If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Yeah, I can see the logic behind it, but...there's something instrinsically wrong with a legal system which, if i was married, would prosecute my wife for domestic abuse if she slapped me during an argument regardless of the fact I couldn't care less. Something deeply wrong and intrusive imo.
I actually did this side of domestic violence for my drama piece so that it didn't seem stereo typical and i could play a character that is so completely unlike myself. the whole thing seems somewhat ironic now
I would consider that as an abuse of his physical dominance.
Yes, you can say that's "sexist" if you want, but it's an abuse of power imo.
Spliffie: if the partner "couldn't care less" then they wouldn't go to the trouble of making a statement to the police saying they have been assaulted.
If they do care, then they will. After that, it is up to the police and the CPS to decide to prosecute.
This has been done to prevent victims being bullied and threatened into withdrawing their complaints. I don't think the new policy has worked as well as intended, and I think it has had unforseen side-effects that don't do anybody any good, but victims are not offered more protection under the new system then before.
From a practical point of view I don't like the new policy, because the courts are filled with untenable cases that have only been brought because of the new policy. The idea behind the policy changes is worthy though.
The main reason why the system doesn't work is because the victim more often than not still goes back to the attacker.
Kermit, I'd agree the motivation behind it is admirable, but i was talking hypothetically, not specifically about the Kemp/Wade stuff.
Hypothetical people don't give statements to the police if they don't care.
Without a statement to the police by someone then the police can't do anything. And without a statement by the victim a case is non-existant.
Okay, I misunderstood.
(Oh, I see we're doing that 'don't include previous quotes' thing on these boards now. It might save space, but context goes out the window. I have to manually put the nested quotes in, if I think they're necessary...)
And call me sexist and outdated all the want, but Ross Kemp could most probably pummel her if he really wanted to.
We're not in 1950 anymore we're in 2005. Gender equality and all that. If we are allowed to vote, go out to work, earn as much as men, then we should face the same retributions as men.
Sorry but that's my opinion.
They are when they are editor of a newspaper which has flung gallons of shit at everyone else.
Who puts on that pressure>
It wouldn't be the editor of Britain's best-selling newspaper would it? Perish the thought!
I would argue that they are not separate.
Especially not when your day job is vilifying people based on rumour, conjecture and half-truth. Not when your day job is accusing footballers of domestic violence without any proof, and then running a vendetta against said footballers.
Not when your day job is running a vendetta against "paedophiles", resulting in scores of innocent people being beaten and having their homes and families destroyed.
For her to stay in her job is grossly hypocritical, and also rather sinister.
Point is, he doesn't.
He shouldn't have to "pummel" his wife to protect himself.
All in all, the entirety of that post was bollocks, wasn't it?
I believe it was worthy of prosecution, I've seen smaller incidents prosecuted fully by the CPS. What's the difference this time? It's not that she's a woman, it's what her job is. That's why it stinks.