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

First topic message reminder :

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/

gelico wrote:

Thor wrote:


No problem

He is honest you are not

Hence the point ytou took me and Lord foul to task to night and not many views Rags made

You never questioned her once

Why?

Befor you ask, you have told me about him, am I wrong?

firstly, i did not take LF to task over anything

secondly, i often mention my family members, but if you want to sink that low that you use them to try and score points over me than i can only feel sorry for you

how utterly low and pathetic that was

and how sad

Sink how low?

Who did I insult here?

I never did insult him but you

Did I?

gelico wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:and didge...cool it man, its only a discussion forum.....(argument forum???)


I get results, even if that occasionally means slithering around in some dark and noisome places, but you cant fight a pig without rolling in the mud.....and I'd be dishonest to deny I can get as low as a snakes belly if its called for...like I said I dont do "better than"  I am at least as bad, if not worse than my opponent...thats how you win....

we all have a very dark side and are probably all capable of doing the most hideous things when our loved ones are involved.  I think merely handing over some info was quite restrained if i'm honest

and if defeating your opponent means being even more devious or being prepared to go that one step further then so be it

i'm on board and as stated, solved the problem so

folks should visit their dark side in thought experiments more often, they might get a grip on reality then.....and you are very right every one is fully capable of visiting the most hideous punishments, vengeance, call it what you will upon those who threaten/harm their loved ones. the fact that most dont is a marvel of civilisation......

Lord Foul wrote:and didge...cool it man, its only a discussion forum.....(argument forum???)

ragga thinks I'm morally dubious...I can live with that

I get results, even if that occasionally means slithering around in some dark and noisome places, but you cant fight a pig without rolling in the mud.....and I'd be dishonest to deny I can get as low as a snakes belly if its called for...like I said I dont do "better than"  I am at least as bad, if not worse than my opponent...thats how you win....

winning the moral high ground isnt winning the war......

and geli at least sees where i'm coming from (scuse me????????????)

as to what I think...

water off a ducks back....me I'm pure teflon, I still have my halo, even if I'm standing on it ....


sleep well matey

For the record mate 

I did not insult anyone or Gelico's family an she knows this

I did insult her integrity

That is it

I think she is a coward and unable to challenger people she likes

That is my views

Thor wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:and didge...cool it man, its only a discussion forum.....(argument forum???)

ragga thinks I'm morally dubious...I can live with that

I get results, even if that occasionally means slithering around in some dark and noisome places, but you cant fight a pig without rolling in the mud.....and I'd be dishonest to deny I can get as low as a snakes belly if its called for...like I said I dont do "better than"  I am at least as bad, if not worse than my opponent...thats how you win....

winning the moral high ground isnt winning the war......

and geli at least sees where i'm coming from (scuse me????????????)

as to what I think...

water off a ducks back....me I'm pure teflon, I still have my halo, even if I'm standing on it ....


sleep well matey

For the record mate 

I did not insult anyone or Gelico's family an she knows this

I did insult her integrity

That is it

I think she is a coward and unable to challenger people she likes

That is my views

putting aside your low tactics regarding my family, i will ask again, who do you think I am unable to challenge?

why don't you give an example of where I have been unable to challenge someone?

gelico wrote:

Thor wrote:


For the record mate 

I did not insult anyone or Gelico's family an she knows this

I did insult her integrity

That is it

I think she is a coward and unable to challenger people she likes

That is my views

putting aside your low tactics regarding my family, i will ask again, who do you think I am unable to challenge?  

What tactics?

You expressed views to me on your son with honesty

I simple do not share that view with you

Is that horrible or nasty to say?

So Rags thinks people being controlled are responsble for what happens to them

Would you like me to post this again for you?

Do you agree with this view point?

If not, why have you not spoken out against her on this?

gelico wrote:

why don't you give an example of where I have been unable to challenge someone?

