CPS erasure of male victims…. VICTORY!


Well this was, in all honesty, unexpected. 

I fully accept the concerns raised by some, however, that we need to be clearer in our annual VaWG report about the inclusion of men and boys, which is why I have arranged for amendments to be made to the current, and all future, reports. We will clarify our introductory remarks and we will also, where possible, include a breakdown of gender volumes.

When we first set about getting together our open letter, my most optimistic hope was that the CPS would notice it had happened, grudgingly admit we might have a point, and make some token effort to be less blatant in showing contempt for male victims next time .  But it was really just a plaintive cry.

Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine the CPS might admit they got it wrong, go back amend the current report and so publicly commit to not doing the same again in future.

As I’m sure you’ll notice, the piece by Saunders is brimful of self-justification and waffle, as well as a lot of words that address complaints which were never actually made in the first place, but right in the middle is everything we asked for and considerably more. Honestly I don’t care.

This is something I don’t often get to write as a campaigner, activist or journalist, so I am going to revel in the moment….

WE WON!

WE ACTUALLY BLOODY WON!

Comments

  1. oneforthetreble says

    Tottenham beat Altrincham 3-0..and it wasn’t a replay…and they weren’t the reserves.
    I maybe missing some larger point here but damnit, this is the FA cup we’re talking about!
    Well done Ally, more power to your elbow.

  2. Ally Fogg says

    hang on, me and a handful of tiny charities who work with male victims are the Tottenham in this scenario and the Crown Prosecution Service, abetted by the entirety of the mainstream media, are Altrincham reserves?

    Oohhhhkaaaaayyyyy…..

  3. says

    Nope, Ally…seen how we’ve been doing last few years? The Nearly Boys. Frustrating, but it then feels tgat much more good when you get a win. In Spurs’ case, too often that’s the scenario: “huzzah, we won, what corner of Europe are we in this week, against what collection of fellows from the local brickyards and bakeries?”

    Much better win for your side today, is all. Meant to be a compliment and a bog-standard self-deprecating shot at the proverbial football team that never fucking wins.

    Too opaquely concise, I was, so I offer many words in compensation. Bravo Ally.

  4. Ally Fogg says

    Ah, gotcha Caitie, and thank you!

    New season in… [checks watch] eeek! No time at all!

  5. says

    Victory? In the immortal words of John McEnroe, ‘You can NOT be serious!!!’

    Let’s start with the paragraph you cite. You’ve cynically chosen to omit the final sentence, surely not accidentally:

    “So I reject the notion that we are excluding men and boys – rather, I stress that we are being inclusive in our approach.”

    Virtually her entire letter takes the radical feminist position that violence is gendered, for example:

    “But what is also clear is that some offending is based on gender. Violence against women and girls (VaWG) is recognised worldwide and by the UK government as a form of offending where gender really does play a part.”

    “As the United Nations describes it: “Violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which have led to domination over and discrimination against women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women, and … violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men.”

    “Over the past five years our records show that most (84%) of the victims of these crimes, where gender is recorded, are female; and almost all (93%) of the perpetrators are male.” (‘These crimes’ include rape – which can only be committed by men, because of the wording of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 – FGM, prostitution… a cynical exercise in data aggregation.)

    “Those figures are not changing, but we at the CPS want to recognise, acknowledge and help those victims who are not necessarily caught by the VaWG umbrella – that is, the men and boys who can also be victims of domestic abuse and sexual offending and the other VaWG crimes.” (Men and boys ‘can’ also be victims?)

    She ends with a gem:

    “I hope my willingness to address these concerns will be welcomed, but until it is no longer the case that the vast majority of these crimes are committed by men using power, coercion and violence against women, amending the title of VaWG would put the victims of these crimes back into the dark, where they have been kept for far too long.”

    Incredible. Female victims are the ones she’s concerned about being put ‘back into the dark’, although male victims have never emerged from the dark. The term ‘Violence Against Women and Girls’ will continue to include violence against men and boys. Any reader of her letter will have been more convinced than ever that (say) domestic violence is an overwhelmingly gendered crime. I honestly doubt many readers would have picked up on the paragraph over which you ‘revel’.

    Ally, you’ve set the bar for victory so low, it’s resting on the ground. I shudder to think what you’d consider failure to look like. We’d have to dig a trench to put the bar in.

  6. Bonedagger says

    You can hardly call that a win. Saunders is still walking free and the VaWG still exists.

  7. David S says

    Sorry Ally, could you explain what emendations have been made to the current report? I’m not saying that there weren’t any, but I can’t see what they were. I’m following the link to the report that you gave in your earlier post btw. Is there a more recent one?

    (Also does any one know whether the proper word here is “emendation” or “amendation”?)

  8. Ally Fogg says

    hahaha, Mike, diddums, you are pathetic.

    One of the most powerful and important administrative agencies in the country has been persuaded to retrospectively go back and amend a major annual report, rewriting it to give proper acknowledgement and respect to male victims and include a more accurate gender breakdown, furthermore commits the organisation to correctly acknowledging male victims in the future.

    And you’re either still sulking or too stupid to recognise the significance of that.

  9. Ally Fogg says

    David, I don’t think the amended report is up yet. The article today uses future tense.

  10. worksfromhome says

    Congratulations, Ally. This outcome lifts my spirits: following the initial back and forth I was worried this would forever be two groups unable to effectively communicate due to philosophical differences. However, it now looks communication and cooperation is a more realistic prospect, which is certainly a great outcome.

    Not sure I believe that including male victims in a VAWG report is ever going to be as inclusive as Saunders hopes. But I recognize it is also important to acknowledge that women are disproportionately the victims of these crimes, so I can see how it is a delicate problem. I guess in an ideal world there would be three reports: one gender neutral, one considering female victims and one considering male victims. But that would probably require much more money than is currently available, so in the meantime this is a definite step forwards.

    p.s. David: either are fine. From what I understand “amend” implies extra improving material has been added, whilst “emend” implies existing material has been edited. In this case it is likely that both editing and addition has taken place, so take your pick.

  11. says

    @ Ally 10

    Ally, do you seriously believe I might be troubled, or deterred, by your ad hominems? Surely not. As always, they only bear out the poverty of your arguments.

