Oh dear – why are feminist lobby groups loading a whole set of irrelevant demands such as ending sexist language – “hey pet”‘, “chairman” – onto a proposal to end violence against women?

By pressing their trivial and dogmatic obsessions, they make it less likely that people will buy into the campaign.

Of course, most feminists are also weak as water when it comes to actually punishing violence against women. Personally, I’d be happy to support very severe sentences, not only for rapists but for any man who attempts to rob a woman or who otherwise behaves in a way that makes women afraid to use the streets, particularly in the evening.

The worst rapists should be chemically castrated. That would have a far more condign effect on the minds of young men of school age than any amount of ineffective classroom preaching.

Problem is that teenagers are naturally rebellious and often do and think the opposite of what teachers tell them.

Teachers have been telling them for years “don’t do drugs”…. but do they listen?

This initiative could have “unwanted effects”.

Grove can’t stop violence against women but this is an important subject and one that could be explored in an educational environment – as the saying goes ‘knowledge is power’.

The picture that accompanies this article (which appears on the LibCon front page at the moment too) is a bad one. Have you no pictures of women not in their bedrooms wearing pyjamas?

Seriously, why is preventing violence against women and girls a school priority, rather than just preventing violence? Do male pupils and adults not suffer violence, or is the violence against them just not as important?

Similarly, I don’t know why we should be specifically teaching people about domestic violence against women when men suffer it too, and if anything domestic violence against men is the area where consciousness-raising is more needed (because people are more likely to assume that it’s rare or non-serious).

Don’t get me wrong, this initiative obviously has good motivations and I’ve no doubt the people involved deserve praise for trying to combat violence against women. Unfortunately, they’ve muddied the water by producing a manifesto that officially doesn’t give a fuck about half of the population, possibly because they want to push this as a feminist isse.

Given that males are generally less likely to report being the victims of domestic abuse, that women initiate violence in 50% of cases, that males are more likely to be the victims of crime in general and are the victims of domestic violence in 40% of cases, and that between 1999-2009 domestic violence against men in Scotland increased by 167% (a faster rate than domestic violence against women), this doesn’t really seem a topic which needs to specify gender.

@5 and @6 Disagree, and genuinely suggest reading the report.

Violence against women and girls has different causes, and therefore different solutions, from violence against men (most of which is perpetrated by other men).

1 in 3 teenage girls has been subject to sexual violence from a boyfriend or unwanted sexual touching at school. This does not appear to be the case for teenage boys, and there is a need to explain why – and the “men can’t help it” argument won’t wash, not least because it’s way more insulting to men than anything most feminists say.

Daniel, can you provide a source for your “50% of DV is initiated by women” stat? Because most Home Office stats usually come in saying men are victims 30% of the time, and many of these will still have been perpetrated by other men. The “initiated by women” terminology also seems highly suspicious – looks like the “she provoked me” defence writ large.

@ 7 Ellie

“Violence against women and girls has different causes, and therefore different solutions, from violence against men”

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t (mugging, drunken assault and domestic-abuse-as-assertion-of-dominance can all happen to men and women and presumably have similar solutions). Differences exist, but I don’t see why that justifies encouraging schools to adopt an anti-violence approach that ignores males as anything other than potential perpetrators.

“(most of which is perpetrated by other men)”

How on earth is that relevant to whether or not violence against men should be an equal priority to violence against women?

“1 in 3 teenage girls has been subject to sexual violence from a boyfriend or unwanted sexual touching at school. This does not appear to be the case for teenage boys, and there is a need to explain why – and the “men can’t help it” argument won’t wash, not least because it’s way more insulting to men than anything most feminists say.”

With respect, you’re moving the goalposts – I agree sexual harrassment may need different methods, but it’s violence we’re talking about here (and not solely sexual violence either)

Ellie @7,

Violence against women and girls has different causes, and therefore different solutions, from violence against men (most of which is perpetrated by other men).

Logical problems there – most violence is committed by men, full stop. And mostly by the same men – those who react with violence. So if you want to reduce violence against women, or just generally, or against men for that matter, you need to target the same problem – why some people (generally men, increasingly women) react with violence.

Wierdly, I do agree schools have a role here, especially as much of the violence is learned in the home in many cases. I agree with Chaise that limiting this to violence against women is wrong – but my simple logic is that if you by exclusion allow violence against men to be right (or at least not as wrong), violence against women will continue because violence itself has not been condemned. After all, traditionally most societies condemn violence against the ‘weaker sex’ (sorry – trying to get in Victorian mindset) but are actually quite laudatory of violence against other men within acceptable social contexts – wierdly, the same societies always had an undercurrent of violence against women which was not mentioned or approved of, but which was understood.

