The World Cup Abuse Nightmare

Submitted by Matt on Tue, 2010-07-13 02:04

Article here. Excerpt:

'Do brutal attacks on women by their husbands or boyfriends surge during the World Cup? According to a May 25 press release by England’s Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), “cases of domestic abuse increase by nearly 30% on England match days.” The shocking 30 percent figure was from a study prepared and publicized by the British Home Office. Determined to stem the assaults, officials flooded pubs and the airwaves with graphic warnings. “Don’t let the World Cup leave its mark on you,” warned a poster distributed by the West Yorkshire Police. It showed the bare back of a cowering woman marked by bruises, cuts, and the imprint of a man’s shoe. News stories with titles such as “Women’s World Cup Abuse Nightmare” informed women that the games could uncover, “for the first time, a darker side to their partner.”
...
In that roiling sea of media credulity, Ken Ringle, a reporter at the Washington Post, did something no other reporter thought to do: He checked the facts. He quickly discovered that there was no evidence linking football and domestic violence. The source for the 40 percent factoid was a mistaken remark by an activist at a press conference in Pasadena, Calif. Today, what has come to be known as the Super Bull Sunday hoax, is a staple in discussions of urban legends. Could the World Cup Abuse Nightmare be a copycat fraud?

“A stunt based on misleading figures,” is the verdict of BBC legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg and producer Wesley Stephenson. They recently investigated the alleged link between the televised World Cup games and violence in the home for their weekly program Law in Action. On June 22 — day twelve of the 2010 World Cup — they aired the story. It included an interview with a prominent Cambridge University statistician, Sheila Bird, whom they had asked to review the Home Office study and its finding of a 30 percent increase in domestic abuse. She found it to be so amateurish and riddled with flaws that it could not be taken seriously. ...'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

"When the BBC investigators presented Carmel Napier, the deputy chief constable of Gwent, with the evidence that the study she and her colleagues were promoting was specious, she replied: “If it has saved lives, then it is worth it.” "

wow, from a position of that kind of power she says its OK attribute blame to men and one of their cherished activities, whether true or false, so long as it helps some women. So instead of producing genuine information we should just demonize one group to help a few members of another group.

Is there any way to bring a lawsuit against her and her department for their actions and refusal to recant in any way. Its just blatant discrimination to produce false or unverified information that targets and vilifies one gender in order to possibly benefit a few members of the other gender. Her intention was simply to create guilt and suspicion of men by giving unverified police reports.

I know police give misinformation all the time but I would think its easy to prove discrimination in this case. The information is wrong and she says that wouldn't matter. Also the ones who would possibly benefit are women, other adults, not helpless children.

I've never heard police say watch out for (some race) on such and such day...

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by fondueguy on Tue, 2010-07-13 06:21

of the above quote paragraph, this observation:

    The motives behind the British scare are harder to fathom. It was not the work of feminist hard-liners but rather of a network of government bureaucrats, social-service workers, police personnel, and public officials — including the new home secretary, Theresa May.

Which should serve as a dire warning for those who claim that feminism is dying. Actually, it's getting stronger by leaps and bounds. So much so that the work formerly done by radfem groups is now carried out by the infrastructure they so successfully infiltrated. It's like not only fearing the assailant bursting through the front door, but having the very walls attack you.

And they've learned from the fiasco of 1993. Rather than have a single source of propaganda go viral, they have an entire corrupted system spread the lies. This way, no one vector can be established as the source of the infection.

And lastly, the lesson to be learned is that as long as organized feminism is powerful, no battle we fight is final (cf., the "victory" of shared parenting in Australia.)

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Hunchback on Tue, 2010-07-13 13:38