If a man is that bad a woman has to flee to a refuge, then the man is not going to take notice of a piece of paper. These leaders are dumb as.

so the man can lose his home

I have a problem with this: the victim leaving THEIR home? If it would be their property, they could kick the abuser out. It's the house of the owner and kicking the owner out of THEIR house is stupid.

This is clearly following the established American model (in certain states). It's a state-sanctioned means of women appropriating men's property (feminists call it redistributing patriarchal wealth).

These are the first steps towards any woman making an 'unsubstantiated' allegation of domestic violence, will then be able to have a man removed from his own home (even if she is just a lodger, guest or sexual fling) without any evidence whatsoever.

Again it's another feminist inspired law which will only incentivise women to lie about domestic violence (adding to an already list of thousands of beneficial reasons to do so).

Instead they would be offered help and advice by caseworkers on the options open to them if they left the relationship - including securing a longer-term injunction.

You see, the two week injunction will lead to a longer-term injunction, which, as in America, the woman can then make a claim on HIS house and the state will provide the jack-booted enforcement.

Mr Johnson told the party faithful: 'For too long it seemed to be accepted that domestic violence against women and girls was a private matter.

Absolute nonsense! It's been branded into the social conscience most publically for decades now.

How about this for reality context: For too long it seem to be accepted that domestic violence against men and boys was both a private and laughing matter.

'Police are making more arrests and conviction rates are rising.

But all the empirical evidence shows womens and girls violence rising, and males decreasing, Sooo............. keep broadening the definitions of DV and apply it only to men and undoubtedly you'll see conviction rates rise.

I very much doubt that women and homosexual men who are violent towards their male partners, will be banned from their homes under this scheme. Neither can I realistically envisage perpetrators of domestic violence in lesbian relationships, being handed such a punishment.

With the definition of domestic violence being so broad these days, British men could now find themselves banned from their homes even if they've never laid a finger on their partner.

Imagine this scenario - a neighbour rings the police after hearing the couple next door having a blazing row. Even though only loud shouting was involved - and no actual physical violence - the police as per usual automatically determine the male to be the 'aggressor' and arrest him.

Then, whilst at the police station, he is informed by officers that he has been banned from returning to his home for the next fortnight to allow his partner 'breathing space'.

Just look what happened to Kurt Angle

Alan Johnson is just another ass pandering to feminism. Just about anything can be construed as domestic violence, e.g. refusal to give your wife money is considered domestic violence, refusing to wash the dishes is considered domestic violence, etc.

There are, of course a number of Human Rights issues in regards as who has to leave the house. This are completely ignored by the NAZI Judges in the family courts when they give everything to the wench regardless of who owns what.
This is what Baroness Deech has said about this issue

“The notion that a wife should get half of the joint assets of a couple after even a short, childless marriage has crept up on us without any parliamentary legislation to this effect.”
and this;
““The prime aim of maintenance should be rehabilitative; it should be permanent only for older women and the incapacitated who are not cared for by the state"
and will propose that only assets acquired after marriage should be divided as
"the award of large sums of their ex-husband’s money to women who have done little other than live is actually a way of punishing the men for leaving them"
So, it seems there may be light at the end of the tunnel for men in the receiving end of usurpation and expropiation of rightfully owned property.
NEVO

Yet another reason why gender equality doesn't exist!

Those politicians are utterly insane!
The story is always the same, use any means necessary to destroy the family and keep women as infantile as possible!
It's a damn shame that I won't live long enough to watch that...anti male juggernaut tear down it's on country!

Quote from Celtic Druid

This is clearly following the established American model (in certain states). It's a state-sanctioned means of women appropriating men's property (feminists call it redistributing patriarchal wealth).

These are the first steps towards any woman making an 'unsubstantiated' allegation of domestic violence, will then be able to have a man removed from his own home (even if she is just a lodger, guest or sexual fling) without any evidence whatsoever.

Again it's another feminist inspired law which will only incentivise women to lie about domestic violence (adding to an already list of thousands of beneficial reasons to do so).



You see, the two week injunction will lead to a longer-term injunction, which, as in America, the woman can then make a claim on HIS house and the state will provide the jack-booted enforcement.



Absolute nonsense! It's been branded into the social conscience most publically for decades now.

How about this for reality context: For too long it seem to be accepted that domestic violence against men and boys was a laughing matter.



But all the empirical evidence shows womens and girls violence rising, and males decreasing, Sooo............. keep broadening the definitions of DV and apply it only to men and undoubtedly you'll see conviction rates rise.

