Protecting Women in their homes is part of the War against Men

'Go' Oders are an anti-domestic violence trial scheme that gives police the option to remove a man suspected of committing domestic violence from their home for 48 hours. Which can then be increased to 2 weeks, following a court hearing.

Step forward Councillor James Williams:

Quote :

'What if a woman alleges domestic abuse even if none has happened? It's unfair that this policy will deprive men from seeing their children even if they've done nothing wrong.'

AAGGHFUJKIGHNICKINARSEHOLE!

Christ, it's as though he googled 'completely missing the point of any legislation designed to protect women' and picked the top answer! Here's a thought, Mr. Cockbag... Let's say that, by chance, probably by complete coincidence, a woman has been subjected to violence. What then?

'As an elected Conservative councillor, I am ashamed Theresa May has chosen to adopt totalitarian methods in the ongoing war against men by the feminist movement,' he said.

What a fucking dickhead.

Cue loads of similarly themes nonsense in the comments, like this one:

Quote :

sounds good, my wife goes to police and says i hit her. with out evidence i am removed and banned from my house.

my wife hits me, mocked by police and everyone else, nothing gets done and i still have to leave my home.


yep sounds fair to me.

Except that the 'Go' Order is Gender Neutral and applies as much as it does to women as it does to men, which would be apparent to anyone who fucking looks up the law, which, you'd have thought, would be something a fucking representative of the government commenting on the law should fucking do...

Quote :

24 Power to issue a domestic violence protection notice
(1) A member of a police force not below the rank of superintendent (“the
authorising officer”) may issue a domestic violence protection notice (“a
DVPN”) under this section.
(2) A DVPN may be issued to a person (“P”) aged 18 years or over if the
authorising officer has reasonable grounds for believing that—
(a) P has been violent towards, or has threatened violence towards, an
associated person, and
(b) the issue of the DVPN is necessary to protect that person from violence
or a threat of violence by P.

Christ, If I can find in in less than 20 seconds of Googling, I'm sure a fucking Government Rep. can!

GET OUT OF MY HEAD! I was totally going to post this.

Anyway, first of all, as I gather, the Go orders are gender neutral.

Secondly, the bloke is one of those dreadful Men's Rights Activists

So it's standard MRA bollocks. "WAAAAH I'M BEING OPPRESSED" with a side order of WRONG.

That's nearly as depressing as my brother saying white people were oppressed.

*hangs head*

Somemen'srightsactivistonthecomments wrote:

Princess Pompey would appear to be another feminist quick to jump on a soapbox and distort facts to help her own suspect argument.

I smell irony.

Equally applied or not, it's a dumb idea. What's to stop an enraged spouse from resuming the violence immediately after brief jail stint they will doubtlessly fault the victim for?

Not necessarily. For one thing, it gives the spouse a chance to GTFO. For another, if it's a matter of the spouse being drunk / w/e, it gives them a chance to sober up. It's probably also helpful in getting a restraining order.

Penguin wrote:

Quote :

What's to stop an enraged spouse from resuming the violence immediately after brief jail stint they will doubtlessly fault the victim for?

It's not a jail stint, it's a police order to keep clear of a specified location, like a restraining order. And, you're right, there's noting stopping that person returning afterwards, but presumably, it gives the victim some time to organise alternative living arrangements free from harassment from the removed person.

And, as someone I shared with this pointed out: "What is there stopping the person returning once the police have left?" Well: Nothing, however when this occurs, the police, (who could not arrest the suspect on charges of domestic violence previously, due to lack of evidence) now can take action for breech of a police order.

Quote :

Equally applied or not, it's a dumb idea.

I'm not saying it's not without it's problems, this is why it is only being trialled. It is, however, certainly more than what police have otherwise in this situation... Which is, well, nothing.

I wish I had something more intelligent to say, but this seems like it will be a good thing once all the problems are worked out...

And I think people should remember even afterwards there will be cases where it doesn't work 100%, because we're all human and our system and selves are prone to making mistakes.

I'm glad to see something positive is on the News section for once.

Personally, I am now really hoping that the trails are successful. It would be worth any problems just to stick it to Councillor Williams.

P.S. I'm not quite sure what 'Go Oders' are, but they sound like something that tries and fails to be a type of scent.

Well, I'm glad that these Go Orders are gender neutral so they can help protect anyone from domestic violence.

Men's Rights Activists. Cripes, are these guys printing material or setting up hotlines for male victims of sexual assault? Are they trying to set up shelters for battered men? How about supporting the right to marry and start a family with another man? What about the problems facing disabled men, men who aren't caucasian, queer and transgendered men, or men living below the poverty line? How about pushing for more contraceptive options for men? Is their talk of fathers' rights really limited bitching about mandatory child support?

Or is it just a bunch of whining about feminism? Yeah, I thought so.

^Pretty much exactly that.

Because if they were doing any of the other stuff, they'd be feminists.

The idea itself is good and with good intentions, but it needs a lot of work to make it feasible. What exactly *is* stopping the offending party from returning to the home and murdering their significant other during their court-ordered 48-hours leave? The threat of being jailed isn't exactly a deterrent to some people. Who's to say they won't simply go back, kill the SO and then go on the run? All the laws in the world won't matter if their SO is already dead.

Not to mention Battered Wives Syndrome (note: I am using this in reference to battered men as well). If the court-ordered 48-hour leave is not requested (i.e. the police decide upon that and not the victim), said victim will not leave.

And, of course, they will have to have provisions in order to quell the potential of abuse of this service. There are people (I said people, not naming any specific gender) that are more than willing to lie about their SO in order to do them wrong, like empty the bank accounts, steal everything in the house, and make a break for it. How is the accused supposed to defend against something like that?

And what if the domestic abuse is mutual? Are they both ordered out of the house?

Again, good idea but needs a lot of ironing out.

I know the U.S. started implementing something like this back in the mid-90s (in most states, if police respond to a domestic dispute someone is either leaving of their own volition or leaving in handcuffs regardless of the victims' requests). It's also gender-neutral, and provides that if the police cannot determine who the aggressor was both parties will be removed from the scene.

Some states permit the person removed during this "cooling off" period to return to the home, under police escort, to retrieve personal effects. Others will allow the police to seize firearms and ammunition in the home if they have reasonable suspicion that the person would use them.

They do work, for the most part, provided that resources are also available for the victim.

Seems like this law could also be a good way to get your violent, drug-addicted eighteen year old out of the house, too.