Domestic Abuse is wrong - whatever form it takes

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month so I thought it might be a good opportunity to dispel a few myths.

Lets start with what the government defines as domestic abuse:

“Any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality”

Already we’ve ruled out that it is only working class, white men who are the perpetrators.  The last few years has seen a significant rise in men reporting incidents of domestic abuse.  Also, most people have the presumptions that the abuse occurs in a relationship with a partner, but often it can be a parent or sibling who is the abuser.  I guess what I am trying to get at is that domestic abuse is an issue for anybody and everybody who has been, is currently or ever likely to be in a relationship of any kind…with anyone!

Now we’ve got that out of the way, let’s turn our attentions to the reasons behind why the abuse occurs.  Again, there is a tendency to believe the old cliché about abuse occurring due to alcohol or drugs.  Some other favourites are mental health issues or learning disabilities.  I am not going to deny that these factors can lead to violent and abusive behaviour but I would ask one question to anybody believing these excuses: Why is that person not indiscriminately abusive to whoever they come into contact with?  If a man goes to the pub, has a few pints, walks home and then beats up his wife how can that be alcohol induced?  Presumably there were plenty of people at the pub and/or on the way home to take out their ‘aggression’ on?!  If somebody has a mental health issue which means that they occasionally become violent, why would they save that abuse for the person they were living with?  Another popular excuse is ‘anger’.  Many people who have perpetrated domestic abuse have claimed to have anger management issues and consequentially been sent on courses only to complete them and continue the abuse.  The reason I bring up anger as a myth is because I think it is actually the furthest from the truth.  Angry, violent outbursts are just that; outbursts.  How can somebody become angry in a supermarket because their partner bought the wrong bread then save it until 2 hours later when they get home and are alone?  It doesn’t make sense and reason that it doesn’t make sense is because it simply is not true. The reason that people perpetrate domestic abuse is to have power and control.

I would advise anybody who is considering having any contact with another human being to read Pat Craven’s book ‘Living With The Dominator‘.  In it she draws on her extensive experience of working with violent men during her time as a probation officer to split the ‘Dominator’ into having 8 personas.  These personas describe the varying types of abuse - financial, sexual, emotional, physical, isolation - and what tactics the dominator will use to break people down so that they have control over them.  This could be anything from isolating people from their friends by monopolising their time to physically locking them in the house or hiding their shoes.  It could be agreeing to give a person money for housekeeping or clothes for the children in exchange for sexual favours.  It could be beating a person senseless and then cuddling them and tending to their injuries in such a sweet and sensitive way that the vicitm not only believes that the abuser has returned to their 'real self' but now has a totally warped perception of what 'love' is.  This results in a victim devoid of self esteem, confidence, friends, family, self belief, money and freedom thus giving all power to the perpetrator.  The very opposite of this being an emotional and spontaneous action, such as anger, the dominator is calculating and plans every move like a sick game of chess.

Given all this, it might seem easier to understand why people stay with abusive partners. Often, people who do try to leave have to return due to lack of planning and that gives the perpetrator even more dominance.  Quite often, victims don''t even realise they are being abused.  Emotional abuse is very subtle but can leave the most lasting scars.  After all 'sticks and stones'...  You may think that I am being unfair to the friends and family of the victim - surely they could go to them for support? Chances are is that our abuser is a bit of a charmer. Got time for everyone and generous to a fault. Who would believe that kind of behaviour from such a lovely person….

I don't know quite how to end this.  Hopefully I have enlightened a few people.  All I know is (as cheesy as it sounds) is that domestic abuse won't end with ignorance of it.

I am Spa*ticus

What is it about a song that makes it so offensive it is banned by a major broadcasting company such as the BBC!  In 1977 the lyrics and artwork of the Sex Pistols ‘God Save the Queen’ was enough to do it, and yet it reached number 1 in the UK chart; a song which, now, would not be out of place on Steve Wright’s ‘Non-Stop Oldies’.  Fast forward 4 years to 1981 ‘International Year of Disabled Persons’ and Ian Dury’s, now infamous, song ‘Spasticus Autisticus’.  The BBC deemed it offensive to polite sensibilities and denied it airplay.  Why?  Can we assume the use of the ‘spastic’ may have something to do with it?  A medical term used to describe a sufferer of Cerebal Palsy which, thanks to a Blue Peter appeal, became a playground taunt and soon seeped into mainstream use.  Despite attempts in the mid 80’s to reclaim the term, The Spastics Society had to change its name to Scope in 1994.  In 2003 a national survey found that it was the 2^nd most offensive term in the UK related to disability.  It is also an interesting coincidence that 1981 was the year the Dr. Lorna Wing published a paper about Hans Asperger and his study of children who displayed unusual behaviour.  It wasn’t until 1994 that Asperger Syndrome was officially recognised as an Autistic Spectrum Disorder.

