Needs to be nationwide and have real teeth in it. Before I subscribe to anything I check out the cancel procedures. If I can't cancel online or have to "chat" with a retention specialist 20 times before I can finally be shut of a company (looking at you SirusXM) I'm not subscribing.
Whenever my comcast link gets slow I go to their speed test page and it always tries to tell me I'm getting more than what I'm paying for. Shortly after running the test everything starts to speed up again.
Makes me wonder if they have some kind of shady "squeaky wheel" QOS traffic shaping voodoo.
We had an AC tech ask us if we knew someone was living on our roof. Turns out an coworker's GF kicked him out of his house* and he was living up there.
Tent, free wifi, showers next to the bike room, full kitchen and big 80 inch TVs down in the conference rooms. He was livin' the life. He said he usually took down the tent and hid everything every morning but just got complacent.
*Yes. His house. She told the cops she felt in danger. Cops told him he had to stay somewhere else and go through the eviction process. Mad world.
> Yes. His house. She told the cops she felt in danger. Cops told him he had to stay somewhere else and go through the eviction process. Mad world.
The pendulum needed to swing toward protecting women by default. As these things happen, it may have swung to a point where nuance needs to be applied.
Your example seems fairly complex. I couldn't opine on it w/o knowing the details of the complaint.
I can offer a different example. My ex's mental illness sometimes required me to take a stronger hand in her life, than would be benign otherwise. One time, she was in a delusional state. She stole my van and left the area. I wasn't able to report it stolen because she was my wife. The police were protecting her from the possibility that I was lying and using the police to harass her.
A stranger found her in the middle of the night, hundreds of miles away, in a remote area wrapped only in a towel - obviously not herself. I directed the guy to call the police because he could do that. Local cops delivered her to a facility where she was stabilized.
What I would change is that I would have had tightly limited status as her caregiver. I'd want my wife and I to be regularly evaluated by a female mental health professional, who had training to detect manipulative spouses. In cases where my wife might be in distress, police would defer to me. Meanwhile the details would be immediately forwarded to the MH pro overseeing my spouse, who'd have authority to intervene, if she saw an issue.
> The pendulum needed to swing toward protecting women by default
He owned the house. If she felt in danger, the cops should come and escort her out of the house that doesn't belong to her. I don't see how your story is related to this.
How do you know she abused him? Seems like you’re jumping to conclusions; (almost) none of us know anything about the situation so perhaps it is better to avoid speculating?
The US spends under 10% of its federal budget on the military. In 2020 it spent more just on healthcare for the elderly than the entire military budget. Here, please take a look at the numbers straight from the CBO! https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57170
As for your second sentence- the total value of the US real estate market is about $56 trillion, so I kind of doubt that the government is going to make much of a dent here. There's not a lot of places where you can say even the US government doesn't have enough money, but....
But they lived together there? Even when it's under the status of a romantic relationship, that's still at least partially a tenant-landlord relationship and as such the tenant has rights. Setting aside all the gender politics - you don't get to evict a tenant at a moment's notice. And yeah, he got evicted sorta. But he still owns the house. I'm not saying it's an ideal situation... but given the tenant landlord power imbalance, I don't think it's actually obvious that he gets to keep living there and she doesn't just because they've separated.
I'm trying to get this straight. If he owns the house and lives there, then why do his tenant's rights supersede his own? The tenant might live there and thus has certain rights, but so does he.
I don't think it's absurd that the tenant gets extra protection to counterbalance the ownership issue that lets the owner-tenant have the last word in the long run. But I suspect the man would draw the short straw regardless of the ownership situation.
Which I'm fine with, it still seems to be a reasonable heuristic given how imbalanced I believe domestic abuse is. But obviously it's unjust in some cases, and not useful for same sex relationships. Let's strive for a world where as many women as men own shared housing and act abusive towards their spouse.
So you think if the woman owned the house and the man told the police he "felt unsafe" they would throw the woman out of her house?
Domestic abuse has been ignored for too long and I'm glad women are being listened to. Men are still rarely listened to. Look at Johnny Depp for one.
The police / legal system is biased against men, from "always believe her" to "she gets to live with the kids and his expenses" to "you were married so you have to keep paying to maintain her life quality after marriage".
The problem with bias is that it creates economic incentives for women to lie their way to the life they want.
You married a rich guy and you're bored because he's always working and he's never home? A small lie and you'll get him out of the house, pronto!
I think we should revert to property ownership in this case. If she feels unsafe, she can leave. If she is a 50% owner I can understand removing the suspected abuser from the premise. Unless she can't prove abuse I think she should pays the lodging fees though, for example by losing a small portion of the shares in the house.
If she owns the house 100% he should just leave.
So you think if the woman owned the house and the man told the police he "felt unsafe" they would throw the woman out of her house?
No, I don't. Which is why I said "I suspect the man would draw the short straw regardless of the ownership situation." But I think domestic violence initiated by men is a bigger societal issue than women lying their way to the life they want.
We don't live in minority report, so he's not an aggressor.
Surely what you've got here is evidence that we do live in minority report.
(We don't, but I guess what I'm suggesting is that you're stating something in flat contradiction of the facts presented above; if this event happening means "we are living in minority report", well then, here we are living in minority report)
I’m not a lawyer, but in my state there is a legal concept of your place of residence which entitles you to certain eviction protections, regardless of ownership or lack thereof of that place.
