Another year starts. Our thanks to regular contributor Mike P for this. The start of the piece:
A woman who made a series of unfounded sex abuse allegations about her ex-partner has been barred from seeing their four-year-old daughter.
A High Court judge made the ruling after she concluded that the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had caused ‘significant harm’ to the little girl.
Ms Justice Russell said the woman had made ‘persistent and unsubstantiated’ allegations about the youngster being sexually abused by her father.
The judge said the little girl had been ‘repeatedly subjected to intimate examinations, solely at the behest of her mother’ and been prevented from having an ‘uninhibited relationship’ with her father.
She said the youngster’s early years had been blighted by her mother’s ‘irrational’ behaviour. [J4MB: Her behaviour wasn’t irrational. It was perfectly rational given her expectation that her false allegations would be believed, as false allegations are in so many cases, and she would therefore end up with sold custody of the child.] It goes without saying that the police / CPS should charge the mother with child abuse, but they won’t.
Justice for Men & Boys 
The judge’s ruling was because of what was done to the little girl, not what was done to the husband.
LikeLike
Yes that was the first thing I noticed too
LikeLike
Good point!
LikeLike
It matters not in this instance that the judge was minded to consider the best interests of the child: what matters is that the judge’s ruling goes against the prevailing grain and so offers a precedent. Men have a very long track record of building very mighty oaks on the acorns of precedent.
LikeLike
Exactly and this is how the law should work putting the child’s welfare first. The problem is that public agencies and courts often presume the mother is automatically in tune with what is in the child’s interests.
LikeLike
Great to hear the evil bitch has been barred from seeing their daughter. But one thing concerns me:
“The judge said the little girl had been ‘repeatedly subjected to intimate examinations'”
This is a phenomenon rarely spoken of in newspapers. It’s always man convicted of this sex crime and that sex crime. But it seems that in the process of convicting the man of a sex crime the police FORCEFULLY subject a CHILD to some form of SEXUAL ABUSE entirely AGAINST THEIR WILL to find ‘evidence’ of some sex crime.
So my question to you is this: Should that not be illegal? I don’t quite understand what the police do in these ‘intimate examinations’ but it sounds to me an awful lot like LEGALISED CHILD RAPE by the POLICE!!! WTF.
LikeLike
The examinations would have been carried out by a female police doctor (only ). This does not necessarily concern me if they are looking for evidence to support a prosecution. What does concern me is that when males are subject to intimate examinations on behalf of the police, they DO NOT have the right to ask for the examination to be carried out by a MALE doctor. Perhaps this is another example of sex discrimination against males that J4MB should be looking at.
LikeLike
Why does it not concern you given that, if this examination was carried out by a member of the public, then it would likely constitute sexual assault?
Is it not hypocritical that the police are allowed to sexually assault children, but members of the public are not? Seems a lot like the American case of the police trying to induce an erection in a teenage boy, and take a photograph of it, so they can jail him for having taken the same photograph of himself in the first place: http://www.freerangekids.com/cops-wont-induce-teens-erection-after-all-a-headline-some-people-wait-their-whole-lives-to-write/
Regarding your point about men being forced to undergo intimate examinations by the police. Rather than merely asking for it to be carried out by a male doctor I’d argue that it is also sexual assault, so why is it OK for the police to sexually assault men in an attempt to convict them of the same crime?
LikeLike
How else do they get evidence, or prove a lack of? If everything is left to a claim or accusation every accused male will no doubt be regarded as guilty.
LikeLike
That’s why the correct thing is for the police to just shrug their shoulders and do nothing. No evidence, no conviction. Innocent unless proven guilty. That’s how it should be. They shouldn’t seek to obtain extra evidence through morally dubious means. For example, you don’t commit another murder in order to obtain evidence of murder and, given that in the feminist world view, sexual assault is a crime akin to murder, you should not sexually assault to obtain evidence of sexual assault. Two wrongs don’t make a right!!!!
In any case, if a child says their parent didn’t abuse them, then there’s no need to go any further. It is part of the paedohysterical fanaticism that leads to children who don’t even consider themselves to be abused to be labelled as ‘victims’. But of course, feminists then argue that somehow a child will be ‘manipulated’ to say they WEREN’T abused – as if the police wouldn’t manipulate a child the other way to say they ARE abused. But apparently destroying a happy family is perfectly fine in pursuit of the paedophile witch.
LikeLike
Soon there may hardly BE any male doctors anyway…
LikeLike
In theory a man should be offered the same. I suspect few men consider it and so simply go with what is offered. It is easy to see why as in reality almost all of us will have been cared for by women throughout childhood and beyond, mothers,aunts, teachers , any number of nurses and health bods. It is simply less of a surprise in adulthood for men. Though I do think this is changing with my offspring’s generation. So actually they do have the right to request it too.
LikeLike
” almost all of us will have been cared for by women throughout childhood and beyond, mothers,aunts, teachers , any number of nurses and health bods…”
Which is why, of course, the powers that be allow it. But “almost all” does not mean ALL – what about, for example, some gay men who might object?
“So actually they do have the right to request it too…”
I think there may be a distinction between a male who is accused, and a male who is a victim (and, in any case, the right to make a request is not the same as a right). In the latter case, such as a male who claims to have been raped, it may be so. In the former case, such as a male who has been accused of rape, no, I don’t think they do.
In addition, of course, females have a right to refuse to be examined at all. Whereas, males, it seems, do not. In one case I read of, a male who, it turns out, was falsely accused, said he had two burly police offices standing either side of him when he was examined, the implication being, of course, that he could not refuse to be examined.
LikeLike
‘This does not necessarily concern me if they are looking for evidence to support a prosecution.‘
You are not bothered about a possible conflict of interest if that conflict of interest supports the search for evidence in a prosecution that may be motivated by a malign desire for a predetermined outcome? Should I hope that you are not the object of a false accusation or hope that you are?
LikeLike
William, last line redacted. You’ve made your point.
LikeLike
Happy new year Mike.
LikeLike
Happy New Year William. All the best for 2018.
LikeLike
And to you.
LikeLike
How else will they obtain evidence, or find that there is none? One just has to hope, I suppose, that no medical professional is corrupt.
LikeLike
How odd: I’m watching a string of videos on YouTube, from a Canadian channel called The Fifth Estate (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCa-bX3gZC3YnCThlGM5d38Q), dealing with serious miscarriages of justice following which entirely innocent men have been convicted of child rape and murder. In one of my angry rants to my insouciant wife (Nothing enrages me more than the perversion of justice by those who are sworn to uphold the law.) I referred to the satanic abuse scandal in Cleveland, about thirty years ago. I can’t remember the woman doctor’s name but I do recall that the moral panic subsided when it was pointed out that what she was doing to the children to determine whether or not they had been sexually abused was sexually abusing them. How many men were imprisoned on that woman’s say so?
LikeLike
Marietta higgs was the “expert”
LikeLike
I notice that Justice Russell is female and thus – if also fair minded – may be free of the misplaced, rose tinted chivalry that seems to quite often infect the male of that species.
LikeLike
Non sequitur. Nothing can be inferred other than that she was minded to consider the best interests of the child.
LikeLike
Indeed ! I personally believe that it is mostly male judges practicing their gentleman credentials in the wrong place and wrong time. That’s not to say there are not too many female judges of the feminist kind, discriminating against men for a different reason. But the male judges’ behavior is not only unprofessional, it is also shameful for betraying their fellow men.
LikeLike
“The law according to Denning” comes to mind
LikeLike
A rare win for justice ! We need to start asking ourselves the question: Why are all the western countries so anti-men ? Because most non western countries are NOT. Obviously, we are doing something wrong in our relations with women and it is about time to admit it and start thinking what changes to implement. Clearly, continuing to behave towards our women in the same way we have hitherto will not help much.
LikeLike
I’m wondering if the Judiciary is going to finally acknowledge this appalling abusive behavior for what it truly is and how common place it is…
Parental Alienation
Given that the legal system is now facing several cases of miscarriages of Justice, perversion of the course of Justice etc, no wonder people do not consider Justice to be blind with any sense of integrity..
Do I think the mother should be barred from seeing her daughter?
No, I think she should still be allowed probationary contact, but heavily supervised( for a long time) with all sessions recorded for any future legal issues, and to make the social services legally liable if they screw up on their duty to prevent abuse. That said I think whichever social services were party to the mothers abusive beahviour should be served with a legal notice( and for EVERY incident to which they were party to)
I also think that she should do some custodial sentence( not suspended) even if its 6 months inside to reflect the serious nature of what she has done( and yes I know that it should be more like 6 years, but this is feminist sentencing and we have to grab what little victories we can) and to remind others that there are consequences to your deliberate abusive behavior.
contact with your children barring any murderous attempt should NEVER be a privilege but rather a right for ALL.
LikeLike