Modern liberal society does not really allow for violence against other men to be a good thing (outside of sports, which is a separate argument), and has less violence against women. This might be a random correlation, but I would argue the lack of acceptance for violence generally is the key thing in making women less likely to suffer violence, and that any coherent policy to reduce violence against women (should you want to be so devisive – why not specifically against women called Tracey, assuming that they are more likely to suffer violence on the entirely arbitrary basis that I dislike the name slightly…) needs to start on the presumption that all violence is bad, and breeds further violence.

Or to put it simply, to the braindead thug who thinks his fists are the answer to a problem, is there really a difference between male on male violence and male on female violence, other than the pathetic justification he selects to explain his actions?

I learnt the 50% statistic in Sociology, and I’ve got it down as according to Archer (2000). I suspect that’s this report (http://lilt.ilstu.edu/mjreese/psy290/downloads/Archer%202000.pdf) but I haven’t read it all the way through. That was also where it said that women were the victims 60% of the time, which implies that the woman started the violence but that the man responded with greater strength and therefore caused greater injury. That would fit with my only experience of domestic violence- my mum has hit my dad before, and had my dad responded to that with violence then inevitably more damage would’ve been done.

There’s also the case that men are less likely to report being the victims of violence at the hands of a woman (Smith, 2008), and boys are less likely to report being the victims of sexual abuse than girls are (Watkim and Bentovim, 1992). I have to say I agree with the comments arguing that it is violence itself which has to be tackled (or capitalism, but then I guess that response is rather stereotypical).

This quote from that report seems relevant:
“It has often been claimed that the reason CTS studies have found
as many women as men to be physically aggressive is because
women are defending themselves against attack. A number of
studies have addressed this issue and found that when asked, more
women than men report initiating an attack (Bland & Om, 1986;
DeMaris, 1992; Gryl & Bird, 1989, cited in Straus, 1997) or that
the proportions are equivalent in the two sexes (Straus, 1997). Two
large-scale studies found that a substantial proportion of both
women and men reported using physical aggression when the
partner did not (Brush, 1990; Straus & Gelles, 1988b). This evidence
does not support the view that the CTS is only measuring
women’s self-defense.”

3. the a&e charge nurse

Grove can’t stop violence against women but this is an important subject and one that could be explored in an educational environment – as the saying goes ‘knowledge is power’.

Gove can’t even ensure a majority of British school students are able to leave school with adequate literacy levels. Or even any degree of literacy in many cases. How is he going to “explore” ending violence against women?

What they mean, of course, is that even more time should be taken from the core functions of schools (such as literacy) and given to their pet ideological axe-grinding exercises. This is pointless.

Gove needs to insist on schools doing what they are intended to do. And don’t.

7. Ellie Cumbo

1 in 3 teenage girls has been subject to sexual violence from a boyfriend or unwanted sexual touching at school. This does not appear to be the case for teenage boys, and there is a need to explain why – and the “men can’t help it” argument won’t wash, not least because it’s way more insulting to men than anything most feminists say.

Sure. There is probably an easy explanation – they are lying with statistics again. This is most likely to be the usual thing, they define “sexual violence” down to meaningless, they ask a series of leading questions, they get the result they want. Let me guess, they defined tickling as sexual violence?

@13

Shorter troll: I don’t believe the statistics, therefore they are lying.

[12] “What they mean, of course, is that even more time should be taken from the core functions of schools (such as literacy) and given to their pet ideological axe-grinding exercises. This is pointless” – I disagree.

Home Office stats tell us that;
*at least 1 in 4 women in the UK will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime (British Crime Survey 2009/10) – thats some 5 million souls.
*almost 1 in 5 women will experience sexual assault in their lifetime (British Crime Survey 2009/10) – thats another 4 million
*almost 1 in 20 women was stalked last year and 1 in 5 women will experience stalking in their lifetime (British Crime Survey 2009/10)

The minimum cost of violence against women and girls in the UK is £37.6bn.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/violence-against-women-girls/

Now surely you can see that one way to ameliorate this culture of violence might be to better educate youngsters, so at least none can then feign ignorance later on should they decide to adopt an abusive lifestyle?

I don’t think this sort of development is incompatible with core subjects like numeracy and literacy?

