Clare's law

Suspended
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
33,209
Location
Northern England
So,

After a trial in limited areas of England and Wales this law has been rolled out to cover the whole of England and Wales.

For those who don't know anything about it its official title is 'The Domestic Abuse Disclosure Scheme'.
It basically gives anyone the right to ask whether an individual in a close relationship with someone else has a history of domestic abuse.

Now on the face of it that sounds like a reasonable idea but...I can see some problems.

The first is that the very fact this law is necessary shows that the justice system in this country is flawed. If there is a need to disclose that someone is a potentially violent individual stemming from a background of violence then why by the sweet and holy jebus are they out in society?! If you have to warn people about them then they aren't ******* safe to have out in public!

The second leads on from this, that according to our justice system if they are out in public they are deemed to be safe and reformed etc. So then what right does anyone have to go dragging up their history? They have served their time/punishment and are free. Should everyone be judged on their past mistakes? In which case why is it only for domestic violence that they're judged?
We're not informed if someone's partner is a rapist. Or our accountant is a convicted fraudster. Hell, last time I checked we in this country go to some lengths just to try to protect some criminals identity!
This could end up having negative repercussions on someone's whole life. This is someone, I repeat, that has served their time already.

Third, person A is in a relationship with person B. Person C puts a request in and finds out person B was previously abusive. Person C tells person A or, person A is informed themselves by the police. Person A decides person C shouldn't have stuck their nose in and ends up growing closer to B. Perhaps moving in with, or away with B. Person A then becomes trapped by B.

What are all you lovely people thinking about this law?
 
Third, person A is in a relationship with person B. Person C puts a request in and finds out person B was previously abusive. Person C tells person A or, person A is informed themselves by the police. Person A decides person C shouldn't have stuck their nose in and ends up growing closer to B. Perhaps moving in with, or away with B. Person A then becomes trapped by B.

At least A is making an informed decision. It may not be a logical one, but you can't do everything for someone.

People that are abusive in relationships tend to stay being abusive, knowing if someone has a history helps you make an informed decision as to whether they are the person you think they are and risk assess it on the evidence. Or that's the theory.
 
Sure it's nice to know whether somebody has been violent in the past or not but I don't think it's fair. What if somebody truly regrets their mistakes and has taken all possible steps to change?

I'd rather judge somebody not on what they've done, but instead what they've done to put it right.
 
Sure it's nice to know whether somebody has been violent in the past or not but I don't think it's fair. What if somebody truly regrets their mistakes and has taken all possible steps to change?

I'd rather judge somebody not on what they've done, but instead what they've done to put it right.

Well, if the person really has changed and is open about it, the check won't tell the requestor anything they don't already know.

It's when people don't change and people only see the manipulative and charming side without knowing what they are truely like until it's too late.
 
Well, if the person really has changed and is open about it, the check won't tell the requestor anything they don't already know.

It's when people don't change and people only see the manipulative and charming side without knowing what they are truely like until it's too late.

I agree to an extent. But let's say somebody who has really changed and sorted themselves out is open about it when first meeting somebody. That new fancy man, or woman will forever assume that they will do the same again. It hardly gives them a fair chance when starting a new relationship. I think it should be forgotten about.
 
I agree to an extent. But let's say somebody who has really changed and sorted themselves out is open about it when first meeting somebody. That new fancy man, or woman will forever assume that they will do the same again. It hardly gives them a fair chance when starting a new relationship. I think it should be forgotten about.

Then that's their own fault surely? If they have changed then it will be a little harder for them but it's their own doing. If they haven't then at least the other person has a heads up and will probably exit on the first sign of violence.
 
It's stupid. Next we'll have it so you can request hospital records to make sure a potential partner hasn't got STI's. I can see the point but where do we draw the line? Oh, and what happened to trust in a relationship, if I found out a partner went behind my back to find out if I had a criminal record they'd be gone with.
 
It's stupid. Next we'll have it so you can request hospital records to make sure a potential partner hasn't got STI's. I can see the point but where do we draw the line? Oh, and what happened to trust in a relationship, if I found out a partner went behind my back to find out if I had a criminal record they'd be gone with.

My god I hope not. :eek:
 
What next, the ability to get a full background check on someone you're attracted to? A dumb, reactionary law that's once again been campaigned for on the back of someone dying.
 
My god I hope not. :eek:

Also, where does data protection start to fall in with all of this? It's absolutely stupid from where I'm sitting. We should be providing support and reaching out to people scared to say there in an abusive relationship, not making information that should be private available. And to be honest, if they're too scared to say they're in an abusive relationship they're certainly not going to be telling anyone nor going to the police station.
 
Then that's their own fault surely? If they have changed then it will be a little harder for them but it's their own doing. If they haven't then at least the other person has a heads up and will probably exit on the first sign of violence.

I don't believe it is their own doing. Sure, they did bad. But if they've done everything they can to turn themselves around then it should be a clean slate for them.
 
Do the police inform you if information about you has been requested? If they did I'd end the relationship then and there, so they wouldn't have to wory if I had or didn't have a violent past.
 
Also, where does data protection start to fall in with all of this? It's absolutely stupid from where I'm sitting. We should be providing support and reaching out to people scared to say there in an abusive relationship, not making information that should be private available. And to be honest, if they're too scared to say they're in an abusive relationship they're certainly not going to be telling anyone nor going to the police station.

Very true.

Soon we'll have a 'Potential Partner Background Check' service costing £15. Everything you need to know about their past.
 
The second leads on from this, that according to our justice system if they are out in public they are deemed to be safe and reformed etc.

No, not at all.

All a served sentence shows is that a person has served the specified sentence for the crime they were convicted of. Whether they are still a danger to the public is not a factor taken into consideration.

However, a "reformed" criminal may be considered for early release.
 
[TW]Fox;25373981 said:
Shall we just get rid of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act?

Let's also remember that convictions may come up on checks that aren't spent ;) And it's not just convictions that come up either. It's notoriously difficult to get prosecutions for DV which is why the Police spend so much time trying.
 
Sorry, thought this thread was my wife laying the law down again, she has her own idea of law!:confused:
I shall back out now before I get in to deep:(
 
What next, the ability to get a full background check on someone you're attracted to? A dumb, reactionary law that's once again been campaigned for on the back of someone dying.

Wouldn't be surprised if it did happen..
 
I think that's a good idea tbh.

Can you make a Freedom of Information request to the NHS and get your records and send them to me, I might bump into you in the future, best to be safe! It's not a good idea :rolleyes: here's hoping the leaving the EU flops (which it wont) and they step in and shake the protection of privacy in the Home Secretary's face.
 
Back
Top Bottom