• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Sign in to follow this  
swiss_democracy_for_all

Controlling behaviour laws and the rules of unintended consequences.

Recommended Posts

The vague wording along lins of 'partner who  controls money and denies partner access to it'

In ~80% of the cases I know thats the women. Seriously.

Growing up, I can think of at least 5 blokes on the street where the woman insisterd  the paypacket (as it was) was handed to them, unopened. Then the bloke was given pocket money.

SJW seem to have a very different grasp of how women are.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

I guess these laws were concocted by feminists and  intended to combat the vary rare psycho men who control and intimidate their partners. 

But nagging wives are now breaking the law, and there are a lot more of them than there are psycho husbands. xD

This pair both sound like twats, but it won’t be the last case like this.....

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/woman-arrested-charged-controlling-behaviour-081900365.html

Oh my. Pretty much all of my male friends' relationships would fit into this category.

There's not enough popcorn in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, spygirl said:

The vague wording along lins of 'partner who  controls money and denies partner access to it'

In ~80% of the cases I know thats the women. Seriously.

Growing up, I can think of at least 5 blokes on the street where the woman insisterd  the paypacket (as it was) was handed to them, unopened. Then the bloke was given pocket money.

SJW seem to have a very different grasp of how women are.

 

 

I even know a few where I work and one poor sap has got to work a shit load overtime for the next 14 months has his misses wants to go Disneyland get this -drumroll - a cost of 120000 pounds he is a glorified carer ffs he is nuts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What's brought this law into place is a tiny number of horrendous controlling men and SJWs have extended this to think that all men are controlling.

The reality is that far more women than men are controlling and it is so common that it has its own language: nagging, going on, shrew, scold, harridan.

I wasn't surprised to read that the wife in this relationship was less than 5'. That's somebody who's spent their life taking second place and all that pent up aggression gets its release in the marriage: shouting, screaming, being a thoroughgoing 24hr nightmare.

I get the impression that he realised early on that he'd made a huge mistake and so spent absolutely as much time as he could away from her: at the gym every day, cleaning the car for four hours.

Also note that she received a two year restraining order. You don't get that for "asking" somebody to do some cleaning.

5 minutes ago, stokiescum said:

I even know a few where I work and one poor sap has got to work a shit load overtime for the next 14 months has his misses wants to go Disneyland get this -drumroll - a cost of 120000 pounds he is a glorified carer ffs he is nuts

I hope you have added an extra nought there stokie.

Edited by Frank Hovis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

What's brought this law into place is a tiny number of horrendous controlling men and SJWs have extended this to think that all men are controlling.

The reality is that far more women than men are controlling and it is so common that it has its own language: nagging, going on, shrew, scold, harridan.

I wasn't surprised to read that the wife in this relationship was less than 5'. That's somebody who's spent their life taking second place and all that pent up aggression gets its release in the marriage: shouting, screaming, being a thoroughgoing 24hr nightmare.

I get the impression that he realised early on that he'd made a huge mistake and so spent absolutely as much time as he could away from her: at the gym every day, cleaning the car for four hours.

I hope you have added an extra nought their stokie.

Tired and got a busy day of drinking ahead  after a nightshift it was 12k my bad but I’ve just realised one of these women

wants me to spend my one day off this week with her so I’ve seen sense and politely said we are not compatable I visited yesterday morning after work  ffs.she didn’t even know my surname and was planing shit lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, mooncat69 said:

“Surely it isn’t controlling behaviour otherwise every married couple would be in court?”

Women in the comments section aren't happy.

Made me laugh too..

Also the husband's response:

Quote

But her husband, who she first met online, hit back: “I’m not sure if she should have gone to court or not. That was not my decision – but she was controlling. She was constantly on at me.

xD  Yep,  that's every marriage I know.

But this is the real win:

Quote

Mrs Sanders’ not guilty plea was accepted in return for a two-year restraining order.

Now if we can just get those for the kids as well,  life will be golden  :Beer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, stokiescum said:

Tired and got a busy day of drinking ahead  after a nightshift it was 12k my bad but I’ve just realised one of these women

wants me to spend my one day off this week with her so I’ve seen sense and politely said we are not compatable I visited yesterday morning after work  ffs.she didn’t even know my surname and was planing shit lol.

You mean to say your surname isn't Scum?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these people want that sort of relationship the blokes either want a controlling missus to play mum or women want a controlling husband to play dad. Some will take the controlling too far but most of the controlled will just set themselves up in another relationship with a similar dynamic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other versions of this story seem to paint a slightly fuller picture. It looks like when they met in 2012 he wasn't doing the gym thing, so I'm guessing that he had since found that and she didn't like it. Rather than just admit they had changed and move on they continued the relationship even though its clear it wasn't working... and this waste of police time is the result. Love some of the hypocracy in the comments "she's out being the breadwinner he should do some cleaning" - spin that around - oh wait, that's not compatible with modern feminazi's...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

More seriously this was possibly quite clever by someone in the CPS..  Take a completely stupid law,   use it in exactly the way it is worded but against a protected/privileged social class (ladies)..  then when it collapses that case becomes the precedent for future cases so the CPS can just say..   naa..  doesn't meet the minimum requirement to prosecute.   Remember that case where the partner was writing threatening letters around the house and verbally abusing the other?   Yeah, it got thrown out...  just record it as another low level domestic..   Job done..  who's for McDs and Krispy Kremes ?

Edited by Libspero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

What's brought this law into place is a tiny number of horrendous controlling men and SJWs have extended this to think that all men are controlling.

The reality is that far more women than men are controlling and it is so common that it has its own language: nagging, going on, shrew, scold, harridan.

I wasn't surprised to read that the wife in this relationship was less than 5'. That's somebody who's spent their life taking second place and all that pent up aggression gets its release in the marriage: shouting, screaming, being a thoroughgoing 24hr nightmare.

I get the impression that he realised early on that he'd made a huge mistake and so spent absolutely as much time as he could away from her: at the gym every day, cleaning the car for four hours.

Also note that she received a two year restraining order. You don't get that for "asking" somebody to do some cleaning.

I hope you have added an extra nought there stokie.

Nail on head.  I bet she's an absolute cunt to work for as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

I guess these laws were concocted by feminists and  intended to combat the vary rare psycho men who control and intimidate their partners. 

But nagging wives are now breaking the law, and there are a lot more of them than there are psycho husbands. xD

This pair both sound like twats, but it won’t be the last case like this.....

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/woman-arrested-charged-controlling-behaviour-081900365.html

Sauce for the goose.

I knew this law, the wording of it, was fucking stupid - but also recognised that it could be used in precisely this way.  They don't like it up 'em

 

2 hours ago, mooncat69 said:

“Surely it isn’t controlling behaviour otherwise every married couple would be in court?”

Women in the comments section aren't happy.

Yeah, noticed, it's all the viewpoint of that it should be the poor wammin who are protected.

Well now the law is as stupidly vague as it is written it will be used like this.

Just like threatening you that you won't see your kids - classically controlling behaviour. I would have had a field day with this and my ex a few years back .... 

 

2 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

What's brought this law into place is a tiny number of horrendous controlling men and SJWs have extended this to think that all men are controlling.

The reality is that far more women than men are controlling and it is so common that it has its own language: nagging, going on, shrew, scold, harridan.

I wasn't surprised to read that the wife in this relationship was less than 5'. That's somebody who's spent their life taking second place and all that pent up aggression gets its release in the marriage: shouting, screaming, being a thoroughgoing 24hr nightmare.

I get the impression that he realised early on that he'd made a huge mistake and so spent absolutely as much time as he could away from her: at the gym every day, cleaning the car for four hours.

Also note that she received a two year restraining order. You don't get that for "asking" somebody to do some cleaning.

I hope you have added an extra nought there stokie.

Yeah noticed that too, the couple are now divorcing lol, sounds like the best way forward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Austin Allegro said:

I'd love to see what the reaction to this story is over at Mumsnet.

But I value my sanity.

I find it very reasonable outside of the batshit mental Feminism section.

This thread on the effect of the two child limit on Tax Credits would sit very nicely here: essentially why should people on benefits be able to have children they can't afford?

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3623271--Two-child-limit-taking-toll-on-family-life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

.

"The case was listed for trial at Teesside crown court on Tuesday but was dismissed before a jury was sworn in.

Mrs Sanders’ not guilty plea was accepted in return for a two-year restraining order."

It doesn't explain how how there was no trial (the case was dismissed) but she pleaded not guilty and still got a restraining order.

Some form of pre-trial hearing/plea bargaining? but it's not clear.  It seems like inadequate journalism again?

 

 

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mooncat69 said:

“Surely it isn’t controlling behaviour otherwise every married couple would be in court?”

Women in the comments section aren't happy.

Police telephone switchboard just melted down from all of Britain's henpecked husbands calling at once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Mrs Sanders’ not guilty plea was accepted in return for a two-year restraining order.

I'm guessing this must have been a way beyond a bit of nagging for that to happen. Still, result for the bloke, solidarity brothers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, twocents said:

.

"The case was listed for trial at Teesside crown court on Tuesday but was dismissed before a jury was sworn in.

Mrs Sanders’ not guilty plea was accepted in return for a two-year restraining order."

It doesn't explain how how there was no trial (the case was dismissed) but she pleaded not guilty and still got a restraining order.

Some form of pre-trial hearing/plea bargaining? but it's not clear.  It seems like inadequate journalism again?

 

 

I believe the 'victim' (the bloke) didn't want the case to go ahead and the CPS decided the case wasn't in the public interest, the two combined probably means it wasn't a wonderful use of public money.  Seeing as the couple are divorcing etc, probably pre-trail discussion decided it didn't have any legs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, JFK said:

I believe the 'victim' (the bloke) didn't want the case to go ahead and the CPS decided the case wasn't in the public interest, the two combined probably means it wasn't a wonderful use of public money.  Seeing as the couple are divorcing etc, probably pre-trail discussion decided it didn't have any legs

I agree that's probably the case - the thing that's not clear is how an official and legal restraining order can be made without some sort of hearing - there must have been some official hearing that's been glossed over and gone unreported in the article.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Libspero
      He may have dropped from the lime light recently,  but he’s not lost his flare for entertainment..   fantastic trolling of a radical feminist who threw water on him at a recent event.  If you’ve got 10 minutes it’s worth a watch 
       
    • By Melchett
      Sorry about the source link. Funny there's no HYS on this story.....
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-42484987
      So the World Chess authorities gave the current world championships to one of the most regressive countries in the world (a decision that is coming back now to bite them on the ass, although not nearly as much as it should). Anyone care to guess why this place was chosen?
      Isnt there going to be a footie tournament in this bit of the world soon? I wonder how that's going to pan out, too, and why they chose such an unsuitable place?
       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.