Category Archives: Men’s Rights
An episode filmed in the lifelong family tragedy of one child’s ruined childhood, when he was only 4, helped lead to a courtroom comedy more than two years later.
Events including (but not confined to) those caught on camera as shown in the video, led to a court case that ended somewhat comically in 2017. Comically, but, alas, not happily for the child concerned.
First, the incident that, in part, kicked off the court case. The following video was shot in December 2014.
This post is sometimes pinned to the top of the blog.
The grievance of guest blogger Gagged Dad, the author of
is mentioned in all of these posts.
After a court case in the UK that lasted more than four years, Gagged Dad’s grievance became expressed as an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The important pages of that ECtHR application, outlining the facts and putting the legal arguments, are here.
CORNWALL SOCIAL SERVICES WANTS A SECRET TRIAL IN GAGGED DAD CASE
Please act now. Hearing is on 23rd October 2015.
Question 1: Should social services separate a child from his mum or dad, when mum or dad openly opposes a government policy that he or she considers to be morally wrong?
Question 2: If social services does this, and that parent sues the council under the Human Rights Act for interference with his family life and discrimination on the grounds of his beliefs, should the trial be held in secret?
I spent an hour or so yesterday, reading Thursday’s judgment in the High Court hearing that is most aptly described as the Hampstead Witch Hunt. I had decided to blog about the case myself, when Karen Woodall beat me to it, clicking on “publish” during the past hour or so. So I’m reblogging Karen’s excellent post, after this short introduction.
The child abuser in this case (the alienating mother, helped by her newest boyfriend) was extremely imaginative, in her crafting of the false accusations against dad, which she “tortured” her eight and nine year-old son and daughter children into making (as Mrs Justice Pauffley put it.) The abusers immediate motive would have been the same as every other alienator: manufacturing an excuse for disrupting the children’s relationship with the other parent, so that the alienator could have the children all to himself or herself. But, oh boy, this alienator really went to town on the task! And the false accusations have gone absolutely viral.
It is quite fascinating to observe how supportive of the perpetrator, Ella Draper, was Dr Hodes, the first of the expert witnesses to see the child victims. She could have been Marietta Higgs using a new name to escape her past, judging by the bespoke medical evidence she prepared, which could hardly have been better tailored to lend a temporary credibility to the false accusations the children were tortured into making.
It is sobering to realise that these children were at risk of never being allowed to see their innocent father again, even though they quickly admitted that their accusations had been lies, once they had been reassured that they weren’t going to be sent home to mum in the immediate future. The only thing that saved them from this fate, unlike a million and more other children who do not have such lucky escapes, was the sheer incredibility of the simply massive criminal witchcraft industry that that the children were tortured into alleging that their father led, in Hampstead.
Even after this judgment of Mrs Justice Pauffley, there is still a sizeable community on the internet who are dissatisfied with the findings of the official witch hunt (that there had been neither witches nor witchcraft, in the children’s lives). They are continuing to conduct their own unofficial witch hunt, whilst demanding a reconvening of the official witch hunt over which judge Pauffley had presided, this time minded to try harder to catch the witches.
Not only are P and Q now seeing their father again, twice a week I last heard, and Skyping him daily from temporary foster care, they will be seeing rather less of their mother, for a while. Until the Interpol arrest warrant out on Ms Ella Draper, alienatrice extraordinaire, is executed, and she is extradited from wherever she is hiding back to the UK, they won’t be seeing mum at all. I hope they do eventually get to see her again, though. Let every child have both parents, wherever possible, even when their parents are rascals like this.
If the coached false accusations against dad had been less far-fetched, the children would have lost their dad, like Gagged Dad‘s son has lost his, to all practical intents and purposes. Just like almost every child with an alienating dad loses his mum, or vice versa.
I have decided to stand for Parliament in May, over this one issue – the right of every child, where possible, to both parents. The professionals backed Ella, at first. Professionals alas often back the alienating parent, when there is parental alienation afoot. If Ella had not over-egged the pudding, and thus sabotaged her own plot, the professionals would likely have ousted dad Ricky from his children’s lives completely and permanently, without a second thought.
I cannot be the only one to feel immense relief on watching the news of Mrs Justice Pauffley’s judgement in the High Court this week, on the father who was supposedly a cult leader involved in importing babies to the UK in order to kill and eat them and dance around their skulls. At least someone in the legal system is able to give a clear and unequivocal message, not only about the existence of satanic cults in Hampstead but on the way in which coaching a child to make false allegations of this nature is ‘torturing them.’ These children are now safe from the abuse that their mother and step father inflicted upon them, I cannot help but wonder about the mental and emotional health of their father who was at the centre of these allegations.
False allegations are a feature of family separation, especially when that separation is…
View original post 1,801 more words
Questions to ask (of both Belgium and the UK), are:
1. How many refuge places are there that are allocated on a first-come-first-served basis, or a priority-of-need basis, without discrimination against either sex? If we can have unisex toilets in this day and age, why on earth do we need ladies and gents shelters for refugees from domestic violence?
2. In the light of the Public Sector Equality Duty, how can it possibly be lawful (in the UK, or Belgium), for a public authority to direct public funding towards organisations that openly practise sex discrimination (by earmarking refuge places as being for one sex only)?
Trigger warning: This post is about a piece of British legislation called The Sexual Offences Act 2003. It is absolutely not the rant of a “rape apologist”. If you might find this post triggering, please read it only on understanding that you read it at your own risk.