Our thanks to Tom for this (video, 0:10).

If everyone who read this gave us £10.00 – or even better, £10.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Our thanks to Nick for this. The start of the piece:

A Melbourne psychologist had a sexual relationship with a vulnerable patient whose wife then blackmailed him over the affair, a Victorian tribunal has heard.

Vesela Popovski’s conduct was described as “a deliberate grooming of her client” in findings published by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal last week.

The former psychologist, who failed to appear at the January VCAT hearing, lied for years about her sexual relationship with the client, who was on a mental health plan after a family breakdown.

The end of the piece:

Dr Lennings gave expert advice to the tribunal on the allegations about Ms Popovski’s conduct before she confessed to them.

He found the behaviour amounted to “severe boundary violations”, brought major discredit to the profession and that Ms Popovski’s denial and deliberate misleading of regulators demonstrated a “complete lack of insight into such violations”.

“Ms Popovski’s lack of candour, reluctance to accept responsibility for her behaviour, and the recklessness with which she conducted an affair with a vulnerable man creates quite a different context to my understanding of the matter,” he told the tribunal.

“She is an experienced clinician, there is no way that she did not know that her behaviour … was seriously wrong.”

The tribunal stated: “She has not appeared before us at the VCAT hearing leaves us unable to assess her insight and remorse.”

The Australian Psychological Society code of ethics prohibits psychologists from having sex with a former patient for at least two years after the professional relationship has ended.

Even then, it must be discussed with a senior psychologist.

Ms Popovski was disqualified from registration as a psychologist for three years.

If everyone who read this gave us £10.00 – or even better, £10.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

From the MAKERS conference website:

MAKERS is uniting the biggest names across all industries to join the fight for gender equality.

Our thanks to Max for this (video, 12:01). The odious mangina from P&G starts by stating the Gillette advert has received over 100 million views. I couldn’t get past the one minute mark. If you can get further, can you leave comments here? Thanks.

If everyone who read this gave us £10.00 – or even better, £10.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Yesterday we posted a piece about an ideologically-driven “inquiry” by the Joint Committee on Human Rights (chair – Harriet Harman MP) aimed at reducing yet further the incarceration of women, by reducing the incarcerations rates of mothers – here. Latest update on the “inquiry” website here.

Next Wednesday, 20 February, the “inquiry” will be taking evidence from, among others, Dr Jenny Earle, Programme Director, Prison Reform Trust. The charity has a Women’s Programme devoted to female prisoners (fewer than 4,000). You will search the site in vain for recognition – let alone concern – that men are disproportionately handed prison sentences, or that conditions in men’s prisons are generally far worse than in women’s prisons.

Earle’s title is “Director, Reducing Women’s Imprisonment”. Four other women have the titles, “Senior Programme Manager, Reducing Women’s Imprisonment”, “Programme Manager, Reducing Women’s Imprisonment – Scotland & Northern Ireland”, “Research Officer, Reducing Women’s Imprisonment”, “Executive Assistant, Reducing Women’s Imprisonment”.

My Wikipedia page, which was started by “The Vintage Feminist”, contains the following, in response to the speech (“The Justice Gender Gap”) of Philip Davies MP at our 2016 conference:

Jenny Earle, director of Prison Reform Trust’s programme for reducing women’s imprisonment in response said, “The evidence is not that women are treated more leniently. (J4MB: Lie.] In fact they are twice as likely as men to receive a custodial sentence for a first offence, [J4MB: Lie.] and the main offence for which women are imprisoned is theft and shoplifting” [J4MB: We haven’t checked this out].

So, what sort of “evidence” is being presented to the “inquiry”? We turn to Ms Lucy Baldwin (as she describes herself) is a Senior Lecturer in Community and Criminal Justice at De Montford University, Leicester. Her personal profile page on the university website is here. She lists her interests as:

– Mothers and Prison
– Mothers and Sentencing
– Women and the Criminal Justice System
– Mental Health /Mentally Disordered Offenders
– Working with Domestic Abuse
– Equality and Diversity
– Sex Offenders
– Professional Practice /Professionalism
– Trauma Informed Practice

The deadline for written submissions to the committee has passed – it would have been an exercise in utter futility writing one, anyway, as we know from previous efforts – so I thought I’d open a written submission at random, to get a flavour of what “evidence” the “inquiry” will base its final recommendations on.

Lucy Baldwin’s written submission (“I am writing in a personal capacity as a Senior Academic and Researcher from De Montfort University, Leicester”) is here. Her recommendations, in full (emphases mine):

I note with cautious optimism the recent developments in relation to training for Sentencers as developed by Dr Shona Minson[5] and the recommendations in the recently published Female Offender Strategy[6] in relation to working more closely with the judiciary. However, I do not feel relying on ‘God and good fortune that we get a good judge’’, is sufficient. I echo and reiterate the recommendations of the PRT [J4MB: Prison Reform Trust] reports ‘Sentencing Mothers’ and ‘What about me’ [7].

I further offer;

– All Sentencers, being mindful of the rights of the child and safeguarding of children, ought to DIRECTED not to remand or sentence mothers to custody (in all but the most extreme of circumstances) and to justify their decision is based on risk of harm only if doing so. Given the vast weight of evidence that supports the view that women and children (and ergo society) are better served if women are sentenced to community alternatives. Better still and where appropriate not criminalised in the 1st instance (See Devon and Cornwall’s deferred Caution scheme for example of excellent model of good practice amongst others[8])
– As per the afore mentioned, and as per many previous recommendations[9] when a mother is in court and may be remanded or sentenced to custody (as a last resort) , a, information must be sought (formally collated too) about her dependants and their care needs, b, all possible alternatives to custody should be explored by a FULL PSR, and c, sentencing should be deferred for a minimum period of 7 days ( but up to 3 weeks) to facilitate preparations being made for dependent children.
– Mandatory FULL PSR when sentencing women with dependent children – sentencing deferred for a minimum of 7 days if custody is being considered, PRS writers directed to find local alternative to custody options for women (potentially non-local too eg Trevi House)
– Community based non-custodial options must be the ‘go to’ sentence in all but the most serious of offences for women. I recommend following Scotland’s lead in relation to a presumption against short sentences, ideally of less than 12 months (which Scotland are considering, after the success of the presumption against 3-month sentences)[10].
– The development of gender specific sentencing guidelines and training for Sentencers in relation to women and criminal justice. Player (2005) identified that ‘Treating offenders equally has often been interpreted as treating them uniformly, resulting in particular problems for the fair treatment of women because it is based on a presumptive male subject’. Gender specific sentence guidelines would be much more likely to ensure that women were sentenced appropriately and in consideration of their and their children’s best interest. Developing and implementing gender specific guidelines would potentially have a faster impact than the complete overhaul of the sentencing framework argued for above (and would perhaps meet with less resistance).
– I would also wish to see a presumption against pregnant mothers being sentenced to custody, in all but the most extreme of circumstances. That’s not to say I don’t feel that MBU’s play a valuable role in supporting vulnerable mothers and their babies, in contact with the CJS, (particularly mothers with addiction issues), I do, but we see no reason for such places to be located within a prison. Successful mother/child therapeutic communities exist, see for example Trevi House, and Coolmine, Ireland, both work with mothers who have substance misuse issues and are therefore vulnerable to becoming entrenched in the CJS)[11].
– Importantly, consideration needs to be given to facilitate the permanent funding of organizations such as PAC, Children Heard and Seen, who clearly play a significant role in the lives of women who do end up in prison and supporting children on the outside. Prisons having devolved budgets may be the ideal opportunity for such organizations to be permanently ‘factored in’.
– A renewed investment into women’s center support. I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendations of the ‘Women in Prison’ Corston+10 report, which argues that women ‘not only do women need to be diverted away from custody, but also need diverting toward support in the community’. It is therefore vital that wise investment ensures that such support is indeed available. Models like Scotland’s 218 center in Glasgow, which has permanent funding and like Anawim need to be supported to exist, so they can become the ‘go to’ alternative to custody.
– Pursue all avenues of increasing child/ mother contact when a mother is in prison (where appropriate), via improved visiting spaces and quality of visits, and via technology (eg Skype, affordable telephone contact etc). Perhaps we can learn from Ireland where the prison service absorbs the cost of both phone calls and letters home, enabling women to speak to their children, sometimes daily, with at least one letter weekly (O’Malley and Devaney 2016).

If everyone who read this gave us £10.00 – or even better, £10.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Our thanks to James for this. An extract:

Today there are calls for Begum to be barred from returning to the UK completely or arrested and jailed if she sets foot on British soil.

But at the time of her disappearance four years ago Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said if the girls came back they would be treated as ‘victims’ who were groomed online and would not be prosecuted.

James writes:

Putting aside the insanity of letting this woman back, when she says she doesn’t even regret it, do you think the police would treat male returning ISIS fighters as ‘victims’ who were ‘groomed online’? Somehow I doubt it.

If everyone who read this gave us £10.00 – or even better, £10.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Just received from Tina:

Hi Everybody,

I’m delighted to see the fuss which has broken over the cringeworthy but incredibly popular national TV show “Married at First Sight” which broadcast a woman fiercely berating a man on multiple occasions without any comment from the show’s relationship “experts” condemning the behaviour. Then, the first time the man stood up for himself, he was called out for his crude language.

Read some of the news reporting about the show here. And a video from Domestic Violence Awareness Australia.

It highlights the grip of feminism on public debate over domestic violence in this country, where even the mildest emotional abuse from a man to a woman is labelled ‘domestic violence’ whilst male victims of serious physical violence inflicted by women receive no support, no public sympathy and are often treated as perpetrators.

Now, in what is hopefully a sign that ordinary people have had enough of these double standards, there’s been an outcry over the show with calls that Channel 9 should sack Mel Schilling, the relationship expert who criticized the man’s crude language after ignoring the foul tirade from his wife.

Yet look at this inane comment from the television channel’s producer, who said he was “shocked at the backlash Mel has received for defending another woman”.

“There were 12 women in the room that night and a man used language that was highly insulting and inflammatory in reference to his wife,” he said in a statement to 9 Honey. “Mel acted in the only way appropriate by calling out the language — language that is not ever considered acceptable anywhere, anytime.”

These powerful men don’t get it. They still think they can get away with virtue-signalling to the noisy minority group of feminists, ignoring the genuine complaints of the majority who are fed up with unfair treatment of men. Please help sign the petition and teach these people to wake up. https://www.change.org/p/channel-nine-mel-schilling-from-married-at-first-sight-sacked-or-proper-apology

Yes, I know it is a storm in a teacup over a stupid television show but a rare opportunity for the public to say we have had enough!

Lively, sexy Q&A for you to watch

I had a great time last night doing my Q&A on YouTube to celebrate 30,000 subscribers. It’s very dangerous putting me in front of a microphone for an hour, just chatting and answering questions from viewers. I ended up straying into all sorts of very personal and sexy territory. I hope you will enjoy it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zapPx8JaHOU

Thanks to all of you who sent in questions. I am sorry I only managed to answer a few. (We’ll have to think of a way for me to read through all the ones coming in more easily – the tiny text was a bit of a problem!) And a very big thank you to all my new subscribers. It really helps keep this show on the road when I attract more subscribers and the revenue that comes with more viewers – although YouTube is constantly demonetarising  (removing ads from) my videos, whenever they decide I have offended the feminist orthodoxy. But I’m also getting more supporters contributing financially which is great. See here if you would like to do your bit – every dollar helps.

Call for supporters in Sydney and Perth to help with my campus tour.

Finally, I am going to need help from people in Sydney and Perth in early March. I am planning big events for my fake rape campus tour and need supporters in both cities to assist with various activities. I’ll require helpers to work on the logistics, as well as braver souls willing to hand out leaflets and help run the events. Please contact me urgently if you can assist and try to think of people you know who may be willing to come on board.

Cheers, Tina

If everyone who read this gave us £10.00 – or even better, £10.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Rod is a stalwart MRA, I’ve known him since 2011. He’s one of those rare people we can rely on to turn up for events, protests, etc., if he possibly can.

He’s a regular speaker at Speakers’ Corner. Last April, at Speakers’ Corner, he challenged Laurie Penny – here (video, 7:27). The piece has received almost 9,000 views. A tip of the hat to Ewan Jones for capturing the video footage, which is excellent, and the comments stream a pleasure to read, with its strong criticisms of Ms Penny.

The YouTube channel Content Over Everything often features material filmed at Speakers’ Corner. Yesterday they released this piece (video, 18:58) of Rod making some important points about MGTOW, and much else.

The man’s a star.

If everyone who read this gave us £10.00 – or even better, £10.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Our thanks to Douglas for this. From the page:

How does having your mother in prison affect you and your rights?
Research suggests that only 5% of children with a mother in prison remain in the family home during their mother’s imprisonment; whereas most children with a father in prison remain with their mother.

The initial suspicion must be that the point of the “inquiry” is to pressurise the judiciary into being even less likely to give female criminals custodial sentences, to make motherhood even more of a “Get out of jail free” card – although we know that women are already treated so leniently, that if men were treated in a similar manner, five out of every six men in British prisons wouldn’t be there. William Collins’s piece on the matter is here.

The membership of the committee is here. Eight of the twelve members are women, and the chair is that toxic corrupter of due process since she entered the House of Commons 37 years ago, Harriet Harman.

If everyone who read this gave us £10.00 – or even better, £10.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

A piece by Laura Perrins, just published on TCW.

If everyone who read this gave us £10.00 – or even better, £10.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Our thanks to Steve for this.

If everyone who read this gave us £10.00 – or even better, £10.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.