Is there a thread about May scraping the law to help abused women throw out their abusive husbands?

[MmeLindt]

I am insenced to read that a scheme to protect women from abusive partners is to be scrapped.

"Go orders" planned for England and wales would give senior police officers to remove an abusive partner from the family home for two weeks and ban him from being within a certain distance to the house.

This would give the woman time to regroup, and seek help.

What a terrible signal to send to abused women.

doubt it would make an abusive man stay away tho...same as a restraining order. and i speak from experience

I agree with you mmelindt.

Some of the comments after that article are frightening.

Jesus, the comments!

I don't know enough about it, ILoveTiffany, but I have seen enough threads on MN where women are forced, for their safety and the safety of their children, to leave the family home.

leaving the family home is a good thing tho....very easy when the abusive partner is removed,to then sink back into the 'well,it wasnt so bad,i can stick with him for longer' mindset. that happened to me....my ex was removed from our married quarter...i caved in.

then the next time i went to a hostel...and never looked back....being in a new setting really helped with seeing a new future...

i can understand some women wanting to stay put tho....but what happens after 2 weeks?? its not even long enough for a benefit claim to come through....

I think the idea is just to give the women a bit of breathing space.

then if its just for breathing space,i agree,wasre of money and resources

One of the examples given is that the police are called out to a house because of DV. There is not enough evidence for them to arrest the partner so all they can do is put him out of the house. He is then free to sit outside on a wall for an hour then go back into the house.

It is not just about breathing space, I meant that the two weeks gives a woman time to arrange things, decide what she wants to do.

Why should a man who has just abused his partner be allowed to go straight back into the house and intimidate her and continue to weaken her resolve, her self-esteem.

thats bloody awful,have experience of this situation and its tough enough without them withdrawing this service

god all these cuts in public service is really begining to frighten/annoy me,at thios rate there wont be any services left

i think in general all these cuts across the board isnt quite how it came across in the budget,since then their going mad on everything,sure there using crap economy to to slash everything blaming all on economy

im now on a rant

he'd go back anyway mmelindt...if he's abusive in the first place then how will this stop him....its just an order....like an harassment order or any other,passed by a court. men like this dont stop because police or a court says so (am ex police,half the time the women didnt press charges and other half the abuser did leave then return later)

if its serious abuse,and would imagine so if the higher ranks have to approve each individual case,then the woman left in the house would surely be too uneasy to use the time to leave....if he's so dangerous,then she needs to leave....a man not allowed to return to his home is likely to be angry beyond belief.

just my thoughts,i realise each case is different

This is a tragedy if they do scrap it.

IF the police are able to take the decision out of the womans hands then they should.

This order would mean that the police could tell the man he was not allowed back to teh house for a period. It stops him being released from custody the following morning just to return and beg forgivness. The woman doesn't necessarily want him back but she doesn't have the courage/energy/willpower to fight him. she lets him back in. the cycle continues.

This is a terrible terrible message to send to DV victims

It is good to hear all sides of the argument, Tiffany, and of course all situations are different.

May is right to scrap it.
I don't know how many times this has to be said, but if a person owns a property they OWN it. You can't just chuck them out of it.

This law would mean that a woman (or man) could make a malicious claim of abuse against their partner and, because I suspect the police would wish to err on side of caution, they'd have the authority to chuck the "abuser" out.
Not on at all.

I think people have forgotten that "property" actually has meaning in this country.

And as IloveTIFFANY points out above, a person who is forced out of their own home is going to be very angry about it.

I think it far, far better to provide more refuges for women to escape to.

I don't see what 'breathing space' a woman whose partner has been forced out of the home because of domestic violence can have, anyway.

If he is a violent nutter, then surely she'd be on tenterhooks waiting for him to come back?

If she's made up the allegation of abuse, she should STILL be on tenterhooks because a man forced out of his home when he's done nothing wrong isn't going to be happy about it.
I'm not saying he'd become violent towards her but if he goes crazy because of it, who can blame him?

Agree with you here marantha....... For once lol!!

IloveTIFFANY Hang on, I'm sure we were in agreement about something else a while ago.

I reread my posts and thought, Crikey- I'm not being sympathetic, but it's not that I'm heartless- it's just that this 'Go order' thing wouldn't work in practice.

GiddyPickle I hadn't thought of that, but you're right- if it applies equally, then an abusive partner could use it as a threat. Talk about unintended consequences!

Surely creating more refuges is a better answer? At least women could be around others who could help them and offer a degree of protection.

If you live with someone you are beating up, generally she owns the property with you and her right to be safe in her own home (and those of her children) trump temporary suspension of enjoyment of your own property IMO.

I would like to know on what basis May is scrapping this. Somebody said they don't think these orders work; but there must be real data out there, that tell us whether they do or not.

I'm all in favour of them building more refuges, but there has been no announcement that along with scrapping this scheme, the government is going to open a whole load more refuges in order to provide safety for women and children in an alternative manner, have they?

What alternative method of ensuring women and children's safety in their own home, has Teresa May suggested?

not the case always herb......i was in a married quarter....the soldier is the tennant in that case....i had NO right to stay,but the senior NCO made him go to barracks.....he still tried breaking in tho and i had to call out the welfare officer to remove him...

also,private rented....man isnt always joint owner/tenant

i think its more about giving the police more power...courts are time consuming with long waits etc....

"If you live with someone you are beating up, generally she owns the property with you and her right to be safe in her own home (and those of her children) trump temporary suspension of enjoyment of your own property IMO.
"

But surely the problem is, as stated above, situations where there is not enough evidence to arrest or prosecute them. In that situation the husband has not technically committed any abuse in the eyes of the law so you'd be on shaky legal ground to exclude him from his own home without a trial or judgment?
Ireland has had similar problems with DV laws but now it is possible to get temporary ex-parte barring orders until a trial can be arranged but even they have started to come under criticism due to the vague nature of the legislation and what the standard of proof required is.
Is it civil or criminal? As the rights over here are based on the constitutional rights many feel it should be the criminal standard of beyond all reasonable doubt in which case the scenario outlined above (not enough evidence etc) would not meet this criteria.

No agree, not always the case, but in the vast majority of cases the couple will be joint tenants or joint householders.

I think property rights should not trump the right to be safe in the home in which you live.

2 weeks isn't forever. It's extremely inconvenient, but it's nowhere near as inconvenient as being terrorised in your own home.

It is pretty shocking that the safety of women and children, is a target for spending cuts. If that isn't a priority, WTF are we doing bothering to have a society at all.

I don't have a problem per se with them cutting this scheme as I don't know if it works or not - but the fact that they have cut it without offering an alternative to protect women and children, is a fucking disgrace.

Women should be marching in the streets about this.

HerBeatitude , Sorry, disagree with you there- remember, no actual crime has to be committed here. It would all be on the say-so of a woman who claimed she'd been abused and a senior police officer. I think most police would err on side of caution and have man removed to cover themselves. That way they could avoid criticism in event of woman being killed.

Now, if an actual crime has been committed, fair enough, but the point is this would allow the police to go on a 'hunch'.

Sorry, this is just not right.

Only in new labour world do they actually think that perpertrators of domestic violence will 'run along like good little boys and not come near the house again if told not to'.
The idea of 'breathing space' is completely laughable. A woman would be lying there terrified that her abuser would return in the early hours. Typical new labour Cloud cuckoo
land idea this was.

i wonder about the statistics of dv being committed by those in the forces???

with married quarters...

i wonder,simply because the armed forces have 2 proper hostels kitted out fully with accomadation for women and children with their own fully trained staff....

how many employers need this facility?