Scottish police to be trained to spot new domestic abuse offence

Article here. Excerpt:

'Around 14,000 Police Scotland officers are to receive specialist training in preparation for a new domestic abuse crime coming into force in Scotland, which is believed to be unique in law internationally.

The training will help officers spot seemingly innocuous actions which are in fact part of a cycle of psychological abuse or coercive control.

Although an offence of coercive control was introduced in England in 2015, the Scottish legislation takes a unique approach which has been hailed as offering “victimless prosecution”. It reflects a growing understanding that domestic abuse is often a course of behaviour that extends over a period of time and includes not only physical violence.

The domestic abuse bill, which reaches its final stage through Holyrood early next year, will create a specific offence which will cover not only physical domestic abuse but other forms of psychological abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour that cannot easily be prosecuted using the existing criminal law.

It allows the police and courts to pursue someone on a “course of conduct” offence – that is a single offence where physical, psychological and coercive behaviour can be prosecuted at once. This course of conduct offence includes a “reasonable person test”. For example, would a reasonable person consider that limiting a woman’s access to her bank account or prescribing her meal times amounted to controlling behaviour?'

Like0 Dislike0


... where does the line get drawn? How far from you-can-only-eat-beets exists as a crime to I-thought-the-cake-was-a-bit-dry becomes likewise? Or what of cases where a woman asks her hubby to get on her case about what she eats in an effort to help her stay on her diet, but that morphs into something else in another's eyes?

Let me be clear: insisting on setting one's diet, schedule, etc., is abusive when it's intentionally controlling and the behavior is unsolicited. I do wonder though, with so many resources avail. to women to deal with domestically unhappy situations, why does anyone put up with it? I suppose we can ask the same quest. of male DV vics also. The Stockholm Syndrome has to be considered here too I guess. But when and where does the line get drawn? At what point does the state now get to decide on what terms ppl have relationships in general? Will ppl one day need to carry around licenses if they want to say to others that they are dating?

At what point in the evolution of western feminist jurisprudence does it start looking like a kind of gynocentric sharia?

Like0 Dislike0

Finally, its a crime to disagree with a woman.
Sad to see scots implementing thought police.

Bet you its only men who can be guilty of this one!

Like0 Dislike0