{"id":2967,"date":"2019-07-26T15:11:02","date_gmt":"2019-07-26T14:11:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/?p=2967"},"modified":"2019-07-27T08:10:39","modified_gmt":"2019-07-27T07:10:39","slug":"measuring-coercive-control","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/?p=2967","title":{"rendered":"Measuring Coercive Control"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\"><figure class=\"aligncenter is-resized\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/Says-im-worthless-coercive-control-724x1024.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-2968\" width=\"323\" height=\"457\"\/><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>On 29 December 2015, the government introduced <a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"http:\/\/www.legislation.gov.uk\/ukpga\/2015\/9\/section\/76\/enacted\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour<\/a> in an intimate or family relationship as part of the Serious Crime Act 2015. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) report annually on crime statistics, including domestic abuse \u2013 the crime surveys for England and Wales (CSEW). Existing surveys include questions relating to non-physical domestic abuse but these do not align with the definition of coercive control as legislated in December 2015. Indeed, how coercive control consistent with the legal definition is to be measured is an open question. Accordingly, the ONS has carried out research into possible measures of coercive control, trialling new survey questions starting in April 2017. On 18<sup>th<\/sup> April 2019, the <a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.ons.gov.uk\/peoplepopulationandcommunity\/crimeandjustice\/articles\/developingameasureofcontrollingorcoercivebehaviour\/2019-04-18\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">ONS published the results of their research<\/a> based on survey responses obtained in the period April 2017 to March 2018. This blog piece discusses their findings and actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The ONS\nfindings are of considerable interest in at least two aspects: (a) the relative\nprevalence of this type of domestic abuse experienced by men and women, and, (b)\nthe significance of preventing contact with children being classified as a form\nof coercive control. The actions taken by the ONS in the context of these two\nissues is of some concern.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Legal\nDefinition of Controlling or Coercive Behaviour<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The ONS research report quotes definitions of controlling or coercive behaviour from <a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk\/government\/uploads\/system\/uploads\/attachment_data\/file\/482528\/Controlling_or_coercive_behaviour_-_statutory_guidance.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">statutory guidance<\/a> and from the <a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/news\/new-definition-of-domestic-violence\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">cross-government definition of domestic violence and abuse<\/a>. Here I quote from the <a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"http:\/\/www.legislation.gov.uk\/ukpga\/2015\/9\/section\/76\/enacted\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Serious Crime Act (2015) clause 76<\/a>,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201c<em>Controlling or coercive\nbehaviour in an intimate or family relationship<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>(1) A person (A) commits an offence if\u2014\n<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>(a) A repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards another person (B) that is controlling or coercive, (b) at the time of the behaviour, A and B are personally connected, (c) the behaviour has a serious effect on B, and (d) A knows or ought to know that the behaviour will have a serious effect on B. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>(2) A and B are \u201cpersonally connected\u201d\nif\u2014 <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>(a) A is in an intimate personal relationship with B, or (b) A and B live together and<\/em> &#8211; <em>(i) they are members of the same family, or (ii) they have previously been in an intimate personal relationship with each other. &nbsp;<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>(4) A\u2019s behaviour has a \u201cserious\neffect\u201d on B if\u2014 <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>(a) it causes B to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against B, or (b) it causes B serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on B\u2019s usual day-to-day activities<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>An important issue which this legal definition makes clear is that the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour requires that the parties in question are, at the time of incidents, either in an intimate relationship or live together. Thus, incidents occurring only post-separation cannot be counted as controlling or coercive offences. This contrasts markedly with other forms of partner abuse for which status as an ex-partner is sufficient. Indeed, the overwhelming bulk of partner abuse recorded by the CSEWs relates to separated or divorced couples or single people (see Figure 4.10 <a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.ons.gov.uk\/peoplepopulationandcommunity\/crimeandjustice\/datasets\/bulletintablesfocusonviolentcrimeandsexualoffences\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">here<\/a>). It is therefore a bald anomaly to define controlling or coercive behaviour differently. The effect is that controlling or coercive behaviour occurring post-separation, and hence whilst child contact or other family court disputes are proceeding, do not meet the legal definition. The significance of this to the ONS\u2019s research will be brought out below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>ONS\/CSEW\nExisting Measure of Non-Physical Domestic Abuse<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The CSEWs\nalready contain questions relating to Non-Physical Domestic Abuse, namely, respondents\nare asked whether they have been,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>prevented\nfrom having their fair share of the household money<\/li><li>stopped\nfrom seeing friends and relatives<\/li><li>repeatedly\nbelittled to the extent that they felt worthless<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The question\nis asked both in the context of a partner, and separately in the context of any\nother family member. Whilst there is some overlap between these questions and\nControlling or Coercive behaviour, they do not conform to the required\ndefinition. This fact has motivated the ONS\u2019s research into a measure which\nconforms better to the legal definition. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>ONS\u2019s Trial\nof a Measure of Controlling or Coercive Behaviour<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The measures\nof controlling or coercive behaviour trialled from April 2017 consists of two\nparts: behaviours and impacts. A key issue is that at least one controlling or\ncoercive behaviour had to be reported in order for the questions about impact\nto be addressed. In the abstract this may seem only sensible, but there is an important\nissue lurking therein, as we shall see.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Trial\nBehaviour Questions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201c<em>In the\nlast 12 months, has a partner or ex-partner ever repeatedly or continuously\ndone any of the things listed below? By partner we mean a boyfriend,\ngirlfriend, husband, wife or civil partner. Please select all that apply.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><em>Unfairly controlled how much money\nyou could have or how you spent it<\/em><\/li><li><em>Isolated you from your friends and\nfamily <\/em><\/li><li><em>Monitored your letters, phone calls,\nemails, texts or social media <\/em><\/li><li><em>Enforced rules or activities which\nhumiliated you <\/em><\/li><li><em>Controlled how household work or\nchildcare is done <\/em><\/li><li><em>Kept track of where you went or how\nyou spent your time <\/em><\/li><li><em>Bullied or intimidated you, for\nexample by punching walls or destroying property <\/em><\/li><li><em>Forced you to engage in sex or\ncertain sexual acts against your will <\/em><\/li><li><em>Threatened to harm children in the\nhousehold<\/em>\u201d<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>A welcome aspect\nof this is that the ONS trial does not restrict controlling or coercive\nbehaviours to people living together at the time (and hence, in this respect,\nit is more inclusive than the legal definition).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Impact<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>If a\nrespondent reports at least one of the controlling or coercive behaviours\napplies, they were asked to respond to the following impact questions,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201c<em>Thinking\nabout these actions you experienced in the last 12 months, to what extent did\nyou suffer any of the following as a result?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><em>Fear that violence would be used\nagainst you <\/em><\/li><li><em>Feeling unable to leave the\nrelationship\/household due to fear of coming to harm <\/em><\/li><li><em>Constantly living in fear which\naffected your day-to-day activities <\/em><\/li><li><em>Significant changes in routine,\nbehaviour, or appearance to try to avoid the abuse <\/em><\/li><li><em>Forced to give up work, education, or\nvolunteering due to fear of coming to harm <\/em><\/li><li><em>Fear that you would lose contact with\nyour children<\/em>\u201d<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>For each\nimpact category the respondent indicates if they suffered it very much, quite a\nlot, a little or not at all. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It is in respect\nof Impact F, \u201cfear that you would lose contact with your children\u201d that the\nplot thickens. More on this key issue below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>ONS Research\nResults<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For half of respondents\n(chosen at random), the new controlling or coercive behaviour questions\nreplaced the original non-physical abuse questions at the same point in the CSEW\nsurvey. The other half of respondents received the original non-physical abuse\nquestions. This permitted a comparison of the two measures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The trial\ncontrolling or coercive behaviour questions indicated significantly lower\nprevalence than the existing non-physical abuse questions (see Table 1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Table 1:\nComparison of Trial Controlling or Coercive Behaviour Questions with Existing\nNon-Physical Abuse Questions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  Abuse Category\n  <\/td><td>\n  Non-Physical\n  <\/td><td>\n  Controlling\n  or Coercive\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  These behaviours (partner)\n  <\/td><td>\n  3.0%\n  <\/td><td>\n  1.7%\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  These behaviours (family)\n  <\/td><td>\n  1.3%\n  <\/td><td>\n  0.6%\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  All domestic abuse\n  <\/td><td>\n  6.1%\n  <\/td><td>\n  4.5%\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p>Of even\ngreater interest is that the sex difference in partner victimisation prevalence\nrates is substantially reduced by the trial controlling or coercive behaviour\nmeasure (Table 2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Table 2:\nSex Differences in Victimisation using the Trial Controlling or Coercive\nBehaviour Questions and the Existing Non-Physical Abuse Questions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<table class=\"wp-block-table\"><tbody><tr><td>\n  &nbsp;\n  <\/td><td>\n  Women\n  <\/td><td>\n  Men\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>   Abuse by partner, current non-physical measure   <\/td><td>\n  4.5%\n  <\/td><td>\n  1.5%\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>   Abuse by partner, trial controlling or coercive measure   <\/td><td>\n  2.2%\n  <\/td><td>\n  1.2%\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>\n  Family abuse, current non-physical measure\n  <\/td><td>\n  1.5%\n  <\/td><td>\n  1.2%\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td>   Family abuse, trial controlling or coercive measure   <\/td><td>\n  0.8%\n  <\/td><td>\n  0.4%\n  <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>ONS\nReaction to the Research Results<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The ONS research direction is being guided by a Domestic Abuse Statistics Steering Group. This group is chaired by ONS and includes representatives from across government, academia, the voluntary sector and Kantar Public who run the CSEW. <a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.ons.gov.uk\/peoplepopulationandcommunity\/crimeandjustice\/articles\/developingameasureofcontrollingorcoercivebehaviour\/2019-04-18\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The membership is given in Annex A of their report<\/a>. It is heavily biased towards the usual culprits, i.e., those of feminist sympathies, e.g., Women\u2019s Aid, Respect, Safe Lives, Home Office, and well known strongly feminist academics. The Group is well placed to block any changes to ONS domestic abuse measures which would reduce its apparent prevalence or reduce the sex difference in its prevalence, such outcomes being contrary to the prevailing narrative. The trialled controlling and coercive questions, if used in place of the existing non-physical abuse questions, would do both. It is therefore unsurprising that the ONS conclude that, \u201c<em>the questions require further development before we can be confident that they are fit for purpose. To allow for this, the questions tested in the split-sample experiment were removed from the survey in April 2019<\/em>\u201d. They are explicit about the reason,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><em>The considerable extent of the difference in domestic abuse prevalence\nestimates generated by the two questions requires more in-depth research and\nexploration.<\/em><\/li><li><em>The difference between men and women in the prevalence of domestic abuse\nchanged with the introduction of the controlling or coercive behaviour\nquestions \u2013 the extent of this difference and the reasons why such a change\noccurred needs further investigation.<\/em><\/li><li><em>The wording and other aspects of the questions may be drawing in people\nwho are not victims, or be missing those who are.<\/em><\/li><li><em>Therefore, we have agreed that further development is needed and have\nremoved the trial questions from the CSEW from April 2019 whilst further\nresearch is conducted.<\/em><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Contact\nwith Children<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Despite the presence\nof \u201cfear that you would lose contact with your children\u201d in the trialled Impact\ncategories, the issue of child contact was minimised by the trial. The reason\nis that none of the \u201cBehaviour\u201d questions related to \u201cprevented you from having\ncontact with your children\u201d. Recall that the trial required at least one \u201cBehaviour\u201d\nto apply in order for the Impact questions to be asked. The absence of a\nBehaviour question relating to child contact will therefore have minimised responses\nto the Impact question \u201cfear that you would lose contact with your children\u201d\nbecause it would be addressed only to people who happened to suffer one of the\nother Behavioural abuses. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In view of\nthis, it is not so surprising that ONS write,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201c<em>Two\nimpacts elicited a higher proportion of \u2018does not apply\u2019 responses than others,\nfor behaviours experienced both by a partner or ex-partner and by a family\nmember: <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><em>\u2018Forced to give up work, education or volunteering due to fear of coming\nto harm\u2019<\/em><\/li><li><em>\u2018Fear that you would lose contact with your children\u2019<\/em><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><em>From\nthis, we concluded that these two impacts should be removed from the definition\nof a victim for this initial stage of the research<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>One wonders\nwhat the response to this Impact category would have been had the Behaviour\nquestion \u201cprevented you from having contact with your children\u201d been included.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However,\neven putting this aside, the reasoning is spurious. It is not the frequency of\n\u201cdoes not apply\u201d for different questions that matters, but the frequency with\nwhich it was reported as being suffered. As regards the question \u201cfear that you\nwould lose contact with your children\u201d, and in reference to\npartners\/ex-partners, more than twice as many men answered this question with\n\u201csuffered to some extent\u201d, than the number who stated \u201cdoes not apply\u201d.&nbsp;&nbsp; <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Furthermore, according to <a aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.ons.gov.uk\/peoplepopulationandcommunity\/crimeandjustice\/datasets\/developingameasureofcontrollingorcoercivebehaviourappendixtables\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Tables 4a and 4b<\/a> of the ONS\u2019s results, this was the only impact category in which more men than women suffered to some extent. Moreover, this category is precisely that for which men report suffering most (both as regards partners\/ex-partners and other family members) \u2013 despite the absence of an appropriate Behaviour question. Therefore, by omitting this impact category the impact results will be seriously gender-skewed, and one cannot escape the feeling that this is what lies behind its exclusion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Loss of Contact with Your Children is Not a Harm and Fear of it is Not a Real Fear<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But it gets\nworse. The ONS (or, probably, their advisors) are guilty of an enormous and\ninsupportable value judgment which explicitly minimises men\u2019s suffering. The ONS\nwrite,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201c<em>Responses\nto \u2018Fear that you would lose contact with your children\u2019 impacting the\nrespondent \u2018to some extent\u2019 were marginally higher in relation to behaviours\nexperienced among men by a partner or ex-partner. There was concern among some\nmembers of the Domestic Abuse Statistics Steering Group that this impact was\nlikely to illicit a relatively high response among men, which may not truly\nreflect controlling or coercive behaviour but rather a relatively common\noutcome in dissolved relationships. As such, at this early stage of the\nresearch, we took the decision not to include this impact in the definition of\na victim. This is something we will investigate in later stages of the research<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This is\nlogically incoherent. The intention is to measure impact. How can an impact be\nruled as less significant on the grounds that it is more common? Feminist\nSteering Group influence is all too apparent. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Nor, in as\nfar as the impact is the <strong><em>fear<\/em><\/strong> of the harm in question being\nrealised, is it reasonable to regard the fear as being reduced because the\nrealisation of the harm is more common. The opposite surely applies. That the\nloss of contact of a non-resident parent, usually the father, with his children\nis a common outcome only makes fear of it more reasonable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The ONS position appears to have been badly skewed by a value judgment which is insupportable, and, in fact, easily refuted. It relates to whether losing contact with one\u2019s children constitutes a harm. The answer is already available because the ONS note that the statutory guidance \u201c<em>states that any level of fear experienced would be considered serious under the offence<\/em>\u201d. But it seems that the feminist advisers, always ready with some verbal legerdemain, have provided a slippery get-out. In Note 3 the ONS claim that, <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201c<em>The word\n\u2018fear\u2019 is used differently in \u2018fear that you would lose contact with your\nchildren\u2019 in that it is not connected to a fear of violence or a fear of coming\nto harm, therefore this consideration (i.e., that the guidance would indicate\nthat this constitutes a harm) does not apply. Future research will consider\ncareful use of the word \u2018fear\u2019<\/em>\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This asserts\nthat losing contact with one&#8217;s children does not constitute a harm, unlike\nphysical violence which, of course, does. This is a remarkable position to\nadopt and easily refuted. Consider asking any parent if they would prefer being\npunched in the face or never seeing their children again. How many parents\nwould choose the latter? But recourse to such analogies is unnecessary. The\nlegal definition of Controlling or Coercive Behaviour, quoted above, states\nthat the \u201cserious effect\u201d criterion is met if the behaviour, \u201c<em>causes B serious alarm or distress\nwhich has a substantial adverse effect on B\u2019s usual day-to-day activities<\/em>\u201d. Being forcibly estranged from one\u2019s\nchildren certain does just that. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In fact, losing\ncontact with one\u2019s children is a harm of a particularly high order. Removing\nthis as an impact is insupportable. And that is before consideration is given\nto the fact that, alone of the putative impact questions, this one involves a\nthird party, namely the child. The interests of the child are paramount in\nfamily law, and yet the one category of impact which involves the child was dismissed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\ndiscussion relating to the definition of a victim of coercive control is also\ndisconcerting. Having rejected two impact categories which contain the word\n\u201cfear\u201d, the ONS then propose that the word \u201cfear\u201d is made the basis of\naccepting any degree of harm, including only \u201ca little\u201d, as sufficient evidence\nof impact. In contrast, the one impact category which does not include the word\n\u201c fear\u201d, namely \u201csignificant changes in routine, behaviour, or appearance to\ntry to avoid the abuse\u201d, is required to be reported at the level \u201cvery much\naffected\u201d in order to qualify.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This is\nagain a strange value judgment which appears to elevate fear of an outcome\nabove an actually realised outcome. Thus, for example, if \u201cconstantly living in\nfear which affected your day-to-day activities\u201d is reported to apply \u201ca little\u201d,\nthen the impact criterion is satisfied regardless of whether there is actually\nany effect on your daily activities. In contrast, for a real change in your\ndaily activities due to coercive control to qualify as evidence of victimhood\nthe change would have to be at the \u201cvery much affected\u201d level. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The elevates\nto a higher level of significance a subjective hypothetical of X which may\nnever have happened over an objective actual occurrence of X. It is difficult\nnot to see this as an attempt to cook the books. By focussing on fear, and only\nfear of certain possibilities and not others, the recommended definition of\ncoercive control would be gender-skewed from the start, and the research\nresults show that this would be the case. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In view of this, perhaps it is best that the trial coercive-control measure has been suspended for the present. But there is a suggestion in the research results that, if proper prominence were given to the controlling behaviour of preventing child contact, domestic abuse statistics would move much closer to gender-parity. One can expect firm resistance from the feminist lobby to a change of this kind for that very reason. Where we go from here is unclear, but there remains the unsolved issue of how to measure coercive-control.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On 29 December 2015, the government introduced the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship as part of the Serious Crime Act 2015. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) report annually on crime statistics, including domestic abuse \u2013 the crime surveys for England and Wales (CSEW). Existing surveys include questions [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2967","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-domestic-violence"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2967","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2967"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2967\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2974,"href":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2967\/revisions\/2974"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2967"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2967"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2967"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}