    Masses of gender-based data (e.g. on domestic violence) have been gathered and pored over for decades, from which we know the entire narrative thread of Saunders’s letter is both ideologically-driven and absurd. Yet the narrative continues, to the relentless detriment of men and boys. In what concrete sense do you imagine your ‘victory’ will help men and boys, given that the publication of facts and figures decade after decade has no impact?

    Alison Saunders has thoroughly mocked your letter, and you see two sentences as constituting ‘victory’. Remarkable.

  12. proudmra says

    Congratulations on calling attention to the sexism, Ally, and forcing them to confront the issue.

  13. David S says

    @Ally (11)

    OK, the report is future tense, but you are using past tense. I think instead of WE WON, it should really be WE WILL WIN! That sounds a lot better in Italian incidentally, and I’m happy for you to sing it to us VINCERO!

  14. William Gruff says

    Ally Fogg wrote:

    hahaha, Mike, diddums, you are pathetic … and you’re either still sulking or too stupid to recognise the significance of that.

    It isn’t hard to see why you’re a feminist Ally, with that infantile level of debate.

  15. Ally Fogg says

    Mike, just this once, I’ll do you the honour of explaining things fully and clearly.

    The ‘Violence Against Women and Girls’ agenda is a priority that has come down from the United Nations and various international agreements, through central government to all agencies of the state.

    I have many complex ideological issues with that, as I’m sure do you, if not necessarily always the same ones. But the bottom line is that there is nothing a small handful of advocates and activists can possibly do to change that in the foreseeable future, it is a fact of the political landscape at least for now.

    The report under discussion came into being because of a Ministry of Justice order that they produce an annual report on their performance in prosecuting crimes of violence against women and girls.

    So there was absolutely no possibility that Alison Saunders was going to suddenly turn around and say “You know what? This whole violence against women and girls thing is a bit lopsided, let’s abandon it and talk in strictly gender neutral terms from now on.”

    Our letter asked for two things. First, for recognition of the existence and needs of male victims and affirmation of support. Second, for future reports to correctly acknowledge and categorise male victims as such, so they are not entirely subsumed by female victims.

    What we got back from Saunders today was all of that AND ALSO agreement to go back and amend the published 2015 report, which is about as large an admission of guilt as you will ever get from a civil servant.

    If you can’t see how important that is for male victims, it just confirms again that you’re not actually interested in securing any kind of positive change for men and boys in need, it is just about silly anti-feminist posturing for you.

  16. says

    @ Ally 17

    Ally, thank you. This isn’t about ‘silly anti-feminist posturing” (you just couldn”t resist yet another ad hominem, could you?)

    You write:

    “If you can’t see how important that is [i.e. the changes Alison Saunders has agreed to] for male victims…’.

    You’ve hit the nail squarely on the head. I CAN’T see how those changes will do a damned thing for male victims. If you can see how they will, please enlighten us. I repeat the point, for decades facts and figures in official reports have done precisely nothing to ensure the provision of adequate support for male victims. The same is true of official reports concerning most of the 20 areas in which men’s and/or boys’ human rights are assaulted in the UK, as per our election manifesto. For the life of me I can’t see how this will be any different. Why would it be?

    Alison Saunders and her like are (male) slave drivers, and you’re asking the slaves to celebrate a promise of (possibly) being whipped a bit less frequently. Sod that. These damnable women need to be publicly shamed and driven out of office, and the mainstream media need to do their part for once.

  17. Paul says

    Well done to you and the others Ally.One sunny day doesn’t make a summer but this is certainly a step in the right direction.

  18. David S says

    There is possibly an element of glass half full/half empty to this. It is a massive achievement to have persuaded a DPP to alter a report after it has been published, so Ally deserves to be carried at shoulder height around the streets of Manchester while adoring crowds shower him with roses. Alison Saunders also deserves some credit, I feel. I don’t imagine that the emendations to the report will go anywhere near to completely addressing the concerns that Ally and his fellow signatories raised, but she could have got away with doing nothing, and if she was really determined to grind the male sex into the dust then that’s what she would have done.

  19. StillGjenganger says

    I was less than impressed with the grudging tone of Alison Saunders letter, or the political opinions showing through, or Alison Saunders for nodding through that report in the first place. But considering that the CPS is modifying their report and promising to do better in the future, the right thing is surely to give them credit for that. After all, if they get criticised no matter what they do, what incentive do they have to improve?

  20. StillGjenganger says

    @Mike 18

    These damnable women need to be publicly shamed and driven out of office

    When you are in a position to deliver that, let us discuss the tactics of it. Meanwhile let us concentrate on where we would like to get to and what we can do now to get closer. Instead of daydreaming about what we would love to be able to do.

  21. Holms says

    A nice result to your collective efforts, Ally.

    #13 Mike Buchanan
    Ally, do you seriously believe I might be troubled, or deterred, by your ad hominems? Surely not. As always, they only bear out the poverty of your arguments.

    and
    #16 William Gruff
    It isn’t hard to see why you’re a feminist Ally, with that infantile level of debate.

    It is actually possible to be correct and insulting at the same time; you’ve zoomed in on the insults but ignored the substantive content.

    ___

    #20 Davis S
    …but she could have got away with doing nothing, and if she was really determined to grind the male sex into the dust then that’s what she would have done.

    Which suggests to me that she is something less than the ideologue Mike Buchanan and other anti-feminists accuse her of being.

  22. William Gruff says

    @ #23, Holms: We could go on and on and round and round with this one but I’m disinclined to bandy brickbats with you so I’ll just say that you’ve obviously missed that I saw no ‘substantive content’ and leave it at that, and you with the last word. Try to use it a little more effectively than your last effort.

  23. nrjnigel says

    All victories should be celebrated. This is small but possibly significant. As Ally points out the CPS is a political organisation responding to a political agenda. To me it is significant that the eminent Drs. signing the letter are working in the fields of human psychology and those I know have been doing so for some years. I’m sure they are frustrated at the fact that their work and that of many in their field in the Anglophone world is ignored because it is not political and finds the political analysis presented by Alison Saunders wholly wanting. I look forward with interest to the changes the CPS makes.

  24. Sans-sanity says

    The text of the letter suggest Saunders really really doesn’t understand the nature of the complaint. The proposed changes however do. As actions speak louder than words I would guess that she does understand the nature of the complaint, so much so that she really gets how very very silly she stands to be made to look. Which is why she obfuscates even as she corrects. Meh, whatever. So long as she does correct I’ve no problem with her not being remembered as the director who had to be reminded that boys aren’t girls.

