Women's Views on News |
| Posted: 21 Jan 2014 04:37 AM PST
Too often, people who have lost their jobs, have a disability or become ill, or who are in low paid work, find that when politicians talk about benefits, they talk about things which say nothing to them about their lives. Words and images about 'skivers' and 'benefit lifestyles' may win votes or persuade people to back cuts to welfare benefits, but they mislead the public and don't capture the experiences or needs of ordinary families. Join us in asking party leaders not to forget that when we talk about benefit claimants we're talking about real people, real families, and real children. People like us. Support Child Poverty Action Group's 'People Like Us' campaign and call on the leaders of the main UK political parties to ensure their parties never forget that when we talk about people in receipt of benefits we're talking about real people, real families, and real children. Political rhetoric which seeks to score portray them as 'skivers' or pursuing a lifestyle on benefits is offensive, misleading and far removed from the needs of ordinary families who want a benefits system that helps them if they need it. The current debate around social security is failing ordinary families and we need to remind politicians that when they talk about benefit claimants we’re talking about real people, real families and real children. ‘People like us’ launched with a letter to party leaders, asking them to listen to the real life stories of Jack, Maureen and Paul, which provide a sharp contrast to the picture normally portrayed in the UK media's headlines. In Scotland the campaign is supported by polling which found that the majority of people surveyed in Scotland reject the idea that the Coalition government understands the concerns of people on low and middle incomes. The poll also found that only: 22 per cent of respondents surveyed in Scotland believe the social security system would provide them with adequate support if they lost their job; 32 per cent believe it would support them adequately were they to have a child; and only 30 per cent believe it would support them adequately if they were to become ill or disabled. It’s time to drop the inaccurate and misleading stereotypes and begin a sensible debate that will lead to policies that promote jobs, tackle low pay, promote affordable housing and help people with the costs of raising children. The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) is the host organisation for the campaign to End Child Poverty – a coalition of 150 organisations from civic society including children's charities, child welfare organisations, social justice groups, faith groups, trade unions and others, united in our vision of a UK free of child poverty. What you can do: Watch and share our film ‘It Could Be You’. Sign our petition. Share either or both on Twitter and join in the debate #peoplelikeus and #benefitfacts. Visit out Facebook page for campaign updates.  |
| England win test match in Australia Posted: 21 Jan 2014 04:01 AM PST
So far so good for England in the women's Ashes as they go six points ahead in the multi-format contest. There's no doubt that cricket is a hot sporting topic at the moment. England's men crumbled to a humiliating 5-0 defeat in the Ashes this winter. As I write, two one-day internationals have been and gone with no sign of improvement. But it's not all bad news. England's women made an excellent start last week in defence of their Ashes trophy. And what a match! A large crowd at the WACA in Perth on the first day of the test basked in forty degree heat as England won the toss and elected to bat. After a decent start, England subsided to 201 all out, which looked at least fifty short of par. This was somewhat of a recovery from 32-3 with Arran Brindle making 68 and Natalie Sciver 49. Australian seamer, Rene Farrell, took 4-43. However, the score began to look a good one as the Aussies faced a tricky half-hour on the first evening, losing two prized wickets and finishing the day on 9-2. Some fine England bowling reduced the Australians to 37-5, with Kate Cross taking two wickets on her debut. Then the fightback began. England's bowlers seemed to be following the same pattern as the men, unable to finish off an innings. Things worsened when strike bowler Katherine Brunt was removed from the attack by the umpires for bowling two dangerously high full tosses. A flurry of wickets at the end saw Australia finally dismissed for 207, a lead of six. England were lucky to keep the lead down to so few. However, they then faced a difficult and hostile period of Australian bowling and by the end of day two were 18-3. England were further hampered by the fact that captain Charlotte Edwards had been off the field with a knee injury for much of the Australian innings, which meant even was she fit, she would be unable to bat until the fifth wicket had gone down. The second innings didn't go well and England were all out for 190. Top scorer was a limping Edwards with 56. England had set a target of 185 for Australia to win the match. It looked like Australia would take it at a canter when they reached 28-0 in double quick time. An angry and revitalised Katherine Brunt then took the wicket of Villani for 21 and the impressive Kate Cross weighed in with two in two balls. By the end of the third day Australia were 57-5. The fourth and last day was a nail-biter. Wary of letting a potentially winning position slip, England bowled incredibly tightly, frustrating the Australians into bad shots. It was pace bowler Anya Shrubsole who did the damage taking 3-48 including that of player of the match, Elyse Perry who, on the losing side, ended up with match figures of 102 runs and 8-79. Needless to say, though, it was Katherine Brunt who had the last word, taking the final wicket of Elliott, bowling her with a fast, inswinging Yorker. The match was over before lunch and England had won by 61 runs. England now need to win just two of the remaining six matches (three 50-over games and three Twenty20s) to retain the Ashes. But lest you think this a mere match report, I am glad to say there is so much more to be positive about as regards the development of women's cricket in this country. The Chance to Shine project was set up by the Cricket Foundation charity in 2005. Its aim was to reverse the decline in the playing