In case of real domestic violence
Typically we have a cowardly male with a non-decisive woman. Add to this you have
(1) children,
(2) family influence,
(3) religious expectation
(4) cultural expectation
(5) mental health
(6) finance

Then you have to false accusations

Then you have the case of female beating on males

Like I said - its complicated.

Government from all sides are only smoothing over the impact of domestic violence before the adults decide to be adult

Thanks Captain Obvious

It's easier to just blame males (whites ones of course, double points if they're Christian) and then go on asking for governments grants while having no intention of stopping anything. This way, feminists can continually appear as morally superior and get jobs and rich in the process.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:29pm:

It's easier to just blame males (whites ones of course, double points if they're Christian) and then go on asking for governments grants while having no intention of stopping anything. This way, feminists can continually appear as morally superior and get jobs and rich in the process.

The research/data consistently shows that males are the perpetrators in most cases.

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:37pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 9:29pm: It's easier to just blame males (whites ones of course, double points if they're Christian) and then go on asking for governments grants while having no intention of stopping anything. This way, feminists can continually appear as morally superior and get jobs and rich in the process. The research/data consistently shows that males are the perpetrators in most cases.

Perhaps, but the feminists in charge have no desire to end dv soon.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:44pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 9:37pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 9:29pm: It's easier to just blame males (whites ones of course, double points if they're Christian) and then go on asking for governments grants while having no intention of stopping anything. This way, feminists can continually appear as morally superior and get jobs and rich in the process. The research/data consistently shows that males are the perpetrators in most cases. Perhaps, but the feminists in charge have no desire to end dv soon.

How odd

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:44pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 9:37pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 9:29pm: It's easier to just blame males (whites ones of course, double points if they're Christian) and then go on asking for governments grants while having no intention of stopping anything. This way, feminists can continually appear as morally superior and get jobs and rich in the process. The research/data consistently shows that males are the perpetrators in most cases. Perhaps, but the feminists in charge have no desire to end dv soon.

Are you suggesting men ought to be in charge?

If so...I can see why.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:44pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 9:37pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 9:29pm: It's easier to just blame males (whites ones of course, double points if they're Christian) and then go on asking for governments grants while having no intention of stopping anything. This way, feminists can continually appear as morally superior and get jobs and rich in the process. The research/data consistently shows that males are the perpetrators in most cases. Perhaps, but the feminists in charge have no desire to end dv soon.

The feminists in charge of what Misty?

Stopping dv.

Ah.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:53pm:

Stopping dv.

So are you suggesting that men ought to be in charge of that eh?

If so....I totally agree!

Anyone watch the ABC program on DV last night?

Agnes wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 10:01pm:

Anyone watch the ABC program on DV last night?

Watched tonight's stuff Agnes. Hitting Home and the Q&A based on it. The Q&A is just finishing up now.

What was last night?

is it really on the rise or is this just reporting bias.

a lot of DVO's are issued by police nowadays for very minor stuff , touching someone or raising ones voice and it would seem to be a ploy (sometimes) to play in the family court.

if a guy raises his voice , he can make a woman feel "scared' , take out a DVO and the family court will probably give her the kids.

whilst men shouldnt raise their voices, i think if a chick was screaming at her bloke and he called the cops, there would probably be no DVO.

so are we getting more DV, but its of a more trivial nature ??

anyone got any stats on the number of assaults that occasion grevious bodily harm or bodily harm. my suspicion is that THESE would actually be decreasing

mothra wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 10:05pm:

Agnes wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 10:01pm: Anyone watch the ABC program on DV last night? Watched tonight's stuff Agnes. Hitting Home and the Q&A based on it. The Q&A is just finishing up now. What was last night?

Thanks Mothra , was out but caught the tail end of Q&A- must find a pod cast of Hitting Home..

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:37pm:

The research/data consistently shows that males are the perpetrators in most cases.

1 in 5 women experience some form of DV
1 in 20 men experience some form of DV

aquascoot wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 10:09pm:

is it really on the rise or is this just reporting bias. a lot of DVO's are issued by police nowadays for very minor stuff , touching someone or raising ones voice and it would seem to be a ploy (sometimes) to play in the family court. if a guy raises his voice , he can make a woman feel "scared' , take out a DVO and the family court will probably give her the kids. whilst men shouldnt raise their voices, i think if a chick was screaming at her bloke and he called the cops, there would probably be no DVO. so are we getting more DV, but its of a more trivial nature ?? anyone got any stats on the number of assaults that occasion grevious bodily harm or bodily harm. my suspicion is that THESE would actually be decreasing

Oh boy...where do I start?

I think I'll start here....

Aqua, police do not issue dvo's.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 10:09pm:

is it really on the rise

No.  It's just like how people think violence on the streets is increasing, but has actually been on a long, steady decline since...forever. 

We live in the safest time there has ever been. 

I was married a long time ago &
the best decision I ever made in my life was to get divorced.

All the married guys at work look miserable
& are jealous of me.

... wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 10:29pm:

We live in the safest time there has ever been.

I agree it is safer, which is why more than one woman dead a week in this day and age is ridiculous

John Smith wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 10:33pm:

... wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 10:29pm: We live in the safest time there has ever been. I agree it is safer, which is why more than one woman dead a week in this day and age is ridiculous

Well obviously it's not great, but this "any cost if it saves just one life" mentality has gone to absurd lengths. 

You can't save everyone from themselves, no matter how much you try.

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 10:28pm:

aquascoot wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 10:09pm: is it really on the rise or is this just reporting bias. a lot of DVO's are issued by police nowadays for very minor stuff , touching someone or raising ones voice and it would seem to be a ploy (sometimes) to play in the family court. if a guy raises his voice , he can make a woman feel "scared' , take out a DVO and the family court will probably give her the kids. whilst men shouldnt raise their voices, i think if a chick was screaming at her bloke and he called the cops, there would probably be no DVO. so are we getting more DV, but its of a more trivial nature ?? anyone got any stats on the number of assaults that occasion grevious bodily harm or bodily harm. my suspicion is that THESE would actually be decreasing Oh boy...where do I start? I think I'll start here.... Aqua, police do not issue dvo's.

well, they are not the final arbiters but they certainly can and do issue protection orders and will issue them even if both parties decide they dont want to take it further.

from qld community website

The police play an important role in responding to domestic and family violence. Some of the actions police can take include:

investigating suspected domestic violence
issuing a police protection notice if they are satisfied that domestic violence occurred and the aggrieved requires immediate protection from further violence
applying for a domestic violence order if they are satisfied domestic violence occurred
entering and searching premises without a warrant if they suspect domestic violence has occurred or there is a risk of domestic violence occurring soon
seizing anything that has been or may be used to commit domestic violence
taking the person committing the violence into custody for a maximum period of eight hours if they believe another person or another person's property is in danger of being damaged because of domestic violence
asking a magistrate to make a temporary protection order by telephone, fax, radio or other similar device
investigating breaches of a domestic violence order when a respondent continues to commit domestic violence after the order has been made
charging a respondent with a criminal offence if sufficient evidence is available that a breach of a domestic violence order has occurred

Bobby. wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 10:31pm:

I was married a long time ago & the best decision I ever made in my life was to get divorced. All the married guys at work look miserable & are jealous of me.

I was married a long time ago and the best decision I ever made in my life was to get divorced.

Why? It gave me the chance to be free to think about what I wanted in life.

I wanted to be married.....but it had to be with someone who was the exact opposite of my 1st husband.

These days I'm married and happy. I'm also very busy and always tired.

Sometimes I wake up grumpy.

Sometimes I let him sleep lol  :P

... wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 10:29pm:

aquascoot wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 10:09pm: is it really on the rise No.  It's just like how people think violence on the streets is increasing, but has actually been on a long, steady decline since...forever.  We live in the safest time there has ever been.

thats sort of the impression i got.
i know a cop who tells me they are always getting called out now when there is a disturbance of the peace, a girlfriend and boyfirend yelling at each other and they will take out a dvo themselves , so that the parties stop ringing the police and wasting their time.
is this akin to the fear campaign about 1 woman a week dying. it seems to me that its just increased reporting.

there would be heaps more drink drivers caught in 2015 then in 1975 but i can assure you that is just increased surveillance. the % drink driving would have been falling every year.

beware of data  ;)

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 10:28pm:

aquascoot wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 10:09pm: is it really on the rise or is this just reporting bias. a lot of DVO's are issued by police nowadays for very minor stuff , touching someone or raising ones voice and it would seem to be a ploy (sometimes) to play in the family court. if a guy raises his voice , he can make a woman feel "scared' , take out a DVO and the family court will probably give her the kids. whilst men shouldnt raise their voices, i think if a chick was screaming at her bloke and he called the cops, there would probably be no DVO. so are we getting more DV, but its of a more trivial nature ?? anyone got any stats on the number of assaults that occasion grevious bodily harm or bodily harm. my suspicion is that THESE would actually be decreasing Oh boy...where do I start? I think I'll start here.... Aqua, police do not issue dvo's.

They do.

Link.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 10:37pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 10:28pm: aquascoot wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 10:09pm: is it really on the rise or is this just reporting bias. a lot of DVO's are issued by police nowadays for very minor stuff , touching someone or raising ones voice and it would seem to be a ploy (sometimes) to play in the family court. if a guy raises his voice , he can make a woman feel "scared' , take out a DVO and the family court will probably give her the kids. whilst men shouldnt raise their voices, i think if a chick was screaming at her bloke and he called the cops, there would probably be no DVO. so are we getting more DV, but its of a more trivial nature ?? anyone got any stats on the number of assaults that occasion grevious bodily harm or bodily harm. my suspicion is that THESE would actually be decreasing Oh boy...where do I start? I think I'll start here.... Aqua, police do not issue dvo's. well, they are not the final arbiters but they certainly can and do issue protection orders and will issue them even if both parties decide they dont want to take it further. from qld community website The police play an important role in responding to domestic and family violence. Some of the actions police can take include: investigating suspected domestic violence issuing a police protection notice if they are satisfied that domestic violence occurred and the aggrieved requires immediate protection from further violence applying for a domestic violence order if they are satisfied domestic violence occurred entering and searching premises without a warrant if they suspect domestic violence has occurred or there is a risk of domestic violence occurring soon seizing anything that has been or may be used to commit domestic violence taking the person committing the violence into custody for a maximum period of eight hours if they believe another person or another person's property is in danger of being damaged because of domestic violence asking a magistrate to make a temporary protection order by telephone, fax, radio or other similar device investigating breaches of a domestic violence order when a respondent continues to commit domestic violence after the order has been made charging a respondent with a criminal offence if sufficient evidence is available that a breach of a domestic violence order has occurred

Good work.

Now....let's get back to the issue of raising one's voice.

Would you care to explain how that fits in with  the information in your latest post?

Aussie wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 10:42pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 10:28pm: aquascoot wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 10:09pm: is it really on the rise or is this just reporting bias. a lot of DVO's are issued by police nowadays for very minor stuff , touching someone or raising ones voice and it would seem to be a ploy (sometimes) to play in the family court. if a guy raises his voice , he can make a woman feel "scared' , take out a DVO and the family court will probably give her the kids. whilst men shouldnt raise their voices, i think if a chick was screaming at her bloke and he called the cops, there would probably be no DVO. so are we getting more DV, but its of a more trivial nature ?? anyone got any stats on the number of assaults that occasion grevious bodily harm or bodily harm. my suspicion is that THESE would actually be decreasing Oh boy...where do I start? I think I'll start here.... Aqua, police do not issue dvo's. They do. Link.

Oh sigh.

I was referring to interim and final dvo's.

Even so, that link was a good read and worthy IMO.... of entering this discussion.

40 years ago, you wouldnt have seen a stream of people getting DVO's the way you do today.

is this being driven by violent physical attacks with women being beaten and charges of assault occasioning bodily harm suddenly sky rocketing...i say probably not.

is this being driven by lots of women , single mums and divorcees recognising that it is just a great bonus to have a DVO when you attend family court and then calling the cops or going to the court when a guy gets in their face during a heated arguement that does not turn to physical violence...probably yes.

i dont have the stats but i dont believe that more women are being hospitalised with fractured jaws, fractured eyesockets and broken ribs then 30 years ago (per capita).

i think that the more serious end of domestic violence..ie women suffering serious assaults is probably falling and the more minor end of domestic violence...verbal intimidation is probably being reported now in 2015 and wouldnt have been reported in 1975.

thoughts ?

Quote:

I was referring to interim and final dvo's.

Back to your usual standards, hey Lisa Jones ~ posting misleading garbage.

A. Scoot posted:


Quote:

a lot of DVO's are issued by police nowadays

You replied:


Quote:

Oh boy...where do I start? I think I'll start here.... Aqua, police do not issue dvo's.

You could not have been any clearer in your dumb rebuke of what A. Scoot posted.

But, do carry on Lisa Jones.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 10:53pm:

40 years ago, you wouldnt have seen a stream of people getting DVO's the way you do today.

40 yrs ago if a bloke hit his wife it was acceptable. At best it was ignored.

Aussie wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 10:57pm:

Quote: I was referring to interim and final dvo's. Back to your usual standards, hey Lisa Jones ~ posting misleading garbage. A. Scoot posted: [quote]a lot of DVO's are issued by police nowadays

You replied:


Quote:

Oh boy...where do I start? I think I'll start here.... Aqua, police do not issue dvo's.

You could not have been any clearer in your dumb rebuke of what A. Scoot posted.

But, do carry on Lisa Jones.[/quote]

Unlike you, the resident cab dribbling driver, I actually do know what I'm talking about.

Perhaps you ought to read the entire contents of the link you hastily googled in yet another futile attempt to dupe those around you and appear knowledgeable.

Tip : Focus on the concluding paragraph of the 1st section in your link.


"Interim or final ADVOs will only be issued by a magistrate."

John Smith wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 10:58pm:

aquascoot wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 10:53pm: 40 years ago, you wouldnt have seen a stream of people getting DVO's the way you do today. 40 yrs ago if a bloke hit his wife it was acceptable. At best it was ignored.

sure and that was wrong, but i dont buy this medias blitz that we are seeing a domestic violence epidemic or that women are suddenly living in dangerous times.
i think its just data thats corrupted to say thast there are more reports of DV in 2015 and therefore there is more DV.
its just more reports .

John, when i was at school there were a few fights every lunchtime. really quite violent, kids on the ground getting a pummelling,  every single lunchtime, there were fights between schoolkids walking home (kids from different schools or catholic schools v public schools).
i got into heaps of fights and most people got into more.
tonight i watched Miss T Grimshaw showing some footage of a group of kids having a bit of push and shove at a railway station.
man, my 3 kids have gone through their entire schooling and not once had a fight with anyone, at school or on the way home.

society is SOOOOOO much less violent in 2015.
what used to be a bit of rough and tumble is national news nowadays...thats how much things have calmed down

Quote:

Unlike you the resident cab dribbling driver, I actually do know what I'm talking about. Perhaps you ought to read the entire contents of the link you hastily googled in yet another futile effort to appear knowledgeable. Tip : Focus on the concluding paragraphs.

During your recent holiday, you obviously did not waste a great deal of time reflecting on the consequences of posting personal abuse here.  I know what the whole Article says Lisa Jones.  I made my comment and I linked the article for one purpose only......to prevent people who read here from being mislead by material posted by yourself which is simply totally untrue.  Now, get back to the issue.  This specific matter has been dealt with.

I can't believe what some of you guys are posting.

In actual fact, I find it quite disturbing.

You see...I've been away for a few weeks....studying and sitting for exams in the area of criminology.

I suppose I ought to say thanks .... yep thanks for being honest about how you guys feel.

But I'm outta here.

This BS is simply not worth my time or energy.

Enjoy!

Aussie wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 11:11pm:

Quote: Unlike you the resident cab dribbling driver, I actually do know what I'm talking about. Perhaps you ought to read the entire contents of the link you hastily googled in yet another futile effort to appear knowledgeable. Tip : Focus on the concluding paragraphs. During your recent holiday, you obviously did not waste a great deal of time reflecting on the consequences of posting personal abuse here.  I know what the whole Article says Lisa Jones.  I made my comment and I linked the article for one purpose only......to prevent people who read here from being mislead by material posted by yourself which is simply totally untrue.  Now, get back to the issue.  This specific matter has been dealt with.

What holiday you ignorant master baiting nong?

No time for holidays here...unlike you, I've got a busy REAL LIFE.

No off you go..... go google yourself something else to learn and link...but make sure you actually bother to read the contents of your links...or else others will do what I just did....they'll make you look like the insufferable fool you really are.

Ok....outta here.

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 10:40pm:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 10:31pm: I was married a long time ago & the best decision I ever made in my life was to get divorced. All the married guys at work look miserable & are jealous of me. I was married a long time ago and the best decision I ever made in my life was to get divorced. Why? It gave me the chance to be free to think about what I wanted in life. I wanted to be married.....but it had to be with someone who was the exact opposite of my 1st husband. These days I'm married and happy. I'm also very busy and always tired. Sometimes I wake up grumpy. Sometimes I let him sleep lol  :P

Hi Lisa,
Being married is like holding down  a 2nd job - no wonder you're tired.

One job is enough for me.

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 11:14pm:

I can't believe what some of you guys are posting. In actual fact, I find it quite disturbing. You see...I've been away for a few weeks....studying and sitting for exams in the area of criminology. I suppose I ought to say thanks .... yep thanks for being honest about how you guys feel. But I'm outta here. This BS is simply not worth my time or energy. Enjoy!

