Legal Action for Women and Global Women’s Strike have expressed outrage over the way in which Woman’s Hour handled a parental alienation debate on its show last week.
Selma James, who helped launch the Global Women’s Strike (GWS) and who coined the word “unwaged” to describe the caring work women do, has written a letter to the BBC radio show condemning the programme for ignoring underlying concerns with parental alienation as a concept and a tool to place vulnerable parents and children in danger.
Legal Action for Women, who are calling on listeners upset by the programme to send in a complaint to the BBC, published a press release with more details about the concerns raised by themselves and GWS:
“We are outraged that on Friday 26 April, Woman’s Hour (about 30 minutes in) featured a discussion about “parental alienation” with a woman psychotherapist and a woman barrister, following a march on Downing Street the day before by Families Need Fathers to mark “Parental alienation day” – a relatively new invention used to undermine mothers charges of violence by former partners, which is very common.
As the complaint by Selma James (Global Women’s Strike) makes clear, the Woman’s Hour discussion made absolutely no reference to how often mothers who are victims of rape and/or domestic violence, including coercive and controlling behaviour, and are trying to protect their children, are dismissed by the family courts, sometimes with deadly consequences for themselves and their children.
The programme accepted at face value the claim of “parental alienation”, when it is in fact a controversial invention whose “discoverer” has been discredited – see here. None of the women guests or the presenter even mentioned the misogyny and worse of FNF – see here.
They backed Families Need Fathers’ claim that “parental alienation” causes “emotional harm” and welcomed judges increasingly using it to remove children from their mothers and send them to live with their father.
These are the kind of professionals we are up against in court and a major reason so many mothers lose their children.
Woman’s Hour is asking to hear from anyone affected by these issues. It would be good if as many people as possible contact them to complain and let them know about your experience, particularly mothers who have suffered violence and whose children have been taken on the grounds of “parental alienation”. Such sexism must not go unchallenged, especially by a programme which is supposed to speak for women.
Please email your complaint to: womanshour.yourviews@bbc.co.uk and send a copy to us.
We will also raise that FnF had one event and got discussed on Woman’s Hour while mothers at Support Not Separation [LAFW’s campaign group) have been picketing the family court monthly for two years and they have shown no interest in speaking to us.”
You can listen to the show here.
Further reading:
- Parental Alienation Allegations Sway Family Court Judges Into Enabling Contact With Abusive Parents – Research (2019)
- Parental Alienation Not A Disorder (2012)
- “Role allegations of PAS play in unjustifiably discrediting mothers increasingly being recognised” – Expert (2012)
Researching Reform 
Parental alienation is a term coined to describe the situation in which one parent seeks to influence a child to reject his or her other parent. Since the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child said that it was the right of every child to be raised by both his or parents “wherever possible”, the courts’ empowerment of whichever of two parents who wants this for the child, and the disempowering the parent who wants a monopoly of parenting of the child for himself or herself, is plain common sense.
I blogged about an extreme example of Parental Alienation here,
[edited]
Parental alienation itself is not itself gendered in the way that these complaining feminist groups imagine it to be. Fathers or mothers can be perpetrators of alienation or suffer as alienated parents. My local Families Need Fathers group even received an application for help from a lesbian step-parent.
When a parent is alienated successfully, half of the child’s extended family is alienated along with the targeted parent, including grandparents and half-siblings, nephew and nieces of the child.
Children are safest with both parents in their lives. Liam Fee would probably be alive today, if his mother, who murdered him, hadn’t succeeded in excluding his father from the family. See:
[edited]
Domestic abuse isn’t strongly gendered either, despite constant repetition of this feminist myth. It is therefore difficult to see how it is possible honestly to portray recognition of the evil of the phenomenon as better or worse for one sex of parent than the other.
John Allman
Let Every Child Have Both Parents candidate for North Cornwall at the 2015 general election
[edited]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said. The article made an error, it was NAAP and DADS, not FNF who arranged the London March.. Irrelevant but.. Your comment is spot on. Regardless of the alienater, children do lose a parent and half of the family that they belong to, and have a right to. It is emotional child abuse, that definitely affects children long term. This should not be allowed to happen. Children need both parents and both families.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Correction, it wasn’t the article that made the error, we simply punished a letter.
