If everyone who read this gave us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. £5.00 monthly would entitle you to Bronze party membership, details here. Benefits include a dedicated and signed book by Mike Buchanan. Click below to make a difference. Thanks.
Regular followers of this website are aware that neither Elizabeth Hobson, party leader, nor Mike Buchanan, party chairman, draw any income from the party’s income streams. They both work very long hours on behalf of men and boys (and the women who love them) so they’re unable to engage in paid employment.
We appeal to those who appreciate our work for financial support to help us meet our living expenses. We’ve set up Patreon pages for this purpose. Elizabeth’s page is here, Mike’s page is here. Thank you for your support.
If everyone who read this gave us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. £5.00 monthly would entitle you to Bronze party membership, details here. Benefits include a dedicated and signed book by Mike Buchanan. Click below to make a difference. Thanks.
Regular followers of this website are aware that neither Elizabeth Hobson, party leader, nor Mike Buchanan, party chairman, draw any income from the party’s income streams. They both work very long hours on behalf of men and boys (and the women who love them) so they’re unable to engage in paid employment. We appeal to those who appreciate our work for financial support to help us meet our living expenses. We’ve set up Patreon pages for this purpose. Elizabeth’s page is here, Mike’s page is here. Thank you for your support.
Rolling Stone is an American publication that will forever be remembered for its false allegations of a gang rape on the campus of the University of Virginia in 2014 – here. We should not be surprised, then, about an idiotic article in the publication by a female “journalist”, EJ Dickson, How Do Women Become White Supremacists? The start of the piece:
In the years following Trump’s election, the deadly Charlottesville rally, and shooting massacres such as the those in Christchurch, New Zealand, El Paso, Texas, and Poway, California, many people have tried to address a virtually unanswerable question: What is the process by which a relatively mild-mannered, disaffected young white man becomes a violent white supremacist?
While various factors have been postulated — a racist, patriarchal culture, combined with permissive attitudes toward toxic masculinity and radicalizing platforms like 4chan (and later 8kun) certainly all play a role — the question becomes even more complicated when you talk about white women (more than half of whom famously voted for Trump in November 2016). After all, one of the primary tenets of white nationalism is the biological inferiority of women. Why would a woman embrace such a worldview, let alone one that waxes nostalgic for the days when women were little more than well-coiffed breeding machines? [J4MB: What days were those?]
Writer Seyward Darby doesn’t have a definitive answer to this question, but as she points out, white women have long served as figureheads for far-right movements, from Phyllis Schlafly to National Socialist Women’s League leader Getrud Scholz-Klink. “If you think of it as women negotiating power and seeking power wherever they can find it and harness it and augment it, anti-feminism offers some women that,” Darby says. “Whether you’re talking about leading a movement or having a platform or simply being part of the conversation, I think anti-feminism can feel empowering to some women.”
If everyone who read this gave us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. £5.00 monthly would entitle you to Bronze party membership, details here. Benefits include a dedicated and signed book by Mike Buchanan. Click below to make a difference. Thanks.
Regular followers of this website are aware that neither Elizabeth Hobson, party leader, nor Mike Buchanan, party chairman, draw any income from the party’s income streams. They both work very long hours on behalf of men and boys (and the women who love them) so they’re unable to engage in paid employment. We appeal to those who appreciate our work for financial support to help us meet our living expenses. We’ve set up Patreon pages for this purpose. Elizabeth’s page is here, Mike’s page is here. Thank you for your support.
Our thanks to Steve for this piece in today’s Guardian online, emphases ours, I’ve added “ALLEGED” as appropriate:
The Crown Prosecution Service and police have been forced to scrap controversial “digital strip searches” of rape complainants, following a legal threat from two ALLEGED survivors of sexual abuse and sustained campaigning from privacy and human rights groups.
Little more than a year after a new policy around the disclosure of private information was introduced, the police and CPS have made a major U-turn and will withdraw digital data extraction consent forms from operation.
Funded by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Centre for Women’s Justice [J4MB: A radical feminist organization run by Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel’s partner] took on the case of two complainants who argued that the forms – which required them to divulge all their mobile phone data – were unlawful, discriminatory and intrusive.
