New domestic abuse law of psychological control, not let see friends, to deny money
A new crime of domestic abuse could be created under plans being considered by ministers.
The offence could cover not just acts of violence but incidents of psychological control which cut off victims from friends and family, or deny them money or other means to live freely.
Mrs May said: "The government is clear that abuse is not just physical. Victims who are subjected to a living hell by their partners must have the confidence to come forward. I want perpetrators to be in no doubt that their cruel and controlling behaviour is criminal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28860213
I think it good in one way.
However, I have a few issues.
Such rulings sound all very ambiguous and open to interpretation and exploitation.
Secondly, it's just my perception, but we increasingly appear to be having an elevation in the status of crimes where women are the main victims. It does seem to me that certain crimes are receiving more attention, greater targeting, simply because women make up the main body of victims (at least of those reported). It's almost as if it's becoming more important if the victim of the crime is female, and therefore such crime deserves more attention.
The offence could cover not just acts of violence but incidents of psychological control which cut off victims from friends and family, or deny them money or other means to live freely.
Mrs May said: "The government is clear that abuse is not just physical. Victims who are subjected to a living hell by their partners must have the confidence to come forward. I want perpetrators to be in no doubt that their cruel and controlling behaviour is criminal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28860213
I think it good in one way.
However, I have a few issues.
Such rulings sound all very ambiguous and open to interpretation and exploitation.
Secondly, it's just my perception, but we increasingly appear to be having an elevation in the status of crimes where women are the main victims. It does seem to me that certain crimes are receiving more attention, greater targeting, simply because women make up the main body of victims (at least of those reported). It's almost as if it's becoming more important if the victim of the crime is female, and therefore such crime deserves more attention.
0
Comments
Perhaps this is connected to the fact that in the past we didn't take them seriously enough? It's not long ago that there was no such thing, legally, as rape within marriage.
No, it really isn't.
Yet another one of your moans about policies being anti-men. I think you'd be better off in UKIP.
That's your opinion.
In my opinion it very much is.
Where are the high profile out pourings about male suicide? Where males are 3 times more likely to die than females, it's the biggest killer among men under 40, and the at it's highest rate in men over it. Where are all these specific, very pubic, vocal, government actions and bodies. Even if they do exist we barely ever hear about them.
About the fact that males are the biggest victims of violence? Why is it sections of violence like this thread that at least appear to be targeted, when the wider picture of violence and victims paints a very different one.
Why are real videos of males being beheaded fair game on the internet, yet consenting adults role playing currently being banned by the government?
And, as usual, Labour says it doesn't go far enough and they would do more.
Seriously though, given how hard it is to prosecute domestic violence, domestic psychological abuse will be even harder. Not saying it shouldn't be pursued but conviction rates are going to be low.
What a sexist little comment.
I think you might be better off with UKIP, if you find equality sexist.
I believe in equality, something that works both ways, it's not one way. Very clearly you haven an issue with people holding the view that men and women should be treated equally. It's all very 90s, dated, and dare I say it, sexist.
So men have to be as abused as much as women for you to support this?
Wait, are you saying that domestic abuse against men isn't something we should be concerned about?
Look, I know your world is a terrifying place where you're treated as a second-class citizen by virtue of having a dick, but to criticise a policy which will help both men and women because it might help women more is ludicrous, especially given that I bet if someone started a thread about domestic violence against women you'd be the first one in there complaining that they weren't mentioning men, and that it's a myth that women are disproportionately represented. Yet now we have something that's about all domestic abuse across the board, you're whining because it apparently DOES affect women more. You can't have it both ways.
That doesn't count though, it's all just a laugh and 'nagging' when it done to men though.
In fact, moaning about it is possibly abusive.
ad hominem
This was reported on page 4 of the Sun (print version) today under the headline "Jail the control freak Husbands".
When the boots on the other foot the husband gets dismissed as "hen-pecked".
...wait, we're expecting a balanced and nuanced view of a policy from the Sun?
OK, let's not bother doing anything, then. I'd hate it to look like women were being favoured here; better to just let domestic abuse to either gender go unchallenged, eh?
Give them their due. They put it on page 4.
Not particularly, No more so than anywhere else. However I do seem to recall a thread on this by the OP when this law was proposed where the minister proposing used the same gender specific terms.
I'll go have a look when I get a chance.
ETA: The ridiculous strawman in your second sentence is beneath you so I'll disregard it.
Fair enough, it was cheap. More aimed at the OP than you, though- he seems to have a problem with this policy based on his gendered reading of it. The alternative seems to be, well, not to have the policy, which helps no-one.
Could well be- point is, as long as the actual law doesn't favour one gender over another, it seems churlish to quibble about its presentation.
How people conduct their private lives the criminal law is not always the best way to control that.
One could argue that this opens the door to the State to enter your living room.
I'm not sure I would.
I'm just giving one angle, point of view on it.
There's a whole load of other arguments against it too which I hope folk will discuss. There are things for it too.
A few other thoughts on it are, will claims by males and females be treated equally?
Also, it sounds like the perfect tool for a bully and abuser. What better way to bully and abuse someone than get them a criminal record. It's a well known tactic of bullies and abusers to blame the victim for what they are doing themselves. It all sounds like fertile ground for false accusation.
Agreed however I think that there is a growing awareness that the law, especially where it relates to domestic/gender issues is not being interpreted or enacted in an even handed manner.
Violence (physical or emotional) against anyone is wrong - that goes without saying, however it's not hard to come up with examples where mistreatment of males is treated as being "less important" or even a subject of humour.
Why is it OK to highlight or even campaign against some forms of inequality but not others?
If gender equality politics was percieved to be about "us" instead of "us and them" then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
What a very odd comment, you very clearly have an issue with gender.
I believe in men and women being treated equally. There are double standards in this life where both men and women aren't treated fairly or equally. I'm against that.
If you are still able to count them as your friends and are able to discuss these aspects of their relationships with them - i.e. they are not 'cut off' from you - then it is clearly not the same as the psychological control perpetrated against some males/females whereby they are no longer able to maintain a friendship or relationship with people other than their own children.
Well, one would have to define such abuse first wouldn't one, and there in sits part of the problem.
What's classed as 'nagging' in one world, can be classed as 'abuse' when in another when it's reversed.
If we class women 'nagging' men as abuse things start to look very different.
That's the issue with things like this, defining it and knowing where to draw the line.
As to my point about the targeting of things female related, I very much stand by that point and a lot of the time its cheap political posturing to garner a section of votes. If you don't believe that politicians do that then you're exceptionally naive and ill informed.