As part of the continuing campaign to seek Justice for Fathers and Children in our Family Courts and changes to the Law we are launching informal Suffragents Clubs throughout the UK.

An ideal opportunity for fathers and extended family/friends to interact on the best way to seek Justice for Fathers and their children. If there are mums out there who would benefit then please join.



A/     To seek 50/50 Shared Parenting to be set as the default presumption.

B/     No Fault Divorces to reduce acrimonious and costly legal battles,

C/     To have the unique contribution of both parents in children’s lives recognised

D/     To eliminate charges to Non Resident Parents using Contact Centres

E/     To seek a review on the sexist presumption that women are better carers than men,

F/      A forensic examination is required if accused of ‘Unreasonable Behaviour.

G/     ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ to be the key for Justice, not a balance of probability

H/     To accept that children have UN rights to both parents

J/      To examine that both partners can work and follow the European model

K/     That a more realistic approach to Financial Arrangements is adopted



Each club to be locally lead.

I suggest 19.30 – 22.00 hrs in a local Hotel or other place for a social gathering, without loud music,

I suggest a maximum of 20 per club to allow opportunities for all to contribute.

At least two/three topics to be discussed, notes to follow

A small donation of £1 to be collected and forwarded to one of these active Charities, each third month.

1/     Families Need Fathers-Both Parents Matter  Month 1

2/     Mankind Initiative                                         Month 2

3/     Dad’s House                                                   Month 3


In other words it will cost £1 per meeting for a good cause.


Opportunities for Pro-Bono Solicitors and McKenzie Friends to be asked to chat with members,

I should also wish that invitations are offered to outside ‘Services’ to show our inclusion to see if opinions are in the best interests of children.

These are not to be turned into secretive anti-woman events, rather that serious discussion takes place for the sake of Justice for kids.

Already people are expressing interest from Aberdeen to Plymouth. These will be your local gathering points to build a National Pressure Group seeking change.

Please respond to in order that I can fill the map with local opportunities. Can you also indicate your willingness or otherwise to lead an informal group and locate a suitable meeting place in your town.

We do not wish to take away from the admirable work that many groups offer but we feel that open and face to face interaction can give support to one another at this particularly stressful time where currently men are at a disadvantage in being treated fairly and it will be the children, our next generation, that will suffer.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to the development of this next stage as promised in our quest for Equality.

Grandparents particularly are welcome as well as partners in second relationships.


Kids need both!

Why both parents are VITAL for a balanced, healthy child

A recent article in the Daily Mail, entitled ‘One-Parent link to smoking and drinking at 11’, showed that children who grow up in a single parent household are likely to smoke or drink at an early age. These results were found after the University College London questioned nearly 11,000 children who had ‘lost’ a parent through separation, divorce or death. This theory is further explored by German biologist Anna Katharina Braun who conducted research on Degu pups, animals that are characteristically raised by two parents (less than 10% of animal species raise offspring with two parents), to look at how it affected their behaviour. Obviously we can’t directly apply the results of these findings to that of a human, especially as our frontal cortex is a lot more complex than in any animal, but the basic wiring between the brain regions in the degus is the same as with us. In addition to this, the nerve cells function is identical so they are a good place to start.

As explained in an article published in the Neuroscience journal[1], the experiment split the degus into two groups. Half were raised with both parents while the other half were raised by just the mum (they removed the father one day after the birth). The primary difference they found was in the amount of interaction the pups received from their parents. In two parent families, both parents cared for their partners in the same way; sleeping next to them, grooming them, playing them etc. However, with a single mum, the interaction between mum and her pups was a lot less frequent so they received less touching and affection. This can easily be applied to parenting, and has by many studies. Single parent households generally mean less quality time is spent with the child. This can be for a variety of reasons; a single parent needs to work to bring in an income and complete the errands associated with running a home (cooking, cleaning, shopping etc) meaning there is less time available to spend with the child(ren). This restriction often leads to single parents having lower educational attainment (although it can be assumed this is in relation to young mothers who may struggle to continue their education), less social support and poorer psychological well being (Usalki, 2013[2]). By having both parents available to the child(ren), whether married or co parenting, parental responsibilities can shared meaning the child gets the attention they need without sole responsibility falling on one parent.

