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/

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

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

So why was she having sex with a man who was so nasty to her? When did she struggle to get away from him, other than when she had enough evidence to get him arrested?

OMG

This is why it its pointless even disgussing this with you, when again you fail to understand the control he had over her

Its pointless talking to someone as stupid as you are on this

Seriously

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

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

So why was she having sex with a man who was so nasty to her? When did she struggle to get away from him, other than when she had enough evidence to get him arrested?

Have you read the thread ?

There have been numerous posts explaining why some women stay in abusive relationships. You choose not to accept them, but that doesnt mean they dont happen.

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So why was she having sex with a man who was so nasty to her? When did she struggle to get away from him, other than when she had enough evidence to get him arrested?

OMG

This is why it its pointless even disgussing this with you, when again you fail to understand the control he had over her

Its pointless talking to someone as stupid as you are on this

Seriously

Are you suggesting he forced her to have sex? There are already laws in place to deal with that kind of thing.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So why was she having sex with a man who was so nasty to her? When did she struggle to get away from him, other than when she had enough evidence to get him arrested?

Have you read the thread ?

There have been numerous posts explaining  why some women stay in abusive relationships. You choose not to accept them, but that doesnt mean they dont happen.

Of course they happen, but I'm saying that those who allow themselves to be controlled should not do so. If you let someone walk all over you, that's your own fault.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

OMG

This is why it its pointless even disgussing this with you, when again you fail to understand the control he had over her

Its pointless talking to someone as stupid as you are on this

Seriously

Are you suggesting he forced her to have sex? There are already laws in place to deal with that kind of thing.

Do you understand what coercion means?

Seriously, stop wasting my time with your stupidity

Seriously

Now enjoy talking to yourself, I am not wasting my time further on this debate with you

There have also been many cases of men who have murdered their children in revenge for the wife/partner leaving them.
I should think that would be a reason some women stay in abusive marriages.

Syl wrote:There have also been many cases of men who have murdered their children in revenge for the wife/partner leaving them.
I should think that would be a reason some women stay in abusive marriages.

Oh please - that's clutching at straws.

By the way, the law doesn't just apply to men.

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you suggesting he forced her to have sex? There are already laws in place to deal with that kind of thing.

Do you understand what coercion means?

Seriously, stop wasting my time with your stupidity

Seriously

Now enjoy talking to yourself, I am not wasting my time further on this debate with you

Off you go then. It will be nice not to have you hanging around handing out abuse and trying to control what I think and say.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Have you read the thread ?

There have been numerous posts explaining  why some women stay in abusive relationships. You choose not to accept them, but that doesnt mean they dont happen.

Of course they happen, but I'm saying that those who allow themselves to be controlled should not do so. If you let someone walk all over you, that's your own fault.

Yes I understand that you (or I for that matter) would not stay in an abusive relationship, but not everyone has the strength, especially when young children are involved, to leave.
You simply cant judge other people by your own actions.....you dont walk in their shoes.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:There have also been many cases of men who have murdered their children in revenge for the wife/partner leaving them.
I should think that would be a reason some women stay in abusive marriages.

Oh please - that's clutching at straws.

By the way, the law doesn't just apply to men.

In September 2012 the Government published guidance which may assist prosecutors to better understand the nature and features of controlling or coercive behaviour.

Domestic violence and abuse is defined as:

"Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality. This can encompass, but is not limited to, the following types of abuse: psychological, physical, sexual, financial and emotional." [Domestic abuse guidelines for prosecutors]

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Of course they happen, but I'm saying that those who allow themselves to be controlled should not do so. If you let someone walk all over you, that's your own fault.

Yes I understand that you (or I for that matter) would not stay in an abusive relationship, but not everyone has the strength, especially when young children are involved, to leave.
You simply cant judge other people by your own actions.....you dont walk in their shoes.

Then you get a problem with the law because a conviction depends on the personality of the victim as well as that of the abuser. That's why it's not a very good law.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:There have also been many cases of men who have murdered their children in revenge for the wife/partner leaving them.
I should think that would be a reason some women stay in abusive marriages.

