Reith lecture 2024

[Bankholidayhelp]

Just listening to the first one - Gwen Adshead - four questions about violence - amongst other things she was talking about domestic violence. She said 'when you go home be nice' ( as she was pointing out most violence is done by the person you are sleeping with) - was she really saying that you have to be nice to your abuser? It really jarred with me. Was it a feeble joke? Was she serious? Or was I listening 'wrong'?

I listened to most of it - I hope she didn't really say that.

But what concerned me about the whole thing was the large elephant in the room - MEN. By far most violence is committed by men which she seemed to avoid mentioning. She talked about alcohol being a "risk factor" that may predispose violent acts, but not that men themselves are much more of a risk than women.

It's about 20 minutes in. Perhaps she meant that the perps (overwhelmingly male) should go home and be nice? Ie not beat/kill their partners. Why would they need to be told that?

She also talked about trigger stacking and that all the numbers on the theoretical combination lock needed to be lined up for violence to occur. Which is fair enough but where's the brakes ? Why is the result of a night in the pub watching football and drinking alcohol a beaten up partner (whether team wins or losses). It shouldn't be a natural progression. I can (just about) understand violence coming from lack of NHS support (failure in medical follow up, community out reach etc). But these other guys (largely) are holding down responsible jobs, maintaining friendships, being 'good' members of society and then getting pissed and going home and beating their wives/girlfriends because of a football results - it's a conscious choice for me. - they got up and literally chose violence.

Yes. The word men was missing from her lecture.

Bump - did anyone else tune into this?

Think there must have been just the two of us!.

I heard it.

She was also asked on whether the use of shame as a concept to punish perps works. She was adamant it didn't and just made things worse. One of the audience said she should be commended for her grace and compassion in talking to assorted killers.

I thought about her condemnation of the use of shame to call out violence and I thought about that sign at the Giselle Pelicot trial: "shame should be for the attackers not the victim".

She'd probably be tutting but graciously offering her understanding of the protestors' uncomfortable feelings

I was listening and felt exactly the same about the 'be nice' comment.

I squared it as her being a very serious academic making a cheap joke for a guaranteed laugh to try and break up the seriousness and gain favour.

But I still found it really jarring and totally inappropriate. Especially given the details given on the audience members later.

The lecture and the insight was very interesting and she is clearly an incredibly patient, qualified and experienced practioner but the focus was on the offender which is very unpalatable to victims.

I heard it and it sounded to me like despite her experience she might be a bit out of touch with ordinary women's lives, or maybe desensitised. I found the 'be nice' comment rather callous. She did refer to "these men" a lot when talking about perps - maybe taking it as read that most are men rather than saying it explicitly?

@Boeufsurletoit Perhaps she needs to be desensitised in order to be able to work effectively with her cohort? Personally, I would find it incredibly hard to do her job and suspend judgement for "these men" and their appalling crimes.

But I think her focus on understanding the offender comes at the expense of prioritising the victims and her apparent refusal to address the core issue - that almost all of these crimes are committed by men.

Just heard the most recent one, this time set in Barlinnie. More stuff about how damaging it is to make perps of violence feel shame as it's stigmatising (again, how does that play with the slogan at the Pelicot trial that shame is for the rapist not the victim).
She then went through a list of as yet unanswered questions.

--- 9 out of 10 of the perps of violence are male. But why is that? She seemed genuinely mystified

--- also, even though Her Entire Series of lectures has been about how violent offenders have suffered childhood trauma, she noted that other children often in the same or worse circumstances face this or much much worse and they DON'T go on to kick someone to death whilst shouting abuse at them for telling them to pick up some litter in a way they found triggering or threatening (she called that a particularly tragic incident). Why was this?

---- and also, and this is the real mystery, she actually noted, just as an aside, that women and girls often face far worse and more extreme abuse such that it's "almost normal". So why AREN'T women stabbing random strangers and carrying out multiple murders?

Then she noted that the studies she cited on how violent offences are linked to childhood trauma might be subject to publication bias.

So all this time she's spending talking to all these violent offenders for what exactly?

I didn't hear the latest one - tbh not at all impressed with violent offender apologists. But of course, heaven forbid we should call out the Menz.

The first one was repeated on radio 4 today.

"One thing we know is that strong emotions, both positive and negative, influence violence risk especially in a relational context. Cast your mind back to the summer and the weeks before the finals of the Euros when all sorts of emotions ran high - hope, suspense, anxiety, frustration. Alcohol use soars and, apparently, so do rates of domestic violence."

Apparently?? Really? Is she trying to put doubt on the figures, which as so many of us know will be nowhere near the reality.

There was no alcohol consumed when my partner of only a few weeks told me, calmly, that if his team didn't win tomorrow he "didn't know what he would do" to me. It was thought about and planned, when he was sober, before hand. It was pre-planned and pre-'justified'.

Her attempt at the 'be nice' joke was astoundingly misguided at best. Towards the end of the lecture I was beginning to think of her as somewhat ineffectual but I'm obviously not coming from it from an academic 'isn't this all so terribly interesting' point of view.

So all this time she's spending talking to all these violent offenders for what exactly?

Quite @Lalgarh . It's all very well having all this understanding but what difference is it making?

"What is your view on whether we are evil by nature or whether it's something that occurs to individuals because of how they're brought up, so their nurture, if you like?"

"... what we have learnt over the last 50 to 70 years is to put nature and nurture as alternatives is a meaningless distinction and nobody sensible, I think, talks this way anymore".

Wow, well that's you telt Niamh.

It'll be interesting to hear the next one.

Gwen Adshead goes on to make some interesting observations:

1. Women may be stronger and men weaker at resisting distructive states on mind. Is she referring to a biological component to behaviour? 2)Boys upbringing might lead to men being mentally weak in this regard. I interpret this as refering to the exclusion and isolation of boys from 'softer' feelings, friendships and behaviours as they are socialised to become men. I find this interesting and worthy of consideration in helping to cure men. Though I suspect there would be considerable resistance from society that seems desperate to enforce rigid sex stereotypes, particularly for boys.

Listen to all the lectures. Available on Sounds and the Reith Lectures website. I have also experienced DA and it's changed me. I also used to work with male perpetrators. At the same time as being married to one (was in denial / survival mode at the time).
It does jar when one feels that these perpetrators are being given care and attention not always offered to the mainly female survivors of DA. However it's not about who deserves the help, it's about keeping people from being victimised in the future. I want to listen again as I feel GA was more optimistic than I. Statistically the ultra violent offences might be rare but I think it's a rare man that does the work to see women as fully human and to understand their own privilege. All of that contributes to the spectrum of abusive behaviours. The prevention programmes in Norway interested me. There were Domestic Violence offender probation programmes running in London at least, 25 years ago. Men could be sentenced to probation with this programme as a condition of the community sentence, or could attend on licence having served the custodial part of their prison sentence. It was run by specialist staff and one condition was they had to agree not to interfere with the victim support worker being in contact with the victim. This was in part so that information could be shared - if they disclosed something that indicated uptick in risk then they could be alerted. Not ideal but it's something. When you realise that DA is these men's way of expressing and processing feelings, if when looking closely at their offence they then feel aggravated and revert to the usual way of coping then there's a clear risk of harm. If this sort of careful intervention was offered before it got to the stage of criminal conviction then more women would be safe.

I was told of a boy in a school where a charity was doing outreach preventative work who was answering back and being generally obnoxious and disruptive. When he was eventually asked why he was being like that he thought for a minute and said that that was what his dad was like at home. I can but hope that that will have made a difference to that boy's behaviour, at least to show him that there is an alternative.

I've heard about domestic violence courses that are part of rehabilitating attempts. I've also heard it's rare for them to work. They tick a box though.

I thought Dr Adshead's idea that violent men be removed from the home to refuges to undertake therapy instead of the women and children being taken to refuges for safety really quite ridiculous. For a start the men don't need fucking refuge. A small nit pick perhaps but really, it wouldn't have taken much effort for her to have thought of a different word for the place they would need to be held in.

In the dramatisation of the experience of Delia Balmer, when her former partner attacked her ( held her hostage for 4 days, repeat rapes, stabbed) he was put on remand, eventually, but she was told to move her location, from north Camden to Kings Cross in the red light area for refuge. She did not want to go. She felt safer in her own house but with him barred from returning. The police, if iirc, sort of washed their hands of her.

Then her former partner was released as part of a Christmas amnesty on prisoners. She said plainly that he would kill her. " Oh don't worry, he won't do that, the terms of his release means he'll have to live with his parents and he's been barred from returning to your address" said the police liaison officer.

He returned to her address. He attacked her with an axe. He ended up on the run and is now in prison for the murders of at least 2 other women, one of whom he met after he was nicked for his attack on Balmer.

Urfan Sharif was also sent on domestic violence awareness courses.

I actually really liked the idea of removing the men! It reminded me of the thought of banning men from going out after dark rather than telling women how to try to keep themselves safe. Seems bizarre to start with but made me realise just how much the world is stacked up against women. I had to leave my house and move in with my father and sleep on the floor with my two year old son in order to keep us safe from my ex. My father lived in army accommodation which was kept locked. 20 years on I still feel safer in a flat than a house as I am tucked away from easy street access. I approached the council for refuge before moving in with my dad but they couldn't help as I was a home owner. I had to move a few postcodes away, didn't drive at the time. Working full time and taking child to his same nursery for continuity. Imagine a world where even though many men would say they aren't at fault, the onus was on them to put themselves second and remove themselves from a situation that was harmful. It never occurred to me that I should expect anything more than having to flee my own home. Women can be kept safe with the accused wearing a tag etc. Nothing is 100 percent but more resources, and the recognition that victim's ways of keeping themselves safe might not accord with the orthodoxy of criminal justice systems would go a long way.

So he was@Lalgarh , I'd forgotten that.

All these 'rules' about living with his parents and being barred from going within whatever measurement of his victim really are fucking useless when a man decides that he wants to kill his victim.

@BearsThinking I agree, the men being removed would be better but how often does that work. We already have laws where violent and abusive men are, or should be, removed from the home but that law isn't enough to always keep them away or to always have them locked up, to keep their victims safe. As you know

How many times has a victim been told by the police that they can't do anything until he does something to her? But that's probably a subject for another thread, if there isn't one already.

Imagine a world where even though many men would say they aren't at fault, the onus was on them to put themselves second and remove themselves from a situation that was harmful.

Ha, if only. A few years ago there was a thing on the radio, Jeremy Vine IIRC, suggesting that men should cross over if they're walking behind a woman so as not to frighten her. The man I was with, in a work capacity, was absolutely disgusted at that. HE knows he's not a threat to a woman - no other fucker does, that's the point. I have to say that if he really was a decent man he would understand, but then no man will ever understand the threat of a man as a woman.

# every time