Our Address at Our Convention

Welcome to our 1st Convention.


The aim of Suffragents is to campaign for father’s rights as defined by the European Convention on Human Rights, and in accordance with the principles of the Equality Act 2010.

This aim covers a father’s rights to a family life, Article 8, and also the rights of his children, Article 6 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child [1989], and the extended paternal family (a common law right). This will give us the promise of ‘The Big Society’ promised by our Prime Minister, David Cameron, that to which we all aspire.


Suffragents Convention

It is nice to see so many here. Many of you have gone to great trouble and expense to attend and it shows the depth of feeling, because of the various attendees from fathers, supporters, and grandparents that are here to demand changes to the laws of this country, and many other countries, to gain rights and not platitudes for fathers and the right to a full family life for their children, to include the extended paternal side of a family.


Our website was launched in August last year and this has proved a resounding success in getting information out there, and I am pleased that I have had comments of gratitude, in giving hope to men who have been on the verge of committing suicide. This was a key reason for me starting this campaign when I began to understand that over 2,000 men in the UK must be committing suicide each year as a result of being subjected to divorce cases where spurious allegations are facilitated and supported by legal teams and ‘experts’ that are made against them. It appears that the Prime Minister, Parliament and the Ministries of Justice and Health are ignoring their responsibilities to these taxpayers and men. My long letters of concern to the Ministers on these suicides got a platitudinous response.


Family Law represents £47 billion to the UK economy each year. The Exchequer must be truly grateful making money out of misery!!! The basic opinion from many in the legal profession, and with social workers, is that men should ‘roll over’ and accept that they have no rights. This is what permeates this inequality in the enactment of the alleged Gender Neutral laws.


We understand that 70% of what is stated in the courts are lies, and as men are the greater losers in these arrangements, it is logical to identify that if a false accusation is laid against a man he has little chance of being proven innocent, as he is guilty before his court appearance.


In 2012 there were 262,240 weddings and 118,140 divorces, not including breakdowns in cohabiting relationships, also subject to many court cases.


We are well aware of the support and issues of women, but this campaign is to redress the balance for men and their rights to a life with their children, and the rights of their children to have a meaningful relationship with their fathers.


Women’s Aid lead organisations and their training programmes are misleading the media and the public. They have recently been granted £80 million to further their cause that only women and girls are abused by men and that men and boys do not suffer equally! The lecturers that are training the next generation of social workers and police are also influenced by these organisations. The recent press release by the Minister, Karen Bradley, states that the Coercive and Controlling Behaviour Crime, December 29th 2015, is there only for women and girls. An extremist sexist comment and very misleading to those authorities that would follow her lead. This law is intended to be Gender Neutral.


Child Arrangements Programmes, post-divorce, show that the prejudices of the use of Bowlby type Attachment Theories that were used to encourage women to stay at home after WW2 and to allow men to return from the forces and into jobs, still exists into the 21st Century. This was social engineering to prevent the disharmony felt by men after WW1 in 1919 and the twenties. That was a war to end all wars, and was used to stop the accusations on the broken promises to returning forces personnel from WW1. So much for a ‘Forces Covenant’ loudly proclaimed by our current Government.

Frequently, these Bowlby type theories of attachment are used against men by social workers and Cafcass Officers. These justify this corrupted and biased state of who is the resident parent, despite the arguments to the contrary, Sir Michael Rutter et al.


One of the biggest barriers to sharing time with children is the constant biased and sexist presumption that only women can be carers, and we cannot say that the Equality Act of 2010 is being followed through. This prejudice continues to be the false cornerstone of the attitude that only women should be considered as the resident parent and a man is confined to the crumbs of the Child Arrangement Programme. 90% of children end up with the mother being the resident parent.

Frequently, the matrimonial home or proceeds are given to a woman who lays false accusations against men, and it can be sold, or a new partner can be housed with her, and the father cannot reap the rewards of his labour. A father can be thrown out and end up on the streets and being homeless. His career/job will have suffered, he has no financial access to defend himself, and frequently gives up on life, as the State and its servants dismiss him from his role as a useful member of society.


Why ‘Suffragents’ as a title?

Because Suffrage Without Rights is Tyranny.


A father can have parental responsibility and shared parenting, but our Government and the Judiciary allowed itself to accept that shared parenting is not the same as shared time, so another deliberate misuse of the English language to mislead people, particularly fathers, when changes were made to the Children’s Act 1989 in April 2014, influenced by women’s groups claiming the ‘high ground of sexism’.


A father’s rights to a family life, as per the European Convention on Human Rights, is always secondary to appeasing those who would deny those self-same rights to a child. These Human Rights are frequently denied to a father and his children by the legal profession and their ‘experts’. These experts that have been steeped in anti-man dogmas and mantras. You only have to look at the sexist Duluth Model to see how perverted some people’s attitudes are.

I then introduced the following comment from a supporter …
It has to be noted that a father’s DNA is no less than a mother’s DNA in a child, and a father should be responsible and have rights for his child, these rights should never be downtrodden by bigots and social destroyers.


What is the point of responsibilities without rights?


The American War of Independence was fought on the basis of no taxation without representation.


Is it because the State needs fathers to continue working to provide taxes, so this legal bias is against the 48% of the population that are men!?!

Frequently referred to as the higher earners, and therefore more likely to have taxes paid to the Exchequer. These taxes are then used to pay the public servants that belittle a man and take away his Human Rights in secret Family Courts. The inquisition would be very proud of our lawful way of torturing people, and all for the good of the State!!!


Why can women not return to work and allow men to be house husbands, or do men not have equal rights against sex discrimination? A woman can then make the same career choices that a man has to make.


Often a wife will steal a lifestyle within a relationship that then forms the basis of a settlement, and a man’s contributions to develop and enhance a property or business count for nothing, contrary to the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970.


Theft in a marriage is the same theft as in any partnership contract where misuse of common funds for personal benefit without the other partners understanding should be deemed a crime.


We should get rid of private law and only have one set of laws, or is it just a ‘gravy train’?


We are constantly reminded that the Marriage Certificate is a contract between two people!!!


If a woman does not contribute fairly, then proportionally that should be her ‘walk away’ settlement, and if she cannot keep the child due to lack of funds and ability to look after herself and any children, then a father and his support mechanisms should be awarded the child.


Being a female should never dictate what is best for a child. Over 70% of the killing of babies under the age of one are committed by the mother. You only have to look at Baby ‘P’ and Victoria Colombier that were left with the wrong parent and lots of ‘experts’ were involved. These ‘experts’ are not gods!!


There are many statistics available about the low educational performance and social abilities of children where fathers are excluded or minimally involved with their children. 4 or 5 nights, or even less, in a fortnight is wholly unacceptable. Being left with mother, because she is a woman, can be detrimental to the welfare of the children, but who cares?


When the State makes its pronouncement on who the resident parent will be, who, afterwards, from the State, follows up that this decision has been holistically arrived at in the child’s best interest? According to the Children’s Act 1989, we are constantly reminded that this interest is paramount.


What about the contempt of court by the breaking of Contact Orders, with little or no punitive action against those who ignore our laws? Who is in charge of our courts? The greedy and malicious parent?


We have started a Divorce Survey, dealing with issues surrounding a divorce, this will be constantly under review, and if you have not completed this survey please do so.


We have a draft Manifesto for fathers, children, their supporters and grandparents, a long but not yet fully developed list that will form the basis for the reasonable changes that we demand.


So this is a beginning.


Thanks to all who have been supporting Suffragents since we started our Facebook campaign just under a year ago, and we now have over 5,700 likes as a testimony to how deep this problem is.


We need to get information out there before marriages and divorces take place. Due Diligence is required to be taught to men and women to discuss the real consequences of entering into this one sided and very unfair contract.


When you return to your homes, I hope that having given due thought and consideration to what has been said, and what shall happen here today, will spur you all to write with comments to the media and to contact@suffragents.org, and the campaign will continue.


Your MP and the media desperately need your thoughts.