Being a wife to become illegal

Theresa May is expected to unveil plans to make psychological and emotional abuse a criminal offence with a lengthy prison term, according to reports.

The new law on domestic violence would make it illegal for someone to exercise ‘coercive control’ over their partner.

The proposals, which could find those guilty facing a maximum 14 years in prison, will be unveiled by the Government this week.

Given that the way wives train husbands is through coercive control (that 100% control of nookie helps here) this makes all wives seemingly subject to 14 years in pokey.

Seems a bit extreme if you ask me. After all, we’ve still got divorce for those men that don’t like it.

36 thoughts on “Being a wife to become illegal”

  1. The sheer stupidity and radfem-sucking poison of this takes the breath away. From a gang who squark endlessly about “family values” a more brazen attack on said family is hard to imagine. Now everybody’s family life is to be the business of state commissars–who obviously all have Ideal marriages.

    And there are chumps on here who want us to vote for BluLab?.

  2. My wife is bullying me to convert to Islam, would that count as abuse aswell? Would she get 14 years for this?? Inshallah.

  3. Standard feminist theory, put into law. This is why any sensible society would not allow feminists near any part of the institutional system of that society. Unfortunately, we have allowed them in. Short of an explicit purge of feminists from poltiics, the law, etc, it is really too late to do anything about it. Welcome to Jemima Crow.

  4. I guess the socialists were right about the malleability of society. I’m still not sure why they do it though. This particular insanity benefits nobody.

  5. I laugh at the idea of this applying to wives. It is for husbands only. One less reason to engage in the traditional male female relationship.

  6. @John Barker:

    When you’ve had enough, convert post haste and then set her shoes outside the door.

    You can go back to whatever you like later.

  7. Been warning about this for ages on various message boards.The home office completed one of its notorious phony consultations last month – the sort where they only ever listen to “stakeholders”, in this case radfems and screechy pressure groups. May, of course, also has plans to censor anyone saying anything they don’t agree with, stop them speaking in public, posting on the internet, though it’s nothing which is actually illegal – in the speech she announced this at the Tory conference the obtuse oafs cheered her to the rafters (and many idiot press columnists went wild about this foul police state measure), thinking it would apply only to Islamic extremists – but, of course, it will be applied to everyone, including them.

    I never thought we would see worse than Straw and Blunkett in the home office – May is though, a truly utterly evil and dangerous woman. Even more reason now to vote against these alleged Tories at every opportunity.

  8. If wives withhold bedroom hanky-panky then there are always those who are willing to provide such services for less than the wife charges for not doing so.

    Until such time as the feminists make paying for it a criminal offence that is (i.e. Sweden, NI etc).

  9. MikeR-

    in the speech she announced this at the Tory conference the obtuse oafs cheered her to the rafters

    In another thread, Mr Ecks has revived a phrase I’ve used regarding these types- the “clapping seals”.

    I’m still not sure why they do it though. This particular insanity benefits nobody.

    Murdering the Jews did German society no benefit either. Indeed, it was positively ruinous from a German perspective. This is what happens when a society is gripped by a conspiracy theory which blames all its ills on one demographic group.

  10. By the way, we’re also due shortly a law against “speaking to a woman when you have not been given prior permission”, which is slowly working its way through the EU thanks to the European Womens Lobby; hence the sudden spate of “street harrassment” videos, “EverydaySexism”, etc.

  11. So Much for Subtlety

    Mr Ecks – “And there are chumps on here who want us to vote for BluLab?”

    So. Where are the usual Cameron loyalists to tell us this is all perfectly compatible with Conservative Party values as they have been understood for the past 200 years?

    What is so hypocritical about this is that it is only going to be enforced on White heterosexual males. But they do not have the courage to say so.

    And as I have said before, liberal Britain is dead. It is not that our rulers have rejected liberalism. It is that they no longer even engage with Classical Liberalism as an idea worthy of respect. They simply do not think about it. It does not occur to them that the State should stay out of people’s private lives. They mean well. Therefore they should meddle and control.

  12. My wife doesn’t control me (nor I her). On any given matter, at any given moment, we agree between us what to do. What is so fucking hard about this??? Srsly.

    Any man who allows himself to be controlled by a woman (or anyone else without actual power over him) is a bit of a sad case, IMO.

    That said, of course May and the Tories are wankers. It being done to you by someone you (once, long ago) thought might be if not quite on your side then at least distantly related makes it more irritating.

    I’ve written to my MP to say he can whistle for my vote, not that he gives much of a shit. I suspect he’s too thick to realise that it’s not just those who can be arsed to write letters.

  13. “What is so hypocritical about this is that it is only going to be enforced on White heterosexual males. But they do not have the courage to say so”

    This is is real black is white territory. I think you are meant to know this, but then pretend you didn’t notice. It is supposed to corrupt you, going along with this. And if you break cover and say something then they either ridicule or destroy you. And everyone else joins in because they are scared.

    You are correct about liberalism, it died a long time ago. Stupid to act as if it didn’t.

  14. This will lean you. All those years of being tollerant and where has it got you.
    Better be a bigot.
    Anyway this will accentuate white flight as it is meant to do.
    Soon Zimbabwe will be more bearable.

  15. This is is real black is white territory. I think you are meant to know this, but then pretend you didn’t notice.

    Sort of. The idea of this kind of ideological totalitarianism is that you are supposed to believe something which is not true, and if your guard slips and you start noticing that it is not true, to feel very guilty about it. It’s a very effective means of keeping people in a mental box. It also makes everyone a policeman.

    Random example, which came up on the Telegraph’s Twatter Feed thingy today-

    RT @hendopolis: My friend discovered these cards in a game she bought for her daughter pic.twitter.com/JxR0XgzL8E>In 2014. Amazing— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) November 23, 2014

    Standard Happy Families game, “discovered” to be sexist. So, better ban that then as well. And so on.

  16. Sooo, the bloke gets jailed for a ‘lengthy’ term and refines his ping pong skills in a nag-free environment. His wife loses a minimum of half the household income.
    Brilliant thinking Ms May.

  17. So Much for Subtlety

    JeremyT – “Sooo, the bloke gets jailed for a ‘lengthy’ term and refines his ping pong skills in a nag-free environment. His wife loses a minimum of half the household income.
    Brilliant thinking Ms May.”

    In fairness this won’t be entirely aimed at White males as I said. Afro-Caribbean males are likely to come under its provisions as well. In many cases the wife won’t have any household income.

    Where it is likely to be useful is that it is aimed at partners. Not wives. We will have to see what the law really says. But if it is aimed at “partners” it will be used by girlfriends as relations break up. Now wives can get their revenge through the divorce process. Girlfriends, even long term ones, don’t have that option. But now, after some years together, she can express her feelings by claiming he was controlling.

    In other utterly unsurprising news, May also says that Cameron won’t keep his promise to keep the number of EU immigrants down. Big surprise there.

  18. Whats misisng from the dabte is the effect long term on children.

    A 20 year old bloke would be am,d to consider marriage given the direction things are going. Yet all the studies prove comprehensively that children in married stable households have the best life chances.

    So the radfems are aggressively hurting the future prospects of children in society. I don’t know what annoys the fuck out of me more – the stupidity or the narcissism.

  19. “The idea of this kind of ideological totalitarianism is that you are supposed to believe something which is not true, and if your guard slips and you start noticing that it is not true, to feel very guilty about it.”

    I would disagree, sort of. You must notice, because most of it is ludicrous. And it gets more and more obvious as time goes on. I believe it is designed to corrupt more than anything, because by not speaking or acting, you realise that you are a coward and a liar. Corrupt people are easier to control than honest people.

  20. So Much for Subtlety

    Just in passing and definitely off topic, the Daily Mail also printed this tripe:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2845832/It-s-time-stop-dancing-cynical-Ukip-s-corrosive-pernicious-tune-says-vice-chairman-Tory-backbench-1922-Committee.html

    Of course he neatly misses the point utterly. In fact he manages to side-step every point in a masterpiece of weaselly dishonesty. But look at the comments. As I have said, immigration is *the* issue. The Tories will pay if they listen to this idiot.

    The only conclusion seems to be that, as said above, they want to drive people into the arms of UKIP.

  21. So Much for Subtlety

    Tomsmith – “I believe it is designed to corrupt more than anything, because by not speaking or acting, you realise that you are a coward and a liar. Corrupt people are easier to control than honest people.”

    Havel may have been an ar$e but he did say it best:

    {4}The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

    {5}I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.

    {6}Obviously the greengrocer . . . does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

    {7}Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;’ he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, “What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?” Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.

    {8}Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing his job behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying in power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe. . . .

