Selective Suppression and manufacturing Domestic Violence lies

 

 

 

Brian Robertson

 

Mankind Conference

 

15-Sep-01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT: The state engages in the selective suppression of the democratic process, while laws designed to curb the excesses of politicians are flouted with impunity. Judicial activism is responsible for this. The shift of power to un-elected judges is returned by judges serving their political masters. The people lose as they neither control parliament or the courts. The result is that governments run out of control. The example given here is the manufacture of domestic violence lies.


The Good……

 

Mr Luft an anti-fascist campaigner was found guilty in 1976 and criminalized by five law lords [DPP .v. Luft [1976] 2 ALL ER 569].

 

In the October 1974 general election, the National Front party stood in three constituencies. Anti-fascist campaigners distributed pamphlets urging voters not to vote for these National Front candidates. As a result of this three respondents were charged with two criminal offences:

 

Under section 63 of the 1949 Representation of the People Act 1949 “with having incurred, without the written authorisation of an election agent the expense of issuing publications ‘with a view to promoting or procuring the election of a candidate”.

 

Also under section 95 of the same act “with having distributed for the like purpose printed documents not bearing on their face the name and address of the printer and publisher”.

 

Mrs Phyllis Bowman director of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (SPUC) distributed 25,000 leaflets in Halifax before the 1992 general election outlining the views on abortion of the three main candidates. On September 28 at Southwark Crown Court at the age of  67 she was charged with the criminal offence:

 

Under section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 which made it a criminal offence “for an unauthorised  person to incur expenses in excess of £5 sterling in issuing publications with a view to promoting or procuring the election of a candidate”

 

The malicious prosecution was later struck down by the European Court of Human Rights [Times Law Report 23-Feb-98] by 14 votes to 6 as being in violation of Article 10 (right to freedom of expression). The court found that section 75 of the 1983 Act operated for all practical purposes as a total barrier to Mrs Bowman’s publishing information with a view to influencing the voters of Halifax in favour of an anti-abortion candidate.

 

Pro-father campaigners before the 1997 general election distributed leaflets in three constituencies where MPs had been reported in the press as obstructing their ex husbands or partners from seeing their own children post separation or divorce. The leaflets contained such statements as “Children Need Both Parents” and “The Love of a Parent is Too Precious an Asset to Waste”.  On 5-Feb-98 in the Ilkestone magistrates court Dr Robertson was charged with the criminal offence:

 

Under section 110 and section 169 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 which made it a criminal offence to distribute a printed document “for the purposes of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at a parliamentary election a document that did not bear upon its face the name and address of the printer and publisher”

 

The leaflet clearly had the group name and a telephone number printed at the bottom of the leaflet. Despite this and despite the ECHR ruling he was given only a conditional discharge.


…. the BAD…..

 

Grieve .v. Douglas-Home [1965 SLT 186] The unsuccessful Communist candidate presented a petition to have the election declared void on the ground of failure to comply with the requirements of section 63 of the RPA. The appeal was held, that the BBC broadcasts were not made with a view to promoting the election of the respondent but that the motive of the Corporation in arranging the broadcasts was the information of the public.

 

In 1997 the TUC ran a leafleting and poster campaign in many local constituencies entitled. “Put a cross in the wrong Place and you can Kiss Employee Rights Goodbye. Whoever You Vote For, Make Sure Employees Win”. The campaign was a blatantly pro-labour campaign, especially since it concentrated on a labour policy of employee rights. The leaflets, posters, and post cards had no name and address of the printer and publisher. An election candidate in the Chesterfield constituency Norman Scarth made complaints about this leaflet being handed out just before the election to the Police. Mr Scarth appeared as a defence witness during the Robertson trial at the magistrates court in Ilkestone. No efforts were ever made to prosecute the TUC under the Representation of the Peoples Act.

 

In July 1994 a special edition of the Daily Mirror was distributed free in the Littleborough and Saddleworth by-election. In November the liberals complained demanding to know if this amounted to an election expense in support of Labour [Ind 11-Nov95]. The liberals protested over the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Barbara Mills, not to prosecute the Daily Mirror newspaper for issuing free copies supporting labour at this by-election. Graham Elson, general secretary of the Liberal Democrats called the decision not to prosecute ‘astonishing’ [IND 30-Jul-96].


…and the very UGLY

 

Ben Bradshaw MP on 16-Jul-97 before Justice Gage in the High Court of Justice. As a result of distributing a leaflet entitled “Coffee Morning” with no name and address of the printer and publisher, an offence under RPA 110(1). RESULT “be not subject to any of the consequences under the said Act for the same on the ground that the same arose from inadvertence or accidental miscalculation and did not arise from any want of good faith”

 

William Etherington MP on 16-Jul-97 before Justice Gage in the High Court of Justice.  As a result of distributing a leaflet entitled “Vote for Bill Etherington Vote Labour” with no name and address of the printer and publisher an offence under RPA 110(1). RESULT “be an exception from the provisions of section 110(3) of the said Act (RPA)” by the use of section 167

 

David Drew MP on 6-Oct-97 before Justice Gage in the High Court of Justice. As a result of distributing an overseas letter without the printer and publishers name and address an offence under RPA 110(1). RESULT “be not subject to any of the consequences under the said Act for the same on the ground that the same arose from inadvertence or accidental miscalculation and did not arise from any want of good faith”.

 

Martin Salter MP on 6-Oct-97 before Justice Gage in the High Court of Justice. As a result of two letters to Residents dated April 1997. RESULT “no contravention of section 110(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 had occurred AND THE COURT FURTHER HOLDING that if such a contravention had occurred then relief pursuant to section 167 of the said Act would have been granted.”

 

Jane Griffiths MP on 6-Oct-97 before Justice Gage in the High Court of Justice. As a result of two letters to Residents dated April 1997 and a leaflet entitled “Important – When you vote on May 1st” with no name and address of the printer and publisher. RESULT “no contravention of section 110(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 had occurred AND THE COURT FURTHER HOLDING that if such a contravention had occurred then relief pursuant to section 167 of the said Act would have been granted.”

 

Hugh Bayley 6-Jun-97 City of York before Justice Gage in the High Court of Justice. RPA section 110. Tear off slip. RESULT no details BUT GUESS WHAT HAPPENED!


Summary

 

“The one great principle of the English law is, to make business for itself”.

Charles Dickens Bleak House (1853 ) ch. 39

 

1) You must never, ever, ever, trust what governments tell you. Governments lie and they lie comprehensively.

 

2) There is one law for one and one law for another. The people criminalized in these examples are individuals campaigning to make changes in our society. The people and organisations let off are ESTABLISHMENT FIGURES who maintain the status quo. So for example someone campaigning against the National Front is criminalised,

as is a 69 year-old lady distributing leaflets campaigning about abortion. However when the actual POLITICAL parties themselves or organisations with muscle that are overtly political such as the TUC, or the Daily mirror, violate these same rules then there is no crime committed.

 

3) This is the time when maximum freedom of speech is required and when maximum suppression is used i.e. the criminalizing of campaigning individuals using the Representation of the Peoples Act.

 

4) Laws get perverted by a process called judicial activism. This is where Judges make up their own law as they go along, and where black is turned into white in a perverse ‘twilight zone’. The example here is where the word ‘Promote’ - as in promoting a political party - gets corrupted to also include the word demote (since demoting causes automatic promotion of the other political candidates) to ensnare any attempt to communicate with voters. An analogy of the stupidity of this is to consider a 30MPH speed restriction to also include driving slower than 30MPH because it automatically forces other drivers to go faster in order to overtake.

 

5) Our rules become driven by a liberal elite who make no measurements on the effect that their actions have on society. They are like pilots who fly blind or a ships captain who navigates without radar. These individuals are psychopaths with college degrees.

 

6) The consequences this has for society is an inverting of morality.


Consequences

 

To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

Newtons 3rd Law of motion

 

 

 

·        Don’t pay taxes if you want your money well spent

 

 

 


The manufacture of Domestic Violence Lies

 

The emergence of feminist ‘research’ has promoted the concept of violent males. This propaganda grossly exaggerated the amount of violence by men. The wild extrapolations are in turn derived from statistical analysis that is flawed, fabricated, or fraudulent. For example it is widely promoted that marriage is extremely dangerous for women whereas in fact the statistics show this is the safest place for a woman to be. The most extreme example is the "one in four" women suffer from domestic violence figure fabricated by Elizabeth Stanko of Royal Holloway College.

 

 

Why are these lies being promoted?

 

 

Domestic violence seems to have turned into an obsession among family lawyers. A draft "family protocol" from the Law Society advises lawyers to ask clients leading questions such as "Have you been arguing a lot recently?" or "Do you generally have a lot of arguments?" or "Do you and your partner ever lose your temper?" as a way of sniffing out domestic violence. Even more sinister is its advice that "many forms of domestic violence are hidden and not recognised even by the client". So domestic violence, it seems, occurs even when the victim is unaware of it. [Phillips]

 

Why is this harmful?

 

 

 

 

 

 


Man beaters behind closed doors

Sunday Times 19 Nov 2000 Melanie Phillips

“Yet the evidence strongly suggests that Stanko's research does not stand up to scrutiny. It lends support instead to a propaganda offensive that demonises men and minimises or conceals the fact that women can be equally if not more violent, a distortion that has cost many men their homes and their children.”.

The Met's "snapshot" research revealed that across the UK, the police received more than 1,300 distress calls a day about domestic violence, with 81% being made by women who said they had been assaulted by men.

The Met said this amounted to one victim of domestic violence calling the police every minute.

Stanko glossed this further with a 3 to 10 multiplier inflating the figure to an incident every six to 20 seconds. This because the British Crime Survey says domestic violence is under-reported by between three and 10 times.

Statisticians say the Stanko research is flawed because:

Ø       The same incident may have been the subject of more than one phone call;

Ø       the violence concerned may have been directed at property rather than persons;

Ø       the claim made in the call may not have been true.

Ø       There were no checks to ensure the poll was not rigged

Ø       Most violence is tit-for-tat.

Ø       It almost certainly under-represented violence by women against men, who are reluctant to acknowledge that a woman has beaten them up.

In general domestic violence research is flawed because:

Ø       it relies heavily on biased sampling, asking only women in refuges for their experiences of violence, for example. The fairest and most reliable research asks both men and women whether they have been both the victims and the perpetrators of violence on their spouses or companions.

Ø      it treats allegations of violence as proof. A vast body of authoritative international research has been done on the basis of equal reporting. And it reveals a remarkably different picture from the feminist stereotype of patriarchal bullies and female victims. In fact it reveals that the violence is roughly equal.

Ø      violence against children is excluded as this is something overwhelmingly committed by women.


 

Feminist research quotes ‘wimin’-only surveys while conveniently ignoring both gender surveys

 

Women’s aid Domestic Violence factsheet

http://www.womensaid.org.uk/facts/main.htm

 

 

A recent survey of 129 women attending GPs surgeries in North London found 1 in 9 reported experiences of domestic violence serious enough to require medical attention in the past 12 months (Elizabeth Stanko, Debbie Crisp, Chris Hale and Hebe Lucraft (1997) Counting The Costs: Estimating The Impact of Domestic Violence in the London Borough of Hackney, Swindon: Crime Concern).

 

 

1 in 4 incidents result in substantial physical injuries. 10% of 129 women surveyed in North London GP surgeries reported being knocked unconscious by their partners. 5% had sustained broken bones as a result of domestic violence. (Elizabeth Stanko, Debbie Crisp, Chris Hale and Hebe Lucraft (1997) Counting The Costs: Estimating The Impact of Domestic Violence in the London Borough of Hackney, Swindon: Crime Concern).

 

Hanmer, J. (1989) 'Women and Policing in Britain' in Hanmer, J. Radford, J. & Stanko, E. (eds) Women, Policing and Male Violence, London : Routledge.

Counting the costs: estimating the impact of domestic violence in the London Borough of Hackney Elizabeth Stanko (Brunel University) and others, Crime Concern, 1998

Home Office

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/cpd/cpsu/domviol98.htm

 


Feminist distortions encourage violence against men and fuels men’s bitterness towards women

 

Men are the Problem - Beatrix Campbell The Guardian October 25 2000

“An ordinary Thursday, a month ago. Every second between midnight and midnight a woman called the police for protection from her partner. Those women were being bashed, stabbed, cut, kicked, slapped or "just" terrorised and intimidated. Multiply September 28 by every day and you come up with more than half a million incidents”

YOU CERTAINLY DO!

