to think that This Morning were utterly irresponsible to broadcast an interview with Natalie Cassidy on how and why she took back her abusive partner?

[wannaBe]

Natalie Cassidy on This Morning. abused to the extent she left and then took out a restraining order against him.

Then decided she loved him after all and took him back - he's admitted he's an alcoholic, has changed and they couldn't be happier.

The whole interview was all about justification, how it was because she was wound up about his drinking, how he drank and it made him do it, how he has now changed.

I vented my anger over it elsewhere and on twitter, but tbh I think that Natalie Cassidy, while very naive IMO, is free to make whatever decisions she sees fit.

However, I think This Morning were totally irresponsible to give it any kind of airtime.

There was no counter view. No-one to say that statistically it is highly unlikely that NC's partner has changed, that once an abuser, always an abuser...

Lots of vulnerable women will have been watching. Many may well believe that if NC's partner could change, perhaps theirs can too. And perhaps they will go back into dangerous situations because of it
.
This Morning does not only have a responsibility to the stars it broadcasts, it has a responsibility to its viewers, and that responsibility IMO extends to not glamorising domestic abuse and helping to perpetuate the myth that abusers can change.

Cassidy said something like, the Refuge statistics didn't apply to her.

Why put someone in denial on television to talk about such a sensitive subject as domestic violence?

I would have preferred the counter opinion to have been delivered by an actual person, not just read out as a brief statement by Philip Schofield. The piece seemed unbalanced.

I wonder if Cassidy laid down conditions before the interview?

FFS women do STAY whether Nat/refuge/family/friends tells them it's a good idea or not. That's the problem, the interview will change nothing.

If you are in an abusive relationship it takes more than hearing the facts to do something about it. Her partner is actually off the alcohol. It would help a similar abusive relationship at least short term if their partners did the same. My betting is most won't stop the drink. Therefore they won't be judging Natalie's "success" in the same way and maybe will leave because they work out that change is needed.

Thebest if anyone including NC gets hurt as a result of domestic violence, it will not be NC's fault, it will not be This Morning's fault. The fault will lie wholly and completely with the abuser.

Dione. That was the point I was making, if you read the post.

However, if somebody else gets hurt because they were influenced by her interview I think the people taking part in that interview have to take responsibility for that. It's called responsible journalism.

It was stated by Schofield that abusers very rarely change.

Of COURSE abusers are always to blame (although not according to NC who "wound him up" )

Journalists still need to provide balanced reporting, especially on a subject as sensitive as domestic violence (and by balanced, I don't mean reading out a couple of bullet points on a scrap of paper which the victim just dismisses, I mean having an expert on the sofa who can delve deeper into the psychology involved)

He's been "off the drink" less than 2 months, seeing as he was drunk at the time of commiting criminal damage in December.

Its far too early to call him reformed.

eg your dad hit your mum on one occasion would you be so anti the possibility of them working on their relationship? would you argue so vociferously against a reconciliation in that scenario?

believe me i wish my mum had left my day years before she did, but she kept finding reasons to stay, i hate the fact that my sister and i were used as reasons. ime women in this situation will look for anything that justifies them staying, things like this interview, just normalise domestic violence, and feeds the idea that there is some romantic or noble reason for staying with an aggressive partner.

Hiding this thread now, it's making me really that people seem to be so accepting of a broadcaster being so cavalier with an issue that touches far too many people on this site

Cassidy said something like, the Refuge statistics didn't apply to her

Hmm, well I hope for her sake it is true but from what I read - he can't control his anger issues - it doesn't sound too hopeful....

The words "Stockholm Syndrome" come to mind...

(I already fear for that poor child growing up like that)...

It is so easy to judge a women to get out but in reality it takes so long for many women. That is why it is such a huge problem and we have two women killed every week(?) in UK - never mind the rest of the world's statistics.

I've been through it and by now off at the first sign of red flags at controlling and abusive words/behaviour!

I would love it if this was part of a series of programmes on this subject and yes, have Refuge or Women's Aid come on for one too.

In this way, they are just giving more air - steam! - to the idea that it can be fixed easily just by platitudes.

I felt very uncomfortable watching it and I even felt a bit sick after she was reminded that he had assaulted her and she said that he had but it wasn't like he had beaten her (or something similar)!!!

I think that abusers could use this interview when they assault their partners 'I only hit you but I didn't beat you' type of thing.

I hope it works out for Natalie but I don't think it will.

Very irresponsible to air this.

So many people on here assume that women have no brains.

Re. the interview, I think it may have been provocative to bring an organisation on to counter Natalie's assertion that her bloke has changed. Had I been in Natalie's shoes I would have been furious to have someone lined up to point out that I was possibly talking shit.

If her bloke never touches her again, there is a discussion to be had, re. some abusers can change.

If he does, well there is the lesson, which will be publicly aired, that some don't.

"He never beat me black and blue"

Oh dear NC. It is truly painful to hear.

Yikes - red flages everywhere - "its not like he beat me black and blue"
So if he did that, THEN you would leave him?? He just stopped drinking 2 months ago, hardly enough time to figure out he has truly changed.

She seems like she may have self-esteem issues from having a weight problem and getting bashed in the press - he just seems like a drunk bully.

Natalie cassidy is a regular on this morning she does the papers etc so maybe she thought this was a nice safe place to talk about it , however i do think she was silly to go on it to broadcast her private life all over the tv and she was making out it was all her fault well thats what i took out of it , He beat me cos he was drunk , I dont think TM was irresponsible though , its a story isnt it they have had far worse on , letting kerry Katona on while out of her face springs to mind ,

The national curriculum really should have 'what is a healthy relationship' within it somewhere.......

Anyone would think the patriarchy is trying to protect it's position by keeping women in the dark and deliberately hiding the true extent of domestic abuse and the fact that VERY FEW EVER CHANGE and keeping the blame firmly away from the cowardly, pathetic twats who do shit like this

It's almost like it keeps ALL women under control, being constantly reminded that your fella could turn against you at any time - but it's not his fault he had just had a few beers

Jeez, why don't people with no understanding of a subject, as serious as DV STFU. There's plenty of other subjects to discuss on other threads

how do you know who has and who hasn't got experience?

just wondering

You can have an understanding and still disagree you know?

Or do you actually mean "anyone who doesn't say the exact line We have decided isn't allowed to speak", much like the point of this thread?

She had every excuse in the book ready and really did seem to think none of the stats applied to her but many new mothers do this.

I agree mcmooncup.

The 'blame' for dv can ALSO lie at the hands of a person other than the abuser. For example somebody who refuses to believe or acknoweldge it's happening (I know a Catholic Priest who did this), 'tv 'journalists' who transmit sensationalist and glib items on the issue or even as you say, an entire society. That doesn't detact from the culpability of the actual perpetrator, that being the person who commits the violence.
This is why the issue is very complicated.

I think it's not necessarily a bad thing in that it highlights how difficult it is to break free from domestic abuse and how victims will often tend to make excuses for the offender's behaviour.

It's very likely that he will abuse her again; hopefully the media will then give her the same publicity and today's interview can be referred to as an example of how victims often think.

I do think there should have been at least some references to the damage witnessing and listening to abuse can do to young minds

I said understanding, not experience. BC is demonstrating its possible to have experience but not understanding. Its understanding which facilitates leaving

There aren't different points of view on DV,its not a debatable subject

There shouldn't be different points of view on dv but there are; debate is important