Dr Michael Pelling Found Guilty A
campaigner for fathers’ rights who publicised the full details of a private
judgment on contact with his son was today found guilty of contempt of court.
The judges said the privacy laws covering family cases were there to
protect the interests of minors ...
The privacy laws are there to prevent the family court judges being exposed
for who they really are - feminist lackey boys and girls who will do whatever the
feminists tell them to do.
Hiding the truth from the public does not protect children.
And as for this, ...
... it was “an affront to justice” to publicise
judgments which the courts had determined should be kept private.
... notice how in the above text the judges try to equate
the notion of 'justice' with their own various pronouncements - as if, somehow, their very words are,
themselves, the essence of
What arrogance. What self-aggrandisement.
These people must think that they are Gods!
What comes out of the mouths of judges these days has very little to do with
justice and much more to do with their insatiable urges to lick the backsides of anyone who can promote them up the
And precious little else.
Progress up the legal ladder in the UK depends entirely
upon whom you know.
Progress up the legal ladder in the UK depends entirely upon whom you know. It has very little to do with the quality of the individual.
Indeed, within 4 hours of taking office as Prime Minister in 1997, Tony Blair
made his former boss and long time friend the top-most judge in the country -
Amongst other things, this was the man who, while in office as
the most powerful judge in the country, instigated moves to abolish the 1400
year old position of Lord Chancellor (i.e. he thinks he is a God) asked lawyers (whom he can make into
judges) to pay money to his own political party, spent £650,000 of
taxpayer's money refurbishing his residence, and who was rewarded by Tony Blair
and his cronies with a uniquely high salary and pension. (After just four years
in office he stood to get £2 million in the pension deal alone.)
The judges we
currently have in office are not fit to be judges.
judges are, fundamentally, nothing more than ambitious lawyers
They are self-serving
political manipulators, and they come from the same breeding ground as
many of the politicians themselves - i.e. from within the legal profession. These judges are, fundamentally, nothing more than
ambitious lawyers who have succeeded long term in licking the appropriate
backsides and so have made it to the top.
Furthermore, it is always worth
bearing in mind that lawyers, by and large, act solely in the interests of those
who give them money. This is the way that the legal profession works. If you
give the lawyers money, then they will argue on your side.
Now, of course,
other professions work like this too. But let us not pretend that justice has
anything to do with this kind of arrangement. It has nothing to
do with this kind of arrangement. And yet, somehow, we are expected to believe
that as soon as these lawyers become judges they suddenly shed off their entire
training - and their demonstrably mercenary personalities - in order to dispense
justice without regard to who is paying their wages and holding the strings to
The whole notion is laughable.
are among the least suited individuals when it comes to honouring any
system concerned with justice.
Indeed, in so very many ways,
lawyers are among the least suited individuals when it comes to honouring any
system concerned with justice.
Stranger Rape = Relationship Rape A revived measure
in Arizona to punish the rape of a spouse as severely as the rape of anyone else
gained a preliminary thumbs-up Thursday in the
This feminist-inspired notion that being raped by a stranger is the same as
being raped by a spouse is preposterous. And it is another example of the
judges, the lawyers and the politicians corrupting the justice system in order
to further their careers at the expense of men.
I have already written about this before in connection with similar
legislation in the UK, but, in summary, if you look at other crimes, both big
and small, that take place against other people, it becomes very clear that
those against strangers are often far worse than are those against people who are
close to the perpetrators.
Here is a list of some fairly wide-ranging examples.
1. Slapping someone's face.
Would it really be the case that slapping your spouse's face is as serious a
crime as slapping the face of a complete stranger?
2. Kidnapping a child.
Would kidnapping your own child (e.g. as a result of
a custody dispute) be as serious a crime as kidnapping someone else's child?
Lying drunkenly upon a woman and insisting that she opens her legs so that you
can have sex.
Would this crime really be of the same seriousness for a woman
who was a complete stranger to you as it would be for a woman who had been
married to you for 20 years?
4. Killing a child.
Is a woman who kills her
own child deserving of the same punishment as a woman who kills someone else's
5. Taking $100 from a wallet without permission.
Is taking $100 from the wallet of
your spouse without permission the same type of offence as taking the same amount
- in the same manner - from a complete stranger?
Spanking a child's bottom.
