If RUDDish wants people to believe he has an independant brain...and if you people supporting his expressed view.. want to have a shred of credibility......

Then DON'T just parrot stupidity.

It is LAWFUL to use reasonable force against ANYone being violent towards you.

Note that word LAWFUL....

So..when Mr RUDDish says "under no circumstances at anytime" he is in reality being SEDITIOUS because he is trying to overturn our written law!

The use of highly emotive but discriminatory public statements by people who should know better is ludicrous.

The issue here is NOT about whether one gender is more or less violent against the other..

The LAW is clear about ANYone violent towards anyone else of ANY gender.

This issue here is about what RUDDish SAID! and what he "said" is contrary to our LAW.

8/09/2008 , 06:01 AM Prime Minister Kevin Rudd responds to a question about the trouble the Brisbane Broncos find themselves on.

Duration: 70 minsSend to friendSend to friend

David Robert etc

For goodness sake pls read the above link that you put there Robert.

I am no fan of Rudds but to say he has broken the law over comments made over the broncos alledged sexual assualt is silly.

This was a sexual attack by 3 men on a lady in a Brisbane night club they were discussing.

*Of course nobody should sexually abuse anybody or phycically for that matter.*

The botton line is however its men who rape women etc ( Not the other way around.

Show us one case even that you know of that a woman has raped a man for goodness sake.

It is understood that men ARE stronger and could simply get up and run.

David you make yourself look more stupid than normal when you say Rudd has broken the law by commenting on the broncos affair.

Also whoever said pale promote kindness to animals but think drug dealers should be shot+
A That comment is off post
B Whats our problem now you raised it with that?
Do you think these people who are killing thousands of our kids should be free to do it again?


Robert I am not sure what you asre trying to draw attention to here but I have seen these comments before.
I am sure if you could just give me some idea of whas behind this I might be able to agree with you.
So are you aware of cases that women have sexually abused men or bashed them?
I am not talking about child abuse btw.

If you are talking about women abusing little children in any way thats a different matter.

That is a very serious crime and woman or man those offenders ought to be locked away in a prison for life with no second chances.
Oh and the other prisoners usually find child abusers.

nice to see you Robert

take care .

Robert

I would like to add one more thing while it’s on my mind.

A great deal of abuse stems through too much grog. I get really upset if a man does not take his kids out of a home where by the partner is an alcoholic.

Same applies to women. They are even more guilty if they stay in the home knowing the husband is a drunk and likely to start up abuse at anytime.

This is where I can say Robert I agree with you.

In my past work I often attended jobs where Mother would be drunk and sometimes Dad too.
These women who prefer to stay because it’s easier to live on Dads wages than get a job themselves should be charged for child abuse.


Then they rock up to court crying oh pls don’t goal him your honor he’s the father of my kids and I love him etc.

I think many females especially mothers play games. Courts are starting to se through this and giving more Dads full control of children.

I think it’s a good thing courts are waking up to females who cry abuse simply to get a court order for example.

Then they cry Abuse and poor little me because my partner is a alcoholic.

I guess I have strayed from the Boncos howeve

I am very sick of over paid, drunken sports people. That said, a few questions for PALE.

Do you have any idea of the number of young "ladies" who go out to "score" a Bronco?

Could you suggest how this "lady" got into a toilet. with 3 Broncos?

Do you think a young "lady" could have been abducted, from a public bar, without anyone noticing?

Do you think she may have found 3 at once, more than she had wanted?

Do you think she wanted some publicity?

There are more than a few other possibilities, but I'll leave it at that.

R0bert,

Violence - assault; murder - is already against the law and always has been.

Violence against women has only fairly recently even become a matter for police intervention.

Let's say the crime in question was robbery. Your argument would go: We shouldn't say we won't tolerate robbery during home invasions, because that minimizes the crime of robbery overall and other kinds of robbery are just as important.

DV is different in just the same way. It has different context: For one thing, it happens in relationships and there is a lead up - power and control over outside relationships; over money; over pets and children; every aspect of the woman's life and being to the point that her safety is at risk.

Also the myth that women abuse as much is just a myth. Men rarely live in terror of their female partners, or have to pack up and run with kiddies in tow. Also, the greatest danger for a woman is when she has actually left. That, as I understand it, is when most DV resulting in murder happens.

As I said, in the end, the evidence is at the morgue.

It isn't helpful to minimize what these women experience. Either you disapprove and stand against it, or you don't. The villains are not the victims, nor feminists, nor feminist ideology - the villains are men who commit the crime. Why does it seem so hard for men to express disapproval of other men who do such things ?

Pynchme:"the villains are men who commit the crime"

Very well, let's limit the discussion to those who commit the crime. the rhetoric coming from rudd and those like you is that by condemning all such violent acts we are somehow devaluing the experience of women victims in particular. I say that's malarkey. OTOH, by seeking to limit the discussion to those cases in which women are victms, you don't merely devalue the experience of male victims, you'd have us ignore them completely.

So, let's be clear in our terms:
1. do you claim that there are circumstances in which violence towards women is acceptable?
2. what are those circumstances?
3. do you claim that there are circumstances in which violence towards men is acceptable?
4. what are those circumstances?

After we get past the basics, perhaps we can move on to more complex matters.

From what I've seen of Rudd's utterances, he would have benefitted from some thought about these questions before opening his political gob and trying to cement his support among the feminist-dominated unions.