Don'T Shout At Your Missis

[Eff1n2ret]

The UK's "Supreme Court" has just come up with a new definition of domestic violence according to this news report:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350761/Women-entitled-council-house-partner-shouts.html

Disregarding any implications for divorce settlements, it seems to me that this judgement will significantly lower the threshold for foreign spouses wishing to obtain ILR on the grounds of domestic violence.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

[billd766]

The more I read stories like this about the UK (assuming that it is correct) the more it reinforces my decision that I made to leave the UK 12 years ago.

To quote Mr Bumble from Oliver Twist

Mr. Bumble: If the law supposes that, then the law is a ass, a idiot! If that's the eye of the law, then the law is a bachelor. And the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience.

[parryhandy]

The legal system creating work for itself as usual and letting their "power" go to their heads.

Edited January 27, 2011 by parryhandy

[Basil B]

British Gutter Press being sensationalist again.

Quote "Mrs Yemshaw told them he had shouted in front of their two children, failed to treat her like a human, had not given her housekeeping money, and she was scared he would take the children away from her".

Presume the key word missing here was ongoing which in my opinion would constitute abuse.

also quote "Lady Hale, leading a bench of five justices, said the definition of violence must change so that a range of abusive behavior now counts in law. The decision will affect domestic violence and family law which has given the courts powers to throw someone out of their home if their partner accuses them of violent behavior. Until now violence has always had to mean physical assault."

I presume the purpose for this judgment was to prove that these two persons could no longer live together.

[Wallaby]

Would be good for them to take into account when the women uses 'emotional' violence against the man.

[Thongkorn]

A bit old news i think , did you know that just shouting or swearing at anyone in the UK is a common assault and has been for 100s of years. Some times i feel that a smack in the face often offends the person shouting at me.

[gburns57au]

In Oz, it is enough that the spouse feels threatened to claim spousal abuse, it doesnt have to be physical abuse.

So nothing new at all here

[7by7]

Indeed, abuse does not have to be physical to be violence.

However, from Women's Aid; Emotional abuse

The impact of emotional abuse may be even more devastating than physical assault - and have much longer term effects - yet most of the above behaviours are not crimes, and it's therefore much more difficult to obtain protection, or even to get others to take them seriously.

Hopefully this judgment will correct this.

Recognising domestic violence makes interesting reading; one question especially relevant to this forum is

Has your partner ever tried to control you by telling you you could be deported because of your immigration status?

I should add that I am aware that men can also suffer abuse and violence from their partners; but the majority of victims are female and the majority of perpetrators are male. See Domestic violence statistics.

With respect to Eff1n2ret, a less sensationalist report on this ruling than that in the Daily Mail can be found in the Solicitors Journal

[Eff1n2ret]

Indeed, abuse does not have to be physical to be violence.

With respect to Eff1n2ret, a less sensationalist report on this ruling than that in the Daily Mail can be found in the Solicitors Journal

Thanks for that. I did look for an alternative report, but didn't see one. It does say in the UKBA guidance to caseworkers that abuse does not have to be physical, but is pretty prescriptive about the evidence required to prove that the applicant has suffered domestic violence, usually with reports from the police or a court order or judgement. In this case the woman merely had to move out and say that she was afraid of what her husband might do if she confronted him about having an affair, and complain he didn't give her the housekeeping, to get rehoused.

It occurred to me that if the criteria were applied in immigration cases the scope for some "creative" applications might be increased, hence my post.

[geriatrickid]

Try living in a home where one of the people is continually shouting abuse. You stress out, you lose sleep, weight, hair etc. You have anxiety and slowly begin to fall apart. Put the judicial opion in context please.

[7by7]

It occurred to me that if the criteria were applied in immigration cases the scope for some "creative" applications might be increased, hence my post.

No criticism of your OP or reasons for posting was intended; apologies if I gave the opposite impression.

I also wonder if the UKBA will change their criteria in judging domestic violence applications following this ruling. I have every sympathy for the victim in these cases, but simply taking one person's word over another without any other evidence can, and almost certainly will, lead to abuse of the system.

[mudkicker]

I work for a domestic violence charity, and, while the Mail always needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, the case quoted seems like a pretty clear cut one of domestic abuse to me. It's not about just raising your voice once and 'the missus' claiming domestic violence - it's about recognising that prolonged verbal abuse, denying access to money, threatening to cut off contact to children etc is also abuse, and that it's not just about coming back from the pub and giving your wife a black eye. And why would you shout at your wife (or husband) anyway? It's not how adults are supposed to communicate. For many people that's a red flag.

[pjclark1]

In the UK family court

Any accusation made by a woman, against her male partner is assumed to be true.

No evidence is required, often the male is not even invited (or notified) to attend court.

England is truly a f&%$ed up country.

Any man allowing a woman in the UK to live in his home is at risk of losing it.

@ mudkicker

Denying access to children is a womans game

Denying access to money, maybe the lazy cow should go out and earn some herself.

How much nagging and shouting does a woman need to do before everything she owns is given to her man?

Edited January 31, 2011 by pjclark1

[mudkicker]

@ mudkicker

Denying access to children is a womans game

Denying access to money, maybe the lazy cow should go out and earn some herself.

How much nagging and shouting does a woman need to do before everything she owns is given to her man?

PJClark1:

I'm wondering about this statement of yours and hope you can clarify for me:

;

In the UK family court

Any accusation made by a woman, against her male partner is assumed to be true.

No evidence is required, often the male is not even invited (or notified) to attend court.

