The labour movement is shooting itself in the foot if it tolerates abuse of women.

Ruth, Andy Littlechild may not have written it? Don't you think he would have come forward to say he hadn't if this were the case? We are supporting someone who has bravely revealed the abuse she suffered at the hands of Steve Hedley and we believe her. You aren't interested in the truth, because you're too busy trying to prove that it didn't happen and you have no evidence for this. If survivors of abuse have to face people like you in the labour movement, it's no wonder it's so rare for survivors to come forward.

Ruth, you insist on explaining the law to me, but I am a law graduate so I don't need you to do this, but thank you. The relevant fact is that a respectable and accountable union rep in RMT quoted directly from the letter, from the police to Caroline. Andy Littlechild is still a union rep and there is no reason for him to lie about the offence the police decided applied in this incident. While you're googling the law, you might want to google the Women's Aid website and find out how rare it is for women to lie about domestic violence.

Ruth, did you actually listen to a word I said? I could read the definitions of assault, ABH and GBH and it still wouldn't change the fact the police wrote to Caroline to advise that the injuries sustained were of a CPS charging standard of common assault, which is detailed in Caroline's union rep's account, including direct quotes from the letter, from the police to Caroline: https://libcom.org/news/steve-hedley-not-cleared-domestic-violence-case-still-answer-08042013 You are calling a women who is a survivor of domestic violence a liar, because you are saying what she said may not have happened, which is calling her a liar and I'm saying it's very rare for woman to lie about domestic violence.

Ruth that is an ignorant response. This is what the response was in the letter from the police to Caroline: 'This coupled with the injuries you received being of a CPS charging standard of common assault meant that we have only 6 months from the incident to bring the matter before a Court. This had lapsed prior to initial report.' I think we've established that Caroline isn't a liar. It's also very rare for women to lie about domestic abuse. You have called her a liar about the abuse Caroline experienced, yet there are photos of her battered face and her testimony and then you claimed she lied about the charge, but that quote is taken from the letter to Caroline from the police about this incident.

Sorry Kat 'This type of offence' - one that leaves multiple facial cuts and bruises is 'Actual Bodily Harm' and there is no time limit on prosecuting that, or any other criminal (as opposed to civil) offence under English Law. The idea that Steve Hedley got away with it because of some sort of time limit or Statute of Limitations is completely false. If it had happened 30 years ago, he could still have been prosecuted. If you don't believe me google it up.

Kat - I am not interested in proving anything, either way, about the truth of Caroline Leneghan's allegations against Steve Hedley. I have already said that I have no opinion, either way, about that. What I am interested in is stopping this lie that women have only 6 months to report domestic violence, because believing that would prevent abused women from seeking justice. Again I note that you do not deal with this point. I dare say you are right about Andy Littlechild coming forward though. It is the only decent point you have made in the course of this conversation. Well done! He should be ashamed of himself, though. Lastly, I hope abused women in the left do not come across you, because you will teach them that there is no point in reporting their abusers to the police if more than 6 months have passed since they were assaulted.

You obviously do need me to explain the law to you, because you obviously do not know what it is. The law does not vary between individuals, so it can easily be verified. You can do this at any time and so can anyone else. What is completely unverifiable and entirely without proof is anything on a blog. So that or any other blog can be safely ignored if it contradicts the provable legal facts. There is no proof that Andy Littlechild has written this blog. But even if he has, there is no reason to assume that quotes are taken from a police letter. He could have made them up or altered them to give a better impression or his client, or she could have done so. You give no evidence other than bare assertion and neither did he. The only thing that is independently verifiable is the law and that says that Common Assault means that 'a credible threat of violence' is present, but no actual violence. When there is no violence there can be no injuries, so the quote must be false. However, I have come to the conclusion that you do not care whether it is false or not. If you did, you would have checked my sources and realised this yourself. You are doing no good by this repetition of something so dubious. Indeed you are harming the chances of women who have suffered domestic violence by promulgating a pernicious myth. It is clear that you do not care about this either or you would have addressed the points that I made about the dangers of pretending that women only have 6 months to report domestic violence. As for your other point. Andy Littlechild would have plenty of reason to say anything to clear his client. (Clearly he did not succeed.) What results this might have for him, I cannot say.