I hate it when they name a law after a woman. Domestic abuse specialists in 999 rooms.

[ArabellaScott]

You just know when you hear it that there's some horrible MVAWG story behind it. Every time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c243nll5jqpo

'Domestic abuse specialists will be embedded in 999 control rooms in England and Wales as part of the government's pledge to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.
The measure is part of "Raneem's Law" in memory of Raneem Oudeh, 22, and her mother Khaola Saleem who were murdered by Ms Oudeh's estranged husband in 2018.
The government also announced a new domestic abuse protection order pilot that will order more abusers to stay away from victims and impose tougher sanctions if they fail to do so.'

Let's hope this has impact.

RIP Raneem and Khaola. May your memories be a blessing.

I’m not sure I have a fixed opinion about the naming after women aspect, I will give it some thought. In this case however I wonder if the lack of response they suffered was in some part due to their names. If that’s the case then I welcome their names on the pilot.

And I hope that this doesn’t just join the long list of pilot projects that gradually fade out of sight.

''Refuge, the charity which supports survivors of domestic violence, welcomed the changes but called for "far more detail on how these plans will be implemented and how staff will be safely recruited, vetted and most importantly trained".

This was my first thought. Its all officers that need vetting and training imo. Placing an expert in the call centre is a start, but women are still left dealing with badly trained officers face to face.

I don't mean that I think they shouldn't name laws after women. It's just every time, it means another tragedy has happened. And I wish they wouldn't.

A woman's legacy shouldn't be a law named after her. It should be a happy life.

I get it and I hear you.
It's too easy to honour women after they're dead and do too little while they're still alive and asking for help.
It's a kind of lie.
Thank you for articulating it.

I understand what you are trying to say (I think) but I also think we should be shouting those poor women's names out loud. "This is what happens when people don't listen" is what you hear when their name is added to the law.

Unfortunately there seems to be more and more being added. Claire's law, Sarah's law, Suzy Lamplugh Trust (stalking), Natasha's law (adding her because people are still dying needlessly). I know I'm missing others

@ArabellaScott @heldinadream Thanks for articulating your thoughts. They are well made

I haven't read anything that gives the detail of this, but seriously I cant see how this is going to work.

Are they going to monitor all calls, and then when it becomes clear that the issue is about DV they take over the call?

Or will they go through recordings and start noting down calls where DV may have been an issue and see if there is more than one call.

Ideally you would like to think it is possible to train caller handlers to learn to recognise signs of possible DV abuse.

Not sure if it isn't just a stunt in relation to recent cases where it become obvious that if the police had kept a record of calls from the same woman, that would have been aware of how frequently this was happening.

I think all the Government has committed to is 3 call centres where this will be trialed. So maybe this will help make it effective.

From a longer press release from Women's Aid:

Under Raneem’s Law, domestic abuse specialists will be embedded into 999 control rooms, where they will advise on risk assessments and work with frontline officers to ensure a fast and appropriate response. While this measure is a positive improvement, domestic abuse specialists must be included at all stages of police response, including the investigation process, to ensure that survivors are protected, and perpetrators are held to account.

It takes an incredible amount of courage for survivors to report their experiences to the police, so it is essential that those who do are properly supported through the investigation process by specialists. We know that women’s confidence in the police is at an all-time low, with only one in five reporting their experiences of abuse. Having specialist support throughout the process may help to improve this confidence and in turn increase justice.

https://www.womensaid.org.uk/new-measures-announced-by-the-home-office/

The new Domestic Abuse Protection Orders sound like they could be helpful, but wonder if the police have the staff to monitor this.

I often wonder when whichever Government it is, announces a new tweak to the system like this whether those at the front live really do support them, or just feel obliged to say nice things.

Also wonder if any Government has actually asked DV projects what would be most helpful. Many seem to say what would really help is having the housing that would allow a woman to move away from a violenct partner.

I agree with this

I've posted on a similar but related thread about this. I know several women who've experienced DV. Very serious DV although thankfully none were murdered. Obviously they're not speaking for all DV victims but I know none of the women I personally know know would want their name publicly and widely known especially not associated with being a DV murder victim.

I think it would be perhaps better to name the law after the killer. DV abusers hate to be named and shamed.

Separately re this particular new law. I hope it's not bad MN etiquette to copy my post from another thread about it. I'm posting here too because it's important.

The new law sounds positive. However it won't reduce or address DV unless also:

a) More social housing, a supportive benefits system, improved support services.

b) Change the system so DV is treated like rape (obviously rape often happens within DV situations although not always).

By treat like rape, I mean it's the victim's choice whether or not to pursue criminal action against the abuser. If they don't feel able to cope with that, the priority should be on support (see point A) to keep them safe.

Re the women I personally know who've experienced DV. One returned to her husband because the only alternative was the substandard and unsafe temporary accomodation she'd been placed in.

And yes it was unsafe. So is being with her abuser, but I guess she chose familiar lack of safety over unfamiliar equal lack of safety.

Homeless people (which many DV victims become) are all lumped in together in often substandard "slumlord" housing - and because all lumped in together, DV victims are sometimes housed with people with substance issues and ex prisoners. Obviously those people also need help but it's inappropriate to house all together.

Another woman I know was given social housing. She's very grateful but terribly isolated and struggling when she so desperately needed to be housed near support. Several councils she applied for (including mine) gatekept. She wanted to be near me and other friends for support, which is totally understandable especially as her ex had isolated her from us and her family.

Yes, and I can imagine some family members have fought hard for these laws, to try and help others, and that they are a memorial.

I can see the arguments.

I just wish it was all otherwise. That roll call of names is just heartbreaking.

I dislike the practice.

Redtoothbrush's law will be a law to prevent laws being named after any individual.

re: Windchimes' list - I've been wondering about the support services as there's an uptick of people writing MN threads about their unmanageably violent children (particularly boys entering adolescence and gaining height/weight/strength).

This can't be a peculiarly modern problem.

This is emphatically not a solution but I was thinking back to what happened to these boys and girls in my childhood. An astonishing number of them had spells in Approved School, Borstal etc.

Talking to relatives, this was common in the 60s and 70s. Up to 30% of male school leavers went into apprenticeships which invariably placed them in an environment of older men which may have steadied their behaviour in some settings. Mixed into that was National Service:
At this time, half of the National Service recruits into the army who were in the two highest rated ability groups had left school at 15.

School leaving age was 15 until 1972 (increase to 16 was mooted in 1964 but not implemented for financial reasons).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_school_leaving_age_in_England_and_Wales#

@UltraLiteLife I think funding cuts to services, including mental health, social services, CMS system, probation and policing, and support for victims of DV after leaving (including children who witnessed DV, who are classed rightly as victims in their own right) has had terrible consequences.

DV (and violence in general) can't be addressed without taking a holistic approach that tackles wider societal issues.

There's emergency support like refuges, although even that is mixed and seems to be a bit of a postcode lottery, but often little support afterwards. Both practical support, i e. safe housing and benefits, and psychological, i.e. DV aware trained therapists.

There was a very sad thread a few weeks ago. Someone trying to help a friend's teenage son who was struggling with suicidal feelings after his mother (the poster's friend) experienced DV. The support services had told the family the case was closed because they were out of immediate danger. That poor kid was left without decent professional help.

Re support services, both DV specific and more general, one of the problems is outsourcing to private companies and charities. Spending priorities are focused on senior staff salaries and on bidding for contracts - instead of having well trained frontline staff providing timely and effective support.

I don't know why I read these threads as it usually triggers me. In a nutshell, they can name a law what they want, the real question is whether it brings about a meaningful change or a shift in attitude.

At the moment, the attitude towards DV and violence towards women are that it doesn't matter until something really bad happens and then they have to do something.

The comment about DV being treated like rape is very misguided. The conviction rate of rapes is 1% because the police don't take it seriously. Is that really what you want?

I feel like the bare minimum will always be what is done because men still mostly run the government and most of them are up to good.

@CharlieDickens When I said treat DV like rape, I definitely didn't mean in terms of low conviction rates.

I meant, as I said, By treat like rape, I mean it's the victim's choice whether or not to pursue criminal action against the abuser. If they don't feel able to cope with that, the priority should be on support to keep them safe.

This is very important, not misguided. I know several different women who've experienced DV - and this is what they want. Of course they don't speak for all victims, but that's exactly why victim choice is so important.

There's a need to prioritise victims needs. If, for some, that's effective support to be safe rather than court action, then that's what should be what happens. Forcing a distressed and vulnerable victim to court against their wishes - bearing in mind coercive control is a major part of DV, is not ok - and doesn't address or reduce DV. In fact it likely makes it worse as it means some women are too scared to ask for help.

I hate it when every time there is an election or a party conference we get all these grand but empty gestures towards the increasing problem of violence against women.

So not only this daft idea about DV specialists in 999 call centres, but now some sort of dedicated task force to tackle the increase in rape, but based in a police college. See https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5170103-rape-offence-reported-every-hour-in-london-as-charities-brand-figures-horrifying

Expect lots of shouty headlines during the Labour Party conference about all the things Labour is going to do about violence against women.

I would be more impressed if they said they had listened to RC and WA and would prioritise whatever they were saying was most needed.

And if Labour can manipulate the justice system to virtue signal about cracking down on right wing rioters, then they can do the same for men who are violent towards women.

I work for a DA charity, one of my colleagues used to go out with police officers in the police car when they were called to DA incidents. This was in the 80s. Must ask her about it.

It's never the victim's choice though. Once you report it, it's investigated. The only choice a victim has, is whether to report it or not and quite frequently part of the reason the cases are abandoned is because they didn't attend a medical centre/A&E when it mattered.

DV and rape are so closely related and it's really important for the police to investigate and hold these men accountable.

The support is an issue for all matters regarding violence against women. There's just not enough.

It's never the victim's choice though.

And that is a huge problem. Of course there should be (good) support when a victim feels able to go to court and/or report to the police.