I am also surprised... NOT...!!!!!!

The attitudes shown by Scooter and Co provide a perfect example of the culture that sees 2 women a week , this yr,  killed by current or former partners.
( and lets not talk about the children suffering as well.)

You insinuate and even outright state that DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is a normal state of affairs.! That reports exaggerate this out of proportion. !! COMPARED TO WHAT ?
YOU guys are classic...  and it is very sad. Time to wake up and realise that you cannot abuse you family with impunity any longer.  ( FINGERS CROSSED)  >:(.

It is not acceptable.. blokes have got to learn they do not run the world... and they do not OWN their so-called 'loved ones'.

SHAME ON YOU for your abhorrent opinions...

SHAME ON YOU. >:(

aquascoot wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 10:09pm:

is it really on the rise or is this just reporting bias. a lot of DVO's are issued by police nowadays for very minor stuff , touching someone or raising ones voice and it would seem to be a ploy (sometimes) to play in the family court. if a guy raises his voice , he can make a woman feel "scared' , take out a DVO and the family court will probably give her the kids. whilst men shouldnt raise their voices, i think if a chick was screaming at her bloke and he called the cops, there would probably be no DVO. so are we getting more DV, but its of a more trivial nature ?? anyone got any stats on the number of assaults that occasion grevious bodily harm or bodily harm. my suspicion is that THESE would actually be decreasing

over 1 Female a week dies of domestic violence in Australia.. we are already have over 50 deaths this year from coward Males who should be shot straight between the eyes..

Because DV (and child abuse by the way) was not reported 40 years ago, some think that an increase in reporting is just that...

Curious logic.

The increase in reporting is of itself misleading, it was the original acceptance that we have a social problem that lead to reporting being available.

Now, since there was no reporting previously, then we can't actually say empirically the problem has gotten better or worse - there is no comparative data. Therefore, the only thing we can truly say is that we (society) have a significant problem with violent behaviour in general and, disturbingly, we have a number of the population who seemingly think that it's ok to inflict said violence against woman and children.

I don't think we are any where near resolving said problems either.

As challenging as it might be for many, I honestly think we need to take gender out of the solution focus. I am not trying to dismiss the seriousness of male on female (and or child) physical abuse here, but, there are increasing statistics that demonstrate quite clearly that there are no exclusions as to who can be a victim at any given time. Further, the behaviours defined as abusive are, quite clearly, able to be demonstrated by men, women and (some) children...

A sub culture is slowly building underneath our current practices for addressing issues of violence - the us v them culture (whether it be man vs woman, old vs young, adult vs child etc). It seems we are, in effect, picking exactly the wrong fight with exactly the wrong people.

Further, since we are experiencing entrenched behaviour in many instances there is not going to be an instant fix that is all touchy feely good... That's just not going to happen.

It seems to me that we (society) need to decide exactly how and when we are prepared to use, accept and rely on violent behaviour, or, conversely if we are not. I for one have often advocated including Martial Arts into the school curriculum. Not because it will make people more violent, it will improve their chances of coping far more when low lives decide to act violently towards them though.

Sad but true, violence is a part of our nature - human nature, some have better self regulation than others, as such, all should be prepared for individuals at times to "let it all hang out" very inappropriately and be equipped to help themselves.

Presently, I think anti violence, child protection etc etc etc, certainly mean well, but are inneffective, entirely because of the adversarial us vs them nature of the debate.

I don't agree with men hitting woman, woman hitting woman, women hitting men, men or women hitting children, controlling behaviours, mental/emotional abuse, over reacting to a heated discussion, manipulation and the list goes on, BUT I totally accept there is a chance they are choices that ANY of us can make at any given moment if we are presented with the right amount of triggers for us to consider it ok to negatively impact on another individuals life...

Yes, indeed it is complicated - that is the life and society that WE have created, accepted and continue to support.

Emma wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 12:13am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 11:14pm: I can't believe what some of you guys are posting. In actual fact, I find it quite disturbing. You see...I've been away for a few weeks....studying and sitting for exams in the area of criminology. I suppose I ought to say thanks .... yep thanks for being honest about how you guys feel. But I'm outta here. This BS is simply not worth my time or energy. Enjoy! I am also surprised... NOT...!!!!!! The attitudes shown by Scooter and Co provide a perfect example of the culture that sees 2 women a week , this yr,  killed by current or former partners. ( and lets not talk about the children suffering as well.) You insinuate and even outright state that DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is a normal state of affairs.! That reports exaggerate this out of proportion. !! COMPARED TO WHAT ? YOU guys are classic...  and it is very sad. Time to wake up and realise that you cannot abuse you family with impunity any longer.  ( FINGERS CROSSED)  >:(. It is not acceptable.. blokes have got to learn they do not run the world... and they do not OWN their so-called 'loved ones'. SHAME ON YOU for your abhorrent opinions... SHAME ON YOU. >:(

the typical media image of domestic violence is of a guy who comes home drunk, hunts down the woman and beats her.
i suppose "once were warriors" the kiwi movie provides this sort of scenario and i have no doubt that this is what most people envision when they hear the words "domestic violence" (and this sort of behaviour is obviously deplorable and with decreased drinking , i think on the decline)


But is that your typical case in which a DVO is issued?

Let me give you another scenario,

A woman is married to a guy and she is having an affair.
Remember women end about 75 % of relationships so this scenario is not fanciful.
they have 2 kids and a house.
She wants him out.
Every time he steps in the door she treats the guy like a doormat.
She's up in his face
"youre a worthless peice of shiiit"
why dont you just leave, you piece of shiiiit.
My new lover really does it for me.
He's so much more of a man then you,
Sleep on the couch you loser
etc,etc"

finally he is so mad he snaps, slaps her, she gets a DVO.
His life is over, loses the kids in court, shamed for the rest of his life.

Now, should guys lose control and hit a woman,  of course not.

But you have to exercise very very strong emotional control when that sort of scenario arises.
The best advice is just to leave.

But for a guy being thrown out of his own home, away from his kids, maybe he has nowhere to go, he is in a very dark place emotionally....

to exercise this degree of control is tough.

The above scenario happened to a neighbour of mine, who ended up living with me and my family for a while.
You can call him a monster if you like.
You can call me a monster for defending a guy with a DVO.
I know the correct response from the feminists is that i should have put on my white ribbon and tossed him out on the street.
Sorry, but i just couldnt do it.

So, two individual stories are the basis for an entire position?

There's the problem right there actually, this debate is being argued from the perspective of individual positions rather than interests...

Is violent behaviour in OUR (all of us) best interests?

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 6:18am:

So, two individual stories are the basis for an entire position? There's the problem right there actually, this debate is being argued from the perspective of individual positions rather than interests... Is violent behaviour in OUR (all of us) best interests?

i expected better of you Pharm.

the point i am making is a nuanced point and its dangerous to make a nuanced point because dumbies just like it black and white.

By dumbies i mean people like Emma.

They cant handle a nuanced point .
they like the mainstream

Domestic violence...men are pigs...grrrr...get them.

But its a complex issue.

heres another true story

A wife of a rich businessman i knew told me that whenever her husband hit her he would feel terrible and buy her expensive jewelry or the like.
She related how she would pick a fight with the express intention of organising the next trip to the jewellers.
is this rare...yep
is this dysfunctional...yep.
is it a nuanced point that domestic violence is a complex issue of interpersonal relationships...yep.
is it dangerous for the mainstream media to give ANY message other then

domestic violence...men are pigs...get them...yep, you bet its dangerous and the mainstream shouldnt do it.
they should stick with the dumbed down message that Peel likes because some dumb chode reading my post is going to say

"scoot said domestic violence can be the womens fault" "she provoked me"

all i am saying is that when a guy (especially a dumb guy...notice how many footballers are perps) is really really emotional, it makes sense not to push hot buttons DELIBERATELY.   not excusing him at all. he deserves everything he gets.
but the issue is more complex then the mainstream would /could or should let on

aquascoot wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 6:49am:

i expected better of you Pharm.

Feel free to scroll the page up just a tad...

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 6:59am:

aquascoot wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 6:49am: i expected better of you Pharm. Feel free to scroll the page up just a tad...

Oh , apologies , i missed that.

Yes, a good post BUT full of nuanced points.
the mainstream would tear you to pieces if you tried to present that.

better to just keep it dumbed down.

men are pricks....grrrr.....get them  ;) ;).

in all seriousness, if the mainstream even strayed a millimetre off that "angle"  , then 1000's of angry Emma Peels would be on speed dial to the network.

"did that guy try to offer excuses for a behaviour '
"shame on them"

its the same with politicians,  they have the very difficult job of trying to stop society killing each other.

you have to keep the message dumb, because your average chode munching on his Big Mac and playing call of duty, has the attention span of a gnat

aquascoot wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 7:35am:

Oh , apologies , i missed that.

No worries, I figured that might have been the case.


aquascoot wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 7:35am:

Yes, a good post BUT full of nuanced points. the mainstream would tear you to pieces if you tried to present that.

They haven't yet. I don't think it is all that nuanced to be honest either. Bottom line is, broadly ALL of us say violence is not appropriate, however, we seem to be drawing lines based on irrelevancies like gender, age, jobs etc etc... That's the problem though, once a scatter gun approach is used then guilty and innocent and victims will be hit. Nothing nuanced in that, just observing how the system is presently.


aquascoot wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 7:35am:

"did that guy try to offer excuses for a behaviour ' "shame on them"

I see that as an opportunity to engage in debate.

The short answer would be no, then the explanation would clarify. Now you mention a poster here directly, one whom I have conversed with about this issue and she has not attacked me, called for allies or been anything other than respectful. I think the hint there is that, even when disagreeing we have BOTH demonstrated respect.


aquascoot wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 7:35am:

you have to keep the message dumb, because your average chode munching on his Big Mac and playing call of duty, has the attention span of a gnat

No I disagree. The message is being kept "dumb" and off the actual message intentionally by those who would manipulate the clear flaws in our current approaches to further their own ends in perpetrating violence and abuse...

By the way, there are some very successful Big Mac Munching Call of Duty players - it just depends on what you define as success.

Oh, and gamers are often not known to have short attention spans - just saying. You might not agree with, like or be titillated by what they put their attention towards, but that does not for one moment mean they do not pay attention...

And, ironically, often times Woman who are victims of DV are confronted with accusatory questions like "why didn't you just leave sooner?"

As such, why would it not be appropriate to ask exactly the same accusatory question (regardless of especially dumb or not)?


aquascoot wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 6:49am:

all i am saying is that when a guy (especially a dumb guy...notice how many footballers are perps) is really really emotional, it makes sense not to push hot buttons DELIBERATELY.   not excusing him at all. he deserves everything he gets.

Perhaps he does deserve everything he gets, of course, that depends ultimately on what exactly he gets.

Tell me this, does the woman (or women) in that exact same scenario deserve what they get too?

I note a few people are speaking about "emotional triggers"

Again there are two sides of this story.

Side 1 - don't poke the bear
We all know instances where those closest to us knows our "triggers" and they mercilessly and deliberately push those buttons over and over and over again. They push you to the point where you lose control

Side 2 - no excuses
The aggressor often times us the excuse that he/she pushed me for their inability to control their hair trigger


We all know the truth is somewhere in-between these two sides

As I said in my first post - it's complicated

So it's OK to hit a woman if she repeatedly hits your triggers?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 9:16am:

So it's OK to hit a woman if she repeatedly hits your triggers?

I would ,like to think....that anyone who is bashed repeatedly ... would know which

BUTTONS NOT TO PUSH..

it isnt rocket science is it??....someone bad and mean uses any excuse I am afraid...

some people take what happens outside the home... home with them and punish their families for it....

look at road rage for instance...its out of control...

this anger/rage is not just in the home...but its there it is doing enormous damage..

Hilariously dumb.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 9:16am:

So it's OK to hit a woman if she repeatedly hits your triggers?

Your response is EXACTLY the reason that the mainstream media cannot have a discussion on a complex issue and MUST present everything in black and white terms


Because some chode is going to hit a woman and then say

"ugh ugh, Tracey grimshaw told me that women are pushing my hot buttons, ugh ugh, grunt grunt."

the message has to be black and white for the average dumbie out there.

Nuanced points cant be discussed because so many people cannot hold a paradoxical point of view, they dont want to think, they live in Durrrrrrrr mode.

and for the girl who gets hit after pushing a hot button.
its not her fault at all but she STILL GOT HIT

aquascoot wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 9:59am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 9:16am: So it's OK to hit a woman if she repeatedly hits your triggers? Your response is EXACTLY the reason that the mainstream media cannot have a discussion on a complex issue and MUST present everything in black and white terms Because some chode is going to hit a woman and then say "ugh ugh, Tracey grimshaw told me that women are pushing my hot buttons, ugh ugh, grunt grunt." the message has to be black and white for the average dumbie out there. Nuanced points cant be discussed because so many people cannot hold a paradoxical point of view, they dont want to think, they live in Durrrrrrrr mode. and for the girl who gets hit after pushing a hot button. its not her fault at all but she STILL GOT HIT

No, I was responding to a statement which seemed to involve victim blaming. Yes, its a complex issue, but there are some aspects which are black and white.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 9:16am:

So it's OK to hit a woman if she repeatedly hits your triggers?

Perhaps more accurate to say that the Law (in Qld) provides that provocation is a defence to assault, so from a technical point of view, the answer to that question is yeas.

Aussie wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 10:03am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 9:16am: So it's OK to hit a woman if she repeatedly hits your triggers? Perhaps more accurate to say that the Law (in Qld) provides that provocation is a defence to assault, so from a technical point of view, the answer to that question is yeas.

You sure about that Aussie? You are saying that it is legal for a man to hit a woman if she irritates him enough? I don't think that it is.

Bear in mind that most of these provocations stem from not having dinner on time, talking to other men, talking back and other such human behaviours that are considered unacceptable to anyone not trying to 'own' somebody else.

mothra wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 10:16am:

Aussie wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 10:03am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 9:16am: So it's OK to hit a woman if she repeatedly hits your triggers? Perhaps more accurate to say that the Law (in Qld) provides that provocation is a defence to assault, so from a technical point of view, the answer to that question is yeas. You sure about that Aussie? You are saying that it is legal for a man to hit a woman if she irritates him enough? I don't think that it is. Bear in mind that most of these provocations stem from not having dinner on time, talking to other men, talking back and other such human behaviours that are considered unacceptable to anyone not trying to 'own' somebody else.

Yeas, I'm sure about that.  I do not post misleading crap like at least one person who claims expert knowledge here does.


Quote:

CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 269 269 Defence of provocation (1) A person is not criminally responsible for an assault committed upon a person who gives the person provocation for the assault, if the person is in fact deprived by the provocation of the power of self-control, and acts upon it on the sudden and before there is time for the person's passion to cool, and if the force used is not disproportionate to the provocation and is not intended, and is not such as is likely, to cause death or grievous bodily harm. (2) Whether any particular act or insult is such as to be likely to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control and to induce the ordinary person to assault the person by whom the act or insult is done or offered, and whether, in any particular case, the person provoked was actually deprived by the provocation of the power of self-control, and whether any force used is or is not disproportionate to the provocation, are questions of fact.

I suppose the clue in there is "ordinary person".

Not having the dishes done is not going to provoke an "ordinary person" to violence.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 9:16am:

So it's OK to hit a woman if she repeatedly hits your triggers?

Only a convicted perpetrator would answer yes to that question and pathetically attempt to use statute law to protect him from facing the reality of his sick and twisted mind.

Aussie wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 10:03am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 9:16am: So it's OK to hit a woman if she repeatedly hits your triggers? Perhaps more accurate to say that the Law (in Qld) provides that provocation is a defence to assault, so from a technical point of view, the answer to that question is yeas.

Case in point.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 5:46am:

aquascoot wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 10:09pm: is it really on the rise or is this just reporting bias. a lot of DVO's are issued by police nowadays for very minor stuff , touching someone or raising ones voice and it would seem to be a ploy (sometimes) to play in the family court. if a guy raises his voice , he can make a woman feel "scared' , take out a DVO and the family court will probably give her the kids. whilst men shouldnt raise their voices, i think if a chick was screaming at her bloke and he called the cops, there would probably be no DVO. so are we getting more DV, but its of a more trivial nature ?? anyone got any stats on the number of assaults that occasion grevious bodily harm or bodily harm. my suspicion is that THESE would actually be decreasing over 1 Female a week dies of domestic violence in Australia.. we are already have over 50 deaths this year from coward Males who should be shot straight between the eyes..

Yep.

Over 1 female a week.

It's inexcusable.

It is NEVER o.k. to hit a woman, no matter what triggers are being pressed...NEVER!!!!!!

red baron wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 12:37pm:

It is NEVER o.k. to hit a woman, no matter what triggers are being pressed...NEVER!!!!!!

Correct!

Well said Mr Baron.

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 12:21pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 9:16am: So it's OK to hit a woman if she repeatedly hits your triggers? Only a convicted perpetrator would answer yes to that question and pathetically attempt to use statute law to protect him from facing the reality of his sick and twisted mind.

I gave the answer as 'yeas,' (technically) but I am not a convicted perpetrator seeking in whatever manner that statute law protect me, and I do not have a sick or twisted mind, so, quite self evidently, your post is, yet again, horseshit.  Will that ever cease?

red baron wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 12:37pm:

It is NEVER o.k. to hit a woman, no matter what triggers are being pressed...NEVER!!!!!!

Is it okay to shoot and kill them?

Beat the crap out of them?

Link.

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 12:42pm:

red baron wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 12:37pm: It is NEVER o.k. to hit a woman, no matter what triggers are being pressed...NEVER!!!!!! Correct! Well said Mr Baron.

PS. There are a lot of baiters in here today Mr Baron.

'convicted'?  Under the current regime in which 'guilt' is accorded on the basis of the feelings of the complainant?  And in a civil matter which is not a 'conviction' anyway but is supposed to be keeping the peace by breaking the Law?

I think some here need to get their thinking straight.  The very vast majority of 'incidents' of domestic violence involve no violence whatsoever, as clearly shown by the reality that NSW Police in 2010-11 responded to 300,000+ callouts for DV and only laid charges in less than 5000.

The allocation of an 'order' by a court is in no way proof of any violence having occurred - rather - when handed down in isolation - it is proof positive that NO violence has occurred and thus is itself an abrogation of Law.

BTW 'hitting the triggers'/'pushing the buttons' is NOT the same as a man defending self from personal physical attack. Again, many here need to get their minds right on the issues of FAMILY violence, and accept that violence is not acceptable from either woman or man or child.  Once we reach that starting point, we may make some headway in this seemingly endless dispute.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/

"Objectives. We sought to examine the prevalence of reciprocal (i.e., perpetrated by both partners) and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence and to determine whether reciprocity is related to violence frequency and injury.

Methods. We analyzed data on young US adults aged 18 to 28 years from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which contained information about partner violence and injury reported by 11 370 respondents on 18761 heterosexual relationships.

Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).

Conclusions. The context of the violence (reciprocal vs nonreciprocal) is a strong predictor of reported injury. Prevention approaches that address the escalation of partner violence may be needed to address reciprocal violence."

I don't prescribe to "it's not okay to hit women under ANY circumstances"

The current laws will jail people of assault. The law also allow you to defend yourself if you are assaulted

If a woman assault a man - she need to understand there's a chance she will be hit back.

Society should not teach our female children that it's okay to hit male and rely on "it's not okay for men to hit women"

Women want equality but they also want exemptions for violence?

Maqqa wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 2:36pm:

I don't prescribe to "it's not okay to hit women under ANY circumstances" The current laws will jail people of assault. The law also allow you to defend yourself if you are assaulted If a woman assault a man - she need to understand there's a chance she will be hit back. Society should not teach our female children that it's okay to hit male and rely on "it's not okay for men to hit women" Women want equality but they also want exemptions for violence?

You;ve described 2 scenarios there Maqqa; self defence and retaliation.

It is always appropriate to defend yourself with reasonable force.

When is retaliation ok?

As for women wanting equality but not wanting to be hit, you need to think about the playing field. Men are, usually, considerably bigger and stronger than women. That is not to say a woman cant deliver a good hit but the chances are if a man then hits a woman in return, he is likely to do much more damage than she did. That is why it is not ok to hit women. It's just not good to wallop someone smaller than you.

we work in mysterious ways.. ::) ::)

women are trained in selfdefence...

if a guy laid a hand on you in the street it is ok to strike him in the groin or with a highheeled shoe..even toss him over your shoulder if you are able..

yep its called self defence..

if she hits back at a bulling husband. she can be charged with DOMESTIC VIOLENCE...

there are so many forms of D.V. control is another biggie and that is quite often where it all begins...

Aussie wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 11:27am:

mothra wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 10:16am: Aussie wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 10:03am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 9:16am: So it's OK to hit a woman if she repeatedly hits your triggers? Perhaps more accurate to say that the Law (in Qld) provides that provocation is a defence to assault, so from a technical point of view, the answer to that question is yeas. You sure about that Aussie? You are saying that it is legal for a man to hit a woman if she irritates him enough? I don't think that it is. Bear in mind that most of these provocations stem from not having dinner on time, talking to other men, talking back and other such human behaviours that are considered unacceptable to anyone not trying to 'own' somebody else. Yeas, I'm sure about that.  I do not post misleading crap like at least one person who claims expert knowledge here does. Quote: CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 269 269 Defence of provocation (1) A person is not criminally responsible for an assault committed upon a person who gives the person provocation for the assault, if the person is in fact deprived by the provocation of the power of self-control, and acts upon it on the sudden and before there is time for the person's passion to cool, and if the force used is not disproportionate to the provocation and is not intended, and is not such as is likely, to cause death or grievous bodily harm. (2) Whether any particular act or insult is such as to be likely to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control and to induce the ordinary person to assault the person by whom the act or insult is done or offered, and whether, in any particular case, the person provoked was actually deprived by the provocation of the power of self-control, and whether any force used is or is not disproportionate to the provocation, are questions of fact.

1899.... only in Qld..

mothra wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 2:43pm:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 2:36pm: I don't prescribe to "it's not okay to hit women under ANY circumstances" The current laws will jail people of assault. The law also allow you to defend yourself if you are assaulted If a woman assault a man - she need to understand there's a chance she will be hit back. Society should not teach our female children that it's okay to hit male and rely on "it's not okay for men to hit women" Women want equality but they also want exemptions for violence? You;ve described 2 scenarios there Maqqa; self defence and retaliation. It is always appropriate to defend yourself with reasonable force. When is retaliation ok? As for women wanting equality but not wanting to be hit, you need to think about the playing field. Men are, usually, considerably bigger and stronger than women. That is not to say a woman cant deliver a good hit but the chances are if a man then hits a woman in return, he is likely to do much more damage than she did. That is why it is not ok to hit women. It's just not good to wallop someone smaller than you.

I sent my daughter to Tae Kwon Do lessons - no man hits her.. then there's her eighteen stone Rugby captain brother.. then there's her mean old man........ then there's her cross dresser best friend who'd clobber any bloke who hit her.... beyond that all her male cousins are between 6'4" and 6'6" and can be mean if pushed.

Domestic violence - it's complicated

no it's not ... it's actually quite simple.

YOU DON'T HIT .... EVER.

cods wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 2:59pm:

we work in mysterious ways.. ::) ::) women are trained in selfdefence... if a guy laid a hand on you in the street it is ok to strike him in the groin or with a highheeled shoe..even toss him over your shoulder if you are able.. yep its called self defence.. if she hits back at a bulling husband. she can be charged with DOMESTIC VIOLENCE... there are so many forms of D.V. control is another biggie and that is quite often where it all begins...

Or, if she is a bullying, nagging violent woman...he deals with it himself.  All sorted, and no need to waste the hard pressed resources of the Cops.  (Mind you, why he'd live with such a bitch is way beyond me.)

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 3:18pm:

mothra wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 2:43pm: Maqqa wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 2:36pm: I don't prescribe to "it's not okay to hit women under ANY circumstances" The current laws will jail people of assault. The law also allow you to defend yourself if you are assaulted If a woman assault a man - she need to understand there's a chance she will be hit back. Society should not teach our female children that it's okay to hit male and rely on "it's not okay for men to hit women" Women want equality but they also want exemptions for violence? You;ve described 2 scenarios there Maqqa; self defence and retaliation. It is always appropriate to defend yourself with reasonable force. When is retaliation ok? As for women wanting equality but not wanting to be hit, you need to think about the playing field. Men are, usually, considerably bigger and stronger than women. That is not to say a woman cant deliver a good hit but the chances are if a man then hits a woman in return, he is likely to do much more damage than she did. That is why it is not ok to hit women. It's just not good to wallop someone smaller than you. I sent my daughter to Tae Kwon Do lessons - no man hits her.. then there's her eighteen stone Rugby captain brother.. then there's her mean old man........ then there's her cross dresser best friend who'd clobber any bloke who hit her.... beyond that all her male cousins are between 6'4" and 6'6" and can be mean if pushed.

Good. All girls could benefit from a little self defence IMO.

John Smith wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 3:22pm:

Domestic violence - it's complicated no it's not ... it's actually quite simple. YOU DON'T HIT .... EVER.

You're right.

I wasn't going to post this...but your comment has made me think that I should.

I went to uni with a really nice guy. We were both in our late teens when he asked me out. It was an ok date....we went back to his mum n dad's place afterwards to finish off some group project.

That's when the impact of DV hit me hard (pun not intended).

I met his mum n dad who were in their late 60's. I immediately knew something wasn't quite right.

Anyway, as we chatted quietly away in his room.... he finally fessed that his parents were in fact his grandparents. His mum's parents.

So I asked about his real mum and dad.

The poor guy told me about how he came home from (primary) school to find his real mum n dad arguing loudly in the kitchen. His dad hit his mum hard causing her to fall against the sharp corner of a table or cupboard. He then fled the scene.

This kid was left to call 000 and try and wake up his mum. She died in that kitchen because of just 1 blow.

He and his baby brother were then handed over by DOCS to his Mum's parents to rear.

I felt sorry for the guy....for the whole family.

I never dated him after that.

It was all too much for me to handle back then.

Where are these 2 boys today?

One is seriously clinically depressed .....and the younger brother is dead (suicided).

So yeah.....please don't hit a woman. You don't know how the scenario will finish.

One thing's for sure, it will definitely be tragic for everyone concerned.

mothra wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 2:43pm:

As for women wanting equality but not wanting to be hit, you need to think about the playing field. Men are, usually, considerably bigger and stronger than women. That is not to say a woman cant deliver a good hit but the chances are if a man then hits a woman in return, he is likely to do much more damage than she did. That is why it is not ok to hit women. It's just not good to wallop someone smaller than you.

Then it should be about big person walloping a smaller person and not about men hitting women because there are some women who are larger than men

As I said - I don't agree with "you can't hit a woman under any condition"

I question "reasonable force" for retaliation

Bottom line is - if the woman did not hit the man then there is no issue about retaliation with reasonable force

DON'T HIT!!! Women or men!!

Scenario 1
If a man hit a woman first - it's assault against the man. She's got to gauge whether to retaliate. He's already broken the law by hitting you so what are the chances he'll hit you more if you retaliate

Scenario 2
If a woman hit a man - it's assault against the woman. He's got to gauge whether he wants to retaliate. If he retaliate then there are some rules around that if he's bigger than her. But then again she might pull a gun on him

For Lisa Jones:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02049/tissue_2049564i.jpg

Maqqa wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 3:47pm:

mothra wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 2:43pm: As for women wanting equality but not wanting to be hit, you need to think about the playing field. Men are, usually, considerably bigger and stronger than women. That is not to say a woman cant deliver a good hit but the chances are if a man then hits a woman in return, he is likely to do much more damage than she did. That is why it is not ok to hit women. It's just not good to wallop someone smaller than you. Then it should be about big person walloping a smaller person and not about men hitting women because there are some women who are larger than men As I said - I don't agree with "you can't hit a woman under any condition" I question "reasonable force" for retaliation Bottom line is - if the woman did not hit the man then there is no issue about retaliation with reasonable force DON'T HIT!!! Women or men!! Scenario 1 If a man hit a woman first - it's assault against the man. She's got to gauge whether to retaliate. He's already broken the law by hitting you so what are the chances he'll hit you more if you retaliate Scenario 2 If a woman hit a man - it's assault against the woman. He's got to gauge whether he wants to retaliate. If he retaliate then there are some rules around that if he's bigger than her. But then again she might pull a gun on him

God you complicate matters sometimes.

Aussie wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 3:50pm:

For Lisa Jones: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02049/tissue_2049564i.jpg

Thank you.

I've completely run out here thanks to my freaking flu  :'(

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 3:54pm:

God you complicate matters sometimes.

Hello LJ  :-*

I do don't I  :-/ :-/ ;) ;)

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 3:54pm:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 3:47pm: mothra wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 2:43pm: As for women wanting equality but not wanting to be hit, you need to think about the playing field. Men are, usually, considerably bigger and stronger than women. That is not to say a woman cant deliver a good hit but the chances are if a man then hits a woman in return, he is likely to do much more damage than she did. That is why it is not ok to hit women. It's just not good to wallop someone smaller than you. Then it should be about big person walloping a smaller person and not about men hitting women because there are some women who are larger than men As I said - I don't agree with "you can't hit a woman under any condition" I question "reasonable force" for retaliation Bottom line is - if the woman did not hit the man then there is no issue about retaliation with reasonable force DON'T HIT!!! Women or men!! Scenario 1 If a man hit a woman first - it's assault against the man. She's got to gauge whether to retaliate. He's already broken the law by hitting you so what are the chances he'll hit you more if you retaliate Scenario 2 If a woman hit a man - it's assault against the woman. He's got to gauge whether he wants to retaliate. If he retaliate then there are some rules around that if he's bigger than her. But then again she might pull a gun on him God you complicate matters sometimes.

Is this complicated?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REIbgt5Yo7w

Maqqa wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 3:58pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 3:54pm: God you complicate matters sometimes. Hello LJ  :-* I do don't I  :-/ :-/ ;) ;)

You're an intelligent guy who thinks too hard lol.

Hope you're keeping well.

Why didn't this bloke just deck her?  (And there are a zillion similar things on YouTube.)  The days of the polite passive female have long gone.  There are bitches out there who are quite happy to have physical confrontation....and they marry poor bastards who probably get done for 'domestic violence.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G2S2OEudQ8

Aussie: check your link in Reply # 80.

It's about name calling people you meet in the street.

And that has S F A to do with this topic or Maqqa or me for that matter. :o

This pair will just terrific Wives and Mothers, make:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubq0CCtnhYI

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 4:19pm:

Aussie: check your link in Reply # 80. It's about name calling people you meet in the street. And that has S F A to do with this topic or Maqqa or me for that matter. :o

Oh....you reckon that woman leaves her 'attitude' just on the streets and only just for 'niggaaaars?'

You probably do, and..... leave Mr Maqqa out of this.  Your stupid, attention seeking, vapid, vacuous and misleading posts are my target, not Mr Maqqa.  He cannot save you from what you post, even if he wanted to.

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 4:12pm:

You're an intelligent guy who thinks too hard lol. Hope you're keeping well.

Cheers and Congratulations on your nuptial

Maqqa wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 4:33pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 4:12pm: You're an intelligent guy who thinks too hard lol. Hope you're keeping well. Cheers and Congratulations on your nuptials

Ha! I've had 2 kids since then.

We remembered how to do it lol.

Are YOU married yet?

Aussie wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 4:26pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 4:19pm: Aussie: check your link in Reply # 80. It's about name calling people you meet in the street. And that has S F A to do with this topic or Maqqa or me for that matter. :o Oh....you reckon that woman leaves her 'attitude' just on the streets and only just for 'niggaaaars?' You probably do, and..... leave Mr Maqqa out of this.  Your stupid, attention seeking, vapid, vacuous and misleading posts are my target, not Mr Maqqa.  He cannot save you from what you post, even if he wanted to.

By all means keep spewing off topic nonsense and keep posting irrelevant YouTube clips.

We wouldn't want you to be inconsistent.

But for everyone else....except for Aussie of course who clearly wants to "target" (his word) certain people in here...and has an insatiable urge to derail a DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TOPIC YET AGAIN.....let's move on.

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 4:37pm:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 4:33pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 4:12pm: You're an intelligent guy who thinks too hard lol. Hope you're keeping well. Cheers and Congratulations on your nuptials Ha! I've had 2 kids since then. We remembered how to do it lol. Are YOU married yet?

Congrats

Not married but been living with someone for 3 years - she's the one!

Quote:

We wouldn't want you to be inconsistent.

There is no 'we,' Lisa Jones.  Just you.  You have no-one backing you up.


Quote:

But for everyone else....except for Aussie of course who clearly wants to "target" (his word) certain people in here...and has an insatiable urge to derail a DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TOPIC YET AGAIN.....let's move on.

I 'target' stupid, vacuous, inane, garbage misleading and false posts, not people.

You are ignoring (because you need to) that a great deal of women are violent aggressor/provocateurs these days, and men will react accordingly to it, even in the home.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 4:50pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 4:37pm: Maqqa wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 4:33pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 4:12pm: You're an intelligent guy who thinks too hard lol. Hope you're keeping well. Cheers and Congratulations on your nuptials Ha! I've had 2 kids since then. We remembered how to do it lol. Are YOU married yet? Congrats Not married but been living with someone for 3 years - she's the one!

Awesome!

If/when you do get married....be sure to let us know.

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 4:43pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 4:26pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 4:19pm: Aussie: check your link in Reply # 80. It's about name calling people you meet in the street. And that has S F A to do with this topic or Maqqa or me for that matter. :o Oh....you reckon that woman leaves her 'attitude' just on the streets and only just for 'niggaaaars?' You probably do, and..... leave Mr Maqqa out of this.  Your stupid, attention seeking, vapid, vacuous and misleading posts are my target, not Mr Maqqa.  He cannot save you from what you post, even if he wanted to. By all means keep spewing off topic nonsense and keep posting irrelevant YouTube clips. We wouldn't want you to be inconsistent. But for everyone else....except for Aussie of course who clearly wants to "target" (his word) certain people in here...and has an insatiable urge to derail a DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TOPIC YET AGAIN.....let's move on.

Up!

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 12:21pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 9:16am: So it's OK to hit a woman if she repeatedly hits your triggers? Only a convicted perpetrator would answer yes to that question and pathetically attempt to use statute law to protect him from facing the reality of his sick and twisted mind.

Up!

You will notice certain posters get very agitated when it comes to topics re Domestic Violence.

These posters will do everything to minimise, trivialize and marginalize DV issues....and blame the actual victims of DV.

Remember, DV IS A CRIME.

