It means for the first time men who control their partners through threats or by restricting their personal or financial freedom, could face prison in the same way as those who are violent towards them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ntrol.html

I don't like the sound of that. Some people ( male and female) need their financial freedom restricted for the good of the whole families financial health. And who is to decide what is fair restriction, and what is rampant consumerism? Yet more meddling in peoples lives.

UKJ wrote:It means for the first time men who control their partners through threats or by restricting their personal or financial freedom, could face prison in the same way as those who are violent towards them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ntrol.html

I don't like the sound of that. Some people ( male and female) need their financial freedom restricted for the good of the whole families financial health. And who is to decide what is fair restriction, and what is rampant consumerism? Yet more meddling in peoples lives.

The idea of protecting vulnerable people (males also!) is a worthy one, but I don't see how you can prove that someone was retroactively mentally abusive - often a he said, she said case, but even more so if it happened years ago.

There are enough problems implementing the laws already in place IMO. Physical domestic violence is often dismissed as "a domestic" by the police - do they have enough resources and know-how to deal with psychological abuse?

Anchor Moy wrote: do they have enough resources and know-how to deal with psychological abuse?

Good point. They already don't get involved in thefts under £300, but will go all out on accusations of racist language ( hate crime). I think the new laws will have similar priority.

I know women who think every ex partner psychologically abused or manipulated them, even if the woman was in the wrong. It's a legal minefield.

The definition of domestic violence in Australia pretty much covers anything. Quite literally.

Digg3r wrote:The definition of domestic violence in Australia pretty much covers anything. Quite literally.

Except when the perpetrator is a woman.

StroppyChops wrote:

Digg3r wrote:The definition of domestic violence in Australia pretty much covers anything. Quite literally.

Except when the perpetrator is a woman.

Quite right but irrelevant because the perpetrator could never be a woman...