The New York Times reported yesterday:

“According to an e-mail sent within United Nations agencies on July 30, as the attack was unfolding, United Nations officials knew that the rebels had infiltrated the area and that at least one woman had been raped.

“The town of Mpofi, 52 kilometers from Walikale, has just fallen into the hands of the F.D.L.R. A woman was raped there,” said the e-mail, which was sent by the United Nations’ humanitarian office in eastern Congo to several other United Nations agencies and private aid groups. “Humanitarian workers are said not to go there,” the e-mail continued.”

Now the Guardian is reporting that:

“Community leaders begged UN officials for protection days before rebels raped more than 240 villagers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, they claimed yesterday.

The attacks took place over several days, with victims ranging from a month-old baby boy to a 110-year-old great-great-grandmother.

The number of reported rapes between 30 July and 4 August has grown from initial figures of 179 and now stands at 242.“

I understand Nanjala Nyabola’s argument on CiF the other day that it’s too easy to blame the UN for this atrocity, when it is in fact “the evolution of a conflict that has been ignored and allowed to fester over decades with little interest until fairly recently.” Although I would add that while it’s easy to blame the UN, the only ones who can really be blamed for the rapes are the men themselves, the ones who chose to rape.

However, I think in light of these more recent revelations it’s fair to say the UN, once again, has got a lot of explaining to do. UN forces may not be responsible for the rapes, but by the looks of it they’re certainly responsible for not doing enough to prevent them.

For more on the appalling situation for women in the Congo, the following link is well worth a click:

Eve Ensler Reads “Congo Cancer: My Cancer Is Arbitrary. Congo’s Atrocities Are Very Deliberate”.

The Old Bailey heard Julie McKinley had reported her husband to police 24 times during their 16 year relationship.

Only four ever made it to court while the other 20 were not pursued after she withdrew the allegations.

In January 2004 she claimed Tyler had punched her in the stomach and throttled her until she momentarily blacked out.

She obtained a non-molestation order later that month which was renewed for 12 months on March 16, 2004.

Two months later she withdrew the complaint and they were reconciled.

In April 2006 she made another complaint and Tyler was convicted of using threatening or abusive words or behaviour.

He made subject to another non-molestation order in April 2008 following another attack and in November 2008 was convicted of common assault.

She said Tyler told her: ‘If you stop me seeing my kids I will finish you off.’

He was given a suspended prison sentence but the following year was convicted of breaching the non-molestation order.

Tyler was jailed for a year on July 28, 2009, but was released from jail just three months later in October 2009.

kill his wife and end up with a verdict of “manslaughter on the basis of provocation”? How?

The jury should be fucking ashamed of themselves.

And so should the police, who are now appealing “for victims of domestic violence to come forward and “break the cycle of abuse” after a man who strangled his wife to death was convicted of manslaughter.”

Why on earth would the outcome of the Tyler case prompt any victim of dv to come forward? Come forward for what? So they can be told they provoked the violence too?

Tell you what, how about the police put out an appeal for the perpetrators of domestic violence to come forward instead, so they can break the cycle of their fucking abuse.

And here’s just one example of why victims don’t bother coming forward. Because even when they do, nothing happens:

“Days before her death, Ms Stubbings told police her house had been burgled, that she believed Chivers was responsible and that she feared for her safety.

Chivers already had a conviction for murdering a previous girlfriend and had also been jailed for assaulting Ms Stubbings.

But officers took days to respond to her calls for help.

When they visited her home a week after the first call she was already dead, her body hidden in a downstairs bathroom. Chivers was at the house and told the police she had gone away.

Maria’s brother, Manuel Fernandez, has told Radio 4′s Face The Facts he is astonished they did not probe further.

“How can a convicted murderer open the door, with her car on the drive, her keys in full view and her phone not being answered?

“Her friends had made frequent phone calls to the police, really deeply concerned for her safety, and they left him a calling card and said ‘Well if she comes back, let us know.’”

The following day, officers returned to the house and discovered Maria’s body. In December 2009, Mark Chivers admitted murdering Maria and was jailed for life.”

The IPCC report into the Maria Stubbings case is due to be published any day now. Meanwhile Essex police have apologised for the mistakes its officers made.

Well that’s okay then.

