DOMESTIC ABUSE - NO RESPECT FOR RESPECT OR CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE

Sorry for the delay in putting any posts up in June, it has been pretty full on and as you know always happy to publish other people's work.

Part of the delay this week was to try and see where the story BBC Radio 5 ran with on Monday went and also to pick out any salient points (there were 137 comments on their piece). The story was about male victims of domestic abuse and the fact that the number of female perpetrators had doubled in the last five years to nearly 4,000. We received an email to say the ManKind Initiative had been helping the production team on it and their chairman, Mark Brooks, was quoted.

There were three main points worth picking up:

(1) On Radio 5, the interview between Respect (who run the Men's Advice Line a Home Office funded helpline despite being a charity about perpetrators) and Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan, a professor at the University of Central Lancashire. This is on just after 7am (one hour in) via BBC Radio 5's iplayer (A fuller interview with Mark Brooks is at the beginning of the three hour show). In this lively piece, Ippo Panteloudakis who runs the Men's Advice Line is dismissive of male victims. He says after firstly avoiding the question on whether he agrees with the Doctor on whether as many women are as violent as men in domestic relationships (he says 'dispelling' but is cut off- it'd been nice to find out what he was dispelling!) says:

"It doesn't really change the picture overall that the majority of domestic abuse perpertrators are male, the overwhelming majority. Women do occasionally use violence in their intimate relationships and this is what this report is telling us."

When pushed again on whether women are capable of violence, he goes on to say "We are all capable, it is a matter of whether we use violence or not and in my professional experience the overwhelming majority of perpetrators are male with a female victim." 

Firstly, he is not telling the truth as the government's figures show (highlighted on ManKind Initiative's website) that one in three victims of severe force are male and the doctor believes the figures are 50:50. Parity complained to the UK Statistics Authority about the use of 'overwhelming' - perhaps Respect ought to know or do they know but choose to ignore it.

Secondly, what is so disconcerting is that fact that all Respect want to do is try and downplay male victims and basically say this is a non-story becuase there are far more female victims. The problem is that no one is saying there are no female victims, that men should have better services and women should be ignored. All true equality campaigners want is to ensure there is full recognition of male victims in the same way as there is for female victims and that there are support services.

Respect seem to want to run a men's helpline but actually they don't really believe in what they are doing because male victims are not as important as female victims. Such hypocrisy is startling, but alas, not surprising. They are the enemy within.

(2) Later on in the subsequent Radio 5 phone in which covered the subject with lots of men being candid about their experiences including those at the hands of the police (the Association of Chief Police officers says that male victims are treated seriously), Nicky Campbell read out (22 minutes in) a statement from the Crown Prosecution Service stating  

"Any form of domestic abuse is a serious crime that ruins lives and breaks up families irrespective of whether the victim is male or female. There is no bias or lack of concern on the part of the CPS when dealing with cases involving male victims. The pernicious nature of the offending remains the same irrelevant of whether the victim is male or female. Our domestic violence policies are purposefully gender neutral - the wording does not single out men or women. We welcome any representations from groups or individuals who have concerns about how we deal with domestic violence."

Sometimes you do not know where to start but if one thing highlights this untruth it is Kier Starmer's speech (he is the director of public prosecutions) which did not even recognise that male victims exist. Sorry but the CPS is talking rubbish - there is the proof! Plus this from a few years back

And of course the policy may be gender neutral but the application is not. Has anyone seen a CPS leaflet encouraging men to come forward? I see tumbleweed.

(3) The last piece of interest was Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan's piecein the Guardian outlining how feminism has shut out recognition and services for male victims. Certainly will have ruffled a few feminist feathers. A first for the Guardian surely! However, the piece attracted over 480 comments.  

Overall, it has to be hats off to Radio 5, ManKind, Dr Graham-Kevan and all those men who came forward to discuss the issue. Only by this sort of coverage can the walls of anti-male feminism and anti-equality campaigners come crashing down.

Posted by Skimmington

Editors note

Coverage on the issue has been widespread (ITV Daybreak, News 24, Radio 1 etc) including in these places which add a bit extra to the story: Daily Mail, Bicester Advertiser, The Wright Stuff and a blog by the journalist who originated the story.

Comments

[John Kimble]

Excellent and thorough analysis.

We really need to get the message out about the hideous and backward attitudes of "Respect", a truly despicable organisation.

On the other hand note the input of Lancaster University staff. There are a number of people there all doing excellent work on dv and it's not the first time I've seen them talking sense in the media. We have a glut of universities conducting bogus, misandric gender feminist inspired research in this country and it's worth bearing in mind that there are a few decent institutions left countering their lies and genuinely interested in the truth.

[ZimbaZumba]

Impressive performance by Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan, the Respect guy came over as an ideologue.

[John Kimble]

Haven't' seen this pop up on Reddit yet, it's such a useful summary, be sure to submit it.

[Groan]

There is indeed something not quite right about an organisation focussed on perpetrators running a help line. Hence the importance of Mankind and others helping Male victims.
The main problem with the Respect run line is that it "screens" callers to check if they are victims or perpetrators. and in that "screening" many get defined as not really victims. Now if the helplines for women did the same "screening" they would be rightly castigated for not believing the victim. Yet respect are effectively making callers prove they are worth helping. Any helpline should offer help, deciding on the rights and wrongs comes later.

[David Eggins]

David Eggins, Temper Domestic violence, www.temper.me.uk I am inclined to agree with most of the comments in this link, perhaps not all. Not only is the position of male and female victims misrepresented and "corrupted", even worse from my point of view so is the focus on the abuser, of which of course only men count and women are excused. Worse really, RELATE is a potentially well respected, national couple counselling service - trojanised - is the word I have used to describe what became of their service which became infiltrated. As well as efforts to support male victims concerted and effective efforts also need to be made with abusers, both males and females, gender inclusive, in mixed groups. These people are, after all in very many cases the parents of children who are by my calculations 4 - 6 times more at risk of IPV than their mother is, and statistically more at risk from their mother than from their father! Of course in line with their other "firewall efforts" RESPECT seeks to block this type of information. Meanwhile a new "game" for you: Cherchez-les-femmes! Check out the finances of the various organisations on the Charity Commission website. Which organisation had a senior employee on a salary between £170,001 and £180,000, (down £10k on the previous year?) What is the cost per hour (or the income per year) of the RESPECT help line? Whose £219k expenditure resulted in 33 perpetrator completions, for 70% of whom it is claimed to be effective?