When the FA Cup sold out...

FA Cup Final Day used to be a bit special. Coverage would start in the morning, interrupting the usual Saturday morning Tiswas viewing (or Multi-coloured Swap Shop, if Mother was at home...) to show the teams arriving at hotels for their pre-match meals, or interviews with fans making their way to Wembley, and the ones who couldn't get tickets who had organised parties in their local pubs for the occasion. 

Saturday lunchtime, we would opt to eat our ham, egg, and chips with Saint and Greavsie rather than Grandstand. But we would always choose the BBC coverage for the game itself.

My Nana would stop everything she was doing to watch the fans singing "Abide With Me"; it was her favourite part of Cup Final Day. The adults would settle down with beer, us kids had pop and crisps. 

It might be nostalgia, but it all seemed so much more exciting back then.

It's been a few years since I got excited about the FA Cup Final. I'll watch it, but I'm not really bothered. Why? Here are my reasons:

• Constant TV coverage

Back "in the day", televised games were rare. If a game was on the TV, it was novel, and something to take advantage of. The Sound of Music on BBC1? I'm sorry Mother, but it's the Central Match Live!!

Now, if you want to, you can watch football every day of the week. Even if there is no football actually being played, there'll be a match replayed for our televisual enjoyment. But that's the problem, it's no longer an enjoyment. I may be in a minority here, but as much as I love football, you can have too much of a good thing. I'm bored of it.

• Hype

Linked to the constant stream of footy available to watch, is the idea that the next game to be broadcast is "THE BIGGEST GAME OF THE SEASON. EVER. IN THE HISTORY OF THE GAME. SINCE BEFORE FOOTBALL WAS INVENTED". 

The constant bigging up of games to attract TV audiences (and sponsors) serves to dilute the importance of matches. When a genuine BIG game comes along, it doesn't feel special any more. It's on a par with a fixture between two mid-table Premier League teams. How am I supposed to gee myself up for the Cup Final now?

• Subservience to the Premier League

The Premier League is worth a lot of money. Consequently, football outside of it doesn't really exist, or it's seen as bit of a novelty, to be paraded about as some token gesture. After all, the only games that really matter outside of the Premier League that are of any interest involve teams that are trying to reach the Premier League. The rest is something that happens.

The FA Cup Final was the season finale. Today's Final will be played on a day where the only division that has finished it's normal season is the Championship. It's no longer the showpiece that it was.

Even worse, it's due to kick off at 5.15pm, and not in its traditional 3pm slot. No doubt, this is to accommodate fans who will be watching their own team playing.

It feels as though the Cup Final has been relegated to some insignificant slot in the season, and has consequently lost its importance.

Further, winning the FA Cup isn't seen as an honour in the way that it used to be. It's a way of guaranteeing European football, and increasing the winning club's revenue. The romance of the Cup has died. Rather than being a dream to win the FA cup, it's now part of the job.

• Selling out to corporate hospitality

The FA Cup was never the "Fans' Final"; that was the League Cup. FA Cup Final tickets have always been distributed far wider than the two finalists, and have been a bone of contention since I can remember.

The new Wembley stadium has far more corporate hospitality; this is the new cash cow, football as entertainment. This has reduced the number of tickets available to be shared out, and fewer fans of the teams involved will have the chance to watch a Cup Final in person. This is before the cost of the tickets is taken into account.

Of course, the FA has to some how pay for the cost of building the new Wembley stadium. As a cynic, it's the only reason I can see for the semi-finals being played there, and not at a neutral venue, as in the old days. Surely the Liverpool and Everton fans would have been happier to have played their semi at Old Trafford, and not Wembley? It certainly would have been more affordable to those fans than having to travel down to London?

Having only the Final at Wembley also makes the event more special. Where's the magic of a trip to Wembley if you've already seen your team win the semi final there?

Clearly, the new stadium has its corporate customers, who pay huge sums of money for the privilege of using the facilities. These would not be available, certainly not in the numbers the FA appear to want, at a club football ground. This would cut the revenue made from the semi-final. Rather than thinking of the fans, it appears to this fan that the FA is more concerned with how much money it can make from the event.

Today's FA Cup Final shows the FA's intentions clearly. Protect the Premier League, which is the real money maker, and devalue the FA Cup in the process. It's only a matter of time before the Cup Final is nothing more than a token competition, taken as seriously as the Charity Shield at the start of the football season. Top teams already field understrength sides for the League Cup, how long before they do the same with the FA Cup?

