The main reason that people fail to notice
misandry is because they are perpetually surrounded by it.
NSPCC Exposed Yet Again
The NSPCC is exposed trying to demonise men yet again; this time on the issue
of a legal 'presumption of child contact' following a family break up. The NSPCC
does not want the courts to presume any right of contact between children and
their non-resident parents - who are usually, of course, the fathers.
Here is the Tory MP Tim Loughton in the
House Of Commons last week 2 March 2006 ... My underlining ...
Tim Loughton: I want to make some progress, but will come back to the hon.
and learned Lady, too.
Our proposals have widespread support among a multitude of family and
parenting groups, but I fully acknowledge that many professionals in the
judiciary and some voluntary organisations do not share our view. We have
engaged them in constructive debate and perfectly respect the position that they
have argued reasonably, even if we do not agree with their conclusions.
It pains me to have to single out one organisation that has behaved
reprehensibly on this issue. I would be the first to acknowledge that the
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has done a lot of
good work in raising awareness of child abuse and campaigning against it,
promoting good practice by engaging children, and raising substantial funds for
services for vulnerable children. Many members of my party in my constituency
enthusiastically raise money for the NSPCC, as I have in the past. However,
during the proceedings on the Bill in the Lords, the NSPCC put out a briefing
note that attacked our amendments as a threat to the safety of children, yet
produced no evidence to support its claim.
In its latest briefing note, for our scrutiny of the Bill, the NSPCC has
made the following claim:
"NSPCC believes that any proposals to introduce into the Bill a
legislative presumption of contact will be interpreted and put into practice by
the courts in a way which is detrimental to the welfare of the child and could
ultimately threaten the safety of the child."
In effect, it is saying that if a non-resident parent-predominantly a
father-benefits from a presumption of contact, he is more likely to do harm to
his own child.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Maria
Eagle): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tim Loughton: Let me finish and I certainly will.
In support of its claim, the NSPCC cites the fact that 29 children were
killed over the past 10 years during contact visits to non-resident parents.
That is an appalling figure. However, it ignores its own research, which shows
that over the same period some 800 children have died at the hands of resident
parents or carers, and the 2000 publication "Child Maltreatment in the
UK", which showed that violent treatment was more likely to be meted out by
female carers than male ones.
The briefing is alarmist, sensationalist, misleading, empirically
flawed, completely irresponsible and highly reprehensible. It is not worthy
of an organisation such as the NSPCC, which claims to stand up for our children.
I hope that our deliberations on the amendments will be based on balanced,
rational and well-informed debate, rather than the arrant nonsense that I am
sure will shock many dedicated and hard-working NSPCC supporters around the
... but, of course, long time readers will know that the NSPCC cares precious
little about children. It cares only about itself. And anything that it can do
to break up the relationships between parents and their children means good
money for the NSPCC.
The more abuse, the better.
Here's the Tory MP Stewart Jackson ... My underlining ...
"I return to the sensitive subject of co-parenting and child safety.
Thankfully, the awful phenomenon of child murder in contact
situations is extremely rare. Although that issue is distressing, it
must not obscure the case for co-parenting.
More particularly, we should resist recourse to stereotypes.
There is no definitive
evidence that non-resident fathers per se, as a group, are a greater
risk to child safety than substitute non-biological partners or non-biological mothers.
In this respect, I deprecate the comments of the
NSPCC. It has undermined its kudos as a respected children's charity in putting forward arguments that have no basis in fact and no
Let us remember that many of the dreadful crimes that take place involve not natural or biological fathers, but men
brought into the family unit in the wake of divorce or separation. They may have very poor or non-existing parenting skills. At present,
unlike the natural or biological father, they are unlikely to have been risk assessed."
Apart from the fact that most children
are less likely to report sexual abuse because of the barbaric way in which the
perpetrators - most likely their intimates - are going to be treated, there are
a host of other negative consequences that all our children have
to bear as a result of the malicious abuse propaganda that keeps being foisted
into the atmosphere by the feminists and those working in the abuse industry.