MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Shared Care Lunacy in the UK

Filed under: General — Scrap_The_CSA @ 8:13 pm Tue 26th June 2007

Not much different from what happens here

A lawyer was jailed yesterday for refusing to pay child support to his former wife, despite her pleas that he should not be given a custodial sentence……..

Cox, who represented himself, told Southampton Magistrates’ Court: “I have been referred to as an absent father, but that’s not what I am. I’m a father who well knows the obligation to his children and I discharge that obligation. I feed all of my children, I clothe them, I house them — that’s what I spend my money on. The Child Support Agency gives me no assistance for that and requires me to spend the money twice.

“I say that makes it oppressive, unjust and discriminatory in its action. In this case you have two established families living in equilibrium.

“My ex-wife lives a mile away from me and the children pass easily between the two households. They spend half of the time with me and half of the time with their mother.

How many New Zealand parents and children here are penalized because of a failing child support (TAX) system? About 700,000!

Read the article here and notice the similarities between NZ and UK.




  1. How many times does it need to be said. The system is not about children, and parenting, only the state collection of money, (or the incidental enrichment of women.) Any father who cares enough for his children to confront the state, should be hung drawn and quartered. And I thought the Brits were finally over overt torture when they exported Kryle Castle to Victoria.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Tue 26th June 2007 @ 10:23 pm

  2. I was listening to National Radio today about the plight of grandparents who care for grandchildren. They get $153 per week per child.
    Now imagine me on a student allowance with shared care. I got $195 per week, and paid $16 of that on Child Support. My son was in my care 6 days and two nights per fortnight, and half of all school holidays. Imagine a man and a baby boy living on $179 for a whole week.
    Now I have 50/50 Equal Share parenting, and my situation is even worse. The good news is that the DPB that the mother saves while our son is in my care has allowed her to buy a 42″ plasma TV, new lounge suite and $1,000 pedigree dog (all within 14 days). Of course it helps that her wealthy old boss lets her work under the table, and he has even bought her a house to live in. I hope when she finally goes away for fraud that her boss goes with her. It was his $15,000 that went to the Family Court as a bond to allow the mother to take my son on her overseas holiday. Plasma TVs, overseas holidays, mini-dogs….all on the DPB. Did you hear that Mr Dunne? Anyone for a latte?

    Comment by xsryder — Wed 27th June 2007 @ 12:20 am

  3. Sending this man to jail shows how much the Government wants this money from Child Support. They think that tougher laws will encourage people to give them the money. But it doesn’t look like it will work because you can’t get blood from a stone.

    But how many fathers and children have to suffer in the name of greed?

    I guess the reason NZ hasn’t gone as far as jail yet is because 700,000 is alot of parents and children. How many of those parents would need a cell we don’t have available. But i bet they will use tax payers money to build the prisons required soon enough because our politicians are sheep themselves. lol

    I am glad you brought Grandparents raising Grandchildren into this. They are a very special group and the ladies i have met that run it up here are very tough. lol Good.

    Another group that are suffering in the same situation are ex caregivers of CYFS. Because CYFS has so many cases on their lists they push for caregivers to take the children on full time like adoption but these caregivers cannot be parents under law just as the Grandparents can’t. So that means less money coming in to take care of them. They get more for working under CYFS.

    They also recieve the same amount as the Grandparents are. Since many people become caregivers for the money (many single mothers are caregivers) they are forced to give the children back to CYFS after lengthy stays (years) if they refuse to not change the status from being a CYFS caregiver to a custodian. That puts pressure on CYFS but it also puts the child through alot because CYFS have to move the child to another family. And all in the name of money.

    There is no looking for the “Best interest for the child” in this country.

    Comment by julie — Wed 27th June 2007 @ 7:57 am

  4. Julie – As we discussed in an earlier post about child support, the debt is big enough to kill for. Many men would rather die than be caged, for child tax. Expect another round of suicides, this time not caused by the family court, but by the IRD.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Wed 27th June 2007 @ 9:32 am

  5. Steve (Bayliss),

    when I get back down to Wellington I will coordinate a protest outside the British High Commission, as relevant to the imprisonment of Michael Cox.

    I don’t know what support I will get from the short notice or if there is apathy but, no matter, something will be done down here to support him. Please forward to him the country’s best wishes and ask him to stay strong to his admirable principles demanding that fathers be responsible to their children.

    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) fathers’ coalition.

    Steve Bayliss wrote:
    http://society. guardian. story/0,, 2111914,00. html

    Staff and agencies
    Tuesday June 26, 2007
    Guardian Unlimited

    The Child Support Agency today “named and shamed” 40 parents who were successfully prosecuted for refusing to take financial responsibility for their children.
    The non-resident parents, named on the CSA website, have all been taken to court and found guilty of failing to provide information or providing false information to the agency.
    A total of 485 non-resident parents were successfully prosecuted in 2006/07 and the 40 named on the site were prosecuted between January and March this year.
    The CSA, which is to be wound up for poor performance, said: “We are making an example of non-resident parents who commit these offences to encourage others to give us the information we need straightaway. ”
    Opposition parties have dismissed the ploy as an ineffective gimmick. The CSA, to be replaced by a smaller body, has been dogged by problems and is owed £3.5bn.
    Separately, campaigners criticised the decision to jail for a second time a barrister who refused to pay child support on principle. Michael Cox, 43, was yesterday taken to court for a second time due to his refusal to pay £365 a month to the CSA.
    Although the three children of Mr Cox, who is a legal advisor to Fathers 4 Justice, spend half their time with him, he is labelled an absent parent.
    This requires him to pay for the time that the children do not spend with him. He was given a 42-day jail sentence in March having been successfully prosecuted by the CSA. The sentence, however, was suspended under the terms that he began his monthly payments.
    He was taken back to the Southampton magistrates court and made to serve his sentence, despite a plea from his ex-wife, who argued that without him caring for the children she would be unable to work.
    Since Mr Cox and his ex-wife Lesley Peach separated in 1994, he has collected debts of over £43,000 to the CSA. He is currently married to Beth Cox, with whom he has two more children.
    As he is a legal advisor to Fathers 4 Justice, the group’s founder, Matt O’Connor, said he is being singled out simply because of his gender and his connection to the organisation.
    “He already looks after, feeds, clothes and provides a roof over their heads half the time,” Mr O’Connor said. “Why should he have to pay that money twice? Legislation treats him as an absent parent even though he’s not absent. He receives no benefit from the state for the time he looks after the children and gets no child benefit.”

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 27th June 2007 @ 1:23 pm

  6. Thank you Prime Minister:

    for your reply.

    Some years ago now I wrote to your address recognising that for the issues that I raised it was preferrable to have Labour, under your administration, in office than it was to have National for their removal from principles in the humane.

    I am still of that same mind, although there is a significant variation now from experience that redefines the principle.

    Homosexuality requires that you will not confront Margaret Wilson failing due process under the introduction of the Care of Children Bill in 2003. That is because lesbian women under that act as it matured from the bill had been given a licence to breed removing a child’s natural inheritance to an association with fatherhood.

    Whether or not this condition of unlawful discrimination as protected against by Article 9 of the UNited Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child is enough to activate the faith I or any citizen of New Zealand may hold in you is secondary to whether or not you will once this fact is disclosed recognise that as the instigating principal of this abuse, you are bound so to correct its dysfunction.

    You, and your advisers, of course, are competant to comprehend exactly what I am saying and its incontestable truth. The question that remains is whether or not you have the integrity to act to be consistent with the New Zealand public’s interest at heart.


    Benjamin Easton.
    (of a) fathers’ coalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Wed 27th June 2007 @ 1:42 pm

  7. It is not suprising that there are no responses to my email to the Prime Minister. There are multitudes who do have adoted a belief that they have any responsibility to protect children; to have an association with fatherhood, and those people reject that the COC bill ruined that association where it empowered homosexuality to breed legally.

    I am well used to peopl removing themselves from this responsibility I allege is natural to cower before government: saying “it’s alright if you abuse us and our children – we must obey” long live the distributer of money.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 28th June 2007 @ 10:49 am

  8. Benjamin, are you online right now

    Comment by julie — Thu 28th June 2007 @ 10:54 am

  9. No Julie,

    I am online now. I am in Henderson today and then hitch down to Wellington tomorrow. I have to hitch because there is no support for the kind of work I do – day in day out – challenging government: living in this parenting strike – appeasing my anger by the minute constructing it into words, telling myself that the people who are challenged are nice people, demanding that this is the truth because if was not they would be unpleasant people; directly and deliberately hurting children by denying the child their inheritable right of access to fatherhood – barstadising children as if that function belongs to “them” as a commodity of “love”.

    In the end the problem is simple to overcome by the seemingly gutless fathers’ groups standing up and saying to Margaret Wilson – “hang on a minute – your actions frmo and since 2003 abuse our nations’ children”. Yet I seem to be alone – whatever. 0273902169.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 28th June 2007 @ 11:25 am

  10. Bevan,

    the reason why people blow others up while killing themselves is because those who direct them into such a destructive path as the most competant exponents of what they want to say to the oopressors don’t have the communication skills to directly pass the truth of that suicidal condition. Which makes the rally organisers culpable before God – in my opinion.

    How many dad’s have died unreasonably when the base cause of their disaffection could be more accurately and better described by other more articulate and thereby competant dissafected fathers?

    What has republicanism got to do with protecting these people?

    I’ll answer myself. Nothing. Republicanism is just the label for another would be politician. Your a dad first and foremost. Yet presently you seem to be lost in the maze of the woods.

    Most respectfully,
    Benjamin Easton.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 28th June 2007 @ 11:39 am

  11. Everytime I discuss with organisers how to get people to organise themselves intoa challenge agaisnt the thing they would challenge the answer is always the same. Someone needs to do something in order for us to become active. And we wait. We wait. And we wait. Who would be fool enough to step out of the ordinarary and challenge against the damages we all suffer. Someone else is invariably the answer seasoned with the more they are disaffected and angry – passionate even – about there situation the bbetter it is for “us”. We want someone else to do something to stop us being sheep.

    I get tired of “doing things” to activate others. I get tired of writing this kind of material, challenging officers of offices, going to prison, walking the walk when really whgat the organisers and their rabble really want is something to hide into – something where the organisers will stabnd up for a while and be famous as an organiser.

    That’s not how wars work. Somebody in and for a war makes an order and says – “go and kill another human”. So the junior trots off to kill and get killed: and the pare writes about it as the editor gets paid. These days the editors have so much money they can put in a bid to buy the Dow Jones.

    Shame I reckon.

    So when I get down to Wellington – and hold my protest – some will join me – hopefully and if the “media” respond then others will watch and they can rise up in their living rooms and say “well done”. And they will sit down agina. Or maybe on a good day they will ring talk back hiding in the wake of others who ring talk back because this is something to which they feel they can commit. And in the meantime another child dies for a bureaucratic complacency. And we all rise up and ring talk back.

    What about the organisers recognise that we don not need or want another child to die before we say enough is enough. What about the “organisers” organise. What about if those people who would complain that the traditional family has been damaged/marginalised decide figure that they have enough bad press and negative material already to say “we have had enough – CHANGE”?

    What if – what if.

    When I get back down to Wellington I will stage a protest to support a fgellow in the UK who has been imprisoned because he doesn’t feel it is just to pay for 50% of his children’s welfare after and while he looks after them 50% of the time.

    Wake up New Zealand. You are all very much asleep. You are dreaming.

    Most respectfully,

    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) fathers’ coalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Thu 28th June 2007 @ 12:22 pm

  12. Benjamin,
    Everything you are saying is ‘life.’ Yes, people will watch TV and read the paper and see a story of some poor man and they will feel sorry for him. But then they have a book or magazine to read or a crossword to do and then they go to sleep and wake up the next morning and go to work, come home, have dinner, maybe play some sport or go out for the evening or catch up with bills, kids homework, friends or family and maybe another sad story will come on the news and once again they will think, “How sad.” And they will forget about the father who they had seen on TV or read in the paper. He will become yesterday’s news. And then they will eventually get sick of all the bad and sad stories going around and will either numb themselves to the world outside their small circle or they will stop watching the programs and stop reading the news and look for something positive in the world.

    But then they will become affected by the same disease that affected the man whose story that got their attention and they will look for support and answers and they will realise this is bigger than they could imagine. They will write some letters and maybe they will join a prostest or two or more and then they will give up because just as the man whose story came to their attention they will see they can’t make a difference. So they will think about how short their lives are and what is important to them.

