Is this the way to keep women safe?

The Independent has reported today that "women could be given the right to know whether their partners have a history of violence under plans to be considered by the Government". I have mixed feelings about this, even though on first glance it seems like a good idea. I heard a Woman's Hour programme earlier in the week where the proposal was discussed by Michael Brown, whose daughter, Clare Wood, was murdered in 2009 by a violent partner; Jane Keeper from Refuge; and Brian Moore, the Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police.

Michael Brown supports the proposed law, which is being called Clare's Law after his daughter. He believes that had his daughter known about her partner, George Appleton's previous convictions for violence against women, she would never have got involved with him.

Greater Manchester Police have been criticised for not offering Clare the help she needed, but Mr Brown is insistent that any new policy had to be national, and not just relating to Manchester, and he talked passionately about the prevalence of domestic violence murders. He said,

"The statistics are frightening. There's 2 ladies every week killed by domestic violence. Their partners turn on them. And I think if they were all clumped together and that was two coach loads of ladies going over a cliff face, the drivers and the bus would be taken off the road. And because these ladies are dotted all around the UK, the statistics don't show that there's somewhere in the region of 100 - 120 girls or women killed by their partners every year. And strangely enough there's one man every 3 weeks. So the statistics speak for themselves. Had it all happened at the one time there would have been an enquiry, and because these ladies are dotted round the UK, it falls by the wayside and I think it's shocking".

The coroner at Ms Wood's inquest is reported to have said that women should be able to be informed of any convictions for violence in the past of their partners, and the statistics from Brian Moore, the Chief Constable, appear to back this up.

He explained that research he carried out showed that there were more than 25,000 serial perpetrators of domestic abuse who offended against different victims over 5 year period. This does show that there is a real problem of abusers hurting woman after woman after woman, and if a law like the one proposed could help to prevent that, then surely we should try it, as one measure amongst many, to truly tackle the problem of domestic abuse.

But Jane Keeper from Refuge summed up concerns that I, too, share. She explained that the majority of victims of domestic violence still never go to the police. Therefore there are a lot of unconvicted perpetrators, who women could potentially check, and be informed that they are fine. Ms Keeper also discussed the practicalities of the proposal - do women call the police each time they meet someone new? At what stage in a relationship do you check? And she mentioned resources too, that police are frequently not even able to tell high risk victims that their abuser has been released on bail, so they would be hard pushed to respond to lots of queries from people in new relationships.

The aspect that worries me the most is the idea that a woman could be reassured by the lack of previous convictions of her partner. Lulling her into a false sense of security could be downright dangerous. It's not that this law would simply not be 'enough', it's that it could cause more problems when someone feels they have been assured safety.

A lot does need to be done about domestic violence and abuse, and no one solution can present all the answers. But I fear that this solution will cause new problems as well as some solutions. But then, in the cases mentioned by Chief Constable Moore, perhaps a law like this could have helped the women in relationships with these 25,000 serial offenders. I do not know which would be greater: the scale of damage caused by a lack of this law; or the scale of damage caused by a law like this being introduced.

[The image is adapted from a photograph by Elvert Barnes, issued under a Creative Commons License. This blog post is cross-posted at The F-Word]

Amanda Knox

I first wrote this for the F Word blog.

Amanda Knox has been convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher, and if you weren't paying attention, you might believe that she did it alone.

In fact, two men have also been convicted of the murder - one last night and one last year, but they are very much secondary to the story, even though, as far as I can tell, it has never been decided who did the actual killing.

Now, I have not studied the trial or the evidence, and I do not know whether Amanda Knox did or did not kill Meredith Kercher, but I do know that this is seeming to be another legal case where the woman involved is demonised to a degree rarely seen in male defendants.

And the fact that Amanda Knox appears to be a young woman with some confidence in her sexuality has certainly worked against her. That she had condoms and a vibrator in a see-through bag has been widely reported, as some kind of proof that she was deranged enough to kill her housemate in a sex game.

That her nickname is Foxy Knoxy has been repeatedly mentioned, though very few reports tell you that that nickname apparently came about due to her skills on a football field rather than anything more salacious. Because that wouldn't fit the story quite so well.

With the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in Soham, Maxine Carr has arguably been more slated by the press and public than Ian Huntley, who actually killed the girls. Maxine Carr's crime was to lie to the police by giving Huntley an alibi, and there is no indication that she did so with any knowledge of what he had done.

Amanda Knox even got a longer sentence than Raffaele Sollecito, who was also convicted of Kercher's murder. Issues which seem to have been used against Knox during the trial are so telling about what women are still up against compared to men in these situations.

1. There was a youtube video showing her drunk.
2. She sent an email to a friend saying she had had sex on a train.
3. She wrote a story about a woman being raped and a photo of herself with a machine gun entitled 'the Nazi'.
4. She did cartwheels in the police station while waiting to be questioned.

Now, while the third of these is certainly questionable, and the fourth somewhat odd, the first two are unremarkable, and are in no way legal evidence for murder.

According to the Guardian,

Italians shrug off extramarital sex, yet they are prim in their attitudes to premarital sex, at least outside the stable context of fidanzamento (engagement). They use the same words for boyfriend and fiance.

