“4.9 Alongside the “Hand in a Handler” campaign, Savile was invited by the LDCSP (Leeds District Community Safety Partnership) to be involved in the ‘Talking Signs’ campaign. This involved a recording of Savile’s voice being broadcast through speakers attached to lamp posts giving local students and resident’s crime prevention advice. Savile did not receive payment for any support he provided to this or any other WYP campaigns.”

If you’ve got the stomach for reading all about how no one appears to have kept any paperwork, and how no one who’s still around today remembers anything about any investigations into Savile, or indeed anything much else about him, you can read the full report here - Operation Newgreen

For the record though, I disagree with the Guardian’s headline - Jimmy Savile report clears West Yorkshire police of shielding star - I think the report leaves more questions than answers. I also disagree with the conclusion in the penultimate paragraph of Josh Halliday’s piece:

“A trawl of police records also found that Savile had offered his services as an “intermediary” to detectives in the hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper in the late 1970s. Savile’s name was mentioned on four index cards, according to the report, but there was no indication that he was of interest to the inquiry team.”

Particularly in light of this paragraph from the report:

Artwork by C Clement. Appeared in July 1973 issue of Sister: the newspaper of the Los Angeles Women’s Centre.

I know I haven’t been writing much recently, but even I wasn’t expecting the complete absence of posts here during April. Unfortunately though, April turned out to be one of those months where life just takes over. Where no matter what you have planned, something comes along that throws you completely off course.

Some of you may remember the problems I had a few years ago that resulted in my having a hysterectomy: an operation incidentally, that failed to fulfil its promise of improving my housewifey skills. Well I’m calling this latest episode Fred and Barney’s revenge, only this time the mystery lump wasn’t in my uterus – well it wouldn’t be really would it, being as I don’t have one! – it was in my right breast.

I discovered it purely by chance one evening while I was soaking in the bath. I wasn’t even doing a breast exam at the time, because to be honest I’d become a bit complacent about doing them since I got the all clear from the family history breast clinic last year.

I’d had a mammogram then which had shown that everything was fine, and so I suppose I’d crossed breast cancer off the list of potential future problems I might have to deal with. And I’d got complacent, and I’d stopped checking.

And then I found the lump.

Anyway, to cut a long story short I went to my GP, who told me not to think the worse but referred me to the breast clinic straight away and, as per the protocols that are (hopefully) still in place despite the Government’s best efforts to destroy the NHS, I got an appointment through to see a consultant within a fortnight. That’s right, from finding the lump to seeing the GP to having it checked out thoroughly by specialists took two weeks, start to finish.

A lot of breast clinics now are what are known as one stop clinics, and the one at the Norfolk and Norwich is no different. So in the course of 3-4 hours I had a physical exam, another mammogram, an ultrasound scan, and a core-needle biopsy. At the end of all that I was called back in for a chat with the consultant who’d performed the physical exam to be told that, despite not having the biopsy results yet, they were all confident there was nothing to worry about and the lump was almost certainly benign.

The problem is I then had to wait for the biopsy results, and they took another two weeks to come through.

I know I’m naturally a pessimist, so maybe I’m in the minority in this, but it doesn’t matter how reassuring people are with me, no matter how assured and confident they are, until I’ve got the results in my hands I just don’t believe them. So even during those two weeks I couldn’t relax.

Thankfully though, the results when they eventually arrived confirmed what the consultant had told me, and the bastard mystery lump is indeed entirely benign. Phew!

So what I suppose I’m trying to say is that I didn’t write anything in April because I basically spent the entire month worrying. For nothing as it turns out. I did learn a couple of things during all this though:

• While the Internet can be really really helpful in circumstances like this, especially if you’re like me and have an almost obsessive need to know everything there is to know about a subject, it can also be really really unhelpful. So if you need to look up medical things don’t delve too deeply into sites you’ve never heard of before: if you do you’ll end up scaring yourself even further and having endless sleepless nights.
• The NHS is fantastic. Not that I didn’t know that already, but seriously, two weeks from finding a lump to having it checked out is awesome.
• Two weeks can feel like a lifetime. I’ve never known time go so slowly as during those two weeks. I’ve also never been so incapable of distracting myself as I was during that time, and for the sake of all the other women that have to go through this hell I hope against hope that the ConDems leave the best practice guidelines as they are.
• Even atheists make bargains with invisible non-existent others when they think the chips are down. I lied about not writing: I did write – a list of promises of things I would do differently if only only only I was given another chance. My word but it was self-indulgent nonsense that I promise you will never see the light of day on this blog.
• In the East of England I’m still officially classified as a young woman!! I thought the consultant was patronising me when he referred to me as one, so I pulled him up on it. Turns out he was using the correct medical terminology and I was being oversensitive. Which is obviously not like me at all.

