The government's Domestic Violence Protection Order, DVPO (or “dove-po”), will serve to exclude a man accused of violence by his partner from his home. A “pilot” scheme will be set up. Under this scheme men will be excluded from their homes on no evidence other than an accusation from their partners for up to 28 days. And no investigation will be carried out to test the truth of allegations.
No arrest will be made, of course. The Home Office consultation is clear to make this point, because it is – you guessed it – only a pilot scheme. And because no arrest will actually be necessary to keep a man out of his home under a Dvpo, if he’s threatened with actual arrest for non-compliance. Indeed, the Dvpo spawns the imaginary crime of breaching conditions, giving scope to the possibility of juicy convictions to sex up politicians’ portfolios.
A paragon of British fairness. Indeed, the set up actually appears gender neutral on the surface. Anyone not looking deeper might be left with this impression. There is a phone-line for men as well as for women. A more discerning individual, however, will see the main text of the Home Office Dvpo page is exclusively dedicated to female victims. There is at the bottom of that page a link to another page, itself with links to a plethora of female victimhood propaganda pages.
Moreover, another government page Report Domestic Abuse is top-heavy with links to pages helping women. And only one for helping men.
The unfairness doesn’t stop there. Women’s pages are elaborate, clear and easy to use. A wealth of information is laid out clearly and in an attractive way. Under the Home Office page you can find another elaborate female-only page, and, under a gender-neutral title.
The page for men is, however, a crudely put-together job with a large part of the front page taken up by a disclaimer for the reader, telling him he uses the information at his own risk. There is nothing of the sort on any of the women’s sites. This government-sponsored men’s page Men’s Advice Line appears to be the only one of its kind.
Looking at the detail, there are three options for three different groups:
• Front line workers
But interestingly, the page for gays is identical to the one for heterosexuals. And, the same disclaimer from the front also appears on both these pages. The government has spared itself a lot of valuable time on this one.
After following links through, one arrives at a list of a few organizations. These ostensibly help men, but some are most notably (if not exclusively) run by and for women.
What a difference in government attitude between the two genders. Indeed, one question one might ask is this. Why have separate pages for women and men in this day and age of equality?
Some glaring loose ends also abound.
One issue conspicuously missing is the question of fake accusers. How will they be handled? There seems, in the government PDF for the Domestic Violence Protection Order, no consideration given to the possibility. You know already what the answer will be. “Well, it’s only a pilot scheme, you see.”
Police will be making assessments on risk. The police are taking control of issues that were once left to social workers, lawyers and courts. Governments have been slowly eroding away our liberties for the last three or four decades. They are slowly doing away with presumption of innocence and due process. These once-cherished rights are seen by modern government as a pesky nuisance.
How many people do you know are molesters? One might probably answer not a lot. However, molestation here is given a rather broad definition. Apart from the physical acts to which the term normally relates, coming near to a property occupied by the accuser is also an act of molestation!
Homelessness resulting from being barred from home is in contravention of Human Rights Act, Article 3. The accused cannot be excluded from his home if this will happen, according to the Act. However, only in cases where breech of Article 3 is “immediate and foreseeable” will the accused be barred. But what DOES that mean? If a guy ends up sleeping in the gutter because the police just didn’t see that might happen, it’s then ok?
Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt
The Dvpo will be issued on the balance of probabilities, not on whether a threat is proven beyond reasonable doubt. And remember police will be the sole assessors.
Where do cranky conspiracy theorists turn out in the end to be right? In the UK. The UK is a police state. And today’s government – our freedom respecting LibDem/Conservative coalition – is currently paving the way to strengthen our police state’s foundations.
High Attrition Rate
A very telling fact is this. The pilot scheme has shown a high attrition rate as criminal proceedings develop. This underlines three glaring alternatives:
1. Couples wanting, in the end, to remain bonded.
2. Untruths and exaggerations on the part of the accuser (usually the woman) playing a role in the proceedings.
3. The perpetrator is just too smart to be nailed.
The facts are that only 25% of cases result in prosecution and only 1.5% - 5% in a conviction.
But the government and its supporting media are trying to sell the notion to the country that (3) is the primary reason for the high drop-out rate. Think about it what that means. It means a lot of very clever guys are beating their partners up.
We don’t buy this. We believe the bulk of cases form a melange between (1) and (2). Moreover, we see this as a good sign. Couples resolving their differences are what the aim of a worthwhile public social service answering the issue of partner rowing should be.
But this displeases the government and the police. They want convictions, convictions, convictions. And couples separating galore.
Why? It’s what keeps them in work. It gives police more to do in this age of declining crime. And the public anger it rouses wins lying politicians votes.
Female Violence Against Children
Violence against children is referred to time and again. But nowhere is it acknowledged that the bulk of violence against children is perpetrated by women. Social research studies in America have shown that most abuse of children is perpetrated by women.
I recall someone on a recent internet discussion saying that he listened through Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four on Radio 4. He said he thought it was the news.
A joke? Maybe. Or maybe not. Feminist government and over-controlling police statehood are two sides of the same coin. To quote Rich Zubaty, women follow rules and regulations, men follow principles. Erin Pizzey once commented that governments prefer women because they are more docile than men, because men want to change things, something which is a threat to their power.
Principles are deep and come from within. But principles and personal freedoms go hand-in-hand. Rules and regulations, however, are put together by governments. And, as we have seen over the last decade, western government can be very self-serving. It can be very unprincipled. Moreover, it is today showing a perceivable movement towards totalitarianism. Wikileaks has exposed disturbing practices already in place.
The Dvpo is just another area of policy used as a tool by the government to strengthen its overall control of the public. It achieves this by exerting more control over men, typically by imprisoning them or contriving circumstances to threaten them with imprisonment. And once you control men, you control everyone.
Gentlemen, we need to arrest this tendency. We are the men of today and it is for us to change things. Every area of feminist government must be exposed and it can only be done by us. We must get our message out to the public at large.