  25. Ally Fogg says

    Sans-sanity [26]

    The text of the letter suggest Saunders really really doesn’t understand the nature of the complaint. The proposed changes however do. As actions speak louder than words I would guess that she does understand the nature of the complaint, so much so that she really gets how very very silly she stands to be made to look. Which is why she obfuscates even as she corrects.

    Yes, well put – that is exactly what is going on.

    Mike

    I CAN’T see how those changes will do a damned thing for male victims. If you can see how they will, please enlighten us.

    As things stand, there is an official report which says there are 107,000 sexual and intimate crimes against women and girls committed every year. When it was published, all the media reported that figure.

    Once the corrections are made, it will say that the figure includes somewhere in the region of 17,000 male victims. Next year, when the same report comes out, journalists will be told that a sixth of these crimes have male victims, and some might even report that.

    The process of invisibilising male victims has real world consequences in that it significantly adds to the trauma of victims and makes it much harder for charities and services to attract funding and donation. Now of course we haven’t ended that or reversed it in one fell swoop, but we have redressed a particularly egregious example of it.

    I’ve been biting my tongue on this for the past 12 hours or so, but fuck it, I have to ask – all those public challenges and grand statements you have made on behalf of J4MB over the months and years – how many of those have even elicited a response from a public body that even begins to compare with what we have seen here?

    Which is why you are coming across here as being petty, bitter and more interested in your personal ego and pride than the actual issues you pretend to care about.

  26. Carnation says

    @ Ally

    Congratulations. A couple of questions:

    What went behind the scenes for them to respond like they have, do you think?

    And secondly, do you think the decision is representative of a wider shift in opinion, particularly post Yewtree, or just the result of individual targeted activism?

  27. David S says

    @Holms (23)

    Which suggests to me that she is something less than the ideologue Mike Buchanan and other anti-feminists accuse her of being.

    Or something more, depending on how you look at it. I think that Saunders is one of the better DPPs we have had in recent years, and one of the things I like about her is that she is willing to engage with the public, even when it puts her in an awkward position (as with the Janner case, for example).

    I think she has, voluntarily, put herself in a very awkward position here. Having acknowledged the concerns raised in Ally’s letter, she has to do something about it, but as Ally points out she has obligations to the UN and the MoJ, and all sorts of potential domestic critics to keep at bay. It’s a difficult tightrope to walk, and that might explain some of the language she uses in her response. Like Sans-Sanity I will be interested to see what the practical outcomes are.

  28. Ally Fogg says

    carnation

    What went behind the scenes for them to respond like they have, do you think?

    Now that is a good question. Obviously I can’t know but there were a couple of things below the radar which could have been extremely significant.

    One is that there was a CEO of one very big, important national charity who was invited to sign the open letter and (for their own reasons) opted not to sign but entirely agreed with what we said, and told us in confidence that they would directly approach Saunders, person-to-person and raise their concerns. It’s possible that was a game-changer.

    The other thing is that we forwarded the thrust of the letter to the UK Statistics Authority as a potential breach of their code of practise which covers all public bodies. It is just possible that Saunders/CPS were informed that they were under inquiry and decided to jump before they were pushed.

    To be honest, my best guess is that it is a bit of everything – as Sans-sanity says above, what they had done was so ridiculous that once they realised they’d been called out on it and the issue wasn’t just going to go away, they didn’t really have too many options left.

    And secondly, do you think the decision is representative of a wider shift in opinion, particularly post Yewtree, or just the result of individual targeted activism?

    I’d like to think so, but truth be told I think it is mostly the latter. This was just such a ludicrous example they were basically over a barrel.

  29. says

    Ally [27]

    “Which is why you are coming across here as being petty, bitter and more interested in your personal ego and pride than the actual issues you pretend to care about.”

    More ad hominems – you can’t help yourself, can you? I suspect a personality disorder, to be honest. But let me get to your substantive point:

    “I’ve been biting my tongue on this for the past 12 hours or so, but fuck it, I have to ask – all those public challenges and grand statements you have made on behalf of J4MB over the months and years – how many of those have even elicited a response from a public body that even begins to compare with what we have seen here?”

    How many? None. But you miss the point. Had I got the concession you have, I would have publicised it, but I certainly wouldn’t have presented it as a substantive ‘victory’, let alone one to revel in. Your ‘victory’ will have as much impact as hitting a passing train with a tennis ball.

    We’ve built up a large catalogue of challenges of feminists (and their male collaborators) who refuse to meet the challenges – including two to Alison Saunders. That’s a resource in itself, which you’re free to draw on. We’ve presented maybe 20+ ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ awards – Caroline Criado-Perez has won three, Laura Bates two – and you’re free to draw on them too. But you rarely (if ever) attack feminism and feminists, the ultimate source of so many of the problems facing men and boys, which is why virtually every MRA I know regards you as I do, as a feminist.

    Have a nice day.

  30. says

    That was good news. Congratulations to Ally and all of the co-signatories.

    Do revel in the moment Ally. I know the feeling from when I got a reply from the ONS about my inquiry into the CSEW.

    Please do verify that the promised changes occur and are up to standard and keep prodding if they aren’t.

  31. David S says

    @Mike Buchanan (32)

    We’ve presented maybe 20+ ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ awards – Caroline Criado-Perez has won three, Laura Bates two

    And they have probably framed them and hung them on their walls. You are not providing a “resource” to people like Ally. You are providing a resource to the people and organisations that he criticises. You simply make it easy for such criticisms to be dismissed as the sort of thing that might come from someone who thinks that mandatory paternity testing is a sensible manifesto promise, or that a “lying feminist of the month” award is a sensible way of convincing people who do not already agree with you.

  32. says

    @ David S (34)

    Paternity testing – either type – is an egregious crime by any standards, and is illegal under the Fraud Act. MGM is a crime under a number of UK laws (as well as the European Convention on Human Rights). The state never prosecutes for either of these crimes. Why do you think that is? What is YOUR solution to paternity fraud, or MGM, for that matter?

