Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Born Hunter said:

The point I've been trying to make mate. GBH with intent carries a max of Life. This 'controlling behaviour' law is token at best in this case....... the only case.

It specifically does not cover threats of violence or actual violence. It covers emotional blackmail basically with plenty of wiggle room for interpretation. Using your intimacy to manipulate a person emotionally. Other than my view that such laws are dangerous as f**k, I still can't grasp how it will enable ANYONE to get away from a c**t. If a vulnerable individual can't find the strength to walk away from a c**t then how exactly can they still WALK AWAY to pursue a criminal investigation? I just don't get how it lowers that hurdle at all?

It's another piece of 'common sense' driven by genuine emotion and sympathy for these people and desperation to do 'something, anything'. I've had a guts full of 'common sense' in politics, lets have some 'critical thinking'...

Full agreement with you on the legal aspect of it, mate. I'm out of likes though so you have to read a response instead. :laugh:

Initially reading the guidelines from earlier I thought it reinforced LGBT and honour crime rights, but it doesn't. It simply tries to get investigators to be aware of these issues when in attendance. We joked earlier in the thread about Katchum's situation and I'd laugh my cock off to see someone try that one in court as I think it's really open to that kind of abuse with its ambiguous wording and lack of precedence.

It doesn't bring anything to the table beside ambiguity. It doesn't bolster the existing 60+ laws. It doesn't help people that need it. It doesn't prevent anything and while I sincerely believe that domestic violence is at or approaching epidemic levels it doesn't provide victims with that strength to walk away only an assurance that the authorities try really hard to do something about it after the fact and even that isn't a guarantee as they're not even implementing the training in support of the new law!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 159
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

BH I think you are making light of a huge problem. Controlling behaviour is not just being occasionally critical or cruel. It's a method of destroying another human being. Slowly drip by drip over tim

It reminds me of Educating Rita...she was married & worked as a hair dresser ..her old man wanted the stereotypical family & sat night in the pub having a sing song with the family...she wasnt

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 c

Posted Images

9 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Hypothetically should all bullying behaviour be a criminal offence? If someone in your life, a colleague, fella down the pub or team mate etc, causes you distress/anguish by intentional acts like spreading rumours about you, always making sure you are left out or whatever but nothing violent or threatening. Should that be criminal?

Isn't that already slander, or libel?

Devil's advocate... Who get's to decide what offences constitute a breach of the hypothetical Bullying Act and will it simply end up being a list of actions that MP's believe are 'doing something' and 'for the children...'

My feelings on liberty are no secret but the day you have to have an approved government conduct manual is the day you've walked into an Orwell novel. Looking at the UK these days with knife bans and counselling for everything it looks like you may have already written the foreword.

Edited by ChrisJones
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

Isn't that already slander, or libel?

Yes, that first example was a bad one. I wasn't sure in such an informal setting so left it in and added the second for clarity.

This law sets the precedent that the most basic level of cuntishness is now criminal. Only one level lower than that and that's merely thinking about being a c**t! LOL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetical scenario ...my missus wants to go out every night and get rat arsed ,she wants to take coke and come home early hours and sleep all day ,the kids are suffering from this behaviour ,so I stop her ,I hide her clothes ,I lock the doors ,I stand in the way and stop her from leaving ,do i get 6 months for controlling her ?

 

beware of new legislation ,

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Astanley said:

do i get 6 months for controlling her ?

Read Katchum's example from earlier in the thread. Absurd but possible under the current lack of precedence and we all know the law has never made a mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

This law sets the precedent that the most basic level of cuntishness is now criminal. Only one level lower than that and that's merely thinking about being a c**t! LOL.

I think Charlie Brooker wrote a script for that one!

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jukel123 said:

Couldn't resist this point. I would also support a new law entitled: Racially Aggravated Sexual/Child Abuse. It's long overdue.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40909065

Seems a bit redundant that, I mean how can you possibly add ten years say to a prison sentence that should be eternal?

Quite close to the MOST heinous class of crime imaginable.

Wait, what's that? We don't incarcerate these animals for the rest of their lives? Huh.... so back to the point; which is worse, fiddling a white kid or a black kid? f***ing SERIOUSLY! :blink:

Not aimed at you Jukel. You mean well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Seems a bit redundant that, I mean how can you possibly add ten years say to a prison sentence that should be eternal?

Quite close to the MOST heinous class of crime imaginable.

Wait, what's that? We don't incarcerate these animals for the rest of their lives? Huh.... so back to the point; which is worse, fiddling a white kid or a black kid? f***ing SERIOUSLY! :blink:

Not aimed at you Jukel. You mean well.

Born thank you for acknowledging that " I mean well". What was it Captain Mainwearing used to say somewhat witheringly......"You stupid Boy".:laugh:

In any case I think you've genuinely missed the point. " which is worse fiddling a white kid or a black kid?" you write. But the point I'm making, following the Solicitor General, is that sentences should be stiffer when a child is deliberately TARGETED because of their race or skin colour. 

People were horrified that Stephen Lawrence was targeted because of his black skin.Most of us are aghast that primarily Asian men should target girls because of their white skin.

But, I hear you say, we already have laws which punish racist behaviour! But in this case the law needs refining and improving because this racist behaviour involves paedophilia,rape, cruelty, supplying drugs and alcohol to minors etc with a Racist Motive amongst others. Would you guys who do not support the new bill outlawing controlling behaviour support a new law intended to address Racially Aggravated Sexual/Child Abuse? I suspect the answer would be "yes". So why not the new law this thread is about?

Final thought. If this were primarily a female forum, what percentage of contributors to this thread would be against the new law? And those for? What does that  tell you? Something disturbing about men perhaps?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jukel123 said:

Born thank you for acknowledging that " I mean well". What was it Captain Mainwearing used to say somewhat witheringly......"You stupid Boy".:laugh:

In any case I think you've genuinely missed the point. " which is worse fiddling a white kid or a black kid?" you write. But the point I'm making, following the Solicitor General, is that sentences should be stiffer when a child is deliberately TARGETED because of their race or skin colour. 

People were horrified that Stephen Lawrence was targeted because of his black skin.Most of us are aghast that primarily Asian men should target girls because of their white skin.

No no I got your point fine. I'm saying it shouldn't even be a consideration because such a heinous act should carry the heaviest possible sentence.

1 hour ago, jukel123 said:

Final thought. If this were primarily a female forum, what percentage of contributors to this thread would be against the new law? And those for? What does that  tell you? Something disturbing about men perhaps?

 

That men are less persuaded by arguments of security and more of liberty? Nothing disturbing at all and insinuating such would be frankly pretty low imo. Another credibility assassination.

Edited by Born Hunter
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough,BH. I genuinely thought I hadn't explained myself.

Second retort is also fair. In any case  I wasn't singling you out. Perhaps we can both be a little prickly. The whole thread has been highly charged emotionally.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this law was brought in to protect vulnerable men rather than women. 90 % of the time courts will always back the woman presuming he can look after himself and nearly always grant custody to the wife. They can then use that as crutch to beat you with. Realistically how many men have had there face slapped by a scorned woman but wouldn't strike back. On paper it sounds like assault and should be handled that way but it would be laughed out of court. If she is willing to dish it out she should be willing to take it back just as hard but the courts don't see it that way ( she gets away and he gets prison if he hits her back.) Fair enough this should be covered by existing legislation but never is. It's easy spout out 60 versions of a law but at the end of the day it boils down to what way the judge interprets it which is usually in the woman's favour. To be fair the majority of the time it's the man in the house that's the violent one but occasionally you will get a soft pansy that can't stand up for himself and is afraid of his own shadow. He can be controlled and manipulated without anyone smacking him around and there might not be any violence. If there is 60 laws already then what difference will 61 make. Fcuk all unless you want to make a big deal about it. There is plenty of laws that people disagree with that aren't fully enforced unless needed because common sense comes in to play. Any right minded police officer should use it only when necessary. I think it takes a controlling type of person to not want to back down on this thread because it doesn't suit their agenda.????

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...