It’s official … this government SUPPORTS domestic violence – glynismillward189

150228Domestic

Thanks to glynismillward189 for reposting this important judgement, as reported by Inside Housing:

A mother living in a domestic abuse ‘sanctuary scheme’ has lost her landmark challenge against the bedroom tax, in a blow to similar services across the country.

Claimant ‘A’ – whose identity is protected – lives in a property which has a special ‘panic space’ installed by the council.

The woman had her housing benefit deducted because the council considered her panic room to be a spare bedroom, although she has been receiving discretionary housing payment to cover the shortfall in her benefit.

She started High Court judicial review proceedings against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in May 2013, arguing that the bedroom tax is a discriminatory policy which will have severe consequences for her and her son.

In a judgement handed down on 29 January, which was summarised in a government bulletin on Wednesday, the court found in favour of the DWP.

The judge held that although the bedroom tax discriminates disproportionately against women*, the policy has a ‘reasonable foundation’, according to the DWP bulletin summary.

‘Reasonable foundation’ or no, if the policy means this woman and others like her will have nowhere to go when abuse comes calling, the DWP will be just as much to blame for what happens as the abuser.

Read the rest of this article on the glynismillward189 blog.

*A commenter calling himself ‘Luke’ stated in response to the article on the effect of David Cameron’s policies on women that there was no such disproportionate effect and this writer was “someone in a dream world able to imagine anything they like”. One is drawn to question whether this person also applies that opinion to the High Court and its judges.

Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have enjoyed this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
bringing you the best of the blogs.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

12 thoughts on “It’s official … this government SUPPORTS domestic violence – glynismillward189

  1. Gary

    Cameron also supports the idea of lifting the booze ban and repealing the laws on singing sectarian songs at football matches in Scotland. This in a year where Celtic and Rangers could be back in the same division again for the first time since Rangers insolvency. The present drinking and sectarianism laws have seen a dramatic drop in domestic violence. There is usually a significant spike in domestic violence when the old firm plays, sectarianism is worse, for violence, than racism. Cameron would do anything for a single extra vote. However, to his shame, it was Scottish Labour leader, Jim Murphy who proposed these changes. The man is damaging Labour’s prospects in Scotland every day.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      I have been unable to find any material showing that Cameron supports – or has even heard of the laws on singing sectarian songs, let alone the “booze ban” you mention. Let’s stick to reality, rather than your fantasies, shall we?
      Jim Murphy, on the other hand, is indeed in favour of repealing these laws, and for a very good reason – they don’t address the cause of the problem. All they do is push people’s ill-feeling below the surface. What is needed is something that will put an end to people wanting to behave in this way. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
      Incidentally, this practice of ‘covering up’ antisocial behaviour with a prohibition is often used by the Conservative Party. I’m sure VP readers can recall many examples, probably from their own personal histories.

      So you are commenting in support of a policy that your allegedly left-wing SNP imposed in emulation of the Conservatives, against a movement that would solve the underlying problem, and you say the person behind the good ideas is “damaging”?
      I’ll leave it to other readers to consider what they think about that.

  2. Thomas

    This government seems to like it when women get beaten up or made homeless. That’s not a good way to try and get the female vote.

  3. Thomas

    By making people pay taxes to avoid getting beaten up this government is acting like the Mafia. They do the same thing.

  4. NMac

    Just when you think that the Nasty party has sunk to its lowest, meanest and most selfish ebb, they manage to get even meaner, greedier and more selfish. They just do not care a fig for the vast majority of people in this country.

  5. Jonathan Wilson

    I think Joe gives a very reasoned and dispassionate argument as to why this JR was stupid and should instead have been done based on “what the room is.”

    https://speye.wordpress.com/2014/11/22/womens-aid-vanity-project-shafts-the-bedroom-tax-appeal-for-everyone-else/

    I think there was a follow up post, given after its conclusion and judgement, but I can’t find it.

    Its been consistent that such JR reviews find “yes they are discriminatory” but that is mitigated by both the DHP’s and “governments intentions” and/or fiscal responsibility.

    It seems like the law is correct and valid so long as the law is correct and valid, passionate arguments about if the law is correct or stupid hold very little sway no matter how much we would like it to do so and “article” rights are a notoriously high bar to reach, as are “discrimination” rights… especially if mitigated in principle in the test cases, if not in reality for the majority.

  6. perched in London (@cityeyrie)

    Well yes, but not just the tories I’m afraid. In the late 90s councils of all stripes and housing associations started to refuse to re-house ex-partners after couples split up – this was never made statutory, and left them to fight it out over who got to stay in the home. Now the great unsung obscenity of universal credit is that all of it goes to the ‘head of the household’ – including the child tax credit element, which currently is paid to mothers. Oh and did I mentions cuts to orgs which help victims of domestic violence, which also started under labour?

  7. Sarah Lee

    It’s good if the first court doesn’t agree, because if they appeal then the higher court can make a precedent that other courts have to follow. I wonder if she will bother to appeal?

  8. Lucette Davies

    I wrote this blog post yesterday after liistening to a woman give a talk about how her daughter was murdered in a domestic violence attack. I cannot imagine how that woman would feel if she knew about this. Her story is one of true horror and involved a catalogue of failures by various services who had come into contact with her daughter. But now we have a government who legislates against protecting vulnerable women

Comments are closed.