The world through the eyes of a male domestic abuse victim, but its so much more than that !

Quick Guide to Family Court

screen shot 2019-01-06 at 23.48.47

The Custody of Infants Act 1839 guaranteed custody of children to the mother of the child during the “tender years”. This term meant during the time the child was breastfeeding, typically until the age of four.

Almost 200 years later mothers are still handed custody and fathers the financial responsibility in cases where custody is disputed. When pressed on the issue the currant legal system will tell you the court works “In the best interest of the child”, however they can not give you a definition of what that means.

The term was first introduced into the legal system with the Custody of Infants Act 1873, this was an amendment of the original act that gave custody to the mother until the age of 16. The reasoning being that it was against the best interests of the child to hand a four year old to a father it had not seen in the previous four years.

It is absolute madness that we are still using a child custody system from the 1800’s. The consequences of this are that thousands of children are denied access to Fathers, Siblings, Aunts, Uncles and Grandparents.

In cases where fathers go to court and gain access to their children the mother still retains complete control. If the mother flouts the order and refuses to hand the child over for the court ordered access the only recourse the father has is to return to the self same court and apply for a enforcement order. However the mother can ignore that with the same impunity she ignored the original order. The courts are reluctant to plane any sanctions on the mother as they may have a negative impact on the child.

It should be noted that going into the family court system is not mandatory. The overwhelming majority of parents find arrangements that put the child first and work for both parties without government intervention.

It is common for the courts to be used as state sanctioned abuse that continues after the relationship has ended.

The effects of being removed from your child’s life are far reaching. It is akin to suffering a bereavement but being unable to mourn the passing as the child is still alive. Manny men suffer depression and financial ruin attempting to gain access to children while the mother is legally aided by the state. Some of these men inevitably kill themselves.

Changes to the Family Court would enable men trapped in abuse a better chance to escape. Manny male victims of domestic abuse stay in order to protect their children as they know abusive people will abuse whoever is available.

It is time for real change and creating a system where mothers and children are not seen as a package deal. Continuing to do so will mean children will continue to be seen as a tool, not a human being with a divine right to have both parents in their lives.



Screen Shot 2018-12-31 at 01.41.56.png

On September 12th 2018 the European Union passed the Copyright Directive, Article 11 restricts the sharing of news articles on social media by placing a financial charge upon this activity. The predictable result of this is that the currant scant coverage of events the establishment want kept quiet will disappear and the approved propaganda will have a monopoly. The stories buried in the middle pages will remain there and the media will claim they reported on the events, and it is not their fault the general population did not read about it. 

In an increasingly global world, the events you are told about will become increasingly local, unless they support the the establishment narrative. 

While most people who gain their information from outside the approved matrix will know smoothing of the Yellow Vest movement in France and duplicate protests in Holland, Belgium and Germany their are currently events occurring in France that have been even less well covered. The French authorities have deployed an extra 120 Riot Police to the town of Calais in response to the entrance of the Eurotunnel being stormed by around 1500 migrants for the third night running. However the urgent security review ordered by the British Home Secretary was not the assault upon the access point to the UK but the death of one of those attempting breach the security system when he slipped trying to get underneath a train and was crushed by a lorry in the process. 

One has to ask if those trying to reach the UK were less reckless if the incessant attempts to breach border security if any review of security would have been deemed necessary. 

Simultaneously the self same news outlets that have minimised coverage of these violent attempts to breach border security have given headline news slots to a different concerted attempts to breach the United Kingdom’s border. However this blanket reporting has not provided real clarity. While the headline reports of small boats arriving on the English coast began in late December with at least 82 arriving since Christmas Day, the figures quoted are generally 220 since November. While this makes it clear the establishment is comfortable with reporting the fact that migrants are attempting to cross into the United Kingdom they are presenting them as vulnerable people in small boats at serious risk of drowning, not a violent mob breaking down barriers.  

However this is not the only subterfuge at work here. 

Reporting the figures of migrants arriving by boat from November, three weeks prior to the real spike enables the media to be both accurate and dishonest. I have noticed this media trick before and the selective choice of when to collect data from is generally a red flag that the game is being rigged. I believe in this case it is to take people away from the important date, which in this case is 10th December 2018. That is the date the United Nations Compact on Migration was adopted. This means that by showing their are people trying to migrate in an unsafe manner, the country those people were attempting move to are required to provide a safe method for those people to do so. I believe that this new reality has created a situation where problem, cause, action has been run in reverse. 

The establishment has looked for a preferred outcome, and created the situation that made it the only viable solution. 

I have seen similar media manipulation, be it the size and motivations behind the yellow vest movement, the working class’s clamour for real Britex, the fact men and women perpetrate domestic abuse in roughly equal numbers or the absence of reporting on the fact that NASSA Climate Scientists predicted that the Artic would be Ice Free by the time I post this. These repeated similar errors can not be coincidence. They are a reflection on the reality that a single group of elites are selling you multiple forms of snake oil. My best advice to you is question everything, and the whole inventory of a person before you blindly believe them. It could be they simply disagree with you on one issue, and that is fine, nobody signs up to blindly follow. However having a 360 degree look at a persons option could provide a short cut to exposing the red pill placebo you are being sold. Do your own research and form your own conclusions and refuse to bow to societal pressures. 

In other words refuse to be a mushroom, kept in the dark and fed bullshit !

Screaming Quietly

Screen Shot 2018-12-24 at 00.26.33

I started writing about five years ago, I never had any organised schedule, I never attempted to build an audience, my only aim was to send forth my ideas into cyberspace and I believed it would always be possible to do so. However 2018 has caused a change. This is my third Sunday blog and I have decided to post every Sunday with intermittent extra posts as and when I can. This change is not driven by any change in my wish to builds an audience or my views, but my belief that the days when we have the ability to freely send unauthorised views onto the internet are numbered. 

On the 10th December 2018 the United Nations Compact on Global Migration was adopted. This means that the objectives contained within this document will become law across the globe. For those asking what exactly that has to do with putting your opinions on the internet I ask you to have a close look at Objective 17. I would also ask you to question why this docket has objectives as opposed to sections. An objective is something to be completed, and these objectives will be met one way or the other. 

OBJECTIVE 17: Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration

This objective will criminalise having a negative view of migration and posting those views on the internet. It requires governments to Enact, implement or maintain legislation that penalizes hate crimes and aggravated hate crimes targeting migrants. While all of this is subjective previous experience shows us stating bringing millions of people from the third world who do not have skills or speak the language to Westernised countries is a bad idea is indeed discrimination and needs to be stamped out. 

In September the European Union Copyrite laws passed with Articles 11 and 13 intact. These laws will drastically change internet use, citizen reporting and the use of links to back up your argument impossible for someone like myself as I can not afford to pay to post a link. 

Yes, you will be required to pay to publicise the mass media. 

This is madness and a direct impudent to sending forth your views. It creates a situation where you must gain a licence from the content creator to publicise them while no facility to do so exists. It means if you bring any non mainstreamed opinion and people rightly demand evidence, it costs you money. The logical outcome from this system is the disappearance of unregulated views. 

On social media the 2017 addpocalypse has morphed on 2018. Alex Jones was digitally unreasoned when his content was simultaneously removed from several platforms in an effort to remove his ability to make a living. Sargon of Akkad was removed from Patreon and when he and others migrated to Subscribe Star that platform was attacked and Pay Pall pulled its services from the platform. 

I hear you say, these people were controversial, they have views beyond the pale and could be harmful. This censorship will not affect everyday people with everyday ideas. To this I have two responses, have a listen to Sargon and realise his views are in line with everyday people and Steph Curry. 

Steph Curry is a basketball Star who went on podcast and said he did not believe the moon landings happened. Ok, I get that its not mainstream idea, but the fact NASA have been saying their next goal is to escape lower earth orbit means the guy may well have valid reasons to doubt the mainstream narrative. The response was disproportionate and he was forced to apologise. My research is inconclusive, I do not believe we had the technology to get to the moon, but we went to the moon aliens were there and told us not to come back. The only thing I am sure of is the official narrative is smoke screen, for whatever reason. However it is becoming clear that their are certain views that are not only allowed but are also protected and can not be questioned. My response to this situation is predictable and outlined in the last paragraph. 

I will produce a post every Sunday until I am removed. I will question authority. I will ask award questions like “if carbon controls temperature where the fuck does the carbon go at night”. Global warming is a myth backed by faked science. I will make Statements like “The gendered wage gap does not exist”. When people say “Diversity is or strength” I will ask “How” ? I will swim against the currant and put out opinions that make people think and question the prevailing narrative. The one thing I will never do is conform, im just not cut out for that.  

Source :

A Second Look at Divorce Law

Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 21.09.34.png

When we consider if divorce law is biased a casual look shows very disproportionate negative outcomes for men. We see men left destitute or at best struggling to get by while sending much needed funds to the woman they are no longer in a relationship with. The casual observer will therefore see divorcee law as the cause of the reality that in general women are winners in divorcee at the expense of men. However I believe this simplistic view misses the real causes and therefore impedes finding real world solutions. 

Under examination we find the words Husband and Wife are missing from divorce law. It speaks only of spouses. Therefore each person has equal legal and financial responsibilities placed upon them. We also find the reasons for the divorcee and the behaviour of each party play no part in the allocation of funds at the dissolution of a marriage. The aim is to equally split the available funds and allocate them in such a way each person has the same financial situation going forward. The spouse who earns more money will be subject to a spousal agreement or alimony payments to the spouse who earns less in order to equalise their disposable income. Where the spouse making payments is the husband and their are children involved he will invariably also be subject to child support. 

This situation has largely been blamed on the social norm of women engaging in hypergamy. So far the only solution men have found so far is within the MGTOW movement and a marriage strike by men that understand how the system works. This will save Individual men at the expense of 

peer-bonding. It also excludes these men from becoming good and involved fathers, and these are the group of men that are most aware of the need for good and involved fathers to improve the lives of the next generation of boys. This will both never provide a solution and ignores the actual cause.  

The problem with divorce law lies within the marriage contract. 

The part of the marriage contract that states each will look after the other “so long as ye both shall live” is where the problem begins. This means the divorce settlement must reflect that and allocate funds from the spouse that earns more to the spouse that earns less. While this might have have made sense in the 1800’s or even previous to the 1960’s when it was difficult for single mothers to work and earn a living, this is obviously not the case as we enter 2019. We are told single mothers can do it all, we are told they are capable and many laws have been introduced to insure they have the opportunity to do so. Therefore we must conclude it is time for marriage reform and that the contract no longer includes a life long commitment. I would also say their is a precedent of the marriage contract being changed in living memory. 

Women on mass decided they would remove the word “obey” from the legal contract. Removing the life long commitment should be a natural response. Being responsible for financial actions you have no legal right to control is akin to signing a blank cheque.   

This would remove the necessity for Spousal Agreements or Alimony payments. It would also create a more even relationship where the wife is no longer in the position where she can keep the financial benefits while ditching her responsibilities. This would equalise the consequences of divorce, and if it was coupled with reform in the family court it would reset the balance between the sexes and lead to a more harmonious society.    


Screen Shot 2018-12-10 at 00.37.08


Noun [mass noun]
1 the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, specially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. Victims of racial discrimination | discrimination against homosexuals.

The laudable goal of creating a society of equals, where every person has equality of opportunity can only be achieved by removing discrimination. Therefore it is necessary to examine how discrimination works and how it can be recognised. It also necessary to ascertain if the discrimination is institutionalised or the actions of individuals who have their own prejudices that are outside the mainstream view of society. While both institutionalised and personnel discrimination are vile they have different outcomes.

Personal discrimination or bigotry is likely to face opposition and the effects are limited to the people within that persons control. It is also practically impossible to legislate this form of discrimination out of existence, therefore education and exposing that person’s opinions to the wider public is the best remedy.

institutionalised discrimination impacts on the group as a whole and the ramifications are much more serious. institutionalised and accepted discrimination begins with the absence of consequences for those that publicly slander the targeted group. Typical the targeted group are faced with repeated lies about their part in history, downplaying their contributions and inventing past oppressions. Overstating their wealth and lying about how they acquired it. Stating that some of the group have risen to great

power and assuming that all within that group have that power and use it to the detriment of other groups.

At this point the police and crown prosecution services become disinterested in prosecuting cases against those with the group while simultaneously excreting the full force of the law upon the targeted group for any infraction. This process is necessary in order that when the next phase, discrimination in education, discrimination in hiring practices, exclusion from laws protecting the general public from harm, exclusion from the public debate, the creation of laws that target activities of the target group and laws that penalise the circumstances mainly those within the target group fall. Due to the previous demonisation of the group these measures will be seen as not only justifiable, but the best course of action.

We at Mens Rights Northern Ireland believe this is exactly what has happened to men as a group. We believe men are disadvantaged in several sectors including, but not limited to, education, housing, health care, and provision of public services. We believe that although men are included in Section 75 (Good Relations) laws at best lip service is paid to this fact and their is no confederation given to the impact on men when policy is created. We believe that any official body dedicated to creating an equal society must address these issues, after all, men are people too.

The Unbearables

Screen Shot 2018-12-07 at 20.48.01

It is simple, we do not kneel 

or to a higher authority appeal 

we refuse to accept authoritarian zeal  

we hold a line so sacrosanct

whatever massage you invent 

this community will circumvent 


We are Bears proud and strong 

creating a society where we belong 

pointing out where the mainstream went wrong

protecting childhood, culture, a national border 

opposing your fake new world disorder 

Ignoring the cultural prison warder 


Our family community you can not break 

we expunge those here to take 

and the media oh so fake 

we exist to simply repeal 

the cultural marxist appeal 

it should be understood, we do not kneel 



Picture Credit

The Unbearables is the collective name for the fans of Owen Benjamin. Owen also refers to them as “The Bears”. 

Owen is a pianist and stand up comedian who previously appeared in big budget productions. He plays the lead role in All’s Faire In Love and worked alongside Jay Leno, Amy Schumer and had Comedy Central Specials. 

In 2017 Owen declared giving hormone blockers to 6 year old children was bad for these children, due to this he became persona non grata with the elite. He has been building an grass roots comedy community with his fans and is currently on tour. 

If you would like to hear about his deplatforming and the attempts to silence him he expelins it in the link below

Reproductive Rights

Screen Shot 2018-12-02 at 21.58.46

The Violence Against Women and Girls Act correctly describes actions such as withholding contraception from women or forcing women to take contraception as controlling coercive behaviour. It goes farther still by prohibiting men from asking to watch their partner taking oral contraception.  Their are no similar protections for men. The imbalance is mirrored in the provision of contraception. The National Health Service lists the following forms of contraception. 

Women                                                                               Men

Caps or Diaphragms                                                           Condoms     

Combined Pill                                                                      Vasectomy 


Contreception Implant

Contreception Injection 

Contreceptive Patch 

Female Condoms 

IUD (intrauterine device or coil) 

IUD (intrauterine system or hormonal coil)

Natural Family Planing 

Progestogen Only Pill

Vaginal Ring. 



In order to avail of a vasectomy under the NHS typically a man needs to be over 30, have children and his partner will be required to attend the doctor with him and sign off on the surgery. Where a woman visits a doctor to avail of any form of contraception her partner is excluded. There are thousands of women in the UK who’s partners have a vasectomy that are currently on birth control pills or have coils or implants to “keep their period regular”. It is  impossible for their partner to know if this is due to a medical condition or they are regularly having sex with a man that has not had a vasectomy.   

We must also consider the reality that from the advent of AIDS condoms have been seen primarily as protection from sexually transmitted diseases. This has lead to the societal norm that the point where a relationship is considered serious committed and trusting is when the couple take the step of removing barrier protection and having “unprotected sex”. At this point the man has handed over his reproductive rights and is required to comply with the woman’s decisions. 

At the point of conception women are faced with the following choices. The morning after pill, bring the child to term and have it adopted, keep the child and exclude the father while forcing him to pay child support, raising the child with the father. It is clear that for women consent to sex is not consent to parenthood. This is not the case for men. 

The man must comply with the woman’s choices. 

When the child is born a wristband will be placed on the child in the delivery suite to ensure the child the couple bring home from the hospital is in fact the mothers child. From that point on the mothers partner is financially responsible for that child for the next 16 years. Research shows that approximately 1 in 50 British men are raising a child that is not biologically theirs and approximately half of all men that take paternity tests turn find they are not the biological father. 

Regardless of biology the Child Support Agency will consider the mothers partner the father of the child and therefore liable for payments if he was married to the mother at any date between the date of conception and the date of birth, is named on the birth certificate or the children have not been adopted. Judges may also rule that where a man has acted as a father for two or more years he has significantly contributed to the Childs life and he is therefore required to contribute financially. 

It is clear that women have reproductive rights and men have reproductive responsibilities. 

Their are no easy answers to these problems and it is clear we as a society need to find solutions that respect everyone’s rights. Women in Northern Ireland can currently travel to mainland United Kingdom to access an abortion, soon that trip will be shorter and services will be available in the Republic of Ireland. The growing debate around abortion in Northern Ireland focuses on a “woman’s right to choose” with no regard to the fact the potential child has two potential parents. It will be difficult to create laws that give both parents equal rights and responsibilities as those rights will be different due to the biological realities. However if we are actually interested in equality we must have courage in our convictions and create a fair society. 

While no sane person would argue a man should have the ability to force a woman to abort a child or carry it to term, where abortion is legal the father should have the right to abort his legal responsibility during the same time frame a woman can choose to abort a child. Paternity testing should be mandatory, it is ridiculous that half the populations best indicator that they indeed are the father is “he/she has your eyes”.  Children should have an absolute right to know who their biological parents are. Social issues aside people need the correct information for health reasons. Precautionary measures against hereditary conditions can only be affective when a person knows their biological ancestry. 

