Domestic violence: how to help without doing harm

Domestic violence is the abuse of power over one person by another. Employers can use their power to support people in need of help, says Anne Payne.

Every minute in the UK, the police receive a call from the public for assistance for domestic violence, with two women killed by their partner or a former partner every week. Even so, the vast majority of domestic violence incidents go unreported with a staggering one in four women and one in six men affected by domestic violence during their adult lives.
 
The sheer scale of the problem is such that an organisation employing just 1,000 people will have a couple of hundred employees affected at some point in their lives and a few dozen living with domestic violence at the current time. Add to that the fact that over half of the victims of domestic violence will call in sick at least three times a month and it’s no wonder that the problem is estimated to cost the UK economy well over £1.9bn a year in lost wages, productivity, absence and long term illness.
 
Indeed, research shows that domestic violence is surprisingly prevalent, if hidden, at work with 75 per cent of victims subjected to abusive calls, emails or texts during the working day.
 
Good on the Department of Health then for joining forces with the Corporate Alliance Against Domestic Violence (CAADV) to launch a pledge last month for any organisation wanting to help and support staff facing domestic violence to sign. Organisations ranging from British Airways to HMRC have already signed up and the hope is that by signing the pledge and promising to help and provide appropriate support for any victims who come forward, employers can help to take away some of the stigma associated with domestic violence and provide a safe and sensitive response to those brave enough to seek help. Not to mention reduce the £1,220,247,000 cost to the NHS of treating the physical health of the victims of domestic violence, including hospital, GP, ambulance and prescriptions.
 
Either way, it’s an incredibly brave thing for someone to admit to their employer that they’re being beaten or worse at home and that, yes, it probably is affecting their performance at work. By allowing victims to come forward and creating a safe place for them to admit they need help employers have an incredibly important role to play. Domestic violence is the abuse of power over one person by another. That employers can use their power to support people in need of help is a wonderful thing. On a practical level employers can allow people to do safety planning with the police during working hours, something that simply wouldn’t be possible outside of work, or adjust their hours or location to avoid stalking. On a culture level, by signing the pledge we can all stop pretending the problem doesn’t exist. It does and if you work in an organisation employing more than ten people the chances are one of them will be affected by domestic violence at some point, if they aren’t already.
 
At the same time, employers need to be careful not to educate their workforce so much that they can recognise when someone is affected but so little that they put victims at risk by offering inappropriate advice, such as "why don’t you just leave them" when to leave without first putting an appropriate safety plan in place could endanger their life.
 
The guidelines for employers and employees created in association with the pledge stress the importance of directing victims towards specialist advice from trained advisors who can assess the victim’s risk and offer confidential advice. As one such advisor, the complexity of each individual case never ceases to amaze me.


Aside from the emotional ties that often remain between a victim and their partner or the financial constraints that might be limiting their ability to leave and start a new home, things can get incredibly complicated when children are involved. Victims want and need to understand what rights of access they or an abusive partner will have once a split is initiated. Not least because various studies of the children of abused parents have found a significant proportion of the children ordered by the courts to have contact with an estranged parent have been abused, physically assaulted, involved in abduction attempts or neglected during contact visits.
 
All of which means that in addition to encouraging employers to sign the pledge, employees who want to "help" a colleague suffering domestic violence must also be educated to refrain from offering their own advice and instead encouraged to direct victims towards appropriate support, be this their GP, one of the free domestic violence helplines or an Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) that can provide access to the expert emotional, practical, financial and legal support needed to help the victim move forward, from as little as a few pounds  per employee a year.

Anne Payne is co-founder of the psychological health consultancy, The Validium Group

A woman walks past a block of flats in London. Photo: Getty
Getty
Show Hide image

What I learnt when my wife and I went to Brexit: the Musical

This week in the media, from laughing as the world order crumbles to what Tristram Hunt got wrong – and Leicester’s big fall.

As my wife and I watched Brexit: the Musical, performed in a tiny theatre above a pub in London’s Little Venice, I thought of the American novelist Lionel Shriver’s comment on Donald Trump’s inauguration: “A sense of humour is going to get us through better than indignation.” It is an entertaining, engaging and amusing show, which makes the point that none of the main actors in the Brexit drama – whether supporters of Leave or Remain – achieved quite what they had intended. The biggest laugh went to the actor playing Boris Johnson (James Sanderson), the wannabe Tory leader who blew his chance. The mere appearance of an overweight man of dishevelled appearance with a mop of blond hair is enough to have the audience rolling in the aisles.

The lesson we should take from Brexit and from Trump’s election is that politicians of all shades, including those who claim to be non-political insurgents, have zero control of events, whether we are talking about immigration, economic growth or the Middle East. We need to tweak Yeats’s lines: the best may lack all conviction but the worst are full not so much of passionate intensity – who knows what Trump or Johnson really believe? – as bumbling incompetence. The sun will still rise in the morning (as
Barack Obama observed when Trump’s win became evident), and multi­national capital will still rule the world. Meanwhile, we may as well enjoy the show.

 

Danger of Donald

Nevertheless, we shouldn’t deny the risks of having incompetents in charge. The biggest concerns Trump’s geopolitical strategy, or rather his lack of one. Great power relations since 1945 have been based on mutual understanding of what each country wants to achieve, of its red lines and national ambitions. The scariest moments come when one leader miscalculates how another will react. Of all figures in recent history, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, with his flamboyant manner and erratic temperament, was probably the most similar to Trump. In 1962, he thought President Kennedy, inexperienced and idealistic, would tolerate Soviet missiles in Cuba. He was wrong and the world only narrowly avoided nuclear war.

How would Trump respond to a Russian invasion of the Baltic states? Will he recognise Taiwan as an independent country? Will he scrap Obama’s deal with Iran and support a pre-emptive strike against its nuclear ambitions? Nobody knows, probably not even Trump. He seems to think that keeping your options open and your adversaries guessing leads to “great deals”. That may work in business, in which the worst that can happen is that one of your companies goes bankrupt – an outcome of which Americans take a relaxed view. In international relations, the stakes are higher.

 

Right job, wrong time

I rather like Tristram Hunt, who started contributing to the New Statesman during my editorship. He may be the son of a life peer and a protégé of Peter Mandelson, but he is an all-too-rare example of a politician with a hinterland, having written a biography of Engels and a study of the English Civil War and presented successful TV documentaries. In a parallel universe, he could have made an inspirational Labour leader,
a more thoughtful and trustworthy version of Tony Blair.

No doubt, having resigned his Stoke-on-Trent Central seat, he will make a success of his new job as director of the Victoria and Albert Museum. If nothing else, he will learn a little about the arts of management and leadership. But isn’t this the wrong way round? Wouldn’t it be better if people first ran museums or other cultural and public institutions and then carried such experience into parliament and government?

 

Pointless palace

When the Palace of Westminster was largely destroyed by fire in 1834, thousands gathered to enjoy the spectacle. Thomas Carlyle noted that the crowd “whew’d and whistled when the breeze came as if to encourage it” and that “a man sorry I did not anywhere see”.

Now, with MPs reportedly refusing to move out to allow vital renovation work from 2023, we can expect a repeat performance. Given the unpopularity of politicians, public enthusiasm may be even greater than it was two centuries ago. Yet what is going through MPs’ minds is anyone’s guess. Since Theresa May refuses them a vote on Brexit, prefers the Foreign Office’s Lancaster House as the location to deliver her most important speech to date and intends to amend or replace Brussels-originated laws with ministerial orders under “Henry VIII powers”, perhaps they have concluded that there’s no longer much point to the place.

 

As good as it gets

What a difference a year makes. In January 2016, supporters of Leicester City, my home-town team, were beginning to contemplate the unthinkable: that they could win football’s Premier League. Now, five places off the bottom, they contemplate the equally unthinkable idea of relegation.

With the exception of one player, N’Golo Kanté (now at Chelsea), the team is identical to last season’s. So how can this be? The sophisticated, mathematical answer is “regression to the mean”. In a league where money, wages and performance are usually linked rigidly, a team that does much better than you’d predict one season is likely to do much worse the next. I’d suggest something else, though. For those who won last season’s title against such overwhelming odds, life can never be as good again. Anything short of winning the Champions League (in which Leicester have so far flourished) would seem an anti­climax. In the same way, the England cricket team that won the Ashes in 2005 – after the Australians had dominated for 16 years – fell apart almost as soon as its Trafalgar Square parade was over. Beating other international teams wouldn’t have delivered the same adrenalin surge.

Peter Wilby was editor of the Independent on Sunday from 1995 to 1996 and of the New Statesman from 1998 to 2005. He writes the weekly First Thoughts column for the NS.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era