Victim of domestic violence asked to leave holiday park!

[ClementineKelandra]

Ill try and keep this as concise as possible.

I'm on holiday in Wales staying in a caravan. Last night about 11pm an argument started between a couple in the caravan nearby. I say argument but it was mostly a man shouting.

It quickly escalated and the women was screaming, she sounded terrified, and there were children screaming "mummy" too.

At this point I phone the police. Very quickly the security guards from the site turned up. The woman was sobbing , said she was ok and the security guards quickly left.

As soon as they'd gone the man left the caravan. Moments later the police turned up. They spent some time searching the site but eventually the man was found and arrested.

This morning the women was sat outside the caravan and I went over to check she was ok. She has a broken nose! :( the caravan was a bit messed up too. Several internal doors were off their hinges.

We talked for a while and she told me she'd been asked to leave the holiday park!! I Wa stunned at this but she said she was going to leave anyway as her and the dc didn't want to be there after everything that had happened the night before.

I couldn't stop thinking about her being told to leave and later that day I went to speak to the general manager of the site.

He confirmed that yes she had been asked to leaved because they had a zero tolerance policy on violent behaviour.

I pointed out to him that it was the man who had been violent, he'd assaulted the women, she is basically being punished for being the victim of a crime and by asking her to leave they were implying that she was in some way to blame for the mans behaviour.

We talked about it for quite a while and I tried several different ways to get my point across. To be fair he did really listen to me and tried to understand but basically he didn't get it.

He also trotted out the usually ill informed stereo types "women like that never want to press charges" etc.

I'm so angry. In one way does it really matter because she wanted to go home anyway?

But on the other hand if we don't challenge such ignorant attitudes towards domestic violence then nothing is ever going to change. I feel like I want to do something to make the holiday park realise how wrong their attitude is.

Sorry if this is a bit jumbled. Trying to keep it as short as possible.

I think one issue here in terms of policy it's that it's not the park's responsibility to ascertain guilt.
In terms of claiming, they could easily claim on all adults and a court would decide who was responsible.
They won't distinguish between a couple or a group of friends, and probably not if two holidaying adults from different parties get on a fight.
And they will probably ask all in the party to leave even if only one was the violent or caused damage.

Not fair, yes.

Should there be a special clause for dv?

OP you did a very good thing, most people would have been passive and done nothing. You also did it in a very dignified way. If the park is part of a group maybe you could write a letter to head office as a follow up?
Shocked at the victim blaming on this thread. Those doing the victim blaming, especially those saying she is failing to protect her DC by staying, are probably going to be the ones that when she does leave flame her for not letting her ex have enough contact with the children. They don't see how they have been manipulated into being willing assistants for abusive men. There but for the grace of god go you.

My DM spends a lot of time raising money for Women's Aid, she has done since her close friend was strangled to death by her partner in front of her 5 year DD old and 7 year old DS. Her friend's partner got 10 years in jail, served 8, because it was decided she had provoked him into attacking her, he caught her in the middle of packing their stuff to go to a refuge. My DM hadn't even know that her friend had been suffering domestic abuse since long before her DS was born - she'd never even reported him to the police.

The people victim blaming her, the ones saying she has a choice to leave, show a fundamental lack of understanding about what domestic violence is and what it does to a victim.

Domestic violence doesn't usually start out with a punch to the face out of the blue, it starts out small, with manipulative and controlling behaviors. The victim may not even realize it's happening at first, they are tolerable insults or demands, enough to make them feel uncomfortable but not enough to make them want to leave. Then it increases gradually, they begin to fight and argue, maybe there's one physically violent incident, abusers are incredibly manipulative, they convince the victim they didn't mean it, that they love them, that the victim made them do it blah blah blah. The victim blames themselves, they're afraid and don't want to make their spouse angry, they are worried that if they leave they'll be killed or their loved ones will. The abuser has convinced them they're stupid, ugly, worthless, that no-one loves them, that they're a bad parent, that they're lucky that the abuser looks after them because no-one else would. After a while, they learn to just take it. It's not weakness, it's not choosing to take it, it's fear, hopelessness and being broken. They don't choose to stay because they don't feel as if they HAVE a choice.

There's only one person to blame for domestic violence and that's NOT the victim, it's NEVER the victim.

Blaming the victim for staying in the relationship helps no-one, it just shames victims and makes them even less-likely to try and get help. They need understanding, support, money and safety, to make what is a huge step to break the control an abuser has of them.

The victim blaming here makes me sick.

anormalone

I'm sorry to read about your mother's friend.

What you highlight here is one side of DV. There are many other strands to it and not all are as clear cut.
Some DV relationships have two violent or abusive partners. Some involve abusive women (which we rarely discuss)

No matter the circumstances of the DV the children in the relationship are treated in a dreadful damaging way and have nowhere to go and no one to speak for them.
A lot of people simply don't understand how a parent could allow their children to be terrorised. Therefore the responses aren't necessarily victim blaming or bashing but are based around fear worry and care for the non adults.

Well at least this is one of the few threads where people have concentrated on the feelings of children, instead of the self-obsession of adults.

On the facts presented, a mum with a broken nose, a partner taken away by Police back to prison (well it was written somewhere), the attitude "women like that ....." really doesn't help. All it takes is one person like the OP who can sometimes turn around the lives of a family with their kindness. Yes of course the family needed to leave the park, but not by being kicked out, by being guided to Women's Aid or whatever, by putting in arrangements gently to get them somewhere safe. Compassion costs nothing.

The OP did a very brave and humane thing, and I hope it gives that poor woman the strength to change her life.

But I think a lot of people on here are forgetting that a Holiday Park is a business, not a charity or social service. They will no doubt get a few of these incidents every season, and will have a generic policy of removing the whole group as quickly as possible, to protect their property and other guests.

I am and at some responses on this thread.

Good god. The park is only following policy? Blanket policies for all types of violence?

This is not a rowdy stag do. We are talking about a woman that has been beaten in front of her children. It's not even a questionable incident. The guy was arrested and bought back to prison.

She's is not wanted to stay and finish her holiday FFS. She is no doubt in pain, in shock, exhausted and terrified. On top of that she has to pack up herself and the children, provide reassure for them, find her way home, where she will probably have no food in. Surely they could have provided her with a few days grace and allowed her to collect her thoughts at the very least. The kids could take their minds off things in the pool or whatever, rather than traipsing home in the heat.

They are people you know.

^^
I think you are looking at it from the pov of a charitable social service, not a business. It would be impossible to manage a business where you had to disentangle every situation to get to the rights and wrongs of who did what, and then design a just and satisfying outcome for each one.

Also, the solution would have to ensure no more damage and repeats (a risk if the party remain), that other guests won't have more disruption to their holidays, etc etc.

Plus, the insurers, health and safety and other legislation etc will also all have clauses forcing their hands.

The rights and wrongs are very clear here though. The partner was in the wrong. The woman was assaulted. The children are innocent.

Obviously if he had been able to remain there, then sure, they would all have to leave. But that wasn't the case here.

A friend of mine took an elderly neighbour shopping on a Saturday. The neighbour had a massive episode of diarrhoea that spread all across the food section. Poor woman was mortified so just carried on to the checkouts.

They obviously could have asked her to leave but instead provided new underwear, a skirt and cleaning essentials- all for free. She was also allowed to continue shopping in the store, despite the risk of a repeat.

They didn't have to and I'm sure had lots of health and safety/insurance policies around that one. Marks and Spencer are a business and not social services or a charity as far as I know. The business argument doesn't really cut it for me.

I will not give my business to any organisation who shows poor corporate social responsibility never mind the outrageous discrimination like this example. So the business argument doesn't really wash for me.

Neither does this idea of there being some sort of joint enterprise have any legal or moral foundation in this case. But to make it really clear for those struggling even with a direct, independent witness...

Stag do trashes holiday home: Difficult to know who actually committed the damage + anyone who stands by could be held to be liable for failing to stop the damage = all responsible so all asked to leave. The risk of a repeat incident is high if they remain.

Man assaults woman and trashes holiday home: Clear that the man is responsible + the woman has not committed any act she could be held criminally liable for = man alone is responsible and should be asked to leave. Risk of a repeat incident once he is removed is negligible because he will not be there to do it.

Agree the victim should nor be asked to leave, although he should.

The holiday park I stayed in last summer was a total pigsty anyway, and five complaints over the week were unable to sort it. We got a part refund though a letter on return.

The point is, he could well have come back and caused more aggro. Why should the park - and its remaining residents - have to have that kind of shit going in in the doorstep? There are many nuances to dv, different types, situations etc as we all know. If i was the owner of the park, and i saw this situation, and also saw he had previously done time in jail, half of me would be thinking that this was simply one of those rough families that cause problems. Sorry if that sounds harsh. The question needs to be asked, why is she still with somebody who has done time? What is she doing taking her children on holiday with this animal? Why are the children having to watch this shit?

Are you suggesting he might have made a prison break age? Have you read the thread? Lots of answers to your questions.