“We welcome the decision from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and hope it leads to improving confidence in the justice system on the part of ALLEGED survivors of sexual assault,” said Rebecca Hilsenrath, the chief executive of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who said the forms disproportionately impacted women and acted as a barrier to justice.
Courtney, one of the complainants whose report of ALLEGED sexual assault was dropped by the CPS when she refused to hand over her mobile phone, said she hoped the decision would mean other ALLEGED victims of sexual violence would not have to chose between justice and privacy.
“There was nothing consensual about these ‘consent forms’ and it is a relief that the CPS and police have finally accepted that,” she said. “I approach this announcement with some trepidation, however, as I have been so seriously hurt and let down by the criminal justice system in the past. I am concerned that just doing away with the forms won’t necessarily improve practice.”
The second claimant in the case, who was asked for seven years of digital data after telling police she had ALLEGEDLY been raped by a stranger, said: “Infuriatingly, the police and CPS have repeatedly said to the press that they only pursue reasonable lines of enquiry. This is untrue. I hope now that other women won’t be subjected to these unlawful requests.”
In 2018 the Guardian revealed victims faced a postcode lottery around disclosure, with some police forces demanding almost unfettered access to highly personal records from rape complainants before pressing ahead with their cases. The following year the introduction of a new national digital consent form designed to reassure victims about how evidence on their mobile phones might be used inadvertently triggered further suspicions about police access to personal digital records.
The decision to scrap the national consent form comes after an 18-month investigation by the information commissioner’s office (ICO) on “digital data extraction” found that police forces were not giving enough consideration to “necessity, proportionality and collateral intrusion”.
Claire Waxman, London’s victims’ commissioner, called on the police and CPS to implement the ICO’s recommendation of introducing a code of practice to prevent excessive and disproportionate requests for data. “This deters ALLEGED rape victims from pursuing the justice they deserve, and leaves them traumatised and lacking trust in our justice system,” she said.
Further pressure was put on the police and the CPS when a court of appeal judgment – known as the Bater-James judgment – laid out guidelines for officers and prosecutors on how to be lawful and proportionate when asking complainants of ALLEGED rape and sexual assault to disclose data.
Silkie Carlo, the director of Big Brother Watch, said: “This U-turn on digital strip searches is a huge success for our groups, the two women who bravely took on this legal challenge, and the thousands of people who signed our petition.”
In a letter seen by the Guardian, the NPCC told all chiefs of police the forms would be withdrawn from use and replaced by 13 August 2020 – after a consultation with stakeholders and the ICO.
Timothy De Meyer, the NPCC lead for disclosure, said police and prosecutors had a duty to disclose any undermining material, but added that no victim should feel discouraged from reporting a crime. “Searches of digital devices should not be automatic and will happen only when the investigating officer or prosecutor considers there to be a need to access information to pursue a reasonable line of enquiry,” he said.
Harriet Wistrich, the director of the Centre for Women’s Justice, welcomed the withdrawal of the forms but said they should never have been used. “Their effect has been to delay rape cases and deter many ALLEGED victims from coming forward or continuing with their cases,” she said. “We will work with the defendants to ensure something fair and proportionate is put in its place.”
Courtney’s story After a two-and-a-half-year investigation into my ALLEGED sexual assault case, which had witnesses and a potential second victim, the police told me the CPS was going to drop my case if I didn’t give them a download of my phone. When I asked them what was the reasonable line of inquiry, they told me that I could be lying. [J4MB: She could be.] There could be something that discredits me on there. [J4MB: There could be.] I could be hiding something. [J4MB: She could be.] And to me, that’s not reasonable. I was asked why I was concerned, but actually it’s totally rational to fear giving your phone over to the police. I think most people would not want to give the contents of their phone to their mother, let alone the government or the person who ALLEGEDLY attacked them who may, because of rules around disclosure, get access to it. When I refused my case was immediately dropped.
The CPS turned its back on me and treated me as a suspect – they made it so clear that I was alone and I was powerless. That anyone can rape me with impunity unless I submit to the court’s illegal demands.