LikeLike
I agree 100% Children need both parents and their extended families.
for any group to state Parental Alienation is a controversial invention by a discredited person is very troubling and potentially damaging to the very Children they claim to be trying to protect.
talk about two steps forward and three steps back. the reality is, Children are the centre point. whatever grievances the parents have with each other should be kept out of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe your stance on Parental Alienation is actually causing harm to children
LikeLike
This is a report on a story rather than a personal stance. However there are always issues to consider.
LikeLike
I believe so too. People like Natasha does not care about the harm you are causing to children. I am a single mother with 2 young men who see their dad as often as possible and maintain a happy relationship together despite the fact that my husband and I haven’t spoken for over 9 years. I support FNF fully. They are decent people.
I am so pleased to learn that some decent women are out there fighting Parental Alienation. I will indeed follow Natasha’s advice and write to BBC Radio show praising them for presenting this on their Woman Hour show.
LikeLike
You’re free to comment on this site but making assumptions about my point of view, or anyone engaging on this site, is not appropriate.
LikeLike
Natasha,Is it Ok for you to make assumptions that other organisations are not doing a good job!!?
If you were really doing a great job, you needed not be so defensive as to complain to BBC Radio.
LikeLike
In fairness, it may be that Natasha has simply published a story this is largely based upon the content of a press release issued by the feminist organisations complaining, giving their side of the story, with insufficient scepticism and balance. Rather, that is, than that she is actually an enabler of parental alienation herself.
LikeLike
If Legal Action for Women and Global Strike had a more realistic view they might not place themselves in the position they needlessly complain of: where others get the exposure their campaigns justly deserve whilst theirs get ignored. Their style of campaigning doesn’t help women victims, and certainly does not help children of DV or alienation. If they looked closely they might find that as far as genuine DV is concerned, FNF and the National Association of Alienated Parents would not knowingly support any abusive parent.
Quoting Meier’s ‘research ‘ on Parental Alienation by linking to it is no grounds for a campaign; Meier has never worked with alienated families or children. She’s a legal academic, with a bias.
The APA left PA out of the DSM but to imply that means the APA dismiss PA is disingenuous. It was left out because the APA’s view is that PA is already covered within the established and serious disorders associated with attachment disruption and psychological control. There are also new DSM5 disorders associated with family functioning into which PA fits.
LikeLike
Why do the GWS think that it is only mothers who are victims of Parental Alienation? Or is it all right with them that a father can equally be affected, and not worthy of comment? Dear me, when will we unite mothers and fathers against anyone who practices parental alienation? I can tell anyone who wants to hear that parental alienation affects both men and women, and no matter who is practising it, it disadvantages the child or children involved. I have a daughter who I’ve not seen for twenty years and more because of it and I’m trying to help a mother who has not seen her son for ten years because of it. It is insidious, damaging and wrong but it is not confined to one sex.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good on you Roger. I hope you get connected with your daughter some day. I have now started educating my female friends to use their brains and to put their kids first. We don’t need outsiders to tell us what is good for our children. The system automatically support the mothers and this is a fact. I was encouraged to ask for maintenance money from my ex (I refused but they still sent me all the document to apply for it). I asked for a divorce but the solicitor wanted to know my husband incomes/assets and when I said I didn’t want anything, she insisted that I should take half of everything which disgusted me. To date I am not divorce but my children are happy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Honesty. I know of one dad, a barrister, who despite having equal parenting of his children was ordered by the Court to pay thousands of pounds in ‘back pay’. He looked after his children, fed them, etc for equal amounts of time as his ex but was branded an ‘absent father’ by the CSA when he clearly wasn’t, and only he was ordered to pay ‘maintenance’. He decided to break the law to uphold a principle and despite pleas from his ex and his children, was jailed for non-payment. His ex had to give up work and go on benefits as she then had sole responsibility for looking after the children. How on earth could this fiasco ever be ‘in the best interests of the children’?
Well done for taking the stance you have. Your children are happy. No need to say more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear readers, some of the comments we receive contain links to third party sites which we have to check carefully to ensure the content of these sites don’t breach reporting regulations or other laws. Appropriate comments will be published once checked.
LikeLike
Dear Natasha
You removed the following links to the following blog posts of mine, and also the titles of the posts, when you edited a comment of mine before publication. I know you didn’t do this because my posts breached reporting regulations or other laws, because they don’t. So what was the real reason?
