Women's Views on News |
| Posted: 27 Apr 2016 03:50 AM PDT
Environmental campaigners have hand-delivered warnings to every UK MP pointing out that they could be in breach of their code of conduct by supporting fracking. The MPs' Code of Conduct says: ‘Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents.’ ‘Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest.’ Personally-addressed copies of the notice were delivered to the House of Commons mail room for 649 MPs. The group also visited Downing Street to serve a legal notice on the Prime Minister. So far, no attempt has been made to assess the health and environmental impact of fracking at an industrial scale in the UK. The risks and impact of multiple wellpads with up to sixty boreholes need to be modelled and examined. So each notice to each MP was accompanied by a copy of a report by the charity Medact on the health impacts of fracking. Medact is a charity for health professionals and others working to improve health worldwide, and the report reviews fracking and its associated activities through a comprehensive public health lens. Proponents of fracking have argued that it can be conducted safely and will bring benefits in the form of: a) energy that is cleaner in climate terms than coal and oil; b) greater energy security; c) lower energy prices; d) more energy diversity and competition; and e) local employment and economic development. However, fracking has proven to be controversial and there are serious concerns about its safety and impact on the environment. Fracking and its associated activities create multiple actual and potential sources of pollution. Leaks of gas can occur across the entire process of extraction, treatment, storage and transportation. There are also emissions from diesel engines, compressors and heavy transport vehicles; as well as the potential release of silica into the air. Oxides of nitrogen, hydrogen sulphide, formaldehyde, benzene, ethylene, toluene, particulate matter and ground-level ozone are among the more significant airborne health hazards. Surface and ground water can also be contaminated by gas, fracking fluid, or wastewater which consists of original fracking fluid combined with a range of new materials generated from underground (including lead, arsenic, chromium, cadmium; and naturally occurring radioactive material). The effects on peoples’ health of these different hazards vary depending on the type and pattern of human exposure, but they include increased risks of cancer, respiratory disease and birth defects. And there are several concerns about the adequacy and capacity of the regulatory system, and while the degree to which these concerns represent serious deficiencies is debatable, it is clear that no assurance can be given that the system is adequately robust and protective of human and ecological health. As recently as 2008, there was only a handful of studies on the health effects of fracking. There are now more than 450 peer reviewed publications and 'a significant majority indicate potential risks or actual adverse health effects associated with shale gas development'. This report recommends halting shale gas development in the UK until a more detailed health and environmental impact assessment has been carried out. The report also finds that, at present, the regulatory system for fracking is insufficiently clear, complete or robust. These deficiencies are accentuated by indications that the capacity of regulators are being eroded by budget and staff cuts. Several jurisdictions in different parts of the world have concluded, on the basis of existing evidence, that the risks and harms associated with fracking outweigh the potential benefits. France and Bulgaria have banned the process outright. New York State in the USA effectively prohibited shale gas development, citing public health risks as the primary reason. According to Howard Zucker, New York State Health Commissioner, 'the potential risks (to health) are too great, in fact not even fully known, and relying on the limited data at present available would be negligent.' This is the second time MPs have received formal warnings about fracking and their duty of care. In January 2015, during the passage of the Infrastructure Act, Jojo Mehta, of Frack Free Five Valleys, mailed letters to them containing a warning about risks and harms of fracking. This time she was joined by the Lancashire anti-fracking campaigner, Gayzer Frackman. He was on the 22nd day of a hunger strike in Whitehall – calling for a ban on fracking. And they were joined by Emily Shirley, of Safety in Fossil Fuel Exploitation Alliance, and Shahrar Ali, deputy leader of the Green Party. Mehta said: "All public servants in the UK have a duty of care and that is to act in the public interest. "It means not doing any harm. "So if they continue to promote fracking in the knowledge that it can bring harm then that can constitute a breach of their duty of care and their code of conduct." "We delivered to House of Commons mail room so that we know that they will actually be delivered to each of our MPs. "That means that they have legally been served. Legally they cannot claim that they have not seen these reports. "They cannot claim that they did not know that fracking is dangerous." Gayzer Frackman, who spoke at the inquiry into Cuadrilla's applications to frack in Lancashire, said: "My community has been living in fear now for over two years and these are just regular ordinary people." "I don't want any other community to have to go through it. "We still have a chance to end it in this country. There's been no fracking going on for over five years now and that's just down to communities. "They're the backbone, they're the people that work many hours a day. Why? Because they're fighting for their communities and they're fighting for their children's futures."  |
| Tackling coercive control in domestic abuse Posted: 27 Apr 2016 03:08 AM PDT
There’s a lot more to domestic abuse than just physical violence. Seven years ago, for example, a 15 year-old fell victim to coercive control and emotional abuse. When she was in Year 9, she developed a close friendship with a boy at her school with whom she shared a few classes and mutual friends. A few months later, they became a couple, more as a result of pressure from him and her peers, she later admitted, than strong feelings for him on her part. Gradually, the relationship became rather intense and quite toxic. She doesn’t remember exactly how or when it started, but it turned out he was very manipulative, jealous and controlling. He policed what she wore, who she hung out with, who she spoke to and what she told people about their relationship, how much time she spent with him and her friends, what she did and where she went – most aspects of her life, really. He would frequently check her texts and Facebook messages, and he even took her phone home with him and kept it overnight on a few occasions. He also insisted on walking her home from school every day, despite her house being in the opposite direction and quite far away from his. He showed very little respect for her, her friends or her family, and he was constantly putting her down, accusing her of a number of absurdities. And he was prone to severe mood swings and erratic behaviour – he once ignored her for a whole week for no apparent reason. Basically, he was wearing her down and destroying any sense of independence and confidence that she had. Fortunately, it seems he was never physically violent, apart from one occasion when he punched her in the arm after she'd had the cervical cancer vaccine and told him that she was in a lot of pain. Her parents had no idea what was going on, but her friends – myself among them – could see that the relationship was really unhealthy and became increasingly concerned for her. Luckily she ended the relationship about a year and a half after it began, and, she told her friends, successfully managing to cut him out of her life completely. Her experience is not a rare one, but a lot of victims can't and don't escape like she did. BBC Radio 4's long-running soap opera The Archers has been the subject of much discussion in the media recently as a result of its hard-hitting storyline about the relationship between two of its characters, Helen and her abusive husband Rob. The story has been unfolding over the course of two years. Rob has gradually become more manipulative and controlling, and he eventually ended up hitting and raping Helen. The response from listeners and the public in general has been phenomenal, to the extent that a JustGiving page was set up to raise money for domestic abuse charity Refuge. The page says "we're raising money for Refuge because for every fictional Helen, there are real ones” – and more than £126,000 has been donated so far. The Archers’ storyline has been a fantastic tool for raising awareness of and educating people about coercive control and all the aspects of abusive relationships, not just the best known – physical violence. The Archers has also been effective in dispelling certain myths and exploring various issues related to abusive relationships, such as marital rape and mental health. The documentation of Helen and Rob’s relationship has highlighted just how powerful and devastating coercive control and emotional abuse are, as well as how difficult it can be for the victim’s family and friends to realise what is going on, something that has particularly shocked listeners. But while the reaction to and effects of the Archers’ storyline can be seen as nothing but positive, it is not enough. And it should not be up to a Radio 4 soap opera to raise awareness of domestic abuse in all its forms throughout the country. Many women and girls do not realise that they are in abusive relationships, partly because of a lack of education and awareness, and partly because of the manipulative behaviour of the perpetrator. And partly too because there is still a common and still extremely harmful belief that if a partner is not physically violent, then they are not abusive. This is of course completely untrue, and emotional abuse can be just as damaging, if not more so, to the victim as physical abuse. Sadly, the two often go hand in hand. My friend’s experience, shared by many other girls and women in the UK, highlights the need for education about domestic abuse and relationships – and from a young age. It is crucial that we are taught early on the differences between a healthy and an unhealthy relationship, what is and isn’t acceptable behaviour, and what to do/where to go if we feel that we, or someone we know, may be in an abusive relationship. Nobody should have to experience what Helen has been through in the Archers. Coercive control and domestic abuse inevitably results in victims having a warped understanding of relationships, as well as low standards for themselves and for future romantic relations. And the government’s recent decision not to make sex and relationships education compulsory in all schools will certainly do nothing to help. But hopefully the momentum of the response to Helen and Rob’s story will continue to gather pace and encourage people to do something positive and proactive to help fight domestic abuse. If you need help – or information – about domestic abuse, you can call the National Domestic Violence Helpline on 0808 2000 247; free and at any time – or click here. If you are being threatened, call the emergency services number: 999. And please, write to your MP and ask them to support making sex and relationships education compulsory in all schools.  |
| 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 | |