Written submission from a member of the public (SPP0033)

Sexual harassment  comes from an attitude of superiority I suggest.   This attitude will usually be the result of generations of male supremacy in the UK until 1918. More recently it is a tradition, promoted by sectors of society, which legislators avoid, fearing racist criticism.

Treat a minority unfairly and there is investigation.  Treat the 50% of the population unfairly and it barely gets a mention I suggest.  This is in the public domain on a daily basis consolidating inequality in the population. 

Victims of abuse seldom criticise their abusers until years later when they can finally recognise  the abuse they received as a norm.

If inequality and harassment is the norm, a human learns to accept and avoid further abuse.  I uncovered local government false accounting (confirmed at audit).  Police were not interested “ a storm in a teacup” was their excuse. This is abuse by public service.  It is a waste of public funds, is sexist and unlawful but it exists today.  If Police are publicly described as “racist” does this  not also mean they are highly likely to be sexist ?but is anyone checking? And acting on findings?  The slight improvement in domestic abuse cases is fraction of the abuse never reported.

Most men will be unaware of their inherent bias and shocked when it is noted.  Why would they notice without help? What they do is the norm for them, until the inequality is pointed out and they understand how they would react and feel if treated in that way.

The default position is still largely male in the UK, in my experience.- how many times have I been addressed as Mr by national and local government when I do not specify my gender or title?  The Equality Act that we fought for in 1974 has been paid lip service by those in power of whatever gender. 

How often does the Equality legislation actually get used in ordinary life? Like simply ensuring we are all addressed equally by officialdom? checking and fining offenders may achieve a swifter result than law, persuasion and education have managed in 34 years. In my experience little has changed except I can now buy goods without sellers demanding  a male agrees with me,- my experience in the 1990’s regardless of the Equality Act 1974.

Would most men tolerate being addressed as Mrs/Miss/Ms? And complain vociferously. Women get no choice and my complaints to public services, local and national have been met with incredulity(by men), frequently dismissed as ridiculous and rarely accepted and dealt with.  Men who finally understand, start with disbelief, often check with female relatives who are surprised that they did not even know the issue.  This way change is effected, in drips, by the individual, after 34 years of alleged equality.  The state has done little to alter male perception.  It has not yet enforced the equality legislation in its own operations. The inequality still exists in the seat of power and effects only sops to change.

Financial institutions insist “for security reasons”(unspecified) that female titles are printed on cheques and cards. Men do not have Mr on their cards.  So no equality there either, just endemic gender bias.

Why does FCA  not ensure equality in the conduct? Every regulator in the UK is technically required to ensure equality but no monitoring exists and no compliance is evidenced from these public regulators.

These simple examples show how gender bias is implicit in the everyday, and in ways that are influencing children as they grow up.

Media celebrates female football, boxing etc as some form of gender equality yet ignores the dearth of male netball, rounders etc.  Equality is only noticed when women embrace traditional male pursuits like DIY and decorating. Seldom is male discovery of traditional  female crafts like knotting sewing exampled.  Most people consider knitting to be a female choice and ‘soft’.  In practice it is complex engineering, using a material to create an object. Historically it is not recognised as engineering so inequality exists in how we describe our society. Not even noticing these issues is where we are in 2018. The sexual bullying is merely a symptom of underlying gender inequality which is endemic.

I was sexually harassed in [date] on a train at 10.30 pm. The carriage was empty, I was [aged 18-24]. What could I do? Pull the emergency cord? Clearly there was no remedy.  Trains now have CCTV but would it really encourage me to report when my instinct is to flee?  I was also harassed on a bus, as a student when a man, much older than me, sat beside me and continually pressed against my thigh, until I was squeezed into the side of the bus.  I guess it was power thrill for him.  At [18-24] I was not equipped to tell my fellow passengers what was happening, and would they believe me? Would they too become hostile? I endured it.  I do not know the names of my attackers but 50 years later, these minor abuses remains vivid. Young women can become more assertive BUT men should become less assertive.

When will the UK robustly challenge this ‘hidden’ abuse of equality? When will faith groups who preach female submission be prosecuted and/or prevented  as it is not a faith matter.  The issue is that men have not yet absorbed the concept of equality in practice.  On tv 7 Feb 2018 faith leaders advised marriage candidates that a wife cannot refuse a husband sex, can be beaten  for so doing, may no travel without a husband ‘s consent etc.  How does this conform to equality legislation?

All public servants are required to adhere to the Nolan principles.  Use it now. 

• Prosecute offenders as conduct complaints,
• no issue with anonymity as the type of conduct is not made public. 
• Save the current angst on finding “ a workable solution”.  There is one, but no one uses it and it is more lip service. 
• Standards committee and Equality committee should work jointly and with vigour and action not lip service. 
• 50% of the electorate have become habituated to waiting for men to notice and make changes.
• That is the process in the UK still.
• Use what exists, properly, and effect change.

The data below is copied from Parliament’s standards website with my suggestions on its practical use.

1. Selflessness              Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. Harassment/ bullying is not in the public interest.  It is also misuse of public funds, not VfM.

2. Integrity              Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships. Broaden this by removing finance and material. It’s a loop hole for the slimy to use.

3. Objectivity                            Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias. Any harassment and abuse is covered here. Equality is covered, act on it.

4. Accountability              Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this. Introduce some  external random audit of diaries and emails in public office and prosecute offenders.

5. Openness                            Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing. Tighten up and define degrees of misconduct in public life and use the code. Examples of misconduct easily defined eg ICO uses this approach. Use an independent tribunal to adjudicate complex cases only. Swift investigation to identify these and deal with others on fixed penalty basis.

6. Honesty                            Holders of public office should be truthful. Required to admit when they abuse/bully. Lying and misleading is a breach of this code is not VfM and offenders should pay compensation to the victim and Treasury when found in breach as above. Most serious penalty sacking without benefits and rights. Taxpayers expect VfM.

7. Leadership                            Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs. Change the culture, expect the default to be whistleblowers from public and employees.  Actively encourage openness. Support the public not its employees by default I,e, believe the victims

February 2018.