Philip Davies MP tables men's right activist amendments to the Domestic Abuse Bill

[Jeanhatchet]

Please write to your MP to object. Philip Davies MP has tabled many amendments including removing economic abuse https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0096/amend/domesticrmmpbc0428.1-7.html

Bit off topic, but I’ve just finished reading ‘Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race’ (would highly recommend btw) and Philip Davies makes an appearance in there, complaining about the BBCs plans to increase representation of POC on screen, because ‘if I have a white working class constituent who wants that opportunity....why should they be deprived because you’ve set this politically correct targets’. So it looks like he’s one of those ‘straight, white men are so oppressed’ guys.

Good grief! If he were my MP, I think I'd have to move out of the electorate.

How are people actually voting for him? Those poor people need a better choice of candidates next time around!

"Relative" suggests proportionality to me, not absolute numbers.

That could be protective for women, if it's the case that women who do things like maim or kill spouses are more likely to be prosecuted than male abusers of women.

Have you read the links, goosefoot?

Mutton, it doesn't 'look like', it's a certainly

I think it was this person who got a lot of criticism after Grenfell because he'd opposed a bill to make housing safer.

Have you read the links, goosefoot?

Do you mean the one in the article where he says men and women should go to prison in equal numbers? I haven't read all of them.

The thing is, even if he thinks that and is a total wanker, it's not what the amendment seems to say, relative simply does not mean the same thing as absolute numbers and its not what the amendment itself seems to say either. Bills aren't interpreted on the basis of some members views of issues.

No the ones I posted afterwards

Has anyone bothered to check that his amendments have even been included.

The Committee is today or may already have happened.

We know his an unreconstructed misogynist, but if by some strange Parliamentary process his amendments have to be discussed by the committee instead of reiterating his a complete w*nker need to let the committee know no sane person would support his ammendments.

I still haven't had time to read the draft bill, link above, but if someone could do a quick scan.

Chope and Davies are two peas out of the same pod. They like to 'hunt' opposition PMBs for fun, for sport, and because it fits their world view of a liberal elite out to stifle the liberties of comfortable white men.

I'm not sure what to look for on the draft bill.

It includes a amendment to ensure prosecution of men and women in similar numbers (not rates):

'Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment would make sure that male and female perpetrators of domestic abuse are prosecuted in similar relative numbers.'

There's also stuff about false allegations of DV.

Member’s explanatory statement

The aim of this amendment would be to specify that economic abuse must involve the person’s own money and not the lawful property of someone else.

Philip Davies

"Relative numbers" means the same thing as rates.

There's a whole raft of stuff about getting separate representation for orgs that represent men which sounds ok until you know who he is and what his views are.

Yes right you are goosefoot.

He's obviously learned from all the press he got before.

He's trying really really hard to sound reasonable in those amendments

Luckily the people who work with him know exactly what he wants and what he stands for.

Did you read the other links yet goosefoot?

They might give you some context.

Yeah, he sounds like a twerp, but I don't think you can really analye legislation that way. You can be warned of underlying goals and look for them, or think about where this person might be going with an idea.

But the legislation itself will not necessarily instantiate the individual's views, even an amendment they propose, and it has to be viewed on its own merit. The system is set up so that bills and amendments typically have to be somewhat moderate in order to pass. Good legislation often comes as a result of several groups proposing ideas and building on them.

Looking at rates of prosecution and comparing would not necessarily be a bad thing for women, it could reveal where women were getting the short end of the stick. I'm not a fan of requiring parity on things in general, be they employment figures or prosecution rates, I think its a mistake because it assumes that in a fair and just situation they would be equal and that is not always the case. But an awareness of disparities of all kinds is not a bad thing - I'd be more inclined to say that information needs to be collected to allow comparisons on a bunch of metrics.

Shiny

Thanks for those links, makes sense now.

The aim of this amendment would be to specify that economic abuse must involve the person’s own money and not the lawful property of someone else.

That's not how economic abuse works. Women aren't trying to access money they have no right to.
Bad laws can have unintentional (or intentionally bad) consequenses, and this one looks like an attempt to 'deal with gold diggers'; for example, unmarried women who are on maternity leave and who become dependent on their partners income.

There's a whole raft of stuff about getting separate representation for orgs that represent men

Don't you mean women and men?

I suspect all women are gold-diggers, in his strange universe.

Have you read the amendments link at the top, gronky?

That will explain my phrasing.

I suspect all women are gold-diggers in his strange universe.

Not the one he's engaged to who's considerably richer than him, having inherited the profits from demolishing half of Liverpool.

Have you read the amendments link at the top, gronky?

Yes, were you referring to

This amendment would ensure that different people separately representing the interests of male and female organisations are on the Advisory Board.

I'm not sure why you'd only mention organisations that represent male victims.