The post titles you edited out were:
[edited]
Kind regards,
John Allman
LikeLike
Dear John, the posts did breach regulations, which is why they were removed. Please take a look at the guidelines if you are not familiar with them. Giving you the benefit of the doubt here.
LikeLike
Dear Natasha
Your accusation that I have acted unlawfully is false and unjust. What “regulations” are you publicly accusing me of “breaking”? To what “guidelines” are you referring?
The first article was a reblog, prefaced by additional comments of my own, of a report made by psychologist and parental alienation expert Karen Woodall of the open, High Court judgment of Pauffley J in Re P and Q (Children: Care Proceedings: Fact Finding)[2015] EWFC 26, in which the attempted parental alienation of the Hampstead children P and Q was ruled to amount to their “torture” on the part of their mother. My preface to the reblog mentions (late on) the early facts of an unnamed civil case that was eventually heard in open court, leading to the handing down of Dingerman J’s open judgment A v Cornwall [2017] EWHC 842 (QB).
The second article was a comment of mine upon the published Learning Summary from the Significant Case Review of murdered toddler Liam Fee, whose mother is serving a sentence of life imprisonment for the murder.
I put it to you that the points made in these two posts, based as they are upon the facts that emerged into the public domain in the two cases, are highly pertinent to the lively discussion sparked by your report of the grievance of the feminist groups at the BBC broadcast. Your only reason for suppressing those thoughts appears to be that you don’t want your readers to be prompted to consider those points.
There is nothing remotely unlawful in either of the two posts whose names you edited out. I therefore invite you to apologise to me for that false accusation of yours made in public, and at last to publish the names of the two articles, in this comment.
[edited]
If you still maintain that there was anything unlawful about either post to which you don not wish your readers’ attention to be drawn, then please email me explaining what regulation or law you believe I have transgressed in commenting upon the P & Q judgment and the Liam Fee significant case review as I have, or in reblogging Karen Woodall’s comment on the former. That is, as well as removing the post titles yet again from a comment of mine for the third time, of course.
Yours sincerely,
John Allman (.UK)
LikeLike
Hi John,
There appear to be names mentioned that are not in the public domain, that is why your comments have been edited. That said, if I have made a mistake, then I apologise.
Please note that although I would love for this blog to be my full time job, it is not. I work several jobs during the day, and manage Researching Reform and its projects on my own time when I have it, and free of charge, so I just don’t have the capacity to check every link and sub-link.
If our readers would like to share links with third party content, particularly from personal blogs, then the site needs to receive evidence that the contents are in line with reporting regulations.
Thanks.
LikeLike
I agree with equal rights for men and women especially in Rape cases.
Therefore:-
1:- Both accuser and accused should have anonymity in rape cases (or neither)
2: Both accuser and accused should give their phones to the police (or neither)
Equal treatment for both is surely the only fair way to manage such cases.
LikeLike
@Natasha
“There appear to be names mentioned that are not in the public domain, that is why your comments have been edited.”
The only names mentioned in both posts were Karen Woodall (of the Family Separation Clinic, whose post I reblogged), Mrs Justice Pauffley (the judge who handed down the public judgment in Re P and Q), Ella Draper and “Dr Hodes” (both named in the P and Q judgment), Marietta Higgs (notorious before the days of the internet for a spurious “anal reflex” test she had invented, and the mischief thus wrought), T W Campbell and Dr Kirk Weir (academic authors whose work Karen cited in her piece), the late Liam Fee (a murdered toddler) and “Jesus” (referring to the Christ whom Christians worship). Which of these were you trying to protect from my alleged doxing, because (to you) their names appeared not to be in the public domain already?
“if I have made a mistake, then I apologise”
First, you ought to admit your mistake. Then you may offer me an apology and make amends by publishing the information you unnecessarily edited out.
“I just don’t have the capacity to check every link and sub-link”
You don’t have the legal responsibility to do that either. Who knows what horrors anyone might find, by clicking on an advert on a Guardian article, and then from an advertiser’s website to that advertiser’s Facebook page, and so on. Nobody can or does check that it is impossible to encounter illegal content, by idle web surfing, even starting from the most law-abiding and respectable the pages on which one start such surfing. With that policy, you’ll never allow anybody to link to anything else. In my case, you haven’t even allowed me to mention pages I’d prefer to have been able to link to.
“the site needs to receive evidence that the contents are in line with reporting regulations”
That is an impossible burden of proof. What possible evidence could anybody offer you, that content is in line with any requirements at all, other than the absence of any evidence that the requirements were transgressed in any way?
Besides, I am still waiting to learn what “regulations” you are referring to, and to what “guidelines” you referred me earlier.
In case you now see the error of your earlier ways, the posts, relevant to this topic, which I mentioned had the following titles:
[edited]
If you relent, my suspicions will subside that your real reasons for having forbidden the mention of these two posts so far are different from the various excuses you have offered to date.
LikeLike
John, you clearly don’t know what the reporting regulations are, or why I do indeed have a responsibility to ensure I don’t share content that is in breach of those regulations.
I have also explained that unfortunately I don’t have time to sift through comments with multiple links which could have content in breach of regulations, so the onus is on posters to ensure the site is provided with evidence that the content is cleared. I don’t however, have any duty to edify you on reporting regulations (although I have published those regulations on the site to help everyone).
Your tone is incredibly arrogant and I won’t be engaging further. You are, sadly, a shining example of the kind of forcefulness and bullying that can give men a bad name. And that’s a shame.
LikeLike
YOU are lucky not to be banned for life like I have been from the so called “transparency project “.A bunch of lawyers devoted to upholding the secrecy of the family courts,the gagging of parents,and the snatching of new born babes at birth !
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Women’s groups left outraged over the coverage of Parental Alienation on Woman Sour – ExposingTheLeft
What is the worst thing about all this.?? Certainly the way in which mothers are forbidden to contact the children they have lost by phone ,by post or by email.
Mums who have never committed any crime but who suppoted a child accusing a dad of abuse, are sent to jail for waving to their kids in the street or for sending a birthday card
Vicky Haigh(named in parliament) was sentenced to 3 years in prison for an accidental meeting at a petrol station when her ex husband drove in with her daughter to fill up and Vicky who was shopping there dared to talk to her !
Admittedly the judge resonsible later committed suicide !
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh dear you clearly believe that women are faultless and beyond reproach and could not bear to even consider Parental Alienation and by your one-sided stance you are both sexist and complicit in abuse by promoting a gender biased view. PA is real and it is the last bastion of abuse to be tackled and it is the hardest as it questions women who have placed on the unassailable throne of the Victim and woe betide anyone who dares suggest they could be perpetrators.
LikeLike
Not sure who this comment is directed at, however for clarity as far as our site is concerned- this item is a news story we’ve featured, and we have not made any comment on it.
Researching Reform’s view on PA: this site believes that both men and women are capable of lying about partner behaviour for various reasons and we have always made that clear.
However, we do not believe PA is a disorder or limited to any one gender. Men can be as guilty of pitting children against mothers as women can be in relation to children and their fathers.
While poor parental choices should be addressed, any debate should include a robust and rounded view of all the issues, including the use of PA as a way to mask violence, carry out manipulation and enforce control.
This site is for rounded discussion which looks at all the issues.
LikeLike
“This site is for rounded discussion”
If I’d known that, I’d have been prepared for it when a certain somebody rounded on me. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
We’ve kissed and made up, John, all’s well x
LikeLike
I applaud BBC both in its news and Womens Hour coverage of this clearly poignant issue of Parental Alienation. I can oy speak of my own experiences and my life of the last 12 years watching my soon to be ex wife actively perform a hatred regime of my step daughters fathers, and now the very same practised routine being engaged with my sons. I am not a perpetrator of abuse or control, I was the voice of reason, I excersised order in the chaos and functioning dysfunction. The tirade of vexatious allegations that are being used to discredit me, the contemptuous methods of ghost social media accounts to deliver herself the necessary “harrasment” to enact pity amongst her new audience and court that have never even met me is tantamount to sectionable illness. Yet opinions so generalised by your ignorant and selfish account above will leave those, the many of us in my position unheard, whilst our children are at the hands of the greatest abusers of all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Alienation also impacts women though. Its not just men that women claim have abused them – I am sure that some men & women do this but I am a woman and a grandparent & our position is that we have been completely excluded from our grandchildrens lives and been subjected to abuse allegations which ate completely untrue.
