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

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

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

Syl wrote:Reading through this thread I did agree with a lot of the points Didge was making, but then he goes and spoils it all by being abusive himself.

I sometimes think people who do abuse others (and I have known a couple in real life, though thankfully I have not been in a relationship with any) are totally unaware of the damage they do, especially if the abuse is more emotional than physical.

Thor wrote:

Syl wrote:Reading through this thread I did agree with a lot of the points Didge was making, but then he goes and spoils it all by being abusive himself.

I sometimes think people who do abuse others (and I have known a couple in real life, though thankfully I have not been in a relationship with any) are totally unaware of the damage they do, especially if the abuse is more emotional than physical.

Mainly as i get bored at people not being consistant Syl

Gelico, knows for a fact I do not mean any harm.

I simply dispair, when the fact is Rags, has no idea what she is talking about and in fact her views are in fact harmful to this kind of problem

To me Gelico seems unable to say whether something is wrong when it comes to what women say. When its men, she never shys away

That was only ever my point

So if I was horrible, I am happy to apolgise to Gelico though she should stop and listen herself. As defending some of Rags views, as I say, does nothing to actual combat such a problem like this. Where men control women with fear through coercion

So nothing has been spoilt.

I am passionate and will always speak my mind, even when it runs away from me

Have a good day

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


Mainly as i get bored at people not being consistant Syl

Gelico, knows for a fact I do not mean any harm.

I simply dispair, when the fact is Rags, has no idea what she is talking about and in fact her views are in fact harmful to this kind of problem

To me Gelico seems unable to say whether something is wrong when it comes to what women say. When its men, she never shys away

That was only ever my point

So if I was horrible, I am happy to apolgise to Gelico though she should stop and listen herself. As defending some of Rags views, as I say, does nothing to actual combat such a problem like this. Where men control women with fear through coercion

So nothing has been spoilt.

I am passionate and will always speak my mind, even when it runs away from me

Have a good day

Don't confuse being "passionate" with being abusive. You are abusive, not passionate in your views.

I don't think my views are harmful, I think they're useful. People need to stop being "victims" and thinking they can't have control over their own lives.

Syl wrote:Reading through this thread I did agree with a lot of the points Didge was making, but then he goes and spoils it all by being abusive himself.

I sometimes think people who do abuse others (and I have known a couple in real life, though thankfully I have not been in a relationship with any) are totally unaware of the damage they do, especially if the abuse is more emotional than physical.

Vintage wrote:The word to describe emotional abuse is insidious, it starts out in very minor ways so that the abused person, for want of better words, gets used to it, until  the person on the wrong end no longer has confidence or a feeling of self worth enough to do anything about it even if they recognise it as abuse, they learn that its all their fault, brainwashing, I'm sure the doubters on here recognise there is such a thing in other situations so why not recognise it in this kind of abuse.  

Raggamuffin wrote:

Vintage wrote:The word to describe emotional abuse is insidious, it starts out in very minor ways so that the abused person, for want of better words, gets used to it, until  the person on the wrong end no longer has confidence or a feeling of self worth enough to do anything about it even if they recognise it as abuse, they learn that its all their fault, brainwashing, I'm sure the doubters on here recognise there is such a thing in other situations so why not recognise it in this kind of abuse.  

I'm not saying the emotional abuse doesn't exist. I don't think people who indulge in it have a plan though - ie, to start off small and get worse and worse in order to control someone. They'd have to be very clever to do that.

Come on though, someone who is being told they're this or that all the time can't possibly want to stay with that person, and yet many of them do. In the case of marriage, the divorce laws are there to help them rid themselves of the abuser, and if they're not married, they can leave.  I'm just not convinced that it should be a criminal act.

I'm very well aware that leaving one's home can be inconvenient, stressful, expensive, and hard work, so is that why they stay?

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not saying the emotional abuse doesn't exist. I don't think people who indulge in it have a plan though - ie, to start off small and get worse and worse in order to control someone. They'd have to be very clever to do that.

Come on though, someone who is being told they're this or that all the time can't possibly want to stay with that person, and yet many of them do. In the case of marriage, the divorce laws are there to help them rid themselves of the abuser, and if they're not married, they can leave.  I'm just not convinced that it should be a criminal act.

I'm very well aware that leaving one's home can be inconvenient, stressful, expensive, and hard work, so is that why they stay?

The problem is and always has been when people like yourself make views on something you know nothing about and yet you continue to do so. In the face of all evidence and studies on this. You continue to spout garbage.

