Dometstic Violence

John · Post by **John** » Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:47 am

This Parliamentary Written Answer .... click here ..... announces that the policy is going to change, and more support given to victims of domestic violence.

jei2 · Post by **jei2** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:51 am

At present those organisations supporting victims of domestic violence would only receive payment for the cost of finance and accommodation after ILR has been granted.

Given that most DV agencies are almost flatlining from the lack of funds, let's hope that UKBA resolve this issue soon - or victims will have to rely on their own resources. Plus ca change.

Wanderer · Post by **Wanderer** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:03 am

I know I've asked this before on another forum but I'd like to know why DV is a valid route to ILR?

Before I go on, I know DV is an insidious act, and anyone guilty of it deserves to be hung, drawn and quartered, and the victims deserve protection but I do wonder why that includes a favourable route to ILR, as distinct to say, someone who is just abandoned by her husband or is a victim of a mugging?

Let's use two couples as an example, one male is abusing his wife, she reports it, DV charges are pressed, they split, she gets ILR.

The other, he merely abandons her, she is destitute, maybe she turns to streetwalking, she is raped, abused, but no ILR for her.

Now I know I'm wrong on this so no flamewar please! I just need a logical explanation of how I'm wrong, like John did a while back when I felt the prospective CP visa was unfair to heterosexuals (which I now know it isn't!).

jei2 · Post by **jei2** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:28 am

I don't know Wanderer but thank you for giving me this timely opportunity to indulge with this message to my politics lecturer:

When you gave out an assignment of being a government minister who would introduce new legislation that would make a difference and I introduced the Civil Partnership Act 1995 with extensive research on why it would be feasible, you said it would never happen. er.. hello?

Okaay..Back from Iwasrightandyouwerewrongsville..

Maybe streetwalking is more of a choice than domestic violence? (I'm not saying it is) - Or maybe streetwalking pays but domestic violence costs? Or maybe individuals like Erin Pizzey and agencies like Southall Black Sisters fought tirelessly for change in this area? The damage caused by domestic violence is easier to record than from the causative factors created by abandonment..?

Butterfly effects? Or are you just looking for an argument?

Wanderer · Post by **Wanderer** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:49 am

jei2 wrote:I don't know Wanderer but thank you for giving me this timely opportunity to indulge with this message to my politics lecturer:

When you gave out an assignment of being a government minister who would introduce new legislation that would make a difference and I introduced the Civil Partnership Act 1995 with extensive research on why it would be feasible, you said it would never happen. er.. hello? :lol:

Okaay..Back from Iwasrightandyouwerewrongsville.. :lol: :lol:

Maybe streetwalking is more of a choice than domestic violence? (I'm not saying it is) - Or maybe streetwalking pays but domestic violence costs? Or maybe individuals like Erin Pizzey and agencies like Southall Black Sisters fought tirelessly for change in this area? The damage caused by domestic violence is easier to record than from the causative factors created by abandonment..?

Butterfly effects? Or are you just looking for an argument? :twisted:

No! honestly - last thing I want is an argument! I think it's a heinous crime but I don't understand why the victim is rewarded with ILR. Damages yes, prison for the perp. yes, but why ILR? Seems to me the victim is rewarded for a poor choice of partner. Yes I know people hide these tendencies well but really, I know my partner well enough to know that she won't ever beat me up and vice-versa.

Can u understand where I'm coming from?

republique · Post by **republique** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:56 am

Wanderer wrote:I know I've asked this before on another forum but I'd like to know why DV is a valid route to ILR?

Before I go on, I know DV is an insidious act, and anyone guilty of it deserves to be hung, drawn and quartered, and the victims deserve protection but I do wonder why that includes a favourable route to ILR, as distinct to say, someone who is just abandoned by her husband or is a victim of a mugging?

Let's use two couples as an example, one male is abusing his wife, she reports it, DV charges are pressed, they split, she gets ILR.

The other, he merely abandons her, she is destitute, maybe she turns to streetwalking, she is raped, abused, but no ILR for her.

Now I know I'm wrong on this so no flamewar please! I just need a logical explanation of how I'm wrong, like John did a while back when I felt the prospective CP visa was unfair to heterosexuals (which I now know it isn't!).

Because when it comes to renew the visa, what basis is s/he going to renew on? It can't be a spouse if she has sent her spouse to jail.
I guess they can get discretionary leave but then if the abused person was highly dependent on the abuser which is highly likely, DL won't cut it. ILR permits the person to obtain access to resources otherwise not available on limited leaves.
And I don't think you should look at it, that they are rewarded. I think you should look at it that they paid their dues, they were abused inhumanely and need our help.

joe777 · Post by **joe777** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:59 am

I see your point wanderer, but the spouse would have come to the uk on a settlement visa, intending to live here for good, so in most cases thru no fault of their own, not only be abused by their partner, but then been told to leave the country, the country they intended to live for good when they applied for the visa

Wanderer · Post by **Wanderer** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:46 am

Thanks for the responses so far, but I'm still not aligned with the consensus!

@Joe777, I see the point you make but it seems to me that the HO has to mop up for the act of an individual.

@republic, I see your point too but again what is the difference between a spouse abandoned and a spouse victim of DV? It's the act of violence I know. I suppose what I am saying is the question the other way round, why does the spouse who is just as much the dependent on her partner who merely abandons her get nothing? She has invested just as much.

Just seems to be an imbalance.

vinny · Post by **vinny** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:56 am

[quote="VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE"]2. Why is it only open to those here as the spouse, civil partner, unmarried or same sex partner?

The â€œdomestic violence ruleâ€

republique · Post by **republique** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:34 pm

Wanderer wrote:Thanks for the responses so far, but I'm still not aligned with the consensus!

@Joe777, I see the point you make but it seems to me that the HO has to mop up for the act of an individual.

@republic, I see your point too but again what is the difference between a spouse abandoned and a spouse victim of DV? It's the act of violence I know. I suppose what I am saying is the question the other way round, why does the spouse who is just as much the dependent on her partner who merely abandons her get nothing? She has invested just as much.

Just seems to be an imbalance.

You have to draw a line somewheree. Everything is arbitrary.
Act of violence works for me.

Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

Dometstic Violence

Dometstic Violence