Also, over a summer, there could be any number of people who holiday at holiday parks who have fled abusive relationships and might have the abuser turn up. Should parks be putting a question about that on the booking form?

If the park is hosting families and young children it should be restricting site entry and have proper security procedures in place so unauthorised people cannot access the site. To protect everyone from arsonists, vandals, pedophiles, rapists, thieves and all other types of criminal.

My understanding k8 was that there was an inference he might be on parole. And yes i have read the thread. Your second sentence is complete pie in the sky stuff, with respect.

Err, what? That doesn't even make any sense

Add message | Report | Message poster ClementineKelandra Wed 17-Jul-13 19:21:36
Even if that was the case she should not have been made to leave. Plus, he was arrested and returned to jail as he was on probation according to site manager.

[my bolding]

Fucking hell, reading some of the replies on this thread are making me feel sick...

Fucking hell.

Aside from anything else.. I'm gobsmacked at the sheer amount of people who don't read the small print when they sign the form when using a caravan/ hotel or anything else that provides a service that requires a signature.

Have a read next time.. it might surprise you to see that policy down in black and white.

It's like there are 2 threads running.. one filled with emotion and one dealing with the facts. It's fascinating really.

Alright OP taking it down to the bare bones.. what happened when you went up to the manager and offered to pay for the damage to the van and offered to have the family bunk in yours so they could continue their holiday?

Fuck Me

The amount of victim blaming on this thread is terrifying.
And some of the stories heartbreaking

Good on you ClementineKelandra

I know that there is a strong possibility that I would be in an abusive relationship, if one of his friends hadn't said to me, you do know its not you, its him.
He's an arse.
If it wasn't you it would be someone else.

I had just spend hours trying to explain why ex-boyfriend had been holding a kitchen knife to my neck when friend had walked in.

Trying to say how much of it was my fault, trying to explain how our relationship was different and special and he just didn't understand.
It was a light bulb moment to me for some reason.

I wasn't what seems to be the idea of a typical DV victim type, the down trodden, ill educated, no choice, no support, with children that so many like to think. I think to comfort themselves, to think well I'm not A/B/C so it will never happen to me. . to my family. .

I am from a very happy home, my parents were happily married for 40+ years ended only by my dear Fathers death. I would love to end up like my Mother, seriously. Degree educated, a little money in the bank, good job, no children.

Domestic Abuse (and I seriously think it should be re-named to just plain old abuse) can and does happen to all levels of education/class/financial level/culture/colour/sex.

And maybe you could have been that woman's 'light bulb moment' or another woman/man in the caravan park who suddenly realised that the life they are (I won't say living) surviving in not the norm is not right, having seen the police etc happen.

I agree that there are effectively two threads here. One is about whether victims of DV have choice, that's one we can debate forever isn't it.

The other one is about what we should expect from businesses in terms of having a dedicated policy on DV. I have to say that unless this park was part of a national chain I think it's just unrealistic to think that they should have procedures in place to deal with DV. Personally, I think that most caravan parks, hotels etc would see the tenants as one party.

Otherwise, they're in the position of judge and jury. It just doesn't seem a reasonable expectation to me, sorry.

I don't see why the park couldn't have a policy of taking statements from all parties involved in an altercation. That would presumably cover them from an insurance viewpoint as they are investigating who actually caused the damage to be able to bill them, and avoid ejecting innocent parties who may then take action against them. Seems very sensible to me.

It would have the added advantage that if it were company policy, it would be nice and easy to explain to both parties in this example that statements need to be made and they have to be done individually, so could they perhaps give the man a lift to their base to take his there and leave another security guard in the caravan with the mother and the kids to avoid lugging them around site and get her statement. Once the father is gone, the mother can be asked if she actually is ok, without having her attacker standing right beside her. It gives the victim the chance to ask for help without the immediate fear of repercussions and means the attacker is already removed from the caravan to the security building which would make keeping him there until the police arrive that much simpler.

Despicable - I really don't see ANY business doing that, caravan park or otherwise.

I don't see why the park couldn't have a policy of taking statements from all parties involved in an altercation.

And what happens if they both deny any altercation, it was an accident. Or he says he is innocent and she says he is guilty? Or they kick the man out, then he claims against them later on for loss of holiday when the partner refuses to press charges? Or he says that it was in self defence?

Are they just to automatically presume man=guilty?

And who is going to pay for this 'investigation'?

Also to answer minkenbarnards question, children do run away. Certainly i did. several times. At one point i remember going to a police station and begging for them to put me in care. I was taken home and told not to waste police time. My parents were legally responsible for me and that was that.

Men have no legal control over their partners so the two is not comparable.