Is someone who spanks their own child's bottom for being naughty as culpable in terms of 'abuse' as would be a complete
stranger who also spanked the child's bottom?
7. If Lorena Bobbit had gone out into the street and cut off the penis of a passing stranger, would this crime be equivalent to what, in fact, actually happened?
I could go on! But it seems quite clear to me that the malefactions of a
Stranger are usually worse for victims than are those of an intimate with whom
one has a Relationship.
Of course, if someone acts in a poor manner towards you then it might
be the case that your hurt will be greater the closer that you are to them, but
there is no reason why courts should presume this in advance. If anything, the
evidence suggests very strongly that the opposite should be presumed.
allegations of rape tend to be made by women who are having
serious relationship problems with their partners
complainant in a court case is very likely to be seeking some kind of revenge,
and this is especially true if the complainant has a close relationship with the
example, allegations of rape tend to be made by women who are having serious
relationship problems with their partners. And in such situations women are far
more likely to make wild and exaggerated claims of rape - amongst other things -
than are men in these situations likely to rape them. And their reasons for
doing this are, clearly, likely to have something to do with revenge.
But the general point is that people who are in close
relationships with each other do not treat each other as if they were complete
strangers. And, further, we should not be expecting them to do so.
therefore ridiculous to suggest that
the relationships between individuals should have no significant bearing on how
they treat each other - or, indeed, on how they portray each other.
are constantly trying to get murdering women out of prison on the
grounds that, basically, these women had terrible relationships with their murdered partners.
After all, should such terrible relationships be ignored, and the murdering
women be sentenced in exactly the same way as if they had killed passing
Surely not, the feminists argue.
And they have a point.
But, on the other hand, the feminists also say that if a man rapes, kills, or, in any way, assaults a woman, then the facts concerning their
not count at all!
They will now argue the complete opposite. They will now say that the relationship is completely irrelevant.
Indeed, they will even argue that the presence of a relationship makes the crime
And so, for example, if a woman assaults a man, perhaps kills him or cuts off his penis, then
feminists demand that the nature of their (poor) relationship must be taken into account. In fact, the relationship
and its whole history are seen as highly relevant. And many women are even spared prison on precisely such grounds.
"He was abusive towards me."
But if a man was to do something equally heinous, then they argue that the past relationship should
either count for nothing (Relationship Crime = Stranger Crime) or, indeed, that his crime should be seen as being worse
in some way.
So, if a woman does something bad to a man, then the Relationship counts,
but if a man does something bad to a woman, then the Relationship does
so what we see happening here - yet again - is the justice system being thoroughly debased and corrupted in order to treat men particularly
harshly when it comes to their dealings with women, whereas women themselves are
being allowed to get away with almost anything when it comes to their dealings
the suggestion that Relationship Rape
and Stranger Rape are automatically equivalent is nonsense.
And in the case of rape, the suggestion that Relationship Rape and
Stranger Rape are
automatically equivalent is nonsense. But the motivations behind this new
legislation are clear.
They are to give women in relationships with men far
more power to hurt them - and to be able to threaten to do so - to stir up more
hatred towards men - by making 'relationship' assaults appear far worse than
they really are - and to give the legal profession and the politicians better
And what readers must try to understand is that these utterly
disgusting manipulations of the justice system are not merely the consequences
of the handiwork of the feminists, they are also very much the result of greedy
and corrupt judges, lawyers and politicians trying to make a good living out of
the breaking down of men.
And these self-serving phonies will gradually take
everything away from you if you do not wake up. They are not the honourable
people that most of you think they are. And they do not deserve our respect.
Finally, something which these fraudsters are
clearly aware of is the fact that when those in relationships commit serious
assaults against each other, fear does not spread throughout the rest of the
community. However when strangers commit serious assaults, it does.
words, crimes against persons that are committed by strangers are not comparable to
those committed by intimates even at the community level.
community level, the negative impacts of crimes committed by strangers are far
But so corrupt are these judges - and so keen are their feminist masters to
inflict hurt on to men - that, regardless of truth, regardless of justice,
regardless of consequences, these dishonourable shysters will stack everything in the courtroom
against any accused man.
British Justice After
a five-day hearing at the Old Bailey, Luxford was convicted of two charges of
rape and one of indecent assault. There was no medical evidence and no
corroboration. The jury apparently believed that Kimberley was a better witness
than Luxford. Sentencing was deferred for two months and then he was given a
total of seven years in prison.
Yep: The word of a single alleged female victim is all that is nowadays required to
send a man to prison.
Please tell me for how long you men out there are prepared to live in a world where you are
considered to be so utterly worthless that the mere testimony of a young female can
actually destroy you before you finally try to do something about it?
Do you really intend to creep around for the rest of your
life as if you were walking on eggshells lest you offend some female
Do you really intend to creep around for the rest of your life as if you were
walking on eggshells lest you offend some female who might - even years later -
destroy you simply by making some kind of false accusation?
Do you really intend to allow your justice system to be run by a bunch of
self-serving corrupt officials and judges who clearly have no concern about
Just think about these judges for example. They are supposed to be the most highly-trained experts on justice in the
land. They are supposed to be ensuring that their courtrooms operate systems that
maximise both the likelihood of justice and access to the truth. But what do we get from these people?
We get courts wherein men are sent to prison to serve long sentences on the
basis of the uncorroborated testimony of just one malicious female.
And do not allow yourself to be fobbed off with any notion that the juries
decide the verdicts.
Judges have an enormous influence on the juries not only in the way that they
address them but also in the way that their cases are conducted. And they also have the power to dismiss cases before them on the grounds that
the evidence does not warrant any hearing.
Furthermore, one of their main duties is to protect citizens
from abuses of power by state officials.
However, the judges that we have currently in office are doing the very opposite. They
are colluding with state officials and feminists to heap serious injustices upon men.
How can these phonies possibly claim to be the upholders of justice!?
They are doing exactly what the Nazi judges did to Jews. When a Nazi made a complaint, the Jew was found guilty and
sentenced. No evidence was needed. The complaint was enough.
And this tells me something very important about these judges of
And it is this.
They are actually beneath me. By a long way. They are not worthy of sitting at my dinner table.
These judges do not have guns aimed at their heads.
These judges do not have guns aimed at their heads. No-one is coercing them into doing what they are doing.
They have a voice! But I do not hear it.
Because they are doing what they are doing as a result of
selfish greed and personal ambition.
There is no other explanation for their appalling behaviour.
"John Major revealed that one of the disadvantages of being Prime Minister
was the "tasteless" lobbying from people wanting honours. He told how
he was often lobbied by prominent public figures angling for a
knighthood when he was at No 10, and how much he disliked their behaviour."
Daily Telegraph 21/05/04
It is very clear that these self-serving legal professionals do not give a damn about the
destruction that they heap on to the lives of innocent others if it helps them
in their careers. This is what is going on out there. (Also see this article, The
Michael Nifong Scandal, by Dorothy Rabinovitch, about the disgraceful
behaviour of those working in the legal profession in the USA.)
almost unbelievably, here is the highest-ranking family court judge in the UK recently
telling the nation that there is no bias in the family courts against fathers
The most senior judge in the UK's Family Court Division.
Courts Not Biased Against Fathers Claims
that family courts are biased in favour of mothers have been rejected by top
judge Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss.
Well, she is being dishonest.
For example, there is the recent case where a father
stayed at home to look after the children while the wife pursued a career, and
yet this father still lost custody when they divorced.
... The principle that children should be raised by their mothers won the overt backing of the Court of Appeal yesterday after it rejected a house husband's attempt to win custody of his two
And, further, ...
Lord Justice Thorpe, sitting with Lord Justice Buxton, said
that despite the "unusual" role reversals in this case, they could
not ignore the "realities" of the "very different"
traditional functions of men and women.
And so when this most senior woman judge claims that there is no bias
against fathers, she is lying.
According to Justice Thorpe the court could not ignore the "realities" of the "very different"
traditional functions of men and women.
In other words, this bias against fathers is publicly admitted to and endorsed by
many senior judges in the Family Division; including Lord Justice Thorpe - and
he is the
SECOND most senior judge in the family division.
a senior judge publicly admitted that fathers were
often falsely accused of various heinous crimes
Furthermore, as we saw in the Bob Geldof programme recently, a
senior judge publicly admitted that fathers were often falsely accused of
various heinous crimes by their hostile ex's in order to stack the legal odds
against them and, as we know, these fathers are then separated from their
children for months on end while they are being investigated for these alleged
The consequences of this are that the mothers can then claim
during any ensuing custody battles that a) the children are now settled in with
them, b) the children have not seen their fathers for ages and that c) the fathers are
abusers of some sort.
It is preposterous for the highest-ranking family court judge in
the UK to claim that there is no
And, as further evidence that this very senior woman judge is lying, here
is another decision by Lord Justice Thorpe reported today ...
appeared the ultimate dilemma for a woman with outstanding career prospects -
abandon your dream job or give up custody of your child.
She got both. ...
Lord Justice Thorpe, sitting in London's Court of Appeal, has
now overturned the [earlier] county court decision, giving her the green light
to move to New Zealand.
And so this woman can now take away the child from the father
and move across to New Zealand - which is on the opposite side of the world to
The relationship between the father and the child - and vice versa - simply does
Again, the evidence is that Elizabeth Butler Sloss' claim that the courts are not biased against
fathers is nothing more than a downright lie.
Justice Munby, one of the country's most
senior family judges, admitted he felt "ashamed" when faced
with a man who had fought for five years, unsuccessfully, to see his
Sunday Times 25/04/04
A downright lie.
Justice Thorpe has also just overturned another court decision and allowed a
woman to take her children to live permanently in Argentina
on the grounds that she would otherwise be unhappy, and that this would affect the
Her lawyer argued successfully that all that the mother "needed
to prove was that there would be an impact on her sense of well-being and that
this would be transmitted to the children."
the father is irrelevant
In other words, the father is irrelevant. It is the mother's ALLEGED feelings alone
And Justice Wall has just upheld the threat of imprisonment against a man
for telephoning his own son on the grounds that the mother thinks that he
is disparaging her.
Finally, in the
most recent Home Office report on domestic violence there is no mention at
all made of the men who are physically abused or killed by their partners or family members.
Not even a mention.
Only women victims of such incidents are mentioned.
And yet the UK's most senior Family Court Judge,
Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, tells the country that there is no bias in her courts against fathers.
And, finally, while on the subject of the family courts in the UK. Their
proceedings are held in secret - mostly on the completely spurious grounds that
this is 'in the best interests of the child'.
But I want you all to contemplate the following.
One of the main reasons why it is so crucial for any decent
system of justice to operate in the open - and under public scrutiny - is
because when the proceedings are hidden from the public, history shows that the
system is very quickly corrupted and that the state's officials
collude with the judiciary to impose their own self-serving
demands on the people.
And these demands quickly become more and more tyrannical as
time moves on.
And if you know anything about human nature then it is very easy to
understand how, and why, such horrors come about when powerful bodies operate in
And in the family courts across the western world these horrors have already
They are already here.
They are already happening.
Whether these 'relationship' courts are dealing with issues of child support,
child custody, child abuse, divorce or domestic violence, they have been thoroughly
corrupted - corrupted in a manner consistent with feminism, political
correctness, and the complete disempowerment of men when it comes to their
And yet the UK's most senior Family Court Judge, Elizabeth
Butler-Sloss, tells the country that there is no bias against fathers in her secret
Do you really think that our judges are honourable people
Tell me. Do you really think that our judges are honourable people who are
deserving of the high degree of trust that we place in them?
Here are just two more examples of corrupt western judges trying to further
their own careers by imprisoning men on the basis of no valid evidence to
warrant a trial, let alone a conviction ...
Teacher Cleared Of Rape A
teacher who died in prison after being convicted of raping one of his pupils has
been posthumously cleared by the Court of Appeal.
It all boiled down to one girl’s word against his, and the jury believed
Once again, never fall for the shameful lie perpetually
perpetrated by dishonest self-serving western government officials and by their
corrupt cronies in the judiciary that their systems of justice are based on
the notion that men are deemed to be innocent of a crime until proved
Proof is no longer required in cases of 'abuse'. A single accusation alone -
without further evidence - is all that is required to send a man to
prison or to have him removed from his own home.
And please do not believe the nonsense that miscarriages of justice like the
one above are the fault of the juries. The judges in these cases have the power
to throw them out of court on the basis of insufficient evidence to warrant a
trial. But, in a nutshell, they are just too self-serving and just too corrupt
to do this.
+ Mrs Gee
told The Times yesterday that her son was physically disabled and would not have
been capable of committing the alleged acts. Mr Gee, from Huddersfield, was born
with spinal deformities that made it difficult for him to balance and to
co-ordinate his hands.
It also emerged that the girl, now 26, made similar allegations against another
man, whose CONVICTION was quashed earlier this year.
Can you imagine what this poor man must have gone through before he died?
Can you imagine the strength of the public outcry that would have been
fuelled by the media had a woman been subjected to a similar
ordeal at the hands of this CORRUPT system of justice?
Politicians would have been positively falling over each other in their
demands to change the law when it comes to these cases.
But, of course, because it is men who are treated in this
appalling fashion, they will say, and do, absolutely nothing.
And those oily arrogant toads who sit as our judges, will continue to
masquerade as experts on justice, and they will continue to send innocent
men to prison - long term - on the basis of no valid evidence whatsoever.
American Justice There
was no physical evidence, no medical exam and no testimony from any
corroborating witnesses at his trial in 2000 in Butler Circuit Court. So when
the girl, now 16, recanted her allegations last October -- swearing under oath
that her stepmother forced her to falsely accuse Kiper during a custody dispute
-- you might have expected the 35-year-old inmate to go free, or at least win a
Nope. No new trial, and so he remains in prison.
There was no physical evidence, no medical exam and no testimony from any
corroborating witnesses ...
It is no use appealing to their sense of honour or justice.
Needless to say, I often receive emails asking me what can be done about this
sorry situation and, unfortunately, the answer lies in the words of George
Orwell. "It is no use appealing to their sense of honour or justice. The only thing that they respond to is the threat of losing some of their own power."
In other words, we need to undermine and expose those self-serving charlatans
who are responsible for
creating and maintaining this state of affairs - which includes the politicians,
those working in the 'abuse industry' and the legal system, the various victim
groups, and the feminists etc etc - and to continue doing so until their
self-serving maliciousness backfires on them to such an extent that they dare
not continue doing what they are doing.
As both Richard and James were to discover, the British courts still favour the mother when it comes to deciding where the children should live in divorce cases, even if the father has previously been the primary
"It was as if she was losing all respect for me, just because I was the one at home, doing the
domestic duties. Then, one day two years ago, she announced she was leaving me - and taking the children with
While it remains the case, for example, that men can be imprisoned for
sex-assault in the UK without a shred of objective evidence standing against
them, but can be imprisoned solely on the basis of the uncorroborated
testimony of one aggrieved woman, then I will do everything in my
power to discredit judges.
They can hardly complain, can they?
For example, I think that doctors would be foaming with outrage if certain
members of their own profession were handing out poison to those whom they were
supposed to be curing. And, similarly, I would expect judges with
integrity to feel exactly the same way when certain members of their own
profession hand out prison sentences to those whom they are supposed
to be protecting.
Yes, it's true.
Judges are supposed to be protecting the
defendants in criminal cases, because defendants are supposed to
be deemed to be innocent until
And if they are not doing this, then, amongst other things,
they are cheating us.
And this means that they deserve to be discredited.
Amongst other things, judges are supposed to ensure that justice
takes place in their criminal courtrooms. And if, for example, they cannot do
this properly in many cases, because, perhaps, there is not sufficient evidence
- or because sufficient evidence is being denied to them - as so often occurs in
relationship assault cases - then they should be throwing such cases right
out of their courtrooms before any trials even start.
they are completely unfit to hold such lofty positions.
And the fact that many of them are not doing this, but, instead, actually
punishing men simply on the basis of some unsubstantiated complaint by one aggrieved
other - usually a woman - tells me that they are completely unfit to hold such
Finally, judges frequently claim that family court proceedings need to be
kept secret in order to protect any children from distress; but you will not hear them arguing this when, for example, men are accused
of, say, sexual crimes. The names of these men - even if later found to be
completely innocent - can be paraded about in the glare of full publicity regardless
of any distress that this might cause to their children.
In other words, the judges' professed concern about the children is a
sham. Their true concern is to ensure that the public does not get to see
what is going on in their corrupt family courts across the land.
Indeed, whenever you hear officials talking about the 'best
interest of the child' you will almost invariably discover on close inspection
of the details that it is government officials and/or women who are seeking some
advantage, and that men and/or children are about to be disadvantaged in some
(Also see my piece Family Court Secrecy.)
In summary, ...
The most senior judge in the UK's Family Court Division.
"There is nothing in the law to lead courts to chose one parent or
another," she said.
Yep; the most senior judge in the Family
It is surely no wonder that so many people nowadays have such
contempt for judges.