14. Mr S. Pill

Shorter troll: I don’t believe the statistics, therefore they are lying.

If you like. Sometimes statistics are so stupid that they should be dismissed.

But this figure seems to come from the End Violence Against Women group who specially commissioned it, and a quick look suggests, as I thought, that they used the usual tricks to inflate the figures (and hence their need for funding and to have their pet agenda passed, although I am sure that is all co-incidental).

For a start they interviewed 16 to 18 year olds. The most likely group to have experienced any sort of sexual behaviour.

Secondly, in their definition of “sexual violence” they included touching. This means that if an eight year old boy attempts to hold the hand of a seven year old girl, he is guilty of “sexual violence”.

When the government defines pressure not to use contraception as sexual abuse, the term has lost any usefulness for sensible discussion.

Oh! That’s what schools are for!!

To programme children into becoming good little citizens.

This site is like a parody of itself.

15. the a&e charge nurse

Home Office stats tell us that;
*at least 1 in 4 women in the UK will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime (British Crime Survey 2009/10) – thats some 5 million souls.

Which, incidentally, means Britain is one of the safest countries for women in the world. But, yes, this is too many. That is not the issue. Painting all the phone boxes blue isn’t going to help either. We cannot teach children to read in State schools any more. We know how to do it. It is not hard. It is so simple that the Amish can do it without modern technology and roughly a 100% success rate. But we can’t. So instead of teaching children to read, you want to try to teach them not to beat women – even though we have no idea how to do that, we have no idea of the causes of this violence, we have no idea what works to reduce the figures, and so on?

By way of contrast, painting all the phone boxes blue looks sensible.

*almost 1 in 5 women will experience sexual assault in their lifetime (British Crime Survey 2009/10) – thats another 4 million

In all fairness they are likely to be many of the same 4 million.

Again, we have no idea how to reduce this figure any more than we have. Even when we know how to reduce it we are usually reluctant to do so for other reasons. Jailing more people would work. We could probably virtually end one form of sexual assault (FGM) by ending immigration from East Africa. But we don’t want to do either do we?

*almost 1 in 20 women was stalked last year and 1 in 5 women will experience stalking in their lifetime (British Crime Survey 2009/10)

Yeah, it is not relevant, but stalking is an odd crime isn’t it? Given it is mostly subjective. Again there is no way to reduce this figure by education – even if we could reliably teach children a damn thing.

The minimum cost of violence against women and girls in the UK is £37.6bn.

That is more likely to be a maximum.

Now surely you can see that one way to ameliorate this culture of violence might be to better educate youngsters, so at least none can then feign ignorance later on should they decide to adopt an abusive lifestyle?

No. Because they are not ignorant. We have spent the past two centuries teaching boys to put women on a pedestal and treat them with exaggerated respect. Which is one of the many reasons why violence against women is so low in the West. It works, I suppose, at least in changing the type of violence women experience. But those days are over. We cannot teach boys and girls that women are tough, independent, equals with men – tough enough for front line service in the police and Armed Forces – while also teaching them that they are delicate flowers who need protection. Equality will inevitably mean equal opportunity to the Emergency Ward – which is, as I am sure you have noticed, dominated by young men.

But it is irrelevant. We teach children nothing at school. State education is a form of Day Care. Either they learn at home, on their own, or not at all. Given we cannot teach them to read, we cannot hope to teach anyone the finer and quite complex ideological distinctions that define how the British Upper Middle Class expects women to be treated.

I don’t think this sort of development is incompatible with core subjects like numeracy and literacy.

In an ideal world, with vastly more hours in the teaching day, you might be right. By itself. But add the need to teach children about the environment (and why they need to bully their parents into recycling and stopping smoking and so on) as well as tolerance and all the other Left Wing pieties that define the modern British education system, there is limited time for the core subjects any way. Add another demand and you take more time from it. This is all assuming that we could educate them not to hurt women anyway. We already fail to teach them to read. How much less time should we spend?

Look, there is a simple test. School children have had decades of sensitivity training. Yet (and certainly therefore) their favourite insults these days are “Gay” and “special needs”. You stop children using “Gay” as an insult and I will agree you have a chance at teaching them not to hit women. Even though stopping them using “Gay” is a simple, well defined task.

To programme children into becoming good little citizens.

Teaching maths and english doesn’t fall within this description because…?

@ 18 SMFS

“We could probably virtually end one form of sexual assault (FGM) by ending immigration from East Africa. But we don’t want to do either do we?”

