Violence against women should be treated as seriously as terrorism

[TonyThreePies]

Police chiefs should treat violence against women as seriously as terrorism and stop ditching an ‘eye-water- ing’ number of crimes, a watchdog has said.

A report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services yesterday highlighted how three out of four domestic abuse cases are closed early without anyone being charged.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9999763/Violence-against-women-treated-seriously-TERRORISM-watchdog-says.html I couldn't find a non-DM link though.

About time too. But will it happen? Probably not.

Karen Ingala Smith's response as to why she doesn't do a 'Counting Dead Men' project as well as her 'Counting Dead Women' Project -

kareningalasmith.com/2014/04/14/can-you-give-me-a-link-to-counting-dead-men/

There were 117 women killed in UK in 2019 (latest figures I can find). You will see partner, boyfriend, husband, son come up again and again as these women's murderers. The majority of these women loved and in most cases lived with their killers.

kareningalasmith.com/2019/03/10/2019/

It is not to say that men's lives are less important. But in tackling this issue, surely we need be aware of how violence is differently experienced by the two sexes? @Pineapplepyjamas makes some great points above.

And of course man on man violence happens but it is far more commonly involving strangers than man on woman violence.

I'm not sure about the 'loving spouse' bit (although I could be wrong). Isn't it usually the ex partner, or the husband when the relationship breaks down etc? Usually there is some element of dysfunction I'd have thought. Not just a perfectly happy couple where the bloke just 'snaps' out of the blue.

I don't think focusing on male violence in its entirety is too broad. As there is more taboo around hitting women, I think it's likely often the case that said individual wouldn't hesitate to assault another man, provided he isn't significantly larger. By tackling violent males in general we surely reduce the likelihood of them going on to murder their partner by catching them early. If we just dismiss it as 'boys being boys' when they are violent to each other we potentially run the risk of it being male on female next time.

It's rarely out of the blue. It's often the boiling frog situation.

Women are most at risk from domestic violence when they are pregnant or when they are in the process of leaving a relationship. I used 'loved' in this sense to mean past or present.

The most sickening aspect to newspaper articles which report on domestic violence killings, particularly ones in which the entire family is innilalated, is the narrative of the man who killed as a 'loving family man who just snapped'. It's a common theme in newspapers when reporting such incidents - its often domestic violence and co-ersive control coming to a horrific conclusion - www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/07/21/saying-that-a-killer-snapped-is-not-an-explanation-for-domestic-violence/

@catzwhiskas

Possibly because we have been flagging the issue up for years. We know this is happening and it’s the biggest issue for us. There are many reports and consultations that have been ignored .we are still speaking out .

Not enough peoples care. Is easy to blame the women like me. If we gets killed, people say we should've got help. If we don't get murdered but just get trapped living a life of fear and control and injuries or we do suicide, people say it's her mental health.

Want to give up and accept that's my options cos tired of fighting to survive. Exhausted drained. Physically aching. Need more strength to keep fighting to get help but it's hopeless sometimes. Help is postcode lottery.

Don't think am only woman that can't tell police the truth. Been nearly killed and had to lie to police cos nowhere safe to go. Was in refuge but had to go back cos nowhere safe to go after.

Councils the housing departments and social services break the law and get away with it. Sorry mean is adult social services. Noone wants to know or help make them do what is law. Several solicitors all said they at legal aid capacity.

Domestic abuse services most so grateful wonderful kind places but big postcode lottery. You in bad support area or bad person and no way out cos without advocate who wants to fight for you, no chance of help.

Think it won't get better. Will be worse. If you move you have to move onto universal credit but now the £20 taking away but gas and electric big rise. Then you give up anyway cos nowhere permanent safe to live.

Police not their fault cos know they so busy and most of them were very kind to me but maybe be helped me if they'd interviewed the witnesses. Cos I was too scared to say truth. Maybe better they didn't cos no good if nowhere safe to go. Can't call police if get attacked and cant support a charge cos of that. Also not strong enough mentally maybe. Women shouldn't be forced to go to court and should be allowed keep victim name private. Wish more help to be safe without police if what is easier for the women mental health.

My first thought has already been demonstrated handily!

IMO and yes it's a valid term to use however

The word terrorism has very strong and embedded connotations in society.

Using that term for this issue tends to end up with an argument about definitions of the word terrorism and whether this meets it/ means people saying it's over the top not that bad stop exaggerating etc.

Society is just nowhere near accepting this as terrorism and it just turns them off. I mean most people can't face up to even joining the dots between different sex offences. It goes trivial trivial trivial omg he's a monster no one could have predicted this.

100% on board with the message but I think the messaging is counter productive.

Just my opinion.

(The fact it has happened on this thread is a handy example!).

The reason for segmenting different types of crime and perpetrator/ victim characteristics is because of the different dynamics.

Someone mentioned gay/ black men being murdered because of being gay/ black.

These groups are captured in data and stats analysed.

The reason for segmenting is because the type of crime, how they are carried out, why they are carried out is different for different groups.

In order to improve things it's necessary to know who is harming who, how and why.

Without this info there is no insight into things like. Young people involved in gang violence, the level of crime committed due to race or homophobia, and this topic. The level of VAWG and the characteristics.

For example lumping it altogether obscures that flashing is s crime massively predominantly committed by men against women and girls.

This crime is known to escalate to more serious crimes eg rape murder. Plus of course the perpetrators are generally prolific so the number of girls and women who are flashed at by one man can be very large. And flashing in itself is something that often impacts women and girls more than the idea it's trivial accepts.

Lump it all together that's all lost.

Male on male violence isn't ignored. As well as initiatives to support young men away from gang crime, there is the 'one punch' campaign warning of the dangers of how one punch (in a pub fight) can kill. Don't know how effective these campaigns are, but it's not true to say male on male violence is ignored.

The police and CPS are failing women badly. Women and their children are terrorised into staying with violent men. It's a different type of male violence.

So well, not conflating terrorism with violence against women isn’t saying that violence against men is being ignored. It’s simply that telling the police to treat violence against women as seriously as terrorism implies that they should have the same resources devoted to both. But there aren’t enough police resources to go around This then means that they can be off saving Jane (and perhaps a child or two) from being beaten to death instead of stopping suicide bomber Cal from blowing up a market and killing 13 men, 18 women and 15 children. The action that can kill dozen or more people must be prioritised and treated more seriously than the action that results in the death of 1 or a few.

I can’t believe I am agreeing with nicegerbil after we have fundamentally different views on terrorist repatriation, but they are right that saying violence against women should be treated as seriously as terrorism does shut people off. The statement is ridiculous enough that people who would care just don’t want to engage or support because it’s an extremist proposition.

That’s not to say either that police are treating violence against women seriously enough now, they aren’t. It should be treated more seriously and I agree that the focus should be on the perpetrators...who are vast majority men. It’s been clear for decades that child abuse leads to the child growing up to be abusive. Why are we not treating child abuse more seriously to try and prevent boys from growing into abusive men and girls from growing into abusive mothers? For example child abuse between siblings is constantly dismissed and minimised on MN when it is a clear contributor to why men are abusers. There was even debate on MN where many posters defended spanking/hitting of children as necessary for discipline.

We have to focus on prevention. It doesn’t do the dead women any good to put their killer in prison for life. She should have been safe from murder in the first place.

@nosafeguardingadults I truly hope your situation gets better. Sending you strength

Personally I think VAWG should be treated more seriously than terrorism.

It affects a lot more people than terrorist violence against other groups (how many people are actually harmed by terrorism in the uk? Not many) and the perpetrators all share the common belief that it is their right to treat women this way and so arguably have a common ideology.

Organised crime which covers gang violence between (mostly) men is already given that higher priority.

@MoonlightApple

Personally I think VAWG should be treated more seriously than terrorism.

It affects a lot more people than terrorist violence against other groups (how many people are actually harmed by terrorism in the uk? Not many) and the perpetrators all share the common belief that it is their right to treat women this way and so arguably have a common ideology.

Organised crime which covers gang violence between (mostly) men is already given that higher priority.

The reason not many terrorist attacks occur in U.K. is because of the success in anti-terrorism policing stopping attacks from happening. Not because the threat is lower.

And yes DV affects many more people than terrorism, but there are also magnitudes more perpetrators to investigate and monitor. The terror watch list is what, several thousand names? And any one of those people could kill a few dozen in one single attack.

If they did a DV watch list, it would quite literally reach to millions to be monitored and investigated. And each one of them might kill what one, two, three people? And do our privacy laws even allow this electronic surveillance of British households? That would give social services extraordinary powers.

There’s not the resources to do both. So it makes sense to prioritise the few thousand that could do the most damage if not stopped.

Haven't read the whole thread (will do).

But just gutted to read this.....

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/20/man-arrested-after-four-found-dead-in-house-near-sheffield

Plan I didn't say not as seriously.

I said it was a counter productive way of framing it.

Your argument about number being killed at same time is totally instinctively normal. It's logically wonky though.

If an extremist over the course of a week managed to murder 8 people who were vocal opponents. In their homes or walking somewhere quiet say. Not a big obvious thing but quiet planned murders.

Would that not be terrorism? In your book?

What about the fact that many men who go on to commit extreme acts have a history of violence against women? Take it more seriously earlier on and they're in the system on the radar etc.

In the end people are more likely to die in a car incident etc then in a terrorist act against us.

Human risk assessment is poor.
We hardly even notice the everyday things because they are everyday.

When so many more people are being injured/ dying from other crimes. Ones that were committed in their locality. By other UK people. Then that affects every day life. In so many ways.

Yes terrorism is a threat. And yes the police and mi5 etc should be on it.

However it should not eclipse the massive amount of injury death misery etc caused otherwise.

'The reason not many terrorist attacks occur in U.K. is because of the success in anti-terrorism policing stopping attacks from happening. Not because the threat is lower.'

Not at all sure these days.

Attacks with cars/ knives seem to be the current way.

People can do that alone. No need for much in the way of planning etc.

And if not known to police etc not a lot can be done to prevent it sadly.

@NiceGerbil

The reason for segmenting different types of crime and perpetrator/ victim characteristics is because of the different dynamics.

Someone mentioned gay/ black men being murdered because of being gay/ black.

These groups are captured in data and stats analysed.

The reason for segmenting is because the type of crime, how they are carried out, why they are carried out is different for different groups.

In order to improve things it's necessary to know who is harming who, how and why.

Without this info there is no insight into things like. Young people involved in gang violence, the level of crime committed due to race or homophobia, and this topic. The level of VAWG and the characteristics.

For example lumping it altogether obscures that flashing is s crime massively predominantly committed by men against women and girls.

This crime is known to escalate to more serious crimes eg rape murder. Plus of course the perpetrators are generally prolific so the number of girls and women who are flashed at by one man can be very large. And flashing in itself is something that often impacts women and girls more than the idea it's trivial accepts.

Lump it all together that's all lost.

Indeed.

Lumping all male violence together isn't really conducive to creating different strategies for different situations - e.g. domestic violence vs gang violence vs religious extremism, which need different approaches.