RObert,

"Have I missed the post(s) where you asked what the repeated mention of historical rates was based on? If I have missed that and you genuinely had attempted to find out what the claims were based on then I withdraw my earlier comments and apologise for misrepresenting your position."

No you didn't miss them....I was taking your word in good faith as to the percentage.

What I objected to was you terming my argument as "gloating".

I take it you assume I'm a reasonably intelligent and caring person - why would I gloat at such a thing as a lack of current figures?

Why would I celebrate it?

Male and female deaths attributed to DV are tragic - a societal problem that needs soul searching and attention. I was merely noting that in order to bring male victims to notice, that this year's dreadful number of female victims appeared to be brushed aside in regards to this thread.

Thanks for the link to those figures.

However, in light of the tone of Hasbeen's most recent contribution, there's not really much point continuing here.

Cheers

Paul I think its in the report, and from memory I referenced it earlier, about 23% of the perpetrators are female. My point is not intended to be focussed on the genders on either side of the issue, rather a stand against the unnecessary and damaging gendered nature of the public discourse around DV and the lack of enthusiasm on the part of public figures to stand against all DV. I'll accept that intent may not always be clear in my attempts to rebut the ongoing determination by many to maintain the perception that DV is just something men do to women.

I do they best I know how to make that point but know I lack some of skill at writing in a way that always get that correct (particularly in the face of often determined attempts to misrepresent what I and others have said). I'm highlighting male victims in part because the disparity between the numbers and the way DV is portrayed in the public debate should serve as a wake up call for those who care that all is not as claimed.

Those with a genuine interest in reduction in violence and with some belief in equality of the sexes should be asking theselves why 25% of DV intimate partner homicides (or 23% if you must) don't rate any mention. They might ask themselves why when equality is treated so seriously elsewhere the PM could not have made a point about two way respect rather than the one sided version he used.

R0bert

Poirot " I would like to see the figures - as I doubt that "20" would be the figure"

I had already pointed out in response to requests for this years numbers that I could not find figures for this year and I believe Tony had done similar. I'd posted a link to stats for earlier years which had been ignored. Your continued demands for this years numbers looked a lot like gloating over the difficulty in finding those numbers rather than a genuine attempt to engage. Like wise you are more than willing to misrepresent and disparage the views and stated intents of posters presenting views that conflict view the view of DV that you appear to support.

I always attempt to engage honestly in my online dealings with topics (and in the rst of life), I don't try and derail topics I'm uncomfortable with but will stand my ground when I believe an approach is wrong (as I belive the entirely gendered approach to DV to be).

The PM's announcements and policy direction are in my view based on a false premise that ignores much of the issue, I see no reason to limit my contibution to the debate to a framework I stongly disagree with and which I consider a part of the problem rather than the solution. My interest in the topic remains in seeing violence tackled holistically or where there are focussed areas at least covering enough of the focus area to not make the problem worse. The gendered approach in my view makes the issue worse than it needs be for the sake of a paternalistic/sexist agenda.

I think I've probably used my posting limit up for a while on this topic now.

R0bert

Well girls, once again you've managed to read something into my post which doesn't exist.

At not point have I stated that my relative has bashed his evil bitch x wife and at no time have I suggested anyone should so so, but hey, why let the truth get in the way of a good starry.

Personally, I have a different view on the whole matter. But I would prefer to have the facts first. However, if two druggies have an argument and one gets topped, then may I suggest society is just that little bit better off.

Sorry, but I don't have sympathy for losers who knowingly place themselves in harms way. Nor am i sypathetic for two oxygen thieves who kill each other fighting over who going to buy the last drink with the last of the welfare cheque. I know it's a tough angle, but at some point in time someone is going to have to grow some balls and run this country because all we are doing is pissing our taxes down the drain fighting what is often an unwinnabke fight, especially when we don't direct the funds at the core of the problem in many cases.

What on earth is the point of this infinite speculation about what is a common cause of the myriad episodes of domestic violence when the one element in common is: A violent criminal physically attacks someone. Psychobabble about perp angst, or racist speculation about perp ancestry, or sexist speculation about perp gender, or sociological speculation about perp upbringing, doesn’t touch on that one common act – a violent criminal physically attacks someone.

So how does society lift the fear of violence?

Seems incontrovertible. Lock the violent criminals up the moment they do something that displays violent criminality, and leave them locked up until all other people except fellow-criminals are safe from them. All sentences be decades in gaol with no parole. Apply it to all violent aggression.

The more slack we cut violent criminals the more we are participating at arm’s length in their criminality.

RObert,

If you surmised I had missed your earlier link, then why didn't you direct me to it (something I do often) - instead you accuse me of gloating and celebrating your inability to provide current figures.

"I always attempt to engage honestly in my online dealings with topics (and in the rst of life), I don't try and derail topics..."

Fair enough....however, whenever the subject arises of DV against women (and let's face it, women as victims are "always" numerous) it's always entirely predictable that you will jump in with gusto to close down the conversation about "women" by huffily claiming that the subject is somehow purposely excluding male victims.

It happens all the time...I was waiting for it - and you didn't disappoint.

You come across on OLO as fairly sensible in general, although often fence sitting, but on this subject (no doubt because of personal experience) it's a whole different ball game.

Have you ever started a thread on male victims of DV? (sincere question)...or does it suffice to bring up male victims merely to smother discussion on female victims?

rehctub,

"Well girls, once again you've managed to read something into my post which doesn't exist."

You referred to evil bitches and an evil woman...etc.

You have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who does not fit the profile of the bourgeoisie.

All you care about appears to be your money - and damn the rest of society.

You said:

"So I have little doubt there are many cases of DV which are or prevoked by eliv bitches like this one."

That's the part we commented on.

And now:

"Sorry, but I don't have sympathy for losers who knowingly place themselves in harms way...."

See ya...