Non-Molestation Orders and Legal Aid – Time for Investigation

Our thanks to Ray for this, from June 2015.

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • This data deserves re publishing. As with the case of the homeless chap there have been a growth in “orders” which often are civil orders with pretty low thresholds of evidence. I effect such orders are like a suspended sentence because they are applied to a person and if the order is breeched then the next stop is a conviction. Based on the “ASBO” orders in effect the “crime” is breeching the order not doing the criminal activity. So one can breech the conditions of the order without doing the behaviour that is the justification for the order. So for instance the man with the order about “sex offending” can breech the order by not giving police access to his phone/tablet, without there being any evidence of the sexual activity. Similarly with “go” orders one can be arrested for the breech without any evidence of abuse . Ripe for abuse in a variety of ways either for easy “revenge” as an accusation can trigger an order, laziness as no real investigation or proof is needed, or indeed as a route to legal aid in Family courts. In effect they bypass the safeguards for the accused in the criminal law in favour of “administrative” law.

  • epistemol

    Perhaps the hope is that if busy journalists etc. look at the figures for just one city, it is likely to be London and those can be easily ‘adjusted’…
    Or is that just too simplistically suspicious of me?