Another interesting result of the degu experiment is the effect being raised by one parent had on the pups. Those who had just one parent were more aggressive and impulsive than those raised by two. This theory was supported by Rosie Taylor in her Daily Mail article and Usalki who stated in his report ‘Comparison of Single and Two Parents Children in terms of Behavioral Tendencies’  that the most ‘common problems seen in single parent families’ children are depression, stress, loneliness, aggression, compliance, smoke, alcohol and narcotics’. To help further support the argument that children need two parents, Usalki goes on to show five different research bodies who have shown that, generally, two parent families have better cognitive and behavioral outcomes compared with children who have ever lived in single-parent families. This disruptive behaviour will come from a weakened relationship with the single parent (for reasons mentioned throughout) and from a feeling of guilt over the divorce and confusion as to why they no longer see the dad they were previously raised by. These feelings can disappear overtime but, at least in my case, there is always an underlying feeling of hurt that can affect normal day to day behaviour.  This instability can affect their ability to feel emotionally close to their fathers or feel they can turn to them in order to discuss problems that they may not be able to speak to their mothers about. This frustration and confusion can quickly turn into aggressive, violent behaviour. A report by Patrick F Fagan and Aaron Churchill[3] explained the results of an experiment by David P. Farrington, Professor of Criminology at Cambridge, found that those who experienced divorce before the age of 10 were more likely to experience adolescent delinquency and adult criminality.[4] As they grow up, adolescents will display more antisocial and violent behaviour than adolescents brought up in ‘intact families’ (Breivik K and Olweus D).

We appreciate that marriages breakdown and that, sometimes, people have no other choice than to walk away. We’re not against this, infact we have know many people raised by divorced parents leading healthy, happy lives. The main factor is that both parents work together as the unit they once were for the sake of the child. We’re not saying it won’t be difficult, especially as you work your way through the divorce proceedings, but putting on a strong face for your children is vital for their upbringing – an opinion echoed by hundreds of dads on our Facebook page who are desperate to see their children again! At one point, they were considered great partners but, as soon as the marriage or relationship breaks down, they are forced to see their children for just a few days every other week.

[1] Wang, S (2009) This Is Your Brain Without Dad, The Wall Street Journal

[2] Usakli, H (2013) Comparison of Single and Two Parents Children in terms of Behavioral Tendencies. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, pg 256-269

[3] Fagan P and Churchill A (2012) The Effects of Divorce on Children, Marri Research

[4] David P. Farrington (1990), “Implications of Criminal Career Research for the Prevention of Offending,” Journal of Adolescence 13: 93-113.

Why is male domestic abuse taboo whilst women are being encouraged to speak out?

Young girls are taught that we are never to stay in a relationship where we’re hit, controlled or treated as anything other than a queen by our partners. Boys, in turn, are taught to treat women with respect and be a perfect gentleman. These are perfectly acceptable rules and, over time, have become a societal norm but things need to change.  According to an article by Siobhan Fenton in the Independent, the number of women convicted of domestic violence is at a record high. This could be due to the fact that more existing male victims are choosing to come forward about their experiences or that society is getting less tolerant of it but 5,641 women were convicted of perpetuating male domestic violence in 2015. Apart from a slight dip in 2012-2013, this has been an alarming trend since 2006 and yet male victims are given nowhere near the same budget as female victims to campaign or offered support by the police or courts – they are alone in their fights.


Graph shows the shocking rise in abuse perpetuated by women.

Societal perceptions
A major part of the problem is societies perception of females hitting males. A large proportion of people seem to think that this is acceptable and that it is nowhere near as bad as a male hitting a female. An example of this double standard was shown in a societal experiment conducted by ManKind that flipped the roles on domestic abuse and tested what a crowd would do if they saw a male hit a female. To make the experiment fair, they first had a male attack the female. As to be expected, when the male actor shouts and shoves the female actress, the passing crowd were furious and intervened quickly to protect the female victim. However, when the tables were turned and the female adopted the aggressive role, not a single passerby got involved. They either walked pass or, in the most shocking act at all, even laughed at what was happening. If you want to see this experiment for yourself, click here. These results do pose a more serious question though – why is females abusing males seen as funny whilst the opposite as seen as horrendous? Men experience exactly the same emotions when abused as females do, they have just been made to feel that it’s a sign of weakness to express their feelings the same way.

So what can we do? Unfortunately, there is no quick solution to this problem. There are some seemingly obvious fixes that would go a long way to helping such as allocating some of the £80 million a year dedicated to female abuse victims to male abuse victims, using both male and females in promotional material so it becomes a ‘norm’ (not normal that they are hit but normal that both sexes can be hit) or not promoting laws that refer to solely protecting woman and girls. These are not immediate fixes, and will take time, but don’t get disheartened there are five crucial things you can do in the mean time.

The biggest thing you can do is talk about domestic violence. Talk about it with your friends, talk about it with your family and talk about it with your children. The more we talk about it and bring it out into the open, the less taboo it becomes. Throughout these discussions, keep your language gender neutral. Make it clear that it is just as bad for a woman to hit a man as it is for a man to hit a woman, that no one should make you feel inferior, especially not a partner and encourage them to defy the gender stereotypes and discuss any problems or concerns they have in their relationships. Many men stay in abusive relationships longer than they should because they are embarrassed to admit that they are being abused by a women – reiterate that this is nothing to be ashamed off and is as frowned upon by society as a man abusing a female.

Share, share, share!
Social media is an incredibly powerful thing. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is the most powerful mainstream communication of the 21st century, so let’s use it. Firstly, join the Suffragents Facebook and Twitter page to join a community of over 9,000 followers, all of which are fighting for the same thing: justice. Join in the discussions we have, then share and retweet our statuses on your page to get people talking about it. Not just our statuses either. Share pictures, articles, blogs and anything that you find that you think the world needs to know. It doesn’t have to just be positive either, use your social media to call out people in powers (MP, celebrities etc.) that are saying things that encourage sexism or imply, in any way, that domestic violence only happens to women. This includes released reports such as Women’s Aid ‘Nineteen Child Homicides’  which horrifyingly implied that the secret courts should make it even harder for fathers to get access to their children (read more about it here)

Question those in power, question reports that put fault at the feet of a single sex (both female and male) such as the latest report by Women’s Aid and question your local MP’s. Visit their surgeries, write them letters/emails and ring them. Make it difficult for them to ignore the clear lack in support they have from the police as victims and from the judicial courts as fathers.  To make this even easier for you, we have collected the details of all the MP’s in the UK (available here). These are sorted by constituency so you’ll be able to find the details you need quickly.

Sign our manifesto
We have worked hard to create a manifest entitled ‘Manifesto for Mens Rights: Children and Grandparents in Divorce Cases’. Each of the 35 points have been made after scrupulous research, discussion and planning. It has been designed with the aim of changing the law so that fathers get treated exactly the same as mothers in the eyes of the secret family courts. It is long but not fully developed yet. Read through the points and let us know what you think by emailing us at – no point is too small so, if you think it needs adding, let us know! Once it is fully formed, and we’re sure we haven’t missed anything off of it, we will try and push it through to parliament and make a change that is long overdue and desperately needed.

Finally – fill in our survey!
The founder of Suffragents recently met with a Police and Crimes Commissioner at a social event. Ever the opportunist, he asked the PCC why women are given so much help whilst male victims are pushed to the backburner and left to fend on their own. The PCC informed him that, despite the ONS acknowledging a massive 40% of domestic violence is against men (which I strongly believe is incorrect as we know men under report cases), they believe women are more abused which is why they get their help. This is where we need your help. As of 4.30pm on the 10/10/2016, we were approaching 9,500 followers on Facebook, and we need each and every one of them to fill in our survey! This survey has just 40 questions and should take no longer than 5 minutes and will ask you questions regarding your experiences with the police in regards to the abuse. This can change the future for victims everywhere so it is vital you do it – otherwise you can’t complain!

Child first? Not likely!

William Collins tears apart Womens Aid’s claims that the family courts should make it harder for fathers to see their children. It makes for intriguing reading!

According to a report written by William Collins, 330 children were culpably killed between 2009 – 2015 (not including suicide). These cases have been subjected to Serious Case Reviews (hereby known as SCR) by the Child Protection Authorities. This in itself is not an issue; we believe all suspicious child deaths should be investigated so the culprit can be brought to justice,  but it needs to be clear that it is not only fathers who perpetuate these crimes. In fact, Williams states that ‘more mothers are responsible for the deaths of children than are fathers and other male partners combined’.

