8 June 2011

Bettina Arndt not to be heard at ANU?

| johnboy
Join the conversation
37

The ANU’s women’s department is planning a protest tonight against a speech by sex therapist Bettina Arndt.

The ANU Womens Department feels sex therapist Bettina Arndt expresses some very damaging opinions about women and men. The Department will be holding a peaceful protest before the event – we believe sexist attitudes against women and men are not acceptable

All supporters welcome

This has prompted Liberal Senator Gary Humphries to bravely wade in where angels fear to tread.

Senator Gary Humphries has attacked the ugly display of intolerance planned at the Australian National University today.

“Bettina Arndt might well be saying things unpalatable to some of us, but opposing the hearing of her views today in Canberra is an insult to free speech,” he said.

“People who oppose Arndt’s ideas would do well to stop trying to shut down her lecture and engage with the ideas she brings to public debate.

“The business of universities in liberal democracies is to contest ideas unhindered. To deny ideas a platform because you disagree with them is complete anathema to the principles of an open society.

“Though I may not necessarily agree with Ms Arndt’s arguments, I condemn those who wish to deny Ms Arndt a presence at the ANU today.”

Join the conversation

37
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
creative_canberran3:56 pm 09 Jun 11

Grail said :

creative_canberran said :

She was good enough to approach them upfront and offer to talk but was told to “come back later”. She did and sat down, leading to an argument. Without first hand knowledge, all I can say it sounds immature and lacking civility.

Was it related to you as a fractious encounter, or were they having a good civilised argument where opposing points of view were expressed and discussed?

Grail said :

creative_canberran said :

She was good enough to approach them upfront and offer to talk but was told to “come back later”. She did and sat down, leading to an argument. Without first hand knowledge, all I can say it sounds immature and lacking civility.

Was it related to you as a fractious encounter, or were they having a good civilised argument where opposing points of view were expressed and discussed?

The comment from “smeh”:

“Bettina came over twice wanting to talk to us. The first time was before we had even started and we asked her to come back later, but first we wanted to discuss the issues quietly amongst ourselves. The second time she sat down in the middle of the group and argued with us. “

Not been ready and telling her to come back comes across as immature and lacking civility, particularly when you have three weeks to get some points ready to go.

As for how civil it was. “Smeh” says “argued with us” which sounds less than civil while another attendee complained it was to civil and accommodating of Arndt and should have attacked her more. Guess it’s a matter of perspective as to how civil it was. Kudos to the organisers for trying to keep things civil though. Obviously different people with different aims and different views on how far to take it, so trying to harmonise those was never going to be easy.

creative_canberran said :

She was good enough to approach them upfront and offer to talk but was told to “come back later”. She did and sat down, leading to an argument. Without first hand knowledge, all I can say it sounds immature and lacking civility.

Was it related to you as a fractious encounter, or were they having a good civilised argument where opposing points of view were expressed and discussed?

creative_canberran said :

Jim Jones said :

creative_canberran said :

I wasn’t actually there … Apparently some elements in the protest were unhappy with the softly, softly, conciliatory tone that many protestors adopted

Whatever dude.

Wow, profound contribution that is to be expected from JJ.
Simply passing on what was said by one attendee of the protest about a minority who did want to do exactly what Gary Humphries had spoken out against and were unhappy the rest of the group didn’t do that.

+1 on that. That’s about as deep as you’ll get from Mrs Jones I’m afraid. Seems to be a habit to sit back and bitch about everyone else’s comments while adding near zero value to the thread.

creative_canberran said :

Jim Jones said :

creative_canberran said :

I wasn’t actually there … Apparently some elements in the protest were unhappy with the softly, softly, conciliatory tone that many protestors adopted

Whatever dude.

Wow, profound contribution that is to be expected from JJ.
Simply passing on what was said by one attendee of the protest about a minority who did want to do exactly what Gary Humphries had spoken out against and were unhappy the rest of the group didn’t do that.

A rumour that – even if we assume it were true) – has precisely no bearing on what *actually* occurred.

creative_canberran12:56 pm 09 Jun 11

Jim Jones said :

creative_canberran said :

I wasn’t actually there … Apparently some elements in the protest were unhappy with the softly, softly, conciliatory tone that many protestors adopted

Whatever dude.

