Clare's law

badcompany · 5 Mar 2012 at 20:29

what happened to repent and changing ones life around?

Richie · 5 Mar 2012 at 20:31

Tefal said:
So with this not just being limited to things the person is found guilty of say woman A is a bit of a nutter and breaks up with man A, she then leaves an anonymous report he is violent etc, police log it find nothing nothing happens.

years later woman B falls in lvoe with man A, checks his record and is told he has a history of violence, woman B leaves him/tells others, people beat **** out of man A out of some misplaced sense of "justice".

If it follows Sarah's law (the pedo one) then it does not restrict itself to convicted crimes but will gather all intelligence related to the "suspect" to make an "informed decision" on whether said "suspect" is, or is likely to be a risk to the person asking.

This "intelligence" can take any form, from convictions to accusations that end with no criminal proceedings due to lack of evidence right down to someone saying to a cop "I heard that guy in number 45 is looking at kids/beating up his partner". If this is deemed even remotely factual then it will be logged somewhere and lets face it, cops will log it for fear of something happening to kids/suspect's partner and it coming back that "I told PC Smith he was dodgy"

Not as if the public have ever been wrong about this stuff before now, is it?

This "intelligence" :rolleyes:

is all gathered to make a risk assessment on said person.

Also, if it follows Sarah's Law then ANYONE can make the application for this however the police SHOULD only release any details to the person who it is relevant to i.e. if a woman's parents think the new boyfriend is dodgy then they can apply but the police SHOULD only tell the girlfriend and not the parents.

Again - this is if the new law (domestic one) follows Sarah's Law (pedo one)

Malevolence said:
Anyway, does this not break the Data Protection Act or something?

No, the new law is what allows the circumvention of the DPA...

Glaucus · 5 Mar 2012 at 20:32

It's all utterly stupid.

She reported him to the police on numerous occasions anyway. As I said in the OP, knee jerk reaction, rather than sorting the issues out.
Disappointed in government for even trailing this.

platinum87 · 5 Mar 2012 at 20:33

Glaucus said:
I strongly believe that the public has no right to such information.

Depends whether you include yourself in the public.

I want to know every single bit of information that is possible about everyone i will interact with on a frequent basis.

Laws of privacy do not hinder me in this quest anyway so i dont know what to think really.

Tefal · 5 Mar 2012 at 20:35

Moses said:
Did I say I supported the proposed law?

No but the wording made it seemed like you thought the law operated purely on convictions.

Out of curiosity, would this law mean the partner being investigated is informed?

As I'm not suer I'd want to be with someone who has a check carried out on me. (nothing to hide would just think it would remove any sense of trust)

Richie · 5 Mar 2012 at 20:37

platinum87 said:
I want to know every single bit of information that is possible about everyone i will interact with on a frequent basis.

A wise old Scandinavian hermit once told me:

"Gossip harms 3 - the speaker, the spoken of and the spoken to"

You REALLY think it is any of your business knowing EVERYTHING about people you just happen to "interact with on a frequent basis"? Would you be happy to share EVERYTHING with someone whom you interact with like this?

Hell I interact with my boss on a daily basis but it doesn't mean I should be in amongst his personal life. It's none of my business.

Richie · 5 Mar 2012 at 20:39

Tefal said:
Out of curiosity, would this law mean the partner being investigated is informed?

No idea. With assumptions being the mother of all **** ups, I would suggest not given the possibility of someone taking it personally (the cheek!) and doing/saying something to the applicant thereby landing the cops with other issues...

Tefal · 5 Mar 2012 at 20:40

Richie said:
A wise old Scandinavian hermit once told me:

"Gossip harms 3 - the speaker, the spoken of and the spoken to"

You REALLY think it is any of your business knowing EVERYTHING about people you just happen to "interact with on a frequent basis"? Would you be happy to share EVERYTHING with someone whom you interact with like this?

Hell I interact with my boss on a daily basis but it doesn't mean I should be in amongst his personal life. It's none of my business.

Just because he desires to know everything about a person doesn't mean he thinks they (or he) should willingly share all that information.

merely that he and others have a right to try and find out.

Jonnybmac · 5 Mar 2012 at 20:40

deuse said:
I think it's a brilliant idea in fact I would go one step further and do what they do in the US

http://florida.arrests.org/

http://www.tampabay.com/mugshots/

looking on that site, this guy looks like a serial killer :O

platinum87 · 5 Mar 2012 at 21:25

Richie said:
You REALLY think it is any of your business knowing EVERYTHING about people you just happen to "interact with on a frequent basis"? Would you be happy to share EVERYTHING with someone whom you interact with like this?

Hell I interact with my boss on a daily basis but it doesn't mean I should be in amongst his personal life. It's none of my business.

Would i be happy about it? No I wouldn't, but this is a silly ideology to think that you should balance things like that, personally i think its the type of thinking of a 5 year old.

And as for frequent basis interpret that as you like, i think your boss should apply in it, and i think you should know a lot, information is power, especially in business.

platinum87 · 5 Mar 2012 at 21:28

Tefal said:
Just because he desires to know everything about a person doesn't mean he thinks they (or he) should willingly share all that information.

merely that he and others have a right to try and find out.

Since when do you back up what i say?

Tefal · 5 Mar 2012 at 21:51

platinum87 said:
Since when do you back up what i say?

Even a broken clock is right twice a day?

LordSplodge · 5 Mar 2012 at 22:25

Glaucus said:
It's all utterly stupid.

She reported him to the police on numerous occasions anyway. As I said in the OP, knee jerk reaction, rather than sorting the issues out.
Disappointed in government for even trailing this.

Exactly and now it's being trailed any opponents of the law will be simply be tarred as "supporting domestic abuse" as instead of being rationally debated by lawmakers it's emotionally charged including the stupid name "Claire's Law"

Clever manipulation. Just like the proposed Internet monitoring law in Canada was changed from something that actually described the law to the "Protecting children from online predators act" they essential load it emotionally and word it so that defending it associates you with the heinous act.

Richie · 6 Mar 2012 at 06:51

That's the way of the things ATM. If you want to make a point these days, try and find a way to incorporate "protect kids from the weirdos" and you're set as then you can paint any naysayers as pro child abuse :rolleyes:

Makes a mockery of actual abuse.

elmarko · 6 Mar 2012 at 07:47

Ahleckz said:
I watched the mother on This Morning earlier in the week and she didn't really have a very good argument. She was just there to play the poor mother who had lost a daughter. She totally believed that this law would have saved her daughter but I'm not so sure. Love is such a strong emotion and can easily overrule our rational sides. Even with knowing someone's past, it would be easy (and reasonable) to believe that they have changed and are no longer that person and thus render the ability to know useless.

Yes, it may stop domestic assault in a limited number of cases but you have to balance that with the fact that the person has served their time and completed their punishment and are now allowed to lead a 'normal' life. I believe this law would be another infringement into this and would be an overall bad thing.

As stated, they should campaign for greater sentences, more resources for victims of domestic abuse (both male and female) and greater awareness.

To play devils adcovate here,

If I was women, I would not want to be in a relationship with somebody with a violent history of domestic abuse, regardless as to if they had "changed" or not.

It could be argued that women in a position of phisically inferiority (in regards to strenth) have a right to know if prospective partners have violent tendencies.

As our reoffending rates are as high as they are, I don't think simply saying "they have paid there dues" is a fair statement - as the statistics imply that offenders are likely to re-offend, I'd wager good money the same applies to women-beaters.

To clarify, I really don't think victims should have any say in the creation of new laws, as they are clearly to emotionally involved to make a rational & clear judgement.