Reproductive rights interlink with both Domestic Abuse and the bias within the Family Court system. The fact that men are legally disadvantaged in these three sectors are a major contributing factor in the fact 80% of all suicide victims are male.

If men had to endure childbirth the first change would not be pain management, it would be mandatory maternity testing. 




Does Not Compute

Screen Shot 2018-10-21 at 23.13.38

I’v never been a fucking NPC

regurgitating with urgency 

there fake version of empathy 

I speak to tribulations true 

where others fear to share their view

so an honest word from me to you 


When you invent oppression so fake 

real victims compassion you take 

and noting good you can make 

with a false narrative of fake empathy 

for fake victims with urgency 

don’t be a fucking NPC

Accident ?


The dispensing of privilege

by an accident of birth 

Is not an accident 


Every new arrival 

has the same opportunity 

the one provided by their ancestors

which is the fruit of their labours

through countless generations 


Those labours were not 


your starting point in life 

Is the life’s work 

of your forefathers 


Any privilege 

was earned, not given 


If you look at others with envy 


you chastise your linage 

while procrastination insures 

repeated results  

the starting point 

of your descendants is not 



Sexist Shopping

Screen Shot 2018-02-11 at 21.27.33

Tesco is currently facing a 4 billion pay claim for discrimination. The case centres around the fact that distribution staff are paid more than cashiers, and the distribution staff are predominantly male while the cashiers are predominantly female. Leigh Day, the law firm representing those bringing the case are arguing this is in conflict with the equal pay act and that both jobs have equal worth to the company. One question that arrives from this is why stop at distribution workers, could they not argue that the person interacting with the customer and taking cash for the company is actually selling the deal, and therefore of equal worth to those in procurement, or even the CEO ?

Other questions is why this case was as predictable as it is erroneous. 

The jobs in question in the equal pay case are very different. The cashiers job involves sitting at a checkout in a climate controlled building and scanning items and taking payment for the goods. It may also include duties such as stacking g shelves. The distribution job is warehouse work. It involves working outside and inside the building. It involves warm tempters in summer and cold conditions in winter. It involves being exposed to rain and snow. It involves interacting with delivery drivers,  using equipment that require qualifications to operate to unload the lorries, moving heavy weights and playing a game of giant tetris on a daily basis to fit everything in a limited space. If the two jobs involved the same physical labour, one could have expected many female cashiers to apply for distribution jobs in order to gain a pay rise, the fact this has not happened is in its self evidence there are clear differences in the requirements of both jobs.

So why was the case inevitable ? 

Over the past few years Tesco has became increasingly misandric. Granted all shops carter more to women than men as their primary demographic, and therefore it is no surprise to anyone that floor space dedicated to women’s clothes in Tesco is quadruple that dedicated to men’s clothes. Also the space dedicated to female hygiene and grooming far outweighs that provided for men. This has always been the case. However Tesco has gone farther. The singe for parking has changed from blue (part of their corporate colour scheme) to pink. They have removed the picture of a man from the parents and children parking spaces. The self service tills have the depiction of woman and the icons on the trolleys have no picture of a man. This might have been able to be passed of as rebranding and simplifying the images but the change of  name from  “mansize tissues” to extra large tissues shows that Tesco has some problem with the word man or depicting men as anything good. All of this went unchecked, nobody at this large company, or its consumer base found any of this to be problem. Had any of it been pointed out the person pointing it out would be accused of being petty and stated the issues were unimportant. However where sexist attitudes go unchecked, they escalate.

Then came the advertisement campaign depicting domestic abuse against a man.

Tesco are currently running a advertisement for Fish Cakes. You can view the video


In the video the woman makes her partners favourite meal, while saying she will make her partner watch her eat it, while complaining to her friend that he forgot something. To be clear, this falls under the UK Definition for domestic abuse as controlling cohesive behaviour. That Tesco allowed their brand to be represented by a woman showing this level of power and control over her partner, with zero exception of backlash shows that Tesco see men as less than human. I ask you, would any company use a man withholding food, out of spite or revenge, from a woman, or even a dog ? The obvious answer is no, as this would damage the brand.

Using this video as advertisement, shows that Tesco are oblivious to hardships faced by men. 

Therefore how could anyone immersed in this culture see the difficulties of working in inhospitable conditions, see the cost on the body of physical toil, and realise that such work commands a premium, when they do not value the people doing said work, because of their gender. This culture leads to ignoring the hardships, and demanding the premium paid to these men, without enduring the hardship.