'Nagging Wife' arrested for controlling behaviour

[TransposersArePosers]

This story in the Daily Mail has made me really cross. Yorkshire again, but North Yorkshire this time. I agree with her comment below - although whether she was 'nagging' only she knows. (But then who decides - the person who is being repeatedly asked, or the person who does the repeated asking when earlier requests fall on deaf ears?)

She said: 'These laws were brought in to help protect vulnerable people who are suffering in relationships - not to prosecute nagging wives. It's outrageous this ever got to court'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7186111/Catterick-woman-58-arrested-controlling-behaviour-asking-husband-help-home.html

I posted before I'd read the full article - I have to say that as a couple they don't sound particularly well suited.

And surely steroids and testosterone could change a person's character?

Then again the article has Valerie at both 4'10" and 5'5" so perhaps not the most accurately reported!

Still makes me cross, though.

I do feel repeatedly mentioning his weight detracted from the article.

Being controlled is nothing to do with your weight or size.

Is this the modern version of the device to stop nagging wives?

Hopefully there was more to it. But I was concerned to see an information poster about the coercive control offence, which showed a woman texting her boyfriend repeatedly. I think it’s quite unhelpful to use that as the typical case. I am sure many women can be controlling but it seems that the offence has tended to be defined as ‘nagging’ when that’s not what was intended when it was created.

We have a family joke that nagging is when someone has to repeat a reasonable request (because they're being ignored).

Using the word nagging, wasn't helpful (even though she used it herself), but she may well have been controlling.
Anyway, the case collapsed.
And what has it being Yorkshire got to do with anything?

"In 2018 Jobcentre staff called in the police after 16st Mr Sanders, a former prison officer who was made redundant but started working in a gym, said he felt low and he blamed his home life during a routine check on his new job".

Really? Job centre staff do that kind of thing? What is their remit exactly?

I thought it was to make people feel bad about not working enough, not to make people feel better about going to work.

Jeez, seriously worrying that coercive control laws can be used to arrest women who won't put up with lazy, self-obsessed husbands.

*Valerie Sanders, 58, said that she begged her bodybuilder husband Michael, also 58, to clean the patio doors, hoover their home and workout less as well as stop shopping at Aldi or Lidl.

She also claims that he took steroids - killing their sex life - and couldn't bear to touch his muscly body saying: 'It was like cuddling an ironing board'.*

So she was potentially controlling him.....who knows if the demands to do housework were reasonable or controlling, the type where the victim is required to clean for hours on end.

She also complained about no sex and hating his body, if a man badgered a woman for sex it would be seen as abuse.

The jobcentre noticed he was growing more depressed and got him support, sounds like they have a protocol for recognising when someone is vulnerable which can only be a good thing.

The fact she has a restraining order against her for 2 years shows she has done wrong, even if it could not be proved criminally.

coercive control laws can be used to arrest women who won't put up with lazy, self-obsessed husbands.

K.

Then we start supporting women to line up ducks and LTB at high speed. While also supporting women to not bother getting involved with lazy, self obsessed males in the first place. The rate of women willing to sign up for this shit is dropping annually.

Which is what pissed the incels off to start with, and pushed the incel thinking behind the mis use of this law.

I feel there’s more to the article than meets the eye. My neighbours have a relationship that I feel borders on abusive. She’s constantly shouting at him for minor things and although he works full time, every minute he’s at home he’s gardening, cleaning or doing DIY. Poor guy is in his 60s and looks exhausted.

I can imagine it’s incredibly difficult to get this kind of case anywhere near a court and the fact it got this far shows that her behaviour was being taken very seriously.

There are people who control in an abusive way among both sexes, unlike violence I think its not heavily weighted one way. I think nagging is the wrong word for it but I am sure that is how people often talk about it.

I'm not sure the law can really deal with that sort of thing though.

Jesus Christ. So you can be taken to court now for not allowing yourself to be some blokes maid.
This does it I am never living with another man again.
Where is my scolds bridle?

Saw that too. Obviously men will never take advantage of any laws protecting women...

I think if someone is controlling to the point it affects their victim’s mental I think we’ve pretty much hit abuse territory. Wether the victim is a man or a woman is immaterial.

I agree we can't say that a small woman can't be controlling towards her bodybuilder husband. Coercive control is not a physical thing.

However I agree with the woman when she said this law is there to protect vulnerable people who are being terribly treated not people who are having marriage disagreements. If it is not used in a serious manner this protection will be lost.

That law was brought in specifically to protect women. This isn't the first time such a law has been turned against us.

@SarahPickles

That law was brought in specifically to protect women.

Funny because I can’t find that anywhere in the legislation. Perhaps that’s because it was brought in to protect those being abused whatever sex they are.

I do think there is a lot more to this story than meets the eye, but as I said in the OP I hadn't read the whole story when I started the thread.

I believe job centres in Australia receive govt grants for each court placed in work, the larger portion paid when a client is placed in work due to the agency's efforts, and the balance payed after the isn't has stayed in that job for a certain period of time. So they're "investigated" to provide support -initial travel costs, clothing, mobile phone if necessary, and counselling to support the client to adjust from long-term unemployment to full-time work.

As to the bloke's depression, was he depressed because he was being a used and exploited, or was he having a big sad because his wife was becoming fed up with a man-toddler who thought cleaning up after himself and skin his share of work in maintaining the home they shared was "helping out the wife"? Is he an abusive individual who lost the plot when he felt he was losing control?

Sorry, I mean, control of her.

Her complaint about his body seems pretty weird. I understand her distaste and of course steroids are bad for you, but that does not sound like a woman being controlled by her husband.

I think it’s prudent to default to believe the victim, absent more comprehensive information.

It's more likely steroid use was making him depressed than being asked to run round with the Dyson now and again.

The fact is that women can be controlling. Small women can be controlling of large men. It's also true that some men are lazy and some would happily misuse a law to "get their own back".

There's not enough information on this case to know which, if any, apply so it seems pointless pearl clutching.

I've definitely witnessed an abusive relationship where a small woman berated and belittled a big man to the point of breakdown. Just like I've seen a relationship where a small man badgered and broke his big wife. You can't assume anything here without detail.