18/2/02

Domestic Violence Award

Does The Home Office Willfully Stir Up Domestic Violence?

NOTE: The Home Office TV and cinema advertisement referred to below is for recruiting new members into the UK police force.

It shows Lennox Lewis, a highly-respected black boxer, barely able to restrain himself from physically pulverising a white man SUSPECTED of domestic violence. The idea is that if YOU could resist pulverising such a man then you might have what it takes to join the police.

The implication is clear - normal everyday folk would be completely justified in battering a white man who was SUSPECTED of domestic violence.

Even the well-trained Lennox Lewis could barely resist doing such a thing.

The advertisement is a clear incitement to violence against white males SUSPECTED of domestic violence.

And it is endorsed by the police and the Home Office.

My email to a police officer who does not accept that the Home Office is encouraging domestic violence. ... 

Hello Jim

Yes, I have sent copies of the article Men Fighting Back to the Home Office, the ASA, the ITC and to numerous journalists and, thus far, apart from a couple of journalists, only the ITC has replied - with a case number! 

But let me make three points in response to your email..

Firstly, the author of this appalling ad is not the only person involved in its creation and dissemination. There must have been at least 50 people involved with it. And, of course, the Home Office and the police will have approved this ad. 

Can it possibly be that no-one among this whole crowd noticed that the ad was a CLEAR incitement to violence? -  and that it was therefore against the law.

If so, then they must all be utterly stupid. 

If not, then they clearly want to generate more violence and hostility toward men. 

Either way, IT IS A DISGRACE.

this advertisement was constructed by the Home Office as part of their plan to increase domestic violence.

But given that we do know - from their own writings - that the main agenda of the feminists is the breaking down of families and close relationships, I do not have any doubt that this advertisement was constructed by the Home Office as part of their plan to increase domestic violence.

What surprises me is that they also seem to be wanting to stir up racial disharmony by portraying a black boxer threatening to beat up a white man.

They certainly would not have done it the other way round!

Secondly, as further evidence for my view that the Home Office and the government actually want to encourage more violence against men, what could be more of an encouragement to violence than to REWARD such violence? 

Three months ago Kiranjit Ahluwalia who set fire to her husband and killed him when he was asleep was given a bravery award by Tony Blair's wife!

AN AWARD FOR KILLING HER HUSBAND WHILE HE SLEPT!

If I remember correctly, this woman had previously assaulted her husband despite the fact that, in court, she alleged that she had been living in constant fear of him.

I cannot remember the full details of the Ahluwalia case at all. My memory is poor. But I can remember very clearly one very important aspect of the case.

It stank. And the evidence just didn't fit - in my view.

The evidence seemed to suggest that Ms Ahluwalia had often assaulted her husband; and this, in my view, is just not consistent with the notion that she lived in constant fear of him.

Furthermore, if you are truly fearful of somebody's violence and hostility toward you (and Ms Ahluwalia stated that she lived in constant fear for her life) then pouring petrol over that someone, or some equivalent, is hardly likely to appease them.

In my view, the evidence suggested that she was not fearful of him at all.

Indeed, the evidence that I have seen suggests that most women who allege domestic violence to the police are, themselves, the aggressors - e.g. see Only Women Are Offered An Alternative To Domestic Violence

And the police officers that I have spoken to tend to agree with this point of view.

Further, Ms Ahluwalia stated in court that she killed her husband because he was about to leave her.

if you hate and fear someone, then you don't kill them the second that they say they are leaving you!?

Surely, if you hate and fear someone, then you don't kill them the second that they say they are leaving you!? You celebrate their impending departure. You rejoice at the prospect of your freedom from them.

Ms Ahluwalia killed her husband while he was asleep. She could have simply picked up the phone and called out some of your colleagues, or fled to a refuge. 

Anyway, she has just recently been honoured with an award for this murder by the Prime Minister's own wife.

What's this, if not an encouragement and a reward for violence against men?

And it does not matter whether or not Ms Ahluwalia was justified in doing what she did. She could have been 100% justified. It would not make any difference. Giving her an award for killing her sleeping husband is absolutely outrageous. It is an insult to all men, and it promotes the view that killing your husband is a heroic act. Indeed, I have seen these women being applauded and cheered by female audiences for their murderous deeds; e.g. see Loose Women

Can you imagine the public outcry if any politician handed out an award to a man for killing his sleeping wife!

Can you imagine the public outcry if any politician handed out an award to a man for killing his sleeping wife!

Thirdly, here (link now defunct) is a government-funded website DEMONSTRABLY trying to raise hatred towards men. Actually, they've improved it slightly since I last visited it, but here is an example of how these so-called domestic violence experts currently CORRUPT our language and our relationships by classifying common events as acts of domestic violence.

The heading reads ...

Domestic Violence comprises a wide range of types of abuse. Incidents are not generally a one-off event, but can be seen as forming part of a coercive pattern of controlling behaviour. This list includes some of the ways in which a person experiencing domestic violence might be abused: not all of these behaviours would necessarily fall within the criminal law.

[And here are some examples of these behaviours as selected from their website.)

Having sex with her when she doesn't want it.
Refusing to have sex with her.
Denying her sexuality
Sexual name calling 
Mocking or humiliating her
Watching her at home or work
Sending her unwanted gifts
Being obsessionally possessive
Being obsessionally jealous
Getting information about her from her children
Telling her children things she doesn't want them to know
Manipulating her children
Telling others lies about her
Telling her children lies about her
Making decisions for her
Taking her money
Refusing her money
Keeping her misinformed about her entitlements
Shouting at her
Swearing at her
Insulting her
Criticising her appearance
Criticising her abilities
Criticising her sexual performance
Criticising her work or housekeeping
Telling her she is mad
Telling her she is ugly
Telling her she is stupid
Telling her she is a bad mother
Threats to take her children away
Threats to self harm or commit suicide
Threats to report her to the authorities
Threats to expose things she is ashamed of to others
Telling her her reactions are irrational
Withdrawing affection
Ignoring her
Refusing to talk to her
Repeatedly interrogating her
Behaving unpredictably
Telling her that it is her fault
Making her believe that it is her fault

Make no mistake, if a man in utter despair smashed his own head against a brick wall, fractured his skull and damaged his brain because his wife was leaving with the kids and was also committing adultery with his very best friend, he would still be said to have perpetrated domestic violence against her. 

After all, Threats to self harm or commit suicide are acts of domestic violence.

Now, you might laugh at all this, but the truth is that Women's Groups will PERSUADE many of their women 'victims' to see all sorts of actions by their male partners as acts of domestic violence. And now they have this hateful Home Office website containing this ludicrous list of items - as per above - to prove that even the most understanding of actions are, in fact, acts of domestic violence.

You want to ditch your partner? Then pick a few items off the list and get him arrested.

Sticking out your tongue at her can be turned into an act of domestic violence if the propaganda is right and pervasive enough.

the government is trying to incite hatred towards males

In summary, the government is trying to incite hatred towards males, particularly in their partners, by ...

1. ... using PERVERSE DEFINITIONS of domestic violence to encourage women to see themselves as victims when they are not,

2. ... inciting violence against men even SUSPECTED of domestic violence through NATIONAL ADVERTISEMENTS (e.g. with Lennox Lewis) and

3. ... by ISSUING AN AWARD to a woman who has actually murdered her husband!

Goodness me; what more evidence do you need to convince you that the government is keen to increase the levels of hatred and violence against men in our society!!?

And it is paying out millions of our pounds to achieve this aim ... with the consequence that we then have to pay out BILLIONS in order to counter all the problems that this causes and to compensate for all the resulting aggravation that relationship breakdowns cause.

Further, both the police and the Home Office have even been caught inflating the 'rape' figure by something like 2000% - e.g. see Home Office Rape Statistics Are False

As such, the evidence against these self-serving fraudsters keeps mounting. They are clearly determined to stir up hatred and violence towards men.

In my view, they are traitors to their country, to their people, and to democracy itself.

AH

...

UK Women's Minister Barbara Roche will make clear that local authorities will be expected to treat domestic violence related cases as a priority for rehousing.

And so the false allegations - and the domestic violence figures - will rise.

But this is exactly what the government wants to happen.

And look at how the government purposely encourages false allegations of domestic violence even from immigrants ... 

UK The Government is to relax rules to allow recently married immigrants to stay in the country if they are fleeing domestic violence. (NOTE: Link defunct)

Talking of which, I have pinched the following from a policeman's blog called Cough The Lot. It describes the truth about the allegedly enormous scale of serious domestic violence  ...

There is a poster in the loos at work referring to Domestic Incidents that starts with 'Just a slap, Just a kick, Just a Domestic and so on until Just a murder'

I would like to add another line 'Just another non-taxpayer using the police for personal gain in yet another petty row with their partner'

I guess most forces have a policy of 'Positive Intervention' when it comes to intervening in domestic incidents. Now this is a good thing as it actually protects true victims that have suffered perhaps years of abuse and are frightened to do anything about it. However, the majority of domestic related calls are made by the people that regularly use the police as another tool in their never ending disputes.

Last night was no different. Couple had argument, he takes their 10 month old son to his mums down the road. She calls the police stating she had been assaulted and her son kidnapped, bit of pushing - no visible injuries. She did actually provide a statement and we went straight round to nick him for ABH.

I have to take the baby from a 70 year old grandmother in tears because her son has been arrested and drop the kid back to the mother who is waiting around the corner.

As soon as were back at the nick, get a call in custody and she would like to withdraw her statement, she's made a mistake and wants him back. Too late, we have to interview now. He admits kicking out in frustration but she had slapped him prior and threatened that she would take their son and because it is domestic related it has to go to CPS direct which takes hours. He is eventually bailed with bail conditions not to return back to his home or to contact his wife for 7 days giving her time to make up her mind in terms of withdrawing evidence.

Now how has this helped either of them? She wants him back and has allready texted him as soon as we return his mobile phone. He cannot make contact or he will be arrested for breach of bail and will not be able to see his son without difficulty. This whole incident took nearly 5 hours to deal with.

There are always two sides to a story and although I don't take sides, this course of action has not improved the situation for any party. Sometimes I wish that discretion of a police officer could be extended to domestic incidents but that decision has been taken away from us forever.