Any cause whatsoever can be sandwiched in De Gaulle. Had the author's teacher not requested a certain minimum number of words, 350 would suffice and the author could have then posted it in the "General Discussions" section. In fact 7 (1/50th!) would suffice: "There are also male domestic violence victims".

It needs to be remembered that sometimes women will make preposterous allegations largely due to spite and to cause inconvenience and problems. I had an intervention order made against me which I was unable to get to court to contest. Supposedly for personal safety. In fact the only dealings I had with this woman was blowing the whistle on her trying to gain control of a voluntary organisation for her own purposes. ( She subsequently was eventually run out of it.) Very annoying as when an Intervention order application is made, the accused has to immediately surrender shooters licence and registered firearms to police. Then go to court to get them back. Guilty until proven innocent! Maybe this could stop an impulsive violent type from shooting the complainant but politicians and anti gun activists do not seem to consider that many firearm owners could readily illegally get another firearm if they were determined to shoot someone.

Spiteful types often fail to consider that their dirty deeds often come back to bite them sometime in the future. In fact false allegations can make the accused look out for opportunities for retaliation which they otherwise would not have dreamed of. This could include legal tactics. Not necessarily illegal ones they are likely to get away with.

Oh for goodness sake, what a whining piece of writing this article is.
The author likens a supposed lack of recognition of male domestic violence victims to World War 2? Really?

Where has anyone ever said there aren't any male victims of domestic violence?
The media report male victims when it happens, albeit more rarely than female victims.
Fathers, brothers and sons have been killed by other family members, and it is every bit as awful as the mothers, sisters and daughters killed by family members.

Maybe if the numbers of males killed by intimate partners or family members increases to the same levels that women are killed at present, there will be more urgent steps taken by our Government to stop this murder in our society?

Another man hating post, treating the victim with scorn is evil. I remember the violent one in the family was the mother and father almost worked himself to death to keep away. She stopped when we were too big, ergo a bully like many women are.

Suse, why do you feel the need to denigrate the author for raising the topic? It kind of makes his point for him, don't you think?

It seems to me that he makes a good point, which is that our social policies are often very narrowly focussed and as a result the potential for unintended consequences (in this case, the potential that male victims of serious domestic terrorism may be left to fend for themselves) is high.

I've been doing quite a bit of thinking about this general subject - social policy-making and how to do it better. Hopefully I'll have the time to write a proper article after my exams finish.

I would just like to say that I agree with Y's comment on the article. But the the poor fellow had to pad his piece out with something, so often is this stuff brought up, even though statistics clearly show that most violence is directed towards women. Frankly, as a male myself, I think that the bleatings from a certain kind of bloke are pretty pathetic.