Roger was not comfortable with the title UK Men’s Movement, but felt it had been forced on him by the need to defend the proper legal and human rights of decent men against attacks by feminist pressures. It was also forced on him by the media who wanted to speak of the "men’s movement" generally.

Roger was always at pains to stress that he (and the organisation) were not hostile to women but were only hostile to feminism. He did not believe that most women were feminists and did not believe that most women were well served by them. It was a great source of satisfaction that an increasing number of women were joining the UKMM — women of a high calibre and motivation.

Roger was not a practising Christian, but his own values and those he imbued the organisation with, were very much Christian ones. It was Roger, himself, despite pressure from more liberal elements, who insisted that the organisation take a clear moralist line on social issues and, for example, quite explicitly support traditional marriage and the family. Roger was therefore, ironically, often more comfortable with other Christian pro-family organisations that he was with more liberal men’s organisations. It was largely due to Roger’s efforts that we formed useful allies with such Christian groups in our campaigning against the Family Law Bill.

Roger’s line was simple and direct. He did not believe in mincing words or avoiding plain home truths. You always knew which side he was on — even if you did not agree with him. 

Roger was pro-life and did not believe in abortion — and he said so. He did not believe in divorce — and said so. He did not believe in the "children’s rights" movement — and said so. Most controversially of all, Roger believed in Patriarchy as being the best model for the family because of its natural stabilising influences — and he said so.

Many of Roger’s views on the family perhaps stemmed from the fact that circumstances had not permitted him to have children himself. I know this was a great sadness to him.

Roger was an elitist — not because he was a snob (he was very far from that) —but because he believed in the unashamed pursuit of excellence in all things. To him a university was a place consisting of ancient buildings, cloisters and lawns — not a 1 960s college of concrete blocks. To him an engineer was someone wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase — not someone wearing overalls and wielding a spanner. He was constantly irritated by the media portrayal of science as to do with gadgets, test tubes and the like. Science to him was, above all, an intellectual discipline — a way of thinking and enquiring about the world.

Roger was a true scientist — not only in his work — but in his attitude to life generally. Like quality, truth to him was a precious and sacred thing. He had little time for the psychobabble of Psychologists and Sociologists — Pseudo Scientists as he called them. Gentleman that he was — Roger would always apologise to me for his barely concealed contempt for my own discipline —that of Psychology. Roger did not suffer fools gladly — but it was the Charlatan and the intellectual seducer he despised — not the plainly ignorant honestly seeking the truth.

Roger was not impatient or unkind. If one phoned him after a bad media performance he would always be positive and supportive whilst acknowledging the weakness and encouraging one to do better next time. He would also be quick to identify a defect in his own performance which needed attention.

People may not have appreciated how completely unselfish Roger’s project was. He knew that anything he achieved would make little difference to his own life. He did not even have his own children whose future he could be fighting for like some of us. He was driven, above all else, by a strong sense of fairness and justice. 

Roger did not cut himself off in some enclave, as he might have done. He was keen to be out engaging in debate and influencing people. He was particularly keen to discuss matters with young people. Nothing was too trivial for him — and he had to put up with some pretty dismal and insulting trivia from the media at times. One TV appearance he was pleased with, and had put himself out for, was an interview with a group of school-children who were doing a project on men’s and women’s roles. He was extremely pleased that Southampton University asked us to speak on a motion for their Debating Society as part of their men’s week.

I think it was this steady inglorious and unrewarding plugging away at the grass roots that made me like and respect Roger more than anything else. It is easy to be a hero when you are a national figure — a star. But Roger was not a star — he was just an ordinary man who wanted to do his bit for society.

It was due largely to Roger’s steady perseverance that the UKMM began to get greater recognition, and was represented centre-stage on BBC TV’s Heart of the Matter and on Radio 4 with two separate programmes on the Moral Maze and two separate editions of Woman’s Hour, as well as appearances on Channel 4 News and Newsnight. This, quite apart from innumerable local TV and radio station appearances. The movement had started to produce some serious research reports and had spoken to a number of Government ministers and had been asked to speak to the Law Commission.

Roger was undoubtedly compassionate, but he did not wear his heart on his sleeve and he could not abide sentiment. He felt deeply uncomfortable at a Kansas City conference at the sight of men crying over the loss of their much-loved children — however much he felt sympathy for them. He stood for the classic male virtues of directness, stoicism and courage — and he lived his own life according to these.

When Roger heard that he was terminally ill with cancer, his attitude was to face the truth, get done with the treatment and then get on with his life and get on with the fight as before as best he could. He told me, not so long ago, that he was looking to try and get another ten years in. I told him — he’d better

— because we certainly couldn’t do to without him.

Well, tragically Roger didn’t get another ten years in and we will have to do without him. It won’t be easy. With the death also of Bruce Lidington of the charity Families Need Fathers, the men’s movements have suffered two severe blows at a time when they can least afford it.