Claire's Law

[Jac1978]

You now have the right to find out if your partner has had a conviction for domestic violence or been accused of it. What about men who have been falsely accused or those who have reformed? Would it lead to a false sense of security if you didn't find any violent history or do the benefits t

Or do the benefits outweigh the problems?

Something I've picked upon mumsnet is the often insidious nature of DV, starts off slow with a comment or two slowly eroding self esteem. Carrying on until you feel so small that some days you wish you could just vanish/ you honestly believe it's your fault that your abuser is assaulting you. Maybe there's somewhere in the middle that they could check a list and think it's not me it's him/ her and they've done this before. It's got to be worth a try.

If my DH was a reformed wife-beater I'd like to know about it I'm not sure the personality defect that causes someone to abuse the person who they're supposed to love and cherish and protect ever really disappears. I'm not sure what to do about false accusations, I really don't know how often it occurs. I'm sure that there are an awful lot of men will be busy explaining how their ex was a psycho/ liar regardless.

I don't have a problem with it as long as it is genuinely 'partner' and not just 'man.'

My father has a huge problem with it, but then that would be because my mother had to get a non molestation order and a few other bits and piece before he left her alone. I'm not sure I give a shit what he thinks - you make your bed etc etc.

I think it could be a good thing. As long as people don't view it the same way they view the CRB. That if you have a CRB it means you have never done anything ever. no. It just means you have never been caught. Not the same thing at all.

So yes, false sense of security is a possibility.

Far better to support women and help them, from childhood, to understand what an abusive relationship is, how to spot the warning signs and to never ever stay ! Get the hell out. None of this 'give him a chance' stuff.

and have the resources available to enable that to happen safely. Since women are most at risk when they are trying to leave.

And finally, the most important thing, the really big, vital thing - educate boys from childhood about what an abuser is and to not BE ONE!

Simply having a list that women can access is not enough. It's being seen to do something rather than doing something.

And it's yet another example of making the responsibility the woman's. Woman check list not man don't abuse.

and I've just realised I started off with how it's a good thing and then described how it's not

I mean it might do some good as part of a much bigger and much better and more long term initiative.

But just who would look and use this list? I think the question to ask is what what you do if your partner/husband or a friend/daughter etc partner apears on the list?

I just think that DV doesn't work in isolation - there are also facilitators and victims .... And as Hecate says in her post, education is key rather than a list.

What exactly too would warrant inclusion on the list? There will always be innocents and those who should and aren't included on any list

It's very limited. My ex wouldn't be on that list but I divorced him citing emotional abuse and he's a nasty bastard women should steer clear of.

I don't think it will be of much use. At the start of a relationship when it's all about optimism and love, how many are seriously going to do background checks? And, if you're the one being checked up on, how are you going to react when you find out you're effectively being CRB'd by the new partner and discover that they don't trust you? Many times, the victims in DV situations not only don't look for signs or listen to warnings but don't act, even when they directly experience violence themselves. Violent people often seek out the type of partner who they can dominate, influence & control ... making it even less likely they'll be checked up on. I worry that, as well as the false security problem, the fact that it's there means a kind of caveat emptor situation happens.

I do think that the idea that a man can have a history of violence against women can just go to a different area and get a new girlfriend and she will not be warned in any way is wrong. It just feels wrong. If the authorities know someone is potentially dangerous then they have a duty to protect the public I'd have thought.

While this new law may not be perfect at least it is something I suppose.

I wrote a
\link{http://attheheartoftheopinion.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/claires-law-would-you-check-out.html\blog post}
about this when it first appeared in the news.

In truth so few women report domestic abuse that actually, it's highly unlikely that you would know whether your partner was a potential abuser before the time.

Added to that the fact that if you are about to enter into a loving relationship, it doesn't exactly promote trust if you then decide to check someone out to make sure they're not violent first.

Surely if you meet someone, you get on and you want to continue a relationship with them, you wouldn't feel the need to check them out for a violent past? I have nothing to hide and yet I would have a problem with a potential future partner doing background checks on me before committing to a relationship with me.

"If the authorities know someone is potentially dangerous then they have a duty to protect the public I'd have thought."

'The authorities' are still not going to knock on the door of every violent person, see if there's a boy/girlfriend in residence and then sit them down for a chat. If this law happens, it means that the onus is on the new boy/girlfriend to do the research. If they check up and the new partner gets the all clear that might not tell the full story. And if they fail to check up and get injured how long before that gets classed as taking a calculated risk?

It would be good if the authorities did do that though.
in the absence of them doing that, this at least is something.

Hideous legislation that allows people to snoop into the business and history of others the majority of whom are law-abiding citizens.

Who else can access the list? What about parents who are worried about their adult children's partners, or children who are suspicious of a new step parent? GPs? Does the person who is on the list know that s/he is on it? Do you stay on it for life, or after 3 or 5 years does your slate get wiped clean?

I imagine there would be the same problems with this list as with any personal data held by the govt, police or any other organisation. How secure is it? How accurate is it?

On the whole, though, I think it's a good idea that the list exists. Even if someone doesn't check it before entering a relationship, if things start falling apart s/he would be able to look it up, and might then see it in a different light if the partner has form for domestic violence.

But it can't go on a list if it isn't reported. So much domestic violence is never reported. That's the real challenge.

Yes I think other people with a genuine reason eg parents can ask.
And it's not a "list" - I think they get a request and look to see if there is anything in that person's past to suggest that he might be dangerous.
TBH I don't think that people who the authorities think are dangerous should be released and out forming relationships full stop but that's how it is.

Educate boys and girls what abuse is and not to do it. Women hit men too without being hit first or provocation.