Prince Andrew isn't just one bad egg ~ the Epstein Saga & British Royalty

The recent arrest of a senior royal figure on suspicion of misconduct in public office — in the context of long-running controversies surrounding his associations — has once again placed the British monarchy under uncomfortable scrutiny.

 

Off with their heads! 

Under UK law, arrest is not proof of guilt. Being named in investigative material is not proof of wrongdoing. And like any citizen, a suspect is entitled to due process and a fair trial.

But this moment is not only about one individual.

It is about the institution that made that individual possible.

This Is Bigger Than One Person

Defenders of the monarchy often respond to scandal with a familiar refrain: every family has a “bad apple.” The institution should not be judged by the actions of individuals.

Yet this argument avoids a deeper question:

How does a hereditary system structure power, privilege and accountability in the first place?

The issue is not whether there are good or bad people within the Royal Family. There are, undoubtedly, both. The issue is that the institution itself:

• Grants lifelong public status by birth.

• Provides access to networks of influence.

• Confers diplomatic authority without an electoral mandate.

• Shields its members within a uniquely protective constitutional structure.

In a modern democracy built on equality before the law and meritocratic opportunity, that structure deserves scrutiny.

The Problem of Inherited Office

The British monarch is head of state not because of qualification, election, or consent — but because of lineage. Senior working royals derive public roles from proximity to that lineage.

When individuals in such positions face allegations of misconduct — whether financial, ethical, or criminal — the controversy is never merely personal. It is structural. Because:

• Their access to power exists solely because of the institution.

• Their diplomatic or trade roles stem from inherited status.

• Their authority is not democratically revocable.

The institution creates the platform.

Accountability and the Modern State

In a republic:

• The head of state is elected or appointed through democratic mechanisms.

• Officeholders can be removed.

• Authority flows from voters or parliament.

In a monarchy:

• The head of state is hereditary.

• Succession is automatic.

• Public reverence is built into the constitutional fabric.

Even if political power is limited, symbolic power and elite access are not.

There is a fundamental question:

Can a society committed to fairness and equal opportunity justify reserving its highest constitutional status for one bloodline?

The Public Office Question

Misconduct in public office is a serious allegation under English law. It concerns abuse of entrusted authority.

When members of the Royal Family hold public roles — such as trade envoys or representatives of the UK abroad — they occupy positions rooted in public trust.

But unlike ministers or MPs:

• They are not elected.

• They are not accountable to voters.

• They cannot be removed by public mandate.

That gap between authority and accountability becomes particularly stark during controversy.

The Optics of Inequality

At a time when:

• Social mobility is strained

• Economic inequality is rising

• Public trust in institutions is fragile

The continued existence of a hereditary head of state sends a symbolic message:

Some people are born to national prominence. Others are not.

Even if ceremonial, that symbolism contradicts the moral narrative of equal citizenship.

A Principled Way Forward

Abolishing the monarchy would not be a judgment on individual character.

It would be a constitutional evolution.

A modern republic could:

• Retain parliamentary democracy.

• Establish a largely ceremonial, non-partisan president.

• Clarify public office accountability.

• Preserve historic sites and cultural heritage.

• Separate national identity from hereditary hierarchy.

Countries like Ireland and Germany demonstrate that ceremonial presidencies can function effectively and at relatively modest cost.

A What About the Money?

I think principles are more important than money: if the principle is to get rid of inherited status then no amount of money can change that. We don't believe in vribery do we?

But let's think about the financial case for a minute.

From a financial standpoint, the monarchy currently receives £86.3 million per year (2024–25) through the Sovereign Grant, calculated as a percentage of Crown Estate profits. 

The Crown Estate’s £1.15 billion annual profit goes directly to the Treasury, with only about 12% returned to fund the Sovereign Grant. 

Crown Estate revenues surged to roughly £1.15 billion in 2024–25, largely due to offshore wind leasing, the Sovereign Grant is expected to rise temporarily to around £132 million annually in 2025–26 and 2026–27 to help fund Buckingham Palace refurbishment works. 

It is millions of pounds directed each year to sustain a hereditary institution. Additional public costs — such as policing and security, which are not fully disclosed — may run into further tens of millions, though precise figures are not publicly itemised.

Abolishing the monarchy would not eliminate all head-of-state expenses. A ceremonial president, staff, security, and state residences would still carry costs.

This Moment as Constitutional Opportunity

Rather than treating this Andrew-Epstein episode as an isolated embarrassment, this may be the right time to ask the larger question:

Is hereditary monarchy consistent with a 21st-century democratic society built on equality and accountability?

