If violence is urgent, why does change keep coming with a ten-year timeline?
On 18 December 2025, the UK government published another ten-year strategy to address violence against women and girls.
On paper, it looks coordinated. Ambitious, even.
But when placed alongside the numbers from the past decade, something doesn’t quite line up. Harm has not decreased. It has increased.
Violence against women and girls has risen significantly since 2010, not fallen. That gap matters, because time is not neutral when violence is involved. Delay is not abstract when lives are being shaped in real time.
This isn’t about tearing down effort.
That’s easy.
What feels more necessary is asking better questions about urgency, implementation, and accountability. About what actually changes when a strategy moves from intention into institutions that have historically struggled to protect the very people they serve.
I’m paying attention to the point where urgency quietly turns into tolerance.
To who systems are built to protect, and who ends up carrying the consequences when change moves slowly.
This week’s Like Me podcast episode sits with those questions. It looks at the ten-year strategy without rushing to conclusions. Not to provoke, but to examine what it really means to address violence at scale while harm continues to rise.
There are no grand answers here.
Just a refusal to let time do the work that systems are being asked to do.
Some questions don’t need louder responses.
They need to be asked again, and again, until change responds.
Take what resonates.
Leave the rest.