It's very telling when certain people cannot resist the internal rage and anger they still hold against victims of DV who have survived such an ordeal.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 10:09pm:

is it really on the rise or is this just reporting bias. a lot of DVO's are issued by police nowadays for very minor stuff , touching someone or raising ones voice and it would seem to be a ploy (sometimes) to play in the family court. if a guy raises his voice , he can make a woman feel "scared' , take out a DVO and the family court will probably give her the kids. whilst men shouldnt raise their voices, i think if a chick was screaming at her bloke and he called the cops, there would probably be no DVO. so are we getting more DV, but its of a more trivial nature ?? anyone got any stats on the number of assaults that occasion grevious bodily harm or bodily harm. my suspicion is that THESE would actually be decreasing

I would think it is on the rise.
to my shame, as a man.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 6:04pm:

aquascoot wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 10:09pm: is it really on the rise or is this just reporting bias. a lot of DVO's are issued by police nowadays for very minor stuff , touching someone or raising ones voice and it would seem to be a ploy (sometimes) to play in the family court. if a guy raises his voice , he can make a woman feel "scared' , take out a DVO and the family court will probably give her the kids. whilst men shouldnt raise their voices, i think if a chick was screaming at her bloke and he called the cops, there would probably be no DVO. so are we getting more DV, but its of a more trivial nature ?? anyone got any stats on the number of assaults that occasion grevious bodily harm or bodily harm. my suspicion is that THESE would actually be decreasing I would think it is on the rise. to my shame, as a man.

do you think so sprint.
i have no real idea.
i think a lot of things seem to be on the rise but its just increased reporting.
if it is on the rise, it doesnt say much for the leftard feminists who have been running the education of young men since gough , jim ciarns and junee morrossi employed 1000's of leftard female intellectuals to "interfere " in how kids were indoctrinated (oops , sorry...educated).

if the touchy feeley luvvies have created a cohort of angry violent men, maybe they should have left the raising of young men to alpha males instead of beaten down chodes and man hating feminists . maybe gough shouldnt have attacked the traditional family with his easy divorces and generous single mothers pensions (which seemed to have resulted in this wave of men who cannot control their emotions)

It's complicated alright...and unbalanced.

Last weekend my son got arrested and put on, as Christian Porter, Minister for Social Services puts  it, a 72 hour "cooling off" DVO issued by coppers...the kind that shoot first and ask questions later.

Backstory, son and his wife having marital issues and have a nine month old son.
Wife invited man hating friend over for a drink, which ends up being three bottles of wine (my son is a teetotaler of all drugs so is sober for the event). Wife decides with coercion by friend it's the day to leave the relationship.
Wife packs bag, grabs baby and attempts to leave house and get in drunk friends car, who incidentally has a three year old daughter with her. The plan is to drive 50km of city freeway and suburbs.
Son tries to take baby and keep him safe, gets beaten with frying pan, punched and kicked by both women, and a generous loss of skin due to sharp nails.
He loses that battle...next battle is to get baby out of drunk friends arms as she attempts to put him in back seat of car (her own 3yr old is strapped in ready for the drive). She starts screaming that she is being assaulted, neighbors call cops.
Cops take wife and friends's side of story that my son was trying to kidnap the baby and in doing so assaulted the two women. Son gets arrested and the rest is history.

How can a man looking out for the welfare of his son, who his drunk wife has co care whatsoever get the raw end of the deal.

So now if this ends up in a family court case, knifey wifey has a trumped up trump DVO card.



And on this debate of % of men vs women perpetrators...my father was an ambulance officer for 30 yrs with countless calls out to DV events. He says that it's pretty much an even split as to the perps, with alcohol a correlation in 80% of cases. Not just drunk at the time either, the following day's hangover was prime-time for DV events to occur. This only accounts for violent DV, not the DV of psychological warfare.
Also the biggest threat he ever faced was at a DV call out, turns out a husband had been stabbed, then out of nowhere as he's stemming the blood flow, the wife charges him with a 30cm kitchen knife and attempts to stab him in the throat...lucky for him she was drunk and he was fast.

fezz wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 6:23pm:

It's complicated alright...and unbalanced. Last weekend my son got arrested and put on, as Christian Porter, Minister for Social Services puts  it, a 72 hour "cooling off" DVO issued by coppers...the kind that shoot first and ask questions later. Backstory, son and his wife having marital issues and have a nine month old son. Wife invited man hating friend over for a drink, which ends up being three bottles of wine (my son is a teetotaler of all drugs so is sober for the event). Wife decides with coercion by friend it's the day to leave the relationship. Wife packs bag, grabs baby and attempts to leave house and get in drunk friends car, who incidentally has a three year old daughter with her. The plan is to drive 50km of city freeway and suburbs. Son tries to take baby and keep him safe, gets beaten with frying pan, punched and kicked by both women, and a generous loss of skin due to sharp nails. He loses that battle...next battle is to get baby out of drunk friends arms as she attempts to put him in back seat of car (her own 3yr old is strapped in ready for the drive). She starts screaming that she is being assaulted, neighbors call cops. Cops take wife and friends's side of story that my son was trying to kidnap the baby and in doing so assaulted the two women. Son gets arrested and the rest is history. How can a man looking out for the welfare of his son, who his drunk wife has co care whatsoever get the raw end of the deal. So now if this ends up in a family court case, knifey wifey has a trumped up trump DVO card. And on this debate of % of men vs women perpetrators...my father was an ambulance officer for 30 yrs with countless calls out to DV events. He says that it's pretty much an even split as to the perps, with alcohol a correlation in 80% of cases. Not just drunk at the time either, the following day's hangover was prime-time for DV events to occur. This only accounts for violent DV, not the DV of psychological warfare. Also the biggest threat he ever faced was at a DV call out, turns out a husband had been stabbed, then out of nowhere as he's stemming the blood flow, the wife charges him with a 30cm kitchen knife and attempts to stab him in the throat...lucky for him she was drunk and he was fast.

Thats what I have heard from a social worker too


Quote:

..............He says that it's pretty much an even split as to the perps, with alcohol a correlation in 80% of cases. Not just drunk at the time either, the following day's hangover was prime-time for DV events to occur. .......

fezz wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 6:23pm:

It's complicated alright...and unbalanced. Last weekend my son got arrested and put on, as Christian Porter, Minister for Social Services puts  it, a 72 hour "cooling off" DVO issued by coppers...the kind that shoot first and ask questions later. Backstory, son and his wife having marital issues and have a nine month old son. Wife invited man hating friend over for a drink, which ends up being three bottles of wine (my son is a teetotaler of all drugs so is sober for the event). Wife decides with coercion by friend it's the day to leave the relationship. Wife packs bag, grabs baby and attempts to leave house and get in drunk friends car, who incidentally has a three year old daughter with her. The plan is to drive 50km of city freeway and suburbs. Son tries to take baby and keep him safe, gets beaten with frying pan, punched and kicked by both women, and a generous loss of skin due to sharp nails. He loses that battle...next battle is to get baby out of drunk friends arms as she attempts to put him in back seat of car (her own 3yr old is strapped in ready for the drive). She starts screaming that she is being assaulted, neighbors call cops. Cops take wife and friends's side of story that my son was trying to kidnap the baby and in doing so assaulted the two women. Son gets arrested and the rest is history. How can a man looking out for the welfare of his son, who his drunk wife has co care whatsoever get the raw end of the deal. So now if this ends up in a family court case, knifey wifey has a trumped up trump DVO card. And on this debate of % of men vs women perpetrators...my father was an ambulance officer for 30 yrs with countless calls out to DV events. He says that it's pretty much an even split as to the perps, with alcohol a correlation in 80% of cases. Not just drunk at the time either, the following day's hangover was prime-time for DV events to occur. This only accounts for violent DV, not the DV of psychological warfare. Also the biggest threat he ever faced was at a DV call out, turns out a husband had been stabbed, then out of nowhere as he's stemming the blood flow, the wife charges him with a 30cm kitchen knife and attempts to stab him in the throat...lucky for him she was drunk and he was fast.

Pretty obvious question.  Did the cops allow this drunk woman to drive away?

Aussie wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 6:29pm:

fezz wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 6:23pm: It's complicated alright...and unbalanced. Last weekend my son got arrested and put on, as Christian Porter, Minister for Social Services puts  it, a 72 hour "cooling off" DVO issued by coppers...the kind that shoot first and ask questions later. Backstory, son and his wife having marital issues and have a nine month old son. Wife invited man hating friend over for a drink, which ends up being three bottles of wine (my son is a teetotaler of all drugs so is sober for the event). Wife decides with coercion by friend it's the day to leave the relationship. Wife packs bag, grabs baby and attempts to leave house and get in drunk friends car, who incidentally has a three year old daughter with her. The plan is to drive 50km of city freeway and suburbs. Son tries to take baby and keep him safe, gets beaten with frying pan, punched and kicked by both women, and a generous loss of skin due to sharp nails. He loses that battle...next battle is to get baby out of drunk friends arms as she attempts to put him in back seat of car (her own 3yr old is strapped in ready for the drive). She starts screaming that she is being assaulted, neighbors call cops. Cops take wife and friends's side of story that my son was trying to kidnap the baby and in doing so assaulted the two women. Son gets arrested and the rest is history. How can a man looking out for the welfare of his son, who his drunk wife has co care whatsoever get the raw end of the deal. So now if this ends up in a family court case, knifey wifey has a trumped up trump DVO card. And on this debate of % of men vs women perpetrators...my father was an ambulance officer for 30 yrs with countless calls out to DV events. He says that it's pretty much an even split as to the perps, with alcohol a correlation in 80% of cases. Not just drunk at the time either, the following day's hangover was prime-time for DV events to occur. This only accounts for violent DV, not the DV of psychological warfare. Also the biggest threat he ever faced was at a DV call out, turns out a husband had been stabbed, then out of nowhere as he's stemming the blood flow, the wife charges him with a 30cm kitchen knife and attempts to stab him in the throat...lucky for him she was drunk and he was fast. Pretty obvious question.  Did the cops allow this drunk woman to drive away?

I only know that the cops told both drunk women to stay at the property, however who knows what she did once they left the scene.

So.......they told the women, alleged victims of violence, to stay exactly where the alleged offender was, and they (Cops) left the scene.

Makes no sense to me.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 6:26pm:

fezz wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 6:23pm: It's complicated alright...and unbalanced. Last weekend my son got arrested and put on, as Christian Porter, Minister for Social Services puts  it, a 72 hour "cooling off" DVO issued by coppers...the kind that shoot first and ask questions later. Backstory, son and his wife having marital issues and have a nine month old son. Wife invited man hating friend over for a drink, which ends up being three bottles of wine (my son is a teetotaler of all drugs so is sober for the event). Wife decides with coercion by friend it's the day to leave the relationship. Wife packs bag, grabs baby and attempts to leave house and get in drunk friends car, who incidentally has a three year old daughter with her. The plan is to drive 50km of city freeway and suburbs. Son tries to take baby and keep him safe, gets beaten with frying pan, punched and kicked by both women, and a generous loss of skin due to sharp nails. He loses that battle...next battle is to get baby out of drunk friends arms as she attempts to put him in back seat of car (her own 3yr old is strapped in ready for the drive). She starts screaming that she is being assaulted, neighbors call cops. Cops take wife and friends's side of story that my son was trying to kidnap the baby and in doing so assaulted the two women. Son gets arrested and the rest is history. How can a man looking out for the welfare of his son, who his drunk wife has co care whatsoever get the raw end of the deal. So now if this ends up in a family court case, knifey wifey has a trumped up trump DVO card. And on this debate of % of men vs women perpetrators...my father was an ambulance officer for 30 yrs with countless calls out to DV events. He says that it's pretty much an even split as to the perps, with alcohol a correlation in 80% of cases. Not just drunk at the time either, the following day's hangover was prime-time for DV events to occur. This only accounts for violent DV, not the DV of psychological warfare. Also the biggest threat he ever faced was at a DV call out, turns out a husband had been stabbed, then out of nowhere as he's stemming the blood flow, the wife charges him with a 30cm kitchen knife and attempts to stab him in the throat...lucky for him she was drunk and he was fast. Thats what I have heard from a social worker too Quote: ..............He says that it's pretty much an even split as to the perps, with alcohol a correlation in 80% of cases. Not just drunk at the time either, the following day's hangover was prime-time for DV events to occur. .......

And that I can vouch first hand...my ex wife was at her worst of DV psychological warfare with a hangover, which was too many days a week.
I'm one of those blokes who spent the second half of a sustantial marriage dealing with an abusive woman, the only thing that kept us together so long was my FIFO career.
Now that we've separated, she has become a truly vengeful woman to the point of stalking me via any means possible, esp social media...that includes trying to bring my wider circle of friends into her fold.
The worst part of all of course is the poisoning of our younger children against me...but what can I do? Sweet FA apart from keeping logs for evidence.

Aussie wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 7:33pm:

So.......they told the women, alleged victims of violence, to stay exactly where the alleged offender was, and they (Cops) left the scene. Makes no sense to me.

No, my son was arrested and taken down town. Then told he could not go back to the house for 72 hours or he would be in breach of the DVO.

fezz wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 7:46pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 7:33pm: So.......they told the women, alleged victims of violence, to stay exactly where the alleged offender was, and they (Cops) left the scene. Makes no sense to me. No, my son was arrested and taken down town. Then told he could not go back to the house for 72 hours or he would be in breach of the DVO.

Ah.  Okay.  That adds up.  Cheers.

Aussie wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 7:48pm:

fezz wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 7:46pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 7:33pm: So.......they told the women, alleged victims of violence, to stay exactly where the alleged offender was, and they (Cops) left the scene. Makes no sense to me. No, my son was arrested and taken down town. Then told he could not go back to the house for 72 hours or he would be in breach of the DVO. Ah.  Okay.  That adds up.  Cheers.

All good...I know, this sh!t is complicated.

fezz wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 7:44pm:

And that I can vouch first hand...my ex wife was at her worst of DV psychological warfare with a hangover, which was too many days a week. I'm one of those blokes who spent the second half of a sustantial marriage dealing with an abusive woman, the only thing that kept us together so long was my FIFO career. Now that we've separated, she has become a truly vengeful woman to the point of stalking me via any means possible, esp social media...that includes trying to bring my wider circle of friends into her fold. The worst part of all of course is the poisoning of our younger children against me...but what can I do? Sweet FA apart from keeping logs for evidence.

Let me guess - there's little you can do about it and not many people believe you right?

But if it was a man doing this then he's assume to be guilty and she'll get a horde of support behind her?!

fezz wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 7:44pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 6:26pm: fezz wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 6:23pm: It's complicated alright...and unbalanced. Last weekend my son got arrested and put on, as Christian Porter, Minister for Social Services puts  it, a 72 hour "cooling off" DVO issued by coppers...the kind that shoot first and ask questions later. Backstory, son and his wife having marital issues and have a nine month old son. Wife invited man hating friend over for a drink, which ends up being three bottles of wine (my son is a teetotaler of all drugs so is sober for the event). Wife decides with coercion by friend it's the day to leave the relationship. Wife packs bag, grabs baby and attempts to leave house and get in drunk friends car, who incidentally has a three year old daughter with her. The plan is to drive 50km of city freeway and suburbs. Son tries to take baby and keep him safe, gets beaten with frying pan, punched and kicked by both women, and a generous loss of skin due to sharp nails. He loses that battle...next battle is to get baby out of drunk friends arms as she attempts to put him in back seat of car (her own 3yr old is strapped in ready for the drive). She starts screaming that she is being assaulted, neighbors call cops. Cops take wife and friends's side of story that my son was trying to kidnap the baby and in doing so assaulted the two women. Son gets arrested and the rest is history. How can a man looking out for the welfare of his son, who his drunk wife has co care whatsoever get the raw end of the deal. So now if this ends up in a family court case, knifey wifey has a trumped up trump DVO card. And on this debate of % of men vs women perpetrators...my father was an ambulance officer for 30 yrs with countless calls out to DV events. He says that it's pretty much an even split as to the perps, with alcohol a correlation in 80% of cases. Not just drunk at the time either, the following day's hangover was prime-time for DV events to occur. This only accounts for violent DV, not the DV of psychological warfare. Also the biggest threat he ever faced was at a DV call out, turns out a husband had been stabbed, then out of nowhere as he's stemming the blood flow, the wife charges him with a 30cm kitchen knife and attempts to stab him in the throat...lucky for him she was drunk and he was fast. Thats what I have heard from a social worker too Quote: ..............He says that it's pretty much an even split as to the perps, with alcohol a correlation in 80% of cases. Not just drunk at the time either, the following day's hangover was prime-time for DV events to occur. ....... And that I can vouch first hand...my ex wife was at her worst of DV psychological warfare with a hangover, which was too many days a week. I'm one of those blokes who spent the second half of a sustantial marriage dealing with an abusive woman, the only thing that kept us together so long was my FIFO career. Now that we've separated, she has become a truly vengeful woman to the point of stalking me via any means possible, esp social media...that includes trying to bring my wider circle of friends into her fold. The worst part of all of course is the poisoning of our younger children against me...but what can I do? Sweet FA apart from keeping logs for evidence.

keeping a log is important.
courts run on paperwork
If you arrive with no paperwork and the opposition has paperwork, you will cannot win

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 8:11pm:

fezz wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 7:44pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 6:26pm: fezz wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 6:23pm: It's complicated alright...and unbalanced. Last weekend my son got arrested and put on, as Christian Porter, Minister for Social Services puts  it, a 72 hour "cooling off" DVO issued by coppers...the kind that shoot first and ask questions later. Backstory, son and his wife having marital issues and have a nine month old son. Wife invited man hating friend over for a drink, which ends up being three bottles of wine (my son is a teetotaler of all drugs so is sober for the event). Wife decides with coercion by friend it's the day to leave the relationship. Wife packs bag, grabs baby and attempts to leave house and get in drunk friends car, who incidentally has a three year old daughter with her. The plan is to drive 50km of city freeway and suburbs. Son tries to take baby and keep him safe, gets beaten with frying pan, punched and kicked by both women, and a generous loss of skin due to sharp nails. He loses that battle...next battle is to get baby out of drunk friends arms as she attempts to put him in back seat of car (her own 3yr old is strapped in ready for the drive). She starts screaming that she is being assaulted, neighbors call cops. Cops take wife and friends's side of story that my son was trying to kidnap the baby and in doing so assaulted the two women. Son gets arrested and the rest is history. How can a man looking out for the welfare of his son, who his drunk wife has co care whatsoever get the raw end of the deal. So now if this ends up in a family court case, knifey wifey has a trumped up trump DVO card. And on this debate of % of men vs women perpetrators...my father was an ambulance officer for 30 yrs with countless calls out to DV events. He says that it's pretty much an even split as to the perps, with alcohol a correlation in 80% of cases. Not just drunk at the time either, the following day's hangover was prime-time for DV events to occur. This only accounts for violent DV, not the DV of psychological warfare. Also the biggest threat he ever faced was at a DV call out, turns out a husband had been stabbed, then out of nowhere as he's stemming the blood flow, the wife charges him with a 30cm kitchen knife and attempts to stab him in the throat...lucky for him she was drunk and he was fast. Thats what I have heard from a social worker too Quote: ..............He says that it's pretty much an even split as to the perps, with alcohol a correlation in 80% of cases. Not just drunk at the time either, the following day's hangover was prime-time for DV events to occur. ....... And that I can vouch first hand...my ex wife was at her worst of DV psychological warfare with a hangover, which was too many days a week. I'm one of those blokes who spent the second half of a sustantial marriage dealing with an abusive woman, the only thing that kept us together so long was my FIFO career. Now that we've separated, she has become a truly vengeful woman to the point of stalking me via any means possible, esp social media...that includes trying to bring my wider circle of friends into her fold. The worst part of all of course is the poisoning of our younger children against me...but what can I do? Sweet FA apart from keeping logs for evidence. keeping a log is important. courts run on paperwork If you arrive with no paperwork and the opposition has paperwork, you will cannot win

Got that well covered.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 7:59pm:

fezz wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 7:44pm: And that I can vouch first hand...my ex wife was at her worst of DV psychological warfare with a hangover, which was too many days a week. I'm one of those blokes who spent the second half of a sustantial marriage dealing with an abusive woman, the only thing that kept us together so long was my FIFO career. Now that we've separated, she has become a truly vengeful woman to the point of stalking me via any means possible, esp social media...that includes trying to bring my wider circle of friends into her fold. The worst part of all of course is the poisoning of our younger children against me...but what can I do? Sweet FA apart from keeping logs for evidence. Let me guess - there's little you can do about it and not many people believe you right? But if it was a man doing this then he's assume to be guilty and she'll get a horde of support behind her?!

Not much I can do apart from keep my dignity and not stoop to her level. Then there are the lies that have been spread about me but that's water off a duck's back, the people that count know the score.

I'm sure if I was the one sending messages blatantly stating that I would never leave her in peace, ensure that if she found a new partner I would ensure the relationship failed...I think I'd have a DVO slapped on me quick smart.
But it's a little different for women it seems, the above are some of the less aggressive messages I've received and, after having a chat to the relevant authorities I was told to get more evidence...even though I've got a trail of text messages that prove the point.

Double standards rule supreme.

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 6:00am:

Because DV (and child abuse by the way) was not reported 40 years ago, some think that an increase in reporting is just that... Curious logic. The increase in reporting is of itself misleading, it was the original acceptance that we have a social problem that lead to reporting being available. Now, since there was no reporting previously, then we can't actually say empirically the problem has gotten better or worse - there is no comparative data. Therefore, the only thing we can truly say is that we (society) have a significant problem with violent behaviour in general and, disturbingly, we have a number of the population who seemingly think that it's ok to inflict said violence against woman and children. I don't think we are any where near resolving said problems either. As challenging as it might be for many, I honestly think we need to take gender out of the solution focus. I am not trying to dismiss the seriousness of male on female (and or child) physical abuse here, but, there are increasing statistics that demonstrate quite clearly that there are no exclusions as to who can be a victim at any given time. Further, the behaviours defined as abusive are, quite clearly, able to be demonstrated by men, women and (some) children... A sub culture is slowly building underneath our current practices for addressing issues of violence - the us v them culture (whether it be man vs woman, old vs young, adult vs child etc). It seems we are, in effect, picking exactly the wrong fight with exactly the wrong people. Further, since we are experiencing entrenched behaviour in many instances there is not going to be an instant fix that is all touchy feely good... That's just not going to happen. It seems to me that we (society) need to decide exactly how and when we are prepared to use, accept and rely on violent behaviour, or, conversely if we are not. I for one have often advocated including Martial Arts into the school curriculum. Not because it will make people more violent, it will improve their chances of coping far more when low lives decide to act violently towards them though. Sad but true, violence is a part of our nature - human nature, some have better self regulation than others, as such, all should be prepared for individuals at times to "let it all hang out" very inappropriately and be equipped to help themselves. Presently, I think anti violence, child protection etc etc etc, certainly mean well, but are inneffective, entirely because of the adversarial us vs them nature of the debate. I don't agree with men hitting woman, woman hitting woman, women hitting men, men or women hitting children, controlling behaviours, mental/emotional abuse, over reacting to a heated discussion, manipulation and the list goes on, BUT I totally accept there is a chance they are choices that ANY of us can make at any given moment if we are presented with the right amount of triggers for us to consider it ok to negatively impact on another individuals life... Yes, indeed it is complicated - that is the life and society that WE have created, accepted and continue to support.

Pretty much agree with that Phd...  gender is only an issue because equality doesn't exist between humans on this planet. .

This trailer to a new doco coming out soon might be interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK7n_XA40V8

Emma wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 8:56pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 6:00am: Because DV (and child abuse by the way) was not reported 40 years ago, some think that an increase in reporting is just that... Curious logic. The increase in reporting is of itself misleading, it was the original acceptance that we have a social problem that lead to reporting being available. Now, since there was no reporting previously, then we can't actually say empirically the problem has gotten better or worse - there is no comparative data. Therefore, the only thing we can truly say is that we (society) have a significant problem with violent behaviour in general and, disturbingly, we have a number of the population who seemingly think that it's ok to inflict said violence against woman and children. I don't think we are any where near resolving said problems either. As challenging as it might be for many, I honestly think we need to take gender out of the solution focus. I am not trying to dismiss the seriousness of male on female (and or child) physical abuse here, but, there are increasing statistics that demonstrate quite clearly that there are no exclusions as to who can be a victim at any given time. Further, the behaviours defined as abusive are, quite clearly, able to be demonstrated by men, women and (some) children... A sub culture is slowly building underneath our current practices for addressing issues of violence - the us v them culture (whether it be man vs woman, old vs young, adult vs child etc). It seems we are, in effect, picking exactly the wrong fight with exactly the wrong people. Further, since we are experiencing entrenched behaviour in many instances there is not going to be an instant fix that is all touchy feely good... That's just not going to happen. It seems to me that we (society) need to decide exactly how and when we are prepared to use, accept and rely on violent behaviour, or, conversely if we are not. I for one have often advocated including Martial Arts into the school curriculum. Not because it will make people more violent, it will improve their chances of coping far more when low lives decide to act violently towards them though. Sad but true, violence is a part of our nature - human nature, some have better self regulation than others, as such, all should be prepared for individuals at times to "let it all hang out" very inappropriately and be equipped to help themselves. Presently, I think anti violence, child protection etc etc etc, certainly mean well, but are inneffective, entirely because of the adversarial us vs them nature of the debate. I don't agree with men hitting woman, woman hitting woman, women hitting men, men or women hitting children, controlling behaviours, mental/emotional abuse, over reacting to a heated discussion, manipulation and the list goes on, BUT I totally accept there is a chance they are choices that ANY of us can make at any given moment if we are presented with the right amount of triggers for us to consider it ok to negatively impact on another individuals life... Yes, indeed it is complicated - that is the life and society that WE have created, accepted and continue to support. Pretty much agree with that Phd...  gender is only an issue because equality doesn't exist between humans on this planet. .

+1

With the sheer complexity of the human character there never will be an end to DV.

I'd like to think that it is possible to significantly reduce, if not eradicate, DV in our society.

But it won't happen overnight.. and it will only be possible if we are all willing to acknowledge and recognise, honestly, DV  as the scourge that it is... whomever the perpetrator. 

The blame game doesn't cut it.
No one should feel enabled to abuse their fellow human. People should, in their hearts , accept all living beings as equal, and know and respect what is right, and seek to travel the true path.

Sadly our society fails in all respects.

I think we are ALL in for a big shake-up.

Don't know what it'll be, but so far,  ISIS is doing a pretty effective job of gathering like-minded psychos to their bloody free-for-all. An example of the hubris of power and the desire for control.  Like some controlling men,  they MUST win, at any cost.

See,, I am likening DV perps to terrorists.  Terrorists in their own homes.  How sad is that. :( >:(
Only they are cowards, these DV perps. They usually abuse and kill those weaker than themselves. 

As to the vids by Aussie (?) earlier..? so irrelevant to DV as to be alarming. It becomes full-on misogyny.

Only someone with a very poor self image, and esteem,, would bother with being upset  by those types  like those depicted. Poor boys,, you felt your manhood was threatened.
;D
How pathetic it is.. SHAME on you .  Women are human beings ! Do you get that.?  They might get pissed off now and then.. just like you do.  They CAN and WILL let you know about it.   

If you feel so badly about yourselves that your only recourses are fleeing, or flogging,  then you've got some really serious problems, which you would feel better about, if you sought therapy for your anger rage and resentment.

Much of the content of the posts here hits upon the REAL problem - the one that I assert is the root cause of the ESCALATION of violence between men and women.....

That is:-

The current idea that 'domestic' or 'relationship' violence is ONLY about men beating women.

I've discussed this enough times by now to state clearly that the fact of using the concept of 'men perpetrator - women victim' is one of the root causes of this escalation - particularly when the facts speak otherwise.

Until a bi-lateral discussion and solution are even sought (sic)......... I can only foresee an ongoing escalation in the violence that the violence of the courts and often police claim to be seeking to resolve.  Continuing to attack men without rhyme or reason is only going to make matters worse - not least for the simple reason that attacking an innocent man to prevent the possibility of violence IS itself violence, and can have only one result - escalation.

Emma wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 9:58pm:

I'd like to think that it is possible to significantly reduce, if not eradicate, DV in our society. But it won't happen overnight.. and it will only be possible if we are all willing to acknowledge and recognise, honestly, DV  as the scourge that it is... whomever the perpetrator.  The blame game doesn't cut it. No one should feel enabled to abuse their fellow human. People should, in their hearts , accept all living beings as equal, and know and respect what is right, and seek to travel the true path. Sadly our society fails in all respects. I think we are ALL in for a big shake-up. Don't know what it'll be, but so far,  ISIS is doing a pretty effective job of gathering like-minded psychos to their bloody free-for-all. An example of the hubris of power and the desire for control.  Like some controlling men,  they MUST win, at any cost. See,, I am likening DV perps to terrorists.  Terrorists in their own homes.  How sad is that. :( >:( Only they are cowards, these DV perps. They usually abuse and kill those weaker than themselves.  As to the vids by Aussie (?) earlier..? so irrelevant to DV as to be alarming. It becomes full-on misogyny. Only someone with a very poor self image, and esteem,, would bother with being upset  by those types  like those depicted. Poor boys,, you felt your manhood was threatened. ;D How pathetic it is.. SHAME on you .  Women are human beings ! Do you get that.?  They might get pissed off now and then.. just like you do.  They CAN and WILL let you know about it.    If you feel so badly about yourselves that your only recourses are fleeing, or flogging,  then you've got some really serious problems, which you would feel better about, if you sought therapy for your anger rage and resentment.

A very fair comment..... for the rest... hmmm.. anecdotal perhaps?

fezz wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 7:46pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 7:33pm: So.......they told the women, alleged victims of violence, to stay exactly where the alleged offender was, and they (Cops) left the scene. Makes no sense to me. No, my son was arrested and taken down town. Then told he could not go back to the house for 72 hours or he would be in breach of the DVO.

Was he charged with anything?

Does anyone know if a DVO shows up in your police check?

If so - then a malicious spouse can affect your future employment

Maqqa wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 10:44pm:

Does anyone know if a DVO shows up in your police check? If so - then a malicious spouse can affect your future employment

Quite likely - but where it does show up is in the CNI system - I used to monitor police radio and there was always a comment when a vehicle called in a suspect with rego or whatever.... "Go to the back channel"....

If the registered owner of the vehicle had any notation on CNI - the vehicle and the operator would discuss it on a non-official (read unrecorded) channel.  Easy to see that a 'woman basher' would get first class treatment at a road stop..... and be left wondering why he was suddenly a criminal... the 'usual suspect' things such as 'assault police' (no proof), etc...

Many people have a lot to learn about policing and how many 'officers' carry it out.

Fortunately that kind are being weeded out... but some still remain.....

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 10:26pm:

fezz wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 7:46pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 7:33pm: So.......they told the women, alleged victims of violence, to stay exactly where the alleged offender was, and they (Cops) left the scene. Makes no sense to me. No, my son was arrested and taken down town. Then told he could not go back to the house for 72 hours or he would be in breach of the DVO. Was he charged with anything?

His wife initially charged him with assault but withdrew the charge 48 hours into the 72 hour time frame.
The wife's friend on the other hand still has him up for assault.

fezz wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 11:06pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 10:26pm: fezz wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 7:46pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 7:33pm: So.......they told the women, alleged victims of violence, to stay exactly where the alleged offender was, and they (Cops) left the scene. Makes no sense to me. No, my son was arrested and taken down town. Then told he could not go back to the house for 72 hours or he would be in breach of the DVO. Was he charged with anything? His wife initially charged him with assault but withdrew the charge 48 hours into the 72 hour time frame. The wife's friend on the other hand still has him up for assault.

Hmm - if the story stacks up he should not be found guilty... but you know how that works....

Funny how a non-victim can become the victim when it suits the powers-that-be to oppress a specified social group.

I've compared this with the NAZI idea that a Jew was a criminal for being a Jew and thus an enemy of the German People, and any German had a right to self-defend against a Jew since a Jew was automatically an enemy of the German and thus was the aggressor by being a Jew.

Ring any bells?

My great-great German grandparents were Jews.  They had the sense to leave Germany so that their descendants could be treated the same once 'civilisation' caught up with us out here in No Man's Land of Australia.... the social science testing ground for the entire world......

well Fezz.. you need to understand that your son has caused an issue, by his actions.  If he had recognised his position, as you claim it, he should have removed himself from the scene. If they were that drunk, they'd have fallen asleep sooner or later.

You blame the women, your son is an innocent victim of male-bashing by his partner and her friend, due to alcohol abuse.
Its complicated ..? Not really is it.? Pretty simple really. Walk away from drunks. Obviously your son didn't..

I don't know all the circumstances of this matter.. but .........discretion is the better part of valor. Perhaps your son was also drunk?  No?  a Teetotaller? 

What is he doing.? If you are straight,  you get involved with drug takers.. what can you expect?.

That crosses gender-lines, and becomes about commonsense.  Unless of course, that old testosterone was playing with his mind.  You just have to walk away sometimes.. at least till they've sobered up. !

A man can't walk away from his child being placed in harm's way by an irresponsible drunk. If that is 'creating a situation' and absolving the drunks from 'creating a situation' - where does reason stand in all of this?

The courts really need to wake up and start administering justice and not prejudice.

What i want to know is how every thread on domestic violence on this forum ends up as an attack on women and a vindication of men.''

Every single thread.

This one has done it too.

Meanwhile, women are dying.

Children are dying.

And at least half of the domestic violence towards men is perpetrated by other men.

oh I remember, there was a child involved.  That makes it harder. :(
fezz wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 8:39pm:

Last weekend my son got arrested and put on, as Christian Porter, Minister for Social Services puts  it, a 72 hour "cooling off" DVO issued by coppers...the kind that shoot first and ask questions later. Backstory, son and his wife having marital issues and have a nine month old son. Wife invited man hating friend over for a drink, which ends up being three bottles of wine (my son is a teetotaler of all drugs so is sober for the event). Wife decides with coercion by friend it's the day to leave the relationship. Wife packs bag, grabs baby and attempts to leave house and get in drunk friends car, who incidentally has a three year old daughter with her. The plan is to drive 50km of city freeway and suburbs. Son tries to take baby and keep him safe, gets beaten with frying pan, punched and kicked by both women, and a generous loss of skin due to sharp nails. He loses that battle...next battle is to get baby out of drunk friends arms as she attempts to put him in back seat of car (her own 3yr old is strapped in ready for the drive). She starts screaming that she is being assaulted, neighbors call cops. Cops take wife and friends's side of story that my son was trying to kidnap the baby and in doing so assaulted the two women. Son gets arrested and the rest is history. How can a man looking out for the welfare of his son, who his drunk wife has co care whatsoever get the raw end of the deal.

I would have expected the Police to breathalyse the drunken friend, who was in charge of the vehicle.
That should have been the end of it.  Why didn't they, if the women were so obviously drunk.?


I wonder Fezz, if you have been told the truth by your son.
:(

mothra wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 11:33pm:

What i want to know is how every thread on domestic violence on this forum ends up as an attack on women and a vindication of men.'' Every single thread. This one has done it too. Meanwhile, women are dying. Children are dying. And at least half of the domestic violence towards men is perpetrated by other men.

I wasn't of the belief that I was attacking women - I merely seek reason and justice.... and in some or many ways the two should be the same.  Absolving women from  responsibility and blaming men without proper cause is not justice.... or reason..

(Damn - been watching Judge John Deed again)....

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 11:36pm:

mothra wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 11:33pm: What i want to know is how every thread on domestic violence on this forum ends up as an attack on women and a vindication of men.'' Every single thread. This one has done it too. Meanwhile, women are dying. Children are dying. And at least half of the domestic violence towards men is perpetrated by other men. I wasn't of the belief that I was attacking women - I merely seek reason and justice.... and in some or many ways the two should be the same.  Absolving women from  responsibility and blaming men without proper cause is not justice.... or reason.. (Damn - been watching Judge John Deed again)....

I wasn;t talking about you specifically Grap, although you and i could dance a few rounds on this.

I'm talking about the thrust of the thread.

mothra wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 11:38pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 11:36pm: mothra wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 11:33pm: What i want to know is how every thread on domestic violence on this forum ends up as an attack on women and a vindication of men.'' Every single thread. This one has done it too. Meanwhile, women are dying. Children are dying. And at least half of the domestic violence towards men is perpetrated by other men. I wasn't of the belief that I was attacking women - I merely seek reason and justice.... and in some or many ways the two should be the same.  Absolving women from  responsibility and blaming men without proper cause is not justice.... or reason.. (Damn - been watching Judge John Deed again).... I wasn;t talking about you specifically Grap, although you and i could dance a few rounds on this. I'm talking about the thrust of the thread.

Remember the old officer's adage:-  "I always prefer to listen to what a man is saying rather than the way he is saying it".

I think that has some merit in a rather Wellingtonian sense....

I know you don't beat on me, though we do differ in our views at times.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 11:40pm:

mothra wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 11:38pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 11:36pm: mothra wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 11:33pm: What i want to know is how every thread on domestic violence on this forum ends up as an attack on women and a vindication of men.'' Every single thread. This one has done it too. Meanwhile, women are dying. Children are dying. And at least half of the domestic violence towards men is perpetrated by other men. I wasn't of the belief that I was attacking women - I merely seek reason and justice.... and in some or many ways the two should be the same.  Absolving women from  responsibility and blaming men without proper cause is not justice.... or reason.. (Damn - been watching Judge John Deed again).... I wasn;t talking about you specifically Grap, although you and i could dance a few rounds on this. I'm talking about the thrust of the thread. Remember the old officer's adage:-  "I always prefer to listen to what a man is saying rather than the way he is saying it". I think that has some merit in a rather Wellingtonian sense.... I know you don't beat on me, though we do differ in our views at times.

And what do we say about what women are saying Grap?

Same thing - you listen to a version of events - then the other version of events - then you decide on the hard evidence, and impartially.... rather than in accordance with some dogma.

Regardless - nowhere in the Rule of Law is there any provision for the instruments of law to impose sanction on a person not guilty of anything on fact.  The style of thinking that has lead to the current predisposition to convict on accusation - and any sanction of the Law is a conviction and must be properly based thereon - came upon us from the British Prevention of Terrorism Act, which permitted restrictions on personal movement and association purely on a suspicion. 

Such things properly belong in the Dark Ages - and generate the same response as they did then - revolt and insurrection and retaliation and eventual  beheading of the government.

(told you I've been watching Judge Deed again).....

yes Mothra. Because it really isn't complicated is it.?

People marry, or become partners for many reasons.. and what every relationship needs to be successful, is mutual respect.

I have learned the hard way, that without that, there is no genuine relationship.

No mutual support,  no comfort in hard times. Back to the blame game again.

Until men respect women; until women are paid with equity; until people are treated as equal, and not 'classed' in some way or the other,  the foulness of Domestic Violence will continue.

And the reality is... the power has always been in the hands of men. So the bulk of the onus rests on MEN.

That is undeniable, even by you Scooter.

Emma wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 11:50pm:

yes Mothra. Because it really isn't complicated is it.? People marry, or become partners for many reasons.. and what every relationship needs to be successful, is mutual respect. I have learned the hard way, that without that, there is no genuine relationship. No mutual support,  no comfort in hard times. Back to the blame game again. Until men respect women; until women are paid with equity; until people are treated as equal, and not 'classed' in some way or the other,  the foulness of Domestic Violence will continue. And the reality is... the power has always been in the hands of men. So the bulk of the onus rests on MEN. That is undeniable, even by you Scooter.

I agree that  many men do not respect women as many women do not respect men.

Women are nowhere paid less than the required amount for the exact same job, and nowhere is there any evidence that they are not.

Women have all legal and constitutional rights that men have - and are not therefore 'less than equal' or treated as such.

Power concentrated in any hands has always been to the benefit of those hands - whether they be man or woman - and most PEOPLE have long laboured under that yoke.  No amount of social engineering can change the functioning of power - though it may merely place it in other hands.  Abuse by women politicians is as rife as abuse by men politicians - and possibly even more so since many such have an axe to grind - or at least they think so.

That axe is called the 'Age of Entitlement'..... and far too many women assume they have an Entitlement to total control over society, home, hearth and family and all that is contained therein.

In this false assumption they have been, for far too long, supported, aided and abetted by the very government set to ensure that such things do not occur in any way, shape or form.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 11:47pm:

Same thing - you listen to a version of events - then the other version of events - then you decide on the hard evidence, and impartially.... rather than in accordance with some dogma. Regardless - nowhere in the Rule of Law is there any provision for the instruments of law to impose sanction on a person not guilty of anything on fact.  The style of thinking that has lead to the current predisposition to convict on accusation - and any sanction of the Law is a conviction and must be properly based thereon - came upon us from the British Prevention of Terrorism Act, which permitted restrictions on personal movement and association purely on a suspicion.  Such things properly belong in the Dark Ages - and generate the same response as they did then - revolt and insurrection and retaliation and eventual  beheading of the government. (told you I've been watching Judge Deed again).....

Yeah I like Judge John Deed  too.  And you know what Grappler..?  I very much doubt he would have any similar ground with you.  You and he would NOT be on all four paws. :(( see My hi-light above of your words)

You seem to be saying that no validity attaches to DV orders, or police intervention in cases of domestic violence,  because...????

all women are liars..?  all cases are suspect because a woman says something?

Judge Deed lives in the real (TV) world, unlike yourself, by your own offerings.

Women are nowhere paid less than the required amount for the exact same job, and nowhere is there any evidence that they are not.


You don't hear the News then? Perhaps you think the stats are skewed to favor the view that women are NOT paid equally with men.?  Stats say otherwise my friend. Guess you don't watch what you don't want to see eh.?

Emma wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 12:00am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 11:47pm: Same thing - you listen to a version of events - then the other version of events - then you decide on the hard evidence, and impartially.... rather than in accordance with some dogma. Regardless - nowhere in the Rule of Law is there any provision for the instruments of law to impose sanction on a person not guilty of anything on fact.  The style of thinking that has lead to the current predisposition to convict on accusation - and any sanction of the Law is a conviction and must be properly based thereon - came upon us from the British Prevention of Terrorism Act, which permitted restrictions on personal movement and association purely on a suspicion.  Such things properly belong in the Dark Ages - and generate the same response as they did then - revolt and insurrection and retaliation and eventual  beheading of the government. (told you I've been watching Judge Deed again)..... Yeah I like Judge John Deed  too.  And you know what Grappler..?  I very much doubt he would have any similar ground with you.  You and he would NOT be on all four paws. :(( see My hi-light above of your words) You seem to be saying that no validity attaches to DV orders, or police intervention in cases of domestic violence,  because...???? all women are liars..?  all cases are suspect because a woman says something? Judge Deed lives in the real (TV) world, unlike yourself, by your own offerings.

I do not SEEM to be saying there is no validity in law for 'domestic violence orders' - I am saying categorically that no court in this land has any right to impose a sanction on any person not found guilty of a genuine offence.

There is no validity for police over-reaction - and remember I've cited already that in over 300,000 callouts to NSW Police in 2011, only 5000 charges were laid, many of which would likely be 'usual suspect' charges such as 'resist arrest' (you can't resist arrest if you are not  being arrested for a genuine offence), 'assault police' with no harm to said police... etc, etc - and said police can only act in the event of a genuine offence, and not on some emotion based allegation.

The end run around the Rule of Law that is the reality of 'domestic violence orders', is nothing more than that - an end run around the Rule of Law and deliberately designed to offer to the instruments of the state some unearned right to attack an individual on an ideological basis.

Unless and until  a genuine offence supported by provable evidence  - to the proper standard of Law - has been committed - the instruments of the State have no right to impose legal sanction on an individual.

It is not merely sufficient to assert something - in Law it must be proven to the proper standard, and thus 'domestic violence orders' fail the test of Law.

Even on the 'balance of probabilities' there is still a requirement for proof that will indicate some genuine concern. It cannot simply be open-ended to suit an ideology.

That was the province of the NAZIs and the Stalinists, and of every violent and oppressive State in history...

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 11:58pm:

Emma wrote on Nov 26th, 2015 at 11:50pm: yes Mothra. Because it really isn't complicated is it.? People marry, or become partners for many reasons.. and what every relationship needs to be successful, is mutual respect. I have learned the hard way, that without that, there is no genuine relationship. No mutual support,  no comfort in hard times. Back to the blame game again. Until men respect women; until women are paid with equity; until people are treated as equal, and not 'classed' in some way or the other,  the foulness of Domestic Violence will continue. And the reality is... the power has always been in the hands of men. So the bulk of the onus rests on MEN. That is undeniable, even by you Scooter. I agree that  many men do not respect women as many women do not respect men. Women are nowhere paid less than the required amount for the exact same job, and nowhere is there any evidence that they are not. Women have all legal and constitutional rights that men have - and are not therefore 'less than equal' or treated as such. Power concentrated in any hands has always been to the benefit of those hands - whether they be man or woman - and most PEOPLE have long laboured under that yoke.  No amount of social engineering can change the functioning of power - though it may merely place it in other hands.  Abuse by women politicians is as rife as abuse by men politicians - and possibly even more so since many such have an axe to grind - or at least they think so. That axe is called the 'Age of Entitlement'..... and far too many women assume they have an Entitlement to total control over society, home, hearth and family and all that is contained therein. In this false assumption they have been, for far too long, supported, aided and abetted by the very government set to ensure that such things do not occur in any way, shape or form.

Grap, i wonder if you will read what you wrote again through the eyes of a woman.

Can you do it?

Can you apply the restrictions and inhibitions endemic to the female to what you wrote? I wonder.

Emma wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 12:05am:

Women are nowhere paid less than the required amount for the exact same job, and nowhere is there any evidence that they are not. You don't hear the News then? Perhaps you think the stats are skewed to favor the view that women are NOT paid equally with men.?  Stats say otherwise my friend. Guess you don't watch what you don't want to see eh.?

Yes they are skewed.  Under Law no woman can be paid for the exact same job at less than the mandatory rate.

If you can show otherwise - SHOW ME - and we cannot discuss negotiated remuneration.... ONLY where there is an assertion that a woman is paid less than the mandatory level for the job.

Looking at overall figures does not give a true reflection of the realities.

This is a thread about domestic violence isn't it? Not all of the ways women have screwed over men.

In the 2011 Census, the figures were that men worked 42 + hours a week generally compared to women working 34+ - how does the equate to any 'wage gap'? Oddly enough - a calculation  of those hours at the same rate of pay gives precisely the difference between men and women's EARNINGS - so nowhere are women missing out.

You are paid what you EARN for the hours you WORK in any given field - and in any given field NOBODY is paid less than the mandatory minimum.

Are you saying I should be paid $1500 a day consulting for driving a club bus, rather than the $27 an hour casual rate I do get?

OK.....................

mothra wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 12:16am:

This is a thread about domestic violence isn't it? Not all of the ways women have screwed over men.

I didn't say women had screwed over men -I'm simply trying to introduce some reason and reality into the discussion about legal rights and the causes of relationship violence.

I avoid the term 'domestic violence' since it has been perverted to mean 'man v woman ONLY' violence by any extension of any feeling by a woman regardless of facts.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 12:19am:

mothra wrote on Nov 27th, 2015 at 12:16am: This is a thread about domestic violence isn't it? Not all of the ways women have screwed over men. I didn't say women had screwed over men -I'm simply trying to introduce some reason and reality into the discussion about legal rights and the causes of relationship violence. I avoid the term 'domestic violence' since it has been perverted to mean 'man v woman ONLY' violence by any extension of any feeling by a woman regardless of facts.

While ignoring that one woman dies every week from domestic violence.

One woman every week. Beaten to death.

More than 50 women this year so far.

Nobody ignores that - but we also never hear of the men killed - EVER.  Let alone the men thrown out of their homes and subjected to violence by the courts and others, including the curtailment of their opportunity to earn a decent living.

I've long said - and will continue to do so -that the current approach of blaming men regardless of facts is at the root of the escalating violence and alienation taking place between men and women - and is the direct cause of many of these killings - the ones that take place for revenge or retaliation.

In MOST cases of killings - I refer you back to the link I posted before - most such take place in drunken or drug rages, which are in most case incidents of reciprocal violence - for which women are at least as responsible as men are.

How many times must you be told that women INITIATE more incidents of violence - but suffer greater injury therefrom.

Until we, as a society, remove from women the 'right' to assault men - there can be no diminution in violence between women and men, and no reduction in the proportionately greater physical harm women receive as a result.

Am I the only one addressing the real issues of relationship violence? I think so.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 12:27am:

Nobody ignores that - but we also never hear of the men killed - EVER.  Let alone the men thrown out of their homes and subjected to violence by the courts and others, including the curtailment of their opportunity to earn a decent living. I've long said - and will continue to do so -that the current approach of blaming men regardless of facts is at the root of the escalating violence and alienation taking place between men and women - and is the direct cause of many of these killings - the ones that take place for revenge or retaliation. In MOST cases of killings - I refer you back to the link I posted before - most such take place in drunken or drug rages, which are in most case incidents of reciprocal violence - for which women are at least as responsible as men are. How many times must you be told that women INITIATE more incidents of violence - but suffer greater injury therefrom. Until we, as a society, remove from women the 'right' to assault men - there can be no diminution in violence between women and men, and no reduction in the proportionately greater physical harm women receive as a result. Am I the only one addressing the real issues of relationship violence? I think so.

How many men are being beaten to death every week Grap?

Sadly, that has been 2 women per week so far this year. And that is AUSTRALIA.

I hate to even think about places like PNG, or Pakistan.

[]I avoid the term 'domestic violence' since it has been perverted to mean 'man v woman ONLY' violence by any extension of any feeling by a woman regardless of facts.[/quote]

OH  YOU avoid the term DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

Too hard for you to grasp the reality eh?.  You cannot conceive how that comment makes me feel. No you have no clue at all.
Keep on waving the flag of male superiority.  It will not be a good outcome. :(

I've also posted for you the simple reality that - in terms of FAMILY violence - women far outweigh men in the killings and abuse of children, especially when it comes to natural mothers and natural fathers.

Who speaks for these children while the heroic women gladiators continue to assault men as their chosen path to power and control over society?

I Do!

And that is why I will continue to oppose these heroic women gladiators at every turn.

Emma wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 12:31am:

Sadly, that has been 2 women per week so far this year. And that is AUSTRALIA. I hate to even think about places like PNG, or Pakistan. mothra wrote on Nov 27th, 2015 at 12:20am: I avoid the term 'domestic violence' since it has been perverted to mean 'man v woman ONLY' violence by any extension of any feeling by a woman regardless of facts. OH  YOU avoid the term DOMESTIC VIOLENCE? Too hard for you to grasp the reality eh?.  You cannot conceive how that comment makes me feel. No you have no clue at all. Keep on waving the flag of male superiority.  It will not be a good outcome. :(

Mothra didn't say that - I did.

The correct term is FAMILY violence, since 'domestic violence' has been perverted to the feminist cause...

Women kill their kids at a massively higher rate than men kill their kids - yet the focus is on men being violent....

HTS is that 'male superiority'?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 12:31am:

I've also posted for you the simple reality that - in terms of FAMILY violence - women far outweigh men in the killings and abuse of children, especially when it comes to natural mothers and natural fathers. Who speaks for these children while the heroic women gladiators continue to assault men as their chosen path to power and control over society? I Do! And that is why I will continue to oppose these heroic women gladiators at every turn.

I assume,  nay I hope, you are receiving pyschiatric care Grappler. You really need it. I'm serious. Your phobias and fears make you a very dangerous person for any woman to be around. I gather you are a hermit....I hope so.

mothra wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 12:30am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 27th, 2015 at 12:27am: Nobody ignores that - but we also never hear of the men killed - EVER.  Let alone the men thrown out of their homes and subjected to violence by the courts and others, including the curtailment of their opportunity to earn a decent living. I've long said - and will continue to do so -that the current approach of blaming men regardless of facts is at the root of the escalating violence and alienation taking place between men and women - and is the direct cause of many of these killings - the ones that take place for revenge or retaliation. In MOST cases of killings - I refer you back to the link I posted before - most such take place in drunken or drug rages, which are in most case incidents of reciprocal violence - for which women are at least as responsible as men are. How many times must you be told that women INITIATE more incidents of violence - but suffer greater injury therefrom. Until we, as a society, remove from women the 'right' to assault men - there can be no diminution in violence between women and men, and no reduction in the proportionately greater physical harm women receive as a result. Am I the only one addressing the real issues of relationship violence? I think so. How many men are being beaten to death every week Grap?

There was a post some time back with a reference - but I don't recall the figures and I don't keep the links etc.  It was somewhere (from memory) around 35-40% men killed in some way in 'dv' incidents. 

We're not allowed to say it - but most of those were in 'certain' groups in society.

And, when it comes to child killings and abuse, let us be sure to differentiate between Natural Parents and.... 'new lions in the pride'..... many child killings are by 'new lions' and often the natural mother - many - many more than by natural fathers.

We need to look at all the issues here - not just the approved line force fed to us, and one of those real issues is the breakdown of social structures in the pursuit of feminist hegemony in the West.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 12:31am:

I've also posted for you the simple reality that - in terms of FAMILY violence - women far outweigh men in the killings and abuse of children, especially when it comes to natural mothers and natural fathers. Who speaks for these children while the heroic women gladiators continue to assault men as their chosen path to power and control over society? I Do! And that is why I will continue to oppose these heroic women gladiators at every turn.

No. You;ve never been able to substantiate that. The best you could come up with is a couple of recent grisly cases.

Play fair Grap.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/these-new-stats-reveal-the-horrifying-scale-of-domestic-violence-in-australia-2015-9

We need more accurate and definitive information than is handed out in these emotive releases - and until 'domestic violence' fully incorporates more than 'man on woman' - the real issues will not be addressed.

The term 'domestic violence' has become so perverted into meaning 'man v woman ONLY' that the real issues are being swept under the carpet.

That is why Rose Batty initially referred to Family Violence, but was shouted down and forced into discussion of the accepted version called 'domestic violence'.  The whole thing is politicised for a reason, that reason being to beat men into submission.

Not working, is it?

]Nobody ignores that - but we also never hear of the men killed - EVER.  Let alone the men thrown out of their homes and subjected to violence by the courts and others, including the curtailment of their opportunity to earn a decent living.[/quote]


Oh right...   a man guilty of violence against his family ..even their deaths.. shouldn't be punished. He should just be able to get on earning HIS money ,

You are a seriously deluded individual.. I don't like to get personal  BUT IN YOUR CASE I"LL MAKE AN EXCEPTION. 

mothra wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 12:41am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 27th, 2015 at 12:31am: I've also posted for you the simple reality that - in terms of FAMILY violence - women far outweigh men in the killings and abuse of children, especially when it comes to natural mothers and natural fathers. Who speaks for these children while the heroic women gladiators continue to assault men as their chosen path to power and control over society? I Do! And that is why I will continue to oppose these heroic women gladiators at every turn. No. You;ve never been able to substantiate that. The best you could come up with is a couple of recent grisly cases. Play fair Grap.

The figures on child killings to date in 2015 show that women far outweigh natural fathers in the killing of their own children.  Inescapable.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-24/domestic-violence-findings-nsw-police-training/6342152

This is a fudge - where it refers to children killed by a parent - no attempt is made to show Which Parent - in seven out of eight cases it is the mother, either acting alone or in concert with the 'new lion' in her 'pride', or by a 'step-father' acting alone.

Shows some serious deficiencies in our current social milieu for the peasants.... since all the 'better classes' don;t have 'new lions' - if they did where would the money come from?

Those figures leave 46 men killed in DV incidents - again without reference to perpetrator.

You can always safely assume that where there is no reference to indicate preponderance of perpetrators - you are being sold a pup.

Emma wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 12:44am:

Oh right...   a man guilty of violence against his family ..even their deaths.. shouldn't be punished. He should just be able to get on earning HIS money , You are a seriously deluded individual.. I don't like to get personal  BUT IN YOUR CASE I"LL MAKE AN EXCEPTION.

Who said that?  But should a man NOT guilty of violence against his family be punished?  THAT is the real issue.

Now stick with the issues and don't make it personal - though you seem unaware of the realities of genuine as opposed to 'apprehended' violence......

iT DOESN"T MATTER what you choose to name it... the facts remain indisputable.

IF you have some proof that women are responsible for more FAMILY VIOLENCE than men ,  I suggest you put up or shut up Gappler.

Domestic violence is not complicated at all.

As long as the governments of this country use it as the avenue to disempower a specified section of their own society - that section most likely to oppose tyranny by that same government - and  as the avenue to create a tame society of beaten-down individuals on one side and a paid-off segment on the 'other' side, thus creating the very real justification for reducing 49% of the population to powerlessness and induced poverty - there will be no force left in this society to challenge those very same governments when they over-step their position and seek to impose a controlled society on all those they seek to control for the benefit of those holding the reins in that same government.

Nothing hard about it at all.  'domestic violence' is the spearpoint of tyranny.

Emma wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 12:55am:

iT DOESN"T MATTER what you choose to name it... the facts remain indisputable. IF you have some proof that women are responsible for more FAMILY VIOLENCE than men ,  I suggest you put up or shut up Gappler.

Already posted many times.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 12:59am:

Domestic violence is not complicated at all. As long as the governments of this country use it as the avenue to disempower a specified section of their own society - that section most likely to oppose tyranny by that same government - and  as the avenue to create a tame society of beaten-down individuals on one side and a paid-off segment on the 'other' side, thus creating the very real justification for reducing 49% of the population to powerlessness and induced poverty - there will be no force left in this society to challenge those very same governments when they over-step their position and seek to impose a controlled society on all those they seek to control for the benefit of those holding the reins in that same government. Nothing hard about it at all.  'domestic violence' is the spearpoint of tyranny.

An interesting take. So the government is deliberately disenpowering men,  and unreasonably empowering women,  to dampen public political power.? Is that a fair summary?????

Well then.. why blame women.? Government is run by Men.
You claim that Men are the natural leaders ( or somesuch garbage) ..so what is your problem?.  It MUST be good if MEN are doing it, right,.?


Oh hang on.. that doesn't really make sense does it.?

So.. you aren't actually opposed to gender equality... you are complaining about the MEN who run YOUR life.!!  Well SUCK IT UP.!! GET USED TO IT. That is what YOU WANT, after all. So you don't like the outcomes..?? 
Tough titties  ;D ;D ;D. 

Emma wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 1:11am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 27th, 2015 at 12:59am: Domestic violence is not complicated at all. As long as the governments of this country use it as the avenue to disempower a specified section of their own society - that section most likely to oppose tyranny by that same government - and  as the avenue to create a tame society of beaten-down individuals on one side and a paid-off segment on the 'other' side, thus creating the very real justification for reducing 49% of the population to powerlessness and induced poverty - there will be no force left in this society to challenge those very same governments when they over-step their position and seek to impose a controlled society on all those they seek to control for the benefit of those holding the reins in that same government. Nothing hard about it at all.  'domestic violence' is the spearpoint of tyranny. An interesting take. So the government is deliberately disenpowering men,  and unreasonably empowering women,  to dampen public political power.? Is that a fair summary????? Well then.. why blame women.? Government is run by Men. You claim that Men are the natural leaders ( or somesuch garbage) ..so what is your problem?.  It MUST be good if MEN are doing it, right,.? Oh hang on.. that doesn't really make sense does it.? So.. you aren't actually opposed to gender equality... you are complaining about the MEN who run YOUR life.!!  Well SUCK IT UP.!! GET USED TO IT. That is what YOU WANT, after all. So you don't like the outcomes..??  Tough titties  ;D ;D ;D.

Correct - and I'm not blaming women - merely pointing out the facts.,

Facts are interesting things aren't they?

So, if your personal gripe is about the govt, why are you trying to undermine what can only be a good thing............. which is..?

... acknowledging and seeking to minimise the endemic violence so common in human relationships in our country.?

Emma wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 1:27am:

Facts are interesting things aren't they? So, if your personal gripe is about the govt, why are you trying to undermine what can only be a good thing............. which is..? ... acknowledging and seeking to minimise the endemic violence so common in human relationships in our country.?

Everything I've written is about reducing real violence, whether it be from individual or the State.

You simply cannot reduce violence by pouring more and more violence into the equation, such as by installing laws (small 'l' intended) that permit the State unmitigated violence against a chosen demographic as its (alone) chosen means to control violence.

That - as I've said before - is like bombing Pearl Harbour to achieve peace in the Pacific.

When will governments and their useful idiots ever learn?

well Grappler..

When will governments and their useful idiots ever learn?

:) If history provides any clues, I'd say the answer to that is 'never'.

Emma wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 1:46am:

well Grappler.. When will governments and their useful idiots ever learn? :) If history provides any clues, I'd say the answer to that is 'never'.

Yes - how true.  And while ever governments continue to stamp on people to beat them into line and use legal chicanery to take away their humanity - there is no end in sight.

I had a girlfriend at the time that a woman was shot and killed in Parramatta - we both shook our heads, and said - "If only they'd been able to talk about it."

Oh, well.

I've dealt with intransigent people a lot in my life.... and their attitude never brings a result at all - just more of the same.  I refer to governments here and the way they thrive on pitting people against one another.

We always end up agreeing, Emma.   I'm happy with that.... I just wish there were answers that we could help put in place - but I think nobody really listens.

But to continue on topic...  violence by family against their own is nothing new.

Particularly when it comes to violence towards women and children, historically speaking.

These issues have remained mostly unmitigated by society, until recently.

The current drive against domestic violence is a direct result of the horror that has been TV News . Things that were never reported or remarked upon before, are now daily fodder for our TV News.  People who lived a peaceful happy life are now aware that they are fortunate, and many, if not most, others are not so fortunate. When you see everyday the reports of murders,  murder/suicides..etc it becomes an obligation on society as a whole, to DO SOMETHING.!

Yes - but what?    Unless the entire range of issues is aired openly and honestly, and not along the current line of only 'stamping out man v woman violence as the first priority' - something from which, in 23 years, we have never progressed beyond other than to find new 'definitions' of 'violence by men against women', accompanied by a campaign of violence against men - how is there to ever be any positive movement forward?

Heaping more and more violence on men is only going to create more and more violence.... because it IS violence writ large and will engender retaliation and insurrection ..... pretty simple really.

Many men who are not essentially violent have become violent by being treated violently... what possible sense is there in continuing the same insanity?

Turn that all around Grappler.  Switch the genders... THEN you get close to what women have lived with through the millenia.

NOW.. you believe MEN are copping the same .. well like I said  SUCK IT UP.  We have had lots of it. Your turn. :) to experience something unpleasant and unwanted.
What goes around comes around,  and Men are now just starting to be held to paying their dues. 

Hard isn't it.?  Unfair ?  No.

We either learn from the past or not. Doesn't mean things are locked in stone. Change is part and parcel of life. Be ready and accept with good grace the changing of the tides.

As long as some stick to the idea that women are always the victim - and men have never been - there is no resolution in sight - especially when some think that somehow there is justice in attacking an  innocent in order to justify some alleged wrong by someone else far away in the distant past.

The truth is that under a philosophy that people who have done no wrong should suffer to rectify purported ills of the past, and that a general approach of unconstrained assault on a specified social group for some alleged past ills is fair, reasonable and likely to produce zero violence - everyone is going to get their turn in the barrel - and NOBODY will 'win' anything, but all will cop their share of casualties.

Anyone who, at this stage, cannot see that the focus of power in place on attacking men as a solution to violence will only generate more violence and is indeed violence, will one day soon reap the whirlwind they have sown as a breeze... and many will suffer for no valid result.

Stop The Violence!

Why do you imagine that people such as my good self do not understand and have not experienced nasty things?

Those who know me well get a glimpse of a simple truth - only those who have suffered a great deal truly know what it takes to know the truth, and the truth that there is room for decency and humanity towards all..

People who think there is some justice in abusing the innocent to allay the injuries of the past or present towards people they never met.. are totally out of touch.

Ask the Blue Tongued Lizards in my yard.. or the swallows who nest every year in the toilet.... none ever suffers injury or insult.

But then - none attack me, do they?

Last word - gotta go to bed:-

To Stop the Violence - you must first understand it.

+blip+

mothra wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 12:23am:

More than 50 women this year so far.

it should be...

but once again some people on this forum want to take the focus off with red herrings like talking about the 1%ers...

the problem is with men and men only on this day...

what kind of gutless wonder beats a woman anyways.. what a piece of puke...  >:(

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 5:47am:

mothra wrote on Nov 27th, 2015 at 12:23am: More than 50 women this year so far. it should be... but once again some people on this forum want to take the focus off with red herrings like talking about the 1%ers... the problem is with men and men only on this day... what kind of gutless wonder beats a woman anyways.. what a piece of puke...  >:(

indeed mechanic,  you have my respect for stating that in strong terms.

but it would still take the average male a lot of self control to have a civil conversation with Mothra or Emma.

they are the flip side of the equation.

they have no interest whatsoever in understanding the issue and just want to use it as an occassion to hate on men.

this is an interesting phenomenom for a pair of self declared lefties.

their type (Durrrrrrr mode , brain dead, numpties) never cease to tell people how low it is to hate on all muslims, how low it is to hate on assylum seekers, yet they do the exact same thing to 3 billion of the earths inhabitants.(men)

the leftard feminist has been ( to my mind) the cause of this problem. they have taken little boys and put them in feminist run schools, humiliated them with female teachers, feminists like gillard had to have boys in school a year early , when half of them arent even properly toilet trained, so they can run to a strange woman when they wet themselves for more humiliation. the feminist education system , the feminist dominated ideology of the family court, the total lack of men being trained to be real men.....
these problems are a problem made by the men haters and Peel and Mothra are the stereotype models.
thank god my daughters were raised by an intelligent woman and a confident man, not by a mean spirited man hater and a whimp (which would be the leftard definition of a good marriage).
what a tragedy for the young men of australia these types are  :'( :'(

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 5:47am:

mothra wrote on Nov 27th, 2015 at 12:23am: More than 50 women this year so far. it should be... but once again some people on this forum want to take the focus off with red herrings like talking about the 1%ers... the problem is with men and men only on this day... what kind of gutless wonder beats a woman anyways.. what a piece of puke...  >:(

they need to change the name from DOMESTIC VIOLENCE to FAMILY VIOLENCE..... domestic always reeks of female...and it upset some.. who feel there are a lot of men who cannot defend themselves against women...because at the end of the day... the female tends to kill rather than just beat up..

either way violence is violence...it doesnt have boundaries...and usually in the middle are children...

where has all this violence come from??...why are those killing babies getting younger???...at least it seems to me they are...they are not from struggle street..they seem to want for nothing.. yet they are angry and unhappy.. why????....something rotten is going on in our society..and the longer its ignored the worse it will get.

White Ribbon Day with its speeches and rallies ...

How is any of this supposed to reduce the number of DV incidents?

And why is there no mention of Islam containing a clause in its sacred scripts which allows for a husband to beat his wife as long as the stick or rod is no thicker than a finger?

Rallies, speeches, and a lot of moral pontificating and posturing but not a mention of Islam sanctifying the beating of wives.

The feminists are having a field day with pointing the finger at White, Christian, Straight males while studiously ignoring Islam permitting a husband to indulge in domestic violence.

Once again we find the morality of the Leftwing a matter of cherry-picking who are the guilty parties to be pilloried and crucified for wrongdoing, and who are to be exempted from public censure for reasons of political correctness and 'cultural sensitivity' considerations.

The pick-and-choose hypocrisy of Leftwing morality is breathtaking.

More men need to report the abuses they are suffering. More men need to apply for AVO/DVOs and more men need to work at being part of the system that is in place.

A big part of this issue of the "system being against men" (which it isn't) is that men often try to "fix it" by their own thought out methodology - and then get all bent outta shape when the very system put in place for them to use bites them.

A DVO works both ways.

A formal complaint to the Police works both ways.

That, in fact, is the least complex aspect to this issue.

Lord Herbert wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 6:26am:

White Ribbon Day with its speeches and rallies ... How is any of this supposed to reduce the number of DV incidents? And why is there no mention of Islam containing a clause in its sacred scripts which allows for a husband to beat his wife as long as the stick or rod is no thicker than a finger? Rallies, speeches, and a lot of moral pontificating and posturing but not a mention of Islam sanctifying the beating of wives. The feminists are having a field day with pointing the finger at White, Christian, Straight males while studiously ignoring Islam permitting a husband to indulge in domestic violence. Once again we find the morality of the Leftwing a matter of cherry-picking who are the guilty parties to be pilloried and crucified for wrongdoing, and who are to be exempted from public censure for reasons of political correctness and 'cultural sensitivity' considerations. The pick-and-choose hypocrisy of Leftwing morality is breathtaking.

White Ribbon Day doesn't mention the religion of the perpetrators of violence.

Nor do feminists.

There is no mention of Christianity, Scientology, Buddhism, or Islam.

Moreover, there is no mention of sexuality or skin colour.

The only person cherry-picking, is you.

