Emotional, financial and psychological abuse is now to be officially recognised by police as domestic violence.

(116 Posts)
MummysHappyPills Wed 19-Sep-12 11:34:39

Just heard this on 6 music news. About time too.

MummysHappyPills Wed 19-Sep-12 11:42:32

Well I think it's good news anyway. Then maybe women who are having their lives ruined systematically by their partners despite them not actually "hit" them can be protected by the law.

Jux Wed 19-Sep-12 12:20:43

I was v glad to hear this too. They also said that 16 and 17 year olds would be classed as victims too now (wtf were they before?).

MummysHappyPills Wed 19-Sep-12 12:41:33

I know it's madness isn't it? I was in an abusive relationship at 19, and IMO younger women and teenagers are even more vulnerable as they don't have the life experience or confidence to assert themselves and recognise what's happening to them.

lazarusb Wed 19-Sep-12 13:11:23

Absolutely agree with you. It's not only physical abuse which is damaging, and quite why only over 18s were thought to suffer from it I will never know. Hopefully social attitudes will change too and financial, emotional & psychological abuse will be seen as the huge problem that it is.

CogitoErgoSometimes Wed 19-Sep-12 13:39:08

I think this is very important and very welcome. Not least for victims who, quite often, are very unsure if the treatment they are enduring means they are being abused or not.

FringeEvent Wed 19-Sep-12 13:40:00

I just caught this news on the BBC website, and popped by Mumsnet to see if anyone was discussing it. Here's a link to the story on their website, if anybody would like to read it

olgaga Wed 19-Sep-12 14:40:59

Hi, yes it's great news. I put up threads about it in Legal Matters and Relationships too to spread the word.

I'm pleased to see this!

My SIL was a victim of DV at 16. She was emotionally controlled and intimated and eventually beaten twice. At no point was DC mentioned besides by DH and I and we had to argue to call it that. MIL kept sending her back to her boyfriend to "talk" to him because they had a baby together hmm
Maybe if it happened now she would be more open to understanding.

olgaga Wed 19-Sep-12 14:48:27
MrsBucketxx Wed 19-Sep-12 14:53:55

its a good thing but it could be difficult to prosecute, kinda a he said she said type of thing.

i hope its taken seriously and its not treated lightly.

OneMoreChap Wed 19-Sep-12 14:57:38

I whinged about this, as I think Violence is physical. Did you see the boxout?

Domestic violence statistics

One in four women will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime
About two in five of all victims of domestic violence are men
One incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute.
On average, 35 assaults happen before the police are called
12% of under 11s, 18% of 11-17s and 24% of 18-24s have been exposed to domestic abuse between adults
Sources: Women's Aid, NSPCC and Parity

40% already surprised me; I'd expect that to rise as the new definition spreads

Socknickingpixie Wed 19-Sep-12 15:20:46

onemore, why did you winge?

OneMoreChap Wed 19-Sep-12 15:27:11

Basically I think taking the physical element out cheapens DV.

I said before any incident of threatening behaviour, violence, or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial, or emotional) between adults who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality.'Emotional abuse is the act of belittling, ignoring, corrupting, acting cruel, isolating, rejecting, and scaring another person. XW certainly did 4 of those.
Are they seriously saying I suffered DV?

And indeed, they are.

olgaga Wed 19-Sep-12 15:42:52

Onemore that's ridiculous. Physical violence is assault - already a criminal matter - and it will remain so.

The new proposals do not "cheapen" physical violence at all. Odd thinking!

OneMoreChap Wed 19-Sep-12 15:51:39

So, I was subject to DV sad

CogitoErgoSometimes Wed 19-Sep-12 15:55:35

I take the point that 'violence' is specifically physical. Someone convicted of coercion in another setting would be classed a non-violent offender. 'Abuse' is a wider definition however. Verbal, financial, emotional, physical, sexual etc. Perhaps 'Domestic Abuse' will become the categorisation in future.

shesariver Wed 19-Sep-12 16:05:21

Basically I think taking the physical element out cheapens DV

But they havent have they? Just added in emotional etc. confused

Cogito, I work in the NHS and any training related to this I have been on has been called "Domestic Abuse" training, not domestic violence.

In one of those strange twists of fate, I was working with one of the lead researchers on the Home Office DV pilot scheme. I work in the NHS and it was related to something else but we got talking about this.

His view is that the extreme nature of it means it is a form of violence. My argument was that it actually made many victims feel it 'wasn't that bad' as they weren't being hit. I experienced many years of abuse and never identified it as DV because of this. I didn't tell him this and his view was that abuse didn't get across the severity of it as well as violence.

Shame people like that don't stop and ask the people who've actually experienced it...

Socknickingpixie Wed 19-Sep-12 16:26:54

onemore if exw isolated you from all forms of support,threatned you intimidated you belittled you to the point that you felt you diserved her behaviour,with held access to finances (beyond whats needed to fund the family) so you couldnt seek help, monitered or limited your movements beyond what a resonable person would think is acceptable left you living in fear even if she didnt physically assult you subjected you to significant verbal abuse used sex and intimacy to intentionally punish and manipulate you, then yes you were.

MummysHappyPills Wed 19-Sep-12 16:34:04

I know it isn't always the case, but often emotional abuse is the precursor to physical abuse. It was for me. My exp never hit me, but he flew into rages, smashed up my possessions, shoved me around. If I hadn't have left him it would only have been a matter of time before he seriously hurt me. These laws might ensure that women have some protection before they are beaten half to death, or even murdered. And besides emotional abuse can still be just as damaging to a person's life and self esteem.

olgaga Wed 19-Sep-12 16:42:12

The point is that currently "There is no specific criminal offence of domestic violence. Instead, a definition that refers to "incidents of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse" was adopted in 2004.

Ministers say that has led police and prosecutors to make too narrow an interpretation of the term and let some perpetrators off the hook."

The point of is that bullying, verbal and emotional abuse and controlling/coercive behaviour will be defined as domestic abuse and could lead to criminal prosecution if it amounts to harassment.

Physical assault will still be assault, and will still be a criminal offence.

As Chief Constable Carmel Napier, of Gwent police, said: "The amendments to the definition are key in helping to raise awareness and enable effective prevention working in partnership with all agencies.

"Domestic abuse ruins lives. In some cases it ends in homicide. This amended definition will help us all to work together to defeat this dreadful crime."

It's about raising awareness of the seriousness of the behaviour, and intervention before people get beaten up and murdered.

It isn't perfect, and change isn't about to happen overnight. But it's a start. At last.

Socknickingpixie Wed 19-Sep-12 17:05:48

mummyshappy im with you on that, my ex spent 7 years wearing me down calling me names isolating me stealing my money trying to get me sectioned screaming at me, smashing my things,bullying me, pushing shoving,making threats using sex to punish and humiliate me,saying things like my experance of a previous rape where obviously my own fault. got me to the point where i actually belived him i doubted my own mental health and thought he was the most powerfull person around as apparently everybody was spying on me for him and he knew my every movement and he would kill my children if i left even if it took him decades to find us,he used to threaten me with a gun and a few times held family pets up and a knife in the other hand and say if i didnt do what he wanted he would stab them

.the first time he was( what at the time i concidered to be properly as the pushes/shoves i found hard to call them that) violent to me was 6 years in when i told him i wanted him gone strangely enough after a relate appointment it took me about 6 months to get shot of him by taking an assult out into the street armed police showed up and i havent clapped eyes on him since so bonus.

JugglingWithPossibilities Wed 19-Sep-12 17:25:01

Two very important areas of change there - one changing the definition to include emotional and other similar abuse such as very controlling and coercive behaviour. Then also very importantly recognising that younger women can also be the victims of domestic violence and abuse - indeed may be especially vulnerable due to their limited life experience.

I just hope that the media and news programmes will give sufficient time to these important changes, and that the fact that two changes are happening together will not be a cause of muddled information ( I think news I've seen at lunch time could have had more clarity and more time given to it - since these issues affect the lives of probably millions of women and families in our country)

A good development though for us all smile

Springhasarrived Wed 19-Sep-12 18:48:07

I think it is fantastic news. The emotional abuse I suffered in the time running up to the physical abuse I was able to report to the police was far the worst and most damaging aspect of what happened to me. Men need to know that controlling behaviour is not acceptable and that this is all being highlighted in a change in the law is a huge step forward.

By its very nature it is going to be difficult to prosecute but if I had know that the law said reading my emails, checking my phone, calling me stupid, and swearing at me every day etc etc was not acceptable I am sure I would have got out sooner.

OhDearNigel Wed 19-Sep-12 19:58:12

Hmm, I am rather hmm about this. ACPO/NPIA & CPS have recognised 5 forms of domestic abuse for at least 8 years, being
1) Physical
2) Emotional
3) Sexual
4) Financial
5) Psychological

This is laid out in a CPS policy document from May 2009 (just checked it !) and an ACPO guide from 2008.

Most of my caseload involves domestic violence (work in a trial victim/witness support unit in the police).

Unless there is legislation to make a whole new offence of domestic abuse, these new guidelines are meaningless and will make absolutely no difference at all. Until the abuser commits physical acts of violence the police will be unable to act. There is no offence of domestic abuse and the government are paying lip service to improving the prosecutions for DV. It makes me laugh. CPS have so few lawyers due to government cuts that we can't even get simple assaults to court, let alone a complex web of emotional abuse. Agencies supporting victims through court are having their funding slashed, ancilliary support services are being closed, emergency housing for women fleeing DV is non existent. Courts are closed, the ones that remain are battling with so many cases that it is taking months and months for cases to come to trial. Prisons are closed, offender programmes are cut. I welcome the drop in age but frankly I cannot see this making any difference other than making the cocks that are in charge of our ever-more failing justice system look less like the utter, hollow wankers that they are.

olgaga Wed 19-Sep-12 20:12:48

There is no offence of domestic abuse

But that's the point, OhDearNigel. The definition will not be written into law, but the law on harassment will be broadened to include "any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality".

Yes it isn't perfect but part of the reason for this change was ACPO's submission to the consultation that the police needed clearer powers to intervene in domestic abuse situations before they resulted in violence and homicide.

I certainly agree with what you say about lack of resources though. However, at least the police and other agencies won't be able to throw their hands up and say "Yeah but you haven't actually been beaten up or killed yet, keep us posted".

Plus family courts will not be able to dismiss such conduct as being unimportant if there is a criminal conviction resulting from it.

VintageEbonyGold Wed 19-Sep-12 20:18:10

Thats a great move, maybe my ex and his family would have been charged and I wouldn't have spent several years in and out of a refuge because I thought it wasn't dv. Refuge did, social services did but the police didn't, even with evidence of financial fraud.

OhDearNigel Wed 19-Sep-12 20:51:57

olgaga, I really hope you're right. But I'm sure, like me, you've seen hundreds of initiatives, policies and guidelines which make not a jot of difference to anything. I'm afraid that 4 years of dealing directly with DV cases that go into the justice system has made me extremely cynical.

Lisatheonewhoeatsdrytoast Wed 19-Sep-12 20:57:12

Great news, i was in a controlling relationship from my early teens until i was 18, even then he tried to have a hold over me and control me and occasionally he was physical, i had to show him my mobile phone, he followed me, made me call him to meet me off the bus, as he didn't trust me to walk home. It was a nightmare sad

Smellslikecatspee Wed 19-Sep-12 21:22:52

Sorry onemorechap, sound from what you've said that yes you did experience DV

BertieBotts Wed 19-Sep-12 21:27:49

If nothing else the publicity surrounding the change might raise awareness which would be a massive thing.

IIRC ALL relationships which are physically abusive are also emotionally abusive. I think it's been a mistake to separate the two out because they're reliant on each other. Violence generally doesn't happen unless one partner has controlling tendencies because in order to hurt someone else there needs to be some kind of internal justification or feeling of entitlement. And likewise the violence is a tool in the overall coercion and control, because there has to be an ultimate threat for the abuser to remain on top. Some abusers use other methods of control and others never get to the violent stage because their victims are afraid without violence, or leave before it reaches that point.

Of course, physical violence has historically been the priority because it carries the most obvious signs and the highest risk; death, but if a victim does survive (and the great majority do, thankfully) then the long lasting damage tends to be psychological and this occurs whether someone has faced daily beatings, the odd slap/shove or their partner has never lain a finger on them but instead beaten them down metaphorically, with control and emotional abuse.

Even if it makes no difference now in real terms it's a step in the right direction, I hope that it does make a difference and an impact and if it doesn't change anything, then I hope things are changed in the future and this legislation provides a gateway for that to happen.

Treats Wed 19-Sep-12 21:55:36

OneMoreChap - I looked up the factbox on the BBC site as a result of your post. I'd never heard that "two in five of all domestic violence victims are men" before. I thought the proportion was much, much lower than that.

The source of the fact seems to be this organisation - of which I have also never heard before - www.parity-uk.org/index.php . Their stated aim is to fight for equal rights for men and women, although it's fairly clear that they think that it's MEN who are unfairly discriminated against and want to redress the balance.

To that end, they've got a whole piece on domestic violence against men on their site and quote extensively from the British Crime Survey 2005/06. This bit caught my eye:

"In the longer term, since the age of 16, and again excluding stalking, the survey found that 28.1% of women and 17.5% of men reported having suffered non-sexual partner abuse, a proportion of male victims of about 38%. Of these, 19.1% of women and 10.4% of men reported having suffered actual force, a proportion of male victims of about 35%, which was designated ‘severe’ in the case of 13.7% of women and 8.7% of men, a proportion of male victims of about 39% - the same as in 2004/05."

This is presumably the source of the 'two in five' stat (39% roughly equals two in five)

But I did a bit more digging, and found this interesting Home Office analysis of the BCS, which included a bit more detail on severity and number of incidents of domestic abuse:

"There were an estimated 12.9 million incidents of domestic violence acts (nonsexual threats or force) against women and 2.5 million against men in England and Wales in the year prior to interview."

So if you go on incidents of abuse, men are victims in 16% of cases. Which is a bit more in line with what I had always thought.

OneMoreChap - I don't want to diminish your own experience with your exw - statistics are no use to anyone actually living through these things.

I was just curious about the quoted stat and wanted to know a bit more about it.

MummysHappyPills Wed 19-Sep-12 21:55:57

I agree BertieBotts. My exp would threaten me with violence all the time, but by never quite following through he could keep me as scared as hell but at the same time grateful and he could still maintain that he was doing nothing wrong as he never actually hit me, and almost deserved a medal for refraining. In fact I slapped him once as he had my pinned down and had his face right in mine screaming at me and I was scared. And after that he kept going on about how I was the violent one as I had hit him!

I also agree that this will raise awareness of the red flags of domestic abuse. All of us who have escaped from domestic abuse can spot the signs a mile off. But a young woman who is in her first relationship doesn't know any different, unless it is talked about. And men in denial that their behaviour is unacceptable may also get a reality check.

It is a chilling statistic that 75% of girls under 18 who are in a relationship with someone at least 2 years older have been victims or abuse. I was 18/19 and my abuser was 26. Of course he went for me because a woman his own age would not have taken that kind of shit. sad

MummysHappyPills Wed 19-Sep-12 21:57:17

I got those stats from bbc article linked earlier btw, sure that's what it said but haven't checked back.

BertieBotts Wed 19-Sep-12 22:06:20

It's awful isn't it? My ex was five years older than me. After I left he went after even younger girls sad

MummysHappyPills Wed 19-Sep-12 22:24:32

A thought has just crossed my mind. I know that at present in cases of dv if police are reasonably convinced an assault has taken place, they can still arrest and press charges against the perpetrator even if the woman doesn't want to press charges. That's right isn't it? So presumably under these new laws if family friends have concerns about abusive behaviour will the police have more power to intervene as long as they are reasonably confident the allegations are true, regardless of what the woman says? I hoep so. I think this will help women escape.

I remember my mum telling me how helpless she felt, she says she felt she was just waiting for the day he would "knock me out or knock me up" (used to force me to have sex with no contraception, if I refused he said it meant I didn't love him, which in turn proved I must be having sex with someone else/planning to leave/had and STI/thought he had an STI etc - in the end I went on the pill in secret as deep down I knew having a child with him would ruin my life)

MummysHappyPills Wed 19-Sep-12 22:25:53

Sorry I just realised I made an assumption the victim would be female in my last post which is of course not always true.

olgaga Wed 19-Sep-12 22:27:09

Treats You are right. Another thing to consider is whether the statistics quoted only refer to heterosexual relationships, or whether it includes men who are victims of their male partners. There seems to be a bit of a silence on the matter.

I read somewhere else that the incidence of DV in gay and lesbian relationships was similar to that in heterosexual relationships. Which made me question whether the men who reportedly suffer domestic violence are always the victims of female violence? I certainly couldn't find anything to confirm that.

MummysHappyPills Wed 19-Sep-12 22:34:13

olgaga I knew a gay couple who literally used to beat the shit out of each other. It was awful. Know lots of other gay couples that don't, but just wanted to raise the point that DV can happen in gay relationships too. However I have also known personally a relationship where a guy was physically abused by a woman. Don't know what happened behind closed doors of course, but from what I could see it wasn't just her lashing out physically now and then. She also ground down his self esteem and had him thinking it was his fault, was very controlling, made him lose touch with friends/family all the classic signs of abuse. so whilst it is rare it does happen.

Treats Wed 19-Sep-12 22:34:47

Apparently, the incidences of dv in same sex relationships is about the same as hetero relationships - 1 in 4. But I don't know whether it's more common in male or female relationships. Or whether gay men make up a greater proportion of all male victims than lesbians do of all female victims.

One of the difficulties is that so much DV info out there on the web is published by campaigning groups - and usually those groups are trying to highlight the cause of one gender or another. Which makes it quite hard to get a balanced view. Although the BCS is about as independent as it gets.

MummysHappyPills Wed 19-Sep-12 22:39:35

Oh and just remembered my cousin was assaulted by his male partner too. sad That was when he was young, had just come out and was quite vulnerable. His partner was a lot older. sad

olgaga Wed 19-Sep-12 22:47:31

I also know of a case where a male work colleague of a friend was regularly assaulted - physically - by his wife. I would never say that doesn't happen!

I have been careful in my posts to refer to "people" rather than "women" as I'm aware both sexes can be victims. It's just pretty obvious - whatever statistics you look at - that female victims outnumber males by some distance.

BertieBotts Wed 19-Sep-12 22:48:22

I read some stats once which were basically that relationship/domestic violence is most likely in this order:

Male to female
Male to male
Female to female
Female to male

Unfortunately I can't find the book it was in so I can't back them up with a source, take with a pinch of salt. Certainly DV happens in all kinds of relationships. I have a gay friend who was emotionally abused and controlled by her now ex girlfriend, and another gay friend who dated a young man who was fleeing a violent ex. He sought help from the police and they were less than helpful and outright homophobic towards him sad I'm sure they must be a minority but that was a horrible thought that even the people who were supposed to help weren't supportive to him.

MummysHappyPills Wed 19-Sep-12 22:56:42

Yes you are probably right.

It's amazing actually when I come to think of it that even in my small circle of family and friends I know a good number of people that has been domestically abused. And these are "normal" people, some of them quite headstrong and successful, not your classic "victim" at all. I confided to my dp what had happened to me and he was astounded, I don't think he could imagine me ever taking any crap like I did! But these abusers get under your skin and make you doubt yourself. I try not to let it influence the way I am now, but inwardly I am still quite insecure and have suffered with depression on and off since, despite having a lovely secure childhood and not having a care in the world beforehand. I sincerely hope these changes stop more young women being so emotionally/physically battered when they should be out having fun and enjoying their youth. I can understand the cynicism that some have expressed but I hope they will be proven wrong. smile

edam Wed 19-Sep-12 23:00:50

About time the definition was updated - and the idea that you didn't qualify as a victim if you were under 18 was bizarre.

Do you think there's any chance of getting the family courts to recognise DV exists and is kind of important and is a risk to children? Two people I've talked to have been told by their solicitors not even to mention DV in the family court, even though the DV has been recognised in other court proceedings, because it will just prejudice the family court against them - the victims. Kafa-esque.

edam Wed 19-Sep-12 23:01:03

Or Kafka, even...

VintageEbonyGold Wed 19-Sep-12 23:44:35

I met my 21yo ex when I was 15, he waited to have a relationship until I was legal. It was abusive and violent and he knew exactly how to get what he wanted. Like pp an older woman wouldn't have taken his shit and he still sticks to under 18's now. I did get knocked up and after we split up I had years of verbal/emotional and financial abuse from him and his family inregards to our child. His/his families only interest is in harassing me and sometimes I feel like I'll never escape, no matter how far I run.

MummysHappyPills Wed 19-Sep-12 23:49:07

Oh vintage that is horrible. sad

VintageEbonyGold Thu 20-Sep-12 00:32:13

Thanks Mummys thanks still hard to get my head round it but we are no contact now

olgaga Thu 20-Sep-12 07:39:11

edam It's so depressing isn't it. Good example here. I posted about this in the Legal Matters section yesterday, and said broadly what you are saying:

"What's really interesting is whether this will also have an impact in the Family Courts with regard to the consideration of the conduct of ex partners/spouses in divorce proceedings and child residence/contact Orders. At the moment the only "conduct" usually taken into account is physical violence. Anything else is more or less ignored. Surely that will also have to change."

This is from a reply I got from one of the family lawyers who regularly posts there - someone called STIDW:

"When there is evidence of abuse the courts weigh the harm or risk of harm to children against the harm psychologists and psychiatrists say children suffer when they loose contact with a natural parent. In cases when the abuse is low level it's unlikely that no contact would be deemed in the best interests of children. The courts can put measures in place to make contact work such as handovers at a neutral venue, supervised contact, contact in a contact centre, conditions attached to the contact order, Separated Parent Information Programmes, anger management or courses for DV perpetrators. I can't see that changing."

It just shows you how the police, the justice system and legal professionals collude in this notion of "low level abuse" being so unimportant that it can be safely ignored.

That is exactly what I want to change, and I hope this new definition will change it. I hope it will bring about a culture change. It'll take a while, it certainly won't happen overnight (we can see that from STIDW's post).

Can I urge you and others to go over and support me on the Legal Matters thread? I get tired of the brusque and dismissive attitude of the lawyers over there and spend a lot of time monitoring it and trying to encourage women who've already suffered a great deal, only to come here and suffer some offhand and unhelpful advice courtesy of the "Resident Lawyers" on Legal Matters.

It's here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/legal_matters/a1567886-DOMESTIC-VIOLENCE-Important-changes-from-March-2013#34254346

olgaga Thu 20-Sep-12 07:50:22

edam It's so depressing isn't it. Good example here. I posted about this in the Legal Matters section yesterday, and said broadly what you are saying:

"What's really interesting is whether this will also have an impact in the Family Courts with regard to the consideration of the conduct of ex partners/spouses in divorce proceedings and child residence/contact Orders. At the moment the only "conduct" usually taken into account is physical violence. Anything else is more or less ignored. Surely that will also have to change."

This is from a reply I got from one of the family lawyers who regularly posts there - someone called STIDW:

"When there is evidence of abuse the courts weigh the harm or risk of harm to children against the harm psychologists and psychiatrists say children suffer when they loose contact with a natural parent. In cases when the abuse is low level it's unlikely that no contact would be deemed in the best interests of children. The courts can put measures in place to make contact work such as handovers at a neutral venue, supervised contact, contact in a contact centre, conditions attached to the contact order, Separated Parent Information Programmes, anger management or courses for DV perpetrators. I can't see that changing."

It just shows you how the police, the justice system and legal professionals collude in this notion of "low level abuse" being so unimportant that it can be safely ignored.

That is exactly what I want to change, and I hope this new definition will change it. I hope it will bring about a culture change. It'll take a while, it certainly won't happen overnight (we can see that from STIDW's post).

Can I urge you and others to go over and support me on the Legal Matters thread? I get tired of the brusque and dismissive attitude of the lawyers over there and spend a lot of time monitoring it and trying to encourage women who've already suffered a great deal, only to come here and suffer some offhand and unhelpful advice courtesy of the "Resident Lawyers" on Legal Matters.

It's here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/legal_matters/a1567886-DOMESTIC-VIOLENCE-Important-changes-from-March-2013#34254346

olgaga Thu 20-Sep-12 07:51:23

(Sorry for the double post. Got interrupted trying to get everyone out the door!)

vesela Thu 20-Sep-12 08:59:34

This is fantastic news, especially given the rise in online porn and the way it can affect attitudes towards partners.

vesela Thu 20-Sep-12 09:17:07

can affect - is affecting, I meant. I find it truly frightening, the thought that we've been going backwards with regard to teenagers' and young adults' attitudes to abuse within relationships.

garlicnutty Thu 20-Sep-12 09:30:23

OneMoreChap, just answering your posts on the first page. I've been wanting to say this to you for ages! Yes, you were abused and this explains your complicated feelings when you started an affair.

Wrt news topic: I'm thrilled this has happened; I've been agitating for changes of this nature. Clearly it's going to have teething problems. I understand some police forces have been training DV teams in non-physical abuse, so hope they will be able to help shape the law in application.

vesela Thu 20-Sep-12 10:06:04

So O'Neill reckons that this "won't be any help to those who suffer actual violence in the home.'' hmm. Does the guy set any store by logic at all?

Oh, and apparently "teenage relationships are messy and complicated" but that's all OK because they're just immature. It's teenage life and people "generally survive" it. (And some don't).

Twat.

vesela Thu 20-Sep-12 10:06:31

sorry, Brendan O'Neill.

vesela Thu 20-Sep-12 10:12:43

And apparently they (teenagers) need to learn to work things out for themselves, otherwise it's "terribly disempowering" for them. hmm

The same argument is used of school bullying, of course. If the victims would only learn to sort it out themselves. How are the bullies expected to learn, otherwise?

margerykemp Thu 20-Sep-12 11:03:58

How can anyone think this isnt a good idea?

It has been 16 for a while in Scotland AFAIK

garlicnutty Thu 20-Sep-12 11:50:41

How can anyone think this isnt a good idea?

Er, because they like getting away with abuse?

MummysHappyPills Thu 20-Sep-12 12:00:00

I think it is dangerous to think that somehow teenage relationships are more fickle and therefore less damaging. Yes often the parties may be immature, but that does not mean their emotions and feelings aren't real. I thought I knew everything as a teenager which was dangerous as I really didn't, I thought I was mature enough for a relationship with a man a lot older than me, and this pride made me even less likely to admit defeat. I kept going, convinced that if only I kept trying and showed him how much I loved him by doing whatever he wanted he would believe me when I said I hadn't cheated and he would mean it when he bought me flowers, said he was going to give up the weed and things would get better.

It sounds like an episode of Jeremy Kyle, but he was actually a blue eyed blonde haired surfy type from a very middle class family. Noone would have ever dreamed of what was going on behind closed doors.

These new rules can only be a good thing, even if all they do is educate people that abuse comes in all sorts of forms and is experienced and perpetrated by all sorts of people.

LineRunner Thu 20-Sep-12 13:20:16

Where I live the Police classified what my ExH did to me as 'Domestic Abuse', even though he hadn't hit me and we weren't married any more.

He was standing on my doorstep or sitting in his car outside, talking through the door or ringing my phone.

The Police dealt with it as Domestic Abuse and gave him a warning using their DA procedures. I think when he twigged that this stuff would start to show up on his CRB check and affect his employment, he stopped.

The Police were the first people ever not to fall for his 'My ExW if crazy' script; and I am grateful to them for that every day.

lokabrenna Thu 20-Sep-12 13:29:35

I am pleased about these new rules, I suffered years of this sort of phsychological abuse before my partner actually got physically abusive. I did not leave untill he was physically abusive though, because that meant I had something to go to the police with at last. I did not go to the police though, I just used it as a bargaining chip to get out of the relationship.

I could have got out earlier if I could have said to him that I was going to go to the police over the emotional abuse. I think I would also have recognised earlier that it was abuse.

Aware that I should have gone to the police, but at the time I was young, foolish and scared and just wanted out without my family getting harmed.

I feel this is a good thing.

Stre8photomum Thu 20-Sep-12 15:54:42

This is good news and will serve as a reminder for all involved in a relationship. But the government can help further by recognizing the role they play in financial abuse in their policies. Many households suffer when one partner decides to control the finance by with holding monies awarded to them both but is only paid in the name of one of the claimants.

Japple Thu 20-Sep-12 16:35:59

So, What does this Mean for your Country? That Now,if you Yell at your erring
Teenager..you'll "Go Down" in a Court of law...because someone says you were
Depriving her of cell phone use (as punishment for a family infraction); OR you
Were "Cruel" to "Cut-Off" TV use because her Grades were in the Toilet!? Hope
Our Country doesn't try this Controlling Tactic with us.Probably will...we're
Living under a dictator as it is.

MummysHappyPills Thu 20-Sep-12 16:40:46

WtfF?!

LineRunner Thu 20-Sep-12 17:20:00

How bizarre.

MummysHappyPills Thu 20-Sep-12 17:38:44

Unless you abuse your teenagers Japple, you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

And is that Gabby Logon in disguise?

Darkesteyeswithflecksofgold Thu 20-Sep-12 17:41:57

Please dont flame me but this weeks episode of New Tricks covered domestic abuse in the storyline.
Yes i know i know its got Dennis Waterman in it and i was one of the ones who made it very clear on these boards earlier this year what i think of him after the publicity over what happened.
In this weeks storyline the search for a missing presumed dead teenager turned into them finding out that she had been living with an abusive man who had been abusing her emotionally and financially (taking all her wages) at the end it also showed how difficult it is to prosecute this. Whoever wrote and researched this episode did a bloody good job.

MummysHappyPills Thu 20-Sep-12 18:04:59

Why would you be flamed for that? smile

Darkesteyeswithflecksofgold Thu 20-Sep-12 18:07:48

Cos of the revelations about Dennis earlier this year. But i thought i would mention this episode of NT because it showed that awareness of different types of abuse is finally starting to sink into parts of society that might have denied its existence previously.

MummysHappyPills Thu 20-Sep-12 18:09:51

I don't know about teh dennis waterman story. But if it's that he was being an abuser, I hope the storyline makes him thoroughly ashamed. And in any case I'm sure the programme will help raise awareness.

edam Thu 20-Sep-12 20:08:12

Japple appears to be a Yank, given the reference to cell phone.

Japple Thu 20-Sep-12 20:26:25

...Don't understand the term"Yank"... But my Father's people (plus our very
Name) is "Harrison". Father's people are from Your country.He has 3 Presidents
in his Family Tree: One "William Henry Harrison", One "Benjamin Harrison" and
One "George Washington".He is the Lucky One...as he has some excellent
Antique Pieces from these members of his Family Tree-and,as I am an Only
Child...They will one day be Mine.I love your Country.Jill (Harrison).

MummysHappyPills Thu 20-Sep-12 20:27:54

How very odd. It is the American Gabby Logon!

garlicnutty Thu 20-Sep-12 23:02:53

grin MHP.

Allow me to extend an Old Country welcome to y'all, Gabby Jill. You wouldn't like it here. We don't believe in corporal punishment for children, the use of "paddles" is illegal, wives are not surrendered, we don't carry guns and we don't murder murderers.

We make good tea, though.

Darkesteyeswithflecksofgold Fri 21-Sep-12 00:29:27
Japple Fri 21-Sep-12 17:41:49

Dear "Nutt", We appreciate your fine "Country"greeting...even though we are
from Washington,DC.We Here say..."Spare the rod and Spoil the Child".Paddles
are,considered Cruel and Unusual Punishment,though.As for "Wives being Sur-
Rendered"...we women take "Self-Defense"Classes,carry small,Handbag Guns;
..and the majority of us believe that God will judge us-in His Time...and that
No MAN should play God and destroy another-like in Capital Crimes.Jill.

LineRunner Fri 21-Sep-12 18:12:04

I really don't think that 'Spare the Rod Spoil the Child' is common parlance in Washington DC.

Japple Fri 21-Sep-12 18:57:17

...It is within the confines of both of our churches.My Mother spanked me so
many times (and it got me Mad at her); that I could not Bring myself to spank
Scotty and Amy.When the grandparents weighed in on this Lack of discipline on
my part...("You'll be sorry,J-Girl because the children will Not Learn to be re-
spectful!") my husband and I developed Other more Humane ways to show them that their behavior was NOT acceptable.And believe me,DC is Waaaay
More "Common" than you could ever know.Highest Crime Rate in the Nation-
So, methinks that Someone is "sparing" the rod a little too much.

Jux Fri 21-Sep-12 20:38:08

"Two countries separated by a common language" and all that

Japple, here we reserve capital letters for the beginning of sentences and proper nouns; otherwise we assume people are ignorant.

Have you come across Nethuns?

Japple Fri 21-Sep-12 22:31:48

We are planning to take a giant cruise.Hubby wants to go see his family in
Norway,and I want to go visit my Father's people.So far,passports are at the
Ready,all immunizations are taken, however,we are trying to decide just how
cruises hook-up and what port charges we will need...and like that.

whatthewhatthebleep Tue 02-Oct-12 17:31:05

this is all a bit weird here suddenly...wtf?????

so..1 Q why do you carry a small purse gun?...just so you have something in your bag?...just unloaded for waving about 'incase'??...if you are saying 'no man should play god and destroy another's life'...how does that compute at all with everyone carrying guns and the crime rate so high...obviously quite a lot of people playing god surely????...including yourself?

Q2 why do we need to know about your 'giant cruise' to visit your 'fathers people'....how is anything you are waffling about even relative to this thread???

goodbye y'all!...enjoy yer trip....confused

BertieBotts Tue 02-Oct-12 19:36:04

It's a bot, bleep grin Some software companies are developing them by letting them loose on the web but unfortunately the software isn't quite at the standard of human thought processes yet...

whatthewhatthebleep Tue 02-Oct-12 20:00:21

oh wow...I didn't know this...freeky stuff!!!

Jux Tue 02-Oct-12 23:10:26

Ah, that explains everything Bertie - I had no idea they were that well developed!

BertieBotts Tue 02-Oct-12 23:17:04

It is pretty clever - and amusing grin Most sites delete them. I like that MNHQ just let them hang around until they get bored!

Jux Tue 02-Oct-12 23:34:36

You'd think they could have got the punctuation right, though. grin

It'll never catch on.
(I've always wanted to say that!)

ThatVikRinA22 Tue 02-Oct-12 23:42:43

whoaaaaaa - the force i work for as a pc - the same force getting vilified in the media lately - has always seen this as a DV.....it was incorporated as part of my training and i am well up on spotting all forms of DV....

is this news?

MummysHappyPills Wed 03-Oct-12 06:54:54

This is an oldish thread, but yes it was a couple of weeks back...

olgaga Wed 03-Oct-12 07:21:31

Vicarina the Home Office has formally adopted the ACPO guidelines in its own definition, which was not previously the case.

www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/news/domestic-violence-definition?version=2

ThatVikRinA22 Wed 03-Oct-12 12:12:01

i thought what the "news" aspect was that it now applied to people under the age of 18 - previously under home office guidelines this did not apply to under 18's - although we obviously were aware that it did and had our own procedures in place to report DV for those under the age of 18.

didnt see the age of the thread - it was in active convos when i posted.

VintageEbonyGuitar Wed 03-Oct-12 13:26:18

Vicar, no offence but obviously will cause offence there is a lot wrong with how the police handle dv. God knows what "some" police officers are trained in as only a few weeks ago I heard a "female" officer telling a victim off for winding up the perpetrator. There is a long way to go in respect to dv and the law/police practice.

Not that anyone really gives a shit about victims as long as it is not them it's happening to.

Maybe acting quicker with dv perps would keep cop killers behind bars?

ThatVikRinA22 Wed 03-Oct-12 13:31:53

actually we have strict guidelines on how we handle DV - i cant see how that is true.

what i find more depressing for example, is that last week i spent 4 hours with a victim of DV, taking a detailed statement, photographing her injuries, supporting her, preparing reports for other departments to take the case on and offer her support from other organisations.

i got an email 2 days later saying she has retracted her complaint and is back with him, despite the fact he abuses her, abused her baby so she had it taken into care, abused her pet so she got rid of it.

ultimately, sometimes, we are helpless. The CPS will not run low level cases of DV without a victim who is willing to aid prosecution.

sometimes - it all feels like a waste of time. i come home depressed and fed up.

ThatVikRinA22 Wed 03-Oct-12 13:32:48

<purposely ignoring the cop killer aspect cheers for that though.

VintageEbonyGuitar Wed 03-Oct-12 14:57:23

Cheers for what? The police had been unable to do anything about that perpetrator and now two officers are dead.

The incident I saw was low level, what is that woman to do? wait until he's put her in intensive care before she's protected? dead? She's not safe unless he's behind bars but getting that conviction is nigh on impossible.

She has no money, he takes it, he controls everything she does and is so deeply damaged by mind games she can't get out.

A whole different approach is obviously needed.

ThatVikRinA22 Wed 03-Oct-12 16:20:53

was he known for DV?

did you read the part where i said all domestic violence cases go to the CPS or crown prosecution service ??

prosecutions without a victim who is willing to go to court will not run - the CPS will not run them unless its a serious or extreme case.

the decision is not in the hands of the police.

stop blaming the police for something we have absolutely no say in, and i think ti suggest that the police are in some way to blame for the actions of Dale Cregan in killing those officers is fairly reprehensible.

dale cregan is responsible for his actions - no one else.

Jux Wed 03-Oct-12 19:30:36

Vintage, that was really out of order, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Jux Wed 03-Oct-12 19:32:24

Vicar, I think I revived this thread, and I'm sorry I did. I assumed it would just wander off into a discussion about bots...

ThatVikRinA22 Wed 03-Oct-12 19:46:28

jux its fine. smile dont worry.

olgaga Wed 03-Oct-12 20:10:08

Hey come on this is a serious subject. Violence - any kind of violence or abuse - whether in the home or directed at police officers doing their duty is just horrible.

I'm sure we can all agree on that.

My particular interest is in how the family courts seem to brush off domestic abuse as though it is only ever directed at the female "so that's alright then". We see the consequences of that to a greater or lesser extent all the time here and in RL.

I applaud you Vicar for your work, please don't be downcast because people are victims and don't know what the hell to do for the best. Sadly the education and support required is lacking and people like you bear the brunt of it, but please don't give up on victims of abuse - for every one that walks away and can't cope I'm sure there will be many who are really grateful for your help and understanding.

VintageEbonyGuitar Wed 03-Oct-12 20:30:40

I don't have anything to apologise for. I've seen the police walk away from victims, wether you want to believe it or not is your call. There are serious problems somewhere in the system, if the police don't bother with low level stuff it will never see the light of day in the courts and the cps will never have a decision to make and at the end of the day it is the police who have to deal with the perpetrators when they get past low level incidents and go on to murder, wether thats their partner or not.

olgaga Wed 03-Oct-12 20:37:05

Vintage believe me I know where you're coming from - I do believe it I have seen it and even experienced it myself - although thankfully long before I was married and had my own DD.

That's why I'm hoping this will lead to a culture shift which is long overdue. I am shot down everywhere on this website where I have posted this, and my hopes for the future.

You should check out Legal Matters sometime - search for my posts - and see how prejudiced the advice is there - from "proper lawyers" no less - on contact issues.

Some support would be much appreciated.

ThatVikRinA22 Wed 03-Oct-12 20:40:12

i think the remarks on dale cregan were uncalled for.

VintageEbonyGuitar Wed 03-Oct-12 20:41:33

And the perpetrator of the police killings has previous, why wasn't he jailed before? where is the problem? because something is seriously wrong and either the police need to look at where they are failing victims or more needs to be done change the law and sentencing needs to be dealt with.

If perpetrators know they won't be penalised there is nothing to stop them.

avenueone Wed 03-Oct-12 20:43:26

Olgaga talks a lot of sense - I don't shoot you down. I posted something in legal yesterday about the courts being too liberal on past violence and a link to a BBC Today programme podcast. In a previous post I said that the lawyers will stand by points of law they can use to enable them to take on paid for work - all very sad.

ThatVikRinA22 Wed 03-Oct-12 20:43:36

you are seriously not listening to anything i say are you? clearly not.

im wasting my breath and as such im off.

OhDearSpareHeadTwo Wed 03-Oct-12 20:59:22

Not that anyone really gives a shit about victims as long as it is not them it's happening to.

What a load of fucking crap.

I have a domestic rape case on trial at the moment. I went into work on my free day, have spent every single one of my precious mornings off this week sitting in court to support the victim, drove her home in my own car from her hearing today (something I am not supposed to do for reasons of personal safety), have spent hours and hours on the phone with her reassuring her and being her friend when she had a melt down. Clearly the reason for all of the above is because I don't give a shit about victims.

Think before you open your mouth in future.

VintageEbonyGuitar Wed 03-Oct-12 21:33:54

No Vicar you are taking personal offence where none was mentioned.

OhDear, really, and I've often, way to often, seen the complete opposite. I have as much right to open my mouth as you do and I will continue to do so as no one, not you or any one else has the right to stop me. How many rape victims do not report, how many rape victims who do report are then interrogated themselves? or worse?

VintageEbonyGuitar Wed 03-Oct-12 21:37:38

No Vicar you are taking personal offence where none was mentioned.

OhDear, really, and I've often, way to often, seen the complete opposite. I have as much right to open my mouth as you do and I will continue to do so as no one, not you or any one else has the right to stop me. How many rape victims do not report, how many rape victims who do report are then interrogated themselves? or worse?

ThatVikRinA22 Wed 03-Oct-12 21:45:46

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

ThatVikRinA22 Wed 03-Oct-12 22:19:20

that silence is deafening. i am wondering what you actually do that supports these women? what you do?

or is that restricted to sitting behind a computer and typing stuff?

the dale cregan references are disgusting. i hope people read this thread and are equally disgusted with you.

the funerals are being held today and tomorrow.i put my money where my mouth is. i go to domestics. i spend time with victims whether they retract their statements or not, i support them, i listen to them. i spend hours with them.

id like to know what you actually do to help vintage

olgaga Wed 03-Oct-12 22:30:16

Blimey - wholly unnecessary and unedifying bunfight. Very sad.

I don't think anyone was trying to justify the shooting of two police officers!

The points made about the tolerance of domestic abuse do stand though.

That doesn't mean there aren't extremely good officers both in the police and the justice system whose life's work is to deal with it and eradicate it. I applaud them.

I do also understand that many people don't see justice.

The system is certainly not perfect. Can't we all accept that some people have a good experience with the police and criminal justice system, and others - too many - are let down. We must feel for them and understand the resulting, understandable bitterness and sense of isolation.

That doesn't take away from the great work done by dedicated officers in the police and judiciary, who deserve a big "thank you".

Anyway - I'm off to bed. Nitey night all.

VintageEbonyGuitar Wed 03-Oct-12 23:19:40

Sorry I wasn't here to at your demand, I was with my family.

Again you are not listening to what I'm saying and taking out your anger on me. That is very professional.

I said there are serious issues within the system which allow these perpetrators to continue on until a horrific end. What is happening in the system to get to this? As a police officer don't you want to know what can be done to prevent this happening again?

I work with the police and abuse victims Vicar and am one myself. Thanks.

ThatVikRinA22 Wed 03-Oct-12 23:57:52

snap. you think you have the monopoly on abuse? news flash, you dont.

of course i can never understand? - wrong. i was a victim of abuse. i was homeless at 15. i was abused. i clawed my way out. you insult me.

you insult me.

and now im hiding this thread, before i truly say something.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now