So what you are saying is that, without arresting someone, the police can determine that someone (presumably male or female – remember domestic violence cuts both ways and the law presumably does not discriminate despite the article) shall be put out of their home on suspicion alone.

Sounds rather draconian to me, and I can see a very sensible liberal objection to this on the grounds of innocent until proven guilty. Unless the law is actually targetted only at men, I would suggest we discuss this as an issue concerning police being awarded powers (without parliament voting? I don’t remember this bill, but could have missed it) and as part of a growing trend for government intervention without a case being proven. To try and make this a narrow feminist issue is to risk basically aligning feminism with a police state, presumably no-one’s idea of a sensible way forward.

Watchmen, the law protects women and men:

s.24 of the Crime and Security Act 2010, which is the statute behind the orders, provides that they may be issued to “persons” – the use of the gender-neutral means that they can be issued against persons of any gender.

i think if it saves someone’s life, it’s worth it. 1.5 women are murdered a week as a result of DV. if getting the perpetrator out the house, so that the victim has a chance to escape and be safe, then it isn’t draconian, it is life saving.

and that has to be what matters.

it isn’t about taking away the perpetrator’s house or freedom, but about making sure someone isn’t at risk of murder.

The comments from the newspaper article are making me feel ill.

“The man is correct, as many a man has found out once he’s finished paying the mortgage off and then ends up in the street while Mr Wonderful moves into his house as the perfect replacement because he didn’t ever have to do anymore than buy the stupid chick a few lagers and a curry.

@ Princess, before you delete what I am about to say think about it first, many a man is the victim of a female mood swing, through no fault of his home he loses everything, now think of that man being you, do you walk away quietly with your tail between your legs or are you going to get up and shout, fact is some women are nothing more than prospector’s, and it’s this type of woman that will bring society down to the point where no man will take a woman on and then you are back to the old days of getting on your back to earn a living, harsh I know, but it’s the future coming back from the past, ask anyone who can remember life during the war’s while the bread winner was away in a trench fighting.”

I just. Clearly the proposition hasn’t been adequately explained – this is for police to act on their own suspicions and not the words of the woman possibly being abused – because hey, if they complain to the police, they wouldn’t NEED these orders. The men would be arrested. There’s nothing at the moment in law to prevent women from speaking up against abuse, and yes, nothing to stop them from inventing abuse, but this is for women who appear to be in severe danger from their partners and are not capable of speaking up.

In terms of it being a ‘sexist’ policy – well hey, domestic violence is sexist: 16% of men have been domestically abused compared to 28% of women. Men are four times as likely to kill their female partner than women are their male partner. I agree that perhaps it should be extended to include men who are at risk of violence from their female partners as they are given short shrift by the police, but his remarks just make him seem like an ignorant Daily Mail reading Tory. Oh wait.

What a wanker.

Oh, wait, the Go orders are in fact gender neutral. So basically shoddy reporting and a Tory who doesn’t understand his own party’s policy.

sianushka,

Since men murder more women than women do, wouldn’t the logical thing to ensure less violence to women to be to ensure men and women cannot meet without surveilance? That would presumably be a far more effective solution…

Personally, I think the problem of domestic violence is not solvable with law (how many of the women (or men) in question will go back to the abusive partner after the ban is lifted?) but only throughaddressing the cultural problem. We need to destroy the culture that thinks violence is acceptable, and this will not be done by deploying the threat of state violence, which ironically only reinforces the image that this is about force and strength, and which I would be prepared to argue may actually increase the murder rate (if for no other reason than I doubt the police are going to leave guards on the house in question and the abusers are likely to be very angry). As long as people are prepared to defend women (or men) by using the power of the state, women (or men) will be conditioned to see themselves as dependent and will therefore have less inclination to take action for themselves. If you truly want indepent female (or male) existences, then you have to face up to the fact that one sort of dependence engenders another.

So, apart from the problem of the essential illiberality of this law (and I would remind you that justifying a law by the ends without considering the morality would also justify the death penalty) then I am concerned that this sort of measure actually entrenches the acceptance of force and violence in people’s lives, and basically does nothing to address the problem.

Please note, I have less concern about the court orders (and if necessary, about detaining the suspect if a court order cannot be obtained immediately) – it is the abuses inherent in making the police not only the upholders but also the judges of public order that I dislike.

Lizzie B,

Oh, wait, the Go orders are in fact gender neutral. So basically shoddy reporting and a Tory who doesn’t understand his own party’s policy.

I think we can take it as read that anyone who says “the ongoing war against men by the feminist movement” is a total idiot – his reasons for opposing the measure are wrong, but then I believe the measures are as well.

This is the same gentleman whose crazy misogynist radio rant is all over the Twitterz today, I believe. Precisely the kind of character the Tories pretend not to have on board any more…

john b,

He may not be on board much longer if he is getting this much negative attention…

john b

This is the same gentleman whose crazy misogynist radio rant is all over the Twitterz today, I believe

Yep, that’s the one. The same ‘gentleman’ who’s the chair of Portsmouth City Council’s Education, children and young people scrutiny panel:

http://toomuchtosayformyself.com/2010/12/22/tory-councillor-claims-domestic-violence-policy-a-%E2%80%9Cwar-on-men%E2%80%9D/

Tory brownshirts hate woman. FACT!

Don’t know why the tory trolls try to deny it.

“Oh, wait, the Go orders are in fact gender neutral.”

Not in practice they wont be. Even if it’s the chap making the complaint, standard proceedure is to arrest the man as a friend of mine found out to his cost.

The above aside, the idea that giving police officers powers to ban people from their own home, (no need for judicial oversight at that stage), is anything other than draconian is laughable. You can argue that the benefits outweight the costs but there are sensible arguments against these Go orders.

I have to admit I cannot see how go orders are going to be abused to the extent that they could be called a “war on men”. I’m gay, so have little idea how relationships between hetros always work out, but is it normal to suspect that the woman you apparently love and trust enough to move in together with is secreatly plotting to screw you over? To suspect that all women are vicious harpies who when given a law to protect them, will use it straight away to render their partner homeless on a whim?
Are straight men really so astonishingly shite at picking life partners that a majority always end up picking conniving bitches? I just do not understand were this fear of go orders comes from, it’s not like random coppers are going to wander into your home while you’re sat down to tea and order you onto the streets for no reason, ffs.

Cylux,

The fact is that a punishment (exile) is being imposed on people without trial by the police. That is the fear – the police have a role (upholding law and order) which is compromised by giving them judicial powers.

I don’t think anyone sane (i.e. certain idiot councillors aside) has suggested this is a way of screwing someone over and getting hold of their property, as it is only a temporary ban.

sally,

Tory brownshirts hate woman. FACT!

Don’t know why the tory trolls try to deny it.

Oh my god. It has FACT! written after it – it must be true.

Hang on – just noticed this: everything sally writes is purile crap that can be safely ignored. FACT!

Oh no – I have two FACT!s which contradict – how will I cope…

@13 But when would those judicial powers be used? – For them to be used against someone, their partner has had to have been sufficiently motivated to get the police involved in their relationship.
Hence all my questions, have we really reached a point in our society where there is no trust of one another, even within the confines of sexual relationships? Is it really so shocking to believe that, aside from an isolated tiny minority, whenever a copper has to make a decision of this kind that domestic abuse is actually occurring?
I understand the injustice angle but on the scales of injustice I rate “forced couch surfing” as much lower than “uninterrupted beatings”.

‘Hence all my questions, have we really reached a point in our society where there is no trust of one another, even within the confines of sexual relationships?’

Have you had a failed relationship? You start off trusting each other, then one betrays the other or you both fall out and the relationship is over. You might as well say there’s no need for divorce if people were committed to each other when they were married.

Williams is a hysterical dipshit. If this rule *is* directed entirely at men it is indeed draconian, but if Lizzie B is right and its gender neutral it might have some value; if Williams is mistaken on this point then so is the OP.

‘Hence all my questions, have we really reached a point in our society where there is no trust of one another, even within the confines of sexual relationships?’

Tory men liked it when woman were their property. No need for trust then. Just part of the ownership society, they like so much.

Shatterface:

Williams is a hysterical dipshit. If this rule *is* directed entirely at men it is indeed draconian, but if Lizzie B is right and its gender neutral it might have some value; if Williams is mistaken on this point then so is the OP.

Gah – the legislation has to be gender neutral or it will fail any anti-discriminatory legislation. The fact that the OP refers to ‘men suspected of committing acts of domestic abuse’ is either sloppy reporting or a reference to the disproportionate numbers of men who are suspects/offenders.

Either way, the councillor’s still an idiot.

@16 I’ve had a string of failed relationships, not once was I ever consumed enough with spite to get the police involved just to get at my partner, nor they me, we just broke up and moved on, occasionally even managing to stay friends.

Breaking up a relationship does not equal being absolutely shitty toward your partner while still living with them.

I can’t help but feel that this policy is the wrong way round, and that *unless the house is entirely legally owned by the complainant* (male or female), then the police’s duty should be to take the complainant (what about the children, if any? – I don’t have a clue) into protective custody and provide alternative accommodation until the charge can be proven.

I hate domestic violence, and I grew up in a house wracked by it – but this method of dealing with it just gives the police too much power, IMO.

here’s a link to the gender neutral statute

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/045/10045.72-77.html

@20 It doesn’t give the police any power at all, it gives the one making the complaint to the police all the power. Without someone pulling the lever the police can only do sweet fa with this power.

Cylux – no, the person has the power to make a complaint to the police. The police then have the power to act on that complaint in a number of ways, including these go orders, simply making an arrest, or doing nothing at all. Presumably, as with arrests, the person responsible for any consequences of the exercise of the power will be the policeman making the arrest – not the complainant.

It’s a bit of a semantic point, anyway, and doesn’t change the basis of my objection to the policy.

Can the police intervene in domestic violence cases without a complaint being made? I know back when I was growing up, they refused to – but maybe it’s changed since, or maybe those policemen were just lazy.

Sianushka : “i think if it saves someone’s life, it’s worth it”

Just think of all the illiberal things a Government could do (and has done) using that as a guide. And we can never know how many lives were saved, so it can never be tested by evidence. There are so many threats to life, from stress through passive smoking to DV and on to terrorism, and room for infinite ingenuity in preventive measures.

I thought this site was called ‘Liberal’ Conspiracy ? Or was that irony ?

I thought this site was called ‘Liberal’ Conspiracy ? Or was that irony ?

It’s ironic. The FAQ section says its ironic. But that’s just to throw you off the scent.

In fact we’re a group of anarchist, libertarian feminists who embrace Stalinism. When no one’s looking.

@24 Laban

But we’re not talking about the deprivation of anyone’s liberty here. We’re talking about the police intervening in a case of domestic violence, giving the victim some safety and the offender some time to cool off and reassess their behaviour.

I think that’s as liberal as you can get. Responsible intervention by an outside party to prevent something terrible happening.

What would be illiberal is sitting back and allowing one party to be abused by the other, or enforcing some draconian law without allowing the parties involved to solve the problems for themselves. This measure does neither.

“The orders give senior police officers on-the-spot rights to remove men suspected of committing acts of domestic abuse from their homes for 48 hours”

Suspected or accused? And suspected by who? So if someone from down the road says to the police that he/she SUSPECTS that a bloke on his/her street is beating up his wife that should be enough for the police to break in and remove the man from his home?

i don’t know, maybe it’s because i don’t think saving lives of vulnerable women is an academic question.
1.5women a week are killed by violent partners or ex partners. a huge number. all this law does is create a safe time and space where those women can escape. they aren’t arresting someone without charge, they aren’t accusing someone without charge, they aren’t confiscating property or banning people from their homes forever and ever and ever, they are merely trying to do something to stop someone from being harmed.

it is far far more common for someone to be a victim of DV than to make a false accusation of DV. i am not advocating guilty before proven innocent, or illiberal ideas that stamp on civil liberties. i am saying that the human right to be free from violence and to not be in danger is important.

we can discuss the ins and outs of this for hours but in the end, women and men are being beaten up and murdered because they have no where to run to. this allows them 2 days to get out.

what solution do you propose? sit it out? wait til it’s too late? talk and talk and talk around in circles? coz that what we have at the moment and it isn’t working.

@ 26

i agree.

28 – so what’s wrong with the better (to my mind) approach of offering protective custody to the alleged victim, to protect him or her from the alleged attacker, for the same period of time as the go order would last, in cases where the alleged victim doesn’t have sole title to the property?

Does exactly the same job and avoids nasty accusations of illiberal behaviour and the ‘war on men’ narrative in one neat stroke.

If this was about any other crime most liberals would (quite rightly of course) be protesting about civil liberties but when it comes to crimes such as DV they shy away through fear of being branded as “misogynists”.

@30 What’s wrong? The scale (and cost).

I don’t wholly disagree with the points you raise – am just answering your question. Interested in your thoughts re. alternatives.

Well, I’ve no idea how prevalent domestic violence is, or how many go orders police expect to use. Advocating throwing people out of homes they partly or wholly own purely because it saves some money compared to the alternative just doesn’t strike me as a credible argument, though.

If we want to provide people security from domestic violence (I certainly do), we should be prepared to invest the money to do it in the best way possible.

I don’t really have any alternatives besides protective custody – perhaps make it policy that suspected domestic violence results in arrest -> detention (so making go orders or an equivalent entirely unnecessary) regardless of the views of the alleged victim?

Certainly, my mother was far too much of a soft touch. The police were primarily concerned with whether they’d have to fill in forms, rather than ensuring everyone’s safety.

Well, as usual the tory trolls once again come out in favour of the rapists,and men who beat up their wives. And the trolls are VERY CONCERNED with their rights.

Unless of course the man in question runs Wikileeks.

I don’t really have any alternatives besides protective custody – perhaps make it policy that suspected domestic violence results in arrest -> detention (so making go orders or an equivalent entirely unnecessary) regardless of the views of the alleged victim?

Hmm. Let’s assume I’ve been falsely accused of domestic violence. Which one would be a worse infringement of my liberties: a) two nights in a cheap hotel until things calm down b) arrest and detention?

Sunny, any chance you can change “men” in the OP to “people”? This does apply both ways round, and the current phrasing gives unnecessary ammo to Williams and his fellow loons?

John b – you’ve got my proposal the wrong way around (probably my fault).

If you’ve been accused of domestic violence, in a property that you jointly or solely own (or are the joint or sole name on the lease, I guess), then my argument is that the police should – if they don’t feel able to arrest you on the charge (for whatever reason) – offer the alleged victim alternative accommodation for the length of the currently-proposed ‘go order’, rather than telling you to leave the property you have rights to for that period of time.

@37 Why the concern with property rights? Also, if said rights to property are shared with the victim of domestic violence, why should the victim be the one who has to make the sacrifice?
The whole point is to stop the violence, not necessarily break up the dysfunctional couple. I would suggest that being banished from one’s property for a couple of days is far more likely to cause a deep introspective look at one’s behaviour toward their partner. A ‘shock’ to the system that tells the violent partner that their behaviour is not looked kindly upon by the rest of society. If it leads to the abuser seeking therapy and a change in behaviour, then that would be a successful outcome.

At the very least it allows the victim a couple of days within familiar surroundings with which to judge whether staying is worth it, and to perhaps make arrangements to leave and never come back. Plus, let’s not beat about the bush, the victims are more likely to women, specifically mothers, who have children to worry about.
Given the choice between banishing a likely abusive man from his home, or uprooting a mother and her children, the one which is going to cause the least amount of disruption to their lives and cause the least amount of injustice is to banish the bloke.

Cylux – i acknowledge earlier that what to do with the children is a difficult question, and one i leave open.

Anyway, given our society’s presumption of innocence until proven guilty, forcibly removing someone from their own (or partly own) property based on an accusation, when there isn’t enough evidence to make an arrest (which, I’d say, should be the police’s first response to obvious domestic violence – and gives the ‘likely offender’ a nice jail cell to cool down in) strikes me as wrong.

If the alleged victim fears for his or her own safety but the police don’t have the evidcence to make an arrest to effect that, then they should offer the alleged victim safety elsewhere. Not act against the alleged abuser in this manner.

There’s nothing in either proposal which will prejudge whether the couple will remain together or not – that’s something only the couple can sort out between themselves.

Children are the ones that need protecting.

In situations where domestic violence is reported, the report can come from various sources. The complainent may not be the female or male in the relationship, but often is a neighbour, GP or member of either family. In these cases the levels of violence in the home may have been sustained for some time before an incident occurs that attracts the attention of a third party.

It is my experience when a third party is involved in the reporting of an incident, that either party (in the relationship) may minimise the violence occurring in the home as being ‘normal’ or acceptable. Whilst an adult in the situation may be prepared to accept this normalisation of violence, the impact of witnessing the violence between parents on children in the household is certainly going to affect the children detrementally in development. In these cases, it is sad to say, that state intervention is neccessary. Be it the cops or another agent of the state, someone has to intervene.

It is my belief that anyone who believes a child to be at risk of exposure to violence (even when not directed at the child) in the home should report it to the authorities, even if the state has to get draconian on the families’ ass. Better that than nothing being done until really nasty things happen.

@Nick #39: The law doesn’t have the luxury of leaving the quesiton of children “open”, though.

Despite being discussed on the internet a lot, partner violence is not just an exercise in intellectual masturbation, but a real thing in the world that causes anguish and trauma.

Outside of a solely theoretical, academic framework of pure logic, your suggestion that uprooting the victim of an assault from their home in order to protect the attacker’s property rights is chillingly inhumane.

“wrong with the better (to my mind) approach of offering protective custody to the alleged victim,”

Why should the victim have to leave their home?

There are 2 people involved here, and both have civil liberties and rights. Focusing exclusively on 1 person’s leads to a violation of the others.

41 – no, I’ve scrupulously avoided using “victim” or “attacker” here.

Instead, I’ve settled for “alleged” or “likely” victim or attacker.

I’m not coming at this from an intellectual-wankery point of view, I’m coming at it from a history being a direct of indirect victim of domestic violence – child-on-parent, parent-on-child, partner-on-partner – myself. Not that I think that gives me special privilege to comment, or that it belittles the opinions of those who are coming at it from an intellectual-wankery point of view themselves.

That aside, I’ll repeat:

If the police respond to a complaint of domestic violence (regardless of who reports) and they have a likely victim and a likely attacker, I think the likely attacker should be arrested and charged – even if the likely victim does not want this to happen. IME, the law’s current approach to this scenario is poor – likely victims don’t seem to keep their best interests (or the best interests of their dependants) in mind when making these decisions.

This gets the likely attacker out of the home and into a police cell, regardless of property rights, leaving the likely victim and any dependants safe.

If there is an alleged victim and an alleged attacker, and the alleged attacker has joint or sole title to the property, but there’s no indication to upgrade it from alleged to likely, arbitrarily turfing the alleged attacker from the home on the alleged victim’s say-so strikes me as less just than offering the alleged victim an escape option.

If the alleged victim has sole title to the property, s/he can already turf out the alleged attacker (and let him/her back in later if desired) – and get the police’s help to do so – using existing legislation.

Like I said, I don’t know what happens to the kids under this scheme, and maybe that makes the whole thing unworkable – I don’t know.

@24 Oh look everybody – Laban “I told you I’m a Taleban fan” Tall is here lecturing people on liberalism.

Pay attention now! (And try to keep a straight face.)

“arbitrarily turfing the alleged attacker from the home on the alleged victim’s say-so”

As a general rule, DV cases come down to more than the alleged victim’s say so. You have signs of physical injury, possible witnesses (eyewitnesses and neighbours who heard arguing/screaming), history of incidents at the property etc.

If Police have the basis for an arrest, then a 2 day removal from the home of the alleged attacker is reasonable – if they don’t have the basis for an arrest then they shouldn’t have the power to remove the alleged attacker. Bear in mind the bar for arrest is lower than to be charged.

@28
“1.5 women a week are killed by violent partners or ex partners. a huge number.”

That number is nowhere near huge. In the USA, around 90 people are killed by lightning each year. That makes around 1.73 people killed a week.

In reality, even if a man calls the police it’s the man who will get arrested, this already happens. Besides, women have shelters where they can go, whereas men do not.

Arresting someone without trial or evidence is wrong. The police will throw you out of your home if they can suspect DV, and they can suspect DV if somebody makes an accusation.

Did you anger you neighbor or wife earlier today? Well, at night you might have a revenge on you and you’ll be thrown out of your home.

In reality, even if a man calls the police it’s the man who will get arrested, this already happens..

Not true. Women are three times more likely to be arrested than men.

http://www.ndvf.org.uk/files/document/1129/original.pdf

Besides, women have shelters where they can go, whereas men do not.

In the UK these are called refuges which do in the main but not exclusively cater for women. However, in the UK, temporary accommodation is provided by the state for people fleeing domestic violence. Thus men and women have access to emergency accommodation in the UK – on equal terms.

“Arresting someone without trial or evidence is wrong”

You’re confused. The process goes as follows. Arrest, Charge, Trial. So it is clearly the case that 100% of people are arrested before trial.

Also you are mistaken if you think police need hard evidence to make an arrest. All they need is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, evidence is what they need to bring charges.

(Unless the suspect is a wealthy individual with good lawyer, then you need tons of evidence just to arrange an appointment)

I know saying this (particularly here) is like volunteering to be a target for misogynist screeching feminists, but this looks like an unprincipled law disguised in a cloak of faux-pragmatism.
First point, isn’t it a breach of human rights to punish a suspect before trial? Lets be clear about this, being removed from your home is punishment. Anyone who thinks not should walk out of their front door right now and live rough for a few days and then reconsider whether they think it is really ‘just’ that this could happen simply on someone’s say so.
Second point, if the law were really concerned with the victims safety then the victim would be removed to a safe place while the attacker was properly dealt with on a sound legal footing. Surely removing a violent person from their home and leaving them to walk the streets seething with resentment is just going to fuel a more violent reprisal with the added advantage for the attacker that they know exactly where their victim is!
Once again our well paid MP’s seem to have concocted a sloppy and ill thought out piece of legislation on the basis of cost effectiveness and how it will play to the crowds.

@49
Again, arrest can be construed as a punishment and it occurs before charges are brought or judgement from trial. Also, police are not in the habit of just turning up at random people’s homes and arresting them for no reason, as much as we might like to believe so given their behaviour during the student protests. This is especially so in the case of domestic violence, look at the link @21 to see the procedures laid down for the issuing of a DVPN, for a start it is not solely aimed at live-in abusers, so acts as a kind of restraining order in those instances.

If P lives in premises which are also lived in by a person for whose protection the DVPN is issued, the DVPN may also contain provision—
(a) to prohibit P from evicting or excluding from the premises the person for whose protection the DVPN is issued,
(b) to prohibit P from entering the premises,
(c) to require P to leave the premises, or
(d) to prohibit P from coming within such distance of the premises as may be specified in the DVPN.

As you can see the DVPN may not even contain the provision restricting access to the home – b,c, and d are likely to be employed for (increasingly) noticeably violent “P’s”, even in the unlikely event that an innocent gets shunted with a DVPN, given the apparent lack of any sort of noticeable abuse toward their partner will only result in provision a being used.

Also were I to ‘banish’ myself from my home I have family/friends who would be willing to put up with me for a couple of days, so sleeping rough wouldn’t come into it, in fact check the link and you’ll see this bit:

On serving P with a DVPN, the constable must ask P for an address for the purposes of being given the notice of the hearing of the application for the domestic violence protection order.

Chances are, if P has no friends, family or means to put themselves up in a b&b for a couple of nights then the police will have no choice but to make an arrest instead.

@50
First point
‘Chances are, if P has no friends, family or means to put themselves up in a b&b for a couple of nights then the police will have no choice but to make an arrest instead’

As a preamble I think that you might think twice about wanting to be put up by friends or family if it means telling them that you have been evicted from your home on an allegation of domestic violence. Innocent or not mud sticks. But my real bone of contention is that you are therefore saying if you are unable to mitigate the forseeable consequences of this ‘punishment’ (without trial) then you will have to be arrested instead. Mmm is that a good argument? Sounds like something that would be found in the pages of Catch 22!

