "ladies" and never "girls". In an office where there are more men than women, you should go out of your way to promote an inclusive atmosphere; the important discussion of Chelsea v Arsenal/ Porsche v Ferrari/suspenders v hold-ups is better saved for the pub.
In all but the most strait-laced environments, a little light flirting among equals will not go amiss, but care must be taken that special attentions to junior colleagues are not seen as an abuse of your position. You may think it the most natural thing to boost a young coworker with a fatherly pat or encouraging squeeze; she may see it differently and your partner, should she hear of it, is likely to have her own strong views on the matter.
Similarly, the "office wife" syndrome needs to be carefully managed. It is not uncommon to build a particularly close and confidential relationship with a female colleague, but the boundaries of this supportive friendship must be clearly delineated. Your girlfriend will not appreciate it if your evenings alone together are consistently interrupted by long, intense phone calls with another woman, however impeccably professional the context.
YOUR (FEMALE) BOSS
Manners towards a female boss are important as this is a relationship that quickly exposes male insecurities and chauvinism. Your partner may not have the opportunity to observe you in the workplace, but the way you talk about your boss is revealing about your attitudes to women and their place in society. It is imperative, for the good of your career and your relationship, that you show precisely the degree of respect and professionalism towards a female superior as you would to a male.
Ascribing questionable executive decisions to the effects of PMT/sexual frustration/the menopause won't secure your advancement in either boardroom or bedroom.
Successful women are frighteningly alert to any hint of chippiness from male juniors. In fact, the only thing worse than a chippy junior is a junior who thinks he can condescend to, or seduce, his boss. Even flirting with a superior is out of the question (unless you actively wish to be branded "office totty"). Some modification may be necessary (or at least prudent), during office hours, to your customary gallantry. On occasions where you meet your boss in a purely social context, feel free to be your usual chivalrous self; the alteration in your manner will serve only to point out your careful observation of office protocol and can do you no harm at all. No one ever said chivalry was for the benefit of just one sex.
Your sister is your earliest source of insight into the feminine psyche. She is also the one who knows where the bodies are buried. As such, she requires careful handling. When your girlfriend is introduced to your sister, it is important that neither should feel that too much is riding on the meeting. Your sister needs to know that she is not being displaced as a comrade in arms. Your girlfriend should never be made to feel that your sister has any "right of veto" on your relationship.
Falling immediately into the rut of childhood jokes and excessive "do you remembers?" is inconsiderate. Your partner may learn to love your family routines but cannot be expected, straight off the bat, to appreciate the hilarity of the time Aunt Mary got stuck on the ski-lift. Conversely, your sister may feel obscurely cross at being "excluded" from your new life as part of a couple ("well, you never used to like sushi!"). It is your job, at such times, to lead the conversation back to neutral ground.
Don't be hurt if the two of them don't love each other on sight. They may never be best friends and it is pointless to force an affinity where none exists. If they go toe-to-toe, then chivalry demands that you defend your partner's corner. If the situation is intractable, you may be better off seeing your sister alone until the bad feeling blows over.
In the happy event that your sibling and your sweetheart get on like a house on fire, allow them space to cement the friendship. Accept that it's part of the feminine bonding process to gang up on men. Make the most of their friendship; it can only be helpful to have a female perspective on what your consort really likes in the way of birthday presents, surprise outings or underwear. The positives of this useful alliance overwhelmingly outweigh the fact that every time you see them laugh together, you'll think they're laughing at you. And you'll probably be right.
Freud had a point. All men are mummy's boys au fond. Success with women depends largely on how you manage this crucial relationship. The way a man treats his mother sends clear signals to a potential mate about his attitude to women in general.
Accept that, to your mother, you will always be a child (you can rail against it, but it won't make a blind bit of difference). Your partner, on the other hand, has signed up for a man. It is a conundrum only you can solve.
The filial image you want to project is one of affectionate independence. It will not enhance your profile as an alpha male if your mum still washes your clothes and cuts your hair. Nor is it attractive in a man to be constantly seeking maternal approval (particularly in the matter of whom you choose to go out with and how you conduct your life as a couple).
Respect, however, or at the least kindness, is due to mothers. Even if you are not close, it is your adult responsibility to keep in touch and look out for her comfort.
In the event of a clash between your mother and your love interest, it is best to avoid the appearance of siding with either party. Try to discuss the problem, in private, with each of them. "Having it all out in the open" rarely helps, as any momentary satisfaction that your mother or girlfriend may feel in publicly trumping the other will be cancelled out by many long, painful years of pretending it never happened. Above all, if you wish to maintain any kind of erotic life, you should avoid treating your lover like your mother. Oedipus, you will recall, confused the two most important women in his life - and all he ended up with was a complex.
YOUR GIRLFRIEND'S BEST FRIEND (GBF)
The GBF can make or break your relationship. Suspicion and criticism are often her default position, so you're going to have to work hard at getting her on-side.
First, you should concede unreservedly that she knows your girlfriend better than you do. You will get nowhere with the GBF until this important point is settled. If she doesn't like you, redouble your efforts to please, but make sure your charm offensive is not confused with attempted seduction as this will play very badly with both GBF and girlfriend. Even if you have good reason to suspect the GBF of real malevolence, bite your lip as a feud will only make your girlfriend miserable and an ultimatum ("it's her or me!") can only ever sound hysterical.
Going out in a foursome with the GBF's other half is one way of spreading the emotional overload. Otherwise keep an impeccably friendly distance and let your girlfriend see the meddling harridan on her own. Should you gain her good opinion, however, the GBF is a sound ally. She is the one your girlfriend is going to moan to when things are less than perfect in your relationship and her positive intervention is invaluable.
However well you get on, remember whose best friend she is. It is a mistake for you to moan about any aspect, however trifling, of your love life to the GBF - not least because it will go straight back to your girlfriend before you've even had time to add the bit about how much you adore her anyway.
There will inevitably be occasions when you are obliged to witness the GBF's romantic crises. While you should give every impression of support, your role, here, is essentially nonspeaking. Expressions of blokeish solidarity ("look at it his way", "the chap has a point") are unwanted and irrelevant. Far better to pour two large glasses of wine and leave before it is noticed that if all men are emotional cripples you must be one too.
I don't think there is any taboo against men having intimate friendships with other men. I think that men having male-style intimacy (Shoulder to shoulder as opposed to face-to-face) is discounted as "not real intimacy" and that the female, touchy-feely model is over-lauded as the be-all and end-all of intimacy.
Professor Beveridge said the gap is largely driven by a gulf in education: 53 percent of women employed full time in their 20s were college graduates, compared with 38 percent of men. Women are also more likely to have graduate degrees. "They have more of everything," Professor Beveridge said.
These bad habits do not impress us
Nobody's perfect and not all bad habits are deal-breakers. That said, any man honing his seduction skills will do well to avoid:
The dangerous delusion that your needs, desires or opinions are, without exception, more important than the next man's is the No 1 turn-off for women. Arrogance should never be confused with confidence. If you're boasting to impress us, it is likely to have the opposite effect. Ladies know that quality is discreet. We wouldn't pick a handbag that shouts too hard and we won't pick you.
Drink is a great disinhibitor. The snag is that it disinhibits only the drinker. Once you are disinhibited to the point of declaring your love for barmaids/bus drivers/lampposts, we will be less than receptive to any more advances. If getting oiled is part of the night's fun, gauge it carefully so you are never drunker than we are. We do not want to be responsible for getting you home.
Losing your temper, particularly in public, shows a worrying lack of self-control. Shouting at people you don't know and who are not in a position to shout back (eg, waiting staff, juniors) is particularly unattractive, as is any degree of physical aggression.
If you smoke and we don't, we will mind the smell. We'll mind it on your clothes and your hair and we'll mind it even more on ours. Crucially, we will never want to slip between your malodorous sheets.
Modern women do not take well to being "corrected" in their dress, speech or opinions. You may see yourself as Pygmalion. We just see the pig.
The friend of the stars who fell from grace
Bruce Hyman was a barrister and an admired TV and radio producer. Then, inexplicably, he perverted the course of justice and now faces jail
A barrister and renowned radio and television producer, who has worked with the likes of Anthony Minghella, Michael Frayn and David Mamet, is facing jail after being found guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice. Bruce Hyman, chief executive of Above The Title Productions, has pleaded guilty to attempting to falsely incriminate the husband of a client he was representing in the family court. If jailed, it is believed it would be the first time that a barrister had been sent to prison for such a crime.
His admission of guilt represents a remarkable fall from grace for a man who has produced more than 150 plays, musicals and comedy shows and written scripts for Angus Deayton and Johnny Vegas. Stars such as Maureen Lipman, Patricia Hodge and Peter Capaldi have appeared in Hyman's productions, which include The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for Radio 4.
He also produced Unreliable Evidence, the acclaimed BBC radio series, fronted by his close friend Clive Anderson, that examines complex aspects of the law. As a practising barrister, Hyman was able to bring a wealth of knowledge to the programme, which attracted the biggest names in the legal profession.
But in an act that seems worthy of discussion on Anderson's programme, Hyman emailed a bogus legal judgment he had forged to his client's former husband, who was trying to gain greater access to the couple's daughter.
The email, sent from what Hyman thought was an untraceable address, carried the logo of Families Need Fathers, the charity that campaigns for fathers' rights. It appeared to bolster the father's claim that he should be granted greater access to his daughter and, believing it to be a genuine judgment, he presented it before the judge at Taunton family court in Somerset.
Within minutes of doing so, Hyman pounced, suggesting not only that the judgment was a forgery but that the father, who was representing himself, might have been responsible for faking it. The father suddenly found himself facing a charge of perverting the course of justice and the prospect of having to pay substantial costs.
'I cannot describe the feelings that went through me,' the father, who cannot be named for legal reasons, told The Observer. 'To be accused in court of what the judge had no trouble reminding me was a serious crime was horrendous. I was frantic, panic stricken; not to mention angry.' Baffled as to how such a 'mistake' had been made, he learnt that electronic documents could be traced via specialist online applications. Soon he had tracked the email via an internet server in Manchester to a shop in Tottenham Court Road in London.
The shop denied sending the email and offered to check its CCTV footage for the day the email was supposedly sent. 'I couldn't believe it when they emailed me some 12 or 13 of the CCTV stills,' he said. 'I almost fell off my chair.' The pictures showed Hyman entering the shop, removing a motorcycle helmet and sending an email from a laptop. It seemed an open and shut case. 'But the police would not investigate initially,' said the father, who was eventually put in touch with a helpful police officer by a Families Need Fathers member. 'As it was, my local force didn't follow up my report until some months after Hyman's arrest. If FNF hadn't put me in touch with a police officer who took the case seriously, I might well have been facing a lengthy prison sentence.'
What motivated Hyman, a happily married man with four children, to break the law in a way that could have sent an innocent man to prison is not clear. He is not a specialist in family law, nor is he from the area where the case was heard. Further, he had passed his bar exams only a couple of years earlier and the case was one of his first.
With a home in Hampstead, London, and a chalet in the Alps, which he is believed to have sold recently, he was wealthy and had an enviable social life. His dinner parties were eagerly anticipated, thanks to his skills in the kitchen and ready wit. It might have been that he took the case because he knew his client extremely well. The two had set up a company together shortly after the beginning of the millennium and they had known each other for many years. Even after Hyman was arrested, documents show he continued to work on the case and picked up his client's daughter from school at least once.
Records obtained by the police show Hyman telephoned the mother on the day he emailed her ex-husband the fake judgment. Although arrested, the mother was not charged and there is no suggestion she knew of his plan.
Hyman, who faces sentencing on 19 September, declined to comment, but those who know him express bafflement at what he has done. They say that after passing his bar exams he seemed to change his image. 'He was in love with the law in the way some middle-aged men are in love with the idea of being a rock star,' said an acquaintance. 'When he became a lawyer some of his friends started to see a lot less of him.'
Meanwhile, the father has been left deeply bruised by what has happened. He still does not see his daughter as much as he would like. He is disillusioned with the courts system. 'Anyone who contemplates going through the family courts system should consider pulling their own fingernails out instead; it's less painful,' he said. 'Appearing at these private hearings, where parties and their lawyers too often seem to have the smearing of their opponents at the top of their agendas, robs you of your dignity and your belief in the system.'
