Cotter:"we did."

Who's "we"? As I said earlier, trying to speak from authority without making clear the source of that authority merely makes you look rather silly.

Cotter:"Define domestic violence - Australia hasn't yet"

It hasn't? That'll be news to the police, you'd best get in touch right away...

One of the reasons we have a real problem in the West with dealing equitably with violence is that there has been too much "lobbying" by vested interests {"we"). It has lead to a massive distortion of perceptions, so that the really very small amount of genuine violence that occurs has blown up into a huge imagined problem that every woman needs to be scared of, regardless of her own reality. It has become an intrusive, divisive propaganda fest paid for with taxpayer funds, with the definitions broadened to the point that they are effectively meaningless and encompass normal human interactions.

One of the reasons police have embraced such Feminist initiatives as the Duluth model of DV intervention is that it makes their job easier by reducing the level of judgement they have to exercise in complex situations. Much of the Feminist experiment has been about reducing complex situations to "woman good, man can take care of himself" and increasing the level of regulation that we are all subject to.

It's no coincidence that the rise of the Nanny State is concurrent with the ascent of women to positions of authority in great numbers, especially since many if not most of those women owe their positions to their gender rather than their outstanding talent. Anna Bligh, Kristina Keneally, Tanya Plibersek, Carmel Tebbutt, Pru Goward, the list goes on and on of third-rate performers who are "professional feminists" selected over more talented people.

Pynchme:"you've already been in the clink for ? aggravated assault of the missus wasn't it?"

And you claim to be "professional"...

Pynchme.
"like I told the coppers this "arvo" "
The cops were told of this threat before me.
"that your old missus "
Never once referred to my ex as this, always the ex
"Therefore I thought that by "m/ll" you meant either moll (your ex) or mother-in-law (your exs' mother)."
I didn't mean anything the whole message was left by the ex
"you've already been in the clink for ? aggravated assault of the missus wasn't it?"
Never have, the ex tried to get me charged the 16/12/2005, but there was nothing to substaniate her claim so SHE ended up assaulting the cops and was charged with assault police x2
" "the kid"." was a 2year old grandchild of the woman that was staying at the ex's boyfriends place.
"If you don't think the coppers are listening (though they are obliged to record any report) go see your local social worker and tell them. Go see your local member if need be; that is, find an advocate fo your choice"
This has been taken up by my Local Member who sent it to the CMC, who gave it to the Police Ethical Standards Branch who did nothing. My Local Member has persued this and cannot get nothing done.
It was told to me to place it before the Court by the CMC, but the Judge wont let me, it has been given to the Solicitors that were representing me and they wouldn't place it before the Court either.
The reason being is that the ex and her boyfriend were and are in a relationship and he was fighting to get custody of his kids so they could be a happy little family and this would not have been real good in the Family Court for him, if it was raised that this woman that he is having a relationship with, was under the Mental Health, has a child in care, and has made these types of threats, Now would it?
The ex has played on sypathies of people like yourself.
Thanks from
Dave

<<< To continue on from where I left off. Please go back & refresh.

I went to a Baptist Christian Meeting once, the speaker claimed that anyone who didn't spend their life waving their hands about screaming Jesus’ name was a, "drug addict, thief, murdered, fornicaterer, Rapist, etc. He'd spent his entire 50 years working as the Police Chaplin in Kings Cross. He thought that "everybody" was like the people in Kings Cross. I digress. But you can see the same pattern.

One of my diggers in the ARES, I'm & old Vn Vet that did some time in the ARES, was doing the same course as my wife’s friend. He put an ad in the paper for some research subjects. I rang him & explained my situation at the time. I also gave him a lot of other men to get in touch with. Men who had suffered violence, both physical & mental, at the hands of women. He handed in his assignment & was told to withdraw it or he would automatically fail the course. As, "Only men are violent."

As I said before. If anyone is doing a study on Women’s Violence towards men I'd be glad to share 20 or more years of newspaper clippings with you.

