COVERT UK STATE MOTIVES


The UNLAWFUL Covert United Kingdom State Motive


Based on my own factual and documented experiences, it is my belief that the are 2 primary reasons (see below) for enforcing an internationally unlawful policy of greater than 95% [1] custody rate to one gender (mothers) in the United Kingdom by some seriously misconceived individuals. The best interests of the children don't even come into play, the execution of 1989 Children Act, The UN Convention On The International Rights Of A Child (1992) and other mandatory Law are freely and openly abused by corrupt organisations such as CAFCASS, the secret Family Courts and their agents. The frequently used and bogus claim by many i.e. CAFCASS, solicitors, barristers etc. that Family Court secrecy exists to protect the best interests of children is frankly putting it mildly, total horse manure and a blatant lie.

Primary Reasons

There is still a strong view (wrongly) that the mothers place is in the home and the fathers place is at work. There is also a view (supported by >95% mother custody) that ALL female make PERFECT mothers and ALL males are  (wrongly) imbeciles, totally incapable of any child care and/or they do not love their children. In the true interests of the children, there is no place for such gender bias in a modern democratic civilized society. Yet the UK Legal services and its agents still hold this view and again, this is supported by the >95% mother custody in the United Kingdom.
Generally speaking, in most cases (not all in this day and age), following discussion and agreement, and the fact that fathers do not receive long periods of paid paternity leave,  it will be the male partner who will usually have the greatest income capacity (not always) and thus on this basis, by mutual understanding and agreement the female partner will most likely remain at home to look after the children.
As I will show later, this fact is perversely used by State bodies and the plethora legal agents together with CAFCASS to justify mother custody irrespective of any other factors including whether the mother is acting against the best interests of children or not. The victims of such abuses are children.
Following break-up of a marriage, in order to reduce the financial load on the State (a seriously misconceived logic), it is far easier to systematically and clinically asset strip  one parent (usually the father) and intensively use them as mere wage slaves to provide financial income for the other parent (usually the mother). The interests of the children do not come into play whatsover.
The alternative option is too politically damaging and wrongly perceived too costly for the State, i.e. The rare instance father given is child custody  (much less than 5% in the UK), assumes (wrongly)  loss/reduction in income, less taxation and it also means as the ex-wife who will most likely been at home, will have no immediate income, and as such she will then have to claim substantial benefits and pose a burden to the State.
The UK State solution by some seriously misconceived persons - clinically asset strip and shaft the male partner for everything, because they know that males will receive less publicity and the false wide perception that fathers cannot care for and/or have no feelings for their own children. The alternative to make decisions which are truly in the best interests of the children, and take children away from a wrongdoer, an abusive mother who harms her her own children, would be too politically sensitive and damaging as it goes against perceived stereotypes of the role of a mother and the press would have a field day with such news.

Secondary Reasons

The UK Administration are fully aware that relying on the fact that partners will fight back and this in itself keeps alive a highly lucrative and booming industry of barristers, solicitors, Court selected/appointed agents, Court administration, CAFCASS and its financially excited agents of biased solicitors, psychologists and mediation centres, etc... Most (but not all) of the time, the UK Legal Board fund will be tapped into and abused, hence the reason for the current escalating Legal Aid Board bill. On top of this, the State also benefits from destruction of the nuclear family unit, as it means effectively a double source of taxation. Equal Parenting etc. has been on the table for decades, but I am sure you can conclude why these options are resisted and have never moved - perverse - agencies, lawyers, barristers, courts etc all stand to loose mountains of cash from the booming immoral and conscienceless industry of child abuse...
 

Impact Of Nationally & Internationally UNLAWFUL Covert State Practices Includes

It’s not surprising that the UK has the worst divorce rate (over 50% in 2005) in Europe if not the World, with over 90% of the divorce applications being launched by women for ANY reason. Why not I ask (perverse)?... They are GUARANTEED by the UK State Authorities whatever they want, helpless children and others are just treated with gutter contempt and as insignificant objects of mere collateral damage and easy revenue streams.

Children issues continue to escalate in the real open World which are alien to the UK’s secret family courts and CAFCASS. One of a string of examples includes the UK Channel-4 Documentary (“Geldof On Fathers”) presented by Sir Geldof on the 21.10.2004, whose comments were absolutely explicit and scathing at the way the UK Family Courts abuse children and fathers including “State sponsored child abuse”, who also promote over “93%” custody to mothers, where the mothers standard route to justify custody is the mantra of false allegations of domestic violence (DV), and where fathers are used are mere “wage slaves”. The “cost of breakdown leading to single parent families  costing the state £15billion/year” (mothers).

This cost quoted by Sir Geldof is just peanuts compared to  MASSIVE cost to the UK Trade and Industry,  caused as a direct result of oppressing, harassing, intimidating and abusing parents to jobless and abject poverty. Which employer will employ someone who has their primary focus elsewhere? or an employee that continually underperforms owing to external influences outside their control? or one that does not know when that employee will be in to work or not? or one that has to take off vast amounts of time, or one that cannot be put into any position of responsibility owing to risk and damage to the business?...etc..

Financials aside and more importantly, the astronomical social costs to society of these unlawful practices includes:- destruction of the nuclear family unit, increased criminality, worsening mental health; teenage pregnancies; self-harming; rape; suicides; obesity; bullying, drug addiction and truancy. See www.familieslink.co.uk and www.un1503petition.com for more.

Sheffield Hallam University, commissioned by the UK Government published a report on 18.01.2006, which showed, that of those households whose members terrorise their neighbourhoods, 80% were without fathers i.e. the mother was the sole carer.

Government agencies blatantly and knowingly make press releases demonising fathers or children when their own studies how that what is being presented to the general public is a blatant lie. On the other hand, they play lip service to any evidence and/or studies that show mothers are greater perpetrators of abuses to children; there is no statistical significant difference between mother and father (LCD's Study 191 and others) as perpetrators of domestic violence.

On the other hand, when the government or its organs are challenged, including the Courts, there is a systematic denial that exits any bias against fathers and children, reminiscent of PRE-NAZI GERMANY.

[1] The 95% one parent custody (mothers) are from various sources including, Sir Geldof, The Times (UK) and private discussions with MPs, Court Officials and even a judge. These figures have yet been unchallenged or undisputed by the Court Service or for that matter the Department Of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) in the UK.
 

[Click here to sign the petition To The United Nations To Stop The Abuse To Children]
 

 

[back to website homepage]