So how have Hooters reacted to fact that some people have spoken out against the proposed new restaurant? Have they respectfully argued the case for how and why they don’t think they’re particularly sexist for example? Or have they perhaps argued that at least they’re providing jobs and helping boost the local economy and how that can only be a darned good thing in the current dire economic climate?

No, of course they bloody well haven’t: this is Hooters we’re talking about ffs, not some ethical yoghurt weaving company that actually gives a shit about not offending people. No, instead Hooters, or should I say Hooters’ fans, because of course there’s no evidence to suggest that the proprietors themselves are actively involved in the let’s heap scorn on the humourless femnazis and show what a bunch of sexist homophobic tossers we truly are in the process campaign that’s now firmly under-way, have pulled out all the stops.

Here’s an extract from a piece on the Brew Wales website for instance, entitled “Rug-Munchers moan about new Cardiff bar” (and no, I’m not linking)

“Last week it was announced that an American theme bar by the name of Hooters wants to open in Cardiff, causing much outrage and even a protest from the rug-munching-denim-overall-wearing-not-using-imac-brigade. Okay darlings, we supposedly live in a free-market economy – if a company wants to open a perfectly legal business then they should be allowed to. What happened today in Cardiff, outside the John Lewis Department store, was that the objectors to the opening of the perfectly legal business were soliciting autographs from shoppers in order to present a petition to Cardiff Council Licensing Department to stop Hooters from being allowed to open, without explaining any of the facts about the comapny.”

See what they did there? They called feminists the “rug-munching-denim-overall-wearing-not-using-imac-brigade” Hahahahaha! ZOMG stop me now before I split my fucking sides from laughing so much….

And here are some quotes from the (unofficial) @hooters_cardiff Twitter account:

“Lots of flat chested hairy legged protestors outside John Lewis, Cardiff Library then the Hayes this afternoon, more free publicity”

“homophobia, quite the opposite, nothing better than a good girl on girl DVD”

“Here’s a great advert to annoy the hairy legged brigade”

“Good afternoon fellow teeters, hope you are all having a good time and not letting those nasty rugists annoy you”

“what is that expression, judge a tree by its fruit. Except lesbians cant breed and as for what they wear….shudder”

“stereotyping is nasty, as I say, that’s the whole problem with all those hairy legged carpet munching dykes”

“Follow friday, well to many to recommend so just click on any of my followers (expect the badly dressed ones with moustaches, aka feminists)”

“glad I am amusing someone, have been under fire from munchers and hairy legged”

And on and on and on….

Some feminists on Twitter have, quite understandably, taken the bait, and have attempted to engage the Hooters’ tweeter in discussion. Others, like me, have chosen to ignore or block him/her (did I mention that the Hooters’ tweeter is deliberately following some quite high profile fems on the site?) And yes, I realise that by writing this I’m now contributing to giving them far more publicity than they deserve, but fuck it, I’m not going to stay silent and let misogynists like this off the hook. Darn, did I say misogynists?  Sorry, I forgot we weren’t supposed to be using that term anymore what with it being so overused ‘n’ all. Still, at least I haven’t used ‘sexualistion’ yet. Argh! I just did it didn’t I? Ah well, in for a penny in for a pound and all that….

So anyway, I could give you an intelligent well thought out treatise on why and how such lesbophobia and misogyny is not okay, even if it is purporting to be tongue-in-cheek and all a bit of a laugh, but frankly I can’t be arsed to waste my time de-constructing the blatant assshattery evidenced above.

All I will say is, the only people conforming to any kind of stereotype in this recent debacle are the Hooters crowd, and as far as I’m concerned they should keep it up. Because if anyone wants to make the case to Cardiff council as to how and why Hooters promotes and perpetuates sexism and demeans and degrades women, the evidence is all there, on the Internet, for everyone to see.

So, way to go Hooters fans. Oh, and thanks for doing our work for us.

If you’ve been asleep for the last couple of weeks (or, like me, away on holiday), you might have missed the news that Eminem has a new single out. With Rihanna. About domestic abuse.

And you might also have missed the debate that the song, Love The Way You Lie, has provoked across the blogosphere and beyond.

Well fear not. ‘Cos I’m about to wade into/rehash some of the debate with my own take on it here, and not just on the song, but also on the official music video that’s just been released online.

So to kick things off, here it is:

Powerful stuff isn’t it? By which I mean, it certainly provokes a response in the viewer. In my case though, I suspect it’s not quite the response that was intended.