That’s a bit of a dodgy one. Even accepting the implicit premise that nearly everyone who commits FGM is from that region, surely ending immigration wouldn’t prevent it from happening, it would just mean that it happened somewhere else. I think the principle of charity says we should accept that the Violence Against Women Coalition are interested in combating violence against women, not improving British crime figures.

19. Cylux

Teaching maths and english doesn’t fall within this description because…?

Some things you just couldn’t make up. Can’t wait for the next discussion of the Pope’s childhood if Cylux seriously thinks there is no difference between ideologically motivated indoctrination and English lessons.

20. Chaise Guevara

That’s a bit of a dodgy one. Even accepting the implicit premise that nearly everyone who commits FGM is from that region, surely ending immigration wouldn’t prevent it from happening, it would just mean that it happened somewhere else.

Well yes. But there is little we can do about Somalia. It is not dodgy. It is surely a simple statement of fact. Nearly everyone who does it comes from one or two well defined regions in the world – East Africa being the main one. I am not sure how long such behaviour lasts into the second and third generations born in Britain, nor does anyone seem all that interested in finding out.

I think the principle of charity says we should accept that the Violence Against Women Coalition are interested in combating violence against women, not improving British crime figures.

If only. Then we could have a sensible discussion. Which would make Britain look good as it happens. But they want changes to British law and so rely on misuse of British surveys and British crime statistics. So their over all strategy may be to end violence against women all over the world, but their immediate tactic is to focus on Britain.

@OP: “The End Violence Against Women report specifically calls for…”

The report asks for things that schools do already. There is nothing there that a good school is not already delivering.

The curriculum has enough space to accommodate discussion about violence, sex and consent. Good manners and mutual respect are a fundamental part of being a good school. Professional development (or just reading the newspapers) educates teachers about cultural abuse of young adults.

If the authors mean that crap schools fail to create a culture against violence, homophobia and misogyny, they may have a point. But it is an argument against crap schools; there are no laws that prevent schools from following the practices suggested in The End Violence Against Women report, and I guess that even crap schools desire to achieve them. No law or government guidance is required.

[18] “You stop children using “Gay” as an insult and I will agree you have a chance at teaching them not to hit women” – children are, or should be educated to understand that a single characteristic (such as sexual preference) is no basis to form opinions about either an individual or a group, but I accept the school might find it difficult to meet this aspiration if a child’s parents are bigoted or ignorant (with a tendency to reinforce certain negative stereotypes).

And it’s not just about ‘hitting’ it is about understanding the social history or everyday difficulties associated with adult relationships and what it takes to be a successful parent – nowadays there are many interesting commentators writing on these themes.

Most enlightened cultures will have strong roots in education – education is not just about teaching kids to be exam jockeys.

“Most enlightened cultures will have strong roots in education – education is not just about teaching kids to be exam jockeys.”

There’s a good argument that much of it is about economic signalling and therefore we should probably stop subsidising it. The more we subsidise, the higher the bar, and the harder it is for the children of low income parents to reach their potential. Though, telling lefties that government funded higher education is bad for poor kids doesn’t fit with their world view but it’s still true.

@24. Kevin Monk: “There’s a good argument that much of it is about economic signalling and therefore we should probably stop subsidising it. The more we subsidise, the higher the bar, and the harder it is for the children of low income parents to reach their potential.”

I don’t have any children but pay taxes. I do not subsidise the education of any UK child. My taxes pay for my mates’ and neighbours’ children to receive education. A couple of mates send their children to private schools; I do not subsidise that; somebody else pays. Some private schools are charities and thus are exempt from some taxes; medical schools in the UK are exempt from VAT but social service training colleges cough up. So what, the tax rules are stupid but the consequences are not intentional subsidies or penalties.

@ 21 SMFS

“Well yes. But there is little we can do about Somalia. It is not dodgy. It is surely a simple statement of fact. Nearly everyone who does it comes from one or two well defined regions in the world – East Africa being the main one. I am not sure how long such behaviour lasts into the second and third generations born in Britain, nor does anyone seem all that interested in finding out.”

I’d take a wild guess and say it decreases with each generation. I also suspect that just the act of moving a potential multilator from Somalia to Britain lessens the risks of them committing FGM because of the potential penalties for doing so. If both or either of those are true, that’s an argument for increasing immigration from these countries. Obviously there are a million other factors surrounding immigration, but this one definitely seems to argue in favour.

“If only. Then we could have a sensible discussion. Which would make Britain look good as it happens. But they want changes to British law and so rely on misuse of British surveys and British crime statistics. So their over all strategy may be to end violence against women all over the world, but their immediate tactic is to focus on Britain.”

Frankly, every interest group behaves like that. I share your annoyance, but if your definition of a sensible discussion includes the requirement that everyone involved takes a responsible attitude towards evidence, then you’re best off sticking to peer-reviewed academia (and even then you’ll be disappointed at times).

If you counter bad evidence with better evidence and are then shouted down and demonised for doing so, on the other hand, THEN you have a truly stupid discussion – and yes, I know that happens on this very site.

@21 Are you suggesting then that “good little citizens” wouldn’t have a grasp of english and maths?

23. the a&e charge nurse

children are, or should be educated to understand that a single characteristic (such as sexual preference) is no basis to form opinions about either an individual or a group, but I accept the school might find it difficult to meet this aspiration if a child’s parents are bigoted or ignorant (with a tendency to reinforce certain negative stereotypes).

But it is impossible even for enlightened parents. And I do know Guardian-reading muesli-crunching middle class parents who would find the articles here a little too right wing for their liking who nonetheless have children who use Gay in that sense. Children are so educated. I suspect it is precisely because they are so educated that they like to call each other Gay. Saying f*ck doesn’t shock their parents or the teacher, but saying Gay will.

And it’s not just about ‘hitting’ it is about understanding the social history or everyday difficulties associated with adult relationships and what it takes to be a successful parent – nowadays there are many interesting commentators writing on these themes.

Reading is one of the most basic educational tasks going. And we cannot produce children who can read. I would say that maybe half of all A level students are functionally illiterate and maybe a quarter genuinely illiterate. You want to teach them the complex social issues and skills involved in navigating upper middle class adult relationships when we have trouble teaching them just over two dozen letters and their relationship to the sounds of words? I wish. Not that I wish they would do this, but I wish our schools were competent enough to do so. They are not.

Most enlightened cultures will have strong roots in education – education is not just about teaching kids to be exam jockeys.

Indeed. But our schools are not even able to teach them to be exam jockeys. They simply keep the children pent up and, mainly, out of trouble between 9 and 3:30. Nothing else. Any learning going on is because of the child or parents. We could improve our educational results by closing all the schools. They just waste the time of those who would learn otherwise and teach nothing to those who are not interested.

By the way, maybe there is a case that more education would help. From the Telegraph of all places:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/selenagray/100088315/the-tragedy-of-teenage-girls-attracted-to-boys-with-knives/

Race on the Agenda, a social policy think tank, recently compiled a report on the impact of youth violence and criminal gangs on women and girls across the UK. The extraordinary thing is that some of the girls confessed to seeking relationships with boys who are known for wielding knives. To be a thug has prestige. They all agreed that “bad boys” were attractive because they offered protection. One 17-year-old girl told researchers that if a boy “could kill someone or people thought he could then yeah I’m not gonna lie, he’s gonna be more attractive to me.”

Empty threats of violence are unattractive, said one 15-year-old girl: “Not all men mean what they say, so when you know they mean it, there is something better about that, they’re the ones I want.” Another girl explained how the longer the prison sentences her boyfriend served, the better.

She said: “Yeah if he’s taking chances with the law you like it, like saying (to friends) oh I’ve got to visit my boyfriend, he’s inside (prison) but not on some stupid youth offending easy thing.”

Part of me wants to scream: “Girls, are you mad? But, I actually know only too well where they are coming from. In my teens, I found myself attracted to boys involved in street violence. Looking back, I can relate to the girls – the knife-wielding boys actually seemed like the capable and confident ones. Nowadays, I’m no longer attracted to violent men and their behaviour disgusts me – but I’m still attracted to capable and confident types. Only now I can tell the difference.

Here’s the really sad thing: so many teenage girls can’t.

So, I guess, we could try to teach girls the difference between boys who are indiscriminately violent and hence pose a risk to them, boys who are merely violent to others, especially other boys, and boys who behave as if they are dangerous but rarely stab anyone. Boys will do what girls reward after all.

26. Chaise Guevara

I’d take a wild guess and say it decreases with each generation. I also suspect that just the act of moving a potential multilator from Somalia to Britain lessens the risks of them committing FGM because of the potential penalties for doing so. If both or either of those are true, that’s an argument for increasing immigration from these countries. Obviously there are a million other factors surrounding immigration, but this one definitely seems to argue in favour.