Could you point me towards some cases where this has happened? I'm a journalist, with a friend who lost his children after a secret hearing at a family court, and we would both love to have some clear evidence of this automatic anti-male conspiracy by the UK courts.

This is a massive story if I can prove it! You're saying that any woman making any accusation in a UK family court will be believed, just because she's a woman? Automatically believed over a man? Always? Like there's a policy in the family courts that anyone with a vagina is automatically telling the truth? It's outrageous! It flies in the face of British justice! OMG!

You're also saying that 'no evidence is required' in any case and that the 'male' is 'often' not invited to attend court? 'No evidence is required' in any case - in the British courts! This is unconstitutional and also outrageous! I would certainly like to report on this on behalf of displaced fathers and husbands everywhere! It's a disgrace! Please PM me with details! Thank you!

[tonititan]

Denying access to money, maybe the lazy cow should go out and earn some herself.

Yeah, but if she makes money, he won't have her under his thumb anymore. He probably likes it the way it is.

On a related note: It's funny to me when I hear of men who meet Thai woman and rave about how great it is having a traditional wife, who cooks/cleans/shops/does laundry/raises the children/etc. You know, "the way it should be"...... and dam_n those feminists who want to be equal to a man, and then god forbid, expect the man to help around the house. These men recognize that they are expected to financially provide for the woman in exchange for all of the "duties" she performs. Some guys will even admit that the relationship is largely about money, but they are happy to be the breadwinner so that they can have this good traditional wife that they want. But then eventually....................oh, she doesn't have a job....what a lazy cow. And then if there's a divorce......she shouldn't get a cent of my money, SHE never worked a day of our marriage.

[H2oDunc]

I can also tell you fact it is true. Just like the fact that female victims of " alleged " rape are given anonymity automatically from day. Their accusation is believed from day without even a shred of evidence. even when in court their accusations are found to be false they remain anonymous. Really fair !

Also a man accused of rape is named and shamed from day 1. Even when found innocent of this heinous crime many lives have been ruined just by the accusation.Again fair ?

The new so called " equality " laws recently passed make it legal to discriminate against men in a number of ways.

If you are a middle aged, middle class, educated, honest heterosexual white male you are the most legally discriminated person in the country.

As said the UK is f#$%ed

[7by7]

This topic seems to be deteriorating into nonfactual rantings.

Any more will be deleted and the poster given a warning.

If you have something relevant to the subject, post it.

If you are claiming something as a fact, provide a link to a reliable source.

If you just want to vent your spleen, don't do it here.

[NanLaew]

^ nah pj... you just aint that impressive.

On the subject of the OP, I reckon this Lady Hale needs a bloody good shouting.

Edited January 31, 2011 by NanLaew

[Wallaby]

I have instructed counsel in many court cases in Australia and I can tell you first hand that during an application for domestic violence, where there is conflicting evidence, the judge has, in my experience, ALWAYS made a decision in favour of the applicant (nearly always female).

For the defendant to succeed he (usually he) will actually have to prove the allegations are false. All benefit of doubt goes to the applicant.

Also, the rules of evidence in such cases is biased towards the applicant.

I was instructing in one case of domestic violence where the defendant had tried to conduct the case himself in the first instance. He requested a police report of all complaints he himself had made of physical violence by his wife on him. The police refused to provide the information. He requested a report from police about the previous 3 times she had made reports of violence against him only for the police to investigate and find the complaints unwarranted and false. The police denied his request.

He asked for us to assist him. We even called for those reports in the court. The judge refused to have those reports presented.

It really is pathetic and a reason I would no longer be involved in such matters.

Sorry, cannot provide a link, however I don't consider it to be nonfactual rantings. Well ok, I admit it IS a rant.

Edited January 31, 2011 by 7by7
See below

[Crushdepth]

This topic seems to be deteriorating into nonfactual rantings.

Welcome to Thaivisa.

[Basil B]

This topic seems to be hijacked by an issue that is not appropriate to this section.

But do feel there are two points that I really feel deep about.

I agree that it is not always the male who is responsible for the abuse that causes a relationship to break up.

Denying access to children is a womans game, and denying support to ones offspring is a mans game, meet many in Pattaya hiding from the CSA with their embittered and twisted version of events making out that they are the victims.

[7by7]

One post criticising moderation has been removed and another referring to it has been edited.

Members are reminded of Forum Rules

21) Not to discuss moderation publicly in the open forum; this includes individual actions, and specific or general policies and issues. You may send a PM to a moderator to discuss individual actions or email support (at) thaivisa.com to discuss moderation policy

Some members also need to think about the difference between an opinion and a fact.

Expressing an opinion is fine, as long as it does not break the forum rules, as is relating personal experiences as Wallaby does above; but if you're going to present your opinion as fact then you'd better be able to back it up with some evidence.

And in case anyone wonders, comments such as "Denying access to money, maybe the lazy cow should go out and earn some herself." are not welcome, and show a complete ignorance of the abuse suffered by some women, and men too.

[Thongkorn]

It is Coincided bad manners to raise your voice in Thailand.

Reminds me of my dear old Mam , gone now , I took her to Tesco in the UK. she was 73. She had an upset tummy, She came up to me while i was checking out the food prices near the fridges.She said I have moved because i have just done a botty burp.I said mam , She said don't worry because it was quiet, I looked around and every body was staring at her, some giggling , I said "I think you should turn your earing Ade on.

[7by7]

This is now getting silly.

It appears that anyone with something sensible to say has said it; so closed.