Wow, profound contribution that is to be expected from JJ.
Simply passing on what was said by one attendee of the protest about a minority who did want to do exactly what Gary Humphries had spoken out against and were unhappy the rest of the group didn’t do that.

DermottBanana11:22 am 09 Jun 11

Maybe Senator Humphries would like to explain then why we’re prevented from hearing from other controversial speakers? David Irving for example.

creative_canberran said :

I wasn’t actually there … Apparently some elements in the protest were unhappy with the softly, softly, conciliatory tone that many protestors adopted

Whatever dude.

creative_canberran1:22 am 09 Jun 11

I wasn’t actually there, like most students at the moment, its pre-exam research/panic time. Have heard some interesting things about what happened though.

Apparently some elements in the protest were unhappy with the softly, softly, conciliatory tone that many protestors adopted. That it to say they didn’t like actually talking and exchanging views and ideas with Arndt who made quite a lot of effort to engage with the protestors outside the lecture to her credit. Those elements would have preferred a more ardent attack on her mere presence on campus rather than acquiescing and talking with her about the views she holds.

To those who hold such a view, I would suggest perhaps establishing a separate group for suppressing free speech on campus… perhaps with the motto “Schild und Schwert der Partei”.

I’d like to commend those elements who tried to take a more conciliatory tone by all accounts, trying to impress a point on her while keeping it mature and polite. It is disappointing though that apparently, the protestors spent some time sitting in a circle on the floor trying to decide what to say as she arrived. She was good enough to approach them upfront and offer to talk but was told to “come back later”. She did and sat down, leading to an argument. Without first hand knowledge, all I can say it sounds immature and lacking civility.

To be honest it’s examples like this that make me ashamed of some aspects of ANU.

Seriously?

How does holding a peaceful protest BEFORE the lecture in any way try to hinder Bettina’s free speech?

The protest involved sitting around in a circle half and hour before the event and talking about what we were particularly opposed to in Bettina’s work. Bettina came over twice wanting to talk to us. The first time was before we had even started and we asked her to come back later, but first we wanted to discuss the issues quietly amongst ourselves. The second time she sat down in the middle of the group and argued with us. Members of the protest did there best to ensure both Bettina and the group listened to each other as respectfully as possible. Then at the end, three members of the protest went into listen to the lecture and never disturbed it.

Gary Humphries, simple research…you’re doing it wrong.

creative_canberran9:05 pm 08 Jun 11

ScienceRules said :

one of the protest folk asked a polite, interesting question about Arndt’s views on sexual assault and the focus of her research..

As it should be. No shouting and trying to silence someone. Instead, focusing on the issues and questioning a contrary view in a civilised manner. Glad to hear that happened at least once.

Protests have their place, but too often at Uni, “protest” actually takes the place of proper discourse and ideas. It’s a first, rather than a last resort, and very often so ill thought that it doesn’t send any message anyway. Rather than causing such a fuss over the decision to let her speak, would have been nice if they’d just promoted this as an opportunity for the community to come, hear Arndt’s views and put their questions and responses to her. There’s a reason people tune in to Q&A.

ScienceRules8:46 pm 08 Jun 11

Well, t’was a bit of an anti-climax, protest wise (ha!). Sorry, had to get the cheap sexual allusion out of the way early. I promise I’ll be less of a dick from here on in.

Essentially an interesting talk that covered issues relating to the mismatch of sexual desire among couples. Men were the focus because we tend to be more biologically hard wired to want sex and mens sexual issues such as loss of arousal and frustrations relating to unfulfilled needs are less talked about and researched.

She went over her new book (obviously) and discussed how the study was done, some of the results and peppered the chat with anecdotes and jokes. It was an interesting evening and although not technical or overly cerebral did provide some interesting talking points into male and female sexuality and relationships.

The protesters were pretty much invisible. I only saw one person with a sign but couldn’t read it. There was a short Q&A in which one of the protest folk asked a polite, interesting question about Arndt’s views on sexual assault and the focus of her research.

Arndt did mention that the media have picked up (not unsurprisingly) on the idea that women could consider just “doing it” even if they don’t feel like it. This didn’t mean submitting to unwanted sex but rather letting it happen and seeing if that works for you. She was talking about people in an otherwise healthy relationship, not using/denying/demanding sex for power or control reasons.

So all in all, an uncontroversial evening and a good night out.

Done.

Good speaker, plenty of humour, but nothing too exciting.

Yes, sometimes you need to give things a go once in a while. *shrugs*

Ronnielane said :

In regards to post # 20 the Canberra rape crisis centre may provide some clarity :
http://www.rapecrisis.org.au/generai/Whatis.htm.

Strictly speaking, they get it just as wrong as Victorian Legal Aid, probably due to being a very old page.

Sexual Assault in all three “degrees” (§51-53) a connection between sexual intercourse without consent and bodily harm or the threat of bodily harm.

Sexual Intercourse Without Consent (§54) is sexual intercourse without consent, with no bodily harm involved or implied.

My example of placing a hand on a colleague and making sexual references might be “Act of indecency without consent” (§60) (there is no definition in the Act of what constitutes an indecent act, and I’m not a lawyer).

All of these crimes fall under the blanket of Part 3 – Sexual Offences (there is no Part IIIA).

creative_canberran said :

The actual definitions (the text from the heading “Legal definitions of sexual offences in Victoria” onwards) provided on pages 6 and 7 of the document are correct and in general, they appear to align with comparable NSW and ACT provisions.

Now that we can settle on the legal definition of sexual assault versus what some people may interpret as being assault, have a read of Bettina’s article about the doctor who interfered with her, which is one of the pieces that the protesters are claiming shows that Bettina is a horrible person who shouldn’t be allowed to deliver her speech at the ANU: When Saying Sorry Is Enough.

The abridged version of the story is: when Bettina was 19 she went to the doctor, concerned that she was pregnant. Doctor suggested that an orgasm might help bring on the missing period. Doctor then performed digital stimulation. No orgasm was had, Bettina left the clinic thinking the procedure was a little odd. Twenty five years pass, and then the doctor was subject of a Sexual Assault action by a number of women.

Next Bettina states, “so when that contract is broken there is very good reason to want to slug it out in the main street where other doctors will be watching. I applaud the efforts of the complainants to use the Medical Board to ensure the doctor was no longer in a position to harm patients. But charging him with assault? That’s where I baulk … whatever his motivations, it was not an act of violence but rather an action that in another context would be loving and pleasurable. It’s not a war crime, an event of such magnitude that it demands retribution decades later. … it was enough for me to know the public had been assured the doctor could not repeat his actions.”

Because Bettina used the words “in another context [what the doctor did] would be loving and pleasurable” a whole raft of people are complaining that she is diminishing the real impact of the crime of sexual assault (just go check out the Facebook page).

This is where we get into the situation we’ve just covered in the last few posts: interpretation of the law by people who haven’t got a clue about the law.

Bettina doesn’t feel that what happened to her was assault. My interpretation is that it wasn’t Sexual Assault either, since there was no bodily harm and no reckless disregard of consent. Under whose interpretation would the incident become Sexual Assault in the first, second or third degree? Note that all these definitions in the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) involve “grievous bodily harm”. If we assume that consent obtained by deceit is not consent at all, the incident can best be described as sexual intercourse without consent. This is still a crime, is still punishable with a gaol sentence, but due to having no element of bodily harm doesn’t seem like sexual assault to me.

So Bettina’s complaint at this point appears to be about the word “assault” when what happened was a bogus procedure performed safely by a doctor on a willing (if naive/bewildered/hoodwinked) patient.

Having interpreted Bettina’s words as “it’s not rape if you liked it”, these protestors are standing on the general grounds that “Bettina is a misogynist” and will only quote selected parts of her essays to support their opinion (such opinions as, for example, that inappropriate touching is sexual assault – which is supported by selective quoting of a selected source).

So now we come to the statements of people in this “Protest Bettina Arndt at ANU” group: Kate McMurtrie in the Canberra Times (31 May): “her attitudes should not be invited or heralded at the ANU.” Or Heather Tea, a commentator on the Facebook page: “there’s nothing wrong with what Kate is quoted as saying, freedom of speech doesn’t mean every shithead in the world is entitled to be given a stage, an audience and publicity by the ANU …”

It certainly sounds to me a lot like these people are of the opinion that Bettina shouldn’t be allowed to speak at the ANU.

