Home Office cuts protection for victims of domestic violence

Police powers to remove violent partners for up to two weeks scrapped as the Home Office tries to cu

A scheme intended to help protect women from violent partners has been scrapped by the Home Office in its effort to cut spending, the Independent has learned.

The scheme would have given police the power to ban a violent partner from a family home for up to two weeks, buying women and other family members time to seek further advice to help remedy their situation. The Domestic Violence Protection Orders were due to be rolled out nationally next year.

A few weeks ago, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, told the Women's Aid conference that the coalition planned to "end violence against women and girls", and pledged more money for initiatives. But in a suggestion that perhaps foreshadowed the cost-cutting priority of today's announcement, she also proposed looking into using criminals' fines to pay for more rape crisis centres.

As for why the orders have been scrapped, May reportedly told charities that

. . . she had taken the decision to save money and because of worries about the legislation setting up the orders.

A spokeswoman for the Home Office revealed slightly more. Though reiterating the department's commitment to ending domestic violence, she said that "in tough economic times, we are now considering our options for delivering improved protection and value for money".

The Home Office needs to find £2.5bn of savings from its annual budget of £10bn.

The legislation creating the so-called "go orders" was originally promoted by Alan Johnson, but received cross-party support before being passed in April. Doubts were expressed in the Lords about how the banned party would be accommodated and cared for, but the bill was passed nonetheless.

With the autumn spending review just around the corner, this will most definitely not be the first time we see a minister reverse their position in order to make spending cuts.

More funding for services working to curb domestic violence was an issue on which politicians of all persuasions were able to agree. For it to be among the first to be cut is a dire sign of what is yet to come.

Caroline Crampton is assistant editor of the New Statesman. She writes a weekly podcast column.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496