First Person Sentenced for 'Controlling Behaviour in an Intimate Relationship' in the UK

[Born Hunter 17,798]

 

Quote

A university graduate is believed to be the first woman convicted under new domestic abuse laws after scalding her boyfriend with boiling water, stabbing him and keeping food from him.

 

Quote

She was jailed for seven-and-a-half years after pleading guilty to the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate relationship, introduced in 2015, as well as wounding with intent and causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/16/controlling-girlfriend-first-woman-convicted-new-domestic-abuse/

 

I get that she was probably a shitty human being and the charges of GBH and assault are unquestionably valid. But "controlling behaviour"..... really? This seems like one of those dangerous laws that will be abused and simply shifts the burden of being a f***ing adult onto someone else.

Maybe I'm being a c**t, which is why I have posted this. But surely we should expect folks to have the strength and character to take on the responsibility for their own lives and have the strength to tell someone manipulating them to get f****d. Why do we have to ask the government to do it for us? Such a basic freedom, we have to ask the government to take care of.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Born Hunter

[Gav 1,708]

I don't know, maybe it could be a good thing, as we know some cultures in the UK are very controlling, so could be used against them? That said as often is the way it will be used at every drop of the hat, Nanny state at its best. 

[riohog 5,747]

i suppose her defence was she was suffering from pms ,,  ,or she was stressed had no money becouse she had bought another pair of   expensive shoes  ,or a handbag 

[greg64 2,850]

 

 he did have water on the brain which could have affected his thought process therefore being easily manipulated and very vulnerable and it sounds like it wasn't just controlling it was physical abuse of a vulnerable person 

[lurcherman 887 13,261]

She burnt him with water and stabbed him she deserves it 

[Born Hunter 17,798]

19 minutes ago, greg64 said:

 

 he did have water on the brain which could have affected his thought process therefore being easily manipulated and very vulnerable and it sounds like it wasn't just controlling it was physical abuse of a vulnerable person 

That is covered by a separate and very valid law, for which she was prosecuted.

His vulnerability from his medical condition is not considered by the Controlling Behaviour law really, other than that it probably makes him more prone to "control" and "serious effect". http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/76/enacted And I dare say there is already a law which protects adults who have some sort of disability. We accept that some people can't be considered fully responsible for themselves, children and adults with certain disabilities. Just concerns me a bit that now anyone in a relationship is looked upon the same.

This specific law covers all adults. It's there to protect adults who haven't the strength to actually walk away from a c**t of a partner or family member. Which all sounds great until we consider how easily abused these laws are and will be. But not just that, we used to live in a society where if you didn't like someone YOU were expected to just leave them, now we accept that weakness and protect it. It will result in abuse and is another slow ebb towards a completely authoritarian society.

Aye, I know, I'm being "dramatic". LOL

Edited April 17, 2018 by Born Hunter

[Born Hunter 17,798]

8 minutes ago, lurcherman 887 said:

She burnt him with water and stabbed him she deserves it 

There are already laws which cover wounding.....

[skycat 6,173]

There have always been, and always will be, people who control others either through a sense of their own inadequacy or simply because they're evil b*****ds, or bitches. Put the quoted scenario into a medieval setting and the guy would probably have been dead a long time before, most likely at the hands of his peers: get rid of the weakling in the pack. Actually, scrub that, he would probably have been a slave, much the same as he was in the hands of that woman. Unfortunately, sticking her in prison won't do anything to stop this kind of thing happening again. We are all properly outraged at what she did, but her punishment won't change a thing for all the other 'vulnerable' people out there. You only have to look at the number of slavery cases today in this country: uneducated, probably not very bright immigrants exploited by gang masters ... and the ones we hear about are only the tip of the iceberg.

[TOMO 26,689]

51 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/16/controlling-girlfriend-first-woman-convicted-new-domestic-abuse/

 

I get that she was probably a shitty human being and the charges of GBH and assault are unquestionably valid. But "controlling behaviour"..... really? This seems like one of those dangerous laws that will be abused and simply shifts the burden of being a f***ing adult onto someone else.

Maybe I'm being a c**t, which is why I have posted this. But surely we should expect folks to have the strength and character to take on the responsibility for their own lives and have the strength to tell someone manipulating them to get f****d. Why do we have to ask the government to do it for us? Such a basic freedom, we have to ask the government to take care of.

yep your a c**t.........

for most of us what you say is true ...just get a grip and move out ect......but from what i herd on the telly the fella was unwell in some way ,,vunrable type

[Kay 3,709]

Controlling comes in many guises ,  example woman & bloke have kiddie... relationship breaks up, woman uses child to control bloke, denies him access unless he adheres to '' her'' rules... its control.... woman is homemaker , bloke keeps her short of money, she is pretty much tied to the house... with no car or money to use public transport... its control 

Take it from me being in a relationship where control is a daily occurrence it breaks you down over time..... most unpleasant scary time of my adult life , this woman is clearly not right & deserved to be sentenced 

[Born Hunter 17,798]

3 minutes ago, TOMO said:

yep your a c**t.........

for most of us what you say is true ...just get a grip and move out ect......but from what i herd on the telly the fella was unwell in some way ,,vunrable type

 Comes with the nature, people in this country don't get it.

How can I put this to try and get it across. There are people in society that we recognise as vulnerable, children are an obvious one, they are protected. They are not considered responsible for their own lives and as such do not have the same liberties that adults do. I guess mentally disabled adults are another group. Again they aren't expected to be responsible for their actions but equally aren't allowed the same freedom we are. I hope I'm getting across here that every time we give up responsibility to the government, we lose freedom.

Now, for this specific law. It gives up the responsibility of ALL adults in an "intimate relationship", either romantic or family. It is not there to protect mentally disabled or children. They are protected by different legislation, or should be. This covers EVERYONE in a relationship! Can you see the harm that such a thing could bring about? How it can be and will be abused?

Regarding this specific case. She was a c**t of a human being and she committed violent assaults. Violent assaults have nothing to do with this law. They are covered by separate and unquestionably appropriate laws so they are not relevant here.

As usual this is a issue of liberty for me. We now consider otherwise responsible adults in relationships "vulnerable". Whereas once if you were a c**t to a loved one you were simply a c**t, now you are a criminal!

[jukel123 8,575]

Pity the tories are closing down Women' refuges. These refuges are really needed. The one place where women can be safe from violent/abusive partners.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-changes-domestic-violence-refuge-11606629

[greg64 2,850]

26 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

 Comes with the nature, people in this country don't get it.

How can I put this to try and get it across. There are people in society that we recognise as vulnerable, children are an obvious one, they are protected. They are not considered responsible for their own lives and as such do not have the same liberties that adults do. I guess mentally disabled adults are another group. Again they aren't expected to be responsible for their actions but equally aren't allowed the same freedom we are. I hope I'm getting across here that every time we give up responsibility to the government, we lose freedom.

Now, for this specific law. It gives up the responsibility of ALL adults in an "intimate relationship", either romantic or family. It is not there to protect mentally disabled or children. They are protected by different legislation, or should be. This covers EVERYONE in a relationship! Can you see the harm that such a thing could bring about? How it can be and will be abused?

Regarding this specific case. She was a c**t of a human being and she committed violent assaults. Violent assaults have nothing to do with this law. They are covered by separate and unquestionably appropriate laws so they are not relevant here.

As usual this is a issue of liberty for me. We now consider otherwise responsible adults in relationships "vulnerable". Whereas once if you were a c**t to a loved one you were simply a c**t, now you are a criminal!

i get what you say   I don't think the article you posted was a good example to be honest she was sentenced for wounding with intent and gbh and controlling behaviour ,would the judge have sentenced her if she was just being contolling i doubt it 

[greg64 2,850]

my mrs wouldn't let me go on a stag do to Amsterdam   i dont know why i may press charges lol

[Born Hunter 17,798]

Just now, greg64 said:

i get what you say   I don't think the article you posted was a good example to be honest she was sentenced for wounding with intent and gbh and controlling behaviour ,would the judge have sentenced her if she was just being contolling i doubt it 

I've read the law as it is on the statute. Yes legally the judge would have I believe. It wouldn't exist if wounding needed to occur simultaneously and hence separate wounding charges were prosecuted.

Quote

Controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
    (a) A repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards another person (B) that is controlling or coercive,
    (b) at the time of the behaviour, A and B are personally connected,
    (c) the behaviour has a serious effect on B, and
    (d) A knows or ought to know that the behaviour will have a serious effect on B.

IMO this law is a dangerous nanny state law which shows a worrying progression towards an authoritarian democracy, not the liberal democracy we allegedly have now. If we now accept that a person in a consensual relationship doesn't have the responsibility to walk away from a c**t, then how long until that extends to criminalising being in less than intimate relationships? How long until it's a criminal offence to cheat on your partner. Shitty act no doubt, but not something that should be criminal!

Never mind how this current piece of legislation could be interpreted and abused. Essentially it's now criminal to be a c**t to a loved one.