So many were taken aback to learn that, by the time she was arrested at the age of 20, Knox had had sex with seven men. They were less outraged by how this information was obtained: Knox was told in prison she was HIV-positive and asked to write a list of her lovers. Before she was told that a mistake had been made, the list was passed to investigators, one of whom passed it to a journalist.

The ethics around that 'mistake' are appalling, particularly if it was a tactic to obtain information about her sexual history to use against her during the trial.

Amanda Knox may or may not have committed this murder, and I certainly do not know whether she did. However, two men have also been convicted and rarely even mentioned. That Knox is a woman, and a woman with some sexual history, appears to have damned her.

Justice, For Once.

I used to live on Park Hill flats, a somewhat notorious council estate by Sheffield city centre.

There is always a lot to say about Park Hill, but for now I won't be going into that. I just need to talk about one incident, and today's long-awaited update on it.

In June 2002, I was woken by the smell of smoke. I leapt out of bed and went all the way round my flat, trying to find its source. When I couldn't find anything, I looked out of a window and saw the very clear cause. One of the flats opposite was very much on fire.

There was a huge amount of smoke, and I watched as one of the windows shattered with the heat, letting yet more smoke out. I saw that there were people around the flat door, and for some reason I presumed that the flat belonged to one of the women standing there. I grabbed my phone to call 999, when I saw firefighters arrive.

I was very frightened and disturbed by what I could see, and did not want to be part of that weird voyeuristic thing which happens to the best of people in situations like this, so I moved away from the window, and hoped the firefighters could get it under control quickly.

I was mainly relieved that the flat's occupant had got out.

Later that day I went down to the Co-op, which as well as being the local shop, also seemed to serve as social centre, marriage guidance, community news spreader and gossip centre of the estate.

Of course, all talk was of the fire. When I got to the till, I asked if anyone knew what had happened, and the woman serving me said, 'They're saying it's murder'.

I was stunned. Totally and utterly stunned. I had been convinced that that woman by the front door of the flat lived there. Why on earth had I thought that??

I was given more information - a woman was killed in the fire, she had had a stalker, one of her kids had seen the fire from the school playground, presumably not knowing their mum was dying in it. The thought was that the stalker did it.

Over the next few days, information began to be confirmed and denied. The situation was that this woman, June Bond, had 7 children. A man had been stalking her, and the flat which had been on fire was actually *his* flat. He was prime suspect, her death was being treated as murder, and he was being looked for.

The firefighters had struggled to get inside the flat to put out the fire, and once they had they were slowed down by the sheer heat and smoke. June Bond was dead.

I was terribly traumatised and disturbed by this whole event. Having seen the fire, I couldn't stop imagining how this (unknown to me) woman must have felt, dying in a fire. Unable to breathe? Burning? Worried about her kids? I had indirectly witnessed a murder and I couldn't get it out of my mind.

And then, after a few weeks, there was nothing. The flat remained boarded up, but talk got onto other matters and I learned nothing more.

This event comes to my mind still regularly, and I occasionally search the web for details of any kind of conviction or anything to follow up this woman's awful murder, but I found nothing.

So today, to read that the guy, Vincent King, had been convicted and sentenced to life, serving a minimum of 16 years, I felt so glad, so relieved.

It seems he had actually killed her with a claw hammer, and then set the flat on fire to cover his tracks. He'll be in there until at least 2018 which I'm glad about, but it doesn't seem half enough. He was stalking her, and had previously been in a relationship with her.

Yet again, a violent man kills their partner or ex-partner. Two women a week in Britain are killed by (ex-)partners. At least this time there is a conviction and something of a sentence.

16 Years for Murderer of Former Lover

A BRUTE who beat his ex-lover to death with a hammer and then tried to cover his tracks by arson must spend at least 16 years behind bars.
Vincent King, aged 59, of Norwich Row, Park Hill, was found guilty at Sheffield Crown Court in November 2002 of murdering mother-of-seven June Bond.

He had already pleaded guilty to arson being reckless as to whether life was
endangered. He was jailed for life.

Now his tariff - the minimum number of years he must spend in prison before he can seek parole - has been set at 16 years by Mr Justice McCombe, who was reviewing the case at the High Court in London.

Even taking into account the time he spent on remand, the ruling means King will not be able to even apply for his freedom before 2018.

Mr Justice McCombe said he had taken into account the fact King had been left in a "distressed mental state" when it emerged Ms Bond had begun seeing a neighbour, Oswald Darmudas.

But he also observed that King had a number of previous convictions for violence, including one against Ms Bond.

The judge also said he had tried to cover up the murder by starting a fire.

The court heard King met Ms Bond, who was 14 years younger than him, in 2001. In May 2002 she began seeing Mr Darmudas and split with King, but he 'stalked' her and discovered her new relationship.

On June 12 2002, he lured her to his flat by saying he had money for her, said Mr Justice McCombe, before killing her with a single blow to the head from a claw hammer.

At around 6.50am the next day he bought petrol from a filling station and set fire to his own flat with Ms Bond's body inside.