    So now that all that is out the way, how does chasing your tail in circles make a difference? It doesn’t.

    And BTW, what are you selling that is better than what is already offered? You are afterall political. What are your goals and what is your time frame? Who are the people you are intending of affecting and getting on your side? Or is this a just once of to change a law?

    Forget about Wellington. Stay out West. The people and organisations are ripe for the picking here. Build an army from the foundations.

    Comment by julie — Thu 28th June 2007 @ 1:32 pm

  13. You are being unreasonable Ben, in that your understanding is not of a moment of time, but of a passage of time, yet you have a greater expectation of others than of yourself.
    It is also unreasonable of you to suggest that the fathers groups have adopted a pratice of encouraging suicide to advance a cause. It is those we come into contact with who are least likely to suicide.

    Lastly if being a Republican is the only place I can encourage people to respect their freedom before demanding their rights then that is where I should gather understandings.

    Comment by Bevan Berg — Thu 28th June 2007 @ 4:27 pm

  14. Being in Auckland it was difficult to reply on this site but I have replied to both Bevan and Julie off line, meeting up with Julie as well for about two hours of constructive dialogue. I feel my reply to Bevan counters his criticism fairly by describing my own activity to establish an effective challenge and how its relenant cost and expense exceeds any paid by anyone else. I want others to share that cost without having to do the things I do: Which means capitalising on my exoperiences and exploiting them against mainstream administration. Presently we get into a debating match about values and the energy is dissapated. This is different with Julie. Julie is acting directly to embrace unity to harness aminstream bureaucracy agaisnt the blatancy of discrimination against men. The replublican movement is not. It is indirectly challenging thet discrimination using a different hat and a different set of clothes all the while establishing its credibility on this website under a banner of “masculism”. I am suggesting this is a waste of energy and only benefiting those who want to talk about politics as if fixing the problem doesn’t matter.

    In my reply to Bevan I added as I have on this site criticised James: I am not being disrespectful of anyone. Everyone is capable enough, intelligent enough and quite likely leading the field of their particular interests. The problem is you all are side stepping the areas wherwe you could be vulnerable and thereby achieving very, very, very, little.

    This leads me back to the issue of suicide and Bevan’s accurate comment that men are assisted out of suicide when they come into contact with the men’s movement. I didn’t contest that and my point was a direct comparrison to suicide bombings and that the commanders who organise these do this for their own incompetance to accutrately present their challenge on western values. They are victims, alone and extremely dangerous to everyone. The same comparison can be made about the men’s movement. Apparently we lose one father a week. Why? Because we haven’t built an effective challenge to reach them before they top themselves. Luckily without explosives or seldom with the will to damage everyone else with their dissaffection.

    What am I doing Julie? The justice system is under review. I want that review to include family law. David Benson Pope as the Minister of SD is in charge of that review and the Ombusman is overseeing these circumstances. I am putting in two challenges on the Ombudsman. The first is about the independency of our Commissions. I have very clear and uncontestable evidence that the Human Rights Commission is acting as a lap dog to protect our executive from scrutiny of an action of unprecedented corruption. My challenge is at teh stage where I am questioning the Ombudsmen’s Office for its own effect in independence and at present it isn’t doing very well under this test. In fact quite poorly. The second challenge is on the ministry of Social Development. The Ministry has made an extreme claim of its role and functions in social development saying it “leads” yet quite clearly when presented with the evidence of what it has to do: which is to remove the unlawfull direct discriminations against children (which in is proved before the authorities) and the removal of or actions to mitigate the affect of indirect unlawful discrimination against fatherhood.

    My points collectively are to ask this auduience if they can ciomprehend exactly what I just said and then question for themselves what is their role for complicity of allowing these biases and discriminations to evolve and disaffect our human functionality. There is no point of just going on and on complaining about it unless “your” energy” is aimed at getting more people to subsribe to the necessary unity required.

    Paul Catton asks me to be more simple with what I say. So I’ll repeat ‘stop tinking get a crowd’.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 2nd July 2007 @ 12:50 pm

  15. Hi benjamin,

    First good on Paul for asking you to simplify things. You are so advanced from me yet I now have a much clear picture from talking to you in person of what is going on. I see on kiwiblog that the left are excited having a communist feminist who is a black/american lesbian here to put forward a side which is that we shouldn’t have anyone in prison. Seems she got off a prison sentence herself for murdering a man.

