Jump to content

Marital Coercion


spospe

Recommended Posts

knight of the road - 2013-02-21 10:08 AM

 

John 47 - 2013-02-21 9:58 AM

 

If you'd seen the look my wife gives me when I'm not doing what she wants me to then you'd know that marital coercion can work both ways! (lol)

Can't help but notice John 47 appears to be lightening up a tad?

 

depends who I'm talking to and what they are saying! :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tracker - 2013-02-21 10:25 AM

 

John 47 - 2013-02-21 10:24 AM

depends who I'm talking to and what they are saying! :-D

 

Err - if you are talking they are not getting the chance to say anything?

 

Don't know about you but when I talk to someone it is a two-way thing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

spospe - 2013-02-21 9:25 AM

 

If Marital Coercion is a defence, then I move that it proves that women are indeed subservient to men: discuss ..........

 

This is a very strange piece of legislation (dating from1925, so pre-feminism) it is a defence which is not open to men, so assumes that women should 'obey' as in the old form of CofE/Book of Common Prayer Marriage service (hence the strange 10th. question of those put to Mr. Justice sweeney yesterday in the Vicky Pryce trial) and, possibly, that men have a right to demand obedience.

That jury yesterday (consisting of 8 women & 4men) obviously had no idea -- what a load of thickos!

Have any of you been on a jury? I haven't and although I have had quite a lot of experience of various courts/tribunals I have never seen a jury in action - but that one at Southwark Crown Court didn't even seem to know why they were there or what their true function should have been! Weird! I have heard other stories about the dumb people who end up being called for jury service -- perhaps there should be an I.Q. test? The old property qualification and all-male juries went out long ago -- perhaps they should be brought back -- '12 good men and true' --- what do you all think?

 

Colin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Symbol Owner - 2013-02-21 10:52 AM

 

spospe - 2013-02-21 9:25 AM

 

If Marital Coercion is a defence, then I move that it proves that women are indeed subservient to men: discuss ..........

 

This is a very strange piece of legislation (dating from1925, so pre-feminism) it is a defence which is not open to men, so assumes that women should 'obey' as in the old form of CofE/Book of Common Prayer Marriage service (hence the strange 10th. question of those put to Mr. Justice sweeney yesterday in the Vicky Pryce trial) and, possibly, that men have a right to demand obedience.

That jury yesterday (consisting of 8 women & 4men) obviously had no idea -- what a load of thickos!

Have any of you been on a jury? I haven't and although I have had quite a lot of experience of various courts/tribunals I have never seen a jury in action - but that one at Southwark Crown Court didn't even seem to know why they were there or what their true function should have been! Weird! I have heard other stories about the dumb people who end up being called for jury service -- perhaps there should be an I.Q. test? The old property qualification and all-male juries went out long ago -- perhaps they should be brought back -- '12 good men and true' --- what do you all think?

 

Colin.

 

 

The jury are not required to have a total understanding of the law. They are supposed to listen to the evidence and come to a conclusion about whether the defendant is guilty or not based only on the evidence heard in court..

 

But, it seems that this jury even asked the judge the meaning of the expression " reasonable doubt " !

 

( To which I understand he replied ' doubt that is reasonable )

 

It's no wonder there is a retrial.

 

 

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do feel that Marital Coercion is something which harks back to the Victorian days, when the man was indeed the head of the household (apart from Queen Victoria's household where she was the boss).

 

It is a real oddball today; imagine a same-sex 'marriage', who could claim the defence then? Would one partner have to say that they were the 'husband' and the other the, 'wife', what about Civil Partnerships?

 

I imagine that the defence today is only open to properly married women and it automatically implies that women are lesser creatures than men; weaker willed and easily coerced.

 

If this defence is allowed to stand, then feminism will have been dealt a severe blow (I believe that there was an attempt to remove it from the Statute Book in 1974, but nothing happened).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman

Not another 50 shades thread *-).....................I've got bits of me that haven't been used on a regular basis for years8-)......................It ain't fair.................bl**dy pensioners treating their toyboys as sex objects >:-(..........

 

Nobody appreciates me for my mind *-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The jury consisted of 8 women and 4 men. There were also 2 of white origin and 10 of non white origin, but not specified. However, all managed to take the oath in English that was understandable.

 

The judge had no choice but to declare a re-trial as it was apparent the jury had absolutely no idea of what they were supposed to do, or even why they were there. Without knowing the backgrounds of the jurors it is impossible to ascertain if there was any reason behind the lack of ability to do the job, whether lack of knowledge of the UK trial system, or lack of knowledge of the UK in general. There has of course been calls for the jury system to be abolished and trials be convened in front of a qualified judge or as an alternative for jurors to be given a basic test to see if they can manage a trial scenario. Of course the 'people supporters' will object to the judge and the equality people will object to anything that smacks of discrimination. Now no one is expecting every single juror to be a whizz kid on the system but to have so many totally clueless, does raise questions.

 

As for marital coercion I suspect Ms Pryce is not the type to be coerced into anything considering her background and career to date. This was an agreed solution to enable the high flying career of her husband, and for her to get the spin offs, to continue. Once he screwed that up by literally screwing around, then the gloves came off. Both are equally guilty of contempt for Britain as a whole and need to go to the slammer for a long time. Unfortunately it will not happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John 47 - 2013-02-21 10:36 AM

 

Tracker - 2013-02-21 10:25 AM

 

John 47 - 2013-02-21 10:24 AM

depends who I'm talking to and what they are saying! :-D

 

Err - if you are talking they are not getting the chance to say anything?

 

Don't know about you but when I talk to someone it is a two-way thing!