This is why I cannot muster any enthusiasm.

Unwelcome visitors - Part four

Yesterday saw Leicester City make the long trip to Ipswich. We arrived by car, parked, and headed straight to the town centre to find somewhere where we could have a civilised drink and a sandwich.

Being a City fan, the only places that would allow us in were coffee shops. We were not allowed to use any of the local pubs. Some had signs, others had door staff. If we wanted a beer, or a glass of wine, we were allowed to use a particular pub near the station, which was in the opposite direction from which we had walked. This may or may not have been at the insistence of the police, but once an establishment says that it doesn't want a particular group in there, as long as they're not being discriminatory (racist, sexist, homophobic), then it is the right of the owners or management of an establishment to exclude them. Pubs and bars are private property; if I can stop people walking into my house from off of the street, then pub management can stop football fans who have travelled 124 miles from going in.

This is not unusual for football fans, especially those who travel in colours, or in large groups, both of which indicate travelling supporters. I've known groups of friends (young and male), who have had to show ID proving they're not local, just to enjoy a pre-match beer.  Considering we have been to many towns and cities over the years, and have shared pre-match drinking facilities without any trouble, I find it disheartening that some places feel the need to segregate supporters before the match has even kicked off. This not only assumes that fans are thugs waiting to kick off, but it encourages media stereotypes of football fans with those who are not fans themselves. Measures like this also widen divisions between supporters, and will not ultimately the game by encouraging integration, which will in turn lead to fewer clashes between fans.

Of course, steps like this are very easily circumvented, which makes a mockery of such moves. Me and the Hubby don't wear colours, and unless it's a pub that's practically on the doorstep of a football stadium, we are never questioned. We look like an ordinary couple out shopping for the day.

Not all fans live in the town or city that their team is based in, and would have legitimate ID to show this. Asking people where they are from does not prevent mixed groups of fans mingling.

Larger groups can split into smaller groups, and gain admission without arousing suspicion.

Potential troublemakers are well aware of the ways in which they can get around an "away fans not welcome" policy. All it does is exclude fans who like to wear club merchandise, and from experience are the least likely to be hooligans, and those groups who haven't yet worked out how not to get the attention of the door staff.  Yet again, it's the innocent majority who are treated like potential criminals because of the few.

Football; policing the costs

Ever since Wigan Athletic challenged Greater Manchester Police over costs of policing its games, police authorities have been limited to the areas surrounding stadia, known as the footprint.

A brief report looking at the incidents of crime in areas surrounding football grounds has been published, but the full research carried out by the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science has not (or had not at the time of writing). It's findings, according to ACC Andy Holt, indicate that football clubs should be responsible for paying for policing, in his opinion. This seems to be a strange opinion, considering that Football Banning Orders are on the decrease, as is the number of fans arrested at games.

The research has taken 5 stadia, out of the 92 professional clubs, and has analysed crimes on a match day compared with non-match days. Based on the information analysed, incidents of public disorder, violence, and theft increase when there is a match taking place, and football clubs, who have pushed the problems away from their own back yard, should be made to pay for it.

So why should football clubs, and ultimately the fans, face these increased costs?

As noted above, the problems cited above, and which were more common place decades ago, have been moved elsewhere. Were it not for these football matches taking place, these thugs would not be in the area, and so it should be the game that funds the cost of policing, not taxpayers who have no interest in the sport.

This seems to be the only argument in favour, however in the absence of any data or detailed information relating to this research, there are far too many questions.

Which stadia were used in this study? Are we looking at grounds based in city centres, where there are actually more people in the town for the football, and the increase in numbers cannot just be attributed to shoppers? Or do they include grounds that are further away from town and city centres, where there would be very few people in the area other than on a match day? Isn't it logical that crime rates would increase where there are a crowd, regardless of the event?

Geographically, are these clubs with a lot of local derbies, or are these clubs that have few rivals? This would surely have an impact on the crime figures, as would the impact on neighbouring clubs in the area, including non-league clubs etc.

What level of attendance are we looking at? Are these venues popularly supported clubs, or are they teams with fewer fans attending?

It would also be useful to know how much crime is reported to have increased by; are we talking about a significant increase, or is it a small shift? Is this why the full data has not been released yet?

How do these figures compare with other sporting events? Is it really the case that rugby or cricket matches take place without any crimes being committed? Further, how do these figures compare with other entertainment events, such as concerts or festivals? Will the police be seeking to recover costs from the organisers of Glastonbury or Download, for example?