I guess what it really boils down to, is that, some people are violent by nature (psycho's), some are are moved to violence by the mental intimidation of others (hitting back). Some are just plain selfish. Only about 12.5% of people fall into these catagories. The rest have to put up with being branded by those 12/5%.

JamesH, thanks for that link. There were a few things worthy of comment.

Firstly, Weatherburn makes the claim that 1/3 of murderers had a history of mental illness then says this "showed domestic homicide was generally not a manifestation of mental illness." Huh? 1/3 of cases are not a signifier? It's a bit like the attitude toward male victims "they're in the minority, so we can ignore them". At present less than 1/4 of road accidents involve an illegal drug yet we have incredibly intrusive roadblcks set up to test for them...

He goes on to say that consumption of alcohol before the crime is more common, but doesn't give any analysis of a possible link between the previously-diagnosed mental illness and alcohol consumption.

Thirdly, he says:"More than three-quarters of offenders were male", referring to intimate partner homicides, but then goes on to talk about how "Child killings were frighteningly high, with 17 per cent of victims less than five years old and one in five killed by their parents." yet doesn't mention that fewer than half of those are killed by their father. I guess that must be another of those "insignificant" large fractions that this subject is so full of.

One very important thing he does mention is:"The number of male and female victims was roughly the same", giving the lie to the sel-serving hysteria from some quarters.

*sigh.

Antiseptic. Who are YOU? This is supposed to be anonymous and will stay that way while ever the lunatic fringe remains narcissistically 'superior' and demanding their ancient entitlements. 'We' are a group of people who for 20 years developed an organisation, volunteered, worked hard to address inequities and idiocies within the systems. 'Do gooders' - prefering that to 'doing bad' or 'doing nothing' or 'inept judging', or 'whinging'.

Australia does not have a consistent DVpolicy. The medical definition is different from the police, the Family Court is different for them both. Different states have different constructs. But you know better?

Your contention that there isn't much reason for women to be afraid because there's not much 'violence' again makes you look - well - naive. There seems to be an assumption that victims recognise what's happening as violence - yet many dont. Bad temper, the other was drunk, drugged - hard to see the life partner as 'a criminal' - zillions of reasons why they dont leave - because they dont get it. (Bit like you)

Jayb - what about people who choose violence as a powerful incentive to ensure others provide their entitlements? Put downs work for a while, then there's a bit of standover, restiricting fair access to shared property, a bit of biff. More biff.

Never had a male client who has been held off the floor by the throat by 'the little woman', but female clients have. Very coersive that - no air - who has the power now - look what i can do.
And in my definition of DV for my service, I include the children who are physically, emotionally, sexually, financially abused - boys, girls, youth, sibling violence, as well as adults, and extended family. Just like is now accepted for 'family violence' by Aboriginal and other services. So you see that while you quibble, and call
us' silly, we simply promote the right to live safely for all. That's what we strive for, because it's right, not 'nanny state'. Silly isn't it!

Cotter: What about people who choose violence as a powerful incentive to ensure others provide their entitlements? Put downs work for a while, then there's a bit of standover, resticting fair access to shared property, a bit of biff. More biff.

I know the type of woman you mean. If they can't biff then they get one of their boyfriends to do it. See Dave for a start. I know a woman in T'ville who married & divorced seven times to well off men. They were left with nothing when she'd finished with them. I do know a few more like that but not with her record. I believe that, now, if a guy went out with a girl 20 years ago she can make a claim on him for his money now. ?fair. See a recent court ruling. I guess that's my 2 posts in 24 hrs. See you then.

With my marriage, my 3rd, our councilor told us that it is the submissive one that will always cop it. If it's a woman they get put down by the man. If it a man then they are considered weak & spineless by the woman. The weak do not inherit the earth. My wife & I have a great marriage now which is the envy of all her friends. They've told her that there'll be a fight on when she dies. So I must be doing something right. ;-)