Sunny Hundal website



  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Battered women’s shelter to shut for not catering to men


    by Rumbold
    3rd August, 2009 at 10:37 am    

    A women’s shelter in Weymouth, which can house six families (cost: £82,780), is to close next year after the local councils which fund it decided to instead spend the money on home care for victims. The reasons given were that more families could then stay in their homes, and that the shelter failed to cater for male victims of domestic violence. Both factors are important. Some families are better off staying at home, with help available, while there are male victims of domestic violence. There are still two shelters left in Dorset.

    Yet having a women-only refuge is vital too. Some women (and their families) cannot stay at home (either because they have been forced to leave or are not safe there), and so need somewhere to live. Male victims of domestic violence are in the same situation as female ones, but because some of these women have been so traumatised, it is not a good idea for them to be living side by side with men at this stage (and vice versa).

    I doubt that the councils involved in the project are completely lean, so I am sure that the money needed to provide home care and a refuge can be found, if the will is there.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Sex equality






    17 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. pickles

      New blog post: Battered women’s shelter to shut for not catering to men http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5395




    1. Rumbold — on 3rd August, 2009 at 12:04 pm  

      Ali:

      You are not being insensitive, it is just that a lot of these women had fled very abusive relationships, so at the point when they come to a shelter, many of them are naturally distrustful of men. The trick is to give them a ‘safe space’ in a women-only environment so that they can return to the wider world and interact with men without a problem.

    2. Leon — on 3rd August, 2009 at 12:23 pm  

      Not sure why them living in the same building as men is such an issue.

      Jesus…*shakes head in disbelief*

    3. billaricaydickey — on 3rd August, 2009 at 4:22 pm  

      Sunny boy,

      You are censoring me and I will not fucking have it, as my old Sgt Major used to say. When I post you will put it up even if I speak of lesbians running rape cetres who, themselves, raped heterosexual women.

    4. anobody — on 3rd August, 2009 at 4:28 pm  

      Maybe the Conservative Leader of Dorset wants to maintain the great British tradition of wife beating, and so has withdrawn funding? We hear the Tories banging on about the breakdown of traditional family values.

    5. Sunny — on 3rd August, 2009 at 4:39 pm  

      You are censoring me and I will not fucking have it, as my old Sgt Major used to say.

      Does it look like I care what you will or won’t have Bill? You’re welcome to bugger off somewhere else if you don’t like it.

      I’m sick of twats like you posting libellous comments on my blog while hiding behind a pseudonym. I know. Why not post under your real name and write your address if you’re going to personally slag off other people?

      Then I’ll allow your comments through. Until then, shut the fuck up like a good boy.

    6. Kulvinder — on 3rd August, 2009 at 5:03 pm  

      Its difficult to comment on this without knowing exactly what the argument for closing the home was (as with everything the press distort a lot); but if true its, odd, to say the least that ‘home care’ presumably in the home the abuse took place and where the abuser potentially lives is seen as preferable to housing the woman/children somewhere else.

    7. Edna Welthorpe — on 3rd August, 2009 at 5:10 pm  

      Sunny?

      You kidding?

      If a poster sez his/her/its own name & gives a real address then you - Sunny - will permit us to tell the real truth with real names?

      Actually, what B-C-D said was true, as I suspect you also know but as to whether it broke any law or even came close we can leave to the Messdeck Lawyers here.

      In censoring B-C-D you also ripped my piece out which actually wuz NOT any sort of libel or owt like libel!

    8. Arif — on 3rd August, 2009 at 10:50 pm  

      I agree with Kulvinder - I’d need more context to understand this.

      What exactly would I be offered if I were being abused at home? How could home based support possibly feel more secure and worthwhile than a refuge where I am away from the abuser and among people who understand my situation, with professionals also on hand?

      Maybe the local authority have found some great strategy - surely it must be more than someone coming and visiting your house, offering therapy and keeping the situation under monitoring. But what?

      In terms of not having male shelters - the obvious answer is to build them, rather than tear down women’s refuges - how is that going to make an abused man any safer?

      I think there must be something more to the story because the way it is being presented seems nonsensical - perhaps the centre was riddled with corruption, or they just had to cut the Council budget to fulfil an election promise - there must be some reason that makes sense!

    9. Rumbold — on 4th August, 2009 at 5:50 pm  

      Arif:

      Perhaps there is another side to the story- but spending cuts aren’t always logical. Often they fall on the most vulnerable in society, because they are the ones with the weakest voice.

    10. wow strategy — on 7th September, 2009 at 4:37 pm  

      This seems quite sick in my view. Those shelter are catering to women as a have so they can go through a healing process.

      Men should get their own help. Yes there is already plenty of help for women out there and men need ours too because women are changing. But women shelters should not be closed imho.

      This is budget cuts masquerading as PCness if you ask me.

    11. douglas clark — on 7th September, 2009 at 4:42 pm  

      Rumbold @ 9,

      What is never, ever, cut is the bureaucracy that determines spending cuts. Now that is a fat cat!

    12. bananabrain — on 7th September, 2009 at 5:01 pm  

      now *here* is where i’d like to know the council’s branding budget and if the business unit that deals with this operational function has its own branding or not.

      douglas: in order to administer bureaucratic efficiency measures, you need efficient bureaucrats. this is known as “humphrey’s law” or “civil service catch-22″ if you prefer. turkeys don’t vote for christmas, nor do people put themselves out of work during a recession.

      b’shalom

      bananabrain

    13. douglas clark — on 7th September, 2009 at 5:38 pm  

      bananabrain,

      Quite….

      Right.

      As an escapee from that sort of bureaucratic bullshit, I can but agree.

      What say you we take over a council somewhere and just favour front line services and only have the back room boys when it is absolutely necessary?

      I’d assume we could reduce that to about single figures. I have never seen why a Local Authority needs a PR Department, for instance. Nor do I see why I am sent, gratis, the Glaswegian every so often. Seems to me to just be propoganda.

      But what the hell do I know?

    14. douglas clark — on 7th September, 2009 at 5:52 pm  

      Oops!

      Apparently it isn’t called the Glaswegian. It’s called Glasgow Magazine or summat. And it’s won awards, who’d have thought propoganda could win awards?

    15. Tom — on 7th September, 2009 at 6:07 pm  

      Totally agree with this post.

      I’m trying to raise more awareness of domestic abuse of men, which I do find is widely seen as acceptable, but closing down any kind of existing abuse support to make a point is just throwing the toys out of the pram.

    16. Rumbold — on 7th September, 2009 at 8:43 pm  

      This is why you need strong politicans like Mrs. Thatcher. No one else will ever be able to impose cuts.

      Tom:

      You are fighting for an admirable cause, and I hope that more people will come to realise that all domestic violence is wrong.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.