Even worse, that you continue to think you know better on this and I would for one never trust you in the hands of anyone going through such abuse. As you would make it a hundred times worse

So my advice to you, is to actually listen to people who have a far greater knowledge on something that you simple do not have

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


The problem is and always has been when people like yourself make views on something you know nothing about and yet you continue to do so. In the face of all evidence and studies on this. You continue to spout garbage.

Even worse, that you continue to think you know better on this and I would for one never trust you in the hands of anyone going through such abuse. As you would make it a hundred times worse

So my advice to you, is to actually listen to people who have a far greater knowledge on something that you simple do not have

You don't know anything about it. I know you think you're a psychologist, but you're not. I doubt I'd advise anyone who was being abused, except to tell them not to put up with it. That's good advice, but people generally don't listen to good advice do they?

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't know anything about it. I know you think you're a psychologist, but you're not. I doubt I'd advise anyone who was being abused, except to tell them not to put up with it. That's good advice, but people generally don't listen to good advice do they?

Well, as shown I do know far more than you do on this

You again however want to live in cloud cuckoo land on this

So when people as clueless as yourself try to advise on something you know nothing about. You will often find what you advise is in actual reality damanging

So maybe you need to understand that every now and again, you need to shut your mouth, as you were taking out of your arse on this thread

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


Well, as shown I do know far more than you do on this

You again however want to live in cloud cuckoo land on this

So when people as clueless as yourself try to advise on something you know nothing about. You will often find what you advise is in actual reality damanging

So maybe you need to understand that every now and again, you need to shut your mouth, as you were taking out of your arse on this thread

You haven't shown that at all. Having a different opinion doesn't mean you know more. Perhaps you should shut your mouth and stop your abusive behaviour. Perhaps you recognise this man in yourself and it's making you a bit stressed.

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You haven't shown that at all. Having a different opinion doesn't mean you know more. Perhaps you should shut your mouth and stop your abusive behaviour. Perhaps you recognise this man in yourself and it's making you a bit stressed.

Good luck living in cloud cuckoo land

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, with regards to this case, the judge was simply following the law. The law says that the victim must have suffered serious effects, and the judge did not think that this woman had. It's not enough that she's having therapy or whatever.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, with regards to this case, the judge was simply following the law. The law says that the victim must have suffered serious effects, and the judge did not think that this woman had. It's not enough that she's having therapy or whatever.

What would be enough? Should she feel suicidal or attempt to kill him instead?

"Schools learning manager Lauren hit back: "It has had a serious effect.
"I'm attending meetings with a domestic violence support group, my confidence has been badly knocked and I struggle to trust people.
"He controlled my life for four years and the effect of that didn't go away the minute he was taken away by the police. It still hasn't, it's going to take time."

gelico wrote:

Syl wrote:

What would be enough? Should she feel suicidal or attempt to kill him instead?

"Schools learning manager Lauren hit back: "It has had a serious effect.
"I'm attending meetings with a domestic violence support group, my confidence has been badly knocked and I struggle to trust people.
"He controlled my life for four years and the effect of that didn't go away the minute he was taken away by the police. It still hasn't, it's going to take time."

did the judge ask her at all why it went on for four years?  did she give any indication as to why she never left before?

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, with regards to this case, the judge was simply following the law. The law says that the victim must have suffered serious effects, and the judge did not think that this woman had. It's not enough that she's having therapy or whatever.

What would be enough? Should she feel suicidal or attempt to kill him instead?

"Schools learning manager Lauren hit back: "It has had a serious effect.
"I'm attending meetings with a domestic violence support group, my confidence has been badly knocked and I struggle to trust people.
"He controlled my life for four years and the effect of that didn't go away the minute he was taken away by the police. It still hasn't, it's going to take time."

gelico wrote:

Syl wrote:

What would be enough? Should she feel suicidal or attempt to kill him instead?

"Schools learning manager Lauren hit back: "It has had a serious effect.
"I'm attending meetings with a domestic violence support group, my confidence has been badly knocked and I struggle to trust people.
"He controlled my life for four years and the effect of that didn't go away the minute he was taken away by the police. It still hasn't, it's going to take time."

did the judge ask her at all why it went on for four years?  did she give any indication as to why she never left before?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

What would be enough? Should she feel suicidal or attempt to kill him instead?