But it should never be forced on the victim.

Sexual assault centres exist, where rape victims can get help (and have evidence collected and stored). They're not forced to report to police. The help is unconditional. Which is right. The same needs to apply for DV.

It should always be a choice - and if the victim wants help (i e. to safely leave, and after leaving) they must be able to access help without being put through further coerced experiences. Bear in mind coercive control is a major feature of DV. It's very wrong to deny choice to victims who've had so much choice already taken away from them.

If you report it, it's investigated.

Exactly why many don't report (and so are left in danger).

Victim needs should be the priority. If more women felt safe to call the police to get an abuser removed when in danger, but with the choice of court or not - but always practical help the victim needs, more victims would be safe.

The only choice a victim has, is whether to report it or not and quite frequently part of the reason the cases are abandoned is because they didn't attend a medical centre/A&E when it mattered.

They're also abandoned because many victims can't cope with going through a court case so refuse to support it. Another reason is because there's insufficient societal support (see my and others previous posts) after leaving - so they feel they have to return to the abusers.

Separately, and please don't be offended as I'm quite sure it's unintentional, but it's victim blaming to say victims didn't seek medical help "when it mattered". Many can't - because they can't get away from a controlling abuser in order to get to medical centres. Others are too scared to go for the reasons I've explained in this post and others.

DV and rape are so closely related and it's really important for the police to investigate and hold these men accountable.

Most important of all is the victim and their needs. Both DV and rape (which are as you say closely related) involve force and taking away choice from victims. If seeking help, they must have choice over what happens next - and never be forced to go through the distress of a court case.

It is. And the immediate concerns of Women's Aid and those who actually have those women and their survival and future is their main priority are worth listening to.

Remember the twits who believed it was 'unhelpful' to remove the woman from the home and support should be about sorting things out in the home? As opposed to prioritising the woman actually surviving the next year of her life and not sustaining injury or living in a state of terror and abuse?

Who's funding this? Because their core brief and approach will centre on their funding streams and where they'd like to direct resources, (and manage and gatekeep resources), and how as someone comes into the system they can be managed in a way most helpful to the system. As opposed to centred around the needs of the women. Refuges are expensive, and there's a whole lot of kicking off now because they've been opened up to some men, and women in need of escape to survive are struggling to find places without men in them. Those men may very well need refuge places and services, but the services themselves have confirmed they are massively less likely to be at risk of actual bodily harm or death from their abuser as women are.

Of course I could be even more cynical and suggest that if you're wanting to be able to wave shiny statistics to the public about 'look how we've halved VAWG', then stuffing people with a specific brief in place to 'manage' women and girls through the system and how they're recorded, and when you get to tick 'not in need of services' and 'case closed' would be a very helpful way to achieve this on paper without having to actually address male violence.

This seems either a poorly thought out knee jerk gesture or worse, an intentionally underhand one for women, and the naming it after the woman by itself signals the lack of sensitivity and in depth understanding of VAWG.

Just to make sure that women know that if you have been raped you can go to a SARC, get medical support and you do NOT have to talk to the police.

But as usual there is a limited, ie underfunded service. See https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-help/sexual-assault-referral-centres-sarcs/

I know that one of the original concept of SARCs, apart from direct support for those who have been raped, was that in collecting forensic evidence, they can then see if there is a man or men who are repeat offenders.

I dont' know if this is still true.

But the fact that these centres are now part of the NHS shows that when it chooses a Government can take on to provide the servcies that women's groups have created.

Although, to be realistic, what is the record of Government provided services, let alone the underfunding of the NHS.

I don't like this either. It males me feel uncomfortable, Like somebody has to die before a law is brought in.

I don't feel it's victim blaming to say they didn't seek medical help when it mattered. I'm just stating it as a fact. I didn't seek medical attention when I was raped because I was in such a state of shock and I didn't know who or what I was dealing with. I definitely don't blame myself or any other woman who is in close proximity to an abuser.

I'm not disputing that victims need support eithrr and all of posts are frequently about improving support for women who are affected. Where a woman is able though, she should be encouraged to report it to the police. Even if it doesn't get very far, just by doing something, you don't know who it will protect in the future which is what I say to people. If I had known what my ex was like I wouldn't have gone near him and with the level of violence he used, I knew he had done it before, more than once and this is what I struggle with most.

The issue I have with all of it, DV and rape, is that the system doesn't do enough to protect women. In my support group, I've heard of people with restraining orders against their exes and they continue to stalk them and aren't re-arrested.

I really don't understand why violence against women isn't taken more seriously (which it clearly is, when you look at the sentences handed down). That's The really big issue here that's just not being addressed.

Well, yes.
Sadly this does seem to be the case. Women (and children) have been abused and murdered by men throughout history. Every week we hear another case on the news.
Apparently reducing VAWG by 50% will be a marvellous achievement. Not much comfort for the other 50%.
I thought we already had laws against raping and murdering women. They don't seem to be very effective. It remains to be seen whether naming a law after a victim will improve things.