First off, as the title of this post says: sometimes words really do mean what they say.

Or to put it another way: nowhere in the statement do we call for the handful of people that remain in the SWP to be ‘witch-hunted’ out of our trade unions or the wider labour movement. Nowhere do we state that anyone who hasn’t signed the statement must be immediately denounced as a misogynist or a handmaiden of the patriarchy; and nowhere do we say that anyone who disagrees with the way the statement’s worded should feel bullied or coerced into signing it just because hundreds of other comrades have signed, or be in any way ostracised if they don’t.

I’ve refused to put my name to lots of petitions over the years because I’ve not felt entirely comfortable with the wording. That doesn’t make me an enemy of the left, it doesn’t even imply I don’t support the fundamental cause the petition’s about. It just means I can sometimes be a bit of a pedant.

It can also mean though that sometimes I’ll read something into a statement or petition that isn’t even there. And that’s what I think has happened with this. People are cocking their heads, squinting their eyes, and reading between the lines. Except that in this instance there’s nothing to read between the lines so they’re making stuff up instead.

I read one comment somewhere, and my apologies for not remembering where, that suggested MJ and I should have made the statement even longer, to spell out exactly what we were asking people to sign up to and what was behind it all. But to be honest I think it should have been shorter, I think what we’re after could have been summed up in a couple of short sentences:

“We stand opposed to any form of male violence against women, and we’ll do our best to make sure that when it happens in our movement those involved will be dealt with. Appropriately.”

That’s it. That’s all we want people to pledge. It’s hardly rocket science is it?

Instead there’s been a slew of “hmmm, who are these creeping feminists/trade union bureaucrats/tools of the right/CIA stooges/spies/blah blah conspiracy theorist blah, and what’s their real motivation?”

Obviously I can only speak for myself, but my motivation is what it’s always been: opposing all forms of violence against women. I would hope that my record on this issue speaks for itself, that the endless articles I’ve written both here and elsewhere across the web make clear where I stand. Oh yes, and I’m a feminist, and I make absolutely no apology for that, in the same way I make no apology for being a socialist and a trade unionist.

I’ve also read how, in the wrong hands, the statement could be used against hard-working committed left wing comrades in the trade union movement, and to some extent yes, I suppose it could. But I’ve been around long enough to know that if they’re out to get you they’ll use whatever they can, and a statement like this will make little or no difference to that. What I will say though is that if that happens, if my or any other union leadership tries to appropriate this for some nefarious ends, I will play no part in that and I will oppose it just as I opposed the witch-hunt against comrades in the Socialist Party.

Finally, I’ve also read that the statement is ‘silencing’: that it’s too “you’re either with us or you’re against us” and leaves no room for discussion or debate. Well, for some examples of how effective our alleged attempt to silence discussion on this issue has been, see the following… ermmm…discussions:

A Very Public Sociologist - Our Movement Must Be a Safe Space for Women

Labour Party Marxists - Freedom of discussion is the safest place

The Socialist Party of Great Britain Forum

The Socialist Party - Combating violence against women: A socialist perspective on fighting women’s oppression

Shiraz Socialist - Weekly Worker’s ignorant misogyny exposed and denounced

The Communist Party of Great Britain - SWP and feminism: Rape is not the problem

The Communist Party of Great Britain - SWP and no platform: Meanwhile, in the real world …

The Communist Party of Great Britain - Feminism: The world of women, like the world of men, is divided

Harpymarx - Jabberwocky Weekly Worker style…..

Jon’s Union Blog - Never a diversion – we can resist both austerity and oppression

Jon’s Union Blog - Whats wrong with the left?

Jon’s Union Blog - Sexism, statements and “tools”

Workers’ Liberty - Not the way to tackle sexism in the labour movement

Feel free to add more links in the comments.