"Schools learning manager Lauren hit back: "It has had a serious effect.
"I'm attending meetings with a domestic violence support group, my confidence has been badly knocked and I struggle to trust people.
"He controlled my life for four years and the effect of that didn't go away the minute he was taken away by the police. It still hasn't, it's going to take time."

You can't convict anyone who's been mean to their partner and upset them - the prisons would be full. The harm done has to be serious, and going for counselling isn't that serious. Neither is having one's confidence knocked.

I just don't get why she let him behave like that for four years if she didn't like it.

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You can't convict anyone who's been mean to their partner and upset them - the prisons would be full. The harm done has to be serious, and going for counselling isn't that serious. Neither is having one's confidence knocked.

I just don't get why she let him behave like that for four years if she didn't like it.

The law disagrees with you and thankfully so
As we now have a better understanding of non-physical domestic abuse

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


The law disagrees with you and thankfully so
As we now have a better understanding of non-physical domestic abuse

The law doesn't disagree with me at all, hence the verdict of the judge. Try researching the law.

Vintage wrote:It's s much more than someone being mean to partner and upsetting them! Its not a tiff. It's consistent demoralisation, people subject to it end up with no self esteem, confidence or self worth, even if they realise what's going on they are so stripped of personality they think they don't have anywhere to go, or that they can function without the abuser, it takes a lot to realise what's happening it takes a whole lot more to actually do something about it, even then some people just can't do it and go back to the person abusing them. Its like people in a cult even if they realise its wrong they can't find the strength to leave, if they do many go back of those that stay out a lot can't deal with it and commit suicide.,

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The law doesn't disagree with me at all, hence the verdict of the judge. Try researching the law.

Actually you are wrong again

The judge simple decided and wrongly in my opinion, that she was "too" strong to be victim to this kind of abuse

In other words she never denied the controlling behaviour. She denied this effected the victim

So maybe again I suggest you read up on what you are talking about, as again your are in error

District Judge Helen Cousins said she had to decide whether his behaviour had "a serious effect "on the victim.

She said the behaviour was "disgraceful" but didn't have a big enough impact on Lauren to find him guilty.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


Actually you are wrong again

The judge simple decided and wrongly in my opinion, that she was "too" strong to be victim to this kind of abuse

In other words she never denied the controlling behaviour. She denied this effected the victim

So maybe again I suggest you read up on what you are talking about, as again your are in error

If you read up on the actual law, you'll see that the judge was saying that she didn't suffer serious harm, which is necessary for a conviction.

District Judge Helen Cousins said she had to decide whether his behaviour had "a serious effect "on the victim.

She said the behaviour was "disgraceful" but didn't have a big enough impact on Lauren to find him guilty.

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If you read up on the actual law, you'll see that the judge was saying that she didn't suffer serious harm, which is necessary for a conviction.

What did I just tell you?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

What did I just tell you?

So you agree that the judge followed the law then. Good.

The judge said in her ruling: ‘I have to be satisfied the behaviour was controlling, coercive, and it had a serious effect on the victim. There’s no doubt the victim is a strong and capable woman, whose evidence was truthful. She has since successfully removed herself from the harmful situation.

‘It is to her credit that I cannot find the defendant’s behaviour had a serious effect on her in the context of the guidelines for this offence.’

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you agree that the judge followed the law then. Good.

Cathy newman alert

Never made a claim the judge was right

In fact I said she was wrong in her judgement, just as many other people including the victim are stating

You just posted up what I just told you myself about the judges decision

Seriously, do you read posts before you reply?

Raggamuffin wrote:This is what the judge said:

The judge said in her ruling: ‘I have to be satisfied the behaviour was controlling, coercive, and it had a serious effect on the victim. There’s no doubt the victim is a strong and capable woman, whose evidence was truthful. She has since successfully removed herself from the harmful situation.

‘It is to her credit that I cannot find the defendant’s behaviour had a serious effect on her in the context of the guidelines for this offence.’

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Cathy newman alert

Never made a claim the judge was right

In fact I said she was wrong in her judgement, just as many other people including the victim are stating

You just posted up what I just told you myself about the judges decision

Seriously, do you read posts before you reply?

Well the victim would say that wouldn't she? She wanted him to be convicted.

I'm saying that the effects on her weren't serious enough for a conviction. That's what the judge said.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

What would be enough? Should she feel suicidal or attempt to kill him instead?

"Schools learning manager Lauren hit back: "It has had a serious effect.
"I'm attending meetings with a domestic violence support group, my confidence has been badly knocked and I struggle to trust people.
"He controlled my life for four years and the effect of that didn't go away the minute he was taken away by the police. It still hasn't, it's going to take time."