Oh please - that's clutching at straws.

By the way, the law doesn't just apply to men.

It would be clutching at straws if it didn't happen...sadly it does.
I know the law works both ways...as it should.

Does someone have to have broken limbs or heavy bruising to be taken seriously now? Although as this woman was strong, that wouldn't have been much of a problem for her, would it, a few weeks in plaster what's that for a strong woman.

Understanding Controlling or Coercive Behaviour
In September 2012 the Government published guidance which may assist prosecutors to better understand the nature and features of controlling or coercive behaviour.

Domestic violence and abuse is defined as:

"Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality. This can encompass, but is not limited to, the following types of abuse: psychological, physical, sexual, financial and emotional." [Domestic abuse guidelines for prosecutors]

The definition is supported by the following explanatory text:

"This definition, which is not a legal definition, includes so called 'honour' based violence, female genital mutilation (FGM) and forced marriage, and is clear that victims are not confined to one gender or ethnic group."

The Government definition also outlines the following:

Coercive behaviour 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
Controlling behaviour is a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour
3.1 Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 - Controlling or Coercive Behaviour in an Intimate or Family Relationship
Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 created a new offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. Prior to the introduction of this offence, case law indicated the difficulty in proving a pattern of behaviour amounting to harassment within an intimate relationship (the Statutory Guidance cites the following cases - Curtis [2010] EWCA Crim 123 and Widdows [2011] EWCA Crim 1500).

The new offence, which does not have retrospective effect, came into force on 29 December 2015.

An offence is committed by A if:

A repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards another person, B, that is controlling or coercive; and
At time of the behaviour, A and B are personally connected; and
The behaviour has a serious effect on B; and
A knows or ought to know that the behaviour will have a serious effect on B.
A and B are 'personally connected' if:

they are in an intimate personal relationship; or
they live together and are either members of the same family; or
they live together have previously been in an intimate personal relationship with each other.
There are two ways in which it can be proved that A's behaviour has a 'serious effect' on B:

If it causes B to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against them - s.76 (4)(a); or
If it causes B serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities - s.76 (4) (b).
For the purposes of this offence, behaviour must be engaged in 'repeatedly' or 'continuously'. Another, separate, element of the offence is that it must have a 'serious effect' on someone and one way of proving this is that it causes someone to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against them. There is no specific requirement in the Act that the activity should be of the same nature. The prosecution should be able to show that there was intent to control or coerce someone.

The phrase 'substantial adverse effect on Bs usual day-to-day activities' may include, but is not limited to:

Stopping or changing the way someone socialises
Physical or mental health deterioration
A change in routine at home including those associated with mealtimes or household chores
Attendance record at school
Putting in place measures at home to safeguard themselves or their children
Changes to work patterns, employment status or routes to work
For the purposes of the offence A 'ought to know' that which a reasonable person in possession of the same information would know - s.76 (5).

A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable:

On conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both;
On summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or a fine, or both.
Prosecutors are reminded that:

For an either way offence, it is not necessary for the last incident to have occurred within the previous six months;
Offending within a domestic abuse context is an aggravating factor because of the abuse of trust involved;
Appropriate ancillary orders can be applied for upon sentence or acquittal e.g. restraining orders. Prosecutors should liaise with the police to seek the views of the victim before an application is made.
Controlling or coercive behaviour towards another can include or be committed in conjunction with a range of other offences including offences under: the Malicious Communications Act 1998; the Sexual Offences Act 2003; and the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. See the Home Office Statutory Guidance and CPS Domestic Abuse Legal Guidance for examples offences that might apply to domestic abuse.