It is not about presuming guilt.

It is not about tearing down tradition for its own sake. It is about principle.

A modern country that believes all citizens are equal in dignity and opportunity must eventually confront whether its constitutional structure reflects that belief.

The debate is not about one individual.

It is about whether birth should ever determine constitutional status in a democracy.

Violence Against Women & Girls (VAWG): Labour Party strategy

 To put it bluntly, I don't agree with the Labour Party on much, and I don't agree with them on the VAWG strategy that they announced on 18th December 2025.

It would be easier to write a short list of good things that the Labour Government has done (free breakfast for children) rather than the long list of things they do that leave me shaking my head.

Before I even read it, the Violence Against Women & Girls (VAWG) strategy has me shaking my head.

There is so much wrong with the title!

It's such a terrible message to send out.

Having a government launch something with this title seems like a huge blow. 

Feminists have been fighting to be seen as equals in society for a long time, and things are so much better now than when I was a child. 

And it doesn't reflect the reality of the world we live in (further evidence that the people in the government live in a bubble that is separate from the real world).

Here's the announcement:

"The next generation of girls will be better protected from violence and young boys steered away from harmful misogynistic influences, under sweeping new measures announced by the Prime Minister." 

I want to stand up and shout: it's not just GIRLS that need protecting, it is all our children.

Boys are vulnerable.

Men are more likely than women to be victims of violence (with or without injury) where the perpetrator is a stranger.

As a mother, I'm well aware that BOYs are at great risk of violence.

FACT: boys are more often victims of stranger violence in public (physical assault, robbery, weapons), while girls face higher risks of sexual assault and relationship/domestic abuse.

Feminists have been fighting to be seen as equals in society for a long time, and things are so much better now than when I was a child. Having a government launch something with this title seems like a huge blow. 

Even in those areas where the risk is greater for girls and women, men and boys still suffer from domestic violence and stalkers in significant numbers. To make this a "women's issue" is terrible for all of us. 

• It reinforces the idea that these crimes are about our biology. 
• It makes it harder to accept that men can be victims of domestic violence and women can be perpetrators.
• It makes it harder to tackle the causes of these crimes.

The Government says:

"The plans unveiled today will focus on prevention and tackling the root causes of abuse, and come as the latest stats show that nearly 40% of teenagers in relationships are a victim of relationship abuse and over 40% of young men hold a positive view of Andrew Tate."

Well, I'll agree that young people shouldn't see Andrew Tate as a role model!

But I think as long as you frame the problem in this men V women way that the government is doing, then you can't tackle the root causes of abuse.

Now, there is a problem.

I agree with the government about that. 

We can all see that young people face big problems.

I suspect the biggest problems young people face are lack of money, lack of opportunities, and lack of affordable homes. How bad are the prospects? 

When we are talking about school-aged kids, what are we showing when 1/5th of them live in absolute poverty? And their schools are falling down. 

Respect for other people and kindness must have some connection to the experience those kids have of the world.

How much do you think these BIG issues contribute to the violence and misery among young people?

The world is great for those who get a job and get on with their careers; it's really not great for others.

Of course, the government could and should be making sure people don't live in poverty and do have jobs to do and they can tackle other things too.

They have announced:

"Teachers will get specialist training on how to talk to pupils about issues like consent and the dangers of sharing intimate images, with experts brought in to pilot new approaches. This will be backed by pioneering research identifying the most effective way of teaching young people these crucial lessons."

This sounds like a good thing. I'm just saying, if we are going to improve the lives of young people, it has to be more than just lessons in school; it has to be about building a better society in which people can afford to meet their needs with dignity. 

It has to use language that does not demonise boys and men. 

It has to recognise that boys and men are victims too.

 Who doesn't want a safer society for women and girls? 

I want a safer society for everyone, including boys and men. 

Men are more likely to be victims of violence by strangers in public places.

Having a strategy that is JUST about Violence Against Women and Girls is the wrong way to approach the problem.

I'm not saying there isn't a problem. There is.

Domestic Abuse: 

A couple of women every week are murdered by men who are close to them, husbands and boyfriends.

Men constitute the vast majority of those prosecuted for domestic abuse. In the year ending March 2024, 91.3% of defendants in these cases were male, while only 8.5% were female

Women can be vile too, but they are far less likely to murder anyone or commit violent crimes.

Instead of exclusively focusing on women and girls as victims, when men and boys are often victims of violence too, we should be focusing on the prevention of violent crime by looking at who perpetrates it and why.

