Thursday, 25 November 2010

Only Men..?

Men accused of beating their wives face being banned from their homes for up to four weeks – even if they have not been convicted of any crime.

Under ‘go orders’ police will have the power to stop alleged abusers returning home or having contact with the victim.

After that initial 48-hour order, the courts will be able to extend the ban for up to 28 days.
Why only men? Is this poor wording from the 'Mail', or are we really about to introduce a law that uniquely favours one sex over the other?

What about battered husbands? They have to just put up with it?

And how's the law going to apply to gay couples, male or female?
The orders were made law by Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson in one of his last acts in office, but were never brought into force. In August it was reported they had been scrapped as part of public spending cuts, which will see the Home Office budget cut by 23 per cent over the next four years.
And just when you thought sanity had finally reigned, along comes the new, shining hope in the Home Office to remind you that whoever you vote for, a politician gets in...
But they have been resurrected by Home Secretary Theresa May as part of a series of measures aimed at tackling violence against women.
I suspect that this is yet again another triumph for the coterie of poisonous feminists that seem to have the ear of the lawmakers.

After all, as Angry Exile points out, it's apparently OK with them to ignore blatent injustices as long as they are directed at the 'right' sex....

14 comments:

Falco said...

There is little point in directing this at both sexes as the police always arrest the man even if he is the complainant.

Bucko said...

They already do this in America. I read a story (cant remeber where) where bloke invites his girlfriend back, she calls police and aledges abuse, police turn up and kick out man, girl moves her other boyfriend in.
Girl gets free house, man has no rights to do anything about it.

Hexe said...

*shrug* it's just yet another weapon for nasty people who enjoy fighting and hating each other, it's best not to get mixed up in this or take sides -- because before it gets to those situations, the two lovebirds will have been terrorising each other for quite a while previously to reach that level of hatred. Normal people would have walked out long ago, so you're dealing with nutters in the first place where normal rules do not apply.

People who insist on choosing their partner for looks, wealth, status etc without caring whether they are decent persons cannot be helped here -- just like people who keep going back to partners that abuse them.

So, the cops breaking it up and banning the male from the home is quite a good solution to fighting idiots, at least for the neighbors who finally get some peace and quiet. And it helps the man out too, because he should have let long ago anyway, instead letting it get that far.

Yes, it's unfair, but well, you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas...

nbc said...

So Hexe, you're happy to deprive a home-owner of access to his property without trial, just so that you can get a good night's sleep?

You're not a member of ACPO by any chance?

Dave H. said...

It would be better if those proven to be habitually violent, whoever they are, had alternative accommodation provided for them. And three meals a day. And a bucket.

Hexe said...

@nbc: see this song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak8suW-JBzE

In essence, warring couples deserve each other, there is nothing that can be done about nasty people with nasty manners.

This is why there used to be an iron rule that one does not get inbetween a man and his wife -- it's like teaching a pig to count, you waste your time and annoy the pig, and after all your effort it's still an oinker.

allcoppedout said...

I doubt the sexist angle will fly much on this one. The real victims of domestic violence are kids and any poor sods sharing party walls.
The depravity of false complainers is with us everywhere.
We have simply forgotten that discipline needs to be quick and understood to be so.

nbc said...

Oh, very droll.

Just so that you understand, I believe that any violence should be punished, regardless of gender. However, that punishment must be handed out following an examination of the facts in court, not a summary judgement by plod.

Got a song for that?

Hexe said...

Sure, since you're so concerned with the fate of toerags without manners:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy05SYG9-LQ

Look, I didn't claim it was fair, but I don't think courts should get involved in relationships -- it only costs everyone else money and time without any results, and as goes, courts themselves are no longer fit for purpose, so the idea that there is justice to be had in yet another joke.

Caveat emptor...emet

Jiks said...

Another extremely dangerous bit of law from our overlords.

So this gives the police the power to ban people from their own homes if someone claims someone else might might do something to yet another person at some point?

That power is not begging to abused at all is it?

><

JuliaM said...

"They already do this in America. I read a story..."

Yup me too! Think it was at 'Protein Wisdom' or 'Ace'...

"...it's best not to get mixed up in this or take sides... "

It seems, from a perusal of the police blogs, they loathe a domestic because of the propensity of the battered partner to then turn on them...

"It would be better if those proven to be habitually violent, whoever they are, had alternative accommodation provided for them. And three meals a day. And a bucket."

After a trial, yes?

"...I don't think courts should get involved in relationships..."

Indeed. But when a crime occurs within one, it's inevitable. I'd just prefer they proved that it was a crime first, before they proceeded to extra-judicial punishment based solely on possession of the right set of genitals.

"That power is not begging to abused at all is it?"

Maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt? After all, they haven't abused any of their other powers, have they?

;)

Anonymous said...

I have to say that the psycho, sanctimonious mother from yesterday had a point. Very few women beat up their men. Not because they don't want to but because they can't. You certainly seem to dislike your own sex and as that daft bat pointed out men can fight their own battles.

Men still rule. We run industry and banking. We are the government. We are cleverer than you. We owe a debt of gratitude to the women who bat for the other side. You would probably slap another woman down. I bet you're aging, ugly and bitter. Single and desperate. Nasty and dull. Keep on trucking.

nick2 said...

The comments on the Mail article are more illuminating than the original story.

I wouldn't want to share a house with a woman who types

Oh, I'm SO going to have fun with this law! Look at all the men panicking on here! It's girls in charge from now on so shape up or ship out! (Mind you, we need an amendment to the law saying that the husband is still responsible for mortgage/rent/council tax/gas/electricity/water and so on or there won'r be much point in having it.)

JuliaM said...

" Very few women beat up their men. Not because they don't want to but because they can't."

A weapon - and the element of surprise, coupled with most men's instinctive 'mustn't hit a woman!' impulse - is a great leveller.

" You certainly seem to dislike your own sex and as that daft bat pointed out men can fight their own battles."

It's not a case of disliking my own sex as being very aware that 'my sex, right or wrong!' is just as odd and wrong an outlook as 'my country, right or wrong!'.

Also, that no one sex has a monopoly on cruelty and evil...

"I bet you're aging, ugly and bitter. Single and desperate. Nasty and dull. "

Impressive hit rate. One out of seven ain't bad... ;)

"The comments on the Mail article are more illuminating than the original story."

I'd like to say that one is just someone trolling, but...