3.2 Relevant Behaviours
Prosecutors are advised that a pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour can be well established before a single incident is reported. In many cases the conduct might seem innocent - especially if considered in isolation of other incidents - and the victim may not be aware of, or be ready to acknowledge, abusive behaviour. The consideration of the cumulative impact of controlling or coercive behaviour and the pattern of behaviour within the context of the relationship is crucial. This approach will support the prosecutor to effectively assess whether a pattern of behaviour amounts to fear that violence will be carried out; or serious alarm or distress leading to a substantial adverse effect on usual day-to-day activities.

Further assistance can be obtained from the Statutory Guidance published by the Home Office pursuant to section 77(1) of the Serious Crime Act 2015.

Building on examples within the Statutory Guidance, relevant behaviour of the perpetrator can include:

Isolating a person from their friends and family
Depriving them of their basic needs
Monitoring their time
Monitoring a person via online communication tools 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 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
Control ability to go to school or place of study
Taking wages, benefits or allowances
Threats to hurt or kill
Threats to harm a child
Threats to reveal or publish private information (e.g. threatening to 'out' someone)
Threats to hurt or physically harming a family pet
Assault
Criminal damage (such as destruction of household goods)
Preventing a person from having access to transport or from working
Preventing a person from being able to attend school, college or University
Family 'dishonour'
Reputational damage
Disclosure of sexual orientation
Disclosure of HIV status or other medical condition without consent
Limiting access to family, friends and finances


https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/controlling-or-coercive-behaviour-intimate-or-family-relationship


Seems a very good law to me

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh please - that's clutching at straws.

By the way, the law doesn't just apply to men.

It would be clutching at straws if it didn't happen...sadly it does.
I know the law works both ways...as it should.

There's no suggestion that this man was about to do anything like that, or that the woman thought he might. Let's stick to what's likely.

Some women also kill their children by the way.

Vintage wrote:Does someone have to have broken limbs or heavy bruising to be taken seriously now? Although as this woman was strong, that  wouldn't have been much of  a problem for her, would it, a few weeks in plaster what's that for a strong woman.

The man was convicted of assault and sent to prison, so she was taken seriously, even though there's no report that she had actual injuries.

Vintage wrote:Does someone have to have broken limbs or heavy bruising to be taken seriously now? Although as this woman was strong, that  wouldn't have been much of  a problem for her, would it, a few weeks in plaster what's that for a strong woman.

I think the subjective view the judge made on the strengh of the victim, is where the problem is here in this case.

Its made the judge ignore the many telling points that prove this should have been a conviction in coercion

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Yes I understand that you (or I for that matter) would not stay in an abusive relationship, but not everyone has the strength, especially when young children are involved, to leave.
You simply cant judge other people by your own actions.....you dont walk in their shoes.

Then you get a problem with the law because a conviction depends on the personality of the victim as well as that of the abuser. That's why it's not a very good law.

The problem in this case was with the judge.
The man was guilty of 'controlling and coercive behaviour' it was the judge who decided the woman had not suffered enough because of it....which is farcical.

This comment sums it up..."Katie Ghose, Chief Executive of Women’s Aid, said: “No judge should base their judgement of a domestic abuse-related case on whether the victim matches their stereotype of what a victim should look or act like."

i think this coercive behaviour law is ridiculous

gelico wrote:
i think this coercive behaviour law is ridiculous

Could you expand on that gelico?

gelico wrote:
i think this coercive behaviour law is ridiculous

That is up to you, but its clearly not ridiculous to the victims of this

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Then you get a problem with the law because a conviction depends on the personality of the victim as well as that of the abuser. That's why it's not a very good law.

The problem in this case was with the judge.
The man was guilty of 'controlling and coercive behaviour' it was the judge who decided the woman had not suffered enough because of it....which is farcical.

This comment sums it up..."Katie Ghose, Chief Executive of Women’s Aid, said: “No judge should base their judgement of a domestic abuse-related case on whether the victim matches their stereotype of what a victim should look or act like."

The judge made a judgement that the woman is strong and capable and had sorted her life out, so what is the problem with the verdict?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

It would be clutching at straws if it didn't happen...sadly it does.
I know the law works both ways...as it should.

There's no suggestion that this man was about to do anything like that, or that the woman thought he might. Let's stick to what's likely.

Some women also kill their children by the way.

Women very rarely have been proven to kill their kids to get back at an ex.
Sadly that is often the reason  men kill their own children.

If you are living with a violent man who threatens to harm their kids (I'm talking generally not of this case) that's enough to make a woman stay.
We have no idea what this man threatened to do, but it's a sure bet that if he can teach his son to tell his mum to fuck off and call her a slut and a slag, he is capable of doing many things NORMAL parents dont do.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Then you get a problem with the law because a conviction depends on the personality of the victim as well as that of the abuser. That's why it's not a very good law.

The problem in this case was with the judge.
The man was guilty of 'controlling and coercive behaviour' it was the judge who decided the woman had not suffered enough because of it....which is farcical.

This comment sums it up..."Katie Ghose, Chief Executive of Women’s Aid, said: “No judge should base their judgement of a domestic abuse-related case on whether the victim matches their stereotype of what a victim should look or act like."

I agree the judge made some major mistakes here and maybe this is down to this being a new law??

Look, if you had a case of controlling behaviour and the examples applied to a man, for example, but the woman wasn't that bothered by it all, you wouldn't expect a conviction would you? Of cbourse there has to be a condition that serious harm was suffered otherwise there's no point in it.

On the other hand, a woman could say that she suffered serious harm because her husband wouldn't do the washing up - that would be equally silly.

Raggamuffin wrote:

gelico wrote:
i think this coercive behaviour law is ridiculous

Could you expand on that gelico?

because people should be responsible for making their own rules and boundaries. as soon as they are infringed upon you know it's going tits up

physical assault, blackmail, etc are all crimes in their own right

gelico wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Could you expand on that gelico?

because people should be responsible for making their own rules and boundaries.  as soon as they are infringed upon you know it's going tits up

physical assault, blackmail, etc are all crimes in their own right

Which shows again you are another that fails to grasp how people can be controlled through coercion with fear

You need to step outside the spectrum of the world in how you see things and try and place yourself in a position where control is taken from you

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There's no suggestion that this man was about to do anything like that, or that the woman thought he might. Let's stick to what's likely.

Some women also kill their children by the way.

Women very rarely have been proven to kill their kids to get back at an ex.
Sadly that is often  the reason  men kill their own children.

If you are living with a violent man who threatens to harm their kids (I'm talking generally not of this case) that's enough to make a woman stay.
We have no idea what this man threatened to do, but it's a sure bet that if he can teach his son to tell his mum to fuck off and call her a slut and a slag, he is capable of doing many things NORMAL parents dont do.

How often does that happen though? It's not very common is it?

If the man had threatened to do that, you can be sure it would have been reported. The kid was one, still a baby. He could say it to the kid and the kid repeated it, but I doubt very much he gave the kid lessons in what to say. It's a horrible thing to do, of course it is, but let's not assume that he would then kill the kid.

Raggamuffin wrote:Look, if you had a case of controlling behaviour and the examples applied to a man, for example, but the woman wasn't that bothered by it all, you wouldn't expect a conviction would you? Of cbourse there has to be a condition that serious harm was suffered otherwise there's no point in it.

On the other hand, a woman could say that she suffered serious harm because her husband wouldn't do the washing up - that would be equally silly.

A long list of what is considered to be controlling and coercive behaviour has been posted (twice) I dont think refusing to do the washing up has been listed.

If you could find one mother alive who isnt emotionally affected by her one year old son being taught to swear at her and call her nasty names by his dad....well good luck with that.

gelico wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Could you expand on that gelico?

because people should be responsible for making their own rules and boundaries.  as soon as they are infringed upon you know it's going tits up

physical assault, blackmail, etc are all crimes in their own right

Yes, I agree.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Look, if you had a case of controlling behaviour and the examples applied to a man, for example, but the woman wasn't that bothered by it all, you wouldn't expect a conviction would you? Of cbourse there has to be a condition that serious harm was suffered otherwise there's no point in it.

On the other hand, a woman could say that she suffered serious harm because her husband wouldn't do the washing up - that would be equally silly.

A long list of what is considered to be controlling and coercive behaviour has been posted (twice) I dont think refusing to do the washing up has been listed.

If you could find one mother alive who isnt emotionally affected by her one year old son being taught to swear at her and call her nasty names by his dad....well good luck with that.

But you're still ignoring the fact that it has to have a serious effect to warrant a conviction.

My point was that in this law the reaction and suffering of the victim is taken into account, which doesn't necessarily happen in other crimes.

One thing which stands out for me is that the woman recorded him, which suggests that she was very much in control and was collecting evidence. She wasn't shivering in fear in a corner.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Women very rarely have been proven to kill their kids to get back at an ex.
Sadly that is often  the reason  men kill their own children.

If you are living with a violent man who threatens to harm their kids (I'm talking generally not of this case) that's enough to make a woman stay.
We have no idea what this man threatened to do, but it's a sure bet that if he can teach his son to tell his mum to fuck off and call her a slut and a slag, he is capable of doing many things NORMAL parents dont do.

How often does that happen though? It's not very common is it?

If the man had threatened to do that, you can be sure it would have been reported. The kid was one, still a baby. He could say it to the kid and the kid repeated it, but I doubt very much he gave the kid lessons in what to say. It's a horrible thing to do, of course it is, but let's not assume that he would then kill the kid.

We dont know what other things he said to his partner, but it is men who have this sort of mindset that uses their kids to take revenge of the mother.
HE was already doing it with his one year old son. God knows far he would have gone if the woman had stayed..

Not being horrible, but are not both rags and Gelico religious?

You do realise that religion is a form of control?

Using fear through coercion?

Now I am not knocking religion, but I am saying this for a simple reason and will wait to see you reply, whether you believe it is coercion or not and whether it controls you.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How often does that happen though? It's not very common is it?

If the man had threatened to do that, you can be sure it would have been reported. The kid was one, still a baby. He could say it to the kid and the kid repeated it, but I doubt very much he gave the kid lessons in what to say. It's a horrible thing to do, of course it is, but let's not assume that he would then kill the kid.

We dont know what other things he said to his partner, but it is men who have this sort of mindset that uses their kids to take revenge of the mother.
HE was already doing it with his one year old son. God knows far he would have gone if the woman had stayed..

Some men Syl, some men. It's very rare. It's really not relevant anyway as there's no suggestion that she thought he would kill the kid.

gelico wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Could you expand on that gelico?

because people should be responsible for making their own rules and boundaries.  as soon as they are infringed upon you know it's going tits up

physical assault, blackmail, etc are all crimes in their own right

Thats too black and white imo Gels.
Many victims of abuse dont realise they are being controlled because the process can be subtle. If someone is chipping away bit by bit, many victims think they are at fault...later, when they realise whats happened they can be too lacking in confidence to leave.
We dont blame kids for being bullied...this is the same sort of thing, only it happens to older people.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:


We dont know what other things he said to his partner, but it is men who have this sort of mindset that uses their kids to take revenge of the mother.
HE was already doing it with his one year old son. God knows far he would have gone if the woman had stayed..

Some men Syl, some men. It's very rare. It's really not relevant anyway as there's no suggestion that she thought he would kill the kid.

Thankfully it is rare, but I should think the fear of this happening would be enough to stop some mothers from leaving.
Especially, as I said, if it's obvious the man is quite prepared to use the child to get at the mother.

I have just looked up some figures. In the last 30 years the number of children killed by their parents (overwhelmingly by their fathers) has risen to 2 or 3 a year. Numbers have risen year by year from the 1980's.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Some men Syl, some men. It's very rare. It's really not relevant anyway as there's no suggestion that she thought he would kill the kid.

Thankfully it is rare, but I should think the fear of this happening would be enough to stop some mothers from leaving.
Especially, as I said, if it's obvious the man is quite prepared to use the child to get at the mother.

Well yes, if that happened, but it didn't in this case. Getting a baby to repeat what you say is a very long way from killing the same kid.

Syl wrote:

gelico wrote:


because people should be responsible for making their own rules and boundaries.  as soon as they are infringed upon you know it's going tits up

physical assault, blackmail, etc are all crimes in their own right

Thats too black and white imo Gels.
Many victims of abuse dont realise they are being controlled because the process can be subtle. If someone is chipping away bit by bit, many victims think they are at fault...later, when they realise whats happened they can be too lacking in confidence to leave.
We dont blame kids for being bullied...this is the same sort of thing, only it happens to older people.

Do you not that could be the root of the future problems the victim might have? That they feel foolish and feel they wasted a lot of years? Perhaps that's why some go to counselling - to try to get over their feeling of having let someone behave badly towards them?

Syl wrote:

gelico wrote:


because people should be responsible for making their own rules and boundaries.  as soon as they are infringed upon you know it's going tits up

physical assault, blackmail, etc are all crimes in their own right

Thats too black and white imo Gels.
Many victims of abuse dont realise they are being controlled because the process can be subtle. If someone is chipping away bit by bit, many victims think they are at fault...later, when they realise whats happened they can be too lacking in confidence to leave.
We dont blame kids for being bullied...this is the same sort of thing, only it happens to older people.

that's why firm boundaries need to be established at the start

the very first time it happens the answer needs to be

''sorry, but i dont care if you dont like my friend, i'm still going out with her''

sorry, but i dont care if you dont like my mum, i'm going round there

sorry, but i dont care if you dont like my outfit, that's what i'm wearing

subtle or not, you know it's happening and you dont allow it

gelico wrote:

Syl wrote:
Thats too black and white imo Gels.
Many victims of abuse dont realise they are being controlled because the process can be subtle. If someone is chipping away bit by bit, many victims think they are at fault...later, when they realise whats happened they can be too lacking in confidence to leave.
We dont blame kids for being bullied...this is the same sort of thing, only it happens to older people.

that's why firm boundaries need to be established at the start

the very first time it happens the answer needs to be

''sorry, but i dont care if you dont like my friend, i'm still going out with her''

sorry, but i dont care if you dont like my mum, i'm going round there

sorry, but i dont care if you dont like my outfit, that's what i'm wearing

subtle or not, you know it's happening and you dont allow it

Yes!

gelico wrote:

Syl wrote:
Thats too black and white imo Gels.
Many victims of abuse dont realise they are being controlled because the process can be subtle. If someone is chipping away bit by bit, many victims think they are at fault...later, when they realise whats happened they can be too lacking in confidence to leave.
We dont blame kids for being bullied...this is the same sort of thing, only it happens to older people.

that's why firm boundaries need to be established at the start

the very first time it happens the answer needs to be

''sorry, but i dont care if you dont like my friend, i'm still going out with her''

sorry, but i dont care if you dont like my mum, i'm going round there

sorry, but i dont care if you dont like my outfit, that's what i'm wearing

subtle or not, you know it's happening and you dont allow it

Its not as simple as that for some people and again you are basing this on a understanding you have 

Not again stepping outside the box into the shoes of people who can suffer things like insecurities

Its like I said and I see it was ignored

Many people that follow Islam, Christianity, Judaism, do so through a belief that they want to believe when it fact. Its very much a form of coercion through fear. Of what they believe will happen if they do not believe. That they will suffer in the after life

Its thus very much a form of control through coercion

Now I bet you and Rags, would deny that you are about being coerced into believeing

I rest my case

gelico wrote:

Syl wrote:
Thats too black and white imo Gels.
Many victims of abuse dont realise they are being controlled because the process can be subtle. If someone is chipping away bit by bit, many victims think they are at fault...later, when they realise whats happened they can be too lacking in confidence to leave.
We dont blame kids for being bullied...this is the same sort of thing, only it happens to older people.

that's why firm boundaries need to be established at the start

the very first time it happens the answer needs to be

''sorry, but i dont care if you dont like my friend, i'm still going out with her''

sorry, but i dont care if you dont like my mum, i'm going round there

sorry, but i dont care if you dont like my outfit, that's what i'm wearing

subtle or not, you know it's happening and you dont allow it

My opinion is you are right that a lot of women would never put up with it and if/when  it starts you stop it quick.
Not everyone is the same though...and for the women (and men) who do find themselves in a controlled relationship that has escalated, the law should treat this as they treat other cases. Thats why the max sentence is 5 years, this idiot was let off completely on this charge.

Anyway, it's been an interesting debate. x

Syl wrote:

gelico wrote:

that's why firm boundaries need to be established at the start

the very first time it happens the answer needs to be

''sorry, but i dont care if you dont like my friend, i'm still going out with her''

sorry, but i dont care if you dont like my mum, i'm going round there

sorry, but i dont care if you dont like my outfit, that's what i'm wearing

subtle or not, you know it's happening and you dont allow it

My opinion is you are right that a lot of women would never put up with it and if/when  it starts you stop it quick.
Not everyone is the same though...and for the women (and men) who do find themselves in a controlled relationship that has escalated, the law should treat this as they treat other cases. Thats why the max sentence is 5 years, this idiot was let off completely on this charge.

That's what I mean about the law being a problem. A conviction depends on the personality of the victim. A man could keep on trying to control a woman but not succeed. He is still guilty of some of the things on the list but he wouldn't be convicted.

He was let off because the woman took control and sorted it out - like she should have done before she had a baby with him.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

My opinion is you are right that a lot of women would never put up with it and if/when  it starts you stop it quick.
Not everyone is the same though...and for the women (and men) who do find themselves in a controlled relationship that has escalated, the law should treat this as they treat other cases. Thats why the max sentence is 5 years, this idiot was let off completely on this charge.

That's what I mean about the law being a problem. A conviction depends on the personality of the victim. A man could keep on trying to control a woman but not succeed. He is still guilty of some of the things on the list but he wouldn't be convicted.

He was let off because the woman took control and sorted it out - like she should have done before she had a baby with him.

quite, hopefully she will never go down the same path, so she's learned a good lesson

all good

Its so easy to say it wouldn't have happened if she had put a stop to it straight away. The controllers don't just up and say you aren't going to your mothers, most people could stop it if that were so or leave but its a process, one that happens over time but it's already been explained so its no good doing it again. I'm out on this particular thread, having seen it happen to a strong independant woman, its too much to keep trying to convince someone how difficult this can be for the person and their friends and family.

My take on this matter is this.   Women are often deluded in that they think a man will change, that the love, or what they think is love, will eventually conquer all.   They forgive the abuse over and over because they think if they give out enough adoration and complicity the man will soften and eventually treat them better.  

Which we all know is bollocks.

So, are they fools for staying?   Yes.  

Is it easy to leave an abusive partner?  Not necessarily, because of the delusion and hope that they will change.  When someone is controlling it crushes your spirit and erodes your will.

Should the women leave?  Yes.  It's about free choices.  If you stay in an abusive relationship you're enabling it.   The man will abuse you because you allow it, and because he can.  

I mean, those rules and laws about not allowing controlling behaviour is right.  But why on earth would you want to stay with someone who did this?  It's not enough to lay down new laws, these woman need to know they can walk away and should.  

Men who are abusive have often been damaged or abused themselves as kids, or lived in violent households - though not always.   But some women think they can be the saviour, they can help eradicate this abuse by hanging in there or appeasing.  Of course, this doesn't work, it just compounds the behaviour.

The other thing is that the early clues are all there.   Things happen little by little, then all at once.  These woman should be encouraged to leave, cut and run and never return.  In this day and age, it's never been easier to do this, particularly in the UK.  

I've been lucky.   No partner of mine ever raised a hand to me.  But if he did, I'd have been gone.  Two things I won't tolerate in a relationship.  Violence and cheating.