Thursday, 7 October 2010

sophie elliot foundation

after an appalling panel on tuesday afternoon, when graham bell & jim mora ripped into heather henare of women's refuge, it seems that afternoons were trying to balance things out a little by interviewing sophie elliot's mum on wednesday. the tuesday session really was appalling, with mr bell deciding that qualitative research isn't real research, and that people who report what happens to them via research projects should have their experiences summarily dismissed for reasons unknown. i could only listen to part of it before switching off in disgust.

the interview with lesly elliot was a gem though (afternoons, 6 october, 14.22). she talked about the work she's doing with for the sophie elliot foundation, which has just been launched. basically involves an education campaign for young women and their mothers, making both aware of the signs of an abusive relationship.

what courage this woman has, to be doing the work she's doing after having lived through such an awful tragedy. the thing is that she is able to put forward the issues that so many of us having been talking about for years, and be received a much more sympathetic hearing. while it's extremely sad that it takes such an awful event to give her the platform to do this work, the fact that she is able and willing to do it will benefit many people, men & women alike.

i've had a quick look around the website, and it's looking great. i've just signed up to the facebook page, and see that there are already over a thousand others. i wish mrs elliot and the foundation every success.


Psycho Milt said...

...graham bell & jim mora ripped into heather henare of women's refuge...

I heard part of it, from just before Henare came on. I would have ripped into her too - her organisation has been making claims unsupported by the research it refers to, and she thinks it's perfectly OK because they're a deserving cause. Well, yes they are a deserving cause but it's definitely not OK, in fact it's hard to see how it's not fraud. The facts are bad enough on their own, they hardly need anyone gilding the lily with false claims. The more they do things like this, the less seriously future claims will be taken.

stargazer said...

yes, but when talking to her mr bell went a lot further than saying the research had been misrepresented. he said that the research itself was invalid, and the only reason he could come up with was because it was qualitative research. that's the bit i found really objectionable.

i haven't seen the research myself, so i'm not able to comment as to the way it was misrepresented in the ad, but i'm presuming that the BSA has done this prior to their ruling.