01-27-2019, 11:55 AM (This post was last modified: 01-27-2019, 11:56 AM by BIAD.)
On the back of what Wallfire has been saying, a small piece that last year wouldn't dared to have been reported on.
Quote:Sharia Court Warning: ‘Anti-women Islamic law operating in the UK’
Islamic law that conflicts with fundamental human rights values is being recognised in the UK, it has been warned.
'The Council of Europe singled out Britain in a measure that raises serious concerns about how Sharia councils are ruling on legal matters.
According to the Law Society Gazette, the resolution says that “Sharia councils attempt to provide a form of alternative dispute resolution, whereby members of the Muslim community, sometimes voluntarily, often under considerable social pressure, accept their religious jurisdiction mainly in marital and Islamic divorce issues, but also in matters relating to inheritance and Islamic commercial contracts.”
It goes on: “The assembly is concerned that the rulings of the Sharia councils clearly discriminate against women in divorce and inheritance cases.” The resolution was passed at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and also said that any Muslim couples tying the knot must get the marriage formally recognised before or during the religious ceremony.
The Government has previously rejected recommendations that would give official recognition to Sharia councils in the UK.
A report last year said Muslim couples must be legally obligated to have a civil marriage as well as any Islamic ceremony they have so women face “less discriminatory practices”. But instead of recommending banning Sharia councils, the report said they should be regulated.
Estimates place the number of Sharia courts operating in England and Wales at between 30 and 85...'
Quote:Estimates place the number of Sharia courts operating in England and Wales at between 30 and 85...'
They are infiltrating every country around the globe in hopes to dominate the world someday. It's good the world is waking up to what's going on and fighting back. I just hope it's not to late for some people.
As in 'The Blue Pill' thread, here's the 'new' rules being introduced in the UK.
Quote:It is now illegal for your partner to do these 11 things in a relationship Domestic abuse no longer simply means physical violence in the eyes of the law.
'Recent changes to the law have now made psychological abuse within a relationship illegal. The offence of coercive control now recognises that domestic abuse can take several forms and is not strictly limited to physical violence.
Changes to legislation The changes now outlaw a number of things that were not previously covered by existing legislation, meaning emotional abuse of a partner is now also illegal.
Coercive control is the psychological abuse of a partner, which can be committed through threats and restrictions, as well as physical violence, and carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
In Scotland, changes to the Domestic Abuse bill were passed by Parliament earlier this year, making psychological abuse and coercive controlling behaviour within a relationship a criminal offence.
The bill was amended to include behaviour that could not easily be prosecuted using the existing criminal law. The laws have now been enforced in England and Wales, with the amendments making the following 11 acts towards a partner illegal.
1. Sharing sexually explicit images of you –either online or not New laws surrounding ‘revenge porn’ make it illegal for someone to share intimate photographs of you with anyone, whether that is on or offline.
2. Restricting your access to money Even if they are the breadwinner, the law says one partner cannot stop the other from accessing money and should not give them “punitive allowances”.
3. Repeatedly putting you down Constant insults from a partner might not be typically thought of as domestic abuse, but under the new law, persistent name-calling, mocking and other forms of insulting behaviour are now illegal.
4. Stopping you from seeing friends or family If your partner continually isolates you from the people you love –whether this is in the form of monitoring or blocking your calls or emails, telling you where you can or cannot go, or preventing you from seeing your friends or relatives –it is against the law.
5. Scaring you Your partner might not physically assault you, but if they are doing enough to frighten you, they are committing an offence. Women’s Aid says this can include, but is not limited to: *Making angry gestures Using physical size to intimidate *Shouting you down Destroying your possessions *Breaking things Punching walls Wielding a knife or a gun *Threatening to kill or harm you, your children or family pets *Threats of suicide
6. Threatening to reveal private things about you Whether your partner is saying they will tell people details about your health or sexual orientation, repeated threats to reveal personal and private information is a form of abuse.
7. Putting tracking devices on your phone The Crown Prosecution Service says it is illegal under the new legislation to “monitor a person using online communication tools or spyware”.
8. Being extremely jealous If your partner persistently accuses you of cheating, simply for looking at another person, then this could constitute grounds for prosecution. Humberside Police say “extreme jealousy, including possessiveness and ridiculous accusations of cheating” all come under the new legislation.
9. Forcing you to obey their rules A relationship should be a partnership, with neither partner having control over the other. If you are forced to abide by rules set by your partner, it could mean they are committing a crime. The Crown Prosecution Service says these include rules which “humiliate, degrade or dehumanise the victim”, while Women’s Aid says examples include your partner telling you that you have no choice in decisions.
10. Controlling what you wear Your partner taking control over any part of your life is highlighted in the new legislation, including restricting who you see and where you go. Controlling what you wear or how you look could also now be grounds for prosecution under the changes.
11. Making you do things you don’t want to Your partner forcing you to commit crimes, neglecting or abusing your children, or forcing you not to reveal anything about your relationship to the authorities all count as abuse. Forcing you to have sex when you don’t want to, look at pornographic material, or have sex with others also falls under this bracket.
Tackling domestic abuse head-on “These new powers mean this behaviour, which is particularly relevant to cases of domestic abuse, can now be prosecuted in its own right,” said Alison Saunders, director of public prosecutions at the Crown Prosecution Service. “Police and prosecutors are being trained to recognise patterns of abusive behaviour which can be regarded as criminal abuse. “We will do everything in our power to tackle this abhorrent crime.”...'
So, basically if you raise your voice or look angry or just say NO, you have committed an act of Domestic Violence and need to be Jailed and sent to a Re-education Camp because of you Violent Nature and YOU don't fit in Society.
(01-27-2019, 06:16 PM)BIAD Wrote: As in 'The Blue Pill' thread, here's the 'new' rules being introduced in the UK.
Quote:It is now illegal for your partner to do these 11 things in a relationship Domestic abuse no longer simply means physical violence in the eyes of the law.
'Recent changes to the law have now made psychological abuse within a relationship illegal. The offence of coercive control now recognises that domestic abuse can take several forms and is not strictly limited to physical violence.
Changes to legislation The changes now outlaw a number of things that were not previously covered by existing legislation, meaning emotional abuse of a partner is now also illegal.
Coercive control is the psychological abuse of a partner, which can be committed through threats and restrictions, as well as physical violence, and carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
In Scotland, changes to the Domestic Abuse bill were passed by Parliament earlier this year, making psychological abuse and coercive controlling behaviour within a relationship a criminal offence.
The bill was amended to include behaviour that could not easily be prosecuted using the existing criminal law. The laws have now been enforced in England and Wales, with the amendments making the following 11 acts towards a partner illegal.
1. Sharing sexually explicit images of you –either online or not New laws surrounding ‘revenge porn’ make it illegal for someone to share intimate photographs of you with anyone, whether that is on or offline.
2. Restricting your access to money Even if they are the breadwinner, the law says one partner cannot stop the other from accessing money and should not give them “punitive allowances”.
3. Repeatedly putting you down Constant insults from a partner might not be typically thought of as domestic abuse, but under the new law, persistent name-calling, mocking and other forms of insulting behaviour are now illegal.
4. Stopping you from seeing friends or family If your partner continually isolates you from the people you love –whether this is in the form of monitoring or blocking your calls or emails, telling you where you can or cannot go, or preventing you from seeing your friends or relatives –it is against the law.
5. Scaring you Your partner might not physically assault you, but if they are doing enough to frighten you, they are committing an offence. Women’s Aid says this can include, but is not limited to: *Making angry gestures Using physical size to intimidate *Shouting you down Destroying your possessions *Breaking things Punching walls Wielding a knife or a gun *Threatening to kill or harm you, your children or family pets *Threats of suicide
6. Threatening to reveal private things about you Whether your partner is saying they will tell people details about your health or sexual orientation, repeated threats to reveal personal and private information is a form of abuse.
7. Putting tracking devices on your phone The Crown Prosecution Service says it is illegal under the new legislation to “monitor a person using online communication tools or spyware”.
8. Being extremely jealous If your partner persistently accuses you of cheating, simply for looking at another person, then this could constitute grounds for prosecution. Humberside Police say “extreme jealousy, including possessiveness and ridiculous accusations of cheating” all come under the new legislation.
9. Forcing you to obey their rules A relationship should be a partnership, with neither partner having control over the other. If you are forced to abide by rules set by your partner, it could mean they are committing a crime. The Crown Prosecution Service says these include rules which “humiliate, degrade or dehumanise the victim”, while Women’s Aid says examples include your partner telling you that you have no choice in decisions.
10. Controlling what you wear Your partner taking control over any part of your life is highlighted in the new legislation, including restricting who you see and where you go. Controlling what you wear or how you look could also now be grounds for prosecution under the changes.
11. Making you do things you don’t want to Your partner forcing you to commit crimes, neglecting or abusing your children, or forcing you not to reveal anything about your relationship to the authorities all count as abuse. Forcing you to have sex when you don’t want to, look at pornographic material, or have sex with others also falls under this bracket.
Tackling domestic abuse head-on “These new powers mean this behaviour, which is particularly relevant to cases of domestic abuse, can now be prosecuted in its own right,” said Alison Saunders, director of public prosecutions at the Crown Prosecution Service. “Police and prosecutors are being trained to recognise patterns of abusive behaviour which can be regarded as criminal abuse. “We will do everything in our power to tackle this abhorrent crime.”...'
Actually, I don't have a problem with this going into law. I was involved in a very abusive marriage my first time around. He did all those things above to me. Living in emotional fear 24/7 can be just as bad as physical abuse. I was at the point of considering murdering him, or killing myself to make it stop.
Fortunately, "fate" stepped in and something happened that made him have to leave the state. I refused to go. He had to let me go, or stay and go to jail. He chose to leave.
01-27-2019, 08:02 PM (This post was last modified: 01-27-2019, 10:00 PM by BIAD.)
(01-27-2019, 07:22 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: Actually, I don't have a problem with this going into law...
Of course I understand, but such laws can be used for far-more oppressive reasons
than just marital problems. Remember, equality is the goal.
For instance, is this aimed at either a male or female?
Quote:Scaring you
Your partner might not physically assault you, but if they are doing enough to frighten you, they are committing an offence.
Women’s Aid says this can include, but is not limited to: *Making angry gestures Using physical size to intimidate *Shouting you down Destroying your possessions *Breaking things Punching walls Wielding a knife or a gun *Threatening to kill or harm you, your children or family pets *Threats of suicide...
Women's Aid...?
Is this law only activated by the abuser or a member of the family?
Not said.
Angry gestures...? Who decides what merits an angry gesture?
Not said.
The article states this particular law has other areas not specified and yet in the ten-or-so
news websites I checked, the identical report was there without expanding on what this
law is not limited to.
Quote:Being extremely jealous If your partner persistently accuses you of cheating, simply for looking at another person, then this could constitute grounds for prosecution. Humberside Police say “extreme jealousy, including possessiveness and ridiculous accusations of cheating” all come under the new legislation...
Of course at face-value, a raging jealous partner can be deemed dangerous, but what
if you're just extremely jealous without acting out anything in the physical world?
Going by this article, you're still committing a crime in your head and if evidence is
revealed, liable for your thinking.
And yet nobody in the whole of the mainstream media and the many local rags that
carried the report, ever commented that these new laws could be debated as an
invasion on a family's privacy.
I do appreciate violent relationships and there are laws already available to deal with
a partner's behavior, but within these laws, the responsibility shifts from the family to
Government.
In my view, these rules were built on a foundation of hatred and all the descriptive words
used within them indicate they are aimed at the male of the household or relationship.
These aren't neutral laws.
01-27-2019, 08:34 PM (This post was last modified: 01-27-2019, 08:42 PM by Mystic Wanderer.)
Yes, I understand. I see what you're saying.
They ARE leaving a lot of loopholes that could be filled with many different things to control. I also agree that the government should stay out of family issues and let the local law deal with it, if need be.
The problem there seems to be, they don't enforce the laws, like a restraining order, for example.
I'm applying this to my own previous, personal situation. I'm sure I'm being influenced by that.
On a bigger scale, you are probably correct that this is a bad thing.
(01-27-2019, 07:03 PM)Wallfire Wrote: Since the abuse of women and children including FGM is a large part of the muslim religion does this mean they will be exempt from this law ??
No, Of-course not.
We can't interfere with The Culture of the Religion of Peace!
01-27-2019, 10:32 PM (This post was last modified: 01-27-2019, 10:33 PM by BIAD.)
It'll be interesting to see if any of the above laws will be applied in this case, along with
what they're already purported to be using.
Quote:Barrister warns Azealia Banks that her racist outburst when she branded Irish people 'f****** ugly'
could see her arrested as she plays in London
*Azealia Banks sparked outrage for racist remarks against Irish people this week
*She labelled Irish women 'f****** ugly' after she stormed off a flight to Dublin
*She may be arrested if she makes similar remarks in the UK, a lawyer suggested
'Azealia Banks's racist outburst against Irish people could lead to her arrest in the UK, a barrister has suggested.
The 27-year-old rapper took to social media earlier this week to brand Irish people 'f***ing ugly' after she stormed off an aircraft scheduled to fly from London's Gatwick Airport to Dublin, following a row with an Aer Lingus air stewardess.
A day later she then branded Irish people 'inbred', 'leprechauns' and asked if they 'had a famine to go die in' in a series of social media comments while out in Ireland. But the controversial 212 singer could be prosecuted under the Communications Act 2003, barrister Tomas McGarvey hinted.
He tweeted: 'Hi #azeliabanks in light of your recent comments on #instagram about Irish women & Irish people generally, perhaps I can introduce you to the #CommunicationsAct2003 (s127) before you land in England. If you keep up the insults, you may end up with first hand experience.'
He included a screenshot of section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which listed a series of measures which Banks's tweets and recent outbursts could have broken.
Section 127 covers offensive and threatening messages sent over a 'public' electronic communications network. Since 2010 it has increasingly been used to arrest and prosecute individuals for messages posted to sites such as Twitter and Facebook.
Earlier this week, Banks referenced the Great Famine of Ireland, from 1845-49, which saw one million Irish people die from starvation and disease, she wrote to one follower: 'Don't you have a famine to go die in?'
Responding to another follower in another offensive comment, she wrote: 'Because most of you can't talk or write lol. 'You lot are a bunch of prideful inbred leprechauns who have ZERO global influence and ZERO white privilege. The rest of the world's white folk don't want to associate with you lot at all and it's because you are barbarians.
Continuing her rant, she wrote: 'I'm happiest knowing the Irish are quarantined on an isle so they can continue to inbreed and keep their defective genes away from humanity. In response to one comment saying: 'I'm still waiting to see a pretty Irish woman' she responded 'LOL'.
Banks flew back into the UK to perform at Manchester's O2 Ritz and is due to perform at London's Electric Brixton this Sunday. Under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, the law states: 'A person is guilty of an offence if he (a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character'...'
Notice the 'he' there?!
Quote:'...It goes on to add: 'A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another.; 'A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.'
Last night Banks looked carefree as she performed at KOKO in London following her outburst. She was seen smiling at the crowd as she worked her way through her setlist, before waving at her fans. The performance comes after Azealia begged Conor McGregor to 'help her' after she unleashed another vile social media rant aimed at Irish people.
