I must apologise for an error in my last post.
I stated that the DV split was 54%/46% and was established in the Aust Bureau of Stats 2005 survey.
This is incorrect.
The study I was trying to refer to, and of which I unfortunately cannot find a link to or have a copy of, was done by either Edith Cowan or another Uni in NSW.
Anyway, although without the proof my statement is on hearsay, but nonetheless it is true.

Pinchme,the % mix mentioned above is only referring to perps, those who have actually struck out. It is not referring to victims.

JamesH, I agree with you about surveys and statistics. It is rare indeed to find a study that has been done completely without bias between the two genders.
Most of the information and stats that end up on govt ministers desks, comes from women's refuges and the organisations that run them.
These are loaded with seething radical harridans who loath males of all kinds and will lie to prove their points and to make sure they keep up their income.

These are the lowlife feminists Erin Pizzey refers to who hyjacked the VERY WORTHY cause she herself had instituted in opening the first refuge for truly abused women. This woman is a true saviour for those real victims of violence.

Daviy/DWG, I also agree that we should be trying to move ahead from the gender debate and start suggesting ways to adress the alleged growing cases of violence.

I have on two previous occasions in this same thread, suggested scrapping all DV laws and programs (because they are corrupt) and fortifying common assault laws, where all allagations of assault either in the home/family or not, are properly investigated by police, charges laid, appearance in court infront of a jury and then hefty punishment.
I also suggested the same including hefty punishment for false allegers.
So far, not one person has commented on this idea, one way or the other.
Why is that?

Paw, I would put it to you that a false allegation of DV is actually DV in itself.

James H,

I completely agree, which is why I state that false allegations must be treated the same as an alleged assault and if found guilty, the punishment must be the exact same as it would be for a person convicted of assault.

And if this involves gaol time, then that must be the case too.
After all, this is the intention of the liar who has falsely reported assault/abuse. They are trying to get you out of the way and in prison.
This, over the last 35 years, has proven to be one of the most heinous forms of abuse against men at the hands of vicious women, who seek to use the law as a tool in the pursuit of their victim ex husband.

And of course for the women in this blog who will now pounce on my post, you cannot argue this point, because it is widely known that women use DV and restraining orders, to get the upper hand in the family court.
This is the sole reason why DV and restraining orders exist.

We have to ask ourselves, why is it that true victims of DV and their families, all state that restraining orders are not worth the paper they are written on?
Because they were not intended to protect anyone at all. They were only intended to be used by corrupt women, and family court officials to get the upper hand in court and to make money.

If the govt were serious about violence within the home, they would be making it a criminal offence and they would make sure the perps are properly punished to be seen as a deterant to others.

Because the vast majority of AVOs are from false allegations, the police and all other services, don't treat them seriously out in the street, which is why women or true victims often end up in hospital or dead.
This must change!

Paw wrote:

"And of course for the women in this blog who will now pounce on my post, you cannot argue this point, because it is widely known that women use DV and restraining orders, to get the upper hand in the family court.
This is the sole reason why DV and restraining orders exist."

Absolute rubbish! DV and restraining orders are one way that society has to warn those who are violent that their violence must cease. It is unfortunate that they are such a flawed instrument for that purpose, but are better than some other alternatives, such as the Tasmanian experiment in dealing with domestic violence.

My major problem with Domestic Violence Orders is how infrequently they are used to protect men and children.

This was left on my answering machine,

Quote "Dave, You want to start packing your own stuff up cause your going in for a long time and it's guaranteed, so a lot of things have happened since I've been away from you, and get your old m/ll into my yard and I'll tell you now,like I told the coppers this "arvo" I'll cut her throat and I'll cut yours and if she wants to do me I'll cut the kids throat too and I've told you that,so you go back and tell your old m/ll, right now, so ring her up and tell her, to ring me on my mobile cause I'm waiting OK so youse die and I've got the biggest backers that you have ever f/cking seen, David Grayson don't meen sh/t in this valley and your old f/cking wh/re that's trying to f/cking bung on that she's something and you you piece of sh/t you'll die for this", as said on the machine(FACT).
I am accused of an affair with a woman that was sleeping at the ex's boyfriend's place if any doubt this ring 0421 949 734 and I will play it for you
Thanks from
Dave

Paw, I agree with you in respect of the penalties that should apply if false allegations are made, especially in the context of family law. It may hearten you to know that the Chief Justice of the Family court, Diana Bryant, has also noted the high rate of violence allegations in her Court and the fact that they rarely end up making an impact on final orders sought. She has called for a review of the procedures so that if violence is alleged, then it must be examined by the court. She's so far stopped short of calling for penalties for false accusers, but at least the Court is trying,I think.

The wider problem with DVOs is that the definition of violence is so broad. A woman can go to police and say "he yelled at me, I'm scared" and he gets a vist from the cops to hand him an order that says he can't go within 100 meters of her. She can, with impunity, than show that order to schoolteachers, mutual friends, church officials, employers, whoever she likes to "prove" that she's a victim in need of their protection and he's a terrible violent bully. No actual violence of any kind need have occurred for his reputation to be smeared and there's not a thing he can do about it. She can even claim she's "scared for the children" and have them joined to it, meaning he can't go near them, all without any testing of her claims in a Court.

As you say, that devalues the instrument, possibly leading to genuine victims receiving less attention than they deserve.

dougthebear:"DV and restraining orders are one way that society has to warn those who are violent that their violence must cease."

Certainly if they were used exclusively for violence I'd support them. As it stands, they're too easily used for vindictive purposes.