[Re-Upload - Article taken from November 2021]

Local volunteers have raised thousands towards repairs to make dog kennels safe again at a Llanelli rescue centre left in critical condition following Storm Arwen.

Sylvia Van Atta, founder of Many Tears Animal Rescue Centre in Llanelli, had previously pleaded with followers to donate the cost of a cup of coffee to the centre to help with repairs.

The Facebook plea garnered an abundance of support, including that of local construction company Coastal Roofing, who heroically assisted with repair efforts.

Sylvia recalls how harsh weather from storm Arwen on Saturday, 27^th November caused “major structural damage” to the centre, destroying the centre’s brand-new classroom recently installed for the animals.

“We were without power from the early hours of the morning,” she said, adding: “Debris was flying dangerously in the winds, and we sadly lost one of our new puppies during the incident.”

On December 7^th, Tom Price, director of Coastal Roofing, saw the centres pleas and got involved, stating: “I don’t like to see people left in such a mess. I’ll always help someone out if I can.”

He said: “We helped in replacing the whole roof as the condition after the storm wasn’t repairable,” adding, “We gave them a new roof to make sure all the puppies were safe and sound.”

Although based in Carmarthenshire, Many Tears Rescue Centre helps dogs in foster homes throughout the UK.

According to their website, the rescue now homes over 3,000 dogs a year.

In a statement on their Facebook page, Many Tears said that the roofing company helped “straighten the roof panels as a quick fix to make the kennels safe” along with “other volunteers and staff who screwed them up to temporarily mend the structures.”

They also provided an update on how they plan to use the generous donations from the local community, writing: “Next week we will buy the supplies needed to get things all repaired properly and a small generator to protect against loss of power.”

“We are also planning to make 4 warm kennels for our lovely dogs on the sites of previous older, damaged ones.”

Storm Arwen winds reached “almost 100 miles per hour”, leaving “three dead, buildings damaged and trees blown down in the ferocious winds” across the United Kingdom, according to the Guardian.

While the centre remains devastated by the loss of puppy Florence during the storm, Sylvia maintains that “after every storm, a rainbow appears.”

For Many Tears, their “rainbow” appeared in the form of a German Shephard the rescue centre welcomed into their care in the aftermath of the storm.

“Frisby arrived heavily pregnant, and this morning delivered 10 beautiful and healthy puppies via c-section,” said Sylvia, in a post on Facebook.

“It was all hands-on deck as our staff members and volunteers rushed to our veterinary surgery to help the new arrivals.” Sylvia continued.  “We could not have done this without you all, we are so grateful for your support.”

Sarah Everard went missing on the 3^rd March 2021 in Clapham, South London, on her way home from visiting a friend. She took the same precautions every woman is conditioned to take when walking alone – she was wearing brightly coloured clothing, walking on a main road, and talking on the phone with her boyfriend.

If you are a woman, you will be familiar with this routine. Do not go anywhere alone. You must tell someone where you are going. Never wear revealing clothing. Avoid walking anywhere after sundown. If you follow these unspoken rules, you will be ok.

Sarah followed the rules. Yet her remains were found in an area of woodland over a week later with a male police officer being charged for her murder.

The death of Sarah Everard has sparked an outcry from women across the UK on social media. Many have expressed fears for their own safety and shared their experiences of harassment, stalking and male violence. As a woman, I identify with Sarah. I often make the same calculations she did when walking alone. Much like Kate McCann, a political correspondent at Sky News, I have learned to keep my “keys gripped between fingers, map the corner shops we could duck into en route. Swap shoes for trainers in case we need to run. Keep music low or turned off,” as she said in this tweet.

As women, we are on constant high alert for our own safety. Which is why the “#NotAllMen” hashtag can be damaging for women living in an already frightening reality wherein our lives could be taken simply by making the journey home alone.

#NotAllMen is being used as a scapegoat to undermine the experiences of women with male violence that are very real and very valid. Singer Marina Diamandis tweeted on the matter, calling it an “avoidance tactic used by men who find it too "uncomfortable" to do the internal work required to address misogyny.”

Labour MP, Jess Phillips, listed the names of all women killed in the UK over the past year where a man has been convicted or charged in a speech to Parliament last week.

“Killed women are not vanishingly rare, killed women are common,” she told Parliament. Her speech was over five minutes long.

It is true that not all men are violent offenders. Not all men are a risk to a woman’s safety. However, statistically, 20% of women have experienced a form of sexual violence since the age of 16, and between 120 and 150 women and girls over the age of 14 are killed in male violence against women every year in the UK, according to Nia.

By raising the issue and asking for safer streets, women are not accusing every single man of being a criminal.  But how are women to know the difference on the side of a road after dark? If we stop treating everyone around us as perpetrators, the risk that we will be targeted by one of the men that does pose a threat skyrockets.

True, it is not all men. But many of the men who are a part of the problem have never even criminally offended.

To clarify for those confused, this means that it is the men who grope, grab and stare at women in public. It is the men who victim blame a woman for her sexual assault. Men who make rape jokes. Men who catcall women from cars. Men who do not understand consent. Men who think we are overreacting. Men who force themselves on women. Men who contribute to the narrative that women are objects. Men who turn a blind eye to another man’s violence. Men who do not see the problem.

It is not all men, but it is the men who dismiss this conversation by tweeting “#NotAllMen”.

It is the men who defend their manhood because they are more appalled by the issue being raised than the issue itself. It is the men who believe making small changes to how they approach and talk about women will not make a difference.

If you are reading this and grappling with yourself on how you can make a difference and show solidarity with women, I suggest joining the conversation regarding how you can be an ally to women in our current climate. This means intervening when you see a woman being harassed, calling out objectifying or discriminatory jokes, giving women space on public transport, not following them in the street, educating your friends/brothers/fathers/sons on how to act sensitively and on the meaning of consent, and most importantly listening with open ears when women tell you their truths.

Remember: silence is acceptance. Silence is approval.

If you are a man, and you are offended by any of the issues raised in this post, I will leave you with this thought: no, it is not all men. But it probably is you.

It may not be all men but is is all women.

© VIA REUTERS

“I don’t believe a word she says,” is what former Good Morning Britain host Piers Morgan announced to millions of viewers after Duchess Meghan Markle revealed her struggle with her mental health and suicidal thoughts in an interview with Oprah Winfrey. “I wouldn't believe her if she read me a weather report.”

Meghan is just one of many women worldwide who have experienced serious battles with mental health and suicidal thoughts. In her interview we learn how she was dismissed time and time again by Royal officials, and on a larger scale by the public, with thousands of social media users branding her a "cry baby," and a "liar," among many other harmful stereotypes.

Women’s mental health has been criminally undermined for years. We see it everywhere, from pop culture to classic novels (take Jane Eyre and the “mad woman in the attic” narrative), “female hysteria” being one of the most commonly diagnosed disorders in the 18^th and 19^th century as a way to explain away a woman’s struggle with mental health as an inherent and predisposed characteristic of being a woman and nothing more.

Of course, modern concepts of mental health allow women to be diagnosed more accurately, but the echoes of the female hysteria myth can still be heard. Women are consistently told that the negative experiences they go through are their fault – their choice to wear a short skirt meant they were “asking for it”, their cries for help in times of mental distress mean they are looking for “attention”, they are “crazy”, or they are “hysterical”. Clinicians still act as though women’s symptoms are exaggerated with women being more likely to be misdiagnosed or simply not diagnosed at all in comparison to men. When women describe having suicidal thoughts they aren’t taken seriously, despite evidence showing that millions of people do experience them every year.

Female hysteria is a phrase that translates to “it’s all in her head,” and that is exactly the damaging message Piers Morgan’s chillingly cool indifference to a woman asking for help portrays to the masses. His reaction is a prime example of a society steeped in scepticism and stereotypes, in which a culture of blaming women shames them for seeking help and forces them into silence instead of opening a conversation and encouraging them to seek support.

In 2020, figures show that suicide rates among young women and girls reached a record high in England and Wales, increasing by 94% – so why are we still pretending that the growing mental health threat to our women isn’t very real and very dangerous so long as we continue to victim blame?

Invalidating trauma is counterproductive, say experts.

"It shames them and thus silences them, which is the exact worst possible reaction in terms of ever preventing a suicide," says David Jobes, director of the Catholic University of America's Suicide Prevention Lab and creator of CAMS – Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality.

Immediate intervention and support are crucial in preventing death numbers rising. Networks like the Women’s Mental Health Network are campaigning to give mental health needs the voice they need to find this support.

“The network’s focus is to improve women’s experience of using statutory services in a range of settings, such as hospitals, prisons, drugs and alcohol, housing, social services, by influencing them to become more gender-specific.”

Language like “I don’t believe” and “she’s crazy” can be fatal. Meghan Markle’s interview is an important cultural moment in the fight to normalise talking openly about a topic considered taboo. It is a reset for women whose voices are screaming to be heard.

We should be praising Meghan, and all women, for seeking the support they deserve. We should be listening to women, not dismissing them.

 A diner from Sheffield was trolled mercilessly in 2018 for being a “fussy” eater after a post about her dietary requirements went viral online.

Billie Geena, 25, from Sheffield, wants to raise awareness of the detrimental effects of trolling after a complaint she posted online regarding a worker at a local Mexican restaurant who wrote “haha” next to her dietary restrictions garnered negative attention online.

Geena recalls how she went for a meal with friends in early 2018 and requested the fillet seabass dish from the menu to be served without onions, garlic, or milk in accordance with her dietary restrictions.

Billie was later shocked to see a rude note from the waitress to the chef on the receipt that read “no onion no garlic no milk haha”.

Credit: SWNS:South West News Service

“I have a stomach condition which is triggered by certain foods like onion, dairy and garlic,” said Billie, of Sheffield, South Yorks.

“We had a lovely meal, and on the receipt, they wrote ‘no onion no garlic no milk haha’.”

“I complained to them and didn't get an apology at the time. “

A furious Billie tweeted a picture of the receipt, and within hours was inundated with emails, tweets, Facebook and Instagram messages from complete strangers taunting her for her “fussy” eating habits.

Regarding the trolls, Billie said: “They picked apart how I looked and called me every name under the sun, in multiple languages.”

“I was sent home from my job as they had found out where I worked and apparently left threatening comments.”

Online abuse from strangers, often referred to as “trolls”, is not uncommon. A recent survey from Pew Research suggests that 27% of internet users have been called offensive names and 25% had seen someone being physically threatened.

Geena was no exception: “I had messages from strangers telling me that I should just kill myself. Others said they'd go to the restaurant just to spite me”

“One comment I got just said: ‘B*tch looks like Danny Devito’.” 

According to the Pew Research survey, such comments can affect an individual's mental health, causing symptoms of depression and anxiety.

Billie suffered from constant panic attacks and anxiety as a result of her ordeal.

“Every time I checked my phone, I burst out crying,” she said. “I had no self-esteem, I hated everything about myself. I deleted all of the social media apps from my phone for a long time.”

When asked whether she regrets posting about her negative dining experience, knowing now the abuse it would garner, Billie said: “I wish it never happened to be honest, but you can't change the past. I wish I just left it at the receipt. I thought I'd be a champion for those with intolerances, but it didn't work out that way.”

However, Geena admits she did learn from her experience: “I'm really cautious about what I share nowadays. It also taught me the importance of privacy settings.”

As a victim, Billie shared her thoughts on why people troll: “People troll because there aren't any consequences.”

“It's easy, they can hide behind a handle and an image of the union jack or a cartoon character. They share what they want so they can be unidentifiable.”

“They called me an attention seeker, but to be a troll you've got to be a pretty massive one yourself.”

Thank you to Billie Geena for allowing me to interview her for this article.

"Cancel Culture" by markus119 is marked with CC0 1.0

2020 was a year of change. Not only in terms of lifestyle and outlook for millions across the world due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, but for politics and society too.

We all followed the Black Lives Matter movement and the call for police reform on Twitter after the murder of George Floyd in May, and saw the Facebook posts branded #MeToo in the light of the allegations of domestic abuse against Johnny Depp by Amber Heard. British Politician Jeremy Corbyn was outcast from the labour party after anti-Semitic comments resurfaced and author J K Rowling’s name has trended more than a few times in response to her opinionated tweets regarding Transgender rights.

What do these events have in common? All were driven by public outcry on social media, the new way to protest for justice in the age of internet access and global lockdown restrictions across the globe.

 “Cancel Culture” has gained more media traction this year than ever -- a term coined to describe a modern form of online justice, in which a person is shunned from social and professional circles for expressing views or behaviour that goes against the left-wing ,“socially woke” norm of the internet today.

Or more simply, revoking support for those with status who are considered harmful to minorities, cultures or institutions.

Cancel Culture has largely affected the social media “influencer” crowd, with many being criticised for “misusing” their fan-dependent platforms with the controversial content they put online. Youtuber Shane Dawson is among many to have suffered a career blow, losing 60,000 subscribers after coming under fire for past displays of racism and paedophilia.

Cancel Culture has even been the driving force in more prolific instances, such as in the case of Kathy Griffin, American comedian, who faced backlash and lost her spot on CNN in 2017 for uploading a picture of her posing with a likeness of former President Donald Trump's severed head.

“OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!”

“Cancelling” can be gruelling for those involved because of its public nature. Twitter has become the mothership for cancellations of public figures, the ‘trending hashtag’ feature allowing thousands of Twitter users to spread the word of someone’s wrongdoings to the masses in minutes.

It could be compared to a modern form of execution; a guilty party is held accountable for their crimes in front of the digital masses, but instead of losing their head they lose their online presence, their reputation or in some cases, their career.

But is it a rallying cry for those with public platforms to be held accountable for the rippling aftereffects of their actions? Or is it simply a counterproductive way of punishing them, “casting stones” as former President Barack Obama said at the Obama Foundation summit in 2019, without bringing about the true intention behind cancel culture: change.

A CAUSE FOR CHANGE?

“Call-Out Culture” largely originated as a response to the #MeToo movement, gaining media traction in 2017 after the widespread sexual abuse allegations against Harvey Weinstein surfaced. The movement aimed to empower women, seeking change and solidarity in numbers by publicising allegations (or “calling out”) the sex crimes committed by powerful men in society to the masses.

In the era of the internet, this largely took place on social media; new allegations appeared almost daily, and the public’s attitude towards the accused warped. They were now “cancelled”, or in other words, ostracised from society. For those who were “called-out”, such as singer-songwriter and alleged sexual abuser R.Kelly, their past work and legacy became tainted; his music was no longer enjoyable in good taste to his fans and his popularity diminished despite being found innocent. For many following the case online this was a small, but ample form of justification for his crimes, spearheaded by the public on behalf of his victim’s where the legal system appeared to fail them.

The term “call-out culture” has evolved in recent years, giving birth to it’s more mainstream sister “Cancel Culture.” It slowly leaned away from just existing to hold abusers accountable and became a way for normal people like you and me to reject views that don’t abide by our moral codes. Lisa Nakamura, professor of media studies at the University of Michigan, defined cancelling as simply a "cultural boycott" in which “the act of depriving someone of attention deprives them of their livelihood” in an interview with The New York Times in 2018.

Whether that be in the case of Kevin Hart who was forced to step down as host of the 2019 Grammy’s after a controversy regarding homophobic tweets, or the never ending stream of politicians and celebrities being called out for racism, cancel culture became a tactic for those of us who lack the social power to enact change; to dismantle oppression and abuse as a collective, simply through our refusal to participate.

Cancel Culture has played an integral role in letting voices for change be heard this year. The Black Lives Matter movement of 2020 was spearheaded by powerful internet activists who demanded reform and justice, “calling out” the racial prejudice ingrained in pop culture by using “cancelling” as a form of accountability. This is one example of a call for greater equality, a reckoning. A digital way to protest, in which social media users refuse to support harmful ideals any longer.

“Held accountable or silenced?”

Whilst there are evidently “mobs” of supporters, those who are the loudest critics of “cancel culture” are also some of the loudest defenders of “free speech” and “open debate”. An open letter presented by Harper’s Bazaar in July 2020 views cancel culture as being inherently harmful in and of itself. The letter, which was signed by 150 writers, academics and activists, says that: “free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted”.

“In a spirit of panicked damage control, [we] are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms.”

“We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus.”

The letter goes against what Cancel Culture represents completely; it presents it as suffocating, as a way of stifling freedom of expression using fear tactics. Instead of enforcing a new set of moral and political commitments through change, is cancel culture just silencing those who do not favour ideological conformity?

Education VS Ostracization

Ayishat Akanbi, British stylist and writer, believes in the importance of education as a reckoning for change. In an interview with Double Down News she said: “Mistakes are how we find ourselves, it’s how we learn.”

“We should be a bit more forgiving of peoples mistakes … if you are seeking a deeper understanding, you welcome being wrong, it’s a pleasure to be wrong. Because when you are wrong, you are closer to being right.”

Akanbi warns of the dangers of advocacy simply being motivated by the fear of being cancelled. If we cannot make mistakes, how are we to expect ourselves and others to learn from them?

“Mob culture is terrifying.” She admits. “But if you are committed to trying to make the world a better place, you have to be prepared to think for yourself.”

"One and Other-Mental Health" by Feggy Art is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The UK government has announced plans to reform mental health laws and how individuals are sectioned in England and Wales, according to Health Secretary Matt Hancock.

The recommendations are to be set out in a government White Paper and will be the first significant change the Mental Health Act has seen since 1983.

The major changes come after The Independent Review of the Mental Health Act in 2017 criticised the forty-year-old Mental Health Act for its discriminatory practices that see a disproportionate amount of black, ethnic and disabled individuals wrongly sectioned.

The review of the act – which allows individuals struggling with their mental health to be sectioned for their own safety – presented shocking statistics that people from black and ethnic minority backgrounds in the UK are more than four times more likely to be detained under the act than white people.

The proposed changes aim to empower patients to have more control over their treatment, implementing the right for the individual to choose a nominated person to look after their interests when they are unable to do so themselves, as well as introducing culturally appropriate advocates so that patients from all ethnic backgrounds can be adequately supported.

Health and Social Care Secretary Matt Hancock said: “I want to ensure our health service works for all, yet the Mental Health Act is now 40 years old. We need to bring mental health laws into the 21st century.”

“This is a significant moment in how we support those with serious mental health issues, which will give people more autonomy over their care and will tackle disparities for all who access services, in particular for people from minority ethnic backgrounds.”

The government’s plans to reform the Mental Health Act have been met with positive conviction from many mental health advocates also.

CEO of charity Rethink Mental Illness, Mark Winstanley, responded to the announcement in an open letter: “Despite its faults, the Mental Health Act is a lifesaving piece of legislation. It protects people when they are very unwell. But now nearly 40 years old, it is desperately out of date and doesn’t reflect how a modern society thinks about mental illness.”

“Specifically, we're pleased to see a clear emphasis on improving outcomes for the disproportionately high number of Black people and people from other ethnic minorities who are detained under the Act.”

“We're also pleased with increased patient involvement in treatment plans, improved carer and family involvement, and greater legal weight for advance decision-making.”

The reforms will also ensure that autism or a learning disability cannot be a reason for detaining someone under the act.

The White Paper suggests that another psychiatric condition must be identified by a clinician to order a detention.

The National Autistic Society reacted to the news via twitter: “This is a huge step forward in the fight to stop autistic people being wrongly sectioned in mental health hospitals.”

A Mental Health Bill is to be published in 2022, following a consultation of the plans.

"Parada LGBT de Nova Iorque marca os 50 anos de da Rebelião Stonewall" by Brasil de Fato is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Nearly £4 million in government funding for educational LGBT bullying programmes in schools has quietly been cut, say LGBT activist groups.

The news comes as a blow to many on the cusp of Anti-Bullying Week 2020 and the anniversary of Section 28’s repeal, with ministers acknowledging that “LGBT youth face more hardships than ever at school in 2020,” the BBC reported.

‘We are committed to tackling it.’

The Government Equalities office published an LGBT Action Plan in July of 2018 after the shocking results of the 2017 National Survey of LGBT People were released to the public.

The survey received more than 108,000 responses, with 21% of respondents currently in education reporting experiencing a negative reaction involving someone “revealing their LGBT identity without their permission” and 19% as being a direct target of “verbal harassment, insults or other hurtful comments.”

The Government’s preceding action plan outlined their commitments to improving the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in England and Wales by establishing a £4.5 million ‘LGBT Implementation Fund’. This went on to successfully provide over 1200 schools with educational programmes to support both students and teachers in tackling the ongoing bullying of LGBT individuals in their communities.

‘Lifelong Effects’

Homophobic tendencies are most likely to develop in school children, and could lead to physical violence in adulthood if formal LGBT education is not accessible, ministers have been warned. The news comes just a year after two 28-year-old lesbian women on a London bus were targeted in a brutal attack for their sexuality and left needing hospital treatment.

Drag performer Divina De Campo, 35, of West Yorkshire, became a voice for LGBT youth going through bullying after they spoke out about their own experiences in a 2019 interview with the BBC.

"The teachers felt like they couldn't talk about it. Nothing was said about gay people at all."

They went on to describe the long-term effects bullying had on their life after leaving school: "I'm constantly worried that people don't like me or that they're making fun of me. And I always carry with me the idea that I'm not good enough, that there’s something wrong with me."

Similarly, Twitter user Ashley N was vocal about his views on the long-term effects of the decision to axe funding: “This is abhorrent. It's 10 years since I left school. I'm still affected by the bullying I experienced throughout my school years. LGBTQ children need and deserve to be protected.”

‘Celebrating differences’

Education Secretary Gavin Williamson released a statement via twitter regarding Anti-Bullying week following the news: “I want children to be able to celebrate their differences.”

“Working together, we can make sure every child grows up feeling confident and free to be themselves.”

However a recent report from Diversity Role Models, an organisation committed to providing inclusive education services in schools, shows that only “27% of secondary school students say their school would be safe for LGBT+ individuals to ‘come out’.”

Clare Balding, patron of Diversity Role Models, said: “The figures suggest that LGBT+ pupils or those from LGBT+ families may not feel safe at school.”

“Many may think it’s not a problem if something negative is described as ‘gay’ but the micro-aggressions add up and the negative connotations build.”

“This report is crucial in finding a way forward because the answer lies in education, language and behaviour.”

The Government Equalities Office stated: "The anti-bullying grant fund, which provided 2,250 schools across the country with materials and training, was always due to end in March 2020."

However, this will be the first time since the funding was announced in 2014 that it will not be extended.