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

[Kay 3,709]

1 hour ago, Born Hunter said:

Someone asked me earlier if I had experienced or witnessed this. I'm not going into detail or going to speak of this further but an ex of mine, a lass I loved irrationally, was controlled by a family member for a very long time so he could sexually abuse her and her friends. Her brother even committed suicide nearly taking an innocent with him. That's in the past and will stay there. I just want to say I'm not as distanced from this as some folks think. That behaviour started well into her childhood so she was technically legally protected already, by more than one law at a guess.

Anyway, back to the discussion. I accept that emotional control is a 'thing', I'm not denying it. I acknowledge it is harmful and abusive. That it can be a precursor to actual physical assault or murder. I'm not ignorant to that or dismissive. My problem is that we are treating adults in a consensual relationship as prisoners. Threats of violence are already legislated against. Acts of violence are already legislated against. Making this decision as a society, that people can be held in a 'consensual' relationship through 'controlling behaviour' (that isn't already illegal) to me is dangerous.

I'd have to ask how many victims of this control, that can so easily lead to violence, will be saved by this law? If they have the strength to pursue a criminal investigation, do they not have the strength to just leave? Bearing in mind that all the other associated consequential shit (risk of assault, homelessness, murder etc) are already illegal in some way? What really is being achieved?

Now ignoring the effectiveness of this law in achieving protecting people from controlling relationships, I'm instinctively against this. This is really the crux of it for me. I fundamentally consider adults to be responsible or have the free will for their own actions, we make good choices and bad choices but I fundamentally want to be considered responsible and behave as a result of free will. This law sets a precedent for me (or at least reinforces it), that we should not be considered to have free will. It sets the precedent that being a c**t should be punishable by law. I just think it's dangerous and won't actually have much in the way of a positive impact. Because the point at which a person in such a shit relationship supports a criminal investigation they have already found the strength they needed to take responsibility for allowing it to happen. That moment will change that person for ever.

 I fundamentally consider adults to be responsible or have the free will for their own actions,   yes if your not the primary carer of children .... you cant decide to go away for a weekend & leave the kids to run them selves ... once you have kids they figure in every second of every day of your life.... you plan life around there needs &  as you have clearly never been in a controlling relationship you wont have come across the phenomenon of '' I cant manage on my own''

 

Alot of women actually believe they cant manage without the abuser , there brainwashed into believing that ... its why women go back to abusive partners  , its frustrating for the people trying to help them but its very frequent.

There is nothing worse than being told your kids will end up in care if you leave... lets face it I mistakenly thought the babys asthma meds had been lost... no there on the top in the kitchen ... f**k me I am going mental.... i wasnt going mad..... old saddo was f***ing my head up with his games 

its all part & parcel of living with a narc prick.... look up gaslighting  , look up triangulation ........ bin there done that got several tee shirts .... its how they operate 

[ChrisJones 7,973]

Kay. Would the new law have made any difference to your circumstances, in your opinion?

[bird 9,594]

6 hours ago, Born Hunter said:

 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/16/controlling-girlfriend-first-woman-convicted-new-domestic-abuse/

 

I get that she was probably a shitty human being and the charges of GBH and assault are unquestionably valid. But "controlling behaviour"..... really? This seems like one of those dangerous laws that will be abused and simply shifts the burden of being a f***ing adult onto someone else.

Maybe I'm being a c**t, which is why I have posted this. But surely we should expect folks to have the strength and character to take on the responsibility for their own lives and have the strength to tell someone manipulating them to get f****d. Why do we have to ask the government to do it for us? Such a basic freedom, we have to ask the government to take care of.

100%  mate     feck me he wants grow some balls , and wack the bitch  in the face , carnt stand bullies  male or female  . for me as person , i know if they hurt me, i treading  a thin line, as i would put him or her in hospital for  a month with bust up face / body  , and then i  get sent down  GBH  , but even so  i make sure they never attack me again, i no punch bag for no fecker    pity the bloke didnt feel the same 

[Born Hunter 17,638]

First off mate, good post. Genuinely. 

22 minutes ago, John d said:

Its only personal if you take it personally as you have by only quoting that part of my post!

It's personal by nature. It's personal because you are asking personal questions, not general or specific to my argument. It doesn't challenge my position, it just challenges my credibility. Anyway...

6 minutes ago, John d said:

It was a genuine question as I tend to find in life that once someone has been to prison, they normally have a different outlook on the whole justice system, mainly because they have been through it from the moment they got arrested till the day the licence runs out! 

Okay, so in response to your original point of essentially 'do I actually understand that the police aren't judge and jury'. Yes I do, I understand that the system has checks and balances. That's not my problem. My problem isn't the system, law enforcement or justice, it's the legislation and the precedent it sets/reinforces.

10 minutes ago, John d said:

I think systematicaly grinding down a weaker person, regardless of what way its happening, should be something you can approach the police about to look into it as there are 1000s of visicous assault/murder cases out there that might not of happened if they were looked into earlier.

That's fine mate. I get that we see this different. As I have said before, if you believe that criminalising this behaviour will prevent actual violence then why wouldn't just walking away and informing the authorities that you believe you are in danger? The framework for this already exists. My point being that surely both require the victim in all this to snap and finally find the strength to actively take control of their fate and get out of this danger. How does this legislation protect people that don't have that strength?

15 minutes ago, John d said:

Another huge factor in all this coming around in the modern world though is in my opinion the dreaded jealousy that arouses its ugly head over social media! 

Yep, social media and our increased connectivity is a tool for abuse, just like the Mk.1 mouth was before. That's another can of worms though. Freedom of speech on the net and social media....

18 minutes ago, John d said:

We have to remember the laws are there to protect us, if we agree with them or not is irrelevant because someone somewhere will gain protection from it and thats the important thing after all

Yeah, that's one way of looking at it. Another is that we also need protecting from those who enforce the law, the entire establishment. That's why we have rights and constitutionally enshrined beliefs, why we have checks and balances, why we have the separation of powers etc. This crosses a line for me.

Though I'm not a fundamentalist, I can compromise my core beliefs if I see the effectiveness of legislation. I'm not an absolute libertarian who believes that my way is the only way. But I've got to see the effectiveness of it to sacrifice core values. We have a long history in the UK of passing 'common sense' legislation that was so easy to argue for, does f**k all in hindsight and then we just pass more 'common sense' legislation to try to fix the problem some more. Once it's in it stays there because it's "common sense".

[dave88 1,565]

These 'man up and show her who's boss comments' are all well and good but the article paints this bloke as vulnerable due to his condition...I sure as hell ain't gonna look down on the bloke for not cracking his missus one in the jaw.

[ChrisJones 7,973]

13 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

But I've got to see the effectiveness of it to sacrifice core values.

Agreed and I'm curious as to whether the true manipulation and controlling by abusive partners and family members will be affected by this law. Will it prevent it? Will it stop existing threats? Will it be enforceable? Will it open a can of worms that's exacerbated by the examples that @John d has highlighted with social media?

I'm currently reading through this Statutory Guidance Framework and it claims to close an existing loophole although I'm still unsure what that loophole actually is at this timestamp.

Edited April 17, 2018 by ChrisJones
Typo

[bird 9,594]

4 minutes ago, John d said:

We all know what we would do but not everyone is Mohamed I'm hard bird Bruce lee lol

lol , no mate it called   it called bit of respect for you self , i got bullied when i was younger , my own fault  really just soft type lad who never stick up for his self. well grew up  got bigger stronger  hit 6ft   13 st   worked out on good  weight s done boxing karate  for 3 years, got confidence  from strength  /size/speed  , and never really looked back,  i  never looked for trouble , because i knew once i kicked  off i wouldnt stop, and somebody going to get really hurt , and we wont be  me .!!

[jukel123 6,570]

Sometimes when new laws are passed they have good unintended consequences. For example, You rarely if ever see a stressed parent knocking feck out of their toddler in a shopping centre nowadays. Because somehow, perhaps by peer pressure, and the law, the parent knows that is unacceptable in modern society. The smoking laws were brilliant. Nobody now would light up in the same room as children or smoke in a car with children, again more because of peer pressure than anything else. Few people allow their dogs to crap in public places, a few years ago many people did. Again it's a mixture of law and peer pressure. It used to be the case that men would brag about their "wild oats' children. Now they know they will be pursued for child support and that it's an arsehole's way to behave. So I'm all for laws which benefit the majority of the population, they set markers for individuals to sort out their shitty behaviour. If this is nanny state and against precious "individual freedom". I say high minded bollocks.

