Registered user login:

Walk on by?

Ben Davies

Published 23 August 2007

Going to the rescue of a stranger is dangerous. A few days ago, Ben Davies had to decide whether to try to stop a vicious assault

The assault was sudden and violent. An argument escalating in a microsecond. The young man with gold ear studs hit the woman around the head and then dragged her screaming in distress into the council estate.

Around them, people were going to work - largely unaware or keen not to get involved with a vicious assault that was blatantly taking place on the hill in north London. Cars drove on, a few pedestrians stopped, not sure how to respond.

Along with the cyclist in front of me, I slithered to a halt and - not quite believing what we had seen - we tentatively went back to the entrance of the estate where the man briefly detached himself from what was clearly a domestic argument.

"Stop looking you motherfuckers or I'm going to fuck you both up as well," he screamed. It sounded like a bad American movie. We backed off. Two middle-class guys in their thirties on their way into work, not at all keen to intervene in what had now subsided back into an argument. A very aggressive argument.

In truth, I was scared. I took a couple of steps down the hill to call the police, while my companion kept an eye on the situation from behind a hedge. We were joined by a young doctor from the hospital across the road who had witnessed more of the initial attack - the girl being hit across the head. He said he had recently finished a stint in A&E where he had been horrified at some of the injuries resulting from domestic disputes. We stood and waited for the police.

Silent witness

If you have passed the Whittington Estate in north London, even in the middle of the day, it is possible you will have felt an urge to walk swiftly past. To the outsider its unusual construction, dating from the 1970s, gives the impression of a concrete muggers' paradise, with its walkways and underground car park.

But appearances are deceptive and, in fact, this is by no means the frontline between what the tabloids call anarchy and the "law-abiding society". Certainly there is crime, but it is relatively low level compared with some other parts of the London Borough of Camden.

I cycle past the hospital and estate twice daily on my way to and from the New Statesman's offices in Victoria. That day, I resumed my journey into work, agonising that I hadn't intervened in a more immediate way; if you witness an assault and don't intervene, the injuries that can be inflicted in seconds, let alone the five or ten minutes while you wait for the police, can be fatal.

Then again, you might think of Evren Anil, fatally wounded on 5 August in south London after complaining to two youths who chucked a half-eaten chocolate bar into his sister's car. Or Garry Newlove, who died on 12 August in Warrington after being beaten up when he complained about vandalism to his car. And all the others. Intervening can be fatal, too.

But here is the worry we should all have. If a man feels he can hit a woman at 8.15 on a summer's morning in the middle of a street where there are plenty of witnesses, then he clearly feels no one is going to do anything to stop him. And if he feels that, then we really have gone wrong in this country.

In 2003, an ICM poll carried out for the BBC questioned 1,020 adults in short- and long-term relationships about their attitudes to violence and abuse. Asked what they would do if they saw somebody kicking or mistreating their dog, 78 per cent said they would intervene or call the RSPCA or the police. When it came to witnessing somebody kicking or mistreating a partner, only 53 per cent said they would intervene or call the police.

In my case, when I stopped and started going back up the hill to the incident, I was definitely encouraged in my decision when I was joined by the other cyclist. Other people did stop but they were mostly elderly or perhaps lived on the estate and were afraid of the repercussions.

Later, I talked to a senior police officer about the whole issue of intervening.

"Incidents like the one you witnessed are disturbing - and things like this [sudden and very public violence] are occurring with increasing frequency in urban areas," said the officer, before adding that the right thing to do was to step back and wait for the police. He went on to tell me that, as far as domestic violence in particular is concerned, Metropolitan Police policy has improved substantially over the past few years.

According to the Met press office, each of the 32 London boroughs has a dedicated Community Safety Unit.

"We no longer need a statement from the victim to charge a suspect if there is evidence of domestic violence taking place," said a Metropolitan Police spokesman. "Our objectives are to stop the violence while protecting victims and their children, and to hold perpetrators accountable through the criminal justice system."

The Greater London Domestic Violence Project (GLDVP) works with key agencies across the capital to develop city-wide policies and to raise awareness. The organisation's director, Davina James-Hanman, says that people who witness domestic violence are best advised to contact the police: "Often, when you intervene she [the victim] will defend him because she is trying to get safely through the next hour."

James-Hanman believes the level of intervention on the part of official agencies is higher now than it has ever been. But that does not solve the dilemma for the individual witness of sudden violence. There are occasions, too many occasions, when the authorities are simply not on hand.

Labour MP Keith Vaz, who chairs the home affairs select committee, charged with examining public policy on such matters, said tragedies such as the case of Garry Newlove come about because of the "final straw syndrome" - where people act because, for whatever reason, the police aren't around.

"What is shocking to people is the lack of proportionality - for example, a row over a sweet wrapper leading to a death," he said.

"The most worrying aspects are the public displays of violence; the perpetrators believe they will get away with it because of people's reluctance to intervene in a private matter and because of the fear of reprisal. We need citizens to act in a collective way - if five people had intervened in your case, the perpetrator may have been less willing to continue."

Timely intervention

Vaz, whose committee has announced an inquiry into domestic violence, says the government has a duty in all this to explain what a good citizen can do. "We need to focus the minds of the police because people are increasingly not reporting domestic violence," he adds.

I had only a dim awareness of the scale of domestic violence before I witnessed a young man explode into a violent rage on his girlfriend in the middle of the London rush-hour, an experience that made me pick up the phone to learn more.

People who are violent to their partner are more likely to be violent to their children. A failure to intervene or report such crimes is costing lives. If you ring up the Home Office and ask for statistics about domestic violence, you will be told it accounts for 15 per cent of all violent incidents and that around two women are likely to be killed by a partner each week. A shocking figure is the link between pregnancy and domestic violence, 30 per cent of which starts when a woman is expecting a child.

That concurs with an observation from James-Hanman: "Most calls to the police about domestic violence occur between 4pm and 8pm," she said. "Abusers like to be the centre of attention and this is the time when women are focusing on homework, getting dinner and so on."

As I waited with the doctor and the other cyclist for the police to arrive, it was deeply frustrating knowing every second that passed probably meant the perpetrator was more likely to get away with his crime. It would be nice to think our tiny intervention gave him pause for thought, time to cool down a little. Perhaps not walking on by meant this violent young man became aware of being watched.

When, ten minutes later, two officers arrived in a van and, having asked for descriptions, set off in pursuit, the man and his victim had disappeared out of our view and into the estate. A second police vehicle arrived and told us we could go as they already had our phone numbers. We shouldn't worry, they'd sort it out.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

12 comments from readers

Robert Powell
23 August 2007 at 14:14

God you hand-wringing liberals make me sick!

reka_i
23 August 2007 at 14:37

Hand-wringing? The article stated that around two women are likely to be killed by their partners every week, and on average people are more likely to intervene in the abuse of a dog. Failure to be moved by this would be a sign of the deepest desensitization and even inhumanity, because it is not (or should not be) normal or acceptable. If this is seen as "liberal hand-wringing" then we really are in trouble.

Cybertiger
23 August 2007 at 16:14

"God you hand-wringing liberals make me sick!"

And it's right-winging, hand-shaking Torys who really frighten me - and what are they doing walking by on the other side at the NewStatesman?

Robert Powell
23 August 2007 at 16:50

It is not about the women being killed - which I am against - but the hand-wringing liberal hovering on the edge of the council estate gutlessly waiting for the police!

Egor
23 August 2007 at 18:08

I must say that although exactly the same problem exists in Russia I cannot understand why in this particular case 2 and then 3 middle-age and probably more or less sporty men just stood and waited for the police... I could understand hesitation if there would have been several attackers or an attacker would have been armed - let's be realistic but this does not seem to be the case...

Last year a friend of mine who served in the most bloody 1995-96 as a paratrooper in Chechnya and since that time has very special relations with dignity and fear charged alone at 4 quite heavy-weighted rapists one of which was armed with a knife - was injured and - saved the life of a woman.

This is THE standard.

Carl Jones
24 August 2007 at 11:56

The law and police aren`t about "right and wrong". If you got stuck in to help someone and fuzz arrived, they`d more than likely come down harder on you than the criminal.

The idea that you and the victim could form a contract outside the law and without police supervision just won`t be tollerated by the elite.

Remember the star witness at the Menezes assassination? He spoke to the media stating 8/9 shots were fired....so horrified that a member of the public would have the gaul to come forward and give an accurate account of a state sanctioned execution, the police countered with their own false account and stated that 5 shots had been fired....it later transpired that the witness was nearer the final total of shots fired...

...of course, I`m off the subject, but I will add that its not clear that Menezes died in Stockwell tube station and its not clear that Menezes was shot by SO19 Met police officers...if we remember, it was a soldier on the ground at a house in Tulse Hill, he stepped around the corner for a call of nature...one soldier, or were many soldiers/SAS?

The criminals don`t worry about the public, because they know the public are just as scared of the police/courts. If the public were to cut the police/law out of the equation and act together and lets say some upstanding members of the community were to grab a thug and for example kill him, and upstandng members of the public who witnessed this event failed to cooperate with the investigation into the thugs death....once this message reaches the street, the criminals will know that everyone will stick together and do them in. The whole balance of power changes...the police are sitting in the station drinking tea, the courts are quiet, the prisons are emptying and Mr Thug knows that if he should step out of line he`s as good as dead.

Now don`t get me wrong, I don`t favour this senario, but things are now so bad that the downside of the above senario is fading into the distance.

Having said all of the above, I happen to believe that our masters want the UK to experience a period of violent and shocking crime...this to allow greater state big brother intrusion into our lives. I live in London and I know the police could arrest 50 local to me drug dealers, yet they have no interest. The police/courts are in "catchup" mode and this is by design.

Tom Paine
24 August 2007 at 18:34

Isn't the issue here that it's impossible to get involved because there's no predicting the outcome. The reason for this - apart from social disintegration - is that the police is utterly unreformed. No other public service would be allowed to get away with such utterly dreadful results! Å waiting time of 10 minutes when a woman is being attacked is disgraceful! Criminals know that on the vast majority of occasions they will simply get away with it. So if this cowardly lunatic had stabbed Ben Davies or one of the others, would there have been any comeback any more than there was for the unfortunate girlfriend? The police in general - and the Met in particular - are a shower.

paul kellogg
24 August 2007 at 23:37

Disturbing story. It reminds me of a similar story here in New York City. But in that case, someone intervened and suffered a broken kneecap for his trouble.

Now he will need to wait almost 3 months before he walks again, and the criminal will be tried for merely a low-level assault.

gnuneo
26 August 2007 at 16:38

as a society we watch and see violence on our TV screens, we can freely watch unbelievable numbers of murders in a film, but not two consenting adults having sex. We can get 'gangsta rap' from the US, with its corporate message that 'strength rules'. Every day we can see on the news carnage that our own leaders have inspired and created for their own immoral ends, and newspapers glorifying in state sanctioned murder, talk radio that 'discusses' such matters with the bias that more violence is required to 'end' the violence.

when our society worship such naked power, is it surprising the less-developed amongst us responds to it?

and these abused women - why is it that women cannot receive benefits as well, but that a couple receive a more limited benefit to them both? Family values? The family values that force women to stay with violent abusers because they do not have independent income is hardly 'family values' worth the name.

there is partner violence in scandinavia as well, but they have cut it down tremendously by:

using a pedagogic system in schools that does not use violence, whether physical (as some imbeciles wish to bring back), or psychological - the kids are part of the schools, and have their voices heard, leading to less feelings of exclusion and helplessness in later life.

in the workplace, people are again vastly more empowered, with much less of a class divide, and much more inclusive systems such as daily meetings where company policy and decisions are discussed, again leading to less feelings of helplessness.

for those on benefits, the State pays enough that all can have a decent life, not the absolute minimum that can be gotten away with before the chattering classes feel upset - not that they would ever go near the ghetto estates to grasp the depth of poverty in them, but you know - some piece in the guardian might spark some outrage.

and it is far less orientated toward 'family values' BS, regarding two people who decide to come together as two individuals who have come together, making it easier for abused women to leave, and start their own lives again.

the prisons are strongly orientated toward rehabilitation, instead of training and churning out ever more violent criminals, who have even less chance of getting a career than before they went in.

what does all this add up to? It adds up to the main population do not feel as excluded from society, not as helpless, and thus much less likely to turn to violence as a way of dealing with problems, and this ensures that main society will NOT turn away when they see problems on the street, and that such violence is absolutely NOT tolerated in scandinavian society.

thankfully however, *our* govt has wisely decided to join in foreign wars to boost global terrorism, build new aircraft carriers to start a new cold war with russia and china, and has decided to make everyone carry biometric ID cards, to deal with the problems in our society.

lucky us, to have such wise and clever leaders.

makes me want to wave our flag around, if only i could work out which it is - the Union, the George, or the Stars and Stripes.

seeker6079
29 August 2007 at 18:16

I can't speak for the English police, but I have seen a bit of how this operates in Canada. Defence counsel of my acquaintance are unanimous in their belief in a police attitude that can best be described as "shop steward": it is up to the public to be victims and witnesses and criminals, and the police to stop or investigate crime. If the public moves to the "stop" side of the fence then the police are likely to treat them as criminals.

Let us assume that the writer of this article had jumped to the defence of this woman, and, in a desperate struggle, bashed the attacker so badly that he was killed or hospitalized. The fact that he was in the process of brutalizing and perhaps killing the woman wouldn't matter a tinker's damn to the coppers: they would charge him and the prosecution would try and convict him. I know enough about how police operate to worry about that, were I faced with the same dilemma as Ben Davies. Perhaps this statement of his can be re-written to express the larger, more appalling fact: "But here is the worry we should all have. If a man feels he can't stop a man hitting a woman at 8.15 on a summer's morning in the middle of a street because he fears being charged as if he were a criminal , then we really have gone wrong in this country."

DCarins
04 September 2007 at 12:06

Encouraging vigilante interventing is dangerous and irresponsible. It's not hand-wringing and it's not cowardice that means we shouldn't intervene: as an ancient Chinese saying goes "China will change you before you can change China".

The dogs and scum who are sourging our streets are sub-human - they do not respond to normal standards of respect, decency or morality - trying to intervene and reason with them is futile, as they are animals.

The problem is social, not individual. Whether or not "people will intervene" is moot. The motives and causes of the scumbags' behaviour in the first place, and for them to feel no remorse nor inhibitions - those are what need to be tackled, not the individual incidents.

Even now I walk around my town and I can see countless film adverts of men brandishing guns and glorifying violence. I hear young men drive past in their cars listening to their bad ass music gloryfiying violence and celebrating misogyny. I turn the mainstream radio on and listen to men joke about women being inferior as if it's completely acceptable to hold those views. Everywhere I turn I'm faced with the "customer culture" where authority is turned on its head and where money, and only money talks. If you haven't got money then you're useless - so of course it makes sense to gain that money illicitly, pretend you have the money, or simply to bully the respect out of people by wearing a hood and intimidating people.

The cumulative effects of this base, moronic and infantile culture are probably what drives the scumbags to behave as they do. The risk that one or two do-gooder would intervene and "stop them" (stop what? and when? Won't they just wait for another occasion when there are no do gooders around?!) will not change a thing.

Dodgy
05 September 2007 at 07:35

The comments here are deeply interesting - they shine a powerful light on the difference between right and left.

Right wing thinking stresses the individual, while left wing thinking stresses collective response. This is what Thatcher meant when she said that there was no such thing as society. And the implications are as clear as day with an incident such as this.

The liberal inteligensia commenting here suggest standing by and seting up a committee. The only stories of response describe a New York American and a paratrooper from Chechnya - both unlikely to vote for Labour!

Some of the responses complain that a defender may get assaulted himself, or may then get prosecuted by the police. Can't you see that this is not the issue? Right-wing thinking stresses individual responsibility and ultimate standards of right and wrong. In this case what was happening to the woman was wrong - not the result of disempowerment in the school system or a government by the elite, but WRONG. All the bystanders should have gone individually to her defence. But the shame of the situation was that she only had New Statesman readers to protect her.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Ben Davies

Ben Davies trained as a journalist after taking most of the 1990s off. Prior to joining the New Statesman he spent five years working as a politics reporter for the BBC News website. He lives in North London.

Read More

Vote!

Should Darling have been bolder with the 45% tax rate?