[tynamite]

Quote:

Domestic abuse: Everything you need to know about the new psychological abuse law

What was it before, how to identify 'controlling, coercive' behaviour, and who can help

A new law targeting people who psychologically and emotionally abuse their partners, spouses, or family members has come into force under the Serious Crime Bill.

The legislation will see psychological abusers facing up to five years in jail or a hefty fine, or both, if found guilty.

Here’s everything you need to know about the law:

What was it before?

Prior to the change, there was no specific offence of domestic abuse, let alone any law criminalising “controlling, coercive” behaviour, according to The Police Foundation.

Domestic abuse cases are frequently prosecuted as common assault, although depending on the nature of the offence, they can also be prosecuted as criminal damage, threats to kill, harassment, threatening behaviour, or sexual assault.

However, victims would have had to report the abuse within six months of it occurring, which many do not have the courage to do.

Under new legislation, victims now have up to two years to report the crime.

What is “controlling, coercive” behaviour?

The Home Office’s Statutory Guidance Framework on “controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship” includes:

• Isolating a person from their friends and family
• Controlling what they do, where they go, who they can see, what they wear and when they sleep
• Repeatedly putting them down, such as telling them they are worthless
• Enforcing rules and activity which humiliate, degrade or dehumanise the victim
• Financial abuse
• Threats to reveal or publish private information (It's a shame how a man can get more years than murder for publishing revenge porn but there's no charge for doxxing someone on the internet unless a man is doxxing his female partner.)
  

When does the offence apply?

The offence only applies if the victim suffers such treatment “repeatedly or continuously”, on an ongoing basis.

Although courts will look for evidence of a behavioural pattern rather than isolated incidents, the Home Office states each case “must be considered on an individual basis” and “there is no set number of incidents in which controlling or coercive behaviour has been displayed which must be proved”.

It must also have had a “serious effect” on the victim. It is explicitly stated that the victim must either “fear that violence will be used against them on at least two occasions” or “been caused serious alarm or distress” enough to disrupt their day-to-day activities.

The behaviour must also be calculated. According to the Home Office, it must be such that the “perpetrator knows or ‘ought to know’ that it will have a serious effect on the victim”.

Lastly, both victim and abuser have to be “personally connected when the incidents took place”, meaning they would have had to be in, or are in, an intimate relationship, or were family members living together.

What are people saying about it?

There have been mixed reactions towards the new law. Domestic abuse charity Women's Aid welcomes the change, calling it a "landmark moment in the UK's approach to domestic abuse".

They said in a statement: "Coercive control is at the heart of domestic abuse... Women's Aid and other organisations campaigned to have this recognised in law, and we are thrilled that this has now happened.

Women's Aid also launched a "coercive control kit" to coincide with the new legislation, which aims to help parents of young adults and teenagers recognise the signs of such abuse.

However, domestic abuse charity Refuge has opposed the law, saying the solution does not lie in enforcing more laws.

Chief executive of Refuge, Sandra Horley, said: "The police don't even arrest when there is evidence of serious physical violence, so how are police and juries ever going to understand complex concepts like coercive control?

"We need to get back to basics. The police response to domestic violence is lamentable – forces across the country are failing in their most basic of policing duties towards victims of domestic violence."

What are the police doing about it?

The amendment to the Serious Crime Bill was actually drawn up earlier this year, but only enforced now that training and guidelines for police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) have been put in place.

The College for Policing issued new guidance for police officers on how to prosecute without relying on the victim for evidence, which is backed by Women's Aid and SafeLives.

College of Policing lead for crime and criminal justice, David Tucker, said: “To tackle a domestic abuse case successfully, police need to see the big picture behind an individual incident. This depends on officers being properly trained and having access to information about both the victim and the perpetrator; effective and accurate risk management, partnership working and information sharing.

Quote:

READ MORE
Psychological abusers controlling victims over social media face jail
Police are facing an overwhelming number of domestic abuse cases
Why I didn't realise that I was a victim of domestic abuse
Domestic abuse victim jailed for not testifying
"The failure for any of these links can be the difference between life and death for a victim. Our research indicated the need for a culture change within policing attitudes towards domestic abuse.

"Sometimes police cannot understand why a victim would stay in an abusive relationship. There are dozens of reasons why victims feel unable to leave or support prosecution.

"It is the responsibility of the perpetrator to stop the abuse and the responsibility of the police to being the perpetrator to justice – the victim is not responsible for either.”

Visit Women's Aid, Refuge and SafeLives for more information on how to get help.

Click the link for a video.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hom...89271.html

Hate Speech, Social Media, & Cyberbullying

[Dr. Howard]

I have seen this language in US immigration documents as terms that allow someone to divorce a green card sponsor...but a crime? Incredible. I also recall this being discussed in the same question period where they debated banning roosh from the UK

[DamienCasanova]

(02-18-2016 04:00 PM)tynamite Wrote:  

What is “controlling, coercive” behaviour?

The Home Office’s Statutory Guidance Framework on “controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship” includes:

• Isolating a person from their friends and family
• Controlling what they do, where they go, who they can see, what they wear and when they sleep
• Repeatedly putting them down, such as telling them they are worthless
• Enforcing rules and activity which humiliate, degrade or dehumanise the victim
• Financial abuse
• Threats to reveal or publish private information (It's a shame how a man can get more years than murder for publishing revenge porn but there's no charge for doxxing someone on the internet unless a man is doxxing his female partner.)
  

So I expect this will be applied equally to women who; isolate men from all their friends and family and prevent them from having relationships without her involved, tell their men what to say, do and think & what time to join them in bed, berate their husbands and waste their money on frivolous stuff...right?

[The Black Knight]

You poor bastards in the UK. Get that location independent income and just bounce ASAP. I feel for you all trapped there. I never see any good news out of the UK; just seems like one shit sandwich after another.

It can get a bit rough in the US with feminist bullshit at times although I think the tide is turning with the rise of Trump finally.

But the UK is on another level with this kind of anti-male shit. It really is.

[malakaix]

One day people will wake up and realize they gave away every freedom they ever had.

[Jura]

(02-18-2016 04:00 PM)tynamite Wrote:  

What is “controlling, coercive” behaviour?

The Home Office’s Statutory Guidance Framework on “controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship” includes:

• Isolating a person from their friends and family
• Controlling what they do, where they go, who they can see, what they wear and when they sleep
• Repeatedly putting them down, such as telling them they are worthless
• Enforcing rules and activity which humiliate, degrade or dehumanise the victim
• Financial abuse
• Threats to reveal or publish private information
  

In other words, marriage.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Quote:

Controlling what they do, where they go, who they can see, what they wear and when they sleep

So a parent telling their child to go to bed is emotional abuse? Holy shit!

[Nonpareil]

We know in 5-10 years what this will become...

'He said 'I'm going to the bar with my buddies, be back around 1' and got in at 3! EMOTIONAL ABUSE!'
'He bought me an iPhone 7 that he said was new but I later found out it was a refurb! EMOTIONAL ABUSE!'
'He has a text saying 'Happy Birthday!' from a girl! EMOTIONAL ABUSE!'

And no, this will certainly not apply to women and the litany of mindfucks they employ on a daily basis...the commenters (mostly) know what's up.

[Ocelot]

(02-18-2016 04:25 PM)malakaix Wrote:  

One day people will wake up and realize they gave away every freedom they ever had.

I disagree, people's conception of what their rights are, and what the relationship between the individual and the state should be, is changing at least as fast as their freedoms are being eroded. I've been noticing since high school how much more authoritarian millennials are than their parents, and this trend seemed to accelerate phenomenally around 2007 - right around the time smartphones, twitter, facebook, reddit and tumblr started taking over.*

Nobody wants to reach the final destination, but they're happy to face in that general direction and walk, one step at a time.

* A side note about social media and smartphones. I have a theory, that this technology acts as an incredible homogenising force on human behaviour, by amplifying the channels through which humans socialise each other's behaviour, and keeping everyone plugged into these channels 24/7. In this way, it's a form of Supernormal Stimulus, like sugary foods, video games and pornography. The major problem here is that, whilst it's healthy and necessary for humans to be socialised among their peers with regards to what is and isn't acceptable behaviour (along with all the arbitrary customs that belong to any culture), if this socialisation becomes too rigid and homogenous, it will produce fragile individuals and the culture itself will become fragile: where will the innovation, risk-taking, original thinking etc. come from if everyone has been socialised to behave in exactly the same way, with no deviation? Oh wait, original (read: heterodox) thought is now offensive.

Heterogeneity is necessary to give rise to exceptional individuals. For this reason, I don't believe it's possible for any society to remain competitive in the wider world without a certain level of heterogeneity. Perhaps in the future, laws limiting social media and its usage will come into play: it might sound far-fetched in the present but if the un-twittered start outcompeting the en-twittered (), ways of circumscribing social media's effects should emerge and propagate organically.

In the mean time, we'll get to enjoy several more years of laws like this accumulating, as a society where everyone's behaviour is mediated by their peers at all times will tend heavily towards the feminine, and produce no small quantity of hysteria. And hysteria + democracy = hysterical laws.

[Gmac]

How do you prove the "emotional abuse" was caused by the significant other? What a load of horse shit.

I feel abused... because aliens.



Where's noah and his ark when you need him?

[Northern]

Hm... Not allowing to see friends, telling what to wear... They target Muslim families!

[spokepoker]

Is that guy who had to wear the shirt with his girlfriends mug all over it from the UK?
It's almost like this law will affect women more than men, can't wait for the cases to come forth.

[Speculation]

Quote:

When does the offence apply?

The offence only applies if the victim suffers such treatment “repeatedly or continuously”, on an ongoing basis.

Although courts will look for evidence of a behavioural pattern rather than isolated incidents, the Home Office states each case “must be considered on an individual basis” and “there is no set number of incidents in which controlling or coercive behaviour has been displayed which must be proved”.

It must also have had a “serious effect” on the victim. It is explicitly stated that the victim must either “fear that violence will be used against them on at least two occasions” or “been caused serious alarm or distress” enough to disrupt their day-to-day activities.

The behaviour must also be calculated. According to the Home Office, it must be such that the “perpetrator knows or ‘ought to know’ that it will have a serious effect on the victim”.

Lastly, both victim and abuser have to be “personally connected when the incidents took place”, meaning they would have had to be in, or are in, an intimate relationship, or were family members living together.

This law will be selectively enforced.

There are cultural biases towards men being more in control of their actions ('hyperagency') and women being less in control of their actions ('hypoagency'). When they talk about the perpetrator being calculating it will catch out more men, while women will be given a pass because they 'didn't know what they were doing' and other such excuses.

When they talk about how it must have a serious effect on the victim it gives them a way to up or downplay the exact same actions depending on the genders of the perpetrator and victim.

For instance a man slapping a woman could be seen as enough to cause 'serious alarm or distress', while in the opposite case people will assume a man would not reasonably have his activities be disrupted.

The policy seems to be neutrally worded, but it will not be enforced that way.

[Fast Eddie]

This comes right on the heels of a UKuck man being arrested for expressing displeasure on the internet at thousands of migrants being shipped to his tiny island:

thread-53890.html

Quote:

However, commenting on the comparatively huge and sudden influx of Muslim immigrants online just became a very risky business for local residents.

Police have confirmed they have arrested a 41-year-old local man under the Communications Act, after receiving a report of a supposedly “offensive” comment made on Facebook regarding the migrants.

A police spokesman was unequivocal, that any harsh criticism of the Muslim influx would not be “tolerated”. Inspector Ewan Wilson from Dunoon police office told the Guardian following the arrest:

“I hope that the arrest of this individual sends a clear message that Police Scotland will not tolerate any form of activity which could incite hatred and provoke offensive comments on social media”.

Airstrip 1 is here. Gentlemen, this is not a drill.

[ChickenLover9T9]

Quote:

1. Isolating a person from their friends and family
2. Controlling what they do, where they go, who they can see, what they wear and when they sleep
3. Repeatedly putting them down, such as telling them they are worthless
4. Enforcing rules and activity which humiliate, degrade or dehumanise the victim
5. Financial abuse
6. Threats to reveal or publish private information

1. I told a gf once that one of her friends and one of her uncles was a prick. She listened and appreciated my advice.
2. I told a gf once that she is my gf because I like XYZ qualities, and that if she changes and loses XYZ qualities, then I would not like her anymore. Her qualities as a person influenced where she went, what she wore, the company she kept. So I guess I indirectly told her what to do, or I would walk away. She just loved me more. I also dominated her in the sack. She just loved me more.
3. On the rare occasion she behaved in a manner I did not like, I would calmly but sternly tell her to stop it, and that I was disappointed in her. On some occasions I have called exes things like "worthless degenerate" or "disgrace to your family" which meant that they felt worthless.
4. Sometimes in the sack I suppose I "degraded" them and they loved it.
5. I wish I could take half of a girl's money but in this day and age of equality I haven't managed to meet this criterion. Damn it.
6. I believe in a private individual's right to a private life, right to defend one's home, so I haven't met this criterion either.

Still I got 4/6.

Guys, let's just forget the 999999 mind games women play, how they nonchalantly take half a man's hard earned assets, his children, sometimes even his entire livelihood on bogus physical abuse charges... Now a woman can do that, PLUS if at any time she feels abused in a relationship, or if at any time whatsoever in a relationship she wants to stick one to her man, she can just turn on the waterworks and call the cops because "emotional abuse".

This is going to end up worse for men in the UK than for women, sure, but they are too dumb to realize most women are lost. Without strong male guidance, they are like children eating candy until they start being sick, and then wonder why they have ended up sick. A woman needs a man to control her, to set boundaries, to dominate her psychologically and physically.

Completely normal male-female relationship dynamics have been put into the same category as publicly releasing revenge porn without consent (obviously I think that is wrong) or other private information (which is again wrong). Isolation from toxic influences? Healthy and necessary. A firm but fair source of control, dominance and guidance? Healthy and necessary. Punishments when expected standards are not met? Healthy and necessary. Dominance in bed? Healthy and necessary.

In the real world, show me a relationship without the above and I will show you this: thread-53900.html

The UK is fucked. Even if you find a decent girl, you're walking a legal tightrope with normal and healthy behavior. British men are not even allowed to have normal relationships anymore.

The Black Knight Wrote:

You poor bastards in the UK. Get that location independent income and just bounce ASAP.

[rpg]

There really is only one.option left for the sane. Get several sperm samples frozen, then get a vasectomy and never get married. Save sperm samples for late 40's and remote possibility that a generation of young women might emerge as ready to bear children. Our world if fucked for the next 2 decades minimum.

[eskimobobseal]

I tell my girlfriend what to do all the time and she loves it, find the right one and none of these bullshit rules cited in this article will matter.

[rpg]

(02-20-2016 05:20 PM)eskimobobseal Wrote:  

I tell my girlfriend what to do all the time and she loves it, find the right one and none of these bullshit rules cited in this article will matter.

Until her friends convince her locking you up would be great. Women are corrupted by their bitch pack. Keeping a close eye on who she hangs with is critical.

[innocent21]

This is the new reality.

[spokepoker]

What is that game show about? What is going on there?
edit:
Found this article about the dude getting slapped:

Quote:

This small town boy has dashed off a legal notice to the makers of Dadagiri. He���s upset with what happened on the reality show. Reality shows may have their fixed scripts and sensational turn of events, but Ravi is in no mood to take things lying down.


���This incident occurred four months ago. The participants of the show had to pass through the litmus test of abuses and spats. And it was all scripted! We were all given our parts where 70 per cent was to be said as is and 30 per cent would be improvisations,��� says Ravi. ���There was this girl called Isha opposite me who was supposed to abuse me and I was to retaliate, but calmly. After a while when it came to improvisations, I presume she was out of words and came and slapped me hard. I was shocked and in the heat of the moment, I slapped her back. That led to the entire unit of about 70 people jumping on me beating me black and blue. It was a miracle in itself that I managed to escape from there,��� he says.


So how did this incident get flashed in the media now? ���Luckily for me, somehow the tapes got leaked out and they were being shown on all the channels. I got myself a copy from one of the news channels and was happy that finally I acquired the proof to support me. And this time I will not be quiet. Just because they have power, it doesn���t give them the licence to pull down people. I have sent a legal notice to the producers and asked for an apology publicly for defamation,��� avers Ravi, who is currently working in Ekta Kapoor���s Kahaani Humare Mahaabharat Ki on 9X.

Supposedly he got a pay out from it, trying to find info on that. -settled out of court.