    Since the mainstream media don’t challenge feminists (and their male collaborators) even when they lie outrageously, what do you suggest we do? Do you take nothing from the fact J4MB publicly exposes them as liars, and not one has ever threatened a libel case, because we’ve proved them to be liars? When asked by the presenter on ‘This Morning’ why she’d won the award, CC-P laughed and said, ‘Because I lied!’ As an indication of how ‘establishment’ these lying radfems are, CC-P was recently presented with an OBE, Laura Bates a BEM.

    I’m very happy with the number of people who support us – many are donors, some party members – and the number is growing all the time. With regards to publicity, aside from newspaper coverage, we’ve had 100+ radio and TV appearances (all are on our YouTube channel), and more will be broadcast in the next few months.

  33. David S says

    I think you meant paternity fraud, rather than paternity testing. It’s a bit irrelevant though, because your manifesto commitment wasn’t to start prosecuting for paternity fraud, it was that every baby should undergo mandatory paternity testing at birth. In this, as in other things, you demonstrate your inability to see yourself as others see you. That manifesto is aimed at everyone – at people with normal emotions, not just at twisted misanthropes whose first reaction to the miracle of a new human life would be “Hmm wonder if it is mine?”. I have watched my sons enter the world, seen them grow to manhood, and if they were not biologically mine then that is the last thing I’d want to know about. The fact that you see things differently says more about you than I think you realise.

    I suspect that you have misunderstood why CC-P laughed at your award as well. You are a fantastically comical character, and the comedy is enhanced by your inability to recognise why people find you funny.

  34. says

    @ David S (36)

    An ad hominem at the end there. The reason CC-P laughed is that she knew, as a feminist, she wouldn’t be held properly accountable by the MSM for her lies. You’re in good company with Ally in producing ad hominems, and as with him, I’ll point them out, then promptly forget about them. .

    Would you not have been interested to learn at the time of your sons’ births, that you weren’t the father (if that were the case)?) I’m guessing only mandatory paternity testing at birth would have revealed that stark reality. Does it follow that you have no problem with paternity fraud per se? And if that is the case, do you have no sympathy for the men who are victims of it?

    Perhaps you’d like to answer the two very simple questions I posed:

    “The state never prosecutes for either of these crimes. Why do you think that is? What is YOUR solution to paternity fraud, or MGM, for that matter?”

  35. David S says

    @Mike (37)

    The thing about liars, is that they don’t actually tell you that they are lying. That’s kind of the point. If CC-P took your stupid award seriously she would not have responded by saying ‘Because I lied’. She isn’t saying that because she doesn’t care what the world thinks of her, she is saying it because she doesn’t care what you think of her.

    In answer to the rest of your comment. Not only would I not have been interested in finding out that I was not the son’s biological father. I would have been very interested in not finding it out. In fact I would have gone to some lengths not to find it out. (As it is, they have inherited far too many of my character flaws for their paternity to be in much doubt).

    A criminal prosecution for paternity fraud would I suspect be next to impossible. You would face the obstacles of demonstrating mens rea, and demonstrating it to the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Civil litigation is different, though still difficult, and has sometimes succeeded.

    As for MGM, I have absolutely no idea why you are banging on about it. It clearly divides opinion, but I can’t see that it divides it along any kind of feminist/antifeminist fault line.

  36. Carnation says

    @ Mike Buchanan

    Hi Mike. You are symptomatic of the total failure of the of the so-called men’s rights movement. Ally, and the relevant signatories, challenged a situation in an austere manner, unburdered by conspiracy theory and emboldened by the non-presence of the loudest and least coherent voices on “men’s issues.”

    And they got two responses, one rather ridiculous, and one effective.

    Your political party, like the wider MRM, has achieved nothing good. Your political party, like the wider MRM, has managed to get media attention (like entertaining lunatic fringe groups often get) and raise money, but that is all.

    The media laugh at you, people, including the “feminists” you claim to oppose, have rarely heard of you. Your political party, and wider “movement” is a joke to everyone except the membership.

    Part of you knows this, too, I suspect.

  37. says

    @ David S (38)

    “The thing about liars, is that they don’t actually tell you that they are lying.”

    David, I can only assume you have no knowledge of the lies uttered by CC-P and all the other winners of our ‘stupid award’ (another ad hominem, well done!) If you email me I’ll be happy to send you links to all of them. Does it even interest you that these women are demonstrably lying in pursuit of anti-male agendas (e.g. provision of support only for female victims of DV)?

    So you’re OK with paternity fraud, even to the point of bringing up other men’s children. That tells me everything I need to know about your gynocentrism. You’re a happy slave to women, and wish other slaves would be equally happy. Well, one large group – Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOWs) – are walking off the plantations, and they won’t return. Men are increasingly conscious that they belong to a class whose human rights can be assaulted by the state’s actions and inactions, and are. There’s damn all that you, Ally, and other feminists and/or feminist apologists can do about that growing class consciousness. You’re on the wrong side of history, and have no idea that you are.

    “As for MGM, I have absolutely no idea why you are banging on about it. It clearly divides opinion, but I can’t see that it divides it along any kind of feminist/antifeminist fault line.”

    I’m sure you can’t see that it does. MGM is clearly a crime, yet continues unabated, ruining the lives of many males, sometimes leading to death (even then, practitioners don’t serve prison sentences). Feminists care not a jot about this, instead talking incessantly about FGM which has been illegal for 30 years in the UK. Politicians, likewise, only ever talk about FGM.

    We return here to Alison Saunders. So determined is she and her cronies to pin FGM on men, that the CJS is still seeking men to charge with the crime despite knowing that FGM in the UK – as elsewhere – is carried out by women at the behest of women. Why are we not seeing prosecutions of the middle-aged and elderly black women who are carrying out these procedures? Because in feminist narratives can only be victims, not perpetrators, one reason the CJS takes so little interest in pursuing female sex offenders.

    I recommend an outstanding piece by William Collins on MGM, touching on FGM – http://mra-uk.co.uk/?p=519. We’re going to focus a lot of time and effort in coming years to consigning the mutilation of boys’ genitals to the dustbin of history.

  38. says

    @ Carnation (39)

    Thank you. Human rights advocates have always been the targets of mockery, and the attacks only cast a poor light on the people doing the mocking. So please continue with them, whilst not expecting me to make substantive responses to them. Your contempt for the human rights of men and boys is as palpable as it always is.

    There seems to me to be an underlying – if undeclared – premise to Ally’s claim of a victory, that a causal link exists between the publication of facts and figures, and an end to state assaults on (specifically) men’s and boys’ human rights in the UK. I can think of no such links in the past, can you (or Ally) think of any? If so, please share the examples with us. Thank you.

    All the evidence so far appears to show that regardless of facts and figures, feminists consistently get their way every time (e.g. ensuring virtually all DV refuge provision is for women).

  39. David S says

    @Mike

    Well, one large group – Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOWs) – are walking off the plantations, and they won’t return. Men are increasingly conscious that they belong to a class whose human rights can be assaulted by the state’s actions and inactions, and are. There’s damn all that you, Ally, and other feminists and/or feminist apologists can do about that growing class consciousness.

    I wouldn’t normally make commitments on Ally’s behalf but I think I can promise that, if you walk off never to return, neither he nor I will try to stop you.

  40. Carnation says

    @ Mike Buchanan

    Mike, you are disconnected with reality. Ally Fogg according to you is a feminist who “rarely (if ever) attack(s) feminism and feminists, the ultimate source of so many of the problems facing men and boys.”

    He led the charge on the CPS and defended it against feminists. Actual feminists, not the ones you invest, such as the Conservative party.

    Again, I ask you, what has your political party achieved? What tangible results has it brought about for men and boys? Writing conspiracy theories and getting in the press doesn’t count.

    And, whilst we’re at it, what has the blog you closely associate with, avfm, actually done to help men & boys?

    “Human rights advocates have always been the targets of mockery, and the attacks only cast a poor light on the people doing the mocking. So please continue with them, whilst not expecting me to make substantive responses to them. Your contempt for the human rights of men and boys is as palpable as it always is.”

    You aren’t a human rights advocate – you are an anti-feminist. And an incompetent one at that.

    My contempt for the laughable movement that you are part of is palpable – everything else is simply your own invention.

  41. Holms says

    #32 Mike Buchanan
    How many? None. But you miss the point. Had I got the concession you have, I would have publicised it, but I certainly wouldn’t have presented it as a substantive ‘victory’, let alone one to revel in. Your ‘victory’ will have as much impact as hitting a passing train with a tennis ball.

    To rephrase: “You may have done more than my entire campaign with but a single open letter, but I’m still going to rubbish what you have achieved!”

    Those are some impressively sour grapes you have there.

    ___

    #41 Mike
    Thank you. Human rights advocates have always been the targets of mockery, and the attacks only cast a poor light on the people doing the mocking. So please continue with them, whilst not expecting me to make substantive responses to them.

    An excellent example of the Galileo Gambit, in which ridicule / opposition / etc. are taken to be proof of being in the right.

    There seems to me to be an underlying – if undeclared – premise to Ally’s claim of a victory, that a causal link exists between the publication of facts and figures, and an end to state assaults on (specifically) men’s and boys’ human rights in the UK. I can think of no such links in the past, can you (or Ally) think of any? If so, please share the examples with us. Thank you.

    It occurs to me that you are being quite disingenuous in that you asked a question (“I CAN’T see how those changes will do a damned thing for male victims. If you can see how they will, please enlighten us.”), and then ignored the answer given by Ally at #27 only to pose the same question again later in the conversation as if you had not already been answered.

    As an aside, it is becoming increasingly clear that you (and William Gruff, based on comment #24) don’t have any idea what the term ad hominem actually means. I especially enjoy it when you follow up almost every denunciation of someone insulting you with an insult of your own.

  42. Holms says

    Missed this earlier, but glancing back I see “…You’re a happy slave to women, and wish other slaves would be equally happy. Well, one large group – Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOWs) – are walking off the plantations, and they won’t return.” If they can ‘walk off the plantation’ – if slaves can simply quit being slaves – then they were not slaves in the first place.

  43. says

    @ Ally, David S, Carnation, Holms et al.

    One of the things I most appreciate about this blog is that you don’t seem to grasp something basic. In common with many other MRAs, I’m energized by your hostility. Bring it on.

  44. says

    @ Holms (45)

    Along with most men (but thankfully an ever-smaller number) you’re a slave to gynocentrism, as is David S. In comment #38 he memorably stated he wouldn’t have wished to know if he’d been the victim of paternity fraud.

  45. Carnation says

    @ Mike Buchanan

    “One of the things I most appreciate about this blog is that you don’t seem to grasp something basic. In common with many other MRAs, I’m energized by your hostility. Bring it on.”

    Yes, I don’t doubt that. I have often suspected that a thirst for negative attention is the basic driver behind most MRAs and their squalid, pointless actions. The powerless, posturing as relevant.

    Very pathetic.

  46. Marduk says

    Well done Ally, a (grudging) vindication of your approach to the problem.

    As to the article. Take a step back and consider if the OS published a map where the locations of Edinburgh and London were swapped round. I’d expect their chief executive to apologise for the error, but I wouldn’t expect a diatribe on the subject of Scottish Independence and the rise of the SNP to accompany it. To my mind, its clear there are other things going on here.

    The Saunders response is clearly deeply ungracious where a simple mea culpa would have sufficed. One possibility is that she has certain “stakeholders” (i.e., signatories of that bizarre non-reply) she has to save face for as she partially adopts their own nonsensical frame.

    Relevant to post 31, there is another big issue here however. Apparently discussing this in public this leads to terrible consequences (for people who have already suffered too much), so I’ll just leave this here and ask you to draw your own conclusions about what you’d be thinking if you were Alison Saunders and received Ally’s letter at about this moment.
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/29/the-guardian-view-on-alison-saunders-dont-sack-her-back-her

    Not sure what to make of that unfortunate headline incidentally, timing-wise I suspect it came from the same pen (holiday cover sub?) as the now redacted “smug white people”. Totally inappropriate but then the Guardian has rapidly become the provisional wing of Tumblr in recent months, mangled ideas about ‘cultural appropriation’, earnest discussions of ‘trigger warnings’ and ‘cishet white men’ (the presumed ethnic, sexual orientation and gender identification of people who turn out to be unknown and completely anonymous in the article in question!) and all.

  47. Ally Fogg says

    the title they chose was quite comically ridiculous.

    Only the Guardian could take an article which effectively said “Some violence is targeted at men and boys, we can’t ignore that” and give it the headline “”Some violence is targeted at women and girls, we can’t ignore that.”

  48. says

    Congratulations, Ally! This is a small step, but it’s good news nonetheless.