We have a court system that gets it wrong often, I agree with that. But people often forget that when someone screams ‘abuse’ to push someone out of theirs & their children’s lives, there is someone on the other end of it & if there is no abuse that has taken place this kind of allegation is powerful, destroys lives and families leaving children traumatised by separation and harming their future relationships.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@seedisorder
Quite so. I wrote earlier, in a comment that Natasha chose not to publish,
66
Parental alienation itself is not itself gendered in the way that these complaining feminist groups imagine it to be. Fathers or mothers can be perpetrators of alienation or suffer as alienated parents. My local Families Need Fathers group even received an application for help from a lesbian step-parent.
When a parent is alienated successfully, half of the child’s extended family is alienated along with the targeted parent, including two out of the four grandparents, any half-siblings, and nephews and nieces of the child.
Children are safest with both parents in their lives since each can safeguard against abuse by the other – especially psychotic abuse in which the perpetrator lack[s] insight that his or her treatment of a child is abusive. Liam Fee would probably be alive today, if his mother, who murdered him, hadn’t succeeded in excluding Liam’s father from the family.
…
Domestic abuse isn’t strongly gendered either, despite constant repetition of this feminist myth. It is therefore difficult to see how it is possible honestly to portray recognition of the evil of the phenomenon as better or worse for one sex of parent than the other.
99
It doesn’t help that making allegations of domestic abuse is the main way of getting Legal Aid nowadays in private family proceedings. Legal Aid is not available to those who deny allegations of domestic abuse in order to clear their names. If certain people have their way, those self-represented parents won’t even be allowed to test the evidence of those making the allegations against them.
Paternal grandmothers are frequent clients at FNF help meetings. We understand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s not correct, John. Your comment was published but had to be edited to meet reporting regulations.
LikeLike
Absolutely agree – its become something of a stereotypical phenomenon that children are used as point scoring & sadly the damage that this does is irreversible.
LikeLike
@Natasha
Sorry. You are right. For some reason, I mistakenly thought that you’d published the first draft of my comments, which contained the links, rather than the second draft, which only contained the post titles (until you edited them out), and some other corrections and improvements.
I cannot alter my comment, to correct my mistake, but please accept this apology.
LikeLike
John, I don’t understand your latest comment, but if you’re genuinely apologising for your earlier comments, of course, apology accepted.
LikeLike
My apology is for mistakenly saying that you hadn’t published the comment I quoted, when it had in fact been the earlier version of that comment that you hadn’t published at all.
I don’t think there anything else I need to apologise for. Do you? I hoped you might apologise to me about the other matter, now that I have proved you wrong, for guessing that there might be individuals named in the posts of mine you wouldn’t allow to be mentioned, whose names weren’t already in the public domain. I’ve given you a list of the individual’s named. All of their names, and their relevant doings, are in the public domain.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, if I made a mistake, once again, I apologise.
LikeLike
I have apologised for my mistake, when I wrongly described a comment of mine you had actually published as “a comment that Natasha chose not to publish”. You correctly chose to publish the later draft of the comment, and deleted the earlier.
Your mistake, for which you are still refusing to apologise, was saying that in my two blog posts whose titles you won’t even allow to be mentioned, I had (apparently) mentioned names that are not in the public domain. I pointed out that the only names I’d mentioned were those of Karen Woodall, Mrs Justice Pauffley, Ella Draper, Dr Hodes, Marietta Higgs, T W Campbell, Dr Kirk Weir, Liam Fee and Jesus. I explained why each of these names was already in the public domain.
You refer to “reporting regulations” that (you say) require everybody to obtain some sort of clearance every time they want to post anything on the internet, claiming that those regulations are published on this blog somewhere, but you won’t say where they are. You want me to prove that I have this clearance I’ve never heard of.
And you have intimated that don’t think much of men and boys, whom you find “arrogant”. You consider it sad that I am like them, being one of them myself. Charming.
LikeLike
I don’t think all men or all boys are arrogant. Read my comment carefully. Officially cutting you off now John, until you can refocus.
LikeLike
Good morning Natasha
Thank you for the additional coverage.
We have written to the BBC to correct a number of factual errors .
Firstly, FNF had absolutely nothing to do with organising the march. A few members turned up but so did members of other organisations. The march was actually organised and run by DADS and NAAP. Both groups have almost as many mothers as fathers amongst their membership. In fact a lot of the expenses involved in setting up the march were funded by a donation from a grandmother.
Secondly. The marchers were reported to be “fathers”. In fact, the march included fathers, mothers, siblings, step siblings, uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents, parents from the LGBT community etc. In fact, just about every type of familial relationship possible was represented. It was not even predominantly dads who were marching. PA cuts across entire families and the people that turned out demonstrated that.
In the interests of accuracy and to avoid any future misreporting we will send you a copy of the press release for any future events.
Kind regards
NAAP and DADS.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Peter.
LikeLike
Quite, the march was the brainchild of an alienated mother #padayuk who brought together a number of groups many who are non gendered and made up of mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grand fathers, aunts, uncles, sisters, brothers and friends.
We know it exists and the damage it does to children. I hope none of the children in your families find out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Angela . I worked extremely hard in the background creating the video for the march against parental alienation, it’s extremely hurtful and unprofessional that nobody has taken the time to watch this before reporting on the event or the issue of parental alienation, nor have they taken the time to verify who set the event up in the first place .
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sounds very similar to how the mainstream press report on certain campaign groups as being far right and racist when there is no evidence to support those bigoted labels.
is your March vid on Youtube ?
LikeLike
It was not organised by FNF.
LikeLike
To add to what Peter A Davies and Neil have said, Fnf had nothing to do with organising the march. I should know, I’m the Chair of Central and North London branches. I and other Fnf members did attend a well organised march highlighting parental alienation and my thanks to NAAP and DADS for having organised it.
I note that the same women’s groups are protesting strongly against BBC Women’s hour as protested outside our conference venue in October 2017 when myself and others organised a Parental Alienation workshop/conference. It appears that these lead women’s groups support parental alienation when the mother’s wish to alienate the fathers. Citing the much abused excuse of DV experience is the usual cover for those child abusers. That is my opinion on any parent who alienates a child from the other parent without proven good reason.
An abuser is an abuser irrespective of gender. Girls and Grannies, Aunts all suffer from this abuse. So let’s drop the gender politics and focus on helping the children love both parents and wider families, which is what nations with much better outcomes for children do after separation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well said, Vincent. It really is disheartening to see this ‘war’ going on between mothers and fathers when we should be uniting against Parental Alienation, whoever the parent is, mother or father. Parents should always remember that if you hate your ex, then you hate half your child.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Unfortunately there is a gender divide currently In family court, that is because of the number of mums who get residency, therefore currently the number of female perpetrators of parent/child severance is only logically higher. I truly believe that men would be found just as guilty if the balance in residency was addressed and more balanced. If your that type of person your just that type of person and absolute xxxx.
Gender devide groups should not be able to participate in these discussions and certainly not be allowed to sit on panels regarding this issue. They only want to serve their own agenda.
You can a social worker once said “get a flavour” for where natasha alliance is when she describes John as being forceful in one of her comments.
Gender bashing helps no child
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your comment, Gavin. My alliance can be measured by the volume of posts on my site which explain that I believe both men and women can behave badly in these situations. John was forceful, and he has since apologised. I also apologised to him for an error I may have made in relation to a comment he made. I’d suggest not bashing anyone until you do your research, Gavin.
LikeLike
*Where* have you “published the reporting regulations on the site”, please? What is their official title, so that I can find them on the net elsewhere? It is correct to say that I have never heard of them.
I have been publishing a blog of my own since 2012. I published several websites before that up to eight years before that. I have been commenting on news stories for even longer, including often on this site, without ever being accused of breaking the law before, because I haven’t had the web content I published “cleared” beforehand, pursuant to unspecified “reporting regulations”. Cleared by whom?
Not only have you accused me of breaking the law, but you have also taken offence when I complained about this, and quite unnecessarily insulted my entire sex. Would you also care to belittle me because of my age, my race, my religion and my disability?
LikeLike
“Alfie Evans’ non-existent coroner’s inquest – what are they trying to hide?”
Looks like you got the usual response from a public office. minimal logic then Cut off.
LikeLike
comment awaiting moderation.
