I WRITE in response to Stuart Waiton’s column (“Is domestic violence campaign a knee jerk reaction?”, The Herald, April 14). As someone who has spent her career working with survivors of domestic abuse, I was outraged that a national newspaper would give Mr Waiton space to write such dangerous words.
The consistent referral to “a domestic abuse helpline” as if this is insignificant is misleading to the reader. The helpline he refers to is the only national 24/7 helpline; one which I myself referred hundreds of service users to. If Mr Waiton had bothered to do any research into the matter, he would know that practically all domestic abuse support services have had an increase in referrals.
He says that domestic abuse cannot be on the rise, as the police have not seen an increase in calls. As someone who has worked closely with survivors they are unlikely to do this, it takes a lot for them to trust the police, and if they do make the call themselves, it is usually for immediate safety planning, not because they want the police to come – it becomes their only option.
Now also bear in mind that we are in the middle of a pandemic. Survivors of domestic abuse were already being controlled, watched and monitored. Now their abuser is with them 24/7. If they do have access to a phone, I would suggest they would rather call a support line, than the police – some may not even know that it’s okay to call the police due to social distancing. In fact, a podcast by SafeLives had ACC Duncan Sloan speaking to them recently, and he reported domestic incident calls have decreased in Scotland. This is because domestic abuse, which is normally hidden, is even more so now. A survivor will be lucky if the neighbour hears something, however you can’t hear coercive control (there is your “hidden crimewave”).
Mr Waiton seems to be arguing there should be an “opposition” to the Government's response to domestic abuse. I find it utterly appalling to even suggest there may be another side to this response. If an abuser reads this article and takes note of that, they will feel they are justified in the abuse towards their partner.
There is no “new definition” of domestic abuse; the official and legal definitions have changed to include what has long known to be domestic abuse; by this I mean coercive control, emotional and psychological abuse. Again, if Mr Waiton had researched this piece, he would have known that workers like me have been using the CAADA-DASH RIC (Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Honour-Based Violence Risk Identification Checklist) for years, which has always included coercively controlling risk identifiers.
Domestic abuse is not an “incident” or a “one-off”, domestic abuse happened before this pandemic. What lockdown has created is an environment where the tactics of the abusers will become increasingly high risk, their behaviours will likely escalate and there is the belief of the survivor that there is no escape.
Laurie Lee Whitton, Motherwell.
STUART Waiton's article is dangerous, poorly written and researched, and an absolute disgrace to your paper’s good name. How can you defend publishing this? Perhaps for outrage clicks? If that is your motive, shame on you. Publishing this is a dereliction of your duty to the public.
Please, tell me, how did he get the gig? Surely your money could be better spent? So many qualified journalists struggle to get work but he can hop aboard a national newspaper not despite, but because of, his hateful views? Why?
I hope this gets taken further and that Stuart Waiton is sacked, and his wage given to a proper journalist with qualifications, integrity, and a moral compass.
Your editorial team should be thoroughly ashamed. Part of me hopes you all get the sack too.
Bram Gieben, Dumbarton.
* Stuart Waiton will respond to the reaction to his column tomorrow
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel