Ray Rice, Domestic Violence and the Importance of Specialist Refuge Services

American footballer Ray Rice has been fired from the Baltimore Ravens following gossip-site TMZ’s release of the video of Rice punching his then partner (now wife) Janay Palmer unconscious and dragging her from the lift of a hotel by the hair. This “altercation”, as the media then labelled it, was covered by mainstream press with photographic stills from the CCTV in the hotel. Yet, in the 24 hours since TMZ has released the full footage of the assault, the media and a number of pundits have chosen to proclaim their total surprise at just how violent the assault committed by Rice was. And, people are watching the video as if its part of the WWE Saturday night showcase.

Let’s be very clear here: Rice was arrested directly after the incident. It was very clear in the media reports that Palmer was punched so hard as to render her unconscious and then she dragged from the lift by her hair. Almost every article was accompanied by a still taken from the video.The police investigating arrested both Rice and Palmer.

This is the reality of domestic violence: a victim is held as responsible as the perpetrator even when the victim is knocked unconscious.  People are blithely claiming shock and surprise about a violent altercation in which all the details were made public months ago. What is the difference between watching a video and reading the words “punched unconscious and dragged from a lift by her hair”. Do people genuinely not understand those words or the images that accompanied them that they needed the video to understand the full brutality of the attack?

The Baltimore Ravens certainly seem to claim so since they waited until today to fire Ray Rice. The police and prosecutor certainly didn’t, since Rice just ended up on some domestic violence awareness program. And, the NFL certainly are pretending ignorance since they only suspended Rice for two games. The fact that the NFL had to change their policy on players involved in domestic violence in August because of protests about Rice’s lenient sentence is evidence that claims of little to no knowledge are utter horseshit – although, it’s pretty telling that many of the complaints taken seriously were about players being given longer sentences for drug use than for violence. The NFL’s policy change isn’t so much about their stance on domestic violence than it is on their stance on illegal steroid use.

This is why our specialist refuge services are so very important and must be saved. When even the police arrest women for being a victim of domestic violence, we cannot depend on the system to protect women. We need these safe spaces so that women can live free from domestic violence within a supportive environment with qualified, professional staff who understand the coercive control which is the basis of domestic violence. Giving the contract to run refuges to non-specialised services like housing associations puts the lives of women and children at risk.

We need to do better to protect victims of domestic violence and this needs to start with saving our refuges.:

PETITION

Help us save refuges, save lives

 Our world leading national network of refuges is facing an urgent crisis. Across England, more and more specialist refuges are experiencing massive funding cuts and being closed down. This crisis will cost lives.

SOS women and children turned away

We risk losing this life-saving network of services if we do not act now.

We are calling on the government to Save Our Services by committing to preserving the national network of specialist refuges by exploring a new model of national refuge funding and commissioning.

What is happening to specialist refuges across England?

SOS specialist services

Specialist refuges are services which are designed to meet the needs specifically of women domestic violence survivors and their children. The specialist and woman-only nature of services ensures that women and children feel safe, secure and supported and removes any barriers to them finding a safe place when they are escaping domestic violence. Specialist refuges help women and children escape, cope and rebuild their lives after domestic violence.

Being in a refuge might be the first safe space that children and young people may have had in a long time. Specialist provision for children and young people from refuge staff is vital as it allows them to have their health and educational needs addressed individually. Children and young people can also explore the impact of the abuse they have experienced in an understanding environment, which can minimise long term negative cognitive, behavioural and emotional effects, enabling them to reach their potential. To find out more about what a refuge is like inside take a tour around our Virtual Refuge on The Hideout website.

Our national network of specialist domestic violence refuges is in crisis like never before:

• Between 2010 and 2014 (July) the number of specialist refuge services decreased from 187 to 155.

In England, according to Council of Europe recommendations, there is a shortfall of 1,727 refuge bedspaces (32%).

• In one day in 2013, 155 women and their 103 children were turned away from refuge because they could not be accommodated.

•  48% of 167 domestic violence services in England said that they were running services without funding. Six refuge services were being run without dedicated funding and using up their reserves to keep their services going.

• Between April and July 2014, ten specialist domestic violence services across England lost funding for services they were providing. All but one of these nine services lost their services to a non-specialist service provider.

• Our world leading national network of refuges is facing an urgent crisis. Please help us Save Our Services.

PETITION

#DickheadDetox XVALA for sexual violence

XVALA is apparently an “artist” – in the loosest possible definition of the word who has somehow managed to get himself a show at the Cory Allen Contemporary Art (CACA) in Florida. Personally, I’ve never heard of either of them but that’s because I prefer my artists not to engage in or perpetrate sexual violence.

Now, I’m sure XVALA (whoever or whatever that is) will be having absolute kittens about me suggesting they are engaged in sexual violence but his latest “show” (if you can call it that) is called Fear Google and will feature images of Jennifer Lawrence, stolen from iCloud  in the latest hacker crime, and Scarlett Johansonn, whose images were stolen several years ago. Supposedly showing life size images of women naked, taken without consent, is to demonstrate how people are “used”.

Let’s be perfectly clear here: taking images without consent is a violation of privacy. Stealing images (and not leaking FFS) of women naked or having sex is part of the spectrum of sexual violence. Selling or viewing these stolen images is sexual violence.

XVALA’s use of these images isn’t art. It’s participating and encouraging the sexual assault of women. He has no right to pretend the use of these images is art. He has no right to use these images. The gallery has no right to display these images. This is sexual exploitation.

Every single person who looks at these images is engaged in the sexual assault of the women.

XVALA is on the #DickheadDetox for participating in rape culture and sexual violence.

 

Ceelo Green: Still Fighting to be #1 on the #DickheadDetox

Ceelo Green’s been on the #DickheadDetox for a while now what with his history of violence against women and inability to take responsibility for his own actions.

His latest foray into proving he’s a violent asshole involves the following tweets:

ceelo-green CeeLo-Green-tweets

I can’t say anything new from what I’ve said before about Green’s perpetuation and perpetration of rape culture but I love the following graphic which I first saw via Ultraviolet

BwrVZeGCIAEtuGe

Jennifer Lawrence is a victim of sexual violence.

Jennifer Lawrence is a victim of sexual violence – so is every single person who has had a photograph or video of them naked or engaged in sex. This runs the gamut from Vanessa Hudgens, Prince Harry, and every single teenage girl who has had images of them passed about the internet.

This isn’t a subject open to debate or which has ‘nuances’: sharing these images is sexual assault. Viewing these images is sexual assault. As I’ve said many times before, publishing these types of images is sexual assault.

There have been some incredibly important blogs written on this “leak of images” today, all of which make it very clear that accessing images you are not given permission to see is, at the very least, immoral – and a crime if the images are used to humiliate, denigrate or abuse. Sharing, distributing or viewing images involving nudity or sex are a crime of sexual violence.

If you are looking at these images or sharing them, you are committing sexual assault. You are perpetrating rape culture. YOU are the problem – not the women in the photos.

Some reading:

Jennifer Lawrence Doesn’t Need to Laugh This One Off at The Daily Beast

Stealing Intimate Photos is a Sex Crime, and Should Be Treated As Such. at Belle Jar

Reports on ‘Leaked Nude Photos‘ — Just Another Form of Victim-Blaming at Crates & Ribbons

Paris Lees, That Vice Article and Some Basic Facts about Radical Feminism

This is a clean link to Paris Lee’s “article” in Vice magazine entitled “THE TRANS VS. RADICAL FEMINIST TWITTER WAR IS MAKING ME SICK”. Now, I do agree with her title. The so-called twitter “war” does make me sick but only because threatening to rape, kill or otherwise harm another human being doesn’t exactly fill me with the same feeling that, say, fluffy bunnies do. Telling women who disagree with you politically to die in a fire or using the tag “die cis scum” isn’t covered under the heading of debate, conversation or discussion.

Hate speech: definitely.

Debate: not so much.

I don’t disagree with pretty much everything else in the article.

I’m going to assume that Lees isn’t very familiar with radical feminist theory when writing this:

The TERFs and the Meanies call themselves “gender critical” but they’re not, not really. They aren’t obsessed with David Beckham, or Katie Price, or the billions of other people who aren’t trans who perpetuate gender every day. Just trans people, who they can pick on. 

Less than 60 seconds on google will find radical feminist discussions of gender performativity as exemplified by both Beckham and Price. It would find millions of discussions of masculinity (which, for those who can’t follow the argument, is about men and women who perpetuate harmful gendered behaviours and stereotypes such as the girls are nurturning/ boys are violent bullshit we see every single freaking day in nurseries, playgroups and schools across the UK/North America). In fact, shocking as this is, it was radical feminists who pushed the discussions on gender, masculinity and patriarchy into the public sphere in the late 60s and the 1970s. To suggest that radical feminists do not talk about gender in any other context than that of transgendered people is a deliberate misrepresentation of radical feminist theory.

The utterly ridiculous conflation of a consensual relationship between two adults [and, you know, Brian Cox is probably aware of who his wife is – enough assholes tweet him telling him to shut his wife up on a weekly basis that he couldn’t possibly ever forget the woman he MARRIED FFS. Also, demanding a man control his wife is misogyny. It’s the freaking dictionary definition). :  

Asking someone why they are trans is no better than asking them, “Why are you so fat?” Gia Milonovich is the girl in the playground shouting “You’re not pretty like us!” but who never gets into trouble because she’s banging the head of science, Mr Cox. She’ll tell you what being trans is all about. Me, sir! Me! I know the answer! I’ve read the next chapter!

There is no such thing as a teenage girl “banging” the head of science. An adult male teacher engaged in any form of sexual relationship with a student is committing sexual assault or rape. It’s a deliberate abuse of power and should result in a lengthy jail sentence for the perpetrator. It is not a subject open to “jokes”. It isn’t “banging” – and the use of the term “banging” to refer to sex is heteronormative and lesbophobic. (And, just to be arsey: spelling Gia Milinovich‘s name right isn’t that hard. If you’re going to make baseless insults about someone, it’s probably worth checking you’ve got their name right.)

The naming of individual women as targets of derision is a direct contradiction of Lees’ demand that people on both sides of the debate stop attacking one another. Have to say, I haven’t seen any personal attacks by Sarah Ditum, Glosswitch, or Milinovich naming specific women as Lees did. And, I’m also not entirely sure why Sarah Ditum not hanging out behind the bike racks means she hates fun as this suggests: 

 I’m the girl with the short skirt and too much makeup on hiding behind the bike shed with a bong, a packet of Superking Menthols and Liam from 6th Form.

There are a million ways women can have “fun” that don’t involve performing femininity. Hell, there are lots that don’t involve leaving the house or skipping school. Granted, I never actually enjoyed school having been a victim of sustained bullying for 8 years but some girls actively enjoyed being there and found it “fun”. This doesn’t make them not-girls or unfun.

Oddly, the theory that the only girls who are “fun” are those in short skirts, wearing too much make-up and smoking is a gendered stereotype that radical feminists loathe. Having sex is not the only way to have fun – and suggesting that women who don’t fuck every single man they meet aren’t “fun” is misogyny. It is very clear from this statement that the only “fun” girls Paris Lees identifies are those who meet the patriarchy’s standards of acceptable girls (and that men will label these women sluts or that many of them will be victims of male sexual violence is totally irrelevant.) Dismissing women who disagree with you as “meanies” or “unfun” isn’t discussion or debate. And, really, if Lees wanted to change the nature of the discussions so as not to address radical feminists, why name women like Julie Bindel, Caroline Criado-Perez or Glosswitch? It’s hypocritical to demand people stop engaging in discussions they want to have by insulting them but demanding the right to do so yourself. And, really, a diatribe against “meanies” which uses disablist language and insults? Really?

Radical feminist opposes all gendered stereotyping and assumptions that sex dictates personality, behaviours or traits. Radical feminism argues against stereotyping women as nurturing and boys as rough and tumble. Radical feminist theory and transgender theory are polar opposites because transgender theory believes that gender is innate and radical feminists believe it is socially constructed. Radical feminists aren’t arguing for the genocide of transgendered people. They want an end to to the hierarchical structure of gender in which power is maintained by men for men through compulsory heterosexuality and the ownership of women and children.

Many radical feminist do argue about the exclusion of transwomen from bathrooms, change rooms, and other women-only spaces because the definition of trans is so open as to be pointless. If anyone who identifies as a transwoman can use women’s bathrooms, then any sexual predator can identify that way to access vulnerable women. There have already been examples of abusive husbands claiming to be transwomen to access the refuge their wife and children are hiding in. 60 seconds on google would find examples in the UK, US and Canada. This isn’t “what if” scenarios. This is actually happening and women are being raped by men in supposedly women-only spaces. This is without examining the issue of prisons where one man, incarcerated for raping his ex-girlfriend, claimed to be trans to be switched to a women’s prison. A convicted rapist, who still has his penis, is now in a prison for women – considering the vast majority of women in prison are incarcerated for non-violent crimes and have histories of child sexual abuse and substance misuse. And, they are being put at risk from a convicted rapist who claims to be a woman.

There is no such thing as innate gender. We are born female, male or intersex. Women get pregnant – I want to say adult here but we have all read stories of 10 year olds denied abortions. PIV is far riskier for women than it is for men – STDS pass more easily from male to female and the majority of urinary tract infections in women are caused by dirty penises. Women engaged in oral sex are more likely to get an STI than a man. Women are refused work or fired for the possibility of becoming pregnant – regardless of whether or not they can actually conceive and carry a foetus to term or even want to. A man with a post-secondary education who transitions late in life has had very different prospects in employment than a woman with an equivalent education. To suggest otherwise is utterly fucking ridiculous. These aren’t facts that women can ignore. We shouldn’t have to pretend they aren’t real or harmful. Women have been told to shut up by men for a millennia. There is nothing new or special in demanding women not talk about these topics.

Transwomen are raped and murdered for being trans. They are being raped and murdered by the same group of people who rape and murder women and children: men. So, why do transactivists focus their energy on a small number of radical feminists who have very little political power and wealth? Why don’t they target the group with actual power: men?

The real problem on our planet is men: they control 99% of the world’s land, most of the income and they spend their trillions of dollars on arms, drugs and human trafficking. Men would rather spend billions on pesticides and destroying clean water than ensuring that every single person on this planet has access to clean water. These are the issues radical feminists are concerned about: gendercide, education, war, famine, environmental destruction, the arms trade, rape culture, reproductive justice and the right of all children to grow up safe. Suggesting that it is only concerned with transgender theory is a malicious and deliberate misrepresentation of radical feminists.

After all, who the fuck do you think fought for rape crisis centres and refuges? Who were at the peace camps like Greenham common? Who continue to campaign against human trafficking, the arms trade and the total environmental destruction of our planet?

Mrs Doubtfire is Patriarchy in Action.

I have always hated the film Mrs Doubtfire as I thought it was creepy. As a teenager, I never understood how a useless father who lost custody of his children in the divorce due to his useless, incompetent and lazy parenting. Hell, even the editors at Wikipedia – who are not known for their feminist analysis – get that this a film about a pathetic man:

His wife, Miranda (Sally Field), considers him irresponsible and immature, and their marriage is on the rocks. When Daniel throws Chris a birthday party despite his bad report card, Miranda loses her temper and asks for a divorce. At their first custody hearing, the judge provisionally grants Miranda custody of the children, as Daniel has neither a suitable residence nor a steady job.

The entire premise of the film is that the character of Daniel Hillard, played by Robin Williams, is a dickhead. This isn’t a loveable film about a man supporting his ex-partner and children. This is a man who had a temper tantrum at being held accountable for his piss-poor fathering and instead of taking responsibility for the consequences of his behaviour, he chose to lie to his children and ex-partner by dressing up as a female housekeeper. The idea that his ex-partner Miranda is too stupid to notice that her new “housekeeper” is, in fact, her ex-husband in drag demonstrates a remarkable lack of belief in women’s intelligence.

My analysis as a teenager wasn’t feminist. It was just disbelief that a useless father could miraculously become a better one overnight. You don’t need to be a feminist to look at the fathers of all your friends – who have little to no contact and commit financial abuse of their children by their refusal to pay maintenance – to understand that whitewashing a man’s laziness helps no one. The ending of the film is all about evil women and nasty judges punishing men for being useless and the children being devastated at their father being removed from their lives. Miranda got full custody of the children because the father REPEATEDLY lied to her, the children and the judge. Having a steady job and a permanent address does not undo years of piss-poor parenting and lies. The premise of the film is that children are men’s possessions and it doesn’t matter how shit a parent they are, the children will be harmed by being parented properly by their mother. The fact that evidence points out the exact opposite of this is always ignored, even with an abusive father, because father’s rights are always more important than the health and wellbeing of the children involved.

I haven’t seen Mrs Doubtfire in years  and it wasn’t until I saw this shared on Facebook that I realized the subtext of the film that I had been missing for years:

Angela LeeI was just telling Jitana that Mrs. Doubtfire was a tribute to domestic violence and stalking. Yup, one of the most famous comedies in fact romanticizes IPV stalking. Women are always the joke.

I hadn’t even realized that this film was about stalking and intimate partner violence. I had always focused on the relationship with the children. The stalking of the mother and the wearing down of her boundaries is classic abusive behaviour. Being “jealous” of Miranda’s relationship with a new man isn’t the behaviour of a good man – it’s the behaviour of an abusive man who believes his ex-wife is also his possession. Daniel has no right to interfere with his ex-wife’s new relationships. He has no right to stalk her and he has no right to manipulate her. Lying to Miranda and the children about who he is isn’t a funny movie plot. It’s the creepy behaviour of a classically abusive man.

We need to stop pretending these kinds of films are just a bit of fun. They reinforce male ownership of children, stalking as appropriate behaviour for men and rewarding men for not being assholes. Children aren’t rewards. And, a lifetime of piss-poor parenting and irresponsible behaviour cannot be overcome by lying to your children.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt and the “can men be feminists debate”

joseph-gordon-levitt-hot-guy-friday-5

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, actor much loved by the hipster generation, has come out as a feminist:

Coming out against the label? Wow. I guess I’m not aware of that. What that means to me is that you don’t let your gender define who you are—you can be who you want to be, whether you’re a man, a woman, a boy, a girl, whatever. However you want to define yourself, you can do that and should be able to do that, and no category ever really describes a person because every person is unique. That, to me, is what “feminism” means. So yes, I’d absolutely call myself a feminist. And if you look at history, women are an oppressed category of people. There’s a long, long history of women suffering abuse, injustice, and not having the same opportunities as men, and I think that’s been very detrimental to the human race as a whole. I’m a believer that if everyone has a fair chance to be what they want to be and do what they want to do, it’s better for everyone. It benefits society as a whole.

in response to this question:

I read that you consider yourself a “male feminist,” and you credit your parents who are educators and really taught you about the history of feminism. But nowadays, you have a lot of young stars coming out against being labeled a feminist.

Now, I generally grit my teeth when men label themselves feminist anyways but I’m incredibly suspect of the way in which this question was labelled. After all, the media has been saturated with stories about women like Katy Perry, Madonna and Taylor Swift refusing the label feminist because it’s sounds mean to men (or some other equally silly excuse). There’s a very clear “look at those silly women who don’t want to be equal to men” without even pretending to look at how women, especially those in the media, are punished for calling themselves feminist. Frankly, in Taylor Swift’s position, I’d be very hesitant to label myself a feminist for fear of the increase in death and rape threats.

Many women in the public (and private) spheres have male stalkers. Being apolitical is a way of decreasing the abuse – of attempting to limit the number of abusive men targeting them. This doesn’t make them non-feminists, nor does it imply they are stupid. For many women, it is simply one way of trying to survive in a capitalist-patriarchy which hates us. We use the word equalist or, in a completely ahistorical and factually inaccurate way, humanist to attempt to negate male violence. Women live every day with the knowledge of male violence and their behaviour reflects this knowledge.

We can argue till the cows come home about whether or not Beyonce is a feminist (and since she labels herself one, the no side might want to engage with the womanist critique of feminist theory and how it alienates and elides Black  women). But, let’s be totally honest here: it is much easier for Joseph Gordon-Levitt to use the label feminist than it is for Beyonce or Katy Perry. He’s receiving nothing but good press for recognizing that women are human too. Granted, his definition has confused biological sex with gender, he does at least seem to understand that women have been oppressed throughout history, but Gordon-Levitt’s feminism isn’t about the liberation of women: it’s about gender identity and helping men. Feminism will liberate men from the capitalist-patriarchy’s construct of masculinity which is incredibly toxic, but it is women that will benefit more from feminism which is why it’s easier for a man to assume the label than a woman. A rich, young, white man like Joseph Gordon-Levitt has nothing to lose by calling himself a feminist. Katy Perry, on the other hand, would receive ridicule and abuse.

Yet, it isn’t just whether or not men can be feminists which bother me with this news story (and, for the record, I’m on the “men can be feminist allies” side of that debate), but rather what Gordon-Lovett actually believes feminism to be. His definition is that of Barney The Purple Dinosaur with his message of love and acceptable. It doesn’t recognize the multiple oppressions that women face. Feminism isn’t just about accepting people for who they are: it’s about ending rape, domestic violence, fatal male violence, and recognizing that women are harmed daily by the men who are supposed to love them. Feminism isn’t just about equal pay in law but equal pay in practise; the recognition that the economy would fail without women’s unpaid labour in child-rearing; that marriage and child custody arrangements are still predicated on men’s ownership of women’s bodies and (re)productive layout. Feminism is predicated on the notion that women are oppressed as a class – identity politics will not eradicate this.

I am equally suspect of any man who labels themselves a feminist whilst having form for suggesting that pretty women can’t be funny at the press conference for the film Looper. This is how Jezebel wrote up the incident:

What was it like to work with costar Emily Blunt? Here was his answer:

“She’s funny … and let’s face it, most pretty girls aren’t funny.”

 Apparently, Gordon-Levitt’s words came out wrong:

“I’m actually glad you asked me about that, because I was embarrassed,” he said. “Sometimes the words come out really wrong, and sometimes the words come out really wrong in front of thousands of people. I do apologize.”

The 31-year-old went on to say that he was trying to “get at” the fact that “in our culture, girls do tend to get pigeonholed…and I was trying and failing to pay [Blunt] a compliment about the fact that she really succeeded in avoiding those traps and not getting pigeonholed, and even though she’s a very good looking young women she is so funny and plays such a badass and a strong woman in Looper.”

I have dyspraxia and fibromyalgia. I’m the Queen of Getting My Words Wrong (as anyone familiar with this blog can attest too), but, the idea that pretty women can’t be funny is a stereotype for a reason: because men genuinely believe that women who pass the patriarchal fuckability test have no other value. It is possible Gordon-Levitt’s words came out wrong but it is far more likely that he believed what he was saying and only apologized because of the subsequent media storm.

Josephy Gordon-Levitt could truly understand the political theory of feminism or he could just be taking the label because he knows that he would get mega press for it. Either way, he will not be punished for taking the label as many young women are. And, either way, he’s still got a million more opportunities than the vast majority of women across the world. He’s words mean nothing unless he stands up and starts campaigning for women.

#DickheadDetox: Richard Dawkins for Minimising Rape

These are just a few of the tweets written by Richard Dawkins this morning demonstrating further evidence of the fact that he’s a complete fucking dickhead.

Screen Shot 2014-07-29 at 11.42.11

Screen Shot 2014-07-29 at 11.42.16 Screen Shot 2014-07-29 at 11.42.21 Screen Shot 2014-07-29 at 11.42.33 Screen Shot 2014-07-29 at 11.42.41 Screen Shot 2014-07-29 at 11.42.56 Screen Shot 2014-07-29 at 11.43.18 Screen Shot 2014-07-29 at 11.43.30

When he isn’t spouting racist drivel or trying to have himself declared the Messiah of the Atheist movement, Dawkins does an excellent sideshow in misogyny. Anyone who thinks sexual violence is an acceptable example of a syllogism is a dickhead. There are a thousand ways Dawkins could have discussed this. He chose rape because he clearly doesn’t give a shit about survivors. The fact that the man who thinks he’s the most intelligent person on the planet is actually too stupid to understand rape myths only adds to the hypocrisy of his post and his defenders.

He needs to learn to shut the fuck up.

#DickheadDetox : The Ricky Gervais Edition

I haven’t written a #DickheadDetox in several months as I’ve just been snowed under with other work. And, there are simply too many dickheads to write about.

I was remiss with Ricky Gervais though. He should have made this list years ago. Tonight, he gets to be part of my special list for this tweet:

Screen Shot 2014-07-05 at 21.46.27

 

Granted, there are a million and one reasons Gervais should be on the Detox but I think the misogyny in this particular tweet sums him right up.

BBC thinks ‘Entertainment’ is the correct category for child sexual violence

This is the BBC’s response to my complaint about them publishing the trials of Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall and Freddie Starr under the category of ‘entertainment’.

Dear Ms Pennington
Reference CAS-2694650-BMFJZY

Thank you for contacting us regarding BBC News Online.
We understand you feel the entertainment news section of the BBC website shouldn’t have included a report on Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall and Freddie Starr.

While we appreciate your concern the fact is they have all been broadcasters or affiliated with the entertainment industry and as such is connected with the entertainment industry. It’s therefore entirely appropriate to publish the content is this section.

We’d like to assure you that we’ve registered your complaint on our audience log. This is an internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily and is available for viewing by all our staff. This includes all programme makers, along with our senior management. It ensures that your points, along with all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Thanks again for contacting us.

Kind Regards

(Redacted)

BBC Complaints
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints