PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME
The U.K. Men's Movement
Phone 0141 959 4194
email : [email protected]Date: 23/03/02
Media Release
The Scottish Executive has replied to two Parliamentary Questions raised by Phil Gallie, MSP, on behalf of the UKMen's Movement (see below)
We petitioned the Parliament, for mainstream awareness of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) by family courts social work, education and health workers (see our website www.ukmm.org.uk) as required by European Law (Ersholtz. V. Germany and others)
We petitioned on behalf of the many parents, (mostly fathers) and extended family members who are being wilfully alienated from their child or relative after separation.
The vast majority of these cases of child abuse are committed by mothers, who know they can commit contempt of court with impunity, due the judiciary’s reluctance to impose custodial sentences or financial penalties on women.
The Executive are complicit in this denial of the most basic of human rights, contact between parent and child. We can provide interviews with fathers, grandparents and siblings who have suffered from Parental Alienation Syndrome, or (merely malicious alienation) and can bear powerful testimony to the lie behind this Executive double-speak
Call 0141-959-4194 for comment and to be put in touch with victims.
Ourselves and others are pursuing this matter in England and in Wales, (see second question relating to an upcoming international conference in London). To the shame of this Executive it has not taken this opportunity to end the abuse of children and the Human Rights of their adult relatives.
Chairman,
UK Men’s Movement.
13 August 2001
HAMILTONS
The matters to do with the Hamiltons has again brought to prominence in the last 24 hours a most unpleasant experience for men in particular. That experience is and has been to find themselves arrested on a charge of rape.
An added unpleasantness has been when that arrest is the result of a false allegation. At this time we make no comment on the Hamiltons whilst the police are carrying out their investigations. One Max Clifford seems perhaps to have shone a light on the accuser however. His comments and advce to that person is that she will need to produce some solid evidence.
Whilst we await the result of investigation we have been heartened by some establishment figures who have given voice to the lack of anonymity matter for the accused whilst the accuser remains protected. We have made immediate contact with these figures in pursuit of our campaigning in the general matter of lack of anonymity as well as false allegation. This aspect has moved towards a successful outcome in the Scottish Parliament as part of the campaign work of our Scottish branch..
We have been contacted by various journalists for comment and are booked on to 2 Radio Spots on Tuesday where the subject matter will be explored.
Ian P.Kelly, Ops Director, UK Mens Movement
18 Jan 2001
FAMILY LAW ACT 1996
Yesterday 17th January 2001 marks the end of the campaign commenced in August 1995. The campaign beginning in 1995 was the challenge to the attempt to bring about "Divorce on Demand". The Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill entered Parliament in June 1995 in the waning days of the Major administration. Despite warnings about this intended legislation it seemed like a final act of the Conservative government to put a nail in its own coffin.
The UKMM supporting John Campion, Chairman of The Family Law Action Group, assisted in bringing together a 30 person coalition drawn from pro family groups and individuals to provide challenge and response to the intended legislation. In August 1995 the coalition commenced meetings at The Reform Club in London sponsored by Mr David Wills.
Immediate challenge started and widespread concern became expressed in the media about the potential for a rapid increase in the divorce rate already running at 40%. In November 1995 as a direct result of an article in The Mail by William Oddie the Bill was suddenly withdrawn. It seemed as though an early victory had been won. However in January 1996 the Bill now re-titled The Family Law Bill was introduced by the then Lord Chancellor Lord Mackay. It seemed as though the poisoned chalice had been handed to him. Meetings reconvened and between January and May 1995 we put forward many amendments that became incorporated in the Bill. These amendments were designed to strengthen the position of the husband in both ancillary and children matters as they arose in the divorce process. The day of the third reading arrived and it was hoped the Bill would fail. Regrettably it did not and went on to receive Royal Assent. It was forecast to become implemented in 1998.
Despite the implementation of Part IV (known colloquially as "Passive Domestic Violence") in October 1997 -- 1998 arrived followed by 1999 and 2000 and nothing further was heard about full implementation apart from the piloting of "Mediation", a euphemism for attempting to brow beat husbands into financial settlements for petitioning wives. These piloting trials failed in 1999 and were withdrawn.
