Monday 16 November 2009

Excuse Me..?

Home Secretary Alan Johnson has announced suspected violent men will be banned from their own homes even if police do not press charges.

At present, a person can be kept away from their home address only if they are charged with a crime, and it is made a condition of their bail. Alternatively, the alleged victims must seek a civil injunction.
Good grief..!!!

This must be a joke, right? That ‘suspected’ shouldn’t be in there, should it? It must be a typo…

Or I’m dreaming.

No, make that a nightmare. What happened to my country?


Frank Davis said...

Um, so where does somebody sleep at night once they've been banned from their own home?

The street is the only place I can think of.

So this is a measure to create homelessness.

Brilliant, eh?

Mark Wadsworth said...

Tee hee, I just can't see any unintended consequences of this, it's Victimhood Poker taken to extremes (so no doubt wife-beating for religious reasons will be exempt).

Oldrightie said...

He was crap at his day job as well!

Pat said...

I suspect Alan Johnson is violent.

Anonymous said...

This looks like another attack on family - putting the state's jackboot even more firmly into the home.

Will they be forced to install CCTV camera's, in order to remain at home?

Nick von Mises said...

More misandry from the PC female-supremacist crew.

If the man pays the rent (or even just half of it) then it is his house to stay in, regardless of whether he's a violent psychopath or a perfect husband. Suspected / Convicted is a moot point.

If the woman is genuinely at risk from the man she should LEAVE THE HOUSE. This is just giving unscrupulous women another stick to beat men with and will be mercilessly exploited in the pre-divorce escalation.

The only situation in which a man should be banned from the house is if it's not actually his house.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Nick VM, you can't expect somebody with a better Victimhood Poker hand to leave the house!

To be fair, it is traditional for women to chuck out their husbands and get them to pay the rent/maintenance, whether that is via divorce courts or (un)justified accusations of dom. violence is neither here nor there, so this is just another nail in the coffin of stable relationships.

Joe Public said...

So a violent woman won't be evicted then?

Victory for Harriet

Joe Public said...

OOps, forgot link to Anna

JuliaM said...

"So this is a measure to create homelessness."

Ah. But it's for a righteous cause, so that's ok, then...

" doubt wife-beating for religious reasons will be exempt..."


"So a violent woman won't be evicted then?"

If not, doesn't this breach equality rules? Or, is it ok if it does, since it's on the 'right' side?

This is confusing!

MTG said...

Now I know why New Man cries at his own wedding.

Nick39 said...

Yeah, just another attempt to atomise society and remove all intermediary institutions between the subject and the state.

Chalk up another reason to continue the Marriage Strike.