Women's Views on News |
- National call for ATOS to be scrapped
- The big benefits row
- The sex worker and the corporate raider: dissecting ‘Pretty Woman’
- Help Women’s Aid help women
| National call for ATOS to be scrapped Posted: 14 Feb 2014 08:12 AM PST
On 19 February protesters will gather peacefully from 8am until 6pm at the locations used by ATOS to carry out the discredited Work Capability Assessments (WCA). These peaceful demonstrations will include a one-minute silence at 1pm to honour the victims of Iain Duncan Smiths callous 'reforms'. At the time of posting, protests will be taking place at 64 confirmed locations across the UK, including: For information about other protests, or demonstrations added later click here. Why we are demonstrating: We oppose the reported ill-treatment by ATOS of those receiving sickness benefits. We are calling for the abolition of the Work Capability Assessment which is not fit for purpose. We believe that a qualified medical doctor, ideally the GP who regularly sees and treats the sick or disabled individual in question, is the only person able to decide if an individual is fit for work. Natalie Bennett, Green party leader will be attending and speaking at one of the demonstrations taking place in London in support of the cause. Natalie said: "ATOS' activities in the UK are a further, dreadful, example of the government's failed outsourcing experiment. "They have inflicted misery and fear on millions of people, and this must end. The medical professionals who treat them are the people who should decide on individuals' capacity to work. "We shouldn't be pumping public money into the private profits of this health multinational. And we should remember: behind ATOS is the callous government policy of cutting social security payments to vulnerable people. "We must ensure everybody who needs social security payments receives enough for a decent quality of life.'" Labour MP Hilary Benn said: "As the Labour opposition we have called ATOS a disgrace and said they should be sacked… The system needs to change." Caroline Lucas Green Party MP, Brighton and Hove said 'Outsourcing the assessment of sick, disabled and vulnerable people to a private corporation, and especially one with such a disgraceful track record as Atos is disgusting… "Ministers have so far refused to take action to get rid of ATOS and their thoroughly discredited Work Capability Assessments. "The day of action on February 19th is a chance to stand strong together against companies like ATOS until they are a thing of the past. "I'll be there and will do what I can to keep the issue alive in Parliament.' In July 2013, ATOS whistleblower Dr Greg Wood lifted the lid on the toxic culture that existed within the organisation – carrying out assessments that were not fit for purpose, with huge pressure on assessors to fail ESA claimants. Dr Wood was shocked by the ineffectiveness of the assessment procedure. A report from the Centre for Welfare Reform showed that informal targets were being set by ATOS which had assessors under pressure to fail around 65 per cent of claimants. On 4 December 2013 a Court of Appeal upheld a ruling which found that 'the process used to decide whether hundreds of thousands of people are eligible for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) disadvantages people with mental health problems, learning disabilities and autism.' Ordinary people have now realised that the government has no intention of stopping its cruel murderous attacks on disabled people despite the ocean of evidence that has been presented over the last 3 years clearly documenting the suffering and deaths caused by Work Capability Assessments and Atos. The evidence of the suffering being caused has been presented by disabled people and their carers, MPs, journalists, Trade Unions and organisations such as the BMA, Mind, Amnesty and the Autistic Society which call for Atos to be scrapped. Join us. Call for Atos to be scrapped. And sign our petition asking the government to hold an official investigation into the structure and fairness of the ATOS medical assessments.  |
| Posted: 14 Feb 2014 06:32 AM PST
By Sue Marsh. As many of you may know by now, [last week] was the Big Benefits Row on Channel 5. “Roll up! Roll up for the spectacular sight! Real life poor people for your viewing delight!” I was contacted by the show’s producers early. Would I be on a panel to discuss welfare changes? They assured me it would be balanced and to their credit, I do think they worked very hard to make sure a range of views were represented in a way that shows like Benefit Street and On Benefits and Proud neglected entirely. Had I been a beleaguered austerity-junkie audience person, I think I would have had a rare taste of how it feels to find oneself outnumbered. As the days passed before the show, I got that sneaking feeling I was being downgraded. Perhaps I should explain. I’ve done a lot of media now. Newsnight, BBC News, Sky, Radio 4, Radio 5 Live, LBC and many, many more. The pattern is almost always the same. I’ve learnt never to tweet about bookings until I’m in the actual studio getting miked up. For every 5 approaches, I suppose one might actually come to something. Initially, the plan is always for real a debate, or a full feature on welfare cuts or a hard hitting documentary. As the producers of the shows try to get guests to appear to discuss disability welfare cuts in any serious kind of way, they realise the task is almost impossible. For some time now, the DWP [Department of Work and Pensions] and No.10 [Downing Street] have refused to put anyone up against me. (and presumably other campaigners) at all. At first, 3 (all BBC) went ahead, but the various researchers were all genuinely shocked at the lack of government engagement. All said they’d never known such blanket refusals to debate an issue. Perhaps more sinisterly, they were shocked that invariably the DWP refused to take part unless the stories were edited their way. Iain Duncan-Smith has written repeatedly and furiously to the BBC about their lack of balance in reporting welfare issues. Anyone who follows the debate with even a flutter of fleeting interest will know just how ironic that is. If ever there has been an issue so poorly reported, with so much ignorance and so many lies, the current “welfare” debate must be it. But it’s clever isn’t it? Refuse to debate at all and generally it will mean there can be no debate. You can shut down any and all opposition simply by saying nothing at all. Anyway, I digress. Even if a show does get made, invariably it gets watered down to the point of, well, no point at all really. An hour becomes half, which then becomes 15 minutes, which then becomes a 3 minute bulletin. A coalition MP becomes a “government spokesperson” which then becomes an intern, which then ends almost without fail, with a member of the Taxpayers Alliance. And it’s just too easy to make them look silly, they do most of the work themselves. I’ve been edited to make me look like a “shirker”, I’ve hauled my crohn’s riddled butt all the way to London only to be told “Oh, sorry, it’s not happening now, did no-one let you know?” I’ve been booked for shows under the pretense that a particular subject-du-jour is the subject only to be ambushed scrounger bashing vitriol the moment we go live. (Yes Nick Ferrari, I do mean you.) I’ve been made to walk to locations, despite pointing out repeatedly that I can’t walk far or stand for very long. “If you could just manage…..” I’ve uncovered vast and shocking welfare stories only to find I can’t get them published anywhere. Bumped for Egypt. Bumped for Syria. Bumped for chickens in cat outfits. (That last one’s not even sarcasm!?!) Repeatedly I hear in a loop “But welfare isn’t a story.” Well no, why would it be? The current social security cuts are stripping away an eye-watering £28 BILLION from the support and services sick and disabled people rely on just to get through the day. That’s a full FIFTH of the entire deficit reduction plan falling on those who often have no voice to defend themselves. One pound in every five!!! In all, I’ve found dealing with the media to be the most revealing and frustrating part of the whole “being-a-campaigner” thingy. You have to get REALLY tough REALLY quickly and be prepared for an infinite prism of disappointments and frustration. And so I bumped down those now familiar media steps last week with depressing familiarity. First I would be on the panel. Then the panel became the front row with assurances all of the main invitees would be sitting there with me and all would get a fair say. I was an “invited guest” and “disabled people’s voices would be heard blah-blah-diddly-blah”. And so yet another hour became a 15 minute section of the show from which I might get to throw in a 3 minute soundbite or two. This in turn became “You’ll get a chance to speak from the audience” which fizzled out into “Ah, wheelchair issues mean you can’t sit here/there/anywhere so we’ll tuck you in that dark the corner out of the way.” As I said, I’ve been around the media block a few times now. 4 years of blogging and campaigning is actually 56 in human years. I was emphatic with the producers from the start that I wouldn’t waste my energy spoons getting to London for nothing. They assured me repeatedly that that wouldn’t be the case. As it happened, I also had a hospital appointment in London yesterday at 3pm. As only us sick people can really know, that is traumatic enough in itself. It takes 3 hours for Dave to drive me to central London and 3 hours to get home. Ordinarily, that alone would exhaust me for days after the actual event but instead, yesterday, I chose to wait 6 HOURS for the Big Benefits Row to start. By 8pm, every one of my loved-ones know not to phone me or expect intelligent responses. Waiting up to do a show that starts at 9pm is significant in my world. Sickies like me will also know just how much it costs in emotional energy to even contemplate a day like I had planned for yesterday. The only way I can get through them is on adrenaline. Bodies like mine, so used to ignoring physical crisis signals, compensate the only way they know how. As the adrenaline floods through your body it makes you feel shaky and sick. I can’t eat anything significant, I get a bit hyper. That good old fight or flight response recalls echoes of demands from its genetic history. I wouldn’t even think about eating anything significant before a show like The Big Benefits Row anyway, just in case it causes some involuntary vomit to land on someone’s shoes. (*Other bodily fluids also available by request)) But our trials had barely started. Mik Scarlet (Writer for Huffington post and the Independent) Jack Monroe (working for Sainsbury’s, ITN to name just a couple). Lisa Egan (Sky contact for disability related welfare issues & an articulate, intelligent blogger.) and I (Guardian, BBC and this little bloggy-woggy) all met up beforehand to get something to eat and so arrived at the studio together. Having only needed to use a wheelchair for just under a year, the reality of disabled access has shocked and appalled me too. Did you know for instance that most trains only have ONE disabled space and so can only take one wheelchair user? No, I had no idea either. And did you know that you can’t get in to most restaurants and shops despite access being a legal responsibility? Nope, nor me. Or that supermarket aisles often make it impossible to get around a shop independently? Or that you can’t use almost any of the London Underground? I didn’t know any of that stuff When we got to the Channel 5 studio an epic confuddle broke out. As I’ve also learnt, they often do when some people are faced with several people on wheels all at once. They could only take 3 wheelchairs. 4 would apparently tip the building over into a dangerous and unforgivable fire risk. They couldn’t evacuate four of us! I’d been trying not to cry for about two hours by this point and the only way we were all going to get in was if I left my wheelchair in the foyer and hobbled down to the basement studio. I was the only one who could walk at all. Once on the set, even bigger confuddlement broke out. “You can’t put them here, they’re in the way of the cameraman” (I thought the “them” was a nice little dehumanizing detail eh?) “You can’t let them sit at the front, it makes them look too important” (I precis) etc etc. After at least 10 minutes of this infathomable conundrum, Mik shouted to the audience who were now in their seats ready for the show to begin. “Get a job they say?? Are you watching this? Most of the time, we can’t even get a bloody seat!” I noted with great irony that the panellists had to sit on a raised platform anyway, so even if they had kept a disabled person on the panel, it’s unlikely they could have overcome the first and simplest of barriers and actually got up on to the stage. Already brimming with brittle frustration, adding Edwina Curry and Katie Hopkins into the mix with no off button took every ounce of professionalism I had to survive without actually combusting. Surprisingly, I thought the debate was very good. If anything, it was biased in our favour for once. Matthew Wright held Hopkins and Currie to account frequently and the range of people who did get to speak were varied. I think it surprised everyone when Rachael Johnson, (Boris’s sister and editor of The Lady) and Sam Delaney, (editor of Heat magazine) defended people who have to rely on social security and presented some very helpful myth-busters about “welfare”. However, I could barely breathe with pent up frustration. As each part of the show went live again following an ad break, I’d pray that something would be said about disability and every time it wasn’t, I deflated further and further (DON’T be a crybaby on national TV…DON’T be a crybaby on national TV….DON’T be a crybaby on national TV, repeat) How are you supposed to have a debate about social security and not include sick and disabled people? We rely on it more than any other group! Here’s a few facts, just in case you’ve never read this blog before Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is being cut by 20 per cent The criteria to qualify for DLA slashed has been by 60 per cent 1 MILLION people are to be stripped of Employment and Support Allowance The Independent Living Fund has been scrapped** 1500 people lost their jobs as Remploy factories were all closed Just 3 per cent of the entire welfare budget goes to unemployed people Social security fraud is around £1.2 Billion per year – less than half of 1 per cent, or 0.15 per cent of total welfare budget. That’s just £1.50 lost for every thousand or 0.15 per cent of the total welfare The DWP pay out much more in their own errors – 2.2 Billion A whopping £16 BILLION goes unclaimed, generally to avoid the stigma of “welfare” We have some of the toughest criteria for claiming social security in the developed world. Is our UK social security system too generous? No again. In international terms we come just 46th out of 51, paying some of the lowest benefits anywhere 440,000 sick or disabled people will be hit by the Bedroom Tax. That’s over 2 thirds. The very second the show ended I got Dave to bust me out of there without even saying goodbye to MJ or Lisa or Mik. I can’t recall another time I’ve been such an emotional coward, but I just had to run away (well, wheel away, but you get the idea). As Dave pushed my official fire risk chariot back to our car, I tweeted “Yes, I was kicked off the panel at the last minute and no, of course there was no-one disabled person in my place” #BigBenefitsRow But just as he did, something magical seemed to happen as we started the tedious drive home. My tweets exploded all over twitter, it was all I could do to read them quickly enough as they flooded in. Thousands and thousands of you, it was quite awe inspiring. By midnight I was trending 4th in the UK And yet again my friends, we shall have to make our own news. If you’ve read to this point, PLEASE don’t close the page until you’ve shared it with your networks. You can use the buttons just below to retweet or post it to Facebook. But PLEASE, if you can support us in any way, sharing this article can show producers of shows like the Big Benefits Row that we DO have a voice, we DO matter. As campaigners we’ve often reminded ourselves that “Alone we whisper, but together we shout.” I imagine that the producers of last night's BBR got a better offer than me. Someone with a higher profile who they thought might attract more viewers. Some suggested it could be more sinister than that, but I’m convinced that for most affluent, white, able-bodied producers, long term illness or disability simply doesn’t come on to their radar. Another genetically-programmed response means we simply cannot believe in our own mortality or believe that any harm can ever cast shadows over our lives. We can show them – and the public – that on social media if nowhere else, sick and disabled people can – and will – be heard. A version of this post first appeared on Sue Marsh's blog ‘Diary of a Benefit Scrounger'. Sue has a rare form of Crohn’s Disease: she has had many operations to remove strictures (narrowings in my bowel that grow like tumours), suffers daily pain, often vomiting, malnourished and weak; takes mega-strong medications every day including chemo-style immuno-suppressants, opiates and anti-sickness injections.  |
| The sex worker and the corporate raider: dissecting ‘Pretty Woman’ Posted: 14 Feb 2014 04:56 AM PST
An insidious Hollywood product that seeks to convince viewers that street prostitutes are eternally radiant and movie-star beautiful. Garry Marshall's romantic comedy, Pretty Woman, is one of the most popular American movies of all time. A box office success when it was released in 1990, it still rates highly in those Greatest Romantic Comedy lists. Audiences all around the world have embraced Pretty Woman's buoyant tone, pop soundtrack, Hollywood setting, and fairy-tale love story. The lovers, Edward Lewis and Vivian Ward, make an unlikely couple, of course. He is a wildly successful businessman and she is a hard-up street prostitute. The meet-cute takes place on Hollywood Boulevard. Both lovers have looks and personality, and both are portrayed as engaging and sympathetic. Julia Roberts and Richard Gere give winning movie star performances as the pair. The mass popularity of the love story is, no doubt, due, in great part, to the attractiveness of the stars and the appeal of the characters. Their love is, also, habitually read as perfectly romantic because it seems to transcend all differences. This is not my Pretty Woman, though. The movie I recognize is a glossy yet insidious Hollywood product that seeks to convince viewers that street prostitutes are eternally radiant and movie star beautiful, and that their corporate clients are all gracious and movie star handsome. I'm not sure that there is a film out there that has sanitized and romanticized prostitution as much as Pretty Woman. The clear intention of the movie-makers is to drug and delude the audience. Music, beauty and fashion serve to seduce the viewer, and mask the fact that they are watching an impoverished street prostitute spend a week with an extremely wealthy man in his hotel room. In response to the question, "Isn't it just a fairy tale?" we have to remind ourselves that there is no such thing as a meaningless fairy tale. Nor is there such a thing as an apolitical Hollywood film. Pretty Woman may be a fantasy but it's a deeply sexist, consumerist fantasy. Julia Roberts's Vivian does not have the aura of a street prostitute. She is way too sunny and sugary. Although she initially comes across as a trifle feisty and seasoned, the impression does not last. For the most part, the character looks and behaves like an ingénue. Actually, you never even believe the wild child introduction. Vivian's best friend, Kit de Luca (Laura San Giacomo), is portrayed as earthier and less attractive because Vivian's essential wholesomeness and beaming beauty must stand out (This is the function of best friends in Hollywood films, of course). Vivian is, in fact, nothing less than a 90s reworking of two of the oldest stereotypes in cinema and literature: the "whore with a heart of gold" and "happy hooker". Our heroine smiles, sings and laughs throughout the movie with excessive dedication. It is Vivian's good-hearted, unaffected ways that enchant Edward, of course. He is smitten by both her spark and beauty. There is, though, a deeply disquieting edge to Edward's appreciation of Vivian. The makers of Pretty Woman have no problem infantilising their heroine and there is a child-woman aspect to her character. For Edward, it is a vital part of her charm. In one signature scene, we watch him move closer to Vivian to gaze at her laughing gleefully at I Love Lucy rerun on the TV. It is telling that Vivian's family name is Ward. She is like Edward's ward. He cares for, nurtures, protects and spoils her. The age difference is both acknowledged and overcome. The kind hotel manager (Hector Elizondo) and Vivian come to an agreement that she is Edward's "niece" if any guest asks. The age gap is recognized but it is not understood as a major obstacle to true love. Pretty Woman is, therefore, yet another perpetrator of that old Hollywood gender age gap rule. Roberts is nearly 20 years younger than Gere and they basically play their ages. The older man-younger woman intergenerational relationship is normalized and naturalized, and the underlying archaic message is that that a heterosexual relationship can only work if the man is significantly older than the woman. Edward's not a partner; he's a patriarch. Pretty Woman is both sleazy and conservative. The first shot we have of Vivian is actually of her ass and crotch. We see her turn over in bed in her underwear. As she is not with a client but in her own single bed, in the run-down apartment she shares with Kit, the shot is only intended for the audience. It is, perhaps, the most explicit one in the film as the sex and love-making scenes between Edward and Vivian are neither graphic nor intense. We subsequently see her evade the landlord – she can't afford the rent – by taking the fire escape route. Soon, she will be on Hollywood Boulevard conversing with Kit. The audience does not spend a lot of time with Vivian on her home turf. It is understood as a dangerous, seedy place but it is not depicted with any real grit or insight. The body of a dead woman has been found in an alley way dumpster but this is soon forgotten. Although Vivian is dressed for business in thigh-high boots, she cuts an incongruous, glamorous presence. However, thanks to a lost millionaire in a Lotus Esprit, the good, pretty woman will be magically transported from those streets in fairy-tale, Pygmalion fashion. Although Vivian is an endearing pretty woman, she does not conform to class-sanctioned feminine styles and behavior. Cue the most famous makeover in modern movie history. To the tune of Roy Orbison's "Pretty Woman," Vivian is appropriately dressed and groomed for Edward's perfumed world. Pretty Woman, unsurprisingly, patronizes its heroine. In the early part of the movie, at least, Vivian is portrayed as a wide-eyed hick from Georgia who spits out chewing gum on the sidewalk and (accidentally) flings escargots around restaurants. Fortunately, Edward is there to guide her. Note that he doesn't only introduce her to snail-eating but he also takes her to polo matches and concerts. One evening, courtesy of his private jet, he whisks her off to San Francisco for a performance of La Traviata. "The music's very powerful," he helpfully notes. Which brings us to Pretty Woman's unashamedly antiquated and classist portrayal of Edward. The corporate raider is portrayed as an extremely cultured and intelligent man. He loves the opera, plays the piano, and reads Shakespeare. Pretty Woman does not only have a hilariously Hollywood, and frankly philistine, idea of what constitutes a cultured person but it also suggests that America's astronomically wealthy are exceptionally intelligent and cultured. "You must be really smart, huh?" Vivian says to Edward, after he explains what he does for a living. This is one of the more mind-boggling messages of the movie. Along with his tall and slender lover, Edward also embodies Pretty Woman's lookist ethos. Handsome, self-assured and enormously successful, the businessman is seen as superior to other men. His lawyer (played by Jason Alexander), on the other hand, is a nasty, envious, little creep who attempts to rape Vivian at one point. True to the lookist philosophy of the movie, the scumbug character cannot be conventionally attractive or taller than our hero. In Garry Marshall's fantasy Hollywood, beautiful equals good. But how good is Edward? The movie's morality is, in fact, mystifying on many levels. Its hero doesn't drink and or tolerate drug-taking but he has no problem with hiring out women or buying out companies. Ideologically, Pretty Woman is a love song to consumerism and capitalism. Yes, Vivian gets to disparage Edward's superficial, affluent social circle at the polo match: "No wonder why you came looking for me," she observes sadly – and yes, Edward learns to temper his rapacious corporate ways under her gentle influence – he now wants to build stuff and not just deal in money – but this never destabilizes the system. In fact, the system is, arguably, made more secure through reform. Edward just realizes he shouldn't be so much of a dick. Pretty Woman depicts a world where everyone is either a card-carrying member of the corporate caste or an obliging subordinate whose primary purpose in life is to serve, drive or blow members of that caste. It is obsessed with things and encourages the audience to share its obsession with things. These include Lotus cars, jets, and jewelry. It also sells the City of Angels, of course. Rodeo Drive is one of the stars of the show. In fact, the whole movie is pretty much an extended Visit California commercial. It does its job well, of course. It's a sleek product. There are many cars, rooms, gowns and suits to admire. But it's a sleek Hollywood product jam-packed with dazzling fictions and lies about everything under the sun. The representation of gender and sexuality in Pretty Woman is equally seedy and reactionary. Prostitutes should be civilized and saved while young women should resign themselves to being sexually objectified. Vivian is, of course, portrayed as a deeply romantic being. When their week together is up, Edward offers to take her off the streets and set her up in an apartment. But Vivian refuses to be his mistress. "I want more…I want the fairy tale," she says to Edward. We, the audience, are encouraged to see her as an all-American girl driven by the pursuit of happiness. But she is also, at the end of the day, a deeply conventional woman with very traditional aspirations. She gets the fairy tale, of course. But Pretty Woman's not just a love story; it's also about becoming the respectable partner of a businessmen. Vivian Ward may be a romantic, sympathetic figure but she is also a woman fated to marry well. They may have changed each other but Vivian is incorporated into Edward's world. Her illicit sexuality must be contained. We see her appreciate Edward's beauty in the quiet of the night, but we also see her take pleasure in expensive things that he has bought for her. There is a scene in Pretty Woman where we see Vivian go to back to a store on Rodeo Drive where she was previously snubbed and humiliated by snooty sales staff. Armed with gorgeous purchases and gorgeously attired, she reminds them of their "big mistake." It's intended as a crowd-cheering scene of course – we enjoy Vivian's screw-you moment – but it also expresses an unquestioning acceptance of the Darwinian wealth equals power diktat. When she is finally saved by her prince at the end of the movie, Vivian vows that she will save Edward in return. Will she really be allowed to save him? Will she have a role of her own? Or will she just buy stuff on his credit card? It would be hilarious if the whole enterprise was actually a send-up of sexual politics and consumerism. No such luck. There is not a whiff of subversion in Pretty Woman. Admire Julia and Richard's beauty, and sing along to Orbison or Roxette, but never forget that it is one of the most misogynist, patriarchal, classist, consumerist, and lookist movies ever to come out of Hollywood.  |
| Posted: 14 Feb 2014 01:09 AM PST
Stalking affects approximately 5 million people a year, and a third of all women who were stalked reported that it was by a current or former partner. And most women who experience domestic violence also suffer stalking and harassment both on and offline. Stalking and harassment can be part of a wider pattern of controlling behaviour which encompasses online abuse in the forms of e-mails, uploading sensitive photos, data and videos, and abuse of social media accounts and mobile phones. The largest group of victims are women stalked by current or ex-partners. Eighty per cent of the women in this group were previously physically assaulted while in the relationship and in 50 per cent of these cases the stalking behaviour started while they were in the relationship. This is especially worrying as in 40 per cent of domestic violence cases that resulted in murder, the victim was stalked. But escape is not easy. Amy, for example, was stalked online after she managed to leave her abusive partner. During the six years they were together he bullied her verbally and psychologically, controlling her every move and phoning her constantly on the rare occasions she left the house. After she gave birth to their first child he regularly raped her, and would push, shove, and strangle her when he was at his most violent. After contacting her local Women's Aid service, she put together a plan over the course of a few weeks – and escaped from their house one day while he was out. She initially went to a refuge and then moved into a house of her own. She had to change her phone numbers five times, as he kept managing to find out her new number. He sent constant messages through Facebook, watched to see where she was going and would follow her. When she stopped him seeing their child, the harassment got worse. As well as harassing her through Facebook, email, and text he used Facebook – among other things – to track down her new addresses when she moved, so he could harass her at the house. She was forced to move four times, before her support worker recommended a moonlight flit. She and her child had to drop everything and move across the country in the middle of the night, moving house, schools, and jobs. She is now afraid to use social media now, in case he tracks them down, and is worried what will happen when her child is a bit older and wants to use social networking. This Valentine’s Day Women's Aid are appealing to you for support, as they are currently experiencing a crisis of funding for specialist services that help survivors of domestic violence – including women who are survivors of online abuse, harassment and stalking. Please give £20 – or whatever you can afford – so Women's Aid can continue to support women like Amy, who are often left feeling, vulnerable, violated, humiliated and alone. To donate – and please do – click here.  |
| 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 | |