Philip Davies MP tables men's right activist amendments to the Domestic Abuse Bill

[Jeanhatchet]

Please write to your MP to object. Philip Davies MP has tabled many amendments including removing economic abuse https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0096/amend/domesticrmmpbc0428.1-7.html

You don't think women's orgs would have been represented in this from the off?

And he wanted to ensure men's groups were included as well?

Ok.

You don't think women's orgs would have been represented in this from the off?

If I were certain that they would definitely be represented without a specific statement of requirement, I don't think this bill would be necessary in the first place.

I think you're missing the point.

The amendment was to ensure men's groups were included rather than it defaulting to women's groups due to the topic.

The amendment was to ensure groups representing men were at the table. To provide balance to the women's groups. For his views on this sort of thing the previous links would be useful if you've not looked at them.

I wish I shared your optimism, I'm not convinced that, in the absence of a directive, the advisory board would have defaulted to women's groups, I believe it would be more likely that those representing the interests specifically of women would have been frozen out to favour groups which represent the interests of female and male domestic violence victims.

Women and men is fine.

He wants separate orgs representing women and men. He is pally with F4J. He thinks that crazed feminazis are oppressing men. He has an angle, he's not neutral.

Women and men is fine.

I disagree, there are differences in the patterns of domestic abuse suffered by women and men and it seems like representation by specific experts on each is better than trying to funnel them into an advisory board through one position for each area.

He is pally with F4J.

I don't believe Fathers 4 Justice primarily campaign on domestic abuse (of women or men). I understand their main focus is on visitation rights for fathers.

He thinks that crazed feminazis are oppressing men. He has an angle, he's not neutral.

Agreeing with an idea proposed by a specific person does not have to be an endorsement of their character. Automatically opposing their proposals strikes me as a purity spiral.

Nah.

Do you think black people should listen to Tommy Robinson and judge each of his ideas on its merits?

Nah.

I also question why you think DV organisations that support both men and women would automatically be letting the men down due to an inability to understand how situations differ between the sexes around DV. That's an interesting assumption.

Do you think black people should listen to Tommy Robinson and judge each of his ideas on its merits?

I wouldn't accuse Tommy Robinson of having a sensible idea but, if he somehow managed to produce one, I would say it's very silly to automatically do the opposite.

I also question why you think DV organisations that support both men and women would automatically be letting the men down due to an inability to understand how situations differ between the sexes around DV. That's an interesting assumption.

It's an interesting assumption that you think I'm talking about men.

This is the report of the Committee Meeting yesterday. They seem to be taking evidence. publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmpublic/DomesticAbuse/PBC096_Domestic%20Abuse%20Bill_1st_2nd_Compilation_04_06_2020.pdf

I am still not clear at which point amendments are agreed or rejected. (I did look at the guide on the Parliament web site!!) It just says the Committee will report (to who?) on 25 June. services.parliament.uk/Bills/2019-21/domesticabuse.html

So if Tommy Robinson said he wanted to make sure that organisations representing both white and black interests were on a committee to think about police brutality you would say that's a good idea and not wonder what sort of white groups he may have in mind and what was driving this comment?

Ok.

'It's an interesting assumption that you think I'm talking about men'

Well not really because you've been on here for ages (the feminism boards) with a sole aim of disagreeing with posters here.

You seem to think that with you, as with this fella, known attitudes should be completely ignored.

It doesn't work like that, sorry.

Women don't have to give men the benefit of the doubt when the men have clearly shown themselves to have an angle.

So if Tommy Robinson said he wanted to make sure that organisations representing both white and black interests were on a committee to think about police brutality you would say that's a good idea and not wonder what sort of white groups he may have in mind and what was driving this comment?

I would say that it's a little harder to capture all victims of police brutality in two representative racially-oriented organisations. I'm not actually aware of organisations that exclusively represent white people WRT police brutality so it's rather hard to comment on this aspect of the hypothetical but I believe the difficulty in a binary representation on racial matters negates this (compared to sex).

