Violence against women

[Sheilbh]

From Marina Hyde following the convinction of Sarah Everard's murderer - with an image for the vigil of another woman who was kidnapped and then murdered on a five minute walk from station to pub:

All women know they are prey – and that no one with any authority seems to care
Marina Hyde
Despite the horrifying levels of violence against women, there is no strategy to end it. Just promises to 'learn lessons'

Vigil in Walthamstow for Sabina Nessa, 28 September 2021. Photograph: Jack Dredd/REX/Shutterstock
Fri 1 Oct 2021 14.51 BST

Cressida Dick must be the last woman in the country who thinks there may be "lessons" to be learned from Wayne Couzens's rape and murder of Sarah Everard. At least 80 women in the UK have been killed by men since Everard. Only 1.6% of rapes in England and Wales reported to police even result in a charge. Fifty-two per cent of police found guilty of sexual misconduct kept their jobs. Women already know all the lessons. Women live with the all-pervasive understanding that they are prey.

The women who love you have to communicate the fear to you when you're still a girl, knowing that one day you too will have to communicate it to the girls you love. They pass you down their strategies – their defences – like your birthright. And when you're big enough to be out in the world on your own, those same women spend their time hoping till it hurts that this fear, which they had to gift you out of love, will somehow save you. "In the evenings," said Sarah Everard's mother in her unforgettable victim impact statement, "at the time she was abducted, I let out a silent scream: 'Don't get in the car, Sarah. Don't believe him. Run!'"

Where do you even start? When will it ever stop? On the very same morning that Couzens was being sentenced in one Old Bailey courtroom, another Old Bailey courtroom was being used to charge the man accused of the murder of the primary school teacher Sabina Nessa, brutally killed two weeks ago on her way to meet a friend near her home in south-east London. The prosecution alleged it was a predatory and premeditated attack on a lone woman not known to him.

To all those who could be found pointing out that "we" have to remember these are extreme cases: thanks for dialling in. They are extreme, yes – but they are part of a continuum of male harassment and the fear of it that women experience every day of their lives. Women are constantly, constantly performing risk assessment. Dare I pass down this street at this time? Is this the routine sleazy comment that turns into something worse? Is he going to keep walking or will he turn around? To make a troubled peace with it, we have to euphemise this lifestyle as "being sensible" or "taking care", but it's really just a statistically justified fear as part of daily life. Every woman has experienced various things along that continuum.

But wait! Because excitingly, it turns out there are now even more things for ladies to add to their list of Shit I'm Advised to Do to Stay Safe Because It Saves Anyone Else Having to Do Anything. Today, the Met advised people approached by a lone plainclothes officer to ask very searching questions, such as "Where have you come from?" and "Exactly why are you stopping or talking to me?" Probably best not to try these while being black. If they fear for their safety, women are advised to run into a house or "wave down a bus".

To which, I am afraid, the only acceptable reaction is: NO. No to this bollocks, no to thoughts-and-prayers, and no to accepting this standard of policing – though that's clearly what everyone from the prime minister to the leader of the opposition to the mayor of London does, if they're happy for Cressida Dick to have just been given another two years on her contract after this many huge mistakes. Who looks at that record and thinks: you know what, I think we need the same old broom?

But of course, we have a cross-party political culture where the women and equalities brief is still bundled with some other job as a kind of weird afterthought/poisoned chalice. In government, Liz Truss is foreign secretary – AND women and equalities minister. For Labour, Anneliese Dodds is both chair of a party trying to reverse its calamitous electoral fortunes AND shadow women and equalities minister. What are these bizarre ministerial biathlons other than confirmation that the women and equalities position is something you tack on to a real job just so you can say that some overworked woman is "dealing with all that stuff".

The message from women this week is loud and clear: no more learning. Our consciousness about male violence and how far it reaches is well and truly raised, and so is that of a vast number of men. That thing about having to devote 10,000 hours to something to be an expert in it? You really don't have to be very old as a woman to have already spent way more than 10,000 hours thinking about your safety and, by extension, the safety of women in general.

So if anyone – ANYONE – in a position of authority would like to offer something more concrete than the equivalent of thoughts and prayers for how to tackle an epidemic of male violence and harassment, then let women reassure you: you don't need to roll the pitch any more. Take it from us.

Alas, authority figures have not had a great week on this stuff. Or, indeed, a great few decades. When the Yorkshire Ripper's killing pattern changed, a senior investigating officer made that infamous statement: "He has made it clear that he hates prostitutes. Many people do. We, as a police force, will continue to arrest prostitutes." (And to use them.) "But," he went on, "the Ripper is now killing innocent girls." That comment rightly became notorious. And yet, I was sorry to see that even the judge who yesterday handed down a whole-life tariff to Wayne Couzens spoke of Sarah Everard being "a wholly blameless victim", a way of putting it that implies that there are victims of rape and murder who have to shoulder some of the blame. Would police have made an arrest so quickly had Couzens's victim been one of the sex workers he is alleged to have been in the habit of using?

If only the unfortunate echoes ended there. Peter Sutcliffe was nicknamed the Ripper as "a joke" by some of his colleagues at a trucking firm; Wayne Couzens was nicknamed "the rapist" by some of his earlier colleagues in the police service, also "as a joke". I mean ... I want to think there's been some progress, but that particular detail suggests otherwise.

Certainly, there remains no major or even minor strategy to deal with this culture. We see Priti Patel down at Dover in a HOME SECRETARY coat, announcing action on asylum seekers arriving by boat. We hear Boris Johnson talking about a knife-crime strategy or a chain-gang strategy or an antisocial behaviour strategy. Could they please put their puffer jackets on to announce and follow through on a serious male violence strategy? Can we have a joined-up plan to tackle male violence that starts in primary education and takes an ambitiously holistic approach to a problem that riddles our society with poisons, from child abuse to terrorism?

If not, maybe all the people who fall back on the "one bad apple" defence can have the balls to stop omitting the second half of the saying. One bad apple spoils the barrel. And as any number of women can attest, this barrel is long past putrid.

    Marina Hyde is a Guardian columnist

    This article was amended on 1 October 2021. Liz Truss is the minister for women and equalities, not Kemi Badenoch (who is equalities minister) as an earlier version said.

After the Met advice about waving down a bus, we had a comment from Yorkshire Police that this could have been avoided if Sarah Everard - a normal everyday woman - had detailed knowledge of the covid regulations so she could challenge Couzens on his fake arrest.

But despite being reported for indecent exposure multiple times, being nicknamed the 'rapist' by female colleagues, being known by colleagues to enjoy extreme pornography nothing was done about Couzens - and in this investigation the police found out he was in a WhatsApp group with two other Met officers where they shared 'alleged misogynistic and racist content' those officers are still on duty.

I don't often agree with Nick Timothy, May's former chief of staff, but these ideas are, at least, a start - and it should start with Cressida Dick stepping down:

Nick Timothy
@NJ_Timothy
It is not just Wayne Couzens, the Met has been in crisis for some time. The Daniel Morgan inquiry said it was "institutionally corrupt". London is plagued by knife crime. There's the Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman case, and many others. What the Home Office should do:
1. Transfer the Met's specialist operations commands - counter-terrorism, personal protection etc - to the National Crime Agency, making the Met London's police force rather than a hybrid local/national force.
2. As a purely local force, make the Met accountable entirely to the Mayor - as all other local forces are accountable to mayors and PCCs - and not the Home Secretary. Stop the Mayor evading his responsibilities.
3. Appoint not just a new Commissioner but an entirely new leadership team with a clean culture and a mission to reform the Met from top to bottom. If that means hiring from overseas, do it.
4. Restore direct entry - the scheme that opened up the inspector and superintendent ranks to talented outsiders - which, disgracefully, has been shut down by the College of Policing. Widen the gene pool.
5. Invite HM Inspectorate of Constabulary to conduct a root and branch investigation of the Met. Britain's biggest force is failing and has been labelled institutionally corrupt: independent investigators need to reveal exactly how and why this is happening.
6. Reform or abolish and replace the Police Federation, which does so much to poison the culture among rank and file officers.
7. Legislate to guarantee robust, highly local accountability for neighbourhood policing.
8. Reform the College of Policing - introduced with great hope but captured by vested interests - to improve evidence-gathering about what works and help officers through education, standards and training.
9. Improve the use of productivity-enhancing technology, streamline processes from arrest to prosecution, and train officers to use their powers legally and responsibly.
10. Tighten existing laws to clamp down on police corruption and the abuse of powers. Introduce procedures to prevent collusion between officers when things go wrong. Create schemes to encourage transparency and whistleblowing among officers.
11. Legislate to prevent police officers from being able to resign or retire before the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings against them.
12. Respect operational independence, devolved leadership and local accountability. But if a force is failing and/or corrupt, and its leaders and mayor fail to take responsibility, put it in special measures and impose change yourself. The buck stops with you.

On part of why that doesn't happen there is an upcoming book by a former Labour police minister on how difficult it is to reform the police because they are very good at politics and they absolutely will play it against anyone who tries to take them on.

Meanwhile, as I briefly mentioned in the OTR thread - a former policeman in France has been revealed to be a serial killer who targeted women:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/01/paris-serial-killer-of-80s-and-90s-was-ex-police-officer-dna-shows

Edit: Still just struggling with the idea that the Met's advice to women worried about a police officer is literally to run or flag down a bus and, of course, that if a woman called the police the officers responding might be Couzens' banter mates

[Berkut]

I think the specific problem here is obviously horrific, but probably not that useful as an example. I don't know much about the Met, but if there is a need for housecleaning there, then do so.

But I would not try to draw general conclusions about systemic changes based on such an outlier example, as tragic as it is. The solution to male violence against women goes much deeper then any particular problems about a police officer, or even a department.

There clearly needs to be some kind of systemic, ground up societal effort to address violence by men against women in all its forms. Not as a adjunct to other efforts, but as a singular, called out and specific educational effort that is applied consistently and starts early. The content should, of course, be structured and aimed at the age group it is being introduced to - but I don't even see that as very difficult. You can certainly start teaching young boys (and girls, but the problem here is NOT generally with girls, but specifically with males) early about how to interact with women in a healthy manner.

It should be as important a part of society and education as teaching kids how to read or do math or how to learn and think.

This seems like a radical idea, but I think we have a pretty radical problem.

[Eddie Teach]

At what level of risk does paranoia become "statistically justified"?  I mean, 78% of murder victims are men...

[PDH]

At what level of risk does paranoia become "statistically justified"?  I mean, 78% of murder victims are men...

Just because men are better at it does not mean that women can't pull even.

[Barrister]

I don't quite know what to say in a thread entitled "Violence against women".

Violent crimes committed by men against women are just such a huge part of my career.  It's so prevalent, so pervasive... And it's so fucking hard to prove because the female victims are so reluctant to testify, and even when they do these crimes tend to happen behind closed doors with no witnesses.

If anybody has  an answer to it please let me know, because I've been looking all my career.

[Jacob]

At what level of risk does paranoia become "statistically justified"?  I mean, 78% of murder victims are men...

What do you think?

[Neil]

Violence against women is an issue.  At the same time though, there will always be these edge cases that make a big splash, because women will always be vulnerable to bigger, stronger people.

[Eddie Teach]

At what level of risk does paranoia become "statistically justified"?  I mean, 78% of murder victims are men...

What do you think?

I think Ms Hyde was taking advantage of a high profile murder case to engage in sensational fear-mongering.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I think we would need to break the statistics down a bit more. How many of the people being murdered were "civilians"; to what extent do women avoid places that may be dangerous etc etc

[Josquius]

I don't think men just being bigger and stronger is it. Not in the moment at least. In this case for example there's no reason the same thing might not have happened with an olympian civilian and a weak cop. It was the uniform gave compliance.
Though on a deep level beyond the immediate incident then it becomes a lot fuzzier. Its certainly feasible that growing up knowing youre bigger and stronger than this other group of people can be a factor in building the psychology of many men. The reverse 100% is for women.

Overall its a weird one as its coming from two places. On the one hand there is the traditionalist men are king attitude. But more worryingly I do think this ties into the rise of far right reactionary nonsense with infamous incel culture and the like. Blaming others for things that go wrong in your life is key to the far right world view and women stand as a clear other.
Maybe this is the way it needs to be tackled? In the UK today toxic masculinity is a huge. This is seriously one of the major factors telling me I can't keep my son here beyond early childhood. I am skeptical two generations in a row can dodge it.
But then on the other hand Japan also has massive problems with stalkers, rape, etc... And it has a very different toxicity.

[Admiral Yi]

Callling incels part of the reactionary right is silly.

I support reforming the London police force.

I don't support turning this into some male collective guilt trip.

[The Brain]

The Met is obviously an organization that needs to be razed and rebuilt.

[Sheilbh]

I think the specific problem here is obviously horrific, but probably not that useful as an example. I don't know much about the Met, but if there is a need for housecleaning there, then do so.

But I would not try to draw general conclusions about systemic changes based on such an outlier example, as tragic as it is. The solution to male violence against women goes much deeper then any particular problems about a police officer, or even a department.

Yeah I think it was the confluence of events. That the same day a police officer in London was convicted for prowling for a lone woman who he then kidnappped, raped and murdered - across the building there was another man being charged with the murder of another woman who he murdered on her five minute walk from the station to the pub. Across the Channel French police confirmed that a former officer who committed suicide was serial killer in the 80s and 90s who, at least once, used the same ruse as Couzens of convincing women to comply by placing them under "arrest" using his police card and the extraordinary coercive power we grant the police.

Those are extreme cases - at least in the UK stranger murder is very rare and for women especially they are overwhelmingly at risk from partners, ex-partners and family.  But on the other hand the rate of successful prosecutions of rape in this country is incredibly low and the rate of attempted prosecutions is also tiny compared to the amount complaints made to and recorded by the police. The latest official stats are that 98% of reported rape cases don't result in criminal charges

There are changes being trialled in UK police forces - most of which sound incredibly sensible and something that should have been done years ago. For example focusing on investigating if there's a pattern of behaviour from the accused rather than investigating the victim; trying to increase victim support (for example having a single point of contact) because my understanding is there's a huge amount of attrition when victims go through the system. But the goal for all of these policies is just to get the level of charges being brought and convictions back to where they were 5 years ago.

I don't know the situation in the US or France, from BB's comment it seems like it is a large part of the violence he has to deal with but - as here - doesn't often end up going to trial or conviction and I think women not wanting to testify is part of a structural social issue. I think there are structural/social issues within the criminal justice system as well as more widely.

At what level of risk does paranoia become "statistically justified"?  I mean, 78% of murder victims are men...

Yeah I think the disparity varies around the world. Men are more at risk but the split is closer to 50/50-60/40 in most of Europe for example.

I think we would need to break the statistics down a bit more. How many of the people being murdered were "civilians"; to what extent do women avoid places that may be dangerous etc etc

Yeah as Hyde points out these extreme cases are part of a wider context of fear and awareness by women. I know that as a six foot-ish guy if I'm walking alone or with another man on a street and there's a lone woman ahead of us, I will normally cross the road to make clear I'm not a risk/following her. It's a tiny thing but I've been told by women it is a good thing to do and reduces anxiety on those lone walks.

Anecdotally women do definitely adjust their everyday behaviour for risks, but I think statistically (a bit like with stranger danger and children) the overwhelming threat is at home.

Edit: And I suppose I'm not convinced it's entirely separate from the fact that prominent women receive significantly more abuse and threats on social media. I've mentioned it before but one woman MP was murdered, there's been at least one conviction I can think of for a man sending death and rape threats and actually planning to murder another woman MP. I think there are issues within the Met that need addressing - but I think there are wider social problems too.

[Maximus]

Callling incels part of the reactionary right is silly.

Why?

I don't support turning this into some male collective guilt trip.

IMO it's less about guilt than about who has the power to effect change.

[Admiral Yi]

Why?

Lack of evidence?

IMO it's less about guilt than about who has the power to effect change.

We each have one vote.