Because no matter how many times I watch this film (and I’ve watched it almost on a loop now for the best part of a day in a desperate bid to find the big important meaning that a lot of people have been ascribing to it), my reaction is always the same, and that’s: “What the fucking fuck was Rihanna thinking of getting involved with this misogynist piece of shit?”

The song that is, not Eminem. Although having said that…..

My biggest issue with it is that so much of this “story” is told from the perpetrator’s point of view. We get to hear how awful being such a violent abusive bastard is for him, and how ashamed it makes him feel to be such a vile, despicable human being. And what with me being such a man-hating femnazi and all, I have to say my reaction to that level of self-pitying whining from a perpetrator of domestic violence is always going to be “Well boo fucking hoo mate, now shut the fuck up and let’s hear how the victim feels.” The problem here of course is that we don’t. We only get to hear, very briefly in the chorus, how much she enjoys it.

Here’s Rihanna’s contribution:

Just gonna stand there
And watch me burn
But that’s alright
Because I like
The way it hurts
Just gonna stand there
And hear me cry
But that’s alright
Because I love
The way you lie
I love the way you lie
I love the way you lie

I do get what people have been saying about how the song encapsulates the cycle of violence inherent in abusive relationships and so on and so forth. However if, as some commenters have been arguing, this song is supposed to be about awareness raising and sending out important messages regarding domestic violence, then I’m sorry but I think it completely fails on both counts. Well okay, maybe not completely – the very fact that  it’s provoked a debate is by itself evidence that it’s managed to achieve something, so I’m happy to give it credit for that at least.

Another part of the problem of course is that both of the artists involved here have baggage of their own when it comes to this issue: Rihanna as a victim/survivor of domestic violence, and Emimen as a perpetrator. And yet despite both of them having been through this and having managed to come out the other side, there’s nothing here in either the song or the video to suggest that it’s in any way possible for the situation to change, for the victim to find a way out, or for the perpetrator to change his behaviour. There’s no hope, no redemption, no aspiration, just more of the same until ultimately he ends up destroying them both.

If she ever tries to fucking leave again
I’mma tie her to the bed
And set the house on fire

I know others have argued that this is just a song, and that we shouldn’t read too much into it or get too involved in trying to analyse it as a piece of social commentary or whatever, but frankly I don’t think it’s that straightforward. I think the very fact that Rihanna was invited to take part in this says an awful lot, although I’m still undecided as to what that is. I’m not sure for example if it says that Eminem was trying to make an important point (in which case, as I’ve said, I think he’s failed), or whether it says that Eminem is cynically exploiting a controversial issue in order to make a name for himself and sell as many records as he can. I suspect the latter.

Kudos to Megan Fox though, for donating her fee for appearing in the video to a DV charity. Maybe if Eminem does the same and donates all the monies he earns from the song to charity I might feel a bit differently about it, but somehow I can’t see that happening.

Numerous artists have managed to cover domestic violence in ways that neither glamorise it nor attempt to titillate the viewer: unfortunately Eminem isn’t one of them. Have a look at these for example (trigger warning still applies)

And last but by no means least:

]]> http://toomuchtosayformyself.com/2010/08/06/thats-alright-because-i-like-the-way-it-hurts/feed/ 16 Mswoman http://toomuchtosayformyself.com/2010/08/05/ive-got-a-new-blog/ http://toomuchtosayformyself.com/2010/08/05/ive-got-a-new-blog/#comments Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:37:05 +0000 Cath Elliott http://toomuchtosayformyself.com/?p=2997 Continue reading →]]> I’ve just finished setting up a new blog, Away from the Fray, which I’ll be using from now on to post book reviews and book related stuff on. So if I’m not here, or on CiF, or Twitter, or one of the gazillion and one other places I lurk on t’Internet, you’ll probably find me there.

“We must give the police and the courts the tools they need to tackle violence against women……

…..But I’m sure we all agree that, fundamentally, it is not words that matter, it is action”

The Independent, Wednesday 4th August 2010:

May scraps power to ban domestic abusers from victims’ homes

“A scheme to protect women from domestic abuse by removing violent partners from the family home is being scrapped by the Government as part of its drive to cut public spending.

Under the so-called “go orders” planned for England and Wales, senior police would have been given the power to act instantly to safeguard families they considered at threat.

Violent men would have been banned from their homes for up two weeks, giving their victims the chance to seek help to escape abuse.

But Theresa May, the Home Secretary, has decided to halt the scheme, which was due to be piloted this autumn and be rolled out nationwide next year, The Independent has learnt.”

What can I say: it was the last day of the holiday; we were at a French market; up to that point I hadn’t managed to find anything I particularly wanted to buy and I always like to bring home some kind of memento from the places I visit (well, that’s my excuse for some of the bizarre items that litter my house anyway); and I really really like eating crepes.

I’m not convinced I’m going to really really enjoy cooking them though, but I’ll keep you posted on that score if and when I ever manage to make any.

But have no fear. My purchase of a crepe pan and my determination at some point in the dim and distant future to actually use said crepe pan to cook some actual crepes does not mean this blog is in any danger of turning into a cooking blog. And nor does it mean that I’m in imminent danger of turning into one of those retro 50′s housewifey types who seem to think that 21st Century women who are engaged in baking cupcakes, or knitting, or sewing, or any one of a number of other such ‘crafts’, are bravely reclaiming some kind of long lost feminist heritage or something. Because to put it bluntly, pull the other one, it’s got “you’ve been conned” written all over it.

Anyway, I’m back. From France. And I’ve got a new crepe pan. But take heed: this is not an invitation to post crepe recipes in the comments. I’d actually be more interested to hear what weird and wonderful objects you’ve brought back from your travels. And did you ever end up using them, or have they sat forlornly in a cupboard/on a shelf ever since you brought them home?

In both cases it seems police ignored warnings they’d been given; in Moat’s case from the prison authorities, and in Osler’s from his ex wife, who says she informed the police six weeks ago that this violent man, who would never legally be allowed to own a gun, had suddenly, somehow, managed to acquire one.

A couple of weeks ago Theresa May suggested that men with a history of domestic violence could soon face random visits from the police, after evidence emerged from the US showing that “random visits by police to homes where domestic violence had taken place resulted in a “significant decrease” in incidents.” According to the Telegraph, “In New York, domestic violence murders had fallen by 64 per cent after police started to pay visits to the homes of convicted abusers. Local police have said the home visits give the offenders a sense of being watched and gave the abused spouse or partner a feeling of having allies outside the home.”

Now I don’t know whether random visits would have helped or not in the two recent cases I’ve cited above, although I think it’s getting to the point now where anything’s worth a try. But what I do know is, you don’t have to be Sherlock fucking Holmes to work out that if the police had actually bothered to act on the tip-offs they’d already been given, things would in all probability have panned out quite differently.

It’s long been known to those who work in the field, and to the police and other authorities, that one of the most dangerous times for any woman involved in a violent relationship is the point at which she leaves and the period immediately following it. So it’s not simply a coincidence that both Moat and Osler shot their ex partners Samantha Stobbard and Rachel Puttock when their relationships had ended – it’s all part of a well-documented pattern of behaviour from serial domestic abusers like them. Okay, so the methods they employed may have been at the more extreme end of the scale, but the fact is that some form of violent retaliation against these two women was entirely predictable.

So I ask again, where the hell were the police?

If the Government is really serious about instructing the police to make random visits to the homes of abusive and violent men, maybe they should also think about  instructing them to provide protection for women who are trying to escape. And maybe they should also think about instructing them to follow up on the tip-offs they’re given, particularly when they know that the outcome of ignoring said tip-offs can potentially be so catastrophic.

But anyway, back to the title of this post. It’s actually taken from a comment left on a Sky News article about the Osler case. As if it wasn’t bad enough that Sky decided to completely trivialise the incident by heading the piece: “Gran With Pram Shot Twice In Head By Her Ex”, a commenter posting under the pseudonym “west norfolk” has a question to ask regarding women who go around getting themselves shot in the head:

“i went to school with mark, he was what most people describe as a lovable rogue, believe me this is not trying to excuse him, but what is it with women these days that can drive any man to this.”

I know I’ve said it before, but sometimes words really do fail me.

“Thank you first of all to Women’s Aid for inviting me to speak to your national conference. You have been supporting women for over 35 years and I am pleased to see that support is still strong. I am delighted also to be sharing a platform with Natalie Samarasinghe from the United Nations Association of the UK and with Ceri Goddard from the Fawcett Society. They – and all of you here – have dedicated your lives to helping women. It is my privilege to be able to talk to you today.