    I can honestly say I didn’t expect this, judging from their response to your last letter. Still, going by what you mentioned, we haven’t seen what changes they’re actually implementing…it might be wise to keep the real celebrations until after we find that out 🙂 Still, for now, I think a few pats on the back are in order! 😀

    In the spirit of good cheer I’ll refrain from saying much about the rest of the argument raging above, except for this: It’s a rather poor friend of men who’d insult another man for actually accomplishing something for men, however small. Makes one wonder who the real misandrists are.

  49. David S says

    @Mike (47)

    you’re a slave to gynocentrism, as is David S. In comment #38 he memorably stated he wouldn’t have wished to know if he’d been the victim of paternity fraud.

    My attitude to paternity, Mike, is based on the observation that my sons appear to have turned into splendid young men. If I could take only a fraction of the credit for that, it would be the best thing I have done in my life. As I said, they have inherited too many of my character flaws for there to be any real doubt about their paternity (and if Mrs. S is reading this, I know you are not really the flighty kind, I’m just trying to lead Mike through a thought experiment here). However, if they were not biologically mine, they would still be splendid young men, and bringing them up would still be the best thing I have done and the best thing that has happened to me. This attitude appears to be utterly beyond your comprehension, which is, well, interesting.

  50. Holms says

    #47 Mike Buchanan
    Along with most men (but thankfully an ever-smaller number) you’re a slave to gynocentrism, as is David S. In comment #38 he memorably stated he wouldn’t have wished to know if he’d been the victim of paternity fraud.

    Mm hm, that’s nice. Just checking though, can David and I freely walk out of this ‘slavery’?

  51. Carnation says

    @ Mike Buchanan

    Can I assume that you also think I “Along with most men (but thankfully an ever-smaller number) you’re a slave to gynocentrism”?

    Here’s the thing, Mike. I haven’t set up a failed political party, borne out of an embarrassingly failed “movement”, with the sole intention of toppling “gynocentrism” (primarily because it doesn’t exist). I don’t spend every working hour composing challenges, writing blog pieces and open letters to persons of varying importance, just to have those missives ignored, or laughed at. I haven’t dedicated my life to a contradictory and hypocritical political stance.

    You have, Mike Buchanan, you’re enslaved and defined by your opposition to that which you claim to fight. It’s who you are. You, and a tiny band of online personalities, have created a subculture, with its own discourse, that is defined by its obsession with both feminism and, far more often, the crackpot version of feminism that you have created (the one that posits David Cameron as a man-hating feminist).

    You, and yours, are a parody of yourselves. You’re stuck in a mindset and an ideological and online world that is stunted, pathetic, grubby and embarrassing.

    And you’re so enslaved by it that you can’t see past it. You’re on the plantation, Mike, not the people standing outside laughing at the performing monkeys grasping for attention.

    Despite all that, I rather like you. I don’t know why. I genuinely would like to go for a pint some time. I’ll buy.

  52. Carnation says

    @ Mike

    When in doubt, retreat, eh Mike??

    RadFems in particular love the MRM – it justifies their existence and fuels their rage. You’re their recruiting Sargent.

  53. Carnation says

    @ Holms

    It’s quite simple, don’t you see? You’re a slave, brainwashed into worshipping women (regardless of your personal circumstances), but the only people that are free are Mike Buchanan and his ramshackle collection of bloggers and comment spammers in the MRM, who have the pure knowledge, the truth, to set people free.

  54. says

    From Buchanan’s linked article:

    >But there is another piece of this mess that is rarely mentioned. By saying to a young boy that big boys don’t cry you are not only telling him to STFU you are also alleviating yourself from any responsibility to tend to a boy’s pain or to muster even a rudimentary degree of compassion.

    The funny thing is, I’ve seen tons of guys in the ‘manosphere’–on blogs, on reddit’s TRP, etc.–say that compassion is a bad thing, makes both individuals and society weak and effeminate, and that boys SHOULD be mocked for crying (or displaying any other emotion) in order to toughen them up and keep them from becoming “manginas” or “beta bitches” or whatever. If Mr. Golden has a problem with this form of gender socialization, he might do well to look at his own house first.

  55. lelapaletute says

    Nice one!

    I always thought someone, at some point, would have to just say “OK, fair cop, bit of a raging fuck-up there, no question.” And I was right! OK, it comes in a scented cloud of piffle, but that is effectively the nub.

    Well done Ally and co – a victory for men’s issues, victims of crime, and common sense generally.

    Although IMHO, they would still have done better to drop the VAWG label from the report altogether or separate the stats into different reports. Although the acknowledgment of the error and clarification in past and future documents is welcome, it will still only help if people actually read the report itself, or the popular press report in good faith – the fudge remains (stats for male and female victims included in a report called VAWG), and still allows newspapers to make the kind of misleading headline statements that people who never get to the source material will take home with them.

  56. 123454321 says

    Only just seen this. Speechless….wow, just wow, and well done, Ally. It was the right thing to do to write that letter, but now with an outcome like this, you’ve enabled a small step-change towards ensuring that men and boys are on a positive trail towards justice. I still thing Alison’s response is puffed out with irrelevant crap, just as Mike said, but at least there is an element of recognition and a commitment to positive change. Really encouraging.

    It’s still strange why in the year 2015 there is a VAWG campaign but no VAMB campaign when so many victims of violence in today’s world are men. That fact remains pretty disgusting in my mind and Alison’s blithering prattle-babble is no disguise for the fact that men and boys are still treated as expendable, second-class citizens by these so-called impartial institutions ‘supposedly’ put in place to protect us ALL, regardless of what your gender happens to be! Yeah, that would be a fine thing!

  57. 123454321 says

    “Although IMHO, they would still have done better to drop the VAWG label from the report ”

    Completely agree. Of course it WILL happen, it’s just a matter of time – probably not long after a new generation of clear-thinking, selfless and compassionate women enter politics, tell those in power to find their backbone and say “FFS, fuck off and stop patronising us women like we’re cute little furry kittens for God’s sake – we’re big girls who love and respect our dads, sons, brothers plenty enough to be fully inclusive when it comes to violence and social issues of a similar rank. Let’s be rid of these ridiculously out of date money-making slogans!”.

    So, Ally, what will be your next move along the evolutionary process line now you have obviously earned some respect and proven your level of influence? We’re watching!

  58. Adiabat says

    I agree with many here that this was a small victory, and a step forward.

    And considering that it would’ve been much safer and easier, politically, for Saunders to ignore the points raised I think that this is a good sign, however small. There is still something unnerving about how she felt she needed to qualify everything by repeating dogma about these types of crime, but repeating the mantra that these are gendered crimes seems to be the only way anyone can mention male victims. Being strategic may be the best way for progressing; I have no doubt that Saunders would’ve received an even greater backlash without all the verbiage surrounding the concession in the article.

    Whether you want to say it’s due to some Feminist ideology, Just Radicals, SJWs, the Patriarchy, or whatever: there is something _wrong_ here. There’s something wrong with the DPP, or anyone, having to constantly placate an established narrative just to enable them to acknowledge male victims in any significant way.

    (Doubly so considering that they often repeat it while saying that men likely underreport cases happening to them. I don’t know, logically speaking, how anyone can confidently say that this is a gendered crime while simultaneously admitting that we only have a partial view of the problem due to way areas have been historically ignored and underreported. It’s like (to make up an analogy) admitting that that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ causes gay soldiers to hide their sexuality then confidently claiming that “we all know” there are no gay soldiers in the army).

  59. 123454321 says

    From Alison’s letter:

    “I do not differentiate in our treatment of victims – male or female, adult or child, current or non-recent. But what is also clear is that some offending is based on gender.”

    Great news! Perhaps in that case Alison might include in next year’s report all kinds of cultural, structural violence relating to the social injustices affecting men, to include war and genocide where men and boys are frequently singled out and sent to slaughter as part of targeted, mass killings. Or maybe she will talk about interesting gendered strategies around forced conscription, past and future. Maybe a sentence or two about gendered attitudes towards disaster evacuation techniques for the likes of the Titanic along with the more recent Costa Concordia, which align with the notion that being a man is synonymous with being considered of lesser value. Then again, perhaps the priority discussion will lie around the fact that the media specifically ignores violence against men and boys in favour of reporting violence against women and girls. That sounds pretty gender focussed to me. Or then there’s the issue surrounding the chances of being attacked or murdered outside the home i.e. if you’re a man you’re potentially going to make up approximately two thirds of murder victims and God only knows what percentage of GBH. Again, an obvious gender issue not particularly favouring the male. Same goes for suicide but maybe she’ll leave that aside and focus on homelessness, both of which appear fairly gendered when you look at the stats. But even if she forgets those, she would surely raise the issue of workplace fatalities. She might even join Helen Mirren who openly criticised the number of dead women being shown in films by extending such a praiseworthy effort to include the thousand-fold number of men who are also shown dead. I mean the opportunities here are truly unfathomable. My word, she will be busy trying to properly understand the true meaning of perpetration and victimhood. Can’t wait for the official report.

  60. 123454321 says

    Second paragraph of Alison’s letter:

    “As the United Nations describes it: “Violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which have led to domination over and discrimination against women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women, and … violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men.””

    A quote from a document she’s pulled out from a General Assembly meeting 22 years ago in 1993.

    In the name of equality, I wonder if the same people sitting at that meeting ever drew up a declaration concerned with recognising and outlining the definitions surrounding violence against men? I can’t seem to find one so I conclude that not much has changed in 22 years. Men back then were and still are invisible and expendable through and through.

  61. says

    FGM in the UK – as elsewhere – is carried out by women at the behest of women.

    Do you have an authoritative cite for both the statment as it applies to the UK, and as it applies to elsewhere?

    I found this document which shows that opposition to FGM is about equal between males and females in most countries. It also says that when fathers are involved in the decision, fewer girls are cut, but it doesn’t address, as far as I can see, the question of the sex of the practitioners who do the cutting. Nor does it address the situation in the UK.

  62. says

    Do you have an authoritative cite for both the statment as it applies to the UK, and as it applies to elsewhere?

    I just found this., which will do for advocacy purposes, though it’s not really authoritative.

  63. says

    @ Daran (67)

    My thanks to Tim, an anti-MGM campaigner, for the following:

    “In nearly every place that FGC (female genital cutting) is performed, it is carried out by women (rather than by men) who do not typically view it as an expression of patriarchy, but who instead believe that it is hygienic (see above), as well as beautifying, even empowering, and as an important rite of passage with high cultural value. (The claim that such women are simply “brainwashed” is a gross oversimplification.) At the same time, the “rite of passage” ceremonies for boys in these societies are carried out by men; these are done in parallel, under similar conditions, and for similar reasons–and often with similar (or even worse) consequences for health and sexuality: see this discussion by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It’s from this very interesting piece: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/02/female-genital-mutilation-and-male-circumcision-time-to-confront-the-double-standard/

    And “It is significant that it is primarily women who perform female circumcision throughout Africa and who are the ones fighting the hardest to preserve this tradition. Indeed, the all-female Bondo Society in Sierra Leone protested vehemently against the all-male government of Sierra Leone when that government passed a law banning female circumcision. A similar opposition occurred in Uganda. This raises a series of interesting questions. Does the fact that it is primarily women who both perform and defend female circumcision contradict feminist claims that female circumcision is about male dominance over women? Might it suggest that the practice of female circumcision requires a more complicated explanation than feminists such as Mary Daly offer? If some feminists claim that African women who promote and defend female circumcision are uneducated and don’t know better, aren’t they demeaning the intelligence and the character of these African women? Aren’t they presenting an ad hominem critique? Could such statements even have racist implications? How have African women responded to this issue?” from this piece (point 16) http://www.drabruzzi.com/circumcision.htm

  64. 123454321 says

    “Does the fact that it is primarily women who both perform and defend female circumcision contradict feminist claims that female circumcision is about male dominance over women?”

    Yes. I have suspected for what seems like yonks that FGM was supported and perpetuated by women, not necessarily men. Now pretty much know it to be true. It’s taking people an awfully long time to catch up and realise what’s going on. Will likely take forever for the truth to get out while the media (for example Woman’s Hour) relentlessly attack the patriarchy as the prime cause of FGM. All stinks as usual. Another one for Alison to get her teeth into?

