domestic violence

[The Graduate.]

It's not just about domestic violence anyway. Look at Cheryl Cole - she assaulted a women in some toilets, but does that make men wary of her?

Yeah well... She did end up marrying a black bloke just to prove she wasn't racist!

Thats all ive got time for atm

[Raggamuffin]

Coincidence they announce this the day after this story:

Women and children could die as a result of the Government’s legal aid cuts, warns a former attorney general, who will today make a last-ditch attempt to overturn the changes in the House of Lords....

Medical evidence from a GP, A&E, counsellor or women’s refugee would not be enough to qualify under the new proposals which are part of coalition plans to try and slash £350m from the legal aid bill.

Half of all domestic violence victims will not qualify for legal aid to help them and their children safely separate from abusive relationships, according to research by Rights of Women and Welsh Women’s Aid. While most victims surveyed had collaborative evidence to show they were receiving support, most would not satisfy the new rules.

So basically from now on its up to you to find out if the guy is a violent nut before hand because if he slaps the shit out of you and your kids you wont get any help taking him to court. Compassionate Conservatism!!!!

Why would they need legal aid? Surely it's a criminal matter.

The trouble is that a lot of women don't want to press charges if their blokes beats them up.

[meat]

It's not just about domestic violence anyway. Look at Cheryl Cole - she assaulted a women in some toilets, but does that make men wary of her?

why would men be wary of a woman that purportedly,assaulted a black woman
in an isolated incident
while pissed ?

[wutang]

Why would they need legal aid? Surely it's a criminal matter.

The trouble is that a lot of women don't want to press charges if their blokes beats them up.

because they are too scared to. "Campaigners such as the National Federation of Women’s Institute say the new rules will fail victims too scared or traumatised to go to the police. Two thirds of women using Women’s Aid refugees in 2010 did not report the first incident of abuse to police, but typically after three to five times"

The cut in legal aid will make it harder for

victims of domestic violence who could provide evidence such as a criminal conviction against the perpetrator, a non-molestation order or an active child protection plan from the past 12 months

[Raggamuffin]

Why would they need legal aid? Surely it's a criminal matter.

The trouble is that a lot of women don't want to press charges if their blokes beats them up.

because they are too scared to. "Campaigners such as the National Federation of Women’s Institute say the new rules will fail victims too scared or traumatised to go to the police. Two thirds of women using Women’s Aid refugees in 2010 did not report the first incident of abuse to police, but typically after three to five times"

The cut in legal aid will make it harder for

victims of domestic violence who could provide evidence such as a criminal conviction against the perpetrator, a non-molestation order or an active child protection plan from the past 12 months

I still don't see what legal aid has to do with it. If a women is beaten up and presses charges, surely it's up to the police and courts to deal with him under the criminal law. If they don't report the man, why would they get legal aid for something they can't prove?

[Raggamuffin]

It's not just about domestic violence anyway. Look at Cheryl Cole - she assaulted a women in some toilets, but does that make men wary of her?

why would men be wary of a woman that purportedly,assaulted a black woman
in an isolated incident
while pissed ?

It's actually not relevant that she was black.

The point is that a man could assault or harass a woman and other women might think - oh, it was a one off - like in the case of Cheryl Cole. They wouldn't necessarily think that the man was a violent loony who would do it to them as well.

[wutang]

I still don't see what legal aid has to do with it. If a women is beaten up and presses charges, surely it's up to the police and courts to deal with him under the criminal law.

What about restraining orders, and other such court proceedings, that prevent violent spouses from harrassing their victims. And enables them to end the relationship formally and start again.

The article gives a case study:

Jane*, 40, left her husband after 15 years of verbal, emotional and physical abuse but now must fight for custody of their young son, her home and financial support through the courts because her husband refused mediation.

A few years ago she called the police after he grabbed her throat in front of their son, but he was let off with a caution. He smashed her head open but theA&E visit did not count as evidence. She has cut her working hours to qualify for legal aid because she has no savings and her family cannot help. Under the new rules, she wouldn’t qualify for legal aid.

Her mother, Judy*, said: “After he took to drinking, he became very verbally abusive, always putting her down, threatening to hit her. She’d call me at all hours because she was so scared. She would leave but then he’d work his magic, promise to get help. Finally she left him last year because of her son. “She’s had to borrow money for a flat, for lawyers, for petrol, but we’re retired and can’t help her any more. The legal bill could be £20,000, so without legal aid she’d have to represent herself, but she’s under so much stress that I’m not sure she could do it.”

[Trapper John]

Coincidence they announce this the day after this story:

Women and children could die as a result of the Government’s legal aid cuts, warns a former attorney general, who will today make a last-ditch attempt to overturn the changes in the House of Lords....

Medical evidence from a GP, A&E, counsellor or women’s refugee would not be enough to qualify under the new proposals which are part of coalition plans to try and slash £350m from the legal aid bill.

Half of all domestic violence victims will not qualify for legal aid to help them and their children safely separate from abusive relationships, according to research by Rights of Women and Welsh Women’s Aid. While most victims surveyed had collaborative evidence to show they were receiving support, most would not satisfy the new rules.

So basically from now on its up to you to find out if the guy is a violent nut before hand because if he slaps the shit out of you and your kids you wont get any help taking him to court. Compassionate Conservatism!!!!

Or look at it from the other direction, if you can bring yourself to.....maybe we wouldn't have to think about cutting legal aid costs if we didn't have thousands of illegal immigrants, asylum seekers and terrorists, bleeding the legal aid pot dry with their attempts at avoiding deportation and various other issues that ambulance chasing lawyers keep our courts tied up with.

[Raggamuffin]

I still don't see what legal aid has to do with it. If a women is beaten up and presses charges, surely it's up to the police and courts to deal with him under the criminal law.

What about restraining orders, and other such court proceedings, that prevent violent spouses from harrassing their victims.

The article gives a case study:

Jane*, 40, left her husband after 15 years of verbal, emotional and physical abuse but now must fight for custody of their young son, her home and financial support through the courts because her husband refused mediation.

A few years ago she called the police after he grabbed her throat in front of their son, but he was let off with a caution. He smashed her head open but theA&E visit did not count as evidence. She has cut her working hours to qualify for legal aid because she has no savings and her family cannot help. Under the new rules, she wouldn’t qualify for legal aid.

Her mother, Judy*, said: “After he took to drinking, he became very verbally abusive, always putting her down, threatening to hit her. She’d call me at all hours because she was so scared. She would leave but then he’d work his magic, promise to get help. Finally she left him last year because of her son. “She’s had to borrow money for a flat, for lawyers, for petrol, but we’re retired and can’t help her any more. The legal bill could be £20,000, so without legal aid she’d have to represent herself, but she’s under so much stress that I’m not sure she could do it.”

Surely if a women reports the man to the police and he ends up being convicted of assault, it should be common sense that she has protection without having to take out a restraining order. In the example you just gave, the man was let off with a caution, so it's the police and the courts which are the problem. If he smashed her head open, why did the A&E visit not count as evidence? Were the police not called at the time?

[wutang]

Or look at it from the other direction, if you can bring yourself to.....maybe we wouldn't have to think about cutting legal aid costs if we didn't have thousands of illegal immigrants, asylum seekers and terrorists, bleeding the legal aid pot dry with their attempts at avoiding deportation and various other issues that ambulance chasing lawyers keep our courts tied up with.

If we can afford multi-billion pound bonuses for bankers then we can afford to provide legal support to those that cant afford it.

My way punishes the rich, yours punishes the poor. I know whose side Im on.

[wutang]

Surely if a women reports the man to the police and he ends up being convicted of assault, it should be common sense that she has protection without having to take out a restraining order. In the example you just gave, the man was let off with a caution, so it's the police and the courts which are the problem. If he smashed her head open, why did the A&E visit not count as evidence? Were the police not called at the time?

Did you not read it properly. She left him but now has to fight for custody of her son, the home, etc. That stuff cost money by cutting legal aid it becomes harder for women to break free - one of the reasons women are scared to ditch abusive husbands is because they have no means of support independent to them... cutting back means of support further (in this case legal aid) is only gonna make the issue worse.

One of the few successes in battling domestic abuse over the past decade has been precisely this means of aiding women take preventative actions against abusive partners - not always physical abuse, but pyschological, and financial (which are not always criminal matters). This cut will set back this means of actions.

[Trapper John]

Or look at it from the other direction, if you can bring yourself to.....maybe we wouldn't have to think about cutting legal aid costs if we didn't have thousands of illegal immigrants, asylum seekers and terrorists, bleeding the legal aid pot dry with their attempts at avoiding deportation and various other issues that ambulance chasing lawyers keep our courts tied up with.

If we can afford multi-billion pound bonuses for bankers then we can afford to provide legal support to those that cant afford it.

My way punishes the rich, yours punishes the poor. I know whose side Im on.

My Way?..............think you are very confused.....I think every person who cannot afford legal support should get legal aid.....I just don't think that every person 'IN THE WORLD' should be getting legal aid paid for by the British taxpayer.

[Raggamuffin]

Surely if a women reports the man to the police and he ends up being convicted of assault, it should be common sense that she has protection without having to take out a restraining order. In the example you just gave, the man was let off with a caution, so it's the police and the courts which are the problem. If he smashed her head open, why did the A&E visit not count as evidence? Were the police not called at the time?

Did you not read it properly. She left him but now has to fight for custody of her son, the home, etc. That stuff cost money by cutting legal aid it becomes harder for women to break free - one of the reasons women are scared to ditch abusive husbands is because they have no means of support independent to them... cutting back means of support further (in this case legal aid) is only gonna make the issue worse.

One of the few successes in battling domestic abuse over the past decade has been precisely this means of aiding women take preventative actions against abusive partners - not always physical abuse, but pyschological, and financial (which are not always criminal matters). This cut will set back this means of actions.

OK, so you're talking about legal aid for custody and financial issues, you're not talking about protection because of his violence. That's a different issue.

What I'm interested in is why he was not arrested and convicted of assault. Did she not tell the hospital staff how she got those injuries, and were the police not called at the time?

[Raggamuffin]

The case of Stan Collymore springs to mind. I don't think he was convicted of assaulting Ulrika Jonnson but he admitted it didn't he? He has had other women since then who must surely have been aware of what he did and it didn't stop them having a relationship with him.

[Guestwhowontlogin]

Coincidence they announce this the day after this story:

Women and children could die as a result of the Government’s legal aid cuts, warns a former attorney general, who will today make a last-ditch attempt to overturn the changes in the House of Lords....

Medical evidence from a GP, A&E, counsellor or women’s refugee would not be enough to qualify under the new proposals which are part of coalition plans to try and slash £350m from the legal aid bill.

Half of all domestic violence victims will not qualify for legal aid to help them and their children safely separate from abusive relationships, according to research by Rights of Women and Welsh Women’s Aid. While most victims surveyed had collaborative evidence to show they were receiving support, most would not satisfy the new rules.

So basically from now on its up to you to find out if the guy is a violent nut before hand because if he slaps the shit out of you and your kids you wont get any help taking him to court. Compassionate Conservatism!!!!

Plus Boris cut funding to London Rape Crisis Centres by £495,000.