Will you be running a police check on your partner?

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Clare's Law article Making it possible to check up on partners. Groups such as Refuge and Liberty are opposed to the change. Will you be taking advantage of it when it comes in?

I have been married for far too long.
If I weren't, I would seriously consider doing it.

After being through domestic abuse I would. I came very close to losing my life so something like Clare's law could have helped me.

But......would I have actually used it in reality? You don't think anyone is capable of violence until it is too late.

Lots of people adopt the 'it won't happen to me' attitude so they might not use it anyway.

I am unsure of how much use it will be in reality.

My thoughts exactly UtterlyButterly. 'It won't happen to me'. New partners are usually on best behaviour at the start. If you have enough doubts to warrant running a police check, wouldn't you just end the relationship anyway? And what happens if the new partner is violent but hasn't actually been convicted of anything?

I think they have a point - most abuse is not known to the police. Most people wouldn't check up anyway. Abusers don't tend to like people digging around in their personal history, which means that the people they tend to pick are not the kind to go digging, or the ones who can be easily persuaded out of it with a "if you don't trust me now what's the point?" Even if you did check up, abusers tend to be good at explaining things away and persuading you that everyone is out to get them, and it's not their fault. Especially if you are a nice, kind, trusting, benefit-of-the-doubt type person, which is who abusers tend to go for.

I think that it is a good thing if it saves even one person, but I do agree with Refuge that police would do better to improve their response rates to DV rather than campaigns like this which sound great but don't do much in practice.

DH and I both have to have enhanced CRB checks done because of our jobs (I'm in nursery, DH drives children to and from school sometimes as a mini cab driver) so this wouldn't bother me.

it's a ridiculous idea.

Firstly, no conviction doesn't mean not violent. It's a bit like the crb argument - just because someone has a clear crb doesn't mean they're not a child abuser, it just means they haven't been caught. And realistically, how many women press charges against their violent partners?

Secondly, it's hardly a good basis for starting a relationship, is it? It has nothing to do with the "It won't happen to me," argument, it has to do with judgement. If you feel you need to check out someone's past history, you clearly have trust issues. I have nothing to hide, but if I were to get into a new relationship and I discovered that the bloke had made his judgements on me according to whether or not I checked out legally I would run a mile. It's just not a good basis for a healthy relationship, and let's be honest, there are a lot more non violent people out there who deserve to not be viewed with suspicion based on what their peers get up to.

As much as I sympathize with Clare Wood's parents, I do wonder whether this has more to do with their own sense of guilt than anything else. presumably she knew he was violent before he killed her, murder is rarely the first point of violent contact, and while she obviously might not have found it so easy to leave the relationship at that point, I imagine that the parents must be wondering what they could have done to prevent it from happening, but since they weren't able to, they're lashing out at the authorities and trying to shout for unrealistic laws, laws which probably wouldn't have protected their daughter anyway.

Crazy. Where will it end? Personally if any woman I was dating decided she needed to have a background check run on me then it would be a dumpable offence.

I've been married a long time so would have no need of this but I think it is a good idea. It's opening up an option and as long as people are aware of its limitations then having that choice is positive.

If I were to be entering a new relationship I think I would use this although I'm not so sure I would have been so inclined before having children and feeling responsible for the people I introduce into their lives. I would be equally happy if a partner of mine wanted to check me out, it's no different to the parents with children in my care wanting to minimise risks by running a CRB.

"it's no different
to the parents with children in my care wanting to minimise risks by running a CRB." What an utterly ridiculous statement. It is entirely different. parents who put their children in the care of someone such as a cm/nursery are employing those individuals to care for their children. It's a business arrangement. A relationship is not.

As for people being quite happy for someone to check them out, really? I have nothing to hide, but I would be bloody insulted if a potential partner wanted to see if I had any criminal convictions prior to embarking on any kind of relationship with me. Either you trust someone and feel right about them, or you don't. And if it doesn't feel right, then you shouldn't need proof of a conviction to make it so - you just move on, surely? And what then of the potential partners that come back clear but are violent - are you going to go with them on the basis they have no convictions? or on the basis that, you know, you like them and think there's potential there?

complete and utter insanity IMO.

I dated a guy who turned out to be on the Sex Offender's Register for kiddy porn. I found this out by googling his name (when I finally worked out his real surname) The wpc I spoke to afterwards, when he was harrassing me after dumping him, recommended I get a safeguarding check done on anyone I was getting serious with, before they met my kids etc. This guy 'seemed' lovely, caring, couldnt do enough for me, would come round and do my garden/washing/ironing/clean my car. I trusted him. It DID feel right. But I still shudder at the thought that he was in the house with my two daughters and my toddler grandson.

I don't think it's a subject i would bring up on a first date, but sorry, I do not want a sex offender or someone convicted of DV in my life. I owe myself, and my kids that much at least.

and what about the non convicted sex offenders? and those violent people who have never had a conviction for dv?

You see, it creates a complete false sense of security.

Your convicted sex offender was once not a convicted sex offender. The guy convicted of domestic violence was violent to someone before he was convicted.

Had the man not been convicted you would have continued to trust him. Had you carried out a police check and there were no convictions you would have continued to trust him - on the basis there were no convictions. And then what?

"I found this out by googling his name "

Something must have prompted you to do that. You must have had some suspicions. And how did you find out he hadn't given you his real name?

yes quite.

It would never occur to me to google someone I might become involved with - or even my friends for that matter. Someone (who I knew online) googled me once and found a newspaper article about me - then contacted me to tell me he knew where I lived. (my street address was in the article). Fwiw he wasn't someone I distrusted, and that information wasn't necessarily something I wouldn't have let him have at some point, but I felt somewhat uneasy that he would have googled in the first place. Just why?

Does it extend to new female partners too??

Anyone you get into a relationship with, male or female. How you demonstrate you're in a relationship rather than just curious about them, however, is unclear. And it also brings up the possibility that if you're not in a relationship & thinking of meeting someone for the first or second time, you wouldn't be able to check them out beforehand. I think it's one of those ideas that like 'Sarah's Law' sounds good but probably won't have much application in practice.

I wouldn't be at all offended if someone wanted to get me checked out, why would I?

I think it's a sensible thing to do. Firstly I need to protect myself as much as possible because my children have no-one else to care for them if anything happens to me and secondly I wouldn't want to bring anyone abusive into my children's lives. I know that a lot of abuse isn't known to the police and I can't do anything about that BUT if I can find out then I will.

Like most things, the principle is fine...sort of. It's when human's start to use it, is when it all falls down.

Like Cogito says, how do I prove I'm in a relationship with someone? When am I allowed to run a check? Let's say I am a single mum and I meet a guy at a bar. I snog him. Am I in a relationship? Should I be allowed to run a check now before I introduce him to my kids? If not why not? Do I have to sleep with him first? Or somehow prove I've been seeing him for a month...perhaps 6 months? A year? Two? Isn't the latter too late?

What evidence do I have to produce to prove I am having a relationship with said person? If none, whats the stop me from running random checks on a guy I happen to not like but is going out with my say.....sister/BF/auntie/cousin/whoever? Surely we should be entitled to some privacy?

Just what are the police allowed to tell the requestor without infringing on his rights to privacy? Let's say I beat my previous GF up. Are police allowed to say "He beat his exGF up." or can they only say "He has a conviction for assault".

Regardless, if I was an abuser I'd lie my arse off anyway. I'd claim it was all a big misunderstanding. She was crazy, the police made a mistake. She lied to get me back and I was done up like a kipper.

Abusers are highly manipulative. I can see it already with someone I know (fortunately not that well). Her new 'partner' is slowly isolating her from friends & family and making him the centre of her world. It doesn't matter what the few people she sees says. She won't believe them anyway and will simply take what he says as truth. Eventually she'll believe she's lucky to have him in her life as noone else cares about her. Police background check? If him having 9 kids with 6 different mothers and a 20+ year age gap isn't enough of a red flag, i doubt a little report from the police will have any impact at all.

In short, fine in theory. In practice I fear it's full of holes and open to abuse.

I find Clare's law as populist and pointless as Sarah's law, Megan's law etc. From what I've read there's no evidence that laws like that prevent crimes, and if anything my suspicion is that they can easily lead to false security.

It's a new tool, the way people will use it in everyday life and relationships will grow to be defined by society. At present, if someone felt the need to check me out, I might feel a bit miffed, if in the future it becomes the norm, that changes things. I can't really see how different it is from getting STD tests after being with a new partner.
Yes, you need to ask the partner to have an STD test and have them agree, unlike the new checks, but if you don't feel you can ask a partner for a test like that, I'd say that you don't need any tests and you just need to leave.

The new checks won't help with sex offenders-to-be or those who have eluded justice, it will still do some good, if it helps one person avoid a hellish situation, it's a good thing. Just because a check comes back with nothing bad on it does not mean that you have to completely let your guard down. Understand the system, take every advantage you can and keep on using the grey wedge between your ears.

Er, no.

Although I do have an ex whose record would make for some interesting reading, I'm sure.

Only convictions will show, surely? Rather than complaints, logs of threats, NFA cases etc. What are conviction rates like for dv at the moment?

"It would never occur to me to google someone I might become involved with - or even my friends for that matter. Someone (who I knew online) googled me once"
You should google yourself to see what information there is out there about you. You might not give out your surname or other identifying information so readily then!

"Does it extend to new female partners too??"
Why wouldn't it? In fact, perhaps people should be able to check for any conviction - such as fraud to prevent gold digging?

"What evidence do I have to produce to prove I am having a relationship with said person? If none, whats the stop me from running random checks on a guy I happen to not like but is going out with my say.....sister/BF/auntie/cousin/whoever? Surely we should be entitled to some privacy?"
The person who is the subject of the check would have to provide their consent, as they currently do with CRB's. That would prevent you carrying out a check on anyone you liked.

"I can't really see how different it is from getting STD tests after being with a new partner."

They aren't the norm, surely?

STD tests are a different beast I think (and I'd say the wise thing is to have them before having unprotected sex with a new partner, not after), as there is no implicit accusation of anything in checking for an infection.

I suppose I can just about see a scenario where someone has been abused a number of times and told each time it will be the last, that it's the victim's own fault, etc. And goes to the police to discover the abuser has a history of violence and thus it isn't the last time and isn't the victim's own fault. But it seems evident even just from reading Mumsnet that achieving that breakthrough with an abuse victim is very, very hard to do. And some are already aware of the previous history but this is put down to 'a short temper' or 'a lot of stress'.

I feel deeply sorry for Clare Wood's parents, and for all relatives of those harmed by domestic violence, who must think - as I do when reading such threads on MN - why don't you just leave? Just get the hell out and get away. But it is never that simple. I would rather the money was spent on helping the victims of abuse recover sufficient self-esteem and clarity of thought that they know they did not cause the hurt and do not deserve it. And with providing them sufficient practical support that they do get away and stay away.

I googled him because he was a bit evasive about certain things in conversation. Also he said his children still had the same surname as him after his divorce, and then I saw a school certificate for his son which had a different surname - the surname I googled. It rang alarm bells, I mean, why would you not answer a simple question like that truthfully?

Yes, there must be plenty of people, male and female, guilty but not charged for many offences, but if I have the means at my disposal to check up on someone, for mine and my childrens' safety, then I will.