Before the sickening outburst Conor McGregor had watched the rapper's Instagram story and messaged her saying, 'hahaha. See you soon.' She then replied, pleading with the Irish MMA star to help her. She wrote: 'Conor they are bullying me. Help me :('
Taking the stage at The Academy – after completing her journey to Ireland by road and ferry –the New Yorker told the crowd: 'I want to dedicate this to all the beautiful Irish women that are here.'
The sold-out show appeared to be pleasing to her fans, many of whom shared gushing posts on Instagram about the star and her performance –before having their clips and snaps shared by the American musician herself.
On Wednesday morning, the 212 rapper took to Instagram to play down her teary display during her rant on Monday in which she made the inflammatory comments. Next to a screenshot of Aer Lingus' statement confirming she had left the flight, Azealia wrote: 'People are so addicted to Azealia Banks trauma porn that they hop on ANY opportunity to try and make it seem like my life is all sad and horrible.
'I’m FINE GUYS! I didn’t get kicked off the plane. I got off the plane on my own. When I got off the plane they kept chastising me and saying they were gonna call the police (for no reason) and it made me cry.
'My Dublin show at the Academy is part of a series of joints to rebuild my profile in Ireland and the UK. I'm honestly so grateful the show went well!!!!
'I’ve been really really missing all my friends across the pond and if I have to drive ten hours to a four hour ferry to preserve my peace of mind and be in the highest spirits to re-connect with my people then A b**ch has to do what she has to do!!!!!!!'
On Monday, an air passenger told how an Aer Lingus air hostess asked Banks ‘Are you going to be trouble…?’ when the star tried to put her bags in the overhead locker. Banks launched an extraordinary tearful rant at Aer Lingus staff after a row with a stewardess before a flight from Gatwick to Dublin.
The musician removed herself from a morning flight to Dublin, ahead of her sold-out gig at The Academy in the Irish capital on Tuesday. The passenger told MailOnline: ‘Azealia was sitting in front of me. It was a busy flight and there was not a lot of space.
‘She was right at the front. A male friend was putting her things in the overhead locker, but Azealia needed to get something from her bag. ‘She was stood in the aisle and preventing other passengers from boarding. ‘Then she turned to the hostess and said, ‘Are you staring at me…’? Why are you staring at me? I didn’t fill out an Air Lingus form to be stared at.'
The passenger, who asked not to be named added: ‘To be honest with you I think the airline staff were a bit aggressive and confrontational with her. ‘They were asking Azealia if she was going to be trouble before we had even taken off, which only escalated the situation.
‘Azealia was at the front of the plane and the stewardess was trying to hurry her along. ‘She said the attendants were harassing her and I think they were a bit heavy handed.’
She claimed she had been 'banned' from the airline after leaving the flight, saying she had been 'treated like a wild animal' on what she called her 'travel day from hell'. The airline has confirmed she left the 10.55am flight from Gatwick but declined to comment on her specific allegations.
Banks famously launched a foul-mouthed tirade at a flight attendant calling him a 'f***ing f***ot' when she was unable to get off a Delta plane in 2005. Taking to social media, she said a stewardess had accused her of threatening to 'sort you out'. The musician denied she had used those words, saying she was from New York and would not have used that turn of phrase.
The passenger who witnessed the row also denied Banks said 'I will sort you out' to an air hostess. In a series of Instagram stories she said: 'Every time I come to the UK, they always make some s**t with these airline people. 'They are always starting s*** with me. I had my bags deep in the plane and the lady was asking me some questions.'
MailOnline has contacted representatives for Azealia for comment...'
01-28-2019, 10:59 PM (This post was last modified: 01-28-2019, 11:00 PM by BIAD.)
How's this one gonna go...? The Gays Or The Muslims?
It reminds me of the schooldays of The Bash Street Kids!
Quote:Councillor backs Muslim mums who accused school of 'promoting homosexuality'
Alum Rock councillor Mohammed Idrees has said being open about LGBT in the classroom "is not a good idea"
'A councillor has called for peace talks between protesting Muslim parents and a school 'promoting homosexuality' but stated: "The children are too young."
Fatima Shah, who is angry over lessons surrounding LGBT at Parkfield Community School.
Labour councillor Mohammed Idrees -who represents Alum Rock -has told Parkfield Community School it must listen to concerns being raised. On Friday, BirminghamLive reported how a group of angry parents protested against a curriculum supporting homosexuality, LGBT and equality in the classroom.
Assistant headteacher Andrew Moffat MBE continues to pilot what's known as No Outsiders -a programme run alongside sex and relationship education (SRE) lessons at Parkfield.
Storybooks being read by pupils in class include King & King and Mommy, Mama and Me -tales about same-sex relationships and marriages. But Mr Moffat -who is openly gay -and the No Outsiders programme has come under fire from some Muslim parents who condemn such teachings, as homosexuality is strictly forbidden in Islam.
Teachings of equality and LGBT acceptance in society has resulted in some parents -including mum-of-three Fatima Shah -taking their children out until lessons are scrapped or drastically changed.
Parkfield Community School has, though, defended its programme, which they said had been fully explained to parents. The school said: "No Outsiders allows us to raise awareness of these differences so that children are able to tolerate and accept differences in our society."
However, following upheaval outside of the school gates in Saltley this week, Coun Idrees is now calling for peace talks between parents and staff. Speaking to BirminghamLive, the devout Muslim said: "We will have a meeting with the school. I think this is important.
"I know about the issue and, with it being a predominantly Muslim school, the sensitivities of the parents must be discussed. "Parents feel very strongly about the policy which, I'm told, has been promoted quite aggressively. "I cannot comment on what's being taught in the classroom but the school and teachers must be sensitive to Muslim parents and Islam. "The school has to bare in mind it is a predominantly Muslim school.
"I've had a lot of e-mails and parents are not very happy. The school needs to be careful. "Children, for me, are too young to be learning about this. It's not a good idea. "When parents are refusing to take their child to school and, instead, protest outside of the school gates, then there's clearly a big issue."
Meanwhile, a former school governor of an Erdington primary school has hit out at protesting parents at Parkfield. Mum-of-two Jen Leavesley spent a year in her role with the school in question, which introduced the No Outsiders programme in 2017. Giving a detailed account of material taught to schoolchildren, she said: "Some of the books for the kids were stories about families, where there are two dads; or the child is disabled or lives with his or her gran and has no parents, or is fostered.
"All of the books used are age appropriate, from reception age up to Year 6. "Governors examine the materials and we did a two-hour presentation on No Outsiders. Then, we considered whether it would be appropriate to roll it out across the school where the population is prone to bullying, homophobia, sexism and racism.
"It was then decided that we should roll it out. We had two open afternoons and parents were invited into school in groups to examine the materials to allay fears. "The schoolchildren, staff and parents accepted it wholesale. There were no complaints.
The 42-year-old, though, who is originally from America but now lives in Erdington, claims that parents at Parkfield Community School have perhaps "got the wrong end of the stick on what's being taught". "No Outsiders has a much wider remit than just homophobia and LGBT," she said. "It's about disability and race as well.
"The books for the children were largely just stories, where the characters are children with different kinds of families. "This is the world we live in, religion aside, and there are families where there are two dads, or the child lives with different colour adoptive parents, or the child is disabled, say autistic or in a wheelchair.
"This material helps encourage acceptance of everyone, not forcing LGBT on anyone. "This is 2019 and cruelty to anyone for being different isn't on. It teaches the Equality Act 2010, which is about differences being accepted. "It is interesting how Parkfield is where No Outsiders started."
When asked about the issue of homosexuality clashing with Islamic beliefs, Mrs Leavesley added: "It may well clash with Islam, and Christianity too. "You can still talk to your children about your religious values and how these things are not the choices you'd make as a Muslim or a Christian or whatever.
"However, they are parts of other people's lives and we must accept them and treat them fairly and to be never be cruel. "It's about accepting and being kind to people who are different, not changing the choices you make or your ethics. "Parkfield should always listen to concerns. You never get anywhere forcing things on people.
"Teachers should work to allay these fears by promoting an understanding of why this kind of material would be used in a primary school - and it's not to convert anyone to being gay, it's to promote acceptance of everyone's differences. "Primary school age is never too young to learn to accept others. "Disability affects all ages, different kinds of families happen at all ages.
"And if the school population is being troubled by racist or extremist incidents, this kind of material is perfect to promote acceptance among kids and the hope is that acceptance would filter up to the parents, too. "Creating a them-versus-us is a dangerous mindset, whatever the 'us' is."
Outraged mum Fatima Shah has taken her 10-year-old daughter out of the school over the row. She previously said: "It's inappropriate, totally wrong. "Children are being told it's OK to be gay yet 98 per cent of children at this school are Muslim. It's a Muslim community."
But the school defended the teaching, which it said had been fully explained to parents. A statement said: "Central to everything we do is our duty to safeguard all children. "As part of our safeguarding duty, we have to ensure we safeguard and protect them from all possible forms of harm including homophobic or transgender bullying. "No Outsiders allows us to raise awareness of these differences so that children are able to tolerate and accept differences in our society."...'
(01-27-2019, 06:16 PM)BIAD Wrote: As in 'The Blue Pill' thread, here's the 'new' rules being introduced in the UK.
Quote:It is now illegal for your partner to do these 11 things in a relationship Domestic abuse no longer simply means physical violence in the eyes of the law.
'Recent changes to the law have now made psychological abuse within a relationship illegal. The offence of coercive control now recognises that domestic abuse can take several forms and is not strictly limited to physical violence.
Changes to legislation The changes now outlaw a number of things that were not previously covered by existing legislation, meaning emotional abuse of a partner is now also illegal.
Coercive control is the psychological abuse of a partner, which can be committed through threats and restrictions, as well as physical violence, and carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
In Scotland, changes to the Domestic Abuse bill were passed by Parliament earlier this year, making psychological abuse and coercive controlling behaviour within a relationship a criminal offence.
The bill was amended to include behaviour that could not easily be prosecuted using the existing criminal law. The laws have now been enforced in England and Wales, with the amendments making the following 11 acts towards a partner illegal.
1. Sharing sexually explicit images of you –either online or not New laws surrounding ‘revenge porn’ make it illegal for someone to share intimate photographs of you with anyone, whether that is on or offline.
2. Restricting your access to money Even if they are the breadwinner, the law says one partner cannot stop the other from accessing money and should not give them “punitive allowances”.
3. Repeatedly putting you down Constant insults from a partner might not be typically thought of as domestic abuse, but under the new law, persistent name-calling, mocking and other forms of insulting behaviour are now illegal.
4. Stopping you from seeing friends or family If your partner continually isolates you from the people you love –whether this is in the form of monitoring or blocking your calls or emails, telling you where you can or cannot go, or preventing you from seeing your friends or relatives –it is against the law.
5. Scaring you Your partner might not physically assault you, but if they are doing enough to frighten you, they are committing an offence. Women’s Aid says this can include, but is not limited to: *Making angry gestures Using physical size to intimidate *Shouting you down Destroying your possessions *Breaking things Punching walls Wielding a knife or a gun *Threatening to kill or harm you, your children or family pets *Threats of suicide
6. Threatening to reveal private things about you Whether your partner is saying they will tell people details about your health or sexual orientation, repeated threats to reveal personal and private information is a form of abuse.
7. Putting tracking devices on your phone The Crown Prosecution Service says it is illegal under the new legislation to “monitor a person using online communication tools or spyware”.
8. Being extremely jealous If your partner persistently accuses you of cheating, simply for looking at another person, then this could constitute grounds for prosecution. Humberside Police say “extreme jealousy, including possessiveness and ridiculous accusations of cheating” all come under the new legislation.
9. Forcing you to obey their rules A relationship should be a partnership, with neither partner having control over the other. If you are forced to abide by rules set by your partner, it could mean they are committing a crime. The Crown Prosecution Service says these include rules which “humiliate, degrade or dehumanise the victim”, while Women’s Aid says examples include your partner telling you that you have no choice in decisions.
10. Controlling what you wear Your partner taking control over any part of your life is highlighted in the new legislation, including restricting who you see and where you go. Controlling what you wear or how you look could also now be grounds for prosecution under the changes.
11. Making you do things you don’t want to Your partner forcing you to commit crimes, neglecting or abusing your children, or forcing you not to reveal anything about your relationship to the authorities all count as abuse. Forcing you to have sex when you don’t want to, look at pornographic material, or have sex with others also falls under this bracket.
Tackling domestic abuse head-on “These new powers mean this behaviour, which is particularly relevant to cases of domestic abuse, can now be prosecuted in its own right,” said Alison Saunders, director of public prosecutions at the Crown Prosecution Service. “Police and prosecutors are being trained to recognise patterns of abusive behaviour which can be regarded as criminal abuse. “We will do everything in our power to tackle this abhorrent crime.”...'
Over here in the Colonies, when they get out of hand we just divorce 'em - throw 'em to the curb and get an older model ( newer models seem to be all defective - quality control is slack). What we DON'T do is have them thrown in the brig for 5 years for doing dumb shit we should have had the back bone ourselves to correct!
Seriously - all 3 of my previous wives would be doing hard time, making little rocks out of big ones under these rules. If I ain't got the gumption to pick up my shit and get on down the road when they can't be gotten along with, then maybe I SHOULD be the one doing the time, so I could learn how to handle adversity!
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
So, basically if you raise your voice or look angry or just say NO, you have committed an act of Domestic Violence and need to be Jailed and sent to a Re-education Camp because of you Violent Nature and YOU don't fit in Society.
Yeah, I can't be trained or "reeducated", so they'd just have to execute me in the public square.
With rules like these, marriage in the UK has become a dangerous proposition. Guys (and gals, for that matter) are better of just to hit-n-git, it seems.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
03-13-2019, 10:56 PM (This post was last modified: 03-13-2019, 10:58 PM by BIAD.)
The stabbing of Yousef Makki, a young man belonging to a wealthy environment and attending an expensive school,
was initially described by the mainstream media as a complete puzzle. The usual daily knife crimes in and out of the
UK's capital were vaguely implied to be connected to drug-dealing and gangs of of socially-trapped young males.
What the same MSM forgot to add was that Yousef Makki was a Muslim for some reason. I wonder why.
Quote:Grieving classmates of stabbing victim Yousef Makki, 17, call for more police on the streets as hundreds turn out for the schoolboy's funeral
*A large crowd of mourners gathered inside the meeting hall of the Dar Al Hadi Foundation in Manchester *Friends of the victim stood outside the venue in jackets and ties as one boy read a statement to the Press *The scholarship pupil was stabbed to death in the village of Hale Barns at around 6.40am on March 2
The devastated classmates of 17-year-old stabbing victim Yousef Makki have called for more police on the streets in an emotional statement before his packed funeral. Yousef, who dreamed of becoming a heart surgeon, was attacked on March 2 in Hale Barns, a leafy village south of Manchester.
Today, his family was joined by hundreds of people at the Dar Al Hadi Foundation, in the Ardwick area of the city, for a traditional Muslim funeral service ahead of a burial ceremony at Southern Cemetery. Earlier, a pupil from Manchester Grammar School read a statement on behalf of Yousef's friends, scores of whom attended the funeral.
One cannot but-fail to notice the lack of females in the room. So much for diversity in religions.
Robin Tetlow-Shooter said: 'Yousef's life will not have been taken in vain if we are able to achieve something positive from the debate that has ensued following his death. More police officers on the streets to protect our young people may be a good start. We will miss Yousef so dearly.'
Yousef's killing was among 26 knife-related murders in the UK this year, which have sparked a heated political debate about how to tackle the violence. Recently, Prime Minister Theresa May was criticised for suggesting the increase in murders 'wasn't directly correlated' with the reduction of police on the streets.
Buses were organised to ferry pupils from £12,000-a-year Manchester Grammar School, where Yousef is believed to won a scholarship. Pupil Robin Tetlow-Shooter added in his statement: 'We would like to thank everyone for their messages of support and condolences. Yousef was a truly special person. We cannot express the magnitude of our loss. 'He was the son every parent dreams of - loving, caring, kind yet ambitious and determined...'
One of many things that has me and almost all of Europe worried is the fact that millions of unchecked people are wondering around the EU. It seems that been PC is all impoetant and endangering the lives of all the people in Europe means nothing. Anyone who asks what about disease been spread by the "refugees"is branded as a raciest. Doctors lose there jobs if they tell the truth.
All you get from the governments is "no danger all is well". If this is true why has this ship been kept at sea, its a controled environment unlike Europe but still its not let come back to land.
Quote:HomeSea US warship quarantined at sea due to virus
[img=893x0]https://ukdj.imgix.net/57b715bb68938bd42dfb54d1e28f5618_/mchenryfortuss.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&crop=top&fit=crop&h=580&ixlib=php-1.2.1&q=80&w=1021&wpsize=td_1021x580&s=801aef18d07158b6d4fb3a392e7adc56[/img]
USS Fort McHenry
US warship quarantined at sea due to virus By George Allison
- March 14, 2019
[/url]
[url=https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/us-warship-quarantined-at-sea-due-to-virus/&media=https://ukdj.imgix.net/57b715bb68938bd42dfb54d1e28f5618_/mchenryfortuss.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&ixlib=php-1.2.1&q=80&s=f5bbdb0c647bb9d38e5c6e01b378c716&description=US+warship+quarantined+at+sea+due+to+virus] A US warship has essentially been quarantined at sea for over two months, say the US Navy.
US media have been reporting that affected sailors on the USS Fort McHenry were quarantined while symptomatic. They were treated in the ship’s medical facilities and spaces were cleaned and disinfected.
The cause is believed to be a viral infection that has symptoms similar to mumps. “All service members on board also received booster vaccinations for measles, mumps, and rubella, as a precaution.”
It is understood that the initial case was detected on December 22nd and there have been no active cases since February 27th.
The US Navy also say the ship’s operational schedule has been modified while crew health is being monitored.
In January, the ship transited from the Mediterranean Sea through the Dardanelles Strait and entered the Black Sea, later visiting the Romanian port of Constanța, a major base for the Romanian Navy.
The ship was part of the USS Kearsarge Amphibious Ready Group and was carrying the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
USS Fort McHenry is a Whidbey Island class dock landing ship of the United States Navy. She was named for Fort McHenry, in Baltimore, Maryland, the 1814 defence of which inspired The Star-Spangled Banner.
06-24-2019, 09:39 PM (This post was last modified: 06-24-2019, 09:40 PM by BIAD.)
A perfect example of why you shouldn't put unicorn-lovers in charge of making the world a
better place. Borders are needed to maintain standards.
Quote:Inside squalid, rat-infested three-bedroom home where Romanian gang kept more than thirty slaves and paid them £1.80 an hour to work at building site -as trio are jailed for 28 years.
'Dozens of labourers and cleaners were forced into slave labour earning as little as £1.80 an hour
and compelled to live in cockroach and rat-infested squalor by three Romanian brothers who pocketed
£2.5million from their misery.
Alexandru Lupu, 43, and his younger siblings Grigore, 39, and Valentin, 24, have been jailed for a combined
total of 28 years after their five-year campaign of terror in Britain.
Police found more than 30 people were cooped up in a three-bedroom terraced house in east London, where
hot water was rationed, lights were shut off at 8pm and women slept and changed in a bedroom sectioned
off from men by a threadbare curtain.
Victims had been recruited in Romania and offered work and a better life in England -or were Romanians found
living on the streets in London and conned with the promise of a well-paid job and a nice place to live.
But the Lupu brothers were in fact gangmasters who made millions of pounds siphoning off cash from their pay
packets, forcing them to accept around £18 per day in pay and filthy accommodation in north London.
The oldest brother Alexandru leased at least three properties in east London used to house the Romanian slaves.
And the two younger siblings, Valentin and Grigore, would beat and threaten any workers who raised objections
to the oppressive regime.
Alexandru Lupu, 43, and his younger siblings Grigore, 39, and Valentin, 24, (pictured left to right)
have been jailed for a combined total of 28 years.
Their five-year campaign was revealed when a victim was later found wandering the streets of London and brought
to a police station by a Salvation Army volunteer, sparking the police investigation. A second victim’s family also
contacted police who went to an address in Barking, and reported the property to the local housing authority.
One woman found by police living in one of the hovels revealed she forced to work for the Lupu brothers as a
chambermaid at the Premier Inn hotel at Waterloo cleaning three bedrooms an hour for a pittance.
The three men denied but were convicted of conspiracy to require other persons to provide forced or compulsory
labour. Grigore and Valentin were also convicted of conspiracy to arrange or facilitate the transport of others with
a view to exploitation.
Grigore and Valentin Lupu were both jailed for ten years while Alexandru Lupu was sentenced to eight years in
prison at Blackfriars Crown Court last week.
Judge Judge Rajaav Shetty told the brothers:
‘This case involved the degradation of fellow human beings. It involved the denial of their humanity and failure to recognise
that these are human beings who feel pain and misery just like all of us.
‘That disgusts me. In effect you were acting as gang masters.
The workers were subject to debt bondage.’
Judge Shetty describing some of the appalling conditions in which some of the workers were kept.
‘Conditions were terrible. The properties were infested with rats and cockroaches. The mattresses on the floor were
filthy and they were denied the ability to wash themselves daily.
‘There was clearly little regard given to the health of the workers.’ He added that ‘substantial’ custodial sentences were
required. ‘These offences occurred over a long period of time. ‘The number of people exploited was large.’
Grigore and Valentin Lupu were both jailed for ten years while Alexandru Lupu was sentenced to eight years imprisonment.
At the close of the prosecution case the judge had directed the jury to clear five other members of the Lupu family, including
dad Viorel, 49, of involvement in the conspiracy.
Viorel and wife Victorita, 51, were cleared of conspiracy to force compulsory labour and conspiracy to transport of others
with a view to exploitation. Toader Lupu, 45, Violeta Lupu, 44, and their son Ionut Lupu, 25, were also acquitted of the same
charges.
The five, along with Alexandru, 43, were further cleared of money laundering.
Earlier Ian McLoughlin, prosecuting, said: ‘At its heart it is a case about exploitation. It is about those who are in a position
of comparative strength and power. ‘It is the prosecution’s case that these defendants exploited and preyed on dozens of
individuals who were not for a variety of reasons in a position to stand up to them.
‘For men in Romania work is scarce -that work which is available is rarely well paid, and so the attractions of coming to work
in the construction industry in London are obvious.
‘However, the reality for the people from whom you will hear in the course of this trial was very different.
‘Promises for payment made before travel were never intended to be kept. The conditions the workers were housed in were
appalling. ‘Most workers were told by coming to the United Kingdom they would receive £500 for 30 days work.
‘It worked out a around £16-17 a day for a nine to ten-hour shift on a building site - so about £1.80 an hour.
‘The situation was worse than that because as rates would have been £1.80 or there about, most of the workers did not even
get that. ‘The defendants simply found excuse after excuse to withhold the money. It was paid into the bank accounts controlled
by the defendants and we say pocketed by them.
‘All of this added up, and evidence from various bank accounts owned by the defendants show that there was about £2.5
million in payment in respect of work done by workers and due to these workers but claimed by the defendants.
‘At one point when police visited on the house, they found 31 people living in what really could only be described as squalor.
‘At the centre of much of the evidence you will here at this trial was Valentin. It was he who offered them work in the UK.
‘He paid for transport for workers to the UK. He was responsible for organising much of the paperwork for these people
to be able to work on construction sites.
‘He was the one who led the way in threatening and in some cases assaulting those who stepped out of line.
‘Grigore Lupu delivered workers to Valentin from time to time. He was also someone we suggest who assisted Valentin in
making sure people did not get step out of line.
‘Grigore was in receipt of a huge amount of money and so we would suggest was deeply involved in the criminality which
we suggest was undertaken by the defendants. ‘Grigore obtained fraudulent qualifications and documents needed for
workers to get into the site.
‘Alexandru’s involvement was crucial, it was he who leased several of the properties which we suggest were used to house
several of the workers who were exploited.’ Mr McLoughlin said workers were forced to live in squalid conditions ‘with the
cockroaches, the insects, the mice.’
‘Perth Road in Ilford was an address at which Valentin lived at, along with many people who were working.
‘Bower House, Barking, this property again with a dozen, 15, 18 people living in a room.’
Valentin, and Grigore, also of Ilford and Alexandru, of Forest Gate, all denied but were convicted of conspiracy to require
other persons to provide forced or compulsory labour.
Valentin and Grigore were also convicted of conspiracy to arrange or facilitate the transport of others with a view to exploitation
and converting criminal property. Alexandru was acquitted of converting criminal property.
Detective Inspector Rick Sewart, from the Met’s Modern Slavery and Kidnap Unit, said: ‘Modern slavery is, and will continue to
be, a priority for the Met. ‘We will continue to do everything within our power to identify and apprehend those intent on trafficking
human beings, and exploiting them for their own gain.
‘The key partnerships between the Met, the Romanian authorities, Europol, Eurojust and all of our other partners have been
crucial to furthering this investigation into organised people trafficking and exploitation.
‘We will continue this valuable work with our international and domestic partners to prevent continued exploitation and bring
offenders to justice.’...'
![[Image: 4-stages-graphic.gif?w=150&h=80]](https://civilusdefendus.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/4-stages-graphic.gif)
Please donate sunshine to the UK!!!