"""Again it's another feminist inspired law which will only incentivise women to lie about domestic violence (adding to an already list of thousands of beneficial reasons to do so).""

wimyn don't need incentives to lie

what incentive did the Duke Lacrosse liar or the Hofstra liar have
except for being natural born

why do skunks have a stripe

It happens all over in one form or another and the same tired old mendacious statisticoids are throtted out.

I pointed this out in a podcast on Deliberately Lying about DV in Australia where I looked at DV reports.

I said:

Which brings us onto the Eye of Lizard.

Another statistic commonly cited by an increasingly frenzied domestic violence Industry is the number of POLICE CALL-OUTS to domestic or family violence ‘Incidents’.

Whether the "incident" involved verbal disagreement between husband and wife or an act of actual violence, we would never know. It is merely noted as an "incident".

In fact, if the protagonists were two 14 year old brothers or two girls arguing in the front lawn that too, would be noted on the official records as a domestic or family violence 'incident'.

These records of "incidents" are then inevitably fed into the ever-swelling "conduit" of statistics that ultimately produces headlines that purport, "alarming new data shows domestic violence against women running out of control".

The police in any region know who the violent families are. They attend the same people time and time again. The vast majority of citizens are not violent and do not have ‘domestic violence’ in their homes and families. But when one family chalks up 25 ‘Incidents’, and 200 families account for 2000 Incidents, it is made to appear that ten times as many men are guilty than are.

The women never are guilty of course. They are made out to be 2000 victims.

The end result is then ever-increasing public funding to combat the ever burgeoning horror of violence against women. Nobody ever delves deep enough to examine how many of these police reported "incidents" actually involved a physical violence or threat of violence or indeed whether a woman was even present at the time.

I also pointed out that when investigating DV complaints the questions are invariably asked of the woman, not the man. 'Did he shout at you?" "Yes". Tick the box. No-one asks, 'Did you shout back?" No-one asks him, of course. Only he is the 'violent one.

the police are the enforcement arm of the feminits wimyns' dogma of feminitism and I would venture to say new recruits learn whats what pretty quick from the estalished coppers in the area

of course wimyn know this too

there was a banner outside our local police station at Mt Druitt in the west of Sydney which read " violence against women - never ever"

shows how the impartiality operates in our area

men will be behind the 8 ball until they organise their own pressure group like the wimyn did with WEL or they start their own political party to extract concessions from the major parties here in Australia and in other western countries

of course the feminits control the media and God knows how such a party would be portrayed

Will someone shoot that fucking mangina?

"Will someone shoot that fucking mangina"

If someone read that from the special branch would they read it as encouraging some one shoot Alan Johnson? As far as I am aware the last MP to be murdered was by the IRA. Though saying that it shows what control and constraint men have by not murdering these lying shits, especially how they destroy men and their families, but I like many believe in non violence, and know I you dont literally mean that ie "Will someone shoot that fucking mangina" that but others may attempt to implicate us in attempted conspiracy to murder.


Especially in these paranoid times even Tony Blair has had his children change their passports to Irish as he thinks having a British one abroad these days can be dangerous, but fuck the rest of us.

Quote from gaynorbarry

"Will someone shoot that fucking mangina"

If someone read that from the special branch would they read it as encouraging some one shoot Alan Johnson? As far as I am aware the last MP to be murdered was by the IRA. Though saying that it shows what control and constraint men have by not murdering these lying shits, especially how they destroy men and their families, but I like many believe in non violence, and know I you dont literally mean that ie "Will someone shoot that fucking mangina" that but others may attempt to implicate us in attempted conspiracy to murder.


Especially in these paranoid times even Tony Blair has had his children change their passports to Irish as he thinks having a British one abroad these days can be dangerous, but fuck the rest of us.

Of course..

It was not a "request" for someone to squirt a water pistol or anything else at the gentleman..

It was a question...

Personally, id like to see such folk shot down... with cold hard truth!!

Matt O connor once famously made the comment that one day, a disgruntled father would walk into a judges office with gun and blast him..

I dont think it has happened..

But, some folk dont need much encouragement..

I have yet to see any fathers rights activist who would do such an act..

Metaphor is often deliberated misread by folk who seek to continue the attacks on fathers..

But if we refrain from expressing our anger in verbalising it by metaphoric venting..

What options are left?

I could have said, "throw an egg at that mangina"..

But, history has shown, that that may actually be done!!

And I dont approve of such things!!

Violence is never a smart answer to violence..

Makes one as bad as the person who is being violent!!