Second point – prohibiting is not the same as preventing. The victim would be safer elsewhere

No sorry,this still looks like a sloppy and ill thought out piece of legislation!

@51 Well I suppose we shall have to wait for the results of the trial period to come in, to see if it is indeed a sloppy and ill thought out piece of legislation, or not.

Its a crazy old world. Glad I’m single.

@47

Your cited study does not show that women are 3 times more likely to be arrested. What makes you think it does? Do you mean when the man calls the police?

How could anyone in their right mind believe that women are more likely to be arrested when the police are called to a DV situation, have you dealt with the police before at all?

“First point, isn’t it a breach of human rights to punish a suspect before trial? Lets be clear about this, being removed from your home is punishmen”

I take it you are opposed to people charged with serious crimes being held on remand then?

I had a lodger who was a pathological liar and once accused me of assaulting her (in fact she assaulted me and I had to restrain her).

If this policy had been in place then I would have been removed from my home not her!

55 Being removed from your home could be seen as a form of punishment but in the majority of cases it is female victims who are usually removed from the home, albeit on the basis of placing them into a refuge for their own safety. Surely it should be the accused who is removed not the victim, if it is the male who is the victim then the woman should be removed, what is unfair or unjust about that?
56
The instance of lying to the police/courts is a problem with all types of prosecutions/accusations/charges. if we take the inference of your post, we would not have any law just in case someone lies.

@ 26″ But we’re not talking about the deprivation of anyone’s liberty here. We’re talking about the police intervening in a case of domestic violence, giving the victim some safety and the offender some time to cool off and reassess their behaviour.”

It’s dificult to see how being thrown in a police cell without having being found guilty of any crime – which is what “some time to cool off and re-asses their behaviour” means in practice, can ever be described as “liberal”.
I’m not saying it’s necessarily a bad thing in some circumstances (e.g if suspect has previous for DV and/or there are children in the house) which is why police have been doing it unofficially for years as the default response to “a domestic”, but liberal it ain’t.

@57 SteveB

“Surely it should be the accused who is removed not the victim, if it is the male who is the victim then the woman should be removed, what is unfair or unjust about that?”

Um, possibly the fact that an accusation doesn’t automatically mean that the accused is guilty (despite your decision to label the accusor as the “victim”)? If I were kicked out of my home, despite doing nothing wrong, just because someone else asked the police to do it, I’m pretty sure I would feel that was unjust.

I’m not automatically against the policy described above, but your blithe assumption that an accusation should be enough to allow punishment is exactly what people are angry about.

59
Accusation does not always mean guilt but this is a problem in all areas of the law as @steveb has already mentioned.
When one is accused of an offence there is a great deal of inconvenience whether or not it leads to a conviction or not. Why then should it be different in the case of domestic violence?
It is most certainly the case that violence within the private sphere between family is somehow considered to be different from that which occurs in public, I am sure you would feel agrieved if you were threatened or attacked in a public house and it was you who was asked to leave.
People can make false accusations about anything and it is up to the due process of the law to attempt to get to the truth.

IF someone is cleared of domestic abuse, its not because the supposed victim has made it up ,it can be that there was the evidence that people felt there was,
so as such the previously believed victim, is now a false accuser even though they are not recognised as trying to have got someone wrongly introuble,, should the former alleged victim now be turfed out of their home if the person they alleged had attacked them is cleared, after all the former victim hasn’t been accused of attempting to pervert the course of justice, just becasue the accusatio they made has been dropped.

Hmmmm, before I even comment, I see the following: “Misogynist, racist, homophobic and xenophobic comments will be deleted.”.

So, misogynist comments are not allowed, but misandric comments are okay? These rules stated only expose the hypocrisy of the people who run this site, as the comments to this thread largely expose the hypocrisy of its visitors. I could talk of how studies have shown men to be as likely to be the victims of domestic violence, as are women; but at the end of the day, that’s not really the point. The point is, anyone, MALE OR FEMALE, deserves the right to be free from violence; that people here are advocating this ruling removing MEN ONLY, even though making it gender-neutral would in no way affect the protection given to women, goes only to expose the huge double standards that work against men.