Even if crime levels do increase, how do we know that these are direct result of football? Just because a fight breaks out between two drunken football fans, can it really be said that it is a football problem, and not a drink-related problem, which reflects society as a whole, and not a small proportion of it? Who would foot the bill if there was a football related pub brawl involving two sets of supporters watching a game on the TV, yet was taking place at the other end of the country? Will it be attributed to the club hosting a game in that town or city? Will the resources be available to go through every incident to determine if a problem is the fault of that football club, as the clubs will surely be challenging any demand for costs?

Do the figures only deal with crimes reported? Do we know how many convictions were made? Does increased police presence encourage people to report offences that they would not normally bother to report if there are fewer officers about?

How serious are these crimes, and were they dealt with through the courts, or by way of cautions and fixed penalty notices, where offenders are more likely to accept the charges against them, than risk proving their innocence in front of magistrates or juries?

It is interesting to see theft cited in the little information released. Crowds attract opportunist thieves, whether it be pick-pockets, or breaking into cars, and perpetrators may not even be attending the game. Is this not a case of criminals taking advantage of a situation? Why should football clubs, and fans, be held to account for this, which again is a reflection on society, not the sport itself?

I would argue that violent crimes and public disorder would still take place, even if there were no football matches. Organised football crime is a symptom of a part of society, and those who do take part would only find another excuse for behaving the way that they do. The behaviour seen on city and town centres on Friday or Saturday night, for example, show that this is not just confined to football. If the police are able to charge for incidents that take place 3km away from a football ground, will they be expecting the same from pub and nightclub owners?

Where exactly do we draw the line? Will 3km be enough? Will that not just push any problems elsewhere, and the next thing police will be asking for is to extend the boundaries further? 6km? 10km? 100km?

Crime is a problem that affects the whole of society. Targeting football at a time when football related crime is supposedly going down, and funding to police authorities is being cut seems suspiciously like taking advantage of a cash cow. Are football clubs being used to make up shortfalls in money that would allow busy city centres to have a more visible police presence, something which shoppers and residents have been asking for for years, and not because of football? The current economic climate has seen increases in street robberies; I would not be surprised to see shoplifting on the increase. People want greater police on patrol to give them reassurance.

The report, and the comments by ACC Holt, fail to mention the increasing number of games that are deemed 'police free'. Can clubs claim back any of the levies that they currently pay for policing against these, if they can be charged more costs for other games?

Hundreds of thousands of people attend football matches. A very small proportion commit any kind of crime. In my own experiences, I have seen very little trouble at football matches, certainly nothing that warrants the number of police present at some games, let alone increasing numbers. Isn't it time the majority of us can be trusted to be left to our own devices, than being constantly monitored? Surely the police know who the main instigators of trouble are, and should be dealing with those, not football fans as a whole?

Football clubs, at the end of the day, are not responsible for the behaviour of the fans. They can take steps to try to prevent disorder inside their stadia, and they can eject and ban anyone guilty of football related crimes, as can the courts. But how can a football club be expected to control the behaviour of a few fans intent on causing trouble, especially when it is not in the close proximity of the stadium?

Are the police using this as a means of introducing more ways to control fans? Powers already include the use of "bubble matches", as fans won't be able to go off on a folly, and cause mayhem. There are other measures open to the police to prevent people from entering areas, and there are powers that enable the police to turn travelling fans away from towns and cities. 

Clubs, and the law-abiding majority of fans, should not be expected to bear the costs of the few. Football generates over £1b in tax revenue, as it is, and clubs already pay additional sums to cover the cost of policing. By asking fans, who have already paid for policing through their Council taxes, and in the price of their tickets, to pay even more towards these costs, are we seeing the beginning of a situation where fans are priced out of the game? Is this another means of controlling what fans can or cannot do? If it costs too much to attend a game, then fans will stop going, consequently negating the need to increase the use of police resources.

Today's story raises far too many questions that as a football fan, I want answering before the subject can be properly debated. 5 out 92 clubs seems an awfully small sample from which to conclude that crime increases when a football match takes place; surely, having raised questions, there should be a fuller study conducted to see if these findings, on limited data, are indicative of a worrying trend, or if these are merely anomalies.

What can be done? Maybe if offenders were given higher financial penalties to cover some of the costs of additional policing, it may act as a deterrent. This would not only apply to football related crime, but crime in general. There would be difficulties as to how we enforce payment of such penalties, especially if offenders have little or no money themselves, but it would be fairer than making innocent people pay for a service they have little need for.

An open letter to Jermaine Beckford

Dear Jermaine,

I heard a snippet of radio commentary from Saturday's game at Peterborough this morning, as I travelled to work. It was the first time that I had heard it, but I had read all about it within minutes of the game ending, through the various social network sites.

I have to say that I was shocked, and somewhat disappointed, with what I was hearing, as it didn't reflect what I had seen on the pitch, with my very own eyes. Apparently, having sprinted the length of the pitch in the dying minutes of the game, to cover for your team mates, you were then expected to sprint all the way down to the other end for a free kick that would, and did, end up being blasted over the bar.

You might want to correct me, if I'm wrong, but I thought you had done a great job getting back, and were conserving energy. I also thought you were hanging back just in case the ball came out of the crowded penalty area (crowded because it looked like you and Kasper were the only players not in there), and be in a position to get it back into the mixer. As they say.

The radio commentary suggested otherwise. Apparently, you were throwing a strop. If you were "throwing a strop", you'd hidden it well from me.

Now I don't listen to the radio commentary as I am at the games. I can see for myself what has or has not happened. Yet those who don't go, and rely on the radio, claim that you are "lazy", "selfish", and other words and phrases that I am too polite to put into this letter.

The radio commentary team appear to have missed the clever runs that you make. The intelligent flick ons and passes that were producing a decent partnership with David Nugent. Obviously the goals that you have scored for us don't mean a thing, because you refuse to chase down lost causes that your colleagues also don't chase when in similar positions. The piece that I heard this morning does nothing to dispel theories bandied around the online LCFC community that some have an agenda.

When you arrived at Leicester City, expectations were high; not just for yourself, but for the club's own performances. You must have been excited for what looked like a promising season.

Sadly, things haven't gone to plan. With a few games remaining, we are relying on other teams to get us into the play-offs. It's been disappointing for you, as well as us fans.

Not everybody blames you, Jermaine. We are where we are because we have changed manager too many times, and we've changed personnel and systems too many times. Our failure to reach the play-offs, which looks ever the more likely, isn't down to one player or person. If anything, it's due to failings throughout the club. To blame one player is unfair, especially when some of us think that player has actually done a lot more for us this season than other fans. Some of us appreciate the work that you've put in this season. I don't want to apologise for those who are blaming you for where we are, as I don't want to be associated with them.

I wouldn't like to hazard a guess as to what will happen once this season ends. If you are still a Leicester City player at the start of next season, then you have at least one fan supporting you. If you choose to leave, and I'll be disappointed if you do, then I would like to thank you for your goals and efforts; your hat-trick against Forest has to be one of the high points of the season. I would like to wish you all the best, and if you do hear your name being chanted, then I'll be one the few joining in. 

All the best,

Leesoh x

Unwelcome visitors - Part three

So it continues...

We were given no warning, although past experience, where Barry Fry said us Leicester City fans had a "reputation", leading to an early kick off, the group I travelled with decided to get in Peterborough early for Saturday's game. As an added bonus, it enabled us to get cheaper train tickets. Bonus.

We left Leicester station at 8.15am; there was one officer from the BTP monitoring things, but very few football fans about. The train trip was quiet, reflecting the fact most fans would prefer a lie in, and take a later train.

Arriving into Peterborough almost an hour later, we were greeted by a line of Cambridgeshire Constabulary's finest, barking "Are you Leicester fans?" at almost every person alighting the train. Anyone who is a regular traveller would know that the idea would be to direct the travelling football fans to one pub, which would end up being overcrowded and noisy. There would also be a possibility that once in, we would not be able to leave the premises until the police told us to, which would be at a time of their choosing.

As far as we were concerned, we didn't want to be shoehorned into a pub we didn't want to go to, especially seeing as one of our group was a Peterborough fan!

We ignored the questions, and left the station. All we wanted to do was to have some breakfast, and then a few quiet drinks in the pub of our choosing, and there was nothing to say that we could not do this.

We arrived at the pub of choice; there was nobody on the door, and no signs outside advising us that access would be restricted to one set of supporters or the other. We went to the bar, ordered our breakfasts, and drinks, and took our seats. The staff didn't seem concerned by our presence, and didn't ask us if we were there for the football, or indeed, which team we supported.

