Women's Views on News |
| Shopping: women’s goods cost more Posted: 10 Feb 2016 04:46 AM PST
Last month The Times revealed that shops on the UK’s high streets were on average charging women 37 per cent more than men on a range of everyday products – a difference now dubbed the ‘sexist surcharge’. In response, a Change.org petition asking Boots to review their pricing was set up – and it quickly gained over 40,000 supporters. Boots have since agreed to review their pricing and to meet with the petition’s founder, Stevie Wise. The issue was also debated in Parliament last week. So: this is a fantastic success but next steps are crucial, and the Fawcett Society has said it will be among those supporting Stevie Wise and her campaign to remove sexist pricing from our high streets. Welcoming the petition and the influence it has had, Sam Smethers, chief executive of the Fawcett Society, said: "It is welcome to see Boots change their sexist pricing practices in response to consumer pressure. "We are also hearing from manufacturers who are making it clear that it is the retailers who are responsible for this sexist price discrimination. “In other words the claim that the price difference is because products marketed at women cost more to make is simply not holding up." "Women are being ripped off every single day and that has to change." You can help too, by tweeting your photos of any sexist pricing you find when you are out in the high street shops to the Fawcett Society, to @fawcettsociety or to @sexistsurcharge. You can also helping by signing and sharing the petition. Given the scorn which Caroline Criado-Perez had to face when she took on the Bank of England about the absence of women of merit on banknotes, you may find yourself questioned about the importance of this issue. What, people may ask, is a couple of quid to you when there are women abused on a daily basis, and what about the gender pay gap, or basic rights for women in other countries? Surely we have more important things to worry about? First of all, a couple of quid is a couple of quid. But as Stevie Wise says on her blog the answer is obvious – yes, there are other urgent and serious issues that women face, but the key thing to remember is that they are all symptoms of the same disease; they are all ways to keep women down, to deny us power, and to stop us being treated equally to men. The more symptoms we cure, the closer we get to equality. And this is a simple symptom that we can fix together, right here, right now: there is no place for sexism on our high streets. This research has shone a very bright light on the extent of this problem – this isn't just about one industry. It's endemic, and we can change it.  |
| Posted: 10 Feb 2016 04:34 AM PST
Women affected by undercover relationships are among those calling on the Pitchford Inquiry into undercover policing to release the cover names of officers. A letter was sent earlier this week to Lord Pitchford, who is heading the inquiry, signed by 133 core participants – among them many women from various legal actions against the police over undercover relationships. The letter expresses everyone's grave concerns that only a fraction of those affected are so far able to come forward. And it follows a call last month for the names to be released and the police files to be opened to those affected. Following last November's apology by the Metropolitan Police (the Met) to seven women over undercover relationships – the first time the Met admitted the relationships and the damage caused – all of the women spoke out in the media about their concerns for other women whose lives are likely to have been similarly affected by the infiltrations. They called for the names released so that those women, and possibly further children, would be able to find out the truth. The full text reads: Dear Lord Justice Pitchford, As 133 of the Inquiry's Core Participants, we write to share our collective view that a fundamental requirement for the Inquiry's success is to instruct police to disclose, as soon as possible, a list of names of all the organisations about whom intelligence was gathered; the cover names (not the real identities) of the individual officers responsible for infiltrating and reporting on activists and campaigns; and the individual Special Branch reports for each Core Participant group or individual. We are aware that Preliminary Hearings are due to deal with anonymity and disclosure issues, but we feel it is vital to raise this broader point now on our own behalf and for those whose personal lives or political activities may have been profoundly affected by undercover policing but who are in no position to participate in the Inquiry because of the failure to identify the cover names of undercover agents or the groups spied upon. Without this basic information, it is effectively impossible for the Inquiry to have a full picture of undercover policing. The only Core Participants in any position to give even a partial summary of facts they might eventually rely upon are the limited number who have already themselves researched and revealed, largely by chance, the existence of undercover officers, or those who have been informed by the media they had been subject to covert surveillance. Even then, it is difficult for non-state core participants and witnesses to contribute in any meaningful way while virtually all the documentary evidence remains in the hands of the police. On top of this, Operation Herne [police self-investigation into the SDS & NPOIU] confirmed in July 2014 that the SDS alone targeted at least 460 groups for surveillance. When added to the unknown number of operations by the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, there are hundreds of organisations who still have no idea that they were spied upon. This means the overwhelming majority of individuals and organisations targeted since 1968 have had no opportunity to consider the possible consequences of the actions of undercover officers on their work and cannot currently participate as witnesses. Core Participants and other current and potential witnesses are likely to struggle to provide testimony as long as there remains inadequate or non-existent information available to them. We are deeply concerned that a unique and historic opportunity may be lost unless the Inquiry is able to provide the vital details we seek. The terms of reference of your Inquiry are broad: to examine the scope and motivations of undercover police operations in practice and their effect upon individuals in particular and the public in general. We therefore believe the issue of disclosure is absolutely critical. In our view, if the Inquiry is to have any realistic prospect of providing accurate insight into the "purpose, extent and effect of undercover police operations targeting political and social justice campaigners" it must do more than look at the activities of the tiny proportion of officers – less than 10% of the total from the SDS and NPOIU – that have already received publicity and exposure. By their own admission, police records were patchy and much of what was documented has subsequently been lost or destroyed. Even without the resistance to genuine openness and transparency we are expecting, it is plain the police alone cannot provide an adequate narrative of their actions. The only way to discover a true picture of the impact of their undercover operations is to hear the testimony of those about whom intelligence has been gathered – and this is only possible if they know who spied on them and can reflect on the possible scale, implications and potential disruption caused by undercover officers. We appreciate that the police will use every possible argument against providing greater openness and transparency, although there is no evidence that the public exposure of any undercover officer to date has either placed them at personal risk or posed any threat to national security. In our view, the police's 'Neither Confirm Nor Deny' policy is less about protecting individuals and far more about blocking exposure of misdeeds. We believe such a policy is untenable in a transparent public inquiry and that full disclosure is essential to discovering the truth. We urge you to set the tone for the future work of the Inquiry by insisting police disclose the information we need to fully participate. Yours sincerely, [133 Core Participants to the Inquiry] Further information about the letter and signatories can be found at the Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance website.  |
| 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., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |