Four weeks ago we sent Anne Longfield a letter concerning MGM, and this afternoon we received her response along with the correspondence records we’d requested. Her letter, along with the records, combine to paint a historical picture of utter disinterest in MGM in her organization.
I’m about to send her a public challenge which, if not acted upon by 5pm next Wednesday, will result in her winning this month’s Lying Feminist of the Month award. The challenge is an acid test of her integrity, and I hope she responds appropriately.
Isn’t this the same anne longfield who recently lamented about the skype kids in the media and blamed the governments immigration ruless for breaking up families?
So let me get this right, seperating kids from both parents due to immigration rules is bad and that kids need both parent for a stable loving environment, but MGM is pfff !, if it was FGM then bring down the complaints of bibilical proportions.
But anne longfield is a hyporcrite for the skype kids article given that she does not speak out against the family court system( and various women rights groups) which allows and enables a parent to deny children their other parent.
BTW- I heard a claim a few months ago that I wanted to validate.
from Radio 4- the claim as follows.
More 15 yr chidlren in the UK have a smartphone than access to both parents in their lives.
can anyone verify this claim?
if it is true( without wishing such pain on kids I hope the claim can be verifiied) then I would like to use it against the feminists
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
“To date we have not undertaken any research on MGM but we are sympathetic to the issues you have raised and understand that this is a very significant issue for your organisation .”
This is a gross dereliction of her duties. I do not see any sympathy for male children here, since she only sees it as a significant issue for J4MB and not for her organisation. Therefore a more revealing request would be how often they have discussed FGM, we would then see if she is “equally” concerned or not about that.
My goodness me, she doesn’t actually yawn in print but you can hear the eyelids drooping between every line. The woman’s interest and empathy apears to be entirely limited to her own sex. No doubt she performs her duties entirely to her own satisfaction.
She’ll respond appropriately enough when the steamroller of political outrage gets moving – which it will.