LikeLike
Legal Action for Women and Global Women’s Strike do not speak for all women and they most certainly do not speak for all children.
Any person or group that starts with the premise that PA does not exist and all men in cases of disputed contact and residence are abusers are absurd and have no place in the debate.
Both genders have the capacity to be abusive psychologically, physically and sexually. If you believe in science you believe that coercive and controlling people exist, you believe that parents with personality disorders exist and they come in both sexes. Therefore, the capacity for both genders to make false allegations exists. Each case needs to be investigated thoroughly to assess risk and which parent is pathogenic. Evidence is key as is specialist assessment.
So any group that argues that it does not exist has already lost their argument because as a woman I witness it exists. I stand for my family they boys and the girls – there are millions more of us that know it’s real.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So Legal action for Women are of the view
“The programme accepted at face value the claim of “parental alienation”, when it is in fact a controversial invention whose “discoverer” has been discredited”.
This will no doubt upset thousands of parents who have suffered parental alienation which has lead to Contact being stopped.
i personally know of a Man who left his partner with two very young daughters. as they grew up the mother poisoned them against him. they are now both grown up and have no contact with their father and dont even know him. i also know of another man going through this right now and is also suffering the terrible effects of PA perpetrated by his X partner. he speaks about his trauma of fighting to see his daughter almost every day and you can feel the pain he is going through. his X has a LA social worker on her side and they have schemed together to limit the amount of contact he has with his very young daughter. PA is real no doubt about it.
Legal action for Women seem aggressively one sided in favor of mothers which is shurely more damaging to children in the long run. Children need both parents not just Mothers!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes there are men who manipulate the system to try and see their children. Despite being perpetrators of domestic violence. However they are being propaganda merchants. Parental Alienation is real and effects both genders of non-resident parents. There are substantial amount of Mothers who now use the law system to play victim in order to gain legal aid and ostracize non-resident Fathers. Using false allegations too gain upper hand in child residency battles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“there are men who manipulate the system to try and see their children. Despite being perpetrators of domestic violence. However they are being propaganda merchants.”
Why shouldn’t men (or women) try to see their children, even if they have perpetrated modern, widely-defined “domestic violence” against those children or the other parents of them who wish to deny them this contact? Why does their attempting to explain this need in the courts in terms of the “parental alienation” concept add up to “manipulating the system” or “being propaganda merchants” in your opinion?
LikeLike
I wish I had been contacted before all off this false propaganda, I am the person who set up the march against parental Alienation (an alienated mother ) the irony!!
LikeLiked by 2 people
We get a fair few alienated mothers at FNF help meetings.
LikeLike
Hi John
We have met in the past . I have been to a few FNF meetings and a screening of the red pill at Exeter university. Although the meetings are difficult for me to get to as I work shifts
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Clare
Nice to hear from you again.
Have you read about the extreme example of parental alienation that led to the Hampstead (or “Hoaxstead”) witch hunt that started in 2015 and which ended up this year with Sabine McNeill getting jailed for nine years because she was totally taken in by the perp, who is still on the run from Interpol after “torturing” her children (as Mrs Justice Pauffley put it, in a judgment in open court)? I reblogged Karen Woodall’s blog post about that on my own blog, but this blog won’t allow the title of that post to appear in a comment, in case something unspecified, so you’ll have to search for it if you want to read it.
Kind regards,
John
LikeLike
Wow…… How can people be some dumb!!! As its happenss…. So muc all over the world! And from speaking from my own personal loss!!! Wake up…… People!!!
LikeLike
“How can people be so dumb!!!”
People just can be dumb. Yourself included, alas, and myself for that matter. People can easily be deceived, and recruited by parasitic, divisive ideologies.
What happens is a combination of self-righteousness and projection. People who have suffered poor relationships, blame the others involved exclusively, exonerating themselves. They simplify their selective memories to fit.
When they hear somebody else’s sob story, they distort it enough in their minds to become able to identify with it, as another grievance that they “realise” fits a “pattern” that they claim has begun to “emerge”. Before long, the usual generalisations begin.
The mechanism by which the ideology of feminism thus maintains its hegenomy, isn’t very different from the mechanisms by which other hate groups’ ideologies prosper.
Alienators, who are abusers by definition, often falsely allege abuse, in order to alienate and (worse still) to persuade a gullible state to enable their alienation. Aware that even the state is becoming aware of this, extremely abusive parents from whom the other parents and the state jolly-well ought to separate their children, are naturally beginning to try to pervert the course of justice, by making false accusations of alienation. The courts need wisdom, to detect both frauds.
Ideologues tend to peddle one or other of two alternative narratives as what is *always* going on.
LikeLike
And lets not forget that PA can be perpetrated by Social workers and Foster carers leaving birth parents cut off from their children.
LikeLike
Just wondering if this post is going to be cleared. its still waiting moderation after 3 days ?
LikeLike
Which post? We don’t have any of your comments awaiting moderation.
LikeLike
Its from April 30, 2019 at 10:49 pm and i can see it now above your reply.
it states
“And lets not forget that PA can be perpetrated by Social workers and Foster carers leaving birth parents cut off from their children.”
LikeLike
I haven’t authorised any comments in the last few minutes as I’ve been at work.
LikeLike
Also this post is still waiting moderation.
April 30, 2019 at 11:30 pm
“Alfie Evans’ non-existent coroner’s inquest – what are they trying to hide?”
Looks like you got the usual response from a public office. minimal logic then Cut off.
LikeLike
There is nothing awaiting moderation.
LikeLike
My apologies, Dr M, WordPress had a moment, I think perhaps due to the traffic on the site and just gave up notifying me about comments coming in. There were ten comments pending in a separate section, not just from you but submitted by other readers as well, which I had to source in the end. Hopefully that’s all been resolved.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with equal rights for men and women especially in Rape cases.
Therefore:-
1:- Both accuser and accused should have anonymity in rape cases (or neither)
2: Both accuser and accused should give their phones to the police (or neither)
Equal treatment for both is surely the only fair way to manage such cases.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Leading Women’s Groups Left Outraged Over BBC’s Parental Alienation Show | Researching Reform – Parental Alienation
Women should not suffer any form of abuse, but that goes both ways, men should not suffer any form of abuse either, those who deny women abuse men are simply deluded, biased or misandrists.
Women’s groups who deny this or that Parental Alienation exist, and that the majority of perpetrators are women, are not helping women because they simply deepen prejudice, harm children and do not move on the debate about equality.
The crime stats tell us that as many women abuse or allow the abuse of children as men, but men are generally seen as the perpetrators. Look at how many women have stood by and allowed or ignored the abuse of their children by males…please don’t cleat they are victims, they can call 999 or simply stab the sick bastard..CHILDREN COME FIRST ALWAYS.
I was alienated from my children for 14 months due to poor advice from a Barrister to the mother of my children when we split. She was talked into making all kinds of outlandish claims, thankfully never accusing me of harming my children, and that drove me to the brink of suicide. According to the Samaritans about 800-1200 fathers do commit suicide each year in the UK as a result of being blocked from their children or because of false and malicious allegations.
Yes, abuse of any description by any perpetrator, male or female, or this new bloody Gender neutral crap, is unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue. But this is no excuse for a father or a mother to be blocked from their child unless they present a very real and clear danger to that child.
This is not about Mum or Dad, it is about the children, pure and simple. Women’s groups should get behind and support the likes of PAPA (Parents against Parental Alienation) because they are fighting for equality and for changes to the law that will not only protect the rights of children to see both parents, but protect the rights of anyone, not matter their gender.
If Women’s groups really want equality and justice, then they should support the fight. Women who perpetrate PA or any other form of abuse should be highlighted as not representative of Women as a whole – but perpetrators of PA, male or female, do not need criminal charges, that simply shift the alienation from one parent to the other, they need court imposed counselling and assistance to see that their behaviour harms their children.
It is a fact that children from broken homes, who are alienated from one parent or the other, regardless of the cause of the alienation, are more likely to have severe behavioural problems, drug abuse, self harm, general mental health issues and these often follow them into adulthood with all the negative impact that has.
Instead of attacking the discussion of PA, it should be encouraged and brought out into the open because it is simply another form of child abuse, recognised in many US states, Canada, Australia and South Africa to name a few.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ James Franklin
I’ve “liked” your long comment. Generally, I agreed with the sentiments you expressed. I spotted a few sentences I thought were open to misinterpretation though. Please be careful how you express yourself. Feel free to contact me.
LikeLike