    I will write letters to the Ombudsman also to help and to the politicians you speak of but i need to understand. Is there a site you can direct me to so I can catch up? This might go nicely with other letters I am writing this month.

    Comment by julie — Mon 2nd July 2007 @ 3:34 pm

  16. No,

    I don’t know where the information I bring is collected because it is me who is instituting the allegations. It would depend on which area is in your interest if you want to challenge beyond asking questions. Which is what I suggest you do first.

    I can help you determine the question you would ask once you have identified your specific area of interest. For example: direct discrimination against men.

    Question to the Office of the Ombudsmen.

    Dear Sir, will the present review of our justice system take into account allegations by father’s advocacy groups that gender discrimination has been applied by the courts through its history and this disaffects the independence of the courts to review any such discrimination? And if so, how?

    As for the submissions by people contracted to institute further discriminatory bias such as that you site, there will be no measure to compete with its maturity until the public recognise that they have the instruments to compete. Otherwise the problem will just get bigger while no one is really prepared to challenge its advent. That’s how abuse and corruption take control: using public apathy in its justification to build.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 2nd July 2007 @ 4:07 pm

  17. This is a problem. We seem to have many policies changing this year and one of the biggest changes seems to be around fathers. And yet we do not have enough advocates that the policy makers WILL listen to. I am not kidding you on this. Already today I have heard a bit from inside information but this is how I heard it.

    “Now after millions of years fathers WANT to be involved with their children.”

    That is not how feminists should be looking at this. Men’s advocates should have been prepared ofr this coming. I am sure there are men’s advoctes from Christchurch but they too have been feeling overwhelmed and without funding or support.

    Never mind, how ever unfair this is it we all have to put our best foot forward.

    Comment by julie — Mon 2nd July 2007 @ 4:17 pm

  18. My points collectively are to ask this auduience if they can ciomprehend exactly what I just said and then question for themselves what is their role for complicity of allowing these biases and discriminations to evolve and disaffect our human functionality. There is no point of just going on and on complaining about it unless “your” energy” is aimed at getting more people to subsribe to the necessary unity required.

    Ben once again, good luck.

    Maybe the problem you have with unity is that you view unity as same action, not same purpose. That action must be Ben’s and every one should fly to his banner and its all their fault that they don’t so I will engage in a series of internet homilies and continue being the victim.

    Ben if people are doing something different thats fine, expecting everyone else to follow well thats the test of leadership. Leadership is strategic – what you are doing is operational.(Tactical)

    Mobilization at this time is occurring and will continue to ramp up into the 2008 election campaign crescendo.

    Before engaging the enemy Montgomery ensured that he had sufficient resources and supporting logistical structure to achieve dominance of the battlefield. (Operation Market Garden being the exception and a notable failure)

    Engaging the political process via the officials is like charging machine gun nests, look at the toll of activists that this has consumed with little change.

    Engaging the same machine guns with tanks, reduces the casualty rates considerably and enables real breakouts, encirclements and defeat of the enemy to to occur.

    The analogy is used to help you begin to understand unity, strategy and leadership.

    Now Ben lets see if your true to form with another homily .

    Its sad that you don’t understand the root cause of the problem.


    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 2nd July 2007 @ 5:00 pm

  19. That is not how feminists should be looking at this. Men’s advocates should have been prepared ofr this coming. I am sure there are men’s advoctes from Christchurch but they too have been feeling overwhelmed and without funding or support.

    Julie we are prepared. The difference is we have changed the rules of engagement.



    Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 2nd July 2007 @ 5:20 pm

  20. Scrap,

    Benjamin is on his own on a law. A law where he does make sense. He has committed his life to this. Bravo to him. Other than that he is a party to Government talk just like the guy David Farrar is at

    You and I ARE just his audience. In fact I don’t think he can change the law in the short term. But we can help with issues he brings up.

    You are doing something different where you are an expert. Only if you can help should you try. Other than that you need to step back from Benjamin’s words. They are not mean’t for you.

    I don’t know why he targets Bevan. Maybe it is because Bevan is for fathers.

    Comment by julie — Mon 2nd July 2007 @ 5:29 pm

  21. Thank you for the support Julie,

    And true to form as you suggest Scrap I reply again from the same place. You believe you comprehend what I have told you but you cannot comprehend for if you had you would know exactly what has happened. You talk about gearing up and being ready for an election yet reply that using the system is ineffective. You simply do not comprehend what I am telling you.

    There has been a corruption of due process to protect lesbian women to have children and single women to remove the necessities of and in fatherhood to the child. A crime against the public interest has been committed. I’m not interested in tanks, grenades or anything else similarly as you would analogy again in order to interepret language of stratery, tactics or anything else in anyway similar.

    You challenge me as if I want you to follow me. You identify a platform of initiatives as working collectively in the same area in common purpose and that this is going to work.

    You reject for your reply that the challenge is direct if it is to be succesful and stand still in your ground of preparing to face up to those in control by standing for election. If you are elected – you will be as immediately corrupt as any sitting politician presently is because for the nature of your oath you will be accepting of corrupt practice. You would be no different with the only change to teh condition being that you would draw a bigger salary and get a lot of perks. Can’t you see this? It is stunning that you will not. It is frightening that our newly elected group of fathers advocacy reject the repair against the primary problem against which they stand in cause. There is this thing called “constitution”. It actually means something. It isn’t a fiction at all – and if you don’t comprehend it under the banner of the word “republicanism” then heaven help us all.

    This is why I target Bevan. Bevan knows my argument. His job if he is credible or wants to be credible is to take it and make it perform in front of this group and other politicians. He’s your leader – not me. He’s got a job to fight feminism and while he’s preparing to be a part of a corrupted practice where he knows that corruption he too is preparing to face off his integrity in order to do what he thinks an acceptable corruption.

    Margaret Wilson in 2003 broke the law. She compromised the public interest in the worst way possible in our law. There is no other crime of such extraordinary significance than in what she did and why she did it. The facts are plain. The male is the absent denomination from the corruption to be righted.

    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) fathers’ coalition.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 3rd July 2007 @ 12:32 pm

  22. Benjamin,

    It is OK that you express you view and I think it is an important thing you fight. But you have to understand what the republicans are about and what it is that will happen in 2008. The chance for any member to get a seat in their elected area is slim. I don’t think anyone is niave to this who is taking part. So if you work out the math, their is a loss of money to republicans. If by chance the Republic gets enough votes the leader will get a place in Government and that is Kerry as it stands. Kerry is not a greedy man although I am not a particurlar fan of him personally I have to give credit where credit is due. He is not interested in making a large sum of money for the year. he is interested in putting it back and taking care of the team as a whole and to vioce his concerns which I have no doubt he will do as he seems to be confident and shameless. (positive thing)

    The news of a need for change will hit the streets during the election. that is the plan of the most involved. It is an opportunity and a great one I think. You should be talking to Kerry on this. he will get you straight away. He is not mucking around. You and him are on the same wave length.

    Please be careful in your critisism. These guys are doing great work and when one of them gets in .. what you want to say to the public that no-one will allow you to go public with .. will go public through a government official.

    Comment by julie — Tue 3rd July 2007 @ 4:36 pm

  23. The constitution is corrupt. Has been for a century and a half. It is an injustice that replublicanism is set to override without relinquishing its access to power. Republicanism in this country cannot be legal. The reason why it is taking the government whic comprehensively want republicanism is because of the facts, and because if we are to continue with fiction it has to be so comprehensive that noone will notice. Noone exept the Chiefs of Tribes that is. I’ve spoken with Kerry many times. I’ve spoken with Bevan – with the Chiefs on several occassions and with the Human Rights Commissioner (with Bevan) on the reconstitutionalisation of NZ. My argument makes this happen and dwarfes replublicanism until justice first has been applied. Once that occurs the movement of republicanism is subject to Bevan’s ability to present its principles to the top forum of national power. Believe me.

    Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 3rd July 2007 @ 7:47 pm

  24. Hi Raymond,
    here are links to the most cutting edge Men’s Rights Advocacy sites I currently know of.
    These sites contains literally hundreds of thought provoking articles which in turn have links to other MRA sites, videos, books etc.
    Just use the search bar on their respective home pages and you’re sure to find articles and videos which are relevant to your area of interest. Good hunting

    Comment by Skeptic — Sun 16th December 2012 @ 12:38 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar