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

[Born Hunter 17,622]

18 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 

 

8 minutes ago, jukel123 said:

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

I agree it'll now be a crime by definition. I don't think it'll be changing social views so much. Surely the vast majority of society already consider it imorral to manipulate a person through emotional blackmail. Control through threat of violence, implied or explicit, already being illegal of course.

So the argument is that it'll change social views and therefore prevent such behaviour from occurring? We'll see I guess. One thing I don't need to wait for is to see if itll be repealed if found to have no effect.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Born Hunter

[jukel123 6,570]

2 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

 

I agree it'll now be a crime by definition. I don't think it'll be changing social views so much. Surely the vast majority of society already consider it imorral to manipulate a person through emotional blackmail. Control through threat of violence, implied or explicit, already being illegal of course.

So the argument is that it'll change social views and therefore prevent such behaviour from occurring? We'll see I guess. One thing I don't need to wait for is to see if itll be repealed if found to have no effect.

People moaned loud and hard about the smoking laws. It's been a fantastic piece of people friendly legislation. Same with laws preventing the smacking of children. There were always those who said "it's nothing to do with the state what I do to my children in my own home". But slowly behaviour has changed for the better. Laws should sometimes be welcomed, this new piece of legislation is a step in the right direction.

[Born Hunter 17,622]

3 minutes ago, jukel123 said:

People moaned loud and hard about the smoking laws. It's been a fantastic piece of people friendly legislation. Same with laws preventing the smacking of children. There were always those who said "it's nothing to do with the state what I do to my children in my own home". But slowly behaviour has changed for the better. Laws should sometimes be welcomed, this new piece of legislation is a step in the right direction.

No, it's been a fantastic way of forcing a non smoking lifestyle on everyone else because 'we' have decided that non smokers arent capable of dealing with the responsibility of just avoiding smoking establishments. I don't think either of those examples have influenced societal views. Education has if anything. I suppose the hunting act has turned folks away from hunting?

Ideologically I don't accept that mentally sound adults are not responsible for their own lives. I could accept a law that is based on that if it was effective at protecting victims, which I'm struggling to see this one will be.

This is like the debate on loan interest rates. You think normal folks need protection, I think they need help to take responsibility.

[Born Hunter 17,622]

Even if the smoking and smacking law examples did change social views, what's the social view on emotionally manipulating a partner or family member that needs changing? Folk already think it's a c**ts trick!

Edited April 17, 2018 by Born Hunter

[ChrisJones 7,973]

Massive tangent, gentlemen, but has the law lowered the amount of smoking or has a better understanding of the side-effects? Are the official figures reliable when the taxation of the product is seeing a thriving black market?

Are 65 laws pertaining to domestic violence necessary? Desirable? Enforceable? Workable?

 

[jukel123 6,570]

On 17/04/2018 at 18:58, Born Hunter said:

No, it's been a fantastic way of forcing a non smoking lifestyle on everyone else because 'we' have decided that non smokers arent capable of dealing with the responsibility of just avoiding smoking establishments. I don't think either of those examples have influenced societal views. Education has if anything. I suppose the hunting act has turned folks away from hunting?

Ideologically I don't accept that mentally sound adults are not responsible for their own lives. I could accept a law that is based on that if it was effective at protecting victims, which I'm struggling to see this one will be.

This is like the debate on loan interest rates. You think normal folks need protection, I think they need help to take responsibility.

I believe in the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. I don't care if the 'alt right bleat' about individual freedom. Whether it's gun laws, tobacco laws, laws against hammering children and partners, health and safety at work, I'm all for those laws. ( Although not the hunting laws.) I live in the real world, and am not impressed by academic arguments criticising  the "nanny state" . I'm all for free school meals, proper NHS provision, social housing, laws to protect against usurers and bad landlords, laws to protect children seeing porn or protecting them from junk food advertising.Any law in fact which improves people's daily existence and their futures.

The function of the state is to nurture its citizens not make society a free- for- all for the rich and privileged.I guess that's where we differ BH.