I am giving loads of examples

I would love to know why you are to me a coward

Prove me wrong andI will happilly apologise

Lord Foul wrote:

gelico wrote:


we all have a very dark side and are probably all capable of doing the most hideous things when our loved ones are involved.  I think merely handing over some info was quite restrained if i'm honest

and if defeating your opponent means being even more devious or being prepared to go that one step further then so be it

i'm on board and as stated, solved the problem so

folks should visit their dark side in thought experiments more often, they might get a grip on reality then.....and you are very right every one is fully capable of visiting the most hideous punishments, vengeance, call it what you will upon those who threaten/harm their loved ones. the fact that most dont is a marvel of civilisation......

oh i most certainly did when my daughter was being abused, my God, yes.  Even more so when she finally dumped him and then said she needed to talk to me, she was crying and she told me everything that he had done to her and all the things he had forced her to do.  I had the darkest most evil fantasies of what I would do to him and what's more I enjoyed every second, oh yes

but i was so relieved to get her back that they faded, i had to let it go.  if he had persisted on abusing her after she dumped him though?  well who knows?

Thor wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:and didge...cool it man, its only a discussion forum.....(argument forum???)

ragga thinks I'm morally dubious...I can live with that

I get results, even if that occasionally means slithering around in some dark and noisome places, but you cant fight a pig without rolling in the mud.....and I'd be dishonest to deny I can get as low as a snakes belly if its called for...like I said I dont do "better than"  I am at least as bad, if not worse than my opponent...thats how you win....

winning the moral high ground isnt winning the war......

and geli at least sees where i'm coming from (scuse me????????????)

as to what I think...

water off a ducks back....me I'm pure teflon, I still have my halo, even if I'm standing on it ....


sleep well matey

For the record mate 

I did not insult anyone or Gelico's family an she knows this

I did insult her integrity

That is it

I think she is a coward and unable to challenger people she likes

That is my views

yeah but

this leads to a subject that would require a thread of its own, and I'm not going there tonite but....

I agree geli didn't "challenge" raggs, however that's not the point

not challenging someone does not imply agreement or approval. In point of fact she realised after further clarification that I was probably justified in doing what I did.

she gave HER views ...which is all that is required

there is a tendency on forums to simply assume that not challenging equates to condoning.....this is not so. I rarely fall into that trap...though I may use it if I feel like winding someone up....

I mean, in all fairness I think you are being unfairly harsh BUT that is your view and you are entitled to both hold and express that view, you will note that I have not commented on it until now....did you take my silence to mean agreement...or perhaps it hadn't occurred to you ..dunno ......Its one of the many fascinating "bits" of forum psychology.....

dont take offense , but go back and read through the thread, WITHOUT the expectation that geli should challenge raggs....and see if you come up with a different view point...you may be surprised....

gelico wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

folks should visit their dark side in thought experiments more often, they might get a grip on reality then.....and you are very right every one is fully capable of visiting the most hideous punishments, vengeance, call it what you will upon those who threaten/harm their loved ones. the fact that most dont is a marvel of civilisation......

oh i most certainly did when my daughter was being abused, my God, yes.  Even more so when she finally dumped him and then said she needed to talk to me, she was crying and she told me everything that he had done to her and all the things he had forced her to do.  I had the darkest most evil fantasies of what I would do to him and what's more I enjoyed every second, oh yes

but i was so relieved to get her back that they faded, i had to let it go.  if he had persisted on abusing her after she dumped him though?  well who knows?

So for goodness sake, why are you defending rags here you condens the victim?

You do realise that?

Thor wrote:

gelico wrote:

why don't you give an example of where I have been unable to challenge someone?

I am giving loads of examples

I would love to know why you are to me a coward

Prove me wrong andI will happilly apologise

1) you have given no examples at all

2) look back over this thread - going on and on and on and demanding answers, trying to put people
down, you display the behaviour typical to an abuser and a control freak and a
bully, how ironic

3) I wasn't afraid to challenge raggs. For the last time I agree with much of what she said

4) I don't need any apology

Lord Foul wrote:

Thor wrote:


For the record mate 

I did not insult anyone or Gelico's family an she knows this

I did insult her integrity

That is it

I think she is a coward and unable to challenger people she likes

That is my views

yeah but

this leads to a subject that would require a thread of its own, and I'm not going there tonite but....

I agree geli didn't "challenge" raggs, however that's not the point

not challenging someone does not imply agreement or approval. In point of fact she realised after further clarification that I was probably justified in doing what I did.

she gave HER views ...which is all that is required

there is a tendency on forums to simply assume that not challenging equates to condoning.....this is not so. I rarely fall into that trap...though I may use it if I feel like winding someone up....  

I mean, in all fairness I think you are being unfairly harsh BUT that is your view and you are entitled to both hold and express that view, you will note that I have not commented on it until now....did you take my silence to mean agreement...or perhaps it hadn't occurred to you ..dunno ......Its one of the many fascinating "bits" of forum psychology.....

dont take offense , but go back and read through the thread, WITHOUT the expectation that geli should challenge raggs....and see if you come up with a different view point...you may be surprised....

I mean I could call blatant sexism here and you know it mate, based on you thinkiing I am being unfairly

Gelico knows I respect her

Wht disappoints me is she thinks I am cussing her family

My point was simple, based on family, which gelicom shyed away from

Wrongly thinking I was being insulting

I never was adn she knows this more than most, hence why I am annoyed as she knows I never would

Forget it mate, to me, they never questuion women on their views

Gelico agrees with me on views and never challengers the others

Hence I give up

gelico wrote:

Thor wrote:


I am giving loads of examples

I would love to know why you are to me a coward

Prove me wrong andI will happilly apologise

1)  you have given no examples at all

2)  look back over this thread - going on and on and on and demanding answers, trying to put people
    down, you display the behaviour typical to an abuser and a control freak and a
    bully, how ironic

3)  I wasn't afraid to challenge raggs.  For the last time I agree with much of what she said

4)  I don't need any apology

You never challenged her once and even saw me as an object of amusement

Did you not?

Thor wrote:

gelico wrote:

oh i most certainly did when my daughter was being abused, my God, yes.  Even more so when she finally dumped him and then said she needed to talk to me, she was crying and she told me everything that he had done to her and all the things he had forced her to do.  I had the darkest most evil fantasies of what I would do to him and what's more I enjoyed every second, oh yes

but i was so relieved to get her back that they faded, i had to let it go.  if he had persisted on abusing her after she dumped him though?  well who knows?

So for goodness sake, why are you defending rags here you condens the victim?



You do realise that?

what are you talking about now? what victim? raggs doesn't need defending, I merely agreed with some of her statements

I'm going to bed...me 'ead 'urts

gelico wrote:

Thor wrote:


So for goodness sake, why are you defending rags here you condens the victim?



You do realise that?

what are you talking about now?  what victim?  raggs doesn't need defending, I merely agreed with some of her statements

I am not trying to be a victim here.

Youi are so  full of shit

Be honest for onece in yoiur life

You took the piss earlier which I have no problem with

You really are full of shit gelico

As not once doid you take her to task on views that you did not agree with

Just me and Lord Foul

Which makes you one of the girlies

Which is cool

Lord Foul wrote:

Thor wrote:


For the record mate 

I did not insult anyone or Gelico's family an she knows this

I did insult her integrity

That is it

I think she is a coward and unable to challenger people she likes

That is my views

yeah but

this leads to a subject that would require a thread of its own, and I'm not going there tonite but....

I agree geli didn't "challenge" raggs, however that's not the point

not challenging someone does not imply agreement or approval. In point of fact she realised after further clarification that I was probably justified in doing what I did.

she gave HER views ...which is all that is required

there is a tendency on forums to simply assume that not challenging equates to condoning.....this is not so. I rarely fall into that trap...though I may use it if I feel like winding someone up....  

I mean, in all fairness I think you are being unfairly harsh BUT that is your view and you are entitled to both hold and express that view, you will note that I have not commented on it until now....did you take my silence to mean agreement...or perhaps it hadn't occurred to you ..dunno ......Its one of the many fascinating "bits" of forum psychology.....

dont take offense , but go back and read through the thread, WITHOUT the expectation that geli should challenge raggs....and see if you come up with a different view point...you may be surprised....

regardless of didges constant insistence of what I should say and who I should challenge and why, I would just like to clarify something.

firstly when i said i agreed with some of what raggs was saying i was referring to the OP which i stand by.

then the conversation moved on to your own particular experience. i did in fact disagree with raggs on what she was saying with regards to both your methods and the companys reactions, and as stated no sympathy for him so i have no idea what didge is actually going on about if I'm honest

gelico wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

yeah but

this leads to a subject that would require a thread of its own, and I'm not going there tonite but....

I agree geli didn't "challenge" raggs, however that's not the point

not challenging someone does not imply agreement or approval. In point of fact she realised after further clarification that I was probably justified in doing what I did.

she gave HER views ...which is all that is required

there is a tendency on forums to simply assume that not challenging equates to condoning.....this is not so. I rarely fall into that trap...though I may use it if I feel like winding someone up....  

I mean, in all fairness I think you are being unfairly harsh BUT that is your view and you are entitled to both hold and express that view, you will note that I have not commented on it until now....did you take my silence to mean agreement...or perhaps it hadn't occurred to you ..dunno ......Its one of the many fascinating "bits" of forum psychology.....

dont take offense , but go back and read through the thread, WITHOUT the expectation that geli should challenge raggs....and see if you come up with a different view point...you may be surprised....

regardless of didges constant insistence of what I should say and who I should challenge and why, I would just like to clarify something.

firstly when i said i agreed with some of what raggs was saying i was referring to the OP which i stand by.  

then the conversation moved on to your own particular experience.  i did in fact disagree with raggs on what she was saying with regards to  both your methods and the companys reactions, and as stated no sympathy for him so i have no idea what didge is actually going on about if I'm honest

I dont care what you say

I think you are two faced

That is a fact and I will prove this

Do you think giorls groomed are to blamed for being controlled?

Yes or no?

Come on gelico

Rags thinks women are at fault for being controlled

This includes victims of domestic violence and rape

Do you agree with her or not?

Simple question  and why if not did you not call her out?

back to the name calling?

so far on this thread, you have called me a coward, you have told me i'm full of shit, i'm two faced, i'm living off my son, and why?

because you are a nasty little controlling, abusing bully

your only problem is it doesn't work with me

go try your bullying abusing tactics on someone who will take it,,,,,,your wife perhaps. If you behave towards her as you do people on here then maybe one day, she will be the woman in the OP. Maybe one day she also will find the courage to escape her abuser (ie, you)

night

gelico wrote:back to the name calling?

so far on this thread, you have called me a coward, you have told me i'm full of shit, i'm two faced, i'm living off my son, and why?

because you are a nasty little controlling, abusing bully

your only problem is it doesn't work with me

go try your bullying abusing tactics on someone who will take it,,,,,,your wife perhaps.  If you behave towards her as you do people on here then maybe one day, she will be the woman in the OP.  Maybe one day she also will find the courage to escape her abuser (ie, you)

night

What name calling?

So you went off every fact I made and never answered my point

Do you think as Rags does, that rape victims and domestic violence are to blame

Yes or no?

You then claim I am a bully?

Sorry did I offend you in some way for calling you out for defending scum?

You thenm claim I am the abuser, when i take you to taskk on this?

YOU THEN THINK YOU ARE BEING HIONEST CASTING ME THIS WAY?

HOW DARE YOU

Thor wrote:

gelico wrote:back to the name calling?

so far on this thread, you have called me a coward, you have told me i'm full of shit, i'm two faced, i'm living off my son, and why?

because you are a nasty little controlling, abusing bully

your only problem is it doesn't work with me

go try your bullying abusing tactics on someone who will take it,,,,,,your wife perhaps.  If you behave towards her as you do people on here then maybe one day, she will be the woman in the OP.  Maybe one day she also will find the courage to escape her abuser (ie, you)

night

What name calling?


so far on this thread, you have called me a coward, you have told me i'm full of shit, i'm two faced, i'm living off my son,


You then claim I am a bully?

because that's exactly what you are, when you won't accept that someone has a different opinion and just go on and on and on and on and on,,,,,,it's called bullying


You thenm claim I am the abuser,

because that's exactly what you are, you have been very abusive

YOU THEN THINK YOU ARE BEING HIONEST CASTING ME THIS WAY?

HOW DARE YOU

because it's the truth

gelico wrote:

Thor wrote:


What name calling?


so far on this thread, you have called me a coward, you have told me i'm full of shit, i'm two faced, i'm living off my son,


You then claim I am a bully?

because that's exactly what you are, when you won't accept that someone has a different opinion and just go on and on and on and on and on,,,,,,it's called bullying


You thenm claim I am the abuser,

because that's exactly what you are, you have been very abusive

YOU THEN THINK YOU ARE BEING HIONEST CASTING ME THIS WAY?

HOW DARE YOU

because it's the truth

You are a coward in my eyes and you are full of shit
 
As you have defended Rags, that blamed women as at fault for abuse

This is what she said

I am the one defending women here and hence you are coward

And you think I have been abusive?

You are clueless and only see what you want to see

You will never challenege people in the wrong on your side

Hence you are gutless

You think such words are abuse?

Get a grip you snowflake

And still not a genuine view from Gelico on victims of abuse

Rags thinks people controlled its their fault

I will allow Gelico to prove me wrong and disagree wutrh Rags on this

Night everyone, but I hate liars, espcially when people call me bullies, when I have never bullied them. They make excuses for their own hate and prejudice, blaming me. I will never ever give Gelico the time of day again. She is a liar and lied about me

So still nothing from Gelico

Again we see the girlie gang lie and twist things to defend each other, even when that poster Rags defends people who abuse and control others and blames the victims

For me challenging this, I am cast as the bully by Gelico, which happens to be one of the most cheapest shots anyone could play, because again they defend ignorant women, simple because they are women

Then use the bullshit lie that I will not accept that someone has a differrent opinion and yet unlike them admit when wrong and listen constantly to others and unlike them I have changed my opinion over things

I have no time for pathetic liars, that lie to get people in trouble, when no bullying or abuse happened. They are simple a pathetic group of girls looking to get other posteres in trouble. Not once do they ever condemn the others on poor views, they instead defend those women even when they hold abhrant views. Then pathetically lie and claim they are being abused simple because they were called a coward

Well that is being a coward

gelico wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

yeah but

this leads to a subject that would require a thread of its own, and I'm not going there tonite but....

I agree geli didn't "challenge" raggs, however that's not the point

not challenging someone does not imply agreement or approval. In point of fact she realised after further clarification that I was probably justified in doing what I did.

she gave HER views ...which is all that is required

there is a tendency on forums to simply assume that not challenging equates to condoning.....this is not so. I rarely fall into that trap...though I may use it if I feel like winding someone up....  

I mean, in all fairness I think you are being unfairly harsh BUT that is your view and you are entitled to both hold and express that view, you will note that I have not commented on it until now....did you take my silence to mean agreement...or perhaps it hadn't occurred to you ..dunno ......Its one of the many fascinating "bits" of forum psychology.....

dont take offense , but go back and read through the thread, WITHOUT the expectation that geli should challenge raggs....and see if you come up with a different view point...you may be surprised....

regardless of didges constant insistence of what I should say and who I should challenge and why, I would just like to clarify something.

firstly when i said i agreed with some of what raggs was saying i was referring to the OP which i stand by.  

then the conversation moved on to your own particular experience.  i did in fact disagree with raggs on what she was saying with regards to  both your methods and the companys reactions, and as stated no sympathy for him so i have no idea what didge is actually going on about if I'm honest

That's right. We didn't agree on what LF did re the employment. However, we didn't start demanding that either of us should agree with the other, we were very civil. Perhaps that's why Didge didn't notice. He thinks that if you disagree with someone, you should call them all the names under the sun.

Thor wrote:

gelico wrote:

why don't you give an example of where I have been unable to challenge someone?

I am giving loads of examples

I would love to know why you are to me a coward

Prove me wrong andI will happilly apologise

I would also like to know why to you she's a coward. It seems to me that she's been very open about her views, and she has openly disagreed with me if she actually disagrees. You don't seem to be able to accept that she agrees with some of the things I've said.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


I am giving loads of examples

I would love to know why you are to me a coward

Prove me wrong andI will happilly apologise

I would also like to know why to you she's a coward. It seems to me that she's been very open about her views, and she has openly disagreed with me if she actually disagrees. You don't seem to be able to accept that she agrees with some of the things I've said.

I can accept she is stupid enough to agree with someone that blames victims

Sometimes people cannot see why that is

Raggamuffin wrote:

gelico wrote:


regardless of didges constant insistence of what I should say and who I should challenge and why, I would just like to clarify something.

firstly when i said i agreed with some of what raggs was saying i was referring to the OP which i stand by.  

then the conversation moved on to your own particular experience.  i did in fact disagree with raggs on what she was saying with regards to  both your methods and the companys reactions, and as stated no sympathy for him so i have no idea what didge is actually going on about if I'm honest

That's right. We didn't agree on what LF did re the employment. However, we didn't start demanding that either of us should agree with the other, we were very civil. Perhaps that's why Didge didn't notice. He thinks that if you disagree with someone, you should call them all the names under the sun.