During December 2000 words began to be heard about the ditching of the Act. Further words were heard in the last week and finally yesterday Lord Irvine the Lord Chancellor pronounced that the Family Law Act was being scrapped. It seems that the present government already struggling with a runaway Social Security budget have realised that indeed Divorce on Demand would increase the divorce rate and in consequence add further numbers to those sucking on the benefit hind tit.
The Reform Group showed the potential for bringing together mature campaigners with an effective structure in place to influence en passage legislation. Whilst we welcome the scapping of the Act had it remained in place and become enabled husbands and fathers may have fared better than they currently do under the present legislation. Divorce on Demand was an abomination in 1995 and remains so. It is right and proper to maintain a fault based system. Whilst the Act has been abandoned there still remains the manipulation of the present legislation by divorce brought about by the engineered cause of "Unreasonable Behaviour". The UKMM having up to yesterday continued to expose the consequences of enabling "Divorce on Demand" -- will continue its campaign to bring an end to engineered petitions together with the perjury that frequently accompanies them. This accounts for about 50% of the annual divorce rate.
The UKMM is proud of the leading part it played in the eventual scrapping of The Family Law Act 1996.
Ian P.Kelly
Ops Director
UK Mens Movement
13 Dec 2000 (from our allies the Equal Parenting Party)
MARK HARRIS APPEAL CASE
IMMEDIATE RELEASE FROM EQUAL PARENTING the single-issue political party fighting for parents to be treated EQUALLY after divorce for the sake of the children
MARK HARRIS APPEAL CASE
IMMEDIATE RELEASE FROM EQUAL PARENTING the single-issue political party fighting for parents to be treated EQUALLY after divorce for the sake of the children
MARK HARRIS APPEAL CASE
IMMEDIATE RELEASE FROM EQUAL PARENTING the single-issue political party fighting for parents to be treated EQUALLY after divorce for the sake of the children
On 18 December a father is going to the Royal Courts of Justice, London
for JUDICIAL REVIEW because his children's schools are so dismissive of him (as a parent
who can no longer live with his children) that they refuse even to put him on the
emergency list of contacts for his children.
Their unlawful actions have been supported by Plymouth City Council who are prepared to
waste taxpayers' money in an effort to justify the unjustifiable.
Equal Parenting Party trusts that the court will make those responsible in the Local
Authority PERSONALLY LIABLE for the wasted costs.
The hearing will be in open court - MARK HARRIS -v- PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL. A phone
call to RCJ on Friday 15 Dec 00 after 2:30pm will reveal the time of the hearing on the
18th.
This is an extreme example of the prejudice non-resident parents have to face when trying
to remain involved in their children's lives. Many of our members find themselves
treated badly by schools and doctors who blindly support one parent to the exclusion of
the other.
FURTHER INFO. FROM MARK ON 01752 346 395
Tony Coe, Party President
Direct Line 020 7590 2701 - mobile: 07768 366 100
Information Line: 020 7590 2709 - Email: [email protected]
"Children need BOTH Parents!" www.EqualParenting.org Vote for
EQUAL PARENTING by joining on line today FREE
PS. We have just been told that this will be heard at 10:30am on Monday in COURT 39. Mark will be represented by Counsel. Should be a rare win!
12 Dec 2000
THE UKMM RESPONDS TO JURY DISMISSAL DEALING WITH THE REAL ISSUES AFFECTING MEN
THE UKMM RESPONDED TO THE NEWS ANNOUNCED TODAY THAT AN OLD BAILEY JUDGE HAD DISMISSED A
JURY FOLLOWING ARGUMENT PUT FORWARD BY AN ALLEGED RAPIST's BARRISTER THAT THE RECENTLY
ENABLED YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT AND ARTICLE SIX OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ACCUSED TO PUT HIS EVIDENCE BEFORE THE JURY. IN DISCHARGING THE
JURY THE JUDGE "WITH ENTHUSIASM" GRANTED LEAVE FOR THE LEGAL ARGUMENT TO BE
TAKEN TO THE COURT OF APPEAL.
