Oh this is comparing her situation to the ongoing conversation about Mothras rape claims, right?

That makes it a forum personality thread.
Gmods should move it to relationships

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 10:18pm:


Really?  Then how come this ALP webpage states that "an Indigenous woman [is] 34 times more likely to be hospitalised as a result of family violence":

http://www.alp.org.au/empoweringindigenousgirls

Aussie wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 10:04pm:




can you explain why the need a for a whole new D.V. thread??...

Just  what are you accusing Rose of doing or not doing??>..

Aussie wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 10:48pm:



link please...having just come through the rape and violence thread with everyone having a different version of a video

I will need more than you word for it..

still why a whole new thread on the DV topic???.. you always complain so loudly when others stoop to that level.

I haven't been following this one - is there some suggestion that Rose Batty is using petty arguments to suggest she was NOT a victim in a situation where the other party had a clear mental issue?

Is it (if so) that she does not wish to view herself as a 'victim', since that is a position with no personal power?  There is a world of difference between being a victim of a genuine issue and the adoption of the 'victim mentality', which usually means looking for someone to hand you power, which is an impossibility.

I think, also, that the issue raised about Aboriginal DV being THE most prevalent is relevant.  In my submission to the Law Reform Commission way back in 1992, I stressed that it was not a proper approach to view ONLY the issues within a clearly identified high violence group - and then extrapolate the findings therein to the WHOLE community.  Of course they did exactly that, at the behest of Bob Carr, in order to provide the excuse (in NSW) for police to seize legally held firearms through imposition of a 'regulation' after the regime was established that any complaint, as long as it was in the mind of the complainant, was a valid one requiring court intervention via orders.

I long ago said that Rose Batty, when setting out originally to discuss the issues of FAMILY violence, was waylaid by those with vested interests, who wanted their version of 'male v female ONLY' being violence to hold sway, and was basically told what she could and could not say.  In order to keep her spot she had to toe the line.

It appears to me that she was and is unwilling to do that, and now wishes to speak out.

I say let her speak.

Should she have used her own experience?   ONLY in the exact same situations, where it was relevant.  However, I feel she is an intelligent and thinking person, and can have a solid view on all aspects of family violence, much the same as some contributors here have a good handle on those issues, often through personal experience as well.

To finish up - I've also long stated that while ever the State seeks to impose a regime of power to the women by bullying and force over men - it is only making this entire situation worse, as clearly demonstrated by the rising incidence of women killings.  Surely - if the slap-em-about-the -face and bully 'em' approach of the State was going to work - it would have done a far better job than it has, but stoopid is as stoopid does, as they say down in Green Bow.  Slapping people about the face and bullying them over ANY complaint is a surefire recipe for retaliation, and ONLY genuine acts of violence should ever have been addressed under this regime, instead of the utterly stupid, ultra-socialist, feminist-promoted approach.

Batty has done nothing to me cods.
Should Rose Batty have used her own personal experience to campaign against domestic violence?

She did.

Does anyone here disbelieve her because she spoke openly about what happened to her in 'arguments' about domestic violence, including even those arguments of a 'petty' kind?

cods wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 11:14pm:


Cods.....this is the OP.  How about you address it?

Should Rose Batty have used her own personal experience to campaign against domestic violence?

She did.

Does anyone here disbelieve her because she spoke openly about what happened to her in 'arguments' about domestic violence, including even those arguments of a 'petty' kind?

Wolseley wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 11:40pm:



oh I see... so thats a NO then.. lol

cods wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 11:12pm:



The father had a known psychiatric condition - something nowhere evident in most cases.  For the answers to FV you need to look elsewhere and in a different way to the current approach.

I'd like to see some of the arguments Rose Batty has had.....

Well, maybe Rose Batty could have considered the history of domestic violence she endured and the Restraining Order the Court had issued against her husband before she allowed her young son to go anywhere near his psychopath of father. I see this woman as taking full advantage of the tragic circumstances which resulted in the loss of her son, therefore I really find little credence in her sincerity/genuineness on this subject, but she certainly seems to make a quid or two from the loss of that poor little boy.

Aussie wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 10:04pm:


Did Rose Batty randomly accuse people of supporting rape when she didn't get her way?

Aussie wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 5:47pm:


Many people have not posted for some days.

Quote:


Let me check my detailed pattern notes and see what has changed.

Aussie wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 6:00pm:


Like the one YOU took over?

littleozzybloke.com

You'd be right, Effendi.  I read the Forum.  Does not take much you know.

Well, it goers along these line, cods.  Do you reckon Batty was bullshitting about her personal experience of domestic violence to influence discussions or arguments, even petty ones, about it?

cods wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 7:34pm:


Right, you are getting warm there cods. 

Can you think of a 'Batty' example here at OzPol...someone who has posted of terrible personal violence, yet is disbelieved because they actually talk about it here, during discussions/argument, even petty ones?

The argument against their credibility goes like this.....they cannot possibly be bona fide because they raise it (their personal violation) in discussions here, including arguments, even petty ones.