As both Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equality, I believe I have a unique opportunity to bring about real change to the lives and to the status of women in this country.

My two roles are both important. Not just because I’m a woman. Not just because I can continue the work I started in opposition. But because, for me, politics is about ideals; about fighting for progress – and there is no greater ideal, no greater symbol of progress than equality.

As women and as a society we have made great strides. But there is much still to do.

Alongside the challenges of ending discrimination in the workplace, tackling the gender pay gap and genuinely empowering women, I am grateful that my brief means that I will be able to effect real change on an issue on which I have campaigned for many years.

Violence Against Women is not an aside for me; it is not an after-thought or a secondary consideration.

It was a priority for me in opposition and it is a priority for me now I am in government.

So have no fear – have no doubt – that your cause is my cause.

No one in this room will need reminding why I take violence against women so seriously.

The cold hard statistics make that abundantly clear: over 1 million victims of domestic abuse each year, over 300,000 women sexually assaulted each year and 60,000 women raped. Overall, one in four women will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime, often with years of psychological abuse.

But behind those numbers on a page are the stories of the real women who experience these horrific crimes.

Women like Rana Faruqui, the daughter of my constituent Carol Faruqui, who was brutally stabbed to death by her abusive ex-partner after being subjected to repeated stalking.

I am in no doubt that there would be many more women in danger were it not for the work you do in providing over 500 emergency refuges, help-lines, outreach services and advice centres.

You help so many women – with up to 250,000 victims of abuse accessing your member services each year, so on behalf of them all, thank you.

But unfortunately not everyone takes violence against women as seriously as you or I.

Shockingly, Home Office surveys suggest that a quarter of people think that a woman is in some way responsible for being raped if she wears sexy or revealing clothing.

Around one in five people think it would sometimes be acceptable for a man to hit or slap his partner if she wore sexy or revealing clothing.

I don’t.

Let me make clear: my ambition is nothing less than ending violence against women and girls.

We won’t get there this year, we may not even get there in our lifetimes, but just as we won the vote, just as we won equal rights, together we can win this fight.

But we must also recognise, I’m afraid, the seriousness of the financial crisis our country faces.

This year, Britain had the highest annual borrowing of any country in the G20. Higher than Argentina and South Africa; Indonesia, Italy and India.

We must all do our bit to help reduce the deficit and that obviously includes all government departments.

I hope many of you will have read the numerous articles I have written on violence against women or heard me talk before about why I am passionate about supporting and empowering women.

You know that this is a priority for me.

And I hear from you loud and clear that people around the country see this as a vitally important issue as well.

But the spending review in the autumn will inevitably involve some tough decisions.

In the past, the solution to a problem seemed to be to throw money at it, regardless of whether this was the best way to fix things or not. And the measure of success seemed to be how much spending had increased.

The approach of the past is no longer an option – Labour’s reckless borrowing and spending has seen to that. But their approach was not only irresponsible, it was also ineffective.

We will take a more considered, more targeted and, frankly, more sensible approach, that involves the experts – people like you – more than ever before.

And success for us will not mean we’ve spent more of the money we don’t have. It will mean more women have been helped, more abusers have been brought to justice and more attitudes have been changed.

Of course, even in these difficult financial times, government will still have a strong role to play in tackling violence against women. And I am not going to pretend that the last government did nothing at all. I called for some time for Labour to produce a cross-government strategy for tackling violence against women and, finally, they did publish one but only months after the Conservative Party has published our own strategy.

Having called for a strategy while in Opposition, I’m not just going to discard that approach now we are in Government. I was convinced of the necessity for a coherent approach then, I argued for it until we got one and I firmly believe we need it now.

But having taken too long to publish their strategy, Labour did not even get it completely right. We need a new approach – not to start from scratch, but to build on the existing work. Not to disregard the work already done but to improve on it and to fix its problems. And as a coalition government we are looking at proposals from both parties in tackling violence against women.

For too long Labour only focussed on the Criminal Justice System in response to violence against women – and there is still important work to be done there in  improving prosecution rates for domestic violence and for rape, improving rehabilitation for victims and in protection from repeat offenders.

We must give the police and the courts the tools they need to tackle violence against women – be it domestic violence, rape and sexual violence, honour based violence, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, trafficking or stalking – each is a serious offence that should be treated as such.

But as well as dealing with the consequences of this violence – we also need to deal with its causes. I hope many of you have read Ending Violence Against Women, the strategy paper that David Cameron and I published in 2008. That document recognised the central role that gender inequality plays – both as a cause and a consequence of violence against women and committed us to an approach with prevention, rightly, at its heart.

This is not a Home Office issue alone. This is about schools, the NHS, Job Centres, prisons. That is why I have convened a meeting next week with all my relevant Ministerial colleagues – including Lynne Featherstone, the Equalities Minister – to discuss a new approach. We will talk to you and we will talk to others and we will publish the results of that work by the spring.

But I’m sure we all agree that, fundamentally, it is not words that matter, it is action. And the last government did not do nearly enough to follow through on its words.

I will not just talk about violence against women as a priority, I will back up my words with real, concrete action:

• Working with schools to teach young people about sexual consent and respect in relationships; and I  recognise the good work done by Women’s Aid in developing the Expect Respect Campaign and the work they do in schools with this and other campaigns;
• Working with teachers, the police, health care professionals and the voluntary sector to improve early identification; and
• Working within government to agree standards. I agree with the UN’s definition of violence against women and I will ensure it informs our work across government.

Now let me tell you about some of the real action that this government will take.

I am fully aware of the importance so many of you rightly attach to the Home Office pilot scheme to provide support to those victims of domestic violence who have no recourse to public funds.

Every year 1,500 victims of domestic violence apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain in this country; 500 of them are destitute.

The last government was right to change the rules to allow abused women to apply to stay in this country. But it was wrong to provide no means by which they could be supported in safety while their claims are dealt with.

Belatedly the last Government introduced a short-term pilot to fund women’s refuges who take in these vulnerable women whilst they apply for Indefinate Leave to Remain.

But this pilot was due to come to an end this summer, with no prospect of a long term solution to the difficult issue in sight.

You have campaigned and we have listened.

Both Coalition parties recognised the importance of this issue in opposition. And now we are in government we will take action.

We have already agreed to extend this groundbreaking pilot into September. Today, I can announce that we will commit to funding the scheme until the end of this financial year and to finding a long-term solution to ensure women are protected after that.

Even in these financially constrained times there are some things that are too important not to do.

In opposition, both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats committed to reverse the decline in rape crisis centres. You can hold us to that commitment.

The previous government’s short-termist system of funding didn’t work. We need a longer-term, more measured and more sustainable approach.

We will consider how to use the proceeds from the Victim Surcharge to deliver up to 15 new rape crisis centres, and give existing rape crisis centres stable, long-term funding.

The Government Equalities Office is also consulting more widely on the issue of sustainability for the entire violence against women voluntary sector. I would encourage you all to get your responses in to that consultation by the 23rd of July. This will inform our plans to make sure that specialist domestic and sexual violence services are sustained. And we recognise that all of you here play a crucial role in protecting and preventing abuse.

We will ask for your ideas. But we will also provide leadership. At a national level we will publish a full government response to Baroness Stern’s insightful and far-ranging review into the handling of rape complaints.

But we also need to provide leadership on a local level. Local Authorities must not  see this sector as an “easy cut” when making difficult decisions.

We recognise that they, and others, will not always get things right – just as central government does not always get it right. Mistakes will be made, but where they are we will advise them and we will set them on the right path. Some Local Authorities, for example, misunderstood the gender equality duty and so failed to fund badly needed women-only services for victims of violence, or have transferred funding away to other generic and non-specialist services. We will work with them, and with the sector, to address this issue together, and ensure that we influence the future delivery of appropriate services

These are just some of the areas where the Government will take clear decisive action. But as I have already said, we will not be able to do it all. Not just because of the financial wreck Labour left behind, but because even if we did have the money, government could not do it all – government could not end violence against women alone.

We need your help.

People ask what the Government means by the Big Society – well as far as I’m concerned you are the Big Society.

You are the ones who run the refuges; who empower the frightened and the abused; who protect the vulnerable.

In many ways, the women’s sector is a model of the Big Society we wish to build. That is a society in which we all work together to address problems, conscious that government has a role to play but that it does not have all the answers, and recognising the role played by charities, voluntary groups and others alongside central and local government. You’re way ahead of us with this. The support services you provide and have been providing for over 35 years are invaluable to so many – thank you for all that you do.

