Brian Robertson
Fax: +44-1223-366274
Phone: 0122-335-3430
What follows is a frightening demonstration of the power of the anti-male establishment in action in the UK. It outlines a female Mp's attempt via legal means to silence a mens' and fathers' rights group distributing leaflets outlining the social and personal costs of fatherlessness.
The Cambridge Group was formed to promote Men and Father rights in the UK by active campaigning. We challenge the philosophy which holds that children need a father less than a mother. We challenge: government institutions, corporations, and the media; to end gender-apartheid against men.
The group is an umbrella organization consisting of members from other groups such as FNF, NACSA, UKMM, Cheltenham Group etc. The group was set-up to build effective strategies and campaigns aimed at creating a more just, and fair society.
Two MPs constituencies were leafleted this weekend 19/20-Apr-97. On Saturday members from FNF and UKMM leafleted an area in Erewash near Nottingham. This group had obviously struck home as there was a message from Hayward Burt (Tel: 01332-874674) of Angela Knight's campaign headquarters on my answerphone when I returned.
Also on Saturday members from FNF and UKMM including a 5 year old child handed out leaflets in two areas in Dagenham East. Judith Church was the standing MP for this area. We even encountered a Labour group and one of their members took off his rosette and came to collect one of our leaflets.
On Sunday members continued to leaflet a number of areas in Erewash. All in all there were probably 800 leaflets handed out in Dagenham and 1500 in Erewash. Publicity was not given in advance in order to avoid injunctions. This restricted the number of helpers available.
Below is a copy of the text of the leaflet that was distributed in Dagenham East. A partial copy of the Sunday Express page 19 article dated 6-Oct-96 was reproduced on the reverse side. The leaflet distributed in Erewash had almost identical text but had a partial copy of the Daily Mail page 3 article dated 20-Jan-97 reproduced on the reverse side.
Does your MP support child abuse?
Britain is the divorce capital of Europe. This affects about 190,000 children a year, half of whom will lose all contact with their father within three years. Studies have linked the rise in crime, drug abuse, and under achievement at school directly to the loss of a father. Many fathers make great efforts to keep in touch but find themselves pushed out and denied access to their children. We have a simple name for this kind of behaviour. We call it child abuse.
Questions you should ask your election candidates:
Should Parliament support the family?
Social changes have caused the state to switch support away from the traditional and towards alternative families. We know that divorce damages children. The state pays incrementally more to raise children in broken families than it spends on our defence budget. This is over 20 billion pounds every year!
Should fathers be more involved with their children?
At present 91% of lone parent households are mother-headed. It is time to move on. The Family Court system must stop producing fatherless children. When a separated parent works long hours and is often away from home it is complete lunacy to entrust the care of the children to a total stranger (such as a nanny) when the other loving parent is available.
Is crime linked to family break-up?
20 years ago having your car stolen or your home burgled was rare. Now epode consider this normal. Every social ill such as: crime, delinquency, and poor school performance has been conclusively linked to family break-up. Having a natural father present is one of the best forms of juvenile crime prevention and child protection.
The love of a parent is too precious an asset to waste CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS The Cambridge Group
0122-335-3430
I was first contacted by Hayward Burt (Tel: 0133-287-4674) who was the campaign manager for Angela Knight, he seemed to be very angry about the leafleting, he claimed I had broken two rules: not publishing the address of the printer, and exceeding election expenses(?). Next I heard from Amina Somers (Tel: 0114-276-7777) of the Leeds solicitors Ermin Mitchell, she seemed very concerned to have the leafleting stopped.
On Monday afternoon 21-Apr-97 I had a visit from two 'concerned grandparents' Maureen and David Sumner (Tel: 0114-248-6681). They had a faxed copy of our leaflet which only had our phone number. They claimed that they had been given the address from a friend who worked for British Telecom. They had rung the number, listened to the answerphone message, not left a message, and then driven down from Chesterfield (a 3 hour drive) without making any appointment. They were very interested in any written material I may have. Although I left them with the phone number of a grandmother who could help them they never rang this number.
