http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9TiCJV98cR4

I would love to see a detailed breakdown of how this money is to be spent. But then it would not quite so easy to dissemble as they say the devil is in the detail … and I am not sure if Boris has got his head around all the operational detail …

More are becoming more high profile to gain funding & donations from jo public. There was also a searchable web-database so that victims can search for their nearest branch as there are so few centres.

Our local one tries its best not to make its location widely known.

If only I had the time … but as you agree with the direction of it.

Phew! Am glad I denoted the exact naming of the different rape establishments this time around

Phew! No building.

Agree with the general thrust.

By the way I have some serious issues regarding the whole funding system for the voluntary sector, and even thinking about it makes me unhappy. Really unhappy.

@ 5 ” I imagine the advertisements were simply ‘politically correct’”

Lets not imagine. See the link for the current ad running at uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KfETrIe-MPE

It features cabwise which was launched several years ago. Personally I did not know cabwise even existed until I saw an early advert/press release on it.

Also worth noting:

- by focusing more on prevention will lead to less rape victim centres being needed.

- A commentator on the you tube advert estimates it costs £150,000 to take a single rape case to trial – so savings are also made to the tax payer

- the conviction rate for rape stands at 5.3% so is not prevention better than cure?

- the government’s focus in recent years was on developing a network of sexual assault referral centres(SARCs) where victims of sexual assault can receive medical care, counselling, & have the opportunity to assist police investigations. I believe SARCS were in addition to rape crisis centres. I am not sure what Boris intends to do about SARC’s or whether his funding proposals make any such distinction

It has been reported that the main reason for the funding shortage is a dearth of local targets set by central government on sexual violence. Also, decision-makers & funders have not always been clear about the relationship between sexual violence and domestic violence. LA’s and crime reduction orgn’s have tended not to address sexual violence or fund services, even when lobbied by local organisations.

” No self-respecting rape victim support centre (rape centre could be so easily misconstrued) would allow their buildings to be part of any photo-op. Even Boris’ buffoonery, which so easily passes for Etonesque charm, could be that persuasive. ”

You mean like this example? Minister visits Thurrock rape crisis centre: http://www.thurrock-community.org.uk/sericc/newsy.htm

The other aspect of my point was that is is easier to show a picture of something tangible such as a building & people within it but more difficult (as vastly more expensive)to prove an increase in awareness

Ken’s disgraceful negligence towards the Rape Crisis centres was a fucking outrage, Leon. Boris is increasing funding.

Hopefully, however he will see stick to his pledge somehow and raise more cash in other avenues for this incredibly important service. I’ll be seriously disappointed myself if he doesn’t.

Calling it a ‘fucking outrage’ whilst vehemently supporting Ken in this matter really does smell of double standards to put it nicely.

Tom, I’m sure you were just as outraged at all of Ken’s backtracking and his negligence of the rape crisis centres, I’m sure, being the principled man that you are.

‘In other words, he realised that he rather liked having dozens of spin doctors and marketing propagandists at his beck and call.’

Either that or he realised that the media scrutiny of the mayor created more work than he thought. I would hazard a guess it is a bit of both. In any case the slightly worrying thing here is that the sheer volume of media scrutiny would appear to have been allowed to cost policy on crisis centres (and perhaps other things).

I do disagree that Boris is showing commitment though. ‘He merely costed them against proposed cuts.’ That is the point – proposals. It would appear that proposals do not per se translate into commitment.

Interesting thread though and a good article.

“I read into that that the savings that Johnson felt could be made are not there – at least in part.”

In other words, he realised that he rather liked having dozens of spin doctors and marketing propagandists at his beck and call.

“A promise like this is not a commitment to a cause.”

I would say it is a committment to a cause. Boris did not say that if he couldn’t cut his spin team, then the new rape crisis centres would not be funded. He merely costed them against proposed cuts.

“Why are these centres worth funding from savings but not, it would seem, tax? Secondly, if there an oversupply of media that requires a press office so big it is wasteful? If so, media scrutiny on such a scale surely is carrying too high a cost?”

Good points.

Heh Sunny.

Thanks Refresh.

Katy Newton:

“But wait… surely this isn’t the first time we’ve heard a political party complaining that the financial management of the previous incumbents left them unable to fulfil their manifesto pledges? Which party was that again? Oh, right, it’s the Labour Government, which has been running that argument since 1997!”

I’m not sure I see the link. Just because the Labour government have no morals and break their word daily, doesn’t mean that Boris has to.

“There are any number of things for which Boris can justifiably be criticised but increasing funding to Rape Crisis centres shouldn’t be one of them.”

The funding is still going to increase but at a much smaller rate than before. Surely that is worthy of criticism?

As for his promises….why do we still think politicians actually do what they promise they’ll do???

There’s the other point that his media operation is as big a bunch of spinners as anyone else, so it’s not surprising that the numbers didn’t add up.

I have very mixed feelings about Boris Johnson, but this is one thing that Labour supporters really have no business criticising him for. It was under Ken, the self-styled champion of women’s rights, that the number of Rape Crisis centres in London was reduced to one. Labour authorities generally have systematically cut off funding for this incredibly important source of support for rape victims over the last few years and it has been an absolute disgrace. The fact is that funding to them is going to increase, and that’s down to Boris, not to St Ken. There are any number of things for which Boris can justifiably be criticised but increasing funding to Rape Crisis centres shouldn’t be one of them.

‘(It also makes a better photo opportunity – picture Boris standing in front of a tangible building saying he has opened a rape centre)’

No self-respecting rape victim support centre (rape centre could be so easily misconstrued) would allow their buildings to be part of any photo-op. Even Boris’ buffoonery, which so easily passes for Etonesque charm, could be that persuasive.

I imagine the advertisements were simply ‘politically correct’.

Good post Rumbold.

There is much more to this story than a simple, ‘we either have centres or not,’ view.

Issues like what ‘marketing activity’ actually is and how cuts are balanced against needs of groups (not just rape victims) matter.

The worrying undertone is that Johnson seems to have made an unfunded promise that has disintegrated when put in the real world. We can argue about how fair or not that real world is but it is a sloppy approach to funding policy that has badly let down a vulnerable group.