It wasn't long after we'd sat down that two police constables came over, and asked if we were Leicester fans, as one of the group was wearing a University of Leicester hoodie. The officers were told that most of us were, but we were with a Peterborough fan. This was when we were told that we were in the designated home fans pub. I explained that it was news to us. The officers accepted our explanation that we were a mixed group of fans, and advised us that we may have to move later if our presence was causing a breach of the peace. Apart from the hoodie, there was no indication that any of us were from Leicester, so we decided to stay.

However, we were quickly approached by a sergeant, who told us that we would have to leave the pub. We were Leicester fans, and we weren't allowed in. He would not accept any explanation that this information had not being communicated to any fans, neither would he accept that we were law abiding citizens, or that we were with a friend who, according to the sergeant, was allowed in the pub. He didn't actually address me, just the male members of the group; I don't know whether to be relieved or insulted!

I tried to explain to the sergeant that we had ordered food and drink, and that given that it was 9.30am, and the pub was largely empty, we should be given the chance to consume our breakfasts, after all, there was no breach of the peace, no breach of the peace was imminent, and that it was private property, and the pub manager had not asked us to leave.

This seemed to annoy the sergeant, because he had no answer to this. He threw me a dirty look, and said "I'm not happy with this, I'm going to have to call this one in". He left with his phone to his ear.

We didn't seem him again until after our breakfasts had arrived. This time, he turned up with Leicestershire police's football liaison team. These guys travel to every away game, and are a good point of contact if we are having problems with other fans, stewards, or even police officers. They also help to advise the local police teams on the supporters at the games. I am also lucky to know some of them from my role on the Fans Consultative Committee.

So it was the icing on the cake when he came over, not to tell us to leave, but to have a bit of chat about my choice of brekkie! This was after they had been told that there had been no problems in the pub, or with any patrons.

We stayed in the pub until we left for the game, shortly after 2pm. We saw other Leicester fans in there. Amazingly (roll eyes), there was no trouble, or aggravation. Everyone seemed to be having a quiet drink. We did notice that there were fewer people in there than in previous seasons. Outside, it looked as though there were more police officers in the street than was necessary, and several vans parked up and down the street. It seemed like complete overkill when there was nobody causing any trouble anywhere. 

No doubt the constabulary will argue that their presence was responsible for this, however, I would like to put my faith in the ability of the majority of fans to behave themselves. We have taken over 8,000 fans to Nottingham this year, with fewer than 0.1% of fans arrested on the day. We went to Norwich, after being branded "high risk", and there was no trouble. There was no reason to turn Peterborough town centre into a mini-police state, where law abiding citizens are told where they can or cannot go.

Further, splitting fans into designated pubs encourages divisiveness. Yes, there are a minority of fans who want to cause trouble, but I suspect these are the sort of people who would be spoiling for a fight even if football didn't exist. Football clubs talk about encouraging families, or minorities to their stadia, but how can people feel safe when some city and town centres are overrun with police? Does this not say that hooliganism is still a huge problem, when the opposite is true?

I dream of a day when I can go where I want, when I want, even if I follow a football club.

London Road, Peterborough
Taken with a steady hand, despite alcohol consumption

Confession time,,,

I hate to have to admit this, but my car is not fitted with Telepathy. It wasn't even an optional extra.

This may cause problems, but being the resourceful chappess that I am, I have resorted to using those little orange, flashy lights to inform other road users of my intentions. You know the ones; the ones that you use to say sorry, or thanks, depending on whether you're cutting someone up, or being allowed to aggressively push in. That's them, the same ones that also allow people to park up in the most stupidest of places to save walking too far from the cash machine, or with the bottle of Chateauneuf du Pape.

Sadly, other road users don't seem to have twigged. Like the woman from down the road, who didn't seem to think that sticking on the left sided flashing light, and pulling into the side of the road meant anything. Even when I stuck the car in reverse, she still didn't twig that I wanted to reverse onto my drive. The lack of Telepathy clearly hindered her progress home, as I was unable to communicate my intentions to her. I was not able to make my manoeuvre, and allow her on her way, seeing as she was practically sitting on the back of my inadequate motor. I can only apologise to her. Well, I could, but it's not worth driving that far to speak to her.

Having said that, if she'd invested in the Clairvoyant extra as well as Telepathy, she would have known exactly what it was I wanted to do. Pfft.

Clare's Law - my thoughts

The family of Clare Wood has campaigned for a scheme similar to Sarah's Law, whereby people can find out if their potential partner has a history of domestic violence.

