Crikey it feels a bit like a war zone at the moment!

Most of the violent treatment (78%) had happened at home, most often by mother(49%) or father (40%). More than a fifth of those reporting this violent treatment had experienced it regularly, with young women slightly more likely to report this than young men.

www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/findings/childmaltreatmentintheunitedkingdom_wda48252.html

< scream >

I wondered how long it would take to get back to "women abuse men too" yes, they do. and its wrong. doesnt make M:F abuse right though. and a huge proportion of on male DV is M:M.

hellooo sgm, you ain't too shabby yerself

still standing after the not-so-subtle threats on a website devoted to child's welfare (so they say...) ?

Both men and women who are trying to escape abusive partners need to have their cases open to the public.

NSPCC research puts mothers as responsible for 49% of all child abuse cases (with other relatives, strangers and fathers making up the other 51%)

first, link to that please. and does that figure take into consideration neglect or "just" physical or sexual abuse? And is that reported abuse?

NSPCC research puts mothers as responsible for 49% of all child abuse cases (with other relatives, strangers and fathers making up the other 51%).

In family court, twice as many mothers make child abuse allegations against fathers as do fathers against mothers.

Mind you I agree with them that family court proceedings should happen in public, with names held back from the press like they do for victims in rape trials. I don't think it would help F4J's case though. I think we'd hear what life is really like for a lot of women and children when they are working to escape abusive men.

So the women on MN who speak of being forced to allow contact with totally unsuitable men, are they all liars, in your opinion.

"You may mock but it is clearly who F4J model themselves on. Chaining themself to railings, detonating bombs, hunger strikes and other militant acts."

First off the suffragettes had a real cause to fight for. F4J don't.

Second off I don't remember the suffragettes dressing up as batman with weirdly bulging crotches and climbing on the top of buildings, intimidating women by handcuffing themselves to them or sitting on top of the roofs of their homes, stripping naked and frightening the horses outside M&S, or putting out a poster of a crying little boy with "rapist" written on him amongst other choice words. Those little stunts are all F4J's work.

As for hunger strikes - wouldn't Matt O'Connor miss his pies?

I believe O'Connor got his cock out in public today

suffragettes ? No comparison

"What are you basing this assertion on?"

The testimony of solicitors and barristers who work on child custody hearings.

If a woman makes an allegation of DV or child abuse (true or not) it is game over. The silver bullet. No court will then view a man in an equal light to a woman. He is then seen as potentially violent and a real risk to children. The reverse is not true. The court will want to see real evidence of a woman's guilt before even looking to strip her of any of her rights.

The suffragette comment has entertained me hugely.

Oh I SEE

Women are liars, innit.

Men always tell the truth.

Now I understand!!!

That is part of the overall problem with the family court system encouraging false allegations.

It has now become impossible for the courts to distinguish between real cases of abuse and the fabrications made up on the encouragement of solicitors.

No one is prosecuted for perjury in the family courts. You can make whatever allegation you like and the court will never prosecute you even if you admit you have lied on oath.

The courts are a farce. The UK (more England) is at the bottom of the UNICEF table for child welfare in developed countries. Much of the blame lies with the legal profession for causing the breakdown of relationships between children and parents.

Instead of attacking women, F4J should be going after the legal profession.

"You can argue however eloquently and coherently that the case put against you is a nonsense but the fact remains that if an allegation is made against you, you are guilty if you are male. "

What are you basing this assertion on?

Loads of women have found that access has been granted to men who really should not be allowed access.

Many people think that there are problems with the family courts.

To imagine that only men have a bad experience with them is incorrect.

I am not saying at all that "there are all women in family courts"

It is possibly an even split and with the judges it is probably more men.

What you will quickly realise when you step foot in a family court is the gender discrimination. It is like the court scenes from "To kill a mockingbird".

You can argue however eloquently and coherently that the case put against you is a nonsense but the fact remains that if an allegation is made against you, you are guilty if you are male.

You then have to disprove false allegations and the court will still then err on the side of caution and grant you only limited access.

Did the suffragettes also strip off naked then?

You may mock but it is clearly who F4J model themselves on. Chaining themself to railings, detonating bombs, hunger strikes and other militant acts.

The cause is different and may not be as valid in your opinion, but the same inequalities still exist.