Anyway, I digress.  Why, at a time when the word was still in common usage as a legitimate medical term and only just establishing itself as derogatory, was a song which used a deviated form of it banned?  The cynical part of me is inclined to believe that the sensitive middle classes had their egos severely bashed by such a battle cry of a song.  Anyone familiar with Ian Dury’s work will know what a wordsmith he was, and this song is years ahead of it’s time asking not for the charity and pity of people in ‘Normal Land’ but for equality and understanding. 

By 1981, the western world had seen massive movements for equal rights for women and black people.  Perhaps the United Nations felt that some emphasis should be put on promoting equality for disabled people.  I can’t really argue with that, but the major downfall of this is that the Civil Rights Movement and Women’s Rights movement were both instigated and lead, passionately and credibly, by the very people for whom it was imperative that positive change was made.  That is the reason for their success.  I am not saying complete success, but a marked improvement on a pretty diabolical situation in both cases.  And that brings me neatly back to the song that imbued me to write this.  The song’s refrain ‘I’m Spasticus Autistus’ was inspired by the response of the rebellious Roman gladiators in the film Spartacus who, when instructed to identify their leader, all answered ‘I am Spartacus’ to protect him.  Now, maybe I am reading too much into this, but it would seem that on this basis Mr Dury shared my view.  Spartacus may be little more than a folk hero, but the fact that his legacy is that of a struggle to lead an oppressed people to freedom, to me, shows an intellectual undertone to the blunt and graphic lyrics.  I don’t know why I was surprised by this.  The man was a genius and gained legions of fans because of his very clever use of language and turns of phrase.

Perhaps another reason for the corporate knee jerk reaction was that Dury could well have been a poster boy for the campaign if he had only played ball.  Biography time:  Ian Dury was born on 12^th May 1942 in North West London.  He contracted Polio as a child during the 1949 epidemic and was physically disabled as a result.  After attending both a school for disabled children which taught trades and self reliance and a main stream grammar school, he went on to study at the Royal College of Art under Peter Blake and then went on to teach.  A self made success story like that could have catapulted the cause into mainstream consciousness and given it the publicity needed to make effective change.  However, the particular song under discussion was written as a direct attack of the IYDP which he felt was patronising and counter productive.  Retrospectively, I think he was right.

It seems to me that the reason that this particular song sticks in our collective throats is that disability is one of the last taboos.  In a society that can now talk openly about Sex & Drugs & Rock’n’Roll, we struggle with the barriers that separate ‘us’ and ‘them’

So what does all this boil down to?  Maybe that the general public seem unphased by the constant barrage of sexist language and imagery used in the music and media industry for the sake of entertainment but are quite willing to forget about a well crafted and frank song by one of Britain’s most talented artists.  Perhaps that 20 years after the IYDP we don’t seem that much closer to achieving equality through empowerment for people with disabilities.  Apart from a few more easily accessible buildings and constantly worrying about the politically correct terminology what has really been achieved?  We live in an incredibly diverse society and yet when was the last time a disabled person was given, or felt they could take, the spotlight?

Everybody has a blog these days, right!?

Ever since I saw Jimmy Rabbitte in The Commitments interviewing himself as though he was talking to Terry Wogan, I have done the self same thing, thinking that one day people might actually give a crap about my points of view on things.  I wanted to be ready.  Well, it's unlikely that I will ever get interviewed by Terry Wogan (not unlike Jimmy) so thought I'd start a blog instead.


Privately, I have been quite scathing of blogs, bloggers more specifically, of being just another excuse to over share the finer details of peoples lives that social convention would dictate stay within the confines of a diary.  However, having recently been exposed to few well researched, interesting and funny blogs, I have changed my mind somewhat and thought I might try my hand at it.  Not least because very soon I will be embarking on an Open University course which require me to organise my thoughts, research various topics and get it all down coherently in a written format  So this is just practice...


I'm not promising I am going to be the funniest, most eloquent writer ever.  (I'm really selling myself here, I know) I just like the idea that I can hone some of those pub based arguments where I was too drunk to form proper sentences never mind make well formed reasoned arguments.  It's my chance to put out there the things that go through my mind when I see something funny, annoying, interesting etc and not be limited to a 140 characters in which to do it. Enjoy.