Fathers' rights groups say the case highlights concern about the closed nature of the family courts. 'There's a lot of what I call "micro-shittiness" in the family courts,' said Jim Parton of Families Need Fathers. 'There are low-level acts of bullying by the lawyers in the corridors that go on all the time, but none of it gets reported.'
Not Broken, Fractured
Communities without fathers are likely to become enclaves of their own
This has been a week dominated by murder and children. It began with a furore and fury over the future of Learco Chindamo, who as a 15-year-old gang member stabbed Philip Lawrence to death outside his school in 1995, and it ends with the immense collective grief felt for the parents of Rhys Jones, an 11-year-old boy shot dead while playing football. He was almost certainly killed by a child of a similar age to Chindamo when he committed his crime. Children killing adults is an appalling enough event. Children killing children in this callous fashion is yet more numbing still.
Politicians should be at the forefront of the national conversation that follows such atrocities and not embarrassed on the sidelines. The moment that the death of a child in circumstances such as these is deemed so commonplace that it is not the catalyst for comment is the occasion when a country has lost the struggle against its demons. In a speech yesterday David Cameron sought to place the tragedy of the Jones family in a broader context, that of his claim that Britain has a "broken society" in the same way that 30 years ago it had a broken economy. The comparison is superficially attractive. Yet it is too sweeping, encompassing more of the community than the facts on the ground suggests is valid. Stagflation in the 1970s and youth culture today are different in character. The questions that now have to be addressed are even more complicated.
On one aspect, at least, Mr Cameron and his partisan opponents are in complete agreement. The Conservative leader referred to "fathers who run away from their responsibilities, who don't stick around to give their sons the discipline they need". Earlier this week Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, referred similarly to a crisis of fatherlessness in certain places, depriving the sons left behind not simply of figures of authority but also of adult male role models of any form to emulate.
Whether it be council estates at home or failed states abroad, societies dominated by teenaged boys, unrestrained by fathers, are invariably dangerous locations. Gangs rapidly take the place of the orthodox family unit. Loyalties to these institutions undermine traditional respect and values. The ability to generate fear in others becomes a prized social asset. Not only do other young men want to avoid young men but so also do adults of all ages and those bodies, such as the police, that are meant to be a community's armour. Society loses its self-confidence and with that the ties which bind it together. There are manifestly enclaves in Britain where this has happened.
To concede this is not, though, to admit that society as a whole is "broken". Not all poor estates have been so afflicted, nor is the damage associated with fatherlessness limited to black rather than white families, or exclusively to working-class ones. It would be more accurate to refer to fractured societies, not a broken society. The dilemma, nonetheless, is that no one has a specific policy solution for compelling or inspiring fathers either to remain with, or exercise a positive influence over, their sons. In truth, there is probably no system of either tax inducements or financial sanctions that can make fathers who have abandoned interest in sons behave in the manner that others would want them to do.
This is not a fatalistic assessment. Attitudes to fatherhood did not change for the worse because of past political activities and they are capable of changing for the better for reasons other than a programme constructed in Whitehall. To an extent, fractures will heal naturally if allowed the opportunity. Mr Cameron and Mr Straw might both have been vague but by speaking out they encourage others to talk about these issues.
But the most effective encouragement for this has to come through schools and not the House of Commons. It requires a remorseless concentration on those in the bottom tenth in the GCSE results in recent years -- individuals who are often paying an academic as well as a social price for the absence of their fathers. Children cannot and certainly should never be "nationalised" but the gang and its mentality cannot be the only alternative to the family. Society has not disappeared in the most deprived areas of Britain. Yet it is for its members to choose to reactivate themselves.
Although most fathers/non-custodial parents are more than willing to do their part be it financially or in other ways; there are those that dont give a damn about their own offspring and there has to be some kind of legal teeth to hold these people accountable
personally I am in favor of something to the effect of making non support a criminal charge but one that would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt(don know how practical that is though).......................meaning if the defendant shows or provides witnesses or documentation that he has been an active supporting parent; no compensation to the aggtrieved party