UK: Shouting considered to be domestic violence

[Merkavar]

Under the landmark ruling, denying money to a partner or criticising them could also count as abusive behavior.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/criticising-partner-denying-them-money-and-shouting-is-domestic-abuse-rules-uk-court/story-e6freuz9-1225995667301

seems a bit broad of a law. what if your wife is always wasting money on unessacery things and you stop giving her money is that abuse?

what if you get drunk a vomit on yourself and you wife says something about you being a slob or disgusting is that domestic violence?

 

[SuccessAndBiscuts]

Well, I'd really like to see the specifics of the law in question.

Otherwise my uneducated comment would be something along the lines of 'sounds like another poorly defined law that allows the police to arrest virtually anyone they feel like. I wonder how much of the UK's statistics on violent crime are due to things like affray, assault where no one is actually touched or shouting'.

Summs up my opinions too. Shouting can be healthy and domestic abuse isn't even remotely straightforward. Everyone has their own ways of dealing with things, what offends or intimidates one person wouldn't bother another.

I do worry about the increasing trend towards no-win no fee and small claims courts in this country though. Too many people with too much ego and laws that increasingly support them.

Edit:

Under the landmark ruling, denying money to a partner or criticising them could also count as abusive behavior.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/criticising-partner-denying-them-money-and-shouting-is-domestic-abuse-rules-uk-court/story-e6freuz9-1225995667301

seems a bit broad of a law. what if your wife is always wasting money on unessacery things and you stop giving her money is that abuse?

what if you get drunk a vomit on yourself and you wife says something about you being a slob or disgusting is that domestic violence?

It occurs to me that an Australian tabloid newspaper might not be the best source for UK legal coverage.

Also: MASSIVE INAPPROPRIATE RAGE, I HATE TABLOIDS FOR ALL KINDS OF REASONS.

 

[Udyrfrykte]

It's not "choosing to not have sex", it's using it to your own gains, manipulating your partner.
No one is forcing the woman do accept domestic violence (shouting), and just straight out leave him. As they all say, it's not just "doing it", since things are complicated.

Wait, so the woman can easily walk away from an abusive man, but a man can't walk away from a woman not providing him with sex?

I'm just angry because women are starting to get the best deals in life.

You mean like massively higher rates of spousal abuse and/or rape, getting lower paid jobs and being under-represented at the important levels of politics and industry?

To be honest you can compare the two, some women generally use sex as ameans to control thier 'man' iam not saying all women or that women cant refuse an advance. But some people men and wemon are kept in the relaionship though fear as they dont know what thier 'partner' will do if they run.

Ok, quick question, which would you prefer, your partner to withhold sex, or your partner to physically abuse you?

I was saying walking away is always an option (for both cases), but never easy. Women are just as abusive as men, it's a matter of who in the relationship gets the dominant role and how they abuse (if at all).
As other posters have agreed, women can use sex to control the relationship. No laws exists to prevent that afaik. Men more often use violence and shouting, which is easier to handle in a legal matter.
I'm just saying men are often in abusive relationships, but it doesn't get viewed as a serious thing in society due its nature.

I don't point out that men have advantages, because it's obvious. What's not as obvious is that as a result of protecting women they are gaining unfair advantages. Slightly more women than men are seeking higher education, but still they are baiting women to higher education with gifts and gold.
And regarding "unfair" disadvantages: Military service.

As for women getting raped... That's for an entirely different discussion. And gender differences in work and politics are dissipating. The leaders of the two biggest political parties in Norway are women.

Seems like you share your sympathies only with women. Are you a woman by chance? Try to accept that men can be abused too, by non-traditional means. Several of my friends are more or less being dominated and abused by their girlfriend/wife to the point of ruining their lives, it's no joking matter.

 

[Udyrfrykte]

How exactly would you qualify what shouting is and isn't domestic violence? It'd be near impossible to get consistent judgements, which renders the ruling basically irrelevant.

Exactly. We all let of steam in an argument. Shouting is a form of that. They need to make nagging a form of domestic abuse. lol

That way I can leave the toilet seat up each and every time!

 

[BRex21]

Well, I'd really like to see the specifics of the law in question.

Otherwise my uneducated comment would be something along the lines of 'sounds like another poorly defined law that allows the police to arrest virtually anyone they feel like. I wonder how much of the UK's statistics on violent crime are due to things like affray, assault where no one is actually touched or shouting'.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/criticising-partner-denying-them-money-and-shouting-is-domestic-abuse-rules-uk-court/story-e6freoo6-1225995667301 this is the best explanation of the law i could find. believe it or not everything i COULD find made me say Sounds like another poorly defined law Designed to allow police to arrest virtually anyone. This gets worse, because Britain, and actually most of the free world, treats domestic abuse as a sort of guilty until proven innocent thing. This makes sense, because it takes an abusive partner out away from their spouse. If a woman reports that a man shouted at her or is denying her money despite the fact that she did his laundry he not just can be, but if this is considered domestic abuse HAS TO BE removed from his home. Hell if he gets a bad jury or a bitter judge he could have his house taken away. It can also be used as cause for a divorce which means ALIMONY!

Um...dunno where you live, but in much of the developed world, women aren't the property of men and don't have to stay in relationships if they don't want to. Likewise, they are not obliged to have sex if they don't want to.

You can't compare intimidating your partner with choosing not to have sex with them.

This is the very traditional blowing things out of proportions arguments that always seem to overshadow real debate. A woman DOES have the right to chose who she is in a relationship with, but when she chooses someone and then demands money or gifts for sex as was SPECIFICALLY the point you were arguing against, it really starts to border on extortion. Im not saying that all women are extorting men with sex, but you cant deny it happens. And you cant say that the current laws haven't been abused by women looking for a quick buck. Hell i had a woman stomp on my foot for refusing to buy her a drink, who went to the police because she hurt herself. It took 6 people 2 women one of them a bartender who was offering security footage to keep me from spending a night in jail.

 

[Flying Dagger]

I think all forms of agressive shouting are on a level at least equal with physical contact, there's really no excuse for it

 

[Thaluikhain]

As other posters have agreed, women can use sex to control the relationship. No laws exists to prevent that afaik. Men more often use violence and shouting, which is easier to handle in a legal matter.

Because violence happens to be illegal.

I don't point out that men have advantages, because it's obvious. What's not as obvious is that as a result of protecting women they are gaining unfair advantages.

Those unfair advantages have been put in place to try to compensate for the rather larger unfair advantages held by men. Yes, in a perfect world, women wouldn't receive positive discrimination, because it wouldn't be neccesary.

Seems like you share your sympathies only with women. Are you a woman by chance? Try to accept that men can be abused too, by non-traditional means. Several of my friends are more or less being dominated and abused by their girlfriend/wife to the point of ruining their lives, it's no joking matter.

You can cry "what about the menz?" all you want, but where exactly did I say that men cannot be abused?

I pointed out that the rates of abuse of women by men were much higher than the reverse, and that a person not having sex with their partner cannot be equated with them attacking their partner. I fail to see how you can twist that into a denial that abuse of men happens.

A woman DOES have the right to chose who she is in a relationship with, but when she chooses someone and then demands money or gifts for sex as was SPECIFICALLY the point you were arguing against, it really starts to border on extortion. Im not saying that all women are extorting men with sex, but you cant deny it happens.

Yes I can. You can't call demanding money/gifts in exchange for sex extortion. That would be prostitution, which is completely different. You also don't tend to call the clients of a prostitute the victims of a crime she is committing against him by selling sex.

Yes, when you find yourself in a prostitute/client relationship, instead of a wife/husband one, the relationship is fucked. But that does not compare to the husband attacking the wife, which compares to the wife attacking the husband, and nothing less serious.

 

[Udyrfrykte]

As other posters have agreed, women can use sex to control the relationship. No laws exists to prevent that afaik. Men more often use violence and shouting, which is easier to handle in a legal matter.

Because violence happens to be illegal.

I don't point out that men have advantages, because it's obvious. What's not as obvious is that as a result of protecting women they are gaining unfair advantages.

Those unfair advantages have been put in place to try to compensate for the rather larger unfair advantages held by men. Yes, in a perfect world, women wouldn't receive positive discrimination, because it wouldn't be neccesary.

Seems like you share your sympathies only with women. Are you a woman by chance? Try to accept that men can be abused too, by non-traditional means. Several of my friends are more or less being dominated and abused by their girlfriend/wife to the point of ruining their lives, it's no joking matter.

You can cry "what about the menz?" all you want, but where exactly did I say that men cannot be abused?

I pointed out that the rates of abuse of women by men were much higher than the reverse, and that a person not having sex with their partner cannot be equated with them attacking their partner. I fail to see how you can twist that into a denial that abuse of men happens.

You are hyperboling and justify whatever suits your arguments.

I said it's easier to handle violence in a legal matter because it's illegal. It's not easier to handle non-physical abuse because it's not illegal (well, we got shouting now at least).

You point to rates of women being abused. There's your hypocrisy.
Men being abused doesn't get taken into consideration because there is no law against it and no one wants to admit their girlfriend is making them their *****. Just because it's in your opinion (and that's subjective, but I agree) worse with physical abuse doesn't make non-physical not count.

I like a fight more than a discussion, because the chances of one person (or being forced to) giving up are much bigger. So I'm giving up this discussion now. Let me know if you wanna box or have a chessmatch over it sometime.