of cricket in state schools. In 2005 just 10 per cent of state schools played any cricket at all. Over 7,000 more schools now coach cricket, thanks to the scheme. A key part of the initiative is "Girls on the Front Foot", which has three distinct aims. Firstly, it aims to get equal participation for boys and girls across the country. Secondly, it is about aspiration – giving girls in disadvantaged communities the chance to take part, and thirdly it encourages development, not only of cricketing talent, but of life skills. England captain Charlotte Edwards, head of England Women's Cricket, Clare Connor and commentator Alison Mitchell, are on the Girls' Cricket Board driving the scheme forward. If you are interested in helping the Chance to Shine scheme I urge you to check out the website. There are many ways to get involved, from donating money to attending events to volunteering your time. If we are to build on the great strides made by women's cricket over last 15 years, we need to be nurturing the talent of the future right now. Meanwhile, we wait with bated breath for the remaining matches of the Ashes in Australia, hoping to see England holding that trophy aloft once more. Keep in touch with all the Ashes news with ball by ball commentary on BBC Five Live Sports Extra and text commentary by the ECB and BBC website.  |
| Posted: 21 Jan 2014 01:09 AM PST
Katja Rosenberg, 40 recently met her attack through the restorative justice process and felt she was able to offer him hope. Could you? He was jailed for 14 years after admitting the rape of Rosenberg as she cycled home from work. He then went on to commit a further rape of a 51 year-old woman on the same night. Rosenberg recently met her attacker under the restorative justice scheme, declaring she felt able to forgive him in the belief that things must have gone wrong in his life. The Restorative Justice Council (RJC) considers restorative processes important in bringing 'those harmed by crime or conflict, and those responsible for the harm, into communication, enabling everyone affected by a particular incident to play a part in repairing the harm and finding a positive way forward.' It adds: 'In criminal justice, restorative processes give victims the chance to tell offenders the real impact of their crime, to get answers to their questions, and an apology. ‘Restorative justice holds offenders to account for what they have done, helps them understand the real impact of what they've done, to take responsibility and make amends.' In 2014, women continue the on-going fight for justice in cases of male violence against women, and the battle is far from over. It is understandable then that feminists may consider restorative justice inappropriate in cases of rape. I can understand that thinking, but does the age of the perpetrator in any way influence how we view his crime and our ability to forgive? When I read about this story, three questions came to mind: Would the victim in this case have considered restorative justice had her attacker been an older male? Would she have considered his motive counterbalanced by his life experiences had he been an adult when he attacked her? And do his life experiences really matter when we consider his offence? Restorative justice is not intended to replace criminal justice proceedings. It exists as a means to enable the victims and the perpetrators to meet, to hold the offenders to account and to give them an insight into the real impact of their behaviour. Perhaps a younger offender is more receptive to this method of justice. Perhaps this 'willingness to forgive' is what his life has been lacking and perhaps Rosenberg showed him a kind of empathy he has never seen before. When speaking to the BBC, Rosenberg said of her rape: “It had a very strong impact on my life but not so much in the way that I couldn’t make peace with that having been done to me, strangely more about life being very sad or things going wrong in life. “I felt very, very sad, but I didn’t feel attacked.” Her wish to visit him was partially motivated by a desire to assure him “life’s not hopeless, that he knows he’s got a future”, she said. She continued: “Life deals very different cards to all of us, and why somebody does something which is not applaudable – it was more about thinking, something’s wrong with society. “Some of us don’t know where to go. You wouldn’t ever do that if you felt happy.” There have been no details reported on the attacker, his history or his childhood – he may well have been through hell and back as a young child; after all to commit such a crime at such a young age, we do attempt to seek some solace in the thought that he must surely be damaged by some experience. Do we consider a male of 16 years incapable of being fully accountable or responsible for his actions? When we hear the offender was only 16 years old does some kind of maternal instinct take over in our efforts to justify and forgive? Age him a few years. Had he committed the offence as older male, the thought of forgiveness would for many, be abhorrent. Experts continue to argue over why men rape, citing evolution, pathology and social science as the primary reasons. Society and rape culture undoubtedly play a massive role in a man’s desire to violently dominate a woman. But rape is a choice. The perpetrator chooses to commit rape. Ultimately men rape because they choose to. It’s as simple as that. I have tried to understand Rosenberg’s decision. Maybe, it’s just that little bit easier to forgive a child who has committed rape. Do we somehow place the blame for his actions on his history, on an adult somewhere in his past who caused him everlasting damage? Do we find it easier to justify his crime in this way? Perhaps the power balance intrinsic to rape is less heavily weighted when a woman realises her attacker is a boy. But would you be able to face that boy? Would you be able to forgive him? I’m not sure I could. What is undeniable is Rosenberg's attitude is admirable and her ability to forgive inspirational. She must be praised for her bravery in deciding to face her attacker. In doing so she may well have changed one young person's life for the better. She must also be praised for reporting her crime and helping to ensure that her attacker, whilst behind bars, is unable to hurt any more women.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |