..the big thing that worries me about that Kizzy...is I'm not convinced Sarah's Law has changed anything.....these monsters find a way, regardless

To punctuate that point... when Sarah's Law was introduced which made information available on paedophiles, the biggest group using the service were ex-husbands raising concerns about their ex-wife's new partner. Likewise Claire's Law is likely to be open to abuse as a tool of revenge.

Manipulating preditors do ammi, but at least now if you have any suspicions regarding a new partner you may request information relating to abuse. A tool of revenge? i dont understand that point, there are guidelines in place as to why and when information can be accessed.

It's a bit naive to think that the system wouldn't be abused, and some women wouldn't use it to wield power. It's not a case of saying "if you're innocent, you'll be fine" because that's not necessarily true.

Serious question to the women - what would you do if you found a man that had one conviction for spouse abuse?

In my business I have to CRB check people, and it doesn't give you a full breakdown of each scenario on these checks, and go into legal nuances. It gives a date and conviction.

If, as a society, we want to rehabilitate people back into society, then how is this possible for these men that may have reacted badly once? We may end up creating another sub-set of the population. What happens when we deny these men attempting to rehabilitate themselves and manage anger/aggression issues, normal relationships, so instead, they are forced to fantasise over the internet and role play with prostitutes?

Will this really make women safer? Or will it mean we move statistics from women being raped/attacked more by strangers than partners in the future.

Men have done it through history, and will do it throughout the future, unfortunately. Just like there will always be serial killers/sociopaths.

Do you remember the paediatrician that was attacked, too?

You are overreacting, it can only be used by the woman(or man) who has reason to believe she may be at risk. Only those with CONVICTIONS for abuse will be affected the CPS do not prosecute lightly, there will have been a history of prolonged systematic abuse prior to conviction.

..I have to say that the supporters of this claim there will be safeguarding in place to stop 'revenge' incidents happening and information will not be 'handed out' to just anyone...obviously there are no details of this yet. It seems to me, that although these incidents are horrendous, as in Claire's case..they are 'extremes' and quite rare and to introduce a law which infringes on privacy in this way seems too extreme and possibly unworkable anyway
...but then, it could be argued...one case is one too many

Yes it was a Facebook date
gone evil.

So if I decide to turn into a women beater, then the first time I hit my wife/partner, I'd get a free pass? Then the 2nd time I'd get a free pass, too? Then the third?

The CPS don't prosecute first time offenders?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but that doesn't seem right to me. Especially considering that men are prosecuted for fighting each other in drunken brawls pretty much every weekend.

Maybe Liv can offer a legal perspective on this point?

You are being silly now, the severity of the offence would determine wether they chose to prosecute or not obviously.

The thing about it is, why would you check out a potential partner in the first place, I mean if you suspected he was a woman beater, then surely that's enough reason for you to not be with him in anyway? Or are they suggesting that all women check out every potential boyfriend before going out with them?

Yes, I remember that.

No one is overreacting. You seem very certain of all the facts, how the CPS works, the offender's history of "prolonged and systempatic abuse prior to conviction"... when in fact conflicting media reports would suggest that even those who are proposing this flawed scheme aren't 100% sure of how it will work.

JHChrist's post above demonstrates what happens when information is placed into the hands of the public, a man attacked by an illiterate mob who thought couldn't tell the difference between paediatrician and paedophile.

Leave the law to the lawyers and policing to the police.

Unfortunately, all I could do is guess, because even those who are trying to steamroller this law into being aren't 100% sure how it will work. Each individual case would depend on a wide range of circumstances. And it's worth bearing in mind that in many cases of domestic violence, the women involved are reluctant to press charges much to the annoyance of the police who are then unable to bring about a conviction. So there will be many men out there who are extremely violent and will not show up in a search like this anyway.

That's my concern about it Niamh...it seems open to all kinds of abuse..I may be wrong and they have stated there will be safeguarding against this...but it doesn't seem necessary or practical and I think may cause more problems than it solves. What happened to this woman is awful...and I'm sure I'm just being overly cynical...but I do find I'm questioning the reasoning behind it

Yes, that's how it appears....the monsters out there seem to escape these procedures anyway

Silly would be introducing a new law without fully researching the potential abuses and issues with the law in the first place.

Wherever there are little loopholes or workarounds, people will try to exploit these. It's human nature.

I am aware of how it works livia, and I can see the worrys abut vigilantes. Im not a lawyer or a police officer, but i do have an opinion based on fact.

You think you have an opinion based on fact, but the fact is that you don't know how this is going to work and you're hoping that it will be what you think it's going to be.

As sarahs law, clairs law may follow a similar format, I cant see how it could be exploited. Has this man I am in a relationship with been convicted of domestic abuse yes or no?
It seems it is as a result of the mishandling of clairs case, and investigations by the IPCC that led to this decision.
Niamhs point was the best, if you even suspect that you may be at risk ie some incident has already occurred why continue the relationship?

Bingo - laws infringing on civil liberties aren't necessary.

I don't believe that men capable of these things, wouldn't at least hint of their capabilities, even if it is just a threatening glance, or a completely uncalled for raising of the voice at an inappropriate time.

I dont know how it will work no, the only fact here is unless the person has been prosecuted for an offence it will not be on the PNC.

Unfortunately, everything is not a case of being black or white.

This one for me is hard as I take on board both sides,they have just said on the news that BOTH MEN And women can ask about past lives,where I struggle is in the case of the girl Robert Thompson(one of James Bulgers killers)fathered a child with and she wasn't told of his past,this imo is wrong,to her and her family,in cases like that I think a partner should be told immediately.

Regarding what?