Men's Rights Anglosphere (Invite Only Forum) - Blogs

British Fathers Liberation Army

petemorrisni — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:17:48 GMT

We are a group of fathers who have come together to fight against the unjust and biased family court and law system within the UK that stops fathers, mothers, and grandparents from seeing their children and grandchildren. Although we respect the opinions and views of fathers4justice and its splinter groups we do not agree totally in the principle of peaceful protest. Why should us as fathers abide by the same laws made by the same legal system which stops us from seeing our children. We believe in a pro-active approach to fathers rights which includes actively fighting by whatever means necessary to promote and achieve equal rights to fathers

http://es-es.facebook.com/group.php?...9757&ref=share

Protest N.Ireland

petemorrisni — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:12:29 GMT

Use contact details for NI Protests

peter@realfathersforjustice.org or pete.morris74@googlemail.com

"demonstrate your love for your children, so at least if they cant see you, they can see you love them"
Bob Geldof

Contact Centres Rep Ireland

petemorrisni — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:06:56 GMT

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...268217423.html

The dreaded contact centre, where children and fathers are treated as criminals are now to be rolled out across the Republic Of Ireland and are being advertised directly to fathers. These centres in the UK have been forced on innocent children and fathers due to the insecure feelings of mothers where no welfare issues exist.

Careful steps must now be taken by the Irish government to ensure that these centres are used like they were intended, to supervise children and abusive parents and not to punish the innocent.

Children must be allowed to see their parents as equals, and to see their parents treated as equals

Queen University Belfast Students Union

petemorrisni — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:58:26 GMT

http://qubsu.org/execSection.asp?ID=15

REAL FATHERS FOR JUSTICE

Please find attached some information on the group Real Fathers for Justice. If you would like to get involved or need more information, simply email me at su.vpequality@qub.ac.uk. Paul

The Real Fathers For Justice (RFFJ). Campaigning Direct Action
Parenting Group, raising public awareness and applying pressure for
long overdue changes in UK Family Law. Seeking investment in
supporting families through parental separation and development of
ongoing co-parenting support services

We use high profile stunts to raise public awareness and are commonly
known by Batman at Buckingham Palace.

In N Ireland, we have carried out a few stunts but have focused more
on political routes, meeting at Stormont with Gender Equality Unit and
Parliamentary Groups.

We would welcome any students who have interest in family law,
equality issues, and who would find our research etc useful for their
workings.

We would also welcome new members to join us to ensure our childrens
is not corrupted by the out of date family court systems.

Alongside RFFJ, we are organising Mens Aid in N Ireland. This is in
response to the lack of services for men in emotional and domestic
trauma. Through Mens Aid, we will push for Domestic Violence against
men to be publicised more, and also have systems in place to help
prevent more male suicides.

Again we would welcome anyone who would like to use our research for
their workings, and anyone who would like to assist with both RFFJ and
the setting up of Mens Aid NI.

www.realfathersforjustice.org
www.rffjni.blogspot.com
www.mensaidni.blogspot.com

E-mail your story today to..........

Davey — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 08:06:17 GMT

........., start by saying "following Davey's comments on Friday "
and I know there is a broad church of opinion and experiences here so from the
US, Canada, Australia, NZ, TAS, Japan, Malaysia, Phillipines, Germany & Macidonia tell them how you have been affected by injustice and how it works where you are let Gaunty know which country you reside

In the UK highlight how the failing Family Court system and associated agencies have affected you!

Keep it brief to the point and polite and once our subject is higher on the agenda here we will move on to a media centre near you!!

Your E-mails need to be in by 10 am London time Tuesday 1st September 2009 Good Luck and please fully support this if I get the chance to appear in the studio at some point I will be rallying our cause with avengence!

What is all the fuss about? click on this slider to half way hear Nigel talk then Daveyone, keepup the pressure!
http://downloads.thesun.co.uk/downlo...Show280809.mp3
Sheriff Davey Family Lawman ready to right the wrongs

TRUTH About dowry Law and Its Misuse.

mynation — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:57:59 GMT

This is a Report based on 5 years Research and Study on dowry Prohibition act, its use and misuse.
This Reasearch conducted by our own Experts of MyNation Foundation for Save Indian Society,and not funded by any gender biased organisations.
We studied 1500 Plus Families, these are feed backs from them and from the reports published by media.

What is IPC-498a ?

Cognizable � The accused can be arrested and jailed without warrant or investigation
Non-Bailable � The accused must appear in the court to request bail
Non-Compoundable � The complaint cannot be withdrawn by the petitioner

The accused, on a woman's one complaint, are considered guilty until proven innocent, and the burden is on the accused to prove their innocence in the courts. It is even more torturous that old ailing parents too are arrested prior to investigation. Is this not violation of Human Rights of Indian citizen?

When an FIR (First Information Report) under IPC section 498A (anti-dowry law) is registered by a woman, the accused - the husband and his old parents, brothers, sisters, relatives - are arrested and jailed without investigation. The Supreme Court of India has ruled several times that arrest should be an exception, and not compulsory. Why is there no penalty for disobeying the Supreme Court's orders? Is it not mental cruelty to subject a person to arrest without investigation or reasonable cause? Police are subjected to gender sensitization training wherein they are forced to take women's complaint and arrest the accused even when they find the case to be fabricated. And in case the police do not react on a woman's false complaint, the women groups are given unnecessary powers to take legal action against the officer-in-charge of the police station.

As per our Study, we found out that, it is a custom in India to give support to bride in the form of gold and valuables to support her future life with her husband, as husband take home the bride's Father's financial burden.

There are certain natural problems in every marriage that are always resolved amicably. In olden day, men and women used to manage these trivial differences in their marriages, but today's modern women are not ready to compromise on petty issues, which are part and parcel of a married life.

Shobha [Name Changed] says dowry is not an issue. Ours was love-cum arranged marriage. I know my father's capacity and how much he can give. And after marriage there is not chance takeing any money, so i only told my Husband,that he can take.we happy with that,it helped us to build our Family.we should not take Stridhan as dowry.

When we get marry, to make new house, start family we need money,from girl side her father should provide to start family,and man should not demand more than what girls family offer.Says Priya[Name changed]

We are not talking about the dowry deaths or physical injury cases but about dowry harassment cases that require no evidence and can be filed based on a single complaint by the wife. With an estimated of 60,000 such accusations per year and an average of 4 members of the husband's family falsely implicated in each of these 498A cases, about 240,000 people are directly affected by these false accusations.

Latest Statistics Published on IBN-CNN.

*In 2004, 58,319 dowry cases were registered.
*1,34,757 men were arrested.
*47,828 cases have reached the charge sheet stage.
*10,491 dowry cases were not charge sheeted as they were based on frivolous ground.
*However, 5,739 men have been convicted but more than four times that number have been acquitted (24,127)

The controversial section not only covers dowry, but a wide spectrum of incidents including cruelty, causing injury and danger to mental or physical health.
[Source: http://www.ibnlive.com/news/tortured...a/27446-3.html ]
as on June 30 2005 are those under sections 498 and 498(A). In the first six months this year, 3801 new cases under just these two sections were instituted.

Thanks to the awareness levels amongst women, many more are approaching the courts today than before. Consider this against the number of cases that are disposed. They are only 2432 cases. Of them, only 164 cases led to convictions. 1449 cases ended in acquittal with the women considering further appeals.
[source : http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web...hp?content_id= 79802 ]

This poorly formulated law is inviting women to file false cases, and causing the imprisonment of innocent husband and his old parents without investigation. They are put behind bar along with other criminals. These innocent people undergo stigmatization and emotional trauma even before the trial in the court of law, which leads to emotional, physical and financial torture. Some of the falsely accused have committed suicide after being jailed, unable to bear the social consequences. Helplessness drove these innocent families to commit suicide. What is the Government doing to protect these innocent families?

Result of False Accusations.

As per Recent report from Ahmedabad, Rajesh Hasmukh Desai, a married man, committed suicide. He was falsely charged under IPC 498A. If a woman dies in "any" circumstances within seven years of marriage, police, by default, will arrest the husband and his parents for abetting suicide of a woman or for dowry death. But in this case, police did not interrogate his wife, nor took any action against her. Rajesh's case file was closed and the actual perpetrator got scot-free. Why the possibility of the wife driving her husband Rajesh Desai to suicide was ruled out ? Why she is not punished for abetting her husband's suicide?

A study by Professor K. Nagaraj, senior economist at the Madras Institute of Development Studies (MIDS)
The distribution of suicides by marital status reveals some alarming pattern. The rates do not vary much between the sexes for the never married.

Among those currently married, while the rate for males is about 17 per 100,000 persons, the rate for females is 11.4 per 100,000.

Among those widowed, while the rate for males is 21 per 100,000 persons, the rate for females is also significantly lower, at 6.6 per 100,000.

Among divorced males the suicide rate is 164 per 100,000 persons, but even in this class, among females the rate is only 63 per 100,000.

While the suicide rate for separated men is about 167, for females it is only 41 per 100,000 persons.

Such alarming statistical reports have not yet convinced the Government that men too are victims of domestic violence and not providing them legal protection will only increase the suicide numbers for men.

[Source: http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1821/18210960.htm ]

Despite the recommendations of the Supreme Court of India and Justice Malimath Committee that the legislative arm should modify the laws such that the innocent are protected. The suggested amendment in the 498A law has been largely ignored. Innocent men and old parents are visiting women cell for help, but they are neglected. Unchecked, this social evil is threatening the foundation of the Indian Family system.

Why do people misuse IPC 498a ?

Legal Extortion � When marriage is on the brink of Divorce, she finds no better weapon to harass her husband and in-law than 498A. Women will blackmail her husband and in-laws and coerce them to fulfill her demands or else she will file a false complaint against them. The husband knows that the law indiscriminately favours the woman and so he agrees to her selfish demands.

Pre/extra marital Affairs � She marries to satisfy her parents without disclosing her past. When the husband finds out about her affairs, she then files a false dowry case to blackmail him.

Domination � Wife wants the husband to abandon his parents and siblings, so that she can have total control over his finances and social behavior, including his life-style.

Custody - Deny the father and his family access to their child(ren).