In any case I think it would be foolish to completely disregard the idea of specific representation for affected groups, simply because Tommy Robinson proposed it.

Well not really because you've been on here for ages (the feminism boards) with a sole aim of disagreeing with posters here.

I only tend to post if I haven't seen something similar to my view on a topic already posted; if I'm seeking clarification or if I feel I have some information to add.

You seem to think that with you, as with this fella, known attitudes should be completely ignored.

I'm sorry but that's not true, I more disagree that ideas should be automatically discarded because of the source. It seems like a mandatory contrarian stance towards people who conduct themselves badly hands those people almost as much control as slavish obedience.

More like women can spot someone who is working against their interests and know that they don't have to sit quietly and listen carefully to everything they say like good girls. Even when men tell us to and say if we don't we're 'mindless'.

Would you go on the racism topic of a site predominantly for black men and tell them they need to listen carefully to Tommy Robinson in case he has a good idea? And when they responded in the negative, tell them they're wrong and 'mindless'. I can't imagine you doing that, somehow.

More like women can spot someone who is working against their interests and know that they don't have to sit quietly and listen carefully to everything they say like good girls.

If you genuinely believe I'm not acting in good faith then, by all means, ignore me. I won't lose sleep over it.

Would you go on the racism topic of a site predominantly for black men and tell them they need to listen carefully to Tommy Robinson in case he has a good idea?

I'm sorry if you misunderstood but I'm neither proposing paying close attention to and exploring every idea proposed by Tommy Robinson nor Philip Davies. That said, the latter is an MP who has tabled amendments and if someone is proposing contacting their local MP over these amendments, I think it's worth considering what I'm objecting to before I contact my MP.

I don't think there are any MPs who doesn't know what he's like!

He's a proud MRA who was in the national news for joining the women and equalities committee and his first act on joining was to propose that women be removed from the committee title.

I don't think there are any MPs who doesn't know what he's like!

If I objected, I would still contact my MP to draw attention to the specific amendments as they may not be aware.

Apologies, to clarify, they may not be aware of the amendments.

Like I said, he has worked hard to make his amendments seem reasonable.

With a couple of ones that were harder to disguise ie financial abuse only applying to your own money (in practice where there are young children it's not unusual for a woman and the kids to be partially or wholly dependent on the man's income) and the reference to false accusations.

He's being more careful since the hoo-ha over him saying equality means there should be as many women in prison as men, and his reprimand.

What an absolute cunt.

'“Somehow, the fact that hardly any women are in prison in the first place seems to be a problem, because it just is—because they are women. If there is to be true equality, this cannot be allowed to continue.”'

The MRA position for years has been that women are just as violent as men and commit as many violent crimes as men but are not punished for it the way men are.
Recording transgender males as women will help move the numbers closer to the MRAs 50/50 claim.
The entertainment industry has done its part to convince people that most of the criminals are women by flipping the sex of the perps or by applying the 1st rule of misogyny to their scripts: Women are responsible for what men do.
The US entertainment industry is also mainly responsible for convincing USians that the majority of people in the world are white (they are not) and that 30% female representation is way more than half.

The MRA position for years has been that women are just as violent as men and commit as many violent crimes as men but are not punished for it the way men are.

I honestly can't understand how they can come to this conclusion. The difference is so vast, even at the arrest level, that there would have to be a colossal cohort of people who've been the victim of female violence without any justice being served.

This data:
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/759770/women-criminal-justice-system-2017..pdf
does seem to show a discrepancy in first time offenders receiving immediate custodial sentences (7.08) but there seems to also be a mismatch between the graph and the figures given above. It also doesn't seem terribly useful because it doesn't break down the offence categories.

I think the more useful comparison is figure 5.15: concordance between PSRs and sentencing. There is a discrepancy but it's 7% (6 percentage points).