After a long break, welcome back to the Brown Couch's Institute of Tenancy Culture Studies. The subject of today's study is the most famous cartoon tenant in Hartlepool, if not the world – Andy Capp.
(Andy Capp, by Reg Smythe)
Since Reg Smythe launched his comic strip in the Daily Mirror in August 1957, Andy Capp and his wife Flo have been the tenants of the premises at 37 Durham Street, Hartlepool, in the north of England. Andy's tenancy has been mined repeatedly for jokes about crumby housing, noisy neighbours and, especially, about paying the rent – or rather, not paying.
(Daily Mirror, 25 June 1958)
(Daily Mirror, 29 December 1961)
(Daily Mirror, 6 November 1961)
One might think that because of Andy's rent-dodging antics he would be fondly regarded here at the Brown Couch. Unfortunately, no. I say 'unfortunately' because I like the idea of Andy Capp: the twisted logic of that third gag is okay, and the whole idea of millions of newspaper-reading households meeting over their breakfasts each morning a chronically unemployed man and his cleaning-lady wife seems kind of radical... but there's no getting past the domestic violence.
The abuse and violence inflicted by Andy Capp upon Flo is a big part of the comic strip and, horribly, its humour (running 'Andy Capp domestic violence' through the British Cartoon Archive's database turns up no less than 73 strips from the period 1957-1962 alone – half as many again as the tenancy-related strips).
(Daily Mirror, 20 August 1957
(Daily Mirror, 24 September 1962)
One gets a bit of chill to think that fifty years ago these hateful little works were presented by newspapers the world over for the amusement of their readers.
Perhaps this is unfair on Smythe, who is said to have later regretted all the DV gags... but I don't think so, and instead think of how many beaten women would have read the papers and got the message loud and clear that they should expect to be beaten and for no-one to help stop it because sometimes it's the right thing for a man to do and sometimes it's just funny. Perhaps we're being unfair to Andy, who after all got given violence and alcoholism by Smythe along with unemployment, soccer, pigeon-racing and tenancy to make him the complete stereotype of the marginal working class Northern English male. But still too many women suffer from the compounded effects of domestic violence and insecure housing to make dismantling the stereotype the first order of business.
Let's consider Flo. If she and Andy lived in New South Wales, Flo could apply to the Local Court for an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order against Andy, which 'may impose such prohibitions or restrictions on the behaviour of the defendant as appear necessary or desirable to the court' (s 35(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007) – including prohibiting access by Andy to any premises occupied by Flo, 'whether or not the defendant has a legal or equitable interest in the premises or place' (s 35(2)(b)). In other words, Flo could get Andy excluded from the premises of which he is a tenant, if the court was satisfied that this was necessary to her safety.
As the law presently stands, however, Andy's tenancy would not be terminated, so Andy would still be in a position to make life difficult for Flo. The difficulty depends on Flo's own tenancy status: if she and Andy are co-tenants, the difficulty is that there is no straightforward way for Flo to change the tenancy agreement so that she alone is the tenant; if she is merely an occupant under licence, Andy could terminate her licence and have her evicted.
The draft Residential Tenancies Bill would fix these problems. In particular, a final ADVO that excludes a co-tenant from the premises would terminate that co-tenant's tenancy, while leaving the rights of the remaining co-tenant unaffected (so, Andy would legally be out of the picture, and Flo would have the tenancy in her name only). And in the case of an occupant in premises from which a tenant has been excluded by ADVO, the draft Bill would allow the occupant to apply to the Tribunal for an order vesting a tenancy in the occupant on such terms as the Tribunal thinks appropriate (so, Andy would be out of the picture and Flo could get an order for a tenancy in her name only).
Two good practical ways of helping survivors of domestic violence take the steps they need to get safe and get on with their lives, and two good reasons for passing the Bill.
true, true. things have moved on over the decades though.
ReplyDeletedon't forget it's a historical document -- social mores and institutions such as marriage as a patriarchal binding arrangement have changed over the years. no longer does Andy's wife have to put up with spousal abuse or fear the comments of neighbours if she seeks a divorce, let alone alternative accommodation or access to a refuge. you must compare like with like -- you cannot compare today's DV or AVO or tenant's legislation with the legislation (or mores) of the 1950s as though only legislation would have saved her -- legislation tends to follow community standards (or very occasionally might lead it). remember no-fault divorce legislation was only enacted in the 1970s.
I grew up reading Andy Capp, too, but I never beat my wife, never went out to bars to drink and play billiards, and have been steadily employed for most of my adult life. Using Andy Capp as a springboard for a legal discussion is one thing, but you need to be very sure about what it means as a social and cultural institution, as the influence of such a strip may not be as straightforward or obvious as you make it out to be.
ReplyDelete