    So we have to agree or else. Or else, even here at TW’s, some little more cripple with the soul of a petty bureaucrat will be along to accuse you of sexism or misogyny or racism. They want to drag everyone and everything down to their level. Living in the gutter, they cannot tolerate any person to want something better. Which begins with living in truth.

  22. Do we really lie to ourselves that much, or do we know but are just cowards? I certainly notice it but do not act and so I must be a coward and a liar rather than a self deciever.

  23. So the radfems are aggressively hurting the future prospects of children in society.

    This is a feature, not a bug. The Toynbees of this world have long harboured dreams of parents being sidelined while the state brainwashes them in podding hutches (Sure Start centres) into becoming good little lefties. And now the radical feminists have taken up the cudgels of the same idea in their drive to eliminate men from ordinary life. They couldn’t give a shit about the kids, they would be happy for them all to shipped off into care homes run by Myra Hindley and Rosemary West provided they could bang the feminist drum that bit louder.

  24. Better a party with no policies than a party with insane policies.

    UKIP – insane policies (well, except for their core one and their tax ones.)
    Tories – deliberately or negligently malicious policies.

    Nutters can be sidelined.

  25. VftS

    “Snigger? Weep? Emigrate?”

    A Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service spokesman said: “Domestic abuse is never trivial and our prosecutors take it extremely seriously – there is simply no place for it and no excuse for it.”

    All three!

    Stark raving bonkers, the lot of them…

    If he’d grown a pair, he might have said “Ordinarily, domestic abuse is never trivial, blah blah … but I’m afraid on this occasion we just completely screwed up. These things happen, thankfully very rarely; our sincerest apologies to the couple (and all that)…

  26. @PF

    ‘If he’d grown a pair, he might have said “Ordinarily, domestic abuse is never trivial, blah blah … but I’m afraid on this occasion we just completely screwed up. These things happen, thankfully very rarely; our sincerest apologies to the couple (and all that)…’

    Never apologise, never explain.

    That way lie the lawyers (I’m sorry to say).

  27. Mr Ecks says:

    The bitch isn’t missing a trick–she is back without ever going away.

    http://newsblog.wp.no2id.net/2014-11/internet-data-plan-back-on-political-agenda/

    Static IP addresses are already assigned to a subscriber. And it is very unlikely that ISP’s will not already automatically log subscriber connections for their dynamic IP addresses (and probably even any Carrier grade NAT).

    But this is interesting, and from the MD / owner of a UK ISP:

    http://www.revk.uk/2014/11/theresa-may-loses-plot-again.html

    It is self explanatory and illustrtates, as with most of this stuff, the nonsense these politicians typically come out with.

    > Interested

    Agreed – re lawyers, compensation and all that rubbish.

  28. I couldn’t agree less re: the lawyers

    Whether they apologise or not, the facts of the case remain the same, and the couple is still free to sue. Had they had an apology, then we would all look kindly on the mistake. Without the apology, the error is aggravated.

    This is true in all areas of life. Apologise, and the person you’ve wounded will almost always look to forgive (this is true in spades when dealing with customers). After all, you’ve just proved yourself to be the honest type, and therefore might even sort the problem out.

    If you take the denial route, you just prove that you’re a twat, and that you’ll offend again.

    Concocting some irritating, bullshit, see-through smokescreen is no defence against lawyers, and I’ve no idea why some people think it is

  29. Jack C

    That’s an excellent point. FWIW, I think I personally understood Interested more to be “explaining” than “justifying”?

    Like I suspect a lot of people, I find it too instinctive to apologise, and even when the fault lies elsewhere! And you are right, that rarely ever hurts or comes back to bite.

    But the disease of litigation (in the “we’re all victims / entitled” sense) is increasingly a miserable fact of life; and modern risk assessment will often therefore dictate…

  30. @PF – you’re right, I was explaining (one reason) why they never apologise, which is that it is unhelpful, legally speaking.

    Jack C is quite right in that if you commit a tort against George Soros then any subsequent apology will have no impact on whether or not he wins in court (though of course it may affect his decision to sue – and quantum if he does, and wins) but when dealing with Joe Public it’s a shot across his bows which may discourage him from going to court.

    Plus I suspect many organisations are insured against legal action and that not apologising is a condition of that insurance.

    Personally, I’m all for apologising (I did so recently to Jack C on this very blog, when I misunderstood a point he made and to which I responded in a most ungentlemanly fashion!).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *