First Person Sentenced for 'Controlling Behaviour in an Intimate Relationship' in the UK

[jukel123 6,570]

1 minute ago, Born Hunter said:

Pretty sure domestic abuse is most commonly against men in fact. I might be wrong about that.

I'm really not considering gender here. It shouldn't matter.

Born, behave! "Domestic abuse most commonly against men". Rearrange this sentence so it makes sense." Must I talk not bollocks"

[bird 9,587]

15 minutes ago, John d said:

Fair play mate what belt did you get up to? 

brown  standard , but regular  had free style fighting with 1 and 2nd Dans  , you see the bloke who trained us was only  little bloke  5ft 6- in   stocky  bloke   so not big fella, But it was him who installed  into me and the rest of the class  , never back down from no  one , dont look for it, but stand strong and ready. and bloody hell   when i 1st started he  drop few kicks and punches at my face  , i turn away from them , he keep throwing at me until i started to  block  and read the  attack coming , bloody  hard with there power and speed  lol , but it did the trick over time , i started  attack back , and that what he was after , so with this and lifting good weight benching 260lb  good weight for my  size   it all helped   deff 

[Born Hunter 17,622]

4 minutes ago, jukel123 said:

Born, behave! "Domestic abuse most commonly against men". Rearrange this sentence so it makes sense." Must I talk not bollocks"

Sorry fella, you're right. I can't remember where I got that from, be some tiny insignificant niche stat, maybe something to do with reported cases. Anyway, like I said, gender shouldn't really factor into this. A victim is a victim.

[ChrisJones 7,973]

6 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Totally agree. As I have said, people with a disability that renders them vulnerable in society should be protected and usually are.

Mental Capacity Act 2005.

3 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Yeah, I'm ready to tap out and tap @ChrisJones in! 

I don't have anything to add. Looking at the guidelines for the police and CPS it now covers the LGBTQ community but I still cannot find what the loophole was and how this act closes it. If it will genuinely help victims I cannot really argue but with the 60+ existing laws that cover domestic abuse and forced deprivation of liberty at the hands of another, I can't really see how this will improve the situation? The case listed in the OP was already covered by existing law.

Genuinely interested in @Kay's opinion on whether this new law would have helped her in her own nightmare? I'm not in an abusive relationship so I cannot successfully argue whether the law would help/hinder based on my current interpretation of it.

 

[Kerny92 1,246]

I wish i was abused by the little minx, has anyone seen the pic of her. ?

[greg64 2,560]

11 minutes ago, Kerny92 said:

I wish i was abused by the little minx, has anyone seen the pic of her. ?

be careful what you wish for kerny  foxy knoxy springs to mind

[Kerny92 1,246]

6 minutes ago, greg64 said:

be careful what you wish for kerny  foxy knoxy springs to mind

She'd get it as well.

[lurcherman 887 12,670]

4 minutes ago, W. Katchum said:

Ain’t read whole thread, there’s mare words than the bible ffs, we don’t need any more laws unless it’s to ensure the survival of our culture an people, but about this controlling behaviour malarkey? Can I get missus sent down for controlling the amount shags an gobbles I get a week ????

Ahh the gobble bank

[Born Hunter 17,622]

6 minutes ago, W. Katchum said:

Ain’t read whole thread, there’s mare words than the bible ffs, we don’t need any more laws unless it’s to ensure the survival of our culture an people, but about this controlling behaviour malarkey? Can I get missus sent down for controlling the amount shags an gobbles I get a week ????

That term should probably be considered abusive ffs! 

f***ing brilliant, I'll be using that!

 

...no not on my sex doll before anyone says it! Cruel piss taking fuckers.

[ChrisJones 7,973]

9 minutes ago, W. Katchum said:

Ain’t read whole thread, there’s mare words than the bible ffs, we don’t need any more laws unless it’s to ensure the survival of our culture an people, but about this controlling behaviour malarkey? Can I get missus sent down for controlling the amount shags an gobbles I get a week ????

The law says...

Quote

Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 provides that:

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(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.

(2)A and B are “personally connected” if—

(a)A is in an intimate personal relationship with B, or

(b)A and B live together and—

(i)they are members of the same family, or

(ii)they have previously been in an intimate personal relationship with each other.

(3)But A does not commit an offence under this section if at the time of the behaviour in

question--

(a)A has responsibility for B, for the purposes of Part 1 of the Children an

d Young Persons

Act 1933 (see section 17 of that Act), and

(b)B is under 16.

(4)A’s behaviour has a “serious effect” on B if—

(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’s usual day to day activities.

 

If you can satisfy to the CPS that such activity is ruining your life you have a case but be careful of asking for legal advice on a hunting forum, and also the danger of adding another ambiguous law [IMHO] to 60+ laws that already pertain to the crimes committed.

[ChrisJones 7,973]

1 minute ago, W. Katchum said:

Do ye reckon blue balls an habitual master basterion count Chris, your a clever cookie?? You can be my barrister for this I’m sure it won’t go any further than kangaroo court as it’s plain to see to anybody the effect it’s havin on me life???

It would be a landmark case, sir. If we could prove that withholding connubial relations is hazardous to one's health to the point of psychological abuse and that blue balls isn't just a temporary nuptial plumage we could open the... err... floodgates for similar claims.

 

[scothunter 12,609]

Should charge sturgeon with that law wee horrible control freak

[Kay 3,709]

1 hour ago, Born Hunter said:

 

I suppose you won't believe me but I accept all that. It's no revelation, despite me "clearly never been in a controlling relationship". How does this law help with any of that? If you or I were in that situation now where we feel we can't leave, why would we initiate or at least support a criminal investigation? How does this law help anyone? Surely you either have the strength to change your fate or you don't?

I'd have no issue with schemes being funded to give people the tools to make that choice easier. Does this law do that?

For a lot of people it will mean this kind of abuse is seen as a crime rather than a domestic 

[jukel123 6,570]

7 minutes ago, Kay said:

For a lot of people it will mean this kind of abuse is seen as a crime rather than a domestic 

EXACTLY! And eventually it will impact on people's behaviour.

[ChrisJones 7,973]

12 minutes ago, Kay said:

For a lot of people it will mean this kind of abuse is seen as a crime rather than a domestic 

 

2 minutes ago, jukel123 said:

EXACTLY! And eventually it will impact on people's behaviour.

With all due respect, it already is a crime and is already written on 60+ laws dating back to 1861. How will it empower those in abusive relationships to challenge the status quo? If you're in fear of your life and I'm not belittling anyone's experience will this new law empower you to contact the authorities?