And it became clear to me that I needed to work to change that, because it can’t go on. I had my power taken away from me from the ALLEGED assault, I had my power taken away from me from the criminal justice system. I was left in a really bad place. There were times, you know, I didn’t want to be here anymore. But taking up this case, working with the Centre for Women’s Justice, it’s been so important for my mental wellbeing. I feel like, for the first time in a while, I’m coming to terms with everything that ALLEGEDLY happened to me. I want to help other people who have been through this – rehashing everything can be draining, but helping others has given me a purpose and made me feel that at least all of that pain happened for a reason.
I think we really need to start looking at what ALLEGED trauma does and how it can make ALLEGED victims behave. I think we need to look at misogyny in courts. I’d like to see the police and the CPS following the law and giving ALLEGED victims the same legal protections they give defendants. But also huge cuts to the criminal justice system has meant that we just can’t afford to prosecute crime anymore. I think the police, the CPS and the government need to take a hard look in the mirror and decide that rape is a crime worth prosecuting, that prosecuting it is important for public health and safety because it is one of the most vile crimes that exists.
If everyone who read this gave us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. £5.00 monthly would entitle you to Bronze party membership, details here. Benefits include a dedicated and signed book by Mike Buchanan. Click below to make a difference. Thanks.
Regular followers of this website are aware that neither Elizabeth Hobson, party leader, nor Mike Buchanan, party chairman, draw any income from the party’s income streams. They both work very long hours on behalf of men and boys (and the women who love them) so they’re unable to engage in paid employment. We appeal to those who appreciate our work for financial support to help us meet our living expenses. We’ve set up Patreon pages for this purpose. Elizabeth’s page is here, Mike’s page is here. Thank you for your support.
Our thanks to Groan for this. A recent study by psychologists at the University of Leighton Buzzard – as yet, unpublished – revealed that 99.2% of “academics” producing “studies” on “gender gaps” are women. That gender gap is shocking. I shall be calling on the Patriarchy Council to have them all fired.
If everyone who read this gave us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. £5.00 monthly would entitle you to Bronze party membership, details here. Benefits include a dedicated and signed book by Mike Buchanan. Click below to make a difference. Thanks.
Regular followers of this website are aware that neither Elizabeth Hobson, party leader, nor Mike Buchanan, party chairman, draw any income from the party’s income streams. They both work very long hours on behalf of men and boys (and the women who love them) so they’re unable to engage in paid employment. We appeal to those who appreciate our work for financial support to help us meet our living expenses. We’ve set up Patreon pages for this purpose. Elizabeth’s page is here, Mike’s page is here. Thank you for your support.
If everyone who read this gave us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. £5.00 monthly would entitle you to Bronze party membership, details here. Benefits include a dedicated and signed book by Mike Buchanan. Click below to make a difference. Thanks.
Regular followers of this website are aware that neither Elizabeth Hobson, party leader, nor Mike Buchanan, party chairman, draw any income from the party’s income streams. They both work very long hours on behalf of men and boys (and the women who love them) so they’re unable to engage in paid employment.
We appeal to those who appreciate our work for financial support to help us meet our living expenses. We’ve set up Patreon pages for this purpose. Elizabeth’s page is here, Mike’s page is here. Thank you for your support.
You can argue about the merits of pulling down statues, but it’s hard to make the case that mass protests serve no useful purpose. At the very least, they provoke debate and draw attention to uncomfortable topics that it might otherwise be easier to ignore. The recent protests have forced everyone to have difficult discussions about race, class, poverty and attainment. Any serious examination of the statistics shows that we’re pretty far from equal, but what the figures also show is that it’s wrong-headed and damaging to lump very different groups together. In these discussions politicians often lazily assume that all BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) people are the same, and that all white groups are equally privileged. But a proper look at the data shows not just that there are striking difference within BAME groups, but that the very worst-performing group of all are white working-class boys — the forgotten demographic.
It might seem divisive to compare different groups, but attainment in education and in life is relative and if we’re to help the worst off, we have to know who they are. We should help everyone who needs it — but it is vital to be able to compare groups to know who’s falling behind, relative to their peers. Bangladeshi-Brits earn 20 per cent less than whites on average, for instance, but those with Indian heritage are likely to earn 12 per cent more. Black Britons on average earn 9 per cent less, but Chinese earn 30 per cent more. What these differences tell us is that employers aren’t systematically discriminating between people on the basis of their skin colour, and that we have to look elsewhere to see the roots of inequality.
Ucas, the university admissions service, can provide unique insight into these issues: it is the only outfit in the world to gather detailed information on all university applicants, including their age, gender, neighbourhood and school type. This is collected along with data on who applied for which courses and who was accepted, and it is renewed in huge detail every year.
Much of the data shows predictable results: there is a gap between rich and poor, as you might expect in a UK state system where the best schools tend to be located in the most expensive areas. But there are surprising discoveries too: nearly half the children eligible for free school meals in inner London go on to higher education, but in the country outside London as a whole it is just 26 per cent.
Black African British children outperform white children, whereas black Caribbean children tend to do worse. Poor Chinese girls (that is to say, those who qualify for free school meals) do better than rich white children. But, interestingly, the ethnic group least likely to get into university are whites. With the sole exception of Gypsy/Roma, every ethnic group attends university at a higher rate than the white British and, of the white British who do attend, most are middle class and 57 per cent are female. The least likely group to go on to higher education are poor white boys. Just 13 per cent of them go on to higher education, less than any black or Asian group.
This is a trend that can also be seen in the GCSE data; only 17 per cent of white British pupils eligible for free school meals achieve a strong pass in English and maths. Students categorised as Bangladeshi, Black African and Indian are more than twice as likely to do so. In 2007, the state sector saw 23 per cent of black students go on to higher education; this was true for 22 per cent of whites. So about the same. But at the last count, in 2018, the gap had widened to 11 points (41 per cent for black students, 30 per cent for whites). The children of the white working class are falling away from their peers, in danger of becoming lost.
Going to university is not the golden ticket it once was, but it requires stupefying naivety to believe that seven out of eight poor white boys take a sober look at the economics of higher education and choose to set up their own businesses instead. The trail of hard evidence runs cold once they leave school, but the prospects for those who can barely read and write are dreadful and we can get some idea of the consequences by looking at the ‘left behind’ areas where unemployment, crime and ‘deaths of despair’ are significantly higher than the national average.
Angus Deaton, a Nobel Laureate based at Princeton University, came up with the phrase ‘deaths of despair’ when he looked at the demographics of those suffering from alcoholism, depression and drug abuse. Suicides among whites, he found, was soaring and those who took their own lives tended to be poor and low-educated. His recently-published book on the subject (Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism, co-written with Anne Case) tells the devastating story of what he calls ‘the decline of white working-class lives over the last half-century’.
Yet while white working-class males are the largest disadvantaged minority, their cause is the least fashionable. In the intersectional pyramid of victimhood, white males are at the bottom, tarnished by ideas of ‘toxic masculinity’ and ‘white privilege’ despite the fact that in Britain class has always been the most significant indicator of true privilege. It’s worrying, then, that any who attempt ‘positive action’ on behalf of poor white boys face a hostile reaction. Last year, Dulwich and Winchester colleges turned down a bequest of more than £1 million because the donor, Sir Bryan Thwaites, wanted the money ring-fenced for scholarships for white working-class boys. Peter Lampl, founder of the Sutton Trust, a charity whose stated mission is to improve social mobility, described Thwaites’s offer as ‘obnoxious’.
When Ben Bradley, the Conservative MP for Mansfield, tried to ask an ‘Equalities’ question about working-class white boys in parliament earlier this year, he was turned down by the Table Office because they do not have any ‘protected characteristics’. The concept of ‘protected characteristics’ was wheeled into UK law by Harriet Harman’s Equality Act, ten years ago, and the Tories, then in opposition, took the rare step of voting for it. The nine protected characteristics include ‘race’, ‘sex’ and ‘sexual orientation’, but the Table Office is not alone in interpreting these as ‘non-white’, ‘female’ and ‘gay’.
Under the Equality Act, ‘positive discrimination’ remains technically unlawful, but the barely indistinguishable concept of ‘positive action’ is explicitly legal. Firms cannot have quotas, but they can set targets. Employers cannot refuse to look at job applications from people who lack protected characteristics, but by stating that ‘applications are particularly welcome’ from BAME, female or LBGTQ+ candidates they send a message that some need not apply.
In 2016 the BBC pledged that half its workforce and leadership would be female by 2020 despite less than 40 per cent of Britain’s full-time workers being women. It also set an 8 per cent target for LGBT employees, although only around 2 per cent of the population identify as LGBT. This target has been comfortably exceeded, as has been the target of having 15 per cent of employees from a BAME background. In the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests last month, the corporation raised this target to 20 per cent.
The BBC admits that people from ‘low and intermediate income households’ are hugely underrepresented in its workforce. But what does it do about it? Earlier this month Oxford University proudly reported that it was making ‘steady progress’ in its efforts to make its campuses ‘representative of wider society’. Of its most recent intake of British students, only 14 per cent came from the poorest 40 per cent of households.
This fits a pattern: at a push, we can hear acknowledgement of the ‘poor white male’ problem. But that’s as far as it ever goes. The underperformance of white boys and men is not considered to be a problem worth solving. When figures come out showing the stunning attainment gaps between boys and girls, the interest lasts for about a day. ‘It always got a few headlines,’ says Mary Curnock Cook, the former head of Ucas. ‘Where it never got any traction at all was in policy-making in government. I began to think that the subject of white boys is just too difficult for them, given the politicisation of feminism and women’s equality.’
When I asked a teacher why white working-class boys have fallen so far behind, he gave me a short answer: girls are better behaved and immigrant parents are stricter. This is a generalisation but nonetheless interesting: if it is the case that parenting is the problem, then it’s not clear how much the government can do. Perhaps the reluctance to discuss the subject stems from fear that such a discussion would lead to difficult territory about family structure, quality of parenting and — in short — culture. Perhaps politicians think it better to let the problem fester, and the children suffer, than to risk discussing it.
Last month, the government announced that its commission on racial inequality would include an examination into the underperformance of working-class white boys at schools. [J4MB emphasis] Will it look deep into the causes? It might look at recent studies that suggest poor reading levels in schools is a huge part of the problem. And it might ask whether ‘positive action’ in the name of diversity has left white working-class boys behind.
If everyone who read this gave us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. £5.00 monthly would entitle you to Bronze party membership, details here. Benefits include a dedicated and signed book by Mike Buchanan. Click below to make a difference. Thanks.
A piece in the Daily Mail from 30 June. Far too much of the piece is taken up with the unsubstantiated claims made by Adrienne Liebenberg. The start:
A £200,000 a year businesswoman who claimed she was sacked from a major FTSE 100 company because she did not want to discuss football and go out drinking with ‘the lads’ has lost her sexism claim.
Adrienne Liebenberg was fired from her job as Director of Global Sales, Marketing and Innovation at international packing conglomerate DS Smith in December 2018 after being told that her leadership style was ‘not working’.
However Ms Liebenberg who had previously worked at oil and gas giant BP Castrol – took the firm to an employment tribunal, arguing that she had been sacked because of her gender.
Ms Liebenberg alleged that she was marginalised at DS Smith because did not want to join in with the male banter and work style.
She claimed that key business decisions were often taken over boozy dinners with a ‘gang’ of senior male employees – where the practice was ‘bonding, drink, and football’.
JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that:
1 The complaint of victimisation is dismissed upon withdrawal;
2 The complaint of direct sex discrimination is not well-founded; and
3 The complaint of indirect sex discrimination is not well-founded.
Over pp.39/40 we find this remarkable text (section #186):
In considering both those issues we took into account the following facts. Although it is common for the manufacturing industry to be male dominated and it is accepted that male engineering graduates significantly outnumber female engineering graduates in many countries, the extent of the lack of gender diversity at the senior levels of DS Smith is unacceptable and needs to be addressed. [J4MB emphasis] During the Claimant’s period of employment there were no women on the Group Operating Committee or on the Executive. 9 out of the 54 roles at the next level down, were filled by women. The Claimant was one of them and six were in HR and Legal functions. Within the top 150 employees, 19 were women. Most of those 19 women felt that gender was an obstacle to progression at DS Smith, albeit indirectly and unconsciously. They had concerns about unconscious bias and stereotypical assumptions. About half of them felt that DS Smith was not an inclusive workplace and had experienced or witnessed inappropriate behaviour (see paragraph 121 above). The Claimant had been referred to as a “girlie” and “little lady” and had been winked at. [J4MB: For £200,000 a year FTSE100 executives could refer to me by these terms and wink at me all day. No problem.] The Claimant was the only woman in R1’s Leadership team.
Since when is it part of an Employment Tribunal’s remit to make gender political points, especially points irrelevant to the case in hand? I’d have thought that a perfectly reasonable decision for DS Smith to take after this case would be great reluctance to recruit or promote women to senior positions – and who could blame them?
So, who were the members of the tribunal? They are described at the start of the report as:
Employment Judge H Grewal, Mr J Carroll and Mr D Kendall
A Google search for Grewal led me to this. Key content:
News Release issued by the COI News Distribution Service on 21 September 2009
The Lord Chancellor, the Right Honourable Jack Straw MP, has appointed Harjit Kaur Grewal to be a Salaried Employment Judge of the Employment Tribunals (England and Wales). Ms Grewal will be assigned to the London Central Region, with effect from 1 October 2009.
Notes to Editors
Harjit Kaur Grewal is 52. She was called to the Bar (G) in 1980 and was appointed as a Fee-paid Chairman of the Employment Tribunals (England and Wales) in 2003.
So Grewal is a feminist of about 63 years of age. She should be forced to retire early on the grounds of section #186 alone. Mr J Carroll and Mr D Kendall should hang their heads in shame for the section. But at least – miraculously – they unanimously arrived at a sound judgment.
If everyone who read this gave us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. £5.00 monthly would entitle you to Bronze party membership, details here. Benefits include a dedicated and signed book by Mike Buchanan. Click below to make a difference. Thanks.
Regular followers of this website are aware that neither Elizabeth Hobson, party leader, nor Mike Buchanan, party chairman, draw any income from the party’s income streams. They both work very long hours on behalf of men and boys (and the women who love them) so they’re unable to engage in paid employment. We appeal to those who appreciate our work for financial support to help us meet our living expenses. We’ve set up Patreon pages for this purpose. Elizabeth’s page is here, Mike’s page is here. Thank you for your support.
Welcome to the world of the Legally License Free. I would suggest 2 things.
First, remove the advice about notifying the BBC that you don’t need a license, there is no legal requirement to do this, the same as there is no requirement to tell one supermarket that you shop at another. There are a number of good reasons not to do so, not least of which is that it makes no difference to how TVL treat you afterwards.
You are going to be in a world of “threatograms” and “goon visits”. There is good advice on how to deal with the harassment you are likely to receive there.
Always remember the golden rule when it comes to TV Licensing; NO CONTACT, and you should be fine.
If everyone who read this gave us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. £5.00 monthly would entitle you to Bronze party membership, details here. Benefits include a dedicated and signed book by Mike Buchanan. Click below to make a difference. Thanks.
Regular followers of this website are aware that neither Elizabeth Hobson, party leader, nor Mike Buchanan, party chairman, draw any income from the party’s income streams. They both work very long hours on behalf of men and boys (and the women who love them) so they’re unable to engage in paid employment. We appeal to those who appreciate our work for financial support to help us meet our living expenses. We’ve set up Patreon pages for this purpose. Elizabeth’s page is here, Mike’s page is here. Thank you for your support.
If everyone who read this gave us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. £5.00 monthly would entitle you to Bronze party membership, details here. Benefits include a dedicated and signed book by Mike Buchanan. Click below to make a difference. Thanks.
Regular followers of this website are aware that neither Elizabeth Hobson, party leader, nor Mike Buchanan, party chairman, draw any income from the party’s income streams. They both work very long hours on behalf of men and boys (and the women who love them) so they’re unable to engage in paid employment. We appeal to those who appreciate our work for financial support to help us meet our living expenses. We’ve set up Patreon pages for this purpose. Elizabeth’s page is here, Mike’s page is here. Thank you for your support.
Justice for Men & Boys 