 

I love ventriloquist's :-D Then again, I talk to myself sometimes, especially when she's ignoring me.*-)

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very few men, and probably none on here will ever understand the true meaning of what is being claimed.

Outwardly strong willed women can be literally scared of their own shadow behind closed doors, I've been there so can empathise with her claims. You will do anything to avoid the next assault, whether it be physical or verbal. I'm not suggesting the honourable? gentleman used threats of violence, but the implication is there if you look for it. So for a woman to publicly declare that she was coersed into doing something illegal and serious (in the eyes of the law) takes great courage and is not something you would claim lightly knowing you would have to face the other person again..

 

I'll take the comments from you supposedly 'superior' men with a pinch of salt, knowing full well that IMHO not one of you is truly serious or indeed would have the guts to say it to your respective partners.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No coercion takes place in our house. My wife simply gets her own way with such skill that I have never quite worked out how she does it. Having said that I do have every sympathy with women who do suffer from male coercion or even violence. It sould simply never happen.

 

I do hope Donna that that is all behind you now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

donna miller - 2013-02-21 4:39 PM

 

Very few men, and probably none on here will ever understand the true meaning of what is being claimed.

Outwardly strong willed women can be literally scared of their own shadow behind closed doors, I've been there so can empathise with her claims. You will do anything to avoid the next assault, whether it be physical or verbal. I'm not suggesting the honourable? gentleman used threats of violence, but the implication is there if you look for it. So for a woman to publicly declare that she was coersed into doing something illegal and serious (in the eyes of the law) takes great courage and is not something you would claim lightly knowing you would have to face the other person again..

 

I'll take the comments from you supposedly 'superior' men with a pinch of salt, knowing full well that IMHO not one of you is truly serious or indeed would have the guts to say it to your respective partners.

 

Sorry, have to disagree in this instance. While abuse is a problem in this case Ms Pryce had ample opportunities to make her case, but chose not to do so. It took a newspaper to actually uncover the crime and even then she still did not state her case, so I regret she is as guilty as Hell of complicity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Beyond reasonable doubt" is an interesting one, it is not unknown for juries to have long discussions on this ;-)

The question might be asked, " is it reasonable to conclude that some one in the case is lieing?" well of corse it is reasonable to assume this when you are presented with two differing stories from two different witnesses, and from what I can make out the majority of court cases with juries have no hard and fast evidence, so many jurers take the 'soft' option and claim resonable doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
spospe - 2013-03-11 9:47 PM

 

It has been decided now that Marital Coercion was not a valid defence and both parties have been sent to jail. What do Forum members think of the sentence?

 

 

I thought it had been decided that there was no ' marital coercion ' - she was quite willing to take the points. She didn't make a fuss until the marriage broke up.

 

 

Sentence seems about right to me - and they deserve each other.

 

Disappointed that they don't appear to be paying any of the costs though.

 

 

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

spospe - 2013-03-11 9:47 PM

 

It has been decided now that Marital Coercion was not a valid defence and both parties have been sent to jail. What do Forum members think of the sentence?

 

Well, you could have used better prose, and been a bit more scathing, but otherwise you're sentence is fine! (lol)

 

Oh, you mean the PRISON sentence! :D Too short - they deliberately lied and continued to do so, its the rest of the family I feel sorry for ... but at least the kid(s) will heve some peace for a while from all the no doubt bickering that's been going on. *-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CPS is going after the tens of £'000's of public money wasted by his lies and deceit. It should be remembered that he was trying all sorts of tricks prior to the final court case where he had no choice but to come clean, to get the case dismissed.

 

Sadly if this despicable individual is representative of our politicians then we have a hell of a long way to go to get the representation we deserve.

 

He is known to be an arrogant sh!t and his actions here seem to confirm this.

 

As for her?

 

I do not know what happened or why she took the points - but it would seem that she only decided to do anything after the marriage break-up.

 

In summary

 

8 months for her seems about right. 8 months for him is far too lenient. He should have got easily twice that because he not only perverted the course of justice by getting his wife to take the points in the first place, but he went all out to get the case dismissed using his then "position".

 

This concerted campaign by Huhne has not really been dealt with yet because he was only tried on the one count of getting his wife to take the points.

 

Whilst the CPS going for the costs of Huhne's further "perverting the course of justice" is to be welcomed - I doubt that a few £100 thousand will make much of a financial impact on him.

 

:-S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just seems to me a shame that there isn't a better remedy available. In their different ways, they both deserve what they got, and I agree he richly deserves much more. There is a gross hypocrisy in one of our law makers playing fast and loose with the law, compounded by the inflated cost of the trial attributable solely to his endless lying. I saw an interview of him yesterday and although he spoke the words, there was nothing whatever in his demeanour to suggest he had the slightest grasp of what they meant. Pathological liar was the only term that seemed to fit.

 

So, they were both stupid, and they have cost the rest of us a lot of money through the whole police investigation and court procedure. They now go to prison at our expense, where they will cost us yet more. 8 months in clink, probably reduced to 4, seem quite inadequate, but I can't see why they should be allowed to go on costing us so much. When all is said and done, what worth are they to the rest of us?

 

The best outcome would, IMO, be transportation. Sadly, that option is no longer available, if for no other reason than I doubt any of the traditional destinations would accept them! But, beyond that, what? Someone suggested 200 hours community service each. Doesn't quite seem to hit the spot for me. I don't think we have a truly appropriate legal sanction, short of stripping them of their wealth to reimburse the public exchequer what their stupidity cost us. But, what then of their kids? Justice for them seems in somewhat short supply whichever way you slice it.

 

10 years cleaning public toilets for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, with their names over the door as the cleaners, seems about right! :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...