I didn't say you did; I said you'd like what he has to say. Very similar views to yours. You should look him up.

While you're looking things up, look up "parental alienation" - a legal tactic used by (proven) abusive men to gain access to their children who they have previously emotionally and physically abused, and to force their mothers (sometimes with police intervention) to send their kids to these abusers for the weekend.

I'm sure you'll be all for it.

Or people who understand what domestic abuse can look like and that it's rarely clear-cut, and what an aggressive drunk looks like in videos they've seen with their own eyes.

You are patently incorrect about "the only people who believe her" by the way, and in assuming that it's a small number of people. Only on crappy Social Media ... maybe that's your barometer.

I have my own views. I don't need to look him up, I have no interest.

That last sentence is uncalled for. Disgusting. ...because I'd advocate an abused child going to stay with their abuser. I have dealt with quite a few safeguarding concerns, ones that I have raised myself, you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to me and what I'd be up for!

You're what I would call an 'arm chair expert'. Works at home and has lots of time on his hands.

Whereas I ACTUALLY deal with safeguarding concerns and take appropriate action.

In other news. Joe Biden's daughter wrote in her diary that her dad took showers with her when she was a child.

Just the President of the USA probably being an insestious paedophile.

OK then I guess you'll just have to take it on trust that your views on this aren't new or unique... they fly around the internet on a daily basis. From MRA gurus like Jordan Peterson.



You suggested the child custody issues in the UK are heavily slanted towards women which is demonstrably and patently false. They're slanted towards the person who has been the primary caregiver in that child's life which tends to be the mother. Child access issues are skewed in favour of the father's wishes so heavily that it's bordering on criminality. Children have been abused - and in some thankfully very rare incidents, killed - thanks to court-ordered access for violent fathers. You will find no such stats for mothers. Arguing that the situation is not gendered is at best unscientific and not supported by the data at all... at worst it's a straight up lie based in bias.

You're a healthcare assistant who likes to pretend to be a medical professional, Thomas. Let's not start comparing paperwork. I don't share mine.

I'm not a healthcare assistant. :conf::conf:

You're not a medical professional, you work in health/social care at a sub-professional level (Nursing Assistant, HCA, HCSW, somewhere in that band-4-ish region). On the job training, not degree-certified in psychology or any form of healthcare, probably believe that "all you need is experience and it's just as valuable", bit of a chip on your shoulder about it.

My point that I was trying to make is that often the woman will win custodial battles and actually the child can be used as a weapon in such cases. The mother might be the primary caregiver because they haven't allowed that child access to their father or restricted it.

Edit; you say no stats there have been two very big case file reviews that I know of where a baby or child has died at the hands of their mother from abuse.

Oh right, thanks for telling me my own occupation and skill level along with my professional qualifications. I have included that within my CV. Thank you for your service :joker:. And I'm not banded btw

The thing is Thomas, I don't actually care what you do or don't do. I know that you work in healthcare, I'm certain that it's not as a certified medical professional, but I think you sometimes use your healthcare work to indicate medical or mental health qualifications that you simply don't have.

The point it, it's completely irrelevant to any discussion we're having on a forum like this; like I said, I don't share paperwork or talk about specifically WHAT I currently do at all for that very reason. But if you didn't want to start a dick-measuring contest, you probably shouldn't have said;

:shrug:

Where the mother was previously known by authorities to be abusive but had court-ordered unsupervised access to the child against the wishes of their primary caregiver? I didn't say children have never been harmed by abusive mothers. I said KNOWN abusive fathers are often granted unsupervised, over-night access to children on the grounds of parental alienation (which you have succinctly described in the bit in bold above).

The reason that the mother is usually the primary caregiver is that they're far more likely to have given up work to be the primary carer ... which is another discussion entirely, and not particularly the "fault" of either partner, just a sad quirk of patriarchal norms.

The point remains that the reason custody is usually granted to women is because they are in 90% of cases the child's usual primary carer and this causes the least disruption, NOT "because they are female". It's an overly-simplistic way of looking at it.

Again, you do not know what qualifications I have.

I have opinions. It's very pot kettle considering some of the stuff you come out with on this forum.

You basically said that I would be up for sticking children abused by their fathers back with them which is what prompted me to refer to personal circumstances in which I have raised safeguarding issues to rebutt that absolutely outrageous thing you said. You were out of order imo!

I wouldn't have even mentioned my personal experiences dealing with safeguarding if it wasn't for your comment

I don't see anything wrong with me drawing from my own experiences to use as opinions on debate.... You certainly do!

There's no dick measuring at all, you pissed me off which is why I retaliated because what you said was disgusting and a personal attack on my character

Like I said I don't care what your qualifications are or aren't or what your job is; that's really the point. I wasn't the one who brought up your qualifications, or mine. That was you. I didn't claim to know what your qualifications ARE, either, I took a guess based on what you've said on here. I do know what they aren't though. I know you aren't certified health or mental health professional.

No where the mother has just used it for other reasons.....like a disagreement with the dad for a plathora of reasons that aren't abuse. Weaponising the child.

And of course it's wrong of known abusers are granted that, I don't deny that.

I do think that men's rights can be put to one side though....like you say 90% of the time women get custody, but not black and white and how many times is it going to be that it's not within the best interests of the child, it's actually the best interests of the mother as she uses the child as a pawn against the father.

I think it can be because they're female, but o agree with your point about them being the primary caregiver and hence court's ruling in this favour... However. I think a lot will be clever enough to know that as they're female and the mother of that child that they know they can do exactly this and use it as a weapon... So yes it is because they're female, but also because theyre the mother.

What is your point?

Whether I am certified or not?

You sound like the one with the chip on your shoulder.

And btw I didn't bring up any qualifications


You just wanted a chance to tell me what I do for livingyou obviously do care what qualifications I have.

I have dented your ego because I said you work at home and make comments from an armchair making out to be an expert.

I do apologise.

Have a nice day I need to go out. Lol

No my point is that I don't care either way and that it was you who brought it up ... you said I was an "armchair expert" and talked about your "actual experience" (which you won't actually go into any detail on, but that's sort of moot since we're already saying it doesn't matter).

Yes you did... Here I'll quote it again I guess :shrug:


Oh yes it's my ego that's in trouble here :joker:. Have a fine day :wavey:

Ummm, I never mentioned qualifications so I have no idea where you've got that from or why you're bringing what qualifications I may or may not have into question. What I said was that I have dealt with safeguarding concerns, that is not a qualification, that is an experience.

Maybe the heat has got to you today.

Ah so it IS a tedious "experience trumps qualifications :hmph: " claim. You sure you're not a HCSW? That's definitely a classic HCSW line of thinking :laugh:.

Don't try and turn it around or put words on my mouth

You said I brought qualifications into it and I never did so actually this whole conversation was avoidable.

Regardless of what position I or anyone within health and social care holds, there's no brownie points for holding a higher position so get off your high horse and stop being an arrogant twerp.

There's literally no way for you to make it me who brought your job (or mine) into this, it was quite blatantly you who brought it up. I can quote it for a third time if you want?

:shrug:

I didn't bring your job into it I said you were an arm chair expert, because, you know, you have an opinion on everything and like to bang on about MRA a lot and I said you work from home which you have openly admitted you do.

And I bought my experience, not my job as such, I said that I actually deal with safeguarding concerns.... This was after you, very patronisingly and arrogantly told me to Google what something was and how you were sure I'd be up for seeing children go back to their abusers.

You then proceed to tell me what my occupation is and what qualifications I do or don't have.

You didn't bring my job into it, just where I work from and passed comment on having too much time on my hands.

You didn't bring your job into it, just your workplace experience and what you do in your job.

Come on, this is extremely flimsy. I think you know you brought "jobs into it" and you're trying to find a way to make that not true... this is the disadvantage of forum discussions over spoken conversations though; you can't revise what you said and pretend to have been misheard or that your words have been changed or misprepresented ... the post is still right there. I hadn't said anything at all about your job until you mentioned both mine, and yours.

I'm not sure why you made that choice, but you did, if you didn't want that to be part of a discussion, you shouldn't have mentioned it? I'm happy enough to not mention it again since as I've said multiple times - I don't think it's relevant. I genuinely don't care what you do for a living.