The UK still has important work to do inside the EU

I voted Leave in the Brexit referendum.  However, even as I voted Leave, I knew that I wanted the UK to remain in the EU temporarily after a victory for the Leave campaign.

I want the UK to remain in the UK until the work is done, in order to lead a campaign within the EU, for the reform of the procedure for a member state to leave the EU, to make it safe for the UK and any other member state to leave the EU.

Bush and Obama make Putin look good

9/11 anniversary guest post by Dr Chuck Balwin, Montana

.

Big Government toadies can pooh-pooh the existence of a conspiracy by elitists to create a global government (aka a New World Order) all they want to, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are. Over the last several decades, proponents of global government have been quite outspoken about their intention to create a New World Order. In fact, former President George H.W. Bush (NOT so-called “right wing conspiracy nuts”) was the one who popularized the term “New World Order” in modern times.

For those who haven’t taken the time to educate themselves on the reality of the elite’s intention to create a New World Order, please take a few minutes to review this documentation:

A Chronological History: The New World Order

That pastors and Christians would question the existence of a modern conspiracy to construct global government is somewhat surprising to me, as such a conspiracy can be traced all the way back to the story of the Tower of Babel as recorded in the Book of Genesis. Plus, the Biblical record is replete with examples of ancient empires that embarked on world domination.

The Good Friday Agreement and the election that Jesus lost

7th May 2015.

This was my final post during the Parliamentary election campaign period, before the polling stations opened on Thursday.

Let every child have both parents

Star post

MY 2015 ONLINE ELECTION ADDRESS

North Cornwall Constituency Parliamentary Election, 7^th May 2015

Men make lousy mums …

… but, then again, women make lousy dads.

Follow @John_Allman

 

MANIFESTO

The 1959 Declaration on the Rights of the Child, Principle 6, declared:

“The child, for the full and harmonious development of his personality, needs love and understanding.  He shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents, and, in any case, in an atmosphere of affection and of moral and material security; a child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother.”

Both parents.   Every child.   Wherever possible.

The Hampstead Witch Hunt – parental alienation taken to extremes

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.

Follow @John_Allman

Does someone you love hate you?

Karen Woodall

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

Belgium to open its first shelter for battered men

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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)?

Abolish rape!

Star post

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. 

Masculism, Feminism and the Euro Tunnel

Star post

One succinct definition of “feminism” is,

Feminism: The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

The complementary definition of “masculism” is,

Masculism: The advocacy of men’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.           

Using the above definitions, masculism and feminism can be seen to be like mirror image twins.  They are equally egalitarian; men’s rights advocacy and women’s rights advocacy, with neither group advocating the infringement of the rights of the gender that isn’t their main focus.

It is in these senses of the two words, that I am both a feminist and a masculist at heart and in deed.

In everyday life, we can easily see just how much masculists and feminists are ultimately on the same side, the side of equality of the sexes, rather than the supremacy of one sex or the other.  We can see this harmonious complementarity in play, by witnessing masculists and feminists having their frequent, amicable, polite, reasonable, and fruitful dialogues, for example when trading good-hearted banter on Twitter.

.

It’s like building the Euro tunnel …

Masculism and feminism (as defined above) are just different parts of the same project.  They are analogous to the British and French teams that dug the Euro tunnel, starting from different shores, but eventually meeting in the middle, beneath the sea bed.

Nice curry, shame about the hate

David Cameron debunked

Follow @John_Allman

Islamic extremism has nothing to do with Islam then?  Is that Cameron’s latest thesis?  The clue isn’t in the name after all then?

Why foster carers, but not natural parents?

Follow @John_Allman

In the House of Lords recently, there was an amendment drafted, and maybe moved, to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, that would have protected would-be foster carers from being denied the opportunity to foster other people’s looked-after children, because the would-be foster carers held dissident opinions about “same sex marriage”.

Amazingly, it seems that none of the peers has thought of a much more serious related issue.  None of them have suggested an amendment to protect real parents from having their children taken off them, because the parents hold dissident views about “same sex marriage”.