DVOs are usually the last order.... its the lead up to that and other horrors that is the major problem...

if people got out of each others lives and live and let live there would be no need for DVOs..

women especially think they have some magic power that they can change someone..make them reasonable  ::) ::).. they start off by blaming themselves...I  didnt mow the lawn to his liking... ::).. keep trying love you will get it right ... maybe..women hate to 'fail' or appear to fail... men seem to think they OWN things and people...and can dictate to their partners...that is very much a male thing...

any form of violence should have mandatory counselling..

you do the full course or its jail...and if you dont do well... then you do it again...not hard not really...

you dont get to drive on the road unless you pass a TEST....why should living with and respecting someone be any different.,.that goes for both side...it takes two to tango..

Does anyone know if AVO/DVO turns up in a Police check?

If so then a maliciously lodged AVO/DVO can impact future employment

Maqqa wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 8:44am:

Does anyone know if AVO/DVO turns up in a Police check? If so then a maliciously lodged AVO/DVO can impact future employment

"What is included on my National Police History Check Certificate?

"A National Police History Check Certificate lists your disclosable court outcomes and pending charges (subject to relevant spent convictions/non-disclosure legislation and/or information release policies).

"Disclosable Court Outcomes means the record of court convictions and findings of guilt, to which provisions of relevant spent convictions/non disclosure legislation and/or information release policies have been applied.

"The type and amount of information that is released will depend upon the category and purpose of the check, as well as the jurisdiction where convictions are recorded (and vetted). Spent convictions legislation or information release policies will be applied to this process by vetting police agencies."

Emma wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 2:23am:

Turn that all around Grappler.  Switch the genders... THEN you get close to what women have lived with through the millenia. NOW.. you believe MEN are copping the same .. well like I said  SUCK IT UP.  We have had lots of it. Your turn. :) to experience something unpleasant and unwanted. What goes around comes around,  and Men are now just starting to be held to paying their dues.  Hard isn't it.?  Unfair ?  No. We either learn from the past or not. Doesn't mean things are locked in stone. Change is part and parcel of life. Be ready and accept with good grace the changing of the tides.

Congratulations Emma, you have become the lowest common denominator of this thread.



Emma wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 11:24pm:

well Fezz.. you need to understand that your son has caused an issue, by his actions.  If he had recognised his position, as you claim it, he should have removed himself from the scene. If they were that drunk, they'd have fallen asleep sooner or later. You blame the women, your son is an innocent victim of male-bashing by his partner and her friend, due to alcohol abuse. Its complicated ..? Not really is it.? Pretty simple really. Walk away from drunks. Obviously your son didn't.. I don't know all the circumstances of this matter.. but .........discretion is the better part of valor. Perhaps your son was also drunk?  No?  a Teetotaller?  What is he doing.? If you are straight,  you get involved with drug takers.. what can you expect?. That crosses gender-lines, and becomes about commonsense.  Unless of course, that old testosterone was playing with his mind.  You just have to walk away sometimes.. at least till they've sobered up. !

There is so much apologist slanging in this post from page 9 I'm not even going to give credence to any of it...you know I have actually had a lot of respect on this forum in the past of you Emma, however you have showed you're true colors...and they are turning decidedly black today...quite apt for Black Friday.

Someone (up there ^^^^) was critical that I had posted some YouTube videos of very well behaved women  Here is another one, and there are zillions of similar ones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Mm2ugrQ9M

The point is.....everyone needs to understand that women are no longer the wilting violets of days gone by.  Some of them have become very verbally and physically aggressive bitches, and it is no wonder, if they behave (anywhere, including in the Home) as is shown in these clips, they get a physical response.  Men have to own it, and so do the women who provoke it with their potty screaming mouths and conduct.

cods wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 7:16am:

DVOs are usually the last order.... its the lead up to that and other horrors that is the major problem... if people got out of each others lives and live and let live there would be no need for DVOs.. women especially think they have some magic power that they can change someone..make them reasonable  ::) ::).. they start off by blaming themselves...I  didnt mow the lawn to his liking... ::).. keep trying love you will get it right ... maybe..women hate to 'fail' or appear to fail... men seem to think they OWN things and people...and can dictate to their partners...that is very much a male thing... any form of violence should have mandatory counselling.. you do the full course or its jail...and if you dont do well... then you do it again...not hard not really... you dont get to drive on the road unless you pass a TEST....why should living with and respecting someone be any different.,.that goes for both side...it takes two to tango..

Cods, with 1/2 of all marriages ending in divorce and with most divorces being, unfortunately, acrymonious, a DVO wold not be the "last" order, they would be the very first thing that any woman wanting to obtain an advantage would apply for.

Second to this would be a report to childrens services that the child has come back from an access visit and reported that daddy has "touched me"

To think otherwise , here on planet earth which i call "reality" is......


Naive  ;)

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 6:30am:

More men need to report the abuses they are suffering. More men need to apply for AVO/DVOs and more men need to work at being part of the system that is in place.

No, they don't.  Acting like women will not help anyone or anything. 

Women complain, men adapt.  If everyone just complained, we'd be on a fast track back to the stone age. 

Why the big deal about some bloke who did not stand for Batty?  Is she royalty, or something?  Who cares?  Does she give a flying phark?

Link.

http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/upload/img/bosch-christ-mocked-crowning-thorns-NG4744-fm.jpg

The poor, like the mocked and despised, have always been with us. 

Who they are changes in each turn. The mockers and despisers are always the same.


There are perhaps 32 alive at any time who are not mockers and despisers.

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 6:30am:

More men need to report the abuses they are suffering. More men need to apply for AVO/DVOs and more men need to work at being part of the system that is in place. A big part of this issue of the "system being against men" (which it isn't) is that men often try to "fix it" by their own thought out methodology - and then get all bent outta shape when the very system put in place for them to use bites them. A DVO works both ways. A formal complaint to the Police works both ways. That, in fact, is the least complex aspect to this issue.

You are right  Phd.   Men have as much right to the protection of the Law as women.
That seems to have escaped the notice of those who whinge on about how bad men have gotten it lately.
Spare us, please. ::)

  They are obviously either ignorant of the Law,  or incompetent to use these measures themselves, for whatever reason..

Sadly,  DVO's and AVO's haven't been accorded much respect by Police, until recently. 
NOW, they have to step up and do the right thing, according to Law.

It isn't a conspiracy by those other fellas,( you know the Courts, and the judiciary) , to disenfranchise Men. 
This whole campaign focuses on societal views.
It is an attempt to change the perspective of the ignorant by providing facts. Facts that should horrify any reasonable person.

Again sadly, comments by some posters on here show just how difficult that task will be.

EVENTUALLY... you old whingers will die out. Maybe then ???

thx pecker

no wuckers
;)

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 5:47am:

mothra wrote on Nov 27th, 2015 at 12:23am: More than 50 women this year so far. it should be... but once again some people on this forum want to take the focus off with red herrings like talking about the 1%ers... the problem is with men and men only on this day... what kind of gutless wonder beats a woman anyways.. what a piece of puke...  >:(

I beg to differ - the problem is with SOME men - and most of those afflicted by the current handling of 'domestic violence' have NOT beaten women.  'domestic violence' has become perverted into a 'man on woman ONLY' concept, when the facts speak otherwise.

I argue that the very handling of 'domestic violence' under this regime is one of the primary causes of the escalating war between men and women - and that is why I advocate a reversion to Family Violence with a full discussion and understanding of all the issues involved in it, and not just the same old failed idea that by beating up on men, the whole problem of violence will be resolved.

I've attempted to discuss the real issues time and again here - and none of you seem to even want to view the facts, but prefer to stick to the same old worn-out assumption that only men beat women etc - and that women never attack men and then suffer more for doing so - and that women really don't kill more of their own children than natural fathers do.

**commits DV on page to turn it**

When 25% of people in prison are there for breaches of DV orders - you cannot seriously contend that the police don't take these illegal orders seriously.

I'm afraid some of you are totally immersed in the propaganda and have no concept of the realities.  If there is a war against women - it is a war declared by women backed by legislators, courts and police - and that level of violence against any social group will have consequences.

Is it so hard to understand that if you go around causing terrible trouble for people with all sorts of unfounded accusations, and create hell for them just to get your own way - you have created the cause for your own fear - not the person you afflicted.

If I accused a neighbour of being violent when he did no such thing, and had him sanctions, locked up, perhaps beaten as a result... would I not have cause to be wary of him thereafter?  Same for a woman who does these things.

Often people create their own reason to fear - the fear has nothing to do with the person they claim to fear... and while ever the standard of 'proof' is that someone 'feels' fear - there is no end in sight to this war against men.

Rather than 'dying out' - we old whingers will be replaced by a new generation of abused men, growing in numbers due to the current misconceived approach to Family Violence - and the war will continue to escalate - even though we 'old whingers' have sought to defuse it and bring it down to a level of sanity instead of the feminist insanity that currently holds sway.

Continuing to heap violence on violence will not end violence - it will only make it worse until there is one massive explosion.

Emma wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 11:20pm:

no wuckers ;)

emma does seem like a relative of pecker.
the syntax reveals that emma probably has a degree of amyloid deposition in the cortex or cerebral atrophy from ethanol abuse.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 28^th, 2015 at 7:13am:

Emma wrote on Nov 27th, 2015 at 11:20pm: no wuckers ;) emma does seem like a relative of pecker. the syntax reveals that emma probably has a degree of amyloid deposition in the cortex or cerebral atrophy from ethanol abuse.

Wipe your chin...

aquascoot wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 10:32am:

cods wrote on Nov 27th, 2015 at 7:16am: DVOs are usually the last order.... its the lead up to that and other horrors that is the major problem... if people got out of each others lives and live and let live there would be no need for DVOs.. women especially think they have some magic power that they can change someone..make them reasonable  ::) ::).. they start off by blaming themselves...I  didnt mow the lawn to his liking... ::).. keep trying love you will get it right ... maybe..women hate to 'fail' or appear to fail... men seem to think they OWN things and people...and can dictate to their partners...that is very much a male thing... any form of violence should have mandatory counselling.. you do the full course or its jail...and if you dont do well... then you do it again...not hard not really... you dont get to drive on the road unless you pass a TEST....why should living with and respecting someone be any different.,.that goes for both side...it takes two to tango.. Cods, with 1/2 of all marriages ending in divorce and with most divorces being, unfortunately, acrymonious, a DVO wold not be the "last" order, they would be the very first thing that any woman wanting to obtain an advantage would apply for. Second to this would be a report to childrens services that the child has come back from an access visit and reported that daddy has "touched me" To think otherwise , here on planet earth which i call "reality" is...... Naive  ;)

yes we have  a lot of divorce!mainly because its so easy...divorce I mean just cough up money..

why bring up divorce.. DV doesnt mean you have to be MARRIED....to experience it... ::) ::)

what planet are you on?...


you do not just walk into a police station and ask for and get a DV.order..... after putting up with quite a lot from a lout....my granddaughter was attacked in her car with her son of 12months...whilst said lout smashed her windscreen with a baseball bat....up until then his behavour drinking not coming home.not giving her money. for every day items..the usual stuff.... was not considered DV...

the word VIOLENCE means just that...

and yes said victim must make a charge for it to stick... which in many cases can make thing worse..

the louts can get away with so much...and they know it.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 6:06am:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 27th, 2015 at 5:47am: mothra wrote on Nov 27th, 2015 at 12:23am: More than 50 women this year so far. it should be... but once again some people on this forum want to take the focus off with red herrings like talking about the 1%ers... the problem is with men and men only on this day... what kind of gutless wonder beats a woman anyways.. what a piece of puke...  >:( indeed mechanic,  you have my respect for stating that in strong terms. but it would still take the average male a lot of self control to have a civil conversation with Mothra or Emma. they are the flip side of the equation. they have no interest whatsoever in understanding the issue and just want to use it as an occassion to hate on men. this is an interesting phenomenom for a pair of self declared lefties. their type (Durrrrrrr mode , brain dead, numpties) never cease to tell people how low it is to hate on all muslims, how low it is to hate on assylum seekers, yet they do the exact same thing to 3 billion of the earths inhabitants.(men) the leftard feminist has been ( to my mind) the cause of this problem. they have taken little boys and put them in feminist run schools, humiliated them with female teachers, feminists like gillard had to have boys in school a year early , when half of them arent even properly toilet trained, so they can run to a strange woman when they wet themselves for more humiliation. the feminist education system , the feminist dominated ideology of the family court, the total lack of men being trained to be real men..... these problems are a problem made by the men haters and Peel and Mothra are the stereotype models. thank god my daughters were raised by an intelligent woman and a confident man, not by a mean spirited man hater and a whimp (which would be the leftard definition of a good marriage). what a tragedy for the young men of australia these types are  :'( :'(

yes... there is a large growing resentment that all males being lumped into the one basket of Domestic Violence...

you are right that in some corners of society that the feminNazi's  are hijacking the debate for their own men hating agenda's...

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 28^th, 2015 at 1:10am:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 27th, 2015 at 5:47am: mothra wrote on Nov 27th, 2015 at 12:23am: More than 50 women this year so far. it should be... but once again some people on this forum want to take the focus off with red herrings like talking about the 1%ers... the problem is with men and men only on this day... what kind of gutless wonder beats a woman anyways.. what a piece of puke...  >:( I beg to differ - the problem is with SOME men - and most of those afflicted by the current handling of 'domestic violence' have NOT beaten women.  'domestic violence' has become perverted into a 'man on woman ONLY' concept, when the facts speak otherwise. I argue that the very handling of 'domestic violence' under this regime is one of the primary causes of the escalating war between men and women - and that is why I advocate a reversion to Family Violence with a full discussion and understanding of all the issues involved in it, and not just the same old failed idea that by beating up on men, the whole problem of violence will be resolved. I've attempted to discuss the real issues time and again here - and none of you seem to even want to view the facts, but prefer to stick to the same old worn-out assumption that only men beat women etc - and that women never attack men and then suffer more for doing so - and that women really don't kill more of their own children than natural fathers do.

How can yo possibly think that anyone reading your tripe, could ever be swayed to your view.?  You are being ridiculous.

It has been clearly acknowledged here, by me, and others, that women can and do perpetrate domestic violence.  Why  do you not see that.? 

NOBODY BUT YOU, says any different.
Even Scooter understands that women CAN beat on men, given the conditions at the time, but women are MUCH LESS LIKELY to resort to violence .

You seem to say that the Law is the biggest abuser of men,  and women are their confederates. ..


What can I take from that ?

Pretty much ONLY

  that YOU have been sanctioned  (  :) )  for behaviour unbecoming to a gentleman.  Else why the angst.?..

You'd run down any one who  'doesn't seem to understand your point'  ..you fail to see that the lack of support for your diatribes result from a genuine concern and abhorrence at  your verbiage.

Your views are seriously skewed.

You blame and blame and blame everyone but yourself.!!  ..Get help my friend... 

So....who's to blame?

Link.

Aussie wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 1:27pm:

So....who's to blame? Link.

That judge should be sanctioned. Heavily.

Quote:

Mum will use lessons from assault to teach her boys how to respect women "I worry about my children and the impact this will have them," she said.

Uhuh.

Illiterate, violent, suicidal lady who had no qualms about having and raising kids with a violent, convicted rapist deadbeat has wisdom to share.

  https://imaginepepperland.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/oh-please-tell-me-more.jpg


Quote:

"I try to set a good example for my kids."

Weeelll I you should probably try a bit harder.

mothra wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 1:52pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 1:27pm: So....who's to blame? Link. That judge should be sanctioned. Heavily.

he should be sacked

....a kerfuffle    right!....

200 hours of picking up paper... right!....

that will teach him ::)

and she hit a TV set... what a demon..... right!


how do these judges get it so wrong....

he even took into account the accused violent history..

Physical violence is illegal to the letter of the law and must be punished

Scenario 1 - Victim did not say or do anything to provoke the attack

Scenario 2 - Victim viciously and wilfully goaded the attacker into attacking by verbal and physical means

Should the punishment be the same across both scenarios?

The political correct police will say punishment should be the same for both

A conservative will say it all depends

Maqqa wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 2:07pm:

Physical violence is illegal to the letter of the law and must be punished Scenario 1 - Victim did not say or do anything to provoke the attack Scenario 2 - Victim viciously and wilfully goaded the attacker into attacking by verbal and physical means Should the punishment be the same across both scenarios? The political correct police will say punishment should be the same for both A conservative will say it all depends

the sentence is woefully inadequate

but its the judges words that make me want to spit. >:( >:(

You know next to nothing about the case yet youre convinced the judge is wrong, he needs be sacked, blah blah blah.

You need to step back and accept that the law doesnt revolve around your particular neuroses.  You and mothra would be excluded from any jury because of your bias.

... wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 3:06pm:

You know next to nothing about the case yet youre convinced the judge is wrong, he needs be sacked, blah blah blah. You need to step back and accept that the law doesnt revolve around your particular neuroses.  You and mothra would be excluded from any jury because of your bias.

It really is a terrifying thought that a 'cods' could very easily get on a Jury when they are just determined to replace Law with their own special kind or sense of justice or what they reckon the Law ought to be.

... wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 3:06pm:

You know next to nothing about the case yet youre convinced the judge is wrong, he needs be sacked, blah blah blah. You need to step back and accept that the law doesnt revolve around your particular neuroses.  You and mothra would be excluded from any jury because of your bias.

Nobody ever asks to have the poo beaten out of them. There is no excuse for it whatsoever.

The fact that you somehow think it does and that somehow there is speaks more to your damaged mindset than any bias of mine or Cods.

mothra wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 3:17pm:

There is no excuse for it whatsoever.

I'm sure if I spat in your face, I could expect a violent reaction.