UK's biggest male rape charity Survivors UK has state funding slashed to zero

[LJ_Reloaded]

despite 120% rise in men reporting sexual violence and seeking help.

But charities for women victims retain funding.

Thanks, feminists.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...exual-violence-and-seeking-help-10274441.html

The UK’s biggest male rape and sexual abuse charity has had its state funding for vital counselling services slashed to zero, despite a 120 per cent increase in men reporting instances of sexual violence in London and seeking help in the past year alone.

Survivors UK, which has received £70,000 a year from the Ministry of Justice for the past four years to fund its counselling services, is now being placed under significant pressure at a time when tackling rape, sexual violence and child sexual abuse has become a key focus for the police and the government following the revelations of Jimmy Savile’s years of abuse.

The Met Police’s decision to investigate the alleged murders of three boys in the late 1970s by members of a Wesminster VIP paedophile ring - based in part on the evidence put forward by a male survivor of the sexual abuse - has also brought a new focus onto the need for dedicated male rape services, as have the reports of Lord Janner's alleged abuse of boys dating back to the 1960s.

 

[lovecraft68]

Maybe they decided to keep the funding for the women because women are raped about...oh, I don't know a thousand times more often?

You know LJ here is a lesson in sexuality for you.

A woman can be forced to have sex whether she wants it or now, someone forces her legs open and forces himself inside

For a guy to have sex he has to be sexually aroused....male rape? Give it a fucking break you ding bat.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Maybe they decided to keep the funding for the women because women are raped about...oh, I don't know a thousand times more often?

You know LJ here is a lesson in sexuality for you.

A woman can be forced to have sex whether she wants it or now, someone forces her legs open and forces himself inside

For a guy to have sex he has to be sexually aroused....male rape? Give it a fucking break you ding bat.

Men can be raped without sexual arousal. Hello, being drunk or tied up?

But hey, you're a rape defender. Gotcha.

Fucking minion. Hit and run coward.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8zwLQidUlTc/TwUz4SFgl3I/AAAAAAAAEFk/oVr2GF1tIQ0/s1600/mangina+award+2+copy.jpg

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

People who believe men can't be raped should be sterilized.
You know, like lovecraft68 already is.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

https://41.media.tumblr.com/50561ead231184bc64a9b9e6807b77f9/tumblr_np0nrw17Bu1rtfxx8o1_1280.jpg
Feminism for you, folks.

 

[hashtag45]

I don't fully agree with those who jump on you.
I do agree with them when it comes to the 'hate' part contained in some of your messages. Just erase "Charities for women victims retain funding", please - that's hate.
But, as you explained at some point, some of your posts are about showing the other side as well.(it's the packaging that irks many of us , and not the content). For ex., men do get raped in prison and noone does anything abt. it.

 

[hashtag45]

love your avatar - cracks me up

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I don't fully agree with those who jump on you.
I do agree with them when it comes to the 'hate' part contained in some of your messages. Just erase "Charities for women victims retain funding", please - that's hate.
But, as you explained at some point, some of your posts are about showing the other side as well.(it's the packaging that irks many of us , and not the content). For ex., men do get raped in prison and noone does anything abt. it.

Is it hate to show that funding for men's issues is being outright eliminated, but not women's?

 

[hashtag45]

Is it hate to show that funding for men's issues is being outright eliminated, but not women's?

No. I guess on 2nd reading it comes across to me more in line with what you are referring to .

But when I 1st read it, it came across to me as follows: That you were implying that women are not being as exposed to violence as they claim, and that women's funding should be slashed as well (smthng. in that line).

Whereas you prob. are implying that Both fundings should be retained - slash none of them.

 

[hashtag45]

duplicated message by mistake. pls ignore

 

[oggbashan]

UK state and local funding for ALL charities is being cut as part of the austerity measures by the government.

The reduction in financial support for refuges for abused women has led to many of them closing over the last few years. They struggle to get other funding sources because they are not a popular charity like saving animals.

There is a current campaign to get funding cuts reversed, or to get other sponsors, but companies are reluctant to advertise that they support women's refuges. They'd rather pay for logos on football shirts.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

UK state and local funding for ALL charities is being cut as part of the austerity measures by the government.

The reduction in financial support for refuges for abused women has led to many of them closing over the last few years. They struggle to get other funding sources because they are not a popular charity like saving animals.

There is a current campaign to get funding cuts reversed, or to get other sponsors, but companies are reluctant to advertise that they support women's refuges. They'd rather pay for logos on football shirts.

But they still have SOME funding for women rape victims.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

No. I guess on 2nd reading it comes across to me more in line with what you are referring to .

But when I 1st read it, it came across to me as follows: That you were implying that women are not being as exposed to violence as they claim, and that women's funding should be slashed as well (smthng. in that line).

Whereas you prob. are implying that Both fundings should be retained - slash none of them.

Exactly. Slash none of them at all.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Maybe they decided to keep the funding for the women because women are raped about...oh, I don't know a thousand times more often?

You know LJ here is a lesson in sexuality for you.

A woman can be forced to have sex whether she wants it or now, someone forces her legs open and forces himself inside

For a guy to have sex he has to be sexually aroused....male rape? Give it a fucking break you ding bat.

And here is some sexual education for you, you fucking white knight tryhard. You fit right in with the crowd of ignorant babboons that this article was talking about:

"But how did you get an erection?"

First, there are the people who look you anywhere but in the eye as they nervously whisper, "But how did you get an erection?" The implication being that my penis couldn't possibly have been hard enough for intercourse unless I was enjoying it. If you own a penis or have seen one in action, you know that the things have a mind of their own -- hell, half the time you wake up with an erection. Boners happen at the drop of a hat, a rustle of fabric, a gentle breeze, you name it -- as long as everything works down there, literally anything can set it off. An erection is not a dowsing rod of intention, it's a bundle of nerves that can be manipulated by anyone who halfway knows what they're doing. If men had absolute control over their arousal, premature ejaculation wouldn't be a thing.

"All right," they say, "then why didn't you just shove her off?"

First, think about how horrific that question sounds when asked of a female victim, since most people will accept that a 120 pound woman isn't able to overpower a rampaging rape monster two and a half times her size. But even people who would never ask a female victim that assume I could easily have fought off some girl. You know, if I'd really wanted to.

There are actually several reasons why I didn't physically defend myself. First, how about the fact that I don't want to inflict violence on anyone, regardless of who they are or what they're doing? You know, like most of you -- all of us have been put into situations that maybe could have been solved by physical force, yet most of us haven't been in a fistfight since grade school.

 

[oggbashan]

But they still have SOME funding for women rape victims.

Survivors UK - the charity in the original post - is still getting £400,000 over 2 years from the government for a specific project to spread their services further than London.

That is part of £4.1 million from the government to tackle sex abuse of males.

The problem, as with all charities, is the balance between public and private funding. All levels of public funding are being reduced but philanthropy won't pick up all the lost funds.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Survivors UK - the charity in the original post - is still getting £400,000 over 2 years from the government for a specific project to spread their services further than London.

That is part of £4.1 million from the government to tackle sex abuse of males.

The problem, as with all charities, is the balance between public and private funding. All levels of public funding are being reduced but philanthropy won't pick up all the lost funds.

Interesting clarification of the situation. Thanks for the information.