MEN... 

But not all men. 

Why some men and not others?

Peak Offending Age

• The peak age for male criminal convictions is consistently between 21 and 25 years old.
• Young Adult Concentration: More recent evidence suggests the average peak for all crimes among men is 23 years old. Men aged 15–29 are currently identified as the group most likely to commit "the worst" violent crimes, including stabbings.

It's not just a small peak, men who commit violent crimes are almost always in their late teens or early 20s. 

 Over three-quarters (75%+) of convicted homicide suspects are aged between 13 and 27 years old. For the three-year period ending March 2024, 92% of all convicted homicide suspects were male.

• Serious Youth Violence: Children (under 18) are increasingly involved in serious violence. In 2022/23, there were 14,298 proven violent offences committed by 10–17-year-olds. For teenage homicides, 87% of the accused had previous contact with the police.
• Domestic Abuse: While domestic abuse occurs across all ages, the highest prevalence of experiencing it is among those aged 16–24, often with perpetrators in a similar age bracket.

***

So, we know most violent crime is committed by men, but not all men. Now we know it is most often committed by young men.

Why? We could jump to the conclusion that it has something to do with hormones gone mad. 

As parents, we know boys change into men, and there's a lot going on. But I wonder how male violence among young men relates to stressful life changes as they leave the parental home and take on responsibilities. I don't know, it's just a thought. But still, we all have those stresses. 

Here's more interesting data on male violence:

Poverty and Economic Deprivation

Poverty is a primary risk factor for violent crime in the UK. Research indicates that violence is concentrated in areas of high deprivation: 

Concentration of Violence: In London, violence, robbery, and sexual offences are 3.5 times more prevalent in the 10% most income-deprived neighbourhoods compared to the 10% least deprived.

• Childhood Poverty: Exposure to poverty during childhood significantly increases the risk of an individual becoming involved in violence and the criminal justice system during their teenage years.
• Deprived Backgrounds: Approximately 93% of prison leavers in recent cohorts grew up in the 20% most deprived areas of the country. 

Unemployment and Financial Strain 

Perpetrators often experience long-term detachment from the workforce before their conviction:

• Employment Status: In the month prior to entering custody, only 30% to 38% of prisoners were in paid employment.
• Correlation: Statistical analysis shows a positive correlation between male unemployment and various crimes, including robbery and criminal damage.
• Financial Distress: Survey data reveals that 15% of offenders cited financial difficulties and 16% cited unemployment as factors that directly contributed to their offending behaviour. 

Educational Qualifications and Attainment

Low academic achievement is one of the most stark indicators of the prison population: 

• Lack of Qualifications: Nearly half (47%) of newly sentenced prisoners report having no academic qualifications at all upon entering prison.
• Literacy Levels: An estimated 57% of adult prisoners have literacy levels below those expected of an 11-year-old child.
• School Experience: Educational exclusion is a major precursor; 43% to 44% of prisoners have been permanently excluded from school, and 59% were eligible for free school meals during their education.
• GCSE Attainment: Only 9% of adult offenders released from custody in 2024 had achieved 5 or more GCSEs at grades A*-C (or 9-4) during their school years.

In the UK, male perpetrators of violence are overwhelmingly characterized by backgrounds of significant socio-economic disadvantage. Statistics show that poverty, unemployment, and low educational attainment are common markers among those who enter the criminal justice system for violent offenses.

Of course, as teenagers reach the age when they would like to enter the workforce, their poor education will hold them back. 

Key Socio-Economic Linkages for Men

• The "Undeserving Poor" Label: Policy and social attitudes often treat young, unemployed men as the "most undeserving" group, worsening their economic conditions and increasing their risk of criminalisation.
• School to Prison Pipeline: When young men disengage from education early, they lose the "connectedness" that protects against violence. Without qualifications, they face a job market where they cannot legally attain the status or goods they aspire to, making illegal, violent pathways more attractive.

Addressing the material conditions of men's lives is critical to reducing violence.

Young men from deprived backgrounds who have underachieved in school commit most of the violent crime.

Look, here's an idea: 

can society could intervene earlier in lives to give people a better start? 

The data suggests that greater investment to: 

* help families out of poverty and to 

* help children who are struggling in school

* ensure there is work and money for young people aged 16-26 

would have a significant impact on the rates of violent crimes committed by young men. 

Poverty and Education Are Key

Violence is predominantly a male crime, whereas girls also suffer from poverty and poor education. 

We do need to look at another factor: it is TOXIC MASCULINITY.