 

[pulse2]

What do we think?

A citation would be nice.

Sorry, I would have provided one, but I heard it over the radio and on TV, I'm sure there is an article or several about it on BBC amongst other British news sites but I was more interested in the actual debate.

See what gets me is there is no specific reference (as far as we know) into what constitutes shouting as domestic violence and other forms of shouting, nor how 'close call' shouting has to be.

Hypothetically, if someone was being nagged constantly and up until that point they were quiet, then suddenly they snapped stood up and shouted something along the lines of 'Leave me alone!' and left, is this unreasonable? Or is this considered to be domestic violence?

It wasn't so much the 'verbal abuse' context I was fazed by as that exists and I'd like to see a stop to that, whether it be shouting, whispering, normal talking, it still comes under the same category 'Agressive verbal abuse with intent to intimidate, subdue or scrutonize an individual', but just 'shouting' means nothing, so yeah, that was they discussion.

I think it annoyed me because for example, my house is a house of shouting, but none of the shouting in my house is ever meant to be abusive, angry or not. Would that automatically put us in line for cases of domestic violence should a neighbour decide to spontaneously call the police one day?

 

[Thaluikhain]

See what gets me is there is no specific reference (as far as we know) into what constitutes shouting as domestic violence and other forms of shouting, nor how 'close call' shouting has to be.

Presumably there'd have to be.

And then again, the police officers responding to the situation would still have to determine if it was or if it wasn't, then pass it along to whoever deals with such things. Yes, that places it open to abuse, but no more than anything else the police do.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I think it annoyed me because for example, my house is a house of shouting, but none of the shouting in my house is ever meant to be abusive, angry or not. Would that automatically put us in line for cases of domestic violence should a neighbour decide to spontaneously call the police one day?

Yeah, I think you've answered your own question there.

One problem...all traces of this new "law" I've tracked down all lead back to the bastion of fairness "The Daily Mail".

The Supreme Court in Britain has ruled that criticising and shouting at partner and not giving them money constitutes as domestic violence.

According to the Daily Mail, Lady Brenda Hale, who led a bench of five judges, made the ruling in the case of Mihret Yemshaw, 35, who had applied for free housing entitled to victims of domestic abuse, News.com.au reported.

Yemshaw said her husband had yelled at her in front of their two children and did not give her money for housekeeping, but officials in Hounslow, West London, rejected her request as her husband had never hit her or threatened physical violence.

But after the new ruling it means that Hounslow council will be required to reconsider Yemshaw's case.

As under the landmark ruling, denying money to a partner or criticising them could also count as abusive behaviour.

I'll be looking for the true story later.

 

[pulse2]

See what gets me is there is no specific reference (as far as we know) into what constitutes shouting as domestic violence and other forms of shouting, nor how 'close call' shouting has to be.

Presumably there'd have to be.

And then again, the police officers responding to the situation would still have to determine if it was or if it wasn't, then pass it along to whoever deals with such things. Yes, that places it open to abuse, but no more than anything else the police do.

It's difficult to prove that someone has shouted at you unless someone else was present, it's even more difficult to prove someone was abusive or threatening when they didn't shout. Theres one way you can get around this rule, simply lower your voice, you still have all the same harmful abusive aggression, just without the shouting. Shouting is usually deemed frustration, I rarely do it myself because I'm just a docile person, but there are simply loud people.

In fact, I was looking as cases of stalking on tv (which is another law passed, but this one I felt was needed) where guys would break into an ex lovers home and threaten them with a knife or such, but simply whispered it to not attract attention. It was intimidating, haunting and lowers females self esteem, all the same reactions as shouting. So my confusuion is why they just focused on mainly shouting.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It's difficult to prove that someone has shouted at you unless someone else was present, it's even more difficult to prove someone was abusive or threatening when they didn't shout. Theres one way you can get around this rule, simply lower your voice, you still have all the same harmful abusive aggression, just without the shouting. Shouting is usually deemed frustration, I rarely do it myself because I'm just a docile person, but there are simply loud people.

In fact, I was looking as cases of stalking on tv (which is another law passed, but this one I felt was needed) where guys would break into an ex lovers home and threaten them with a knife or such, but simply whispered it to not attract attention. It was intimidating, haunting and lowers females self esteem, all the same reactions as shouting. So my confusuion is why they just focused on mainly shouting.

That's true, yes, and it's something that's a problem with any sort of domestic abuse case where there aren't any obvious injuries. I can't what law could help with that...that's something you'd need social, not legal, change to deal with.

 

[BRex21]

I pointed out that the rates of abuse of women by men were much higher than the reverse, and that a person not having sex with their partner cannot be equated with them attacking their partner. I fail to see how you can twist that into a denial that abuse of men happens.