Actually I find your views on this quite appalling and simple from the stoneage. When you blame the victims for the situations they are in

I never called her every name under the sun, I simple pulled her up that she is quite happy to pull men up on here for views, but for some reason gives the girlie group major slack on at times poor views they have

Hence to me that is cowardly and I am not the only one that notices this

That is my opinion, which if you do not like, then tough luck

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's right. We didn't agree on what LF did re the employment. However, we didn't start demanding that either of us should agree with the other, we were very civil. Perhaps that's why Didge didn't notice. He thinks that if you disagree with someone, you should call them all the names under the sun.

Actually I find your views on this quite appalling and simple from the stoneage. When you blame the victims for the situations they are in

I never called her every name under the sun, I simple pulled her up that she is quite happy to pull men up on here for views, but for some reason gives the girlie group major slack on poor views they have

Hence to me that is cowardly and I am not the only one that notices this

That is my opinion, which if you do not like, then tough luck

She's already given you a list of the insults you hurled at her. She missed out the bit about her being past her sell by date and being "fugly". Would you say that to a man? I doubt it. That makes you sexist.

Who else has allegedly noticed that she's happy to pull men up but not women?

Oh, and stop implying that she claimed you insulted her son. She did not claim that, she said you used him to score points against her. That was indeed low.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


Actually I find your views on this quite appalling and simple from the stoneage. When you blame the victims for the situations they are in

I never called her every name under the sun, I simple pulled her up that she is quite happy to pull men up on here for views, but for some reason gives the girlie group major slack on poor views they have

Hence to me that is cowardly and I am not the only one that notices this

That is my opinion, which if you do not like, then tough luck

She's already given you a list of the insults you hurled at her. She missed out the bit about her being past her sell by date and being "fugly". Would you say that to a man? I doubt it. That makes you sexist.

Who else has allegedly noticed that she's happy to pull men up but not women?

Oh, and stop implying that she claimed you insulted her son. She did not claim that, she said you used him to score points against her. That was indeed low.

Of course I would say that to a man, when they are acting ugly, with poor dumb views

Yes, she is quick to condmn me on points and funnily enough not you and appalling views you hold here

Hence the utter hypocrisy

The fact is rags, to me, there is nothing you said here, that makes any sense, nor have you any experince to understand what happens

You simple hold a very backward view on this from the stoneage

So to me, when people back hateful views, to me it makes them look very ugly

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I would also like to know why to you she's a coward. It seems to me that she's been very open about her views, and she has openly disagreed with me if she actually disagrees. You don't seem to be able to accept that she agrees with some of the things I've said.

I can accept she is stupid enough to agree with someone that blames victims

Sometimes people cannot see why that is

On another thread you blamed parents for not teaching their children to stand up to bullies, and you called those who are bullied "snowflakes". Are you not blaming the people who you now say are victims?

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She's already given you a list of the insults you hurled at her. She missed out the bit about her being past her sell by date and being "fugly". Would you say that to a man? I doubt it. That makes you sexist.

Who else has allegedly noticed that she's happy to pull men up but not women?

Oh, and stop implying that she claimed you insulted her son. She did not claim that, she said you used him to score points against her. That was indeed low.

Of course I would say that to a man, when they are acting ugly, with poor dumb views

Yes, she is quick to condmn me on points and funnily enough not you and appalling views you hold here

Hence the utter hypocrisy

The fact is rags, to me, there is nothing you said here, that makes any sense, nor have you any experince to understand what happens

You simple hold a very backward view on this from the stoneage

So to me, when people back hateful views, to me it makes them look very ugly

She has explained to you several times that she didn't disagree with one of my views because she agreed with it. Why can you not get your head round that?

Now you're having a go at me as well. You really need to examine your own behaviour and see how you try to control people. Do you ever actually succeed in that?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


Of course I would say that to a man, when they are acting ugly, with poor dumb views

Yes, she is quick to condmn me on points and funnily enough not you and appalling views you hold here

Hence the utter hypocrisy

The fact is rags, to me, there is nothing you said here, that makes any sense, nor have you any experince to understand what happens

You simple hold a very backward view on this from the stoneage

So to me, when people back hateful views, to me it makes them look very ugly

She has explained to you several times that she didn't disagree with one of my views because she agreed with it. Why can you not get your head round that?

Now you're having a go at me as well. You really need to examine your own behaviour and see how you try to control people. Do you ever actually succeed in that?

I can get my head around, her being stupid enough to agree with you and hence why I am ridiculing her for this

Why can you not get your head around that

Examine my behaviour?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:




I can accept she is stupid enough to agree with someone that blames victims

Sometimes people cannot see why that is

On another thread you blamed parents for not teaching their children to stand up to bullies, and you called those who are bullied "snowflakes". Are you not blaming the people who you now say are victims?

Parents should teach children to stand up to bullies, that is not blaming them though is it for the bullying is it?

Or do you not understand the difference?

Actually, I don't think that saying people should be responsible for their own reactions is a backward way of thinking, and it's not from the stone age either.

Raggamuffin wrote:Actually, I don't think that saying people should be responsible for their own reactions is a backward way of thinking, and it's not from the stone age either.

So to you, the victims of rape, domestic violence, child abuse, sexual abuse etc are to blame and responsible then

Its utterly backwards

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

On another thread you blamed parents for not teaching their children to stand up to bullies, and you called those who are bullied "snowflakes". Are you not blaming the people who you now say are victims?

Parents should teach children to stand up to bullies, that is not blaming them though is it for the bullying is it?

Or do you not understand the difference?

You said that it was down to "poor parenting" if someone is bullied and doesn't stand up to that. You also said that many bullies are victims.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


Parents should teach children to stand up to bullies, that is not blaming them though is it for the bullying is it?

Or do you not understand the difference?

You said that it was down to "poor parenting" if someone is bullied and doesn't stand up to that. You also said that many bullies are victims.

That is poor parenting but that does not mean they are to blame for the bullying itself

You do understand the difference?

I guess not it seems

Many bullies are victims themselves of abuse

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Actually, I don't think that saying people should be responsible for their own reactions is a backward way of thinking, and it's not from the stone age either.

So to you, the victims of rape, domestic violence, child abuse, sexual abuse etc are to blame and responsible then

Its utterly backwards

I've said nothing of the kind. We're talking about "controlling" behaviour, and the woman in the article. She allowed the man to control her. She gave him her passwords for her phone and social media, and she sent him snapchats to prove she was at a certain place. She gave him the means to track her movements. Why?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


So to you, the victims of rape, domestic violence, child abuse, sexual abuse etc are to blame and responsible then

Its utterly backwards

I've said nothing of the kind. We're talking about "controlling" behaviour, and the woman in the article. She allowed the man to control her. She gave him her passwords for her phone and social media, and she sent him snapchats to prove she was at a certain place. She gave him the means to track her movements. Why?

Well rape is about control
Domestic violence is about control

Before I continue to educate here, do you understand this?

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You said that it was down to "poor parenting" if someone is bullied and doesn't stand up to that. You also said that many bullies are victims.

That is poor parenting but that does not mean they are to blame for the bullying itself

You do understand the difference?

I guess not it seems

Many bullies are victims themselves of abuse

I haven't said that this woman is to blame for her partner's behaviour though. He is responsible for his actions, and she is responsible for her reaction to his actions.

We're not talking about the violence by the way, the common assault, so don't start confusing the issues.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


That is poor parenting but that does not mean they are to blame for the bullying itself

You do understand the difference?

I guess not it seems

Many bullies are victims themselves of abuse

I haven't said that this woman is to blame for her partners behaviour though. He is responsible for his actions, and she is responsible for her reaction to his actions.

We're not talking about the violence by the way, the common assault, so don't start confusing the issues.

Not when  she is fear, as he is controlling her this way, she for some reason you cannot seem to grasp

That means he is controlling her through abuse

This happens to countless people who suffer domestic violence and they also tend to mistakenly believe they are in love with these people. They also tend to be insecure and thus struggle to move away from such abuse

So you simple do not know what you are talking about

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I haven't said that this woman is to blame for her partners behaviour though. He is responsible for his actions, and she is responsible for her reaction to his actions.

We're not talking about the violence by the way, the common assault, so don't start confusing the issues.

Not when  she is fear, as he is controlling her this way, she for some reason you cannot seem to grasp

That means he is controlling her through abuse

This happens to countless people who suffer domestic violence and they also tend to mistakenly believe they are in love with these people. They also tend to be insecure and thus struggle to move away from such abuse

So you simple do not know what you are talking about

How do you know she was in fear? Are you not going to blame her parents for "poor parenting" Are you going to hold "love" responsible for everything? If she gave him her passwords because she was in love, well she still gave them to him - that's not being controlled.

What do you think about her having a child with someone who she says is too controlling?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


Not when  she is fear, as he is controlling her this way, she for some reason you cannot seem to grasp

That means he is controlling her through abuse

This happens to countless people who suffer domestic violence and they also tend to mistakenly believe they are in love with these people. They also tend to be insecure and thus struggle to move away from such abuse

So you simple do not know what you are talking about

How do you know she was in fear? Are you not going to blame her parents for "poor parenting" Are you going to hold "love" responsible for everything? If she gave him her passwords because she was in love, well she still gave them to him - that's not being controlled.

What do you think about her having a child with someone who she says is too controlling?

This happens to be the case, how people are controlled, when they suffer domestic violence

They live in fear to even get away from the situation and are afraid to even tell others

So it take a great leap of courage for many of them to come forward

Again you simple do not know what you are talking about here

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How do you know she was in fear? Are you not going to blame her parents for "poor parenting" Are you going to hold "love" responsible for everything? If she gave him her passwords because she was in love, well she still gave them to him - that's not being controlled.

What do you think about her having a child with someone who she says is too controlling?

This happens to be the case, how people are controlled, when they suffer domestic violence

They live in fear to even get away from the situation and are afraid to even tell others

So it take a great leap of courage for many of them to come forward

Again you simple do not know what you are talking about here

There are no details of the actual violence, other than that he spat at her, which is indeed a disgusting thing to do. What she's complaining about is that he was not convicted of using controlling and coercive behaviour. Do you understand the difference?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

This happens to be the case, how people are controlled, when they suffer domestic violence

They live in fear to even get away from the situation and are afraid to even tell others

So it take a great leap of courage for many of them to come forward

Again you simple do not know what you are talking about here

There are no details of the actual violence, other than that he spat at her, which is indeed a disgusting thing to do. What she's complaining about is that he was not convicted of using controlling and coercive behaviour. Do you understand the difference?

Let me help you here

Domestic abuse isn’t always physical. Coercive control is an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim.
This controlling behaviour is designed to make a person dependent by isolating them from support, exploiting them, depriving them of independence and regulating their everyday behaviour.

We campaigned and succeeded in making coercive control a criminal offence. This has marked a huge step forward in tackling domestic abuse. But now we want to make sure that everyone understands what it is.

Coercive control creates invisible chains and a sense of fear that pervades all elements of a victim’s life. It works to limit their human rights by depriving them of their liberty and reducing their ability for action. Experts like Evan Stark liken coercive control to being taken hostage. As he says: “the victim becomes captive in an unreal world created by the abuser, entrapped in a world of confusion, contradiction and fear.”

How do you know if this is happening to you?

[ltr]Some common examples of coercive behaviour are:[/ltr]

• Isolating you from friends and family
  
  
• Depriving you of basic needs, such as food
  
  
• Monitoring your time
  
  
• Monitoring you via online communication tools or spyware
  
  
• Taking control over aspects of your everyday life, such as where you can go, who you can see, what you can wear and when you can sleep
  
  
• Depriving you access to support services, such as medical services
  
  
• Repeatedly putting you down, such as saying you’re worthless
  
  
• Humiliating, degrading or dehumanising you
  
  
• Controlling your finances
  
  
• Making threats or intimidating you
  
  

[ltr]You can read more in this article we wrote for The Telegraph[/ltr]

Googling is not the answer. If someone lets another person control them in that way, well they are letting them do it, right?

Raggamuffin wrote:Googling is not the answer. If someone lets another person control them in that way, well they are letting them do it, right?

No, this is proving you do not know what you are talking about

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Googling is not the answer. If someone lets another person control them in that way, well they are letting them do it, right?

No, this is proving you do not know what you are talking about

Are you saying that he was with her 24 hours a day and physically stopped her from doing anything? Are you saying that he hacked her phone and social media rather than her giving him the passwords?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


No, this is proving you do not know what you are talking about

Are you saying that he was with her 24 hours a day and physically stopped her from doing anything? Are you saying that he hacked her phone and social media rather than her giving him the passwords?

Which further proves you have no idea what you are talking about

It shows you fail to understand what coercion means in how people use this to control others

The fact you continue to fail to undertstand this, means its pointless going around in circles, that is so blinded not to see here

Now I suggest you look into this more and then come back, when you have finally grasped this

Good luck