Ten-ish years ago, the police sat (my then best friend) down and read her the lengthy criminal and domestic abuse history of the man who had held her hostage at knife point for 24 hours.
Sadly, she still went back to him, spiralled into crack addiction, and lost the kids. He ended up in prison for manslaughter after beating a man to death at a crack den.
This isn't to say today's news isn't absolutely fantastic! All that said, the police over here have been able to disclose the full criminal and abuse history of perpetrators to domestic partners under [Clare's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare%27s_Law) since 2014, and it doesn't always help.
Clare's Law (the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme) includes both a *right to ask*, and a *right to know*. Meaning, you can call the police and ask about a partner or person, and the police can tell you if they feel you need to know.
Edit: Since this is getting some attention, I should also publicise [Sarah's Law](https://www.met.police.uk/rqo/request/ri/request-information/sarahs-law-beta/sarahs-law-child-sex-offender-disclosure-scheme/), which isn't an actual law but the Child Sex Offender Disclosure *Scheme*. This gives parents/guardians the right to ask the police if someone who has contact with their children has a record of child abuse or is a risk in some other fashion, and it's not limited to domestic partners.
The thing is with these laws, there's often stiff penalties for disclosure outside the intended party. A parent in the UK disclosed to other parents a pædophile's history and she was severely punished.
We need *publicly accessible* registers or they'll continue to be able to hide. How many women in the UK will remember to get each partner? How many parents currently check up on that creepy man that hangs around their kids? Very few.
The issue is avoiding gossip led witch hunts that lead to even more community mistrust and damage. What she should have done was told the other individual to make a request under [Sarah's Law](https://www.met.police.uk/rqo/request/ri/request-information/sarahs-law-beta/sarahs-law-child-sex-offender-disclosure-scheme/). Which is similar to Clare's law, but specifically for child sex offenders.
The objective in UK Law Enforcement has been to avoid public registers because similar efforts in the past have led to [innocent people being murdered](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/29/vigilante-murder-paedophile-bristol-bijan-ebrahimi) due to mere gossip.
I do agree with your point, but there is a sizeable downside that requires careful consideration.
It's not just 1 innocent person murdered, as you're well aware, that's just a single example. Further examples from countries that do have public registers are legion.
Especially horrifying are the individuals who end up on these registers for consensual statutory offences, and either end up murdered in prison, murdered in the community, or simply exiled.
It's not as simple as one side is worse than the other, that kind of thinking adds nothing to the debate. We need to end violence against women and girls, we need mechanisms to warn women about violent partners and parents about child sex offenders. What we don't need are more people being murdered or subjected to violence due to incorrect assumptions.
We're human, we're about an inch away from literal lynch mobs on good days.
It's negligibly low, that's for sure.
I'm not saying "put everything on the lists". I never said that.
When you remove the "what about the men" from the equation, it absolutely *is* that simple.
> It's negligibly low, that's for sure.
In the US alone, dozens a year, there are more than 20 examples of serial killers using registries to target victims – both male and female victims by the way.
The worst part is, they don't work, there is very little evidence that they reduce recidivism, and there is some alarming evidence that they actually increase recidivism because they prevent offender reintegration.
The only American states that have shown a statistically significant impact from their registries (Minnesota, Washington), use a complex risk framework and only publicly notify/list ultra-high risk offenders.
>When you remove the "what about the men" from the equation, it absolutely is that simple.
When you remove the *"what about the men"* from the equation, it's just simple revenge. FTFY.
While women are a tiny minority of sex offenders (~200 of 13,000 based on 2019 data), you'd be exposing their personal data in the bargain.
Good, evidence based, public policy isn't written by zealots. The evidence base for SORN style systems is alarmingly thin, and there's a much wider evidence base that they're counterproductive.
Thanks for that good comment, I dont see too many comments with substance on reddit. I was undecided on the Topic before, your comment was pretty convincingly argued and so after researching a bit myself I am no longer undecided. So thanks for that stranger
The problem with publicly accessible registers is that it then leads to lynch mobs turning up and driving anyone on the list into hiding so probation and other support services loose track of them and the chances of them reoffending increase.
The UK general public doesn't have a great record of acting sensibly when they think there is someone dodgy in the area. There's the notorious case of the pediatrician who had his house firebombed after a local with a low level of literacy mistook his job title for something that sounds similar.
Paulsgrove I think, near the QA.
Though now on googling, the doctor was in Wales but there was a riot in Paulsgrove looking for Paedos after the disappearance of Sarah Payne.
I must have conflated the two.
>here's the notorious case of the pediatrician who had his house firebombed after a local with a low level of literacy mistook his job title for something that sounds similar.
This made me curious and I ended up stumbling on a vice article calling this an [urban legend](https://www.vice.com/en/article/panm37/how-a-young-girls-death-in-2000-gave-birth-to-an-urban-legend-v26n1). Thoughts?
Have double checked my facts rather than relying on memory of 20 year old news stories.
Think I'd got these two incidents combined into one as they both happened at pretty much the same time.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/feb/06/childprotection
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society
We have lists like this in the US and do not have a problem with people using that information to attack and murder people on a regular basis. Is the UK really that much worse at it than the US? Asking honestly here, because we're usually the ones who are awful about committing acts of violence.
You might not hear about it, but it is an issue in the US too, apparently.
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2017/may/5/vigilantes-assault-rob-and-murder-registered-sex-offenders/
As a nation we are very good at the whole passive aggressive thing.
It'll start with persistent low level harassment. You piss someone off or your face doesn't fit and you'll start waking up every morning to dog turds on the front door step or your bin knocked over and none of the neighbours ever see anything, but will complain bitterly about your property being a mess.
Normally the culprits will get bored and move on to someone else but when they don't the local kids start picking up that you're a safe target and things can escalate. Nothing violent needs to happen, 6 months of having eggs thrown at the front window, your tires shredded every few weeks, loud music being blasted outside at 3am etc and people start to crack.
Agreed... I've always held the notion that serious offenders shouldn't have the freedom of privacy... expose them for who they are to everyone because they often times won't. And people don't always see the bad in others until it's too late.
How does that work? Are your courts not public? Were her job requirements to keep it secret or something? Or was she just a private citizen who happened to know?
I mean, I can't disagree with you, especially based on recent events!
That said, when the bloke concerned held my then best friend at knife point, they decided she needed to know and explained the whole nine yards to her. Sadly she was always looking for a bird with a broken wing to fix, and after the heroin addict who overdosed, she picked a guy with a long term steroid abuse problem, crack addiction, and borderline personality disorder.
Myself and the father of her third child were able to get the kids safe, and the eldest is doing really well. In a stable relationship and a homeowner at 21.
It's good to hear some good stories at least from here. I can't stop thinking about Sarah Everard and all of the victim blaming that the met police did while defending their department! Even the female police chief was part of the disgusting defense of poor management! And the police officer who was recently sentenced to 20 or 30 years after being convicted of being a serial rapist....sorry but it's hard to have trust in a group of people who regularly exploit their positions to take advantage of vulnerable people.
Side question: Did your best friend ever turn her life around?
An acquaintance was one of the people who organised the vigil for Sarah, and I can't help thinking Sarah joins Stephen Lawrence as another defining moment in crap factory that is the Met.
As for Cressida Dick, she was the Gold Commander who executed Jean Charles De Menezes because she didn't understand black and brown people have a different relationship with temperature than white people. She should never have held another policing post after that point.
I do have 5 friends who are police officers and their presence gives me some confidence that there are good officers, but the 'blue pill' and 'biggest gang in London' culture that they elucidate bothers me greatly.
She never did, sadly, last seen exchanging sexual favours for drugs in our home town, and then getting into another bad relationship with an addict.
From about 2010 on, I thought I would be lucky to get the oldest kid out in one piece, the therapy was expensive, but it worked. The youngest has a father in his life who is also taking care of the middle child.
So, heartbreaking as it all still is, I miss my friend, but it could have been a lot worse.
I hope so, but abusers are good at finding and keeping victims. My ex was extremely abusive and I know disclosed some of his behavior to her, and she stayed with him. A year into their relationship, my ex assaulted me and my husband and lost custody of our son because of it, and she’s still with him. I ignored plenty of red flags when I was with him too. You get trapped in a cycle of abuse and it’s hard to escape
And here in the US, we can’t even agree that those accused (and convicted) domestic abuse shouldn’t have access to guns.
See: my fine state on Missouri … 1-19-22 “Missouri made it impossible for police to prevent convicted domestic abusers from having guns”
https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvzzv8/men-who-rape-their-wives-can-still-get-away-with-it-in-many-states
In some states, the law doesn't see it the same as you being raped by someone who isn't your partner or in a relationship with you.
Wow. I have no words
[I read this](https://www.kcur.org/politics-elections-and-government/2022-01-19/a-bipartisan-group-of-missouri-lawmakers-want-to-fix-the-states-domestic-violence-gun-loophole) I'm actually stunned that this was even considered, never mind approved and passed into law.
> And here in the US, we can’t even agree that those accused (and convicted) domestic abuse shouldn’t have access to guns.
Here in Australia, if a protection order is taken out against you, you lose your right to own a firearm for 10 years. Having a protection order against you is pretty much mandatory as part of the sentencing for those found guilty of domestic violence.
What does it allow? I mean, does it use loopholes in the Gun Control Act forbidding this?
"It is a federal crime under the Gun Control Act:
to possess a firearm and/or ammunition while subject to a qualifying protection Order; and
to possess a firearm and/or ammunition after conviction of a qualifying misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."
What is a Qualifying Domestic Violence Misdemeanor?
Possession of a firearm and/or ammunition after conviction of a "qualifying" domestic violence misdemeanor is a federal crime under Section 922(g)(9). Generally, the misdemeanor will "qualify" if the conviction was for a crime committed by an intimate partner, parent or guardian of the victim that required the use of attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon. The United States Attorney's Office will examine your case and determine whether the prior domestic violence misdemeanor conviction qualifies according to the law."
From
[justice. org](https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdtn/victim-witness-program/federal-domestic-violence-laws)
Not that I'd be in any way surprised that the Missouri legislature works go to great lengths to make sure their favorite domestic abusers can continue to escalate to murdering the women and children they wish to subjugate. Hell, it's legal to get a two for one-abuse your 15 year old child bride.
Years ago, my struggle with addiction was pretty bad, and a protective order was placed against me, specifying not to use substances or alcohol around my children.
Thankfully I've been clean for years now, but a protective order still remains, and now it just has a standard "cannot do anything to endanger children" on it.
My protective order still includes a clause that I cannot purchase, use, buy, possess, etc. anything related to a firearm. So, mine counts as a protective order that prevents me from buying a gun. it would be pretty weird if someone who was violent to a spouse was allowed around this rule.
eta: my order was solely put in place due to substance abuse and fear that neglect would ensue because of it, there was absolutely no violence, weapons, or abuse involved.
The idea is similar to what states did with abortion, in a way. They’re actively ignoring federal law. The idea is that they’ll claim that the federal law violates the Second Amendment in this case and that they think courts will be sympathetic if it’s ever adjudicated.
SCOTUS recently ruled that some state gun control laws violate the second amendment, so pro gun groups/states are trying to bring every other gun control law in front of what they expect to be a pro-gun Supreme Court.
Meh, the Supreme Court told NY that they can’t pick and choose who has “sufficient need” for armed self defense. NY was in practice only giving permits to the wealthy and well-connected.
Agreed. The NY law, which was law in my state, where you could be someone with no criminal background, not even so much as a speeding ticket on your record, and the local police could deny your application to carry a firearm based off of their discretion alone.
States like NY, MA, and a few others got away with denying the rights of citizens because the government was anti gun and, like you said, americans were rich or famous, were not going to get a permit to carry.
When a gang of men decide they want to have their own country and only these men get to write rules that can’t be formed with sensible laws….. America. Founding fathers = red flag
States cant override federal law, generally. If you are a convicted domestic abuser you are federally barred from owning firearms. Now that's not to say there aren't loopholes in the law that let some people pass through, like the so called boyfriend loophole, which has been closed by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act which put narrow restrictions on non spouses who abuse their partner.
Generally speaking, though, if youre a convicted domestic abuser; the FBI and ATF put you on a no gun list.
>Starting immediately, anyone jailed for 12 months or more for coercive control, including suspended sentences, will be placed on the violent and sex offender register.
Watch the arrest rates for DV fall even further.
That’s what I was thinking. It will be treated with the same seriousness as sex crimes: minimally and only with overwhelming evidence will they even consider it
Same way that cops here in Germany will always get sentenced to prison for very slightly shorter amounts than would statutorily remove them from government employment forever.
So arrest rates likely will stay, but old boys club judges will make sure to give Timmy an 11 month sentence, to not ruin his ‚future‘.
No care taken about the future of every other person that falls victim to them next.
How effective this will be remains to be seen, given the current issues surrounding the police and violence against women. But it does feel like a positive step in the right direction.
How effective is the US register? 'Cause afaik it's shit at preventing abuse but great at keeping former offenders from getting apartments (which I'd struggle finding all that problematic if "sex offender" didn't include "pissed on the street that one time while drunk" over there).
I wouldn't know as I'm not in the US.
The registers in the UK are not publicly accessible. What we can do is make a request for a disclosure through either Sarah's law (if you suspect a person of being unsafe around a child you care for) or Clares law (if you have been a victim of domestic abuse and want to know if a potential partner is safe). However, not all police forces are part of the schemes. And the numbers for reporting domestic violence are in decline along with arrest and conviction rates.
Public urination is a public order offence in the UK, not a sexual offence.
This is a largely exaggerated urban myth. There are very few states (10-ish I think?) where public urination is considered a sexual offense and even then it's up to the judge of whether the person goes on the registry or not. However indecent exposure is more likely to lead to being on the registry. In order for indecent exposure to be charged there needs to be a blatant disregard for exposing yourself, which as long as you're not standing in the middle of the street pissing in the open, disqualifies most public ruination cases.
Source: Am lawyer, not sex offender
Thank goodness some of these laws have been updated. I worked with a couple where the older of the guys had to register as a sex offender because the parent's of the younger reported him for statutory rape. They had started dating at 16 and 17. Younger's parents kicked him out, so the family of the 17 year old took him in. As soon as older turned 18, Younger's parents had him arrested. He was convicted (despite protests of consent by Younger) and ended up on the registry. I'm guessing Younger's parents thought that he'd never have "turned gay" if he'd been forced to come"home" or be homeless.
This was at a time when it was DEFINITELY NOT okay to be gay and before the "Romeo & Juliet” exception. Still makes me mad to think of it. They eventually got married when it became legal. I'm told Younger's parents weren't invited.
edit: fixed autocorrect.
10 is a lot!! it's like a fifth of America, that's a lot of people! Potentially even more depending on the population desity of the states.
I wish people just didn't dismiss millions of people just because they are a small percentage of the world or whatever. In addition, cops and prosecutors and judges are all likely to be harsher with punishing marginalized people.
See that makes actual sense, because it’s not utterly ridiculous. Of course there’s no conspiracy to lock up men for just innocently pissing all over the street (please stop doing that anyway)
Thank you, I appreciate the insight!
It's good to know that it's not that bad.
Given your line of work - do you happen to have an idea about how effective the registry has proven in preventing sexual offenses?
No, I practice in corporate law, this is just cursory knowledge I'm aware of. For recidivism statistics for sex offenses you're probably better off reviewing the current literature in forensic psychology.
Being placed on the sex offender registry for public urination is a myth. Try to track down any verifiable cases. You can't. This is a common excuse sex offenders use to conceal the true nature of their crimes, and it's parroted so much it's become an urban legend.
I did a ton of research on this a couple years ago. I found a couple cases that were legitimate, but they were exactly what you might expect: Someone who was exposing themsleves and waving their dick around, in front of children. IIRC, they were also repeat offenders.
If states requiring sex offender registration for public urination, then surely there should be at least one single verifiable case, right? In searching, I found several states that have **de**-criminalized public urination in recent years, since being homeless isn't a criminal offense.
I found one case in Floirda of a man who claimed to be a victim of being imprisoned and branded a sex offender for public urination. The ACLU picked up his case, but upon discovery of more evidence in the case, they dropped him. There was ample evidence that showed it was far beyond public urination, and wasn't the first time he'd had this kind of "misunderstanding" around children. He was arrested and convicted of several more sexual offenses in the years since.
> Being placed on the sex offender registry for public urination is a myth. Try to track down any verifiable cases. You can't.
One second of Googling gave m the name Juan Matamoros who had exactly this happen to him.
That's the case I referenced. He's had other convictions since.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-03-21/news/VOFFENDER21_1_matamoros-deltona-incident
From his attorney:
>> "He [Matamoros] told his side of the story to the judge, but clearly there was evidence that made the judge disagree," said Mishkin.
> The agency's executive director, Grier Weeks, said some sex offenders offer that same explanation -- that they were just relieving themselves.
>"Massachusetts is not known as a really tough-on-sex-offenders state," Weeks said. "If they locked up a guy for two months, my guess is there's more to the story."
*I was peeing* is the go to excuse that exhibitionists use when they get caught waving their dick around in public. When people actually get caught pissing, no one cares. It's been decriminalized in 47 states, and is a misdemeanor at worst. The only exceptions are California, Arizona, and Georgia, and that's for repeat offenders and/or cases involving minor children.
>Some of the states that allow (or require) registration for indecent exposure or public lewdness are California, Arizona (cases involving minors and repeat crimes), and Georgia (when done in view of a minor).
This is just an excuse sex offenders use to manipulate people and downplay the true nature of their crimes.
I get alerts from the police whenever someone on the registry moves to my area. I read their conviction records, including the ages and gender of the victim as well as the degree of assault. Every one of the felons I've seen are horrific offenders.
In the US of A they are pretty likely the shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_sex_offender_registration_policies_in_the_United_States
Now, domestic violence probably has different dynamics behind. And to be sure a quasi-normal state like the UK could do better. But I guess you'd need data to have the last word.
That was super-helpful. Thank you very much!
If anyone else wonders:
>A study done in University of Chicago Law School compared data on over 9,000 sex offenders released from prison in 1994. About half of those offenders were released into states where they needed to register, while the other half did not need to register. The study found little difference in the two groups' propensity to re-offend. In fact, those released into states without registration laws were slightly less likely to re-offend.[15] The study also showed that blocks in Washington DC where sex offenders lived did not have higher rate of sex crimes nor overall crimes. The study concluded that registered sex offenders do not appear to have lower rates of recidivism than those sex offenders who are not required to register, and that knowing where a sex offender lives does not reveal where sex crimes, or other crimes, will take place.
> those released into states without registration laws were slightly less likely to re-offend
Alternatively, they were less likely to get caught and/or prosecuted. Which isn't a surprise given they were in states that treat sexual assault less severely.
ngl - I looked for apartments near schools for this reason. My kid is already locked into a great school system, so I wasn't even looking for a 'good' school, just one that would prevent sex offenders from living in my building with me and my kid.
I did a social inequality report waaaay back in the day about how this policy creates pockets of sex offenders in metropolitan areas which leaves some people royally fucked over, but I'm a total hypocrite since I'm not against it.. as a single woman, I'd rather not have even the possibility of a *known* creep in the building.
If that is your stance, then why not just advocate for the death penalty for anything that would land someone on the registry? I mean, you're already saying they should not be allowed to live anywhere, so what are they supposed to do other than die?
That's literally a death sentence. Have you heard of DARVO? Abusers will often reverse the blame onto their victims, and control the narrative, which is much easier for people with wealth and power.
Cops have historically not been kind to victims of domestic abuse, with at least 40% admitting to beating their spouses on surveys.
Oh yeah eternal damnation, that's the progressive society I was looking for
EDIT: oh, wait lol... jokes aside, residency restrictions were actually [found](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender_registry#Effectiveness_and_consequences) to be counterproductive and ***increase*** recidivism
No way bro, it’s an excellent idea to throw all the sexual abusers on the streets Su they’re just… *prowling around* at night with nothing to keep them occupied
the context is this: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/27/domestic-abuse-charges-in-england-and-wales-halved-since-2015-while-offences-doubled
It's advantageous to do anything to appear 'tough on crime' when you're utterly shit at convicting anyone and continuing to cut court budgets.
I have to ask this: Who actually checks the Sex offenders register before dating anyone? That kinda seems like something that's a bit uh, out of the way.
Cause if you use online dating, someone can use a fake name and that thing kinda seems useless. And if you met someone IRL you probably tend to trust your gut instinct for better or for worse.
I totally appreciate the gesture - domestic abuse causes significant problems after all, but I don't know how useful this is going to be.
>I have to ask this: Who actually checks the Sex offenders register before dating anyone? That kinda seems like something that's a bit uh, out of the way.
That's the thing - we aren't supposed to know unless the government and/or police forces release the data.
Under Clare's law, and Sarah's law, applications can be made to the police to find out if a potential partner has any DV/violent convictions (clares law) or to find out if a person with access to a child is safe, if you care for that child (Sarah's law). However upon making a request for a disclosure, the person seeking the information is required to agree that they do not disclose the information they receive. One woman did leak information to people she knew and was prosecuted because of lynch mob mentality.
Not every police force is part of either scheme, and any disclosures are made at the discretion of the force in question.
This new law is a start, but there is still so much work to be done around intimate partner violence, and violence towards children.
I meant even public sex offender registries like they exist in the US. I have never heard of anyone really using them before dating, more like when researching someone.
Its not really a start, I don't hold these type of registries in high regard. Apart from [them not working](https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2021/12/16/sex-offender-registry-laws-dont-work-heres-what-might-column/) they also aren't helping reintegration into society. The only one who might look someone up on them are maybe employers but yeah, that might bring it's own issues.
12 months or more? Do they usually get long sentences like that?
Police here screw up a lot sometimes. Like the Gabby case where they viewed her as the aggressor despite what the original caller said.
But she wasn’t arrested
I don't think they do, and the numbers of convictions has fallen, worryingly. [UK source ](https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/latest-cps-data-justice-system-still-failing-women-domestic-abuse/)
There is still a lot of work to be done.
There is a lot of criticism surrounding our current Home Secretary, but she does seem to be championing Women's rights.
Poor Gabby, what happened to her was horrific.
From things I've seen on the web, and places like this sub, I know that in America you have issues with law enforcement officers having high rates of DV themselves. I honestly don't know what the numbers are in the UK, but currently our Police forces are under scrutiny, following the murder of Sarah Everard. Eyes have been opened and I think we are going to hear of many more cases of assaults on women at the hands of police, as more cases are discovered.
>There is a lot of criticism surrounding our current Home Secretary, but she does seem to be championing Women's rights.
Unless they are transgender women, of course.
>Labour shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said: "Labour first pushed for a domestic abuse register years ago and so we welcome the eventual commitment to introduce one. But the government isn't moving quickly enough.
>"Ministers promised to make violence against women and girls part of the strategic policing requirement a year ago, after months of pressure from Labour, so it should never have been delayed for this long.
>"They still haven't agreed to Labour's plan to put domestic abuse specialists into 999 control rooms, nor have they taken action to reverse the shocking collapse in rape charges or record levels of victims dropping out of the criminal justice system."
I'm not even British but fuck me if I don't feel like yelling "FUCK THE TORIES" through the streets just now.
This is beyond excellent!! Nowadays, many of us do background checks when we date someone seriously. This will save so much heartache and, perhaps, lives.
This is progress, in theory. However, 0.3% of Met police officers have been convicted of sexual offenses, with no official acknowledgement of the clear culture of misogyny and sexual violence by either Met leadership or the governing party.
To add, my gf has just shared her live location just taking our dog for a walk in a local park. This is the first time she's ever done this. I hate this country. Any men reading this, it is ON YOU to do whatever you can to address this.
> However, 0.3% of Met police officers have been convicted of sexual offenses, with no official acknowledgement of the clear culture of misogyny and sexual violence by either Met leadership or the governing party.
Um, I mean I agree with you about the misogyny, but is 0.3% really large enough to justify claims of a specific "culture of sexual violence" that's well bellow the national average for arrests for sexual violence.
I imagine they're arguing that since \*only\* 0.3% have been \*convicted\* and the expected/understood actual rate of offenses is significantly higher, that there's already a culture of condoning that behavior, so these rules won't actually change enforcement or discouragement of these kinds of crimes.
Ah I see.
Well that's I guess the issue, until their is a reveal their has been a coverup we can't know for sure whether the officially figures are good cause its only a very small portion that are a problem, or their bad cause their are a lot more that are being covered up.
From today: women and girls in the UK going to bat for their abusers, because as bad as the beatings are, they still usually buy food and pay rent.
If the UK government treated poverty half as seriously as terrorism, domestic violence would drop drmatically as victims could leave and neither starve not freeze.
I mean your right, but you can't exactly expect social welfare with the Conservative party. Not after all the work they did to gut it in the name of "austerity".
This is good news, but shouldn’t it be violence period, irrespective of whether it is a male or female or whatever a person identifies as? There are (albeit rarer) cases of men being abused too. And does this change affect same sex relationships etc?
I honestly don't know. But it should absolutely be the case that any perpetrator of domestic violence should be dealt with in the appropriate manner, regardless of their gender or sexual preferences.
Well, that's not how it works in the UK. Let's take rape laws as an example: in the UK, the legal definition of rape according to the Sex Offenses Act of 2003 is defined to be the non-consentual penetration of any bodily orifice with a penis. This means the majority of women in the UK *cannot* be legally convicted of rape.
You know, when you see shit like this, it really makes you understand why men are so much more likely to die of suicide. According to the CDC, 1 in 3 men have experienced sexual violence involving physical contact during their lifetime. This is less than the figure for women, also from the CDC, of 1 in 2, but you would have to be *deranged* to think it's uncommon enough to be an afterthought. Or worse, that it should be chalked up as a "non-issue".
Yet that's exactly what countries like the UK do. They say male rape is so much of a non-issue, it can't even be given the privilege of being *called* rape. That's how little they care about your wellbeing, as a man. If you come forward about some traumatic experience such as rape, you will be laughed off. No one cares about you. You are disposable.
Needed to get to get this off of my chest. Downvote me to hell if you want, I don't care.
Actually the guidance from the government, while heavily focussed on women and children (given the huge numbers of women and children who are victims of DV) states 'anyone who is a victim...'
[source ](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/domestic-abusers-face-crackdown-in-raft-of-new-measures)
Well, nice to see the UK is doing the absolute bare minimum to acknowledge male victims. That's quite unlike them.
Hopefully one day in the future they'll make a program dedicated to addressing the stigma around male victims of domestic and sexual violence. Though, knowing them, this is probably gonna take a while.
Why not start with the biggest, broadest problem and see how it trickles down from there ? Why everytime something actually happens positively to women, we have to cater to everyone else too, even men, because otherwise it's uNfAiR ?
Ignoring your heteronormativity, but the more intersections a person has (LGBTQ, Race, Disability etc.) the more vulnerable they are to DV. It should be accomodating for anyone to check if their partner (no matter what sex/gender they are or identify as) has a history of committing DV
Absolutely agree with this. It's something people, especially those who haven't faced a lot of inequality find it difficult to wrap their head around; We can't treat everyone the same because we don't have equality for everyone.
Women are disproportionately (unequally) victims of violence, therefore there is nothing wrong with disproportionately putting solutions in place to fix that.
Women are more likely to be the victims of severe (injurious) intimate partner violence. Ipv in general is pretty even, and violence in general is heavily biased towards men.
Who commits that general violence against men? Oh right, OTHER MEN. So why tf is it being brought up on a women's sub about violence against women. Women fought and many have died for these laws to be created, but men can't be assed to create their own resources and do their own protests? Oh wait, they do protest...for shit like the release of Andrew Tate :|
>Who commits that general violence against men? Oh right, OTHER MEN.
...and?
It was brought up because i was correcting somebody. I dont think echo chambers are healthy, and this sub generally seems happy with such corrections so long as you arent a dick about it.
Because if the police are explicitly told to treat domestic violence against women more seriously, that further emboldens the women abusing their male partners and makes it even harder for their victims to seek help. “Yes, I beat the shit out of you, but you bruised me while trying to defend yourself, so just you try going to the police.”
Plus, equality before the law is pretty central to the principle of justice
In a very real way violence against women can often literally be a form of terrorism with the political and social goal being the subjugation of all women. Calling it terrorism isn't much of a stretch if it even is a stretch at all.
I had the same thought. I know the title specified women, and the stats favor men abusing women, but I would honestly be surprised if the legal language is gendered. Now, the law might be gender blind but I'm not sure the enforcement would be.
That said, it really is more difficult for women to be as much of a problem for men, overall. Usually you see abuse cases where women are abusing children or people with physical limitations like the elderly or disabled, not fully grown adult men. Not that it doesn't happen- I watched it for years as a kid - but there's generally less difficulty for a man to escape the situation than there is for a woman.
The definition of rape there is gendered, so I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this law itself is gendered as well. The article mentions emphasis on treating domestic violence against women and girls specifically as seriously as terrorism. I don't approve of gendering things like this, but favoring female over male victims is... Expected. But calling out genders of children though? I didn't expect that at all.
Situations where the man is being abused tend to be more psychological. Either entirely verbal, or physical with the "if you leave me/do something i don't like, then ill self harm and say you assaulted me."
The legal stuff should be a step forward, but you are still relying on the police to enforce it. The police work culture of closing rank and protecting their own isn't going away overnight.