I was also phoned by Graham Hessey (Tel: 0115-946-0254) at Erewash who said he was from the Referendum party. He had contacted both Labour and Conservative parties and told me that special branch had been notified about the leafleting. On Monday evening at 8:00pm I was served a prohibited steps order under section 8 (1) of the children Act 1989.
There were a number of other calls over the next few days from Dagenham and Erewash but none of them hostile. Typical of them was the social worker from Dagenham who was very worried about the number of pedophiles on the loose. I explained we also were concerned about this and that these people overwhelmingly came from broken homes and that the best protection against this was to support marriage.
On 13-May-97 I was contacted by Harry Smithfield (Tel: 01954-211073) who was most interested in the Cambridge Group and in a divorce problem. Dialing 141 gave the information that the caller had withheld their number, dialing the number gave number unobtainable. There is no Harry Smithfield listed in the phone book and directory esquires could not help me either. I rang the Conservative association (Tel: 01954-211450) and explained the story to the lady who answered. She explained that they have only women who work there and she refused to give me her name. 'Harry Smithfield' also did not contact the local FNF number that he was given.
In the SHEFFIELD County Court
EX-PARTE
Section 8 (1) Children Act 1989 Case Number 94D1729 21st April 1997UPON HEARING Counsel for the Petitioner (Mother) [Angela Knight MP] and UPON READING a document headed "Does your MP support child abuse?" issued by "The Cambridge Group"
IT IS ORDERED THAT
The Cambridge Group, anyone associated with it and anyone acting on its behalf (which expression is to include anyone given copies of the said document for the purpose of distributing these to others) is prohibited from distributing one above or any information relating to the children XXXXX or XXXXX XXXX. etc. etc.His Honour Judge Goldsack Q.C.
On 3-Jul-97 I was visited by Const Craddock (CID) of the Cambridgeshire police (Tel: 01223-358966). He said that on 9-Jul-97 two police officers from Derbyshire would like to interview me in the Cambridge police station. He said that he does not know anything about what the interview will be about. We had a general conversation and he informed me that he ad been badly treated by the divorce courts. He seemed genuinely sympathetic to many of my points.
Last time I looked we had freedom of speech in this country. We have not yet reached the stage where distributing a leaflet is a crime against the state.
It seems that a great many people are going to a great deal of trouble in order to extinguish freedom of speech. Where is this backlash coming from? Is it the Conservative party with sour grapes who are sore losers? Is there Masonic involvement? Is the legal system reacting because it feels a major source of income is being threatened? Is feminism involved here? Or is it a powerful cocktail of all of these interests?
We have been advised that the prohibited steps order is not lawful. The prohibited steps order is related to a parent or anyone with parental responsibility from carrying out an act that a parent would normally do. Distributing a leaflet is hardly that.
A newspaper article I read a while back suggested that campaign groups would be allowed to campaign in the future due to recent rulings. It is in the interests of the voters to be informed about issues and their MPs, as long as the information is truthful and not libelous. The newspaper article was already public domain, and the leaflet front page never mentioned the MP or who to vote for. In fact the leaflet invited voters to question their candidates about family issues, a most important issue.
It is in the public interest to be informed about the abuse of children's rights to see their fathers and of the damage done to children and society by fatherless families.
The leaflet could make a voter decide either way. A single mum may be more inclined to vote for the MP featured in the newspaper article. All the Cambridge Group did was raise the issue.
Why at times when British MPs are: taking cash for questions, when they are lying in high court, when they are engaging in illegal arms shipments to Iraq; why, are they so concerned about a group distributing a leaflet? It is most important that the public should question what our rulers are doing in the interests of justice. This greater principle must be upheld.
If you would like to support this campaign please fax your message of support including your name, organization name (if any)and your fax number or email address. Please fax this to:
Brian Robertson
Fax: +44-1223-366274
| Home | July | Features | Columns | OrgNews | Boutique | Directory | Links | Definitions |
Email to the Editor -- If you don't want it published in the "Email to the Editor" column, say so. Otherwise, it may be published.