THE UKMM WELCOMED THE INTERVENTION AS VERY CLEARLY MEN FACING ALLEGATIONS OF RAPE, WITH
THE NOW EVER ATTENDANT RISK OF FALSE ALLEGATION, MUST BE AFFORDED ALL OPPORTUNITY TO PLEAD
THEIR CASE. THIS MUST NOT BE JEOPARDISED BY BEING PREVENTED FROM MAKING CROSS EXAMINATION.
OUR CONTINUING CAMPAIGN HAS HIGHLIGHTED THE ESTABLISHMENT ALLEGED CONCERN REGARDING THE
DROP IN CONVICTION RATE COMPARED WITH THE INCREASE IN POLICE RECORDED RAPE. WE HAVE
OBSERVED IN LAW REPORTS INCREASING COMMENT BY BOTH THE JUDICIARY AND LEGAL
PROFESSION REGARDING THE GROWTH IN ABANDONED TRIALS WHERE FALSE ALLEGATION IS EXPOSED.
WHILST IT WOULD BE PREFERABLE FOR FALSE ALLEGATION TO BE WEEDED OUT BEFORE MATTERS PROCEED
TO TRIAL WE OBSERVE THAT MATTERS TEND TO BE DRIVEN MORE BY POLITICAL CORRECTNESS THAN
CONCERN FOR JUSTICE.
WE HAVE REGULARLY ON TV AND RADIO STATED THAT WOMEN WHO HAVE GENUINELY BEEN RAPED HAVE TO
FIRST PASS A CREDIBILITY TEST AT THE REPORTING STAGE. WHILST THIS TEST IS OF PERCEPTION IT
HAS BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE PROLIFERATION OF FALSE ALLEGATION. BOTH THE POLICE AND CROWN
PROSECUTION SERVICE ARE NERVOUS ABOUT PROCEEDING BECAUSE OF THE RISK OF TRIAL ABANDONMENT.
EXAMPLES OF JUDICIAL INTERVENTION DOVETAIL WELL WITH OUR CALL FOR THE RESTORATION OF
ANONIMITY FOR THE ACCUSED. OUR RECENT SUBMISSIONS TO THE PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE OF THE
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT IN THIS REGARD HAVE RECEIVED EXCELLENT SUPPORT.
Ian P.Kelly
OPS DIRECTOR
UK MEN'S MOVEMENT
13 March 2000 (from our allies the Equal Parenting Party)
IMMEDIATE RELEASE 13 MARCH 00 - CONTACT INFORMATION BELOW
WIFE OF BRITISH AMBASSADOR SUPPORTS EQUAL PARENTING WEEK 13 TO 19 MARCH 2000
Last week Tony Coe, Leader of Equal Parenting Party, met with Lady Catherine Meyer at the British Embassy in Washington DC in order to enlist her support for EQUAL PARENTING WEEK in the UK, which starts today. Lady Meyer, wife of the British Ambassador, also has an interest in legal reforms that will put an end to the current situation in the UK where children lose one parent after divorce or separation for no good reason.
Lady Meyer has not seen her two sons for 6 years. She had custody of them in London and, under a divorce settlement with her former German husband, agreed generous access rights for their father to see the boys, including spending part of the school holidays with him in Germany. However, at the end of the boys' first visit to Germany, the father refused to return the boys to London. Lady Meyer was unable to resolve the situation through the courts because, as time went by, the children were alienated against her.
Although this was a case involving international law, the same problem affects millions of divorced and separated parents and their children in the UK without there being any element of international abduction. EQUAL PARENTING WEEK is designed to raise public awareness of this vital issue which is so important for children of broken homes.
David Levy, President of the Children's Rights Council, which is headquartered in Washington DC, was also at the meeting at the British Embassy, Mr Levy said:
"The Children's Rights Council fully supports the Equal Parenting Week you are holding in the United Kingdom. It is vitally important that children have frequent and continuing contact with both their parents. This is the child's inherent right."
Mr Levy has asked Tony Coe's wife, Christine, to start a branch of The Children's Rights Council here in the UK.