When Women’s Aid released a report called ‘Child First: Nineteen Child Homicides’, we were intrigued. Their mission statement appeared noble at first:

“The national domestic abuse charity Women’s Aid has today launched a major new campaign, Child First. The campaign calls on the family courts and the Government to put the safety of children back at the heart of all decisions made by the family court judiciary. Child First launches alongside the report, Nineteen Child Homicides. The report tells the stories of the cases of nineteen children, all intentionally killed by a parent who was also a known perpetrator of domestic abuse. These killings were made possible through unsafe child contact arrangements, formal and informal. Over half of these child contact arrangements were ordered through the courts.”

If this was all they had quoted, then we would have fully backed them. We believe that the safety of children should be put at the forefront of all family court decisions. Finally it looked as if both fathers and mothers would get a fair chance at being the parent they deserve to be rather than fathers automatically being at a disadvantage. However, the opening quote gave the report a damningly biased outlook from the very start:

“No parent should have to hold their children and comfort them as they die” – Claire Throssell, mother to Jack and Paul, both killed in 2014 by their father

As we read on we found that, unsurprisingly, Women’s Aid had created a completely biased report. William argues, and provides solid evidence to back it up, that it is not only biased but is ‘staggeringly dishonest’. This report can change the future for children everywhere and is picking up steam – Women’s Aid appeared in the House of Commons on Thursday 15th September regarding their Child First campaign – so it needs to be accurate, clear and concise. We are not implying that deaths at the hands of fathers do not occur, we are also not so naïve as to say that women and children haven’t been abused at the hands of fathers – BUT – it works both ways. In fact, as shown below, it is more commonly the mother/female partner.

As part of their report, Women’s aid meticulously searched through 12 years of SCR data using the following criteria: 1. A child had been killed. 2. The perpetrator was the child’s parent and had perpetrated domestic abuse against the other parent. 3. The parents were separated and child contact had been arranged informally or formally.

For this blog we will ignore the fact that, as William states in his report, it hardly seems fair to judge family courts on ‘informal’ arrangements that have not been arranged through them. Using the criteria above, Women’s Aid narrowed the findings significantly to just 12 cases. Although they stated that they ‘did not apply any exclusion criteria regarding the gender of the perpetrator of domestic abuse’, not surprisingly, all cases showed the male as the aggressor. I say unsurprising not because I expect it to be this way but that I knew Women’s Aid wouldn’t want to supply any information that showed women to be the destructive party. A truth evidenced by their exclusion of the Samira Lupidi case in their publication of Nineteen Child Homicides. Samira Lupidi was separating from her partner and had sought refuge at one of Women’s Aids homes. Whilst in the refuge, she stabbed her two daughters to death. Nor do they mention the two homicides William found where mothers have killed their children while they were on ‘contact’ visits. Everything presented in the sickeningly biased report is gender biased which is not only unfair but very dangerous for the future of fathers everywhere.

As part of his compelling evidence (compelling for us, damning for Women’s Aid), Williams presented a table showing the Summary of Statistics Obtained from Serious Case Reviews of Childs Deaths. This summary reports number of deaths, whether SCR were involved and the perpetrator amongst other things. As you can see in the highlighted area below, in nearly all cases the mother is the perpetrator more than the father.


You could argue that the statistic is higher because mothers get custody of their children primarily but, with figures like this showing the significant difference in the cause of children’s deaths, maybe the courts should reassess the way in which they decide who wins custody battles.

Within Williams’s extensive report, he shows seven different cases (including Samira Lupidi) where a child has been killed either while on contact with their mother or after the father has been subject to a non molestation order or criminal accusation. Yet Women’s Aid reportedly couldn’t find a single one? Perhaps they need better researchers. Another important statistic to note is that, throughout his research, Williams could not find a single case where the murdered child had been living full time with the father or male carer. This is quite a significant contrast to the 61 identified single mothers who have been responsible for 67 child deaths.

After reading the full report, including the damning conclusion, I have to agree with Williams. It appears that Women’s Aid are using the much needed review into family courts as a smoke screen to make it even harder for fathers to be given contact with their children. You expect a slight amount of bias from an organisation designed to protect women, as you would any organisation, but to use such a sensitive subject as nothing more than a smoke screen is abhorrent. It’s a shame really. They managed to secure the first ever parliamentary debate regarding unsafe and unjust child contact orders – and floundered it on their one sided agenda.

Story of domestic violence against men is hidden, complicated and disputed

Does this remind you of the arrogance of those that deny that men need help. Domestic Violence is Gender Neutral but there are those who make money out of carrying on with being deniers of the issues concerning men and the subsequent reflection on the children’s behaviour and upbringing. What is the difficult problem facing the acceptance of truth.

Article by Cathy Moore in the Brisbane Times.

Thomas Parker, 21, sits in an empty room staring into his glass of whiskey and coke with two black eyes. He says he’s a happy person but the tears welling in his eyes tell a different story.

“Well I used to be a happy person. I couldn’t find one person that would call me angry or depressed,” he says. “But the domestic violence, the stuff she has done to me, it’s fucked with my head.”

Parker swallows his tears along with his last half of whiskey and coke. Another male victim of domestic violence whose story has gone untold.

Continue reading “Story of domestic violence against men is hidden, complicated and disputed”

Men don’t need self esteem anyway!

MP Philip Davies recently shared his disgust at the fact that women don’t have to wear uniform in prison as it may affect their self esteem, however, men can only earn the right.

This question triggered a research project that not only exposed gender inequality within prisons but also within the sentencing structure.

This blog post started with one simple question, asked by a colleague:

 “Did you know that female prisoners don’t have to wear uniforms in prison as it may affect their self esteem?”

This question triggered a research project that not only exposed gender inequality within prisons but also within the sentencing structure (more about that in our next blog). It began by reading through the PSO 4800: Guidance notes on gender specific standards focusing on woman prisoners, a document written against the background of the new Gender Equality Duty (April 2007), to see what rules apply directly to woman.  I would like to say that I’ve conducted a thorough comparison between the guidance notes for men and woman but I couldn’t find one for men specifically. There was an information booklet, written by the Ministry of Justice, for male prisoners and young offenders but does not have the same format, or detail, as the PSO so any comparison would be futile.

Subsection 3 of Category G: ‘Day to day living’ focuses on the property and clothing of female prisoners.  Within this section, which takes reference from Her Majesty’s Prison Service (HMPS) Standard, states that most male prisoners wear prison issue clothing and exchange dirty for clean from the prison laundry whereas women should be allowed to wear their own clothing?  The reasoning behind this decision was that

‘Women do not wear uniform and have not for many years. It is generally recognized that part of the rehabilitation for many women prisoners involves the ability to maintain and raise self-esteem. Self-esteem is linked to many women with personal appearance. Many women will want to have regular changes to clothing, to have varied clothing, to use make up and dress their hair.

This means that women need greater amount of clothing than men and thus will need access to more property – including toiletries – particularly lifers and women serving long sentences.’

 Whilst we agree with needing access to more toiletries in prison, particularly for hygiene reasons during the menstrual cycle, the idea that appearance is less important to a person’s self esteem if they are male is ludicrous. Even more non sensical is that men are given the opportunity to wear their own clothing only when earned under an incentive and earned privileges scheme. It’s not just the inequality of this decision that infuriates me but, as the link between clothing and identity has long been established, it seems that the prison service is saying that males’ rights are less than that of a female. In a paper entitled ‘Clothing, Identity and the Embodiment of Age’, Julia Twigg[1] expands more on what sociologists such as Veblen (1889)[2] and Simmel (1904)[3] have  previously explored, that clothing is more than simply apparel and actually helps a person define class identity. This belief was expanded on by Fine and Leopold (1993)[4], Polhemus (1994)[5] and Evans (1997)[6] who looked into the use of clothes as a means of self expression, self realisation, stabilising identity and registering belonging.

Nowadays, we have modernised the prison uniform to consist of grey trousers, sweatshirts and jumpers with prison issued underwear and socks. In November 2013 Chris Grayling, who was then Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice but has since been moved to Transport Secretary, announced that all convicted male prisoners are to be banned from watching violent and sexually explicit films as part of a crackdown on perks. The article fails to mention if females will be treated the same way but, as female prisoners are mentioned later in the article, it’s safe to assume that this isn’t a rule for all.

Of course, traditionally, prison uniform was about establishing uniformity. Women in UK jails have not been required to wear uniforms as research found they were better behaved when allowed to wear their own clothes. However, in his speech to parliament, MP Philip Davies revealed that supporting research conducted by the Ministry of Justice was ‘so deficient it was not even published’. If it has not been proven to be true, how can it be enforced? Prisons should not run on hearsay but cold, hard facts.  By taking away the prisoners clothes, they remove the person’s sense of identity and turn them into a non person, therefore helping to institutionalise them. By segregating prisoner’s rights by their gender, the HMPS standards are sending out a strong message – that male prisoners are not valued as highly as female.

We are not asking for prisons to throw out uniforms, or that prisons should not allow clothing be used as an incentive, but that there should be equality between the sexes. Both male and female inmates should be either in uniform or in casual clothes.To even imply that one sexes self esteem is valued above another is uneducated and abhorrent.

[2] Veblen, T. (1899/1953) The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions, New York: Mentor
[3] Simmel, G (1904/ 1971) ‘Fashion’, On Individuality and Social Forms: Selected Writings, trs D.C.Levine, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
[4] Fine, B. and Leopold, E (1993) The World of Consumption, London: Routledge
[5] Polhemus, T. (1994) Streetstyle: From Sidewalk to Catwalk, London: Thames and Hudson
[6] Evans, C. (1997) ‘Street style, subculture and subversion’ Costume, 31, 105-10

Stand Up and Speak Out

On October 28th 2015, Conservative MP Philip Davies questioned the Backbench Business Committee as to use International Men’s Day as an opportunity to discuss issues such as men’s shorter life expectancy, high male suicide rate and domestic violence against men. Shockingly, he was laughed at.

On October 28th 2015, Conservative MP Philip Davies questioned the Backbench Business Committee as to why MPs held a debate on International Women’s Day every year yet there was no equivalent for men. He wanted International Men’s Day (which falls on November 19th), to be used as an opportunity to discuss issues such as men’s shorter life expectancy, high male suicide rate and domestic violence against men. Shockingly, this idea was not only rejected by the Backbench Business Committee but Labour MP Jess Phillips, notably the only female on the committee, laughed before saying:

 “When I’ve got the parity, when women in these buildings have parity, you can have your debate. And that will take an awfully long time.”

 Journalist, Glen Poole, stated, quite correctly, in his article for The Telegraph that this deplorable behavior is the equivalent of a male politician giggling at the suggestion that parliament should discuss issues such as violence against women, breast cancer screening and eating disorders.  To view the full exchange, click here (Davies petition starts at 14:53).

 Davies had 30 supporters for his application; 3 from the Democratic Unionist Party and 27 from Conservatives. Labour MP Ian Mearns, Chairman for the Backbench Business Committee, stated that he needed to get support from other parties in order for his application to be approved and put in front of parliament. In order to help Davies get this movement, which could help prevent at least some of the men who commit suicide as they have no way out, we need you to get in touch with your local MP. Ask them to support Davies in his application to the committee in order to get his motion debated by the Government.

 We know that you are busy and that trying to find the time to get in touch with your local MP can prove difficult but you really need to make time for it. This is not one simple motion. This is a call for Government to change the way in which it deals with the inequality clearly apparent in the judicial system and even as far up as the Government.  If the motion is passed, something that will not happen without your help, many of the issues men face on a daily basis will be presented to parliament annually giving you all a voice on a scale that we haven’t had before. The disrespect that Phillips so publicly voiced is one of the reasons that men often don’t openly come forward with the problems they are facing – through fear of being mocked, ridiculed or being told that their problems are inferior to those that women face. Despite the fact that men account for between one third and one half of all victims in intimate relations, with the figures rising with the severity of abuse suffered.

 To make getting in touch easier, we have compiled a list of all the MPs in the country along with their phone number and emails. Simply click on the link and find your location. It would be best, and more effective, to go and visit your MP face to face in their surgery times so you can ask them directly why women get 80 million for domestic abuse when men don’t get a ratial and proportionate amount spent on them. While this way would be best, as it denies them the chance to ignore you or wiggle out of an answer, we appreciate it is not always possible. Where it isn’t, write them a letter, email or give them a phone call strongly urging them to get in touch with Davies, to give their support to the application and encourage them to voice their unhappiness at the disrespect shown to issues that affect men everyday. We currently have almost 9K followers on our Suffragents Facebook page and, if you all find a few moments to get in touch, then maybe some of the £80 million funding the Government gives specifically to support female domestic violence victims can be spent supporting the male victims too.