Wow what a f***ing joke. “I don’t agree with your views, so I’m going to deny people the right to hear what you have to say”.

In regards to post # 20 the Canberra rape crisis centre may provide some clarity :
http://www.rapecrisis.org.au/generai/Whatis.htm.

I’m going too, with ticket. Oh and camera. I hope they let her talk then ask questions.

creative_canberran4:39 pm 08 Jun 11

Grail said :

thatsnotme said :

Sorry, if your argument is that the definition of sexual assault is too broad, so somebody saying ‘sometimes sexual assault isn’t so bad’ is just being misunderstood, then I don’t want to read the book – I’ve heard enough.

I’m going by the resources offered to people who ask about sexual assault through legal aid agencies. There appears to be a dissonance between what the legal aid agencies are providing versus what the actual wording of sexual assault is in one particular section of the Crimes ACT.

Thankfully we have people here on The RiotACT who know more about the law than legal aid agencies.

I think its a case of LegalAid has to simplify the language for members of the general public and, since that document you read was from Victoria, there’s also a problem with incompatible language between jurisdictions.

In the ACT and NSW, “Sexual Assault” is the legal term for the crime, while in Victoria, their Crimes Act refers to it as “Rape”.

The actual definitions (the text from the heading “Legal definitions of sexual offences in Victoria” onwards) provided on pages 6 and 7 of the document are correct and in general, they appear to align with comparable NSW and ACT provisions.

The “definition” you provided was from the summary at the top of the page. The summary used “sexual assault” as a generic term and sought to describe an entire class of sexual crimes, from rape through to sexual slavery. It wasn’t defining any specific crime. Would have been best to look at the specific definitions provided below that and post one of those. Also, it’s best to note which jurisdiction it comes from if possible when posting.

Humphries is a d***, but I agree with him on this.

thatsnotme said :

Sorry, if your argument is that the definition of sexual assault is too broad, so somebody saying ‘sometimes sexual assault isn’t so bad’ is just being misunderstood, then I don’t want to read the book – I’ve heard enough.

I’m going by the resources offered to people who ask about sexual assault through legal aid agencies. There appears to be a dissonance between what the legal aid agencies are providing versus what the actual wording of sexual assault is in one particular section of the Crimes ACT.

Thankfully we have people here on The RiotACT who know more about the law than legal aid agencies.

creative_canberran said :

You’re right about one thing, that is too simple… because that is not the definition of sexual assault. How dare you say “as far as the law is concerned” when writing a false definition of it.

You’ll want to take the issue up with agencies such as Legal Aid Victoria who publish misleading comments such as this:

Sexual assault is an abuse of your rights. Women and children are most often the victims of sexual assault and men are almost always responsible (the perpetrators). Sexual assault is any unwanted sexual behaviour that causes humiliation, pain, fear or intimidation. It includes rape, incest, child abuse, and unwanted kissing and touching. It includes behaviour that does not involve actual touching. For example, forcing someone to watch pornography or masturbation is also sexual assault.

Watson said :

I believed this thread was about the protest and GH’s reaction to it? I don’t think this is the right place to start a discussion about the content of Arndt’s book.

Well in that case, please shoot off your mouths willy nilly and don’t bother to understand the argument. GH is under the impression that a bunch of people want Bettina Ardnt’s lecture cancelled. Where could he have got that idea from, I wonder?

Ms McMurtrie said students had expressed concern about what they saw as Arndt’s lack of concern for laws in regard to sexual assault.

”There are also some concerns about the appropriateness of the ANU’s endorsement of the event. The department has not contacted ANU about cancelling the event, although some members of the department have advocated for the department to adopt this position.”

creative_canberran3:08 pm 08 Jun 11

Grail said :

Before criticising Bettina for suggesting that the harm of sexual assault should be downplayed, it might help to remind oneself of what constitutes sexual assault. Sexual assault is – perhaps too simply – any unwanted touching that causes humiliation, pain, fear or intimidation. Thus as far as the law is concerned, it is just as illegal to place your hand on your wife’s rump and suggest a sexual interlude when she’s not interested in talking to you, as it is to do the same to your colleague at work.

You’re right about one thing, that is too simple… because that is not the definition of sexual assault. How dare you say “as far as the law is concerned” when writing a false definition of it.

Now this is a public forum and the definition is necessarily quite graphic in the Crimes Acts, so I will not publish the details here. I will say however that sexual assault requires “intercourse” as defined by the relevant legislative provisions and common law.

The correct definitions however can be found in Part 3 (particularly s50) of the Crimes Act (ACT) 1900 and for NSW in s61 of the Crimes Act (NSW) 1900. I would suggest you look at these.

The offence of sexual assault, like all criminal offences comprises both a physical element (actus reus) and a mental element (mens rea). Not withstanding the fact that your definition is incorrect anyway, it describes only a physical element and would be insufficient on its own to ground criminal liability.

Grail said :

Before criticising Bettina for suggesting that the harm of sexual assault should be downplayed, it might help to remind oneself of what constitutes sexual assault. Sexual assault is – perhaps too simply – any unwanted touching that causes humiliation, pain, fear or intimidation. Thus as far as the law is concerned, it is just as illegal to place your hand on your wife’s rump and suggest a sexual interlude when she’s not interested in talking to you, as it is to do the same to your colleague at work.

Just wow. There’s only one over simplification going on around here – your ridiculous example. To try to suggest that some type of ‘not tonight dear, I have a headache’ situation would be considered sexual assault under our laws does your argument no favours at all. Now if I decided I wasn’t happy with that answer, and in the course of convincing my wife that she really should change her mind I did humiliate her, or cause her to feel fear for herself or fearful of me, or I did cause her pain…then hell yeah, I reckon I have done something wrong – as far as the law is concerned, and morally – and should be punished.

Sorry, if your argument is that the definition of sexual assault is too broad, so somebody saying ‘sometimes sexual assault isn’t so bad’ is just being misunderstood, then I don’t want to read the book – I’ve heard enough. And if that is not in fact the argument, then your response here hasn’t done the author any favours at all.

Grail said :

Those wishing to inform themselves should perhaps consider reading the book that Bettina is promoting (What Men Want in Bed), rather than simply jumping on a book-burning bandwagon.

Before criticising Bettina for suggesting that the harm of sexual assault should be downplayed, it might help to remind oneself of what constitutes sexual assault. Sexual assault is – perhaps too simply – any unwanted touching that causes humiliation, pain, fear or intimidation. Thus as far as the law is concerned, it is just as illegal to place your hand on your wife’s rump and suggest a sexual interlude when she’s not interested in talking to you, as it is to do the same to your colleague at work.

Read the book, then comment about what she’s saying. Understand the context in which she is using the words that the Bettina bashing brigade are clubbing her with.

Just remember to hold off your judgement of the book’s worth till after you’ve read it. No point trying to read a book that you just know is evil (that’s called prejudice).

I believed this thread was about the protest and GH’s reaction to it? I don’t think this is the right place to start a discussion about the content of Arndt’s book.

Clown Killer said :

Any protest would lose all legitimacy if the protesters were to impede others from attending, or in any way interrupting, harassing or otherwise making a nuisance of themselves whilst the lecture was in progress … somehow I think that’s exactly what this rent-a-crowd will be doing.

Probably the same idiots who protested about the library changes. Clearly the workload of some degrees is too low!

Those wishing to inform themselves should perhaps consider reading the book that Bettina is promoting (What Men Want in Bed), rather than simply jumping on a book-burning bandwagon.

Before criticising Bettina for suggesting that the harm of sexual assault should be downplayed, it might help to remind oneself of what constitutes sexual assault. Sexual assault is – perhaps too simply – any unwanted touching that causes humiliation, pain, fear or intimidation. Thus as far as the law is concerned, it is just as illegal to place your hand on your wife’s rump and suggest a sexual interlude when she’s not interested in talking to you, as it is to do the same to your colleague at work.

Read the book, then comment about what she’s saying. Understand the context in which she is using the words that the Bettina bashing brigade are clubbing her with.

Just remember to hold off your judgement of the book’s worth till after you’ve read it. No point trying to read a book that you just know is evil (that’s called prejudice).

Clown Killer2:10 pm 08 Jun 11

Any protest would lose all legitimacy if the protesters were to impede others from attending, or in any way interrupting, harassing or otherwise making a nuisance of themselves whilst the lecture was in progress … somehow I think that’s exactly what this rent-a-crowd will be doing.

johnboy said :

It’s one thing to protest what she’s saying, another to protest that she’s been allowed to speak surely?