  65. says

    @123454321 (70)

    Good points. It tells you everything you need to know about feminists that they entertain the belief – with no supporting evidence – that men would favour FGM (and carry it out) in order to reduce women’s pleasure during sex. It’s becoming ever clearer that feminism is, in part, a reflection of one or more personality disorders. In the case of the younger generation of prominent feminists – no names, no pack drill – it’s all too obvious one is Narcissistic Personality Disorder. ‘The world must change, so I am not made to feel uncomfortable’. Feminism is surely a key reason why so many girls fail to make the transition into well-functioning adults.

  66. lelapaletute says

    @72 Thank you, Dr Mike Buchanan, with your qualifications in psychology that allow you to make such confident and widespread diagnoses. When and where did you qualify again? Oh wait… You’re just mouthing buzzwords that you scarcely understand, aren’t you?

  67. says

    @lalalalala 72

    OK, got it. You want to dictate comments policies on this site, and you appear to be using a shaming tactic, saying that only people with a professional qualification in an area can make comments relating to that discipline. Hopefully Ally has a a Gender Studies degree, otherwise how does he have the authority to publish this blog? Your policy would cut the volume of comments down by about 99%, and make debate impossible. Seriously, did you think I’d be silenced by your comments? Wow.

    If you really can’t see some of the psychological drivers behind radical feminists, then you’re not looking for them. For one thing, the majority of prominent feminists have had poor or non-existent relationships with their fathers, and it doesn’t take too much of a leap of imagination to speculate that their hostility towards the nuclear family is at least partly based on jealousy of women who have good loving relationships with their fathers. About 18 months ago I debated with Julie Bindel at Durham Uni, and afterwards maybe 5-6 female students came to chat with me. All came from broken homes.

    In accordance with your objection – no, let’s be honest, because I’m preparing for a forthcoming TV interview, and it’s taking up much of my time this week – I can recommend the work of Dr Tara J Palmatier (PsyD in Clinical Psychology, MSc in Counselling Psychology) http://shrink4men.com/about/.

  68. Holms says

    #73 Mike Buchanana
    OK, got it. You want to dictate comments policies on this site, and you appear to be using a shaming tactic, saying that only people with a professional qualification in an area can make comments relating to that discipline. Hopefully Ally has a a Gender Studies degree, otherwise how does he have the authority to publish this blog? Your policy would cut the volume of comments down by about 99%, and make debate impossible. Seriously, did you think I’d be silenced by your comments? Wow.

    This is not a ‘shaming tactic’, but a very true observation that certain calls truly do need training. Unlike Ally’s blogging on a topic of interest (and us commenting on said blog), making a formal diagnosis of someone’s psychological state requires an actual qualification. This difference is obvious – medical diagnoses are quite simply in a different category to blog discussion, one with much more stringent legal requirements.

    As far as I’m concerned, this distinction is so obvious that I’m not prepared to entertain the possibility that you might not have known that; the remaining conclusion is that you were being disingenuous.

  69. 123454321 says

    “making a formal diagnosis of someone’s psychological state requires an actual qualification.”

    Not necessarily but can’t be arsed to explain. Fail anyways, as usual. But oh well, even a broken clock is right two times a day. I know that’s pretty hard for you to beat, but the challenge remains. You can do it, Holms, we’re rooting for you!

  70. says

    @Mike Buchanan (69)

    Thanks for those links. Although neither of them are authoratative, they do provide starting points for further research.

    @123454321 (70)

    The question is backward. The burden should in the first instance be upon feminists to present facts and compelling arguments in favour of their theories. Only when that burden has been met (which it never has been) should the onus shift to critics.

  71. Holms says

    @75
    So you’ve declared me wrong, but have openly declined to justify your statement. Would you accept that as a rebuttal? No, of course not, and I’ve seen you reject such rebuttals in the past.

  72. Carnation says

    @ Mike Buchanan

    You write that a majority of prominent feminists have poor or non-existent relationships with their fathers and this contributes to their questionable mental health.

    What percentage of male children in the UK have a similar relationship with their fathers, and what is your political party proposing to do to support and assist them?

  73. Lucy says

    “You write that a majority of prominent feminists have poor or non-existent relationships with their fathers and this contributes to their questionable mental health.”

    I have a great relationship with my father. It’s why I was so bitterly disappointed by most other people’s.

  74. Lucy says

    “WE WON, WE ACTUALLY BLOODY WON!”

    “One is that there was a CEO of one very big, important national charity who was invited to sign the open letter and (for their own reasons) opted not to sign but entirely agreed with what we said, and told us in confidence that they would directly approach Saunders, person-to-person and raise their concerns. It’s possible that was a game-changer.”

    So. A mistake in a report she probably hadn’t read was pointed out to the very busy Alison Saunders and she arranged to have her research intern correct it.

    Not so much a victory for our times as every day at everybody’s office.

    Not sure why you couldn’t have just asked your shadowy CEO with undemocratic tendrils reaching into government (or whatever it is feminists are meant to have) to have a word, without this media stunt and giving ammunition to the hobby psychologist Mike Buchanan.

  75. Lucy says

    “making a formal diagnosis of someone’s psychological state requires an actual qualification.”

    Oh this is nothing. He’s more than happy to write off the four times as many suicide attempts by females than males with the professional diagnosis of “cry for help” because women don’t favour the violent, dramatic, weaponised, high-speed methods as men – in life or in death. So survive their multiple disabling attempts. So obviously they don’t count.

  76. deniz says

    @carnation most psychopaths serial killers and violent criminals had “poor or non-existent relationships with their father”
    so maybe we should treat the feminists who belong to the same breed the same as we treat the deviants psychos and criminals

  77. StillGjenganger says

    @Mike Buchanan 71.
    Congratulations! You have now joined the select group of (mainly progressive) debaters who claim that their opponents are mentally ill, in order to avoid addressing what they say. This is not just nasty, this is shite.

    And no, you do not need a qualification. But you do need to know what you are talking about, you need to know something about the people you are ‘diagnosing’, and you need a minimum of seriousness. You fail on all three. I generally stand in solidarity with people arguing for men’s rights – whatever their mistakes we are from the same side – but I really have to make an exception in your case.

  78. StillGjenganger says

    @Holms 74
    The lack of a qualifications is a red herring. Anyone is allowed to argue that some person is mentally ill – provided they have the understanding and the necessary facts to back it up. And even if Mike Buchanan had the Nobel prize for medicine the comment he made here would still be shite.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *