Response to 'EVERY MAN SHOULD WED', Express on Sunday 10 January 1999.
ATTENTION: MARY KENNY. THE EXPRESS. COPY: THE EDITOR. COPY: PETER HITCHENS.
One is not surprised that the announcement of marriage between Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones should produce exhortations for the rest of the male gender to follow suit.
Your article in the Express on Sunday is correct in observing the decline in marriage and the bad effect of this on our society. I do not think too many will agree that non marriage produces either nerds, brutes or loners. These characteristics will no doubt be in place in certain individuals whether they do or do not marry much as the equivalent will be in place in certain women. For both genders, in earlier time, marriage was an acceptable choice for those who had attained a certain age and had met a person who wished to join them in a life together, until death did them part.
Before you and the army of battling grannies, moralising matriarchs, and bossy aunts attempt to needle and nag men into marriage perhaps there are one or two points you should appreciate. The first thing that you and your cohorts should do is direct your efforts at ridding us of the 'no fault divorce' culture that has operated WITHOUT Parliamentary authority for the last 25 years, behind closed doors. It is the 2 million male victims of this procedure, reminiscent of the Star Chamber of earlier times, who, because of their treatment, have warned their sons to have nothing to do with the sham that passes for legal marriage in this country today. When marriage can be terminated, unilaterally, without any objectively tested reason by the wife, who then awaits the 'guaranteed financial settlement', the honeypot that drives divorce in the first place, there can be no surprise that men are not going to sign up to this corruption. The fact that attends the fiasco is that the husband is denied any legal support or legal aid to defend himself. He then finds himself robbed of his home, his money, now pension and his children. Is it any wonder, Mary Kenny, that men are not prepared to have anything to do with this. When and if we should ever have a fair and just divorce system again then marriage may become more attractive to men. At present it is and will remain not attractive.
The UKMM has set the goal of warning ALL men about what lies in wait for them should they become involved in an association in which they have no rights and total responsibility and in which the wife has exactly the opposite. Our web site contains appropriate information on the subject as well as 2 books we have published. The first, Marriage & Fatherhood provides a warning to all men about marriage and underwrites this with statistical evidence about how they will find themselves treated in divorce. The second, Divorce the facts you need to know but might not be told by a lawyer -- An exposure of the closed door divorce court system and its practices; a package of advice for its victims provides a description about the corruption plus an easy to understand explanation of the system and how the victim should react. Both publications have been well received by their purchasers.
I would conclude by addressing your final paragraphs. The prediction rate for divorce is 1 in 2 almost, for the reasons stated. Yes it would be better to have failed having tried rather than never having made a commitment at all, providing the failure did not carry an automatic penalty for the husband, but not the wife, and that the commitment was not something that could be swept aside so easily. You can bet your life it is a heck of a learning experience, try talking to the thousands of victims, who we speak with, who can see no justice in a system that rewards their wife for deserting the marriage, having already commenced an association with a third party, and then destroys their life further by imposing the 'guaranteed financial settlement' for the wife. If you consider all is well then you had better continue wearing the rose coloured spectacles you very clearly have on. However, with the benefit of royal association, Prince Edward will be suitably protected from the ravages that afflict 'ordinary man' should all go pear shaped.
Ian P.Kelly. Operations Director. UKMM.
FW: Response to article in the Express on Monday 26 June 1998.
ATTENTION: ANTHONY BEVINS. POLITICAL EDITOR. THE EXPRESS. COPY: THE EDITOR. COPY: PETER HITCHENS.
Your article today is as insulting to the fathers who have been affected by the CSA, and the 47 who have lost their lives because of involvement with the CSA, as it is lacking in accuracy. It is very clear that you have no knowledge of the events of 1990. If you wish to write articles about the CSA please get your facts correct.
The Child Support Act was brought into being to relieve the Treasury of its statutory obligations arising under the Social Security Acts. The current and past legislation can be traced back, without break, to the Poor Law of the late 15th Century. The trick was, there was hope the deception would go undiscovered. The PR put out regarding the Child Support Act was intended to raise public hostility to those fathers allegedly not maintaining their children. The point never mentioned was that the vast majority of those fathers were either unwaged or on social security, the few that were not were on low unassessable wages. So how was the objective of getting non liable people to pay the social security of legal strangers (either former cohabitees or ex wives) to be accomplished?. In mid August 1993 the media published detail of a leaked document from the office of the then Chief Executive instructing area offices to target FATHERS WHO HAD BEEN MAINTAINING THEIR CHILDREN. At last the genie was out of the bottle and the true purpose of the Child Support Act was revealed. The ex wives of these fathers were, in the main, claiming social security for the children of the former marriage. The reason was that the fathers, who would be rendered legally defenceless to prevent an imposed divorce, had been fleeced by the divorce courts to provide a guaranteed financial settlement to their ex wives. The courts however having stripped the father, but recognising he had a right to re-order his life, directed the mother to social security to provide maintenance for children. Under better economic times this matter would not have arisen but due to the policies carried out after 1979 the country had lost nearly 50% of its manufacturing (wealth creating) base and was becoming more and more dependent on imports, consequently unemployment was high and tax take becoming progressively lower. Budget shortfall obviously caused the mandarins to find ways to address this. Since the exchequer has seen fit to subsidise illegitimacy and divorce by the unquestioned availability of social security (currently £20 billion annually and growing) then any persons or groups would be declared open season in the quest to redress the deficiency.
So we have arrived at August 1993, the month the anti CSA movement was born. What has occurred since then is history and successive governments have wrestled with the monster they unleashed on FATHERS WHO WERE MAINTAINING THEIR CHILDREN. The proposed changes will not relieve the present situation, flat rate child maintenance, whilst still ignoring many aspects of a father's financial responsibilities will maintain the present position. The objective still existing is to provide revenue to the mother, where no liability exists, the rules already having been bent.
Your article, short on fact, does nothing by maintaining the 'deadbeat dad' theme, a catch phrase imported from the USA which is highly objectionable and deeply insulting to the families of the 47 fathers driven to the edge by the financial pressure they were placed under. To them you owe an apology.
If the matter of 'helping the family' is to be Tony Blair and Jack Straw's objective then let us remove the availability of the subsidy to illegitimacy and divorce, costing the taxpayer around £500.00 per head per year, and not supported by the taxpayer in the first place. Let the corrupted divorce system be conducted in accordance with current statute law, not as arranged by the judiciary, so there is no benefit available to those leaving their marriages without an objectively tested good reason.
Finally to ensure fact is reported to your readers the majority of the1.3 million so called 'children abandoned by their fathers' are in fact children where the father is legally prevented from being with his children by the divorce system. 50% of fathers lose contact with their children within 2 years of divorce because of prevention of contact which the courts will do nothing about because of PC towards the mother. In other words we have gender biased law in this country.
To conclude the campaign against the Child Support Act demands a return to the courts for the determination of child maintenance, no son of CSA. For this country to return to social stability the divorce on demand culture must be abandoned. State support for illegitimacy must cease, it has driven the illegitimate birth rate from 3.2% to 34% in 30 years. Above all if politicians are to talk of the family it must mean the two parent, self supporting, heterosexual family not some clone that everybody else has to be forced to subsidise. That way we would not need a Child Support Act.
Ian P.Kelly. Operations Director.
UK Men's Movement.
The Express on Sunday (19-7-98) 'Beware of women with gender on the agenda'
Ed Docx writes in The Express on Sunday (19-7-98) 'Beware of women with gender on the
agenda'. Ed comments that the £100,000 damages awarded to former deputy head Anthony
Ratcliffe are, in his opinion, 'obviously ridiculously high'. One has to presume that an
arbitrating body saw fit to award this sum having heard the related evidence. Mr Ratcliffe
is 48, and would have had between 12 and 17 years further service to give if he had not
been forced to resign due to the alleged bullying and humiliation he suffered. The income
he may obtain from investment of the principal will be a lot less than his income had he
continued to work in his position as Deputy Head. Perhaps therefore the principal is
rather less than it should have been. Ed goes on to review the circumstances of the
alleged bullying and humiliation experienced by Mr Ratcliffe. Whilst Ed Docx, perhaps
correctly, considers the circumstances as trivia he does ask his readers to consider what
he terms 'the most treacherous areas of modern life, i.e. sexual politics in the
workplace. Ed identifies two sorts of women at work, one type is the normal and well
adjusted majority who get on with their job and understand the un-written rules of
reasonable behaviour and who do not make gender an issue. The other sort, contends Ed, are
a minority for whom every action and instruction seems to be gender related. Ed's
dissertation then concludes by analysing the intertwining of professional relationship
with the personal. We contend that this minority are causing a lot of problems in
workplaces and other areas in which men and women carry on their daily lives by playing
the gender card. Ready to attend them are the gender police and establishment who will
translate some perfidy into litigation which has the usual 'sought damages' as the
objective. Wiser jurisprudence of earlier days would have had no truck with this nonsense
and hence it did not occur, there were no bucks to be made. With the arrival of the EO and
SD legislation the opportunity was provided for the chancer to try their hand at lining
their pockets. It has been rather rare for the male to become involved in 'trying for
compensation' in these PC days, but the numbers are rising and a large number of EO and SD
cases are waiting to be heard. Perhaps it is appropriate for men to be taking action after
so long using legislation that was enabled to benefit women but not to provide them with a
smoke screen behind which they could hide whilst being non PC to men. Men most certainly
will be increasingly beware of women with gender on the agenda but will be perhaps less
reticent about taking action themselves when it is.
Ian P.Kelly.
Operations Director. UKMM
20-7-98
ATTENTION: MARY KENNY. THE EXPRESS. COPY: THE EDITOR. COPY: PETER HITCHENS.
'I'm in favour of pre marital contracts' (The Express on Sunday 19-7-98) Mary Kenny
Your article 'I'm in favour of pre marital contracts' (The Express on Sunday 19-7-98) contends that young men, wary of marriage, will be more confident of entering the state of marriage as a result of this 'just another piece of paper'. I am afraid Mary that men will be not so easily conned. The problem will be that despite the 'contract' made at the time of marriage, when perhaps some years later a divorce is contemplated, good old judicial discretion will be ready to attend the proceedings should one party decide to move the goal posts. The pre marital contract will be declared null and void and a 'no fault' settlement will be made, as now, to the financial disadvantage of the husband. Pre marital contracts will remain the province of the wealthy and glitterati who will, because of their financial power, be able to wheel in big gun lawyers should there be any attempt at goal post moving. For poor old John Doe no such luxury will exist, he will possibly be and possibly not be legally aided to try and fight off a pirate raid on his finances.
This movement will continue to warn off men about this planned dubious practice. Please remember that we are in contact with the thousands who are divorced annually against their will, rendered legally defenceless by the system that strives to do only one thing and that is financially advantage the ex wife at the cost of the husband whilst ignoring all concept of justice as it does it. Since 1973 more than 2 million men have been scrapheaped in this way, these men as fathers, have warned their sons about becoming involved in the sham that passes as legal marriage in this country, worse is to come when the Family Law Act 1996 is enabled. We have recently published DIVORCE, THE FACTS YOU NEED TO KNOW, BUT MIGHT NOT BE TOLD BY A LAWYER. AN EXPOSURE OF THE CLOSED DOOR DIVORCE COURT SYSTEM AND ITS PRACTICES --- A PACKAGE OF ADVICE FOR ITS VICTIMS. This book has rapidly become a best seller, our intention is to advise ALL men of the dangers of becoming involved in an arrangement where they have no rights only total responsibility. Pre marital contracts will remain meaningless whilst judicial discretion exists to over-ride what people may have agreed probably decades earlier. If you learn that these contracts will remain inviolate please let us know.
Ian P.Kelly.
Operations Director. UKMM.
30-10-98
ATTENTION: MARTIN SAMUEL. THE EXPRESS. COPY: THE EDITOR. COPY: PETER HITCHENS.
Bob Geldoff Case
Your article today entitled 'Help from distant relations' is most interesting. You state that Paula Yates received a shared residence order in respect of her (perhaps you actually meant their) daughters. I suggest to you that what actually happened was that Bob Geldof received the shared residence order since I believe the children had legally resided with her, solely, since their divorce. That sequence of events would dovetail more correctly with the emotional reaction of Paula Yates.
Her joy, as an alleged loving mother, that the children's father would now rank equal with her for residence would of course have brought about the emotional reaction of locking herself in her Notting Hill home and crying her eyes out. I will suggest to you Mr Samuel that this was nothing of the sort. It was more likely to be tears of frustration that her former husband was not going to be a part time father subject to the dictates of a non co-operative mother and biased court system and had won the day in this respect. Mr Geldof is extremely fortunate in having the necessary money to mount the application which I believe he may have won. To put the matter in perspective there are thousands of fathers out there, without the necessary financial means, who having found themselves divorced against their will and robbed of legal protection then find themselves denied contact with their children. The courts do nothing about this. The much vaunted Children Act 1989, a fairly useless piece of legislation unless you are a social worker intent on searching out alleged acts of witchcraft, has done little to nothing to encourage shared parenting since its inception. Bob Geldof's children will benefit from this act of love so tearfully welcomed by his ex wife.
Ian P.Kelly. Operations Director. UKMM.
8 November 1998
BBC Radio 4 'Today' debate
TO: FEEDBACK, COMPLAINTS, AND R4 TODAY EDITOR
SIR - you recently reported on the government green paper about the family. During the morning debate on Radio-4 you featured three women: a married mother, a single mother, and a lesbian mother. In the evening debate you again featured a number of different women. According to the BBC it would seem men are of no consequence to the family.
When I was at University you did not become President of the Student Union unless you were a: black, one legged, lesbian, dyslexic, ex-miner. It would seem that these wackoes are alive and well and now running the BBC. No doubt it will do wonders for your ratings.
Brian Robertson, Cambridge
UKMM Member
8 November 1998