Abuse, bullying, intimidation etc

24 Jan 2007

Quote by jaymar
You are confusing me :shock:

I thought it was just me who he was confusing :shock:

24 Jan 2007

Quote by jaymar
Bullying involves the tormenting of others through verbal harassment, physical assault, or other more subtle methods of coercion such as manipulation.
There is currently no legal definition of bullying.
In colloquial speech, bullying often describes a form of harassment perpetrated by an abuser having more physical and/or social power and dominance than the victim possesses. The victim of bullying is sometimes referred to as a target. The harassment can be verbal, physical and/or emotional.
This was taken from Wiklopedia... and I've found something new out today, there is no legal definition of bullying?? so Dambuster, yours was a very good question because I do not think there is a correct answer.

There may be no legal definition, but do we need one. Why create an offence of 'bullying' when we deal with the more serious from under assault laws. Even common assault is sometimes taken to court at public expence, if the victim is 'a vunerable person'. Court orders can be gained for other forms of abuse, breaches of which are punishable.
Do we need to re-invent the law yet again
??????? Huh? nobody is saying we need to create a law, if you re read my bit it was taken from wiklo and I'd said I HAD LEARNT SOMETHING NEW today, I hadn't known there was no law with regard to bullying! You ask "do we need one".... well yes now you have asked the question, I'm afraid I think there should be one, would this not act as a deterrent?
As for your "even common assault is taken to court at public expense..." do you think that is wrong? I'm only asking that because it is assault at the end of the day regardless of how bad the assault is. "Happy slapping" as they call it is regarded as a type of common assault would you then think this was being prosecuted at public expense? You are confusing me :shock:
Common assault is a touch, a brush of the hand, no injury is done. We are all assaulted each day, sometimes we like it. Sometimes it is against our wishes. How many times have you pushed pass someone? An assault each time!
ABH or GBH assaults resulting in injury, yes we should prosecute each one. If each common assault were prosecuted we would spend most of our week in court giving evidence. We can not do that.
Where someone 'targets' another, that must be stopped. That can be done now with court orders. Should we make a new law, or does it already exists. I think that constant bullying can be dealt with using current law. We do not need new laws. That is what I am say. The law is already there. Do we need it rewritten with a new name?

24 Jan 2007

Quote by Freckledbird

You are confusing me :shock:

I thought it was just me who he was confusing :shock:
Sorry I have that effect.
...even on myself sometimes.

24 Jan 2007

Quote by
Bullying involves the tormenting of others through verbal harassment, physical assault, or other more subtle methods of coercion such as manipulation.
There is currently no legal definition of bullying.
In colloquial speech, bullying often describes a form of harassment perpetrated by an abuser having more physical and/or social power and dominance than the victim possesses. The victim of bullying is sometimes referred to as a target. The harassment can be verbal, physical and/or emotional.
This was taken from Wiklopedia... and I've found something new out today, there is no legal definition of bullying?? so Dambuster, yours was a very good question because I do not think there is a correct answer.

There may be no legal definition, but do we need one. Why create an offence of 'bullying' when we deal with the more serious from under assault laws. Even common assault is sometimes taken to court at public expence, if the victim is 'a vunerable person'. Court orders can be gained for other forms of abuse, breaches of which are punishable.
Do we need to re-invent the law yet again
??????? Huh? nobody is saying we need to create a law, if you re read my bit it was taken from wiklo and I'd said I HAD LEARNT SOMETHING NEW today, I hadn't known there was no law with regard to bullying! You ask "do we need one".... well yes now you have asked the question, I'm afraid I think there should be one, would this not act as a deterrent?
As for your "even common assault is taken to court at public expense..." do you think that is wrong? I'm only asking that because it is assault at the end of the day regardless of how bad the assault is. "Happy slapping" as they call it is regarded as a type of common assault would you then think this was being prosecuted at public expense? You are confusing me :shock:
Common assault is a touch, a brush of the hand, no injury is done. We are all assaulted each day, sometimes we like it. Sometimes it is against our wishes. How many times have you pushed pass someone? An assault each time!
ABH or GBH assaults resulting in injury, yes we should prosecute each one. If each common assault were prosecuted we would spend most of our week in court giving evidence. We can not do that.
Where someone 'targets' another, that must be stopped. That can be done now with court orders. Should we make a new law, or does it already exists. I think that constant bullying can be dealt with using current law. We do not need new laws. That is what I am say. The law is already there. Do we need it rewritten with a new name?
I'm sorry, common assault, ( of the cja 1988) is still an assault. A slap of the hand can leave a bruise, a punch can leave a brush. I don't receive a common assault each day , but if my husband was to clip me across the face it's still assault as the intention is there to hurt.. it's all about the intention. I'm sure you must know about the law, and I'm sure you know common assaults mere as they are can still result in a criminal record, fine, bind over etc., it is up to the individual and/or CPS whether to prosecute not anyone else.
I totally agree with you, targeting should stop.

25 Jan 2007

I agree common assault is assault. Lately the system has even allowed assaults resulting in minor injury to be labeled 'common'. An archaic use of the word, yes? Then our laws are old. There is always the 'not in the public interest' non-prosecution, we know this happens. I agree the CPS will sometimes prosecute common assault. Mostly it is filtered out by the Police and the victim as being part of everyday life.
As for your comment;

Quote by jaymar
I'm sure you must know about the law, and I'm sure you know common assaults mere as they are can still result in a criminal record, fine, bind over etc., it is up to the individual and/or CPS whether to prosecute not anyone else.

do you suggest that we adopt an approach such as we do in marital cases; prosecute regardless of the victims wishes.
As for my knowledge of the law, perhaps you give me to much credit. It has always been my understanding that a kiss is common assault. Mostly I welcome them, I do not seek to prosecute them.
Please correct any of my definitions you find wanting.

25 Jan 2007

Quote by
I agree common assault is assault. Lately the system has even allowed assaults resulting in minor injury to be labeled 'common'. An archaic use of the word, yes? Then our laws are old. There is always the 'not in the public interest' non-prosecution, we know this happens. I agree the CPS will sometimes prosecute common assault. Mostly it is filtered out by the Police and the victim as being part of everyday life.
As for your comment;
I'm sure you must know about the law, and I'm sure you know common assaults mere as they are can still result in a criminal record, fine, bind over etc., it is up to the individual and/or CPS whether to prosecute not anyone else.

do you suggest that we adopt an approach such as we do in marital cases; prosecute regardless of the victims wishes.
As for my knowledge of the law, perhaps you give me to much credit. It has always been my understanding that a kiss is common assault. Mostly I welcome them, I do not seek to prosecute them.
Please correct any of my definitions you find wanting.
:shock: confused

I'd said it was up to the individual AND/OR CPS ... it depends on the severity of the matter.
As you are aware, domestic violence is a completely different topic and a completely different act... one I'm not going to go into.
I totally agree with you in that a kiss, pat on the back could be deemed as being assault if the person receiving it thinks you have hurt them or have an intention of hurting them. You say you would accept a kiss and not prosecute because you most probably do not see the kiss as threatening and you have no psychological problems (from what I can tell) So it's all down to the victim which is back to the original thread. lol

I've enjoyed our chatting, it's not that I give you too much credit for knowing the law you just come across as a very intelligant man who knows many answers and I respect that. wink

26 Jan 2007

Quote by jaymar
..........
I've enjoyed our chatting, it's not that I give you too much credit for knowing the law you just come across as a very intelligant man who knows many answers and I respect that.

:arrow:

It is more that I like to ask questions, and be asked. You do stir my mind. I like being stirred.

26 Jan 2007

Quote by
..........
I've enjoyed our chatting, it's not that I give you too much credit for knowing the law you just come across as a very intelligant man who knows many answers and I respect that.

:arrow:

It is more that I like to ask questions, and be asked. You do stir my mind. I like being stirred.
:grin: :inlove:

Are you sure?