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.

If people don't think that celebrities are influencial then why do celebrities often represent certain causes/use their own experiences to spread a message?

Let's look at Jade Goody. Love her or loathe her, she used the fact she had been diagnosed with certvicalcancer to spread the message that women needed to look after their health and take smeer tests seriously. And sth take-up of smeer tests has increased as a result.

Bob Geldof/Bono put out the message of the starving millions in Africa, and again, love them or loathe them, millions and millions has been raised as a result.

Twice a year we have celebrities prancing up and down our television screens in the name of comic relief and children in need and the public donates millions and millions.

And to put a slightly more flippent spin on it, Katie Price goes out and gets herself a new set of boobs and the cosmetic surgery rates soar.

If these things didn't have an influence, then people wouldn't do them so publically. If saying to people "donate to comic relief" made them get out their cheque books then Lenny Henry/annie Lennox/the various other celebrities wouldn't need to spend hundreds of hours watching children dying in Africa - in fact they could stay locked up in their bubbles and remain oblivious, while just donating some of their own millions.

So if the perceived positive messages have an influence, it's naive to think that the (to us) negative messages don't as well.

And to a woman experiencing domestic violence, hearing the message that a perpitrator can change, in the fact of arguments that say he cannot, is a positive, no? even if only perceived by her as being such.

Natalie Cassidy is free to do what she likes. Nobody has an issue with her taking back her partner if that's what she chooses, although I sincerely doubt it will be happy ever after. The issue is whether she should be parading her perceived "happy ever after" on national television, essentially sticking two fingers up to the facts, while there is no-one to counterbalance her protestations that "refuge stats don't apply to my situation"

If Natallie Cassidy had had this happen ten, twenty, thirty years ago, then absolutely come on national television and tell your story of how it is possible for things to change. But after what, eight weeks? Get real, love.

noddyholder She had every excuse in the book ready sad and really did seem to think none of the stats applied to her

Totally agree...she wants to be with him, and is now justifying her decision, trying to convince herself as well as everyone else that he is in fact a good guy, he's ill, not abusive, he needs help "we can beat this together/I was never beaten black and blue"

How she can say he is a totally different person after such a short time, I don't know.
She has her blinkers on very firmly, and I don't think it is going to last.

Adam Cottrell must think he is a very clever man, to watch her going on tv, championing his drastic change, watching her defending him...knowing it is all a smokescreen.

She says if ever he is to be violent AGAIN, that will be it?? I don't think Adam thinks that...he was violent to her more than once and he has been violent to others, and yet she has still taken him back.

Personally, I think she will find it even more difficult to ask for support when he abuses her again, mainly because she will have to face many people saying 'I knew he was bad..how could you not have known, why on earth did you take him back last time?'

Also, why the hell does she keep saying 'I was strong enough to . . . I am a strong person because . . .

IME, people who make a big deal out of saying how strong they are, are usually at their weakest.

i'm struggling to see the other side of the DV coin too

is it really 2012?

people want a debate - let's choose a subject then and start new threads.. on whose fault it is, is it worth breaking up a relationship over, is it 'ok' if the violence only manifests after drinking/substance use, is it ok if it only happens 'a few times' - that sort of thing...

over to you then

YABU

There was a counter view. Philip read out a statement from a help centre who said a person changing is the least likely option.

wannabe has totally nailed the point.

Listening to her makes me so fearful for her and her child. I was that much in denial 5 years agao. It took a lot more abuse and an assault on my child 'because she wound him up' before the penny dropped.
Really, really irresponsible broadcasting. Stunned.

"There was a counter view. Philip read out a statement from a help centre who said a person changing is the least likely option."

yes, he read out a statement. Why was there nobody else there who had been on the other side? Why was there nobody - an expert - or at the very least Denise Roberts - to give an opinion?

I have no idea why. Maybe there was no time to book someone.

I think the reason there was no other person with the reality there was that NC is a celebrity and this interview was conducted on that basis. I think a normal woman would have had a much harder challenge on her hands and a counter argument but we are talking someone who was on big brother

Disgraceful. Whatever your opinions on the ability of violent men to change why give this air time at all? It serves no purpose and can do a lot of harm. I have complained to Ofcom using Linerunner's link above (text below)

I am shocked that ITV would give airtime to this interview which served no real purpose except to present what I believe to be a dangerous and irresponsible message.

Clearly Ms Cassidy is facing criticism for her decision to allow her violent alcoholic partner to re-enter her family home, and her publicity team have lined up this interview to give her a platform to counteract this negative publicity. However, the viewers of This Morning must certainly include vulnerable women who are currently experiencing domestic violence or a recent split from a violent partner. To trivialise the kind of violence which resulted in a restraining order being awarded, make excuses for a violent man and present common domestic violence 'myths' (such as "I was never beaten black and blue") is clearly grossly irresponsible.

Just as there should be zero tolerance for domestic violence within society, there should be zero platform for this kind of justification for the crime. ITV should not be complicit in presenting an ambiguous message to its viewers, particularly regarding a crime which has such low conviction rates entirely because it is not taken seriously by society.

I think This Morning should apologise for the interview (which I can see served no purpose except to Ms Cassidy and her publicity team) and present the real facts about living with domestic violence and some of the issues around why it is not taken seriously.

"I have no idea why. Maybe there was no time to book someone." of course. silly me. Because Natalie Cassidy probably woke up thi morning and though "oh I know, I think I'll go and tell the world my story today. Being in the tabloids clearly wasn't enough - I need to get the message out there pronto." and there just wasn't time to book someone else to come on and put across the alternative view.

No I think noddy has it spot on - if this had been a member of the public the view would have been entirely different, but because she's a sleb it's more about sensationalist gossip than reality.

It doesn't matter what your opinions are, it doesn't matter what her opinions are...the problem here is that you are policing thoughts and want to censor real life experience. Her experience may not be the one you want modelled, but it is her experience.

You watch a programme that interviews non-entities and talks about their lives. Then you are horrendously offended that someone has talked about her experience. You are seeking to define that there is only one kind of experience in this area allowed to be talked about. You're amateur facists.

Having googled I see this women is famous because she used to be in a soap. I think you should be more bothered by the fact that you think this makes someone influential in any way.

You don't mind being a bit bossy yourself, though, Peppy?

Well like it or not these people are influential (god help us) which is why they are paid through the nose to promote just about anything and your average joes aren't.

No, I don't. But then I'm not emailing ofcom because someones actual life experience doesn't fit my personal ideology.

I have made a complaint to OFCOM. tHANKS LINERUNNER

It would have been a good opportunity to say that men who commit DV can change with the right support and then highlight the fact that in most areas DV perpetrator work has been hit by the cuts in services. The same with addiction services.

As it was, it served no purpose.

Ha. Yes, I have a "personal ideology" that domestic violence is bad. What a fascist.

Good point, Birds. Changing - whether it's coming off the booze, anger management, avoiding repeat offending - is intensive, long-term work.

YABU they can broadcast any interview they wish, Natalie Cassidy has a point of view from her own personal experience and chose to give an interview on it. ITV are under no obligation to provide an alternative view, its a daytime tv programme not an article in an academic journal.

Peppy - that would all be fine if not for the fact that represesntative, real life experiences are already censored. NCs experience is only of "interest" to anyone because of her fame.

That sort of long term therapy for serious issues is usually best conducted outside a relationship

Funny how some posters think that NC's freedom of expression is sacrosanct, irrespective of any harm done, but my my freedom of expression appears to be causing them a certain amount of anger.

How curious.

I don't think it is freedom sadly I think she has been brain washed

Peppy

PERSONAL IDEOLOGY??????

Amateur Facists???

Refer to my first post