You can't convict anyone who's been mean to their partner and upset them - the prisons would be full. The harm done has to be serious, and going for counselling isn't that serious. Neither is having one's confidence knocked.

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This is what the judge said:

Well its very clear from the victim, this has had a major effect

Or did you skip that part as well?

This is what the judge poorly discounted

Hence why many people are outraged at the decision

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You can't convict anyone who's been mean to their partner and upset them - the prisons would be full. The harm done has to be serious, and going for counselling isn't that serious. Neither is having one's confidence knocked.

"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.

The Home Office recently published guidelines listing characteristics of behaviour that might constitute an offence and this really represents a departure from historic views of what constituted domestic abuse. The guidelines include:

Isolating a person from their friends and family;
Monitoring their time;
Monitoring a person online or using spyware;
Taking control over aspects of their everyday life, such as where they can go, who they can see, what to wear and when they can sleep;
Depriving them of access to support services, such as specialist support or medical services;
Repeatedly putting them down such as telling them they are worthless;
Enforcing rules and activity which humiliate, degrade or dehumanise the victim.
Forcing the victim to take part in criminal activity such as shoplifting, neglect or abuse of children to encourage self-blame and prevent disclosure to authorities;
Financial abuse including control of finances, such as only allowing a person a punitive allowance;
Threats to hurt or kill or threats to a child;
Threats to reveal or publish private information (e.g. threatening to ‘out’ someone);
Assault;
Criminal damage (such as destruction of household goods);
Rape;
Preventing a person from having access to transport or from working."

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well the victim would say that wouldn't she? She wanted him to be convicted.

I'm saying that the effects on her weren't serious enough for a conviction. That's what the judge said.

wow

I am simple going to leave that for others to read and be astounded as I am, at your reply

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

"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.

The Home Office recently published guidelines listing characteristics of behaviour that might constitute an offence and this really represents a departure from historic views of what constituted domestic abuse. The guidelines include:

Isolating a person from their friends and family;
Monitoring their time;
Monitoring a person online or using spyware;
Taking control over aspects of their everyday life, such as where they can go, who they can see, what to wear and when they can sleep;
Depriving them of access to support services, such as specialist support or medical services;
Repeatedly putting them down such as telling them they are worthless;
Enforcing rules and activity which humiliate, degrade or dehumanise the victim.
Forcing the victim to take part in criminal activity such as shoplifting, neglect or abuse of children to encourage self-blame and prevent disclosure to authorities;
Financial abuse including control of finances, such as only allowing a person a punitive allowance;
Threats to hurt or kill or threats to a child;
Threats to reveal or publish private information (e.g. threatening to ‘out’ someone);
Assault;
Criminal damage (such as destruction of household goods);
Rape;
Preventing a person from having access to transport or from working."

I'm well aware of the law, thanks.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm well aware of the law, thanks.

Maybe you are not. This is a relatively new law (3 years)and was only updated last year.

Raggamuffin wrote:So why did she have a child with someone who treated her badly? Can anyone answer that?

Raggamuffin wrote:So why did she have a child with someone who treated her badly? Can anyone answer that?

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So why did she have a child with someone who treated her badly? Can anyone answer that?

This is even more an astounding comment

showing you have no idea what you are talking about on this issue of control

This is why I disapair when you come out with such ridiculous comments such as this

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

This is even more an astounding comment

showing you have no idea what you are talking about on this issue of control

This is why I disapair when you come out with such ridiculous comments such as this

Jules also raised this issue earlier. Why did you not pull her up for it?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Maybe you are not. This is a relatively new law (3 years)and was only updated last year.

Yes, I know. That's what we've been talking about. Have you actually read the whole thing or just the bits you want to?

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Jules also raised this issue earlier. Why did you not pull her up for it?

Okay just to show how ridiculous a statement that is

Not all pregnancies are planned

You do realise this

Not everyone when pregnant wants to have an abortion

To ask why she syated with him, failing to understand she struggled to even get away from him, shows how dumb a question that is to make

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, I know. That's what we've been talking about. Have you actually read the whole thing or just the bits you want to?

I have read it. Your previous post was.....

"Anyway, with regards to this case, the judge was simply following the law. The law says that the victim must have suffered serious effects, and the judge did not think that this woman had. It's not enough that she's having therapy or whatever."

My point is the judge was not simply following the law. The man was obvious  guilty of at least two of the offences (which I highlighted) on the list.