The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem


5:26 pm - May 23rd 2012

by Sian Norris    


      Share on Tumblr

Earlier in the year I noticed that by the 4th January, Channel 4 news had reported the deaths of 4 women as a result of domestic abuse. This was a lot higher than the usual reported number of 2 women or 1.5 women a week. London-based charity NIA.

The Twitter account @OneinFour noticed this too, so they started to count the number of women and girls who were murdered throughout the year as a result of domestic violence.

111 days into the year, and the number had risen to 33. One woman or girl every 3.3 days. And today, just over a month later, the number has risen above 40.

When I write about rates of domestic abuse, I’m often met by people quibbling over the statistic that 2 women a week are murdered by a male partner or ex partner. It’s alarmingly high – it’s too high for some to believe it’s real. In every case that has been counted this year, the primary suspect or the person who has been charged with the murder has been a male relative, partner or ex partner.

One of the murders reported today is of a girl who was raped and killed by her abusive boyfriend. She was 17-years old.

The background to this year’s murders has been a slew of government cuts and the recession. Clear links have been made between the recession and rates of violence against women.

Refuges are reportedly turning away 230 women a day. Funding to domestic abuse groups has been cut by 31% over the last year. Specialist services have had 70% cuts.

As government cuts result in further refuge closures, the answer to the question ‘why doesn’t she leave‘ is becoming ‘because she has no-where to go‘.

But we also need to remember that the issue isn’t just refuge cuts. The issue continues to be that some men choose to be violent towards women and girls.

The attempted murder of a woman this week has been described as an ‘isolated incident‘ by police. But it isn’t an isolated incident. It is part of the pattern of the 40+ murders of women and girls this year.

And when it comes to prevention, this rhetoric that domestic abuse murders are ‘isolated incidents’ is part of the problem. We need to stop seeing domestic abuse murders as ‘one offs’.

We need to start joining up the dots and recognise the pattern that links these deaths is male violence against women. We need to start tackling the causes of violence against women and girls, and we need to start funding prevention, as well as support, services.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sian Norris is an occasional contributor. She is a Bristol based writer who likes to write short stories and muse on feminist debates.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Crime ,Feminism

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Sian…

While I appreciate your wider point, you are rather torturing the English language to get from ‘isolated incident’ to ‘isolated problem’.

‘Isolated incident’ is simply the police’s way of saying ‘relax, there isn’t a serial killer on the loose’, which is not the same as suggesting that there aren’t common causal factors behind some incidents of serious violence aganst women.

Hear hear!

Violence just happens, like the weather. It doesn’t mean anything, so you shouldn’t try to understand it.

Unity, I know they mean he isn’t a serial killer. but we do have a real problem where police etc aren’t making these links – details of which were reported earlier in the year regarding failings to prevent sexual assault and rapes across the UK.

vimothy – violence happens because people choose to be violent. it doesn’t just happen.

“Violence just happens, like the weather. It doesn’t mean anything, so you shouldn’t try to understand it.”

Are you trolling? Because among other things we do understand the weather.

7. the a&e charge nurse

[5] ‘violence happens because people choose to be violent’ – if only it were that simple.

I’ll bet most adults who become violent were exposed to violence as children, a behaviour often exacerbated by alcoholism, or other contributory social or psychological factors – there are whole tomes on the subject.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7z90guzAdqE/TRohRYR2unI/AAAAAAAAAkw/rM-epZ6eS5A/s1600/EricFromm.jpg

8. the a&e charge nurse

‘As in previous research on batterers, a substantial portion of the men in our sample acknowledged being raised in troubled families–where their parents were physically abusive or had an alcohol/drug problem. Over a third of the men (36%) identified a parent as having a drug and/or alcohol “problem. Nearly a third (33%) acknowledged that their parents hit one or the other, and a quarter (26%) claimed to be physically “harmed” by their parents while they were growing up. Parents were twice as likely to have hit one another (60% versus 18%; X2=142.86[1]; p=001), and almost three times as likely to have harmed the man (43% versus 15%; X2=74.43[1]; p=001), if they were identified as having a drinking or drug problem.
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/gondolf/batchar.html

Should point out that 33 deaths after 111 days (or one every 3.5 days) is pretty much bang on the annual average for the past couple of decades.

So the headline here is a bit scaremongery. There is no “rise” in domestic violence deaths – which is probably contrary to expectations and a good thing, relatively speaking. Sadly we probably haven’t seen the full impact of economic recession and austerity cuts work their way through yet – there’s normally a lag of a couple of years, so no reason for complacency.

I hope it goes without saying that any death is too many. Not trying to deflect.

sianushka,

Violence is always “random”, i.e., inexplicable, i.e. acausal. It doesn’t have anything to do with people “choosing” to do things.

Don’t you read the papers?

Vimothy, do yourself a favour and quit before you demonstrate the full extent of your ignorance.

AllyF when I spoke on email to a rep from a dv charity, she said that figures from a couple of years ago showed murders had gone down to 1.5 a week that year, with hope of course that that would continue.

that said, am happy to be proven wrong on that point and for these crimes not to have increased, but as you say we need to know that whatever the number that is too many.

13. Just Visiting

One form of domestic violence is increasing rapidly: in December the Guardian said:

‘Honour’ crimes against women in UK rising rapidly, figures show….47% rise

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/03/honour-crimes-uk-rising

It would, perhaps, be kind of vimothy to save his satire for the posts when they’re relevant. Otherwise people like sianushka may not have the first idea of what they’re on about.

As for the OP…

We need to start tackling the causes of violence against women and girls, and we need to start funding prevention, as well as support, services.

I agree with regards to funding for support and services but have no firm idea of how you’d go about “tackling the causes“. Could you elaborate?

“violence against women and girls”

Baby Peter Connelly was a boy.

16. So Much For Subtlety

When I write about rates of domestic abuse, I’m often met by people quibbling over the statistic that 2 women a week are murdered by a male partner or ex partner. It’s alarmingly high – it’s too high for some to believe it’s real. In every case that has been counted this year, the primary suspect or the person who has been charged with the murder has been a male relative, partner or ex partner.

That depends on what you mean by “high”. There are some 60 million people in these British isles. Half of them women. That’s 30 million. Most of whom live with a male of some description. If 40 or so of them are killed every year that means Britain is incredibly safe for women. That is one percent of the road toll.

And needless to say, if you only look at women murdered by male relatives, a lot of them are going to be murdered by male relatives.

The background to this year’s murders has been a slew of government cuts and the recession. Clear links have been made between the recession and rates of violence against women.

Where and by whom?

As government cuts result in further refuge closures, the answer to the question ‘why doesn’t she leave‘ is becoming ‘because she has no-where to go‘.

Because she has slightly fewer beds in government-run shelters to go to. That is not remotely the same as having no where to go.

But we also need to remember that the issue isn’t just refuge cuts. The issue continues to be that some men choose to be violent towards women and girls.

But of course the domestic violence industry needs the funding doesn’t it? Or they would all be out of a job.

We need to stop seeing domestic abuse murders as ‘one offs’.

Why? They are virtually all one-offs. Few men kill more than one partner.

We need to start joining up the dots and recognise the pattern that links these deaths is male violence against women.

Well yes, by definition women murdered by male relatives are murdered by men. That seems a little obvious and it does not require much dot-joining. So what? That means that women murdered by their partners make up something like a third to a quarter of all murders in Britain in any one year. Why is this surprising? People tend to murder people they know and they tend to murder people they are physically close to. What is interesting is that two thirds of all murders are not of domestic partners. So why should we even be looking at this category?

We need to start tackling the causes of violence against women and girls, and we need to start funding prevention, as well as support, services.

So you want a job? What are the causes? Being male? Britain is an incredibly law abiding place. Not as much as it used to be, but when it comes to murder, still remarkably so. It is hard to imagine that we will ever reduce the murder rate much below what it is now. Not without the death penalty anyway. The cause of domestic violence is not a lack of conscious raising. It is not going to be solved with more feminism. If you do not understand it, and we don’t, you can’t even hope to prevent it.

In which SMFS speaks truth, at least if you subtract the rather unfair bad-faith-money-grubbing accusation.

100pa out of 60m is noise. It’s of no import whatsoever. It gains attention because it’s dramatic an were

Bloody mobile, sorry.

It gains attention because we’re hardwired for the communities of up-to-150 people in which our brains evolved, and our commonsense evaluation of risks and suchlike is based on that background.

In a community of 150 people, four murders is a major disruptive event (as we occasionally see in real life, in contexts like Dumblane and Port Arthur); 100 murders wipes the community out. So it’s no surprise that the OMG TERRIBLE CRISIS neurons are firing.

But in a community of 60m people, it’s not even *relevant*. It’s equal to the annual umber of women who accidentally die from choking on food, which is not frequently a cause for handwringing articles about the choking-on-food menace.

This doesn’t mean that domestic abuse isn’t a problem. But just as (outside of a society like the Old South where lynching becomes statistically significant) the number of racist murders is an utterly stupid measure of levels of racism, the number of domestic murders is an utterly stupid measure of levels of domestic abuse. And since the latter figure is the only one worth worrying about, the whole piece is a bit pointless.

It’s equal to the annual umber of women who accidentally die from choking on food, which is not frequently a cause for handwringing articles about the choking-on-food menace.

The comparison is silly because far more women just get beaten, terrorised or abused. Only a small percentage die.

20. So Much For Subtlety

19. Sunny Hundal

The comparison is silly because far more women just get beaten, terrorised or abused. Only a small percentage die.

Not a small percentage. A percentage so small it does not even begin to quality for being statistically significant. You can’t even see statistically significant from where this figure is. If Britain has some 30 million women and the 1 in 4 claim is true – which is an argument in itself – it means that some 8 million women are physically abused over the course of their lifetime. Compared to some 8,000 who would be killed over the same period. 0.1% of those who are abused.

The OP should have split the discussion into two separate issues – domestic violence and murder. Because they really are different. And if we care about the murders we ought to be doing something useful, like raising the age at which young people can drive to 25 or so (OK, it won’t reduce many murders, but it will reduce a lot of early deaths).

Again, what SMFS said. The issue of murder has almost literally nothing to do with the issue of domestic abuse. The fact that a woman is a victim of domestic abuse *barely raises her chances of being murdered*, but does have a significant negative impact on her quality of life (and the life of her kids, if she has them).

Indeed, it’s worse than useless to dwell on cases of domestic murder if the aim is to raise awareness and reduce the incidence of domestic abuse. Society is universally agreed that people who rape and their partners are evil bastards *already*. But assuming the 25% claim is accurate, that means that an awful lot of people who fall into the “decent bloke” category in the minds of most of their friends and acquaintances (of both genders) are actually domestic abusers. These guys, not the murdering monsters, are the problem that we actually need to address. In that sense, it’s the equivalent of focusing on violent rape by a stranger as the manifestation of sexual assault: it’s a completely unrepresentative way of shifting the issue from uncomfortable facts towards universal condemnation.

Most of us will never know, and many will never even meet, someone who has murdered their partner or who has violently raped a stranger. All of us will know, and most of will (generally unwittingly) be friends with, someone who abuses their partner/s or who has sexually coerced an acquaintance. There is a massive tendency to excuse and minimise the latter, and focusing on the extreme, unrepresentative cases of MONSTERS does absolutely nothing to help.

p2 should be “people who rape and murder their partners”. Particularly unfortunate editing error, given that society is still all too willing to forgive people who rape their partners.

http://www.erinpizzey.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey

Erin Pizzey, who set up the first women’s refuge in the UK, is worth listening to on this subject. Particularly when it comes to gender feminists.

“Pizzey says it was after death threats against her, her children, her grandchildren, and the killing of her dog, all of which she states were perpetrated by feminist activists, that she left England for North America. Arguably these threats were themselves demonstrations of the case she was making. She returned to London in the 1990s where her insights were sought by politicians and family pressure groups.”

Domestic violence is totally unacceptable, regardless of the genders involved. The way gender feminists have hijacked and exploit this serious issue for gender political purposes is frankly disgusting.

As a further joining of the dots, would it not make sense to enquire also into the reasons why men are violent against women? Given that your statistics demonstrate a correlation with economic hardship, could a causal link be examined? A properly supported refuge system is essential, as is awareness building. But all of this is ultimately treatment of symptom, not cause. ‘Male violence against women’ needs to be much more carefully deconstructed if it’s going to end, rather than (as I feel is the case here) accepted as a given with which we all – men and women alike – have to deal.

John B and SMFS

How many women do need to be murdered before you think it’s the correct number to be concerned about it? Before it should be seen as a crisis?

I’m genuinely curious.

20

A small percentage – 40% of female homicides are carried out by a partner or ex-partner, doesn’t seem small to me. It also clear that the murder of women is a continuum of domestic violence not a separate phenomenon. It also appears that the women most likely to be murdered are those who are trying to leave their abusive partners.

18

Spoken in true SMFS style, always use the worst historical example as comparison, so we can all take assurance that things aren’t that bad.

How many women do need to be murdered before you think it’s the correct number to be concerned about it? Before it should be seen as a crisis?

Depends on what you mean by “be concerned about it, really”. “Investigate all murders thoroughly” would be worth doing at 1 murder; if there’s any evidence that isn’t happening, then it should be.

But “view as a specific problem which says something important about society”, in the way that we don’t do for murders of tall/ginger/fat people, I’m not sure. Perhaps at the point where the number of women getting murdered was significantly more than the number of men getting murdered (currently, 1/3 of murder victims are female and 2/3 are male, so that may be some way off even if you’re right that there’s a genuine upward trend)?

It also clear that the murder of women is a continuum of domestic violence not a separate phenomenon

No, that isn’t clear at all, that’s the point. The number of cases where domestic violence leads to murder is so vanishingly small that putting them on a continuum doesn’t make any sense. It’s like saying “0.0001% of people who take Ecstasy die of water poisoning, so therefore Ecstasy is a dangerous drug that should be illegal”.

In fact it’s *exactly* like that, in that it’s a completely fatuous point that a large number of well-meaning people with no comprehension of statistics unfortunately believe.

29. the a&e charge nurse

[23] ‘all of this is ultimately treatment of symptom, not cause’ – given that the variables associated with male violence are endemic I think it is unlikely that there is much that can be done to address those conditions in which anti-social behaviour tends to arise?

Rather like the so called ‘black on black’ crime we are often left with platitudes or a sticking plaster rather than meaningful solutions.

Be it a violent man beating up his partner, or a young gang hunting down a victim then stabbing or shooting him, both reflect the sort of family upbringing, and social environment that is likely to perpetuate the same cycle of behaviour until such dismal conditions can be improved.

@ 23 – no, the point is that although there have been views that DV has risen in the last few years during the recession, there is no sole cause of the crime beyond that it is some men choosing to commit violence against women and girls.

@ 23

and so that was the whole point of my article. That we need to fund refuges, we need to stop the cuts because this is a crisis and women need to have safe and secure places to go to in order to escape the violence.

But it doesn’t start and end with creating refuge space. it must start and end with tackling the causes of violence, with tackling the perpetrators and therefore stopping the violence. Male violence against women and girls has no common factor beyond that it is male violence against women and girls. It is no respecter of class or income or background – it happens across society. the cause is the men who choose to commit that violence and that’s what we need to be tackling.

it’s another article but there have been discussions around creating ‘risk factors’ based on class, postcode, income etc around domestic abuse. but that completely ignores that this is a universal problem and does not focus on one area of society.

in short, we need to stop the cuts and secure refuge funding to ensure women are safe. but we also need to stop the violence before it starts, and that means tackling male violence against women and girls.

@29 But as soon as you feel able to attribute cause as “men choose to commit violence” then you take us out of a world where ‘society’ can do anything to address any trend – just as some people might respond by saying ‘well, some women choose to remain in violent relationships’.

Generally speaking, a left of centre view is that ‘choice’ isn’t entirely an individual matter. If ‘male violence against women’ is an issue (which I passionately believe it is), then it’s unlikely that sorting out the women is the long term answer, and joining the dots to advocate for state action in the way that you do in the article *should* result in proposals that do something about the men who commit the violence. Saying ‘they’re men, that’s what they do’ is as weak as saying ‘they’re black, so they do worse at school’ or ‘they’re women, so they’re weaker’ or ‘they’re northern, so they’re poorer’ – and just washing our hands of the whole business of society and governance.

Additionally, if male violence against women has risen during the recession, then that’s an interesting factor to explore – of course there’s strong potential in the closed off routes of escape proposal that you make. But there’s more fruitful potential, surely, in trying to identify causes. How has the recession affected the men who commit violence individually? How many of them were already committing domestic violence and have now increased? Is the same trend identifiable in the statistically way smaller category of female on male domestic violence. And so on. These are the questions that could bring us to a significant downturn in domestic violence because then we might actually understand it. (Which doesn’t, of course, reduce the desperate and urgent need for adequate provision of refuges and support.)

To the people who think this is ‘just’ murder and ‘noise’ etc, you are ignoring the gender aspect. It is significant. If two black people were murdered per week by white people, would that be a thing or not? What about if it was gay people murdered by straight people?

Men who commit DV against women are men who have grown up believing that their self-esteem depends on their being better than, and ultimately the boss of, women. A woman simply leading her own normal life and being herself, is a threat and a humiliation to them – that’s how warped their thinking is. So they slowly take the woman’s autonomy away, by control, abuse, insults, threats, isolation &c. The ultimate threat to their authority and control is when a woman walks away from the relationship, hence this is often the time when they kill. The ultimate way of controlling her life, is to end it.

I’m aware that not all men think this way, but to divorce male violence against women from wider sexism in society is a mistake. Every time a little boy is ridiculed for being ‘beaten by a girl’ for example, we are sending a clear message that boys mustn’t let girls get the better of them – and some boys, as they become men, never get over that.

@ 31

I don’t think i’m making myself very clear – my head feels all a bit muddled! i wasn’t trying to say that ‘men are violent, that’s what they do’ because for starters i don’t believe that and also that suggests an inevitability that clearly doesn’t exist.

An example is the Rochdale case – there was lots of talk about race and the victims, was it a race issue, what did the victims have in common etc. When the common factor was gender – that these were men who chose to commit these crimes and exploit these girls.

I believe that we need to focus on the perpetrator/s of the violence, and that we mustn’t lose sight on that.

this is a good piece on the rise of domestic abuse since 2010: http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/domestic-violence-soars-25-in-first.html

Sianuska:

@ 23

and so that was the whole point of my article. That we need to fund refuges, we need to stop the cuts because this is a crisis and women need to have safe and secure places to go to in order to escape the violence.

So clearly this passage in the OP was a red herring:

The background to this year’s murders has been a slew of government cuts and the recession. Clear links have been made between the recession and rates of violence against women.

In other words, refuges should be well-funded regardless of the state of the economy because even one act of domestic violence is one too many.(Agreed) But in fact it’s not really about the economy anyway: it’s about ‘male violence’ (against women specifically; other forms of male violence are a separate matter). For Norris to claim ‘We need to start joining up the dots’ pretty much ignores the fact that the criminal justice system, a number of other agencies, and a whole swath of academics, as well as feminist activists, have all been trying to do just that for about four decades at least.

So we’re left with some kind of funded ‘prevention’ programme, ideas for which Norris doesn’t specify, even though anti-domestic violence campaigns have been a feature of dealing with the issue over the last few years. However, there would be little point in proper research on ‘risk factors’ if the basic explanation is that ‘they’re men’ and it’s a ‘universal problem’ (of/for men) even though other men manage to behave themselves and not commit acts of domestic violence against women.

Even as I agree with the importance of the issue, this article’s analysis isn’t really helping to persuade me further.

@ 31

i just wrote a reply and it has vanished!

i don’t think i’m making myself clear and apologies for that. my point isn’t that violence happens because men are violent – absolutely not. not only because i don’t believe that, but also because it suggests an inevitability that doesn’t exist.

I think an example is the Rochdale case. There was a lot of talk about race and the victims’ behaviours/backgrounds as people tried to ‘explain’ why this had happened. But the fact that the common factor was that these were men who chose to abuse and exploit girls was missed or ignored. BBC QT that week showed this very well!

Here’s a good post on rise of DV in the last 2 years http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/domestic-violence-soars-25-in-first.html

Sianuska:

An example is the Rochdale case – there was lots of talk about race and the victims, was it a race issue, what did the victims have in common etc. When the common factor was gender – that these were men who chose to commit these crimes and exploit these girls.

Except that some people thought that ‘race’ was the ‘common factor’ in this instance, because of the ethnicity of the defendants and of the victims. Another ‘common factor’ would be heterosexuality, but that doesn’t tell me anything about a propensity towards either child abuse or domestic violence. Maybe the article needed to show its ‘working out’ more clearly, especially as it would indicate what kind of feminist analysis is informing it.

38. Chaise Guevara

“The attempted murder of a woman this week has been described as an ‘isolated incident‘ by police. But it isn’t an isolated incident. It is part of the pattern of the 40+ murders of women and girls this year. ”

That is NOT using the principle of charity in interpreting what the police meant when they said “isolated incident”. Presumably they meant that no more stabbings near the school could be expected. It’s hard to tell precisely because your link doesn’t actually quote the cops saying that at any point.

All crimes fall into some category or another, so you could say none of them are “isolated”. Obviously this isn’t how the word is being used. You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting something so you can take offence at it.

27

I suppose if we compare the number of women killed in WW2 with the number of woment killed by a partner or ex-partner then the figure is low, we might even compare the number of women who died throughout the 19th century.

It seems to me that the women who have died at the hands of an abusive partner had suffered violence over a period of time, it started as an apparently one-off mistake and then gradually escalated, the death was not caused by the first incident of violence and, more importantly, seems to have been the result of the woman attempting to leave the relationship.

26
More males are murdered each year and most of these homicides are carried-out by other males. There is a pattern emerging and it is that males are more likely to kill (in any situation) than females.

Statistically the average person has less than two legs, and it’s this sort of statistical analysis that you appear to be following, indeed the figures we are quoting are really in the realms of raw data, statistics on their own rarely give any clear details about what is happening.

For women in a ‘loving’ relationship with a man, they are far more likely to meet their death from the partner than a stranger, in fact, the domestic sphere can be quite a dangerous place for both women and children.

None of Mr Clarke’s proposals are relevant to the psychology of perpetrators of domestic violence. “Using more gender equal language than “calm down dear”” is, perhaps, intended to be but it’s also unconvincing. First, how many blokes who are liable to beat their partners to death are avid viewers of PMQs? Second, I’m sceptical of the claim that inequalties in cultural depictions of the sexes are a major contributing factor to domestic violence. Thousands of people beat and neglect their children but I’m not sure that’s because kids are portrayed badly on the Teevee. I guess that’s my point: I’m all for investigating why such men are inclined to carry out such bloody horrid acts but there’s a danger of snatching at glib interpretations.

At the risk of starting on old argument, by the way, I’m not sure gender was the only common ground on which the Rochdale abusers stood.

41. Chaise Guevara

@ 32 Violet

“To the people who think this is ‘just’ murder and ‘noise’ etc, you are ignoring the gender aspect.”

To be fair, someone above said that women make up 1/3 of murder victims. If you mean that most murders of women are by men, there may be some relevance there, but it’s hard to tell when most murders of ANYONE are by men (to the point that I didn’t bother checking before asserting that most murders of women are by men).

“Men who commit DV against women are men who have grown up believing that their self-esteem depends on their being better than, and ultimately the boss of, women.”

I imagine that’s true for the most part. But you also have people who are violent towards everyone, possibly due to different deep-seated personality problems. And it also means what you mean by DV; are we counting someone who hits their spouse one time within a decades-long marriage, at a time of extreme stress and anger? Because while that’s not acceptable, it’s very different to a continual campaign of violence and intimidation. The “once an abuser, always an abuser” line is actually counterproductive if we’re gonna talk about motives, and for that matter guilt.

“I’m aware that not all men think this way, but to divorce male violence against women from wider sexism in society is a mistake. Every time a little boy is ridiculed for being ‘beaten by a girl’ for example, we are sending a clear message that boys mustn’t let girls get the better of them – and some boys, as they become men, never get over that.”

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here for many DV cases. Society at large, including the law, thankfully doesn’t buy into the idea of women as subservient to men. But a lot of men are raised in that tradition, and little parts of it seep out more broadly: notice the gender-specific phrase “pussy-whipped”, or the massive amount of stigma around house-husbands. So people develop attitudes that don’t match the zeitgeist, and desires that they can’t legitimately achieve, and this turns into violent anger in some cases.

BenSix,

I think you owe me an apology!

You said that my ironic riff on the generic liberal response to violent crime wasn’t relevant–but I think it predicted pretty well the comments that followed.

If you didn’t read the comments that followed, have a look. Was I unfair in what I wrote?

45. Chaise Guevara

@ 44 vimothy

My issue is that here, as elsewhere, your presentation of the “liberal response” looks very unfamiliar to me, a liberal.

Obviously violence has causes. So does everything else. I don’t see anyone denying that. Where left/right idealism comes into play is a) what, exactly, causes it, and b) what we should do about it.

I suspect you’re confusing “liberals think violence has no cause” with “one time a liberal disagreed with me about what the cause might be”.

46. Chaise Guevara

@ Vimothy

Basically I can never tell whether your “satires” involve deliberately creating straw men, or whether you’re satirising a specific individual that the rest of us haven’t met.

Am I being dense? I’ve just back from the dentist and am still a bit woozy. (Not from pain or anesthetics, mind, but the shock of a five minute check-up setting me back 17 quid.) I’d assumed the point was that liberals are more or less inclined to diagnose patterns of behaviour and search for causal mechanisms depending on who’s perpetrating abuses. I suppose the Rochdale confusions are somewhat illustrative of this so if that’s what you’re getting at, or my interpretation was misguided, accept apologies, cookies and so forth.

@ 38 – this report is about sexual violence but shows how links aren’t being made when it comes to violence against women and girls

http://www.hmcpsi.gov.uk/documents/reports/CJJI_THM/BOTJ/forging_the_links_rape_investigation_and_prosecution_20120228.pdf

49. Chaise Guevara

@ 48 Sian

I’m not saying that there aren’t links, or that those links aren’t being neglected. What I’m saying is that the case you’ve picked up on does not illustrate that, and that your article seems to be based on twisting the police’s words.

This article is correct on the big picture: domestic violence is a terrible and widespread problem which isn’t taken seriously enough. And closing shelters etc. is a very bad plan.

But, as has been pointed out, it’s flawed on the specifics: when the police say “isolated incident”, this is not some sort of reprehenisble rhetoric, but an accurate and ordinary description of the crime in question.

And yes, as John B says, focusing on murders is putting sensationalism ahead of sense. Stats like “One woman or girl [is murdered] every 3.3 days” certainly sound terrifyingly high, but that’s a consequence of the large number of people in the country, rather than the prevalence of murder. After all, every single day in the UK, 10 people will die by falling over. (In China you can multiply that by twenty: 200 people every single day! That’s over 8 an hour!)

A more telling statistic, I would guess, is the number of women who have *feared* for their lives at the hands of a partner.

@ 50 – ok Larry, so we can use the stat that 1 in 4 women will experience domestic abuse in the UK, so potentially (and it isn’t for me to speak for survivors) have feared for their lives. In my own city of Bristol which has a population of around half a million there are 14,000 women and girls are victims of domestic abuse every year. Meanwhile this link shows rates of domestic abuse has increased 25% since 2010

http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/domestic-violence-soars-25-in-first.html

Meanwhile rates of domestic abuse are higher in teen relationships than adult relationships.

So all these stats are alarming, and I think the murder stat is very alarming too. Because all those women and girls are being murdered by men because they are women. It’s not random, it’s not like dying from falling over, because these are deliberate murders.

And the ‘isolated incident’ was a rhetorical device to get to the point that, in general, patterns of violence against women and girls are ignored, and the murders of women by partners and ex partners is not seen by much of the police and the media as part of a wider pattern of male violence against women. they’re seen as isolated incidents.

52. Shatterface

Unity, I know they mean he isn’t a serial killer. but we do have a real problem where police etc aren’t making these links – details of which were reported earlier in the year regarding failings to prevent sexual assault and rapes across the UK.

The police aren’t making those links because they are police, not sociologists. Their job is to gather evidence and aprehend culprits.

And courts are for determining guilt and culpability (not the same thing) – any sociological evidence is likely to be introduced as a mitigating factor by the defence.

You are right about the cutbacks and shelters though.

53. Chaise Guevara

@ 51 sian

“And the ‘isolated incident’ was a rhetorical device to get to the point that, in general, patterns of violence against women and girls are ignored, and the murders of women by partners and ex partners is not seen by much of the police and the media as part of a wider pattern of male violence against women. they’re seen as isolated incidents.”

I can see how it works as a rhetorical device, but it remains kinda unfair that you’re making it out as if you’re correcting the police officers in question, i.e. putting the blame for this stuff partly on the head of whatever individual used that phrase.

Interested in looking into what you say about patterns; i.e. how much the police and the media see murders such as these as part of a broader trend, how much they SHOULD see them as part of a broader trend, and the differences between the two. I’d be very surprised if people didn’t make a connection between women being murdered by their (ex)partners and domestic violence, but it could be true. I’m trying to look at that report you linked for me above but Adobe is being an arse. Don’t supposed you know of a webpage where it’s mirrored or synopsised?

@ 51. sianushka

They’re isolated incidents in that the perpetrators aren’t co-ordinating such murders as members of some sort of misogynistic network of domestic abusers, or whatever. They’re acting independently.

Yes, you can say there are common factors that “link” them – the victims are all female (but you’re only looking at such cases), and the perpetrators are all male (unsurprising since you’re only looking at cases where the victims are female), and it’s all happening here in the UK (because you’re only looking at cases here). There may be other “links”, and they may be of some significance. But the police aren’t acting as sociologists or whatever, and aren’t speaking as sociologists. They’re acting and speaking as police, dealing with individual cases, not social policy. Surely you know that?

When they say something’s an “isolated incident”, they’re not talking sociology. What they mean is that there are no specific links specifically linking specific individuals in that specific case with any other specific individuals in other specific cases. They’re police, not sociologists.

You may have intended it as a “rhetorical device”, but it hasn’t helped.

Here’s an interesting article I read earlier today by Erin Pizzey: http://www.fathersforlife.org/pizzey/failfamt.htm

I also notice there’s more than one Simon posting here.

56. redpesto

sianuska – take 1

I don’t think i’m making myself very clear – my head feels all a bit muddled! i wasn’t trying to say that ‘men are violent, that’s what they do’ because for starters i don’t believe that and also that suggests an inevitability that clearly doesn’t exist.

sianuska – take 2:

So all these stats are alarming, and I think the murder stat is very alarming too. Because all those women and girls are being murdered by men because they are women

It’s not so much the potential contradiction that’s concerning me, it’s the undercurrent of essentialism about ‘men’ and male behaviour that informs the analysis in the first place.

57. the a&e charge nurse

A few factoids have been suggested as to why men batter women @8 – but why do women still get into a relationship with a violent man, and even swap abusive relationship for another?

Well, according to an evolutionary psychologist, “due to the highly socially structured and constrained nature of meeting people, which results in assortative (nonrandom) mating, the choice that some women unfortunately face is often between unemployed, uneducated, unintelligent, unmotivated, alcoholic men who are violent, and unemployed, uneducated, unintelligent, unmotivated, alcoholic men who are not”.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200804/why-do-some-battered-women-stay

Some say that good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions.

“Well, according to an evolutionary psychologist, “due to the highly socially structured and constrained nature of meeting people, which results in assortative (nonrandom) mating, the choice that some women unfortunately face is often between unemployed, uneducated, unintelligent, unmotivated, alcoholic men who are violent, and unemployed, uneducated, unintelligent, unmotivated, alcoholic men who are not”.

Plus the fact that some women are attracted to violent men and bad boys.

59. Chaise Guevara

@ 54 Simon

“Yes, you can say there are common factors that “link” them – the victims are all female (but you’re only looking at such cases), and the perpetrators are all male (unsurprising since you’re only looking at cases where the victims are female), and it’s all happening here in the UK (because you’re only looking at cases here).”

Yeah, the phrase “selection bias” is hurtling towards this conversation at an alarming rate.

The OP does make a good point that we don’t deal with violence against women by underfunding systems designed to support women who face violence. It just seems to be marred by an unfounded attempt to portray The State Of Society Today using questionable interpretations of data.

60. Robin Levett

@sianushka #51:

so we can use the stat that 1 in 4 women will experience domestic abuse in the UK, so potentially (and it isn’t for me to speak for survivors) have feared for their lives

Is this so?

61. Just Visiting

sianushka

You said

> How many women do need to be murdered before you think it’s the correct number to be concerned about it? Before it should be seen as a crisis?

But bizarrely you ignored my link to a genuninely growing aspect to DV – against women 47% increase in Honour killings.

Why are you so relucant to take on this form of VAW where there is genuine evidence that it is a growing probem?

62. So Much For Subtlety

25. sianushka

How many women do need to be murdered before you think it’s the correct number to be concerned about it? Before it should be seen as a crisis?

I’m genuinely curious.

That is an interesting question. Of course we should be concerned even about one. But a crisis? We ought to treat deaths with the same level of concern. So we ought to be as worried about this as we are about women choking on their dinners.

the a&e charge nurse

given that the variables associated with male violence are endemic I think it is unlikely that there is much that can be done to address those conditions in which anti-social behaviour tends to arise?

I would like to see some evidence that it is the conditions to blame and that we can do anything about them. Not that male violence is endemic – Britain is still, although less and less all the time, remarkably peaceful. Eskimo society, for instance, has a vastly higher homicide rate. So did the Khoi San. And by vastly higher I means something like twenty to eighty times the rate in Europe – before European police moved in to keep the peace.

Be it a violent man beating up his partner, or a young gang hunting down a victim then stabbing or shooting him, both reflect the sort of family upbringing, and social environment that is likely to perpetuate the same cycle of behaviour until such dismal conditions can be improved.

The only condition I see there is family upbringing. We ain’t going to change that.

sianushka

there is no sole cause of the crime beyond that it is some men choosing to commit violence against women and girls.

Well that is not entirely true. Relationships exist on a continuum of behaviour. We have no trouble telling a good Middle class marriage from one with violence. We also have no trouble with a relationship built on BDSM or whatever it is called these days. But there is a range of behaviours in between in which both men and women contribute to the violence.

sianushka

and so that was the whole point of my article. That we need to fund refuges, we need to stop the cuts because this is a crisis and women need to have safe and secure places to go to in order to escape the violence.

You work in the Shelter industry by any chance? There is no evidence I know that these refuges to provide a safe and secure place for women to go in order to escape the violence. What crisis?

But it doesn’t start and end with creating refuge space. it must start and end with tackling the causes of violence, with tackling the perpetrators and therefore stopping the violence.

If we knew what the causes were. We don’t. You think you do, but you don’t. But I do like to see articles on LC where people suggest we actually punish criminals for a change.

Male violence against women and girls has no common factor beyond that it is male violence against women and girls. It is no respecter of class or income or background – it happens across society. the cause is the men who choose to commit that violence and that’s what we need to be tackling.

You continue to assume the fault lies solely with men and that it is a choice. Two interesting claims. Of course if you define the problem as male violence, the problem is male violence. But does that mean we need a special response? The cause of Black people murdering White people is that some Black people choose to murder White people. Does that mean we have a crisis that needs special laws to deal with Black-on-White crime? I don’t think so and I don’t think many people here would agree either. I bet it is a major respecter of class and income. I will bet you anything you like the values that lead people to be middle class also do an excellent – but not 100% – job of preventing them beating their wives.

it’s another article but there have been discussions around creating ‘risk factors’ based on class, postcode, income etc around domestic abuse. but that completely ignores that this is a universal problem and does not focus on one area of society.

So let’s not be beastly to the underclass and continue to claim it could affect anyone! The reasons why you choose to do so are obvious but again, I bet there is a strong correlation with class, postcode etc etc.

in short, we need to stop the cuts and secure refuge funding to ensure women are safe. but we also need to stop the violence before it starts, and that means tackling male violence against women and girls.

You have failed to make a case that refuges do a damn thing. But by all means, I am all in favour of stopping violence before it starts. How to do that then? The problem is not male violence against women. It is violence. It just so happens that people who are near – people who choose to be near – other people who are violent tend to get in trouble. But actually the main victims of male violence in the UK are other men. Go to the ER on a Friday night. It is not full of women.

@ Robin

Of the many 1 in 4 statistics that are floating around as common currency, the DV version is one of the more solidly evidenced – see http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2011/11/17/statistics-for-dummies-brendan-oneill-edition/

That said, 1 in 4 is the lifetime prevalence for any domestic abuse, which is a somewhat broader issue than just domestic violence insofar as it encompasses abusive behaviours beyond threatened or actual physical violence.

Sian…

Couple of points.

1. The Twitter link in the OP needs to be corrected – it should be @onein4, not @oneinfour, which leads to a relatively inactive account owned by a woman from Texas.

2. On the methodological front…

Having looked at the contents of the @onein4 feed and followed a few of the links to media reports, its a little premature for anyone to draw any strong conclusions from the articles collated on that feed.

What’s on the feed is a collection of media reports of incidents in which, for the most part, a man has been arrested in connection with the death of a female partner or ex-partner, plus one or two instance where both persons named in the report have been found dead in which the police have stated that they are not looking for anyone else in connection with the incident.

What there isn’t, in any of the reports I;ve looked through, is enough information to place all of these cases firmly into a domestic violence context. In the cases where both individuals were found dead, these could be murder-suicide cases or they could be the result of mutual suicide pact and even where a partner/ex-partner has been arrested in connection with a woman’s death there is currently too little information on the circumstances in which the woman was killed to make any clear judgements about these cases. Most probably will fit in the context of DV but some may not as the investigation of some of these cases may reveal other motives that lie behind the killing.

It’s also entirely possible that a small percentage of these cases may turn out not to have been homicides after all – even year there are a modest number of suspicious deaths that are initially recorded as homicides by the police which, once they’re investigated fully, turn out to have been either suicides or even accidental deaths.

In terms of evidencing your arguments more convincingly, what would improve thing considerably would be a bit of retrospective research – personally I’d go back to 2010, scan the online archives for arrests and cross reference the reported cases with any subsequent reports of trials, convictions and inquests as this should give you more context and strip out possible sources of confounding.

If you can find a criminolgy student from somewhere there’s the potential for a tidy dissertation in that approach.

65. Robin Levett

@Unity #63:

Thnaks. My query was the easy leap from having suffered DV to having feared for life. Since the figure, as you say “…encompasses abusive behaviours beyond threatened or actual physical violence…” that leap is not a valid one.

66. Chaise Guevara

@ 65 Robin

“My query was the easy leap from having suffered DV to having feared for life.”

To be fair to Sian, she specifically said that these women had *potentially* feared for their lives, and added that it wasn’t for her to speak for them. Which makes it GIGO, but not a false claim as such.

@ 63 Unity

“That said, 1 in 4 is the lifetime prevalence for any domestic abuse”

What I’m getting from the British Crime Survey results is that the domestic violence rate is 1 in 5 (21%), with the remainder being made up of emotional and financial abuse (whatever that is). We could do with a better definition of “emotional abuse”, because that could be a pretty wide net. From the fact that it covers a maximum of 1 in 4 people I’m guessing it’s quite sensibly defined in the survey, but more info would be good.

One argument in the comments goes like this:

The number of deaths from X is not nearly as much as the number of deaths from Y. If we care about the number of deaths from X, we should also care about the number of deaths from Y. However, we don’t seem to care about the number of deaths from Y. Therefore we shouldn’t are about the number of deaths from X.

Of course, the same argument can be applied to any X you like. Logically, it leads to apathy or indifference. Why are you bothered about the number of people who are murdered by their partners every year? More people are murdered in total. Why are you bothered about the number of people who are murdered every year? More people die from accidental suffocation. Why are you bothered about the number of people who die from accidental suffocation every year? More people die from falling off stuff. And so on.

Despite its silliness, it has obvious purchase. Why?

One reason is that we need a way to explain away all the crime in society. If people think that crime is too high, then the current regime might lose legitimacy. The current regime must be defended. Partly this is achieved by the sort of sophistry outlined above. Partly this is achieved by a related approach, which is to minimise the role of human agency in crimes.

After all, what does murder have to do with choking on food? A naive or common sense reading might suggest that the two phenomena are distinct and unrelated. Not so. Murder is essentially acausal and inevitable. We have to take it as given, like people choking on food. Since it does not involve human agency, but is rather to be understood as a force of nature, or an expression of the deep randomness of the universe, it is obvious that murder is impervious to attempts to control it. What will be, shall be.

Another reason is that attitudes that inculcate a shared or social understanding of the world are radically at odds with modern views about the sovereignty and autonomy of the individual. Crime is a private affair. It can’t be seen as an assault on society itself, because society doesn’t exist in any real sense, and anything that increases the concreteness of its existence necessarily reduces the freedom and autonomy of the individual. Thus, the meaninglessness of crime and criminality follows from the non-existence of the community.

68. Chaise Guevara

@ 67 vimothy

I agree that waving away murder because it kills fewer people than choking is silly and disregards the fact that one is accidental and the other is not. However, the rest of your post is (true to form) pure conjecture that you’ve pulled together to create a straw man to pummel.

Try talking to existing human beings and addressing what they say, instead of posting this constant commentary about your socratic dialogue with an invisible friend.

67

Yep, diminished responsibility, the reason why Male X killed Female Y was because of the way the earth moves around the sun. Any other explaination would simply challenge the privacy of the individual perpetrator.

70. Man on Clapham Omnibus

I would suggest the motor for what has been referred to as a domestic violence industry is that men very often to not get on with women and vice versa .Further, that the propensity for disharmony rises in accordance with the increases in poverty.
Hence the rise in murders and domestic violence generally.
Sad to say the Tories are responding to this not only with cuts to refuges but also the cuts to legal aid which will undoubtedly make the position of women in particular much worse. Given that this violence doesnt just affect women but often has an equal impact on children, we are also likely to see increased numbers taken into care in the future.

71. So Much For Subtlety

67. vimothy

The number of deaths from X is not nearly as much as the number of deaths from Y. If we care about the number of deaths from X, we should also care about the number of deaths from Y. However, we don’t seem to care about the number of deaths from Y. Therefore we shouldn’t are about the number of deaths from X.

I would like to see who made that argument. Certainly if X is smaller than Y and we are all agreed Y is not a crisis and does not need special laws, then there is no reason to think X is a crisis and needs special laws either.

If people think that crime is too high, then the current regime might lose legitimacy. The current regime must be defended.

I don’t recall ever defending the current regime. If anyone is consistently opposed to the current regime it is me. And even I think your argument is rubbish.

Murder is essentially acausal and inevitable.

No it is not. Of all crimes, murder is invariable caused by some issue. Usually it is caused by someone who thinks they have a rightful grievance which the Courts will not handle. Drug deals gone wrong. But also domestic violence cases. If you ask people they may say they just went nuts, but actually there is usually some cause – the dinner wasn’t cooked right, she was talking to other men, or something like that. It is just that these are usually not crimes in the law. But then men involved think they should be.

So Much for Subtlety,

I would like to see who made that argument.

Here’s one example:

Certainly if X is smaller than Y and we are all agreed Y is not a crisis and does not need special laws, then there is no reason to think X is a crisis and needs special laws either.

I don’t recall ever defending the current regime. If anyone is consistently opposed to the current regime it is me. And even I think your argument is rubbish.

I don’t recall ever claiming that you did defend the current regime.

No it is not.

Of course it is not. My point was to ironically characterise an implied position on crime among society’s great and good. No one who actually thinks as they do would ever say, “crime is acasual”, because it is manifestly preposterous. Instead, they say other stuff that minimises human agency without directly proposing its absence in a way that makes the absurdity of their beliefs obvious. One idea that has been floated on LC recently is that crime is inevitable, a kind of force of nature that people just have to learn to live with.

72

I would imagine that there are some crimes which are ‘inevitable’ but this doesn’t mean acausal. Indeed, if we look at the Utilitarian view of crime, everything has a cause because everything has been determined, but this doesn’t mean that attempts are not made to deter crime. Of course, if crime is acausal, we would never be able to deter it because there would be no cause to address.

I’m not sure what you mean by “everything is determined”. A world where no choice is possible is not a world with much need for utilitarianism.

Instead, they say other stuff that minimises human agency without directly proposing its absence in a way that makes the absurdity of their beliefs obvious.

I’m pretty sure they don’t say that at all. There’s certainly social factors that will significantly increase the chances of someone choosing to murder, or commit other crimes, and choice does boil down to circumstances, I could no more choose to be a billionaire given my current circumstances than I could choose to become a bumble bee.

One idea that has been floated on LC recently is that crime is inevitable, a kind of force of nature that people just have to learn to live with.

If you create a society where the rewards of crime far outweigh any reward from being honest and hard working, then crime will be inevitable, precisely because of human agency. The same can be said if conditions outside of prison deteriorate to the point where being locked in prison doesn’t look all that bad a prospect.

74

Causality and determinism are interchangable, Utilitarianism is the belief that everything has antecedents which adhere to the laws of nature and so are predictable.. If this wasn’t the case we could never make a choice as we would never be able to assess consequences.

Causality and determinism are not interchangeable terms.

Causality describes a relationship between events such that one event is a consequence of another.

Determinsim is a philosophy or theory that says, given a particular set of antecedents, a particular consequence is inevitable. Some philosophers think that this is compatible with free will and some do not. Determinism makes use of the concept of causality, but the reverse is not true.

Utilitarianism is something different again. It is a hedonistic and consequentialist theory of ethics that says that happiness or pleasure is the highest good, and so this is the standard against which actions should be judged. It also makes use of the concept of causality.

I’m pretty sure they don’t say that at all.

Just read the thread you’re commenting on.

There’s certainly social factors that will significantly increase the chances of someone choosing to murder, or commit other crimes, and choice does boil down to circumstances, I could no more choose to be a billionaire given my current circumstances than I could choose to become a bumble bee.

What does this have to do with it? Being a billionaire doesn’t cause you to not commit murder any more than not being a billionaire causes you to commit murder. Certain social factors may correlate with different rates of criminality in different populations and at different times, but that is a different thing altogether from them causing criminality. People commit crimes. “Not being a millionaire” doesn’t commit anything.

If you create a society where the rewards of crime far outweigh any reward from being honest and hard working, then crime will be inevitable, precisely because of human agency

The “inevitability” of crime in this thought experiment follows from the intentional construction of a situation in which it is better to commit crime than not commit crime. If it is possible to construct such a society (and our experience tells us that it is), then it should also be possible to construct a society in which the “rewards” from crime go to zero relative to the rewards from not-crime.

I.e., it isn’t inevitable in the sense of being completely impervious to change.

Being a billionaire doesn’t cause you to not commit murder any more than not being a billionaire causes you to commit murder. Certain social factors may correlate with different rates of criminality in different populations and at different times, but that is a different thing altogether from them causing criminality.

I never said they caused criminality I said they increased the likelihood that someone would choose to commit crimes. A subtle difference.

In this instance sianushka wishes to reduce domestic violence against women by tackling the various social factors that lead men to choose to attack women. Part of that is improving conditions so such choices are not made, or that decent escape avenues are in place, another part is in getting men to not choose that on principle.

Just read the thread you’re commenting on.

Was it brought up by smfs? I tend to just scroll past his posts these days, and past the posts of those agreeing with him.

80. Chaise Guevara

@ 79 Cylux

“Was it brought up by smfs? I tend to just scroll past his posts these days, and past the posts of those agreeing with him.”

Good policy.

77

Causality and determinism are interchangeable, you cannot assess any consequences without determinism and causality happens to be a particular chain of determinism. And, in itself, determinism is not a philosophy, it is an acceptance that the world runs by certain universal principles, as Newton proposed

Utilitarianism is often described as hedonistic, it mirrors Adam Smith’s market, in that an individual will always act from self-interest, but in order to ensure that the consequence of certain actions will result in a certain goal, there has to be determinism or it would be impossible to calculate.

This means that we can self-determine as we can rationally calculate chains of determinism, and that chain of determinism is made-up of causal links (as you suggest).

Returning to the OP, one way which may have an impact on preventing domestic violence is to make sentencing very harsh, so that when an abuser feels the urge to beat a partner, the threat of a very long prison sentence would help deter the behaviour – so s/he will calculate that the consequence of attacking X is a long stretch in prison so ‘I don’t want that to happen’. Attack = prison, control behaviour = no prison.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Heather McRobie

    The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem http://t.co/KrxCbi1f << v important piece by @sianushka

  2. Natacha Kennedy

    Alarming rise in Uk Domestic Violence against women http://t.co/UjDLNnIn

  3. Jennifer C Krase

    Alarming rise in Uk Domestic Violence against women http://t.co/UjDLNnIn

  4. Navie Kalsi

    The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem http://t.co/KrxCbi1f << v important piece by @sianushka

  5. BevR

    The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/DqmLyyGk via @libcon

  6. RGegeshidze

    The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem http://t.co/KrxCbi1f << v important piece by @sianushka

  7. Charlotte Crofts

    And here is the post itself http://t.co/8FG1Sb0R

  8. Helen

    The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem http://t.co/KrxCbi1f << v important piece by @sianushka

  9. Caroline Hadley

    The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem http://t.co/KrxCbi1f << v important piece by @sianushka

  10. Keila Saneaux

    The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem …: Earlier in the year I noticed that by the… http://t.co/977cdd1r

  11. Noxi

    RT @libcon: The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an "isolated" problem http://t.co/zEuSE0aM

  12. BevR

    The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/XHblmO1P via @libcon

  13. @GrannyWils

    The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/XHblmO1P via @libcon

  14. CSAN

    Shocking artcile on link between #recession and #domesticviolence http://t.co/kiWn0iuT

  15. IpswichCAB

    The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem ~ http://t.co/6PYBQacm

  16. BevR

    The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/XHblmO1P via @libcon

  17. BevR

    The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/XHblmO1P

  18. Steve Walker

    The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/XHblmO1P

  19. Yusra Ghannouchi

    The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem @libcon
    http://t.co/ysbVE5Ei

  20. AlessNicole

    The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem @libcon
    http://t.co/ysbVE5Ei

  21. Women have the power to end Domestic Violence. | Feminist Prose.

    [...] The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem (liberalconspiracy.org) Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

  22. Jess McCabe

    On that two women a week stat: http://t.co/v8Lxwbpw

  23. StewieGriffinsMom

    RT @libcon: The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an isolated problem http://t.co/zvSh3BiJ

  24. Lynne Miles

    On that two women a week stat: http://t.co/v8Lxwbpw

  25. Beth Praed

    RT @libcon: The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an isolated problem http://t.co/zvSh3BiJ

  26. Salon and Cosmetology Professionals Help Victims of Domestic Abuse | www.healthcare.antserve.com

    [...] feel good about themselves while making a difference in the community," the academy explains. Salon and Cosmetology Professionals Help Victims of Domestic Abuse Article by Julie Seruto Salon and…e by supporting the battle against domestic abuse.For almost a decade, the Cut It Out program has [...]

  27. Sally Jackson

    On that two women a week stat: http://t.co/v8Lxwbpw

  28. H'Vanna Samuels

    The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem http://t.co/KrxCbi1f << v important piece by @sianushka

  29. ThinnerBlueLine

    [...] The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an "isolated" problem (liberalconspiracy.org) [...]

  30. Hannah-Adjoa Smith

    Shocking statistics! The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/yeqOvDU2 via @libcon

  31. Grainne McMahon

    The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated”: http://t.co/zZcGo2I5 (via @sianushka for @libcon)

  32. Leah Hardy

    @TheRealSGM I keep reading this in the Graun. It's just wrong! http://t.co/CKka6dfW http://t.co/qDStsT4a

  33. StewieGriffinsMom

    @TheRealSGM I keep reading this in the Graun. It's just wrong! http://t.co/CKka6dfW http://t.co/qDStsT4a

  34. Angie Egan

    The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/WN5LWGjd via @libcon

  35. Claire Godwin

    2 women a week are murdered by a male partner or ex "The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem! http://t.co/sRqFdUWM

  36. Claire Godwin

    2 women a week are murdered by a male partner or ex "The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem! http://t.co/sRqFdUWM

  37. Melody Cheal

    2 women a week are murdered by a male partner or ex "The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem! http://t.co/sRqFdUWM

  38. Melody Cheal

    2 women a week are murdered by a male partner or ex "The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem! http://t.co/sRqFdUWM

  39. Trish cherry

    2 women a week are murdered by a male partner or ex "The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem! http://t.co/sRqFdUWM

  40. Trish cherry

    2 women a week are murdered by a male partner or ex "The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem! http://t.co/sRqFdUWM

  41. Claire Godwin

    2 women a week are murdered by a male partner or ex "The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem! http://t.co/aLghgUFQ

  42. Angie Egan

    The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/WN5LWGjd via @libcon





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.