Not sure what the protest’s goal is. That description is pretty vague…

creative_canberran1:28 pm 08 Jun 11

Bettina Arndt’s views are irrational and repugnant to the values of a civilised society. Labelling dissent of her views as an “ugly display of intolerance” just demonstrates how detached Gary is from values that seek to protect the discourse in society.

Arndt has argued for example that the harm of sexual assault should be downplayed, because in a different context, the act would be considered a “loving”, romantic experience.
She also has strong views on what “wifely duties” are; views repugnant to High Court decisions dating back to the 1960s which recognise that sexual assault is not negated by a marital relationship.

Some confusion over the protest may stem from early talk of it mainly focusing on the decision of the ANU to allow her to speak and opposition to that decision. Of course, were the Women’s Collective to protest that aspect, they would be harming the very freedom they too rely on to express their views. Trying to stop her talk would also take away a valuable opportunity to scrutinise her ideas in the public sphere and challenge them.

Labelling descent as intolerance is just moronic. As Gary himself says, the purpose of universities “is to contest ideas unhindered”. That goes for both sides, for how can Arndt’s views be contested if he seeks to stifle descent? Seems he’s fallen afoul of his own logic.

It’s one thing to protest what she’s saying, another to protest that she’s been allowed to speak surely?

I think a ‘peaceful protest’ is ok if you don’t agree with what someone in the media is saying.

ScienceRules1:07 pm 08 Jun 11

Well, we’ve got tickets tonight and will brave the protesters. Will post a report afterwards if anyone’s interested. My wife got an invite via the Alumni Assoc and it seemed like it might be interesting. We sure know how to setup a hot date!

p1 said :

thatsnotme said :

Huh? I have no real interest in any of this, and know nothing about what’s planned aside from what’s posted here and on the facebook page linked, but I think that Gary Humphries might want to have a little think about what free speech is actually about. Surely a peaceful protest outside of the lecture is in itself free speech in action? I can’t see anything that mentions trying to shut the lecture down, so unless he’s got information that the rest of us don’t about what’s planned, I have no idea where he’s getting that idea from.

I had the same thought. Seems to me that this is an act of free speech, not something prohibiting it. If the Uni cancelled the woman on the basis of the complaints, then maybe it would be, but as planned, this is an opportunity for those who care, to show up (either at the talk or the protest) and gauge how their beliefs stack up against the others.

I believe this earlier CT article has a bit more background to it:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/anu-students-angry-over-arndt-sex-lecture/2179918.aspx

in which things like this:
” her attitudes should not be invited or heralded at the ANU” were said.
I’m not really sure, but perhaps they are in fact keen not to have her talk at ANU at all. Anyway, whatever..

thatsnotme said :

Huh? I have no real interest in any of this, and know nothing about what’s planned aside from what’s posted here and on the facebook page linked, but I think that Gary Humphries might want to have a little think about what free speech is actually about. Surely a peaceful protest outside of the lecture is in itself free speech in action? I can’t see anything that mentions trying to shut the lecture down, so unless he’s got information that the rest of us don’t about what’s planned, I have no idea where he’s getting that idea from.

I had the same thought. Seems to me that this is an act of free speech, not something prohibiting it. If the Uni cancelled the woman on the basis of the complaints, then maybe it would be, but as planned, this is an opportunity for those who care, to show up (either at the talk or the protest) and gauge how their beliefs stack up against the others.

Huh? I have no real interest in any of this, and know nothing about what’s planned aside from what’s posted here and on the facebook page linked, but I think that Gary Humphries might want to have a little think about what free speech is actually about. Surely a peaceful protest outside of the lecture is in itself free speech in action? I can’t see anything that mentions trying to shut the lecture down, so unless he’s got information that the rest of us don’t about what’s planned, I have no idea where he’s getting that idea from.

The idea that protest = denial of a platform just seems weird to me. Maybe Liberal HQ forgot to send Gary a copy of what he’s meant to be railing against (along with party approved phrases) if this is what’s got him hot under the collar.

Even though I don’t like the woman’s ideas at all, I agree with Gary on this one. It would’ve been better to go to the talk and engage her in a proper debate instead of marching around shouting slogans.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.