Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

DV: Advice from someone who turned their R around (so worth it)

4 replies

Abitwobblynow · 06/02/2012 04:19

This is an extract from KIM COOPER's book 'Through the Looking Glass' It is available on download and you search narcissismcured.com The comment at the end is from her now-grown-up husband explaining things from his point of view and what her behaviour did for him.

Step 4. If he is Intimidating Call The Police
Again, when you call the police, don?t expect miracles or be overly emotional with them. If they ask what you want them to do, say, ?I want you to tell him what the consequences will be if he continues to intimidate/threaten/assault me.? If he runs away when the police come, you can still talk to them and make sure it is on record and that he knows you reported it. Still, you need to insist that they talk to him directly about the consequences of his behaviour. While they are talking to you, try to do it out of his earshot but where he can still see you, so he is left wondering what has been said. (Say, ?Can I talk to you over there?? and point to where you want to move the conversation). This is a really important point that the police taught me. One officer talked to me for twenty minutes, leaving Steve waiting where he could see us. He said, ?See, he is wondering now what we are talking about and let him wonder!?
You need to let him know that you will not tolerate emotional or physical intimidation and that he is going to have to deal with the consequences, not you. If you have already gone in to the police and spoken to the head of D.V. (domestic violence) it will help a lot. Just knowing this person?s name will make the police attending respect you better. In my case I got an AVO (apprehended violence order) on Steve (where he could still remain living with us) and this was very worthwhile. This was in Australia and I don?t know if they have something similar where you live but I hope so. Once the order is in place, if he intimidates or hits you again, he will go straight to jail. If he needs to go to jail to see you are serious about this boundary, so be it. You mustn?t try and protect him from the consequences of his bad behaviour.
The court brought us back three times on the assault charge that precipitated the order. I found this frustrating, but in retrospect it was important. Each time they said Steve was not ready and had to prepare better. This taught him that his bad treatment of me was more serious than he had thought. The male judge and police officers in the court room looked very disapproving and that helped too! Many men who mistreat their wives grew up with men who did the same, so Steve seeing these men who were respected and in authority really disapproved of his behaviour was a big wake up call. Their disapproval really sunk in and made a big change in him. The judge also thanked me for my time and even commented how nicely groomed I was. This might have been because I had made the effort to make friends with the police, but whatever reason it was a very good day for me. They made me feel very solid, strong and supported and showed Steve he was on shaky ground.
Some men whose wives assault them do not feel they can get the police to help. If this is your situation, I think it is important that you do. You do not have to play victim in court or with the police, but instead you might want to say that you are concerned about her behaviour and that she needs to learn it is not okay and that you do not want to be forced to restrain her or play policeman in your own home. The truth is that women, just like men, can be very scary and dangerous when they are violent.
The AVO helped us because Steve then knew that if he intimidated, threatened or hurt me again (and in his case one of the provisions of the order was that he could not drink at home or
16
come home if he had been drinking) and I decided to call the police, he would be put straight in jail. This was important. He learned that he no longer had the upper hand and was not going to get away with sweet-talking anyone anymore. The power balance was now swinging in my favour.
If you can get a provision like this (that he can?t come home if he has been drinking, or something very easy to prove) in the AVO, it is really good, then it is not about the police taking sides. Once the AVO is in place, if you call and he is at home and has been drinking, he gets locked up, that?s it, no telling stories. He does not have the chance to charm anyone or provoke a fight, or confabulate and confuse things. I would still let Steve drink, but he knew there was a line in place and what would happen if he crossed it.
Fortunately, I never had to have Steve put in jail, but that was only because he knew I would call without hesitation if he ever tried to intimidate me again.
This will be a big disincentive to your partner continuing to disrespect you, but you have to be prepared to go through with it. Again, the only reason I didn?t have to have Steve put in jail was because he saw without a doubt I would do it. This is really important - as threats won?t work, he has to know you mean it, and that will probably involve you having the police over a few times. Don?t call them as a threat or because you are angry, call them if you feel you need protection. The sooner you do this and the calmer you are about it (?Honey, I don?t know how to handle you when you are like this so I think I am going to need to get the police here to talk to you?) the more effective this will be. You might also choose to quietly call first, then explain this, or he may try to stop you.
He might tell you he is not in control of his behaviour, but I am telling you that he only intimidates or puts people down who he thinks are weaker than he is. He?s not insulting big guys in bars, he makes decisions about who he can get away with this behaviour with. You need to become the wrong person for him to pick on.
This was quite troubling for me. The experience of court was horrible. I realised that I had made a terrible mistake and that the law was there to punish me. The D.V. officer from the police explained the terms of my Apprehended Violence Order and they were that I was to obey the terms or be thrown in jail. His words were simple and matter of fact, ?Prison is a tough place to survive.? That was enough for me, but I DID need to be told. Kim was sad the day we went to court, I could see that she was very disappointed that our relationship had come to this, but she kept a brave face and knew she was doing the right thing. This experience I will remember forever, and I cannot ever have my conviction for ?common assault? overturned. Society, through a magistrate, was able to make a statement to me that my behaviour was unacceptable. I had crossed a boundary that I obviously had no respect for. Steve

RebeccaMumsnet · 08/02/2012 10:50

Hi all,

Thank you to all who have reported this thread to us.

We wanted to remind you all that we tend not to delete posts on the grounds that they might cause offence (unless they are making a direct personal attack or actually breaking the law).

However, we do delete personal attacks as we ask members to respect each other's opinions even if they don't agree with them.

Having said that, we do respond to reports and if folks are posting to inflame then we will mail them.

Please do read our Talk guidelines.

HelenMumsnet · 10/02/2012 09:58

@BasilRathbone

Wot Edam said.

MN's stance on sexism and the Kens of the world, is woeful. What he is posting, is basically hate speech.

But if any of us point out what he is, we are breaking the guidelines.

No, BasilRathbone, you would not be breaking the guidelines to post that you think Ken's post are full of hate speak.

But if you point that out with a personal attack or an accusation of deliberate trollery, then you are breaking our guidelines.

And please remember, we don't necessarily see any posts (there are over 25,000 of them every day) unless you report them to us. We're very happy to delete any post that break our guidelines (and posting hatefully sexist stuff would break our guidelines) but we do need to be made aware of it first.

HelenMumsnet · 10/02/2012 10:15

@swallowedAfly

ok so now you are aware please could you look into kens posting history and decide whether we are to be subjected to more of his hate speech.

You can take that as read, swallowedAfly.

Anyone who is reported to us as someone who may be deliberately posting to inflame would be looked into. And, if we thought that was the case, they would at the very least, get a stern mail from us reminding them of our Talk Guidelines and asking them to change the tone of their posts. If they ignored our mail, or continue to post in the same way (or both), they would be banned.

HelenMumsnet · 10/02/2012 10:29

@BasilRathbone

But what if it is blindingly obvious that someone is actually trolling? Do you ever let people know that someone they suspected was a troll, actually was one? If not why not? (That's not a demand, just curiosity)

And another question: what's the definition of "hatefully sexist" as opposed to just common or garden sexist and does something have to be hatefully sexist to be deleted, how many times does someone have to post something (hatefully) sexist before they get banned, are they allowed to post common or garden (as opposed to hateful) sexist stuff and if so, are people allowed to post common or garden racist stuff or do they have to post "hatefully racist stuff" before they get banned?

I really think that the rules need to be a bit clearer.

No, we very rarely confirm that someone is trolling. Partly because we very very occasionally get it wrong Blush and unban people (which would be hideous for them if we'd actually publicly announced they were a troll) and partly because it would probably only give the troll an extra glow of satisfaction ? they're here to attract loads of attention, wind everyone up and cause mayhem, after all. A quiet ban is so much more disappointing, we feel.

OK, re the "hatefully sexist" thing. We said that to differentiate the deliberately sexist statement from the jesty, very MNy "all men are useless fuckwits for not doing the ironing" kind of statement.

And there's no "rule" on how often a person has to post something hatefully sexist (or any other statement that breaks our guidelines) before they are banned. It depends on a whole variety of factors, including the nature, tone and extent of their deleted posts and their posting history as a whole to their response (or lack of) to our mails.

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates

End of posts

There are no more MNHQ posts on this thread