Women's Views on News |
| Cheryl James inquest verdict given Posted: 03 Jun 2016 02:20 PM PDT
The Coroner in the inquest into the 1995 death of Private Cheryl James at Deepcut Barracks has today recorded a verdict of suicide, and delivered a narrative verdict that severely criticised serious failures in the Army's duty of care at Deepcut barracks. His Honour Judge Brian Barker QC delivered his conclusions at Woking Coroner's Court after a three-month inquest which heard evidence from more than 100 witnesses. Cheryl James was 18 and undergoing initial training when she was found dead with a bullet wound on 27 November 1995. Surrey Police immediately allowed the Army to take over the investigation into her death. No ballistics or forensics tests were conducted. The original inquest, held three weeks after her death, lasted just an hour. Key witnesses were not called, medical records uninspected and important evidence ignored. In 2011, Cheryl's parents Des and Doreen James approached Liberty, who threatened Surrey Police with legal action under the Human Rights Act unless they provided access to the materials held concerning Cheryl's death. Over the next two years, Surrey Police released more than 90 lever-arch files of statements, documents, forensic evidence and photographs, allowing the family to apply for a fresh inquest. HHJ Barker ruled that Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights was engaged and this enabled him to deliver the critical narrative verdict. Des James' full response to today's verdict can be read here. Liberty represents the families of three of the four young recruits who died at Deepcut between 1995 and 2002 – including Privates Sean Benton and James Collinson – and will continue to seek the fresh inquests they and their families deserve. Following today's verdict, Liberty is now calling for a meaningful reform of the military justice system to tackle the ongoing, pervasive and deeply damaging culture of sexualised behaviour and harassment in the Armed Forces. Brigadier John Donnelly, questioned at the inquest, said: "…in 2014, we conducted a survey about 24,000 members of the army, all the female servicewomen and some servicemen too, to have a better understanding of the problem of sexual harassment in the army, to really understand the problems so we could make the cultural change. "And the results were quite clear, that 90 per cent of respondents felt that the army had an overly sexualised culture, or certainly sexualised culture. "39 per cent of respondents had had a distressing experience, sexual harassment or conduct short of harassment about 12 per cent had actually made a complaint and taken it further and found the whole thing very distressing, but also that a significant number of respondents did not have confidence in the complaint process." In 2014, Opportunity Now also conducted research which demonstrated that 23 per cent of women in the uniformed and armed services suffer sexual harassment. The average elsewhere is 12 per cent. Section 113 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 requires a Commanding Officer, when s/he becomes aware that certain criminal offences may have been committed, to refer the matter to the service police for investigation. The list of offences that must be referred to police are contained within Schedule 2 to the Act. A small group of offences are excluded from this mandatory referrals process, one of which is sexual assault. Emma Norton, lawyer for Liberty and solicitor for Mr and Mrs James, said: "This day has come 20 years too late. There should have been an independent police investigation right from the start. "The Army should have been open about life on that camp from day one. Cheryl's family and friends would have been saved 20 years of unnecessary suffering and pain – and things might have changed for the better, serving the interests of the bereaved, serving soldiers and the British Army. "It is not good enough for the Army and Ministry of Defence (MoD) to wait two decades, point to the things that have changed and pat themselves on the back for saying sorry. "Sexual harassment continues to afflict our armed forces more than any other sector – and failings in our military justice system mean those who report an assault are still not guaranteed the fair, independent investigation and support they deserve. "If there was ever a day for the MoD to commit to change and show they actually care about ending this toxic culture, today is that day." In 2016, it is still lawful for: A Commanding Officer in the Armed Forces to choose to investigate an allegation of sexual assault him or herself. There is no legal requirement – as there is for most other criminal offences – to refer the matter to the police; and Military police to investigate serious criminal offences including rape, sexual assault and other violent crime. Liberty is campaigning for the government to amend the law to end these practices and embed independence and fairness for the country's troops at the heart of the military justice system. The inquest exposed to public scrutiny the deeply toxic environment in which Cheryl James and hundreds of other young soldiers lived. Unworkable supervision ratios of as few as one supervisor to 200 trainee soldiers; Unsupervised access to alcohol, including for under 18s; No formal welfare policy and essentially no welfare support for young people, many of whom were vulnerable and away from home for the first time; and A highly sexualised environment with some male supervisors seeing young female trainees as a sexual challenge – and nowhere for a young soldier seeking advice and support to go. These failures were only admitted by the MoD for the first time during the inquest, more than 20 years after Cheryl James died. Emma Norton said: "The evidence revealed a brutal and morally chaotic environment, particularly for young women, which amounted to a deeply harmful failure in the duty of care they were owed." The inquest revealed that Surrey Police conducted no investigation whatsoever in 1995, leaving the military police to investigate a sudden death on military property themselves. This amounted not to an investigation into a potential crime, but to a preparation of a series of statements for the then Coroner based on an assumption of suicide. Given the lack of any basic policing and forensic work at the scene, Surrey Police's agreement to investigate in 2002 came too late. Investigating officers' behaviour was deeply inappropriate at times and internal memorandums have revealed that – before the bulk of witnesses were interviewed and expert evidence obtained – senior officers believed they had enough information to be satisfied as to how Cheryl James and the three other recruits had died, and needed only to focus on why they had died. Liberty now urges anyone who has suffered sexual or other abuse while at Deepcut or while serving in the armed forces to report their experiences to police. A dedicated Surrey Police officer has been identified to deal with any allegations of assault at Deepcut. Anyone with concerns about contacting Surrey Police can of course contact Liberty in confidence.  |
| End sexist dress codes at work Posted: 03 Jun 2016 01:41 PM PDT
Another form of sexism and discrimination against women in the workplace has hit the headlines. In the same week, two incidents highlighting the issue of sexist dress codes at work caused outrage across the internet and on social media. It began when receptionist Nicola Thorp, 27, claimed that she had been sent home from her first day of agency work at corporate company PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) for not wearing 2-4 inch heels. She told BBC Radio London: “I said, ‘if you can give me a reason as to why wearing flats would impair me to do my job today, then fair enough’, but they couldn’t. “I was expected to do a nine-hour shift on my feet escorting clients to meeting rooms. I said I just won’t be able to do that in heels.” She added, “apart from the debilitating factor, it’s the sexism issue … companies shouldn’t be forcing that on their female employees.” Thorp said that she was laughed at when she pointed out that this policy was discriminatory and was sent home without pay after refusing to go and buy a pair of high heels. At the same time, a photo of an American waitress’s bloody feet after having to do a shift in heels went viral. Nicola Gavin took the photograph of her friend’s feet and said that she actually lost a toenail as a result of having to serve customers while wearing high heels. Gavin also claimed that female employees of Joey Restaurants, the chain her friend works for, are required to spend USD30 to buy a black dress uniform while male employees can choose their own black clothing. Unfortunately, these two incidents are not one-offs, as we discovered when we asked women if they had any similar experiences. One woman who worked for an agency that puts employees in Harrods and in Oxford Street department stores told us that along with a pencil skirt, female employees had to wear heels of a certain height and have their nails painted to match the colour of their lipstick. “I’d work for eight hours but within 15 minutes I’d be in pain, and I would spend my lunch breaks crying and rubbing my feet,” one woman said. Another woman said that at a pub she worked in, people who gave in their CVs were rated out of 10 based on their appearance, and if they were regarded as anything under a 7, their CV would be put in the bin. And in addition, during the World Cup female bar staff had to wear little shorts with knee high socks and were encouraged to wear heels during busy periods to ‘look sexy’ in order to attract customers. A former employee of Specsavers also told us that she had to get a doctor's note for her back problems so she could be excused from wearing heels. “If I’d worn flat shoes, I would have gotten disciplinary warnings and eventually been sacked for not abiding to the dress code requirements – despite the fact that I was on my feet for eight hours a day,” she said. These demands for ‘heels’ stem from the longstanding sexual objectification of women, who are regarded as submissive tools for attracting customers and clients instead of valuable employees equal to their male colleagues. And the experiences of all of the women who have come forward since the stories broke suggest that the ‘sexy secretary’ and ‘sexy barmaid’ stereotypes are more prominent than we might like to think, even now. It seems that in many cases, a woman’s value in the workplace is still based on her physical appearance and not her intelligence or skills she may possess. And it is shocking that these practices are still rife in 2016, and that it is still legal for an employer to make women wear high heels at work. Not only are these dress codes grossly unfair, given that they don’t apply to men, but they can also have negative health implications for women. The damaging effects of wearing heels on a regular basis, particularly for the feet and back, are well-known, and the pain of doing so is too much for many women to bear – myself included. The TUC, with admirable courteous understatement, has said in its health and safety guidance Working Feet and Footwear: 'In many occupations, in particular where staff deal with the public, employers enforce a dress code that includes footwear. 'Sometimes this code prevents staff from wearing comfortable and sensible shoes and instead insists they wear slip-ons or inappropriate heels. 'This can apply particularly to women. 'Apart from being extremely sexist, these policies can lead to long-term foot problems. Safety representatives should ensure that dress codes do not prevent people from wearing comfortable, healthy footwear.' Women can still look perfectly smart and professional at work without wearing high heels, skirts or make up – it is not as if the only other alternative is tracksuit bottoms. There is absolutely no reason why dress codes shouldn’t be the same for men and women, and perhaps this would afford women a little more respect in the workplace (we can but hope…). Women already face a lot of challenges at work, particularly in male-dominated industries, and the last thing they need, and deserve, is to have to tackle these challenges while enduring the pain and discomfort of wearing high heels. According to ibtimes, the agency in Nicola Thorpe’s sorry story, Portico, has since changed its uniform guidelines, and PwC’s spokeswoman has since then said: “We are now reviewing our supplier uniform codes to ensure they are aligned with our own values.” So if we could only get the issue raised more widely… You can sign Nicola Thorp’s petition to make it illegal for a company to require women to wear high heels at work here. Please do.  |
| 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 | |