In principle, this sounds like a good idea; anything that prevents one human being abusing another should be applauded. If any lives can be saved through the implementation of such a scheme, it will be hailed as a success.

There are also a number of reasons, and assumptions, why this scheme may not be the panacea to domestic violence.

• Those who have abused their previous partners will be known to the police

The first assumption is that those who abuse their partners are convicted for these offences.

Victims of domestic violence do not report these crimes. They make excuses for their partner's behaviour. Even when they do call the police, they may retract their statements, or refuse to speak out against them. So having been reported, the chances of securing a conviction may be slim.

The scheme does not take into account the potentially thousands of men and women who physically, verbally, and mentally abuse their partners, who have never been reported to the police. So your perfect new boy/girlfriend could still be a potential bully; you just won't know about it until it happens.

• The right charges were brought in the first place

This can work either way.

Somebody who attacks their partner the once, could be charged with an offence relating to domestic violence.

Another person who has been regularly violent to their partner(s) may be convicted of a violent offence not specifically related to domestic violence, say for example, if the victim has been unwilling to assist, or if the offender has agreed to plea to a such a charge.

Will details of convictions, such as the whys and wherefores, be included with any request? Or will all offences against the person be disclosed?

There is a danger that a person with a history of fighting after a few too many beers in the pub could be branded a wife beater by a well-meaning but misinformed family. A list of convictions tells us one thing but it does not paint a full picture.

• A leopard never changes his spots

There is a dangerous precedent that once convicted of violent offences, an offender could always be seen to be a potential murderer at worst, or abusive partner at best. No credit is given for any programmes that may have changed an offender's behaviour for the better. Or  that the circumstances that were present at the time of offending have changed, enabling an offender to alter their own behaviour. 

Again, with no details on how and why someone has been convicted, how can an informed decision on the potential danger posed by that person be fairly assessed?

Further, there's an implicit assumption that a person who has never been violent towards their partner in the past couldn't possibly find themselves in a situation where they begin to abuse the one person that they claim to love. A clear search could lead to complacency from the searching party, who may then find themselves in a very dangerous situation.

• Informed potential victims will give that person a wide berth

The most dangerous assumption to make is that armed with a list of convictions against a new partner, the now suspecting victim can walk away from potential harm.

But what happens if you're already in love with someone when you found out they beat their last other half black and blue? Would you really walk away?

Or would you risk it? After all, s/he hasn't laid a finger on you - yet.

This doesn't even begin to take into account we do not know how many couples have abusive relationships. There are women, and men, already refusing to walk away from a situation where they are fully aware of what their partner is capable of. Love is a powerful emotion.

So why is this scheme going to make any difference?

Are we going to see people vetting their first dates for any criminal past? Surely this is the only way one can be protected? Isn't it? Will dating websites be asking for CRB checks on all their members? Should single men and women be requesting them, just on the off-chance?

Or are we merely bolting the stable door after the horse has done one?

• The invasion of privacy

What's to stop me from going into a police station and telling the officer at the desk that the bloke from down the road, who I don't actually like, is a new boyfriend? I could then use this information to drag his name through the mud, which would be a great thing because I don't actually like him.

Well, nothing. I guess

What may surprise some readers is that I can do this anyway. Even without Clare's Law, the police have the power to disclose this information to me, if I present myself as a potential victim. 

So what exactly are we gaining? Apart from undermining the civil liberties of those people who have a past from which they are trying to move away from?

• So what should be done?

Education is key. Resources could be better used in empowering victims to report crimes against them to the police. Many victims know that the treatment they receive is wrong, but lack the strength to do anything about it. Maybe support is needed, as well as educating them.

It may also be that a lack of faith in the criminal justice system doesn't help. The media is quick to report cases where the police or the CPS has failed, but we don't hear of the many victims who have seen their abusers dealt with appropriately. I'm not saying that authorities don't get it wrong; far from it. But we do need to see more success stories.

That doesn't absolve the police and the CPS from their duties in protecting the public. The question shouldn't be "what information can I get to protect me", but "what are the authorities going to do to protect me"?

There is no formula for stopping domestic violence. I have every sympathy with the Wood family, and I wouldn't wish the fate of Clare on anyone. They may take comfort in believing that she would have been safe if she had known her killer had a history of violence towards women. But I have seen too many cases where even armed with such information, women have accepted abusive behaviour on far too many occasions, believing that the last time really will be the last. I may be being cynical here, but I can't see this scheme making much difference to domestic violence in the UK.