However, I don't think Toxic Masculinity can be solved by special education programmes without solving the basic problems of poverty that I mentioned above. 

In fact, "masculinity" is a learned behaviour and an idea about gender...  our learned behaviours and ideas about gender come from the society around us, so we absolutely have to tackle society first.

I’m Against An Under-16 Social Media Ban

 I was born in the 1960s, long before the internet—or anything like social media—existed. 

My childhood was completely offline and involved a lot of time in the library. I had (and still have) endless curiosity. Now, I barely have time to sleep because... have you seen how many lectures and documentaries are on YouTube?

The world changes, technology evolves, and each generation grows up with tools the previous one could never have imagined.

Now, as a mother of three (with my eldest already 23), I feel qualified to speak about social media (phones and the internet) and the role it plays in young people’s lives. My children have grown up with unlimited access — shock, gasp, horror! 

Their world didn't fall apart. They have all excelled at school — I could do proud-mum boasting, but no one likes that. 

Unlimited access meant they overindulged for a day or so (we've all done it), and then the novelty wore off. 

My kids read books (for fun). They study. They have hobbies and ambitions. They know how to find educational content on YouTube, and there is a lot of it aimed at school kids.

Smartphone. The internet. Social media. These are the tools of the modern age, which are essential in most workplaces. Kids should have access at an early age.

TBH, when my children got (second-hand) iPhones as they started secondary school, most of their peers already had phones. I have no idea why such a young child needs their own phone. And I don't think children should take phones to school. I think kids should get a good night's sleep and read a book at bedtime, not a phone screen. 

I'm not a complete libertarian.

But at no point, not for a single minute, have I ever wished the government would step in and control my children’s access to social media.

If the government could step in and make them empty the dishwasher without me having to nag, that would be a big help. 

Even more than that, I could create a really long list of the ways the government could help parents raise their kids. Universal free breakfast clubs are a great start. Thank you!

Social media didn’t exist when I was young—but it has enriched my children’s lives.

Because I grew up without it, I’m perhaps more aware than my kids of just how much social media and online communities offer.

Education, creativity, connection, humour, skills development, and global awareness.

My children have been able to learn about the world, build communities, find inspiration, and express themselves in ways my generation could barely imagine.

Social media isn’t perfect—but it has brought significant benefits to our lives. I suspect more kids benefit from it than are disadvantaged by it. 

Support systems online matter—especially for isolated young people

Especially those who are LGBTQ+, neurodivergent, dealing with mental-health issues, or simply different from the majority around them—thrive when they find spaces online where they can safely connect with others who understand them.

Some children and teens grow up in households or communities where they cannot openly share who they are. Online platforms can be the one place where they feel seen, validated, and supported.

Removing that is not protecting them. It’s isolating them.

Teens are not toddlers—they’re emerging adults.

As a parent, I understand that teenagers can make mistakes. All of us did at that age. But teens are also capable, thoughtful individuals who deserve to be treated as such.

This ban sends a message I fundamentally reject: that everyone under 16 is too immature to navigate the online world and cannot be trusted to make reasonable decisions. That simply isn’t true.

My own children learned responsibility precisely because they were given responsibility—not because someone forced restrictions upon them.

Punishing everyone for the struggles of a few is not a good policy

Of course, social media can become problematic for some young people. But when a child excessively uses social media, that’s usually a symptom of a deeper issue—loneliness, anxiety, bullying, lack of support—not the cause.

Banning all teens from all platforms because a minority struggles with overuse is a blanket solution that solves nothing. It simply removes access for everyone, including those who use these platforms in healthy, productive, and meaningful ways.

You don’t fix a societal problem by removing tools. 

You fix it by addressing the underlying issues.

The government micro-managing family life is not welcome

I have raised three children from infancy. At no point did I ever feel the need for the government to intervene in their social media use. Not once. Because that is a family’s responsibility—not the state’s.

Parents who want stricter controls can implement them at home. There is no shortage of tools, settings, or strategies for monitoring or limiting online use if a parent believes it’s necessary.

But the idea that the government should swoop in and enforce a one-size-fits-all ban—regardless of the child, the family, or the context—is deeply troubling.

This isn’t protection. This is micromanagement. And once governments start micromanaging one aspect of family life, they rarely stop at just one.

This ban removes rights, support, and opportunities—without solving the real problems

In the rush to “do something,” the government has chosen the bluntest instrument possible: remove social media from every under-16-year-old, regardless of whether they use it safely, educationally, socially, or responsibly.

It will not fix the complexities of modern childhood.
It will not solve mental-health issues.
It will not make unkind communities kinder.
It will not eliminate the need for real investment in youth support services.

All it will do is take away connection, learning, creativity, and support networks that many young people rely on.

We should guide teens—not shut them out

I grew up in a different world, but one thing hasn’t changed: young people need trust, guidance, and respect. They don’t need to be cut off from the digital spaces where their lives unfold.

I practically lived in the library as a kid (yeah, I was strange), but libraries have been cut back across the country. Even where they still exist, they have shorter opening hours and fewer books. 

If kids are to be more sociable, please tell me how to make it happen? I mentioned already that we are stranded by the buses. And as is true for many families. The teenagers don't have any more to go out and meet their friends, and there is nowhere for them to go for free. Times have really changed. I think wealthy MPs who are my age need to come out and meet families with teenagers at home who are struggling to make ends meet, and they will see that access to social media is a real boon for kids who could feel isolated, stuck at home.

If this government truly wants to help young people, it should invest in education, mental-health resources, digital literacy, and platform accountability—not force millions of teenagers out of the online communities that have become fundamental to modern life.

From where I stand, as someone who raised children through the rise of social media, this ban is not protection.

It is overreach.

And I cannot support it.

Not only that but many experts agree with me.

LSE Media and Communications Department / EU Kids Online

• In a statement titled “Protecting, not excluding: why banning children from social media undermines their rights”, the authors argue that outright bans risk doing more harm than good. They point out that digital spaces have become an integral part of childhood, allowing children to learn, connect, express themselves and build social skills. 

• The statement warns that bans may push children into unregulated and unsafe corners of the internet where there are even fewer safeguards, undermining the original aim of protection.

• It also argues that decisions about access should balance children’s rights to participation and expression with protection, rather than default to exclusion.

Internet Matters (UK internet-safety organisation)

• Protection should come from better design of platforms, stronger safety features, education, and support rather than shutting out an entire age group.

NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children)

• The NSPCC, while listing potential harms from social media (e.g. exposure to harmful content, pressure from likes/comments, cyber-bullying), does not call for a blanket ban. Instead, it recommends active parental engagement, use of privacy/safety settings, open communication, and helping children build resilience and digital literacy.

• Their guidance emphasises that children’s online use should be managed with care, not criminalised or broadly restricted.

***

MPs who want to bring in similar restrictions in the UK:

Gregor Poynton (Labour MP, Livingston)

• Speaking in 2025: he has “urged the UK Government to introduce an Australia-style ban on social-media accounts for children.”

Josh MacAlister (Labour MP, Whitehaven & Workington)

• He introduced a Private Member’s Bill in 2025 originally aimed at raising the “digital age of consent” to 16 — effectively restricting social-media access for under-16s.

Jess Asato (Labour MP)

• As co-chair of the cross-party “Children’s Online Safety” group, she has publicly called for raising the “online age of consent” from 13 to 16, and supported an “Australia-style ban” on social media for under-16s.

Joani Reid (Labour MP, former chair of the APPG on Children’s Online Safety)

• As of early 2025, she said the UK should at least “look at replicating” the under-16 social media ban recently introduced in Australia — if the Australian model “proves successful.”

Tony Vaughan (Conservative MP, Folkestone & Hythe)

• During the 24 Feb 2025 petition debate, he opened the discussion by saying:

“I asked my two boys, aged 14 and 10 … whether social media should be banned for children. Their answer … was ‘No!’ But when we ask the same question of UK adults … 75% of them … responded ‘Yes.’”

***

Government Response to 2025 Petition: “No ban planned”

• After a public petition in 2025 calling for a minimum social-media age of 16, the official government response said plainly that they are “not currently minded to support a ban for children under 16.”

Peter Kyle (Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology) emphasized that social media also carries educational and supportive value, for example, as a vital connection and support tool for vulnerable children.

 The Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA)

• Instead of banning under-16s wholesale, the government seems to prefer regulation through the OSA, which mandates safer internet standards, age verification for harmful content, stronger moderation, and duties on platforms.

• I suspect everyone agrees children shouldn't be exposed to harmful and adult content via the internet and social media. This is a different issue. 

Movember ~ Men & Suicide

We are halfway through Movember already, and I've been meaning to post about men's mental health for weeks.

Men & the Mental Health Crisis

• Every year, thousands of men take their own lives. 
• Suicide is now the leading cause of death among men under 50. 
• 75% of deaths by suicide are men. 

Men in the UK are in deep psychological distress, and mental health is not just a matter of brain chemistry. 

Behind these statistics, we find that the mental health crisis is linked to economic changes.

Beyond individual explanations

Men in England’s poorest areas are four times more likely to die from preventable causes (including suicide) than men in the wealthiest areas.

The connection between class and suicide is stark.

When suicide doesn't affect all of society equally, then we know it is a social problem -- middle-aged men in areas of high deprivation are at most risk.

The highest male suicide rates are found in ex-industrial regions — the North East, South Wales, and parts of Scotland. These are the same places where deindustrialisation hit hardest. 

 The Samaritans have a lot to say on this. It is definitely worth exploring their website.

There is a link between poverty and suicide (it's not the full explanation).

When people lose stable work, financial security, and purpose, this can help push them into a dark place. Things are even worse when public services are stripped away. 

The long shadow of deindustrialisation

From the late 1970s onwards, Britain’s industrial base was dismantled. Coal mines, shipyards, steelworks, car plants — workplaces that had employed generations of men — were closed. 

Alongside the jobs went union power, local solidarity, and male identity rooted in collective labour.

In their place came low-paid, insecure service work or unemployment. Communities once built around shared labour now suffer from isolation, poverty, and alienation.

There is a link between suicide & the breakdown of a sense of community.

* Mainstream debate often talks about suicide as an individual medical issue — a failure of personal coping, or a chemical imbalance in the brain. 

* But I want to talk about how social conditions are related to the pattern of suicide deaths.

* Suicide is not JUST connected to being in-and-out of low-paid work, but also to having a sense of belonging and a sense of community.

Class, inequality, and despair

Working-class men have been stripped of social worth in an economy that no longer values their labour and offers little in return. Insecure work, low pay, poor housing, debt, addiction, and declining public services are the features in many people's lives.

Community centres, advice bureaus, and support groups — the small infrastructures of solidarity — were closed or privatized. For men who already struggle to express vulnerability, this withdrawal of collective care is devastating.

Working men's clubs are mostly gone, and people can't afford to go for a pint like they used to. Many pubs have closed along with many local services and shops, so there might not even be that sense of a local community anymore.

Austerity and the dismantling of support

Austerity has made the crisis worse. 

Between 2010 and 2020, local authority funding for mental health and youth services was cut by over 40% in some areas. NHS mental health waiting lists are now so long that many never receive treatment.

With hard times and little support from a community, it is no surprise that suicide rates rose sharply after 2010. When the state retreats, despair fills the vacuum.

Masculinity and emotional isolation

Both men and women experience the difficult economic situation, but the suicide rate is much higher for men. Why is that?

There has to be either a biological or a gender-related reason why more men commit suicide than women. 

Social deprivation: 

• Women experience higher rates of poverty and persistent low income compared to men, driven by factors like the gender pay gap, women's roles in family and caregiving, and the design of social security systems. 
• Single mothers, in particular, face a very high risk of poverty, with nearly half of single-parent households living in poverty.

Poverty obviously makes daily life more difficult and it is the trigger. But what explains the Male v Female difference when it comes to suicide? 

Gender is a social construction shaped by material conditions

Capitalism has long rewarded men for emotional detachment and competitiveness, whereas women tend to have more of a social support network and a deep sense of responsibility to look after their children. 

The “real man” is expected to be productive, stoic, and self-reliant. These traits suited a world of heavy industry and the nuclear family in which a mother and dependents relied on the main breadwinner.

But in today’s fragmented, precarious economy, those same traits of emotional detachment and competitiveness have become a trap.

Many men are left without emotional literacy or support networks. They turn inward, or to alcohol and drugs, rather than seeking help. This helps explain why men are far more likely to die by suicide — men often act more violently and seek help less.

But rather than seeing this as a matter of “toxic masculinity” alone why not ask: 

Who benefits from men being isolated?
Men taught to suppress vulnerability are less likely to resist exploitation, unionise, or demand care.

The answer: capitalism benefits. 

The Individualisation of Pain

Under neoliberal ideology, problems become personal responsibility. 

Mental health campaigns often frame depression as something to “manage” through mindfulness, exercise, or apps — never as a symptom of systemic alienation. 

If you are isolated or lonely, YOU need to pull your socks up and get out more. The onus is on the individual rather than on society, which causes the problem.

Meanwhile, the material causes of distress — job insecurity, rent exploitation, long working hours, social atomisation — remain untouched. Men are told to “open up” but not given anyone to open up to, nor the social time or security to do it.

Collective Response

We should reject the idea that suicide is merely a private tragedy. It has far-reaching repercussions.

It’s a class and social issue that reveals how our current economy corrodes well-being.

The solution isn't fast or easy. We need to:

• Rebuilding stable, meaningful employment and strong trade unions.

• Restoring funding for community mental health and youth services.

• Creating public spaces where men can connect outside the pressures of work and competition.

• Challenging the concept of masculinity that equates worth with productivity.

• Ensuring that care — psychological, emotional, and social — is a collective right, not a market commodity.

The tragedy of male suicide cannot be solved with slogans about “talking more.” 

Men are dying because an economic system that once gave them identity now gives them precarity, and because the public safety nets that once caught them have been torn apart.

The cure lies not just in therapy but in solidarity — rebuilding communities, restoring public care, and transforming the economic order that produces such widespread despair.

Until we bring about change, many men will continue to face the same silent, brutal choice: between enduring impossible pressures or ending their pain. In a society organised around profit instead of people, that is not a personal failure — it is a political one. 

Where Do You Stand on Trans Rights?

TLDR: I support trans people's rights. 

This I try to be a decent human and treat trans people the same way that I treat everyone else!

• This means respecting their dignity.
• This means the golden rule -- treating other people as I would hope to be treated.
• This means respecting people's rights to live and dress how they please.
• This means respecting the way a person identifies, calling them by their preferred name and pronouns. 
• This means not ridiculing people or deliberately making them uncomfortable.

I recognise that trans women and trans men are vulnerable people and targets for hate, bullying, and violence. These are not acceptable, no matter who the target is.

Every trans person has parents and neighbours. 

I think about how I would worry about them and want to protect them if I were their mother or their neighbour. 

If I were their work colleague, I'd like them to feel I am on their side.

I'm also human and deeply flawed, so I hope people will be forgiven when I get their name or pronouns wrong. It isn't out of anti-trans malice - I do it to everyone!

How can anyone think anything else?

I'd sum it up: 

Be a decent human being and treat other people respectfully.

It's not difficult or complicated. 

Anything else is not acceptable.

Throughout my life, I've had many trans friends. I realise and they realise, some issues are tricky and there aren't clear-cut, obvious answers to every question. 

There are some things open to reasonable debate, and others I don't know much about.

EXAMPLE: 

I don't know when trans people should be welcomed or excluded from specific sporting events. And I don't need to have an opinion on this because I believe it should be decided by experts, perhaps the people who run an event and scientists. 

The one thing I am sure about when it comes to trans people in sporting events -- it should not be the job of politicians to decide the rules.

TRANS RIGHTS

Rights aren't like cherry pie, so that if someone gets more, another person gets less. Trans and non-binary people are a tiny minority of the population -- they only need a tiny bit of pie.

I'm all for women, children, and trans people all having rights. 

I'm very interested in the relationship between rights and responsibilities.

Suppose we stopped talking about rights and instead discussed our responsibilities to other people and to future generations, then what would this mean for trans people?

I think we (all of us as a society) have responsibilities to look after our neighbours so they don't face poverty, hunger, violence, or discrimination. Society has the responsibility to look after our most vulnerable members, and trans people are those vulnerable people.

This is the website of the Fledgling Trans Rights Caucus:

https://transliberationgroup.org.uk/

Their demands are simple. 

A PARTY FOR EVERYONE

LEGALISE TRANS EXISTENCE

This includes:

• Amend the Equality Act 2010 to undo the damage caused by the Supreme Court ruling of 16th April 2025 by making it clear “sex” refers to a person's current lived sex and adding gender identity as a protected characteristic. Ensure that “gender-critical” beliefs cannot be treated as protected beliefs.

REFORM THE BROKEN SYSTEM

This includes:

• Institute a complete ban on all types of conversion therapy, including trans conversion therapy. Support for people questioning their gender should be affirmative of their desires while giving space for people to explore their feelings.
• Enshrine in UK Law the right to privacy over your assigned gender at birth and trans status, and oppose all attempts to leave the ECHR, which guarantees the right to respect for your private and family life, including confidentiality around your assigned gender at birth under Article 8.

HEALTHCARE THAT WORKS

WHAT I THINK!

In my opinion, most of their demands are about basic things any decent person should support and that should be really easy to implement. 

Changing the NHS -- funding it to meet all of our needs, that isn't going to be a quick or easy fix. And I'm mindful that healthcare services are terribly underfunded at the moment. I think to improve healthcare for trans people, we need to focus on improving healthcare for everyone. 

Demand massive investment across many or all healthcare services.

What Women Want -- From Politicians

Women exist in families and communities. 

They care for people and are often in low-paid jobs. 

A better world for women, where they are well paid, not stressed out, and feel safe, will be a better world for everyone.

A safer world for my daughter is a safer for everyone. 

Women as victims of low pay, poverty, and violence are not just suffering individuals; it has knock-on implications for society, especially through the way these things affect their children.

MOTHERHOOD:

I think a parent should be able to choose to stay at home with their pre-school children or be able to go to work, and that public policy should enable this choice, through:

• highly subsidized childcare places for parents who want to work (like in Sweden where parents pay a small contribution towards the costs),
• the taxation and benefits system should enable parents to stay home and raise children (payments for housework is a concept to consider), 
• a lower cost of living would make it far easier for parents (and grandparents) to reduce their working hours and afford to spend time with their children. A lower cost of living might be achieved through various policies, such as: (1) building low-rent council houses, (2) public-owned utilities to reduce these costs, and (3) a digital strategy to give all households access to the internet.

WORK:

Equal pay, of course!

Equal opportunities for all based on ability, of course.

Increased flexible work and part-time working, job sharing, and career breaks - of course! We exist in a 24/7 society, so work should offer flexible hours (note: most work—obviously not all work).

Better opportunities to retrain and re-enter education—of course.

Violence Against Women & Girls

A better, safer world for women is a better, safer world for everyone.

A few key areas of concern are:

• Violence at the hands of a romantic/domestic partner ~ women are twice as likely to be the victim. But more than 90% are women who are at high risk of serious assault/ murder/ rape.
• Thousands of people are “spiked” each year - ie, drugged - and 3 out of 4 of these victims are women.
• Harassment in all its forms seems to be greater for women, but it is also significant for men. 

* Some Factors in Violence Against Women

* Poverty, Low pay, and Unemployment are not an excuse!

There is substantial evidence that poverty, low pay, and unemployment play a significant role in increasing the risk of violence against women and girls (VAWG). They do not cause the violence on their own (that is always the perpetrator’s responsibility), but they help create a context in which VAWG is more likely, and they make it much harder for survivors to escape or recover from abuse.

* Drugs and Alcohol Misuse are not an excuse!

Alcohol and drug misuse are strongly linked to harassment, particularly sexual harassment, street harassment, and workplace misconduct. But the relationship is correlational and contextual — alcohol increases risk and frequency, but it’s not the root cause. Should we ban these things? I’m NOT generally in favour of prohibition, which often doesn’t work and encourages enterprising criminal gangs to set up shop. I’d prefer to look at causes and practical solutions to alcohol and drug misuse.

One thing that would make a big difference in the lives of women, young people (and everyone) is low-cost, safe, efficient, and frequent 24-hour public transport. 

This deserves a separate post all of its own one day. But good luck if you are looking to get across the Potteries area after 6 pm. You might be able to get a bus, but you might not have a connection. 

My Policies 

If I were the Prime Minister of one of the top 10 wealthiest countries in the world, these would be some of the top things I’d want to implement that I think will have a significant impact on women’s lives:

1. Lifting families out of poverty, primarily through tackling the cost-of-living crisis and the connected housing crisis, and through house building and job creation.
2. Heavily subsidised child care would be available year-round, rather than the ridiculous policies we have seen that only subsidised a few hours of childcare during school terms.
3. A greatly increased public transport system (this might involve taxis and minibusses at times and places of low demand) so that most people could get to work by bus in a reasonable amount of time and at a reasonable cost. Note: Some people cannot travel to and from work, even in urban areas, due to inadequate bus services.
4. Community support: since the Tory policy of austerity took hold, “community” has declined. Libraries, community centres, and community services such as Sure Start have closed down. These provided low-cost resources and places for people to go out and meet other local people. The dire consequences are rippling out, feeding crime, antisocial behaviour, and a sense of hopelessness. These things affect us all. I want to build communities, making sure every local area has something local.

There are other issues that are important, but I'm not sure what an MP  should do about them.

There are issues around menopause and perimenopause, which need a lot more research as well as public information. Women's suicide rates peak at the same time as the average age for menopause, indicating that this change in hormone levels is a significant issue for women. 

When it comes to toilets, we need a lot more of them. Public toilets have been closed down across the country; a civilised country funds public toilets. Wee need them!

Are there any women-only issues that only benefit women that should be on my priority list? Perhaps there are some—please leave a message and let me know.