Judge acquits man of controlling behaviour because his partner was too strong and capable to be affected.

CAMPAIGNERS blasted a judge after she acquitted a boyfriend of controlling behaviour - because his ex was too "strong and capable" to be considered a victim.

The second female judge this week who seems clueless in regard to crimes against women.

Paul Measor taught their one year old son to tell his mum to Fuck off, and encouraged the tot to call her a slut and a slag.
He subjected Lauren Smith to daily abuse, both physical and mental, which included spitting in her face.
District judge Helen Cousins decided because his victim was a " strong and capable" woman this didnt have enough effect on her to warrant finding him guilty of using controlling and coercive behaviour.
He was convicted of common assault and sentenced to 5 months in prison.

Do these judges not live in the real world?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7808081/abusive-boyfriend-girlfriend-too-strong/

No, none of them are up to date on todays problems,!

Poor woman. Our judge's are bloody useless, get more for theft than rape nowadays. They are old fossils who need replacing.

Syl wrote:...guilty of using controlling and coercive behaviour.

Is that a law in the UK?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:...guilty of using controlling and coercive behaviour.

Is that a law in the UK?

"A new criminal offence of Controlling and Coercive Behaviour in an Intimate or Familial Relationship was created three years ago with The Serious Crime Act 2015, which was a game changer. Punishable by up to five years in prison, 2018 sentencing guidelines for those convicted of this offence recognises that the crime is all the more serious for having been committed in a home, between people in a relationship."



https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/family-law-blog/domestic-abuse-and-controlling-and-coercive-behaviour-in-an-intimate-or-familial-relationship

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Is that a law in the UK?

"A new criminal offence of Controlling and Coercive Behaviour in an Intimate or Familial Relationship was created three years ago with The Serious Crime Act 2015, which was a game changer. Punishable by up to five years in prison, 2018 sentencing guidelines for those convicted of this offence recognises that the crime is all the more serious for having been committed in a home, between people in a relationship."

https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/family-law-blog/domestic-abuse-and-controlling-and-coercive-behaviour-in-an-intimate-or-familial-relationship

We need a law like that for Republicans.

If someone lets themselves be controlled it's their own fault.

+1

Raggamuffin wrote:If someone lets themselves be controlled it's their own fault.

So to you, all the victims of grooming gangs are at fault?

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If someone lets themselves be controlled it's their own fault.

So to you, all the victims of grooming gangs are at fault?

Grooming is just another word for befriending.  I would think the parents are to blame if they let their kids roam around with the bad crowd.  

When the kid is old enough, yes...Ragg's point is well taken.

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:

So to you, all the victims of grooming gangs are at fault?

Grooming is just another word for befriending.  I would think the parents are to blame if they let their kids roam around with the bad crowd.  

When the kid is old enough, yes...Ragg's point is well taken.

Sorry?

So what you are saying is that no person is guilty of manipulating children to then rape them?

Even worse you blame parents for this?

How are parents able to keep eyes on them 24/7

Seriously?

Rags point was poor, as some people are more vunerable than others

Do you disagree with this?

So what both Rags and Quill are saying is that victims of Domestic violence, only have themselves to blame. Being as many are controlled through fear, yet they think the victims are to blame for this.

Wow

Quill also thinks that grooming gangs are not to blame for maipulating and raping children

The parents are to blame for this

I cannot believe the sadistic bullshit I am hearing

She had the option of leaving him ...

Raggamuffin wrote: She had the option of leaving him ...

Indeed, but for some people its never that easy to do so

In the end she did the right thing and went through the courts, to ensure such people are not allowed to use manipulation to control people

I mean many rape victims, who have been raped by people who do so, through a position of control. Are in fear to come forward

Are they then to blame for being raped?

You claimed its their fault for being controlled. never factoring the many different situations

You have just empowered abusers by blaming the victims

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote: She had the option of leaving him ...

Indeed, but for some people its never that easy to do so

In the end she did the right thing and went through the courts, to ensure such people are not allowed to use manipulation to control people

I mean many rape victims, who have been raped by people who do so, through a position of control. Are in fear to come forward

Are they then to blame for being raped?

You claimed its their fault for being controlled. never factoring the many different situations

You have just empowered abusers by blaming the victims

He was acquitted of "manipulating" her. It's a daft law anyway. As I said, don't let anyone manipulate you - it's not rocket science.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


Indeed, but for some people its never that easy to do so

In the end she did the right thing and went through the courts, to ensure such people are not allowed to use manipulation to control people

I mean many rape victims, who have been raped by people who do so, through a position of control. Are in fear to come forward

Are they then to blame for being raped?

You claimed its their fault for being controlled. never factoring the many different situations

You have just empowered abusers by blaming the victims

He was acquitted of "manipulating" her. It's a daft law anyway. As I said, don't let anyone manipulate you - it's not rocket science.

That is not reasoning its a daft law. Saying it is without reasoning and understand that people can and do control people. Is showing a lack of understanding on your part

So again, how can victims of domestic violence not allow people to control them, when they are in fear for their lives?

He was not acquitted

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He was acquitted of "manipulating" her. It's a daft law anyway. As I said, don't let anyone manipulate you - it's not rocket science.

That is not reasoning its a daft law. Saying it is without reasoning and understand that people can and do control people. Is showing a lack of understanding on your part

So again, how can victims of domestic violence not allow people to control them, when they are in fear for their lives?

He was not acquitted

Yes he was - that's the point of the article.

CAMPAIGNERS blasted a judge after she acquitted a boyfriend of controlling behaviour

He was convicted of common assault, which is not the same thing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


That is not reasoning its a daft law. Saying it is without reasoning and understand that people can and do control people. Is showing a lack of understanding on your part

So again, how can victims of domestic violence not allow people to control them, when they are in fear for their lives?

He was not acquitted

Yes he was - that's the point of the article.

CAMPAIGNERS blasted a judge after she acquitted a boyfriend of controlling behaviour

He was convicted of common assault, which is not the same thing.

He was convicted was he not?

The point is the judge made a view on control based on a perceived view if she was a strong woman

Which is you side stepping the point and thinking that one ruling means this is the correct rulling

That is never the case and can be appealed

Your view is those controlled are at fault, which means you think every victim of domestic violence, honour killings, FGM, gromming etc, are to blame

Go figure

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes he was - that's the point of the article.



He was convicted of common assault, which is not the same thing.

He was convicted was he not?

The point is the judge made a view on control based on a perceived view if she was a strong woman

Which is you side stepping the point and thinking that one ruling means this is the correct rulling

That is never the case and can be appealed

Your view is those controlled are at fault, which means you think every victim of domestic violence, honour killings, FGM, gromming etc, are to blame

Go figure

He was not convicted of "manipulating" her though - as I said. Can you pay attention? He was convicted of common assault.

She said he controlled her life for four years, and yet she had a baby with him. Go figure.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


He was convicted was he not?

The point is the judge made a view on control based on a perceived view if she was a strong woman

Which is you side stepping the point and thinking that one ruling means this is the correct rulling

That is never the case and can be appealed

Your view is those controlled are at fault, which means you think every victim of domestic violence, honour killings, FGM, gromming etc, are to blame

Go figure

He was not convicted of "manipulating" her though - as I said. Can you pay attention? He was convicted of common assault.

She said he controlled her life for four years, and yet she had a baby with him. Go figure.

Does that mean the rulling was correct?

I can pay attention, but you simple cannot it seems, as this can be appealed

So to you, when people have lived together for years and had children and suffered domestic violence and have stayed together, they are at fault to you?

Yes or no?

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He was not convicted of "manipulating" her though - as I said. Can you pay attention? He was convicted of common assault.

She said he controlled her life for four years, and yet she had a baby with him. Go figure.

Does that mean the rulling was correct?

I can pay attention, but you simple cannot it seems, as this can be appealed

So to you, when people have lived together for years and had children and suffered domestic violence and have stayed together, they are at fault to you?

Yes or no?

I told you already - it's a daft law. I also told you if someone lets another person control them, it's their own fault. You're really not paying attention are you?

She had a baby with him after she decided he was controlling her. Her choice.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


Does that mean the rulling was correct?

I can pay attention, but you simple cannot it seems, as this can be appealed

So to you, when people have lived together for years and had children and suffered domestic violence and have stayed together, they are at fault to you?

Yes or no?

I told you already - it's a daft law. I also told you if someone lets another person control them, it's their own fault. You're really not paying attention are you?

She had a baby with him after she decided he was controlling her. Her choice.

Youi told me never explaing why

I am paying attention to someone who thinks violent people are not criminals and that their victims are to blame

So let me spell this out to you

Do you not even see how you are excusing the behaviour of those that control and abuse people Rags?

You are blaiming the victim, claiming that they should have walked away.

Tell that to many people within say the Muslim community

You fail to see how some people feel trapped and have no where to turn to, as again this falls down to a misguided view on love. As they generally are also insecure

And you have the audacity to blame the victim and not the person committing the violence?

Wow

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I told you already - it's a daft law. I also told you if someone lets another person control them, it's their own fault. You're really not paying attention are you?

She had a baby with him after she decided he was controlling her. Her choice.

I am paying attention to someone who thinks violent people are not criminals and that their victims are to blame

I didn't say that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:



I am paying attention to someone who thinks violent people are not criminals and that their victims are to blame

I didn't say that.

Yes you are, as you are saying the victim is to blame for being controlled

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't say that.

Yes you are as you are saying the victim is to blame for being controlled

Yes, but control isn't the same as violence is it?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


Yes you are as you are saying the victim is to blame for being controlled

Yes, but control isn't the same as violence is it?

So you agree then?

How about mental violence, to the view, that you can make someone so badly feel about themselves to the tune they kill themselves?

Are they to blame for this also, if they suffer from anxiety or other mental health issues, or the person seeking to control them with the aim to cause as much emotional pain as possible?

You have no idea what you are talking about and some posters on here I know have gone through such emotional pain through such controlling people

You think its black and white and people should just simple walk past this

Sorry but you are inherantly ignorant on this Rags and why, because you have zero empathic intelligence

Didge, are you aware of what "agency" is? Look into it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)

I think she should not have had a kid with him, and she should have dumped him early on, yes.

Original Quill wrote:Didge, are you aware of what "agency" is?

There are many forms of agency

Explain what you speak of?

Raggamuffin wrote:I think she should not have had a kid with him, and she should have dumped him early on, yes.

What?

All well in hindsight, but you were never there to witness the extenct of the relationship, were you Rags?

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Didge, are you aware of what "agency" is?

There are many forms of agency

Explain what you speak of?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:


There are many forms of agency

Explain what you speak of?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)

I understand the philosophy on agency

And?

This shows you read something never understanding this, does it not?

How does this show for example, that parents are to blame for grooming gangs?

Or victims of domestic violence?

We can all posts links Quill

You simple need to understand what you are saying?

Over to you

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think she should not have had a kid with him, and she should have dumped him early on, yes.

What?

All well in hindsight, but you were never there to witness the extenct of the relationship, were you Rags?

She said he controlled her for four years, so it's from her own mouth.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


What?

All well in hindsight, but you were never there to witness the extenct of the relationship, were you Rags?

She said he controlled her for four years, so it's from her own mouth.

So you are saying she is at fault based on not actually knowing here and her potential weaknesses 

You think that is has no relavance

So if she is very insecure, does that mean she is at fault?

Many victims of domestic violence suffer for decades and have been raped

Are then they at fault to you?

Yes or no?

Simple question

Didge wrote:I understand the philosophy on agency

And?

It's the heart of the debate you are having with Raggs. If your victims had any agency (competence), they would take care of themselves.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I understand the philosophy on agency

And?

It's the heart of the debate you are having with Raggs.  If your victims had any agency (competence), they would take care of themselves.

Is that why you cannot explain it?

So lets talk about agency

So to you, nobody should be a victim of domestic violence, based on a view they should be competant

What happens when they are not competant?

Are they to blame?

You see how even most philosophers would cringe at your view

Its based on a premise, that you think they should have competance, never understanding some people do not

Hence you do not even understand what you are arguing. As you have not factored this

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She said he controlled her for four years, so it's from her own mouth.

So you are saying she is at fault based on not actually knowing here and her potential weaknesses 

You think that is has no relavance

So if she is very insecure, does that mean she is at fault?

Many victims of domestic violence suffer for decades and have been raped

Are then they at fault to you?

Yes or no?

Simple question

It's quite simple. If you don't like the way your partner behaves, get rid of them.

How to really embarress Quill

In World War One they shot people who were not confident, as cowards

Some people are cowards and have no control over this

Does that make them guilty of a crime, to be controlled?

No, hence the idocy of Quills view on agency, shows Quill does not understand actually what this means. Its why then many were shot in cold blood, for wanting to save their own skins. As they never ever had any control by not fighting. This control was taken out of their hands. Just as it is phsychologically within many relationships with victims of domestic violence

I really dispair when you play a bullshit card Quill, when you have no understanding of this

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


So you are saying she is at fault based on not actually knowing here and her potential weaknesses 

You think that is has no relavance

So if she is very insecure, does that mean she is at fault?

Many victims of domestic violence suffer for decades and have been raped

Are then they at fault to you?

Yes or no?

Simple question

It's quite simple. If you don't like the way your partner behaves, get rid of them.

What if you cannot?

Again, this show how little you actually understand the fragility of humans

You never suffer this, as you are, too scared that you might fall in love

Many of these victims think they are in love

Many are in lust and trapped

So score to you on that point, but are they really to blame here for their insecurities?

No

How about you actually speak to people in this position and then understand how hard it is for them to get out of

You have no idea and neither did I, until I talked to them

If they let themselves be controlled, I can't see how they can complain later.

Raggamuffin wrote:If they let themselves be controlled, I can't see how they can complain later.

Which means you blame the victims of child abuse, domestic violence, FGM, honour killings, grooming gangs etc

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's quite simple. If you don't like the way your partner behaves, get rid of them.

What if you cannot?

Again, this show how little you actually understand the fragility of humans

You never suffer this, as you are, too scared that you might fall in love

Many of these victims think they are in love

Many are in lust and trapped

So score to you on that point, but are they really to blame here for their insecurities?

No

How about you actually speak to people in this position and then understand how hard it is for them to get out of

You have no idea and neither did I, until I talked to them

They can leave, they just don't want to. They shouldn't complain about it though as they're willingly staying.

Of course people are responsible for their own insecurities. It's not anyone else's fault is it?

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If they let themselves be controlled, I can't see how they can complain later.

Which means you blame the victims of child abuse, domestic violence, FGM, honour killings, grooming gangs etc

I don't think the victim of a murder has much say in it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

What if you cannot?

Again, this show how little you actually understand the fragility of humans

You never suffer this, as you are, too scared that you might fall in love

Many of these victims think they are in love

Many are in lust and trapped

So score to you on that point, but are they really to blame here for their insecurities?

No

How about you actually speak to people in this position and then understand how hard it is for them to get out of

You have no idea and neither did I, until I talked to them

They can leave, they just don't want to. They shouldn't complain about it though as they're willingly staying.

Of course people are responsible for their own insecurities. It's not anyone else's fault is it?

Which shows you have no understanding of what people go through

Many simple have no confidence to leave

And you think they are responsible for not leaving

Not the people causing the pain

wow

You have no idea do you Rags?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Which means you blame the victims of child abuse, domestic violence, FGM, honour killings, grooming gangs etc

I don't think the victim of a murder has much say in it.

Well based on your reasoning,. I am surprised you do not blame them also

I mean many murdered victims of domestic violence have been living with them for years

You would cast them as at fault

You should be ashamed of yourself, as you have no idea what you are talking about

You speak on something that you have no idea on and you look to make the criminals innocent

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They can leave, they just don't want to. They shouldn't complain about it though as they're willingly staying.

Of course people are responsible for their own insecurities. It's not anyone else's fault is it?

Which shows you have no understanding of what people go through

Many simple have no confidence to leave

And you think they are responsible for not leaving

Not the people causing the pain

wow

You have no idea do you Rags?

Yes, they are responsible for not leaving, and if they have a kid with someone they don't get on with, or who is mean to them, they're just silly.

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think the victim of a murder has much say in it.

Well based on your reasoning,. I am surprised you do not blame them also

I mean many murdered victims of domestic violence have been living with them for years

You would cast them as at fault

You should be ashamed of yourself, as you have no idea what you are talking about

You speak on something that you have no idea on and you look to make the criminals innocent

It was you who introduced honour killings - ie, murder (there's no honour involved). You have a tendency to extrapolate wildly instead of sticking to the point. We're talking a woman who stayed with a man who was mean to her, and she did so voluntarily.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Which shows you have no understanding of what people go through

Many simple have no confidence to leave

And you think they are responsible for not leaving

Not the people causing the pain

wow

You have no idea do you Rags?

Yes, they are responsible for not leaving, and if they have a kid with someone they don't get on with, or who is mean to them, they're just silly.

Wow

So to you , a victim of grooming over many years is responsible for what happened to her

As this happened over many years

Sorry, but thank you for expresssing why people rational wil never ever listen to you

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Well based on your reasoning,. I am surprised you do not blame them also

I mean many murdered victims of domestic violence have been living with them for years

You would cast them as at fault

You should be ashamed of yourself, as you have no idea what you are talking about

You speak on something that you have no idea on and you look to make the criminals innocent

It was you who introduced honour killings - ie, murder (there's no honour involved). You have a tendency to extrapolate wildly instead of sticking to the point. We're talking a woman who stayed with a man who was mean to her, and she did so voluntarily.

Its all in the same ball park Rags

You being someone that blames actual victims of violence that they are to blame for not leaving shows you have never known anyone suffer this

He was more than mean, he taught the child to basically hate her

Do you think that is acceptable?

Seriously?