1 March 2000 (from our allies the Equal Parenting Party)
EQUAL PARENTING WEEK - 12 MARCH 2000
The first ever EQUAL PARENTING WEEK in the UK has been scheduled for March 12 through 19th, sponsored by EQUAL PARENTING the political party dedicated to a single issue - that BOTH parents should be treated equally by the law after divorce or separation FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN.
EQUAL PARENTING WEEK comes at a time when the legal system is facing a record number of Appeals from parents (90% fathers) who are being prevented from having a proper relationship with their children for no reason other than the hostility of the parent with care, almost always the mother.
This state of affairs is bad for the children concerned. It is clear that the system is not working, although the Government continually claims that the courts are looking after the best interests of children.
Tony Coe, Leader of the Equal Parenting Party says:
"How can it be in the interests of children to lose one perfectly good parent for no reason when Experts agree that this causes damage to children in the medium and long term!? The Government is behaving like an Alcoholic with a whisky bottle that won't admit to having a drinking problem! They need to face the fact that the system is in deep trouble and start working on urgent reform immediately to stop further damage being done to children."
ONE EXAMPLE OF HOW THE LAW GETS IT WRONG!
During Equal Parenting Week, one father, supported by Equal Parenting Party, will be begging the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal against the decision in his case which defies all reason. (There is in effect almost no right of appeal in these cases. Most are dismissed out of hand.)
This father is a professional, Registered Childminder. He separated from his wife 2 years ago. They have a 2 year old son who lives with the mother. Mother has decided to put her career before the child - she works full time.
However, instead of letting the boy's own father look after the child while she's at work, she insists that he be left with a strange Childminder for nearly 50 hours a week! Meanwhile, after fighting through the courts for 2 years, and after some 16 court appearances, this father gets to see his child about 4 hours a week, for which he makes a 400 mile round trip every week!!!
The mother resists all attempts to come to a reasonable agreement that will benefit the child. She is supported by a legal system that blindly backs mothers and with the support of the taxpayer. It is commonplace for a case like this to cost the Legal Aid fund at least �100,000. Faced with this sort of opposition, most fathers give up and then are accused of abandonment.
This father must remain anonymous because the family courts are held in secret, so the parents in this position can't even tell the public about the cruel injustice they and their children are suffering!
Some mother too, who become the non-resident parent, are facing the same injustice. It is an increasing trend which is why Equal Parenting is a gender-neutral campaign. It's about children who don't want to have to choose between 2 parents they love. That is what the currents system forces them to do where the parents can't agree custody and access arrangements.
Details are the reforms the Equal Parenting Party are seeking can be found on its website - link below.
The date of this news release is 1 March 2000.
More information from:
Tony Coe - Leader - EQUAL PARENTING PARTY Fighting for Children's Right to keep BOTH Parents Tel: 020 7589 9003 Mobile: 0468 366 100 Fax: 020 7584 4230 Party Headquarters: 38-40 Gloucester Road, Kensington, London, England, SW7 4QU www.EqualParenting.org CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS!
October 1999
United Kingdom (UK) government is asked to respondto the United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights
over assertions of human rights violations against men in marriage
The Cheltenham Group has investigated the benefits and rights provided for men within marriage in the UK. This investigation has resulted in a submission to the UN, asserting violations of UN human rights articles which guarantee "the right of men and women … to marry and to found a family".
The submission provides evidence to show that :
This situation is not compatible with a guaranteed right to marry, which is provided by the UN human rights articles.
The Cheltenham Group’s submission to the UN also provides evidence that :
This submission has been made under the UN’s ‘1503’ procedure for the reporting of a ‘consistent pattern of violations’, quoting the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) :
The submission was made in April 1999, and the UN Commission on Human Rights have informed in July 1999 that the UK Government has now been asked to respond to these assertions.
The Cheltenham Group’s submission to the UN is available at ‘http://www.ukmm.org.uk’ under ‘campaigns/human rights for men’, and the supporting report "The Emperor’s New Clothes" under ‘publications/bookshelf’. Further information about this development may be obtained from the Cheltenham Group.
Barry Worrall, Director, The Cheltenham Group
21 May 1999
'Equal Parenting' candidate stands for Paliament
in Leeds Central by-election on 10 June 1999
Equal Parenting Campaign LET'S DO SOMETHING!
If you are not already aware, I'd like to let you know that Julian Fitzgerald of FAMILY ROUTES is going to stand in the upcoming Leeds Central By Election for the specific purpose of raising awareness on the issue of EQUAL PARENTING. In fact, I understand that, for the sake of clarity, FAMILY ROUTES is changing its name to the EQUAL PARENTING CAMPAIGN. The announcement will be made public in just under one week's time.
I think this is a terrific initiative and myself and others are aiming to help get this campaign off the ground. I hope individually you will consider lending support too. This will be a learning experience. Perhaps it can be repeated in other areas once we know the ropes.
Time is extremely short, because of the way the Authorities organize these things! The deposit of �500 needs to be raised within a few days. Several people have already pledged donations. More funds are obviously needed to carry the campaign forward and there are many other tasks that need doing. How can you help? Please get in touch if you can help.
My company Anorak has set up an Email address for the campaign [email protected]
Donations (however small) should be sent to Julian Fitzgerald. Please write on the back of cheques EQUAL PARENTING CAMPAIGN DONATION and mail to:
56 St Louis Street, Leeds, LS7 4BN
Not only donations, but practical support is needed fast to mobilize this campaign. If you're in the Leeds area, please call Julian on 0113 229 8949. If you want to call me to find out more about what you can do to assist, or if you have some ideas about how we can make this campaign as effective as possible, please don't hesitate to get in touch.
That's all for now. Best wishes to you all, Tony Coe
1 May 1999
Gloucester man denied all access with his four children until they become of age, vows to expose in the High Court of Appeal the shameful way that Family Courts Judges have brought about the loss of relationship with his children.
Mr Short (46) is outraged that in the four plus years that he has been denied access to his children, on no occassion has his relationship with his children, in their presence, been assessed for the preparation of the three Court Welfare and one Official Solicitor reports. His ex wife, who has never wanted his children to be assessed with him has accordingly had free reign, with the Court's connivance, to bring about the loss to four impressionable children of their father. Being aware that this unfair treatment by the Family Courts is widespread, and therefore many other children are suffering in silence, Mr Short is prepared to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights to bring about equality in the Family Courts, and thereby, a change in the law.
High Court Leave to Appeal hearing is on Friday 14th May 1999 before two Lords Justices. Mr Short represents himself.
PRESS RELEASE Embargo Date:
Immediate: 21 May 98, 14.00
The Cheltenham Group
The Cheltenham Group is the family policy wing of the United Kingdom Men's Movement
Contact: Dr John Campion (CG Director)
Tel: 01730 815347 & 0410 989301
A single mother underground train driver has had her allegation of sex discrimination against her employer upheld in the appeal court. Her employers changed her shift pattern and she said she could not manage to work to them and look after her son. The judgement was made that the change was sex discriminatory because it would be easier for men to comply than women.
DR CAMPION (Group Director) today said:
"This judgement shows that the world has gone completely mad. It is outrageous for a court to interfere in the work practices of an employer which it sets up in order to operate effectively".
How on earth can it be sex-discriminatory when the woman found herself unable to comply with her employers' wishes. This is what caused the problem, not her sex.. People (both men and women) find themselves unable, for many reasons, to comply with work requirements and don't take up the jobs or leave. This judgement implies that all employers will have to adjust their work practices to suit the needs of single mothers !
This points up the utter selfishness and self-centredness of the women's movement.It is normal to expect employees to adjust their lives to suit their employment - not the other way round. This judgement shows no regard for commercial imperatives or service to the public. This judgement will cost yet more job losses - losses which will fall most heavily on men who have families to support. This case has also wasted many tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money.
The judgement is all the more insulting when men have to suffer the most blatant and serious sex discrimination in the divorce courts in having their children and homes confiscated on the basis of their sex and not on the basis of their conduct or qualities as a parent. No one is prepared even to listen to us, let alone take action. ENDS
22 June 98
Cheltenham Group challenges
the NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy and its effect on family law
- no remedy is available
The Cheltenham Group have pressed those authorities responsible for the interpretation of family law, and for the Court Welfare Service in particular, to remedy the problems created by the NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy in contested children’s issues under the Children Act 1989. Court Welfare Officers who operate under this policy cannot act in accordance with the principles in the Children Act, that is of the children’s best interests, as the NAPO policy clearly subverts these principles.
