Currently, 'provocation' can be claimed by people who commit murder, and if this defence is upheld, they can avoid the mandatory life sentence normally in place. The law, which has not been reformed since 1957, defined 'provocation' as applying only to the immediate cirumstances, not to an ongoing abusive situation. This is overwhelmingly a law that works in favour of men, who could excuse their crime by blaming the victim, especially in cases they had found out their partner had been unfaithful.

Under the same law, many women who killed their abusive spouses were punished more severely, because the history of domestic abuse would not be taken into account as a partial defence.

This law is the relic of an earlier age. Light sentencing for men who kill their wives reinforces and permits the assumption that men are by nature sexually possessive and prone to uncontrollable violence which it is unjust to punish them for. It also upholds the notion that women have no right to attempt to leave abusive situations, or to defend themselves from violence.

The proposed changes would allow for a partial defence of 'killing in response to a fear of serious violence', which, it is felt, will lead to fairer sentencing for both female and male offenders.

More here.

Leaving aside the absurdity of that statement (because male professional footballers are paid ludicrous figures for chasing a ball about, and firefighters risk their lives for a fraction of that money) let's consider women's football in the UK. I imagine very few people could name any female footballers, or tell you when and where they play, or indeed, who won last year's Women's FA Cup (it was Arsenal). Even at FA level, the publicity given to women's football is small compared to that devoted to the male game.

Since women's football was banned on Football League grounds in 1920, and not permitted again until 1971, one might argue that it does not have the same unbroken traditions as men's football. However, I think the real reason for such a low profile is that, like many other things, the men's version is considered to be the standard, and the women's equivalent is seen as different, outlandish, and of interest only to a minority. It is a sobering thought that, a few generations ago, not only women's sport but women's education, healthcare and legal rights fell into the same category.

This advert shows symptoms of that same school of thought. It is slightly misquoting the American Declaration of Independence, which was written in an era when the meaning of 'all men' excluded women automatically. Using the same expression without irony today is something only a few organisations could do, and it is sad that the FA still feels able to exclude half the popultion from it's advertising. Women are currently viewers, fans and players of football at amateur and professional levels in this country, and they are wrongly sidelined by the men's game.

My suggestion would be an equal division of all sponsorship and advertising money between men's and women's teams. This would extend to cricket, rugby, and other sports where men's matches are unfairly over-represented. Once the money was divided evenly, I am sure the media coverage would follow. I look forward to the day when I mention the FA Cup in the pub, and it is not assumed that I mean the men's event.

Pictures of women feeding their babies are classified as obscene and
removed, and members are threatened with banning from the site if their photos are reposted.

The group organised a worldwide cyberspace protest on December 27 last year, in which women swapped their usual profile pictures for images of them breastfeeding their babies.

It's shocking, but not particularly surprising, that this attitude to the female body is still prevalent among Facebook's organisers. After all, women have been prevented from breastfeeding in public spaces, from cafes to the House of Commons, on the grounds that it is somehow indecent. Our society sexualises the female breast to such an extent that its basic evolutionary function - nourishing a child - is obscured. While anyone can access specifically sexual images of topless models in tabloid newspapers and top-shelf magazines, breastfeeding images remain taboo.

This restriction - which is not limited to Facebook, but reflects a wider social problem - has three effects. First, it promotes the sexual objectification of women's bodies, by reading a sexual subtext into all images of female breasts. Second, it limits respect for mothers who chose to breastfeed, and leaves them vulnerable to criticism and unwelcome attention. Third, it makes breastfeeding appear 'weird' and leaves new parents unfamiliar with the practicalities of breastfeeding. This does no service to mothers or babies, whose health can benefit greatly from breastfeeding.

Facebook is no longer enforcing a sensibly no-nudity policy. It is discriminating against mothers who chose to breastfeed, by diminishing the respect they are accorded and classifying them as obscene.

Join the protest here