According to Ms Campbell's figures, you would get 365 x 24 x 60 x 60 which is

31,536,000

[www.angryharry.com]

 

 

 

“Confident Thornton cheered as she leaves jail”.

Guardian 29-Jul-1995

Sarah Thornton murdered her husband in cold blood while he slept

 

 

"It might seem logical, then, to try not to push men to such a point that they feel like hitting out in large numbers. Yet that is what women seem to me to be doing. All around me .... men who are cracking, who are at last very angry. .... Decent, clever men who for 20 years have felt respect for women are suddenly suspecting that it might have been misplaced."

Minette Marrin, "Why men won't take feminism", Sunday Telegraph, 20oct91.

 


Feminist lies pull the strings and write the scripts for prominent politicians

 

Violence in Families Hansard  29 July 1998

 

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will evaluate the cost to his Department arising from violence within families; and if he will make a statement. [52440]

Mr. Straw: The way in which statistics are held centrally does not readily allow a comprehensive estimate of these costs.

However, a report by Professor Elizabeth Stanko (Brunel University) and others, "Counting the costs; estimating the impact of domestic violence in the London Borough of Hackney", has recently been published by Crime Concern. This estimates the total cost in 1996 to the public sector of providing services for women and children facing domestic violence in Hackney at around £90 per annum per household. This report estimates the total cost for Greater London to be around £278 million per annum.

I have placed a copy of this report in the Library.

 

Domestic Violence Hansard 10-May-2000:

Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of domestic violence the police were called out to deal with in (a) 1970, (b) 1980 and (c) 1999; and what the cost was to public funds. [120658]

Mr. Charles Clarke: The information requested is not available.

The latest available estimate of domestic violence incidents recorded by the police, obtained from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary 1998-99 Annual Statistical Return, is that there were approximately 355,000 such incidents in that year in England and Wales.

[snip]

The costs of police operations concerning domestic violence are not collected centrally. However, a report by Professor Elizabeth Stanko and others, "Counting the costs; estimating the impact of domestic violence in the London Borough of Hackney", was published by Crime Concern in 1998. This estimated the total cost in 1996 to the public sector of providing services for women and children facing domestic violence in Hackney at around £90 per annum per household. A copy of this report has been placed in the Library.

 

 

References

 

1) Theodore Dalrymple England Autumn 1999 Vol. 9, No. 4

How Criminologists Foster Crime

crime by women could be seen "as a way, perhaps of celebrating women as independent of men," to quote Elizabeth Stanko, an American feminist criminologist teaching in a British university.

 

2) http://www.shatterdmen.com/

 

 

3) Dr. Martin Feibert, a psychology professor at California State University has compiled 95 scholarly investigations, 79 empirical studies and 16 reviews and or analyses which contradict the conventional wisdom that men are the intimate partners capable of violence. Domestic Violence amongst lesbians is even higher.

http://www.erols.com/afc/dv.html

 

4) http://www.angryharry.com

 

5) http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk

 

6) Professor John Archer is a psychologist at University of Central Lancashire and president-elect of the International Society for Research on Aggression. As Archer has shown in a recent analysis of data from almost 100 American and British studies, women are more likely than men to initiate violence against their spouses or companions and are more likely to be aggressive more frequently. Most violence is tit-for-tat. Nor is it the case that women attack men only in self-defence. Among female college students, for example, 29% admitted initiating assaults on a male companion.

7) Home Office Report 191. Married men and women report equally 4.2% suffer violence. Lesbians report much higher (52% in their relationships)

8) British Crime Survey reported in 1996 that an equal proportion of men and women, 4.2%, had said they had been physically assaulted by a current or former spouse or lover in the past year. Only 41% were injured, and although more women than men were hurt, the difference was not that great: 47% of women injured compared with 31% of men.

 

9) Melanie Phillips. Man beaters behind closed doors

Sunday Times 19 Nov 2000

10) Melanie Phillips. The Sex Change Society: Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male
This book is recommended to anyone interested in getting an insight into the machinations surrounding the gender debate. It is an excellent and hard hitting book and many will, I expect, enjoy what Melanie has to say about Family Law.
ISBN 1 874097 64 X The Social Market Foundation 1999