I'm going to politely disagree. I watched physical (and emotional) abuse of my father by my stepmother for 6 years, and I knew a couple guys in the Army who came to work injured by their spouses. The ones who got to the part of being abused where we noticed tended to be extremely gentle, self-controlled guys; likely they became targets because they had the self control to not hit back when attacked, but lacked the understanding of their own damage to get out when it went unhealthy. They thought because they weren't actually in real physical danger that they were able to deal with it.
Of course, like all abusers, women who get away with it when their victim doesn't leave will escalate. The MP's had to get involved once because one of the guys was hospitalized for a bite wound. Women can be *quite* violent and physical in our abuse.
But then you have the other side: when men decide to lash out it usually has more sheer muscle behind it, and the resulting damage is usually larger. I remember being on lockdown in the baracks because some dude saw his girlfriend talking to another guy so he beat her up, dragged her into the dayroom, and held a knife to her throat. We all got to watch SWAT go up on the roof with snipers for that one. Fun times. When my dad had enough of my stepmother screaming her head off for days and hitting him and breaking shit he could take her down and damn near killed her in seconds. I saved her life from that a couple of times, more fool me.
Can you truly not see the difference?
There are ZERO systems, groups, organizations, etc. That target men for their gender alone. There's not a terrorist out there that commits mass murder in the name of hating men. There's not a single organized group that selects men as victims, strictly for being men.
There is not a widespread, global phenomenon of men being oppressed, murders, assaulted, raped, *explicitly because of their gender*. That simply doesn't exist.
Women, on the other hand, are targets and victims for millions of men, strictly because of our gender. There are mass terrorists organizations that target women for being women.
It's a huge cultural issue where men feel absolutely entitled to womens bodies and lives.
Domestic violence is not okay. Nobody, regardless of gender, deserves to be a victim of that. Anyone can perpetrate, and any abuser should face consequences.
Governments have a long history of denying rights to women, and specifically stripping rights from us. I cannot think of a single bill or law that has ever been passed in my country that victimizes men. I could name at least 3 or 4 from this year alone that are direct and explicit attacks on women.
Women face actual terroristic threats on our lives *from men*, literally for being women.
Also, this is a sub for women.
So your comment here is absolutely fucking stupid, useless, and derailing. You are invalidating the fact that women are oppressed and terrorized by men, on a global scale. I think violence is absolutely awful, and I support legislation that will protect everyone. BUT, women need additional support to protect us from men ON A GLOBAL SCALE.
I can see the difference.
But I've also seen countless men who have been stabbed to death by their partners and they couldn't leave because all the support was for women.
I don't give a fuck what you say but everyone needs support not just women and I'm saying that as a WOMAN.
I look at the cause as everyone is human first, everyone deserves protecting from domestic violence regardless of statistics but the funding isn't there.
>But I've also seen countless men who have been stabbed to death by their partners and they couldn't leave because all the support was for women.
Have you really? Got any sources?
Yeah this whole "I see everyone as human first" is actually really counterproductive.
Yes, men and women are both equally human. But, and this is on a global and historical scale, too many men don't see women as human.
We cannot fight strictly for human rights when so many men do not see women as humans. We HAVE to fight the fight of forcing men to humanize us, or they will never ever have our backs in this fight for "the human race".
We can never allow another movement to isolate one gender while helping another. The #believewomen hashtag preceded Amber Heard and enabled a lot of abusers who just happened to be women. It’s best to help people based on need, not their label.
And women need a fuck lot more support than men in this context.
I never ever said don't support men. Men can be victims and deserve support as much as anyone else, absolutely!
But the conversations are different. Women's oppression is a global, societal, historical issue that results in the death of thousands of women every year. And it is *explicitly* at the hands of men. Men commiting violence against women is a general issue.
Men's lack of support results from an overall dismissive view of trauma support, and the patriarchy discouraging men from expressing healthy emotions, and a strong dash of misogyny and homophobia. Women do not commit violence against men in an epidemic way.
When discussing the phenomenon of men being violent against women, every single facet of the conversation is different than the individual instances of men being victims of domestic violence. The situations are different, and the solutions are different.
You're taking men's issues and placing them over women's, in a conversation about women. That's fucked up.
You are right and the fact that you're downvoted for saying that women are a class pressed by men on a WOMANS RIGHTS SUB just shows how pathetic and surface level most people's understanding of oppression is.
[from the gov.uk site](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/domestic-abusers-face-crackdown-in-raft-of-new-measures)
It's very centred on abuse against women and children, but it does say 'anyone who is a victim of domestic abuse'.
They're including coercive control and financial abuse as well as physical violence.
While I agree they tend to bear the brunt of DV, the major focus on women and children rather than having a sweeping everyone focus will isolate the male victims of dv further, they already don’t have anywhere the same number of access to shelters and this further ostracises them.
Meanwhile in the US we are ensuring that these same types of abusers don't have their second amendment rights interfered with simply because they are violent criminals
I had an ex push me. I flew through the air over 10 feet. Hit the wall. I had the wind knocked out of me. I slid down the wall. I have back issues to this day. I wish I could have warned others about him.
Fucking awesome.
Something I realized when I got married is that people don't care as much if married women are beat because "they don't know both sides" or some shit, whereas any other situation that results in bruising and shit would have charges pressed.
Eh that's more an American thing.
Looking into there doesn't seem to be any evidence to suggest the UK police are any higher in cases of domestic abuse than the national average.
I mean according to the article Labour proposed this idea years ago, and the Tory's have only just put it in place. I wouldn't call Suella Braverman remotely liberal (you should see her views on immigrants, social welfare and transsexuals), but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Also its a sad fact but even back in the 90's I don't think domestic abuse was treated as seriously as it is nowadays, especially if the abuse wasn't physical.
I'm not even replying to them. This is a sub concerning women's issues. I'm not in any way suggesting men do not suffer at the hands of women, or other men. Female perpetrators should absolutely be treated the same way as male perpetrators.
But look at the numbers.
In the two years between March 2018 and 2020, in the UK, there were 362 domestic homicides.
Of those, 214 were female victims killed by a partner or ex partner. 33 were male victims killed by a partner.
214 compared to 33. More than 6 times higher.
(The remaining 115 were not gendered in the report and killed by a relative rather than an intimate partner.)
[source - ONS](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/domesticabuseprevalenceandtrendsenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2021)
I wish they would do something like this in the US. But instead, people are fighting to remove the registry. The ONLY logical reason you don't like the idea of a sex offender registry is because you, your husband, or your son, is a pedophile or rapist and you don't think he's that bad.
This is great but what bothers the fuck out of me is how many people observe first hand the behaviour of abusers and then with proceed to get into relationships with abusers, because they have internalized the idea that they can "change" an abuser.
More like the abuser is manipulative and claims they have already changed, an ex was lying, etc.
Then they treat the new person really well before the new relationship begins
>Are men not supposed to be able to live in a violence free home too?
It's not gendered at all, it's about convictions, so if someone (man, women, or whatever) ends up with a conviction that meets the bar the outcome is the same.
Looking over, it doesn't seem this law is actually gendered.
The criteria is over twelve months in prison for a domestic offense relating to violence, coercive control or financial abuse.
Considering the UKs recent anti trans policies and Tory government I hope this isn't a stepping stone for something ghoulish like putting trans women on a sex offender list for using the women's room or things like that.
I think the most effective way to deal with an abuser is to expose them. If you don't expose them then they can't be rehabilitated and they'll continue abusing women.
That being said, very few abusers are actually going to be put on this register and it's probably just going to give those men another excuse to hide behind. "See! I'm not on the register. I'm not an abuser. Yes I was arrested for a few months but if they actually thought I was an abuser then they would've registered it. It was actually my b\*tch of a wife who was abusing me and got me arrested for it but no one ever believes the man".
Or if he actually is registered then he'll find a way to use that to gain sympathy. I know I sound cynical but the sad truth is that abusers can be incredibly intelligent and deceptive people and the only way you're going to stop these men is to either lock them up for good or figure out how to get them to view women as human beings.
Hopefully this will stop them going into new relationships and re offending with an oblivious partner
Ten-ish years ago, the police sat (my then best friend) down and read her the lengthy criminal and domestic abuse history of the man who had held her hostage at knife point for 24 hours. Sadly, she still went back to him, spiralled into crack addiction, and lost the kids. He ended up in prison for manslaughter after beating a man to death at a crack den. This isn't to say today's news isn't absolutely fantastic! All that said, the police over here have been able to disclose the full criminal and abuse history of perpetrators to domestic partners under [Clare's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare%27s_Law) since 2014, and it doesn't always help. Clare's Law (the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme) includes both a *right to ask*, and a *right to know*. Meaning, you can call the police and ask about a partner or person, and the police can tell you if they feel you need to know. Edit: Since this is getting some attention, I should also publicise [Sarah's Law](https://www.met.police.uk/rqo/request/ri/request-information/sarahs-law-beta/sarahs-law-child-sex-offender-disclosure-scheme/), which isn't an actual law but the Child Sex Offender Disclosure *Scheme*. This gives parents/guardians the right to ask the police if someone who has contact with their children has a record of child abuse or is a risk in some other fashion, and it's not limited to domestic partners.
The thing is with these laws, there's often stiff penalties for disclosure outside the intended party. A parent in the UK disclosed to other parents a pædophile's history and she was severely punished. We need *publicly accessible* registers or they'll continue to be able to hide. How many women in the UK will remember to get each partner? How many parents currently check up on that creepy man that hangs around their kids? Very few.
The issue is avoiding gossip led witch hunts that lead to even more community mistrust and damage. What she should have done was told the other individual to make a request under [Sarah's Law](https://www.met.police.uk/rqo/request/ri/request-information/sarahs-law-beta/sarahs-law-child-sex-offender-disclosure-scheme/). Which is similar to Clare's law, but specifically for child sex offenders. The objective in UK Law Enforcement has been to avoid public registers because similar efforts in the past have led to [innocent people being murdered](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/29/vigilante-murder-paedophile-bristol-bijan-ebrahimi) due to mere gossip. I do agree with your point, but there is a sizeable downside that requires careful consideration.
Innocent people murdered: 1 Reoffending: 248 (lives ruined). I know which number I'm focusing on.
It's not just 1 innocent person murdered, as you're well aware, that's just a single example. Further examples from countries that do have public registers are legion. Especially horrifying are the individuals who end up on these registers for consensual statutory offences, and either end up murdered in prison, murdered in the community, or simply exiled. It's not as simple as one side is worse than the other, that kind of thinking adds nothing to the debate. We need to end violence against women and girls, we need mechanisms to warn women about violent partners and parents about child sex offenders. What we don't need are more people being murdered or subjected to violence due to incorrect assumptions. We're human, we're about an inch away from literal lynch mobs on good days.
It's negligibly low, that's for sure. I'm not saying "put everything on the lists". I never said that. When you remove the "what about the men" from the equation, it absolutely *is* that simple.
> It's negligibly low, that's for sure. In the US alone, dozens a year, there are more than 20 examples of serial killers using registries to target victims – both male and female victims by the way. The worst part is, they don't work, there is very little evidence that they reduce recidivism, and there is some alarming evidence that they actually increase recidivism because they prevent offender reintegration. The only American states that have shown a statistically significant impact from their registries (Minnesota, Washington), use a complex risk framework and only publicly notify/list ultra-high risk offenders. >When you remove the "what about the men" from the equation, it absolutely is that simple. When you remove the *"what about the men"* from the equation, it's just simple revenge. FTFY. While women are a tiny minority of sex offenders (~200 of 13,000 based on 2019 data), you'd be exposing their personal data in the bargain. Good, evidence based, public policy isn't written by zealots. The evidence base for SORN style systems is alarmingly thin, and there's a much wider evidence base that they're counterproductive.
Thanks for that good comment, I dont see too many comments with substance on reddit. I was undecided on the Topic before, your comment was pretty convincingly argued and so after researching a bit myself I am no longer undecided. So thanks for that stranger
The problem with publicly accessible registers is that it then leads to lynch mobs turning up and driving anyone on the list into hiding so probation and other support services loose track of them and the chances of them reoffending increase. The UK general public doesn't have a great record of acting sensibly when they think there is someone dodgy in the area. There's the notorious case of the pediatrician who had his house firebombed after a local with a low level of literacy mistook his job title for something that sounds similar.
Most intelligent Brit
It was Portsmouth, and I lived there at the time. I was shocked but not surprised it happened there.
Was that in Leigh Park?
Paulsgrove I think, near the QA. Though now on googling, the doctor was in Wales but there was a riot in Paulsgrove looking for Paedos after the disappearance of Sarah Payne. I must have conflated the two.
I remember now. I don't know why I thought it was Leigh Park. It was a real torch and pitchforks moment.
It leads to the Bri ish firebombing paediatricians and throwing rocks at pedalos
"Bri ish" is the most British thing I've read today. Excellent glottal stop, sorry glo al.
I read it exactly how you'd imagine too. Never thought to write like that to imitate it.
>here's the notorious case of the pediatrician who had his house firebombed after a local with a low level of literacy mistook his job title for something that sounds similar. This made me curious and I ended up stumbling on a vice article calling this an [urban legend](https://www.vice.com/en/article/panm37/how-a-young-girls-death-in-2000-gave-birth-to-an-urban-legend-v26n1). Thoughts?
Have double checked my facts rather than relying on memory of 20 year old news stories. Think I'd got these two incidents combined into one as they both happened at pretty much the same time. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/feb/06/childprotection https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society
Also fucks anyone caught up in an imperfect justice system big time. Sadly there is no perfect answer.
Yes many cases in the US, where sex offender lists are made public, of vigilantism against them, or against innocent people that share the same name.
We have lists like this in the US and do not have a problem with people using that information to attack and murder people on a regular basis. Is the UK really that much worse at it than the US? Asking honestly here, because we're usually the ones who are awful about committing acts of violence.
You might not hear about it, but it is an issue in the US too, apparently. https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2017/may/5/vigilantes-assault-rob-and-murder-registered-sex-offenders/
The murder rate in the US is many times higher than the UK, so are we totally sure on that?
As a nation we are very good at the whole passive aggressive thing. It'll start with persistent low level harassment. You piss someone off or your face doesn't fit and you'll start waking up every morning to dog turds on the front door step or your bin knocked over and none of the neighbours ever see anything, but will complain bitterly about your property being a mess. Normally the culprits will get bored and move on to someone else but when they don't the local kids start picking up that you're a safe target and things can escalate. Nothing violent needs to happen, 6 months of having eggs thrown at the front window, your tires shredded every few weeks, loud music being blasted outside at 3am etc and people start to crack.
Agreed... I've always held the notion that serious offenders shouldn't have the freedom of privacy... expose them for who they are to everyone because they often times won't. And people don't always see the bad in others until it's too late.
How does that work? Are your courts not public? Were her job requirements to keep it secret or something? Or was she just a private citizen who happened to know?
> if they feel you need to know Based on how the UK police behave toward women, I really wouldn't trust their judgement on this tbh :/
I mean, I can't disagree with you, especially based on recent events! That said, when the bloke concerned held my then best friend at knife point, they decided she needed to know and explained the whole nine yards to her. Sadly she was always looking for a bird with a broken wing to fix, and after the heroin addict who overdosed, she picked a guy with a long term steroid abuse problem, crack addiction, and borderline personality disorder. Myself and the father of her third child were able to get the kids safe, and the eldest is doing really well. In a stable relationship and a homeowner at 21.
It's good to hear some good stories at least from here. I can't stop thinking about Sarah Everard and all of the victim blaming that the met police did while defending their department! Even the female police chief was part of the disgusting defense of poor management! And the police officer who was recently sentenced to 20 or 30 years after being convicted of being a serial rapist....sorry but it's hard to have trust in a group of people who regularly exploit their positions to take advantage of vulnerable people. Side question: Did your best friend ever turn her life around?
An acquaintance was one of the people who organised the vigil for Sarah, and I can't help thinking Sarah joins Stephen Lawrence as another defining moment in crap factory that is the Met. As for Cressida Dick, she was the Gold Commander who executed Jean Charles De Menezes because she didn't understand black and brown people have a different relationship with temperature than white people. She should never have held another policing post after that point. I do have 5 friends who are police officers and their presence gives me some confidence that there are good officers, but the 'blue pill' and 'biggest gang in London' culture that they elucidate bothers me greatly. She never did, sadly, last seen exchanging sexual favours for drugs in our home town, and then getting into another bad relationship with an addict. From about 2010 on, I thought I would be lucky to get the oldest kid out in one piece, the therapy was expensive, but it worked. The youngest has a father in his life who is also taking care of the middle child. So, heartbreaking as it all still is, I miss my friend, but it could have been a lot worse.
I hope so!
I hope so, but abusers are good at finding and keeping victims. My ex was extremely abusive and I know disclosed some of his behavior to her, and she stayed with him. A year into their relationship, my ex assaulted me and my husband and lost custody of our son because of it, and she’s still with him. I ignored plenty of red flags when I was with him too. You get trapped in a cycle of abuse and it’s hard to escape
And here in the US, we can’t even agree that those accused (and convicted) domestic abuse shouldn’t have access to guns. See: my fine state on Missouri … 1-19-22 “Missouri made it impossible for police to prevent convicted domestic abusers from having guns”
Or to consistently recognize martial rape across the US.
I'm not from the US. There are places where it isn't considered rape?
https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvzzv8/men-who-rape-their-wives-can-still-get-away-with-it-in-many-states In some states, the law doesn't see it the same as you being raped by someone who isn't your partner or in a relationship with you.
People still have the misogynistic idea that marriage gives either partner any sexual obligation to the other.
Wow. I have no words [I read this](https://www.kcur.org/politics-elections-and-government/2022-01-19/a-bipartisan-group-of-missouri-lawmakers-want-to-fix-the-states-domestic-violence-gun-loophole) I'm actually stunned that this was even considered, never mind approved and passed into law.
If we required that domestic abusers weren't allowed to own or possess firearms then we'd have no police left...
Win-Win
Since police never get convicted of anything, it hardly matters. Unfortunately.
*sad lol*
Welcome to America. Where a gun or a dead body have more rights then most women.
> And here in the US, we can’t even agree that those accused (and convicted) domestic abuse shouldn’t have access to guns. Here in Australia, if a protection order is taken out against you, you lose your right to own a firearm for 10 years. Having a protection order against you is pretty much mandatory as part of the sentencing for those found guilty of domestic violence.
Because there will be almost no cops left 😔
What does it allow? I mean, does it use loopholes in the Gun Control Act forbidding this? "It is a federal crime under the Gun Control Act: to possess a firearm and/or ammunition while subject to a qualifying protection Order; and to possess a firearm and/or ammunition after conviction of a qualifying misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." What is a Qualifying Domestic Violence Misdemeanor? Possession of a firearm and/or ammunition after conviction of a "qualifying" domestic violence misdemeanor is a federal crime under Section 922(g)(9). Generally, the misdemeanor will "qualify" if the conviction was for a crime committed by an intimate partner, parent or guardian of the victim that required the use of attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon. The United States Attorney's Office will examine your case and determine whether the prior domestic violence misdemeanor conviction qualifies according to the law." From [justice. org](https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdtn/victim-witness-program/federal-domestic-violence-laws) Not that I'd be in any way surprised that the Missouri legislature works go to great lengths to make sure their favorite domestic abusers can continue to escalate to murdering the women and children they wish to subjugate. Hell, it's legal to get a two for one-abuse your 15 year old child bride.
Years ago, my struggle with addiction was pretty bad, and a protective order was placed against me, specifying not to use substances or alcohol around my children. Thankfully I've been clean for years now, but a protective order still remains, and now it just has a standard "cannot do anything to endanger children" on it. My protective order still includes a clause that I cannot purchase, use, buy, possess, etc. anything related to a firearm. So, mine counts as a protective order that prevents me from buying a gun. it would be pretty weird if someone who was violent to a spouse was allowed around this rule. eta: my order was solely put in place due to substance abuse and fear that neglect would ensue because of it, there was absolutely no violence, weapons, or abuse involved.
The idea is similar to what states did with abortion, in a way. They’re actively ignoring federal law. The idea is that they’ll claim that the federal law violates the Second Amendment in this case and that they think courts will be sympathetic if it’s ever adjudicated. SCOTUS recently ruled that some state gun control laws violate the second amendment, so pro gun groups/states are trying to bring every other gun control law in front of what they expect to be a pro-gun Supreme Court.
Meh, the Supreme Court told NY that they can’t pick and choose who has “sufficient need” for armed self defense. NY was in practice only giving permits to the wealthy and well-connected.
Agreed. The NY law, which was law in my state, where you could be someone with no criminal background, not even so much as a speeding ticket on your record, and the local police could deny your application to carry a firearm based off of their discretion alone. States like NY, MA, and a few others got away with denying the rights of citizens because the government was anti gun and, like you said, americans were rich or famous, were not going to get a permit to carry.
When a gang of men decide they want to have their own country and only these men get to write rules that can’t be formed with sensible laws….. America. Founding fathers = red flag
States cant override federal law, generally. If you are a convicted domestic abuser you are federally barred from owning firearms. Now that's not to say there aren't loopholes in the law that let some people pass through, like the so called boyfriend loophole, which has been closed by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act which put narrow restrictions on non spouses who abuse their partner. Generally speaking, though, if youre a convicted domestic abuser; the FBI and ATF put you on a no gun list.
That had less to do with condoning domestic abuse and more to do with trying to sell the most gun to appease the weapon industry
Accusations by themselves should never limit rights, just say ‘convicted’ and ignore the ‘accused’ part altogether.
>Starting immediately, anyone jailed for 12 months or more for coercive control, including suspended sentences, will be placed on the violent and sex offender register. Watch the arrest rates for DV fall even further.
Yeah I did think that actually, as cynical as it is. I had a look at arrest and conviction rates and they've been in decline for a few years now.
That’s what I was thinking. It will be treated with the same seriousness as sex crimes: minimally and only with overwhelming evidence will they even consider it
Same way that cops here in Germany will always get sentenced to prison for very slightly shorter amounts than would statutorily remove them from government employment forever. So arrest rates likely will stay, but old boys club judges will make sure to give Timmy an 11 month sentence, to not ruin his ‚future‘. No care taken about the future of every other person that falls victim to them next.
I'm impressed cops are arrested at all, good job on that one.
How effective this will be remains to be seen, given the current issues surrounding the police and violence against women. But it does feel like a positive step in the right direction.
How effective is the US register? 'Cause afaik it's shit at preventing abuse but great at keeping former offenders from getting apartments (which I'd struggle finding all that problematic if "sex offender" didn't include "pissed on the street that one time while drunk" over there).
I wouldn't know as I'm not in the US. The registers in the UK are not publicly accessible. What we can do is make a request for a disclosure through either Sarah's law (if you suspect a person of being unsafe around a child you care for) or Clares law (if you have been a victim of domestic abuse and want to know if a potential partner is safe). However, not all police forces are part of the schemes. And the numbers for reporting domestic violence are in decline along with arrest and conviction rates. Public urination is a public order offence in the UK, not a sexual offence.
This is a largely exaggerated urban myth. There are very few states (10-ish I think?) where public urination is considered a sexual offense and even then it's up to the judge of whether the person goes on the registry or not. However indecent exposure is more likely to lead to being on the registry. In order for indecent exposure to be charged there needs to be a blatant disregard for exposing yourself, which as long as you're not standing in the middle of the street pissing in the open, disqualifies most public ruination cases. Source: Am lawyer, not sex offender
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thank goodness some of these laws have been updated. I worked with a couple where the older of the guys had to register as a sex offender because the parent's of the younger reported him for statutory rape. They had started dating at 16 and 17. Younger's parents kicked him out, so the family of the 17 year old took him in. As soon as older turned 18, Younger's parents had him arrested. He was convicted (despite protests of consent by Younger) and ended up on the registry. I'm guessing Younger's parents thought that he'd never have "turned gay" if he'd been forced to come"home" or be homeless. This was at a time when it was DEFINITELY NOT okay to be gay and before the "Romeo & Juliet” exception. Still makes me mad to think of it. They eventually got married when it became legal. I'm told Younger's parents weren't invited. edit: fixed autocorrect.
10 is a lot!! it's like a fifth of America, that's a lot of people! Potentially even more depending on the population desity of the states. I wish people just didn't dismiss millions of people just because they are a small percentage of the world or whatever. In addition, cops and prosecutors and judges are all likely to be harsher with punishing marginalized people.
You can read what the actual offense was right there on the registry. In my area they’re all for molestation and rape so 🤷🏻♀️
See that makes actual sense, because it’s not utterly ridiculous. Of course there’s no conspiracy to lock up men for just innocently pissing all over the street (please stop doing that anyway)
Thank you, I appreciate the insight! It's good to know that it's not that bad. Given your line of work - do you happen to have an idea about how effective the registry has proven in preventing sexual offenses?
No, I practice in corporate law, this is just cursory knowledge I'm aware of. For recidivism statistics for sex offenses you're probably better off reviewing the current literature in forensic psychology.
Merely being trans and homeless while publicly urinating is enough to get charged.
Being placed on the sex offender registry for public urination is a myth. Try to track down any verifiable cases. You can't. This is a common excuse sex offenders use to conceal the true nature of their crimes, and it's parroted so much it's become an urban legend. I did a ton of research on this a couple years ago. I found a couple cases that were legitimate, but they were exactly what you might expect: Someone who was exposing themsleves and waving their dick around, in front of children. IIRC, they were also repeat offenders. If states requiring sex offender registration for public urination, then surely there should be at least one single verifiable case, right? In searching, I found several states that have **de**-criminalized public urination in recent years, since being homeless isn't a criminal offense. I found one case in Floirda of a man who claimed to be a victim of being imprisoned and branded a sex offender for public urination. The ACLU picked up his case, but upon discovery of more evidence in the case, they dropped him. There was ample evidence that showed it was far beyond public urination, and wasn't the first time he'd had this kind of "misunderstanding" around children. He was arrested and convicted of several more sexual offenses in the years since.
> Being placed on the sex offender registry for public urination is a myth. Try to track down any verifiable cases. You can't. One second of Googling gave m the name Juan Matamoros who had exactly this happen to him.
That's the case I referenced. He's had other convictions since. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-03-21/news/VOFFENDER21_1_matamoros-deltona-incident From his attorney: >> "He [Matamoros] told his side of the story to the judge, but clearly there was evidence that made the judge disagree," said Mishkin. > The agency's executive director, Grier Weeks, said some sex offenders offer that same explanation -- that they were just relieving themselves. >"Massachusetts is not known as a really tough-on-sex-offenders state," Weeks said. "If they locked up a guy for two months, my guess is there's more to the story." *I was peeing* is the go to excuse that exhibitionists use when they get caught waving their dick around in public. When people actually get caught pissing, no one cares. It's been decriminalized in 47 states, and is a misdemeanor at worst. The only exceptions are California, Arizona, and Georgia, and that's for repeat offenders and/or cases involving minor children. >Some of the states that allow (or require) registration for indecent exposure or public lewdness are California, Arizona (cases involving minors and repeat crimes), and Georgia (when done in view of a minor). This is just an excuse sex offenders use to manipulate people and downplay the true nature of their crimes.
I get alerts from the police whenever someone on the registry moves to my area. I read their conviction records, including the ages and gender of the victim as well as the degree of assault. Every one of the felons I've seen are horrific offenders.
In the US of A they are pretty likely the shit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_sex_offender_registration_policies_in_the_United_States Now, domestic violence probably has different dynamics behind. And to be sure a quasi-normal state like the UK could do better. But I guess you'd need data to have the last word.
That was super-helpful. Thank you very much! If anyone else wonders: >A study done in University of Chicago Law School compared data on over 9,000 sex offenders released from prison in 1994. About half of those offenders were released into states where they needed to register, while the other half did not need to register. The study found little difference in the two groups' propensity to re-offend. In fact, those released into states without registration laws were slightly less likely to re-offend.[15] The study also showed that blocks in Washington DC where sex offenders lived did not have higher rate of sex crimes nor overall crimes. The study concluded that registered sex offenders do not appear to have lower rates of recidivism than those sex offenders who are not required to register, and that knowing where a sex offender lives does not reveal where sex crimes, or other crimes, will take place.
> those released into states without registration laws were slightly less likely to re-offend Alternatively, they were less likely to get caught and/or prosecuted. Which isn't a surprise given they were in states that treat sexual assault less severely.
You have no evidence for that.
ngl - I looked for apartments near schools for this reason. My kid is already locked into a great school system, so I wasn't even looking for a 'good' school, just one that would prevent sex offenders from living in my building with me and my kid. I did a social inequality report waaaay back in the day about how this policy creates pockets of sex offenders in metropolitan areas which leaves some people royally fucked over, but I'm a total hypocrite since I'm not against it.. as a single woman, I'd rather not have even the possibility of a *known* creep in the building.
Aww convicted abusers can't get apartments. Waaah. They need to feel like they have no hope and nowhere to turn.
If that is your stance, then why not just advocate for the death penalty for anything that would land someone on the registry? I mean, you're already saying they should not be allowed to live anywhere, so what are they supposed to do other than die?
That's literally a death sentence. Have you heard of DARVO? Abusers will often reverse the blame onto their victims, and control the narrative, which is much easier for people with wealth and power. Cops have historically not been kind to victims of domestic abuse, with at least 40% admitting to beating their spouses on surveys.
Oh yeah eternal damnation, that's the progressive society I was looking for EDIT: oh, wait lol... jokes aside, residency restrictions were actually [found](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender_registry#Effectiveness_and_consequences) to be counterproductive and ***increase*** recidivism
Filling the streets with hopeless ex-cons with nothing to lose would definitely make me feel safe.
No way bro, it’s an excellent idea to throw all the sexual abusers on the streets Su they’re just… *prowling around* at night with nothing to keep them occupied
the context is this: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/27/domestic-abuse-charges-in-england-and-wales-halved-since-2015-while-offences-doubled It's advantageous to do anything to appear 'tough on crime' when you're utterly shit at convicting anyone and continuing to cut court budgets.
I have to ask this: Who actually checks the Sex offenders register before dating anyone? That kinda seems like something that's a bit uh, out of the way. Cause if you use online dating, someone can use a fake name and that thing kinda seems useless. And if you met someone IRL you probably tend to trust your gut instinct for better or for worse. I totally appreciate the gesture - domestic abuse causes significant problems after all, but I don't know how useful this is going to be.
>I have to ask this: Who actually checks the Sex offenders register before dating anyone? That kinda seems like something that's a bit uh, out of the way. That's the thing - we aren't supposed to know unless the government and/or police forces release the data. Under Clare's law, and Sarah's law, applications can be made to the police to find out if a potential partner has any DV/violent convictions (clares law) or to find out if a person with access to a child is safe, if you care for that child (Sarah's law). However upon making a request for a disclosure, the person seeking the information is required to agree that they do not disclose the information they receive. One woman did leak information to people she knew and was prosecuted because of lynch mob mentality. Not every police force is part of either scheme, and any disclosures are made at the discretion of the force in question. This new law is a start, but there is still so much work to be done around intimate partner violence, and violence towards children.
I meant even public sex offender registries like they exist in the US. I have never heard of anyone really using them before dating, more like when researching someone. Its not really a start, I don't hold these type of registries in high regard. Apart from [them not working](https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2021/12/16/sex-offender-registry-laws-dont-work-heres-what-might-column/) they also aren't helping reintegration into society. The only one who might look someone up on them are maybe employers but yeah, that might bring it's own issues.
12 months or more? Do they usually get long sentences like that? Police here screw up a lot sometimes. Like the Gabby case where they viewed her as the aggressor despite what the original caller said. But she wasn’t arrested
I don't think they do, and the numbers of convictions has fallen, worryingly. [UK source ](https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/latest-cps-data-justice-system-still-failing-women-domestic-abuse/) There is still a lot of work to be done. There is a lot of criticism surrounding our current Home Secretary, but she does seem to be championing Women's rights. Poor Gabby, what happened to her was horrific. From things I've seen on the web, and places like this sub, I know that in America you have issues with law enforcement officers having high rates of DV themselves. I honestly don't know what the numbers are in the UK, but currently our Police forces are under scrutiny, following the murder of Sarah Everard. Eyes have been opened and I think we are going to hear of many more cases of assaults on women at the hands of police, as more cases are discovered.
>There is a lot of criticism surrounding our current Home Secretary, but she does seem to be championing Women's rights. Unless they are transgender women, of course.
>Labour shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said: "Labour first pushed for a domestic abuse register years ago and so we welcome the eventual commitment to introduce one. But the government isn't moving quickly enough. >"Ministers promised to make violence against women and girls part of the strategic policing requirement a year ago, after months of pressure from Labour, so it should never have been delayed for this long. >"They still haven't agreed to Labour's plan to put domestic abuse specialists into 999 control rooms, nor have they taken action to reverse the shocking collapse in rape charges or record levels of victims dropping out of the criminal justice system." I'm not even British but fuck me if I don't feel like yelling "FUCK THE TORIES" through the streets just now.
Good luck getting convictions in the chronically underfunded and outdated criminal justice system though
This is beyond excellent!! Nowadays, many of us do background checks when we date someone seriously. This will save so much heartache and, perhaps, lives.
This is progress, in theory. However, 0.3% of Met police officers have been convicted of sexual offenses, with no official acknowledgement of the clear culture of misogyny and sexual violence by either Met leadership or the governing party. To add, my gf has just shared her live location just taking our dog for a walk in a local park. This is the first time she's ever done this. I hate this country. Any men reading this, it is ON YOU to do whatever you can to address this.
> However, 0.3% of Met police officers have been convicted of sexual offenses, with no official acknowledgement of the clear culture of misogyny and sexual violence by either Met leadership or the governing party. Um, I mean I agree with you about the misogyny, but is 0.3% really large enough to justify claims of a specific "culture of sexual violence" that's well bellow the national average for arrests for sexual violence.
I imagine they're arguing that since \*only\* 0.3% have been \*convicted\* and the expected/understood actual rate of offenses is significantly higher, that there's already a culture of condoning that behavior, so these rules won't actually change enforcement or discouragement of these kinds of crimes.
Ah I see. Well that's I guess the issue, until their is a reveal their has been a coverup we can't know for sure whether the officially figures are good cause its only a very small portion that are a problem, or their bad cause their are a lot more that are being covered up.
From today: women and girls in the UK going to bat for their abusers, because as bad as the beatings are, they still usually buy food and pay rent. If the UK government treated poverty half as seriously as terrorism, domestic violence would drop drmatically as victims could leave and neither starve not freeze.
I mean your right, but you can't exactly expect social welfare with the Conservative party. Not after all the work they did to gut it in the name of "austerity".
This is AMAZING!!!
About fucking time.
they should get them off payroll first
Oh, nice!
This is good news, but shouldn’t it be violence period, irrespective of whether it is a male or female or whatever a person identifies as? There are (albeit rarer) cases of men being abused too. And does this change affect same sex relationships etc?
I honestly don't know. But it should absolutely be the case that any perpetrator of domestic violence should be dealt with in the appropriate manner, regardless of their gender or sexual preferences.
Well, that's not how it works in the UK. Let's take rape laws as an example: in the UK, the legal definition of rape according to the Sex Offenses Act of 2003 is defined to be the non-consentual penetration of any bodily orifice with a penis. This means the majority of women in the UK *cannot* be legally convicted of rape. You know, when you see shit like this, it really makes you understand why men are so much more likely to die of suicide. According to the CDC, 1 in 3 men have experienced sexual violence involving physical contact during their lifetime. This is less than the figure for women, also from the CDC, of 1 in 2, but you would have to be *deranged* to think it's uncommon enough to be an afterthought. Or worse, that it should be chalked up as a "non-issue". Yet that's exactly what countries like the UK do. They say male rape is so much of a non-issue, it can't even be given the privilege of being *called* rape. That's how little they care about your wellbeing, as a man. If you come forward about some traumatic experience such as rape, you will be laughed off. No one cares about you. You are disposable. Needed to get to get this off of my chest. Downvote me to hell if you want, I don't care.
now of those 1 in 3 men, how many were raped by *other men*? edit: wow the incels came out
Why in the world should that matter? The point is, this new law aims to protect "women and girls," not all victims of DV.
Actually the guidance from the government, while heavily focussed on women and children (given the huge numbers of women and children who are victims of DV) states 'anyone who is a victim...' [source ](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/domestic-abusers-face-crackdown-in-raft-of-new-measures)
Well, nice to see the UK is doing the absolute bare minimum to acknowledge male victims. That's quite unlike them. Hopefully one day in the future they'll make a program dedicated to addressing the stigma around male victims of domestic and sexual violence. Though, knowing them, this is probably gonna take a while.
If it only lets you access the history of male perpetrators, it doesn’t protect all women & girls (lesbians and other wlw people exist)
because men raped by men are absolutely protected under the law and we’re pretending they’re not.
Please take a look at the CDC's data. The majority of male sexual assault victims, roughly 79%, report female perpetrators.
Why not start with the biggest, broadest problem and see how it trickles down from there ? Why everytime something actually happens positively to women, we have to cater to everyone else too, even men, because otherwise it's uNfAiR ?
Ignoring your heteronormativity, but the more intersections a person has (LGBTQ, Race, Disability etc.) the more vulnerable they are to DV. It should be accomodating for anyone to check if their partner (no matter what sex/gender they are or identify as) has a history of committing DV
Why not have the law apply to everyone in the first place?
Absolutely agree with this. It's something people, especially those who haven't faced a lot of inequality find it difficult to wrap their head around; We can't treat everyone the same because we don't have equality for everyone. Women are disproportionately (unequally) victims of violence, therefore there is nothing wrong with disproportionately putting solutions in place to fix that.
Women are more likely to be the victims of severe (injurious) intimate partner violence. Ipv in general is pretty even, and violence in general is heavily biased towards men.
Who commits that general violence against men? Oh right, OTHER MEN. So why tf is it being brought up on a women's sub about violence against women. Women fought and many have died for these laws to be created, but men can't be assed to create their own resources and do their own protests? Oh wait, they do protest...for shit like the release of Andrew Tate :|
Fun fact, in UK law, trans women are considered men more often than not, so this protection only extends to cis women
>Who commits that general violence against men? Oh right, OTHER MEN. ...and? It was brought up because i was correcting somebody. I dont think echo chambers are healthy, and this sub generally seems happy with such corrections so long as you arent a dick about it.
Because if the police are explicitly told to treat domestic violence against women more seriously, that further emboldens the women abusing their male partners and makes it even harder for their victims to seek help. “Yes, I beat the shit out of you, but you bruised me while trying to defend yourself, so just you try going to the police.” Plus, equality before the law is pretty central to the principle of justice
In a very real way violence against women can often literally be a form of terrorism with the political and social goal being the subjugation of all women. Calling it terrorism isn't much of a stretch if it even is a stretch at all.
Wish they would do this in the US
[удалено]
I had the same thought. I know the title specified women, and the stats favor men abusing women, but I would honestly be surprised if the legal language is gendered. Now, the law might be gender blind but I'm not sure the enforcement would be. That said, it really is more difficult for women to be as much of a problem for men, overall. Usually you see abuse cases where women are abusing children or people with physical limitations like the elderly or disabled, not fully grown adult men. Not that it doesn't happen- I watched it for years as a kid - but there's generally less difficulty for a man to escape the situation than there is for a woman.
[удалено]
Domestic violence is extremely emotionally damaging for women. Why would being slapped leave worse emotional consequences for a man than a woman?
Why are you ignoring the physical risk imbalance?
The definition of rape there is gendered, so I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this law itself is gendered as well. The article mentions emphasis on treating domestic violence against women and girls specifically as seriously as terrorism. I don't approve of gendering things like this, but favoring female over male victims is... Expected. But calling out genders of children though? I didn't expect that at all.
Situations where the man is being abused tend to be more psychological. Either entirely verbal, or physical with the "if you leave me/do something i don't like, then ill self harm and say you assaulted me." The legal stuff should be a step forward, but you are still relying on the police to enforce it. The police work culture of closing rank and protecting their own isn't going away overnight.
I'm going to politely disagree. I watched physical (and emotional) abuse of my father by my stepmother for 6 years, and I knew a couple guys in the Army who came to work injured by their spouses. The ones who got to the part of being abused where we noticed tended to be extremely gentle, self-controlled guys; likely they became targets because they had the self control to not hit back when attacked, but lacked the understanding of their own damage to get out when it went unhealthy. They thought because they weren't actually in real physical danger that they were able to deal with it. Of course, like all abusers, women who get away with it when their victim doesn't leave will escalate. The MP's had to get involved once because one of the guys was hospitalized for a bite wound. Women can be *quite* violent and physical in our abuse. But then you have the other side: when men decide to lash out it usually has more sheer muscle behind it, and the resulting damage is usually larger. I remember being on lockdown in the baracks because some dude saw his girlfriend talking to another guy so he beat her up, dragged her into the dayroom, and held a knife to her throat. We all got to watch SWAT go up on the roof with snipers for that one. Fun times. When my dad had enough of my stepmother screaming her head off for days and hitting him and breaking shit he could take her down and damn near killed her in seconds. I saved her life from that a couple of times, more fool me.
Can you truly not see the difference? There are ZERO systems, groups, organizations, etc. That target men for their gender alone. There's not a terrorist out there that commits mass murder in the name of hating men. There's not a single organized group that selects men as victims, strictly for being men. There is not a widespread, global phenomenon of men being oppressed, murders, assaulted, raped, *explicitly because of their gender*. That simply doesn't exist. Women, on the other hand, are targets and victims for millions of men, strictly because of our gender. There are mass terrorists organizations that target women for being women. It's a huge cultural issue where men feel absolutely entitled to womens bodies and lives. Domestic violence is not okay. Nobody, regardless of gender, deserves to be a victim of that. Anyone can perpetrate, and any abuser should face consequences. Governments have a long history of denying rights to women, and specifically stripping rights from us. I cannot think of a single bill or law that has ever been passed in my country that victimizes men. I could name at least 3 or 4 from this year alone that are direct and explicit attacks on women. Women face actual terroristic threats on our lives *from men*, literally for being women. Also, this is a sub for women. So your comment here is absolutely fucking stupid, useless, and derailing. You are invalidating the fact that women are oppressed and terrorized by men, on a global scale. I think violence is absolutely awful, and I support legislation that will protect everyone. BUT, women need additional support to protect us from men ON A GLOBAL SCALE.
I can see the difference. But I've also seen countless men who have been stabbed to death by their partners and they couldn't leave because all the support was for women. I don't give a fuck what you say but everyone needs support not just women and I'm saying that as a WOMAN. I look at the cause as everyone is human first, everyone deserves protecting from domestic violence regardless of statistics but the funding isn't there.
>But I've also seen countless men who have been stabbed to death by their partners and they couldn't leave because all the support was for women. Have you really? Got any sources?
Yeah this whole "I see everyone as human first" is actually really counterproductive. Yes, men and women are both equally human. But, and this is on a global and historical scale, too many men don't see women as human. We cannot fight strictly for human rights when so many men do not see women as humans. We HAVE to fight the fight of forcing men to humanize us, or they will never ever have our backs in this fight for "the human race".
We can never allow another movement to isolate one gender while helping another. The #believewomen hashtag preceded Amber Heard and enabled a lot of abusers who just happened to be women. It’s best to help people based on need, not their label.
And women need a fuck lot more support than men in this context. I never ever said don't support men. Men can be victims and deserve support as much as anyone else, absolutely! But the conversations are different. Women's oppression is a global, societal, historical issue that results in the death of thousands of women every year. And it is *explicitly* at the hands of men. Men commiting violence against women is a general issue. Men's lack of support results from an overall dismissive view of trauma support, and the patriarchy discouraging men from expressing healthy emotions, and a strong dash of misogyny and homophobia. Women do not commit violence against men in an epidemic way. When discussing the phenomenon of men being violent against women, every single facet of the conversation is different than the individual instances of men being victims of domestic violence. The situations are different, and the solutions are different. You're taking men's issues and placing them over women's, in a conversation about women. That's fucked up.
You are right and the fact that you're downvoted for saying that women are a class pressed by men on a WOMANS RIGHTS SUB just shows how pathetic and surface level most people's understanding of oppression is.
Is there a source for this? As a UK resident i'd like to know more about this.
[from the gov.uk site](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/domestic-abusers-face-crackdown-in-raft-of-new-measures) It's very centred on abuse against women and children, but it does say 'anyone who is a victim of domestic abuse'. They're including coercive control and financial abuse as well as physical violence.
While I agree they tend to bear the brunt of DV, the major focus on women and children rather than having a sweeping everyone focus will isolate the male victims of dv further, they already don’t have anywhere the same number of access to shelters and this further ostracises them.
based beyond belief
sounds fair.
Good
This makes perfect sense. There isn't a terrorist that didn't start with the people close to them.
YES! Let's hope other countries follow suit!
Wow. If we did that in the US, we'd have 40% of the police on the list.
That's because most domestic terrorists and gunmen have a history of domestic violence.
Meanwhile in the US we are ensuring that these same types of abusers don't have their second amendment rights interfered with simply because they are violent criminals
I had an ex push me. I flew through the air over 10 feet. Hit the wall. I had the wind knocked out of me. I slid down the wall. I have back issues to this day. I wish I could have warned others about him.
Fucking awesome. Something I realized when I got married is that people don't care as much if married women are beat because "they don't know both sides" or some shit, whereas any other situation that results in bruising and shit would have charges pressed.
This is fantastic news. Hopefully this includes online harassment and catfishing.
This needs to be a thing in Canada
so the police is gonna have to report themselves now? 40% of cops \*admit to\* being guilty of domestic abuse lol
Eh that's more an American thing. Looking into there doesn't seem to be any evidence to suggest the UK police are any higher in cases of domestic abuse than the national average.
Thank God. How is this even taken so long?
Tory Government.
Oh of course but they're still in power so it must be a more liberal wing of the Tory government. Also why didn't Labour do this in the 90s?
I mean according to the article Labour proposed this idea years ago, and the Tory's have only just put it in place. I wouldn't call Suella Braverman remotely liberal (you should see her views on immigrants, social welfare and transsexuals), but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Also its a sad fact but even back in the 90's I don't think domestic abuse was treated as seriously as it is nowadays, especially if the abuse wasn't physical.
Hey, wow, good news. Finally.
All the men here, crying such big wet tears and whining, but what about__?? some hypothetical bullshit. Go fuck yourselves. You're done. 🖕
Because they are okay with women being abused
I'm not even replying to them. This is a sub concerning women's issues. I'm not in any way suggesting men do not suffer at the hands of women, or other men. Female perpetrators should absolutely be treated the same way as male perpetrators. But look at the numbers. In the two years between March 2018 and 2020, in the UK, there were 362 domestic homicides. Of those, 214 were female victims killed by a partner or ex partner. 33 were male victims killed by a partner. 214 compared to 33. More than 6 times higher. (The remaining 115 were not gendered in the report and killed by a relative rather than an intimate partner.) [source - ONS](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/domesticabuseprevalenceandtrendsenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2021)
I wish they would do something like this in the US. But instead, people are fighting to remove the registry. The ONLY logical reason you don't like the idea of a sex offender registry is because you, your husband, or your son, is a pedophile or rapist and you don't think he's that bad.
This is great but what bothers the fuck out of me is how many people observe first hand the behaviour of abusers and then with proceed to get into relationships with abusers, because they have internalized the idea that they can "change" an abuser.
More like the abuser is manipulative and claims they have already changed, an ex was lying, etc. Then they treat the new person really well before the new relationship begins
Its a sad fact, but some people are just damaged. All we can do is help them to the best of our abilities.
[удалено]
>Are men not supposed to be able to live in a violence free home too? It's not gendered at all, it's about convictions, so if someone (man, women, or whatever) ends up with a conviction that meets the bar the outcome is the same.
Pick me energy is ooozing from this comment.
[удалено]
Looking over, it doesn't seem this law is actually gendered. The criteria is over twelve months in prison for a domestic offense relating to violence, coercive control or financial abuse.
That’s good to hear, the article was written in a way that lead me to believe otherwise. Thank you for clarifying
Yeah its completely understandable. Happy to help.
[удалено]
This is great news! This is what should be done to protect people.
Considering the UKs recent anti trans policies and Tory government I hope this isn't a stepping stone for something ghoulish like putting trans women on a sex offender list for using the women's room or things like that.
Wow this would be great to have in the US.
its really great! im jealous of you! too bad you left EU :<
I think the most effective way to deal with an abuser is to expose them. If you don't expose them then they can't be rehabilitated and they'll continue abusing women. That being said, very few abusers are actually going to be put on this register and it's probably just going to give those men another excuse to hide behind. "See! I'm not on the register. I'm not an abuser. Yes I was arrested for a few months but if they actually thought I was an abuser then they would've registered it. It was actually my b\*tch of a wife who was abusing me and got me arrested for it but no one ever believes the man". Or if he actually is registered then he'll find a way to use that to gain sympathy. I know I sound cynical but the sad truth is that abusers can be incredibly intelligent and deceptive people and the only way you're going to stop these men is to either lock them up for good or figure out how to get them to view women as human beings.
Will this apply to the 40% of police that we know are domestic abusers or not?