Has Bojo et al consulted with any women's groups? doubt it.
Its a sop. It seems to be about the government feeling the need to do something, rather than be seen to do nothing. Its about them washing their hands.
The other thing that makes me a bit sick is the discourse around women's responsibility in raising boys. I have two. And one very striking thing to me is the difference between them. The eldest is asexual with no sexual interest in women. He loudly defends women's rights amongst his friends. The other has a girlfriend and is fast becoming a testosterone saturated arrogant teenager sauntering about with a weird swagger. Both raised the same. The only difference is the younger has been influenced by his discovery of pornography and his friendship group seems to endorse this. This takes me back to the roots of violence being beyond tinkering with street lights. Male attitude seems to change in relation to how they view women as simply sexual objects, irrespective of how equal we are in other spheres, or how the law seeks to tackle male violence and male privilege. No amount of street lights shines a light on the cause of male violence.
So what is needed? what could be done? has the government reached its limits of what it could achieve? I believe so, because it will always fall short of achieving its stated aims because its scope is limited by its own existence. The state itself is inherently violent, and surveillance is another act which seeks control. Why do we need control and further threats of violence (state violence) in order to solve a problem of its own making. What is needed is for men to change their attitude and behaviour, and not because they are threatened with reprisal or further state violence.
We've seen this state violence in action this week directed by the police at women. Violence that Priti Patel is responsible for. Sad that its a woman now blaming another woman (Cresida Dick) for the actions of this state sponsored violence. So, it seems their solution is to ally that guilt. A sop.
If the state is to use any means of control at its disposal it could do something with far wider benefit such as looking at stopping porn, outlawing lap dancing clubs, education in schools, all adults in any position of authority taking every opportunity to educate boys, and at the very least more female representation in politics.
The state itself is a misogynist violent institution born with its roots in the violent exploitation and control of people to its own ends, not too dissimilar to the roots of male violence to women. All about unequal distribution of power backed up with powerful ideological and socially mediated reasons for its own existence. Men seek power over both production and reproduction. I'd much rather Pritti turned her attention to how we can 'police' violent online pornography. But I guess that 'free speech' is somehow only an argument when its not about the right to protest.
I'm so totally disappointed and underwhelmed by this response and wonder how arresting and imprisoning however many men can ever redress the lives lost. And hopping mad that the women at Clapham were subject to more state sponsored male violence simply for having the audacity to have a voice. I suspect Bojo thinks street lights will get us all to just STFU.