The Cheltenham Group has, between 10 November 1997 until 11 June 1998, contacted all those responsible with information about the present serious situation, that is :
HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMiP), who referred the matter to :
the Home Office, Probation Unit (HOPU);
the Lord Chancellor’s Dept (LC’s Dept), who also referred the matter to HOPU;
the Law Society (LS);
the General Council of the Bar (BC), who referred the matter to :
the Family Law Bar Association (FLBA);
the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), who have requested a meeting with :
the National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO).
None of these responsible bodies has accepted any responsibility, and the NAPO policy still exists.
The programme of submissions culminated when Dr John Campion and Barry Worrall met Mr Geoff Hoon MP at 11.30am on Thursday 11 June 1998 in Selborne House, 54-60 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QW. The agenda of the meeting was to present Mr Hoon with information on the Court Welfare Service and the interpretation of family law. Mr Hoon was presented with copies of :
The Emperor’s New Clothes, CG, ISBN 1 900080 03 6, 2nd Edition 1998;
The NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy & Lack of Available Remedies, CG, 11 June 1998.
Mr Hoon constantly denied any problems in the interpretation of the law but repeated the ‘formal’ version as stated in the written law. He also said that marriage conveyed rights on fathers which unmarried fathers did not have. When asked what these rights were he stated the provisions of the written law e.g. over contact.
The conclusion to be drawn from this situation is that at least one component of family law has been clearly shown to be out of control of responsible authority.
A record of the programme of submissions and responses is available in the Cheltenham Group report The NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy & Lack of Available Remedies.
Contacts : Barry Worrall : 0191 285 3296 Dr John Campion : 01730 815 347
Barry Worrall, Coordinator, The Cheltenham Group, 22 June 1998
17 July 1998
Just-published EOC Annual Report 1997 again defies the truth
Once again the EOC has awarded itself a self-congratulatory 'puff' in its annual report.
The mindset of the EOC is still deeply defective however. Despite backing (and losing) cases of imagined sex-discrmination, such as the Wallace v Strathclyde Regional Council case, which had nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination against Ms Wallace as a woman, the EOC is determined to do absolutely nothing to remove genuine discriminations against men, including the biggest single issue of discrimination against men - family law.
Of course the EOC are the last people to judge an issue since, of the 48 cases they took up, only 9 were successful in court last year. They lost 12 cases and 27 were out-of-court settlements.
The confused thinking of the EOC is also apparent in their comments of free admission for women to pubs and clubs. they state (on page 27 of the report) that they are meeting entertainment representatives to 'discuss the issues'.
But what is there to discuss ? If a man has to pay �5 to enter a club and a woman gets in free, that is sex discrimination by the very definitions used by the EOC.
If the EOC had a more 'equal' workforce (currently 29 men and 131 women), then their ability to think logically would improve greatly.
Paul Duddy, Scottish Secretary, UKMM
4 November 1998
GOVERNMENT MISSES YET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO REMEDY BREAKDOWN IN FAMILY LIFE
The Government's Green Paper on support for the family shows yet again how out of touch Ministers are about the reality of family issues.
Further meddling on the periphery of the problem, instead of dealing with the fundamentals, will simply waste further public money without any expectation of significant improvement.
The fundamentals should include :
* removal of support for the 'alternative' family of a woman and 'her' children;
* priority support for the normal family;
* the restoration of full men's rights within the family on a legal basis.
The cost to the nation of subsidising 'alternative' families is in excess of œ20 billion per annum. This equates to around �500 per year for every taxpayer in the country.
This squandered money would pay for increased pensions, cover the cost of bringing nurses pay up to the level it should be, and cease the practice of selling the homes of elderly people who have paid national insurance throughout their working lives when they require residential medical care, etc., etc., etc...
Ian Kelly, representing the United Kingdom Men's Movement, will be available on 01242-691110 for a response to the Green Paper during Wednesday 4th November