You constantly write about people taking responsibilities for their actions. When you are dirt poor, with the low self esteem which often comes with it, you are not capable of free will.You don't have choices, you get kicked in the teeth...constantly.

To go back to the original point. How can a woman with children say, walk out of an abusive life. She may not have the f***ing bus fare!There may not be a refuge to go to. She may be so terrified of reprisals she is frozen to the spot. How can she take her kids out of school? Where are they going to sleep that night? Ffs individual freedom and choices are for the likes of you.Don't lecture people who have no choices from your lofty middle class perch.

Edited April 19, 2018 by jukel123

[Daniel cain 42,800]

Must of been a slave to the pussy silly bitch wouldn't of got away with that if he had a set of balls, what mug male or female puts up with that shit in a relationship? If you can't have enough respect to keep your hands off each other then you should f**k off far away from each other imo. Madness

[ChrisJones 7,973]

9 minutes ago, jukel123 said:

I believe in the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.

Good post Jukel. I can agree with that but we'll differ on how to make that happen such is life's rich tapestry.

10 minutes ago, jukel123 said:

To go back to the original point. How can a woman with children say, walk out of an abusive life. She may not have the f***ing bus fair!There may not be a refuge to go to. She may be so terrified of reprisals she is frozen to the spot. How can she take her kids out of school? Where are they going to sleep that night?

1

Again I absolutely agree but if this is currently impossible with the existing 60 odd laws how is this new one going to make a difference? I know this is an extremely serious issue and I'm not trying to make light of it but how does regulating this further empower a victim to contact the authorities? It doesn't even clarify what it changed. It just appears to be yet another law that makes the MP's appear to be doing something, although I still can't figure out what that is.

[jiggy 3,207]

There was a case a while back in an Irish newspaper asking about if fathers from a broken marriage had any rights. They used an example of where a father who didn't drink or smoke was been manipulated by his wife who relished making him suffer by using the kids as bait. She controlled him through the relationship and then started shagging another bloke behind his back. They broke up over this as it was the last straw for him. When they went to court she got the house as she was the main child carer but he had to keep paying the mortgage as maintenance and had little money left. He ended up forced to rent a flat for himself which she then refused to allow him take the kids on weekends ( he had to work all week to pay their bills) because a 1 bedroom flat was unsuitable for a father to sleep in the same bed with the kids. He had access every 2nd xmas day to take them to flat for dinner but she failed to drop them over 3 times in a row and he took her to court but the judge believed her petty excuses, ( the car broke down) or ( they were sick). The judge warned her each time but still done nothing about it. She drove him to the point of  near suicide without an abusive word or  using violence. The man is left in a catch 22 situation and probably won't have a relationship with his kids until they are adults all because that controlling bitch was shagging another man in his bed and then turned the tables on him. I'm not saying this law would benifit him but it would give her something to think about playing the devils advocate. If he had of hit her like some of the tough guys say then he probably would never see his kids again even if she did deserve it.

[jukel123 6,570]

The new law has brought the issue into the public domain and pushed the refresh button. I would be bluffing if  I  pretended to be familiar with 60 odd laws. Whatever the difference between this new law  and the old laws are..I am all for it even if only one person benefits from it.

[Born Hunter 17,622]

9 minutes ago, jukel123 said:

I believe in the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. I don't care if the 'alt right bleat' about individual freedom. Whether it's gun laws, tobacco laws, laws against hammering children and partners, health and safety at work, I'm all for those laws. ( Although not the hunting laws.) I live in the real world, and am not impressed by academic arguments criticising  the "nanny state" . I'm all for free school meals, proper NHS provision, social housing, laws to protect against usurers and bad landlords, laws to protect children seeing porn or protecting them from junk food advertising.Any law in fact which improves people's daily existence and their futures.

Mate if you think the value of liberty is 'alt right' then yeah I can see why 'academic' arguments don't impress you, you completely misunderstand them! Alt right ffs 

At best Tea party! The alt right would shit themselves if a classical liberal was in power. Sexual freedoms, religious freedom, recreational drugs, free speech all round etc etc.

12 minutes ago, jukel123 said:

The function of the state is to nurture its citizens not make society a free- for- all for the rich and privileged.I guess that's where we differ BH.

Yep completely diverge on that view. Even disagree on what you think my view is there.

15 minutes ago, jukel123 said:

You constantly write about people taking responsibilities for their actions. When you are dirt poor, with the low self esteem which often comes with it, you are not capable of free will.You don't have choices, you get kicked in the teeth...constantly.

You always have choices. But granted at the bottom of the social spectrum you have less tools and priveledge to educate you as to good choices. Hence I don't believe in anarchist capitalism, I'm quite happy for there to be education and schemes by the state to help provide that. But fundamentally the choice should remain. 

18 minutes ago, jukel123 said:

To go back to the original point. How can a woman with children say, walk out of an abusive life. She may not have the f***ing bus fair!There may not be a refuge to go to. She may be so terrified of reprisals she is frozen to the spot. How can she take her kids out of school? Where are they going to sleep that night? Ffs individual freedom and choices are for the likes of you.Don't lecture people who have no choices from your lofty middle class perch.

Middle class!  why because I align myself with what you deem the politics of greed and entitlement? Shocker fella I'm not quite middle class yet. Let me guess, I'm a puppet of the elite now eh? Anything but someone with an alternative view! And as for preaching, like it or lump it, or should that right be binned too?

You're first sentence in this quote is poignant and I'll answer it if it's not too preachy or middle class? If the victims of this emotional control can't walk away then explain how exactly they can persue and support a criminal prosecution? They still have to walk away! I'm convinvced this legislation is totally ineffective, never mind my ideological problems with it.

Provide support schemes to make the decision easier, not really easily abused laws.

[ChrisJones 7,973]

Just now, jukel123 said:

The new law has brought the issue into the public domain and pushed the refresh button. I would be bluffing if  I  pretended to be familiar with 60 odd laws. Whatever the difference between this new law  and the old laws are..I am all for it even if only one person benefits from it.

That's a fair one, mate but if someone is so afraid of their circumstances to report the crimes, and we know this is genuinely the case, then the law cannot be enforced and neither can the rest. It doesn't actually tackle anything in practice. The public funds used to debate and canonise this law could have been better spent in other more productive areas, IMHO.

[ChrisJones 7,973]

2 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

If the victims of this emotional control can't walk away then explain how exactly they can persue and support a criminal prosecution? They still have to walk away! I'm convinvced this legislation is totally ineffective, never mind my ideological problems with it.

Provide support schemes to make the decision easier, not really easily abused laws.

You beat me to it.

[Born Hunter 17,622]

21 minutes ago, maxhardcore said:

The slag threw boiling water over the lad and stabbed him.

Poor fooker had a brain injury and was vulnerable .

The b*****d deserved everything she got and probably more ?

Literally NOBODY has said she doesn't deserve punishing for those crimes. She was prosecuted for a crime that carries the option of a life sentence and rightly so.

[jukel123 6,570]

Born you appear to have aligned yourself with the alt right. I did not suggest you were that mad. However, let's run with that. You do have sympathy with the crazy Americans who defend their gun laws.Even though thousands of innocent yanks are killed and maimed annually for an ideal: the freedom to bear arms. I think the freedom to walk down the street and go to school without being shot is a far greater freedom.

You say smokers are bullied by non smokers. I say shite, look at the nosedive heart attack rates have experienced since the new legislation. Look at the projected number of lives saved by people not being subjected to passive smoking at work. I've always lived by the maxim that you can do what you want in life as long as you don't hurt others. You seem to believe you can do what you want and f**k everybody else, that laws are something put in place to restrict your freedoms. But at the end of the day,logically,you are aligning yourself with the murderous gun man, the 'I don't give a f**k' smoker and the abusive controlling domestic abuser.