But we need to go further. We need to empower even more organisations, communities and individuals to work together to tackle violence against women. And it is not just about delivering services. It is about giving people a voice, bringing people together to take ownership of a problem and working together to find a solution. It is about challenging assumptions and changing attitudes on every level of society. Change is often most powerful when it comes from the bottom up.

But let me be clear – the Big Society does not mean Government withdrawing, leaving the voluntary sector to pick up the pieces. The vision of this government is to build a society where we all come to together to solve problems; where we don’t just ask what government can do, but what people can do; where we all pull together and work together, because we are all in this together.

That means where the voluntary sector does such excellent work – like in the provision of refuges and rape crisis centres – the  Government ensures the funding it provides is on a stable, long-term basis, ending the culture of charities having to survive hand-to-mouth, facing the threat of imminent closure.

But it also means Government taking action where no one else can – that is why I am committed to extending the no recourse to public funds pilot while we find a long term solution to this issue.

And it means everyone working together to achieve the cultural change we need to tackle this problem. Think about it: it’s only when businesses appreciate their responsibility to end the sexualisation of women that some people will stop treating women like objects. It’s only when police officers, teachers and health workers realise they need to look out for the early warning signs that domestic violence will be spotted early. And it’s only when our communities stand up and say violence against women is unacceptable – through initiatives like Women’s Aid’s “Real Man” campaign – that attitudes will really begin to change.

So have confidence that together we can tackle violence against women.

And rest assured that there will be government action where necessary, but that we will harness society’s action where possible.

Not just because money is tight but because, actually, you know best, not Whitehall, and we will ensure that those who know about providing specialist services, like Women’s Aid, are key partners in our plans.

In the Big Society, we will need your hard work, your dedication and your effort. Not because government will give up or step back, but because we all need to work together to achieve our aim.

I will support you and I will fight for you. I will provide you with a voice and a platform.
My ambition is to end violence against women. By working together we can.

Thank you”

After her speech May took questions from the floor, and inevitably she was asked about the Government’s plans to introduce anonymity for defendants in rape cases. I thought May’s response to that was really interesting: she urged women’s sector organisations to make sure they submitted comments to the Government consultation on the issue, and without actually coming right out and saying it, I think she made it pretty clear that these are plans she doesn’t personally support.

So, all the more reason to keep the pressure up.

Here’s a link to the Rights of Women statement – No impunity for rape. No anonymity for defendants. If you’re involved with a women’s organisation or a human rights organisation please please make sure they’ve signed up to it.

And here’s another link to the Early Day Motion – EDM 105 Anonymity for Defendants in Rape Cases, which you can lobby your MP to sign.

Anyway, these are just some snatches of my memories of that day, and of the days and weeks that followed.

I can remember:

Coming out of the hotel with a colleague at about 9.45am, and it suddenly registering that apart from emergency vehicles, there was none of the normal traffic on Euston Rd.

Glancing down towards King’s Cross, taking in all the flashing lights and sirens outside the station. Wondering why? What’s happened?

Crossing the road, and then stopping halfway to ask a police officer what was going on.

Him muttering something about a power surge in the underground system, but then as we were still standing with him, a noise in the near distance. A bang? A thud? What was it?

Another police officer suddenly sprinting past us, shouting “Shit! Another one’s gone off!”

Standing there, in the middle of Euston Rd, wanting to shout back “What? Another what’s gone off?” but being too scared to.

Looking back at the officer we’d been talking to, and realising he’d been lying to us. Him asking us “Where are you going?” Me, pointing at the UNISON building, and then him “You’d better get inside then.”

I can remember:

Other women arriving for the meeting. Lots of talking, speculating, about what was going on in the streets outside.

Someone starting the meeting, but then an interruption. Someone telling us that everyone in the building would be assembling in the conference room soon, the General Secretary was coming to talk to us all.

The room filling up. More talking, more speculation. And then Dave Prentis was there.

Hearing him say that there’d been bombs. There’d been bombs on the underground. And a bus blown up. Just round the corner.

Thinking. That noise. That bang. When we were crossing the road. What was it?

People asking – has everyone you were expecting turned up today? Is anyone missing? Then people taking phone numbers, wanting our details. “Do not leave the building” they said. It was an instruction from the police they said. We were in the exclusion zone, the area had been completely sealed off, but we weren’t being evacuated for now, we had to stay put.