Reblogged from womeninthelabourmovement:

According to my annual report from WordPress.com for instance, this 2009 post – “Your husband has a right to expect regular sex” – was the most popular post in 2012, which makes that the third year in a row it’s achieved the number one spot.

As you can see, this 2011 post – More on husbands and their ‘entitlement’ to sex – wasn’t that far behind, coming in in fifth place last year.

In the post Rape and marriage, which I published in September 2011, I was so baffled by the popularity of these posts that I looked into some of the search terms that had brought people here, and I was pretty shocked by what I found. So when I got my annual report thing through from WordPress this time and saw how these old articles were managing to maintain their popularity, I decided to do the same again.

At the risk of repeating myself, I’m going to repeat exactly what I said in that earlier post:

“Now obviously some of those searches could be just general queries around the issue of marital rape and so on, and some could be from the same person typing in different phrases to try and find as much information as they can – I’m by no means trying to make any kind of claims around this being some sort of scientifically accurate peer reviewed study or anything. But equally I surely can’t be the only one to look at that list and think “Christ, it’s not just young people who need sex and relationship education in this country.“?

Without any further ado, here’s the most recent list:

• rape in marriage (2nd most popular search term in last 12 months)
• husband wants too much sex
• sex with sleeping wife
• marital rape
• guilted into sex
• rights of a husband
• husband rights
• marriage rape
• can i rape my wife
• husband wants sex too often
• husband pressuring me to have sex
• husband entitled to sex
• husband wants sex too much
• husband’s right to sex
• can your husband rape you
• wife forced to have sex
• i want to rape my wife (12 searches)
• husband expects sex
• husband pressures me for sex
• husband forced sex
• sex with my sleeping wife
• sex feels like rape
• sexual coercion in marriage
• are you supposed to have sex with husband when he’s a jerk often
• forced sex by husband
• sex with husband feels like rape
• forcing wife to have sex
• demanding sex from wife
• forced sex wife
• how to force your wife to have sex
• are men entitled to sex
• husband’s right to have sex
• what is rape in marriage
• pressure to have sex in marriage
• sexual rights of husband
• husband expects too much sex
• wife sex duties
• guilted into having sex
• husband feels entitled to sex
• does a husband have a right to sex
• husband pressuring me for sex
• husbands who demand sex
• husband thinks he is entitled to sex
• husband forces sex
• raped by my husband
• sexual pressure in marriage
• husband pressuring for sex
• unwanted sex with husband
• marriage sexual duty
• forced wife to have sex
• husband force sex
• is my husband entitled to have sex with me
• feel pressured to have sex with husband
• forcing your wife to have sex
• husband guilts me into sex
• is it right to force sex on your wife
• forced sex with husband
• can you be raped by your husband
• husband forcing wife to have sex
• what constitutes rape in marriage
• my husband rapes me
• husband demands sex
• forcing wife into sex
• why does sex with my husband feel like rape
• husband pressure to have sex
• what constitutes marital rape
• don’t deny your husband sex
• can i force my wife to have sex
• husband right to sex
• is it possible to rape your wife
• husband forces wife to have sex
• i feel guilty saying no to sex with husband
• sex with unwilling partner
• is a wife supposed to have sex with her husband
• guilted into sex by husband
• husbands who keep pestering for sex
• sex is a duty to your husband
• should i force my wife to have sex
• ive gone off sex and my husband is pressuring me
• husband forces wife to sex another
• forcing a wife to have sex
• why do i like to rape my wife
• my husband has sex with me when i am sleeping
• wife keeps saying no to sex so i feel like raping her
• should i demand sex from my wife
• my husband feels he has the right to force sex on me
• women should not have the right to refuse sex
• can you force your wife to have sex
• husband thinks sex should be provided on demand regardless of how i feel
• is forcing wife to have sex rape
• does a husband have a right to expect sex from his wife?
• can i refuse to have sex with my husband
• i feel used for sex by my husband
• what do you call sex with sleeping partner?
• husband forced me to sleep with his friend
• my husband throws a fit when we don’t have sex
• husband rapes me
• is it ok to rape your wife in America
• being pressured into having sex with your husband
• sexual duties in marriage
• husband rape sleep
• should a wife always submit to her husband’s sexual move
• husband entered me without consent
• sex with him makes me feel like im being raped
• sex whenever he wants

Now first off I should probably point out that these are by no means the only search terms that people have googled prior to ending up here. But by the same token, by way of illustrating how often these types of searches are going on, here’s a snapshot from my blog’s behind-the-scenes dashboard of terms that have got people here today:

I’m also aware that I’ve got quite a global readership, so there’s a possibility that some of those looking for information on this subject aren’t necessarily living in countries where the laws are as clear cut as ours.

Those things aside though, I’ll also point out that by the time I’d finished copying and pasting every single search engine term relating to rape and marriage that had led people to this site in the last 12 months, I was faced with a list that was over 4 pages long. I’ve actually cut the list down, so now it only contains search terms that have been used multiple times: I’ve taken out all the one-off searches.

All of this leads me to conclude only one thing – there really is a massive problem going on here.

I know from working in a Rape Crisis centre that marital rape, or indeed rape in any close relationship, is far more prevalent than most people realise. It doesn’t seem to matter how many times those of us working in the field say to the media “the vast majority of rapes are carried out by men known to the victim” the image most people have of a rapist is still of some random predatory stranger jumping out of the bushes.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) even states in the introduction to its policy on prosecuting rape cases:

“We are aware that there is a general perception that most rapes are committed by a single man against a woman unknown to him. In fact, the majority of rape victims are women and most know their rapist.”

And yet still there seems to be this mass delusion that because we now have laws against rape in marriage – albeit marital rape has only been criminalised in England since 1991 – the problem has gone away. Well quite clearly it hasn’t.

In fact not only has it not gone away, but people are logging on to the Internet in their droves to try and find information about it. Victims are trying to work out whether what they’re experiencing is lawful and, as you can see from the list, men are busy doing research into whether or not it’s something they can actually get away with.

Meanwhile the CPS, the police, the government and so on wonder why it is that in crime survey after crime survey the numbers of women reporting having been raped or having experienced some form of sexual violence is way way higher than the numbers of women who actually report their perpetrator to the police or engage in any way with the criminal justice system.

It seems it’s not just rape myths and the fear of having to go through a court case that are putting women off reporting, it’s that in far too many cases while women feel that what they’ve experienced was wrong, they don’t realise or aren’t aware that they have any right to do anything about it. People are still living with this idea that once they’re married they lose all rights to bodily autonomy; that the ‘marriage contract’ includes a clause to the effect that whatever the husband wants the husband gets.

I don’t know about you, but I can see a new rape awareness campaign coming on. Not one that tells women not to get into unlicensed taxis or not to drink ‘too much’, but one that spells out exactly what’s what: that rape is rape is rape, no matter what the relationship, no matter what the marital status, and no matter what bullshit nonsense people have heard about ‘wifely duties’ or ‘a ‘husband’s rights’.

The Rape Crisis National Freephone Helpline is open from 12-2.30pm & 7-9.30pm every day of the year: you can call them on 0808 802 9999

Reblogged from womeninthelabourmovement:

Yep, time for some of us to get those marching shoes on, because it’s Million Women Rise tomorrow.

Meet: 12pm Oxford Street (Outside Selfridges)

Set off: 1pm

RALLY: 3pm TRAFALGAR SQUARE

And look!! “This year the whole of Oxford Street will be closed to traffic from 12pm. Making way for Million Women Rise to reclaim Oxford Street, it will be pedestrian-only from noon.”

There are more details on the MWR website – Million Women Rise

* * *

Personal Background

First though, some personal background.

The Socialist Workers Party was the first political party I ever got involved with.

It was back in the early 80′s when I was 13/14 years old and just starting to get interested in politics. I’d written off to the Anti-Nazi League, whose address I’d found printed on the inside sleeve of the latest Tom Robinson Band album, and someone from the ANL who lived locally had contacted me and invited me to meet up with him. And so I had, not knowing at the time (and not realising until many years later in fact) that the ANL and the SWP were inextricably linked.

I was 14, he was 24, but before too long we were ‘an item’; although to give A his due he behaved impeccably, and in light of some of the stuff that’s now coming out about the SWP and its history with young women it seems I was one of the lucky ones.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, I have many fond memories of Saturday mornings spent selling the paper, of the hours spent in A’s kitchen churning out indecipherable leaflets on the old hand-cranked printer, and of being in awe of, and desperate to learn from, this small group of adult men who called each other comrade and talked openly of a need for revolution.

I’m not sure how long it all lasted, but eventually I moved on and got involved with the Young Socialists instead, and while there have been a couple of occasions over the years where I’ve come close to rejoining the party, most recently at the start of the Iraq war, to be frank I’m just not a party animal: I can’t and I won’t do unswerving or unquestioning loyalty to any so-called ‘leadership’, and sadly that’s what the SWP has always demanded.

I have though supported plenty of SWP events over the years and, as the old cliché goes, some of my best friends are Swappies….

* * *

Background to the Motion

In September last year the NUS passed a motion condemning George Galloway for his comments on rape and denying him a platform at future NUS events. Rather than retract his remarks, Galloway’s response to this was to threaten to sue them.

The deadline for submission of motions to this year’s UNISON’s Women’s Conference was 18th October. At this point Galloway was still making threats, so in solidarity with the NUS position my Regional Women’s Committee submitted a similar but slightly toned down version of their motion.

Our motion was accepted onto the conference agenda, and as chair of the committee and as the Eastern Region Delegate it then became my job to move it.

* * *

Other Background

In January this year it was revealed that the SWP had held an internal Disputes Committee hearing into rape allegations against a senior SWP activist and long-standing member of its Central Committee.  The case against Comrade Delta – who it now turns out was in his late forties when the alleged rape took place while the young woman concerned was still a teenager – was found not proven.

Furthermore, as the published transcript of the Disputes Committee Report to SWP Conference makes clear, the young woman concerned, Comrade W, who made the allegations against Comrade Delta, was asked entirely inappropriate and victim blaming questions during the Disputes Committee hearing – questions about previous sexual history and so on – while the Disputes Committee itself was comprised in large part of Comrade Delta’s friends and allies.

All in all a pretty shameful state of affairs then, and one that’s been written about extensively in  the weeks since it all came out.

* * *

At Conference

I was made aware during conference that some SWP activists were planning to speak against the Galloway motion.

Word had somehow got out to them that there was a risk the party would be getting a dishonourable mention in my moving speech. I am after all one of the union activists who recently signed the open letter to the SWP Central Committee asking them to reconsider their stance, so the SWP had held a meeting and, egged on from the back of the conference hall by a full-time SWP employee, were preparing to justify the Kangaroo Court tactics Comrade W had been subjected to, and to defend the indefensible.

I was baffled by this decision, especially given the party’s now much publicised record on handling rape and sexual violence within its own ranks. But on the Saturday morning the motion was due to be heard, after I’d seen that at least one of the SWP women involved had signed the now notorious 500 signature shit list, and after this leaflet had been handed to me on my way into the conference venue, I was also bloody angry.

So in anticipation of the things I suspected they’d be saying in their opposition speeches, I sat down and wrote my right of reply.

* * *

The Debate

The first half of my opening speech was pretty much a rip-off of a piece I’ve published on this blog already – Assange, and feminism’s so-called male allies. That’s one of the joys of being a writer, you can plagiarise yourself to your heart’s content.

So I talked about Assange and Galloway and Pilger, and about my disappointment with those leftie men who are prepared to sell women out for the sake of other leftie men.

And then I talked about the recent goings on in the SWP:

“Our comrades in the Socialist Workers’ Party haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory recently either over the issue of rape and sexual assault.

For those of you who haven’t heard, the SWP held an internal hearing into rape allegations against a senior member of its Central Committee, the membership of which was made up from all accounts of a majority of the alleged perpetrators close friends and allies. The alleged victim was then asked exactly the kinds of questions we would condemn if they were asked in any so-called bourgeois court of law.

Questions about the victim’s previous sexual history, victim blaming questions to try and show that if the alleged incident did take place the victim herself must have borne some responsibility for whatever went on.

Quite rightly the SWP have been roundly denounced for its Kangaroo Court tactics, and sadly but inevitably some of our own colleagues, comrades we would ordinarily be proud to stand alongside, have found themselves and their allegiances come under scrutiny.

Conference, declaring a man to be innocent of rape and other crimes of sexual violence, purely on the grounds that he’s been engaged in important work that many of us would like to see continued, while discounting women’s testimonies and women’s concerns in the process, is just the same old same old, men protecting men protecting men, and selling women out in the process.

Well we’re calling on UNISON to take a stand. We’re calling on UNISON to refuse to grant a platform to anyone who blames women for the crimes of sexual violence committed against them, and who perpetrates rape culture through the victim blaming attitudes they espouse.

Conference we know that no platforming is a controversial measure, and it’s not something we propose lightly. But at the same time we also know that every time a rape denier spouts their victim blaming poison another woman is silenced, and we refuse to play any part in that.

Conference please support the motion.”

And then the SWP got their chance to speak.

And they blew it.

I was apparently being “nasty” and making “serious allegations” against their party. I’d been reading too much of the right-wing press and I didn’t know what I was talking about. There had been five women at the Disputes Committee hearing, and it had all been conducted impeccably and the party was beyond reproach. The ‘process’ the SWP had used to determine the guilt or innocence of Comrade Delta had been fair. And so on and so forth…

We had a queue of women lined up to speak in support, but in the end the debate was closed down after conference had heard two more speakers for and two speakers against the motion.

Right up until the point when the SWP decided to make it personal I’d been looking at my hastily scribbled Right of Reply speech and wondering whether I should tone it down a bit. But after listening to the disgraceful attempts to justify the SWP’s recent behaviour, and after hearing myself practically being accused of being some kind of right wing stooge, I decided to go for it:

“Conference, as I said in my opening speech we do recognise that no platforming is a controversial measure.

However, to have the SWP come up here and pretend that their concerns are centred on some idea that we want to no platform anyone whose views differ from ours quite frankly takes the biscuit.

No, the SWP doesn’t care about sexism or about rape victims. The SWP’s only concerns are about the implications of this motion being passed for the 500 of its members, many of them UNISON activists, who yesterday signed a statement supporting the actions of its Central Committee. Their concerns are solely about what will happen now that 500 of them have outed themselves as misogynists and rape deniers.

In the leaflet that many of you would have been handed this morning outside the conference centre the SWP say: “We believe that the allegations made by the women in the Assange case should be taken seriously and investigated.” My question for the SWP would be – why then don’t you believe that allegations made by your own women members against your own activists should be taken equally seriously and investigated?

I know this is controversial conference, but please support the motion.”

The motion was passed overwhelmingly by UNISON Women’s Conference, with only five women voting against it and several hundred grassroots trade union women voting for it.

* * *

Summary

There are legitimate arguments to be had about no-platforming people, and I wish we could have heard those arguments at women’s conference. Unfortunately though the SWP picked the wrong fight on the conference floor, choosing instead to try and defend and justify the party’s recent despicable behaviour.

And now things have got even worse for them, with the party expelling activists for the simple crime of talking to each other on Facebook without the Central Committee’s permission or something. Meanwhile those swappies who have openly discussed the details of the case face no sanction whatsoever.

I’d be interested to hear whether those who got up and opposed UNISON’s right not to give Galloway a platform will feel a similar urge to get up and defend their own (now expelled) comrades’ rights to speak at the SWP’s hastily called Special Conference on March 10th. I won’t be holding my breath though….

Oh, and as for Galloway, he apparently has no problem with no-platforming anyone (h/t Sunny):

This is the email I received last night from Richard White. Now let’s hope this really is the end of it.

“Dear Ms Elliott

This is an extremely difficult email to write and please, do with it as you will.

I’m quite sure that you will feel for any contrition from me is self-serving, but I do genuinely feel sorry for any hurt I have caused you and offer you a full apology. I’d never speak in ‘real life’ as I spoke on DSMO and it has taken this too see that.

I have said that DSMO was not intended as a tool with which to wound and this is true – it was simply a way to discuss matters but it developed into something else, over time. I think over my years on the net, the language used became the norm. This clearly does not excuse it, but perhaps it gives an insight into how it may have developed. It is also true that we considered shutting the site after the Savle scandal, but for one reason or another, we did not. This clearly does not excuse it, but perhaps it gives an insight into how it may have developed.

Once agan, I do wish you all the best and hope in time you can forgive me for my part in it all.

Richard White”

Related articles

• An occupational hazard?
• Don’t start me off again….. (toomuchtosayformyself.com)
• What it’s like to be a victim of Don’t Start Me Off’s internet hate mob (newstatesman.com)
• Take Back The Net: it’s time to end the culture of online misogyny (newstatesman.com)