Fraudulent Marriages - Many times girl's family will not disclose actual facts of their daughter, at the time of marriage. Such facts, if known by the groom, the marriage would have never taken place. And when the husband stands his ground, the girl and her family begins their legal extortion.

In-Laws - When modern women are unable to adjust with her in-laws, when they find it difficult to dominate her husband and make him dance on her tunes, she goes for filing a false dowry case.

Consider a person who works extremely hard to make his career in this competitive World. Then he marries a beautiful and innocent looking wolf who drags him to court. There he is bound to lose all dignity, child custody and above all 50% of his income. He is forced to give out all his savings and family's investments to this woman. Using his money, the wolf teaches to the child that his/her father was bad. Despite feeding the child of fathers' money, the child, believing the wolf's teachings, begins to hate the father. He has nothing to look at when he grows old.

This is nothing but sheer cruelty. Extreme disaster and an unending mental trauma. Apart from this I've seen men being ditched by various girls before marriage. In cities it is common that girl have many boyfriends. And they choose the richest among them for marriage. Rests are ditched. And few weaker among them commit suicide. Says Amit Agarwal, an victim of 498A.

Out of 100 cases that are ordered for investigation under 498A, only in 2 cases the accused get convicted.

''People generally use this law to facilitate divorce. And often, it's the lawyers who advise the women to implicate their in-laws under the provisions of this Act,'' says Shantosh Singh, chairperson of Women Welfare Counseling Cell. Often, the number of items given in dowry is inflated to claim a high settlement amount. "There are only 10 per cent cases based on truth, and people usually come to us and ask specifically to mention the element of dowry in their divorce petitions," says Amrikh Singh Kalra, advocate at Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Women mis(using) laws to get even ?
NEW DELHI, Oct 18 (PTI) �Laws against violence at home may or may not have come to the rescue of battered women, but some of them have been accused of abusing them to get an easy divorce or settle other little domestic disputes.
[Souce: http://www.tribuneindia.com/1999/99oct19/nation.htm#7 ]

According to the available statistical information from the National Crime Records Bureau and information available from NGOs working with victims of violence, there is a general tendency to avoid seeking redressal among the victims of domestic violence. However, when a victim of domestic violence seeks help from any of the agencies, be it family, friends, NGOs, or lawyers, before registering a complaint, at each stage she is asked to reconcile the matter or to put up with the situation. Reconciliation in 498A cases takes place at every stage including the police station, Crime against Women Cells and courts.

We found that in five cases filed under Section 498A the parties settled the matter after agreeing on maintenance and divorce.

In a majority of the cases before a victim filed the complaint under Section 498A, the minimum period she suffered physical and mental torture, was for about three years.

The trial process is quite lengthy and the proportion of pending cases is quiet high (out of the 40 cases based on victims' interviews which went for trial in court, 28 cases are still pending). In the cases tracked, the normal trial period was between five to ten years.

"It was found that it was difficult to prove physical and mental torture. In all the eight cases in which the accused were acquitted, the victims were found to have suffered physical and mental torture, but as there was not enough evidence to prove torture, the accused were let off.

The cases where the accused were convicted had been filed under Section 498A along with section 304B and 302, which are applicable after the death of the victim. There were no convictions in any of the cases registered only under Section 498A.

It has been found that out of 30 cases there is not a single case where the accused has been convicted only under Section 498A. The accused have been acquitted (11 cases) by the court where the prosecutor failed to provide evidentiary proof of cruelty, mainly mental, inflicted on the victim as provided under Section 498A IPC.

The judicial authorities of India, in number of landmark judgments, have taken a serious view of the growing tendency to falsely implicate innocent members of the husband's family in dowry cases. Describing misuse of IPC-498a law as "legal terrorism", the Supreme Court said no one could be allowed to unleash frivolous proceedings on this count as the provisions of Section 498A "is intended to be used a shield not as an assassin's weapon."

"The stringent dowry laws, meant to deter dowry-seekers, are being increasingly misused by the very people they are meant to protect. The last three years have seen a steep rise in the number of cases of harassment for dowry".
[Source: http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid= 170603. ]

Only one out of six dowry complaints genuine [ source : http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20041013/cth1.htm ]

Most of thetime it's a bargaining tool for women when husband finds her Infidelity.
Adulterous women were responsible for divorces in every 3rd case.
[Source : http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/1...0600010004.htm ]

There are many heart-rending stories of innocent families being arrested without investigation and put in judicial custody. While IPC 498A is supposed to be a law to protect women, ironically it harms many more women. For every male accused of IPC 498A, there is at least one woman (his mother or sister) who is implicated in a crime that never occurred or they never stayed together. If there are more women in the family they too are accused irrespective of their age, health condition, marital status or their physical proximity to the complainant. There are many Reports of married sisters of husband, even they are pregnant or with a baby in hands are jailed without any investigation or the entire family is ruthlessly arrested without investigation and there are no words to describe the financial hardship and emotional trauma that they have to endure. Children suffer whether they are jailed along with their mothers or are separated from them during that time.

Another striking feature of these victim stories is that the complainants, in collaboration with the police make sure that the arrests are strategically planned to harass and demoralize the accused, to make them succumb to the fear of being imprisoned and to extract huge amounts of money thereafter.

Here is list of few Victims are harassed for many years, without rays of hope to get Justice.

http://mynation.net/db

Everyone knows there are loopholes in 498A, and media reports, Judges warn and Politician admit openly.

An offence has been committed by the accused upon the sole testimony of the woman alleging abuse. Given that lying in court has never been taken seriously enough to invoke punishment, laws which presume guilt even before the trial has begun are prone to great misuse.

98% misuse is "okay" says Minister Renuka chowdrey
[Source : http://www.ibnlive.com/news/ill-empo...26051-3-0.html ]

Even there is 98% misuse, why not there is any change?

Because it is not only against husband but his whole Family. The Western funded Feminit Supporter of this law, determined to ruin Family system of India and sabotage Indian Society.

Original Post : http://mynation.net/study-report-498a.htm

The Minority of Men With the Warrior Gene

Sarge — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:12:38 GMT

Sergeant Preston's & Yukon King's Blog

The Minority of Men With the Warrior Gene

Quote:

Individuals with the so-called �warrior gene� display higher levels of aggression in response to provocation, according to new research co-authored by Rose McDermott, professor of political science at Brown University. In the experiment, which is the first to examine a behavioral measure of aggression in response to provocation, subjects were asked to cause physical pain to an opponent they believed had taken money from them by administering varying amounts of hot sauce.
Only about a third of people in Western populations have the low-activity form of MAOA. By comparison, low-activity MAOA has been reported to be much more frequent (approaching two-thirds of people) in some populations that had a history of warfare. This led to a controversy over MAOA being dubbed the �warrior gene.�
A total of 78 subjects took part in the experiment over networked computers (all were male students from the University of California-Santa Barbara).

This is the first �human� study that supports my assertion in my book �Honor Verses the Amazonian World.� In it I make this same assertion that a minority of the male population has been doing the fighting throughout history (Lion-like Gene), even within the male population. Thus this study confirms this assertion and in combination to another study on Tamarin Monkeys (which came up with the same rough 1/3 numbers) shows that it is this minority that moves against injustice when provoked.

As suggested in my book if there are too many wars, and these important male numbers are disseminated, or the culture follows effete practices and promotes the rise of fox or weasel-like males over Lion-like males, then the effect is the same. Thus both these unbalanced cultures in effect de-ball themselves and become susceptible to overthrow from outside forces or inside forces. Another interesting historical quote in support of this thesis is that found in an old Cheyenne saying:

Quote:

A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground.

These tests were run on an all male test group, and it will be interesting to see how many women are the same. As I have already stated I strongly suspect an effete gene will be found that doesn�t react the same way as this gene or set of genes, but allows for a reaction from a far later (Fox-Like Gene).

It is important to note that Roman males (of enlistment age) fled the cities to the country to avoid the draft, as only males in the city would be drafted. This old fashion draft dodging came towards the end of Rome�s dominance, which brought on the enlistment of Germans into the army to fight for the Roman state. Along with bribing to stay out of the Roman army (a practice that happened in the US Civil War) a list of ways to avoid the direct fighting is allowed in weak states.
The French have had the same problem with their surrender monkey attitudes of recent history, as can be seen in their creation of the Foreign Legion, which was like the Romans often filled with Germans, as history repeats itself in the fact the Franks were the warrior portion of the Frank-Roman formation in the creation of the French state.
For the MRA cause this is extremely important, as only one third of men (or likely less) who suffer from state injustice will find a way to react to it, as others will rationalize passiveness. Also we need to take care to see what percentage of men, with this gene, make up the MRA movement.

Still this does answer much as to why so many men will not fight back with hot sauce, or any method one can think up, to answer the kind of injustice taking place. These 2/3s are likely behaving as women do in becoming passive-aggressive to the system in response to its injustice upon them, or are part of those taking it out on themselves in the high suicide numbers.

Our goal are serious MRAs should be to find the type of males that will fight back, when treated with measurable injustice, in a constructive and cooperative way. Thus a clear majority of men will not fit this bill. Those who aim for a majority of men and women �first� are needing these numbers to give them the faith that they lack by their genes. We should center on finding Lion-like males and save the numbers for later.

For more click:
http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2009/01/hotsauce

Contact/shared parenting judgement

petemorrisni — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:42:10 GMT

Neutral Citation No.: [2009] NIFam 3
Ref:
STE7403

Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
6/02/09
(subject to editorial corrections)*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________

FAMILY DIVISION
________

08/029055

OFFICE OF CARE AND PROTECTION
________

RE: R (SHARED RESIDENCE APPLICATION) (No 2)
_______

STEPHENS J

Anonymity

[1] The judgment in this case is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the child and the adult members of the family must be strictly preserved.

Introduction

[2] The applicant in this case is A who is the father of R, now 11 (dob 22 January 1998). G is mother of R. A seeks to obtain a Shared Residence Order in respect of R pursuant to Article 8 of the Childrens Order (Northern Ireland) 1995.

Previous proceedings for a Shared Residence Order

[3] This is the second application by A for a Shared Residence Order in respect of R. The first application was heard and determined by Gillen J who delivered judgment on 24 October 2002 [2002] NI Fam 22. At the time of that application R was living with G. Gillen J came to the conclusion that to make a Shared Residence Order would not be best for R and accordingly declined to make such an Order. He did make a Contact Order in respect of A�s contact with R.

[4] G alleged in the previous application that historically A had been a very controlling, domineering and determined individual who had initiated a series of Contact Order applications culminating in the previous Residence Order application as part of his overall attempt to control her and R. Gillen J had no doubt that neither A nor G were without flaw but that G genuinely felt that A was attempting to control her life. That her insecurity was borne of a history during the marriage and had been fed by many of the actions of her husband, A. Gillen J illustrated his reasoning with three specific instances of A�s controlling behaviour and of his determination to take control of the family situation without catering at all for the sensitivities or appropriate concerns of G, his wife. That in the process A did not afford to G dignity and equality but rather steamrollered her views simply because he did not agree with them. Accordingly Gillen J concluded that there was more than a measure of justification in G�s disquiet about A�s behaviour and attitude towards her. That A�s actions smacked of an attempt on his part to dominate and control her irrespective of the upset he occasioned her. Gillen J held that the acrimony between A and G would feed into R�s insecurity. That a Shared Residence Order would feed into G�s sense of insecurity and lack of trust and in turn her anguish and concern could affect her care for R which was his paramount concern. That A would avail of a Shared Residence Order to exercise more control over his wife G, and their child R.

[5] Gillen J also concluded that disharmony between A and G carried the risk of grave emotional damage to R. In making the Contact Order Gillen J warned that if contact was abused by either parent and used as a means of disquieting the other then the court would not hesitate to act to ensure that R was adequately protected. He reminded the parties of the court�s powers under Article 179(14) of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 to order that neither party shall issue further proceedings in respect of the child without prior leave of the court. Finally he directed that any further proceedings touching upon R should be referred to him for hearing.

[6] Neither party to this second application for a Shared Residence Order applied that Gillen J should hear it. He has indicated that he no longer considers that it is appropriate for him to hear the application bearing in mind that he is no longer in the Family Division. Accordingly and with the parties express agreement I will hear this application.

History of these proceedings

[7] The second application for a Shared Residence Order was commenced on form C1 on 28 August 2008. A�s reason for applying was stated as his belief:-

�That it is in the best interests of the child that there be joint residence in favour of his mother and me and the child himself has frequently expressed that that is his wish.�

[8] A does not give any particulars as to how and when R expressed his wishes to him. For instance there are no details as to how the conversations between A and R came about, whether A prompted them, or how A reacted to them.

[9] It is apparent from A�s solicitor�s letter enclosing form C1 that the divorce petition between A and G was listed for hearing on 9 September 2008 and that there were ancillary relief proceedings either being heard before Master Redpath or about to be commenced. Those ancillary relief proceedings have not as yet been concluded and affidavits are still being filed. A decree nisi was granted in early September 2008.

[10] The Shared Residence application was first listed before Master Wells on 17 September 2008. R was due to sit his 11 plus examination in November 2008. Against the background of divorce and ancillary relief proceedings and in view of the exam which R was to sit, the Master adjourned the Shared Residence application to 26 November 2008 but gave an indication that at the adjourned hearing directions would be given to A that he should file a statement as to what circumstances had changed since Gillen J delivered his judgment in October 2002.

[11] On 26 November 2008 A advised that he wished the Official Solicitor to interview R �to ascertain his wishes and feelings as to how he wants to split his time residing with each parent�. The Master granted an adjournment to 8 December 2008 to enable counsel for G to take instructions in respect of this proposal.

[12] On 8 December 2008 G by her counsel indicated that she did not agree to the Official Solicitor speaking with R. She was afforded an opportunity to file a statement of evidence. The application was adjourned to 9 January 2009. The Official Solicitor was not appointed but rather the court put her on notice so that she was at liberty to attend the adjourned hearing as �a watching brief�.

[13] On 7 January 2009 G filed her statement of evidence in which she stated that she believed and was very deeply concerned that R was being manipulated by A to a particular view. That she believes that this is within the capacity of A as he is a man who without fail wishes to exert control over every situation. She went on to state that she believes that R has been spoken to by his father about A�s desires and that A is now attempting to use R in a very concerning way to undermine the effect of Gillen J�s Order and to change it to get what A has always wanted which is joint residence. She also believed that the motivation for the application �was entirely connected to the monetary aspect of our divorce and the pending ancillary relief application�. G stated that R has returned from contact with A saying that:-

�Dad says he wants me half and half. Half with him and half with you.�

[14] She gave illustrations of the way in which she says A dominates R.

[15] On 9 January 2009 G opposed A�s application that R be interviewed by the Official Solicitor on the basis that it would lead to emotional harm and upset to him. That the court should first determine whether there was going to be emotional harm and upset to R before deciding to direct that his wishes and feelings be ascertained. If the court concluded that there was an appreciable risk of such harm to R then that would be a material factor to be taken into account in considering whether or not to ascertain the wishes and feelings of R. A on the other hand stated that if R expressed a wish not to have a Shared Residence Order or did not wish to express any wish one way or the other then that he would withdraw his application.

[16] On 9 January 2009 Master Wells directed that the case be heard by the High Court on 5 February 2009 and she appointed the Official Solicitor to represent R.

[17] The application came before me on 5 February 2009.

The preliminary issue as to the wishes and feelings of R

[18] Article 3(1) of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 provides that in determining the shared residence application R�s welfare is the paramount consideration. Article 3(3) provides that in considering whether to make a Shared Residence Order the court is to have regard in particular to the ascertainable wishes and feelings of R (considered in the light of his age and understanding) and also, inter alia, to his emotional needs. A wishes the Official Solicitor to ascertain R�s wishes and feelings before the substantive hearing of the shared residence application. G wishes the court first to determine whether ascertaining R�s wishes and feelings would in the circumstances of this case cause him emotional harm. That this should be ascertained after hearing evidence but before concluding the application for a Shared Residence Order.

[19] Ms Ramsey, who appeared for A, accepted that R should not be interviewed by the Official Solicitor if there was an appreciable risk of emotional harm to him. I consider that she was correct to make that concession on the facts of this case but would qualify the extent of the concession in that the nature and extent of harm are relevant factors to be taken into account. Ms Ramsey contended that G�s statement did not establish a risk of emotional harm to R. I enquired as to whether if I concluded that G�s statement did establish a risk of emotional harm her client wished to file a statement and give evidence in response to G�s statement before I came to a final decision as to whether to direct the Official Solicitor to ascertain R�s wishes and feelings. I rose for a short time for her to obtain instructions from her client. She informed the court that in those circumstances A did wish to file a statement and give evidence.

Conclusion

[20] I consider that G�s statement on its own and also seen in the context of the findings made by Gillen J, does give rise to concerns that R has been dominated and manipulated by A. If for instance and depending on the circumstances, A did say to R that he wanted R half and half. Half with A and half with G then that might be an undermining of the security of the arrangements that were put in place by Gillen J. I express no concluded or decided view on that matter or indeed any of the matters contained within G�s statement. I emphasise that at present I have an entirely open mind as to the evidence. There is however the risk of emotional harm to R for instance if he has been manipulated by A into taking a particular view and he then expressed that view and perceived that it was decisive. A dawning realisation of what had occurred would substantially affect him emotionally. It would be the very antithesis of a stable and settled environment with A and G collaborating in his interests. I do not consider that it is appropriate at this stage to direct the Official Solicitor to ascertain the wishes and feelings of R. I defer that decision until I am afforded an opportunity of deciding on the evidence whether there is substance in the allegations made by G contained within her statement and in the light of any findings I make the consequence as to the existence of any emotional impact on R and if there is such an impact the degree and nature of it.

Directions and mediation

[21] I direct that A file a statement of evidence within 7 days. I was minded to direct a hearing on Thursday 19 February 2009 but A and G upon being informed as to the decision in relation to this matter have today indicated to me their desire to enter into mediation. I will allow a period of time to elapse to facilitate mediation.

[22] I adopt the approach of Morgan J as to the court�s role when directing or facilitating mediation. In a paper delivered to the Four Jurisdictions Family Law Conference held in Belfast on 31 January 2009 he stated �

�In cases involving children the obligation of the court under article 3 (1) of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 is to consider the child's welfare as its paramount consideration. This is a non-delegable duty and the process of mediation, however achieved, can only be an aid towards securing that end. Of course the court is not directly involved in the carrying out of the mediation and its role must, therefore, be supervisory but I have considerable difficulty with any suggestion that mediation is a stand-alone activity which sits outside the judicial process and merely feeds in at the start with a referral and at the end with a result. The making of agreements, the achievement of compromises and the reduction of conflict are properly matters to which mediation should be directed but they also bear heavily on the court's consideration of the welfare of the child. In this jurisdiction the court will, therefore, expect to be told about the extent to which agreement was reached, compromises achieved and conflicts reduced within the mediation and the reasons for that. The determination by a court of the welfare of the child is not a matter of private agreement but an issue of public interest and concern. The process leading to that determination ought to enable the court to carry out its supervisory function in a manner which properly respects its obligation to secure open justice in matters of public interest and that is all the more so in cases where for a variety of good reasons the details leading to the decision may not be published.

This is a view which has not achieved universal support among those providing mediation services. There are those who argue that mediation is best achieved in circumstances where there is a relationship of confidence upon which the mediator can establish the trust of the mediating parties. I also recognise that it is open to parties to engage in mediation outside the court process and indeed the without prejudice discussions that take place between lawyers prior to the court's involvement might be seen as an aspect of that. Where, however, the dispute continues to the point where the court must involve itself in its resolution any direction to mediate must be seen as part of the entire court process and cannot be seen in isolation. Lastly on this I just want to make it clear that reporting to the court does not mean that the court requires a record of who said what and when. The role of the court is, as I have indicated, supervisory and the disclosure required is that which enables the court to properly carry out its function.�

[23] A and G have agreed that the mediator should be Family Coaching Consultancy and that a report to the court will be provided by the mediator. I have authorised the release of some of the papers in relation to this case to the mediator. In view of my decision in relation to the potential for emotional harm to R and before I have heard evidence from A and G then at this stage the mediation process should not involve the mediator contacting R either directly or indirectly to ascertain his wishes and feelings. That does not remove the obligation on the mediator to have regard in particular to the ascertainable wishes and feelings of R considered in the light of his age and understanding. It removes at this stage one method of a way of ensuring that R is heard. That direction to the mediator that he or she must not contact R either directly or indirectly reinforces the need to ensure that the court is adequately informed of the events within the mediation by the mediator reporting to the court to ensure that R�s independent voice be heard. For instance the result of the mediation may lead to a different attitude by G to an approach to R by the Official Solicitor. Alternatively it may lead to A deciding not to proceed with the application for a shared residence order. In either case the court must be fully informed and must be involved in the decision making process. As Morgan J stated �the determination by a court of the welfare of the child is not a matter of private agreement but an issue of public interest and concern.�

[24] The mediator will report to the court by Monday 23 March 2009. I will review the case on 30 March 2009. If despite mediation the matter has to proceed to a hearing then in advance of the review hearing the parties are to have exchanged a written list of the issues upon which they wish to obtain directions and they should be prepared for a hearing during the course of that week. In that respect I am provisionally listing the case for Thursday 2 April 2009. The parties are to be in a position to exchange any further evidence in advance of that hearing date. If in the meantime mediation proves to be unsuccessful then I expect to be informed immediately so that I can bring forward the date of the hearing.

Divorce judgement

petemorrisni — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:40:37 GMT

Neutral Citation No.: [2009] MASTER 64
Ref:

Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
12/2/09
(subject to editorial corrections)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND

------

FAMILY DIVISION

PROBATE AND MATRIMONIAL

------

BETWEEN:

N
Petitioner;

and

N
Respondent.
------

Master Bell

[1] In this application the petitioner (to whom I shall refer, for ease of reference, as �the wife") seeks Ancillary Relief pursuant to a summons dated 13 September 2007.

[2] At the final hearing of this matter the wife was represented by Miss Connolly who had been instructed by John Ross and Son solicitors. The wife gave oral evidence during which she adopted the contents of her affidavit which had been sworn on 13 September 2007 as her evidence for the purpose of these proceedings. Counsel also advanced her client�s case by means of oral submissions.

[3] The history of the proceedings is as follows. At the first directions hearing held on 8 November 2007 Master Redpath ordered that the respondent (to whom I shall refer, for ease of reference, as �the husband") make and file an affidavit as to his means and assets within 35 days. The husband failed to do so. At a second hearing on 21 February 2008 there was no appearance by or on behalf of the husband. The day before the hearing the Matrimonial Office had received a telephone call from a woman purporting to be the husband�s sister who informed the office that the husband was unfit to travel to Northern Ireland for the hearing. At the hearing Master Redpath listed the matter for an undefended hearing before me on 4 June 2008. On 4 June 2008 there was again no appearance by the husband but the Matrimonial Office received a telephone call from a woman purporting to be the husband�s sister who informed the office that the husband had missed the boat from Scotland that morning and would not be able to attend. In the circumstances I then adjourned the proceedings until 24 June 2008 and ordered the husband to make and file an affidavit as to his means and assets by 19 June 2008. Again, no affidavit was filed by the husband within the time allowed. At the hearing on 24 June 2008 the husband did not appear and was not represented. I received sworn evidence from the wife that the husband�s sister had informed the wife�s solicitor that it was not she who had telephoned the court office on 4 June 2008. I also received sworn evidence from Gemma Smyth, solicitor, of John Ross and Son, who had written to the husband firstly on 4 June 2008 to advise him of the hearing date of 24 June 2008 and, secondly, on 10 June 2008 enclosing a copy of the court order of 4 June 2008. She gave evidence that these pieces of correspondence were sent to the address in Scotland which she had previously used for the husband and from which he had previously responded. In the light of the history of the proceedings and the sworn evidence I received, I concluded that the husband was deliberately refusing to engage in the proceedings and, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to continue with the final hearing in the husband�s absence.

[4] The assets which were the subject of the hearing were stated by counsel to be a property in Scotland which the husband inherited from his mother in 2005 and the husband�s pension. The property had been valued by an estate agent on behalf of the wife at approximately �120,000. Counsel, however, submitted that the wife was not in a position to give evidence from her own knowledge as to whether the property was free of charges and had been advised that she could not enforce any order made by the Northern Ireland courts against the property unless she instituted separate proceedings in Scotland. The CETV of the husband�s pension amounts to �175,090.93.

THE HISTORY OF THE MARRIAGE

[5] The wife is aged 39 and the husband is aged 42. The parties married on 27 June 1987. They separated in January 2004 and a Decree Nisi was granted on 27 April 2007. There are three children of the marriage: daughters aged 20 and 15 and a son aged 17, all of whom live with the husband. The husband now lives with his girlfriend in Scotland. The wife lives alone in rented accommodation in Northern Ireland.

WIFE�S SUBMISSIONS

[6] The wife seeks a 70% - 30% pension sharing order to be made in her favour in respect of the husband�s pension.

[7] She argues that this is an appropriate decision in the light of the following factors :

(i) Their equal contributions during the 16 year marriage;
(ii) The financial conduct engaged in by the husband during the marriage;
(iii) The fact that the husband inherited a house from his mother in 2005 which was, in all likelihood, inherited free from a mortgage.

HUSBAND�S SUBMISSIONS

[8] In the light of the husband�s deliberate non-attendance I had no submissions made on his behalf and the wife�s evidence on all points, including the fact of his having inherited his mother�s house and her allegations as to his conduct, was therefore uncontested, as were the arguments advanced by the wife�s counsel.

THE ARTICLE 27 FACTORS

Financial needs of the child

[9] Article 27 of the Matrimonial Causes Order (Northern Ireland) 1978 provides that first consideration must be given to the welfare while a minor of any child of the family who has not obtained the age of 18. Although they reside outside the jurisdiction, two of the children of the marriage are currently aged under 18. However, because of the nature of the order sought by the wife, the impact of any such order will not be felt by the children while they are under the age of 18 and hence this Article 27 factor does not fall to be considered in this case.

Income and earning capacity

[10] The wife gave evidence that she is employed as a home care worker [and earns �1,000 per month including mileage allowance]. The limited hearsay evidence available in respect of the husband�s income was that the husband did not appear to be working and that his girlfriend was receiving incapacity benefit.

Financial needs, obligations and responsibilities of the parties

[11] There was no evidence placed before me of unusual financial needs in respect of the parties. The parties have different current needs given that the husband cares for the children and the wife does not. However, given that the wife�s application solely concerns a pension sharing order, this is not a factor which impacts on whether to make such an order.

The standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage

[12] Both parties enjoyed a modest standard of living prior to the breakdown of the marriage.

The age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage

[13] As stated previously, the wife is aged 39 and the husband is 42. The marriage was of significant duration, having lasted over 16 years until the separation.

Any physical or mental disability by the parties of the marriage

[14] Evidence was adduced by the wife that, as a consequence of the way she had been treated by the husband during the marriage, she suffered from depression and had to go on sick leave from her employment for approximately six months. There was no evidence that this appeared likely to be a continuing factor and it was not strongly submitted that it was one which should affect the ancillary relief determination.

The contribution made by each of the parties to the welfare of the family

[15] The evidence before me was that the contribution made by each of the parties to the welfare of the family was equal. While the children live with the husband, this does not indicate a lack of desire by the wife to be involved in her children�s lives. Her evidence to the court was that the husband, unfortunately in her view, had persuaded the children to come and live with him and that he had then moved with them to Scotland in 2006. She gave evidence that, since that time, the husband has done his utmost to prevent the wife having contact with the children.

Conduct

[16] Article 27 of the 1978 Order provides that the court shall in particular have regard to the conduct of each of the parties if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it. The issue of financial conduct was raised in respect of the husband�s behaviour. Evidence of three separate matters was offered in this regard. The first allegation was in respect of house sales. During the history of the marriage the parties have lived in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. Over the time of the marriage there have been four matrimonial homes, purchased on a serial basis, as the couple moved from one location to another. The wife asserted that she had been told by the husband that none of the four house sales had resulted in any surplus equity being realised. In her affidavit she deposed that while she initially believed him on this point, having since learnt �the extent of [his] deceptions� she was now �not sure�. Given the absence of any documentation as to purchase and selling prices, and the vagueness of the allegation, I cannot be satisfied that this conduct allegation is proven and I do not therefore take it into account. The second allegation concerns a compensation payment from the husband�s employer. The wife�s evidence was that the husband had been employed as a depot manager. However he experienced stress which led him to go on extended sick leave. When he subsequently returned to work he was offered a lower position and received a lump sum of �25,000 in compensation. The wife stated that she had been told of this fact in 2007 by the husband�s sister. The third allegation was in relation to an affair which the defendant was alleged to have carried on. The wife�s evidence was that over a 20 year period the defendant had carried on an affair with his present girlfriend. During their marriage the husband, on a monthly basis, told the wife that he had to attend a work-related course which would last a week. He then left the matrimonial home and returned a week later. The wife subsequently discovered that the husband had over this period been visiting his girlfriend, who comes from Manchester, and that he had been lying about the amount of his income �in order to fund this relationship�. In neither her affidavit nor in her oral evidence was the source of this allegation dealt with. While the mere fact of an affair will not be relevant in ancillary relief proceedings, this conduct allegation has however, if proven, implications for the ancillary relief proceedings because of its financial dimension.

[17] The second and third allegations by the wife are hearsay evidence. The law governing the admissibility of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings is found in the Civil Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. By virtue of Article 3(1) evidence must not be excluded on the ground that it is hearsay. The Order then goes on to provide various safeguards in relation to hearsay evidence. The first of these is a power contained in article 4 for the party who did not introduce the statement to apply for leave of the court to call the person who made the statement as a witness and cross-examine him on it. It would have been open to the husband to have applied to seek to have the witness or witnesses available for cross examination. Because he did not engage in the proceedings, the husband did not avail himself of this option. Article 5 of the 1997 Order deals with the question of the weight the court should give to hearsay evidence. It provides that, in estimating the weight (if any) to be given to hearsay evidence in civil proceedings, the court shall have regard to any circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the reliability or otherwise of the evidence.

[18] Article 5(2) of the 1997 Order provides regard shall be had, in particular, to whether the party by whom the hearsay evidence is adduced gave notice to the other party or parties to the proceedings of his intention to adduce the hearsay evidence and, if so, to the sufficiency of the notice given. The Rules of the Supreme Court do not lay down any particular form of notice which should be complied with. Both hearsay allegations were contained in the wife�s affidavit which was served on the husband. This satisfies the notice requirement. Neither allegation was challenged through the filing of an affidavit by the husband nor by the adducing of any oral evidence.

[19] Article 5(3) of the 1997 Order provides that, in estimating the weight (if any) to be given to hearsay evidence in civil proceedings, regard may also be had, in particular, to the following-
(a) whether it would have been reasonable and practicable for the party by whom the evidence is adduced to have produced the maker of the original statement as a witness;
(b) whether the original statement was made contemporaneously with the occurrence or existence of the matters stated;
(c) whether the evidence involves multiple hearsay;
(d) whether any person involved had any motive to conceal or misrepresent matters;
(e) whether the original statement was an edited account, or was made in collaboration with another or for a particular purpose;
(f) whether the circumstances in which the evidence is adduced as hearsay are such as to suggest an attempt to prevent proper evaluation of its weight.

[20] I have considered the Article 5(3) factors and, in particular, have taken into account the following matters. Firstly, the husband�s sister was not called to give oral evidence. Miss Connolly argued that while the sister may have been willing to inform the wife of certain matters, she was unlikely to have been willing to give evidence on the wife�s behalf against her brother�s interests. It would not therefore have been reasonable and practicable for the wife to have produced the maker of the original statement as a witness. Furthermore, no documentary evidence from the husband�s former employer was submitted in respect of the compensation payment nor was any witness from the husband�s former employer called to give evidence at the hearing. No explanation was offered as to why this was the position. Secondly, though the wife might have had a motive to misrepresent her husband�s financial conduct, she gave her evidence in what appeared to be an entirely honest and truthful manner. I was therefore content to accept her account as credible. I have therefore concluded on the balance of probabilities that I may accord the hearsay evidence sufficient weight as to regard the second and third of the wife�s conduct allegations as proven.

Value of any benefit which by reason of dissolution of the marriage a party will lose

[21] Other than the pension arrangements, there was no submission or evidence that there were such matters.

Other matters taken into account

[22] Article 27 of the Order requires the court to have regard to �all circumstances of the case�. There are therefore matters which do not fall within the ambit of Article 27(2) (a) to (h) but which may unquestionably be relevant in a given case. In this regard the husband�s inheritance of his mother�s house falls to be considered. As before, I have applied the provisions the Civil Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 in respect of hearsay evidence. I have therefore concluded on the balance of probabilities that I may accord the hearsay evidence sufficient weight as to regard it as proven that the husband has inherited the property in Scotland from his mother and that he received it free from encumbrances.

[23] The issue of inheritance and the effect it has on Ancillary Relief is a constantly evolving one. In White v White [2001] AC 596 Lord Nicholls stated at page 610:

�Property acquired before marriage and inherited property during marriage come from a source wholly external to the marriage. In fairness where this property still exists the spouse to whom it was given should be allowed to keep it. Conversely, the other spouse has a weaker claim to such property than he or she may have regarding matrimonial property.

Clearly, when present this factor is one of the circumstances of the case. It represents a contribution made to the welfare of the family by one of the parties to the marriage. The judge should take it into account. He should decide how important it is in the particular case. The nature and value of the property, the time when, and the circumstance in which this property was acquired, are among the relevant matters to be considered�

In Norris v Norris [2003] 1 FLR 1142: Bennett J said :
�Applying the words of the statute, in my judgment, the court is required to take into account all property of each party. That must include property acquired during the marriage by gift, or succession, or as a beneficiary under a trust. Thus, what comes in by statute through the front door ought not, in my judgment, be put out through the back door and thus not remain in the courts discretionary exercise without very good reasons. In my judgment, merely because inherited property has not been touched, or has not become part of the matrimonial pot, is not necessarily, without more, a reason for excluding it from the courts discretionary exercise.�

[24] I therefore intend, in the circumstances of this case, not to exclude inherited wealth from the case but to regard it as one factor to be taken into consideration in applying the Article 27 checklist.

CONCLUSION

[25] Article 27A of the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 requires the court to consider whether it would be appropriate to exercise the powers afforded by Articles 25 and 26 in such a way that the financial obligations of each party towards the other would be terminated as soon after the grant of the Decree Nisi as the Court considers just and reasonable � the �clean break� approach. In the words of Waite J. in Tandy v Tandy (unreported) 24 October 1986 �the legislative purpose� is to enable the parties to a failed marriage, whenever fairness allows, to go their separate ways without the running irritant of financial interdependence or dispute.� The use of the word �appropriate� in Article 27A clearly grants the court a discretion as to whether or not or order a clean break. Duckworth expresses the view at paragraph B3[2] of �Matrimonial Property Finance� that one of the principles emerging from White v White [2001] AC 596 and Miller v Miller ; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] 2 AC 618 is that the court should, whenever practicable, bring about a clean break between the parties. The particular facts of each individual case must therefore be considered with a view to deciding the appropriateness of a clean break. In this case I consider that a clean break is possible and desirable.

[26] On the evidence presented to me, and in particular :

(i) The duration of the marriage;
(ii) The parties equal contributions during the marriage;
(iii) The financial conduct which was engaged in by the husband during the marriage; and
(iv) The fact that the husband inherited a house from his mother in 2005

these factors collectively warrant a pension sharing order in terms of 65% to the wife and 35% to the husband. I therefore so order.

Convicted of murder

petemorrisni — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:39:43 GMT

Neutral Citation No.: [2009] NICC 2
Ref:
WEA7384

Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
26/01/2009
(subject to editorial corrections)

IN THE CROWN COURT IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________

R -v- LANA TERESA O�NEILLL
________

WEATHERUP J

[1] Lana O�Neill, on 9 December 2008 you were convicted by a jury of the murder of Francis Gerard Saunders on 10 September 2006. On a conviction for murder the sentence is prescribed by law as being life imprisonment.

[2] I must now determine whether to impose a minimum term of imprisonment to be served before you can be considered for release. The present procedure was introduced by the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, which came into force on 8 October 2001. Where a Court passes a life sentence the Court may specify a part of the sentence to be served before the prisoner can be considered for release. This period may be described as the tariff or the minimum term.

[3] It should be emphasised that the Court, in specifying part of the sentence, is not setting a release date. The procedure under the 2001 Order is that �

(i) The Court may specify the part of the sentence to be served before the release provisions apply. The Court has the option of not specifying any part of the sentence. In effect the Court determines the future date on which you will be considered for release on licence, or parole as it now seems to be popularly described.

(ii) The part of the sentence specified by the Court �shall be such part as the court considers appropriate to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence having regard to the seriousness of the offence, or of the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it.� The minimum term is intended to reflect the seriousness of the offence, rather than the risk posed by the offender.

(iii) The minimum term, unlike other determinate sentences, is not subject to normal remission rules where prisoners may receive remission of one half of the stated sentence. A minimum term of say 12 years specified in respect of a life sentence is the equivalent of a determinate sentence of 24 years on which full remission is earned.

(iv) After the specified part of the sentence has been served the Parole Commissioners will direct your release if �satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm that the prisoner should be confined�. Accordingly, future risk to the public determines the release date, after completion of the period served for retribution and deterrence.

(v) The Secretary of State will order release on licence for the remainder of your life, and you can be recalled to prison if you do not comply with the terms of the licence.

[4] After a similar regime was introduced in England and Wales, Practice Statement (Crime � Life Sentences) [2002] 3 All ER 412 was introduced on 31 May 2002. The Practice Statement offered �guidance� to the judges although they retained discretion to depart from the guidance if that was considered necessary in the circumstances of an individual case. The application of this Practice Statement in Northern Ireland was approved by our Court of Appeal in R v McCandless [2005] NI 269 and Attorney General�s Reference (No 6 of 2004 [2005] NIJB 395 (Doyle).

[5] The approach of the Practice Statement of 31 May 2002 to adult offenders is as follows -

�The normal starting point of 12 years

10. Cases falling within this starting point will normally involve the killing of an adult victim, arising from a quarrel or loss of temper between two people known to each other. It will not have the characteristics referred to in para 12. Exceptionally, the starting point may be reduced because of the sort of circumstances described in the next paragraph.

11. The normal starting point can be reduced because the murder is one where the offender�s culpability is significantly reduced, for example, because: (a) the case came close to the borderline between murder and manslaughter; or (b) the offender suffered from mental disorder, or from a mental disability which lowered the degree of his criminal responsibility for the killing, although not affording a defence of diminished responsibility; or (c) the offender was provoked (in a non-technical sense), such as by prolonged and eventually unsupportable stress; or (d) the case involved an overreaction in self-defence; or (e) the offence was a mercy killing. These factors could justify a reduction to eight/nine years (equivalent to 16/18 years).

The higher starting point of 15/16 years

12. The higher starting point will apply to cases where the offender�s culpability was exceptionally high or the victim was in a particularly vulnerable position. Such cases will be characterised by a feature which makes the crime especially serious, such as: (a) the killing was `professional� or a contract killing; (b) the killing was politically motivated; (c) the killing was done for gain (in the course of a burglary, robbery etc); (d) the killing was intended to defeat the ends of justice (as in the killing of a witness or potential witness); (e) the victim was providing a pubic service; (f) the victim was a child or was otherwise vulnerable; (g) the killing was racially aggravated; (h) the victim was deliberately targeted because of his or her religion or sexual orientation; (i) there was evidence of sadism, gratuitous violence or sexual maltreatment, humiliation or degradation of the victim before the killing; (j) extensive and/or multiple injuries were inflicted on the victim before death; (k) the offender committed multiple murders.

Variation of the starting point

13. Whichever starting point is selected in a particular case, it may be appropriate for the trial judge to vary the starting point upwards or downwards, to take account of aggravating or mitigating factors, which relate to either the offence or the offender, in the particular case.

14. Aggravating factors relating to the offence can include: (a) the fact that the killing was planned; (b) the use of a firearm; (c) arming with a weapon in advance; (d) concealment of the body, destruction of the crime scene and/or dismemberment of the body; (e) particularly in domestic violence cases, the fact that the murder was the culmination of cruel and violent behaviour by the offender over a period of time.

15. Aggravating factors relating to the offender will include the offender�s previous record and failure to respond to previous sentences, to the extent that this is relevant to culpability rather than to risk.

16. Mitigating factors relating to the offence will include: (a) an intention to cause grievous bodily harm, rather than to kill; (b) spontaneity and lack of pre-meditation.

17. Mitigating factors relating to the offender may include: (a) the offender�s age, (b) clear evidence of remorse or contrition; (c) a timely plea of guilty.

Very serious cases

18. A substantial upward adjustment may be appropriate in the most serious cases, for example, those involving a substantial number of murders, or if there are several factors identified as attracting the higher starting point present. In suitable cases, the result might even be a minimum term of 30 years (equivalent to 60 years) which would offer little or no hope of the offender�s eventual release. In cases of exceptional gravity, the judge, rather than setting a whole life minimum term, can state that there is no minimum period which could properly be set in that particular case.

19. Among the categories of case referred to in para 12, some offences may be especially grave. These include cases in which the victim was performing his duties as a prison officer at the time of the crime or the offence was a terrorist or sexual or sadistic murder or involved a young child. In such a case, a term of 20 years and upwards could be appropriate.�
[6] The Practice Statement has been designed as a multi tier system. The normal starting point of 12 years may, exceptionally, be reduced where culpability is significantly reduced. The higher starting point of 15/16 years will be applied where the crime is especially serious. The highest minimum terms will be applied to very serious cases. This reflects the gradations in the seriousness of the crime of murder and admits of the flexibility that is necessary in completing the exercise of determining a minimum term on the basis of retribution and deterrence having regard to the seriousness of the offence.
[7] On 10 September 2006 you stabbed your partner Francis (known as Frankie) Saunders in a caravan that you shared in Newcastle, County Down. You had arrived at the caravan together on the evening of Friday 8 September 2006 and had attended a birthday party in a public house in Newcastle that evening. Some differences had emerged between you and Frankie at the end of that evening and the differences continued the following morning. By later in the day those differences had been set aside. It appears that those differences emerged out of your belief that Frankie had shown insufficient attention to you and excessive attention to certain other women. However on the Saturday evening you and Frankie had gone out together to the public house in Newcastle and returned to the caravan together in the early hours of Sunday morning. Frankie had consumed an extraordinary amount of alcohol as he had a blood/alcohol reading in excess of 350 mgs per mls. On the return to the caravan your differences re-emerged. The evidence of the witnesses would indicate that you were berating Frankie and he was largely passive. At some point you stabbed Frankie in the chest with a kitchen knife. He may have been unaware of the nature or the extent of his injuries by reason of his alcohol consumption. In the event he died during the night in the shower room in the caravan.
[8] You were born on 21 October 1955 and are therefore 53 years old. You experienced a difficult upbringing as your father had alcohol problems and you spent periods of your childhood with your grandmother. You married at 17 and had 3 children during a marriage that lasted 25 years before separation. You experienced difficulties in your marriage, no doubt contributed to by an alcoholic husband. You began a relationship with the deceased in 2002. He too had difficulties with alcohol. You have your own problems with alcohol which you will not admit. Your actions have been a tragedy for your daughters who are distressed that their mother should find herself in this position. A letter from your daughter conveys the sense of disbelief that these events should have happened and that you are subject to life imprisonment.
[9] Frankie�s family have of course lost a loved member of their family and their distress has been compounded by your denials of responsibility for his death. Frankie was divorced and had two daughters and a granddaughter. He came from a large family and is survived by his parents and eight brothers and sisters. Three letters have been received from the family. The letters convey the profound sense of shock, distress, dismay and anger as to the manner in which you have responded to your involvement in the death.
[10] You have denied throughout that you stabbed Frankie. It is clear that you did so, as the jury have found. When you stabbed him in the chest with a knife you must have intended to kill or to cause serious bodily harm, as the jury have found. When you committed the stabbing you were not suffering from diminished responsibility, as the jury have found.
[11] The normal starting point for a minimum term is 12 years. The normal starting point does not apply where the offender�s culpability was exceptionally high or the victim was in a particularly vulnerable position so as to warrant the higher starting point of 15 or 16 years in the instances set out in paragraph 12 of the Practice Statement. I am satisfied that none of the specified instances applies in your case and that there is no other feature of the case that warrants the application of the higher starting point.
[12] It therefore falls to be determined whether, exceptionally, the normal starting point should be reduced because your culpability was significantly reduced. This may arise where the offender suffers from a mental disability which lowered the degree of criminal responsibility, although not affording a defence of diminished responsibility. Whether that example is applicable in your case is a matter of dispute between the prosecution and the defence.
[13] Professor Tom Fahy, Professor of Forensic Mental Health, gave evidence at your trial. You had had previous contact with psychiatric services. Professor Fahy identified specific problem areas, namely cognitive difficulties, as you function at the lower end of the average IQ spectrum and display communication difficulties, including remarkably poor focus, likely to be the result of a degree of brain damage and the low average functioning; alcohol misuse, with indicators that the extent of misuse was harmful; personality difficulties which could not be described as a personality disorder but did involve significant dependent, insecure and emotionally unstable personality traits; jealousy, amounting in the past to a diagnosis of a delusional disorder. Professor Fahy concluded that you suffered from an abnormality of the mind consisting of the combined effects of complex psychopathology, including morbid jealously, vulnerable personality traits and a degree of cognitive impairment. This combination of factors, coupled with the disinhibiting effects of alcohol, led in his opinion to an abnormal frame of mind at the time of the offence. Your frame of mind was dominated by exaggerated concerns about infidelity, perhaps fear of abandonment and limited control of disorganised aggressive impulses. This abnormality of mind he considered would have substantially impaired your responsibility for the acts committed. The jury did not accept the partial defence of diminished responsibility.
[14] Dr Fred Browne, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, gave evidence for the prosecution at the trial and did not agree that you suffered from an abnormality of mind that substantially impaired your responsibility. He stated his impression that you had abnormal personality traits that included difficulties with a sense of identity and chronic complaints relating to mood, a family history of nervous problems, disturbed and insecure early relationships, being factors which probably contributed to the development of disturbances or abnormal traits in personality. However this did not admit of a firm diagnosis of a specific personality disorder.
[15] Since your conviction Dr Browne has carried out a risk assessment. I bear in mind that the exercise of fixing a minimum term is concerned with retribution and deterrence and the Parole Commissioners will have to be satisfied on the issue of dangerousness at a future date when the minimum term has expired. However some of the factors in the risk assessment may be relevant to the minimum term. Historical Clinical Risk � 20 (HCR-20) comprises 20 identified risk factors which are rated as definitely present, probably or partially present or absent. The factors noted as definitely present are relationship instability, substance abuse, major mental illness, early maladjustment, prior supervision failure, lack of insight and unresponsiveness to treatment. These factors, other than prior supervision failure and unresponsiveness to treatment, are elements of the abnormal personality traits that characterise this case. They include �major mental illness� which is based on the previous diagnosis of delusional jealousy, which is strongly correlated with violence.
[16] The Pre Sentence Report furnished by the Probation Service states clearly that you represent a risk of harm to potential partners but there is no evidence that you pose a risk of harm to the general public. You have been assessed as being medium risk of reoffending, reflecting the factors of alcohol abuse, distorted thinking, emotional instability and low self esteem. The factors relied on in the method of assessment adopted by the Probation Service also concern the presence of abnormal personality traits.
[17] Mr Montague QC for the defence referred to R v Kemp [2003] NICC 7 and R v Graham [2007] NICC 25. In both cases the defence of diminished responsibility had been available but in the first case a plea to murder had been entered and in the second case the jury had rejected diminished responsibility. Submissions were made in each case that there should be a reduction in the normal starting point to reflect reduced culpability falling short of diminished responsibility. In Kemp, Nicholson LJ accepted three factors that significantly reduced culpability. One was a mental disorder that reduced his responsibility and the others were provocation by allegations of child molesting and provocation by threats of being shot. The minimum terms was fixed at 8 years on a plea. In Graham, Stephens J concluded that the defendant was suffering from a combination of a depressive illness and a personality disorder that did occasion some lowering of his mental responsibility. However Stephens J did not consider that responsibility was �significantly� reduced but he did take the lowering of his mental responsibility into account in fixing the starting point. That approach engaged the flexibility that should be brought to this exercise in that, while concluding that there was some reduction of responsibility, but that it was not �significant� and therefore did not satisfy the wording of paragraph 11 of the Practice Statement, account may nevertheless be taken of that reduced responsibility. Stephens J also took account of two factors that pointed to the higher starting point, namely a vulnerable victim and the infliction of multiple injuries. Balancing all the considerations Stephens J adopted a starting point of 12 years. Having regard to mitigating factors relating to the offender that concerned the added deprivation arising from the need for medical treatment in Scotland and the added impact of prison on his mental health Stephens J fixed the minimum term at 11 years. Mr Montague also referred to R v Carlisle (1 February 2002), but this case was dealt with under the system that applied before the adoption of the Practice Statement of May 2002. At that time there was a lower tariff starting point of 8 years which Sheil J adopted; referred to the aggravating factor of using a dagger; discussed the false perception of the defendant that had been fuelled by alcohol; gave credit for great and genuine remorse; noted 16 months in custody and applied a minimum term of 6 years from the date of sentence.
[18] I am satisfied that you suffer from abnormal personality traits, although your condition is not such as amounts to diminished responsibility, nor does it reduce your culpability to any significant extent. I agree with what is implicit in the verdict of the jury, that you have maintained a false account of events and I do not accept that you have no memory of what occurred or that your claim that you were unaware of the circumstances of Frankie�s death was an aspect of a mental disorder. Nevertheless your abnormal personality traits are a matter that I take into account. I propose to apply a starting point of 11 years.
[19] Having determined the starting point it is necessary to consider whether it should be varied upwards or downwards to take account of aggravating or mitigating factors which relate to either the offence or the offender.
There are no aggravating factors relating to the offence in the present case.
There are no aggravating factors relating to the offender in the present case.
Mitigating factors relating to the offence include spontaneity and lack of premeditation. I am satisfied that in the present case there was no premeditation and that this incident of stabbing Frankie with the kitchen knife occurred spontaneously after a prolonged airing of the differences that had developed.
Counsel on your behalf contends for an additional mitigating factor in that you did not intend to kill. He refers to the single stab wound and the position of the wound in the lower chest/ abdomen area. The position of the wound can hardly be said to be a matter of calculation on your part and while the single stab wound clearly evidences an intention to cause serious bodily harm it does not necessarily indicate an intention to kill.
There are no mitigating factors relating to the offender. You continue to maintain that you were not responsible for the death of Francis Saunders and you have shown no evidence of remorse or contrition. Mr Montague refers to your great regret for the death of Frankie and for the loss suffered by the Saunders family. I do not doubt that, but it does not amount to remorse, which requires a recognition of responsibility, which is absent in this case.
[20] Taking account of all the above matters the minimum term, to include any period already served in custody, will be fixed at 10 years before you can be considered for release. At the end of that period the Parole Commissioners will conduct hearings to determine whether you should be released.

Parents who smack 'like child abusers'

petemorrisni — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:40:09 GMT

Published Date: 03 March 2009
PARENTS who smack their children are no different from child abusers, it has been claimed.
Northern Ireland's Children's Commissioner Patricia Lewsley, who 10 days ago lost a court appeal to ban parents from smacking their children, said that she would not give up in her attempts to ban smacking � which so far have cost taxpayers about �200,000.

In her first interview since losing the case, the former SDLP politician confirmed that she would like to appeal to the House of Lords if that was feasible.

Asked whether she made any distinction between physical abuse where someone deliberately set out to harm a child, and a loving parent smacking their child in the hope it would make them a better person, Ms Lewsley told the News Letter: "No. Children have told us that hitting is humiliating. Even though they would say their parents are loving and caring, it is still humiliating."

Ms Lewsley stressed that the smacking case was not the totality of her work and that she was engaged in a series of other schemes to help children. She said that she believed a "fair percentage" of young people were aware of her office.

With regard to the smacking case, Ms Lewsley said that she would be meeting her legal advisors "shortly" to decide on whether to pursue an appeal to the House of Lords.

She said that if the legal advice was that it was both within her budget and had a reasonable chance of success, she would like to pursue the case.

"We don't make a decision lightly � we have criteria that we work by with any legal case that we take," she said.

However, Ms Lewsley said that the legal challenge was only one route towards outlawing smacking.

The mother-of-five said that she did not want to criminalise parents.

Asked how smacking could be outlawed without criminalising parents who smacked their children, Ms Lewsley said that "it's about positive parenting strategies" and reiterated that she "didn't want to see parents dragged through the courts".

Instead, she said they should stop smacking their children as has happened in school. read morehttp://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Par...ild.5030914.jp

Fathers Rights Protestor on Top of Pylon A38

petemorrisni — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:33:46 GMT

New Fathers 4 Justice activist Richard West has climbed on Pylon at Exeter Racecourse this 8AM morning where Ben Bradshaw is hosting an equality meeting today.

Over the past two year Ben Bradshaw MP has consistently refused meetings with members of New Fathers 4 Justice when all we are trying to do is enter in to some constructive dialogue with him in his capacity as Minister for the South West http://www.newfathers4justice.com/index.php

The Royal Purse

Shin Samurai — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 00:20:54 GMT

The Royal Purse

Every weekday I take my son to school in the morning. It is rather far and we must take some trains to get there. Japanese trains have some odd rules, customs and attitudes. For example riders like the corner seats and will get up from the one they are sitting in to move to a corner seat so they can sit with no one to one side of them. I�m sure other countries have the same kind of silly preferences. I have taught my son that this is very fussy and he should not be this way.

What is much more odd, and downright rude, is when someone places a bag on a seat beside them on the often very crowded trains instead of the racks above. Almost always when someone stands in front of such a bag occupied seat, obviously wanting to sit down, the slightly rude person then moves their bag with a bit of a grumble to themselves. It is very funny to me, as I have a hard time thinking what makes them be so selfish & petty. Of course I teach my son that this kind of behavior is also petty and impolite. �For the record� politeness is not the be all and end all as some make it out to be, but when we want to make our world a better place we take the time to follow such manners as long as it doesn�t trump more important issues.

Then the other day my son & I where waiting for a train and there were 2 seats with bags on them, with an empty one in between them. Yet this time it was a bench on the platform waiting for a train. My son sat in the empty one and I stood for a very short time in front of one that had a bag occupying it, and the man whose bag it was there, as per usually then moved it (as soon as he put his breakfast snack down). The other bag occupied seat was not needed, and so I took no further notice of it until another man came to sit down where the bag was. I looked over to expect the businesswoman to move her purse, to find she hadn�t. 5 seconds went by, then 10 seconds and still nothing� The man who wanted the seat was now quite mad and I was interested at this woman�s need for her royal purse to need a seat �all to itself�. I then started looking at her squarely, and then said, �excuse me� in Japanese in the hope that 2 persons (with my son being a third) would now allow the woman to be civil and let the royal purse find the floor shoulder or her lap. I also pointed to the man now waiting for the seat, now going on almost a half a minute. Time is much slower in such situations.

She then quickly dismissed moving it saying the laptop she was using on her lap couldn�t be moved as she was using it. Of course anywhere on the floor around her was free or empty and she could just as easily placed the small purse on her shoulder, as it was one of those tiny things, but she was a stubborn thing and so I then let out a laugh, as I thought this was very funny- as well as sad. What her laptop had to do with the purse on the seat I do not know, but after a further 10 seconds of this man waiting she decided to move. She started backing away her laptop and getting her other small items placed in a certain fussy spots, which took a further 5-8 seconds or so. She then got up to leave, with the last thing being moved being the �royal purse�, as she went away in a big huff & snit.

The man then sat in the seat he had waited so long for, and pass on the corner seat she had been sitting in so as to sit right next to me. I then told my son that he should never marry such a woman, and let out a few terms so that we could have reference to such a person in the future. She looked like the modern women in her pantsuit, name brand goods (each no doubt needing a shrine for itself, to be worshipped properly). Her aggressive attitude, that allows us to be at fault for daring to directly confront her indirectness, was typical in the effete world we find ourselves in these days. How far we have advanced compared to the Tokugawa Period or earlier were a samurai could have lopped off her head after a mere 15 seconds or so, or likely just thrown her purse out of the seat.

My son has taken note and I�m happy to have such an example for him before he starts to get to the age where women become too important to him. I like for him to take note of such women and their consumerist ideas, so that he doesn�t come to follow the present fashionable social agenda, push by the media that, �women are poor things that are always victims and at the same time supposedly as tough as men, who will make the world a better place with their better skills of politeness and strength.� Nature didn�t make women better, but unfortunately it will take society time to relearn this lesson.

The Elephant (or Rhino) in the Room

Sarge — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 01:24:55 GMT

Sergeant Preston's & Yukon King's Blog

The Elephant (or Rhino) in the Room

I have noted as of late that some of those established conservative forces in Internet journalism & print have been very slowly moving into the direction of MRA issues. Their steps have been very tepid in their merely being nostalgic in longing for the days when men were men.
Like here: http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1704/28/.

Such men may make a hasty retreat before their wives, or any assortment of feminist forces, but there is no doubt in their use of �cheater detection� on other males. Thus they target men for not being up to snuff, and leave feminism all alone by its lonesome, so that they can follow their instincts as they say they are thinkers.
The question begs answering, �Why should boys brought up with no dad around, no male figures in school (or most avenues of culture), who are told repeatedly they are losers in more ways than they are not, are magically supposed to (through some kid of osmosis) retain every modal of manhood according to each man out there on the sideline of the Gender War who is backseat driving? It is a little more difficult than just a run on sentence too.

Each man has his own vision of manhood, and only when enough men come to some consensus can we hope to have a clear set of traits to place before boys to follow or abandon on their discretion. There have been some honorable ways of conduct for boys to follow in our modern history, and some may want us to go back to the ones they liked, but the reason this can�t be done is they have failed to deal with the threats which have ripped it apart. It may stand on honorable ground, but it must be able to deal with threats let loose upon it, or be rightly termed �lost in the clouds of reason�. We must look to the past, yes, but not simply to our modern era to replace it. �My good dad told me such and such, and that is good enough for me� won�t do anymore. This is because when you face another such man, with his �good dad�s ways�, you are much more likely than not to disagree and break off cooperation as you cheater detect one another.

Looking at the last 2 US Presidents, both had two girls each, before that of Clinton�s official single (unofficial 2 if the book �Primary Colors� is to be believed). Such fathers in the Whitehouse are thus going to be attuned to defending their little girls and not thinking about defending their boys from the ever-growing indirect threats of feminism, now are they? That is setting aside why nature has chosen for both these men not to have any boys in the first place. What have most modern men done for the vast amounts of boys out there in the non-man�s-land of the indirect feminism war on males? Mr. Steyn and Mr. call for the boy in the no-man�s-land to get their act together and talk with a deeper voice, or be like Frankie, because some artsy-farsty says so and that he must be listened to because he is hip or talks like he is supposed to know. For my part, give me a man whose has done deeds and is verbally tongue-tied any day.

My hope in this article is to speed such men up in their well-meaning effort to come to terms with getting men to right themselves. The elephant in the room of course is feminism (and to a lesser extent the Republican party�s symbol�s future), and what these otherwise bright men seem unable to do is take feminism on proper. Now Mark Stein is the he-man in taking on the aggressive Moslems, and he is quite a straight shooter when it comes to democrats, but when it comes to feminism he becomes like the enemies on the left he constantly points to in the face of the Moslem threat. I�m sure he could go at me with all guns blazing, for calling him on this, but my point isn�t that he can�t go after me, or other MRAs, but that he can�t look at feminism very well and let them have it. At least not do so and not sleep on the couch or loose some online sites who distribute his work.
Maybe he feels he is taking on enough of an un-PC fight with Moslems to add more to the list. Yet then why dabble where you don�t want to go if your feel this way? Maybe is in his quest to light a fire under westerns to meet the Moslem menace he feels a need to confront why after reading his book men aren�t standing side-by-side to take on this threat. Do men cheater detect his ideas too? Of course they do, as this is the real male pass time. Our real past times aren�t sports, sex and any other forum of entertainment. It is finding reasons to see other men�s weaknesses over their skills, while at the same time doing the exact opposite with women. This allows men to play at favoring equality between the sexes, or the old fashion chivalry man endlessly.

Some of us are in the position to put the wife on the coach if she dares bring feminism into the harmony of the family! Never heard of this before? Well it doesn�t take hitting and violence for man to lay down the law, but it might take using ones emotions to answer a woman�s use of that ploy. Mr. Steyn is married, but so am I. He may have kids, but I do have boys. What is it that keeps him prancing around the edges trying to get western men to come to the defense of their country, culture and the feminist women on mass (in distress of the coming Moslem horde), without taking of feminism is very odd to me, unless you understand he is cheater detecting others males like very else in a declining state.
Red Tories or Rhino Republicans have brought us to this point, as for the past few decades �the Left has had no enemies to they left and no friends to their right, while conservatives have had no friends to their right�. The Moderate Left has brought in their Radical Left�s (Cultural Marxists) friends ideas of political correctness and the break down of the family with feminism in its wake. Just lately these forces at work have come out to admit this is what they do proudly: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09020312.html
Your need to chat with your many friends to your left, at cork dork functions and the like, is a symptom of this. Whether you are a Joe McTear (former Canadian Prime Minister Joe Clark), who all but rolled over like a mangina, or were led astray in bits and bites, the loss of ground is still the same as we find ourselves in a deeper and deeper mess like that of our debt.

Are the Moslems aggressive? Sure, and they may do exactly as you say Mr. Steyn and co, tell us. Yet to get anywhere there must be at least some kind of admitting to what has gone wrong by the Red Tories and Rhino Republicans, not hear them say, after yet another moderate like John McCain loses, that we must go more moderate to win. The �No friends to the right� policy continues unabated, and will in the end bring us all down.
Let me try and place what is on offer from both sides in the �war of civilizations� in a brief way:
A short list of some of the bad deal western states offerings to middle & lower end males are as follows:

1. Be lucky enough to have just under, to just over, half your wages taken away to fund the PC culture in your taxes in most Western Nations. Something you conservative writers surely have deplored in articles, but this doesn�t stop you breaking off any of your chitchat at the cork dork functions with those Red Tories that call us �angry white men�.

2. Be lucky enough to be ruled by one�s emotional wife, or be taken to the cleaners in a divorce, to never really see your kids again, as the state gives the kids to her, along with everything else, because of our great cultural ways (that Mr. Steyn wants us to defend). Really in the final analysis such men want us to give women the best of equality and the best of chivalry in their lives, as it gives men (not found at cork dork functions) the worst of both worlds. Neville Chamberlain would be proud to call you one of his own in appeasing anything in a skirt or pant suit.

3. Be able to go to churches, that women really rule, in changing the word of god for fashion and PC ideas, along with a few grumpy old men cheater detecting other non-members there who don�t bow down and say let the goddess worshipers in the house of the lord rule. As an added bonus you can have a wife pray at the Oprah Temple 5 days a week in front of the TV for 5 hours or more, as they likely read her books too, to then, if you are lucky, have her go to church for 1 hour on Sunday, and hope that the bible wins against all of Oprah�s book club readers and the boob tube. Good luck with those odds.

4. Be a soldiers, or support them, and have their traditions demeaned in many indirect & direct ways, by effete persons who think fighting back on any occasion �is wrong�, but still expect men to risk their lives when push comes to shove for this decaying culture.

5. Be as Mr. Steyn and fight very well to be able to speak freely. Yet it is women that make up the numbers of our new busybody Stasi of the PC word, more than men, or can�t you admit it as such. Any savvy political junkie knows that the Democratic Party is called the women�s party and the Republican Party has been called the Fathers� party. Is there any doubt that both bow to women voters now?

6. Be able to have sex outside the bedroom in this present valuable culture, as in ads, TV etc.

On the Moslem side some of the things on offer:

1. Render on to Allah all that is Allah�s. You know just like we hear from Conservatives with �Caesar� replacing Allah, but with a more clear set of rules/ laws, less reformed by our culture and feminism.

2. Be assumed as a male to lead the family and thus have responsible for leading the family. To in other words follow patriarchy, which has been the reason men have raised our culture to it highest of places in the first place.

3. Change our present oligarchy that is both dominated by parties bending over backwards, and bending over each other (to give women either compassionate conservatism or hard ball feminism) for another oligarchy more likely to not bend to the endless demands of feminism ever. This other Moslem oligarchy would allow less freedom in the vast scope of things, but would likely stay out of undermining dad in the family and be very weary of the culture trying to undermine traditions simply because it is new and hip. Most of all if a man was generally law abiding they would not take his kids away at the behest of the wife, who could never do so on her own in the first place.

4. Sex will be forced to remain in the bedroom between a husband and wife.
Now I�m not pointing this out to say I�m turning Moslem, or at least not yet, as even Mark Steyn has pointed out he may be forced to change sides if thing don�t get better real fast. Unfortunately the cork dork functions will have to go Mark! I�m pointing out this very simply comparison of what is on offer as a wake up call on those calling for lower and middle end men to answer the call for fighting the Moslems, instead of becoming a Moslem and getting men of the future to get their kids back, and their traditions likely better respected and likely some other pluses that seem second rate to not having ones kids taken from you, intentionally bankrupted and then intentionally jail in debtors prison (that was supposed outlawed long ago, but is alive and well �unofficially�).

Having morality written back into stone would be nice, instead of scoffed at art shows. That may be too much for you, but to the man fleeing jail time because he lost his job and still must pay funds for the kids he isn�t allowed to see, you may be more surprised by what they are ready to do. Oh yes they are angry, but they are not all white!
Better to go to a Mosque and hear what Lion men say there, than hear a fox-like man benefiting from the present system arguing for those who were in the national guard, or were real full fledged draft dodgers during past wars, preach about what we will lose if middle and lower end males don�t join the Red Tories, that have seen the error of their ways, and call for us to follow them.

I would hope such Mark Steyn supporters would take this and think about what they are really offering western males and think about maybe replacing the �defend feminist western women and their indirect practices� from the �patriarchal, theological adhering direct confronting Moslem men�. For the other slogan of �Moslems don�t fight fair and we do� in our pressing of our culture on them at every indirect opportunity we get, is much more in doubt at the grassroots you will find. They see all the TV and movies and endless pushing of the pro-feminist culture on us 24/7, and thus can identify with other patriarchy cultures being forced by the UN, EU and more to undermined patriarchy to be a member of the cork dork elite set (with better cheese to eat). When our national side uses a child to sell our ideas, or to crush male & fathers rights, we may not be using kids as human shields like some in Gaza do, but to act as we are pure white and they are dirt black just doesn�t measure up to just a bit of real study. �In the best interest of the child� has been used to give women all that is valuable to men in real terms, to leave men unemployed, spending their last cent on charges that if he wins will not give any time to the liar or recoup any money spent in defending his honor (with or without U).

At sometime in the future the misandry men use on middle & lower end males is going to come back to bite those cheese eaters and their late calls, with no repentance, to answer the calls to defend our culture. The culture war has been lost, they one, and this lion will not answer the call to defend the new abomination from the Moslems, as your new equality modal means women can fight it themselves, or if you are an old fashion male then the elite at the cork dork functions can jump on horseback themselves, put on their amour, order the serfs to keep work and go out and meet the enemies to defend their estates. As in the past the serfs have no ability to understand chivalry (bloody peasants!) and only the rich lords should do the fighting. Either way, under the new culture, men should not fight for feminism or chivalry.

Have Babies Salaryman & Consumerist Woman

Shin Samurai — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 05:17:57 GMT

Have Babies Salaryman and Consumerist Woman

Well for my first blog here at Men's Rights Anglosphere I'd like to cover some news today. It would seem that a number of Japanese companies are telling their employees to have more children. A case in point is Canon (of camera fame) has been letting its workers go home at 5:30 and also told them to have babies.

Will this work? I don't think so, for a number of reasons. Most workers that have more time will likely just try and catch up on having a life outside their jobs, or spend some time with the kids they have already. With the recession, or possible depresssion, the idea of having more kids will likely be put on hold for a time by those who want them. Japan has one of the lowest birth rates in the world and almost no immigration. But they ahve robots!

With 4 main islands and many mountains it may take a bit more time for everyone to complain much about haivng a few less people around, but they are already feeling the pressure in the hospitals and health care services and pensions.

Politicans have been feeeling it for some time, as they have less funds and so much more services to cover.

To get to the root of the problem is to look where many western governments fear to tread. That is with the woman voter. They have talked about offer more money and have is a few cases given more, but they are dealing with this in a consumerist way. Japanese women want to buy fashion, travel and go to restaurants all the time. Babies just won't do for such a life. They have swallowed the consumerist culture that has swept first world nations and you were all happy about that before the bubble and now "house caused depression."

Most Japanese women follow the J-pop culture and want boyfriends like that on the TV. Cute and dancing all the time. The stoic salaryman has lost face and many Japanese women (like all first world nations) don't put family first anymore. In Japan it is kawaii (cute) first. Kids are cute, but then they stop being cute and it is better to try and stay cute for ever yourself, buy fashion, travel and go to restaurants.

A friend of my wife just died. She had left her husband, for they didn't get along once he stop working. The man had played his cards right and retired very early.

Yet she got tired of being a housewife part-time worker, and she open her own business and it was in fashion of course. She made much money, had he cute little dog, and had an ever changing cute boy toy boyfriend she was dating. She was getting old and had no kids as how would that blend with her Chanel handbag?

My wife helped her with customers and in return got little for her efforts (but lots of hug hug kiss kiss), just like modern women do now all over the world.

She died after one night out with her latest fling and had drunk too much. She died in her bath tub as she sank into it the bubble bath and her cute dog barking for days. Almost like some famous actress or something.

Still no kids, no husband, no life that wasn't a cliche for our time. Really nothing special. She lived her life to the fullest ideal of modern Japanese women, and they have no time for kids, when they are no longer kawaii. Let that be a warning to leaders, you will be throwing even more money away (as if there isn't enough being thrown away now to pump the economy). You have made women consumerists and it is your monster that will bring you and all our countries down, unless you do something right and let new men with new idea come teach you what you are unable to see. Yet women are said to be equal now, so the blame is all their own.