The room emptying again.

And then people complaining. Wanting us to get on with the meeting. “We’re all here” they said “we may as well just carry on with it.”

Thinking no. We can’t do this. Not now. Not today.

The meeting being abandoned. Women sitting around instead on desks and chairs, talking, reassuring each other. Then some of them leaving. Ignoring the instruction to stay put. Heading back to airports. “We’ll take the chance” they said.

And me. Too scared to go anywhere for a while. I’m not leaving. Not yet. Not until I’m told it’s safe.

I can remember:

Desperately wanting to go home.

Finally managing to get through to Dave on someone’s office phone.

Refusing to use the lift, and instead climbing the 8/9 flights of stairs up to the restaurant floor.

Looking out of the windows from those top floors and seeing the scenes of chaos outside King’s Cross.

Looking back into the room where someone had turned on a tv, and staring at it in horror as the scenes from just beyond the window were beamed back at us.

After what seemed like hours stepping just outside the main entrance doors for a cigarette.

Seeing nurses, doctors, in scrubs, running up Euston Rd.

Everyone assembling again in the conference room. It’s still not safe they said, everyone has to stay here.

Hearing “No trains. You won’t get home tonight. Who needs a room?”

My hand going up.

Thinking “but I want to go home.”

I can remember:

Sitting next to a young woman in the foyer.

She’s in shock.

Can’t talk.

Staring straight ahead.

Was she on the bus? The tube?

Noticing her clothes.

What’s that speckling her top?

Blood? Flesh?

But she’s not hurt.

Then whose is it?

And what’s that smell?

Wanting to scream

I can remember:

More people leaving

Not me

Is it safe yet? I’ll go when it’s safe.

I can remember:

Walking

A group of us. Trying to find the hotel we’d been told had been booked for us.

But that can’t be right. It’s in Russell Square.

Look, there’s the bus. That bang this morning. Crossing the road. Here it is.

Asking another police officer. Our hotel? Can we get to it?

No. These streets are sealed off.

Someone talking into their phone.

Another hotel

The first one. We can go back to the Novotel. It’s ok, they’ve got rooms for us.

Stopping for a drink.

Hundreds of people crowded into the bar. Everyone solemn and watching the tv screen

Laughing at something someone said.

All of us laughing

Heads turned towards us

Shush. We shouldn’t be laughing. Not now. Not today.

I can remember:

Ordering room service.

No, I don’t want to meet you downstairs in the restaurant or in the bar.

I don’t want to see people.

I’ve run out of words.

Just leave me alone.

Can’t eat.

Putting the tray of uneaten food back outside my door.

Watching the news

Lying awake listening to the sirens.

Sirens screaming all through the night.

I can remember:

Getting up early

Crossing Euston Rd to go and buy a coffee

Cars, traffic on the road.

Is it safe now?

Walking past the reporters and the cameras at King’s Cross Station

Can’t stop to chat. I’m going home.

Sitting on the train

My colleague: “Well, that was all very exciting.”

Me: “No. It wasn’t. It really really wasn’t.”

I can remember:

At work a week later

There’s going to be a 3 minute silence for the victims.

I can’t be here. I can’t be in this building when the world stops again.

Walking outside.

Sitting on the steps as the clock chimes.

The traffic stops.

Everyone, all the people milling around, stop and stand still.

I’m sitting on the steps

And I’m crying.

I get my bike out of the bike shed

I’m cycling away. Pedalling as hard as I can.

I’m lying on grass in a park

But I didn’t tell anyone I was leaving.

I can remember:

The next day

My manager calls me in to her office.

People are worried about you she says.

You’re not yourself.

I’m fine, I say

It was horrible. I got scared.

I saw things. Bad things.

But I’m fine.

Then the fire alarm goes off

“Please evacuate the building” comes over the tannoy.

I’m walking down the fire escape stairs

All of us. Staff, customers, we’re trooping down the stairs together.

I can’t stop shaking

I’m outside

I’m shaking and I’m crying again

In front of all these people.

My manager hands me a number

“Phone them” she says

“No one has to know.

They can help you.”

I can remember

And I’ll always remember July 7^th 2005.

It’s not a constant memory, like it was for the first 6 months or so, but there are still days, like today, when it all comes back to me. I can remember the sights, the sounds, and the smell of it.

But most of all, I can remember the fear.