Edited April 17, 2018 by jukel123

[Born Hunter 17,638]

27 minutes ago, Kay said:

 I fundamentally consider adults to be responsible or have the free will for their own actions,   yes if your not the primary carer of children .... you cant decide to go away for a weekend & leave the kids to run them selves ... once you have kids they figure in every second of every day of your life.... you plan life around there needs &  as you have clearly never been in a controlling relationship you wont have come across the phenomenon of '' I cant manage on my own''

 

Alot of women actually believe they cant manage without the abuser , there brainwashed into believing that ... its why women go back to abusive partners  , its frustrating for the people trying to help them but its very frequent.

There is nothing worse than being told your kids will end up in care if you leave... lets face it I mistakenly thought the babys asthma meds had been lost... no there on the top in the kitchen ... f**k me I am going mental.... i wasnt going mad..... old saddo was f***ing my head up with his games 

its all part & parcel of living with a narc prick.... look up gaslighting  , look up triangulation ........ bin there done that got several tee shirts .... its how they operate 

 

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?

[bell 3,504]

1 hour ago, John d said:

Born in all honesty have you had much dealings with the police?? Ever actually been arrested yourself or been to prison?? I ask because it sounds like you think its a case of ring the police and get the bully in question sent straight to jail without passing go! Thats not the case though and I certainly dont believe this new charge has been set up just to get convictions straight away! I think its more of letting people know they can approach the police about this behavior and get it sorted as early as possible! The police will more than likely pass it over to probation or some other referal service on offer and warn the person they are well aware of whats happened and maybe slap an injunction order on them not to approach the victim which will them make ANY attempt to approach them a lot more serious with grounds to prosecution then. The police are just a first port of call but If no charge exists then they can't do anything!!

With all due respect mate your wrong......domestic violence of any type is a political hot potato for the cops.  its about the only thing they do arrest for nowerdays without any evidence.  If there isn't sufficient evidence and they have real concerns then the can apply for a domestic violence protection order which lasts for 28 days.  cops don't have the power to 'slap an injunction order'on you

[Jonjon79 13,340]

14 minutes ago, bird said:

100%  mate     feck me he wants grow some balls , and wack the bitch  in the face , carnt stand bullies  male or female  . for me as person , i know if they hurt me, i treading  a thin line, as i would put him or her in hospital for  a month with bust up face / body  , and then i  get sent down  GBH  , but even so  i make sure they never attack me again, i no punch bag for no fecker    pity the bloke didnt feel the same 

Fair dos but, that can be easier said than done.

 

One of my exes used to hit me - she could be a right bad tempered bitch. She even punched me if the face while I was asleep once - that's actually a feckin weird feeling.

 

She was only a little thing as well - a proper pissed off little pocket rocket.

 

I could duck and weave most of it but, I still got caught with some corkers.

 

I always used to promise myself that she's getting one back next time but, I couldn't ever bring myself to clout her.

[Born Hunter 17,638]

13 minutes ago, dave88 said:

These 'man up and show her who's boss comments' are all well and good but the article paints this bloke as vulnerable due to his condition...I sure as hell ain't gonna look down on the bloke for not cracking his missus one in the jaw.

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

[Born Hunter 17,638]

3 minutes ago, Jonjon79 said:

Fair dos but, that can be easier said than done.

 

One of my exes used to hit me - she could be a right bad tempered bitch. She even punched me if the face while I was asleep once - that's actually a feckin weird feeling.

 

She was only a little thing as well - a proper pissed off little pocket rocket.

 

I could duck and weave most of it but, I still got caught with some corkers.

 

I always used to promise myself that she's getting one back next time but, I couldn't ever bring myself to clout her.

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.

[ChrisJones 7,973]

3 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

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

I've read the entire statute and there are already 60+ laws dating from 1861 to 2014 that cover domestic abuse.

[Born Hunter 17,638]

11 minutes ago, John d said:

Born  think we've reached the moment where we both agree it's life and opinions differ......plus I'm sick of googling these big words  atb bud 

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