I would like to think it does too. Although the penalties are purely potential because no one has ever been charged with doing it that I know of in the UK. Despite rumours that hospitals do in fact do it.

It may be an argument but it cannot merely be the penalties. It must also be the cultural environment that frowns on such things. If immigration is too large, the immigrants do not adopt the values of their neighbours, rather their values come out. So FGM would be normalised in the UK if we had significant communities doing it here.

Frankly, every interest group behaves like that. I share your annoyance, but if your definition of a sensible discussion includes the requirement that everyone involved takes a responsible attitude towards evidence, then you’re best off sticking to peer-reviewed academia (and even then you’ll be disappointed at times).

Or we could shame all those irresponsible NGOs who lie through their teeth. There has been a definite decline in the public use of evidence in my lifetime. You used to be able to trust figures people came out with. Now it is accepted that they will lie. We need to restore that sense of shame that should begin with shunning groups that behave so irresponsibly.

27. Cylux

Are you suggesting then that “good little citizens” wouldn’t have a grasp of english and maths?

I am sorry Cylux, but how old are you?

@18 Decades of sensitivity training? When section 28 was only rescinded in 2003?

@30 Well the point I was making is that the point of schools is precisely to make/programme “good little citizens”. If you have a problem with “good little citizens” I suggest you start hectoring law-abiding peeps for not being sufficiently chaotic, maybe encourage them to start breaking laws and windows eh? Glad you weren’t one of the “good little citizens” that complained about the occupation of Fortnum and Mason, now were you?

I’m also under the distinct impression that Kevin Monk would be whinging to fuck if the point of schools was to make criminals and uneducated thugs instead of “good little citizens”.

31. Cylux

Decades of sensitivity training? When section 28 was only rescinded in 2003?

Yes. Decades. After all what was the purpose of Section 28 but to stop what the Tories thought was recruitment. Or what others might call sensitivity training.

But nice try.

32. Cylux

Well the point I was making is that the point of schools is precisely to make/programme “good little citizens”.

No you weren’t. You were being silly. As you are now. You know what was meant. You have deliberately attempted to confuse teaching ideological conformism with opening the wider world of knowledge and inquiry to students.

If you have a problem with “good little citizens” I suggest you start hectoring law-abiding peeps for not being sufficiently chaotic, maybe encourage them to start breaking laws and windows eh?

When you’re called on it, why not double down? Good idea.

@33 So it doesn’t occur to you that having around 2 decades or so of school kids never being challenged by teachers on the usage of the word gay as a playground insult, in case it could be construed as a “promotion of homosexuality”, might not have something to do with gay still being used a playground insult?

And there isn’t any attempt to deliberately confuse, we already teach ideological conformance as part of wider knowledge and inquiry, if you have two school kids, one of whom performs badly academically at school but picks up on the social mores comunicated in class, then spends his days being law abiding toiling at mcdonalds. While the other is amazing at chemistry but doesn’t pick up the “ideological conformance” that society demands and uses his knowledge toward making and distributing narcotics before getting caught and banged up in jail. Who would you say was failed most by their school?

The difference of course is that you and Kevin dislike this idea being added to the body of ideology being taught.

@ 35 SMFS

“It may be an argument but it cannot merely be the penalties. It must also be the cultural environment that frowns on such things.”

Without data to hand, I agree that cultural osmosis is probably a far stronger driver in the long term than the risk of jail, at least in this case.

“If immigration is too large, the immigrants do not adopt the values of their neighbours, rather their values come out. So FGM would be normalised in the UK if we had significant communities doing it here.”

Getting enough people from those communities into Britain to “normalise” FGM would probably take a deliberate effort. I won’t deny that a large, ghettoised community of people from pro-FGM backgrounds will probably form a kind of internal support group for FGM, but I really wouldn’t worry about knock-on effects on the country as a whole if that’s what you’re talking about.

“Or we could shame all those irresponsible NGOs who lie through their teeth.”

Oh, do that too, definitely, and more power to your elbow. I don’t want someone lying or bending the truth during a political or scientific discussion, regardless of whose side they’re on. That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.

“There has been a definite decline in the public use of evidence in my lifetime.”

OK, I get that feeling on a gut level too, but have you got a non-anecdotal basis for this? Between the fact that a) you’re likely to have become more cynical with age and b) everyone sees the past through rose-tinted glasses to an extent, I’m not convinced it’s the case.

Cylux,

You stupid cunt! Stop guessing what I think or believe.

Kevin.