Generate an appropriate single-sentence summary for the given text such that it includes the main topic of the text.

Q: Sums of more than £500 must be registered and come from the UK under electoral law. Concerns were raised during the European election campaign the party could allow multiple donations - potentially from outside the UK - to circumvent the rules. The party said no rules were broken. It also said it would "embrace" the recommendations on checking donors. Under UK law, donations of £500 or above must be made by a "permissible donor" - someone who is listed on the electoral register or a company registered in the UK. Amounts below that do not have to be declared, but some critics - among them ex-PM Gordon Brown - have said there is no way of telling whether those smaller amounts come from British or foreign sources, and therefore the system may be being abused. The Brexit Party topped the polls at last month's European elections. During the campaign, it said donations of £25 or less had accounted for 90% of its total funding. It raised more than £2m from small donors, thousands of whom paid £25 each to become registered supporters. But Mr Brown suggested the party was getting round the declaration rules by accepting multiple "untraceable" donations directly online. Political parties have 30 days to return donations if they are unsure of their origin. To date, the Brexit Party has handed back one donation, of £1,000, as the party could not identify whether it was from a permissible source. 'Robust measures' The Electoral Commission said it had made the party aware of its "legal responsibilities". It was "legitimate" for any political party to adopt a fundraising strategy focused on raising small sums through online payment systems, including PayPal, it said. But it said there was a legal duty on parties to check every payment they obtained online to ascertain the source of the donation and "not to accept any that they are not entitled to". Parties should request "as much information as possible" to ensure all money was from a permissible source, it said. In a statement, it said it had concluded that the "fundraising structure adopted by the party leaves it open to a high and ongoing risk of receiving and accepting impermissible donations". The watchdog's director of regulation, Louise Edwards, said it had made "specific recommendations to the party that will support it to meet its legal responsibilities when it comes to receiving funds". "Should it fail to meet those responsibilities, this will be considered in line with our enforcement policy," she added. 'Same rigour' In response, the party said the watchdog's recommendations were "helpful" and it would embrace them "as soon as practicable and possible". "They haven't found any examples of infringement of Electoral Commission rules," a spokesman said. "We trust that the Electoral Commission have been applying the same oversight and rigour to the other political parties and their fundraising." During the campaign, the party insisted all of its donations were above board and it had made clear on its website that people should not attempt to give money unless they were on the electoral roll or eligible to vote. Both the Labour and Conservative parties also have the option to donate via PayPal on their websites. The Electoral Commission will, in August, publish details of larger donations, of £7,500 and over, given to The Brexit Party and other parties during the election campaign.

A: The Brexit Party's online funding system left it open to "a high and on-going risk" of impermissible donations, the Electoral Commission says.
****
Q: The legislation will target those who subject spouses, partners and family members to psychological and emotional torment but stop short of violence. It paves the way for charges in cases where there is evidence of repeated "controlling or coercive behaviour". The Women's Aid charity said it was a "landmark moment" in tackling abuse. The new law, brought into force in England and Wales, follows a Home Office consultation in which 85% of participants said the existing law did not provide sufficient protection. It comes as Citizens Advice published figures showing a 24% rise in those seeking advice for domestic abuse. 'Limit human rights' The Crown Prosecution Service said the type of abuse covered by the new offence could include a pattern of threats, humiliation and intimidation. It could also involve stopping someone from socialising, controlling their social media accounts, surveillance through apps and dictating what they wear. Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions, said: "Controlling or coercive behaviour can limit victims' basic human rights, such as their freedom of movement and their independence. "This behaviour can be incredibly harmful in an abusive relationship where one person holds more power than the other, even if on the face of it this behaviour might seem playful, innocuous or loving. "Victims can be frightened of the repercussions of not abiding by someone else's rules. Often they fear that violence will be used against them, or suffer from extreme psychological and emotional abuse. "These new powers mean this behaviour, which is particularly relevant to cases of domestic abuse, can now be prosecuted in its own right." Analysis BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman Where do the normal power dynamics of a relationship end and "coercive or controlling" behaviour begin? The new offence criminalises patterns of such behaviour against an intimate partner or family member. Critical to the offence is the repeated or continuous nature of the conduct and the ability of a reasonable person to appreciate that the behaviour will have a serious effect on its victim. A defence is also included to provide a further safeguard against inappropriate use of the new offence. It will apply where the defendant can show that they believed they were acting in the victim's best interests and that their behaviour was objectively reasonable. An example might be someone caring for a mentally ill spouse, who has to keep them in the home and make them take medication for their own protection or in their own best interests. Here, the spouse's behaviour might be considered controlling, but would be reasonable in the circumstances. Cases will be heard in magistrates' or crown courts and evidence could potentially include emails and bank records. In order for the offence to apply, the pattern of behaviour alleged must have a "serious effect" on the victim, Home Office guidance says. This means they must have either feared violence will be used against them on at least two occasions or they have been caused serious alarm or distress which has a "substantial adverse effect" on their usual day-to-day activities. David Tucker, from the College of Policing, said the new offence of coercive control presented "challenges" but provided an opportunity to make victims and potential victims of serious assaults safer.

A: Domestic abusers who control victims via social media or spy on them online could face up to five years in prison under a new law which is now in force.
****
Q: Jay Edmunds, Billy Hicks and Ashley Martin all died in the early hours of New Year's Day. An inquest heard Ms Edmunds broke up with Mr Martin four days before the fatal fire in Kirton. Coroner Paul Smith said Mr Martin "had a clear purpose of coming to Lincolnshire". On 31 December Mr Martin, 32, hired a van in Luton and drove to Peterborough where he bought a metal jerry can, fire starters, windproof matches, binoculars, a torch and a lock knife. Parked outside home He then filled the can with 17 litres of unleaded petrol, the inquest at Boston Enterprise Centre heard. Mr Martin drove to Boston and later parked the van outside Ms Edmunds' home on Pear Tree Road. Shortly before 03:00 GMT on New Year's Day Mr Martin was seen by one of Ms Edmunds' flatmates with a knife, and a "smell of fuel" was also noticed. The causes of death of all three victims was given as smoke inhalation, although the coroner noted that Mr Hicks, 24, had been stabbed in the heart. 'Started deliberately' All three bodies were badly burnt, and the victims had to be identified by dental records, the inquest heard. Matthew Perrin, of Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue Service, said it was "highly probably the fire was started deliberately". "A 20-litre metal jerry can was found in the debris of the house. The cap was in an open position," he added. Ms Edmunds, 27, had been in a relationship with Mr Martin since September 2018. She ended it after Christmas as she found him "overbearing and smothering", the inquest heard. She then went back to live in Kirton and was seen in the rented house with Mr Hicks, 24, with whom she had had a previous relationship. Ms Edmunds later told a flatmate, Natalie Hall, that Mr Martin had "quit his job, went off the rails and went a bit mental". Returning his verdict, Mr Smith said he felt it was relevant to note evidence that had Mr Martin survived the fire he would have been charged with murder. Mr Smith said he was satisfied Mr Martin "wanted to end his own life". Following the inquest the family of Jay Edmunds said in a statement: "Jay was brutally murdered by a person that we trusted. We will never begin to understand why. "Our hearts are broken and our life will never be the same. A statement from Billy Hicks' family said: "He had his whole life in front of him which was cruelly taken away without a thought for his family or his friends."

A:
A young couple were unlawfully killed in an explosive fire which was ignited by a "vengeful" ex-lover, a coroner has ruled.
****