Actually the only way to statistically prove that this happens is through arrest reports. Yet we also know men are less likely to report it than women.
Cameras in highschools showed that girls are equally likely to physically assault or bully male students and are the most likely to sexually assault other students (both male and female).
And quite frankly Men abusing Women has a zero tolerance problem yet women can hit men in public and No one would care. Hell one woman was actually cheering in ABC's video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks&feature=player_embedded

Hell this video made international news before it was announced as a hoax, but reverse the roles and people would laugh (although yes i see the irony that i could only find the video available now as a mockery itself but still)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmUnLZobESs
There was also a story of a SAS soldier on ABC who had a black belt wife and could do nothing to restrain her if she started attacking because he feared he would be charged with assault.

Yes I can. You can't call demanding money/gifts in exchange for sex extortion. That would be prostitution, which is completely different. You also don't tend to call the clients of a prostitute the victims of a crime she is committing against him by selling sex.

Yes, when you find yourself in a prostitute/client relationship, instead of a wife/husband one, the relationship is fucked. But that does not compare to the husband attacking the wife, which compares to the wife attacking the husband, and nothing less serious.

First off, this is a semantics issue, and its the reason "escorts" are not considered "prostitutes". Plus once you get into a relationship sex is sort of expected. Now dont twist that to saying a woman HAS to have sex with a man if they are in a relationship, because i think most people would be able to understand what i mean, what adult couple actually decides to partner up without expecting sex at some point in the relationship. Once you get into that relationship it stops being prostitution. IT can be LIKE prostitution, people could probably even use the word to describe it, but it isn't prostitution. What it is is trying to coerce someone into giving you things because you might be more into sex, and can pretty much mirror the legal definition of extortion (or entrapment if its for information). I also think its funny that in the case that spawned this law the woman was upset that she wasn't being payed for performing her wifely duties and now THAT can be considered abuse.
Secondly you are still trying to to twist this into something that its not. by using words like attacking you can try to lure people into thinking that you mean shouting, Which is what this is about, while being able to maintain that what you are talking about is physical abuse. Now as far as comparing shouting to withholding sex it is apples to oranges, and we would really need to know the nature of the argument, and whether a shouting match should automatically label a man as physically abusive.

 

[BRex21]

I'll be looking for the true story later.

I specifically chose that because it was nice and short and said what needed to be said. A man was overly critical of his wife with a raised voice. if you want to hear the complete unabridged story go to Justice.gov.uk and search the name Yemshaw, make sure you have up to date pdf pluggins and have cookies enabled because you will need to install those but i didnt think people would care for that much reading particularly if they shrug it off because its harder than a Google search.

 

[F'Angus]

Well it's good in a way if it means verbal abuse. Police can arrest you if you're swearing, comes under public order. Still police deal with shouting if it's an argument and could escalate.

Also Brian Blessed is Insanely Brilliant

 

[Thaluikhain]

Actually the only way to statistically prove that this happens is through arrest reports. Yet we also know men are less likely to report it than women.

Granted.

On the other hand, though, spousal murders are still much more likely to be a husband murdering the wife than the other way around, and this crime doesn't have issues about the victim not wanting to report it.

First off, this is a semantics issue, and its the reason "escorts" are not considered "prostitutes". Plus once you get into a relationship sex is sort of expected. Now dont twist that to saying a woman HAS to have sex with a man if they are in a relationship, because i think most people would be able to understand what i mean, what adult couple actually decides to partner up without expecting sex at some point in the relationship. Once you get into that relationship it stops being prostitution. IT can be LIKE prostitution, people could probably even use the word to describe it, but it isn't prostitution. What it is is trying to coerce someone into giving you things because you might be more into sex, and can pretty much mirror the legal definition of extortion (or entrapment if its for information). I also think its funny that in the case that spawned this law the woman was upset that she wasn't being payed for performing her wifely duties and now THAT can be considered abuse.

So, the woman is expected to have sex with the man, something is wrong if she doesn't, and it constitutes a form of abuse if she doesn't. But this is somehow totally different from her having to have sex with him, and I'd be deliberately twisting your words to say the same were similar. Right.

Secondly you are still trying to to twist this into something that its not. by using words like attacking you can try to lure people into thinking that you mean shouting, Which is what this is about, while being able to maintain that what you are talking about is physical abuse.

No, when I say "attacking", believe it or not, I mean "attacking". As in, using physical violence. I thought that'd be clear enough.

 

[Romidude]

Honey, where's the tea gotten to?!
*Police Bobbies break down door*
LOOK OUT, HE'S BEATING HIS WIFE!
*PEW*

OT: One of the dumbest laws I've seen in a while, just trying to make our world as unoffensive and bland as possible.