Men need to be a protected species

Widdecombe

IDID not think there were any new depths left to plumb in the endless saga of false allegations and the ruin of innocent men but I was wrong. A book entitled How To Destroy A Man Now is available on Amazon and apparently features on the website of the MeToo campaign. I have read the first few pages of that book and am shaking with outrage.

Advertised as a “step by step guide for destroying a man’s reputation and removing him from power” it has chapters with such titles as Crafting Allegations. It lauds the fact that allegations require no proof just to be made and has the gall to advise that “these methods have been chosen for their utility and results rather than legal or ethical merit”.

Brazen, cruel and immoral, this book should be given a wide berth by MeToo if that organisation wants to retain any of its already fragile credibility.

It is shocking that its publication is even legal. What next? How To Rob A Bank? How To Burgle A House?

Meanwhile Alison Saunders, head of the CPS, continues in her staggering complacency. Last month she said she doubted any innocent person was in prison for rape, despite the release of Danny Kay after two years for a rape he did not commit and that of Mahad Cassim, a few months earlier, who had also served two years. If they, then why not others?

Thanks to this awful book, expect a wearying continuation of headlines about the exoneration of the falsely accused, the falsely imprisoned and the inadequately investigated. NICK GIBB, the schools’ minister, has been pilloried for refusing to do sums on air but why should he? It has no relevance whatever to the argument at hand. If Jamie Oliver says schools should teach good nutrition is that invalidated if he is spotted noshing a burger? If David Beckham says sport is important is that invalidated if he misses a goal? Interviewers should grow up and treat issues seriously instead of seeing them just as banana skins for advocates.

EMPLOYERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ASK WOMEN ABOUT THEIR FAMILY PLANS

SPEAKING on another topic, the Equality and Human Rights Commission complains that employers still ask women applicants for jobs about their plans for a family. Well of course they are. I would. Indeed I did.

Employers need stable workforces. If a woman is likely to become pregnant within months of being hired, is then going to disappear for anything up to a year, is going to return and then repeat the whole performance a year hence then the employer will be getting a very bad deal. He will have to lay her off on maternity leave, recruit and train a successor, then terminate the successor’s contract. That is all very well for a big business but not a small one. I lost three secretaries to full time motherhood and very relieved I was too, despite their all being outstanding at their jobs.

I knew from the outset that the first two would leave when expecting but as neither was married at the time I also knew I would get a few years’ work from them first. How did I know? They told me at the job interview. The third, a married woman in her 30s, had sadly given up any hope of a family and her pregnancy within months of joining was an unpredictability I welcomed.

There is nothing wrong with an employer wanting predictability and stability and it is madness to pretend otherwise.