New UK Bullying Law

Exactly how much government needs to be in a relationship? A nagging wife or a rude husband can now be charged and jailed?

UK seeks to crack down on 'bullying' husbands

LONDON -- Men who treat their wives in a controlling way but do not assault them physically could face criminal charges under sweeping new domestic violence laws being proposed in the United Kingdom.
Under the changes drawn up by Liberal Democrat ministers, husbands accused of “bullying” or psychologically abusing their wives could be prosecuted for domestic violence, the Daily Mail reports.
The guidelines could cover anyone exercising "coercive control" over their partner, so would also apply to women who bully their male partners.
Separately, ministers are expected to unveil recommendations that would make forcing children into arranged marriages a crime.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I was coming here to congratulate the Brits for finally taking school bullying seriously but this? How the hell are you even going to prove this? what's included? A friend of mine's misses told him she wouldn't have sex with him while he had a mow. Technically that could be considered to be controlling because its dictating to one partner what they do with there own body so is that illegal???? Where do you draw the line on something like this? I know the UK has some weird domestic violence laws period (i.e. the laws against consensual S&M) but this takes the cake

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In other news...S&M is illegal in Britain?
No guns, no S&M, no speeding?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not very merry, are they?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is a fine example of good intentions turning nutty!!

I can see it now - a husband and wife get into a serious argument over something fairly simple. And one (or both!) decide to take it out on the other and file charges of bullying.

Just HOW stupid can a bunch of lawmakers get?!?!?!?

 

I would actually be okay with law to this effect if only well-supported evidence is used (recorded conversations, video). Or, I'd at least entertain the idea, as a lawmaker.

 

Yea bells except 2 points, 1) based on what was posted in my experience its WOMEN who are more guilty of acting this way than men are and yet it specifically states MEN and 2) Domestic violence is hard enough to prove to start with and this is hard enough to prove in elder abuse cases so how exactly is it possible to prove (or even DEFINE) this in an "equal" relationship

Oh and I'm suspicious of these sorts of laws in the UK because of the aforementioned laws against S&M, if your seriously going to throw people in jail for consenting to something that they WANT to do, which involves no one else and which doesn't even have the excuses that laws against incest has then how exactly can people trust that THIS law wont be abused?

 

Having some experience with charitable refuges for battered women, and having heard first hand from victims that the psychological abuse is often worse than just having their face smashed in again, I'd have to say I don't have a particular problem with making a law against it.

Of course it's just as open to abuse as all laws, but that's a broader issue. If you're going to have laws against behaviors that damage other people at all, the only issue is one of degree.

If the law really was aimed at rudeness or nagging like the OP suggested, it wouldn't be a useful law, but that's quite frankly rubbish. (For a moment I thought the News of the World had re-opened and invaded the message board.)

It isn't about a lack of politeness. It's about psychologically torturing someone, grinding down their self esteem, isolating them from their friends and family, threatening to kill their children if they leave, taking advantage of their culture or religion to make them into a slave, or generally making the one place they should feel safe a continual barrage of acute anxiety and chronic stress until you drive them to the point of madness or suicide.

Anyone who thinks it isn't desirable to censure that sort of behavior is, in my opinion, a cunt.

 

umm bells, seriously you need to look at the UK laws. CONSENSUAL S&M is illegal in the UK, they actually have laws banning it. You can jump up and down all you want but its true. Therefore when they ALREADY have laws which ban actual consensual behaviour how can you trust how they will USE these new laws?

Its no different the fact that considering how Australia already uses censorship laws with regard to video games I'm highly suspicious about how they will use a compulsory Internet filter. Ie when you are already using the law to over control the free will of people its very hard to trust a new law no matter how well intentioned.

So back to this, your example is great, and there are lots of situations i would love to see it applied. However where do you draw a line making something criminal behavor? Most of the time this SHOULD be an easy question, where does something become assault, well where you hit someone of course except in consensual situations such as S&M (if your not English) or in sporting events where that is the goal. So where does this law draw the line? where is the common law etc backing it up? Is you telling your husband that even though he wants to go to the pub after work with his mates, if he doesn't come straight home you will never give him sex again, is that "just being controlling and a bitch" or is that criminal now? What about Harrison Ford telling his wife that if she doesn't start eating he will dump her because he doesn't want to watch her stave to death? This is the problem with these laws in reality rather than in theory.

 

Bells i find it fascinating that you (a LAWYER) haven't even posted any of the law itself, its interpenetration or anything else which would actually show my comments as being WRONG. Its ok, i can read legalise, i even wrote quite a good review of the bill to bring in voluntary Euthanasia in SA and pointed out to its drafter where he fucked up. In fact your comments are even LESS substantial than the original newspaper article.

Once again how do you define "emotional and psychological abuse" and how do you PROVE it? Not show it as part of a pattern involving physical and or sexual abuse because if that was the case there would be no need for any new laws because there are already laws covering sexual assault, common assault, rape and domestic violence.

Oh and as for your comment about taking the children away, I'm pretty sure that the family court ALREADY deals with cases like this and there are already laws about taking the children out of the country without consent etc so that's obviously not what this law is about. Further more on the first statement "t if they leave you will kill yourself or the children", the first comment will get you SECTIONED (and yes i have a fair amount of experience with this one surprisingly enough), not charged and the second will get you arrested for child endangerment so continue.

 

Your fanciful self aggrandizement and comical misspellings aside, I think there are serious flaws in your position.

You define it as the behavior of one person seriously harming another. You ask both sides for their story, you find witnesses, you collect evidence, arrange for a jury of peers and so on. It's really no different than other violent crimes. There are plenty of convictions for crimes which cause harm without physical violence. Malicious slanders, blackmail, demanding money with menaces, child molestation, the various types harassment and so on. They all have a psychological basis. They are all illegal. They are all frequently successfully prosecuted.

The issue isn't one of practicality, as the merest moment of genuine thought would have shown you, the issue is whether preying on the vulnerable for your own sick pleasure by inducing traumatic stress is right or wrong.

It is unequivocally wrong. It doesn't matter how you spin it. It doesn't matter whether it's difficult to summarize in a simplified soundbite. It doesn't matter whether it's traditional in your culture. It doesn't matter if bones aren't broken. It doesn't matter if a law already covers a small part of the crime. It doesn't matter if the victim should have known better. It doesn't matter if it takes a lot of work to prove.

It is wrong, and decent civilized people will have no part of it, and will resist it when they can.

 

so its the idiotic porn debate "I cant define it but I know what it is when I see it" and then we ban the works of a world famous artist because apparently they DON'T know the difference. That's a piss poor excuse, laws should be black and white because one of the things they should do is tell you NOT to do something and the UK has a history of some really fucked up laws (the ones against S&M, the "antisocial" laws against teenagers hanging around a supermarket, not to mention going back to the screwed up ones which transported most of the Irish to Australia for stealing bread, Christ I need to stop watching Zero Punctuation at the moment, my inner dialogue is starting to sound like him)

I mean this is basic, this was the reason for the abolition of nobility in favour of Judges and legislators, this is the reason for the push to rewrite all Acts of parliament into plain language, "ignorance is no excuse" is fine and dandy IF the general public can actually understand what the laws do and don't want you to do. You cant write a law which says "be nice and not being nice is illegal" and expecting it to work. Laws are like the 10 commandments, they must spell out exactly what they are dealing with, don't kill people, don't bash people up, don't run over kittens etc

 

oh BTW its interesting that you would consider suicide to be "abuse"

 

what is wrong with expecting a LAW to actually DEFINE something, your a lawyer for fuck sake, what's wrong with YOU!

Oh and nice way to flip the scenario, firstly you state that the person who was going to commit suicide was the abuser and now your stating that the other person is pushing them to commit suicide, you don't see that you have just proved the point. Laws need to be defined in there scope, I don't know how more plain I could make that.

Ok lets look at "Assault" as an example

Ie the purpose of the act is not only to define a penalty but first and foremost to define the illegal act that the law is intended to prevent.

 

Actually here's and even better example

CRIMES (DOMESTIC AND PERSONAL VIOLENCE) ACT 2007

Ie the whole first sections of the act exist to DEFINE the scope of the act, who it applies to, WHAT it applies to.